D&D 5E [Forgotten Realms] The Wall of the Faithless

[MG.0]

So, no, it isn't a valid point of view. It's like trying to believe that dragons aren't really dragons. Of course they're dragons. That's what they are. Belief doesn't enter into the equation. You might not worship them, but, deny that they are gods at all is denying reality. They really are gods. There's no bait and switch here. There's no con. Torm is a god. Full stop. There is no real debate in this setting. There is a concrete, distinct entity that you can empirically point to and say, "Yup, that's a god". He/She/It is a god because it can do X, Y and Z and because He/She/It has worshippers. ANYTHING with enough worshippers in FR can become a god.

It is completely valid. They definitely CALL themselves gods, but that doesn't make them gods. To some people, the fact that they can be killed and replaced would be proof enough that they are not gods. Your assumptions are just that...assumptions. They are based entirely on your definition of what a god is or is not.

Like I said before, if you remove the Fugue plane from FR, souls don't head off to alignment planes, they can't. There's no way for a soul to travel to the outer planes in FR except through the Fugue plane. All that other stuff from other settings doesn't apply.

Really? Where does it say that if the Fugue plane is destroyed that your interpretation is indeed what happens? You are declaring rules that are:

1) Completely arbitrary and baseless supposition.
2) Completely irrelevant to everyone else's view of the Realms.

It is perfectly fine for someone to suggest that destroying the Fugue plane would restore a more traditional D&D cosmology based handling of the afterlife. This contradicts no canon and is a completely valid way to run the Realms. You are trying to suggest there is only one correct way to do it.

It is also valid to:
Say Elminster is dead, having died in a horrific wagon crash while intoxicated.
Say AO is not omnipotent, and in fact is just a small child of an alien race from the Far Realm plotting to destroy all of reality.
Say the gods are all actually true frauds, gaining their powers from the backs of cereal boxes.

 

[MG.0]

It is definitely valid to say all of that in your game, however, FR canon states that they are actually gods. As far as canon goes, saying that they all got their powers from the backs of cereal boxes would be like us saying that the sun is really just a giant light bulb running on a couple of AA batteries and whatever those science people say about it being a great burning ball of hydrogen, helium, and whatever else it's made up of, is absolute rubbish.

It certainly uses the word "god". However what that actually means can most definitely be disputed, even if you accept all the published material as canon (which is fairly pointless for a D&D campaign world anyway, but whatever). There is also no correlation to our physical reality whatsoever, and suggesting that the gods of the Realms have perpetrated a great fraud on everyone contradicts nothing...it only adds a previously unforseen wrinkle. It's like suggesting that below the Underdark, Toril is actually made of strawberry creme filling. I have contradicted no canon in stating that, sooooo...what's your point?


Edit - That's a great topic for my new Forgotten Realms fanfiction: The exploration of Toril's previously unknown creme filling layer. It is mainly reached by Spelljamming ships that have been sucked into the great polar vortexes (didn't know about those either, eh?) and is inhabited by a race of androgynous elves who constantly feed creme filling to their Gorbel overlord named Daviekroket who is the size of a small city. He is the real reason for the Fugue plane as it is the only thing that protects the fraudulent gods from his flavorful wrath. It's all consistent with known canon.

 

[Dire Bare]

For me, this argument (in or out of character) that the gods are gods is a battle of semantics. Not even the Athar faction from Planescape denies the existence of gods. Rather, it is the definition and meaning of gods, and whether they are worthy of worship and veneration, that is key.

Note: Loremaster I am not, this is pulled from my memory (I've been reading the game books and novels since the 80s) and from my interpretation of what I've read.

The "gods" of the Realms are very powerful beings who demand worship and claim dominion and influence over various spheres of existence. That they exist, and that they are a higher order of being than mortals is fact and cannot be denied, except possibly by those who are insane. But what mortals can, and will, do is deny the importance of the gods, that the gods have any right to be worshiped, and that the gods have any true divine mandate or connection with the cosmos and are anything more than very powerful beings. Mortals can reject the gods. And if the gods of FR gain power through worship, this cannot be allowed. Hence, the Wall.

Mortals of the Realms worship all of the gods known to their culture, and may or may not have a specific favorite, or patron. When mortals die and pass on to the Fugue Plane, if they have a specific patron deity, they are met by servants of that power and escorted to their divine reward. If not, they have some options as the wander the Fugue, and likely they will be offered divine rest/reward by an appropriate deity, or Kelemvor will make that call for them.

If they reject the gods, however, and basically refuse to play the game by the divine rules . . . it's the Wall, or one of the lesser punishments decreed by Kelemvor. This judgement would take into account how the person lived their mortal life, but also on the decisions their spirit makes once they reach the Fugue Plane.

From what I remember of Adon's story (Avatar series of FR novels), he wasn't threatened with the Wall because he categorically denied the existence of the gods . . . that wouldn't make him faithless, just insane. He rejected the gods that were most important to him, Sune and Mystra. And as far as I remember, neither goddess was after Adon for his crime, but Kelemvor had to judge him according to divine law.

I'm fairly certain that in FR cosmology, the Wall isn't filled with people who didn't believe in the gods, or who denied their existence, but with people, good, neutral, and evil, that rejected the gods. So, the percentage of souls that get mortared in the Wall is probably pretty small, but still, it's a tragic and horrific punishment for someone who possibly lived a just life.

Which is why, the concept makes me uncomfortable in my escapist, heroic fantasy fiction. Even though it tracks with similar examples of different real-world faiths.

I don't run an FR game, although I do read the novels, comics, and gamebooks. This particular issue doesn't come up very often, in fact, the only stories I'm recalling at the moment are the Avatar series that traces the rise (and fall) of Mystra (Midnight), Kelemvor, and Cyric beginning in the Time of Troubles. And, of course it's mentioned in the game books when discussing the gods, planes, and cosmology of FR. It's one of the few elements of the setting I truly don't care for.

In my own campaigns, I borrow heavily from FR. I like the idea of a limbo, the Fugue Plane, and I like the concept of a neutral, but harshly fair, Judge of the Dead. I'm even okay with the gruesome imagery of a wall made of people (or people-shaped souls). But my Judge of the Dead is more fair, and the "faithless" end up petitioners in the Land of the Dead itself, serving the Judge for all eternity, rather than getting mortared into a wall of souls. Those who get mortared into the Wall are souls who are not claimed by any gods and either refuse to serve the Judge of the Dead, or are deemed unworthy of his service for some reason. Still dark, but less tragic and cosmically unfair and horrific. IMO, of course.

 

[Hussar]

MC.0 if we don't accept published material as canon for the setting, what metric should we use?

Claiming the FR gods are frauds directly counters numerous sources. There is no evidence of this whatsoever. And there are numerous sources that say that the gods are, in fact, gods.

It would be a radical departure from canon to claim otherwise.

It's not like saying there is strawberry cream under the Underdark. That actually contradicts no established canon. It's fair game. Silly but fair. Claiming the gods aren't really gods contradicts pretty much every source book dealing with the gods.

Surely you see the difference. Your fan fiction does not contradict established canon but claiming the gods are frauds certainly does.

Hoo boy. Could you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth if WotC actually tried to do this? Would make the Spellplague look like a picnic.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

In my own campaigns, I borrow heavily from FR. I like the idea of a limbo, the Fugue Plane, and I like the concept of a neutral, but harshly fair, Judge of the Dead. I'm even okay with the gruesome imagery of a wall made of people (or people-shaped souls). But my Judge of the Dead is more fair, and the "faithless" end up petitioners in the Land of the Dead itself, serving the Judge for all eternity, rather than getting mortared into a wall of souls. Those who get mortared into the Wall are souls who are not claimed by any gods and either refuse to serve the Judge of the Dead, or are deemed unworthy of his service for some reason. Still dark, but less tragic and cosmically unfair and horrific. IMO, of course.

The Wall is a punishment exclusively for the faithless and is supposed to be the only punishment for them. The False more or less get what you describe. They serve Kelemvor as scribes and workers in the city of the dead if their crimes were light enough. If their crimes were horrible they are turned into Larva and sent to Hades. This is the same case for Unclaimed Souls that were not Faithless or False. Kelemvor judges them.

One thing everyone should know is that each soul in the fugue plane is granted up to 10 days before they have to be judged or collected by a divine servant. This is a period of time that is granted to the souls to make their final choices. It also grants them opportunity to avoid the wall if they are faithless. This is also the times when the Devils talk to the souls and explain to them their situation. Were they can obtain a bargain from a devil if they don't think they will like were they think they are going to end up for their afterlife.

 

[Sadras]

Off topic, but, offensive is ALWAYS for the person being offended. You don't get to pick and choose whether or not your words are offensive. That's up to other people. When someone tells you that your words have offended them, the proper response is to rephrase what you said to remove the offensive aspect. That's just good manners.

Fair enough, but here is the thing Hussar. Everyone is happy to equate a real world religion to a fantastical religion in D&D, because hey, its accepted to "put-down" that religion. But as soon as someone decides to pushback against anyone else's beliefs or even level the playing field, the same people who have no regard for that religion suddenly become all PC and state they're being offended.

Good manners goes both ways.

 

[Celtavian]

Like some others here, I find the concept of the "Wall of the Faithless" very disturbing. If I were in charge of rebooting the Realms (once again), I'd tweak it or junk it, as I don't feel it really works well in a heroic fantasy setting like the Forgotten Realms. If I were using the Realms in my games (instead of just choosing cool bits to steal), I would again tweak it or junk it.

However, compared to some real-world religions and mythologies, casting those who reject god(s) into eternal suffering has precedent. It's very Judeo-Christian, which is the cultural background that D&D has sprung from. But then again, in the real-world, that's what turned me off of religion and put me on the path to agnosticism. All those folks preaching to me that if I didn't accept their particular interpretation of faith, that I was damned for all eternity, no matter how good of a person I am.

There are a lot of ways to play D&D, but to me, the core of the experience is escapism and being heroes and making a difference . . . in D&D, good and evil are real, concrete concepts, and the heroes defend the order against the chaos of evil. For the deities of good to passively accept something vile and evil like the Wall of the Faithless, well, that's not very high fantasy to me.

Of course, there are different literary traditions you can use to tweak your D&D game if you want something darker, and/or more ambigous. Several official settings certainly do so. The Wall of the Faithless might just work really well in a dark fantasy D&D game. But for the core experience? No, it doesn't belong. Not IMHO, of course.

Good is a concept defined by divinities whether it is monotheism or polytheism. The Vikings considered it "good" to die in battle. They considered it "good" to achieve victory in battle. The druids considered animal and human sacrifice "good." The concept of Hell or Hel or Hades or the Asian versions of Hell existed prior to the religions that turned you off. So you would have been really turned off when you were hammered for something stupid like forgetting to sacrifice properly to Zeus on his birthday or something similarly stupid.

Some people want different things from D&D. Originally, D&D didn't try to be only heroic escapism. It was an adventuring game set in a fantasy world that tried to bring to life the ancient world as though it were real, meaning the gods had real power and caused real problems in the world including possibly sending you to a very horrible fate if you didn't pick the right side to follow.

I get it. D&D needs to be PC for as wide an audience as possible nowadays, so players like yourself that don't like the idea of divine punishment/tyranny even by good gods can have your escapism without the heavy handedness of living divine entities. A setting doesn't seem realistic or interesting to me if the gods aren't acting like gods meaning taking folks that choose to be faithless and punishing them to ensure compliance with their agenda. If that punishment doesn't exist, religion has no force just like government has no force if the citizens aren't well aware of the penalties for violating government enforced laws like taxes and building codes. For Gods to hold power, they must ensure that those choosing not to worship them suffer some kind of punishment for failure to worship, otherwise they are pointless entities. Whether or not some mortal considers that "good" is about relevant as a fly considering it wrong to swat him for being annoying.

And let us cite one last reality in worlds with gods, faithlessness is evil in a world where the gods exist. So a faithless person suffering would not be considered evil by the vast majority of the believers. It would be considered a just punishment for an faithless person, a sinner, someone that has committed one of the most evil acts in a religion: being faithless. Even if you were some "good" person in your own mind in an ancient village you might be considered very evil by many of the people in the village if you didn't believe in the gods of the people of the village. If something happened, you might be blamed for it for your faithlessness. You might be run out of town or sacrificed as a faithless retch. You know what? The people of that village would likely consider getting rid of the faithless person a "good" act that would please their gods. That's the kind of thing I expect in a fantasy world where the conceit is that the gods are real.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Good is a concept defined by divinities whether it is monotheism or polytheism

Not in D&D. In D&D, the concept of Good is entirely independent of any fictional deity.

Everyone is happy to equate a real world religion to a fantastical religion in D&D, because hey, its accepted to "put-down" that religion.

I think folks have been pretty respectful when RW religion has been relevant, but if there's a post you feel crosses the line into a "put-down," you should absolutely report it. Responding with snark doesn't elevate the conversation, it destroys it.

 

[Alzrius]

Not in D&D. In D&D, the concept of Good is entirely independent of any fictional deity.

Whether or not a person, spell effect, etc. is "good" (or "evil" or "chaotic" or "lawful") can be objectively determined, that much is true.

What's not objective is any particular criteria by which you can determine what thoughts/actions/beliefs will place/expel you from that particular status, how many/much of them are required, etc. The idea of the alignments being "objective" is only true insofar as determining whether or not you've attained a particular alignment at a given time. What makes you have, or lose, that alignment is still entirely subjective, hence why we still have alignment debates over forty years after D&D's release.

So if someone asserts that no "good"-aligned deity would ever allow good-aligned mortals to go to an afterlife of eternal suffering just because they didn't believe in any particular deity, well...that's a matter of opinion, not an inherent conflict with regards to (in)actions-versus-alignment.

 

[Mirtek]

Not in D&D. In D&D, the concept of Good is entirely independent of any fictional deity.

also good is not better / more right in a cosmic sense, it's just one of four equal forces tugging at the multiverse.

The Abyss or the Hells are not intended to punish, they're simply collecting like-minded individuals to let then continue what they loved in life until they're absorbed by the plane to fuel their rsspective alignment.

That the souls in the lower planes make each other misserable is just a side effect, as primary purpose souls go down to fuel evil just as souls go up to fuel good.

And if course if you have what it takes to rise ranks, you get to rule in the lower planes rather than to serve in the upper planes.

Orcus certainly doesn't feel he got a bad deal out if living a mortal life if chsotic evil.