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.

 

[Maxperson]

TheSword and Oofta both think alignment works, yet their differing interpretation of 'evil' leads to alignment failing as a screening method in a way TheSword wants. This is not a matter of opinion, the proof is literally in this thread.

What you are missing is that we don't have to interpret alignment identically for it to work. It just has to be sufficient for us each to independently interpret it in a functional manner for our games. It works just fine for that.

 

[Maxperson]

So how is a player supposed to know , going to a new table, what character is allowed or not?

At your table "no evil" allows the greedy criminal. At The Swords, it doesn't. What does the new player do?

Maybe talk to the DM. That usually does the trick.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What you are missing is that we don't have to interpret alignment identically for it to work. It just has to be sufficient for us each to independently interpret it in a functional manner for our games. It works just fine for that.

For 'no evil' to work as a disruptive behaviour screener the DM and the player kinda has to interpret 'evil' in pretty similar way!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Maybe talk to the DM. That usually does the trick.

Right. So you agree with me. The alignment doesn't help in this situation, talking does.

 

[Maxperson]

For 'no evil' to work as a disruptive behaviour screener the DM and the player kinda has to interpret 'evil' in pretty similar way!

Meh. I wouldn't use no evil for that. I'd just tell the player not be disruptive. You can be both evil and not disruptive to the game.

 

[Maxperson]

Right. So you agree with me. The alignment doesn't help in this situation, talking does.

Alignment works great for what evil is. Disruptive is different.

 

[FrogReaver]

Right. So you agree with me. The alignment doesn't help in this situation, talking does.

It does 99% of the time. I’m not sure why you expect anything to work 100% of the time.

 

[TheSword]

But not by using alignment. It was literally just proven in this tread. You said that Chaosmancer's 'evil' example character wouldn't be something you'd want in your campaign. Then Oofta said that they don't think that the character is evil. Thus if someone with a similar view of alignment than Oofta had made that character, they would have called them 'neutral' thus avoiding your evil ban, even though the character was exactly the same! Thus alignment is provably a bad screening method.

No I’m sorry that isn’t the case at all.

There is a debate to be had about Chaosmancers character. He hasn’t provided much information about specifics. I bet all the money in my pocket Oofta and I could reach a consensus after a few mins conversation because there is nothing particularly controversial there.

Even if there was a controversial topic, the table I play at has a largely consistent opinion on what constitutes evil. It has already been said that Oofta’s table has a largely consistent view. I don’t need to have a large debate about whether animating the dead or cannibalism is evil with Oofta for instance because the system currently works with either interpretation. It speaks in broad terms and let’s us fill the gaps.

Don’t forget for a PC alignment is an output of their actions.

For DM alignment is a shorthand to indicate their actions.

The two situations are very different. People posting often reference these two uses interchangeably when in actual fact they are separate.

 

[TheSword]

Don’t be a douche is not the same as no evil.

The first is disruptive behaviour - stealing from PCs, attacking others PCs, killing NPCs mid conversation, agreeing something as a group then one player going off and doing something that undermines that.

No evil, is about not having character approaches that are in conflict with their polar opposite approaches. Murder, stealing from the needy, slavery, devil summoning, and general domination etc etc etc.

Both are about spoiling enjoyment, the first is little to do with alignment the second can be controlled by alignment and is much harder to list exhaustively.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Maybe talk to the DM. That usually does the trick.

The problem is, The Sword has specifically said that they want to be able to say "No Evil Characters" and not have to explain what evil is. So, if they have to explain what evil is, then they are not getting what they want.

No I’m sorry that isn’t the case at all.

There is a debate to be had about Chaosmancers character. He hasn’t provided much information about specifics. I bet all the money in my pocket Oofta and I could reach a consensus after a few mins conversation because there is nothing particularly controversial there.

Even if there was a controversial topic, the table I play at has a largely consistent opinion on what constitutes evil. It has already been said that Oofta’s table has a largely consistent view. I don’t need to have a large debate about whether animating the dead or cannibalism is evil with Oofta for instance because the system currently works with either interpretation. It speaks in broad terms and let’s us fill the gaps.

Don’t forget for a PC alignment is an output of their actions.

For DM alignment is a shorthand to indicate their actions.

The two situations are very different. People posting often reference these two uses interchangeably when in actual fact they are separate.

And that right there is part of the problem we are having in this discussion.

I bet you have a relatively small number of people that you game with consistently, correct? Maybe no more than a rotating cast of 12 to 15 people between three groups? And most of you have been playing together for a number of years?

That means it is very likely that all of the problems that I might encounter with say, my third brand-new group of people in the same year, you don't have. Because you aren't sitting at a table with new faces. You know each other's opinions. You know what each other means when they say things.


Arguing that of course the things that are obvious to a group of long-time friends should be equally obvious to a group of strangers that met 5 minutes ago is ludicrous. But that is what is happening here.