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.

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

Nah, the 4e alignment system fit the World Axis Mythos (and the real world Chaoskampf motif it drew upon) exceedingly well.
Agreed. I know CG is a very popular alignment, and people love their devils, but...unless in a Moorcockian(?) worldview, they don't make a ton of sense. Chaos really does penalize the weak, and it's hard to see that as "good." Similarly, every example I have seen of a LE character in fiction has ended up breaking their word/whatever in order to fulfill personal desires/goals. Ends up being "Lawful-until-it's-really-inconvenient Evil." Having "Good" allowed for people to be morally good without necessarily needing to codify everything whilst at the same time not actively promoting a concept like chaos.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Agreed. I know CG is a very popular alignment, and people love their devils, but...unless in a Moorcockian(?) worldview, they don't make a ton of sense. Chaos really does penalize the weak, and it's hard to see that as "good." Similarly, every example I have seen of a LE character in fiction has ended up breaking their word/whatever in order to fulfill personal desires/goals. Ends up being "Lawful-until-it's-really-inconvenient Evil." Having "Good" allowed for people to be morally good without necessarily needing to codify everything whilst at the same time not actively promoting a concept like chaos.
Huh? How does chaos penalize the weak? It just means that you believe in personal freedom of choice, not external rules of law. Has nothing to do with empathy, sacrificing for the betterment of others.

As far as lawful, that doesn't mean you obey all laws everywhere, you follow a set of laws that you believe in and that apply to you.
 

If my chaotic person is in a city with established laws and effective enforcement of those laws they're probably going to abide by those laws because they don't want to face the punishment.

Chaotic doesn't mean you don't understand that actions have consequences.
 

But I'm not playing 2E and most people currently play D&D have never played it.

Fun fact: If someone was 12 in 1995 (the mid-point of 2e), then they'd be 37 now.
Funner fact: It's been 23 years since a silly card company bought the imploding TSR, and 20 years since 3e was released.
Funnest fact: If we assume a youngest age of 10 for the sake of argument, that means that anyone that is 30 or under not only didn't play 2e, but grew up thinking 2e (2e!!!!) was the old edition.

Bonus really funny fact: There are people, today, who view 4e players as outdated and irascible grognards.
 
Last edited:


Chaos really does penalize the weak, and it's hard to see that as "good."

Counterpoint: I've seen critiques that fiction depicting the break down of society turning people into selfish bastards ignores examples of people coming together during real-life disasters for survival. There's also many examples of real world Lawful societies penalizing the weak.

Plus, Law and Chaos exist on a spectrum. I believe the Knorr of the Jakandor setting I described on the previous page is a good example of a Chaotic-leaning society where a high value on personal honor and reputation keeps people in line rather than laws forced on them by a legal authority.

Frankly, the terms Law and Chaos themselves probably complicate the issue due to the common belief that Law is Good and Chaos is Bad. I saw an alternative concept of alignment on Twitter the other week I thought was interesting, though I doubt I'd use it as is. I'll try to find it.
 

As a concept, it definitely does. Just look at the real world.

So it is because you say so? Okay. Last time I checked, a commune would be considered chaotic but is about supporting all members. Kind of the opposite of what you were saying. A personal morality/compass viewing freedom as important has little to do with good and evil.

Can chaotic be evil? Of course. Does it have to be? No.
 



So it is because you say so? Okay. Last time I checked, a commune would be considered chaotic but is about supporting all members. Kind of the opposite of what you were saying. A personal morality/compass viewing freedom as important has little to do with good and evil.

Can chaotic be evil? Of course. Does it have to be? No.
Ugh. Stop being a jerk. I'm saying: Look at the world today. People who are weak (for whatever reason) can't cope with chaos the way the strong can.

A natural disaster causes chaos, yes? Who deals with that best?
Being diagnosed with a disease introduces chaotic elements in one's life. Who deals with that best?
In the long run, chaotic forces are more damaging to the weak than to the strong.

I don't understand why you say a commune would be chaotic.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top