Eltab
Is this a moon, or is it a space station?
Two ! (and counting)I'm likely one of the only people on Earth to have not seen Frozen
Two ! (and counting)I'm likely one of the only people on Earth to have not seen Frozen
I can buy into that argument.
I'm likely one of the only people on Earth to have not seen Frozen, but I understand what you're saying.
I see value in verisimilitude and consistent logic. I have spoken in support of such things elsewhere. In other threads, I have used professional wrestling as an example: despite being fantasy, it is presented as "real" and (when done well) makes an attempt to allow the audience to buy in to a coherent presentation and narrative.
My complaint isn't that FR "dared to be different." I am fine with FR being different. I would encourage FR to be as unique as it can be. My complaint is that FR faithless and real world atheists/agnostics share so much in common that they are both the same thing, and the writers of FR have gone out of their way to punish these individuals.And they chose to give it the wall as an unique distinction. One one hand people complain that all settings are alike, but as soon as a setting dares to have something special other people complain that it's controversial/offending and needs to be taken out.
The characters in the setting don't exist. They are words on a page. To say that the feelings of real people are trumped by the feelings of fictional characters is... odd. To say the least.It's not the same argument, and here is why:
Whether or not it is real to you or me is irrelevant to whether or not it is "real" to a character within the setting.
The characters in the setting don't exist. They are words on a page. To say that the feelings of real people are trumped by the feelings of fictional characters is... odd. To say the least.
That wasn't the position I took.
However, I did offer some comment in response to that. I said that I can understand efforts to sanitize things which may upset people. I further commented that I'm curious how murdering sentient creatures for wealth and advancement fits into that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: I can see how my position could be construed as that. I did say that it's irrelevant whether or not things are real to you and me. That comment was geared more toward what I perceived as logically valid (given a set of setting assumptions,) and explaining why my position was not a Thermian argument. (I would further posit that there is some argument for a Thermian Argument not being fallacious because being factual is not necessarily a requirement of being logically valid.)
Admittedly, I do think that -at some point- building a narrative around a fictional world requires some amount of willingness to leave real-world assumptions and expectation behind. As someone choosing to play a role inside of that same constructed fiction, I think there's an argument to be made for seeing through different eyes than your own. Yes, real-world feelings do matter. A product which is grossly offensive to players and customers is not good; at the same time, is there a point at which the game reaches what is essentially the 80s Satanic Panic with a different moral/ethical paint job?
In the context of a broader issue, I'm genuinely curious to see how design of a combat-and-conflict-centric game is approached in a way which objectively offends zero people. How would a brand with the strength (and market share) of contemporary D&D (backed by Hasbro) respond to the 80s Satanic Panic and Jack Chick?
Real world atheists and FR faithless are nowhere close, IMO.My complaint isn't that FR "dared to be different." I am fine with FR being different. I would encourage FR to be as unique as it can be. My complaint is that FR faithless and real world atheists/agnostics share so much in common that they are both the same thing, and the writers of FR have gone out of their way to punish these individuals.
It would be no different if the writers had constructed a religion in FR that mirrored a real-world religion and then went out to their way to punish practitioners of said religion in the imaginary afterlife of FR. Folks would be flipping their lid.
, I had to do that anyways, so that is less a punishment and more just a crazy guy yelling at me for no reason. Maybe if we were really bad he'd tell us we have to breath air too.
The novel in question, Troy Denning's Crucible: The Trial of Cyric the Mad, presents Mystra as being the one whose position is extreme.That same quote from earlier (Alzrius post #234 ) also shows us that Mystra doesn't think that is how things should work, which tells me that even in the Realms... that is kind of an extreme position.
Holding the pen we can also just cross out Orcus, Bane, Asmodeus and all other nastyness. So why even bother rolling up characters for their long journey to right the wrongs through ingame actions? We have the pen after all.But, reorienting back to us instead of them, we can change it. We are not powerless in the face of unfair gods, we are the ones holding the pen.
Holding the pen we can also just cross out Orcus, Bane, Asmodeus and all other nastyness. So why even bother rolling up characters for their long journey to right the wrongs through ingame actions? We have the pen after all.
If some group hates the wall that much, it's an epic campaign goal to destroy it. Probably best achieved by throwing down Kelemvor and placing one of them on the throne. A DM can easily add covert support by the deities of good who equally dislike the wall
But how is it unjust? Anymore than the king saying pay this tax or go to jail?
Well, Kelemvor himself is Lawful Neutral, not Lawful GoodWe are talking about Lawful Good deities, not Lawful Neutral. They also care about things like compassion and mercy, not only about justice. They can argue about wether a law is just or not, but you can be sure that one of their main concerns, one were all would agree, would be if such law is compassionate or not.
And the Wall fails in that regard.
Well, it's Kelemvor in charge, he is not a good guy and while AO doesn't prevent direct interference any direct interference by the deities of good (aka assault on Kelemvor in his divine realm, as you agree it's not really opposable on the mortal coil) would lead to an apocalyptic battle (even before some of the evil and neutral deities join the fray) and thus is unfortunately off the table.If Myrkul was still in charge and everyone agreed the Wall was bad, but it was his domain and AO prevents direct interference between domains, then it would be INTERESTING.
" Some are charged with serving as guides for other lost souls." This gives us a set of souls who are guides and organizers for the dead, who are almost free agents of the afterlife. Interesting things can be done with that instead of having a big Wall in the middle of nowhere, doing nothing except torturing people.
Well, it's Kelemvor in charge, he is not a good guy and while AO doesn't prevent direct interference any direct interference by the deities of good (aka assault on Kelemvor in his divine realm, as you agree it's not really opposable on the mortal coil) would lead to an apocalyptic battle (even before some of the evil and neutral deities join the fray) and thus is unfortunately off the table.
So yes, the deities keeping an eye out for a promising mortal strike team is an interesting campaign idea (even though if it's kind of a rehash from MotB)
That's not being free agents, that's still being forced into servitude at Kelemvor's behest. So the fate of those who refused to serve the gods if to serve the god of dead. Well, at least they're not annihilated I guess.
That's also already one of the possible fates that awaits the false. So we're already having a lot of souls being forever stuck in and around the fugue plane performing such menial task at Kelemvor's degree.
Well, Kelemvor himself is Lawful Neutral, not Lawful Good
Not really. In FRE1 Shadowdale, his alignment is Lawful Neutral. The same is true in FRE2 Tantras. It's only in FRE3 Waterdeep that his alignment is listed as being "Lawful Neutral (good)."See, "Kelemvor isn't Good" (which he was)
Well, Kelemvor himself is Lawful Neutral, not Lawful Good
I have zero problem with the wall of the faithless. It sounds like something that would exist in old pagan religions. Very fitting in my opinion for someone creating a setting that is not based on modern theology