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

 

[Faolyn]

Sure, that's the compromise right there: alignment (which has no gameplay effexts) offered as a default example which has no binding effect.

"All for me and none for you, and you should be happy I let you you that much" is not a compromise. It's literally what already exists.

And if alignment has no gameplay effects, then what's the purpose? If it's "to make it easier to figure out how to RP the monster," then surely a table or a description would be just as useful--or even more useful, because it would provide multiple ways to play the monster, thus making it easier for them to not be cookie cutter clones of each other. (And what do people do in RPGs with no alignments?)

 

[FrozenNorth]

To be fair... Tasha didn't say that dropping the elf prerequisite didn't count on FR

Yes, but isn’t “specific trumps general” the guiding principle of rules interpretation?

 

[Yaarel]

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.

The problem is, these non-Eberron gods factually exist. The carefully cultivated ambiguity and agnosticism of Eberron has been destroyed.

 

[Yaarel]

At best you can say it is canon within the official world of Eberron.

Yes. This is what I am saying.

Disagree, there is only one official (for better or worse) and that is WotC content. They own it.

Yes. There is only one official canon for ALL WotC products. This core canon doesnt include Eberron RLW.

Oppositely, Eberron RLW as an official WotC product does and must adhere to the WotC core canon.

 

[Faolyn]

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!

So by that token, just don't buy Tasha's, or don't use that section from Tasha's, and use that as your canon.

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

So what canon has actually been removed that you can't put right back in?

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

Or it might not. Or it might have substantial changes that you end up liking a lot.

But you can say that about any D&D book, even before they admitted they were ignoring canon when they wanted to. When you buy an adventure or a splatbook, you never knew what changes would be made. Maybe this is the book that details the start of the next Realms-shaking event. Maybe this is the book that introduces a brand-new faction, or reveals a faction that's been lurking in the background the entire time but had never been revealed. Maybe this is the book that decides to kill off a major character. Maybe this is the book that introduces a bunch of new races or a new class to the setting.

If you don't want the risk of having anything new happening in your setting, stop buying books. Otherwise, you're just insisting that everything remains in stasis and that the new books, what? Go into more detail about things that have already been established? Introduce plots that ultimately have no meaning because they can't change anything because then the stasis would be broken?

 

[Mirtek]

The problem is, these non-Eberron gods factually exist. The carefully cultivated ambiguity and agnosticism of Eberron has been destroyed.

And I would argue that there deities in Eberron that factually exists too. The factual existence of the currently worshipped pantheons is unconfirmed, but the overlords are just deities by another name and factually exist.

So more entities on the level of unbound overlords existing outside of Eberron (and maybe looking for a way in) doesn't change anything.

So Bel Shalor, exists, Cyric exists, the Keeper may or may not exist. Yet Cyric's existance has as much impact on whether the Keeper exists as does Bel Shalor's existance

 

[Faolyn]

The problem is, these non-Eberron gods factually exist. The carefully cultivated ambiguity and agnosticism of Eberron has been destroyed.

But you knew those gods already existed in the Realms. And even if Eberron is not physically connected to the Realms, it's still part of the same system, put out by the same company, and is therefore connected. This has been known ever since the 1e DMG put out rules for D&D/Boot Hill/Gamma World crossovers. If you wanted Eberron to have nothing to do with the rest of the D&D multiverse, then it would have to have never been part of D&D.

Or, y'know, you can just remember that the Eberron books factually state that there's no connection between Eberron and any other setting unless you want there to be. And in that case, there's only as much of a connection as you want. Considering that you keep saying Eberron has been ruined by the Realms, you must actually want there to be a big connection. Otherwise, you'd just shrug, say "well, that's dumb," and move on.

 

[Faolyn]

Of course we do, we are disrespectful heathens that deserve everything we get

PS I added the emoji this time to emphasis that I am being sarcastic (I was the first time too)

Ah. Didn't get the sarcasm. Durn internets, stripping intent from people's words.

 

[dave2008]

The definition of default:

a selection made usually automatically or without active consideration due to lack of a viable alternative.

Exactly - there are 8 other viable alternatives to what is listed in the stat block. Default =/= all.

 

[Yaarel]

And I would argue that there deities in Eberron that factually exists too. The factual existence of the currently worshipped pantheons is unconfirmed, but the overlords are just deities by another name and factually exist.

So more entities on the level of unbound overlords existing outside of Eberron (and maybe looking for a way in) doesn't change anything.

If there are persons who factually exist and are being "worshiped", then Eberron has been destroyed - by means of its conformity to Forgotten Realms assumption.

Similarly, if a future 5e Dark Sun that has no gods, suddenly has Clerics who worship elementals as the new gods, then Dark Sun too will have been destroyed.

WotC will have effectively thrown Dark Sun into the dumpster fire along with Eberron, all because of a misguided attempt to inject Intellectual Property of "gods", into anything and everything, perhaps especially into settings where "gods" are inappropriate to the setting.