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.

 

[Hussar]

And, let's be honest, it's a pretty rare event to have someone start a 70+ page thread about the size of dwarves or whether Orcus is undead or a demon. I can't remember a single discussion along these lines, but, I'm sure someone somewhere has had one.

OTOH, I pull out multiple alignment arguments going back to the pages of The Strategic Review.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It has to do with why (in my opinion / game) the Orc does what he does (obey). He fears an individual personal consequence resulting from fear of a superior power. That is Chaotic (individual consequence / fear with nothing to do with any group) and Evil (he's going to be killed) by an individual. It's like the argumentative, rebellious, disobedient, occasionally deserting, Orcs in the Lord of the Rings books. Lawful Evil characters are on board with the organization. They believe in the group, they would just like to improve their position and be on top of the heap. Like Devils

Again, my 2 cp and I know the results may look similar, but the reasoning is different and the actions of the creatures are different. Orcs are grumbly angry individuals being forced to toe the line, Devils are more like corporate executives looking to move up at any cost by any means. Both suck, but differently

I still think that devils are often described as obeying because they can't tear down their bosses, and fear punishment and reprisals. And Orcs would love to be the big boss, if they were strong enough to take the big boss on. Which means the motivations are the same.

But you seem to have unusual ideas about what people are saying it is accomplishing. For instance, you're spending a lot of effort saying that it doesn't accomplish the goal of providing a complete description of how a creature behaves, when people aren't saying that. Consider the possibility that people like alignment because it is accomplishing the goals they have for it; they're just not the goals you think they are.

People keep giving lists of things alignment tells them about a monster. Which then applies perfectly to a different monster of a different alignment.

How many times do I have to show that CE, NE, and LE are overlapping each other and contradicting themselves before it is enough for people to stop telling me that alignment isn't confused and contradictory?

Centaurs, goliaths, firbolgs, bugbears, dwarves, snakes... there are lots of ways creatures can try the definitions of the size categories.

Um, what?

Goliaths, Firbolgs , Dwarves and Bugbears are all medium.

Size charts tell us that medium is between 4 ft and 8ft

Smallest dwarves can be is 4ft, right on the edge. Bugbears and Goliaths can't break 8 ft, Firbolgs just barely can break it, but that is a very rare circumstance.

Snakes do present an odd problem, being length instead of reach, but that is more a limitation of grid combat and square based minis than the fact that a 20 ft snake is considered huge.

I'm also not sure what you are refering to with centaurs.

Is Orcus an undead or a fiend?
Is Juiblex an ooze or a fiend?
Is Bahamut a dragon or a celestial?
Is a half-dragon a dragon or a humanoid?
Is a dryad a plant or a fey?
Is a fomorian a fey or a giant?
Is a merrow a giant or a monstrosity?
Is a grick a monstrosity or an aberration?
Is a will-o'-wisp an aberration or an undead?
Is an ankheg a monstrosity or a beast?

If someone really wanted to, they could pretty easily launch an attack on the creature type system using your arguments.

Sure they could, but most of those are pretty ridiculous.

Orcus and Juiblex are demon lords, so they should clearly be fiends.
Bahamut is a god, pretty sure gods count as celestial.
Dryads are fey.
Not sure were you get Merrow being Giants from, Monstrosities.
Will-o-Wisp is the soul of the dead, clearly undead.
Ankheg are Monstrosities. Generally beast is saved for things that are very similiar or identical to creatures from the real-world. Ankhegs are like ants, but they are ants the size of pick-up trucks, which never existed in the real world.


Now, a half-Dragon is interesting. It would be a similiar question to whether a half-elf is an elf or a human. Now, I would say they likely don't have enough draconic blood to be dragons. This is based off of kobolds and dragonborn as well, which are draconic, but humanoid. These are clear cut cases though, a spot where we have something whose nature is exactly in the middle, and defined by that middle line.

Fomorians are tricky because they have been defined as both. In 5e they are clearly giants who invaded the Feywild. Nothing about them would really make them Fey at this point.

Grick are defined as Monstrosities, to be an Abberration they would have to come from another plane, like the Far Realms. You could likely make them Aberrations relatively easily. Also note though, Monstrosity is explicitly a catch-all term for "everything else" so it is actually definitionally the term with the widest base of creatures. And the creatures easiest to flip into a different category.

The vast majority of the differences between good and evil are pretty obvious. This whole debate is focusing on corner cases.

Sure, the corner case of Law vs Chaos, just half the alignment axis.

Because we have not once talked about Good and Evil vs each other, except as they are examples towards the issue of Law and Chaos.

But school matters more than alignment does. The wizard subclasses all care about the schools of magic, and the detect magic spell detects school, whereas detect good and evil no longer detects alignment. If "it doesn't matter" is a defense for school, surely it's an even better defense for alignment.

Really? More?

I'm going to translate this to subclasses, using only the PHB and Xanathars.

School of magic matters for 11 subclasses out of....74. That is about 15%. And beyond that it is just magic refering to magic, and it doesn't have to be terrible specific most of the time. Detect magic being the only spell I can thing of that actively refers to magic school.

Meanwhile, alignment is supposed to help define every PC, NPC, Monster, Society, and Plane of Existence in the Multiverse.

I can play a Barbarian and completely ignore magic schools. Still talk about Alignment. Can build an entire culture of magic-hating dwarves, but I'll still need to talk about alignment.

It is far more pervasive than magic schools. And even then, magical schools tend to be much better defined with far fewer corner cases and strange interactions than alignment.

But, thanks for a fun diversion from the endless circle we've been caught in.

 

[R_Chance]

And, let's be honest, it's a pretty rare event to have someone start a 70+ page thread about the size of dwarves or whether Orcus is undead or a demon. I can't remember a single discussion along these lines, but, I'm sure someone somewhere has had one.

OTOH, I pull out multiple alignment arguments going back to the pages of The Strategic Review.

The simpler something is the less argument you get. The more defined something can be, the less argument you get. A lot of people saw 3E (and 3.5E) as empowering players vs. DMs. I saw it as an attempt to define and establish as much precision as possible about the game. Short of writing a hundred plus page definition of alignments you can't get the level of precision for alignment you can in most other aspects of the game. So, alignment threads are a perennial thing, and probably always will be. If you eliminate it people will just shift to arguing about whatever you replace it with (behavior descriptors or whatever) and complain about the lack of a precise system.

 

[R_Chance]

I still think that devils are often described as obeying because they can't tear down their bosses, and fear punishment and reprisals. And Orcs would love to be the big boss, if they were strong enough to take the big boss on. Which means the motivations are the same.

I would say the motivations are different, but the systems may end up looking much the same. Different motivations resulting in similarly brutal systems of oppression.

I think of Devils, as I indicated above, as being company guys. Lying, spying, backstabbing, on the make for a promotion company guys. I think of Orcs as brutal individuals who are forced to be in a system (the Dark Lords army or whatever) because of personal fear and a (perceived) lack of choice. Devils are only going to go rogue (not the class ) and desert in a desperate situation. Orcs, well, whenever the opportunity presents itself they may take off and pursue evil on their own. I would think Orc armies have a much more severe desertion problem vs. Devils. This is not to say that Devils don't fear the possibility of such aberrant behavior, probably all out of reason to the extent of it.

Anyway, I think it colors their behavior, their conversation and their actions as individuals. A Devil spies to get it over on his associates and improve (or defend) his position in the hierarchy. An Orc keeps his eyes open for an (individually) better opportunity for himself, whether it's in the Dark Lords service or as a bandit with his own little crew living "the (not so) good life of less risk, more "fun" and plunder".

Hope that clears it up or makes more sense of it.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

People keep giving lists of things alignment tells them about a monster. Which then applies perfectly to a different monster of a different alignment.

Whether or not that's true, it's not the same as people claiming that alignment provides a full description of the monster's behavior.

How many times do I have to show that CE, NE, and LE are overlapping each other and contradicting themselves before it is enough for people to stop telling me that alignment isn't confused and contradictory?

Once.

You have yet to do so.

You may think you have, but your arguments have always relied on premises you have assumed which the people you are attempting to persuade have not shared. If you keep doing that, you're going to be at this for a long time.

And how are you so aggrieved that people are telling you alignment isn't confused and contradictory? Remember, they are defending their playstyle from you, not the other way around.

Size, damage type, creature type, and school stuff

Oh, for Pete's sake... do you think I actually wanted to have arguments over all those topics? My point was that somebody could. If somebody came at the creature type system with the methodology and persistence with which you're coming at the alignment system, do you really think you could shut them down? Do you think they couldn't keep finding "overlaps" and "contradictions", and repeat over and over again that they had done so?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Anyway, I think it colors their behavior, their conversation and their actions as individuals. A Devil spies to get it over on his associates and improve (or defend) his position in the hierarchy. An Orc keeps his eyes open for an (individually) better opportunity for himself, whether it's in the Dark Lords service or as a bandit with his own little crew living "the (not so) good life of less risk, more "fun" and plunder".

Hope that clears it up or makes more sense of it.

Not really, and I think I know why.

See, both of those is an individual spying and looking to improve his position.

The only difference with the orc is that they might look to go outside of the Dark Lord's service and become a boss themselves. right?

Well, see, Devil's physically don't have that choice. An Orc can run from the Dark Lord, and have a sense of "I'm fine if he doesn't catch me" but a Devil cannot leave the Nine Hells. And even if they do, when they are killed, they go right back to the Nine Hells. And even if that weren't enough, remember Devil's True Names? I am certain the Nine have every devil's true name. And that name can summon and bind them. So even if they run, even if they get to the Prime plane, even if they never get killed by anything during that entire time... they will be summoned directly in front of their boss for Punishment.

It goes into that theory, that if you don't have enough information to make a decision, it is essentially random? Same concept. The Devil's don't have a choice to leave the system. They cannot. So, presenting it like they do have a choice, and that choice defines them doesn't work for how I see them. They could not choose differently.

Once.

You have yet to do so.

You may think you have, but your arguments have always relied on premises you have assumed which the people you are attempting to persuade have not shared. If you keep doing that, you're going to be at this for a long time.

And how are you so aggrieved that people are telling you alignment isn't confused and contradictory? Remember, they are defending their playstyle from you, not the other way around.

I take the information people are presenting me. And l examine it.

Mind Flayers being Lawful Evil does not tell us they play nice with other Mind Flayers. If it did then Beholders would play nice with other Beholders, and Devils wouldn't be constantly scheming to ruin each other for their own gain. Hags, which are neutral evil, also work together. Just as well as Mind Flayers generally.

I'm also showing that if "following rules for fear of punishment" is a factor in orcs being chaotic... well, then Devils are chaotic for the same reason. They also fear being punished for breaking the rules. They just have no capability to escape.

I mean, I've given nearly a dozen different examples, each using the book and the presented case of the person I'm discussing with. Yet I'm relying on my own assumed premises?

Oh, for Pete's sake... do you think I actually wanted to have arguments over all those topics? My point was that somebody could. If somebody came at the creature type system with the methodology and persistence with which you're coming at the alignment system, do you really think you could shut them down? Do you think they couldn't keep finding "overlaps" and "contradictions", and repeat over and over again that they had done so?

Well, they seem like they would have a hard time of it. Seems like a lot of that was much less overlapping and contradictory than you thought.

Though, if you didn't even care in the first place, that explains the Merrow example. I still have no idea where you got the idea for Giant from.

 

[R_Chance]

Not really, and I think I know why.

See, both of those is an individual spying and looking to improve his position.

The only difference with the orc is that they might look to go outside of the Dark Lord's service and become a boss themselves. right?

Well, see, Devil's physically don't have that choice. An Orc can run from the Dark Lord, and have a sense of "I'm fine if he doesn't catch me" but a Devil cannot leave the Nine Hells. And even if they do, when they are killed, they go right back to the Nine Hells. And even if that weren't enough, remember Devil's True Names? I am certain the Nine have every devil's true name. And that name can summon and bind them. So even if they run, even if they get to the Prime plane, even if they never get killed by anything during that entire time... they will be summoned directly in front of their boss for Punishment.

It goes into that theory, that if you don't have enough information to make a decision, it is essentially random? Same concept. The Devil's don't have a choice to leave the system. They cannot. So, presenting it like they do have a choice, and that choice defines them doesn't work for how I see them. They could not choose differently.

I see your point on Devils, their choices might be constrained. I don't have Devils in my game and my knowledge is from reading the various Monster Manuals over the years, not using them in game. Change Devil to any other LE group... say Hobgoblins (I had to check the 5E Monster Manual on their current alignment ). The CE Orc is still working out of personal fear and self preservation and for his own benefit in or out of the Dark Lords army (and probably out of it, being the Dark Lords cannon fodder is not a long term plan for survival). The LE Hobgoblin character is still planning on climbing the hierarchy in his Evil organization. If he shows his strength, survives, and keeps an eye out on his rivals and boss he can make grade and move up. Casualties in his army, and especially at ranks above his, are a potential reason for promotion! Not a reason to bug out, set up on his own and terrorize peasants, Halflings, and merchants for fun and profit. The Hobgoblin is confident his cause will triumph, crushing those weaklings who oppose them.

Anyway, my apologies if it's still unclear. I hope the paragraph above minus the Devil stuff makes it a bit clearer, and, as always, have a good one.

 

[TheSword]

There is an interesting situation here, where if a person tries to defend alignment and other posters keep criticizing it, then alignment gets criticized for causing arguments. If nobody criticized it then it wouldn’t be the source of arguments.

 

[TheSword]

Maybe a follow on question from that might be what makes alignment discussions so contentious. Is it the mutable nature of them and the overlap, and our habits as players of a game with for the most part defined rules.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Personally, as a player who loved 2e and Planescape, I'm a huge fan of the Great Wheel and the cosmic alignment it represents. Beyond that, however, I don't see much utility at all for the alignment system. Leave it for planar stuff and jettison it for all other purposes.