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.

 

[Umbran]

1) If they are "Objectively Lawful" and "Objectively Good" then they must agree.

Um... I don't think that's accurate.

For one thing, they are not omniscient. They could disagree in the area where one, the other, or both do not have full knowledge. You cold, n fact, interpret this to actually mean that objectivity requires omniscience.

For another, and perhaps more important, gods have spheres of influence and care. And "lawful", for example, contains both following of writen law, and following tradition. One objectively lawful creature that is focused on the law of the land, while another can be focused on tradition, and thus come to disagreement on some point that concerns both.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Okay, I'll take a stab

Loyal: to whom? Loyalty to friends? Well, that's how people keep friends.
Methodical: They've decided that's the best way to achieve their goals, doesn't affect what those goals are
Careful: same as methodical. CN doesn't mean insane or reckless
Never rash or impulsive: so they like to think things through. CN is their outlook on life, this is behavior. CN does not mean mentally unstable.
Honest: do they have a reason to lie? Are they smart enough to realize they won't get away with it?

To me CN just means you don't see a static order or predefined guiding principles to the universe. You think concepts of order, law, justice, good and evil are concepts made up by narrow minded people. Alignment affects how you view the world and what your goals are not how you achieve those goals.

The part I underlined?

How many people go about their lives thinking deeply about whether the universe is a well-oiled machine or a bag of dice falling down the stairs? I mean if that is your definition, go for it, but that is about the most useless part of the definition I can think of.

Especially in a game where we know for a fact, most of it is determined by a random die roll. Playing a character who believes utterly in divine fate when the player knows that it is in fact all random feels like you are playing a joke character. (It's why I never have prophecies or visions of the future in my games, because I know I can't tell my players "You will fight the dragon king" if they might all die in the woods to a giant.

Um... I don't think that's accurate.

For one thing, they are not omniscient. They could disagree in the area where one, the other, or both do not have full knowledge. You cold, n fact, interpret this to actually mean that objectivity requires omniscience.

For another, and perhaps more important, gods have spheres of influence and care. And "lawful", for example, contains both following of writen law, and following tradition. One objectively lawful creature that is focused on the law of the land, while another can be focused on tradition, and thus come to disagreement on some point that concerns both.

Perhaps Objectivity does require omnisicience and therefor the gods do not know what the objective truth of alignment is. But in that case, like I said, then you might as well be playing with subjective alignment, because if even the gods can't tell you what the objective truth is, then it might as well not exist.


Which I think is where your "law of the land" vs "tradition" example can be used to highlight it.

In a subjective alignment world, this conflict makes sense. You can argue whether or not a new law is better than an old tradition. You could even get into a rather heated discussion about whether it is actually lawful or not.

But, in an objective alignment world, you cannot do this. It is an objective fact on whether that new law is lawful or not. IT is an objective fact whether that new law is good or not. Even if you have an LG and an LN, and they can tell the law is more good than it is lawful, there still can't be an argument about that. It is objectively true how good it is and how lawful it is, and both sides would acknowledge that, and while you could have a debate on whether good is more important than law, they cannot disagree about where that law falls in terms of alignment.

Because alignment is objectively true.



This is why I prefer subjective alignments. Because "Objective Fact" can only be argued when one side refuses to acknowledge the truth, and that is a boring story for me compared to arguing about what is the most true.

 

[Umbran]

Which I think is where your "law of the land" vs "tradition" example can be used to highlight it.

In a subjective alignment world, this conflict makes sense. You can argue whether or not a new law is better than an old tradition. You could even get into a rather heated discussion about whether it is actually lawful or not.

But, in an objective alignment world, you cannot do this.

Yes you can. Because "lawful" is a pretty big tent.

I have a desk I am typing at. I also have a bookshelf next to me. They are both "objectively" members of the set "furnishings in my house", but they are not the same. A person who builds desks is objectively a furnishing-maker. But they still aren't an expert on bookshelves. They are objective, but limited in scope. If you ask an objective but limited being about things outside their scope, and the answers will not necessarily eman what a mortal thinks they do.

You may also be missing a major element - the fact that "objective" and "explainable to a mortal mind" are not equivalent. It is possible that, from a mortal point of view, two lawful gods seem to be in conflict or disagreement, when in fact the whole thing together is in in some ineffable way still objectively lawful.

Consider Chaos, andthe issue gets worse - two objectively chaotic beings are rather prone to disagree because that disagreement is itself an aspect of chaos!

There is also another element here - Objective does not mean complete. Take an entity that is objectivley lawful good. They are objectively lawful, and objectively good... but sometimes that which is good is not lawful, and vice versa. In order to be objectively LG, they may sometimes have to lean a bit to L or a bit to G to make it work out.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You may also be missing a major element - the fact that "objective" and "explainable to a mortal mind" are not equivalent. It is possible that, from a mortal point of view, two lawful gods seem to be in conflict or disagreement, when in fact the whole thing together is in in some ineffable way still objectively lawful.

Things being 'ineffably objectively lawful' is in practical terms exactly the same situation than lawfulness being subjective.

 

[Voadam]

If we assume that "Good" and "Law" have objective truths. And then we assume that their are Dieties who are themselves aligned with "Good" and "Law". And then we assume that these dieties play an active role in the world (as shown in Faerun) then it follows naturally that they will lay down laws and practices which are objectively "Good" and "Lawful".

I think you need some qualifiers in there.

The default cosomolgy is not that gods are elementals of their alignment and bound by their alignments so they can only have aspects consistent with their alignment and cannot act contrary to their alignment. A Good god need not be omni-benevolent.

Generally Deities get assigned alignments just like mortals do, overall they are a specific alignment but their individual actions and individual values can be all over the alignment spectrum.

Apollo is the god of enlightenment and the arts and healing and is generally good overall, but he also shoots people with disease arrows and has been a jerk to a lot of nymphs and satyrs and mortals at points.

A Lawful Good god will probably lay down some law and practices that are Good and Lawful, but there is no guarantee that all such laws and practices handed down will be objectively Lawful and Good or that they will even lay down laws and practices.

Any laws and practices they hand down can be objectively evaluated as to their lawfulness and goodness, or their neutrality, or their chaoticness or their evilness.

 

[Umbran]

Things being 'ineffably objectively lawful' is in practical terms exactly the same situation than lawfulness being subjective.

Most of the time, yes. There will be exceptions when it isn't - specifically when it is mechanically relevant, and the universe says things are one way, and the PC thinks it is another.

 

[Oofta]

The part I underlined?

How many people go about their lives thinking deeply about whether the universe is a well-oiled machine or a bag of dice falling down the stairs? I mean if that is your definition, go for it, but that is about the most useless part of the definition I can think of.

Especially in a game where we know for a fact, most of it is determined by a random die roll. Playing a character who believes utterly in divine fate when the player knows that it is in fact all random feels like you are playing a joke character. (It's why I never have prophecies or visions of the future in my games, because I know I can't tell my players "You will fight the dragon king" if they might all die in the woods to a giant.

One prominent theory in psychology is that of schemas. In simplified terms is that we see the world as we expect to see it. We frame everything based on experience, preferences, biases. You can read about the basic theory here, it has nothing to do with introspection, people automatically put cognitive input into understandable categories, frameworks and schemas. It's how we know the difference between a cat and a dog.

Some people see a clockwork universe with a logical order and mathematical precision. If they are killed by a giant, it was meant to be. It was their time. Others see any order that we assign to the universe as being arbitrary. There is no "reason" someone is killed by the giant it just happens because of luck. In other words, law versus chaos.

 

[dmgorgon]

Thing is, if one removes alignment, which has already been significantly neutered in 5e, then paladins still are obligated to follow their class oaths. Plus, most of D&D, particularly in the de facto default setting of Forgotten Realms, caters towards heroic play. So I do not think that characters of principle would disappear if alignment did. Much as my point much earlier, heroic play is the norm in a number of non-D&D fantasy games that lack alignment, and those games get along swimmingly.

Gygax didn't see things that way. He noticed that players would quickly forget that they were heros and do things no hero would ever do. I see it in my own games from time to time even with alignment. Thankfully, we have alignment in my game to remind players that they are role playing and not just doing whatever the players want and then attempting to justifying in character later on. There is at least an upfront analysis taking place. The players are quickly double checking that the action falls within their LG alignment, which is no different than following an oath.

If you can follow an paladin's oath then I don't see why you can't follow the simple abstraction that is alignment. It's probably even simpler to follow an alignment.

 

[FrogReaver]

Gygax didn't see things that way. He noticed that players would quickly forget that they were heros and do things no hero would ever do. I see it in my own games from time to time even with alignment. Thankfully, we have alignment in my game to remind players that they are role playing and not just doing whatever the players want and then attempting to justifying in character later on. There is at least an upfront analysis taking place. The players are quickly double checking that the action falls within their LG alignment, which is no different than following an oath.

If you can follow an paladin's oath then I don't see why you can't follow the simple abstraction that is alignment. It's probably even simpler to follow an alignment.

What is good? What is evil?

Is murdering 1 person to save 1,000,000 lives good or evil?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Gygax didn't see things that way. He noticed that players would quickly forget that they were heros and do things no hero would ever do. I see it in my own games from time to time even with alignment. Thankfully, we have alignment in my game to remind players that they are role playing and not just doing whatever the players want and then attempting to justifying in character later on. There is at least an upfront analysis taking place. The players are quickly double checking that the action falls within their LG alignment, which is no different than following an oath.

Sorry, but this sounds like training-wheels level roleplaying. If I ever had to rely on alignment for people to properly roleplay the situation would be dire indeed! Beside, if I wanted to do 'just whatever I wanted' I could still easily write 'Chaotic Neutral' or 'Chaotic Evil' on my sheet. It's not like anyone ever complains about chaotic characters acting in too orderly manner or neutral or evil characters acting too decently.

If you can follow an paladin's oath then I don't see why you can't follow the simple abstraction that is alignment. It's probably even simpler to follow an alignment.

Paaldin's Oath is a specific thing is easily observable to the character's in the setting (they can know what the oaths and traditions of various Paladin orders are) and it is evocative of similar thing in the real life.