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

 

[Remathilis]

Why does that matter? Aren't people free to make choices that are not dictated by their biology?

Can my gnome choose to be 12 feet tall?

Can my elf choose to grow a beard?

 

[Maxperson]

Can my gnome choose to be 12 feet tall?

Can my elf choose to grow a beard?

More to his point. People are not free to rape, murder and pillage, which are choices not dictated by biology.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Okay. And? He hasn't had control of the Realms since he sold it to TSR. The Wall of the Faithless in D&D is not that. It's what I quoted above.

Which brings us back to the while "theatrical cut vs. director's cut" thing. The Wall wasn't Greenwood's idea; according to him it was Slade Henson's idea.

Though, given that the wall has been errata'd out of the SCAG, isn't its canonicity up in the air in light of the recent announcement?

Ed Greenwood, Twitter, 10/26/2020:
"A very small handful of sentients in the Realms truly don't believe deities exist (less than 0.5%); they would be the 'Faithless.' Most DO 'believe in' all the gods, even if they profess to repudiate them. Many 'cleave to' one deity above others, even if slightly. That 'ever so slightly favored' deity is their patron deity, if they don't openly profess and embrace a patron (as clerics and paladins do). The Wall of Faithless is more of a bugaboo tale told by priests and spread over tavern tables than it is a Great Big Doom."

It seems to me that Mr. Greenwood's version of the Wall and the version you quote are not precisely identical. Mr. Greenwood says that actual atheists do exist in the Realms, though they are rare (you appear to admit this when you say "99% [are] not atheists," but this begs the question whether something isn't worth considering just because it's unusual; far, far less than half of one percent of the Realms population are Chosen of Mystra, but I daresay it's appropriate to talk about them). And he says that atheists are precisely what is meant by Faithless.

Thankfully, (to return to a point I made earlier) there is not and never has been a single, coherent, unified Realms canon (having studied hermeneutics, narratology, and epistemology, I believe there never could be such a thing). So neither you nor Greenwood is actually wrong—except perhaps when you declare that talking about atheists in the Realms "is wrong."

Ignoring my previous point, if we go back to the WotC Realms as opposed to Greenwood's Realms, there's one culture that is in super hot water, regardless of how muchof that 0.5% they make up: Tymanther. The Thymari are overwhelmingly atheist; there is a small minority that worship the Sumerian god Enlil, but unless WotC releases a new sourcebook that covers Tymanther, the current assumption is that most Thymari dragonborn have no use and no place for the gods in their lives. I believe their cousins on Laerakond (if it's still on Toril) are in a similar boat. Does that mean they're all headed to the Wall (if it still exists)?

 

[Scribe]

Why does that matter? Aren't people free to make choices that are not dictated by their biology?

In a world where Gods are real, manifest actual power, and have realms as part of an afterlife/cosmology one can ascend to?

Yes, you are free to make a choice, and choices have consequences.

I eagerly await the post telling me I'm a horrible person for stating that in a fantasy world I have zero issue with a fate that is less than ideal for those who do not participate in that fantasy world's cosmology or afterlife. I'm certainly not saying we should discriminate in the real world against Atheists' (or theists!) but again.

If we want to accept the commonly understood take (lol canon am I right) that the Gods are actually 'Gods' then if one willfully opts out of that cosmology, they choose oblivion by becoming part of the Wall.

As an Atheist, I dont find that repugnant at all. Though that does somewhat align with a discussion I had with a religious individual who said I was hell bound, it doesnt bother me in the least, as I would choose that oblivion anyway.

 

[Maxperson]

Which brings us back to the while "theatrical cut vs. director's cut" thing. The Wall wasn't Greenwood's idea; according to him it was Slade Henson's idea.

Though, given that the wall has been errata'd out of the SCAG, isn't its canonicity up in the air in light of the recent announcement?

It's canon and not canon simultaneously like everything else in the game. Put in your game and it's canon. Take it out like @Paul Farquhar and it's not canon.

Ignoring my previous point, if we go back to the WotC Realms as opposed to Greenwood's Realms, there's one culture that is in super hot water, regardless of how muchof that 0.5% they make up: Tymanther. The Thymari are overwhelmingly atheist; there is a small minority that worship the Sumerian god Enlil, but unless WotC releases a new sourcebook that covers Tymanther, the current assumption is that most Thymari dragonborn have no use and no place for the gods in their lives. I believe their cousins on Laerakond (if it's still on Toril) are in a similar boat. Does that mean they're all headed to the Wall (if it still exists)?

If they are faithless and the wall exists, they are headed to it. If they are faithless and the wall doesn't exist, they are not headed to it.

Edit: And they weren't atheist.

"Most Thymari didn't worship the gods although they acknowledged their existence and power. This was because Thymari were raised hearing the stories of their ancestors since hatchlings. Those stories were crude and hard, as abeiran dragonborn had to endure a lot of hardships under the yoke of dragon tyrants. As such, those "nursery tales" shaped the identity of a Thymari on a fundamental way, making them wary of the gods, as in their point of view, gods weren't different to the dragon tyrants of Abeir, asking for worship in exchange for stuff that dragonborn were capable of doing on their own."

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

Conquistadors ruined their aesthetic for history just like the Nazis did. No one wants to look like a British imperialist, either. Generally conqueurers are the bad guys. The conquistadors (and Columbus, and the Spanish priests who ran missions) being some of the worst of an age.

Then they are not divine.

Then Tyr is no more use than a dog turd.

To be fair, he’s slightly more use than a powerful Wizard, just not near the use of actual gods.

Then make a PC to oppose it.

Or, the game could ditch a toxic notion from the “canon”, and move on. Which is what’s happening.

More to his point. People are not free to rape, murder and pillage, which are choices not dictated by biology.

This equates the thing you’re replying to, to the counter example you’re providing. So, now you’re equating “disbelief that the gods are really gods and deserve worship” to “rape, murder, and pillag[ing]”.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

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".

Actually, heres the funny thing. I just reread the gold dragon entry. Here it is, as a refresher. I can’t link to the page on metallic dragons in general since that would involve money, but I’m sure you have the MM and can read it. Especially the Persistence of Memory section.

So go on, read them, then kindly point out how gold dragons are, as a species, lawful good. Lawful good among other dragons, maybe, but kind patronizing jerks to humans.

So to my eyes, if you adhere to the given alignment in the statblock, in many cases you do so by ignoring the lore. And if you go by the lore, then there's a good chance you're ignoring the given statblock. But if you decide the individual creature's alignment, then it meshes perfectly with how you want that creature to work within your game.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

Then you're completely misreading what I wrote. Is it OK to treat a group of people as pariahs worthy of having their souls dissolved, just because of one of their traits that does not actually cause any harm to anyone else?

Tread very, very lightly, Hussar, because it looks like you want to treat lack of belief as a serious crime but are hiding behind the idea that atheism is a "personal choice," as if that makes it OK.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

What they did was riff off of Dante's Inferno, a classic piece of literature.

 

[Maxperson]

Or, the game could ditch a toxic notion from the “canon”, and move on. Which is what’s happening.

Everything bad is "toxic." Murder is toxic. Assault is toxic. Kidnapping is toxic. Bad is toxic. You can play some fluffy bunny D&D game if that's what you want, but my D&D game is going to have bad stuff in it for the PCs to oppose or not as they see fit.

This equates the thing you’re replying to, to the counter example you’re providing. So, now you’re equating “disbelief that the gods are really gods and deserve worship” to “rape, murder, and pillag[ing]”.

Bad is bad. Toxic is toxic. If you have a particular issue with a specific bad thing, remove it from your game. Don't demand that others have to conform to your personal issues on the matter, though.