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

 

[lingual]

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.

I think regardless, the deities in DnD are more like extra-planar beings that can be slain, etc. Very unlike the monotheist religions of our world. They are not omniscient or omnipotent.

I don't know if that's just a Thermian attempt on my part to reconcile atheism and DnD "religions".

 

[QuentinGeorge]

I agree completely. It is quite a liberating perspective really. I'm not a canon person, but I would think that people like @doctorbadwolf and @QuentinGeorge who were unhappy with the lore changes in FIzban's or Eberron or MToF could be happy to know that the lore in those books is not canon. Those books present a story, a viewpoint, it is not "canon."

I accepted long ago that post-3E the idea of a consistent canon was beyond WoTC. I guess it's nice to see it outright stated.

(For the record, I don't play in published settings these days and my own homebrew discards many aspects of D&D lore I don't like anyway. )

 

[Scribe]

I'm an atheist.

As am I. Putting myself in a magical world, where Gods do exist, where realms exist which they dwell in, which all fall into various Alignments. Well the Wall makes perfect sense.

Thankfully for you, you can dismiss, ignore, or rest easy knowing that it will likely never be canon again.

To be offended that a world where Gods factually exist, and punish nonbelievers...in a fantasy setting?

Nah.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

I mean, I'm not sure why it needs to be clarified that books aren't canon in my game unless I want them too (Do people really believe there is some sort of magical compulsion that forces you to accept every book?) but this is basically as well as saying "there is no canon". I mean, I suppose that explains why Zariel wasn't even consistent across two 5E books.

I'm still amused by Crawford's belief that "oh, not everyone sees Dragonlance as the novels, I see the adventures as true Dragonlance" well mate, I think you're probably in the minority there and it will 2100 and people will still see the core of Dragonlance as the Chronicles and Legends, regardless of how many RPG books WoTC releases.

(On an amusing note, thanks to this edict, the only canonical aspect of Dragonlance in 5E actually comes from the Mina Trilogy! Check out Tales of the Yawning Portal)

 

[pemerton]

I think regardless, the deities in DnD are more like extra-planar beings that can be slain, etc. Very unlike the monotheist religions of our world. They are not omniscient or omnipotent.

Agreed. I could imagine a believer in a monotheistic God, in a D&D world, rejecting all the (so-called) gods. Or an atheist regarding the "gods" as simply Marvel Universe-style other-dimensional superheroes.

In FR either such person is cursed by the cosmology upon death. That doesn't mean they're wrong - it might be that those who don't adhere to the superheroes get cursed; or the monotheist might take the view that God moves in mysterious ways.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This message brought to you by multiple reported & repeated acts of incivility:

Please. Stop calling each other names. Stop using loaded words directed at each other.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The issue with the Wall of the Faithless is that it really doesn't fit the tone and themes of the setting. If this was some sort of darker setting where gods are cruel tyrants setting up such a system makes thematic sense*. But in FR many gods are supposed to be genuinely good, so them being complicit to such extreme coercion in order to gain worshippers really sours it.

(*And I can understand why someone would find such darker take on FR more appealing than the current version, but this was not an intentional creative decision to that end, it was just some nonsense someone made up ages ago.)

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Buddhist here, this isn't accurate. For those of us who accept the Mahayana, we worship the Buddhas and Arya Bodhisattvas as deities; they aren't gods but are far above them. We also believe in the existence of devas (gods in the polytheistic sense), some whom are enlightened and thus worthy of worship, others who are merely dharma protectors and are more respected neighbours than objects of devotion, and still some who are more akin to demons than gods and whom we don't really talk about. I'm not entirely sure how things are handled in the Theravada sect which doesn't accept the Mahayaba and thus mostly doesn't accept the existence of the Arya Bodhisattvas, but they still definitely do worship Gautama Buddha, who in the Maha-sihanada Sutta is declared to be far more than just a man.

Alot of people concider Buddhism none Theistic (atheistic is a misunderstanding in practice), but the reality of the religion in practice is a very different thing, especially folk Buddhism that often blends in folk religions, Holy Men & Women, and Hinduism Devas into Buddhism. Buddhism doesn't demand exclusivity unlike most Abrahamic religions.

 

[Faolyn]

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

I’m so glad that you aren’t bothered by writers saying an entire group of people who actually exist in the real world deserve horrible annihilation or being turned into a creature of evil for simply engaging in a thoughtcrime.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

Hence a table, off to the side.