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

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?

Not in that world, no. The FR has (had) a very specific system for the afterlife, where everyone went someone when they died based on their relationship with the gods of the setting. This was covered extensively back in 2e both in the game books and the novels. Now of course they can change what they want, but the whole was perfectly consistent.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Not in that world, no. The FR has (had) a very specific system for the afterlife, where everyone went someone when they died based on their relationship with the gods of the setting. This was covered extensively back in 2e both in the game books and the novels. Now of course they can change what they want, but the whole was perfectly consistent.

I'm an atheist. I'm personally offended to be told that a so called "good/just" god (Kelemvor), even in a fantasy world, would have me be imprisoned and endlessly tormented under their care in a wall that was made out of my soul and the souls of fellow atheists.

To me, that's just as offensive as saying that any real world religion would get a similar treatment, even if their belief system (or lack thereof) is objectively wrong in that setting. It's both unnecessary to the setting and offensive to those real world groups.

Also, I'm just going to point out that your argument here is a Thermian Argument (trying to justify an out-of-world question/issue with in-setting explanations), which is inherently fallacious and logically flawed. You can justify anything in-world if you put your mind to it. That doesn't make it okay.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But that is how it starts. You begin with "there is a hidden canon" then people try and figure out what that is, then people start arguing about their different takes on the hidden canon, then people begin sending demands to the company to know what the hidden canon is so that they can prove that they were "right" and the other person was "wrong"

Is the argument than, "there might be a hidden canon, but it doesn't matter and we should all ignore Perkins' reference to it"? Doesn't seem likely on a fan site.

 

[pemerton]

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?

What's the problem? It sounds like the most interesting thing I've heard about FR!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which is good, but the MM says that alignment is mutable if you want it to be. Otherwise, what's in the book is the default.

Someone above said it was easier to remove than to add. It's easier to remove alignment from your monsters than to add it if it's not there.

 

[pemerton]

I'm an atheist. I'm personally offended to be told that a so called "good/just" god (Kelemvor), even in a fantasy world, would have me be imprisoned and endlessly tormented under their care in a wall that was made out of my soul and the soul of fellow atheists.

To me, that's just as offensive as saying that any real world religion would get a similar treatment, even if their belief system (or lack thereof) is objectively wrong in that setting. It's both unnecessary to the setting and offensive to those real world groups.

Also, I'm just going to point out that your argument here is a Thermian Argument (trying to justify an out-of-world question/issue with in-setting explanations), which is inherently fallacious and logically flawed. You can justify anything in-world if you put your mind to it. That doesn't make it okay.

Atheism isn't a religion, is it? Leaving aside relatively subtle questions, like whether (at least some) Buddhists are atheists - whatever the best view in real life, in D&D I think they wouldn't count as such - atheism is the denial of religious assertions, not another religious assertion.

Not only am I not offended by this Wall of the Faithless thing in FR, as I posted I think it's the most interesting thing I've ever heard about FR.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

It’s also in Rising, which makes it Eberron 5e canon, to be fair. I mean, I guess technically in 5e Eberron the progenitors copied Corelons work, but that’s still elves coming from Corellon at the end of the day.

 

[pemerton]

Someone above said it was easier to remove than to add. It's easier to remove alignment from your monsters than to add it if it's not there.

This doesn't make any sense to me. What sort of situation do you want the monster to be part of? Or to put it another way, why are you using it? If you can't answer that, then just roll a random alignment (with TN having two options on your d10). If you can answer that, then you know what alignment to assign.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Atheism isn't a religion, is it? Leaving aside relatively subtle questions, like whether (at least some) Buddhists are atheists - whatever the best view in real life, in D&D I think they wouldn't count as such - atheism is the denial of religious assertions, not another religious assertion.

Not only am I not offended by this Wall of the Faithless thing in FR, as I posted I think it's the most interesting thing I've ever heard about FR.

You not being offended doesn’t counterbalance someone else being offended.

And hell, I’m not an atheist and the Wall is something I find morally repugnant.

 

[Parmandur]

It’s also in Rising, which makes it Eberron 5e canon, to be fair. I mean, I guess technically in 5e Eberron the progenitors copied Corelons work, but that’s still elves coming from Corellon at the end of the day.

I mean, for WotC branding purposes, at least.