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

[I'm A Banana]

If the PC is being that subtle it's likely that it isn't coming up at the table. If it was then it would possibly be a problem. But if it's that far in the background it isn't imo adding much to the game.

In the DL game, it's adding a lot to my experience of the game without forcing everyone in the party into a "with me or against me" scenario. That's exactly what I'm looking for out of it - a way that I, as a player, can make sense of something that I regard as a player as kind of idiotic (like the Balance and DL gnomes), to make it something I can enjoy, without having to tromp all over everyone else's idea of the setting in the meantime. It remains in the background until it's something the rest of the party and the DM chooses to opt into. The alternative is to either make the game all about my character, or to grump about how stupid certain parts of DL are constantly (or try to veto playing in the setting), and neither of these ideas are half as much fun as trying to find something I can play that is fun for me.

FR would be similar - I would want to have fun by playing something that was fun for me, which means playing something that would tear down that wall given a chance, and who would look for adventures by looking for ways to do that. But presuming that there are other things my character is worried about up front (the return of Tiamat, the Elder Elemental Eye, escaping the underdark, whatever), it's likely to be a personality trait and not a campaign theme. That's OK - the alternative is to force it on everyone or to just refuse to play in FR, and both of those are ego trips I'm not interested in. Life's too short for that.

It's basically the one player and the DM. I'd prefer that things like this involved the group instead. I'm not a fan of "secret goals" for PCs because it gives little or nothing for the other players to work with.

The intent is that nobody HAS to work with it. It's hardly a secret (though my gnome character's behavior makes the message opaque and confusing, and he doesn't bother explaining himself much of the time). It's just not something that must dominate the gameplay, which means it's something compatible with other quests and missions.

It's not like a character who wants to tear down the Wall of the Faithless might not share other goals with the party, even if they disagree on that point.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Because you do not believe that the deities are worthy of worship. Since the FR deities are a bunch of squabbling brats that neglect their worshipers (according to AO), and that even the good deities suffer the wall to exist, that's not an unreasonable stance to take.

Alternately because you don't believe they are actually deities, merely ultra powerful mortals... and since at least some of them (all of them?) are actually ascended mortals, and several of them have died, that's again not an unreasonable stance to take.

Alternately because you believe the deities are so powerful they don't actually need your worship.

Wow, this is a long thread, and haven't been through all of it yet, but...

There are obviously lots of people in the Realms that believe something like this based on the fact that there's enough of them to build a wall.

The way I look at it is like this: As a player you know how the afterlife is designed in this world. You may like it or not, but there it is (assuming your DM goes along with it).

As a character, though, they only know what they know. They may or may not have learned of the wall, and if they have they have opted to ignore the warnings. Whether that comes back at them when they die won't really be known until that point. And if the character feels that strongly about the state of the divine beings in the universe, then go with it.

From the character's perspective it's not any different than somebody on this world being an atheist, and after they die finding out that they'e right or, worse, "whoops, my bad!" they were wrong.

The only difference is that in the game world, you as a player know exactly what's in store, and the character doesn't. In this world the atheist won't know if they are right or wrong any more than the rest of us until they die.

Quite frankly, like the rest of my Forgotten Realms campaign, the published material gives a shared resource for the players and me alike to learn about the realms. But the players will never know (or at least not without directly verifying it themselves) if that's the way is in my Forgotten Realms. Ao isn't in Ed's Realms, he was created by TSR. He may have added him, that I don't know. Don't know about the wall, etc. But as far as I'm concerned, they characters and the players should never know how the universe/multiverse works until they go exploring.

As for the specific reasons that you listed for a person of the Realms choosing not to worship the Deities? They all sound somewhat reasonable to me. But if you live in a world where those squabbling, ultra-powerful ex-mortals that don't need your worship, and are unworthy of your worship, they still get to decide what happens to your soul for the rest of eternity. So that's a risk you choose to take.

It's certainly a common concept in fantasy that the Gods themselves are really no better than the people of the world, just more powerful. But one of those powers happens to be what happens to the people of the world when they die. If the afterlife is that big a part in your campaign, it could be the basis for a very interesting campaign with a lifelong struggle to change it. In the realms, various Gods have answered prayers for other dead Gods. It certainly seems plausible that at least one of the existing deities (particularly one like Cyric) would look for ways to gather more faithful, such as granting powers to a group that has a specific philosophy, or looking for a way to increase his take of the souls by stealing those that would previously be bound for the wall. Especially if this weakens Kelemvor in turn.

Because Realmsfolk worship all of the gods, I don't particularly care as a DM whether the player selects a patron unless they are a divine spell caster. In the Realms divine spell casting comes from the Gods. Just like I'd expect a Warlock to select a patron. Their powers derive from another source as well. But it's also not unheard of in the Realms for a God to answer the prayers (or grant spells) on behalf of a dead God, and it wouldn't be beyond the realm of plausibility for them to support a group of a particular philosophy. To some degree that sounds like a step halfway between a Warlock patron and a God. There are certainly many powerful creatures looking for a way to increase their power in the Realms and perhaps they've found a way to do such a thing. Sounds like an interesting idea for a campaign.

Ilbranteloth

 

[MG.0]

There are obviously lots of people in the Realms that believe something like this based on the fact that there's enough of them to build a wall.

What they don't tell you about the Wall:

 

[Hussar]

In the DL game, it's adding a lot to my experience of the game without forcing everyone in the party into a "with me or against me" scenario. That's exactly what I'm looking for out of it - a way that I, as a player, can make sense of something that I regard as a player as kind of idiotic (like the Balance and DL gnomes), to make it something I can enjoy, without having to tromp all over everyone else's idea of the setting in the meantime. It remains in the background until it's something the rest of the party and the DM chooses to opt into. The alternative is to either make the game all about my character, or to grump about how stupid certain parts of DL are constantly (or try to veto playing in the setting), and neither of these ideas are half as much fun as trying to find something I can play that is fun for me.

FR would be similar - I would want to have fun by playing something that was fun for me, which means playing something that would tear down that wall given a chance, and who would look for adventures by looking for ways to do that. But presuming that there are other things my character is worried about up front (the return of Tiamat, the Elder Elemental Eye, escaping the underdark, whatever), it's likely to be a personality trait and not a campaign theme. That's OK - the alternative is to force it on everyone or to just refuse to play in FR, and both of those are ego trips I'm not interested in. Life's too short for that.


The intent is that nobody HAS to work with it. It's hardly a secret (though my gnome character's behavior makes the message opaque and confusing, and he doesn't bother explaining himself much of the time). It's just not something that must dominate the gameplay, which means it's something compatible with other quests and missions.

It's not like a character who wants to tear down the Wall of the Faithless might not share other goals with the party, even if they disagree on that point.

Like I said, this is just not to my taste. I'm not a big fan of characters that live only in my head where I have all this stuff going on, only, no one actually knows it and I'm basically mentally fapping during play. I just don't see the point of having something so central to a character not come up at the table or, as you said, be so opaque that no one actually understands what you're thinking. To me, it would be like playing Spider Man but, never actually articulating "With Great Power comes Great Responsibility". This is central to that character. Dropping that into the back seat and having it only live in my own head just seems so pointless.

I guess I view role playing as inherently a group activity. Anything which excludes the group is just something I'm not interested in. Note, this is entirely a play style thing. I get that. But, it does explain, rather well I think, why we have such different reactions to this. You'd be content having a character that hates the Wall, is Faithless in FR, but, never actually articulates that or acts on it. For me, that would drive me batty.

 

[Saeviomagy]

As a character, though, they only know what they know. They may or may not have learned of the wall, and if they have they have opted to ignore the warnings. Whether that comes back at them when they die won't really be known until that point. And if the character feels that strongly about the state of the divine beings in the universe, then go with it.

Everything that I've read suggests that mortals are somehow spontaneously informed of the afterlife in the realms. The wall explicitly exists to terrorize mortals, and when Kelemvor changes the rules of the afterlife, mortals rapidly adjust their behavior to best take advantage.

 

[Hussar]

To be fair, getting the word out about the afterlife wouldn't be too hard in FR. There's at least a priest and usually several in any settlement. Spreading the word would be pretty quick.

There's no particular reason that Kelemvore himself couldn't get the word out. Any funeral would come under his portfolio and he could just tell all and sundry what happens when you die.

The advantages of very powerful and very active deities.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Everything that I've read suggests that mortals are somehow spontaneously informed of the afterlife in the realms. The wall explicitly exists to terrorize mortals, and when Kelemvor changes the rules of the afterlife, mortals rapidly adjust their behavior to best take advantage.

Maybe that's out there somewhere, but I don't recall it. The Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide begins 'The Afterlife' section with the words, "most humans believe..." That wording also hints at the fact that not all races believe in the same afterlife in the Realms, although that may or may not have relevance after they pass. It seems to me that all intelligent races end up on the Fugue Plain to be collected, although some may bypass it by the grace of their God.

In Elminster's Forgotten Realms it goes into greater detail on people's beliefs, and it also has the tone of just that, beliefs, and the way they tend to show those beliefs. I don't think the average farmer, craftsman, or townsfolk really puts any more thought into the God's existence than they do that the Sun will rise in the day and the moon will rise in the night.

The way I read it, the vast majority of Realmsfolk go about their business paying fealty to the Gods which they know are real in the sense that they've heard enough stories, along with the faithful (clerics, paladins, and other divine classes), reinforcing this belief. Historically, it's not all that different from any pre-renaissance civilization where few questioned the reality of the Gods, and fewer still did so openly. Of course, some of that was due to potential consequences in their mortal life, but for the most part it's just something that 'is' and isn't questioned.

I'm also not sure I see the wall as punishment per se, although it was probably in that spirit that Myrkul created the wall. I've always sort of seen is as a function of the fact that a Deities power was related to the strength and faith of their followers. Myrkul got stuck with the faithless, since they were of no value to the Deities once dead, and had no home other than Mykul's domain. Hmmm? What should be done with them?

Since as mortals those souls did not care about the Gods, why should the Gods care about them after they passed? Cruel, but I think it's largely a case of 'not my problem.' The way the world and the afterlife is designed is one of free will. The good Deities will do what they can to protect and guide the people, but it's ultimately up to mortals to decide how they will live, and the consequences are well defined amongst the Gods once they reach the afterlife. As much as they might like to save more, it's just not something they can do, the poor souls have chosen their fate whether they realize it or not.

But, other than perhaps hearing of those that have visited the planes via magic, or those that have returned (and may or may not remember much), most people probably only have as much of an understanding of the afterlife. In fact, the faithful of a given God probably describe the afterlife in a manner befitting their deity, and the consequences of not living their tenets are probably different depending on the teachings of that Deity, rather than the reality of what actually happens. For example, clergy of Mystra might teach their followers that a life not in Mystra's service in life will lead to an eternity without access to the Art. Certainly Cyric's clergy would characterize an afterlife without Cyric as far worse than it might really be, and Banites may teach of an eternity of oppression and torture by the Black Hand himself if they do not yield to his will on Toril.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Ilbranteloth]

To be fair, getting the word out about the afterlife wouldn't be too hard in FR. There's at least a priest and usually several in any settlement. Spreading the word would be pretty quick.

There's no particular reason that Kelemvore himself couldn't get the word out. Any funeral would come under his portfolio and he could just tell all and sundry what happens when you die.

The advantages of very powerful and very active deities.

Perhaps, but the best I can tell the Deities aren't that active in a direct manner toward the common folk. They seem to be active in their activities against each other. The normal connection between the deities and mortals tends to be in divinely granted abilities (usually described as being granted by underlings and intermediaries), omens, signs, and other vague and indirect ways.

The Gods have a lot more to keep them occupied than trying to educate all of the Realmsfolk, that's the purpose of their clergy, and they don't even have a direct line, not to mention the fact that things have changed over the years, I'm sure that anybody who studied the writings of the different churches would find nothing but contradictions and confusion.

Part of this could be due to the strength of the Deity being related to their followers, and presumably, the souls in their domain in the afterlife. Any given Deity would be interested in spreading 'the truth' to their followers, but each of the other Deities 'truths' would be from a perspective that would give them the advantage to gaining more souls. The evil Deities would probably actively foster lies and confusion to further their aims.

Since most people would probably simply believe that living a good life would lead to a good afterlife, and venerating the Deities is just a normal part of 'a good life.'

Ilbranteloth

 

[I'm A Banana]

Like I said, this is just not to my taste. I'm not a big fan of characters that live only in my head where I have all this stuff going on, only, no one actually knows it and I'm basically mentally fapping during play. I just don't see the point of having something so central to a character not come up at the table or, as you said, be so opaque that no one actually understands what you're thinking. To me, it would be like playing Spider Man but, never actually articulating "With Great Power comes Great Responsibility". This is central to that character. Dropping that into the back seat and having it only live in my own head just seems so pointless.

It comes out, in the right context. My gnome has disrespected gods, and pummeled cultists to a pulp when they have been revealed to be incapable of changing, and continues to refer to the draconians and their allies as "puppets." I had a small crisis of faith when I realized the Good dragons were beholden by an oath, too. He's currently looking for something that will free them. But what I'm not going to do is say HEY EVERYONE ITS TIME TO PAY ATTENTION TO ME NOW. Because RPing is a group activity. For comparison, I couldn't tell you why our party swashbuckler wants to fight evil dragons, and I think three characters have very similar stories of "they invaded my homeland, so THEY MUST BE STOPPED."

I guess I view role playing as inherently a group activity. Anything which excludes the group is just something I'm not interested in. Note, this is entirely a play style thing. I get that. But, it does explain, rather well I think, why we have such different reactions to this. You'd be content having a character that hates the Wall, is Faithless in FR, but, never actually articulates that or acts on it. For me, that would drive me batty.

I view it instead as an opt-in narrative. I'm not going to MAKE the group play along with my character's story. I'm not the center of attention here, I'm one of at least five centers of attention. The back story is there as an invitation to the DM: this would be fun for me. If they can make it work, great. If they can't, I'm still going to lean in and say I do X, because Y and Z.

 

[Hussar]

Totally agree on the swashbuckler btw. And fair enough for the motivation for the other three. Then again "defend my home(land)" isn't a terribly unusual motivation. Particularly in light of a huge invasion storyline.

I guess my issue is more that since no one actually knows your motivation, no one can actually choose to bring it up. And if it ever actually does come to light clearly, likely two and possibly three of the other PC's would immediately view you as an enemy.

As it stands, you're just crazy. Otherwise, the devoted characters to the law God and the war God would see you as just as dangerous as any dragonarmy member. You're thinking is what caused the last Cataclysm- that the gods are too weak to be trusted.