Dragonlance [Dragonlance/Faerun] Anyone here met any Cataclysm/Wall of the Faithless defenders?

[Coroc]

In the vein that they view the Cataclysm that the gods sent to the mortal world for Istar's corruption as justified to some extent. Or believe that consigning antitheists and atheists to cosmic building blocks is a necessary evil for the greater good.

Dragonlance has been on my mind lately for various reasons, and between it and Forgotten Realms I notice that the tabletop social circles I notice certain acts of divine violence as a big dealbreaker for people who'd otherwise be interested in the settings. Or they like the settings but would either retcon or alter said aspects, or even cast the gods in a more antagonistic role.

But the number of Wall/Cataclysm defenders I know of can be counted on one hand. And I've been on quite the number of forums.

Has anyone here encountered such defenders? What was their reasoning?

And if any posters happen to be such defenders, I wouldn't mind hearing your rationales.

I got both types of players / DMs in my rounds. Some really hate divine (or High level NPC) interventions, especially if they are the only means of winning.

But i think you got to differentiate here:

As a plot device, or being far back in history these things can really rock, and i found no one yet who does dislike them actually:

If historic to explain why the cmapaign world is what it is, like DL Ishtar or Twin cataclysm in Greyhawk, they are well accepted.

If plot device, aka your beloved vanilla campaign suddenly gets a full blown zombie apocalypse or sucked into the nine hells it is absolute great stuff for the DM as for the players. For the DM it is great because he can justify all sorts of shenanigans like altered magic, limited safespots to rest etc. , for the players it is great because they are plunged head over heels into the total unexpected, their world has suddenly changed drastically, no saving the princess from the dragon or stealing the hidden artefact out of some merchants store, not even repelling the orc hordes, but instead literally saving the planet.

It is maybe also on how you present these events to players. These happenings are epic, and should have epic consequences, but the players should recognize their new top priority task also, which is clearly to revert things or at least to prevent the worst consequences of a cataclysm. In the end this could make them epic heroes if they succeed.

The only exceptions which are not liked so well but they tend not to get used therefore, are some of the FR ones: While the kingdom of Netheril in the past is good, everything spellplague and sundering is not taken so well by some of my groups. Thsi is because the FR stuff often was to explain changes in game mechanics which could rather ignored, i mean how many people would change their beloved characters to a new edition mid campaign? I do not know many.

 

[Leatherhead]

Okay, so, next question, why is that referred to as non-canon?

Because canon is a wibbly-wobbly mess.

Basically, some things are "more official" than others.

To some people that means:
If it isn't in a sourcebook, it isn't really part of the Realmslore, novels might be included in that but things like video games or adventure paths are right out. (Unless there is a novelization of the Video Game or Adventure Path, which makes the Novel canon).

To others, anything with the license or even forum posts and tweets by Ed Greenwood or another designer is legit.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

I have got an idea. Invasion by infernals and these break the wall to steal the souls as source of energy. Then Kelevmor offers a deal, almost an indult. The faithless no-evil souls will can enjoy a softer punishment. They will be allowed to be out, but not too far, as builders and maintenance service, using their own corpus/ectoplasm to rebuilt the wall. Something like the Night Watch of the Game of Thrones, but here the wall against the infernal invaders. Sometimes the best defenders are rewarded as champions chosen by a god, and then "pardoned" becomes agents of that other deity. Sometimes they are allowed to be visited by souls of families and loved beings, and here the punishment is to be separate.

Other matter and here I totally disagree is about the souls in the afterlife forget totally their previous memories and identities. Here the retcon should be necessary. If I was a Faerunian character, I would like to gather together all the rest of family, ancestors and friends from my previous life. I wouldn't like my ancestors were totally ancestors in this life and in the other side. Let's imagine the story of the princess who dies, and the prince goes to the celestial plane to see her again (he can pay an expensive wish spell), but this can't remember him.

If a spirit, soul or ghost can be a monster with stats and hit points then it could suffer pain, even being an incorporeal being.

 

[Alzrius]

Okay, so, next question, why is that referred to as non-canon?

I don't believe anyone in this thread has referred to that particular source as being non-canon.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It seems like a lot of this argument is hinging on whether being in the wall is torture or not. Can someone please explain why the answer to this question is not clear?

ETA, for clarity: I mean, what source material there is that says it's torture versus not torture? Why is the source that says it's torture described as non-canon?

From what I was able to determine, none of the officially published rulebooks mention the process being painful. They did describe it as a punishment, and they spoke of the ultimate fate being the destruction of the soul, but not that the process was explicitly painful. It is a logical conclusion, but not an explicitly stated one

The only source I was familiar with that did was the video game, and since that was licensed I can imagine the argument is that the authors of the game did not follow "canon"

Adding in the book, that is a second source for it being painful, but since it was not written by Greenwood, I imagine the same "not canon, it was an author interpretation" argument would be used.

 

[Dire Bare]

From what I was able to determine, none of the officially published rulebooks mention the process being painful. They did describe it as a punishment, and they spoke of the ultimate fate being the destruction of the soul, but not that the process was explicitly painful. It is a logical conclusion, but not an explicitly stated one

The only source I was familiar with that did was the video game, and since that was licensed I can imagine the argument is that the authors of the game did not follow "canon"

Adding in the book, that is a second source for it being painful, but since it was not written by Greenwood, I imagine the same "not canon, it was an author interpretation" argument would be used.

Greenwood is, of course, the originator of the Realms . . . but his word is not law (or, canon). Anything published by WotC or under license from WotC (originally TSR) is an official source and is, by definition, canon.

Of course, even the official canon is inconsistent and at times contradictory, as with any shared world. And sometimes the powers-that-be (WotC) decide to ignore or retcon existing canon.

But the whole idea that fans get to decide what's canon and what isn't, what's more official and what isn't . . . . ugh. The novels are canon. The video games are canon. Deal with it nerds.

Of course, even if it was never explicitly mentioned anywhere in any source that being mortared into a wall of souls wasn't somehow a torturous punishment . . . . the argument that it somehow isn't is nonsensical to me. Yes, being made into a soul-brick for a wall in the underworld is painful and horrifying, full stop.

 

[jayoungr]

I don't believe anyone in this thread has referred to that particular source as being non-canon.

Flamestrike did, a couple of pages back, assuming that's the source he referred to in this post:

Your bones cant be cracked in the wall. They're buried in a grave on the Material plane. It's your Soul that goes into the wall, and Im not seeing any references to any agony involved at all (barring one non canon depiction).

 

[Leatherhead]

Flamestrike did, a couple of pages back, assuming that's the source he referred to in this post:

I believe Flamestrike was objecting to the Video Game (Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer) Source.

 

[Alzrius]

I believe Flamestrike was objecting to the Video Game (Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer) Source.

I concur.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
1 is the only one that I think fits, because it acknowledges that the Wall doesn't have to make sense, the entire point is to send a message that "gods are important here" in a very hamfisted manner.

Honestly, I don't have much problem with that. There are far, far too many players out there that need to be smacked upside the head with the clue bat before they get the idea of what the DM is going for. And, then you have the players who will deliberately pull the opposite way - the DM tells the group that religion is important in this setting, so everyone plays atheists and heretics.

This may be hamfisted but, at least it gives the DM a decent argument for making faith important in the game. "Look, religion is important in the Realms mmmkay? See, right here, those that don't have a god get stuffed in the Wall. Now, pick a bloody deity and let's get going!"