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

 

[Mirtek]

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

It's also changing between editions. In 2e Orcus, Demogorgon, Yeenoghu and Baphomet were actual deities (and demonlords). Graz'zt however was not

 

[pemerton]

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.

Unsure if intended but this is almost sounding like an argument for 'justification based on faith alone', which feels a little gross.

To me it seems like a fairly clumsy treatment of some sort of instrumental argument for the use of coercive means - eg conscription of an army to fight a just war.

But either way, I don't think it's objectionable for fiction authors to explore such ideas. And in a fantasy context, using divinity and adherence to a patron deity as the symbolic vehicle for it seems a pretty natural choice.

 

[Maxperson]

So how did you explain the inclusion of Steady Aim in the lore?

Addition is not change. Change is the issue.

How about the fact that Healing Spirit was altered, what in-universe explanation was made for that lore change?

What visible in-fiction effect did the change have?

When the new Celestial spirits became summonable from Tasha's, how did you explain the existence of these new beings?

Addition is not change.

How do you explain the disappearance of hundreds of monsters, what lore did you use for that?

What monsters and how did they disappear? Was this a change or an addition?

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?

It's possible, but I'm not going to go out of my way to include it. If a player wanted to play one, I'd probably look for a way to ADD it to the existing lore, which is not a change to existing lore on Witherbloom.

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?

Context. I'm talking about changes to existing lore, not additions to it.

 

[Mirtek]

Has the Wall ever been something the players can affect?

In 3e characters without a patron deity could only be raised withing a certain timeframe (1d10 day I believe), thereafter they couldn't be brought back by mortal means. This was meant to represent the time they spend waiting in line before being judged by Kelemvor and then put into the wall.

AFAIK that was the only instance of the wall ever having an actual effect on the game itself.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

They're pretty close and some do ascend, but they aren't gods. This has been made clear in edition after edition.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

No they didn't. They always fought using both sword and spell, but not at the same time. That's a change.

 

[Faolyn]

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!

I have no idea what this means in relation to what I said.

 

[Scribe]

Right. They could literally just reincarnate them. Nothing wasted, nothing lost, no evil done.

I'd rather oblivion, than an infinite number of refusals of the gods, personally.

Thirdly, you yourself said that you think the gods would rather people go evil then become part of the wall.

Yes, because then they at least stay in the system and could be 'redeemed' at a later date.

I'm against any real world groups getting any treatments similar to this in fantasy worlds. I'd be against making any real world cultural, ethnic, religious, or other groups have in-game/world punishments (even if they aren't likely to come up), because it's just unnecessary and inherently problematic.

I do not agree that atheists are a group, any more than anarchists are.

Traditionally, the wall of the Faithless also caught those who refused to worship any god. Faerun being what it is, I can easily imagine people fed up with all of them refusing to worship any.

And that would be fine, an opting out of the system of the cosmology. It just results in eventual oblivion.

 

[Maxperson]

In 3e characters without a patron deity could only be raised withing a certain timeframe (1d10 day I believe), thereafter they couldn't be brought back by mortal means. This was meant to represent the time they spend waiting in line before being judged by Kelemvor and then put into the wall.

AFAIK that was the only instance of the wall ever having an actual effect on the game itself.

Huh! I never knew that. What book was that in?

 

[Mirtek]

No they didn't. They always fought using both sword and spell, but not at the same time. That's a change.

The lore of the class was always along the lines of

have blended art, swordplay, and arcane magic into a harmonious whole. - Races of Faerun
They have also learned to cast spells while engaged in combat - Complete Book of Elves
ultimate blending of swordplay and spellcasting, - Neverwinter Campaign Setting

The ability to use it at the same time, however that was represented in the current rules (Song of Celerity in 3e , Bladespells and Arcane Strike class feature in 4e, etc.), is also nothing new to the latest 5e incarnation of the concept
n?

Huh! I never knew that. What book was that in?

Forgotten Realms Campaing Setting for 3rd edition