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

 

[ReshiIRE]

I haven't followed the debate about the Wall too much and I'm not familiar with that lore, but I do have one question, and it determines what I really feel about it:

Was the Wall presented without commentary? Was it just a 'thing'? Or was it ever indicated how one should feel about it, or how characters feel about it? Was it ever interacted with? DId it mean anything?

I think I'd consider it a pretty yucky aspect if it was ever stated to be a 'good' thing or nobody ever commented that it was a cruel fate. And it'd also seem strange if it was just mentioned as a 'by the way' aspect.

The reason things like this are tricky and often lead to strife is because a bad element is included without well, acknowledging it's bad or somehow proving it's deserved or even being presented as a good thing.

If that's the case here, then I think I'm glad this isn't a common element in D&D.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not everybody is obligated to like or agree with the themes of Dante's Inferno just because it's a classic.

Of course not, but a writer is free to refer to it thematically without their work being derided as "toxic" or "repugnant". At least, they should be.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

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?

So, about this thematic consistency thing.

If I was to go back in time and ask the TSR team "Why did you, the authors, write the Wall of the Faithless into the Forgotten Realms setting as a simple matter-of-fact thing", and they answered "As a way to reinforce the importance of the gods and religion in the setting," (and thus not invoking an in-setting Thermian argument to answer an out-of-setting answer), my response would then be "That's an extremely clumsy and heavy-handed way of handling it." My view (granted, with the benefit of being able to look back at 30 years of RPG design history) is that if you want the game to revolve around a certain theme, the best way to do so would be to build that theme into the game's rules (or add additional subsystems to fill that gap if you're making a supplement), that mechanically incentivize players to lean into that theme. An example would be the recently released tie-in RPG for the movie The Green Knight, where the entire game revolves around honour, dishonour, and navigating between the two. Or in the quickstart for Avatar Legends, where a core gameplay mechanic is your character feeling pulled towards two opposing principles and trying to balance them with each other. Just tacking on a "by the way, your character needs to do this thing or they'll be punished in the afterlife" without providing any support or incentive for actually doing the thing at the table isn't particularly persuasive.

And I don't know about you, but for me there is a large degree of difference between the presence of an atheist in a world full of gods and a Jedi knight in a world full of gods. The first difference being that the second character is a copyright violation, but beyond that, the Jedi knight by their very existence is trying to introduce an element into the setting that previously did not exist (the Force), while the atheist is merely refusing to engage with an already existing setting element (in this case, they just don't go to temple on the weekends or say the usual prayers to the gods during meals or before bed). The atheist is naturally less disruptive to the world than the Jedi because their presence doesn't automatically change the setting to accommodate them.

Also, a mecha pilot in the Forgotten Realms would be absolutely awesome. Somebody hook them up with a Lantanese or Halruaan engineer; we're getting all Gundam up in here.

 

[Faolyn]

One of those things is not like the others.

They're all disliked groups.

The fact that one group isn't "born that way"--since I'm not going to get into a debate about that here--doesn't change the fact that the game was singling out a group of people that real-world society looks down upon when there is absolutely no reason for them to do so.

 

[Scribe]

They're all disliked groups.

The fact that one group isn't "born that way"--since I'm not going to get into a debate about that here--doesn't change the fact that the game was singling out a group of people that real-world society looks down upon when there is absolutely no reason for them to do so.

There is a reason though? Gods depend on worship right? Denial of a God's existence, is attempting to 'destroy' that God. Yes?

 

[Faolyn]

What makes them divine then? They are not all powerful. They are not all knowing. They are not particularly wise. They are just people that wield a bit more power than other people.

And some of them were people until they ascended into godhood.

Gods in the Realms are just normal people who bought the Immortals boxed set.

 

[Faolyn]

There is a reason though? Gods depend on worship right? Denial of a God's existence, is attempting to 'destroy' that God. Yes?

Which makes those gods really awful people, really, since they're punishing you for not feeding them.

 

[ReshiIRE]

Within skirting around the topic of real life debate about religion, atheism is complicated by what atheism is now versus what atheism was in the past, particular centuries ago, and the expectations different socities placed on people.

It's clear that people who are athesits have not, in the same way, experienced the persecution and evils inflicted on LGBTQIA+ or people of colour, especially not in the modern age. But there have been people who were atheists or otherwise had very different religious believes compared to their peers have been persecuted, often individually, up to very recent times (see Nazi Germany, etc.)

In many ways you can commpare how some athesits have been treated in different socities to how people of a different religion to the primary religion of the area they reside: treatment ranges from tolerance to persecution.

So as someone who is LGBTQIA+ (and not out, publicly), and an agnostic atheist, I would not compare them directly but... it's complicated, I suppose.

 

[Scribe]

Which makes those gods really awful people, really, since they're punishing you for not feeding them.

Entity depends on others for survival.
Entity wants to survive.
Entity removes or discourages behavior that would lead to it (or even its fellow beings) not (editted) surviving.

It absolutely makes sense, but as was noted in a few posts a few pages ago, its a darker view on the setting than perhaps you care to participate in. Oddly, though I have believed there is no God(s) since I was quite young, and it lead to a lot of issues at the time between myself, my family, community, etc, I have always been drawn to settings with Gods as a real part of the fabric of the setting, even if they are evil or less than noble.

 

[ReshiIRE]

Which makes those gods really awful people, really, since they're punishing you for not feeding them.

This idea is explored and commented on in (spoilers for a popular non-DND WRPG video game, I think even mentioning the title would spoil the game):

Spoiler: spoiler for game

Divinity: Original Sin 2, where the 'gods' turn out to be traitors (somewhat... it's a bit complicated here) of their civilization who locked away most of their civilization in a hell-like place, and otherwise killed or kept the rest in prison, and then drew upon a special 'Source' power from others to create the species that worship and look like them.

To survive now as these 'godlike' beings, they require this 'Source', which means that everyone that dies gives this power back to the gods... or sometimes, they take this power back from people, destorying their Souls.

Considering how important these gods are to the player characters destinies and survival in the game, these constant info reveals and realisation that these gods are well... evil, and enemies in disguise, feels certainly like a criticism of how say how certain other RPGs handle gods. In particular, considering how much the game feels like someone's TTRPG game translated to a video game format, I almost wonder if it's a criticism of something like how FR handles gods.