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


log in or register to remove this ad




Oofta

Legend
I've viewed alignment as a guideline and another descriptor for a long time. Other than a blanket ban on evil PCs so I can tell players when they cross the line and letting people know I don't want chaotic insane characters I don't even know my player's alignments.

As far as creatures listed in the monster manual I think alignment still serves a purpose, most of the time there's not really a whole lot on motivations and goals of monsters. I'll still use evil monsters as evil because I want bad guys who are identifiable as bad guys. Well, that and I don't want vampires that sparkle in the sunlight. Personally I hope they don't go overboard with this, even if they are more explicit in what alignment means to the game.

Funny that he goes out of his way to mention fiends and angels. Kind of my thoughts as well, if you're going to open up your world to alignments being the general rule it makes sense. Also opens it up more to a rebellion in heaven scenarios with a handful of evil angels starting a civil war. Could be interesting in the right campaign.

As far a Crawford's statement this is nothing new, it's just never been spelled out prominently. It's in a paragraph in the MM in the alignment section that most people probably never read. If there is another guidebook targeted at DMs I suspect it may be given more prominent treatment.
 

Rhianni32

Adventurer
I've always hated the idea of alignment because are people 1 alignment on every aspect of life? It seems to drift depending on who we are talking with, what we are talking about, and the relationships that we have with that person in how we want to treat them.

How how LAWFUL is a lawful good person? No murder? sure. No theft ? probably. no speeding over the speed limit or coming to a complete stop at a stop sign? ehhhhh shrug.
 

M.L. Martin

Adventurer
"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.

So, are we setting up for PCs allying with freedom-fighting demons against tyrannical angels?
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
Or to put it a lot more simply — when D&D outgrows stories of good guys and bad guys, there’s not going to be a whole lotta ground left to cover.

Well, that's an interesting take, given that the origins of D&D aren't heroic fantasy and "good guys and bad guys," but are instead rooted in more of a "swords and sorcery," and murky and morally gray atmosphere; and that's before getting into the Moocockian Law v. Chaos vibe from the OG alignment system.

Sure, when I think of old-school D&D, all I can think of are classic morality tales of vanquishing evil; certainly no old-school adventurer was motivated by base or pecuniary concerns!

Eh, anyway, in the previously codified system, alignment was useful. Now, it is more of a vestigial tail, whose primary purpose seems to be twofold:

1. Providing fodder for on-line arguments about it; and

2. Allowing for the creations of memes about alignment. Hey, what alignment is Batman????

That said, I will be sad if it is removed entirely, if only because there will be a generation that grows up that doesn't understand bad jokes about alignment.

Now, I have to go to the car dealership and find me a stick shift.
 
Last edited:

prabe

Tension, apprension, and dissension have begun
Supporter
I have for decades considered it a useful shorthand description of a being's attitudes, something on which to base behavior in the absence of other clear motive. I shall continue to do so, both as a player and as a DM. I have not in decades punished a PC for straying from their listed alignment, and I shall not start now.

NPCs (and "monsters") can be whatever alignment the DM wants, of course. If a scenario would be made better by having a monster with an atypical alignment, have at it. I worry about the possibility of there being so many exceptions that they come to be expected, but each DM can make that sort of determination on their own.
 

Dire Bare

Legend
Or to put it a lot more simply — when D&D outgrows stories of good guys and bad guys, there’s not going to be a whole lotta ground left to cover.
This argument is tired and flawed.

We aren't losing evil antagonists, just races that are inherently evil. We aren't even losing evil orcs, it just that evil orcs will be evil by choice rather than birth. We aren't losing alignment, we are just shifting how we treat it, which quite frankly is where the hobby mostly is already at anyway.

With the changes suggested, if you can't run a campaign with stellar bad guys for your PCs to struggle against . . . turn in your DM card and retire.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top