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 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.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Are all deities Good? That's why I talked about it.

You are missing the point, tremendously.

If we assume that "Good" and "Law" have objective truths. And then we assume that their are Dieties who are themselves aligned with "Good" and "Law". And then we assume that these dieties play an active role in the world (as shown in Faerun) then it follows naturally that they will lay down laws and practices which are objectively "Good" and "Lawful".

If then there is a new situation that comes up, something not covered by the laws set out (which are objectively good and objectively lawful, so they do have an objective answer to this new situation) then logically the inhabitants of the world would ask the Diety how it should be handled.


And, since we can logically assume that war, killing, and violence over a misunderstanding are not objectively "Good" or objectively "Lawful" then those dieties who are objectively "Good" and objectively "Lawful" will answer those questions to prevent such things from occurring.

Would an Evil deity? No, of course not. Evil is constantly shown to promote suffering, generally needless suffering. With Devils having entire Torture cities and an entire caste of torturers, Demons ripping and tearing and causing suffering, hags delighting in causing misery and suffering. Evil Dieties would in fact try and spread confusion, to increase misery and evil in the world. But that only applies to areas that worship evil deities.

In a place that worships objectively "Good" and objectively "Lawful" dieties these things wouldn't happen. The people have an answer, it is the correct answer, and any misunderstanding of the answer would be clarified by the Deity, because that promotes objective "Good" and objective "Law"

What happens with chaotic or evil or chaotic evil deities does not change this.

 

[SkidAce]

Nobody, in real life or in a fantasy world, thinks they are "wrong".

My 2 cp, ymmv of course.

I have been wrong many many times.

Sadly, a few of those I knew I was wrong and I did it anyway.

 

[Aldarc]

When I read these arguments against alignment I can't help but think they want characters to do acts of evil or acts of good at anytime and without the need for any sort of justification. They are essentially arguing for everyone to be N or maybe even CN.

When I read bad faith, strawman arguments like this against people who have respectfully raised reasonable contrary opinions regarding alignment, I can't help but think that misrepresenting others' opinions and maligning their intentions is an evil act that serves a nefarious purpose that is antithetical to polite internet discourse. But maybe we should also be better people than accuse others who may dislike certain pervasive tropes of D&D as haters of all things D&D.

 

[Mecheon]

I agree, burn your books and dice. Just don't forget that dice scream sometimes.

how the actual piss did you get 'burn your books and dice' from "alignment is a clunky unrealistic mess and should be removed in order to make more immersive and realistic settings"

Like, can you actually walk me through your mental process there?

Ooh! Sacred cows! Being crushed! Sounds like you have a new herd in mind Your certitude is the thing crusades, inquisitions, and witch hunts are made of. Let's just say not everyone agrees with you. Obviously.

Not everyone agrees, sure, but the number of people who do agree shows that alignment is by no means an all-loved thing

In either case, it doesn't matter. People will choose to use alignment or not, no matter what is in this edition, or the next, of D&D.

Ultimately, yeah. But, alignment's clunkiness is what got us into this mess. And I'm going to argue its restricting stories that could be told

When I read these arguments against alignment I can't help but think they want characters to do acts of evil or acts of good at anytime and without the need for any sort of justification. They are essentially arguing for everyone to be N or maybe even CN.

So.... Like people do in real life?

Alignment isn't realistic, and people want to play as realistic characters. The DM has a job of making a believable world for them. Shoving everyone into 9 moral groups is not realistic

 

[Umbran]

It sounds like all the haters of things D&D are out in full force again.

Mod Note:

In the future, if you have so much disdain for folks... don't bother engaging. Thanks.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Alignment isn't realistic, and people want to play as realistic characters. The DM has a job of making a believable world for them. Shoving everyone into 9 moral groups is not realistic

Ehhhh, realism has its place. There's a ton of fun, quirky lore about devils and slaadi that probably would have never come into being without the distinct concepts of Lawful Evil and Chaotic Neutral being a thing to inspire writers for decades.

For example, I've heard a recent D&D novel features a scenario where a succubus granddaughter of Glasya is afraid of an imp subordinate going over her head to file a formal complaint against her to the Princess of the Hells.

As for slaadi, you've got obscure lore like the slaad lord Renbuu who can change the colors of anything (as well as pull shenanigans like changing red dragons to white dragons in both color and physiology). A 3.5 era Dragon magazine article mentioned he's old war buddies with Ben Hadar, the Prince of Good Water Elementals, from the days of the War of Law and Chaos (where Ben Hadar was the only Prince of Elemental Good to fight on the side of Chaos, a decision prompted by his disgust that Lawful Evil entities were allowed to join and fight on team Law). Ben invites Renbuu to his coral palace from time to time to let Renbuu redecorate for him.

It's kinda silly, but I like how the concept of Lawful Evil led to someone writing a scenario where an imp can intimidate a granddaughter of Asmodeus, devil god of the Nine Hells of Baator, with a threat of a formal complaint and how the concept of a war between Law and Chaos led to a frog man with rainbow powers becoming buddies with one of the rulers of the Plane of Water.

The alignment system can provide inspiration for seemingly unrelated creatures who share an alignment to form unlikely relationships.

 

[R_Chance]

You are missing the point, tremendously.

Not really

If we assume that "Good" and "Law" have objective truths. And then we assume that their are Dieties who are themselves aligned with "Good" and "Law". And then we assume that these dieties play an active role in the world (as shown in Faerun) then it follows naturally that they will lay down laws and practices which are objectively "Good" and "Lawful".

I don't run Faerun or the Forgotten Realms that well. I know it's the default setting for D&D 5E. I have the original grey boxed set from back in the day, I've read a lot of articles about it in the old Dragon magazine and various bits in 5E books. I've cribbed a number of ideas from it. My gods are a bit more remote, not all that good, and not omnipotent.

If then there is a new situation that comes up, something not covered by the laws set out (which are objectively good and objectively lawful, so they do have an objective answer to this new situation) then logically the inhabitants of the world would ask the Diety how it should be handled.


And, since we can logically assume that war, killing, and violence over a misunderstanding are not objectively "Good" or objectively "Lawful" then those dieties who are objectively "Good" and objectively "Lawful" will answer those questions to prevent such things from occurring.

A Lawful Good god might be everything you say. I'll give you that one

What about disputes between two lawful good deities? Do they have identical principles. I'm guessing you would say yes there, I find room for some differences myself. More importantly, what about disputes between the worshippers of a deity who is not Lawful Good? Or deities of the same alignment who are not LG? Or a host of other scenarios. My Lawful Church is a "big tent" organization with multiple deities (3) who are LN, scores of saints who are LG. LN, and LE and hundreds of thousands of adherents. I like a fairly monolithic Church on the outside with messy internal problems under the surface. People see alignment restricting stories or simplifying them, I think it can create some and complicate them.

Would an Evil deity? No, of course not. Evil is constantly shown to promote suffering, generally needless suffering. With Devils having entire Torture cities and an entire caste of torturers, Demons ripping and tearing and causing suffering, hags delighting in causing misery and suffering. Evil Dieties would in fact try and spread confusion, to increase misery and evil in the world. But that only applies to areas that worship evil deities.

In a place that worships objectively "Good" and objectively "Lawful" dieties these things wouldn't happen. The people have an answer, it is the correct answer, and any misunderstanding of the answer would be clarified by the Deity, because that promotes objective "Good" and objective "Law"

What happens with chaotic or evil or chaotic evil deities does not change this.

That I agree with. I'm not sure why you think I'm only positing LG. That's not all. I see conflicts developing internally between worshippers of LN deities or LE ones. Between large hierarchical organizations. We have different assumptions about deities I'd say. I like the potential of political conflict inside a religion, for conflict between ostensibly good or lawful nations who worship the same gods and so on. I find that type of setting detail to be "realistic" or at least to provide verisimilitude and an interesting back drop for a game.

 

[R_Chance]

I have been wrong many many times.

Sadly, a few of those I knew I was wrong and I did it anyway.

We all have. See? Alignment is not a straightjacket! Have you completely dumped your ethics and morals? I gather the "wrong" things were a bit more scattered than that. Hopefully

I'm talking about a population thinking their entire culture / way of life is "wrong". And doing it anyway.

 

[R_Chance]

Not everyone agrees, sure, but the number of people who do agree shows that alignment is by no means an all-loved thing

I agree. I just don't think we know the numbers on that.

Ultimately, yeah. But, alignment's clunkiness is what got us into this mess. And I'm going to argue its restricting stories that could be told

The clunkiness sits at the feet of the developers. I can't help that. And I agree it restricts stories. And creates stories Everything included in the game system does that.

edit I said the "feat" of the developers originally. So, game development is a Feat?

 

[dmgorgon]

Nah, we just want to make realistic and possibly complicated character who act according to their personality and don't want things to be dumbed-down to ridiculous binary labels. (Most of my characters are pretty decent, at least deep down.)

Alignment is not a straitjacket at all so I have to completely disagree. Alignment is just a simple guide for the players to keep a character/npc's ideals and belief structure in mind. It's basically a helpful abstraction that works very well IMO. It helps players and DMs role play against their personal instincts and their own personal moral code. It's a great solution in lieu of writing 20 page psychoanalysis on their characters behaviors.

the 2e dmg was very clear on this.

During play, pay attention to the actions of the player characters. Occasionally compare these against the characters' alignments. Note instances in which the character acted against the principles of his alignment. Watch for tendencies to drift toward another, specific alignment.
If a character's class requires that he adhere to a specific alignment, caution him when a proposed action seems contrary to that alignment. Allow the player to reconsider.
Never tell a player that his character cannot do something because of his alignment. Player characters are controlled by the players. The DM intervenes only in rare cases (when the character is controlled by a spell or magical item, for example).

Finally as in all points of disagreement with your players, listen to their arguments when your understanding of an alignment differs from theirs. Even though you go to great effort in preparing your game, the campaign world is not yours alone--it also belongs to your players.
...
Sooner or later, a player character will change alignment. A character might change alignment for many reasons, most of them have nothing to do with the player "failing" to play his character's role or the DM "failing" to create the right environment.

Player characters are imaginary people. But, like real people, they grow and change as their personalities develop. Sometimes circumstances conspire against the player character. Sometimes the player has a change of attitude. Sometimes the personality created for the player character just seems to pull in an unexpected direction. These are natural changes. There might be more cause for concern if no player character ever changes alignment in a campaign.

There is no rule or yardstick to determine when a character changes alignment. Alignment can change deliberately, unconsciously, or involuntarily. This is one of those things that makes the game fun. Players are free to act, and the DM decides if (and when) a change goes into effect. This calls for some real adjudication. There are several factors to consider.

and the 2e phb makes this even more clear. Alignment is just a guide.

After all other steps toward creating a character have been completed, the player must choose an alignment for the character. In some cases (especially the paladin), the choice of alignment may be limited.

The character's alignment is a guide to his basic moral and ethical attitudes toward others, society, good, evil, and the forces of the universe in general. Use the chosen alignment as a guide to provide a clearer idea of how the character will handle moral dilemmas. Always consider alignment as a tool, not a straitjacket that restricts the character. Although alignment defines general attitudes, it certainly doesn't prevent a character from changing his beliefs, acting irrationally, or behaving out of character.

Alignment is divided into two sets of attitudes: order and chaos, and good and evil. By combining the different variations within the two sets, nine distinct alignments are created. These nine alignments serve well to define the attitudes of most of the people in the world.