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

 

[Mistwell]

Not just a few months ago. It has been the case since the MM was printed. The MM includes language explaining to DMs that they can deviate from the listed alignments if they like.

"The alignment specified in a monster's stat block is the default. Feel free to depart from it and change a monster' s alignment to suit the needs of your campaign. If you want a good-aligned green dragon or an evil storm giant, there's nothing stopping you."

"A DM Can Change Anything" is not what we're talking about when we talk about canon. Like literally WOTC said that when then talked about what they mean by canon. Of course a DM can alter canon for their campaign.

 

[Maxperson]

Good quote.

It seems like the designers are using this quote as a "proof text" to declare all humanoids being any alignment as a already canon. Thus any future removal of alignment from the statblocks will merely be "clarifications".

I don't think there will be future removals. They've said that alignment is back for Fizban's dragon book, but they're including traits, including some that are outside of the traditional alignment for each dragon type. So you'll see like 9 CE traits for Red Dragons, and 1 that is LG or something for a good Red Dragon.

I would expect future books to adopt that style, as it keeps alignment for those who want it, while at the same time providing those who don't with a way to ignore it. It's win-win.

 

[Yaarel]

I don't think there will be future removals. They've said that alignment is back for Fizban's dragon book, but they're including traits, including some that are outside of the traditional alignment for each dragon type. So you'll see like 9 CE traits for Red Dragons, and 1 that is LG or something for a good Red Dragon.

I would expect future books to adopt that style, as it keeps alignment for those who want it, while at the same time providing those who don't with a way to ignore it. It's win-win.

I expect alignment for monsters like a dragon, but not for "humanoids" like a dragonborn or kobold.

 

[Azzy]

I appreciate Perkins amended the word "canon" and affirmed the co-existence of multiple Official Canons (Timelines) . Now, if WotC would just recognize their reality in-game, so that there can be occasional "what-if" world-hopping between the different Official Multiverses.

Multiverse-5 = the fifth edition reality.
Multiverse-N = the novels reality
Multiverse-AG = Adventurers Guild reality.
Multiverse(s)-V = various video game licensee realities.
Multiverse(s)-C = various comic book licensee realities.
Multiverse-F = Sweet Pea licensee film reality.
Multiverse-L = the Legacy reality. The culmination of the all previous editions, which includes all the "lens shifts" due to edition changes. This was the Timeline which went off-screen when Multiverse-5 appeared in 2014. Multiverse-5's past is not the same as the Legacy Multiverse.
Multiverse-4 = the fourth edition reality (eternally 4e, past, present, and future)
Multiverse-3 = the third edition reality (eternally 3e, past, present, and future)
Multiverse-2 = the second edition reality (eternally 2e, past, present, and future; seen in the 2E War of the Lance adventures, which "should've" been portrayed with 1e lens, since it was before the Chaos War which converted Krynn from 1e to SAGA lens; and also in the Arcane Age FR books which used 2e rules, which "should've" been a 1e lens, since it was before ToT.)
Multiverse-1 = the first edition reality (eternally 1e, past, present, and future)
Multiverse-B = the basic reality (eternally BD&D, past, present, and future)
Multiverse-O = the original reality (eternally OD&D, past, present, and future)

That seems overly obsessive compulsive.

 

[Maxperson]

"A DM Can Change Anything" is not what we're talking about when we talk about canon. Like literally WOTC said that when then talked about what they mean by canon. Of course a DM can alter canon for their campaign.

It's not the same as "A DM can change anything," though. They didn't include language letting DMs know that they should feel free to ignore armor class or change it. Nor did they put in that language letting DMs know that they should feel free to change hit points.

By including that language in the alignment section of the MM and placing it early in that section, they are effectively making alignment change of monsters an optional rule. The DM need only invoke the optional rule, rather than use Rule 0 to "A DM can change anything."

 

[Ancalagon]

No I said what I meant. I feel like the current canon is that orcs should not be considered inherently evil. I feel like that changed a few months ago, and is the current canon they're working with. This, despite contrary wording in the PHB.

You are technically correct. But I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve with this tack.

 

[J.Quondam]

The quoted text is just a reminder that what we do in our campaigns is perfectly valid no matter what anybody else says. If you don't need that reminder, great! Other people, however, might benefit from it.

Exactly. Personally, I appreciate any and all explicit statements from the official Powers-That-Be to shut up Mr. "Well, AK-shully."
I really hate that guy.

 

[Maxperson]

I expect alignment for monsters like a dragon, but not for "humanoids" like a dragonborn or kobold.

I think it will look more like...

"ACOLYTE
Medium humanoid (any race), any alignment"

 

[Charlaquin]

No I said what I meant. I feel like the current canon is that orcs should not be considered inherently evil. I feel like that changed a few months ago, and is the current canon they're working with. This, despite contrary wording in the PHB.

Ah, I misread - missed the “not” in “orcs are not inherently evil.”

At any rate, I disagree. I think “orcs are not inherently evil” is what they are moving towards making canon, but it’s an ongoing process. Currently, orcs are still inherently evil according to canon, but that will be phased out soon, and this article suggests that a revised printing of the core books is likely to be a step in that process.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

D&D

That seems overly obsessive compulsive.

Tell it to the Transformers design team. And I mean, c'mon: this is D&D for goodness sakes, which has 100s of pages of rulebooks, and rules changes justified by specific Multiverse Shattering Events, etc. If Transformers aficionados can follow clear complexity, so can D&D grognards.
And please refrain from mental health diagnoses on a game forum!