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.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

But yeah, Lawful Good does lean in that direction. The Good often gets compromised because of being Lawful.

That is why Lawful Good is less good than Neutral Good.

The Great Wheel cosmology outright demonstrates that

 

[FrogReaver]

Something like that.

In its extreme, pure Law makes it impossible to be Good.

But yeah, Lawful Good does lean in that direction. The Good often gets compromised because of being Lawful.

That is why Lawful Good is less good than Neutral Good.



Borrowing from old school D&D term "True Neutral".

For me, the Axes are:

• Good − Neutral − Evil
• Chaotic − True − Lawful

So, "True" is like the Dao engaging both Lawful and Chaotic.

Thus:
• True Good
• True Neutral
• True Evil

True Good is the purest form of Good, transcending the failures that happen if Lawful or Chaotic.

I think law and goodness can be opposed but it doesn't necessarily have to be.

 

[Charlaquin]

I always found the whole law vs. chaos thing to be a lot more interesting, and less subjective than good vs. evil? I feel at the very least you can point at actual tangible evidence of the effects of law and chaos.

Well the thing is, law (or order) and chaos (or disorder) are objective states of being, whereas good and evil are value judgments. You can evaluate actions, events, people, places, and things as being good or evil, but good and evil themselves are not states of being like order and disorder are. You can even ascribe good to order and evil to disorder, as many ancient philosophies and religions did. This makes it a little awkward to use them as an alignment axis perpendicular to law and chaos, and is one of the reasons it’s so difficult to agree on a single set of standards for evaluating alignment.

I see a few valid solutions to this problem. One is to go the 4e route and say law is good, chaos is evil and LG vs G and CE vs E are just matters of degree. Another is to equate good and evil to something more objective like altruism and egoism. Or, you could go with a simple L - N - C spectrum and make Good and Evil descriptive of how one’s alignment is expressed.

 

[dmgorgon]

When it comes to Alignment rules, I really don't read anything beyond the 2e DMG. It has everything a DM needs. All of these concepts have already been addressed decades ago.

Society Alignment (2e DMG)

Player characters, NPCs, and monsters are not alone in having alignment. Since a kingdom is nothing but a collection of people, united in some fashion (by language, common interest, or fear, for example), it can have an overall alignment. The alignment of a barony, principality, or other small body is based on the attitude of the ruler and the alignment of the majority of the population.

The alignment of the ruler determines the nature of many of the laws of the land. Lawful good rulers usually try to protect their territory and do what's best for their subjects. Chaotic good rulers try to help people, but irregularly, being unwilling to enact sweeping legislation to correct a social ill.

At the same time, the enforcement of the laws and the attitudes found in the country come not from the ruler but the subjects. While a lawful good king issues decrees for the good of all, his lawful evil subjects could consider them inconveniences to work around. Bribery might become a standard method for doing business.

If the situation is reversed (a lawful evil king with mostly lawful good subjects), the kingdom becomes an unhappy place, filled with grumbling about the evil reign that plagues it. The king, in turn, resorts to severe measures to silence his critics, creating even more grumbling. The situation is similar to romantic portrayals of Norman England, with the good and true peasants struggling under the evil yoke of Prince John (as in Robin Hood and Ivanhoe).

The general alignment of an area is determined by the interaction between ruler and ruled. Where the ruler and the population are in harmony, the alignment tendency of the region is strong. When the two conflict, the attitudes of the people have the strongest effect, since the player characters most often deal with people at this level. However, the conflict between the two groups--subjects and lord--over alignment differences can create adventure.

 

[Sacrosanct]

One person's lawful good is another person's lawful evil, depending on which side you're on.

 

[Haldrik]

I think law and goodness can be opposed but it doesn't necessarily have to be.

True Good achieves the greatest good, by navigating and optimizing between both Lawful obligation and Chaotic intention, whichever can achieve the greatest good in the current particular situation.

The problem with Lawful Good is, it drops the ball every time being Chaotic opens up the more Good play.

 

[Azzy]

Gary Gygax expressed such a view in 2005 across several posts on pages 3 and 4 of the linked thread.

Ugh. Yikes.

 

[FrogReaver]

True Good achieves the greatest good, by navigating and optimizing between both Lawful obligation and Chaotic intention, whichever can achieve the greatest good in the current particular situation.

But that's still putting lawful and goodness in opposition.

What if laws were made such that the laws always dictated the same course of action as true goodness?

 

[Haldrik]

One person's lawful good is another person's lawful evil, depending on which side you're on.

Yeah, Lawful really is completely independent from either Good or Evil.

Weirdly, this is one of the things that D&D tradition kinda gets right. Law is fundamentally separate from Good.

If the D&D tradition would stop confusing Lawful and Good, and make an effort to explain Lawful as a phenomenon that is independent of Good, the D&D alignment system would be even more useful. Perhaps without the ongoing confusion between Lawful and Good, it might even end the constant debates that derive from such confusion.

There are advantages and disadvantages to being Lawful, and there are advantages and disadvantages to being Chaotic. Like Yang and Yin, each is ethically neutral. The Dao being the third path between the Yang and Yin, and including both Yang and Yin, is the transcendent path.

 

[Maxperson]

Gary Gygax expressed such a view in 2005 across several posts on pages 3 and 4 of the linked thread.

Gary said this on page 4.

"The non-combatants in a humanoid group might be judged as worthy of death by a LG opponent force and executed or taken as prisoners to be converted to the correct way of thinking and behaving. A NG opponent would likely admonish them to change their ways before freeing them. A CG force might enslave them so as to correct their ways or else do as the NG party did. CN and LN opponents would likely slaughter the lot. Evil opponents would enlist, enslave, or execute them according to the nature of the Evil victors and that of the survivors. Enlistment would be for those of like alignment, slaughter for those opposite the victors' predisposition to order or disorder. Enslavement is an option for any sort of Evil desiring workers.

Cheers,
Gary "

He uses a lot of "might" in there, including stating some good alignments might free the orcs and letting them go after telling them to behave better.