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]

Lots of people understand it just fine and express it just fine. It’s flexible.

Please follow the actual conversation thread, Sword. Me and Umbran are specifically talking about an Objective Alignment that cannot be understood by mortal minds. Responding that plenty of people can understand it is ignoring the conceit.

Also with this response of your.

You came up with the list. With all due respect it’s your job to decide how alignment works at your table. If a DM comes up with a version that doesn’t make sense then it’s best for that DM to go back to the drawing board.

You are stating that the usage of alignment comes not from the rulebooks, but from each individual DM. In which case, the rulebook alignments are pointless, because each DM is making their own version anyways.

And yes, DMs homebrew all the time, and I'm sure you can come up with another mechanical rule that DMs homebrew to try and prove that I'm making a wild claim with no basis in fact, but the point is, if you want to talk about how proficiency works, I can tell you the rules in the book, and the specific points where it is clear "beyond this point is DM decision" but the problem with alignment is that even the base rules in the book seem to be up to DM decision, and most of the people with no problem with alignment are basing that opinion off of decades of expeirence and other rule sets, which is not information available to someone who simply has the 5e core books.

Different people obviously approach alignment differently.

I view it as a person's schema - how they interpret the world. I find it useful. For my PCs or any complex NPC it will be just one of the many descriptors that can be applied. As the MM says, it gives you an idea of how someone might react, not how they must react.

I, and effectively everyone I've had this discussion with in real life, find my definition useful.

Others seem to want to take a handful of words from the PHB and say that alignment dictates all behavior that all people with that alignment must adhere to. Alignment as a behavior cookie cutter. Someone that's CN must be reckless, lie and act randomly.

So maybe, just maybe, the issue is the way some people try to apply alignment, not the concept. Just a thought. Perhaps stop trying to put the square block in the round hole? Because my square block works just fine.

The problem is Oofta is that not only is your definition of how someone interprets the world far removed from any other example of alignment. Whether or not people believe the universe is ordered or random does not help as a compass for Lawful or Chaotic behavior.

Also, it doesn't matter if alignment is a straitjacket or not. The more loose it is and the more people can redefine it, the less useful it is.

You've lsited you CN "Square Block" but the problem isn't that we are trying to put the square block in the round hole, it is that the box says the block you have is supposed to be a cylinder. So why is it even square to begin with?

 

[Oofta]

Please follow the actual conversation thread, Sword. Me and Umbran are specifically talking about an Objective Alignment that cannot be understood by mortal minds. Responding that plenty of people can understand it is ignoring the conceit.

Also with this response of your.



You are stating that the usage of alignment comes not from the rulebooks, but from each individual DM. In which case, the rulebook alignments are pointless, because each DM is making their own version anyways.

And yes, DMs homebrew all the time, and I'm sure you can come up with another mechanical rule that DMs homebrew to try and prove that I'm making a wild claim with no basis in fact, but the point is, if you want to talk about how proficiency works, I can tell you the rules in the book, and the specific points where it is clear "beyond this point is DM decision" but the problem with alignment is that even the base rules in the book seem to be up to DM decision, and most of the people with no problem with alignment are basing that opinion off of decades of expeirence and other rule sets, which is not information available to someone who simply has the 5e core books.





The problem is Oofta is that not only is your definition of how someone interprets the world far removed from any other example of alignment. Whether or not people believe the universe is ordered or random does not help as a compass for Lawful or Chaotic behavior.

Also, it doesn't matter if alignment is a straitjacket or not. The more loose it is and the more people can redefine it, the less useful it is.

You've lsited you CN "Square Block" but the problem isn't that we are trying to put the square block in the round hole, it is that the box says the block you have is supposed to be a cylinder. So why is it even square to begin with?

All I can say is that I've found an interpretation of alignment that works for me and all players I've discussed it with. It sounds like you have not.

If you want to stick with an interpretation that has fundamental flaws and in my opinion isn't what the current rules say, feel free.

 

[TheSword]

You are stating that the usage of alignment comes not from the rulebooks, but from each individual DM. In which case, the rulebook alignments are pointless, because each DM is making their own version anyways.

Not quite, I’m saying that the DM sets the tone of a campaign including whether it’s Game of Thrones gritty or David Eddings shiny or any combination in between...

The guidelines in the book point the direction and the DM decides the implementation, on consultation with their own players of course. There are lots of other things the DM implements as they see fit, behaviours of NPCs, suggested tactics, treasure. It doesn’t mean the Guidelines are pointless... just part of the picture.

 

[Aldarc]

Others seem to want to take a handful of words from the PHB and say that alignment dictates all behavior that all people with that alignment must adhere to. Alignment as a behavior cookie cutter. Someone that's CN must be reckless, lie and act randomly.

I would say that a significant part of the contention rests in how this authority is often the sole discretion of the GM. It is the issue of when this "other" person you are describing is the GM who is imposing that sense of alignment on others. There have been a number of posters in the "We Say So" Corporation of GMs in favor of alignment who have described it, not so subtly, as a rod to police the morality and roleplaying of the PCs. The power imbalance in D&D effectively exacerbates the problem. It does seem that the most popular alignments conform to the long history of players protecting their PCs from GM autocratic powers. PCs are typically chaotic/neutral as a means to resist the tyrannical law of GM authority.

Should someone then claim that I am arguing here that PCs should be free to do whatever they want, I would point to the fact that there is a difference between arguing that kids should do whatever they want and being against corporal punishment of children. It would be fallacious to argue that an argument against the GM using alignment as a rod for policing PC roleplaying is tantamount to letting PCs act without consequences.

 

[TheSword]

I would say that a significant part of the contention rests in how this authority is often the sole discretion of the GM. There have been a number of posters in the "We Say So" Corporation of GMs in favor of alignment who have described it, not so subtly, as a rod to police the morality and roleplaying of the PCs. The power imbalance in D&D effectively exacerbates the problem. It does seem that the most popular alignments conform to the long history of players protecting their PCs from GM autocratic powers. PCs are typically chaotic/neutral as a means to resist the tyrannical law of GM authority.

Should someone then claim that I am arguing here that PCs should be free to do whatever they want, I would point to the fact that there is a difference between arguing that kids should do whatever they want and being against corporal punishment of children. It would be fallacious to argue that an argument against the GM using alignment as a rod for policing PC roleplaying is tantamount to letting PCs act without consequences.

Can I ask do see a DM asking players not to create Evil characters, a rod to police the morality of PCs? I would have thought this was a fairly common way of maintaining a positive tone. It’s certainly been our approach, except when we do specific evil campaigns.

Do you think this is an unreasonable approach?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Can I ask do see a DM asking players not to create Evil characters, a rod to police the morality of PCs? I would have thought this was a fairly common way of maintaining a positive tone. It’s certainly been our approach, except when we do specific evil campaigns.

Do you think this is an unreasonable approach?

Yes, you can ask that, but you don't need alignment to do it. In either case it is up to interpretation what 'evil' means, and it is probably a good idea to have more a bit more extensive discussion of the topic unless you know your players well and and can trust that you're on the same page.

 

[TheSword]

Yes, you can ask that, but you don't need alignment to do it. In either case it is up to interpretation what 'evil' means, and it is probably a good idea to have more a bit more extensive discussion of the topic unless you know your players well and and can trust that you're on the same page.

The alignment system is pretty good a specifying evil. I find it a much easier system than listing every proscribed action.

However my wider question was specifically to @Aldarc and was really asking what is wrong with the DM policing certain disruptive alignments if the table have agreed that they are not welcome at the table?

 

[Aldarc]

Can I ask do see a DM asking players not to create Evil characters, a rod to police the morality of PCs? I would have thought this was a fairly common way of maintaining a positive tone. It’s certainly been our approach, except when we do specific evil campaigns.

Do you think this is an unreasonable approach?

I think that there is a difference (if not false equivalence) between the GM trying to create a shared set of assumptions between players at the start of play, particularly with the aim of avoiding disruptive/wang-rod play, as part of establishing the social contract and the GM using/imposing alignment as a disciplinary rod to police the morality/roleplay of PCs. If alignment was not present in D&D, I would probably still have a discussion regarding the intended tone of play with my players: e.g., "you are aspiring heroes of the realm of Aldea." Alignment seems redundant to the discussion of disruptive play. Disruptive play is disruptive play regardless of alignment.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Can I ask do see a DM asking players not to create Evil characters, a rod to police the morality of PCs? I would have thought this was a fairly common way of maintaining a positive tone. It’s certainly been our approach, except when we do specific evil campaigns.

Do you think this is an unreasonable approach?

Well, what do you mean by evil?

See, there are many stories of players of "evil" characters actually being the most reliable of the party. A business mogul who makes crooked deals and to bilk foolish elites out of their money for his own gain might very well be "evil" but is no more disruptive to play than the rogue who steals the (literal) silver ware while at the noble's party.

Or maybe they are a cult leader, trying to spread their power in an attempt of apotheosis (I played a character like this once, but the game ended within 3 sessions so he never got to shine) or rising as an Archdevil. But, in terms of actions at the table, they might be no more disruptive than the cleric prolestizing on the street corners.

There are plenty of "evil" characters who would have no cause to do actively disruptive things like slit the party's throat and steal their stuff, or betray them to the BBEG, or murder entire towns.

And if it is more about "you guys are the heroes" that is very different, because a mercenary company could be very cut throat while still being neutral, but they certainly aren't heroes who help people because it is the right thing to do.


Edit:

The alignment system is pretty good a specifying evil. I find it a much easier system than listing every proscribed action.

However my wider question was specifically to @Aldarc and was really asking what is wrong with the DM policing certain disruptive alignments if the table have agreed that they are not welcome at the table?

How do you agree they are not welcome, without listing what actions count as Evil? Since evil is so broad, I would think you need to narrow it down anyways.

 

[TheSword]

[Q

Well, what do you mean by evil?

See, there are many stories of players of "evil" characters actually being the most reliable of the party. A business mogul who makes crooked deals and to bilk foolish elites out of their money for his own gain might very well be "evil" but is no more disruptive to play than the rogue who steals the (literal) silver ware while at the noble's party.

Or maybe they are a cult leader, trying to spread their power in an attempt of apotheosis (I played a character like this once, but the game ended within 3 sessions so he never got to shine) or rising as an Archdevil. But, in terms of actions at the table, they might be no more disruptive than the cleric prolestizing on the street corners.

There are plenty of "evil" characters who would have no cause to do actively disruptive things like slit the party's throat and steal their stuff, or betray them to the BBEG, or murder entire towns.

And if it is more about "you guys are the heroes" that is very different, because a mercenary company could be very cut throat while still being neutral, but they certainly aren't heroes who help people because it is the right thing to do.


Edit:



How do you agree they are not welcome, without listing what actions count as Evil? Since evil is so broad, I would think you need to narrow it down anyways.

This may be your cup of tea. We’re happy with the blanket description of evil in the PHB. No need to narrow it down at all.