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

[MG.0]

Missing the point though.

I was being flippant. Zombie squirrels does sound interesting though.

In BSG, the theme of what is a human is a major element of the show. Are cylons "alive"? If you wipe a cylon's memory, is that murder or is it the same as wiping the hard drive on a computer? This is a huge element of the show. Any BSG RPG game I played, I would expect this to be a pretty big theme in the game.

Ugh, you lost me. I hate the new BSG. Wipe 'em all. The original is the way to go.

In Star Wars though, this issue is 100% absent. Wiping a droid's memory is no more a moral issue than re-installing Windows. It's done casually without the slightest hint of a moral issue.

Installing Windows is far more immoral than wiping a droid.

It's especially egregious when you don't do group character generation and the other four players are now blindsided by this one character.

Agreed that group character generation can be a good thing.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

...It's an old and tired cliche that I'm just really tired of. Make a character that fits with the tone and background of the setting, make that character with ties to that setting, and THEN make your character unique and interesting. That's the challenge.

This is an interesting topic by itself. Party of the problem unfortunately, at least in the case of the Forgotten Realms, lies in the decisions made by TSR and WotC. Starting with the 2nd edition they started adding anything and everything to the setting. I'd really rather not have tieflings and dragonborn in my campaigns, but I'm also here to run a game the players want to play, and that's what they want.

A secondary factor, and part of what is causing some issue in this discussion, is that the rules were written for a general medieval fantasy game, not to specifically support the Forgotten Realms. The 3rd edition was, in part, to reign in the fact that the rules varied significantly between the many published game worlds. A Ravenloft game was quite different from a Dark Sun campaign compared to Red Steel, Spelljammer or Council of Dragons.

The 4th edition took this to an extreme, killing off scores of Gods and changing the entire cosmology, not to mention changing the rules so drastically that made it nearly impossible to continue with the same campaign.

All the while publishing new 'canon' for the Realms. Now I'm not as against the changes as some other people. I can deal with the Spellplague and such. I don't have to like everything that happens in the game world any more than I have to like everything that happens in this one. And we thought the Time of Troubles was kind of cool at the time.

But looking back, I've come to the conclusion that a good rule set doesn't get in the way of the campaign. That means rule modifications to improve the gameplay or address shortcomings are good. But those that fundamentally change the world? Not so much.

5th edition does this very well. I've changed a number of things, mostly to ensure the rules support scenes such as the warrior injured in battle that needs you to carry the standard and finished the job for him, or 'I am not left-handed', etc.

So I think we're in a good place to see the settings diverge again, back to thwire unique entities. But it will take some work on the parts of the players and DM'so to maintain that uniqueness in their campaigns.

I'm a bit more of a stickler for my home campaigns than public ones.

Ilbranteloth

 

[hawkeyefan]

Now, this is a somewhat different issue, and one that's easier to answer IMO.

I'm sick to death of stock D&D settings. I really, really am. Our Darksun campaign, our Dragonlance campaign and now our Forgotten Realms campaign are only different in window dressing. The characters, by and large, could be imported from setting to setting without any real change. Sure, the flavour of those characters would change, since some of them are very embedded in a specific setting, but, from a higher POV, yeah, there's absolutely no problem shifting one character from setting to setting.

And, as I said, I'm absolutely sick of it. I've been gaming in kitchen sink settings for far too long. I want a setting where the setting actually matters, where you can't simply plop down Wizard #23 into the game and nothing changes.

So, no, it's not, "Hobbits simply don't go on adventures", it's, "This is a world where hobbits have all been wiped off the face of the planet by zombie squirrels." Don't bring your gnome priest of Garl Glittergold into my Darksun campaign please. Make a character that actually FITS with the setting, rather than playing against the setting for the fifteenth time.

Every single group I've ever played in, including the current one, I see the same thing. DM sets a setting, whatever that setting is, and you get four players who make characters that are either embedded in the setting or are at worst neutral to the setting (yet another Man with No Name, fish out of water character), and then there's always that one guy (who is, admittedly, sometimes me ) whose character isn't just neutral to the setting but is actually openly hostile, in that it runs either directly counter to the setting, or is badly, badly out of sync with the feel of the setting (playing a psychotic murder hobo in a Dragonlance campaign as a recent example).

Look, I'm not against intra-party conflict. That's fine and great. But, that conflict shouldn't be so fundamental to the character that it just stands out so badly that it has to be lampshaded session after session. The Shardmind in Darksun - yeah, you look like a walking diamond, but, we'll ignore that by throwing a cloak over you so that you aren't instantly murdered in the street. The kobold bard that is suave and good natured and acts in every way like a gnome, but, is a kobold and the player expects to be treated well and get along with everyone the party meets.

I'm frankly just sick to death of players that feel that playing the "anti-setting character" somehow makes them interesting and unique. It's the lazy way out. I mentioned this upthread - it's easy to stand out when you play a Cylon in a Star Wars campaign, but, that doesn't make it interesting. It's an old and tired cliche that I'm just really tired of. Make a character that fits with the tone and background of the setting, make that character with ties to that setting, and THEN make your character unique and interesting. That's the challenge.

For you. I can understand everything you just said and agree, for the most part, but it's all a matter of opinion. Others feel differently. No one is right or wrong here. No one would say to you that you're wrong for playing a character that fits a specific setting. All that I think is being asked of you is to not tell others they are wrong for not wanting to do that.

I think it's a question of degree. Creating a droid for a Dark Sun campaign is a hell of a lot more disruptive than playing a character on Toril who hates the gods. And although a Cylon in Star Wars is a bit out of place, the Cylon would be more out of place in Ravenloft. I think most people would agree that it's a matter of degree.

And, for me, I've personally found it a challenge to make whatever the players throw at me work in my campaign. And I've found that the more flexible I am, the better things work out overall. Now, I say this with players who are usually pretty aware of the setting expectations and so on, but even still some whacky stuff comes up.

I'd take your Thule campaign and make each of the characters outcasts, shunned and mistrusted for what they can do, each in his own way. Make that central to the story. Perhaps they're all being hunted by the same organization of witch-hunters, or something like that. If you do that, you're not going against the setting, you're very much playing with the concepts the setting puts in place.

I don't agree with your stance that a character who challenges something that is fundamental within the setting is the same as a player challenging that setting. Those two things aren't always the same. They can be, of course, but they aren't always.

But I think it's clear that you have a preference when it comes to what is allowed in a given campaign, and that preference adheres almost exactly to the setting as described, with little to no deviations. And that's fine....but it isn't universal.

 

[Hussar]

Oh sure [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION]. As I said, virtually all of the campaigns I've run or played in have allowed most characters and been very flexible. I'm simply in the process of shifting preferences from flexible and open to much more rigid and restrictive.

Under no circumstances should this be considered a universal. Actually IME this is very much an outlier.

But it's ironic though. I've been told in no uncertain terms numerous times on this board that it is 100% up to the DM to allow or disallow concepts in a campaign and DM's can disallow anything for any reason. But when I actually apply that, I'm being told I'm unreasonable or not acting in the spirit of the setting. It's very ironic.

I'm more than willing to accommodate player concepts within the constraints of the setting. What I'm not interested in anymore is the "anti-setting" character.

 

[MG.0]

This is an interesting topic by itself. Party of the problem unfortunately, at least in the case of the Forgotten Realms, lies in the decisions made by TSR and WotC. Starting with the 2nd edition they started adding anything and everything to the setting. I'd really rather not have tieflings and dragonborn in my campaigns, but I'm also here to run a game the players want to play, and that's what they want.

Agreed on all counts here.

A secondary factor, and part of what is causing some issue in this discussion, is that the rules were written for a general medieval fantasy game, not to specifically support the Forgotten Realms. The 3rd edition was, in part, to reign in the fact that the rules varied significantly between the many published game worlds. A Ravenloft game was quite different from a Dark Sun campaign compared to Red Steel, Spelljammer or Council of Dragons.

The 4th edition took this to an extreme, killing off scores of Gods and changing the entire cosmology, not to mention changing the rules so drastically that made it nearly impossible to continue with the same campaign.

A good point. Homogeneity is boring. Changing the entire cosmology because of stuff specific to the Realms was also a mistake. The changes themselves were pretty abysmal.

All the while publishing new 'canon' for the Realms. Now I'm not as against the changes as some other people. I can deal with the Spellplague and such. I don't have to like everything that happens in the game world any more than I have to like everything that happens in this one. And we thought the Time of Troubles was kind of cool at the time.

I found myself annoyed by the Time of Troubles. Even then it seemed so forced and artificial obviously just to explain rule changes. Honestly they'd have been better off continuing on as usual and ignoring the rule changes.

But looking back, I've come to the conclusion that a good rule set doesn't get in the way of the campaign. That means rule modifications to improve the gameplay or address shortcomings are good. But those that fundamentally change the world? Not so much.

Agreed.

5th edition does this very well. I've changed a number of things, mostly to ensure the rules support scenes such as the warrior injured in battle that needs you to carry the standard and finished the job for him, or 'I am not left-handed', etc.

Hehe, sounds like my games. It bugs me that D&D can't handle a particularly important fantasy trope - that of the heroic last act by a dying character. In contrast, D&D characters fall down unconcious, and then die. How boring. I have my own rules to cover this.

So I think we're in a good place to see the settings diverge again, back to thwire unique entities.

Here's hoping, but I wouldn't bet on it. The all powerful forces of marketing typically demand uniformity across a brand in order to maximize name recognition. It's not very compatible with a game originally conceived around your imagination.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm sick to death of stock D&D settings. I really, really am. Our Darksun campaign, our Dragonlance campaign and now our Forgotten Realms campaign are only different in window dressing. The characters, by and large, could be imported from setting to setting without any real change. Sure, the flavour of those characters would change, since some of them are very embedded in a specific setting, but, from a higher POV, yeah, there's absolutely no problem shifting one character from setting to setting.

And, as I said, I'm absolutely sick of it. I've been gaming in kitchen sink settings for far too long. I want a setting where the setting actually matters, where you can't simply plop down Wizard #23 into the game and nothing changes.

So, no, it's not, "Hobbits simply don't go on adventures", it's, "This is a world where hobbits have all been wiped off the face of the planet by zombie squirrels." Don't bring your gnome priest of Garl Glittergold into my Darksun campaign please. Make a character that actually FITS with the setting, rather than playing against the setting for the fifteenth time.

The thing is, a gnome that thinks the balance is a farce or a dragonborn who wants to tear down the Wall of the Faithless IS playing with the setting. It's playing with racial concepts specific to the world (gnomes are a force of disruptive creation; dragonborn are refugees mistrustful of gods). It's playing with cosmological aspects specific to the world (the Balance; the Wall). It's harmonious with those who fight the established enemies int he world (the Dragonarmies; or the Cult of the Dragon). These are not characters that could occur in any other setting.

The same was true of a druid who wanted to bring rain back to Athas.

This is not a character who doesn't fit, it's a character who fits in a particular way, with a particular target, and a particular mission. It EMBRACES the setting. I could not be a gnome wild mage with the same meaning in FR (Balance doesn't matter), nor would a dragonborn atheist carry the same meaning in Planescape (belief in gods is basically only one way to be powerful).

What both of those characters are doing is choosing as antagonists something BIG. That's meaty. That can sustain a character for 20+ levels. That's a character who will dramatically change the setting when they're done, if allowed to pursue their desire. Their happy endings change everything. That's what I want. If I'm playing Star Wars, I want characters who want to destroy the Empire and restore balance to the Force. Saying the setting is a galaxy ruled by an evil empire and getting a bunch of stormtroopers interested in putting down rebellions might be interesting, but it's not the transformative narrative arc that "Lets change that!" can be.

Look, I'm not against intra-party conflict. That's fine and great. But, that conflict shouldn't be so fundamental to the character that it just stands out so badly that it has to be lampshaded session after session. The Shardmind in Darksun - yeah, you look like a walking diamond, but, we'll ignore that by throwing a cloak over you so that you aren't instantly murdered in the street. The kobold bard that is suave and good natured and acts in every way like a gnome, but, is a kobold and the player expects to be treated well and get along with everyone the party meets.

Rather than having these character elements ignored, the idea is to lean into them. Got a walking diamond in Dark Sun? EXPECT thieves. Got a kobold bard in the party? EXPECT other kobolds. Got a Wall-challenging dragonborn in FR? EXPECT the gods to challenge that. They've got ready-made antagonists. Give them the chance to be what they are.

A DM who doesn't isn't following the players' lead here. That's fine, but it also makes the characters rather irrelevant.

I'm frankly just sick to death of players that feel that playing the "anti-setting character" somehow makes them interesting and unique. It's the lazy way out. I mentioned this upthread - it's easy to stand out when you play a Cylon in a Star Wars campaign, but, that doesn't make it interesting. It's an old and tired cliche that I'm just really tired of. Make a character that fits with the tone and background of the setting, make that character with ties to that setting, and THEN make your character unique and interesting. That's the challenge.

A Cylon in Star Wars is ignoring the setting.

A druid who wants to bring rain back to Athas or a dragonborn who wants to tear down the Wall is in the setting, with a ready-made goal and ready-made antagonists, creating dramatic change. Just as a princess who wants to overthrow the evil Empire is in the Star Wars setting, creating dramatic change.

A gnome who hates the Balance can't occur anywhere but in Dragonlance. A guy whose home was eradicated by Bad Guys that he then wants to join the Good Guys to fight isn't exactly unique there.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Rather than having these character elements ignored, the idea is to lean into them. Got a walking diamond in Dark Sun? EXPECT thieves. Got a kobold bard in the party? EXPECT other kobolds. Got a Wall-challenging dragonborn in FR? EXPECT the gods to challenge that. They've got ready-made antagonists. Give them the chance to be what they are.

The Dragonborn there is going to lose however. Even were he to remove the wall Kelemvor would just put a new one up. Plus the Dragonborn there is not going to get much support on his crusade as this goal is just going to make him far too many enemies. Most Dragonborn like the majority of the realms people are not going to care about the wall or his goal anyway.

The way I see if it if I had a player who stated their goal was to destroy the wall. NPC's who were told this would react like this "k...uh good luck with that." then never bring it up again. This PC would only be taken somewhat seriously upon making it to the Fugue plane. Upon which Kelemvor would explain to them why the Wall is staying and give them some warnings along with the full details of the wall that mortals will be unaware of. If ignored Kelemvor will boot him out of the Fugue plane.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The Dragonborn there is going to lose however. Even were he to remove the wall Kelemvor would just put a new one up. Plus the Dragonborn there is not going to get much support on his crusade as this goal is just going to make him far too many enemies. Most Dragonborn like the majority of the realms people are not going to care about the wall or his goal anyway.

That would be entirely up to the DM. And there's a lot of reasons why a DM would be encouraged to "say yes" to their players' goals. Accepting the Wall of the Faithless isn't a precondition for playing an FR game anymore than accepting the Evil Empire is a precondition for being a character in the Star Wars setting.

The way I see if it if I had a player who stated their goal was to destroy the wall. NPC's who were told this would react like this "k...uh good luck with that." then never bring it up again. This PC would only be taken somewhat seriously upon making it to the Fugue plane. Upon which Kelemvor would explain to them why the Wall is staying and give them some warnings along with the full details of the wall that mortals will be unaware of. If ignored Kelemvor will boot him out of the Fugue plane.

That just means you've declared it off the books as a DM. It doesn't mean that it's an invalid plot, just that you don't want to do it. That's fine, but it's not a decision anyone else needs to adhere to.

 

[Hussar]

Rather than having these character elements ignored, the idea is to lean into them. Got a walking diamond in Dark Sun? EXPECT thieves. Got a kobold bard in the party? EXPECT other kobolds. Got a Wall-challenging dragonborn in FR? EXPECT the gods to challenge that. They've got ready-made antagonists. Give them the chance to be what they are.

A DM who doesn't isn't following the players' lead here. That's fine, but it also makes the characters rather irrelevant.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...he-Wall-of-the-Faithless/page70#ixzz3w3S9agZL

But, now, we're back to the idea of the players forcing themes and events on the campaign outside of what the DM/GM is trying to set up. The druid trying to bring the rain? Not really such a problem. The water genasi druid trying to bring back the rain? That's an anti-setting character. And it was very problematic. There is a character that can create water in a setting that specifically forbids doing that. That's not simply a "ready made antagonist", that's a character that is turning the tropes of the setting on their ears.

Which is fine, if that's what the group wants. You want to play a game where the group includes someone who can create water in Darksun and deal with the repercussions of such a character? Fine and dandy. But, in an ongoing campaign, where you have several plot lines going on, suddenly you plop in this new character that derails pretty much every other plot line because the existence of such a character is such a huge setting changing event that you either have to turn the campaign in a completely new direction, or, as was more or less done in our campaign, lampshade it and ignore it. Same as the Mind Shard character. There is no realistic way that our group should have been able to function anywhere in Athas. We should have been mobbed every single time we appeared in public. Bad enough the warlock that uses magic publicly, which was my bad, but we had a mind shard AND a water genasi. The group very quickly evolved into an anti-setting group where everyone is acting against the setting.

Me, I would have liked to actually play IN a Dark Sun game. Problem was, no one else appeared interested. Not with the characters that kept getting added to the game.

Yes, characters should be interesting and bring in all sorts of hooks for the DM to use to generate a campaign. I have no problems with a player driven campaign. But, like I said, I've really, really lost the taste for characters that are anti-setting characters. The psychotic, evil elf ranger in a Dragonlance campaign, the mindshard robot in Dark Sun, the endless lines of "fish out of water" characters that I've seen played in every single campaign I've ever played for the last thirty years.

Is it really that hard to look at a campaign setting, particularly one you may have not played before, or at least, not played terribly often, and create a unique, interesting character with ties to the setting that isn't designed to run against the grain for the entire campaign? Is it really that much to ask that a group playing in a War of the Lance campaign to make actual, honest to goodness heroes? Why is it every time you hand players a list of classes/races for a campaign, there is always that one player who wants something off the menu? Is it really that hard to stick to the menu?

 

[Phantarch]

Even were he to remove the wall Kelemvor would just put a new one up.

Which is why the real goal of the PC should be to depose Kelemvor and take his place as the god of the dead. That's the only way to permanently remove the wall.