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

[Azzy]

From chapter 43:

"I must hold even the insane responsible for their choices."
Wouldn't someone that is truly insane not actually be culpable for their decisions? Especially one whose madness was the result of divine interference.

 

[Azzy]

My question is, would removing the wall make for a better setting?

Absolutely. It would mean that the "good" gods are not complicit in utter evil.

 

[Iry]

Absolutely. It would mean that the "good" gods are not complicit in utter evil.

I'm complicit in utter evil quite frequently. I still make an effort to do good deeds on the regular. Does it balance out? Probably not, but that's a question for millennia of philosophers.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It's difficult to say to how us, human mortals from Earth, would act if placed in a D&D world.
On one hand, the gods there are provably real, on the other, they're flawed polytheistic gods, not perfect beings. They're often former mortals.
On one hand, great magic power can be obtained by serving the gods, on the other, it can also be obtained by studying the arcane arts, making eldritch pacts, or just by being charismatic performers. You can obtain demigod-level power without ever caring about the gods.

I do think that the setting makes enough sense as is. I think it's a believable fantasy setting.
Could the writers just say "screw it, from now on faithless mortals aren't punished, and that won't have far-reaching consequences because the faithless are going to be few and far between, anyway"? Sure, they could if they wanted to. At some point during 4e, the writers pretty much deleted more than half of the FR pantheon, because they felt like streamlining the setting was a good idea. They can do whatever they want.

My question is, would removing the wall make for a better setting? I'd argue that it wouldn't.

The wall of faithless is an element of lore that makes the Realms more interesting and unique. The setting would be lessened, not improved, by its removal. And really, why remove it? What do we gain by removing the wall? I know what we would lose: a fascinating piece of lore and a number of interesting plot hooks.

What do we gain?

The Morality of the Gods of Good, Justice, and Mercy.

As it stands, with no clear answers on why the Wall exists, who opposed it, why, when, and why it continues to exist.

One thing I liked in the Wiki article I linked was a brief mention in a book, which seems to have been retconned, that Kelemvor changed the Wall, and made it a massive soul mirror to reflect a souls faults back on itself. That makes for not only a good story, but a legitimate reasoning behind the Wall.

Originally made by the Cruel Myrkul, who was God of the Dead, it was built as a torturous punishment for the False and the Faithless. Not because those things were crimes, but because the other gods could not lay claim to souls that rejected them, leaving them to Myrkul's cruel designs. Then, with the rise of Kelemvor, as the Judge of the Dead, he exercised his power over the Domain and remade the wall into not a tool of torture, but a tool of Judgement. Perhaps again it is mainly targeting the False and the Faithless, those who fall to no domain but Kelemvor's, to allow them to seek understanding and redemption, to face their faults and hopefully rise above them. Maybe it does still drag down and destroy those who are overwhelmed by their own darkness.

And why did no Wall exist before Myrkul? Because Jergal did not care what happened to the souls of the Dead. He sought no punishment nor judgement, only endless accounting.

That to me is a much tighter and coherent story. One that we almost got, but was instead tossed aside for continuing the mess we currently have.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm complicit in utter evil quite frequently. I still make an effort to do good deeds on the regular. Does it balance out? Probably not, but that's a question for millennia of philosophers.

And you are also not a God whose entire existence is founded on not being complicit with Evil.

Torm is the god of Courage and Self-Sacrifice, of making that Last Stand, even if it will kill you. How can he embody that while at the same time standing by and watching injustice continue.

 

[Raduin711]

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.

My purpose was to point out that doubt is not a completely meritless position to take for a character who lives in the forgotten realms. When Elmister can warp reality with a Wish, and beings more powerful than humans are running about, the acts of deities start to look less like miracles and more like the acts of beings who are merely an order of magnitude stronger than other things.

And while you bring up fairness, it is dreadfully unfair. They're guilty of nothing but failing to buy in to existing power structures. I would even say it comes off as hostile to some players. I would advocate writing it out entirely, or at least present it as a point of conflict, rather than have everyone just accept the situation, including the doubters who supposedly like it (as some have argued.)

 

[Zardnaar]

My purpose was to point out that doubt is not a completely meritless position to take for a character who lives in the forgotten realms. When Elmister can warp reality with a Wish, and beings more powerful than humans are running about, the acts of deities start to look less like miracles and more like the acts of beings who are merely an order of magnitude stronger than other things.

And while you bring up fairness, it is dreadfully unfair. They're guilty of nothing but failing to buy in to existing power structures. I would even say it comes off as hostile to some players. I would advocate writing it out entirely, or at least present it as a point of conflict, rather than have everyone just accept the situation, including the doubters who supposedly like it (as some have argued.)

People been moaning about the Realms for years. Eventually it just has to be don't like it don't play it.

It's never going to appeal to everyone no matter what they do. Seems popular enough the less changes they make.

 

[Raduin711]

People been moaning about the Realms for years. Eventually it just has to be don't like it don't play it.

It's never going to appeal to everyone no matter what they do. Seems popular enough the less changes they make.

There's always room for improvement.

 

[Zardnaar]

There's always room for improvement.

That's what they thought in 4E. Went over like a lead brick.

 

[Raduin711]

That's what they thought in 4E. Went over like a lead brick.

And thus the lesson was learned for all eternity: never change anything. Ever. Everything must always stay the same. All worship the status quo. All worship the status quo. All worship the status quo.

 

[Zardnaar]

And thus the lesson was learned for all eternity: never change anything. Ever. Everything must always stay the same. All worship the status quo. All worship the status quo. All worship the status quo.

Sine players might want it removed, others want it to stay. Can't please both.