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.

 

[Azzy]

The term "selfless" tends to connote self-sacrifice, self-denial, sometimes self-cancelation. "Self-less", literally without self.

By contrast, "sharing" more clearly communicates other selves are important, including oneself.

What it conotates to you and how it is used in the English language apparently differs.

 

[Maxperson]

The term "selfless" tends to connote self-sacrifice, self-denial, sometimes self-cancelation. "Self-less", literally without self.

By contrast, "sharing" more clearly communicates other selves are important, including oneself.

People act in a "selfless" manner because it makes them feel good to do so. Like pretty much everything, it's selfish at its core.

 

[Haldrik]

People act in a "selfless" manner because it makes them feel good to do so. Like pretty much everything, it's selfish at its core.

No disagreement.

At the same time, I view my true self as the best version of myself that goes beyond only myself.

 

[Maxperson]

No disagreement.

At the same time, I view my true self as the best version of myself that goes beyond myself only.

Sure. I mostly point that out to show that selfish is not inherently bad.

 

[Haffrung]

In that kind of setting, the descriptor "Good" seems less pertinent.

An all-Evil campaign is doable for a setting that expects characters to "kill sentient beings for fun and profit".

Most D&D campaigns involved enormous amounts of slaying. The suggested default is 6-8 encounters per long rest, with the majority of those encounters concluding with piles of dead sentient beings: ogres, bandits, owlbears, lizardfolk, hill giants, harpies, cultists, and goblins. By the time a typical party has reached 5th or 6th level, the body count is in the hundreds.

The motivations for the slaying are sometimes heroic, often not. Sometimes the trolls are wiped out because they attacked a town; sometimes they're wiped out because they're monsters, and they'd surely try to slay and devour the PCs if given a chance; sometimes they're wiped out because there's rumoured to be a magic sword in their lair. Whole chapters of D&D books are devoted to treasure for a reason - it's a primary motivator of exploration and adventures. Dungeon delving, the founding premise and still a popular mode of play, involves exploring a labyrinth to liberate its occupants of their treasure. There's no reason to presume it's an evil activity, and few of the thousands of groups who have played dungeon-centric campaigns over the decades ran evil parties.

That's the default format of the game: slay monsters, collect loot, level up. It's not for everyone. But you can only change it so much before you'd be better off designing a completely new game from the ground up.

 

[Haffrung]

I hope that before WotC makes any substantial changes to the game, that they do so after the kind of widespread polling and market analysis that they carried out in the leadup to D&D Next. Because one thing they learned in that market polling is that the opinions and preferences expressed on RPG forums are in no way representative of the broad player base, the vast majority of whom never post on social media. Opinions held by a small numbers of players (and sometimes people who don't even play) tend to be dramatically amplified on forums.

 

[Haldrik]

Sure. I mostly point that out to show that selfish is not inherently bad.

Selfish desires are an opportunity for someone else to do an altruistic action to fulfill a real need.

 

[Mike Hinshaw]

You should replace "real world" with "modern". Many ancient cultures, all of which thought themselves as "Good" had no objection to that kind of behavior, and even encouraged it. Evil is selfish, Good is altruistic, Law is ordered, and Chaos is about individual freedom. Killing "innocents" is generally Evil, since generally, the only real motives for that are profit and entertainment. And it must be remembered that many words have changed meaning as well - "rape" just meant kidnapping and some women welcomed it. Morality is not a black and white thing - in the past more so than now.

Mike Hinshaw

 

[Hussar]

Why would anyone be shocked that D&D is moving away from alignment?

4e stripped down alignment.

5e stripped all mechanical effects from alignment and made it pure flavor. Nothing in the game keys off of alignment and no class is required to be a particular alignment.

This has been coming for a long time. There's no secret here.

 

[Maxperson]

Why would anyone be shocked that D&D is moving away from alignment?

4e stripped down alignment.

And then put it back again in 5e when people screamed bloody murder. Alignment will be in D&D for a long time to come.

5e stripped all mechanical effects from alignment and made it pure flavor. Nothing in the game keys off of alignment and no class is required to be a particular alignment.

Almost all mechanical effects. There are a few things that still key off of it.