D&D 5E Is the Wall of Faithless in 5e?

[Zardnaar]

Second sundering had sod all to do with the gods.

The other 2 where triggered by evil gods doing evil things.

The bigger issue is hack writers blowing upstuff they don't understand.

 

[Hussar]

Huh. I've always wondered where this resistance to the Wall comes from. It's not like there aren't real world examples of similar concepts, so, that's not it. It's not that it doesn't actually make logical sense to some degree - since the gods are dependent on worship, those choosing to actively not worship the gods are seen as a problem.

I think this has a lot more to do with players just being so hell bent on never, ever being told that they have to do anything.

 

[Xenonnonex]

The bigger issue is hack writers blowing upstuff they don't understand.

Pretty much this.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Huh. I've always wondered where this resistance to the Wall comes from. It's not like there aren't real world examples of similar concepts, so, that's not it. It's not that it doesn't actually make logical sense to some degree - since the gods are dependent on worship, those choosing to actively not worship the gods are seen as a problem.

Even real world depictions of purgatory are more "benevolent" than this. Even the concept of Nirvana which is essentially extinction of the conscious self is more "benevolent" than this.
The cosmological concept of the Wall of the Faithless just means the gods are not worthy of worship. Being petulant and childish. It is also all rather evil.

I think this has a lot more to do with players just being so hell bent on never, ever being told that they have to do anything.

The Wall of the Faithless could be opened up to an awesome campaign idea. Players though would rarely visit let alone know about the Wall of the Faithless. I am talking about it as a core conceit of a setting.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

A side note, there is no such thing as FAITH "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. " in the Forgotten Realms or any other DnD setting to be honest. Faith is belief when proof is impossible. Proof exists every day in a world where clerical spells exist and Gods wander the world at times acting like whiny tweens.

The only area where faith might exist would be faith in AO the real deity that created the ones that everyone worships in the FR since there is no proof that he exists from the point of view of any mortal.

Even he is not truly THE Supreme Being as the end of the Time of Trouble novels ends with AO speaking to the being that granted him his power and authority as a parent would a child.

Overall I think the best setting when it comes to religion would be Ravenloft as that realm had no deities. Instead clerical powers were powered literally by the faith of the clergy.

 

[Xenonnonex]

A side note, there is no such thing as FAITH "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. " in the Forgotten Realms or any other DnD setting to be honest. Faith is belief when proof is impossible.

Eberron is a setting where faith empowers belief. And where belief powers faith. Because you cannot prove the existence of the gods in Eberron. And the gods do not manifest their existence.

Proof exists every day in a world where clerical spells exist and Gods wander the world at times acting like whiny tweens.

Frigging edgelord FR deities.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

The cosmological concept of the Wall of the Faithless just means the gods are not worthy of worship. Being petulant and childish. It is also all rather evil.

The deities of the FR ARE petulant vicious children. The Time of Trouble series of books clearly explains that for all of existence NONE of the deities bothered to gather their faithful from the field of the dead where they awaited them. The deities just ignored them and the poor souls spent all eternity walking in massive groups calling out and begging their "Gods" for some attention.

 

[Bitbrain]

“Frigging edgelord deities”. I’ll have to remember that one.

If you want to say the D&D authors are being mean to RL people who are atheists and agnostics, well... they can play D&D without gods and the wall.

In my experience, I have witnessed the exact opposite of this, at least with regards to the players.

The atheists and agnostics are the ones interested in exploring the gods, faith, and the afterlife.
Meanwhile, the Christian players want nothing to do with such concepts, and find D&D’s general approach to such things “heavy-handed and distasteful”.

 

[Seramus]

Even real world depictions of purgatory are more "benevolent" than this. Even the concept of Nirvana which is essentially extinction of the conscious self is more "benevolent" than this.

The fields of Asphodel are pretty horrible. “The dead approach him in swarms, unable to speak unless animated by the blood of the animals he slays. Without blood they are witless, without activity, without pleasure and without future.”

Digesting in Mot’s stomach is probably pretty unpleasant. So is standing around or walking through fields of razors to “earn” nothingness. Or wandering off to be lost and forgotten forever. Falling into mud riverbanks and being stuck there forever, the waters rising and falling around your head. Being judged so that either your heart is eaten, or being sent to one of several mostly unpleasant places. Being locked up in spiritual prison, hoping someone slips you religious contraband so you can be ‘enlightened’ and escape.

Benevolent afterlives are pretty uncommon.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Even real world depictions of purgatory are more "benevolent" than this. Even the concept of Nirvana which is essentially extinction of the conscious self is more "benevolent" than this.
The cosmological concept of the Wall of the Faithless just means the gods are not worthy of worship. Being petulant and childish. It is also all rather evil.


The Wall of the Faithless could be opened up to an awesome campaign idea. Players though would rarely visit let alone know about the Wall of the Faithless. I am talking about it as a core conceit of a setting.

Nirvana is treated by Buddhism as something to strive towards, for it is freedom from dukkha (suffering). It's not meant to be a punishment; living itself and being trapped in Samsara is punishment enough. (Albeit, Buddhists do believe that suuficiently wicked people would be reborn in Naraka and be subject to torment for incomprehensible lengths of time as penance for their accumulated karma).

In my view, the closest analogue to the Wall of the Faithless in real world mythology is the judgment of Anubis. The ancient Egyptians believed that the souls of the dead would be brought before Anubis, the jackal-headed god of the Underworld, who would weigh their hearts against the feather of Ma'at (truth, justice, and harmony). If the heart was lighter than the feather, then they would be admitted into the Sekhet-Aaru where Osiris dwelled and ruled, effectively being reborn. However, if their hearts proved heavier than the feather, then they would be devoured by Ammit, dying a permanent death. Appeasing the gods, maintaining religious morals, and following the proper funerary customs would tilt the scale in the favour of the deceased.