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.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Scoring points is not your strong suit. Goodbye.

Not sure how trying to clarify how Neutral Evil and Neutral good interact with each other, and then being told that you weren't going to bother explaining to me since there was no way you could convince me ends up with me trying to score points.

But, okay, have three points. +3

There is very little nuance in these kinds of arguments. You also have made several blanket statements as if they were facts.

For instance you say that chaotic creatures are against society. Whereas societies have wildly varying degrees of laws and freedoms. Chaos is not against society - it’s against rigid structures.

Right, see, this might be part of the problem. I'm quoting the book here. PHB page 122 "and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral). "

That by the way is it on what "Lawful" and "Chaotic" mean. After that it goes directly into the nine alignments.

So, reading 5e, how am I supposed to take that quote and understand that Chaos is not against society, but instead only against rigid society? Perhaps as a player I am supposed to go and read up on the various planes of existence? If I go to the back of the book I see that CN is... The Ever-Changing Chaos of Limbo.

I might even go and look up the Githzerai, and see that they live in these places... imposing order on the maelstrom which otherwise would prevent anything from forming.

So... perhaps it is not that I am making blanket statements of fact, but that I am relaying the facts that are being presented to me by the game. Nothing about Chaos ever seems to imply that it is fine with society, especially since Society is specifically called out, along with Order.

A nomadic tribe that doesn’t believe in land ownership could be chaotic. A polygamist society that doesn’t believe in long term romantic partnership could be chaotic. A society where guilt is determined by combat rather than trial could be chaotic.

I think from your posts you have made your decision about how you want to use Alignment and that won’t be changed.

On the other hand, I’m not sure how the inclusion of alignment in the game hurts you in any way. It’s two words on a page, can’t you ignore it?

Yes I can ignore it, I've ignored it for years, as have lots of other people.

But, since we are talking about WoTC removing alignment, and people have said "no, it is useful for telling me how monsters should act" I felt that I was able to show that, no, it doesn't and it being removed won't change your game in any meaningful way.

I also love your attempts at Chaotic Societies, because you completely seem to miss that none of those are actually chaotic.

Again, quoting from the PHB

Lawful good creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society.
Lawful neutralindividuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes.
Lawful evil creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.

Your society doesn't believe in long-term partners? Then having multiple short term partners as society expects is lawful. In fact, the chaotic person might break tradition by settling down with a single, long-term partner.

Your justice system traditionally works by trial by combat? Then you are acting in accordance with Tradition and that is Lawful.

Land Ownership? Not believing in Land Ownership is no more chaotic than not believing in paper money. A society could live by strict laws and have no land ownership at all.


It honestly seems like people have this idea of what alignments used to mean, and now are trying to apply that today's rules. Those land ownership and polygamy points in particular seems to indicate that you feel "chaotic" is anything that breaks the laws you are familiar with and understand to bring order, but that ignores the fact that you can have a lawful society with different laws than what you are used to.

It does tell us something. At least it tells me something. I gather you started D&D considerably later than me based on your extensive backstory mentioned above. I would say your backstory should establish the reasons for your current alignment. If you've thought out the backstory that carefully you should know your alignment fairly well (and based on what you say I think you nailed it). Back in the dark ages when I started there was little, if any backstory. As a result alignment was probably more useful.

As for personality, alignment is a good indication. If you think through the ramifications of your choice. Not everyone makes a short story worth of background for that matter. I don't encourage or discourage them with my players btw, and they can be useful both to the player and the DM.

That was just the bullet points to be honest, I tend to write a significant bit for backstories, because they help me figure out who a character is.

For example, while you say that LG was a good choice, I also was part of the Greycloaks, an organization trying to pressure Neverember (the rightful ruler) out of the city and put someone else in charge. That could be read as Chaotic, and was a pretty defining feature of his, wanting to change the current ruling government.

And, I think this is that hardest point Alignment fails at. Good vs Evil? That is a fairly easy divide, we can work with that. Law vs Chaos is a mess, because it is so open to interpretation and nuance.

Just take the above examples from The Sword, which assume that our societal norms are "lawful" and a society expressing different norms is "chaotic"

As always, have a good one and enjoy your game.

Thank you, you as well.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Why do I feel like if I say "I'm trying to show the problems with alignment and why it doesn't help us as DMs or Players" you are going to turn right around and say "Well, you are looking for problems so obviously you will find them, but if you were objective you would see the system actually works and isn't broken"?

Well, for starters, you're talking to people whom alignment does help as DMs and players. Are you trying to persuade us that this thing we're using, which seems not to be broken, is? Why?

Instead of having that conversation, how about this. Stop assuming that I am pointing things out because I lack understanding of the subject matter.

Okay. Imagine you're, I dunno, a Jacobite. And one day you happen across me, staunch anti-Jacobite that I am, launching into an attack on the supposed contradictions of Jacobitism. And in my attack, I attribute definitions, premises, and concepts to Jacobitism that no actual Jacobite would, not just once or twice, but again and again as my standard mode of argumentation. For you to decide that I did not actually understand Jacobitism would not be an assumption; it would be an observation. And if I were to protest, in spite of all the evidence, that I understood Jacobitism perfectly well -- how are you supposed to respond to that, beyond a simple "I'm sorry, but you clearly don't"?

Chaotic alignments are explicitly stated to be anti-society, so you cannot have a Chaotic Society. It is a contradiction.

If chaotic alignments are explicitly stated to be anti-society, you have not quoted that statement. This premise is an invention of yours. The inference that you cannot have a chaotic society: an invention of yours. As you note, chaotic societies abound in D&D. But rather than assuming that your definition of chaotic is correct and therefore this is a contradiction, you ought instead to take this as a sign that perhaps your definition of chaotic is not entirely correct -- that the people who use alignment have a different understanding of that concept than that which you have asserted.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well, for starters, you're talking to people whom alignment does help as DMs and players. Are you trying to persuade us that this thing we're using, which seems not to be broken, is? Why?

Because there are claims that is does things that it does not do.

If chaotic alignments are explicitly stated to be anti-society, you have not quoted that statement. This premise is an invention of yours. The inference that you cannot have a chaotic society: an invention of yours. As you note, chaotic societies abound in D&D. But rather than assuming that your definition of chaotic is correct and therefore this is a contradiction, you ought instead to take this as a sign that perhaps your definition of chaotic is not entirely correct -- that the people who use alignment have a different understanding of that concept than that which you have asserted.

I can only assume you skipped my last post where I quoted the only statement on what the Law vs Chaos scale is meant to represent. Since, that is where I am drawing my premise from, the only rules text we have.

But, you know, it is fair to quote things again. I'll even include the full quote of the rules text, instead of just the law and chaos stuff

PHB page 122 " Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral). "


Lawful good creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society.
Lawful neutral individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes.
Lawful evil creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.


Chaotic good creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect.
Chaotic neutral creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.
Chaotic evil creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust.


So, not only are we shown that "Society and Order" are put together on the scale, and by the term "order" we can assume those are most powerfully associated with Law (making Chaos against those concepts, which is especially since Order and Chaos are antonyms) but that Chaos is about individuals, but there is a problem even with that.

See, look at the points I underlined with Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral, as well as the last part of Lawful Neutral.

CG acts as their conscience directs... which is a personal code. They have rules they hold themselves to that they will not break. And CN cares about their personal freedoms, but what is the most effective way to guarentee your, oh, freedom of Speech? Perhaps a law, guarenteeing that others can't infringe on your rights.

So, a CN, the most chaotic of alignments, would likely be quite happy with passing laws to limit the ability of others to infringe on their rights. While I can't tell you if a person who follows their own moral compass and strict personal code is CG or LN.

These are not, to repeat myself, based on my own invention on what these words might mean, but the literal definitions we have been given to work with.

Sure, we can assume that a chaotic society exists, but the second we try to define it, we run into problems. As The Sword did in presenting multiple examples that were in fact not chaotic at all, because a society is governed by rules, and it is how you react to those rules which determine your alignment, not the nature of the rules themselves.

Okay. Imagine you're, I dunno, a Jacobite. And one day you happen across me, staunch anti-Jacobite that I am, launching into an attack on the supposed contradictions of Jacobitism. And in my attack, I attribute definitions, premises, and concepts to Jacobitism that no actual Jacobite would, not just once or twice, but again and again as my standard mode of argumentation. For you to decide that I did not actually understand Jacobitism would not be an assumption; it would be an observation. And if I were to protest, in spite of all the evidence, that I understood Jacobitism perfectly well -- how are you supposed to respond to that, beyond a simple "I'm sorry, but you clearly don't"?

Well, despite your claims here, you seem to be missing a step. Like, actually pointing out any facts or evidence to refute what I am saying.

See, your example requires that one person be using definitons, premises, and concepts that they other side would never use, and presuming the other side uses them. But, I'm using the definitions in the book. I'm pulling the premises directly from the text.

And, instead of trying to provide your own examples, you have instead just repeatedly put forth my obvious inability to understand the "real" definitions of alignment. Not saying what those are of course, just saying I clearly don't understand them. And, I'm sorry, but you asserting I don't know what I'm talking about, and providing no counters accept to put forth that I clearly don't know what I'm talking about, really doesn't convince me of anything.

 

[TheSword]

Because there are claims that is does things that it does not do.

I can only assume you skipped my last post where I quoted the only statement on what the Law vs Chaos scale is meant to represent. Since, that is where I am drawing my premise from, the only rules text we have.

But, you know, it is fair to quote things again. I'll even include the full quote of the rules text, instead of just the law and chaos stuff

PHB page 122 " Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral). "
Lawful good creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society.
Lawful neutral individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes.
Lawful evil creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.


Chaotic good creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect.
Chaotic neutral creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.
Chaotic evil creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust.


So, not only are we shown that "Society and Order" are put together on the scale, and by the term "order" we can assume those are most powerfully associated with Law (making Chaos against those concepts, which is especially since Order and Chaos are antonyms) but that Chaos is about individuals, but there is a problem even with that.

See, look at the points I underlined with Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral, as well as the last part of Lawful Neutral.

CG acts as their conscience directs... which is a personal code. They have rules they hold themselves to that they will not break. And CN cares about their personal freedoms, but what is the most effective way to guarentee your, oh, freedom of Speech? Perhaps a law, guarenteeing that others can't infringe on your rights.

So, a CN, the most chaotic of alignments, would likely be quite happy with passing laws to limit the ability of others to infringe on their rights. While I can't tell you if a person who follows their own moral compass and strict personal code is CG or LN.

These are not, to repeat myself, based on my own invention on what these words might mean, but the literal definitions we have been given to work with.

Sure, we can assume that a chaotic society exists, but the second we try to define it, we run into problems. As The Sword did in presenting multiple examples that were in fact not chaotic at all, because a society is governed by rules, and it is how you react to those rules which determine your alignment, not the nature of the rules themselves.




Well, despite your claims here, you seem to be missing a step. Like, actually pointing out any facts or evidence to refute what I am saying.

See, your example requires that one person be using definitons, premises, and concepts that they other side would never use, and presuming the other side uses them. But, I'm using the definitions in the book. I'm pulling the premises directly from the text.

And, instead of trying to provide your own examples, you have instead just repeatedly put forth my obvious inability to understand the "real" definitions of alignment. Not saying what those are of course, just saying I clearly don't understand them. And, I'm sorry, but you asserting I don't know what I'm talking about, and providing no counters accept to put forth that I clearly don't know what I'm talking about, really doesn't convince me of anything.

There are some things to consider which might help you appreciate other people’s point of view.

Firstly you’re assuming a single line of text can sum up an entire philosophy and then you’re assuming lots of ‘next steps’ to justify what you perceive to be irreconcilable issues. In reality alignments are far more complicated than that. Debate on the varying alignments has continued for decades... I’m not surprised... these are philosophical and as such are not clean cut.

You have missed out two key quotes in your selective passages above...

“...which broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes.”

and...

“...few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment.”

You’re assuming that the traits of an alignment are mutually exclusive. when in fact intelligent creatures are rarely that simple. Alignments suggest a general trend. It isn’t that creatures that have a default or trend to one alignment can’t EVER behave differently to that. Alignment is on a continuum, each division is not an all encompassing dictation of behaviour to the most extreme degree.

You are assuming that any common activity a creature does is a tradition and because it is a tradition it is therefore lawful. That is a faulty assumption. Elves may have multiple partners not because society tells them too, but because they like it and other Elves don’t care. Some things are traits, or trends, Elves could behave differently if they wanted to, they just don’t care too.

Elves, cloud giants, some gnomes and other chaotic creatures do have societies. The fact that they do, and proves that the Chaotic creatures are not “anti” society as you claim, but just have a different ‘attitude’ towards society... just as the quote says. They still have traditions and customs, a chaotic creature just wouldn’t feel beholden to them.

You say the alignment descriptions are ‘rules’ of the new edition. That is an unhelpful fixation. You are ignoring that alignment is a guide not a Straight jacket.

 

[jsaving]

CG acts as their conscience directs... which is a personal code...

No, it is not. The whole point of CG is that you do what you consider right at the time no matter what any previously agreed upon rules might say, whereas someone LN follows their previously agreed upon code/ruleset even when their heart tells them otherwise.

I can't tell you if a person who follows their own moral compass and strict personal code is CG or LN.

If you see strict adherence to a pre-written personal code as following your conscience, then I can see why it would become difficult to distinguish CG from LN. But I think that is straying quite far from RAW or at least RAI.

 

[Maxperson]

Every Red Dragon depiction that I have seen pulls on the imagery of a ruler. They are presented as Kings and Empresses. They are isolationist, but they also create spy networks and utilize slaves to defend it.

Not a King or Emperor. A crazy violent dictator. Think North Korea. CE fits that mold.

Amusingly, the next page over is the Green Dragon, the decietful manipulators who seek to twist kingdoms and realms into dark mockeries of themselves, spreading fear, despair and ruin.

Green Dragons are Lawful Evil.

The puppet master pulling the strings behind the throne with its plots. LE is a perfect fit.

 

[Maxperson]

Because there are claims that is does things that it does not do.




I can only assume you skipped my last post where I quoted the only statement on what the Law vs Chaos scale is meant to represent. Since, that is where I am drawing my premise from, the only rules text we have.

But, you know, it is fair to quote things again. I'll even include the full quote of the rules text, instead of just the law and chaos stuff

PHB page 122 " Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral). "


Lawful good creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society.
Lawful neutral individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes.
Lawful evil creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.


Chaotic good creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect.
Chaotic neutral creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.
Chaotic evil creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust.


So, not only are we shown that "Society and Order" are put together on the scale, and by the term "order" we can assume those are most powerfully associated with Law (making Chaos against those concepts, which is especially since Order and Chaos are antonyms) but that Chaos is about individuals, but there is a problem even with that.

See, look at the points I underlined with Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral, as well as the last part of Lawful Neutral.

CG acts as their conscience directs... which is a personal code. They have rules they hold themselves to that they will not break. And CN cares about their personal freedoms, but what is the most effective way to guarentee your, oh, freedom of Speech? Perhaps a law, guarenteeing that others can't infringe on your rights.

So, a CN, the most chaotic of alignments, would likely be quite happy with passing laws to limit the ability of others to infringe on their rights. While I can't tell you if a person who follows their own moral compass and strict personal code is CG or LN.

These are not, to repeat myself, based on my own invention on what these words might mean, but the literal definitions we have been given to work with.

Sure, we can assume that a chaotic society exists, but the second we try to define it, we run into problems. As The Sword did in presenting multiple examples that were in fact not chaotic at all, because a society is governed by rules, and it is how you react to those rules which determine your alignment, not the nature of the rules themselves.

There are no problems in defining a chaotic society. Stateless societies with few rules still exist. Not many, but they do, and were much more common the farther back you go.

In a fantasy setting you can create fantasy societies that are chaotic as a state. It's not hard to do. Loose rules and laws, and laws identifying more rights and power to individuals, etc.

Simply having rules/laws doesn't invalidate the chaos and turn a chaotic society lawful. It all depends on what the rules state, how stringently they are enforced, etc.

 

[Maxperson]

No, it is not. The whole point of CG is that you do what you consider right at the time no matter what any previously agreed upon rules might say, whereas someone LN follows their previously agreed upon code/ruleset even when their heart tells them otherwise.

Correct. A code is a predefined act for a given situation. If my PC has a personal rule that he pinches the cheeks of each child he meets, that is a code. If my PC has a "rule" that he acts however he wants, whenever he wants, that is not a code. There is nothing predefining his specific actions in specific circumstances.

If you see strict adherence to a pre-written personal code as following your conscience, then I can see why it would become difficult to distinguish CG from LN. But I think that is straying quite far from RAW or at least RAI.

Absolutely.

 

[Hussar]

Just to add 2cp to the alignment debate.

The primary issue with alignment is that you can have five people look at the exact same situation, come up with six different alignments to describe the actions of the actors in the situation, have a couple of those alignments be diametrically opposed:

And have all of them be able to justify their interpretations within the framework of the rules.

IOW, alignment rarely tells anyone anything because it's all in the eye of the beholder. Is this character good or evil? Well, I can point to A, B, and C and say the character is Lawful Good. Someone else looks at the character, points to X, Y and Z and says the character is Chaotic Evil. And we're both right.

Which tends to make alignment not really good at anything.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Because there are claims that is does things that it does not do.

Okay, that's pretty vague. What specifically is your endgame? Do you want to see people who are currently happy with the system become unhappy? What's it to you whether we're happy or unhappy? And, perhaps a more salient question, is what you're doing working to bring your endgame about? You've made several people unhappy with you, but I haven't seen anyone here become unhappy with the system on account of your efforts. From what I can gather, this isn't the first time you've had this conversation, either -- what would you estimate is your success rate overall? Not too high? Perhaps it's time to reconsider your approach?

So, not only are we shown that "Society and Order" are put together on the scale, and by the term "order" we can assume those are most powerfully associated with Law (making Chaos against those concepts, which is especially since Order and Chaos are antonyms) but that Chaos is about individuals, but there is a problem even with that.

See, look at the points I underlined with Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral, as well as the last part of Lawful Neutral.

CG acts as their conscience directs... which is a personal code. They have rules they hold themselves to that they will not break. And CN cares about their personal freedoms, but what is the most effective way to guarentee your, oh, freedom of Speech? Perhaps a law, guarenteeing that others can't infringe on your rights.

So, a CN, the most chaotic of alignments, would likely be quite happy with passing laws to limit the ability of others to infringe on their rights. While I can't tell you if a person who follows their own moral compass and strict personal code is CG or LN.

These are not, to repeat myself, based on my own invention on what these words might mean, but the literal definitions we have been given to work with.

I have simply highlighted in bold the places where you make inferential leaps in the paragraphs immediately prior to the claim that you don't make inferential leaps.

Well, despite your claims here, you seem to be missing a step. Like, actually pointing out any facts or evidence to refute what I am saying.

Fact: It does not explicitly say in the book that chaos is anti-society or that chaotic societies are impossible.
Fact: It does explicitly say in the book that chaotic societies exist.
Fact: I have personally run campaigns with chaotic societies for years and never once has my game crashed on account of logical contradiction.
Fact: Never once has your game crashed on account of what's going on in my game.

And, instead of trying to provide your own examples, you have instead just repeatedly put forth my obvious inability to understand the "real" definitions of alignment. Not saying what those are of course, just saying I clearly don't understand them. And, I'm sorry, but you asserting I don't know what I'm talking about, and providing no counters accept to put forth that I clearly don't know what I'm talking about, really doesn't convince me of anything.

This conversation began with me trying to counter your assertions by explaining, e.g., how yugoloths differ from demons and devils, how despots can be chaotic, etc. Once it became clear that this object-level approach was not going to get anywhere, I changed tack.