• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E WotC's Jeremy Crawford Talks D&D Alignment Changes

Jeremy Crawford has spoken about changes to the way alignment will be referred to in future D&D books. It starts with a reminder that no rule in D&D dictates your alignment. Data from D&D Beyond in June 2019 (Note that in the transcript below, the questions in quotes were his own words but presumably refer to questions he's seen asked previously). Friendly reminder: no rule in D&D mandates...

Jeremy Crawford has spoken about changes to the way alignment will be referred to in future D&D books. It starts with a reminder that no rule in D&D dictates your alignment.

align.png

Data from D&D Beyond in June 2019

(Note that in the transcript below, the questions in quotes were his own words but presumably refer to questions he's seen asked previously).

Friendly reminder: no rule in D&D mandates your character's alignment, and no class is restricted to certain alignments. You determine your character's moral compass. I see discussions that refer to such rules, yet they don't exist in 5th edition D&D.

Your character's alignment in D&D doesn't prescribe their behavior. Alignment describes inclinations. It's a roleplaying tool, like flaws, bonds, and ideals. If any of those tools don't serve your group's bliss, don't use them. The game's system doesn't rely on those tools.

D&D has general rules and exceptions to those rules. For example, you choose whatever alignment you want for your character at creation (general rule). There are a few magic items and other transformative effects that might affect a character's alignment (exceptions).

Want a benevolent green dragon in your D&D campaign or a sweet werewolf candlemaker? Do it. The rule in the Monster Manual is that the DM determines a monster's alignment. The DM plays that monster. The DM decides who that monster is in play.

Regarding a D&D monster's alignment, here's the general rule from the Monster Manual: "The alignment specified in a monster's stat block is the default. Feel free to depart from it and change a monster's alignment to suit the needs of your campaign."

"What about the Oathbreaker? It says you have to be evil." The Oathbreaker is a paladin subclass (not a class) designed for NPCs. If your DM lets you use it, you're already being experimental, so if you want to play a kindhearted Oathbreaker, follow your bliss!

"Why are player characters punished for changing their alignment?" There is no general system in 5th-edition D&D for changing your alignment and there are no punishments or rewards in the core rules for changing it. You can just change it. Older editions had such rules.

Even though the rules of 5th-edition D&D state that players and DMs determine alignment, the suggested alignments in our books have undeniably caused confusion. That's why future books will ditch such suggestions for player characters and reframe such things for the DM.

"What about the werewolf's curse of lycanthropy? It makes you evil like the werewolf." The DM determines the alignment of the werewolf. For example, the werewolf you face might be a sweetheart. The alignment in a stat block is a suggestion to the DM, nothing more.

"What about demons, devils, and angels in D&D? Their alignments can't change." They can change. The default story makes the mythological assumptions we expect, but the Monster Manual tells the DM to change any monster's alignment without hesitation to serve the campaign.

"You've reminded us that alignment is a suggestion. Does that mean you're not changing anything about D&D peoples after all?" We are working to remove racist tropes from D&D. Alignment is only one part of that work, and alignment will be treated differently in the future.

"Why are you telling us to ignore the alignment rules in D&D?" I'm not. I'm sharing what the alignment rules have been in the Player's Handbook & Monster Manual since 2014. We know that those rules are insufficient and have changes coming in future products.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

TheSword

Legend
Whether or not you know it you do fall more in line on one side or the other.

There is certainly a spectrum from following every law to not following any laws.

The only thing I’ve said is that not following any laws isn’t chaotic in the least. It’s one of the more principled things you can do.
The good thing about alignment is that, this can be your definition and the system still works. You can play your characters and world that way if you choose.

Of course I fall on one side of a line in the sand. It’s impossible not too. However being an inch to one side doesn’t mean I fall into either camp. It’s ok to be moderate.

I’m also comfortable. Not rich, or poor but comfortable. I reckon I’m closer to poor than rich, but it doesn’t stop me being comfortable and I’m definitely not in either of the other camps.

You know poor when you see it. You recognize when a person is rich. It’s also not a simple measure of cash in the bank, there are many things that can go into the equation of what makes a person poor, rich or comfortable.

we could probably argue a fair bit about what makes a person rich, poor or moderate. It will depend on our outlook and upbringing. Yet the concept does exist.

Alignment is very similar.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
The good thing about alignment is that, this can be your definition and the system still works. You can play your characters and world that way if you choose.

Of course I fall on one side of a line in the sand. It’s impossible not too. However being an inch to one side doesn’t mean I fall into either camp. It’s on to be moderate.

I’m also comfortable. Not rich, or poor but comfortable. I reckon I’m closer to poor than rich, but it doesn’t stop me being comfortable and I’m definitely not in either of the other camps.

You know poor when you see it. You recognize when a person is rich. It’s also not a simple measure of cash in the bank, there are many things that can go into the equation of what makes a person poor, rich or comfortable.

we could probably argue a fair bit about what makes a person rich, poor or moderate. It will depend on our outlook and upbringing. Yet the concept does exist.

Alignment is very similar.

It’s not though. It’s not really like anything. My argument is that alignment is unlike most anything else you could use as an example.

That you are bringing in poor and rich in as an analogy tells me that you aren’t stopping long enough to understand what I have said.
 

TheSword

Legend
It’s not though. It’s not really like anything. My argument is that alignment is unlike most anything else you could use as an example.

That you are bringing in poor and rich in as an analogy tells me that you aren’t stopping long enough to understand what I have said.
Can you explain why they are not similar. It seems a perfectly acceptable analogy to me. A nuanced but definite label that we can apply to someone that says something meaningful. There is a spectrum. We can disagree about where people fall. We might also disagree about what makes a person rich or poor. It even has the added benefit of both sides feeling like they are in the right.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
Can you explain why they are not similar. It seems a perfectly acceptable analogy to me. A nuanced but definite label that we can apply to someone that says something meaningful. There is a spectrum. We can disagree about where people fall. We might also disagree about what makes a person rich or poor. It even has the added benefit of both sides feeling like they are in the right.

Maybe we need to start a step further back.

There are 2 theories of lawful. One is based on society. The other is based on individual codes of conduct.

My discussion so far has been based on the individual code of conduct version. In this version a code of conduct to defy all the laws of the land would indeed be lawful. What traditionally gets referred to as neutral would actually be chaotic. Where you sometimes follow your code of conduct and sometimes do not. That’s what makes law and chaos unlike rich and poor. The whole rich class cannot be argued to be middle class in any respect.

Now if we base it on societies code of conduct (there are issues around which society,etc) but if that’s the basis let’s explore. Lawful would be following that code of conduct for the most part. Chaotic would be not following that code of conduct at all or mostly so. Is there room for a neutral here? I don’t see it. Either you are lawful enough to be considered lawful or you are unlawful enough to be considered unlawful which in this case is chaotic by definition.

In both cases I don’t see where we can get to neutral. It’s about definitions. Rich and poor doesn’t follow that same definitional path.
 

Following all laws is more lawful than only following important laws.
Following laws is NOT what makes characters lawful. Lawful characters don't need laws to tell them what to do. They'd mostly do those things whether WRITTEN laws told them to do it or not. It's the neutral and chaotic individuals who need written laws (along with enforcement) to compel them to behavior they otherwise wouldn't exhibit. The opposite of lawful isn't CRIMINAL - it's chaotic. Alignment is a gauge of how individuals deal with COSMOLOGY, not with the police and governments.

Lawful characters believe in ordered societies, adhering to well-established principles (not just written legal codes), self-control over indulgence on a whim, and believe in a universe that rewards that kind of behavior (or at least choose to champion a universe that does so). Chaotic characters gravitate towards anarchy, believe more in ends justifying means, self-indulgence, and belief in a universe that mostly doesn't give a rat's rear about anyone living in that universe or ANYthing they do (so they tend to do anything), or at least they choose to champion a universe that doesn't actually care about anyone in it or what they do. Neutral characters, of course, fall somewhere in between those extremes.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
Following laws is NOT what makes characters lawful. Lawful characters don't need laws to tell them what to do. They'd mostly do those things whether WRITTEN laws told them to do it or not. It's the neutral and chaotic individuals who need written laws (along with enforcement) to compel them to behavior they otherwise wouldn't exhibit. The opposite of lawful isn't CRIMINAL - it's chaotic. Alignment is a gauge of how individuals deal with COSMOLOGY, not with the police and governments.

Lawful characters believe in ordered societies, adhering to well-established principles (not just written legal codes), self-control over indulgence on a whim, and believe in a universe that rewards that kind of behavior (or at least choose to champion a universe that does so). Chaotic characters gravitate towards anarchy, believe more in ends justifying means, self-indulgence, and belief in a universe that mostly doesn't give a rat's rear about anyone living in that universe or ANYthing they do (so they tend to do anything), or at least they choose to champion a universe that doesn't actually care about anyone in it or what they do. Neutral characters, of course, fall somewhere in between those extremes.

If this is the definition of law and chaos there is room for a neutral.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
There's more than those two theories of lawful. I use one that doesn't look to either -- it's do you follow an external ethos? If you follow the laws of a particular society because you believe them to be correct, you are lawful. If you follow those laws because you are afraid of punishment, that's not lawful, although it may not be chaotic.

Alternatively, if you believe you yourself is the sole arbiter or interpreter of your ethos, then you're chaotic.

This leaves most people as neutral, with respect to law/chaos -- most people are mix of following some lawscodes because they believe them correct, following others for fear of punishment (speeding, for example), and ignoring others because they've made their own determination that those laws are BS.

This follows for lots of things -- you can believe in one set of laws/codes/ethos that go against other sets of laws/codes/ethos and still maintain being lawful. It nicely sidesteps the first theory's "lawful character must follow the unjust laws in the evil kingdom" problem of thinking lawful means you follow laws, and, also, the monkish character who isolates and avoids society because of their vows to a holy order being weirdly excluded from lawfulness in the second theory.
 

Oofta

Legend
There's more than those two theories of lawful. I use one that doesn't look to either -- it's do you follow an external ethos? If you follow the laws of a particular society because you believe them to be correct, you are lawful. If you follow those laws because you are afraid of punishment, that's not lawful, although it may not be chaotic.

Alternatively, if you believe you yourself is the sole arbiter or interpreter of your ethos, then you're chaotic.

This leaves most people as neutral, with respect to law/chaos -- most people are mix of following some lawscodes because they believe them correct, following others for fear of punishment (speeding, for example), and ignoring others because they've made their own determination that those laws are BS.

This follows for lots of things -- you can believe in one set of laws/codes/ethos that go against other sets of laws/codes/ethos and still maintain being lawful. It nicely sidesteps the first theory's "lawful character must follow the unjust laws in the evil kingdom" problem of thinking lawful means you follow laws, and, also, the monkish character who isolates and avoids society because of their vows to a holy order being weirdly excluded from lawfulness in the second theory.

So the definition of LN from the PHB is incorrect? "Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes."?
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
There's more than those two theories of lawful. I use one that doesn't look to either -- it's do you follow an external ethos? If you follow the laws of a particular society because you believe them to be correct, you are lawful. If you follow those laws because you are afraid of punishment, that's not lawful, although it may not be chaotic.

Alternatively, if you believe you yourself is the sole arbiter or interpreter of your ethos, then you're chaotic.

This leaves most people as neutral, with respect to law/chaos -- most people are mix of following some lawscodes because they believe them correct, following others for fear of punishment (speeding, for example), and ignoring others because they've made their own determination that those laws are BS.

This follows for lots of things -- you can believe in one set of laws/codes/ethos that go against other sets of laws/codes/ethos and still maintain being lawful. It nicely sidesteps the first theory's "lawful character must follow the unjust laws in the evil kingdom" problem of thinking lawful means you follow laws, and, also, the monkish character who isolates and avoids society because of their vows to a holy order being weirdly excluded from lawfulness in the second theory.

Of course there are more than 2. I didn’t say there were only 2
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
You can use creature type. It just works equally on the Vampire Prince Vlad the Unfathomably Terrible (ie. evil vampire) and Liza, the Not-Terribly-Evil (ie. neutral vampire.) You can't use it to test whether Eduardo the Sparkling is actually a decent vampire and totally is not gonna eat you like he claims.
If I can't use it to test Eduardo the Sparkling then it's not doing what I want it to do.

Guards, traps and watchdogs are the appropriate defences against thieves, the holy ground against devils and vampires. This is thematically coherent. Basically in no media ever anyone uses holy water to burn thieves (unless the thieves are also vampires.)
Holy water doesn't burn thieves but walking on Good-consecrated ground should make Evil people (not just thieves) uncomfortable.

Can't happen if there's no way of knowing who the Evil people are.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top