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

 

[dave2008]

True.

But in the case of the Eberron setting, many players consult the various publications of the Baker canon. The Baker canon is "official" for the Eberron setting.

I disagree. KB work is the best for Eberron, IMO, but only WotC can make something "official." I love Keith's work, but even he admits his take on Eberron is not the official one. There is the KB canon, but it to is not "official" canon.

To clarify, IMO, official content can only come from IP's owner - WotC. However, I don't care about that and much prefer, and hold in greater authority, the creator's version (i.e. Keith Baker).

 

[Maxperson]

Except that's not what the books say. The MM specifically says that the listed alignment is the default. Default doesn't mean "most common." It means that, unless you actively change it, the monster is this alignment. The default setting for gold dragons is Lawful Good. If you want a neutral or evil or Chaotic Good gold dragon, sure you can do it, but "canonically," gold dragons are LG.

Default is just the default for encounters. Nowhere does it say it applies to the entire race outside of what PCs encounter.

 

[dave2008]

You don't see the problem with atheists being cemented into a wall where they either dissolve into nothing or are pried out by demons and transformed into more demons?

I don't. That is what I expect to happen to me when I die. I would rarther an eternity of pain than subservience to these false gods!

 

[Chaosmancer]

Edit: To clarify, I posted this about 8 pages before Max clarified he runs the Realms.

It means that since there is no setting canon, there are no official settings. When none of it matters and none of it can be relied upon officially, then it's just a bunch of words with no real meaning. Removing the setting books as canon removes any foundation that they once provided. Anything and everything can be changed tomorrow.

Don't you have a long running homebrew world you run in Max? I think in our various discussions that has been said.

If you do... why do you care about whether or not the realms is a foundation or not? You aren't using it.

Or maybe you are using it, and then I'm sure that your players in the years and probably decade you've been playing have done something that is important that would have altered the Realms... and was never recorded in "The Official Canon that All Must Obey" but just kept as something at your table. Maybe you even had a follow-up adventure referencing your own adventure... so again, I'm not seeing how you doing that is different now than it was.

The only thing changing it a label. And the ability to turn to other people and say "I know better than you, because canonically this is the truth"

 

[dave2008]

Except that's not what the books say. The MM specifically says that the listed alignment is the default. Default doesn't mean "most common." It means that, unless you actively change it, the monster is this alignment. The default setting for gold dragons is Lawful Good. If you want a neutral or evil or Chaotic Good gold dragon, sure you can do it, but "canonically," gold dragons are LG.

No it means "canonically" most gold dragons are lawful good.

 

[Parmandur]

Heh. How did this relate to canon, again?

@Remaused the metaphor, and the non-narive English speaker @Bolaresexpressed bemusement at the phrase, so I offered some clarification.

 

[Yaarel]

I disagree. KB work is the best for Eberron, IMO, but only WotC can make something "official." I love Keith's work, but even he admits his take on Eberron is not the official one. There is the KB canon, but it to is not "official" canon.

To clarify, IMO, official content can only come from IP's owner - WotC. However, I don't care about that and much prefer, and hold in greater authority, the creator's version (i.e. Keith Baker).

Novels from WotC would be "official" without being "canon".

Even Xanathars and Tashas are "official" without being "canon".

In the case of Eberron, there is an "official" setting canon published by WotC, and a separate "canon" defined by Baker etal.

If I recall correctly, the Baker canon accepts the WotC setting canon as "true" (indeed Baker is a central author of it). But the Baker canon adds a considerable amount of lore on top of this. Much of this lore accumulated over the years, partly as answers to questions.

I would consider the new books that are available via the DMsGuild to be "official" Baker setting canon, without being official WotC setting canon.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

In the cosmology map in the Players Handbook,

The ring around inner planes that the "spokes" of the Wheel connect to, is that supposed to be the Wall of the Faithless?

I don't think so. Canonically (well, up until the blog post in the OP), when viewed through the Great Wheel cosmology, the Wall of the Faithless is in the Oinos layer of Hades (Julia Martin, Eric L. Boyd (March 1996). Faiths & Avatars. (TSR, Inc), pp. 2–3. ISBN 978-0786903849.)

That ring separating the Elemental Chaos from the Astral Plane... huh, it isn't labeled. If I had to guess, I think it might be the Outlands? That's the 17th Outer Plane and the only one missing from the 5e wheel.

 

[Parmandur]

Except that's not what the books say. The MM specifically says that the listed alignment is the default. Default doesn't mean "most common." It means that, unless you actively change it, the monster is this alignment. The default setting for gold dragons is Lawful Good. If you want a neutral or evil or Chaotic Good gold dragon, sure you can do it, but "canonically," gold dragons are LG.

The MM is quite clear that Alignment is mutable and not absolute. They can make it more clear, and are moving in that direction.

 

[Chaosmancer]

They give contradictory information. They say that only the core three are canon, right after they title the section "canon begins with the core three." Then they say, "If you not sure what else is canonical..." indicating that more is canon than the core three.

That's because you have to be able to break the idea of canon into different boxes.

If I am playing in Theros, is Eberron canon to my game? No. So is Eberron: Rising from the Last War canon for a DnD 5e game NOT set in Eberron... no. Why would it be?

This view is supported by Perkins telling everyone that the canon for their table is valid. Because I guess some people needed the corporation to tell them it was okay to play the game and tell their own stories like they have been for decades.