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]

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.

Perfect consistent doesn’t not equal acceptable or decent. If they had wanted to not have atheists go to an afterlife, they could have just said they got poofed out of existence. Or that they got taken by the god who would be the best fit for the way the person lived.

Instead, they went with a slow and likely horrifying and painful dissolving of the individual’s soul as punishment—that word is used in the wall’s description—where the only possible option for escape is being stolen by a demon and turned into a monster.

 

[Hussar]

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.)

Really?

See, this is where I don't think it's a Thermian Argument to say that the Wall isn't a problematic element in the setting.

This is a setting where religion MATTERS. It is very, very important. FR gods are powered by faith. That's the canon explanation and the in game reason why athiests are punished. The out of game reason is pretty simple - it's a GIANT NEON SIGN that tells the players, "Hey, if you want to play in this setting, DON'T PLAY AN ATHEIST. Atheism has no place in this setting". To me, trying to play an atheist in FR is no different than wanting to play a Jedi or a Mecha Pilot. It's not what this setting is about. This is a setting where faith and religion play very key roles in virtually every adventure. Good grief, how many RSE's are based on the gods getting frisky about this or that?

So, if you want to play an atheist, there are all sorts of perfectly plausible settings - Eberron being a prime example, and honestly, Greyhawk as well. But, Forgotten Realms? The setting where dieties walk around and appear on a fairly regular basis and the Chosen of the Gods playing key roles all over the place? That setting? That's the setting you think an atheist character fits in?

 

[Faolyn]

But a setting which posits that atheists suffer because the cosmology prioritises faith is not recapitulating a set of discriminatory tropes, or reinforcing existing patterns of subordination.

Discrimination against atheists - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Faolyn]

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

Would you say the same thing if instead of atheists, it was people of color or LGBT+ people getting punished in a fantasy setting?

Especially when those gods generally don’t do anything if you were just paid lip service to them, but consider not believing them to be just as bad as believing in them but deliberately betraying them.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Putting myself in a magical world, where Gods do exist

Existence is not proof of divinity.

 

[LazarusKane]

So again, you don't want to compromise and you don't care that other people aren't getting what they prefer. So why did you pretend this was a compromise in the first place?

Ok, another try: If I have an amount Y with the elements A,B,C (the stats) and someone removes A(lignement) then I lose something. The declaration is "A is a variable with the default x", (and yes, all the other elements are variables too, so you can define"my orcs get 1d12 extra HP") and you can even remove elements from your amount (or add: for example Eberron 3E added "action points").

You can do away with all the elements you don't like. For you it´s a preference and if they leave alignment in the stat block then yes, you an others "aren't getting what they prefer". But if you get your will then the others will actually lose something.

So again, you don't want to compromise and you don't care that other people aren't getting what they prefer. So why did you pretend this was a compromise in the first place?


What, are you saying you're not capable of or interested in assigning a creature an alignment based on a table of alignments, its flavor text, the alignments its had in the every other monster book in this and every earlier edition, and the role you want the monster to take in your adventure?

Why do you need a default? What does a default do that a few seconds of thought on your part can't do better?

For example: Gold dragons are established as "default: LG" so I can suprise the party with an evil gold dragon. I liked the Eberron stance of "blurred alignments", but this only worked because D&D has "alignments". Alignment gives structure to the world - it's no straightjacket to bind.
PS: Humans (in the real world) tend to be "neutral good" (sorry I don't have the time to search the source, work is calling). If someone encounters his fellow human on the street then he expects that this is the "default".

 

[Hussar]

Would you say the same thing if instead of atheists, it was people of color or LGBT+ people getting punished in a fantasy setting?

Especially when those gods generally don’t do anything if you were just paid lip service to them, but consider not believing them to be just as bad as believing in them but deliberately betraying them.

Tread very very lightly @Faolyn.

Because it looks very much like you want to claim that being a POC or LGBT+ is a personal choice.

I really don't think you want to start conflating these things.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Really?

See, this is where I don't think it's a Thermian Argument to say that the Wall isn't a problematic element in the setting.

This is a setting where religion MATTERS. It is very, very important. FR gods are powered by faith. That's the canon explanation and the in game reason why athiests are punished. The out of game reason is pretty simple - it's a GIANT NEON SIGN that tells the players, "Hey, if you want to play in this setting, DON'T PLAY AN ATHEIST. Atheism has no place in this setting". To me, trying to play an atheist in FR is no different than wanting to play a Jedi or a Mecha Pilot. It's not what this setting is about. This is a setting where faith and religion play very key roles in virtually every adventure. Good grief, how many RSE's are based on the gods getting frisky about this or that?

To me the Wall tells that this is a setting where the gods are unjust. Was this the message they wanted to send?

So, if you want to play an atheist, there are all sorts of perfectly plausible settings - Eberron being a prime example, and honestly, Greyhawk as well. But, Forgotten Realms? The setting where dieties walk around and appear on a fairly regular basis and the Chosen of the Gods playing key roles all over the place? That setting? That's the setting you think an atheist character fits in?

I'm generally super fine with playing religious person in fantasy and with the concept that in fantasy gods are real. FR however is the setting where I would feel it is the moral choice to oppose the gods and the tyrannical system they have set up.

And yeah, I think this would be a cool take. A setting where the gods are exploiting and coercing the mortals, and where the devils and demons save the souls of atheist to recruit them into their righteous cause of tearing down the despotic deities. But again, this is not an intentional creative choice, this is not what they're trying to say. This is generic fantasy setting where devils and demons are bad and many gods are good. But the Wall doesn't fit in that. If you want setting where gods are central, but not evil, then Theros' carrot system works much better than the stick of FR.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

The wall of the faithless is an example of retcons may be necessary to avoid more troubles. Maybe tomorrow I am again complain about bad guys wearing morion (the helmt used by the Spanish conquerors) and demading a positive discrimination quota for morion-wearers.

In my homeworld the wall of the faithless was a cosmic barrier, and when this was destroyed by the "night king" those souls were "abducted" by the dark powers and sent to the demiplane of the dread to be reincarnated into "new fresh flesh".

Theorically WotC should know what is the official canon but I am afair not even they are totally sure about this, because the plans about the cosmomology of the multiverse could change again in the future, due to business reasons, for example because Hasbro wanted intercompani crossovers among D&D and other IPs/franchises.

If it is only the canon of the TTRPG then I don't worry too much, but if it about the novels then I wonder about if I should buy Dragonlance books for my 10y niece if these aren't canon.

My suggestion is to introduce an "akashic realm" or "dreamland demiplane", a patchwork world created by the "pieces" or rewritten-erasured timelines. This could allow enough creative flexibility to allow the return of the chronomancers but you shouldn't worry too much about time-paradoxes.

 

[Hussar]

See, here's the thing. It can't both be a Thermian argument and not. It's not that the gods are "exploiting and coercing mortals". That's an in-universe reason for an out of universe choice - to play a character that deliberately works against the setting. Now, you might not like the design decision and find the "carrot" approach better. That's fine. But, that's just a personal preference, not an actual reason to change something. IOW, it's not unjust or despotic. The out of game reason for it is to tell players, in no uncertain terms, play a religious character in this setting. Full stop.

But, no, it is not a "moral choice" to oppose the gods. You've decided that you don't like the way they've done something and then simply massaged the in-world interpretation to fit with that decision.

You can't have it both ways. It very much DOES fit the themes of the setting. The setting says that faith is important. The reason they added the wall was to enforce that trope that faith is important.

But, now we get back to the problem I have with players all the time - tell the players not to play X and they will move heaven and earth to try to play X. No dragonborn in your world? Oh, hell no, I MUST play a dragonborn now. Now wizards in this campaign? I'm going to pitch fifteen different flavors of wizard at you until you finally break down and say yes.

I really don't have a lot of sympathy here. It's a perfectly plausible, very flavorful concept that enforces setting tropes. It's not like the notion of a "slow dissolution" is totally unheard of in various real world religions. The primary arguments against it seem to boil down to, "You can't tell ME what to do."