| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
zyzzyva
Acolyte
USA
21 Posts |
 Posted - 31 Jan 2023 : 18:38:53
|
I was wondering if there's a generally accepted ranking of how strongly different types of sources outside officially published sourcebooks can be considered applicable to canon.
For instance, I'm under the impression that the official novels are generally considered canon sources (ignoring WotC wiping canon), and that most games are technically not canon given they're third-party (though they may inform future canon.)
I'm particularly interested in recent third party sourcebooks; presumably something written by the original authors of the Realms (like The Border Kingdoms) is more applicable to canon than something that is written by another party, but has their official blessing (like the Amarune's Almanac series), which is more applicable than a supplement by an unrelated third-party publisher (I'm thinking of some of the Tomb of Annihilation supplements in particular.)
I assume also there's grey areas for all sorts of other source types I'm not considering (comics, web series, magazine articles, etc.)
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11695 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jan 2023 : 18:55:03
|
| At this point.... I think it's getting to a point of "all bets are off".... For myself, there's so MUCH out there that it's just "pick what you like and can use for your campaign, ignore anything else". |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
 |
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jan 2023 : 19:08:30
|
Officially, the only canon is the stuff WotC puts out for 5E, and maybe anything that they blessed. They've declared anything prior to 5E is a separate canon, or some similar ridiculousness.
Me, I have a category that I call "semicanon" -- that's for stuff that a few designers such as Krash or Ed or Eric Boyd have posted on the DM's Guild. I use that category for anything that is from one of the respected Realms authors/designers but is not official canon.
You'll find a wide variety of opinions, I expect, because a lot of us here have great respect for canon and for prior continuity, and the current "design" team at WotC does not seem to share that respect.
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 31 Jan 2023 19:10:18 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7969 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jan 2023 : 19:17:02
|
The most recent official statement about D&D canon that I could find:
https://dnd.wizards.com/news/dnd-canon
It basically says what WotC always awkwardly says, one way or another: their most recent products, editions, and publications are canon. Anything from previous products, editions, and publications that was canon before is still canon as long as it doesn't conflict with the new stuff, wherever there is conflict the new stuff always supplants the old.
I'm not sure exactly how this affects errata, updates, and revisions - especially when they're automatically and continuously applied to ebook-format materials. I don't think that's ever been a problem. Yet.
D&D never had any official categories or strata for canon, the way Star Wars Legends/SWEU used to. It doesn't really have any commonly understood categories of canon defined by fandom, the way Star Trek does. It lacks any subdivisions or order of precedence to resolve inconsistencies because there are no inconsistencies - all new D&D stuff is canon D&D stuff, without exception, and it overwrites any old D&D canon which can't coexist. Yes, that means every insultingly childish comic book story and every distastefully ridiculous novel character which happens to be "officially" set in the Realms remains just as "canon" as Elminster and Shadowdale until/unless WotC specifically obsoletes or replaces it with something that states otherwise.
So the short answer: If you want to make sure the materials you use are official canon, you only need to confirm they have official WotC branding on the covers and that WotC hasn't published any newer versions.
Not that it really matters, in my opinion. DMs and players tend to fixate on canon far more than the authors and game designers working at WotC. From what I've seen in the latest few D&D editions, WotC does make attempts to build continuity and sometimes distributes narratives across multiple products so that readers can enjoy discovering the connections and patterns ... they evidently do have at least a few people on staff who take pride in their work and genuinely strive to create an entertaining, self-consistent, high-quality product ... but WotC sometimes makes mistakes, and WotC never ever ever ever admits or redacts these mistakes, and typically WotC just stubbornly bulls forward on their path to destruction with blind disregard for any canon (or fans) they have to trod into the dirt along the way. It's worth noting that all the legacy "canon" which became obsolete over the years ended up littering D&D settings with craters and bodies.
Why be concerned with diligent adherence to canon when the people publishing it have obviously and repeatedly shown that canon always going to be obsoleted, and that canon is always destroyed or ignored anyhow when Important People decide that Important Things will happen? Leave the canon to people who need to define it (Wizbro's lawyers and branding executives, people at fandom wikis who need some sort of working terminology) and just do as you like. If you constantly worry about not violating canon (with the likely intent of maintaining maximum compatibility with future D&D products) then you will limit your game and always end up being disappointed by Wizbro once your wallet is emptied or the smoke has cleared. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 31 Jan 2023 20:22:55 |
|
|
|
zyzzyva
Acolyte
USA
21 Posts |
|
|
zyzzyva
Acolyte
USA
21 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jan 2023 : 20:43:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Leave the canon to people who need to define it (Wizbro's lawyers and branding executives, people at fandom wikis who need some sort of working terminology) and just do as you like. If you constantly worry about not violating canon (with the likely intent of maintaining maximum compatibility with future D&D products) then you will limit your game and always end up being disappointed by Wizbro once your wallet is emptied or the smoke has cleared.
This does tend to be my approach presently--if multiple sources contradict each other, I'll generally play it as an actual in-universe historical dispute, where different groups of people have vastly different interpretations about how some event occurred. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 01 Feb 2023 : 01:16:43
|
Also, my personal rule: It doesn't violate canon if it's something never addressed in canon.
For example, if Bahb Nounsilver's favorite color is never specified in canon material, then saying his favorite color is blue doesn't violate canon.
That's not the same as saying it's canon that his favorite color is blue; but if canon doesn't address it, then you're not breaking canon (within reason, of course).
I personally really like those areas nothing says X is canon, but nothing says it isn't.
Also, canon is something of a moot point. I look at it as a common starting point, more than anything else.
Since everyone who isn't writing official game material is making their own version of the Realms, then it isn't hugely important if your personal Realms contrasts with the official Realms. If I was to DM a campaign in the Realms, for example, I'd start with the end of the 2E era, and everything in the 3E era would be optional, and the 4E and 5E Realms simply wouldn't enter into the picture. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 01 Feb 2023 01:18:44 |
|
|
|
Azar
Master of Realmslore
1287 Posts |
Posted - 07 Feb 2023 : 17:42:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'd start with the end of the 2E era, and everything in the 3E era would be optional, and the 4E and 5E Realms simply wouldn't enter into the picture.
Your thought process is similar to my own. |
Stand with anybody that stands right. Stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong.
Earth names in the Realms are more common than you may think. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7969 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2023 : 08:22:59
|
quote:
I'd start with the end of the 2E era, and everything in the 3E era would be optional, and the 4E and 5E Realms simply wouldn't enter into the picture.
quote:
Your thought process is similar to my own.
Similar to many of us.
4E and 5E do have some interesting lore, some interesting mechanics, some interesting ideas. But then again, earlier editions have plenty of their own - and they have even more when you consider OGL/d20 products from other publishers. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
TKU
Learned Scribe
USA
158 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2023 : 22:23:58
|
| Similar to my feelings on the matter as well. 2e for me is the 'default' with 3rd edition elements as options included more or less on a case-by case basis. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Canonicity Levels?
