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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Souls are not eternal in D&D anyway. Eventually you are eaten by either your deity or plane in 99.9% of all cases

Which I always found stupid. It seems to defeat the conceptual purpose of the soul.

 

[Nagol]

Right, because Ao is the vehicle for the designers of dnd to retcon things without technically using a retcon.



Actually, what I argued was that Kelemvor had changed things since then. The fact that Kelemvor was god of the dead for a while before doing so is immaterial. I didn’t even say the source was suspect, much less for that reason. I said that the source spoke to the setting’s past, not its present. It was true in 13-whatever, but no longer the case in 1480, and thus we cannot assume it’s exactly the same again in 1492.

It should be treated as true unless and until a game product changes it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It should be treated as true unless and until a game product changes it.

A game product did change it, in 4e. Now in 5e the wall is back, but is explicitly different from before. Thus, we cannot assume that the wall works as it did in 2e.

 

[Arnwolf666]

It was a question about evil. That seems to be the t

Kelemvor got rid of it for a while but then Ao showed up and said "Yeah, nah mate, put that back up"

one if the reasons i never really Ao. He’s too deus ex machina. Why have gods at all if they just do what Ao orders. Just let Ao do it all himself.

 

[Arnwolf666]

If you don’t use earlier edition fluff I’m not sure you are a fan of the forgotten realms since there is so little fluff. And what they have is basically a quick summary.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If you don’t use earlier edition fluff I’m not sure you are a fan of the forgotten realms since there is so little fluff. And what they have is basically a quick summary.

Took longer than i expected to get to the "if you disagree with me you aren't really a fan" garbage.

 

[Ratskinner]

So, what I'm getting from this thread is that all D&D deities (but perhaps especially the FR ones) are really just powerful extra-dimensional dictators and terrorists that love them some boundless coercion.

I'm not sure that's the message the creators were hoping for. Maybe a bit of a miss, here. Just saying.

 

[Arnwolf666]

Took longer than i expected to get to the "if you disagree with me you aren't really a fan" garbage.

Yeah. If someone doesn’t like the first 100 books written for the setting it might not be a setting they really like. I know it’s such a huge leap that it just might be a possibility.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeah. If someone doesn’t like the first 100 books written for the setting it might not be a setting they really like. I know it’s such a huge leap that it just might be a possibility.

Ah, of course. Prioritizing newer work when looking at the modern era of setting totally means one doesn't like...ya know what, that's enough sarcastic snark for me today.

You're misrepresenting my arguments and making a BS gatekeeping argument as if it were a real counterpoint to the strawman you've constructed.

Claiming that people don't really like the franchise being discussed when they won't come around to your view on it is the sort of garbage I expect to see from randos on twitter.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Honestly, I don't care either way (although I was going to use it, the archons would be signing up souls just around the corner from the devils and the only way to get in the Wall would be to tell Kelemvor to His face "you're not the god of me" and not have any other god on tap to save you, because stupidity really should be painful), but "I want to unmake the Wall of the Faithless" seems like an interesting character goal, and inspiring interesting character goals is a big part of the reason there are Bad Things in campaign settings....