D&D 5E [Forgotten Realms] The Wall of the Faithless

[Ilbranteloth]

And things like the Balance and the Wall are presented as morally repugnant. When good people are killed and tormented, the response in a game of heroic fantasy is to stop the killing and torment of good people. So if the Balance kills good people, it is morally repugnant, and if the Wall is mortared with good souls it, too, is morally repugnant. These things must be stopped, just as an empire that blows up planets ("It's necessary to prevent mass chaos!") and a brutal alien gangster ("It's harsh, but fair!") are set up as antagonists.

Since this is presumably what the thread is about, I'll reply to it.

I don't recall any published source that presents the wall as evil or morally repugnant. The good people are already dead, and it's their soul that is tormented. But for the faithful of the Realms that's a fate that is expected and accepted.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that in the grand scheme of good and evil as we know it that it's not bad. But that's not the point. For thousands of years, most civilizations believed that capital punishment was just, right, and morally justified. And often in the most brutal, demeaning, and painful way possible. It's only been in the last hundred years or so (and really less) that this perspective has been changing across the world, and you'll still get a passionate debate from a great many people on the subject.

The fact is, in the Forgotten Realms cosmology, at least as to how it has been published and presented, it is not evil and not morally repugnant. It is presented as neutral, just and justified.

The response of heroic fantasy is not always to stop the killing and torment of good people. For a variety of reasons most game systems present a good versus evil framework, and that the PCs should generally be good. But that is far from the only form of heroic fantasy, as well as the only focus of game systems. Historically, literature has been about the flaws and failures of the heroes - Lancelot, an endless number of Shakespearean protagonists, it's the stuff that great stories are made of. The heroic prevail despite their non-heroic flaws.

Again, I disagree that what has been published, nor the game itself points unerringly toward the conclusion that the wall must be destroyed. In fact, as mentioned published canon indicated Kelemvor originally eliminated the wall before determining that doing so caused more damage than retaining the wall. But eliminated it as a source of torture. Hopefully somebody can recall where that was noted (novels I'm sure), it has been a long, long time.

That you, or more properly your character, would feel otherwise is a great idea and I think would make for a unique and interesting character. And although I doubt that any character or group of characters could eliminate the wall (at least in my Realms), they might very well be able to change the nature of it, and probably more importantly, greatly reduce or eliminate the number of new souls that become a part of it.

Ilbranteloth

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't recall any published source that presents the wall as evil or morally repugnant.

It's right there in the fact that it makes good people suffer. Things that make good people suffer are evil and morally repugnant in heroic fantasy, in FR, and in D&D. Why is Tiamat evil and morally repugnant? Because she makes good people suffer. Why is she set up as the antagonist? She intends to make good people suffer. Why is the Dragon Cult plot to bring her back something the PC's fight against? Because it will make good people suffer. Putting any soul in the wall is entirely consistent with the descriptions of Evil in the 5e PHB, and at odds with the descriptions of Good (and iffy, at best, with the descriptions of Neutral).

But for the faithful of the Realms that's a fate that is expected and accepted.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that in the grand scheme of good and evil as we know it that it's not bad. But that's not the point. For thousands of years, most civilizations believed that capital punishment was just, right, and morally justified. And often in the most brutal, demeaning, and painful way possible. It's only been in the last hundred years or so (and really less) that this perspective has been changing across the world, and you'll still get a passionate debate from a great many people on the subject.

That doesn't make it good. To go with the Star Wars analogy, it is a fate that is expected and accepted that if you defy the Empire you will be punished and likely killed, but that doesn't make Vader Neutral when he blows up Alderaan. Most people in the Galaxy would say that's to be expected and accepted. Leia does not accept it. Her mission to resist the Empire makes her a hero.

The fact is, in the Forgotten Realms cosmology, at least as to how it has been published and presented, it is not evil and not morally repugnant. It is presented as neutral, just and justified.

It's none of those things. It's just accepted. That's not the same thing.

The response of heroic fantasy is not always to stop the killing and torment of good people. For a variety of reasons most game systems present a good versus evil framework, and that the PCs should generally be good. But that is far from the only form of heroic fantasy, as well as the only focus of game systems. Historically, literature has been about the flaws and failures of the heroes - Lancelot, an endless number of Shakespearean protagonists, it's the stuff that great stories are made of. The heroic prevail despite their non-heroic flaws.

FR is not a setting of deeply flawed heroes. Its most popular characters are Marty Stus who fight bad guys and win. You don't HAVE to accept bad things in the Realms, any more than Drizz'zt had to accept the Spider Queen.

Again, I disagree that what has been published, nor the game itself points unerringly toward the conclusion that the wall must be destroyed. In fact, as mentioned published canon indicated Kelemvor originally eliminated the wall before determining that doing so caused more damage than retaining the wall. But eliminated it as a source of torture. Hopefully somebody can recall where that was noted (novels I'm sure), it has been a long, long time.

That has floated up from time to time. The last time it floated up, I pointed out that it was kind of nonsense. And regardless, it doesn't stop the PC's from doing it better.

That you, or more properly your character, would feel otherwise is a great idea and I think would make for a unique and interesting character. And although I doubt that any character or group of characters could eliminate the wall (at least in my Realms), they might very well be able to change the nature of it, and probably more importantly, greatly reduce or eliminate the number of new souls that become a part of it.

Why not let the Wall fall and the Heroes Win? What is there to like about it?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Heh. Seen that happen more times than I care to count.

I think a better example of what i'm talking about, that doesn't make me sound like I'm completely inconsistent (which I think I may have done this thread) came in a recent conversation about Dark Sun. Someone talked about bringing in a Gnome cleric of Garl Glittergold into a Dark Sun campaign. Now, I realise that there are two issues with this character, but, for me, only one of them really matters. A gnome in Dark Sun is against canon. Sure. No problem. I get that. But, then again, Dark Sun has all sorts of fantastic races and lots of weird races too, so, a one off gnome, for me, would not be an issue. Sure, it's non canon, but, adding in a single gnome isn't going to make too much of a change to the themes of the setting or campaign.

OTOH, the cleric of Garl Glittergold is a bridge too far for me. The whole point of Darksun is a world without gods. Or, if that's not the whole point, it's still a honking big one. The gods are dead. Now we have Sorcerer Kings and the world is dying. Adding in a god to the mix is not what I would want in a Darksun campaign. A campaign to return the gods where, after some success, a character multi classes into having a divine class? Maybe. I could see that working. But, from the outset of the campaign? Naw, not so much. it's too big of a change that should have far to much impact on the campaign.

I hope that clarifies my position.

I think it does to an extent. Although I don't know of having a character who believes in a God is so disruptive to Dark Sun. Divine magic still exists...there are clerics and Templars and Druids. So having a cleric that worships a deity doesn't necessarily have to disrupt the setting at all.

I mean...are this weird gnome's prayers actually answered by a god? Or is it the elements, like it is for other clerics? Or is it one of the sorcerer kings? Or perhaps the Dragon itself, or some other incredibly powerful being? Does he hear the voice of his deity? Or is he simply deranged?

It opens up several possibilities that could potentially be interesting, and none have to be so fundamentally contradictory as to disrupt the standard tropes of the setting.

All in all, I think that you and I agree...I just think that you draw your line much sooner than I do. And I don't mean that that is incorrect...it's just a matter of preference.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Why not let the Wall fall and the Heroes Win? What is there to like about it?

Well, to begin with because I can't think of any situation where they will have an opportunity. As far as I recall, the only way to even get to the Fugue Plain is to die. More importantly, I don't think any of the players in my campaign have even heard of the Fugue Plain or the Wall. So it's really a non-issue in my campaign.

But my perspective is still quite different than yours.

First, suffering by itself is not evil. It's just suffering. Causing pain and suffering is evil. Not doing anything to help, IF YOU CAN, is evil. By that measure, they should save the souls in the Nine Hells, the Abyss, Hades, and all of the other nasty places where souls are being actively tortured, again and again for eternity. Not to mention potentially being added to an army that could directly threaten their place in the planes. So the Wall is still the least of their worries.

I'm not convinced the Deities can do anything. The way I envision things working is that the Deities gain their power by the faith of their followers. As I've said before, faith is given through free will. You can't coerce it magically. You can threaten and so on, but ultimately they have to make the choice. Faithless have no value to the Gods, and the Gods don't have any way to save them. To Torm what would be the difference between an orc that spends its eternal life in strife with Gruumsh vs a faithless that denied the very existence of the Gods that spends (only a portion) of eternity in the Wall. To the soul in the wall, there is eventual peace. In both cases, the souls chose their own destiny and there's nothing Torm can do about it now.

Second, there is a difference between faith and worship. For the majority of people in the Realms, the Gods just are. They grow up in a world where there is both direct evidence, along with the normal cultural situation of they being immersed in a culture that believes. It's not like the modern day where lots of people would feel the need to question it. Religion isn't organized as it is in our world, with regular services, or prescribed rituals, etc. It's just a part of everyday life. 'By Lathander, it's a beautiful day.' 'Umberlee is angry tonight.' That sort of thing. Just like I don't think there was a lot of religious dissent in ancient Rome, Greece or Egypt. It was other cultures that had different beliefs. If you were born Roman, then the Gods just were. There was no 'enlightenment' at that time.

Third, I think that for most people, their deeds will determine what will happen to them when they reach the Fugue Plain. A farmer would find themselves gathered by the agents of Chauntea.

Fourth, I think our concept of Gods is very different then their concept. I think they know that they are powerful beings, with many of the same faults as mortals. Again this parallels the polytheistic religions of ancient Rome and such. It's also a common concept in religions since there are so many bad things that happen in the world. The God of the Old Testament was jealous and violent at times (in multiple religions).

Fifth, I don't think the Gods can do anything about the Wall. The balance of power is delicate between the Gods. There are some alliances, but for the most part it seems to be more of a measured respect than a true alliance where they work together. As you've noted, many of them were once mortal, and their mortal flaws remain. Even those that weren't mortal had the same sorts of conflict (or at least that's what the legends say).

Sixth, I think Realmsfolk would view the wall as sort of a legend. For those that do preach about the afterlife, it is one of those things that people would 1) have no way to indirectly verify one way or the other; 2) even if they could, there's nothing they could do about it. Either way, they wouldn't really care if it was the faithless that ended up there, because they aren't faithless. And they probably agree that the faithless should suffer some sort of fate since they are denying the Gods. There are some beings that do have the power to possibly visit the Fugue Plain while alive, and potentially verify what exists. But even they aren't likely to be believed as anything more than a tall tale.

I guess the paradox here, is that those that believe, believe the wall is real. Through that belief they avoid the wall. The faithless don't believe the wall exists (so how could they rail against it), and in the end they are the ones at risk of suffering due to their non-belief. But continue on, because I don't think that's all that is needed to ensure you will end up in the Wall, although there are probably people who do believe that is sufficient.

This isn't unlike the way most people who believe in it, view heaven and hell. For the vast majority of people it's a vague concept centered around rewarding the believers and just, and punishing the non-believers and the evil. Some have added a third option, purgatory, for the ones that aren't quite good enough, or perhaps are too young to decide. But one could just as easily argue why would the good Gods allow any sort of non-paradise afterlife to exist at all? In a polytheistic religion it's much easier, no single God gets to set the rules. Each God has their believers to do with what they believe. In the case of the Realms, Kelemvor has the unfortunate job of dealing with the souls that have no place to go in the afterlife. He can't benefit from the (for he's a God too, and can only benefit from their faith), and can/will not send them to eternal damnation. So again, he must imprison them, until their faithless forms fade into nothingness.

Seventh, I don't think that most people would have anything more than a general concept of the afterlife, beyond that those that are worthy will spend eternity with their Patron, and those that are evil or faithless will spend eternity suffering. And like most cultures that's exactly how they want it. They want to spend eternity with the sort of people they like, and they want the ones they don't like to go elsewhere, and preferably suffer if they were bad people. Perhaps they do know the story of the Wall, but again, it would not bother those who are faithful, any more than the concept of hell does for faithful here.

Lastly, I think that the Gods are focused on saving the souls they can save. I think that the faithless still have an opportunity on the Fugue Plain to accept that the Gods exist and have the power to help them in their eternal life. That's really all the 'faith' that I think it takes. Acknowledging that they are more powerful than you, and that they can help you. Perhaps you don't even have to do that. Maybe your deeds are enough, but for an atheist, wouldn't spending eternity with a God you denied be hell? Some are convinced by devils to join them, and some are deemed unworthy and turned into Larvae.

But if you're dead set on denying and refusing that help, you'll have to take your chances and be judged by Kelemvor.

Kelemvor's judgement is still based on deeds in my mind. The false serve him on the Fugue Plain - the bureaucrats of Piers Anthony's Limbo in the Incarnations of Immortality. Many of the false would be atheists. Those that held firm beliefs, and did good, but have no place else to go. They haven't earned paradise, but don't deserve damnation. Instead you live in 'limbo' performing the duties are are needed to serve the souls that arrive. The remainder, who spent their life, and even what time they've had in the afterlife, breaking the one rule of the cosmology of the Realms, are placed in the wall, where they will dissolve into nothingness. While it's a bit longer than what many atheists believe, the end result is that there is no afterlife. You live, you die. But I would guess these are the true faithless, that deny not only the Gods, but society as well. That view themselves as the only being worthy of serving and therefore have done no good as a mortal, and can serve no good in the afterlife. They will spend the rest of their time imprisoned in the wall until their soul dissolves away.

The alternative would be potentially dangerous souls upsetting the balance of the planes, possibly overthrowing the Gods themselves. Obviously that is not acceptable to any of the Gods, good or evil.

Perhaps they aren't worthy of worship, but I don't think the Gods require the same type of worship as most of the religions on earth. Those that actually worship them, benefit - clerics and paladins for example. The rest simply acknowledge that beings more powerful than they exist, and, whether they demand that or not, may have some influence in the world in which they live, as well as the Realms beyond. That acknowledgment and their deeds are enough to ensure they will live in eternity somewhere.

So fine, call the wall evil, a necessary evil. In my campaign it's irrelevant because it's part of the fabric of religion. My campaign will never go to where it confirms its existence or otherwise. It 'exists' in my Realms as part of the narrative that explains the Gods and the afterlife. Perhaps there will be characters who wish to challenge that, perhaps to confirm it, prove it's a lie, or to destroy it. Most in the world would probably consider the character deluded or a crackpot. Just like the cult of Ao, or the Cults of Elemental Evil or the Cult of the Dragon, or any number of other, mostly evil, groups that usually seem more bent on gaining power in the material world than what occurs in the realms beyond.

The point is, even for characters who do know the story about the Wall, don't have any way of knowing what the afterlife really holds in store for them until after they've passed. And by then it's too late...

Ilbranteloth

 

[Hussar]

It's right there in the fact that it makes good people suffer. Things that make good people suffer are evil and morally repugnant in heroic fantasy, in FR, and in D&D. Why is Tiamat evil and morally repugnant? Because she makes good people suffer. Why is she set up as the antagonist? She intends to make good people suffer. Why is the Dragon Cult plot to bring her back something the PC's fight against? Because it will make good people suffer. Putting any soul in the wall is entirely consistent with the descriptions of Evil in the 5e PHB, and at odds with the descriptions of Good (and iffy, at best, with the descriptions of Neutral).

So do tornadoes and earthquakes. That doesn't make the weather evil.

Why not let the Wall fall and the Heroes Win? What is there to like about it?

Ah, now this is a more interesting question to me. As presented, it means that faith matters in the setting. If you can bypass the gods entirely and still go to whatever afterlife your alignment dictates, then faith is irrelevant. There's no point in worshipping any of the gods because, well, it doesn't actually do anything. And, now, by adding in the idea of an alignment afterlife, you have added in the idea of an afterlife of punishment. After all, good people go to good planes and evil people go to evil planes.

But, going to Hell or the Abyss because you are LE or CE isn't a reward. It's a punishment. Do good or you go to a bad afterlife is a pretty standard thing for most afterlives. And, since you are arguing about choice, isn't this taking people's choice away? Should they do evil, they are forced to an evil afterlife where they will be punished and tormented for eternity.

A Cyric believer is evil, but, when he or she dies, he or she doesn't go to a punishment. Cyric doesn't punish his faithful in the afterlife for believing in him. Granted, I imagine Cyric's afterlife wouldn't be a barrel of laughs, but, it's not eternal damnation either. Cyric faithful are rewarded in their afterlife in a manner that makes sense for those that follow Cyric. Or Bane. Or Bhaal. Or whoever.

So, this is where we fundamentally disagree. The Wall represents the fact that FR doesn't have a concept of punishment in the afterlife. Faith matters. Have faith in whatever patron diety best suits your life and you are rewarded with an afterlife that suits your outlook. Deny all the gods, refuse to have any sort of faith, and your soul dissolves into oblivion.

Seems like a pretty decent system to me.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I think it does to an extent. Although I don't know of having a character who believes in a God is so disruptive to Dark Sun. Divine magic still exists...there are clerics and Templars and Druids. So having a cleric that worships a deity doesn't necessarily have to disrupt the setting at all.

I mean...are this weird gnome's prayers actually answered by a god? Or is it the elements, like it is for other clerics? Or is it one of the sorcerer kings? Or perhaps the Dragon itself, or some other incredibly powerful being? Does he hear the voice of his deity? Or is he simply deranged?

It opens up several possibilities that could potentially be interesting, and none have to be so fundamentally contradictory as to disrupt the standard tropes of the setting.

All in all, I think that you and I agree...I just think that you draw your line much sooner than I do. And I don't mean that that is incorrect...it's just a matter of preference.

Or perhaps he just doesn't get answered at all, and receives no spells or other special abilities that would normally be granted by his Deity since he can no longer remain in contact with his deity. In which case you can elaborate his backstory to include how he came to be on Athas from his original world.

Basically a case can be made for just about anything to work. And you know what, it might work out really, really well. But I think the point that he's trying to make is this:

As the DM he's setting guidelines and a framework for the sort of story he'd like to tell, and campaign he'd like to run. That's his prerogative, and essentially saying to a group of people, 'let's play Football.' The intent is clear. And somebody comes back and says I'm playing Arena Football.

Perhaps everybody else is OK with it, and they decide to play Arena Football. But that's not what the DM was offering. He's saying I'd love for you to come play in my game, and here are the rules. And that person is ignoring that and doing what he wants.

Most of the time as the DM we (or at least I) feel somewhat responsible for everybody having fun. And we kind of say, well, OK, if that's what it takes for you to have fun, then I'll work with it.

In the end I guess it should be acceptable to say, 'No, those aren't the rules for this game. You'll have to play by the rules I've set out. If you don't want to do that, then rather than trying to fit you into my rules, let's just agree that this probably isn't the right game for you.'

I will note that most of the players who haven't followed my initial requests are usually the ones that drop out a little way down the line. Not because I was doing anything punitive, but because the tone and approach to my campaign wasn't what they were looking for.

So I guess I'd still recommend trying to find something that works for both of you first, but consider the bigger picture to see if those accommodations are really going to take care of it, or if they are just a sign of a larger incompatibility.

In the end, the point is for everybody to have fun, but that includes the DM as well.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Hussar]

Y'know, if you drop the Wall then the only people of faith would be evil. After all, it doesn't matter to good people. They go off to whatever happy afterlife regardless of faith. But evil people are actually punished unless the worship a deity in which case they are rewarded in their afterlife.

Does make a good explanation for the preponderance of evil cultists in FR.

 

[Mirtek]

But, going to Hell or the Abyss because you are LE or CE isn't a reward. It's a punishment.

While it turns out that way for most souls it's not actually the intention.

Evil souls are simply directed to the evil planes to mingle with other evil souls and eventually merge with the plane to further empower their ideal evil in the cosmic tug of war.

No difference to the good planes. That the evil souls make each other have a bad time as opposed to the good souls making each other have a great time is just in their respective nature, but it's not that some higher authority decided that evil was wrong and deserves punishment.

If you have it in you, you can thrive on the lower planes. Orcus certainly doesn't feel punished for his vile life if evil.

Whether good, chaos, law or evil are right or wrong will only be answered the day one of them wins their ultimate struggle.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well, to begin with because I can't think of any situation where they will have an opportunity.
...
I'm not convinced the Deities can do anything.
...
For the majority of people in the Realms, the Gods just are.
...
I think that for most people, their deeds will determine what will happen to them when they reach the Fugue Plain.
...
I don't think the Gods can do anything about the Wall.
...
The balance of power is delicate between the Gods.
...
I think Realmsfolk would view the wall as sort of a legend.
...
I don't think that most people would have anything more than a general concept of the afterlife
...
I think that the Gods are focused on saving the souls they can save
...
The point is, even for characters who do know the story about the Wall, don't have any way of knowing what the afterlife really holds in store for them until after they've passed. And by then it's too late...

The question is why would you preserve the wall. It presumes the PC wants to tear down the wall and that, as a DM, you can make that possible if you want. You've ceded that such PC's and campaigns could exist. If such a PC came to your game, why would you choose not to let them succeed? What do you gain from such a choice compared to the cost of losing player autonomy? What is the benefit?

The above are all reasons why someone could not. Remove those barriers (as DMs can). Why, then, would you still preserve it (if you would)?

For instance, imagine a Dragonborn elder who was raised from the dead by a powerful Dragonborn bard, saved from the Fugue Plane. That elder knows what lies in store, and knows its unjust. This PC - a dragonborn apprentice of that great bard - follows in that elder's tradition, seeking an afterlife for herself and her people and all unbelievers that is just and righteous. As the party delves into ancient ruins and explores the history of the gods and other worlds, they see the possibilities layed out before them - afterlives where everyone receives justice.

This plot works, no? So why WOULDN'T you allow it? What do you gain from forbidding it?

(in the Star Wars analogy, you might as well say that Leia could not succeed because the Rebellion is small and most people go along with the Empire and don't challenge it and think that the only people that get their planets blown up are those who fight the way things are - but the player came with a character who wanted to overthrow the Empire, and the DM made that possible for that character when for any other character, it wouldn't be possible. What do you gain as a DM by saying "The Empire cannot be overthrown in my campaign"?)

suffering by itself is not evil. It's just suffering. Causing pain and suffering is evil.

The Wall causes pain and suffering (and unnecessarily so, given that alternatives canonically exist).

Fourth, I think our concept of Gods is very different then their concept. I think they know that they are powerful beings, with many of the same faults as mortals. Again this parallels the polytheistic religions of ancient Rome and such. It's also a common concept in religions since there are so many bad things that happen in the world. The God of the Old Testament was jealous and violent at times (in multiple religions).

These aren't gods that anyone had to have faith/belief in, though.

This isn't unlike the way most people who believe in it, view heaven and hell.

It is, because the just concept of Hell relies on monotheism and a transcendent deity that represents all that is good and loving in the world. FR has no such deity, no such monotheism, so for it to try and grab Hell makes it an unjust Hell compared to the Hell that lots of people here in the Real World believe in.

The justice available to Hell is not available to the Wall.

So do tornadoes and earthquakes. That doesn't make the weather evil.

It does if some person chooses to make tornadoes and earthquakes. That's the nature of FR - either Ao or some god chooses to inflict this suffering. That makes it evil.

There's no point in worshipping any of the gods because, well, it doesn't actually do anything.
...
But, going to Hell or the Abyss because you are LE or CE isn't a reward. It's a punishment.

If you replace it with the D&D standard, that's not at all what that means.

The Wall represents the fact that FR doesn't have a concept of punishment in the afterlife.

Standard D&D doesn't either and it gets away with not requiring worship.

It really sounds like you don't understand the standard D&D afterlife very well.

 

[Scribe]

Why wouldnt the raised Dragonborn instead say 'the Gods are real, there are realms beyond this that they control where all ones desires can be met, but if you do not believe in them, you fade to nothing.'

A true 'born again' would certainly seem to go that way when confronted with the reality of the various Powers no?