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

Magister Ludorum

Adventurer
I've spent a decent amount of my 5e DM time introducing new players and I have never required players to fill in their alignment. It comes up, sure, but more of "what's this alignment thing?" To which I give a brief overview and examples, etc - "your character's moral compass, but don't feel bound by it," bla, bla, bla

As a player I write phrases in the alignment space in the character sheet. Some examples include:
  • Likes people to think he's naughty, but actually he's a good guy.
  • Thinks he's better than everyone else, but helps the community out of a sense of obligation to share his superior talents.
  • Doesn't like to kill unless absolutely necessary.
We don't use alignment as written except for characters who work to further the cause of heaven or law or whatever.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

As a player I write phrases in the alignment space in the character sheet. Some examples include:
  • Likes people to think he's naughty, but actually he's a good guy.
  • Thinks he's better than everyone else, but helps the community out of a sense of obligation to share his superior talents.
  • Doesn't like to kill unless absolutely necessary.
We don't use alignment as written except for characters who work to further the cause of heaven or law or whatever.

I do something like this while using alignment.

On the character sheet, the player writes "Neutral Good" or so. Then, they need to add a blurb specifying some action that expresses some way of being Good. "Doesnt like to kill unless absolutely necessary" would qualify being Good. For Chaotic they have to say some way of doing something individualistically, and for Lawful some way of doing something collectively as a group. If Neutral, there is a conflict between the group and the individual, that is somehow negotiated and balanced. Neutral Good, is the most good possible, sacrificing both order and freedom to achieve Good. Lawful Good is more about societal norms and fairness, Chaotic Good is more about personal impulses to do good for other individuals. But Neutral Good is the purest and least compromising form of Good.

Alignment is always a description of how the player views the character, and never a prescription for how the character "should" behave. A player can change alignment whenever it seems to describe better how the character tends to behave in hindsight.
 
Last edited:


Yes, I think you can count on that. They've produced new editions before to show their commitment to certain cultural values (2e comes to mind) and there's no reason why they couldn't do that again.

However I do think the debate over whether 6e is "needed" misses the mark. Yes, the 5e core books are still top-sellers on Amazon and yes, there are few glaring deficiencies in its mechanics that require immediate attention. But tone matters too and perhaps the most visible and impactful way to handle that would be a new edition that combines minor mechanical changes with a frank acknowledgement that some of the flavor text wasn't what it should have been.

I agree. All editions have been arguably needed or arguably unneeded, so that's less relevant than whether it will offer value, and a think a new edition could offer significant value well beyond just cleaning up use of language, terminology, alignment and so on. They could implement Class Feature Variant stuff and similar changes into the core, tweak the main mechanics so maybe we can move a little away from "totally random lolz" being such a mode of skill usage (no other edition had it this bad), fix Rangers, and generally do a bunch of good stuff.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Hey now! Just because some people like manual transmissions (it's a great anti-millenial theft device) doesn't mean we still don't want that feel of interaction ... umm ... wait.

Were you talking about alignment? Never mind. :blush:
Man talk about stereotypes!

Most millennials (and GenZ) I know can drive stick. Most car ppl can drive stick, regardless of age.
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
By your sense, what should be placed under the heading of politics in addition to state governance?
I'm not playing your favorite game dude, no offense.:p The idea that music, writing, or anything might also be 'political' in addition to anything else it might be is so common-place and non-controversial that I feel no need to illuminate you. You can do the heavy lifting there if you honestly don't know what I'm talking about. And by heavy lifting I mean 10 minutes of googling and reading. Maybe less.
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
Why a free copy of the new version of the book of course!

No, not really. Honestly nothing. Whizbangs going on about how then all our books will say the same thing. But they won't.
As for errata? My group doesn't bother with the official errata. That's because if we've found something that needs fixing? Then we've fixed it long before WoTC gets to it & have a solution that's specifically tailored to us.
I just wasn't sure about the tone of your post. Yours is the reasonable answer. :D I think 'official' errata would be the best compromise to acknowledge some of the issues currently in the spotlight without undue stress of cost to anyone but WotC.
 



Sunsword

Adventurer
Finding a comfy spot in the front row for this. This ought to be interesting.

It's funny going from 4e to 5e, where in 4e, alignment was reduced down and made a lot less important then 5e basically all but ejected alignment from the game, at least mechanically.

Yeah, its take on Alignment was emphasized as the slaughter of a sacred cow. I think everybody who designed 5E had good intentions they just didn't expect the kind of runaway success early or how much Critical Role and shows like it would make D&D far easier to learn and accessible.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top