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]

groans

And it begins...

No. I'm not trying to say that X piece of this IS hidden canon and then argue over it. I'm only saying that it exists, because they said it does.

 

[Maxperson]

On ENWorld? No way, that never happens!

That and just because something is semantics, does not mean that it's unimportant or not worth discussing.

 

[Yaarel]

I don't think so. Canonically (well, up until the blog post in the OP), when viewed through the Great Wheel cosmology, the Wall of the Faithless is in the Oinos layer of Hades (Julia Martin, Eric L. Boyd (March 1996). Faiths & Avatars. (TSR, Inc), pp. 2–3. ISBN 978-0786903849.)

That ring separating the Elemental Chaos from the Astral Plane... huh, it isn't labeled. If I had to guess, I think it might be the Outlands? That's the 17th Outer Plane and the only one missing from the 5e wheel.

Oh. The ring is probably the Neutral alignment plane, the hub of the Wheel?

 

[Faolyn]

It's less stable, because it's far more easily changed. I've never had to worry about spellsunderings or spellplagues. They put out canon and then I got to pluck out what I wanted. And what was left was solid, because I could reasonably rely on things not to be retconned. Social issue changes and such notwithstanding.

Now I can still decide what I want to keep or not, but if they change a bunch of stuff, it makes more work for me and presents more confusion for the players. Their PCs who "knew" things will possibly no longer know those things and will instead know other things. Since I'm not going to have the time or the inclination to go through all changes and create a sheet of what stays and what goes for the players, they are going to be limbo until something comes up in game play.

If WotC decides to put out new material that directly contradicts the old material (which they haven't, yet, for the Realms), and if you have players who have read the books and wikis, and if they are rabid about only using the most accurate and latest version of the setting, and if you have players who will put up a fight when you say "in my game, X is true," and if you haven't told the players "Hey, so did you hear about how in the latest book they wrote about this thing? I don't like that thing, so it's not in my setting," then, and only then, you might have a problem.

And in that case, the problem is with the lack of communication between you and the players. I've found that most players don't even read and memorized all the books, let alone the supplementary material.

Beyond that, there is no problem here. WotC hasn't made major contradictory changes to the Realms yet and let's face it--it's not like the Realms isn't used to having major changes made to it. Any major change that they write about and you decide to keep is just the Realms having another Event. And if they do write about a change you don't like, it simply doesn't happen in your version, and then tell your players.

 

[J.Quondam]

That and just because something is semantics, does not mean that it's unimportant or not worth discussing.

That's a fair point. But to do that effectively, you have to decide that's what you're actually discussing.
But what's happening here is that different people have different ideas of what "canon" means, so they're arguing past each other, rather than with each other. (Or simply arguing just to argue, because internet, lol .)

Agree on the definition of "canon" first, then have the discussion. It'll be much more productive.

 

[the Jester]

It’s more like “eating your cake and having it too”. Once you’ve eaten your cake, you can’t really complain that it’s gone.

That phrasing helped catch the Unabomber. FYI.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm with @Maxperson on this. If official means something it means that which comes from WotC. Now, official content has no standing at my table, and I am the authority of the content at my table, but that doesn't make my content "official." It just make my content more relevant to my table.

I disagree. "Official" is a nearly worthless distinction. It is a claim to authority that really has only the weight you give it.

To play in Kobold Press's Midgard you need to use the 5e DnD ruleset. Who is the official source for that game? Kobold Press, WoTC or the DM at the table who is deciding how things actually work? Practically, only one voice matters.

 

[the Jester]

Except that's not what the books say. The MM specifically says that the listed alignment is the default. Default doesn't mean "most common." It means that, unless you actively change it, the monster is this alignment. The default setting for gold dragons is Lawful Good. If you want a neutral or evil or Chaotic Good gold dragon, sure you can do it, but "canonically," gold dragons are LG.

3e monster books handled alignment right, IMHO- a monster was "often", "usually", or "always" its alignment, and even always meant mostly always but not quite; see Zariel for one example of a celestial who was "always Lawful Good" who is now Lawful Evil.

I think the next time I do a big audit/revision of my monsters, I'm going to add this qualifier in.

 

[Ancalagon]

Except that's not what the books say. The MM specifically says that the listed alignment is the default. Default doesn't mean "most common." It means that, unless you actively change it, the monster is this alignment. The default setting for gold dragons is Lawful Good. If you want a neutral or evil or Chaotic Good gold dragon, sure you can do it, but "canonically," gold dragons are LG.

The book says "The alignment specified in a monster's stack block is the default. Feel free to depart from it and change a monster's alignment to suit the need of your campaign" (emphasis mine).

The book itself tells us that they can be different if there is a need/want. Default is not a prison.

But this is the 5e monster manual. I decided instead to consult the 2nd ed monster manual (which is a GREAT RESOURCE btw). It states " Alignment show the general behavior of the average monster of that type".

 

[Mirtek]

In the cosmology map in the Players Handbook,

The ring around inner planes that the "spokes" of the Wheel connect to, is that supposed to be the Wall of the Faithless?

Most certainly not. The wall is not that long. At the end of the day it's just a city wall around the "capital" of Kelemvor. It doesn't encompass an entire plane