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.

 

[dmgorgon]

When I read these arguments against alignment I can't help but think they want characters to do acts of evil or acts of good at anytime and without the need for any sort of justification. They are essentially arguing for everyone to be N or maybe even CN.

In other words, you could simply say that everyone in the game is N and the game would make these folks happy.

In game, I can envision traveling to the outer-planes and having the exact same conversation with a true neutral philosopher who thinks that everyone else is wrong, and that there is no good or evil.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I know. But, you're only getting an answer if they feel like giving one. I think on minor matters they are going to get quiet. Not on the big stuff, just the little bits. And since when haven't people been willing to argue the little bits, or for that matter commit mass murder over them anyway? And the gods might not say too much on the small things. In a universe where worshippers = power they might want to keep a "big tent" and maximize their influence / power.

You seem to be of the opinion that alignment is a horribly broken system that doesn't offer much without the DM fixing it. Which then baffles me why you would want to keep it.

However, you are also making a claim here that I would say is just factually wrong. And is a problem with Active gods who are morally right. See, Pelor for example is a God of Light and Healing. And if, for example, his followers got it in their heads that a minor difference in doctrine justified a religious war, all sparked because Pelor was silent.... why is Pelor making his followers fight each other? War is terrible, thousands will be killed, injured, food will become scarce... why do that instead of sending an Angel to resolve the situation and make his position very clear?

You are literally saying the Gods of Good would be okay with wars being fought instead of staking out their positions. Which is insanity.

 

[R_Chance]

You seem to be of the opinion that alignment is a horribly broken system that doesn't offer much without the DM fixing it. Which then baffles me why you would want to keep it.

I think they have neglected it, making it less useful. I don't think it should have been neglected, nor should everything that is neglected simply be eliminated.

However, you are also making a claim here that I would say is just factually wrong. And is a problem with Active gods who are morally right. See, Pelor for example is a God of Light and Healing. And if, for example, his followers got it in their heads that a minor difference in doctrine justified a religious war, all sparked because Pelor was silent.... why is Pelor making his followers fight each other? War is terrible, thousands will be killed, injured, food will become scarce... why do that instead of sending an Angel to resolve the situation and make his position very clear?

You are literally saying the Gods of Good would be okay with wars being fought instead of staking out their positions. Which is insanity.

It depends on how "active" they are. And whether the conflict is over a moral issue or something like church governance (i.e. an episcopal system vs. congregational control).

If it goes too far a god like Pelor might intervene. Other gods, not so much. Examples of intervention and not non intervention could both be trotted out. I don't use the common roster of D&D gods (they didn't exist when I started). A god of war, for example, might consider a conflict to prove the strength of one sect over another to be the right way.

Pull back from the "Good" and it's not so insane.

 

[jsaving]

You are equating "Good" with "right", because we all know, in real life, that "Evil" is "wrong". Not so much in D&D. When being evil is an acceptable (I almost said good ) option, then people can feel "righteous" about being it.

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean but I am genuinely puzzled by the thought that evil isn't "wrong" in D&D. The core rules define Good as "morality" which has a dictionary definition of "virtue," suggesting there's pretty much a complete correspondence between Good and "right" in D&D.

If you were in a location where preying on the weak was normal and acceptable, then people could certainly spin stories to themselves about how their self-interested behavior is actually justified or even appropriate. But that would not make the behavior virtuous, even if everyone else was doing it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Pull back from the "Good" and it's not so insane.

Which is why I didn't talk about it happening with an Evil deity.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

When I read these arguments against alignment I can't help but think they want characters to do acts of evil or acts of good at anytime and without the need for any sort of justification. They are essentially arguing for everyone to be N or maybe even CN.

Nah, we just want to make realistic and possibly complicated character who act according to their personality and don't want things to be dumbed-down to ridiculous binary labels. (Most of my characters are pretty decent, at least deep down.)

 

[Oofta]

Nah, we just want to make realistic and possibly complicated character who act according to their personality and don't want things to be dumbed-down to ridiculous binary labels. (Most of my characters are pretty decent, at least deep down.)

Which is why I stress to new players that alignment is just one of many aspects of their character, no more or less important than backstory, traits, bonds or flaws.

Seems to me that alignment is only an issue when used as a straightjacket and taken to the extremes. It's a general descriptor, that's all.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Which is why I stress to new players that alignment is just one of many aspects of their character, no more or less important than backstory, traits, bonds or flaws.

Seems to me that alignment is only an issue when used as a straightjacket and taken to the extremes. It's a general descriptor, that's all.

To me it is an useless and even harmful descriptor. I decide the character's personality, values and motivations. I don't want to decide whether my character is 'good' or 'evil' as those are value judgements. And law and chaos don't describe anything meaningful so those just add confusion. Besides, many interesting characters intentionally have unclear relationship to 'good' and 'evil' such as a character who has noble goals but is willing to use increasingly questionable methods to achieve them.

 

[R_Chance]

Which is why I didn't talk about it happening with an Evil deity.

Are all deities Good? That's why I talked about it.

 

[R_Chance]

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean but I am genuinely puzzled by the thought that evil isn't "wrong" in D&D. The core rules define Good as "morality" which has a dictionary definition of "virtue," suggesting there's pretty much a complete correspondence between Good and "right" in D&D.

If you were in a location where preying on the weak was normal and acceptable, then people could certainly spin stories to themselves about how their self-interested behavior is actually justified or even appropriate. But that would not make the behavior virtuous.

My opinion of 5Es handling of alignment isn't high Do you think in a Lawful Evil nation they see themselves as "wrong"? I'm sure the subjects of a Lawful Good nation (assuming they are LG) see it as "right". I'm just as certain that the LE subjects of a Lawful Evil nation see themselves as "right". Right means correct, not good or evil. I suspect that the way they explain alignment, with terms like "virtue", in the book relates to how we see good (it's right) and evil (it's wrong) in the real world. Not how the inhabitants of the fantasy world see themselves. Nobody, in real life or in a fantasy world, thinks they are "wrong".

My 2 cp, ymmv of course.