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

I took it for what you saw at its worst: D&D should shy away from Objective Good and Evil as a defining power in the cosmos and instead focus on personal (in this case selfless vs selfish) definitions. My point is you don't need alignment if you are going to define good and evil as personal choices vs. Cosmic Forces. If you get rid of Cosmic Good and Evil, you might as well get rid of Law and Chaos since those aren't exactly A game material and just make alignment part of the Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws of a character.

And yes, it's an opinion piece from a nonofficial site. But it points to me a through-line: the rhetoric about "always evil" monsters, the removal of alignment from humanoid monster types, Jeremy's discussion of alignment that began this thread, and now this. There is a movement in the community to shy away from Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos being immutable cosmic forces on which the multiverse is built and move it towards "another personal choice a character makes".

I'm holding to my prediction: the current trend will be for D&D to continue shy away from alignment even as an RP tool and eventually to dispose of it entirely.


To echo the other posters. Good. I'll be glad when it is gone.

To be clear, I don't think this will do anything to demons or devils, they will still exist, but players and races will have to try harder than "I'm a good guy" going forward, and that is already what I ask for at my table.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

You don't like owlbears? What chimera, griffons, and hippogrifs? Medusas? We must live on different planets. "The wizard's mad experiment" is the best type of monster.

Oh, sorry, I do like "a Wizard did it." Is that the idea of Gnome-Troll hybrids? I thought you were getting at Half-orc like storytelling, but honestly I've forgotten the specifics of that version of the Gnoll.
 


Keep in mind that the Ecology articles are fan submitted and are not official. Also, the lore of Beholders (and many other creatures) have changed through the editions.

In the context of my post I was merrely making the point that different folks use them differently, and that there was precedent.

Not citing "canon".

My beholders are different anyhoo...
 


Still, though, the author defines good and evil in concrete terms: selflessness vs. selfishness.
Personally, I characterize the ethical polarity of Good versus Evil as:

Sharing versus Selfish

One doesnt need to hate oneself (Selfless).

One needs to be as fair to others as one is to oneself (Sharing).



In other words, it is impossible to know how to love others, unless one first loves oneself



I want D&D core to have an intutive and clear definition for each alignment, that is useful for gaming. But use it as a descriptor, and never a mechanic. I find humanoids having freewill and emphasizing individual alignment choice appealing.
 

Trying to interrogate D&D with modern real-world morality is a fool's game. There may be RPGs out that that wrestle with ethical issues in a nuanced way. D&D isn't one of them.

The main thing you do in the game is kill sentient beings with swords, axes, and fireballs. For fun and profit. Nobody in the real world thinks that's justifiable. If you try to impose real-world values, ideologies, and expectations onto D&D, the whole thing falls apart.
 

Trying to interrogate D&D with modern real-world morality is a fool's game. There may be RPGs out that that wrestle with ethical issues in a nuanced way. D&D isn't one of them.

The main thing you do in the game is kill sentient beings with swords, axes, and fireballs. For fun and profit. Nobody in the real world thinks that's justifiable. If you try to impose real-world values, ideologies, and expectations onto D&D, the whole thing falls apart.
In that kind of setting, the descriptor "Good" seems less pertinent.

An all-Evil campaign is doable for a setting that expects characters to "kill sentient beings for fun and profit".
 



Remove ads

Remove ads

Top