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

[I'm A Banana]

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 not a matter of opinion, not an inherent conflict with regards to (in)actions-versus-alignment.

I didn't say objective, I said not dependent on a fictional deity. It's not objective - a DM or an individual player largely determines what is acceptable within the bounds of a given alignment. That's VERY subjective, but within the world, the fictional characters act according to these alignments as interpreted by the people playing at the table.

But alignment is a bit of a higher order of abstraction from the problem.

If I want to play a character in a heroic fantasy game who sees Nice People suffering at the hands of others, and so fights those who inflict suffering (lets call them the Forces of Badness) to bring joy to the land and the people, I'm kind of forced to conclude that in FR, deities such as Lathander and Mystara and Chauntea are at least complicit with if not aligned with the Forces of Badness, because they sit idle while Nice People suffer. They even BENEFIT from the setup. And if I, a heroic character fighting to save Nice People from Badness, think that this makes them unworthy of my worship, because I want to save all Nice People everywhere and none of them apparently do, my soul becomes one of the Nice People who the Forces of Badness inflict suffering upon.

I am unable to save the Nice People. I'm not even able to save myself.

That's not a world of heroic fantasy, that's a world with levels of "the bad guys rule the world" that not even Dark Sun has.

 

[Phantarch]

If I want to play a character in a heroic fantasy game who sees Nice People suffering at the hands of others, and so fights those who inflict suffering (lets call them the Forces of Badness) to bring joy to the land and the people, I'm kind of forced to conclude that in FR, deities such as Lathander and Mystara and Chauntea are at least complicit with if not aligned with the Forces of Badness, because they sit idle while Nice People suffer. They even BENEFIT from the setup. And if I, a heroic character fighting to save Nice People from Badness, think that this makes them unworthy of my worship, because I want to save all Nice People everywhere and none of them apparently do, my soul becomes one of the Nice People who the Forces of Badness inflict suffering upon.

I am unable to save the Nice People. I'm not even able to save myself.

That's not a world of heroic fantasy, that's a world with levels of "the bad guys rule the world" that not even Dark Sun has.

So, I'm trying to adjust my frame of reference to understand your concern. Obviously, this is no longer a question of "just change it" as is a DM's prerogative, nor is it a case of "find another game". You might be petitioning to change the official canon, but I don't see that being a likely result of this particular medium, and would be a long and tedious process. So, is your concern more along this hypothetical scenario?

You as a player want to join an AL game. You have no control over who the DM is, you don't really have the option of finding some other game, so you pretty much have to figure out your character knowing that you will be running in the Forgotten Realms and the game will be run strictly according to canon. Given these strictures you'd like to know how to play the character you described above when the cosmology doesn't support it.

Does that sound about right?

If I were to find myself in this scenario, I think that I would change my assumptions of the cosmology. I think it's fair to view the deities as very similar to your character. You as a character are facing off against Forces of Badness, but the Forces of Badness are very powerful. You'll have some victories and you'll have some failures. You'll be able to rescue some people, but you won't be able to rescue all of them. I think deities such as Lathander and Chauntea are in the same boat. They ARE fighting the Forces of Badness to save nice people. But in a world like forgotten realms, the Forces of Badness are equally powerful as the Forces of Niceness. The state of things are not because of passive acceptance, but rather it's the stalemate that things have arrived at because Niceness and Badness are constantly battling. The good deities aren't immoral...they just aren't omnipotent.

Another consideration is Ao. He has a tendency to turn the gods on their heads if things get out of hand, so the nice deities have to be a bit more subtle and reserved in their struggles against the bad deities, otherwise they will gain nothing and possibly lose everything. Being immortal, they are playing the long game. They might have a 10,000 year plan to remove the Wall and restore niceness to the universe without ticking Ao off to the point that he shakes up the proverbial ant farm and causes them to start from scratch.

So, really, it comes down to a matter of faith. Faith that the good deities really are good, and even though you as a mortal don't really know or understand their plan, you know in your heart that they wouldn't just be idly standing by and accepting it. If social change in the mortal world takes decades or centuries, it's a fair bet that it takes several millennia on the cosmic scale.

 

[Sadras]

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.

Agreed, I have amended by initial response to @Dire Bare. Furthermore the way this has been quoted reflects that you were initially quoting Celtavian - which is unfair on him.

On topic, don't you find the answers reflected in the below link (especially the 2nd one) as sufficient to validate the Wall's existence?
http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questi...emed-to-the-wall-of-the-faithless-after-death

 

[MG.0]

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

Let me turn it around and ask what do you think canon is useful for?

First, throw out anything that isn't a roleplaying accessory designed to make running your game easier. That's not to say that novels, video games, etc. can't be sources of ideas and inspiration (they can), but rather they serve no purpose as canon to D&D. They do not help me run my game better.

It also seems to me that canon to you means: "This is how it is." while I think of it as "This is one possible way it can be."

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.

As I said, they use the word god, but what that word means is not really defined. There is nothing whatsoever in any FR roleplaying material that would suggest the "gods" can't be just bigger tougher monsters for the PC's to vanquish.

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

I disagree.

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.

No, claiming they are frauds doesn't negate their use of the word "god". It just means there is more to it than is revealed in the books you are referring to. This is a long established way to extend pretty much anything, ever.

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.

I really could care less what WotC does or does not do. If it makes my game better/easier, than great, otherwise, meh.

 

[sunshadow21]

If I want to play a character in a heroic fantasy game who sees Nice People suffering at the hands of others, and so fights those who inflict suffering (lets call them the Forces of Badness) to bring joy to the land and the people, I'm kind of forced to conclude that in FR, deities such as Lathander and Mystara and Chauntea are at least complicit with if not aligned with the Forces of Badness, because they sit idle while Nice People suffer.

Even without the Wall, I don't think the Realms, or any other published world, comes close to offering that level of pure escapism fantasy. These worlds aren't made to be some kind of fantasy version of space opera; they have to be able to sustain literally decades worth of stories, which means that giving the good gods the kind of power and latitude you seek for immediate and obvious actions is counterproductive. Either the evil is destroyed immediately, and the story ends, or evil is not destroyed and the story is forced to repeat itself until either absolute good or absolute evil clearly wins. All of the great epics of old where this battle plays out in this manner have endings; endings are by their very nature a big problem for published settings. When creating these worlds, having the gods take the long view is absolutely essential to creating space in which other stories of a less epic and more personal nature can be told. As mentioned somewhere above, it requires your character to have faith that the actions of your characters are aiding the long game of the good gods and that those that are allowed to suffer now will be recovered and repaid in full when the final victory does come. Immediate victory on the scale that would allow something like the Wall to be taken down and rendered unnecessary simply isn't going to happen in the life span of a single hero.

Fearun, just like any other published world, can certainly be made to play that way, but it's going to take more than simply removing the Wall; it's going to take completely rewriting how the gods get their power and their relative balance of power with each other. The Wall is just one part of a much larger puzzle in how the Realms are written that make this kind of story a challenge.

 

[Dire Bare]

Let me turn it around and ask what do you think canon is useful for?

Maintaining a consistent fictional world to create a shared sense of community between authors and fans. What else would it be for?

First, throw out anything that isn't a roleplaying accessory designed to make running your game easier. That's not to say that novels, video games, etc. can't be sources of ideas and inspiration (they can), but rather they serve no purpose as canon to D&D. They do not help me run my game better.It also seems to me that canon to you means: "This is how it is." while I think of it as "This is one possible way it can be.

Forgive me for quoting (well, paraphrasing) Princess Bride, but, "Canon. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

While fans can argue about what is canon and what is not, due to shared worlds like the Forgotten Realms often being riddled with inconsistencies, reboots, and such, you don't choose what is canon. It's not what's useful for your game, or what you like versus what you don't. It's the official "truth" or "history" of a fictional world, as delineated by its creators, in this case, WotC.

When running your home D&D game, you should absolutely keep what you like and trash what you don't. But that's not you choosing what is canon and what isn't, that's you choosing to ignore canon and go your own way.

I really could care less what WotC does or does not do. If it makes my game better/easier, than great, otherwise, meh.

Well, okay, that's fine. Than why are you arguing about canon if you don't care to follow it?

 

[Saeviomagy]

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.

It can be denied, because the gods can and have been killed. They are mortals.

 

[Dire Bare]

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.

Nope. Ideas of "good", at their core, have remained fairly consistent over the centuries. It's called The Golden Rule. Essentially, altruism trumps selfishness. Gods, real, mythical, fictional, or otherwise, have nothing to do with it. Cultures across time and geography in the real world certainly have changed the details and the rituals, and like to demonize other groups for doing things somewhat differently.

And, also besides the point. I'm not arguing that the gods of the Realms being okay with the Wall of the Faithless is unrealistic or inconsistent in some way, I'm simply saying that the idea rubs up against my personal beliefs of what's okay and what's not. I could care less what other religions and cultures have decided what's okay for the afterlife.

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.

Huh? D&D was never meant to be historical simulation, despite being born out of the historical simulation miniatures hobby of the 70s. D&D has always been an escapist past-time. Always. We certainly all do want different things from D&D, but to claim the game was some sort of model of the real world and not escapist is kind of silly.

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.

No, you don't get it. First, the term "political correctness (PC)" is a loaded, political term misused often by folks nowadays in an attempt to downplay and dismiss the very real concerns of other folks nowadays. I hates it. And it doesn't have anything to do with this conversation, other than a few posters keep bringing it up and using it wrong.

The realism of a fantasy setting (or rather, the suspension of disbelief) doesn't require gods to act like jerks. Certainly, some mythic stories certainly feature this, and certain cultural mythic cycles feature it pretty prominently (Greeks, for one). But not all religious and mythic stories feature gods being jerks to mortals. If you like a Greek-style set of gods for your campaign, go for it, its well within D&D's wheelhouse and mythic inspiration.

But folks in the real world, at least not all of them, need the threat of divine punishment to act "good" or to be faithful to their chosen religion. And, it doesn't have to be that way in D&D either.

I'm not trying to push my personal preferences on you or anyone else. But your rebuttal makes no sense.

 

[Dire Bare]

It can be denied, because the gods can and have been killed. They are mortals.

Nope. There is nothing in the definition of "god" that says gods are eternal, immortal, and undying . . . . at least not in every real-world religion, and certainly not in D&D's cosmology. And, in fantasy fiction, there are examples of mortals that are undying and cannot be killed (at least not any easier than it is to kill a god).

A character choosing to reject the gods because they are not as all-powerful and all-knowing as they'd like you to think is not truly denying that these powerful beings are gods. They are choosing to not care, to believe that gods are not truly worthy of worship and reverence.

To try and claim they are not gods is semantics, trying to change definitions of words. If Torm is not a god, then what IS a god? Ao? But what if Ao says that Torm IS a god?

You'd need to be able to paraphrase Crocodile Dundee, "That's not a god, THIS is a god!"

 

[Celtavian]

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

Because of alignment? Still not true. Good and evil are still defined by deities and divinities. Notice the only classes that have a distinct reason to be good and evil are clerics and paladins in past editions or any class generally associated with a deity. Notice that only servants of divinities register as strongly good or strongly evil. Notice how the primary power used against evil or good is powered by divinities. Holy word, Turn Undead, magical healing, raising the dead which includes calling back a soul, and holy or unholy damage. Who you worship generally defines your code of conduct and whether you will be good or evil. For example, a lawful good person cannot worship Bane just as a chaotic evil person cannot worship Lathander.

In 5E good and evil are even more focused on the divinities and the creatures that serve them. Regular folk don't even register as good or evil. Just the powerful entities in service to good and evil because they are its source. Absent the divinities the concept of good and evil doesn't even exist or matter. That's true even in D&D.

I keep hearing, "If I'm good, I shouldn't end up on the wall of the faithless." Yet here is the question that never gets answered, who do you think makes the afterlife? The divinities make it. If you get paradise for being good, then it is made by a divinity. If you get hell, then it is made by some evil divinity. Why exactly should you as a non-believer or faithless being enter an afterlife specifically created by a divinity to reward faithful worshippers? Do you think an afterlife existed regardless of whether the divine beings created it? Is that your assumption?

What you're asking makes absolute no sense. Why even have religions in D&D if you're not going to construct them as they have been in the world you are drawing them from? Meaning divine beings create the afterlife and manage it. It's always been the idea in D&D that the afterlife was a place managed by gods. Suddenly, this isn't supposed to be the case? The non-believer gets to go hang out in the afterlife and do what? What exactly do you get to do in a land of spirits ruled by deities? You don't have the protection of a divinity to protect the realm you reside in. You don't have your gear because you're a disembodied soul. Yet how exactly do you have any power or ability to do anything in the afterlife?

I don't get what you're asking for. An afterlife is made by gods. This has always been the D&D assumption. The planes exist created by some greater being like Ao. They are managed by the gods and demons and devils and other entities. Disembodied souls that travel to that plane are subject to these creatures. Otherwise, they end up on the wall of the faithless or harvested by demons or devils for use in their realms or some similar unpleasant faith for not choosing to align themselves with a deity that provides a home and protection in the afterlife. It's an easy concept pulled from the real world. And not just Judeo-Christian beliefs, but polytheism made into a usable form for D&D because game creators like to make lots gods, demons, and devils to make the game interesting.

On a side note, I don't know why it was such a concern given it rarely comes up. Do that many characters after their dead even give a flying crap what happens to their character? Do you as a DM continue to roleplay them hanging out in one of the afterlife realms or suffering on the Wall of the Faithless? Does this come up? I know for me the Wall of the Faithless concept adds verisimilitude to the Forgotten Realms afterlife. Gods have no purpose if there is not a punishment for failing to follow them. I expect a punishment for faithlessness. Just like I expect many wizards and other folk who are able to pursue immortality to avoid judgment. I don't think I get an afterlife for doing whatever want and thinking I've done good when others get to judge what good and evil are, generally those that created the universe and battle over it.