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

Those words should be combined into wang-rod-of-discipline. My new favourite phrase. I’m adding one into my next campaign - a cultist of Sorshan will have one in a 5e Runelords mashup.

For me, banning evil is easy enough. I can see though how a DM could get upperty about distinctions between law, neutral and chaos if they had strident views that they were insistent about enforcing. The kind that would make a paladin fall and enjoy it. My gut feeling is those cases were a problem with the DM though. 5e removed the most contentious issues, but in doing so largely divested alignment of the crunch.

A savvy DM has always been able to handle Paladins and their interactions with the party and a wang-rod wielding one would get people’s backs up. Just like a savvy DM can make the most of alignment and a dictatorial wang-rod waving one will make a hash of it.

Maybe alignment is more prone to wang-rod welders than other 5e rules but so are lots of other elements of the game... magic items, encounters per day, levelling up etc.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

For me, banning evil is easy enough.
But not by using alignment. It was literally just proven in this tread. You said that Chaosmancer's 'evil' example character wouldn't be something you'd want in your campaign. Then Oofta said that they don't think that the character is evil. Thus if someone with a similar view of alignment than Oofta had made that character, they would have called them 'neutral' thus avoiding your evil ban, even though the character was exactly the same! Thus alignment is provably a bad screening method.
 


It was only "proven" to those saying it, though. Basically, those who think they can't, can't. The rest of us can.
TheSword and Oofta both think alignment works, yet their differing interpretation of 'evil' leads to alignment failing as a screening method in a way TheSword wants. This is not a matter of opinion, the proof is literally in this thread.
 

TheSword and Oofta both think alignment works, yet their differing interpretation of 'evil' leads to alignment failing as a screening method in a way TheSword wants. This is not a matter of opinion, the proof is literally in this thread.

OMG! Two DMs come to slightly different impressions of whether or not a non-existent PC is evil after reading someone's post that probably gave a description lacking key details! D&D is FUBAR beyond all recognition get out the flame throwers! :eek:

Good grief. If you don't like alignment don't use it. End of story.
 

OMG! Two DMs come to slightly different impressions of whether or not a non-existent PC is evil after reading someone's post that probably gave a description lacking key details! D&D is FUBAR beyond all recognition get out the flame throwers! :eek:

Good grief. If you don't like alignment don't use it. End of story.


So how is a player supposed to know , going to a new table, what character is allowed or not?

At your table "no evil" allows the greedy criminal. At The Swords, it doesn't. What does the new player do?
 

So how is a player supposed to know , going to a new table, what character is allowed or not?

At your table "no evil" allows the greedy criminal. At The Swords, it doesn't. What does the new player do?

Ask his dm is the character could be in doubt? Bring a back up character that doesn’t have any questionably evils parts.
 



But it rules out 99% of the potentially evil characters.

No, it just rules out the disruptive crap they were going to try. And, maybe the player is going to try and do the same crap, only with LN Judge Dred or Super LG violent paladin.

What you are trying to accomplish with alignment, I try and accomplish by reminding the players they are a team, and that the game goes more smoothly if they work together instead of against each other.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top