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

[SkidAce]

This thread is full of non-5e references isn't it?

We've been discussing the history and reason for the wall for multiple pages.

 

[cmad1977]

As usual with questions like l this the answer is:
Is the wall of faithless in YOUR campaign?
If yes: great.
If no:great.

 

[Arnwolf666]

That a 5e book? For which setting?

2E books and a few afterwards

 

[doctorbadwolf]

2E books

So, 3 editions ago, before tons of changes to the cosmology.

I’m not gonna take such materials into account at all, even in a general lore discussion.

 

[Seramus]

I would have no issue if it works as you assume.

We know from the actual novels that Kelemvor no longer punishes people for having no patron. As long as they have faith in general they go to their alignment plane assuming they pass judgement. But Myrkul did it that way for a long long time.

Of course the average gamer wouldn't know that unless they read the novels, which is a problem with FR having so many. It's like talking about Thrawn with people who only know the movies.

 

[Arnwolf666]

2E books

So, 3 editions ago, before tons of changes to the cosmology.

I’m not gonna take such materials into account at all, even in a general lore discussion.

so things written before the current edition are not canon. LOL.

Let’s just ban all setting material before 5E. LOL

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This thread is full of non-5e references isn't it?

We've been discussing the history and reason for the wall for multiple pages.

I can’t help that other people can’t let go of the past. It’s a thread about FR in 5e.

There was a whole edition where the wall was just a wall, with no souls embedded in it at all. The thread is about whether that nonsense of souls in the wall came back.

I don’t care what the wall was all about in 2e. Kelemvor is the god of death now, and he is a god with compassion and a sense of fairness and concern for the mortal perspective. In 5e it has come back for reasons, and we are discussing whether that should have happened.

Trotting out 2e lore for justifications isn’t all that helpful. Clearly, it worked fine for the 100+ years that Kelemvor had his way and the wall wasn’t eating “faithless” souls.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

so things written before the current edition are not canon. LOL.

Let’s just ban all setting material before 5E. LOL

Oh yeah, is that what I said? Interesting! Please use quotes to show me where that happened.

Oh wait, of course! I never said anything like that, you’re just making things up in a flailing upset at me for suggesting that lore from before several big changes to the setting occurred can’t necessarily tell us how things are now.

5e isn’t 2e. The wall has changed multiple times since then. The entire cosmology has. 2e lore is history, not a current insight into what the world is now.

 

[Seramus]

Kelemvor is the god of death now, and he is a god with compassion and a sense of fairness and concern for the mortal perspective. In 5e it has come back for reasons, and we are discussing whether that should have happened.

He was, until he was found guilty of incompetence due to his humanity. Now he is more neutral and the wall is back.

We don't know what exactly is involved in being faithless, but I assume that's part of the judgment. I guess it would be up to your personal game to determine if someone who is truly ignorant would be bound for the wall, I can't imagine Kelemvor doing that even in his more neutral incarnation.

The real sticking point is those who knowingly choose to be faithless.

 

[Arnwolf666]

Oh yeah, is that what I said? Interesting! Please use quotes to show me where that happened.

Oh wait, of course! I never said anything like that, you’re just making things up in a flailing upset at me for suggesting that lore from before several big changes to the setting occurred can’t necessarily tell us how things are now.

5e isn’t 2e. The wall has changed multiple times since then. The entire cosmology has. 2e lore is history, not a current insight into what the world is now.

I think you made my point.