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

 

[Parmandur]

Thank you for the clarification! I've been going around saying it was Crawford.

Crawford made a comment at a press event, Perkins wrote a blog article explaining their approach.

 

[Remathilis]

No. What they decide on with regard to future lore building should grow off of prior canon, but there's nothing to be a slave to. Just look at the Spellplague and the Sundering. Those were canon additions as time in the Realms marched on. They built off of prior canon, but still made very significant changes to the world.

The problem is you can write yourself into corners.

There are two examples of sources (one a novel, one a game book) that spell out how goblins and orcs are irredeemably evil. A hard canon has to now explain the new stance on humanoids and reconcile it with those sources. You get stuck having to explain how that was true once but Gruumsh got kicked in the balls and now orcs and be any alignments. A soft or loose canon can explain those things simpler: the novel isn't canon, Volo is an unreliable narrator, here is the new stance. They aren't looking to excuse any changes with RSEs, just "this is the new take, use it if you want or stick with the old, either is equally valid."

 

[billd91]

Canon can only exist if it comes from official sources only.

Who's the official source for what happens in your campaign?

 

[Yaarel]

There seems enough D&D lore to write a 5e Deities & Demigods, for the Forgotten Realms setting.

(I prefer such a book only mentions the WotC Intellectual Property, the fictional gods, and avoids misrepresenting the sacred traditions of reallife ethnicities.)

I suspect such a product would sell well.

It wouldnt be WotC canon, because it goes beyond the core-three books. But it can be part of the "setting canon" for the Forgotten Realms setting.

It would be cool if the book also mentions nontheistic sacred traditions that exist within the Forgotten Realms setting. All of the book would revolve around different kinds of "cosmic forces". A Forgotten Realms "god" is one example of a kind of cosmic force. The book would explain the concept of "portfolios" and "domains" as it exists within the Forgotten Realms setting. In Dark Sun, each element is an example of a sacred "cosmic force", and there can be analogues of such nontheistic spiritual traditions within Forgotten Realms too.

Removing the gods from the Players Handbook and placing them in a Deities & Demigods, accomplishes two things. It is easier for Forgotten Realms fans to focus on the lore. It is easier for fans of homebrew and other official settings to ignore it.

 

[Maxperson]

The problem is you can write yourself into corners.

There are two examples of sources (one a novel, one a game book) that spell out how goblins and orcs are irredeemably evil. A hard canon has to now explain the new stance on humanoids and reconcile it with those sources. You get stuck having to explain how that was true once but Gruumsh got kicked in the balls and now orcs and be any alignments. A soft or loose canon can explain those things simpler: the novel isn't canon, Volo is an unreliable narrator, here is the new stance. They aren't looking to excuse any changes with RSEs, just "this is the new take, use it if you want or stick with the old, either is equally valid."

Two things. First, I've never considered novels canon. They aren't part of the game and go off in wild directions sometimes. I was fine with the first announcement that movies, novels, video games, etc. would not be canon. Second, I've already said in multiple posts that social issues, such as orcs, are an exception. Those are relatively rare, though.

 

[Maxperson]

Who's the official source for what happens in your campaign?

Only WotC is an official source for what happens in my campaign. I'm the ultimate authority for what goes into it, but I'm not an official source.

 

[Zeromaru X]

I mean...it was religious in its entirety, but in a context of a world with actual gods, and an afterlife, and various 'heavens'? I guess I don't see the problem.

It has the same problem of the alignment. I don't want to derail this topic, so just search on this forum "Wall of the Faithless", and you'll see.

 

[billd91]

Only WotC is an official source for what happens in my campaign. I'm the ultimate authority for what goes into it, but I'm not an official source.

Seriously? You don't consider yourself an official source of material for your own campaign?

 

[Yaarel]

Only WotC is an official source for what happens in my campaign. I'm the ultimate authority for what goes into it, but I'm not an official source.

If you published your setting, you would determine what is official for it.

 

[Dausuul]

They very rarely changed it. They added to it a lot with new editions, but changes were rare. Even the Sword Coast book still references past canon. They omit a lot due to the size of the book, but an omission is not a change to the prior lore.

You can claim that the Spellplague, and the Time of Troubles, and the Sundering, were just "additions." And if all you care about is the abstract question of whether something is "canonical," that may be so.

But from a practical point of view, they were massive changes: Today, the Forgotten Realms look totally different from the way they did yesterday. And anyone DMing a game in the Realms has to decide whether and how to incorporate those changes. And if you choose not to incorporate them, then you're going to have big problems with the lore in any new sourcebooks.

This is the thing I really don't get. I can entirely understand the desire not to have to choose between "massively overhaul my ongoing campaign" and "stop using official sourcebooks." That makes sense! But if that is your complaint, it should apply equally to the Realms-shattering events of yore--and, indeed, to all the metaplot TSR was so fond of.