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.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Well, if we simply boil things down to descriptors, that works. So, Xenophobic Isolationists, for example, is a group that is campaign world agnostic. And, there's not a lot of interpretational difference going on there. Authoritarian Spiritualists have a highly organized society that revolves around some sort of faith or religion. Two or three word descriptors can function as factions quite easily. Then again, like I said in another thread, I've been playing a LOT of Stellaris, so, I see this sort of thing all the time.

What's the difference between the Stellaris system and the alignment system? Isn't it just a four-axis description rather than two? Recall that "what exactly constitutes 'authoritarianism' and 'egalitarianism'?" has been a hot discussion topic for the entire history of the game, leading to Paradox giving those ethics multiple reworks and even renaming them entirely at one point.

I mean, the fact that they're called "ethics" is sort of inviting comparison to alignment already, right?

 

[Maxperson]

Well, if we simply boil things down to descriptors, that works. So, Xenophobic Isolationists, for example, is a group that is campaign world agnostic. And, there's not a lot of interpretational difference going on there. Authoritarian Spiritualists have a highly organized society that revolves around some sort of faith or religion. Two or three word descriptors can function as factions quite easily. Then again, like I said in another thread, I've been playing a LOT of Stellaris, so, I see this sort of thing all the time.

Good Lord! I've been in MANY political(not starting this discussion here) discussions over the years and do you have any idea how many different interpretations of both Authoritarian and Spiritual there are that get tossed about? While Xenophobic Isolationists isn't quite as bad, you will still get many different interpretations of how xenophobic are they, how will these xenophobes act when confronted with outsiders. How isolationist?

I think perhaps you are severely underestimating peoples ability to interpret things differently and then argue about it.

 

[Cadence]

Alignment tells you that something does something and then alignment is applied. In other words, demons don't do bad things because they are evil, they are evil because they do bad things.

Alignment has never described motivation in any edition of the game.

I'm having trouble parsing that. It feels like B/X comes awfully close to saying beings who are good will do good things because they are good.

"Three basic ways of life guide the acts of both player characters and monsters. Each way of life is called an alignment."

"The alignments give guidelines for characters to live by. The characters will try to follow these guidelines, but may not always be successful. If a DM feels that a player is not keeping to a character's chosen alignment, the DM may suggest a change of alignment or give the character a punishment of penalty."

"Law (or Lawful) is the belief that everything should follow an order, andthat obeying rules is the natural way of life. Lawful creatures will try to tell the truth, obey laws, and care about other living things. Lawful characters always try to keep their promises. They will try to obey laws as long as such laws are just and fair."

"A lawful character will fight to protect the group, whatever the danger. The character will not run away unless the whole group does."

"Alignment shows whether the monster is Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic. [---] The DM should be careful to play the alignment of each monster correctly."

 

[Hussar]

Alignment is applied to actions. At least in AD&D forward. If a character does nothing but good deeds but, in their head, they're a murdering, puppy killing psychopath that never acts on it, that character is good, by the definition of the game. You don't do evil things because you're evil, you're evil because you do evil things.

 

[Lanefan]

You must be rather disappointed with 5e D&D then. Or, rather, D&D in general. Alignment has never told you why something does something. Alignment tells you that something does something and then alignment is applied. In other words, demons don't do bad things because they are evil, they are evil because they do bad things.

Alignment has never described motivation in any edition of the game.

I rather think you completely missed my point, so allow me to try again.

When I say I want the game to tell me what happens because something is Evil* I mean I want to know how an Evil thing will (or if it can at all) interact with spell X and item Y and effect Z, and-or whether it can be a member of and-or get along with class A and creature-type B.

Then to facilitate this I also want the game to tell me what classes and creatures it thinks are always Evil, most often Evil, random-chance Evil, rarely Evil and never Evil; using in all cases the game's definition of Evil.

Once I know these two things I can then modify to suit if and how I like, but I want the baseline in place as a default to fall back on if need be.

* - substitute Good, Lawful or Chaotic wherever Evil appears if you like; my points apply to all equally.

Except that's absolutely not true. There are a whole slew of modules presenting intelligent demons as having long term, far reaching, complicated plans that coordinate all sorts of bits and bobs. It's one of the reasons I really dislike the demon/devil divide. If you have demons like Malcanthet, Demogorgon, and Orcs who are creating intricate plots, how are they any different from devils?

By no means have I read every module that's out there, but I've read (and own) quite a few - particularly older ones - and offhand I'm not familiar with any such module. I don't even know who-what Malcanthet is; that's a new one on me.

Never mind that if a module insists on having a demon behave like a devil it's a 5-second job to give that demon a devil's name and make it a devil.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure they do. Ask 20 people what the Harpers would do in situation X and you'll get multiple different answers.

Of which at least seven will be variants on "I dunno. What the frack is a Harper - is that the male version of a Harpy?"

 

[Voadam]

By no means have I read every module that's out there, but I've read (and own) quite a few - particularly older ones - and offhand I'm not familiar with any such module. I don't even know who-what Malcanthet is; that's a new one on me.

Pick your edition

1e Q1 Queen of the Demonweb Pits I think is the oldest as she conquers worlds while only having 66 hp.

2e has Dead Gods.

3.5 has Expedition to the Demonweb Pits.

4e has E3 Prince of Undeath the culmination of the nine module's worth of Orcus plots.

5e has Out of the Abyss which I have not read or played in so I can not say how convoluted the Demon Lord plots are in there.

Lolth, Grazzt, Orcus, and Demogorgon, all have had complicated plots and plans.

Malcanthet is the Queen of Succubi. She gets described in detail in a 3.5 Dragon Magazine Demonomicon issue and probably the Fiendish Codex and 4e Demonomicon.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Let's see... they are all about their own power, they enjoy inflicting pain / death, and their level of social organization is on the individual level unless something with superior power forces them to work for them. Yep, nothing chaotic or evil there you say. Well, I'd say chaotic and evil.

Gnolls form packs. That is a social level beyond the individual.

Red Dragons tend to be rulers of their domains, acting as kings and empresses of their holdings. I guess society between Red Dragons is non-existant, but that is also the case for the Lawful Good Silver Dragon, so that doesn't actually tell us anything.

Also, devils and hags are all about their own power and enjoy inflicting pain/death, and they are Lawful and Neutral Evil respectively.

Their tactics are dominated by their abilities. What they can do. I would argue their behavior is appropriate to their alignment as constrained by their abilities.

Which gets to my point, the alignment can't stand alone. It is too broad and not descriptive enough, to tell you how to run the monster. A gnoll and a Wisp will act completely differently if the party encounters them. But both are Chaotic Evil. Their abilities and lore are what tell you how they act, not their alignment, so it seems a vestigial part of their block.

I was. Greed is a tool for Mammon to ensnare humans and increase his power. He flaunts greed / wealth / power to attract the people he wants to damn, the souls he wants to ensnare. In the case of Yugoloths, greed is not a tool, it's what they are. They want "more", and more, etc. I would say greed is the factor that has damned them (as a race). Mammon's evil is organized, the Yugoloths is selfish. That was my point.

Ah, I understand slightly.

I disagree. Mammon is Greedy. Yes, it is his tool to wield, but it is also his vice to suffer from.

In contrast, Yugoloths are treated little different than mortal bands of mercenaries. More Powerful and harder to kill permanently, but with the same motivations.

The length of a bloated statblock / description is not the best argument against brevity and categorization. You could probably summarize it in far less than 8 paragraphs. And, accurately. Sometimes there is a lot of information in these things, sometimes someone just felt the need to go on. At length. The longer the text, the more the description is blocking in the creature. I prefer to develop information for my own game, not be spoon fed what every player can read. Sorry, that's just a personal rant. Some people like the extended descriptions and that's OK.

Sure, but my point still stands.

that information exists, and is a better gauge for me of how to view an Aboleth than reading "Lawful Good".

Maybe they could have condensed it down to a paragraph, but pretty much every monster gets that paragraph, and that is where the real information lies, not in the alignment.

As I stated above their actions are governed by their abilities. No amount of wishful thinking is going to give a Gnoll the breath weapon of a Red Dragon. So, it's actions are different. In any event, does every artist have the same desires? Every politician? Differences are a thing too.

First, really? Did you think I was unaware that Gnolls don't have dragon breath weapons?

To the second point about differences, yes, exactly, that is what I am saying.

Is every Politician Alike? No. Is Every Politician of the Same party Alike? No. So, just seeing their party is not enough information to accurately portray their beliefs, motivations and actions.

So again, Alignment is doing what for us? It is too broad, sometimes completely false, and presents us with a two word statement that we could have derived from just reading the lore provided.

Thanks for the mental workout btw. I doubt we will reach agreement other than to disagree but it's good to trot out the arguments, dust them off, and give them a go

No problem.

I tend to view Neutral Evil as transactional evil. Evil as the price of attaining some other goal. A Neutral Evil character may not necessarily WANT to cause Evil, but they will do so with almost no qualms if it means accomplishing thier goal in the most efficient manner possible. Theft, treachery, seduction, or murder are just tools to accomplish their goals. If there is a way to accomplish thier goals without them, they may try, but they don't feel any hesitation for using them if they are the least bit warranted.

And half-the hags in D&D (annis, bheur sea) are CE anway, so I'd be more inclined to argue the rest are closer to CE than NE anyway. But it wouldn't be the first creature in D&D mis-aligned (LE orcs... yeah)

So, Neutral Good is Transactional Good? Good as the price of attaining some other goal? They are supposed to mirror each other after all.

Or, are you implying that a LE character would not murder or seduce someone to further their long-term plans?

Greed is a big enough concept to exist in all the factions of fiends. And the yugoloths accept payment in many different forms -- gold is just one form of currency.

Not saying it isn't but "Evil because they do bad things for payment" is kind of weak for something that is thematically supposed to be equal to Demons and Devils in the scale of their evil.

See again what I said about spotting an apparent inconsistency and asking yourself if there's some reason it might only appear to be an inconsistency because you don't understand something.

Your insistence that the problem is that I lack understanding is getting rather annoying.

You're seeing "tyranny" and equating that with lawful evil. Not entirely your fault, the term does come up a lot in explanations of LE. But tyrants can definitely be chaotic. Their reigns can be capricious and destabilizing, leading their domains and surrounding regions into chaos and turmoil. See: every orc warlord ever.

Okay, but now we get into some nitty gritty stuff.

Warmonger causes turmoil, does every Warlord who seeks to expand their empire get labeled as CE? Strip Mining an area can destablize the economy in the future, is that CE?

And, how is imposing Order via harsh laws Chaotic? Nothing about "Lawful" says that they have to be good laws or laws that are fully consistent. Not having a governing structure is far more chaotic than ruling over the land as a king, no matter how "capricious" you are.

In fact, Beelzebub is one of the Lords of the Nine, and his lore states that he is constantly building, destroying and rebuilding his realm seeking perfection. Seems capricious. Belial and Fierna are also canonically ruled by their desires. Dispater runs a paranoid police state. All of those would be destablizing, and yet, all of them are Lawful Evil.

What did I say that's wrong?

You implied it would avoid alliances (they don't they sometimes choose to set aside their differences with Yuan-Ti and work towards a common goal, and it is noted that it is the Yuan-Ti that often chafe under the alliance) and that they destablize the region (they are a scholar, mind controlling thralls within their realm)

Yugoloths are pretty active too. "Apathetic" does not mean "lazy". Please stop interpreting words and concepts in this hostile fashion. Ultimately it only weakens your case, because it means you're taking swings at straw men. Don't look for superficial contradictions; look for deeper understanding of why things aren't contradictions.

Apathetic means lacking motivation. You are uninterested, you don't care about things and show no enthusiasm or concern.

So, if you don't care, why are you running a secret multi-national spy cult devoted to the overthrow of governments and reestablishment of your global empire? Does that sound like someone who doesn't care about the workings of the world? That is indifferent to the state of the world?

I don't think so, I think someone actively seeking to change the world, and doing so with a massive spy network stretching centuries and hundreds of miles of territory across multiple governmental boundaries is highly invested in the state of the world, and in changing that state to suite their needs.

But, I suppose you will simply tell me I need to look deeper to understand how that is really what apathy is all about?

 

[Maxperson]

Of which at least seven will be variants on "I dunno. What the frack is a Harper - is that the male version of a Harpy?"

And 12 variations of, "Isn't that someone who plays in an orchestra."

 

[R_Chance]

Gnolls form packs. That is a social level beyond the individual.

Pack is family in a sense. It's not like Gnolls are forming large social networks and building towns. They are a pack led by the strongest individual.

Red Dragons tend to be rulers of their domains, acting as kings and empresses of their holdings. I guess society between Red Dragons is non-existant, but that is also the case for the Lawful Good Silver Dragon, so that doesn't actually tell us anything.

Also, devils and hags are all about their own power and enjoy inflicting pain/death, and they are Lawful and Neutral Evil respectively.

Red Dragons build their lairs in solitary places... they have a treasure hoard to defend after all. They may devastate the area around their lair, but that's not quite what I'd call ruling as a king. Is 5E different? Silver Dragons have been known to live among humans iirc. As for Devils they want to advance in their hierarchy and lord it over other Devils. They aren't solitary / small group creatures. Hags, depends on the type iirc. I've never thought of them as LE myself, more NE and CE, but that's me. I don't have a problem with saying some creatures alignments have been mischaracterized or been moved all over the place in different editions (Orcs, for example).

Which gets to my point, the alignment can't stand alone. It is too broad and not descriptive enough, to tell you how to run the monster. A gnoll and a Wisp will act completely differently if the party encounters them. But both are Chaotic Evil. Their abilities and lore are what tell you how they act, not their alignment, so it seems a vestigial part of their block.

Alignment isn't supposed to stand alone. I'd say it's part of their "block", just not vestigial.

Ah, I understand slightly.

I disagree. Mammon is Greedy. Yes, it is his tool to wield, but it is also his vice to suffer from.

In contrast, Yugoloths are treated little different than mortal bands of mercenaries. More Powerful and harder to kill permanently, but with the same motivations.

Well, we differ on that. I see Mammon dangling greed as a lure, imo of course. Yugoloths are in it for the money or whatever they accept as payment.

Sure, but my point still stands.

that information exists, and is a better gauge for me of how to view an Aboleth than reading "Lawful Good".

Maybe they could have condensed it down to a paragraph, but pretty much every monster gets that paragraph, and that is where the real information lies, not in the alignment.

You cut out the alignment, you cut out information. You could cut out a lot more too. Given the minimal space alignment takes up I think it's worth keeping. A couple of words / letters yielding basic information.

First, really? Did you think I was unaware that Gnolls don't have dragon breath weapons?

To the second point about differences, yes, exactly, that is what I am saying.

Is every Politician Alike? No. Is Every Politician of the Same party Alike? No. So, just seeing their party is not enough information to accurately portray their beliefs, motivations and actions.

So again, Alignment is doing what for us? It is too broad, sometimes completely false, and presents us with a two word statement that we could have derived from just reading the lore provided.

I imagined you'd know about Gnolls lack of breath weapons I was just pointing out that differences made for different tactics and behavior and descriptive text. The point of a political party label is, theoretically, to give you a baseline on what a politician believes. Like alignment. It doesn't define everything about them and they can differ. I understand the limitations of short descriptions. which is why you get the rest of the information. You can get rid of a lot of two word statements, or in some cases paragraphs, and still understand a creature. In the case of alignment it has a function, it provides baseline information and it's fairly economical in terms of space. So, why get rid of it? It's a tool, if a small one.

Build on it. Correct the mistaken labelling. Improve on it. Let it help inform what you think about a creature. I have spent a lot of time in the last few decades building fluff and altering minor things to justify some of D&Ds odder quirks and creatures. I enjoy it. Just coming up with explanations for things and why they work the way they do in D&D is an interesting exercise. To me anyway, ymmv.

No problem.

I agree. Have a good one.