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]

Apples and oranges. States may be social constructs, but most are tied to a concrete, geographic location with broad agreement about their identity (disputes in places like Kashmir, excepted).
Moral structures don't have many such objective ties that are so widely accepted. That’s why various famous lawgivers like Moses, Lycurgus, and Numa have sought to do so by appealing to supernatural authorities... of course, it’s kind of hard to prove their objective existence these days.

If I say that Moses gave Twelve Commandments and one of them was "Thou shalt not stack dice at the game table", I'm objectively wrong.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Ive used it with outsiders able to change alignment (rare as it may be) since AD&D.

CG Titans had an entire subfaction canonically canonicaly change alignment to NE (and had a war, leading to Hades or Ghenna? being a wasteland). Ditto Erinyes and other fallen Angels. Grazzt was once a demon. In 3.5 there was a redeemed Succubus as canon as well.

It's extremely rare, but it does happen. When it does, they outsiders type tends to change as well (Angels become Fiends etc).

Nothing has changed. I really dont get why people are getting worked up over this.

I'm not sure how this is a response to what I said?

 

[Haldrik]

That gets us back to the argument of 'what alignment is the Alien from Aliens'.

If demons lack freewill (and I view they do lack it), then are they Evil?

I would say no. They are cosmic forces, like gravity. These forces make it possible for humans to do evil actions.

In a sense, they make freewill possible, thus actually serve a Good function ultimately.

What matters is what humanity does (including other D&D humanoids).

 

[Flamestrike]

I'm saying that you presented the nature of morality as an easy question,

No I didnt. I stated my own view is that Natural Law does not exist in reality. I'm not saying morality is easy to determine at all; its wholly subjective and contextual.

In the game that position changes. We have a DM who can say (for example) action X is morally good (or morally evil). Seeing as the view seems to be in DnD that alignment is a cosmic objective force (as in there are outer planes comprised of the stuff, where if the inhabitants change alignment, they cease being the type of inhabitants of that plane) then its largely up to the DM to determine what Good and Evil 'are'.

The game seems to have a general assumption that 'altruism, mercy, compassion, charity' are moral goods, and 'harming others' is a moral wrong (evil). This has remained reasonably consistent throughout the editions, by implication and sometimes even express words in works.

 

[ArwensDaughter]

I remember chatting with Andy (Collins) about this around the time 4e was released, when he related the dev team's view that Chaos is inherently evil because it puts the needs of the individual above the community whereas Law is inherently good for prioritizing the community. From that point of view, you can see how it would make perfect sense to delete the "irrational" alignments of CG/CN and LE/LN -- though from the chart Jeremy presented here you can see why so many players would be unhappy about that.

So would say someone who is heavily LG or LN. But Lawful can be it’s own kind of evil, becoming too rigid, lacking empathy and mercy. And the law itself can be unjust, in which case breaking the law is a good thing and upholding it is evil.

(This is similar to dannyalctraz’s point; i would have preferred to quote you both, but couldn’t figure out how to do it from the app)

In DnD I have tended to play NG characters, because I believe that law and chaos need to be balanced. In real life, I lean pretty heavily toward LG when it comes to my own life choices and actions, but I’m not unaware of the dangers of that, and at least in my better moments I don’t expect others to lawful in order to qualify as good in my book.

 

[Maxperson]

Oh yeah man, he was really really bad. RaHoWa levels of bad.

I'll never buy a thing licensed to his estate ever.

I've never understood this. I mean, while Michael Jackson was alive I wouldn't buy or listen to his music, but now that he's dead I don't see any reason to transfer sins to the children, so I listen again. Do you have evidence that those who gain from Lovecraft's estate are like he was?

 

[Fenris-77]

Oh yeah man, he was really really bad. RaHoWa levels of bad.

I'll never buy a thing licensed to his estate ever.

Good thing the Mythos is public domain then, eh?

 

[Bagpuss]

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

That is the best argument for removing alignment from D&D. If the terms are subjective and meaningless, they have no use in the game.

It would be except for being it blatantly wrong. Good and Evil aren't that subjective in D&D.

 

[NaturalZero]

Roleplaying without acting is still roleplaying.

Right. Like I said, you can tell me that a character is doing a thing and some folks think that counts as roleplay. It's a valid way to play regardless.

Acting is like some fruit on the ice cream. It is nice to have but it is not the ice cream. Many so called roleplayer do not even know how to roll initiative, what alignment is, how to make an attack roll etc.. They just like to be on the screen. The context is irrelevant for them.

You can be the best roleplayer to ever live without knowing anything about rolling initiative or making an attack roll. You can roleplay without knowing anything about the rules. You can roleplay without any rules or game. You're conflating the "G" in RPG with the "R."

 

[PsyzhranV2]

It would be except for being it blatantly wrong. Good and Evil aren't that subjective in D&D.

Unless Good and Evil are explicitly laid out in detail in the core books, they might as well subjective. In-universe Good and Evil might be objective, but if nobody at the out-of-universe table can agree on what Good and Evil are, or even figure out what the rules-as-written are trying to say what they are, the whole point is moot.

Once again, you can't dismiss out-of-universe critiques with in-universe justifications.