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

[Chaosmancer]

No, one of these options is different from the other. Not better. There's nothing wrong with a setting where you are expected to do something. You might not like it, but, that doesn't make it "objectively better". Just that one is a better fit for you than another. If a setting does not have a particular class, for example, does that make it objectively worse than a setting that does include that class?

Restrictions are not automatically bad.

This isn't a restriction though.

You can play an Faithless character with no problem from 1 to 20. The gods do not act against you. You lose nothing, gain nothing, it is essentially a background noise choice.

Until you die, and then sometime later your soul is put in the wall to be tormented and eventually destroyed. Not fast enough that you can't be affected by Raise Dead. Maybe as much as a year later.

How often do you go back and try to interact with the soul of a party member a year dead?

It is a literal meaningless punishment from a meta perspective. A player can completely ignore it, and nothing happens to them. Because generally after a PC is dead for long enough to be mortared into the Wall, they don't go seeking them out anymore.

Which means it is only going to come up that your PC was punished after the fact.

"I wonder how Greg is doing. He died a bit ago in that Giant fight, but he sure was fun."
"Oh, well Greg never worshipped the gods of Faerun, so he is being tortuously crushed in a wall full of atheists until his soul is destroyed never to exist in the multiverse again."
"Um... what did you have against Greg?"

So, an arbitrary punishment that can be trivially ignored at the meta level, while being suspension of disbelief destroying at the setting level vs a system that integrates and works with the concepts at both the meta and setting levels...

Yeah, one of those is objectively better.

 

[cbwjm]

Depends a bit on how the campaign is run since to go about actively denying the gods could lead to role play opportunities, maybe a debate with a follower of the gods. Or the group just ignores your choice and it has little bearing on gameplay in much the way that choosing to follow the gods often has little bearing on gameplay.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Depends a bit on how the campaign is run since to go about actively denying the gods could lead to role play opportunities, maybe a debate with a follower of the gods. Or the group just ignores your choice and it has little bearing on gameplay in much the way that choosing to follow the gods often has little bearing on gameplay.

Sure, a debate with the followers of the Gods could be great.

Of course, you are going to get punished for doing that. So... it is a fun roleplay moment that the DM can remind you that your character's decision has doomed them to unending oblivion because they are supposed to worship the Gods.

And if you win the debate with the follower.... congrats, you doomed them to an unending oblivion because they rejected the gods.

lose/lose it seems.

 

[Zardnaar]

I enforced it in 3E. IIRC you had 1d10 days to raise someone if they were an atheist. Otherwise wall time.

There's other settings where you don't get the wall, Theros has been mentioned.

 

[Raduin711]

In defense of the faithless, just because something is really powerful and says it's a god, doesn't mean it's a god.

What if gods are just another class of being, just... really powerful? After all, Ao showed up out of nowhere during the ToT, and nobody had heard of him before, which opens up lots of questions like, "what if there's a god over Ao?" maybe there's a "real god" out there somewhere (and how would we know when we found them?) What if it's just turtles all the way up?

And anyway, why does being really powerful mean that we have to worship these beings? We don't demand that the ants beneath our feet worship us, so why do these gods expect us to worship them? Out of fear of this wall? What if these souls were meant to go elsewhere, but these so-called gods have us trapped in their net, and the wall is simply their extortion racket? What if the afterworlds are a farce? Can we trust our perceptions of them?

 

[Zardnaar]

In defense of the faithless, just because something is really powerful and says it's a god, doesn't mean it's a god.

What if gods are just another class of being, just... really powerful? After all, Ao showed up out of nowhere during the ToT, and nobody had heard of him before, which opens up lots of questions like, "what if there's a god over Ao?" maybe there's a "real god" out there somewhere (and how would we know when we found them?) What if it's just turtles all the way up?

And anyway, why does being really powerful mean that we have to worship these beings? We don't demand that the ants beneath our feet worship us, so why do these gods expect us to worship them? Out of fear of this wall? What if these souls were meant to go elsewhere, but these so-called gods have us trapped in their net, and the wall is simply their extortion racket? What if the afterworlds are a farce? Can we trust our perceptions of them?

It's hinted there's another power over Ao, think she's the universe or something.

DR the gods are real they set the rules. Don't like it tough.

Read Greek, Roman, Egyptian myths and legends or the bible even.

Fairness doesn't have a lot to do with it.

 

[cbwjm]

Sure, a debate with the followers of the Gods could be great.

Of course, you are going to get punished for doing that. So... it is a fun roleplay moment that the DM can remind you that your character's decision has doomed them to unending oblivion because they are supposed to worship the Gods.

And if you win the debate with the follower.... congrats, you doomed them to an unending oblivion because they rejected the gods.

lose/lose it seems.

It's roleplaying, it doesn't have to be looked at as win/lose. Sometimes it can just be an interesting encounter.

 

[Olrox17]

Never had a problem with the wall of the faithless existing. It’s not like anyone in our group ever wanted to play an atheist, in a world where gods walk the earth and divine miracles are commonplace.

I became an actual defender of the wall after playing neverwinter nights 2 mask of the betrayer. The wall is a major part of the plot there, and you get to see that there is a constant planar war to tear down the wall, waged by those that disapprove of its existence for one reason or another. Good people crusade against it for selfless reasons, evil beings to further nefarious plots.

So, I think the wall deserves to exist just for the possible high level adventure hooks.

 

[Hussar]

This isn't a restriction though.

You can play an Faithless character with no problem from 1 to 20. The gods do not act against you. You lose nothing, gain nothing, it is essentially a background noise choice.

Until you die, and then sometime later your soul is put in the wall to be tormented and eventually destroyed. Not fast enough that you can't be affected by Raise Dead. Maybe as much as a year later.

How often do you go back and try to interact with the soul of a party member a year dead?

It is a literal meaningless punishment from a meta perspective. A player can completely ignore it, and nothing happens to them. Because generally after a PC is dead for long enough to be mortared into the Wall, they don't go seeking them out anymore.

Which means it is only going to come up that your PC was punished after the fact.

"I wonder how Greg is doing. He died a bit ago in that Giant fight, but he sure was fun."
"Oh, well Greg never worshipped the gods of Faerun, so he is being tortuously crushed in a wall full of atheists until his soul is destroyed never to exist in the multiverse again."
"Um... what did you have against Greg?"

So, an arbitrary punishment that can be trivially ignored at the meta level, while being suspension of disbelief destroying at the setting level vs a system that integrates and works with the concepts at both the meta and setting levels...

Yeah, one of those is objectively better.

So, if it's never an issue, then why do you care?

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

And haven't your PCs thought about a retirement plan in the afterlife anytime?