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

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
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...

That is NOT what I said. What I said is that they are there to tell you what category of evil the act belongs in, not whether the act is generally evil. We already know the act is evil without alignment.

And you even have three examples, supposedly showing differences between alignments, which would be defining them... Which you said alignment doesn't do...
Nope! Not one of those examples tells you that the act is evil. They just categorize the already evil act.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Chaosmancer

Legend
That is NOT what I said. What I said is that they are there to tell you what category of evil the act belongs in, not whether the act is generally evil. We already know the act is evil without alignment.


Nope! Not one of those examples tells you that the act is evil. They just categorize the already evil act.

So the entire pooint is just to tell us how lawful or chaotic an act is...

Which I will note is the part of the alignment system we've had the most trouble with.
 





Chaosmancer

Legend
The point is to help with roleplay by placing it in both the law/chaos AND good/evil categories. There is no "evil" alignment. There is CE, LE and NE, though.

Max, is this you just trying to use literalism because it doesn't define "evil" but it defines "Chaotic Evil" which is just a type of evil.

Because that is still defining the action. It still falls on one side of the line or the other, there are just two lines instead of one.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Max, is this you just trying to use literalism because it doesn't define "evil" but it defines "Chaotic Evil" which is just a type of evil.

No. It categorizes CE. Evil as a whole is not something alignment cares about, so if you say "no evil," alignment never comes into play. You just don't be a douche and play evil.

Because that is still defining the action. It still falls on one side of the line or the other, there are just two lines instead of one.
But it only defines the action IF you go to the step where the definition is necessary, such as when you check alignment. Which you don't do with "no evil."
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
No. It categorizes CE. Evil as a whole is not something alignment cares about, so if you say "no evil," alignment never comes into play. You just don't be a douche and play evil.

But it only defines the action IF you go to the step where the definition is necessary, such as when you check alignment. Which you don't do with "no evil."


@TheSword help me out here. You said that alignment was great, because you can say "no evil" and people will know what that means.

Max here is saying that that isn't even alignment. Alignment never even comes into play because alignment doesn't care about Evil. In fact, I think his last sentence essentially is promoting Schrodinger's alignment where it doesn't define the action until you actually go to look at what alignment you are, which is when the action changes your alignment, which now reflects back on the action you took because of your alignment.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
@TheSword help me out here. You said that alignment was great, because you can say "no evil" and people will know what that means.

Max here is saying that that isn't even alignment. Alignment never even comes into play because alignment doesn't care about Evil. In fact, I think his last sentence essentially is promoting Schrodinger's alignment where it doesn't define the action until you actually go to look at what alignment you are, which is when the action changes your alignment, which now reflects back on the action you took because of your alignment.
No. That's not what I'm saying at all, but I'm done trying to explain it.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top