D&D 5E WotC Explains 'Canon' In More Detail

Recently, WotC's Jeremy Crawford indicated that only the D&D 5th Edition books were canonical for the roleplaying game. In a new blog article, Chris Perkins goes into more detail about how that works, and why.

This boils down to a few points:

• Each edition of D&D has its own canon, as does each video game, novel series, or comic book line.
• The goal is to ensure players don't feel they have to do research of 50 years of canon in order to play.
• It's about remaining consistent.

If you’re not sure what else is canonical in fifth edition, let me give you a quick primer. Strahd von Zarovich canonically sleeps in a coffin (as vampires do), Menzoberranzan is canonically a subterranean drow city under Lolth’s sway (as it has always been), and Zariel is canonically the archduke of Avernus (at least for now). Conversely, anything that transpires during an Acquisitions Incorporated live game is not canonical in fifth edition because we treat it the same as any other home game (even when members of the D&D Studio are involved).

D&D Canon | D&D Studio Blog | Dungeons & Dragons

In this D&D Studio Blog, Chris Perkins describes the D&D Studio's position on canonicity.

dnd.wizards.com

D&D General - WotC: Novels & Non-5E Lore Are Officially Not Canon

At a media press briefing last week, WotC's Jeremey Crawford clarified what is and is not canon for D&D. "For many years, we in the Dungeons & Dragons RPG studio have considered things like D&D novels, D&D video games, D&D comic books, as wonderful expressions of D&D storytelling and D&D lore...

www.enworld.org

 

[Yaarel]

They appear/get mentioned in the core line of 5E books that have been released from 2014 up until now and continuing on with the next three books.

Perkins seems to say, the three core books only, are canon. The other 5e splatbooks may or may not be consistent, but they are noncanon.

For example, a novel writer might want to look at info about Tasha in Tashas, but doesnt need to.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Ahem.

They could have done that as an explanation to change things back through time, but they have not done so or provided any explanation to tie the contradictory new lore to the old lore.

Many of Van Richten's changes to Ravenloft seem a clear example of old edition lore is not cannon and a different continuity from 5e.

I'm going with Spellplague, manifesting as whatever that was in Darkon referenced in Van Richten's.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I appreciate Perkins amended the word "canon" and affirmed the co-existence of multiple Official Canons (Timelines) . Now, if WotC would just recognize their reality in-game, so that there can be occasional "what-if" world-hopping between the different Official Multiverses.

Do want to get Anti-Monitors? Because this is how you get Anti-Monitors.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

Why though? Given that a) in practice DMs will mix, match, and invent, and b) once the players get involved what ever speculative world they are in applies only to them?

It's like trying to make sculptures out of steam

Let me just acknowledge the helpful folks who can be counted on to state the obvious: "Every DM can do what they want." 'Nuff said.

The question is: Why make the various Realities an in-game thing?

Here's why: For the same reason various other IPs have done so: Star Trek (where characters can actually cross over from the Abramsverse to the Prime Timeline and back), TMNT (where the TMNT teams from various timelines - films, comics, tv, - actually joined together for a shared adventure!), and especially Transformers (a fellow Hasbro IP which has probably the most complex and clear conception of multiple timelines, of any IP in the world. Which, like TMNT, has cross-over stories where multiple Optimus Primes from various Universal Streams join forces.)

Because: It's awesome.
Because it's nourishing to the grognards who have invested in the setting. And as long as the in-game explanation is just a sidebar or web article, it doesn't confuse mainstream fans.
Because it provides a fuller validation of the various D&D fandoms. Perkins' more clear and fullsome rewording of Crawford's statement feels good and validating. There are multiple canons yes. Now take it one step further...and make these canons/timelines co-existent from an in-universe perspective!
Because it provides a framework for the occasional cross-over or easter egg between different Timelines/Realities.

D&D aficionados are at least as sharp as Transformers fans...c'mon we can handle it.) Here's the model I'd like to see for D&D:

Universal stream - Transformers Wiki​

tfwiki.net

List of universal streams - Transformers Wiki​

tfwiki.net

Multiverse - Transformers Wiki​

tfwiki.net

Megaverse - Transformers Wiki​

tfwiki.net

Hasbro Universe - Transformers Wiki​

tfwiki.net

Omniverse - Transformers Wiki​

tfwiki.net
Also see Bruce Heard's "Up, Away, and Beyond" for how each edition of D&D is its own Reality.

 

[Mistwell]

I assume you meant to say you don’t feel like that’s the case. Yes, I disagree. It is, by the standard they’ve presented here, currently canon. I do expect it is likely to change in the near future, but for now it is still canon.

No I said what I meant. I feel like the current canon is that orcs should not be considered inherently evil. I feel like that changed a few months ago, and is the current canon they're working with. This, despite contrary wording in the PHB.

 

[Maxperson]

Do want to get Anti-Monitors? Because this is how you get Anti-Monitors.

But they're sooooooo cute! How can anyone be against these fellas.

 

[Dausuul]

Clarification?

"It can also be said that every campaign that’s ever been run in any of our published settings has its own canon. Your version of the Forgotten Realms has its own canon, which doesn’t make it any less valid than anyone else’s version. Elminster might be a lich in your Forgotten Realms campaign. Elminster might be a miniature giant space hamster in mine—both are acceptable and awesome."

So anything and everything we use or create is canon. So quite literally everything official, every novel, and every video game is canon(all that has ever been made officially is used by someone in a campaign) and everything official is simultaneously not canon, as it's has been ignored in some one personal campaign or another.

Some clarification. They made it worse. Now there's no such thing as canon as quite literally everything is both canon and not canon.

The three paragraphs preceding your quote are perfectly clear, straightforward, and lay out WotC's approach to canon.

The quoted text is just a reminder that what we do in our campaigns is perfectly valid no matter what anybody else says. If you don't need that reminder, great! Other people, however, might benefit from it.

 

[Maxperson]

The three paragraphs preceding your quote are perfectly clear, straightforward, and lay out WotC's approach to canon.

And the one I quoted says that everything is simultaneously canon and not canon. They're only going to put out official 5e canon as of the first core books, but all of that is also not canon at the same time.

The quoted text is just a reminder that what we do in our campaigns is perfectly valid no matter what anybody else says. If you don't need that reminder, good for you. Other people, who are not you, might benefit from it.

Not just valid. Canon. He explicitly calls it canon.

 

[Maxperson]

No I said what I meant. I feel like the current canon is that orcs should not be considered inherently evil. I feel like that changed a few months ago, and is the current canon they're working with. This, despite contrary wording in the PHB.

Not just a few months ago. It has been the case since the MM was printed. The MM includes language explaining to DMs that they can deviate from the listed alignments if they like.

"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. If you want a good-aligned green dragon or an evil storm giant, there's nothing stopping you."

 

[Yaarel]

Not just a few months ago. It has been the case since the MM was printed. The MM includes language explaining to DMs that they can deviate from the listed alignments if they like.

"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. If you want a good-aligned green dragon or an evil storm giant, there's nothing stopping you."

Good quote.

It seems like the designers are using this quote as a "proof text" to declare all humanoids being any alignment as a already canon. Thus any future removal of alignment from the statblocks will merely be "clarifications".