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]

Meet Ghaunadaur.

A god who had to answer prayers directed at a demon prince. Why? Because demon princes can't. Thanks for the confirmation that demon princes can't answer prayers.

"It was really Ghaunadaur who answered prayers directed at the demon prince Juiblex."

 

[pemerton]

One difference between Earth religion and DnD religion, is that there is direct evidence of at least some sort of supernatural power(s) in DnD. I would certainly not be an atheist in DnD land since I actually see clerics performing miracles with glowy magic and all. At the very least I would be more inclined to believe in deities.

I'm not an expert on the category, but I think this counts as a "Thermian argument". I don't think the relevant framework for engaging in a critical reading of The Wall is is it rational for an inhabitant of the FR to be faithless? I think the relevant question is does this Wall as a literary thing have anything interesting to convey? The answer to me seems to be yes: it seems to be a commentary on conviction.

The Wall of the Faithless is saying that a good and just being, for the sake of the balance of the world, must horrifically punish and torture people for their beliefs.

<snip>

Atheists are often discriminated against because of their beliefs. Often told that a just and good being will torture them for all eternity for their lack of worship. In the real world.

What you seem to be doing, here, is diagnosing why the idea of The Wall has whatever symbolic power it has. For similar reasons, there can be atheist artists who use religious symbols in their work because they recognise the expressive power and effect of those symbols.

Whether the Wall is intended as ironic criticism of faith; or as a critique of non-conviction expressed in a god-riddled fantasy world; or something else (eg the purely utilitarian purpose @Hussar suggested upthread) I don't know. It seems to me that it could serve either of the artistic purposes I've identified in the hands of a particular RPGing group.

Atheist is a understandable faith in RL

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

Atheism is not a religion, at least as per most conceptions of religion. It's not a belief in the supernatural. It's not a form of life oriented towards reconciliation with the world and/or salvation. It's not a tradition of ritual and belief associated with the sorts of things mentioned in the previous two sentences.

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.

There are people who lose families and communities because they are Communists. Or because they refuse to take up military service. Or for any number of reasons. That doesn't mean that George Orwell isn't allowed to write books attacking orthodox Communism or implying that those who won't take up arms against Fascism are shirkers.

Engaging with questions of conviction, allegiance, and what is or isn't valuable in life is at the core of what fiction is about!

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

This is true. We could say the same about the various classic existentialist works that engage with conviction, and faith, and what it means to lack them.

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.

I've GMed The Green Knight. The game, and the core scenario, take it as given that pursuing honour is valuable, and that the dishonourable get what is coming to them. If I want to play a character in that game who does not care about honour - say, my interpretation of Mark Twain's Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's court - I'm hosed. If I'm a person who is so sceptical of the value of honour - eg I see it as (one of) the enabling ideological causes of two World Wars - that I am repulsed by a game that puts it front-and-centre like this, then I will just have to pass the game by.

I don't think the fact that the game has these limits or implications means that it is wrong for it to have been published as it is.

The Wall of the Faithless is a stupid concept unless it becomes a main component of the setting, IE, heroes adventuring to break it down and free the souls of the dead from the clearly tyrannical and abusive gods.

Has the Wall ever been something the players can affect?

The fact that some people run their campaigns as railroads doesn't seem to have any bearing on the merits of a component of a fiction!

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

To risk a tautology, the Thermian argument is contingent on the Thermian argument being made.

Person A: “Wow, athiests are a minority and discriminated against in much of the world. I finally want to relax playing D&D and the mostly highly promoted setting says the soul of athiests are tortuously ground to nothing in a wall? That’s BS!”

Person B (Thermian Argument) : “No really, there’s an in-fiction reason for that! Gods are powered by belief and therefore the wall incentivizes mortals to support their gods! Also, the Good gods tried to get rid of it and it didn’t work!”

Person B (Non-Thermian argument): “No, the writers did it on purpose because…(choose any that apply)
a) they wanted to make a setting where belief (even lip service) is important;
b) there are other settings where you can play an athiest
c) when they created it in the 90s, they weren’t thinking of athiests, and now we can’t change it, because CANON!”

Personally, I still think the non-Thermian arguments are BS, but I will concede they are non-Thermian.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yet not all of the are. The FR wikki isn't fully exclusive to FR. It also contains some stuff from other settings.

Elves, gnomes, etc. could probably die during that time. But humans on Faerun could not.

I see, so Kelemvor only ruled over the death of humans then. Would you say that was correct?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Because it makes sense.

Why would it need to be altered or removed, when based on a 'species' or whatever Gods are after they ascend, they depend on faith/followers to function.

I mean one would assume the gods of Good would even prefer people to worship gods of Evil, because those are potentially future converts, instead of people going off and saying 'forget you guys' which leads to their weakening, and death.

Right?

I need food to survive.

I don't believe in forcing people to farm at gunpoint so I can have food. That would be immoral. And considering how many people worship the gods of Faerun, and how powerful they are... this isn't a matter of survival for them anymore.

 

[pemerton]

Atheism is a lack of a belief system, which I specified and addressed. That doesn't make it any less problematic.

Yes, I saw that. I don't see at all how that negates anything I said. I know you likely don't mean any offense, nor did whomever created the concept of the Wall of the Faithless (was it Ed Greenwood?) but that doesn't prevent it from offending me and others that asked for it to be removed.

Of course you can ask for it to be removed. But I took you to be asserting that it should be removed because it's unjust, or conduces to injustice. I took you to be drawing a parallel to the replication, in much fantasy fiction, of racism and sexism and associated tropes.

EDIT: I'm no fan of Ayn Rand, and don't intend to buy or play The Fountainhead RPG, but I don't think it's wrong that it be published.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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.

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.

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


So, there is no difference.

Also, you know, the fact that Asmodeus is a god.

There's a lot more gray-area between "Archfiend" and "Deity" than @Maxperson is saying.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The lore had to change. Before the lore of Bladesingers didn't involve them having the in-fiction ability to attack and cast a cantrip at the same time. After the changed the lore changed to allow that. When mechanics have an in-fiction impact, there is lore involved.

So how did you explain the inclusion of Steady Aim in the lore? How about the fact that Healing Spirit was altered, what in-universe explanation was made for that lore change? When the new Celestial spirits became summonable from Tasha's, how did you explain the existence of these new beings? How do you explain the disappearance of hundreds of monsters, what lore did you use for that?

Or... was that all hand-waved and not really explained, because it wasn't an in-universe change as much as it was a metagame change?

Neither the Witherbloom druid, nor the College would be a part of the realms.

I see, so you;ll look over the class, you must look over the class to make sure that the player's aren't missing out on something better... but since Witherbloom isn't a Realms thing, the class will never feature in your game anyways?

That seems insanely counter-intuitive. So, I must have missed something here right? You were apalled at the idea you wouldn't look over the classes, but now you are stating that they would have never appeared in your game anyways. Which is it?

 

[Mirtek]

That's a significant change to the lore of the class.

That's a change to the game rules the class operates under in the current edition. In the lore of the class they always did that.

 

[Maxperson]

I see, so Kelemvor only ruled over the death of humans then. Would you say that was correct?

I think it more like, 99.99% of Kelemvor's believers are human, so he ends up with those almost exclusively. Elves would have their own death beliefs involving their own gods and those gods would have dominion over them. However, some few elves do follow Kelemvor and that belief would put them under his sway, not that of the elven gods.