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.

 

[TheSword]

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.




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.

Pretty spot on description for me. 12-13 people across 3-4 groups. Ranging from 1 year to 15 years.

Mind you, if you are on your 3rd brand new group in a year you may have other problems around player expectations.

I don’t have any greater problem with alignment with the 1 year novice group than the 15 year veterans.

 

[TheSword]

In Descent, when the chaotic good elf sorcerer killed Thavius Kreeg before he had time to speak, just to be safe because he was in a dungeon with bad guys, I suggested he change alignment to Chaotic Neutral - he was cool with that. He spent the next few sessions rescuing orphans and healing the sick of Elturel. We agreed he would change back. It all made perfect sense to him and me. He’d been playing less than a year and this was the first time he’d really thought about alignment.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In Descent, when the chaotic good elf sorcerer killed Thavius Kreeg before he had time to speak, just to be safe because he was in a dungeon with bad guys, I suggested he change alignment to Chaotic Neutral - he was cool with that. He spent the next few sessions rescuing orphans and healing the sick of Elturel. We agreed he would change back. It all made perfect sense to him and me.

I am honestly confused what is achieved by this. The player just plays their character how they feel appropriate and you update their alignment to match what you feel is appropriate? So why does the character need to have an alignment in the first place then? It obviously doesn't tell the player how to play their character or you wouldn't need to keep changing it!

 

[Oofta]

As @TheSword says, I don't think we're that far apart. @Chaosmancer gave a pretty sparse description, I didn't see anything inherently evil. A PC could in theory have LE on their character sheet and then never commit an evil act. Much like if a tree falls on a mime in the forest does anyone care?

Because if a PC never commits an evil act (I gave several examples) then why even say it's your alignment? Fighting against inner demons but you never actually commit those evil acts? That's a personality trait. If you're PC was actually evil they'd embrace and enjoy those inner demons, not fight against them.

There may be a few things I consider evil (torture for example) the other DMs might allow. As a DM I will just let the player know that kind of behavior is not acceptable. If a player is so obstinate and set in their ways that they cannot abide by my guidelines I don't want them as a player anyway.

But the vast, vast majority of people know what I mean. I've never had an issue in the real world. Because of moving I've had to start up several new groups, probably close to a dozen now in addition to being quite active in running public games.

P.S. I never tell a player how to run their character. That's not my job. I just make it clear that if they cross the line into being an evil character they will probably have to write up a new character because their PC just became an NPC.

 

[TheSword]

I am honestly confused what is achieved by this. The player just plays their character how they feel appropriate and you update their alignment to match what you feel is appropriate? So why does the character need to have an alignment in the first place then? It obviously doesn't tell the player how to play their character or you wouldn't need to keep changing it!

It does, because when it was pointed out to them they realized they were straying to the dark side and stepped smartly back.

he wanted to play a good character...being good was important to him. The alignment mechanic reinforced that. He wasn’t forced to but it caused him to think more about what he wanted his character to be, rather than what was expedient to him at the time.

At all times he was free to act as he chose. No player agency was affected. Alignment changed to reflect his choices. But the change was the look in the mirror where you realize you’re not the man you want to be.

 

[Maxperson]

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 evil character" doesn't require alignment to accomplish, though. Unless the player involved is a sociopath, he's going to be aware of which acts are evil or likely evil. The function of alignment isn't to tell people what's good, neutral and evil. The function of alignment is to categorize the various good, neutral and evil acts. Some acts border a few alignments and can fall either way. That's okay. Alignment isn't supposed to be a straight jacket. The player knows he is about to engage in an evil act and shouldn't do it. He doesn't need alignment to tell him that it's a LE, NE or CE act before he decides that it's something he isn't supposed to do.

 

[Chaosmancer]

"No evil character" doesn't require alignment to accomplish, though. Unless the player involved is a sociopath, he's going to be aware of which acts are evil or likely evil. The function of alignment isn't to tell people what's good, neutral and evil. The function of alignment is to categorize the various good, neutral and evil acts. Some acts border a few alignments and can fall either way. That's okay. Alignment isn't supposed to be a straight jacket. The player knows he is about to engage in an evil act and shouldn't do it. He doesn't need alignment to tell him that it's a LE, NE or CE act before he decides that it's something he isn't supposed to do.

What?

The point isn't to tell us what is good or what is evil, but to group what is good or evil into sections....

Why create a box if the box is only supposed to be an unlabeled area to set things we've already divided into boxes into?

 

[Maxperson]

What?

The point isn't to tell us what is good or what is evil, but to group what is good or evil into sections....

Why create a box if the box is only supposed to be an unlabeled area to set things we've already divided into boxes into?

The boxes are there to identify which acts are what alignment. They're an aid to help people roleplay. That's it. They aren't a straight jacket. Nor are they supposed to tell you what is or is not evil. Brutally beating someone to death because you can, CE. Killing someone because you are in the middle of something and they are in the wrong place at the wrong time, NE. Turning in a rival for a crime you know will get him executed, so that you are free of his obstruction, LE. It doesn't take alignment to know that those are evil acts, though.

 

[Lanefan]

P.S. I never tell a player how to run their character. That's not my job. I just make it clear that if they cross the line into being an evil character they will probably have to write up a new character because their PC just became an NPC.

Am I the only person here who ever picks up on the blatant conflict between the bolded sentence and the italics one? I ask because I see quite-close variants on this far too often...and the presence of the italics sentence makes the bolded one a lie.

Telling the players their characters will be taken away from them if said characters cross into evil* is the very definition of telling people how (in this case, mirrored as how not) to play their characters!

* - which, by the way, kinda treats the players as if they were small children - very demeaning.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The boxes are there to identify which acts are what alignment. They're an aid to help people roleplay. That's it. They aren't a straight jacket. Nor are they supposed to tell you what is or is not evil. Brutally beating someone to death because you can, CE. Killing someone because you are in the middle of something and they are in the wrong place at the wrong time, NE. Turning in a rival for a crime you know will get him executed, so that you are free of his obstruction, LE. It doesn't take alignment to know that those are evil acts, though.

Sigh, look, I'm tired. You are telling me that they are there to id whether the act is evil, but that it isn't supposed to tell us what is evil.... Which would be IDing what is evil...

And you even have three examples, supposedly showing differences between alignments, which would be defining them... Which you said alignment doesn't do...