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

[Raduin711]

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

All worship the status quo. All worship the status quo. All worship the status quo.

 

[Zardnaar]

All worship the status quo. All worship the status quo. All worship the status quo.

Status quo is a greater power and has shown it's wrath before.

 

[Raduin711]

Status quo is a greater power and has shown it's wrath before.

But is it a god? Does it deserve our worship?

Oh wait, of course it does... something something 4th edition something something some people might not like it.

 

[Zardnaar]

But is it a god? Does it deserve our worship?

Oh wait, of course it does... something something 4th edition something something some people might not like it.

Shrug FR is based of myths and legends. Other world's don't have the wall, some don't have gods. Nothing wrong with variety.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Fascinating? It’s not especially interesting, there’s no depth to it. It’s a couple sentences worth of information that just serves to undermine the other assumptions of the setting.

From experience, the setting is better off without it.

 

[Olrox17]

Ok, so the main argument against the wall seems to be that, since it inflicts suffering on souls that aren't necessarily evil, it should be under heavy criticism by the gods of good, and Kelemvor should tear it down or modify it. The good gods and Kelemvor not doing that is seen as hypocritical and a strike against their alignment. Is that correct?

I agree with doctorbadwolf on one thing: the wall isn't very much developed in lore. That is, unless we count Mask of the Betrayer, which is a fantastic videogame whose plot is based entirely around the wall and the conflicts that surround it, including full-fledged crusades by beings of good against its cruelty.

Even if we count MotB, though, I would still agree that it would be nice to know more about the wall. Was it really Myrkul who created it, as MotB states? Who exactly pressured Kelemvor to reinstate the wall when he temporarily decided to do away with it? A coalition of other dieties, or perhaps Ao itself?

As the DM, I tend to solve these kind of world building questions myself (and I enjoy doing so, because they often lead to campaign ideas), but if others want to be given all the facts, I won't necessarily disagree.

 

[Iry]

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.

The gods of FR don't explicitly embody anything. They have portfolios they have to maintain, political expectations that could get them fired if they don't do their job, and supernatural influences on their thought process that impact how they see the world (like filters), but they are not incarnations of virtue/vice. Torm was a mortal.

In fact, many of the gods of FR were once mortals. Kelemvor, Midnight, and Cyric are pretty well known. But so were Bane, Bhaal, Myrkul, Azuth, Finder, Gargauth, Gwaeron, Mask, Mystra (the middle one), Red Knight, Savras, Siamorphe, Uthgar, Velsharoon, Waukeen, Valkur, etc. They are also exceptionally killable as we have seen with Tyr, Bane, Bhaal, Myrkul, Mystra, etc. Every single one of them can get murdered by a party of high level mortals under the right circumstances

You can't do a lot of good when you're dead, the person who replaces you might not have your agenda, and AO outright forbids doing too much good in general. Even the gods have to pick their battles. Many of the gods are not even particularly powerful. Larloch outright avoids becoming a god because it would limit him too much, and he could beat most gods outright if he was ever so inclined.

And that's not even discussing the "good" gods who actually do terrible things.

 

[Hussar]

Was noodling around and found this thread from Ed Greenwood. Leaving it here:

Is there a non-theistic religion in the Forgotten Realms that doesn't automatically result in being slapped on the Wall of the Faithless?

D&D Sage Advice ·

www.sageadvice.eu

Greysil

@Greysil_Tassyr
·
Apr 26

So true worship exempts you from the Wall, even if the object of your worship isn't a deity?

Ed Greenwood

@TheEdVerse

Replying to
@Greysil_Tassyr
That's right. It's what the entity did in life that matters (belief and intent). #Realmslore

 

[Chaosmancer]

Ok, so the main argument against the wall seems to be that, since it inflicts suffering on souls that aren't necessarily evil, it should be under heavy criticism by the gods of good, and Kelemvor should tear it down or modify it. The good gods and Kelemvor not doing that is seen as hypocritical and a strike against their alignment. Is that correct?

I agree with doctorbadwolf on one thing: the wall isn't very much developed in lore. That is, unless we count Mask of the Betrayer, which is a fantastic videogame whose plot is based entirely around the wall and the conflicts that surround it, including full-fledged crusades by beings of good against its cruelty.

Even if we count MotB, though, I would still agree that it would be nice to know more about the wall. Was it really Myrkul who created it, as MotB states? Who exactly pressured Kelemvor to reinstate the wall when he temporarily decided to do away with it? A coalition of other dieties, or perhaps Ao itself?

As the DM, I tend to solve these kind of world building questions myself (and I enjoy doing so, because they often lead to campaign ideas), but if others want to be given all the facts, I won't necessarily disagree.

I can agree with this. It needs to be developed more if it is going to continue existing.

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

The gods of FR don't explicitly embody anything. They have portfolios they have to maintain, political expectations that could get them fired if they don't do their job, and supernatural influences on their thought process that impact how they see the world (like filters), but they are not incarnations of virtue/vice. Torm was a mortal.

In fact, many of the gods of FR were once mortals. Kelemvor, Midnight, and Cyric are pretty well known. But so were Bane, Bhaal, Myrkul, Azuth, Finder, Gargauth, Gwaeron, Mask, Mystra (the middle one), Red Knight, Savras, Siamorphe, Uthgar, Velsharoon, Waukeen, Valkur, etc. They are also exceptionally killable as we have seen with Tyr, Bane, Bhaal, Myrkul, Mystra, etc. Every single one of them can get murdered by a party of high level mortals under the right circumstances

You can't do a lot of good when you're dead, the person who replaces you might not have your agenda, and AO outright forbids doing too much good in general. Even the gods have to pick their battles. Many of the gods are not even particularly powerful. Larloch outright avoids becoming a god because it would limit him too much, and he could beat most gods outright if he was ever so inclined.

And that's not even discussing the "good" gods who actually do terrible things.

....

.....

Is your position to defend the Gods punishing those who do not worship them really to treat them like politicians who fear for losing their power if they anger mortals?

They cannot oppose the Wall for fear of repurcussions?

Then why worship a bunch of weak politicians who can't even set their own agenda?


I'm sorry, this is just turning dangerously close to no longer being an interesting discussion. The point is fairly simple. We all have ideas of what these concepts mean. Justice is not only about blindly following the laws, because we know laws can be corrupt. Even DnD acknowledges this because Lawful Neutral exists to explicitly show the blind following of Laws instead of Justice.

 

[Iry]

Is your position to defend the Gods punishing those who do not worship them really to treat them like politicians who fear for losing their power if they anger mortals?
They cannot oppose the Wall for fear of repurcussions?

Then why worship a bunch of weak politicians who can't even set their own agenda?

My point is that the gods are finite and fallible. They are incapable of addressing all evils all of the time. It's literally not something they could do even if they wanted to. Some gods have certainly tried and made a good show of it, like Tyr, but even he ended up dead for his trouble and had to mellow out for a while. How a cleric reacts to their god being finite and fallible is a pretty personal thing.

And since we don't know how important the Wall is, we don't even know how big of a "sin" putting the Faithless in there is. Even when Kelemvor was forced to put the Wall back, that was about the distribution of souls, and not about the feelings of the Faithless.