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]

"In your campaign, you might decide" "you might want to incorporate elements from other realms" "Perhaps you want to use"

I don't see anything in that section that says that the events and characters from any other setting will affect Eberron--only that if you, the DM, want to use those events and characters from other settings, then here's some suggestions on how to handle it.

Do you really want WotC to have written that it's completely impossible for you to include something from another setting?

Yeah. There's nothing there that shows Asmodeus affecting the Eberron. It's simply advice on how a DM might choose to remove the default isolation.

 

[Faolyn]

I've already done so twice in my posts here.

Really? Haven't seen it.

Which is actually why not adhering to canon is better. If you think it's a "workload" to compare two archetypes, then why should anyone have to slavishly read and remember hundreds of books published over 30-40 years?

You were responding to me and my issues, so I correctly applied it to me personally.

So you acknowledge that your problems are you problems and not problems with canon.

Again, this is not relevant to what I have been saying. It's not about anyone getting mad. It's about the disruption to me and my workload as I have to assess every change to see if I should use it or not. And if I don't do that, the players cannot know what their PCs know, as a particular piece of lore might be X or Y.

What workload? You either spend five minutes reading it, or you tell your player that you don't want to read it so either they can't use it or they have to do the work for you. The end.

Or else I've explained myself repeatedly already and don't feel like repeating it to you every time you ignore it.

So far, I haven't seen you explain anything. You mostly just repeat non-information and claim its an answer.

 

[dave2008]

I think the intent for specific settings is more like the Adventurer's League Core +1 rules. That is to say, if you are playing in Eberron what's canon for Eberron is Rising from the Last War (plus the core three). If you're playing in Theros, what's in Rising from the Last war is non-canonical (and irrelevant).

Sure, I get that my be the intent; but that is not what he said and I personally like the idea of them saying:

"Hey, this is our idea of Eberron (or whatever setting), but this is not the definitive version of Eberron. Its not canon or anything man."

 

[Maxperson]

Which is actually why not adhering to canon is better. If you think it's a "workload" to compare two archetypes, then why should anyone have to slavishly read and remember hundreds of books published over 30-40 years?

That's a logically broken idea. You can adhere to canon and not bother with 30-40 years of material. Just buy Sword Coast and use that as your canon. Bam! Done!

If you want to go further back, you can.

So you acknowledge that your problems are you problems and not problems with canon.

My problem is that canon in 5e changes or more accurately has suddenly been removed.

What workload? You either spend five minutes reading it, or you tell your player that you don't want to read it so either they can't use it or they have to do the work for you. The end.

This time. A future book could easily have more substantial changes.

 

[Bolares]

Sure, I get that my be the intent; but that is not what he said and I personally like the idea of them saying:

"Hey, this is our idea of Eberron (or whatever setting), but this is not the definitive version of Eberron. Its not canon or anything man."

Even better if they said "oh you want Eberron canon? go read Keith's stuff"

 

[Yaarel]

It's absolutely NOT moot. You're arguing that they will be enslaved to the core three and not deviate, but their internal documents which make up additional canonical lore will also be used and will contradict the core three, as it has with Eberron. AND with Theros. And..

These implied internal document appear to be of use for 5e gaming products, but not of use for novels, films, or other product from other creators that WotC publishes.

At the same time, EVERY WotC D&D 5e will be enslaved to the core three. 5e Eberron exemplifies such adherence to the core lore, even when it is excessively disruptive to the Eberron setting itself.

 

[Maxperson]

It doesn't have to, because the latest SCAG errata brings that book in line with the version presented in Tasha's. (This is not an endorsement of your interlocutor's position.)

Huh. I didn't know that since I usually ignore errata. However, that just strengthens my argument as it is no long a simple optional Tasha's subclass.

 

[Faolyn]

For example, the Forgotten Realms gods like Corellon, Lolth, Gruumsh, Archdevils like Asmodeus, are called out as factually existing in the Eberron setting.

No, they're not. I'm going throw ERW right now.

The three progenitor wyrms worked together to form Eberron and its planes as a new cosmic system in the depths of the Ethereal Plane. They recreated the elves, orcs, dragons, and other races found throughout the multiverse and placed them in their new world, but allowed them to develop beyond the reach of Gruumsh, Corellon, Lolth, and other influences for good and ill.

This specifically says that those gods can't reach Eberron or, if you really want them in your game, you can treat them as Overlords, not gods.

You can adapt other evil gods or archfiends for an Eberron campaign (assuming you don't want Eberron to be connected to the wider multiverse) by recasting them as overlords. For example, Tiamat could be an overlord embodying the pride and potential for evil within dragons, Lolth could be an overlord who preys on the elves, and Asmodeus the insidious maker of profane bargains.

They do not factually exist in Eberron. They can exist if you want them to, but if you don't want them to exist, they don't. And if you want them to exist in Eberron, they're not gods. They're trapped archfiends. They have less power than an archfiend in any other setting because they're trapped.

The fact that the Eberron book references other material, like the existence of Correllon, doesn't mean its tied to the Realms (or Greyhawk) at all.

 

[dave2008]

No, that's not what it says. It very clearly says all gold dragons are LG unless you want them not to be. Not "most", not "usually." Always.

You, of course, are free to make gold dragons any alignment you want. But by default all gold dragons are laful good.

No it says the default is that listed alignment (it then immediate says you can make it whatever you want). Default =/= always.

 

[FrozenNorth]

That phrasing helped catch the Unabomber. FYI.

Someone who is that much of a pedant can’t be all bad.