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

 

[Maxperson]

If you keep alignment in the statblock, you're not accounting for the people who don't want alignment. If your response is that we can just ignore it... well, that's like saying that you can just ignore the lack of alignment and write in your own.

It's not, but I'm not going to argue with you about it.

If "lawful good" is in a gold dragon's statblock with a table off to the side of other alignments, then the only difference between that and the way it is now is there's a table.

Yes, a table that allows you to only use it and not alignment.

If there's no alignment listed in the statblock, but there's a table of ideals like the ones they have for Backgrounds, then that's a great compromise. Even if most of the entries are good-natured with only one or two that aren't.

Removing it from the stat block is NOT a compromise. It's you selfishly getting your own way at the expense of rest of us.

I think that most of us who dislike alignment are fine with it for individuals. It's just when you have an entire species that's the same alignment without having a really good reason for it--like being a supernatural entity with alignment-based "programming"--that there's problems. A table, like the one in my second option, allows for dragons as individuals. The first option, and the way it currently is written, doesn't.

Again, ways have been proposed that keep alignment without every member of the species being that alignment. You just won't hear of any possible compromise and only want to get your own way.

 

[Mistwell]

You are technically correct. But I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve with this tack.

I am saying that the claim of "if it's the PHB it's canon" isn't correct. It's more refined than that even. I suspect they have a canon bible which they alter as they go, which does differ from the PHB in some respects. Particularly as concerns some books like Xanathat's and Tasha's.

 

[Maxperson]

Possibly, but is it really canon if it is never shared? I mean unless they reprint the core 3 and add more lore, anything in there "internal canon" is not really canon. By their statement, nothing in VGtM or MToF, or VRGtR or any other book is canon. Now maybe it follows this "internal canon," but they have now specifically said that it is not canon. Those books are public facing, and explicitly not canon. I think that is very interesting and liberating.

I suspect that everything that they've put out to date for 5e is internal canon and the core three are the public facing canon.

 

[Mistwell]

Ah, I misread - missed the “not” in “orcs are not inherently evil.”

At any rate, I disagree. I think “orcs are not inherently evil” is what they are moving towards making canon, but it’s an ongoing process. Currently, orcs are still inherently evil according to canon, but that will be phased out soon, and this article suggests that a revised printing of the core books is likely to be a step in that process.

They've said what they mean by canon is what they go off of right now when they write books - not what happens at your table. In what way are they not using that "orcs are not inherently evil" as their canon right now for writing products?

I guess let's drill down on what they said:

"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, but they are not canonical for the D&D roleplaying game...If you’re looking for what’s official in the D&D roleplaying game, it’s what appears in the products for the roleplaying game. Basically, our stance is that if it has not appeared in a book since 2014, we don’t consider it canonical for the games."

Then they go on to give an example that things which happen in 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)."

Their entire perspective on canon is "What do we, the WOTC design team, think is canon when we draft our products?" And they view that as separate from "any other home game."

Canon, in this context, isn't what the public thinks is canon. It's what WOTC thinks is canon when they write stuff. And I am saying right now, WOTC thinks it's canon that orcs are not inherently evil. Which is all they've been talking about here - what they think is canon for purposes of them writing stuff.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

This makes sense to me as a 'back end' adjustment, that is, sorting all these things out for content creators, especially the freelance writers they hire for the adventure paths, so that they there is clarity in where they are drawing on lore from past editions and where they are making a change. But for 'front end' users, that taxonomy of different realities is confusing.

No more confusing than how the main Marvel comic stories are set in Earth-616 (within Universe-616), and how the Marvel Cinematic Universe is set in Universe-199999. Or the many other Marvel realities are named and could be visited in-game...such as Universe-8311, where Marvel characters are anthropomorphic animal cartoonfolk (such as Peter Porker):

Existing Realities

marvel.fandom.com

Heck, the new Marvel RPG coming out next year even leverages the "Earth-616" moniker for the name of the game system: the D616 System!

Marvel also uses the Transformers' hierarchy of Multiverse (Marvel Universes proper), Megaverse (where Marvel crosses over with other IPs), and Omniverse (every fictional IP ever conceived, plus the real world):

Multiverse

The Multiverse is the collection of alternate realities which share a universal hierarchy; it is a subsection of the larger Omniverse, the collection of all realities. A large variety of these universes were originated as forms of divergence from other realities, where an event, with different...

marvel.fandom.com

Omniverse

3 appearance(s) of Omniverse 15 mention(s) of Omniverse 1 mention(s) in handbook(s) of Omniverse 8 image(s) of Omniverse 2 characters that originate from Omniverse 1 teams that originate from Omniverse 1 organizations that originate from Omniverse 7 locations that originate from Omniverse 1...

marvel.fandom.com

Or the similarly complex and awesome DC Multiverses, where, for example, the 1980s cartoon Super Friends takes place in Universe-Thirty-Two.

Multiverse

#Perpetua's Multiverse was the original form of the multiverse but it was twisted by its creator, Perpetua, into a dangerous self-sustaining weapon. It was reformatted into the Original Multiverse by the Source with Perpetua sealed behind the Source Wall. The Multiverse is a collection of...

dc.fandom.com

Omniverse

The Omniverse was created countless eons ago by the The Source of all Existence, the very first being in all of Creation. It also birthed a race of Omega-Class entities, the so-called The Hands, also referred to as Super-Celestials, who were tasked to create the Multiverses using [[The Seven The...

dc.fandom.com

Not that the mainstream fan follows all that, but it's there for the grognard users, and also for clarity's sake on the back end. When there's not this clarity, we get Multiverse Shattering Events or stealth reboots or Disney not recognizing that Star Wars Legends is a universe that still exists alongside the Story Group Universe. Which feels pushy. Crawford's original statement (though brief) had that feel. Perkins did a good job in unpacking it.

If I want to drop a Greyhawk (or, say, Norse) deity into my FR game, am I doing a "cross-over" needing a fuller explanation or just borrowing a thing for my game? Of course, if I'm the DM in that game I can just do whatever, but that obviates the need for wotc to make all these realities discrete from one another in an official way.

Hey, just like Perkins said, everyone's own campaign is its own unique Multiverse. There are millions of aficionado-crafted D&D Multiverses. Every time a DM establishes a new setting or continuity, it's a new reality. And whatever the DM imagines is Canon: exactly according to your whim. So in your Multiverse needs no explanation whatsoever. Add Darth Vader and the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man as deities too...it's up to you! Heck, check out my Shared World setting, which is a hodge-podge mix of the Sword Coast, the Duchy of Berhof from Oerth, and Karameikos from Mystara!

But there are only so many TSR/WotC Multiverses and realities. They ought to be untangled and clearly brought to consciousness. And honored. For example, you can see over the Piazza (here) where I'm untangling the various Basic D&D settings and implied settings, which have been confusedly tangled up.

Who counts as a grognard?

Well, anyone who considers themself to be a grognard.

I try to avoid expecting emotional reciprocity from a corporation.

True. Nevertheless, I sometimes advocate.

I can see the appeal of that, like bringing over a character from a video game into a game product

Right.

All the above being said, I feel the best thing for everyone would be for them to drop FR as the default setting :crosses fingers:

Haha. Well, for 6E, I'd prefer the default setting to be an "Un-Setting", where worldbuilding your own setting from scratch is the default way to play D&D, just as rolling your own character is the default.

 

[Charlaquin]

I am saying that the claim of "if it's the PHB it's canon" isn't correct. It's more refined than that even. I suspect they have a canon bible which they alter as they go, which does differ from the PHB in some respects. Particularly as concerns some books like Xanathat's and Tasha's.

Well, see, that I do agree with. But that’s an internal document for their own use, and while it may affect what they do or don’t put to print going forward, that’s not the same thing as “canon,” at least in this context.

 

[Charlaquin]

They've said what they mean by canon is what they go off of right now when they write books - not what happens at your table. In what way are they not using that "orcs are not inherently evil" as their canon right now for writing products?

I don’t think that’s how they’re using the word canon here.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

This all sounds like a ploy to cover for that author who accidentally included orcs in a Dragonlance novel back in the day. Or maybe the author who included the tarrasque in Lord Soth's basement in that one goofy adventure module. Right?

Right.

Right, besides the medium-based realities (e.g Novel Timeline vs. RPG Timeline) edition-based realities (5E Timeline vs. 1E Timeline), each continuity snag and comedy spoof also spawns a new Timeline. There's a Krynn where there are Orcs. And the comedy version of Castle Greyhawk is is own Timeline.

 

[Mistwell]

Well, see, that I do agree with. But that’s an internal document for their own use, and while it may affect what they do or don’t put to print going forward, that’s not the same thing as “canon,” at least in this context.

Yeah this is the heart of our disagreement. You think by canon they mean "what others should think is canon." What I think they mean here is "what WOTC thinks is canon for when they write their products." And I think they've said that in multiple different ways.

 

[Maxperson]

It's in the first post of this thread that they don't mean that when they talk about what they mean by canon. It's not debatable - they literally say that's not what they mean. No matter how much you want it to be what they mean, they tell us that's not it.

They say core three. Alignment and the optional rule included are part of the core three.