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

 

[Maxperson]

Well, that is incredibly insulting to every single person who doesn't agree with you.

Though, maybe it just comes from you misunderstanding the question. I wasn't asking if you would look over the class and make it available.

Aha. That wasn't clear.

I was asking why you would feel the need to incorportate the Witherbloom college, a magical school that specializes in that type of magic and is the "official" source of that subclass, into the game world. It could easily just be a different type of druidic magic. Unless you have also gone and laid out exactly which sects of druids practice which types of magics, and have... seven entirely different sects with different practices, beliefs, organizations ect

Why would I feel the need to include something that only exists in one setting? I'm talking about actual changes to lore in the setting(s) that I use. Like Bladesingers and the mechanics/lore changes from Tasha's. Specific changes to lore already established. New lore is new lore, but only for the setting it's put out for. I wouldn't even look at something from Strixhaven to see if it needed to be included in the Forgotten Realms as that lore isn't for the Realms.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't believe atheism is even remotely in the same realm of discussion as things which are innately part of a person.

I would not say it's even on the level of a religion.

But if this is going to be an identity discussion, I'll pass.

So yes, I see it differently than colour, or sexuality.

Atheisism is on the same level of religion. Religious discrimination is still discrimination

 

[Mirtek]

Fraz-urb'luu in Out of the Abyss is specifically called out as masquerading as a god (meaning he's granted clerical powers)

Actually I'd have to re-read that, because I am not sure about it. Could be a 5e retcon, but in the past it was more to masquerade to layman worshippers, not actual divine spellcasters. Because of exactly that reason that he could not grant clercial spells.

At max. he may deceive someone who doesn't really know what clerical spells are supposed to be like by granting some demonic boons or warlock pact powers.

But maybe OotA changed that

 

[Maxperson]

Not Paul but... you didn't really.

Gods exert influence over the world by granting divine magic to their followers and sending signs and portents to guide them -> Yep, this is a thing Demons and Devils can do. Fraz-urb'luu in Out of the Abyss is specifically called out as masquerading as a god (meaning he's granted clerical powers) and there is a long tradition of priests of various demons and devils. Also, beings like Yeenoghu and Orcus constantly send signs and portents to their followers.

No they can't. Pact magic is not the same as having clerics. And pretending to be a god doesn't mean you can grant clerical powers. That's an assumption not born out by the masquerade. All it takes is enough personal power and appearing before a mortal and making the claim.

Demons and devils who have not achieved actual godhood can't grant clerical powers or spells.

Each god claiming dominion over an aspect of the world, such as war, forests, or the sea. -> Yep, they do this too. Easiest example is Yeenoghu and Baphomet with their dominion over Gnolls and Minotaurs respectively. But if you want to go for more esoteric things you have Orcus ruling over undeath, Obox-Ob being a lord of Poison, Zuggtymoy rules fungus, Jubilex is the ruler of all oozes, ect ect ect.

Gnolls and minotaurs are not aspects of the world, such as nature, forests, etc. Races are not aspects of the world. There are no demons or devils who are not ALSO gods that do so.

The gods are real and embody a variety of beliefs,-> Yep, this is true for the Archdevils and Demon Lords too.

Do tell. Which variety of beliefs do they embody?

 

[Faolyn]

First, do you think that when a writer depicts Sune's clergy preaching that physical beauty is the measure of goodness, that the writer believes that? Or is it maybe just the writing?

Have you seen how many times D&D has equated beauty with goodness and ugliness with evil? I realize that's a standard fantasy/mythology trope, but it's not one that D&D has ever shied away from.

I kinda feel that assuming that the people who wrote about the WotF are in favor of it is like saying that the people who wrote about Strahd are in favor of stalking and drinking the blood of humans.

Also- has the WotF ever been depicted as a good thing? It was made by an evil god for an evil purpose, taking it over helped shift the new god of death away from goodness... it doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement to me.

Strahd, for all of his power, has always been treated as a villain that the PCs can thwart or even kill.

Has the Wall ever been something the players can affect?

 

[Chaosmancer]

One of those things is not like the others.

Here in the developed world where RPGs are mostly played, atheists do not suffer-- and have never suffered-- anything near the level of discrimination experienced on a day-to-day basis by POC or the LGBT+ community, nor even some actual religious minorities.

I understand that an atheist might be put off by a negative portrayal in a game, but please let's be careful not to turn that discomfort into a "fashionable grievance" to be exploited by otherwise very privileged people. (And I'm saying that as a middle-aged, middle-class white male atheist living in deep Red redneckistan surrounded by 50-foot roadside crosses and cowboy churches.)

I don't think there is value in trying to say "if your suffering doesn't reach this level, it isn't real suffering."

There are people who are outcast from their entire town, not just their family but literally there entire hometown, over not being Christian. There are support groups fro Atheists dealing with discrimination. Trying to say that they don't count is wrong.

 

[Faolyn]

At max. he may deceive someone who doesn't really know what clerical spells are supposed to be like by granting some demonic boons or warlock pact powers.

The most well-known clerical abilities are those of healing. Several other classes in 5e also can cast healing spells, including bards (who can also raise you from the dead), some warlocks, and some sorcerers (who, according to the rules, don't have to be tied to a good creatures; at least the celestial warlock is tied to something from the upper planes). And that doesn't take magic items into account.

So unless your average villager or townsfolk has read the PH and knows what spells are unique to clerics, all they know is "this person healed me."

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

It is presented as neccessary to the foundation of Good. When it was torn down, Kelemvor decided to grant people afterlives based off of their deeds and actions instead of their faith, leading to people committing heroic suicide because they knew their afterlife was guaranteed, and Good would fall to Evil because Good lacked defenders.

It is intrinsically tied to being good.

 

[jasper]

Also the question is open anyway if doing away with the wall would change anything for the faithless.

Just because they won't be stuck in the wall as the default punishment doesn't mean the deities would just let them leave.

Maybe Jergal before Myrkul and Myrkul before he came up with the wall just personally ripped apart each and every faithless soul. Until Myrkul got tired of having to do this all the time and just build the wall to automate the process.

lord of death: OK, you win. The wall shall be no more!
<wall crumbles to dust>
PCs: "Hooray, we torn down the wall! Wait!?! What's the new device that's being build over there?"
lord of death: "Oh, that? That's the new soulgrinder where from now on we throw all faithless souls into"

Yes Just shop Chult for just 99 GP and shipping you can get your soulgrinder in various colours. Red. Passion Pink, Blueberry, Toxic aka Elementary Green.

 

[Maxperson]

The most well-known clerical abilities are those of healing. Several other classes in 5e also can cast healing spells, including bards (who can also raise you from the dead), some warlocks, and some sorcerers (who, according to the rules, don't have to be tied to a good creatures; at least the celestial warlock is tied to something from the upper planes). And that doesn't take magic items into account.

So unless your average villager or townsfolk has read the PH and knows what spells are unique to clerics, all they know is "this person healed me."

Right. So he can't actually grant clerical powers, but can deceive people into thinking he's a god.