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

Dire Bare

Legend
So, are we setting up for PCs allying with freedom-fighting demons against tyrannical angels?
Sigh. If that's your takeaway . . . . forehead smack

EDIT: Actually, the more I think about it . . . why not? I've read a few fantasy novels with pretty much that exact premise. And sympathetic devils and dangerous angels aren't new to D&D, some of the characters from Planescape spring to mind . . .
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Coroc

Hero
Looking at that bar diagram from Beyond is more shocking to me than the actual announcement.

Ok, I can understand chaotic good leading, it allows people to break out of the concept of being law-abiding most of the time.
But chaotic neutral being second? It basically means you play a character quite edgy and a bit looney at least, some DMs consider this to be more contradictive to overall group dynamic and cooperation than lawful evil, at least if the people really roleplay according to the guidelines.
Some DM consider CN to be the most problematic alignment of them all.
 


J-H

Hero
I don't have a huge problem with this because the alignment system has been a hot mess since... I dunno, 3rd edition? Maybe earlier? It's usually not relevant or it's been a DM Club to hit Paladins with.

Unlike racial stat modifiers, there's been a pretty long consensus that, mechanically, it's not a very good system.

Keeping it down to only impacting a few specific items or spells is fine with me. DMs always determine creature alignment anyway....
(and werewolves should be Lawful Evil pack creatures, not Chaotic Evil lone hunters... weretigers should be the CE ones)
 

Looking at that bar diagram from Beyond is more shocking to me than the actual announcement.

Ok, I can understand chaotic good leading, it allows people to break out of the concept of being law-abiding most of the time.
But chaotic neutral being second? It basically means you play a character quite edgy and a bit looney at least, some DMs consider this to be more contradictive to overall group dynamic and cooperation than lawful evil, at least if the people really roleplay according to the guidelines.
Some DM consider CN to be the most problematic alignment of them all.

It's been super-popular for decades and precisely for that reason. I thought every DM had a that player.
 


akr71

Hero
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
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Jeremy Crawford:
"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."

5th edition D&D Player’s Handbook (emphasis mine):
"The evil deities who created other races, though, made those races to serve them. Those races have strong inborn tendencies that match the nature of their gods. Most orcs share the violent, savage nature of the orc god, Gruumsh. and are thus inclined toward evil. Even if an orc chooses a good alignment, it struggles against its innate tendencies for its entire life. (Even half-orcs feel the lingering pull of the orc god's influence.)"

Volo’s Guide to Monsters:
"No matter how domesticated an orc might seem, its blood lust flows just beneath the surface. With its instinctive love of battle and its desire to prove its strength, an orc trying to live within the confines of civilization is faced with a difficult task."
None of that actually prevents orcs or half-orcs from being any alignment they want, though. My dad was an alcoholic and after he quit drinking he struggled against the pull and influence of alcohol for nearly 20 years before he passed. With one very short exception, he resisted that pull and influence and stayed sober
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Crawford says that any class and subclass can be any alignment, but if you look at the Oath of Devotion, if the Paladin actually follows his oaths, he's going to be good. I just don't see how you can follow those oaths and be evil.
 

SavageCole

Punk Rock Warlord
Many here have posted about alignment as a useful tool in helping players (and DMs) with broad, shorthand instruction on a players personality and values. I can’t disagree there, but in many great games you’ll see things work perfectly well without alignment. Call of Cthulhu and Warhammer are two great examples of games that function perfectly well without alignment. I think it can be helpful, but is far from necessary.

Removing it or making it a non-default option in D&D games may put a (very) little more work on players and DMs, but good character creation and development does not require it. The extra effort put to get nuanced, rich character definition is worth the effort in my experience.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top