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

 

[Chaosmancer]

I want for it to be so that when I've done the work to figure out what is canon for my game, I don't have to redo the work when they release a product that has lore on the Realms.

Then don't redo the work. Simple as that.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I do see that there a some different emphasis. You make a valid point.

Yet please don't take me as a Canon Hierophant. I'm actually for "rolling up your own Campaign Setting" as the default "setting" for 6e. But I also "like" the existing D&D worlds, and would like all their variant timelines and continuities to be graspable and supported.

BTW, despite my questionm, I myself don't believe that D&D fandom isn't interested in a meta-continuity system. Because I am a member of D&D fandom, and I am interested in it. Not to mention the various D&D designers who wrote meta-continuity-related products (Jeff Grubb's Alternate Prime Plane system in 1E MotPlanes, Bruce Cordell's Superspace system in Alternity Tangents and Die, Vecna, Die!). And the consumers who purchased those products.

But I think you are pushing a far more grandoise system than any of us are truly interested in. I mean, make it if you want, it would be a resource for someone I'm sure. But for most of us, the settings are graspable in the small chunks we want, and making a different canon for every video game, novel series, setting book per edition, ect ect... just isn't valuable to us.

 

[dave2008]

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.

No, because that has always been a possibility in Eberron. Worshipers could be praying to a god that factually exists, they just don't know it. Ignorance of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[Parmandur]

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.

None of this "factually" exists: that's the point of the whole vanon blog post.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

making a different canon for every video game, novel series, setting book per edition, ect ect... just isn't valuable to us.

blink blink ...But that's exactly what Perkins' article is about.

Chris Perkins:
"EVERY EXPRESSION OF D&D HAS ITS OWN CANON. [...] The current edition of the D&D roleplaying game has its own canon, as does every other expression of D&D. For example, what is canonical in fifth edition is not necessarily canonical in a novel, video game, movie, or comic book, and vice versa. This is true not only for lore but art as well."

I thought that's what this 32-page thread was about! Is your point that you're against Perkins statement?

Or are you just saying that you just don't want names for these canons (whether out-of-game or in-game), and and that you certainly don't want these various realities to co-exist from an in-game perspective?

 

[Chaosmancer]

It doesn't and its appearance in Tasha's isn't the point. The point is that the class in Tasha's retcons Bladesinger abilities, which is a change to the Sword Coast "canon."

Only in so much as changing the Druid's ability to use Wild Shape as a Find Familiar is a retcon to their abilities, and therefore the canon of the settings. Or changes to how a spell works. Or correcting a statblock.

Or were you referring to the "Only Elves" line as an ability? Which, again, is potentially canon for the Realms, but there is no reason that "rule" should exist outside of the Realms.

 

[Hussar]

You are adding a separate issue that I am not discussing.

Indeed, in previous posts, I agree WotC keeps internal documents for the sake of consistency. Yes, but moot.



I emphasize that people in the public dont need this internal document. They only need to enslave their product to the core lore of the three core rulebooks. And can still be "official" for WotC, including novels, films, etcetera.

Hey @Yaarel - I hate to break it to you bud, but, Forgotten Realms is NOT the default D&D setting. There is no default 5e setting. Now, most of the modules are in FR because FR is popular and FR sells. But, this isn't 3e. There is no default 5e setting.

So, while it might be canonical that Correlon created elves in Forgotten Realms, it is not canonical that Correlon created all elves as default in D&D. You are mistaking the examples provided in the core books for a default setting.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Umm, that's been true since 2e. There have been spell casting druids in Dark Sun since the 2e days.

 

[Parmandur]

Hey @Yaarel - I hate to break it to you bud, but, Forgotten Realms is NOT the default D&D setting. There is no default 5e setting. Now, most of the modules are in FR because FR is popular and FR sells. But, this isn't 3e. There is no default 5e setting.

So, while it might be canonical that Correlon created elves in Forgotten Realms, it is not canonical that Correlon created all elves as default in D&D. You are mistaking the examples provided in the core books for a default setting.

MToF is where the "All Elves, even those in Eberron, come from Correlon." But, per this, that isn't "canon," and even in fictional positioning that's just one dude from Oerth's take.

 

[Maxperson]

Then don't redo the work. Simple as that.

No, it's not.