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

 

[pemerton]

Seriously, the mental gymnastics required to justify any of this is absolutely astonishing and abhorrent, being both horrifical frightening and mind-shatteringly dense.

I don't agree that I am mind-shatteringly dense. Nor that I am horrifically frightening.

The relationship between faith, conviction (religious or otherwise), life, freedom and suffering is one of the most basic topics of literary exploration. The Wall of the Faithless seems to me to express the same idea as Casablanca; and when compared to The Quiet American to be (i) crude but (ii) sitting in the same thematic space.

The idea that the FR "faithless" are stand-ins for real-world atheists strikes me as no different from the idea that FR's Orcs can't be a racist trope because they're not humans: it's treating the in-fiction as literal and ignoring the actual trope and theme that are at work.

 

[Hussar]

For starters, the actual description of the wall marks it as pretty terrible. It's punishment, after all, and some descriptions say it's a slow, agonizing dissolution. The Neverwinter Nights 2 wiki calls it "suffering and eventual oblivion." Condemning someone to suffer is terrible, especially if it's for something as minor as not believing in a god.

Yup, but, it also serves a purpose. After all, without the Wall, it's now just a lottery system. Do you get to go to your appropriate afterlife? I hope you successfully run the gauntlet of demons lining up to snatch you up for all eternity with no hope for release.

Secondly, saying living people are a "resource" once again paints these gods in a very negative light.

What? In what way is considering people a resource even remotely evil? That would mean that virtually all of human existence is evil. I'm a parent of two. That would make me about as evil as it could possibly be.

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

Yes, because the alternative is that those souls are fueling the demonic war engine that wants to destroy all of creation. Note, we're not talking evil people who made deals. These are perfectly good individuals who are kidnapped and either spend eternity being devoured by demons or turn into demons themselves.

At least that Banite cultist goes to whatever afterlife Bane has and doesn't become an enemy of all creation.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I don't agree that I am mind-shatteringly dense. Nor that I am horrifically frightening.

I tend to separate the post from the post-ee. People can say dense and frightening things without themselves being those things. If you took it as me calling you those things, I apologize, as that was not my intention and it may have been unclear.

The relationship between faith, conviction (religious or otherwise), life, freedom and suffering is one of the most basic topics of literary exploration. The Wall of the Faithless seems to me to express the same idea as Casablanca; and when compared to The Quiet American to be (i) crude but (ii) sitting in the same thematic space.

Sorry, but I'm young. These references aren't doing anything for me. I've yet to see Casablanca or The Quiet American, so the comparisons will need further elaboration if you want me to get them.

The idea that the FR "faithless" are stand-ins for real-world atheists strikes me as no different from the idea that FR's Orcs can't be a racist trope because they're not humans: it's treating the in-fiction as literal and ignoring the actual trope and theme that are at work.

I'm not going to bring in the whole Orc discussion again. Atheism (disbelieving in god(s)) is atheism, whether or not it takes place in a fantasy world. For all intents and purposes, they're the same thing.

 

[Scribe]

@AcererakTriple6 if you wanted to devise a cosmology and world building where the gods are based on procreation...you could kinda sorta draw a line there, but its not something I would partake in. There is a minefield of tropes you would be stepping on that I dont think you really want to do.

Comparing that to a system of faith, where gods are real, and their power comes from worship or at least acknowledgment as gods? I mean that just is a central component of FR. If you dont like it, fine, but your comparison is way off unless you choose to build on a premise that is already questionable.

 

[pemerton]

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

You asked whether the Wall is something that players can affect. A game in which there are fictional elements that (i) the players would like to engage with, and (ii) can't, is a railroad.

 

[Scribe]

Atheism (disbelieving in god(s)) is atheism, whether or not it takes place in a fantasy world. For all intents and purposes, they're the same thing.

It is not. Not when we are talking about a Fantasy world where Gods canonically exist, and a Real world, where that is not the case.

It is not the same, and cannot be.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

@AcererakTriple6 if you wanted to devise a cosmology and world building where the gods are based on procreation...you could kinda sorta draw a line there, but its not something I would partake in. There is a minefield of tropes you would be stepping on that I dont think you really want to do.

. . . That was kind of the whole point. To show that such a system would be abhorrent and unacceptable in the modern world. The consequences of making a cosmology and pantheon that depended on energy from procreation and the incentivizing of that would have consequences on LGBTQ+ characters in that world, the same way that the FR gods punish atheism in the FR. Drawing a parallel between those was the whole point of that metaphor, by showing how if one of them wasn't okay, the other wasn't either.

Comparing that to a system of faith, where gods are real, and their power comes from worship or at least acknowledgment as gods? I mean that just is a central component of FR. If you dont like it, fine, but your comparison is way off unless you choose to build on a premise that is already questionable.

A system where deities get their power from procreation instead of worship and then showing some of the consequences of that . . . is somehow "way off" to you? How? I seriously don't understand it. The premise is questionable, that was kind of the freaking point, to show how by the transitive property, the other was also problematic.

What did you think I was trying to do, if not that?

 

[thedungeondelver]

"...and Greyhawk isn't any of our goddamn business, so we'll just leave that alone."

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

It is not. Not when we are talking about a Fantasy world where Gods canonically exist, and a Real world, where that is not the case.

It is not the same, and cannot be.

There's already been a of mine thread that went pretty extensively into this topic:

D&D General - Nay-Theists Vs. Flat-Earth Atheists in D&D Worlds

This thread is meant to have a general discussion about having Nay-Theist and Flat-Earth Atheist characters in campaigns, and how they differ from world to world. Links to explanations of the definitions of these character types are provided in their names above, but I will simplify it a bit for...

www.enworld.org

There's difference "classes" of fantasy atheism, but they're still types of atheism/agnosticism.

 

[Scribe]

. . . That was kind of the whole point. To show that such a system would be abhorrent and unacceptable in the modern world. The consequences of making a cosmology and pantheon that depended on energy from procreation and the incentivizing of that would have consequences on LGBTQ+ characters in that world, the same way that the FR gods punish atheism in the FR. Drawing a parallel between those was the whole point of that metaphor, by showing how if one of them wasn't okay, the other wasn't either.

A system where deities get their power from procreation instead of worship and then showing some of the consequences of that . . . is somehow "way off" to you? How? I seriously don't understand it. The premise is questionable, that was kind of the freaking point, to show how by the transitive property, the other was also problematic.

What did you think I was trying to do, if not that?

Its way off because your issue is with Religion, and Gods, and Faith. If you think all that needs to be scrapped, and is abhorrent because of your own personal views that you hold regarding God(s) in reality, thats on you.

For me, its an interesting situation that poses questions which real life does not ask of us, because again, my atheism in reality has already 'solved' the question.