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

[Celtavian]

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.

This is a false position you could not prove if you tried. Ideas of good and evil have not remained consistent. If you read history, you find good and evil are not at all consistent throughout human history. They have changed over time often.

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.

Against your personal beliefs? So the Realms should adjust to your personal beliefs?

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.

All games are escapist. D&D wasn't modeled on good heroic fantasy as you claim. It was a combination of ideas from the creator that included a lot of literary and historical ideas incorporated into one game. You could play a lot of different ways. So your assumption it is heroic fantasy for guys that don't want things like the Wall of the Faithless in their game is bunk. Pure and simple. Lots of dark things done by good gods exist in D&D. Racism, slavery, and other things considered evil my modern standards were in the game and not considered evil. It was just part of the character of the place.

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.

No. You don't get it. When you're attempting to assert your concerns, you're downplaying my concerns. When you are saying things like you don't think good gods would have this and I know the game is modeled on real world religions that do punish the faithless, I consider it wrong of you to attempt to claim that isn't a part of D&D. D&D's religions were definitely modeled on real world religions. Not just Judeo-Christian, but pagan religions that definitely had consequences for faithlessness, a lack of belief.

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.

Gods are acting like jerks? Has that been a major part of every mythology I've ever read? Why yes it has. The ancient gods are even bigger jerks than the monotheistic god. If you don't want it as part of your D&D game, than get rid of it. As far as the game itself, verisimilitude does require the gods act like jerks. It's pretty much the only thing they've done historically. Destroying cities for failing to properly worship them. Turning people into ugly monsters. Striking them dead. Fighting amongst themselves for supremacy. Humbling arrogant worshippers with some divine punishment. Sleeping around with pretty mortals. Walking the earth judging people depending on how they treat them.

What model should D&D use to appease someone like you? Throw out all the real world examples of polytheism and monotheism so you don't have to worry about the jerk gods acting like jerks? What books on mythology and ancient religion have you been reading?

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

You just admitted you were pushing your personal preferences. You just claimed things that aren't true like good and evil being consistent amongst humans, which has never been the case and isn't now. You want D&D to throw out its tradition of modeling religion on ancient mythology by incorporating ideas like The Wall of the Faithless to appease your personal beliefs, not whether or not mythological religions had similar things like Hades or Hel. The Wall of The Faithless is kinder than most religions because it allows you to go to a place where you eventually cease to exist versus what most religions do to the faithless: eternal punishment. That was true even in religions like the Greeks or Egyptians. If you didn't believe in them, you definitely answered to them after you died and they were none too happy if you were not a practicing believer.

Of course, you make the D&D afterlife the way you want it. I don't even in general concern myself with what happens to a character after they die. I am concerned about PC people trying to force the game designers to move away from modeling D&D on ancient mythology. Gygax was definitely influenced by mythology. And the game designers built a very fun and interesting D&D mythology based on polytheism. I've always liked that the Realms had a punishment for being faithless. Makes the world more realistic, which I enjoy. Generic D&D allows generic worship of concepts. That isn't realistic to me. I played this game when they put Deities and Demigods. That book was a interesting walk through the ancient mythologies of a variety of historical cultures. I prefer D&D religions continue the tradition of mirroring the ancient world.

 

[Dire Bare]

Against your personal beliefs? So the Realms should adjust to your personal beliefs?

Once again, huh?

In almost every post I've made in this thread, I've outright stated that this is my personal dislike. That I am not advocating for WotC to change the Realms based on my personal tastes, nor am I advocating that you, or anyone, change your games to match my tastes. The Wall of the Faithless is just something about the Realms I don't care for, just like the OP. It's kinda the point of this thread.

Yet, somehow, I've offended you. I'm baffled, frankly.

If the Wall as is works fine for your tastes, great! If it works fine for the majority of FR fans, great! It doesn't work for me. Why does that bother you so much?

You and I disagree, so what? If you could relax, we could converse about it, there's plenty of posters in this thread that I respect that don't see things the way I do, and we're doing fine. But if you are so worked up that I somehow dare to view things differently than yourself, then let's just end our conversation and agree that the other guy is a fool.

 

[Hussar]

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

Since when is it a requirement that gods can't be killed? There are plenty of RW stories about gods being killed.

 

[Dire Bare]

I disagree with almost everything in your post, so I'll just pick a few points.

Racism, slavery, and other things considered evil my modern standards were in the game and not considered evil. It was just part of the character of the place.

Racism is tricky, as on the face of it, racism is treated as evil by D&D from the beginning. But, it's okay to hate, or be racist towards, the "evil" races like drow, orcs, chromatic dragons, etc. This is very mythic as these races are often considered inherently evil, much like the monsters of real-world mythology. But it raises (for many of us) uncomfortable parallels with real racism, when one group of people demonizes another in order to justify racism, discrimination, oppression, war, and other atrocities.

But this doesn't make racism "just part of the character of a place."

And slavery has never been viewed in a positive or neutral light in D&D, it has always been considered an evil act. There are societies within various D&D worlds that practice slavery, but this is in opposition to the heroes and "goodness".

When you're attempting to assert your concerns, you're downplaying my concerns. When you are saying things like you don't think good gods would have this and I know the game is modeled on real world religions that do punish the faithless, I consider it wrong of you to attempt to claim that isn't a part of D&D. D&D's religions were definitely modeled on real world religions. Not just Judeo-Christian, but pagan religions that definitely had consequences for faithlessness, a lack of belief.

I don't exactly follow how expressing my opinion somehow diminishes your own. To convince me that I have, you are going to have to try harder. And avoid loaded language like "politically correct" in doing so.

Gods are acting like jerks? Has that been a major part of every mythology I've ever read? Why yes it has. The ancient gods are even bigger jerks than the monotheistic god.

Read more.

If you don't want it as part of your D&D game, than get rid of it.

Um, I did. I think I mentioned that.

Well, my campaign has evil gods, and they act like jerks. There are also neutral gods, and gods who consider themselves good, who act like jerks. But the gods who truly embody justice, truth, and the American way? They don't. In my campaign.

What books on mythology and ancient religion have you been reading? <snip insulting false claim> You just claimed things that aren't true like good and evil being consistent amongst humans, which has never been the case and isn't now.

Aeons ago, before the modern age, I earned a degree in Anthropology and also did extensive studies in history, religion, folklore, and mythology. Which made me less than employable, but man, did I enjoy those five or so years of my life. To be young again . . . . ahem, anyway . . . this is where I get my views on history, myth, morals, and etc, etc. While I haven't kept up since college, I doubt much has changed, other than perhaps my memory.

But I'll stand by my claim, throughout history, if you delve to the moral heart of most cultures and religions, you will find the Golden Rule. Treat others as you would like others to treat you. This rule encourages altruism, and discourages selfishness. Now, of course, various cultures and religions layer a lot of crap on top of the Golden Rule and folks like to get all dogmatic and use the unnecessary details as an excuse to be selfish and inflict evil upon their fellow man. This makes for a lot of pain and grief in the world, but great fiction!

I am concerned about PC people trying to force the game designers to move away from modeling D&D on ancient mythology.

Not what I'm doing. But we've covered that.

You and I probably won't convince each other of anything, and I doubt at this point our conversation is going to get anymore civil. Especially with that loaded phrase again, "political correctness". *shudder*

 

[Celtavian]

I disagree with almost everything in your post, so I'll just pick a few points.

Yet you can't prove what I'm saying wrong, so disagreeing is meaningless. As I said, you are stating the world as you would like it to be, not as it is.

Racism is tricky, as on the face of it, racism is treated as evil by D&D from the beginning. But, it's okay to hate, or be racist towards, the "evil" races like drow, orcs, chromatic dragons, etc. This is very mythic as these races are often considered inherently evil, much like the monsters of real-world mythology. But it raises (for many of us) uncomfortable parallels with real racism, when one group of people demonizes another in order to justify racism, discrimination, oppression, war, and other atrocities.

But this doesn't make racism "just part of the character of a place."

Yes, it does. That is why racism or some form of prejudice has existed in every human culture and continues to exist. It is part of the character a culture and humanity in general. It has been impossible to breed out.

And slavery has never been viewed in a positive or neutral light in D&D, it has always been considered an evil act. There are societies within various D&D worlds that practice slavery, but this is in opposition to the heroes and "goodness".

And you can prove this how? Lawful Neutral or even Lawful Good societies can have slavery. It depends on the nature of slavery. There were no mass prisons back in the ancient days, so when you defeated your enemy taking them as a slave was often more merciful than massacring them. Once again, you are imposing your view upon a complex issue. I get it. Modern people don't want to believe slavery in any form could be a more "good" option than the alternative. I don't like slavery either. I don't delude myself into believing that it was always "evil." It was sometimes a more merciful option than the alternative when dealing with competing human groups.

I don't exactly follow how expressing my opinion somehow diminishes your own. To convince me that I have, you are going to have to try harder. And avoid loaded language like "politically correct" in doing so.

You want a concrete change to the game to suit your personal belief of what you consider good and evil. I want a game based on historical mythology and religious philosophy to increase verisimilitude. That means having constructs like the Wall of the Faithless that even "good" gods support. In essence, the traditional view that there is a punishment for being faithless.

Read more.

Provide historical examples or you can in the mirror on this one. I read quite a lot. That is why my arguments are usually framed with real world examples that I'm not much seeing in your arguments given how well read you claim are.

Well, my campaign has evil gods, and they act like jerks. There are also neutral gods, and gods who consider themselves good, who act like jerks. But the gods who truly embody justice, truth, and the American way? They don't. In my campaign.

Almost all gods act like jerks to a person that doesn't like the rules they require.

Aeons ago, before the modern age, I earned a degree in Anthropology and also did extensive studies in history, religion, folklore, and mythology. Which made me less than employable, but man, did I enjoy those five or so years of my life. To be young again . . . . ahem, anyway . . . this is where I get my views on history, myth, morals, and etc, etc. While I haven't kept up since college, I doubt much has changed, other than perhaps my memory.

But I'll stand by my claim, throughout history, if you delve to the moral heart of most cultures and religions, you will find the Golden Rule. Treat others as you would like others to treat you. This rule encourages altruism, and discourages selfishness. Now, of course, various cultures and religions layer a lot of crap on top of the Golden Rule and folks like to get all dogmatic and use the unnecessary details as an excuse to be selfish and inflict evil upon their fellow man. This makes for a lot of pain and grief in the world, but great fiction!

I doubt a person with a degree in anthropology would make the statements you make.

The Golden Rule? What would The Golden Rule be to a Viking? Let me see. If you as a modern human attempted to say tell the Viking you would prefer to die in bed with family, he might tell you that is a weak way to die. He would prefer to die in battle, so that he could ascend to Valhalla. So would you follow The Golden Rule and give him battle so that he might die the way he wishes and possibly get you killed or would you practice your personal point of view? Or what of the variety of other cultures who say don't like to be treated in the same manner that you do due to different belief systems?

I learned in anthropology a thing called The Platinum Rule which said "treat others as they wish to be treated." That meant you should learn their cultural beliefs if you go to their home or area and learn how they want to be treated according to the standards of their culture including ideas of good and evil. I guess a person with an anthropology degree like yourself never learned that rule, even though it is an extremely common teaching among those that are truly learned and understand human culture and the psychology of human beings. Not people that attempt to impose their idea of good and evil on people, when it provably does not exist.

At best you could say each culture considers certain things good like feeding the hungry or not murdering another without cause. That does not mean their idea of good and evil is the same. It only means that certain ideas of what is considered good behavior might be considered common to human cultures. If you walk into another culture thinking, if I just feed a few people and manage not to kill anyone for no reason then they'll think I'm good, well, you will be in for quite a surprise because good and evil are extremely complex ideas in each culture. What you might consider good, might be a problem in another culture. What you might consider evil may well be completely acceptable in another culture.

So don't try to sell me on something that any basic student of anthropology would learn was a false supposition.

You and I probably won't convince each other of anything, and I doubt at this point our conversation is going to get anymore civil. Especially with that loaded phrase again, "political correctness". *shudder*

I'm not interested in changing opinions. I'm interested in you supporting yours with evidence, which you have not done. You have requested a change to the game based on your personal beliefs that have no basis in history or the real world. I have answered your statements with proof that you are wrong about things like The Golden Rule and the idea that good gods can be jerks and often do cruel acts to enforce their religious dominance. This is historical and mythological fact. The only reason to change the game would not be to create verisimilitude based on real ancient mythology, but to be politically correct to suit those people that don't like the ancient ideas found in religions and the idea of an afterlife being a reward for worship as well as acting in accordance with a deities ideas of good and evil.

I'd rather just have those folks state quite clearly they don't like the idea of gods judging people faithless. It's not right by modern standards. They would prefer a sanitized view of religion that is almost like a Big Bang Theory of creation where good and evil are universal forces like gravity that allow them to be good without the heavy-handed ideas found in ancient religions. That at least would be intellectual honesty rather than this ridiculous back and forth on things like The Golden Rule and D&D not modeling religion on ancient mythological polytheism. I do not care for intellectual dishonesty. When I see it, I can't help but challenge it. You are engaging in an intellectually dishonest discourse with no foundation in history or even modern anthropological viewpoints.

I'll leave it at that considering in my own game worlds, I don't even worry about when a character dies. I do play the gods as though they are real. And faithlessness is a sin that causes you to end up on The Wall of the Faithless in the Forgottem Realms or an unprotected soul wandering a place where other beings are looking to harvest you for their purposes. You want protection, you better choose a deity or pantheon to follow. Or you better be so powerful that you can challenge gods and demons to battle. Or you have simply obtained immortality and never, ever die. Plenty of ways in D&D to circumvent the judgment of deities. If they continue to sanitize D&D to suit the modern crowd that doesn't want any history or myth in their D&D, the game becomes less enjoyable for me.

 

[Xvartslayer]

Yet you can't prove what I'm saying wrong, so disagreeing is meaningless. As I said, you are stating the world as you would like it to be, not as it is.




Yes, it does. That is why racism or some form of prejudice has existed in every human culture and continues to exist. It is part of the character a culture and humanity in general. It has been impossible to breed out.



And you can prove this how? Lawful Neutral or even Lawful Good societies can have slavery. It depends on the nature of slavery. There were no mass prisons back in the ancient days, so when you defeated your enemy taking them as a slave was often more merciful than massacring them. Once again, you are imposing your view upon a complex issue. I get it. Modern people don't want to believe slavery in any form could be a more "good" option than the alternative. I don't like slavery either. I don't delude myself into believing that it was always "evil." It was sometimes a more merciful option than the alternative when dealing with competing human groups.





You want a concrete change to the game to suit your personal belief of what you consider good and evil. I want a game based on historical mythology and religious philosophy to increase verisimilitude. That means having constructs like the Wall of the Faithless that even "good" gods support. In essence, the traditional view that there is a punishment for being faithless.





Provide historical examples or you can in the mirror on this one. I read quite a lot. That is why my arguments are usually framed with real world examples that I'm not much seeing in your arguments given how well read you claim are.





Almost all gods act like jerks to a person that doesn't like the rules they require.




I doubt a person with a degree in anthropology would make the statements you make.

The Golden Rule? What would The Golden Rule be to a Viking? Let me see. If you as a modern human attempted to say tell the Viking you would prefer to die in bed with family, he might tell you that is a weak way to die. He would prefer to die in battle, so that he could ascend to Valhalla. So would you follow The Golden Rule and give him battle so that he might die the way he wishes and possibly get you killed or would you practice your personal point of view? Or what of the variety of other cultures who say don't like to be treated in the same manner that you do due to different belief systems?

I learned in anthropology a thing called The Platinum Rule which said "treat others as they wish to be treated." That meant you should learn their cultural beliefs if you go to their home or area and learn how they want to be treated according to the standards of their culture including ideas of good and evil. I guess a person with an anthropology degree like yourself never learned that rule, even though it is an extremely common teaching among those that are truly learned and understand human culture and the psychology of human beings. Not people that attempt to impose their idea of good and evil on people, when it provably does not exist.

At best you could say each culture considers certain things good like feeding the hungry or not murdering another without cause. That does not mean their idea of good and evil is the same. It only means that certain ideas of what is considered good behavior might be considered common to human cultures. If you walk into another culture thinking, if I just feed a few people and manage not to kill anyone for no reason then they'll think I'm good, well, you will be in for quite a surprise because good and evil are extremely complex ideas in each culture. What you might consider good, might be a problem in another culture. What you might consider evil may well be completely acceptable in another culture.

So don't try to sell me on something that any basic student of anthropology would learn was a false supposition.





I'm not interested in changing opinions. I'm interested in you supporting yours with evidence, which you have not done. You have requested a change to the game based on your personal beliefs that have no basis in history or the real world. I have answered your statements with proof that you are wrong about things like The Golden Rule and the idea that good gods can be jerks and often do cruel acts to enforce their religious dominance. This is historical and mythological fact. The only reason to change the game would not be to create verisimilitude based on real ancient mythology, but to be politically correct to suit those people that don't like the ancient ideas found in religions and the idea of an afterlife being a reward for worship as well as acting in accordance with a deities ideas of good and evil.

I'd rather just have those folks state quite clearly they don't like the idea of gods judging people faithless. It's not right by modern standards. They would prefer a sanitized view of religion that is almost like a Big Bang Theory of creation where good and evil are universal forces like gravity that allow them to be good without the heavy-handed ideas found in ancient religions. That at least would be intellectual honesty rather than this ridiculous back and forth on things like The Golden Rule and D&D not modeling religion on ancient mythological polytheism. I do not care for intellectual dishonesty. When I see it, I can't help but challenge it. You are engaging in an intellectually dishonest discourse with no foundation in history or even modern anthropological viewpoints.

I'll leave it at that considering in my own game worlds, I don't even worry about when a character dies. I do play the gods as though they are real. And faithlessness is a sin that causes you to end up on The Wall of the Faithless in the Forgottem Realms or an unprotected soul wandering a place where other beings are looking to harvest you for their purposes. You want protection, you better choose a deity or pantheon to follow. Or you better be so powerful that you can challenge gods and demons to battle. Or you have simply obtained immortality and never, ever die. Plenty of ways in D&D to circumvent the judgment of deities. If they continue to sanitize D&D to suit the modern crowd that doesn't want any history or myth in their D&D, the game becomes less enjoyable for me.

Mic drop.

 

[Dire Bare]

Yet you can't prove what I'm saying wrong, so disagreeing is meaningless. As I said, you are stating the world as you would like it to be, not as it is.

While I do think in several ways you are wrong, in stating that "I disagree", I'm not really interesting in proving you wrong. I'm just disagreeing with you. Not sure why disagreeing with you is meaningless, am I required to accept your word without proof you are wrong? Where is your proof that you are right?

I am stating that the world (of the Forgotten Realms) is not as I would like it to be, and that I don't like it as it is. The real world? Not so much. Not that there wouldn't be some changes if I was elected King of the World. Watch out!

Provide historical examples or you can in the mirror on this one. I read quite a lot. That is why my arguments are usually framed with real world examples that I'm not much seeing in your arguments given how well read you claim are.

Since I wasn't in the middle of an academic research paper on the nature of fictional gods in roleplaying games when this conversation started, and I honestly don't feel you are worth it, no. Besides, according to you I'm a dirty, dirty liar, so not really seeing the point of continuing to put effort into our "conversation".

I doubt a person with a degree in anthropology would make the statements you make.

Ah, so I am lying about my intent as well as my background. Okay. Thanks for pointing that out, good debate tactic.

I learned in anthropology a thing called The Platinum Rule which said "treat others as they wish to be treated." That meant you should learn their cultural beliefs if you go to their home or area and learn how they want to be treated according to the standards of their culture including ideas of good and evil. I guess a person with an anthropology degree like yourself never learned that rule, even though it is an extremely common teaching among those that are truly learned and understand human culture and the psychology of human beings. Not people that attempt to impose their idea of good and evil on people, when it provably does not exist.

Before our "conversation", I had never heard of the "Platinum Rule". So, curious, I googled it. Turns out you didn't make that up, but Dr. Tony Allessandra did. He's not an anthropologist, but a self-help guru. Okay.

There is an anthropological principle of avoiding ethnocentrism, which isn't quite your "Platinum Rule". Don't judge other cultures using your own values, try to view a culture from an inside perspective, rather than the perspective of an outsider.

So don't try to sell me on something that any basic student of anthropology would learn was a false supposition.

Since you are getting your own anthropological information from a self-help guru, I'm just going to wryly chuckle at this one.

You have requested a change to the game based on your personal beliefs that have no basis in history or the real world.

No, I haven't. I am sharing a change I've made to my game based on my personal beliefs. Wait, we've covered this already, right? Oh, sorry, forgot. I'm lying about my intentions. Right.

I have answered your statements with proof that you are wrong about things like The Golden Rule

No, you haven't. You ask me for citations but make some pretty wild claims yourself without any backup. I'm not asking you to provide sources, because we're having a "friendly" forum discussion about D&D. Opinions, at least the non-insulting ones, welcome, research not required.

I'd rather just have those folks state quite clearly they don't like the idea of gods judging people faithless. It's not right by modern standards.

Um, yeah? I think that's exactly what I stated. Several times. I don't like the idea of (good) gods judging people faithless. It's not right by my standards, which are very modern.

They would prefer a sanitized view of religion that is almost like a Big Bang Theory of creation where good and evil are universal forces like gravity that allow them to be good without the heavy-handed ideas found in ancient religions.

While D&D obviously takes some serious inspiration from real-world mythology, it most certainly does treat good and evil as universal forces. It's called alignment, and the outer planes are pretty much built around it. Demons, devils, and other creatures aren't evil by choice, but by nature. You can even cast spells to detect this "force" of evil. It's kinda baked right into the game.

I'll leave it at that considering in my own game worlds, I don't even worry about when a character dies. I do play the gods as though they are real. And faithlessness is a sin that causes you to end up on The Wall of the Faithless in the Forgottem Realms or an unprotected soul wandering a place where other beings are looking to harvest you for their purposes. You want protection, you better choose a deity or pantheon to follow. Or you better be so powerful that you can challenge gods and demons to battle. Or you have simply obtained immortality and never, ever die. Plenty of ways in D&D to circumvent the judgment of deities.

Cool. You do you, and I'll do me. Nice how the game supports us both.

If they continue to sanitize D&D to suit the modern crowd that doesn't want any history or myth in their D&D, the game becomes less enjoyable for me.

They? WotC? How are they sanitizing the game to suit the "modern crowd"? By removing all references to demons, devils, and other real-world inspired mythic figures? No, wait, that was TSR back in the day, WotC brought all that back. How exactly is WotC "sanitizing" the game?

Wait, nevermind. It's off-topic, and I'm not really interested in continuing the conversation we are already having, much less starting a new fun one.

Mic drop.

Fumbled, more like.

 

[Sadras]

I don't exactly follow how expressing my opinion somehow diminishes your own. To convince me that I have, you are going to have to try harder. And avoid loaded language like "politically correct" in doing so.

and

You and I probably won't convince each other of anything, and I doubt at this point our conversation is going to get anymore civil. Especially with that loaded phrase again, "political correctness". *shudder*

From where I am sitting you are the one using the term again and again. @Celtavian stopped using that terminology posts ago and yet you keep on bringing it up. I suspect by using the term, you are offending yourself and projecting that offense onto others.

And in all fairness @sunshadow21's post #249 actually dealt with the term and pointed out how it can be applied to this thread, but you did not answer him on it. So forgive me, but all I see, is a lot of billowing smoke coming from your direction.

So when you answered my initial post stating that I missed the point? What exactly is the point? That you personally don't like the Realms lore of the Wall because it doesn't match your personal beliefs and fit your definition of heroic high fantasy for escapism? Do you earnestly believe that is the point of the OP?

 

[Celtavian]

While I do think in several ways you are wrong, what I said was, "I disagree". Kinda different. I am stating that the world (of the Forgotten Realms) is not as I would like it to be, and that I don't like it as it is. The real world? Not so much.




Since I wasn't in the middle of an academic research paper on the nature of fictional gods in roleplaying games when this conversation started, and I honestly don't feel you are worth it, no. Besides, according to you I'm a dirty, dirty liar, so not really seeing the point of continuing to put effort into our "conversation".



Ah, so I am lying about my intent as well as my background. Okay. Thanks for pointing that out, good debate tactic.



Before our "conversation", I had never heard of the "Platinum Rule". So, curious, I googled it. Turns out you didn't make that up, but Dr. Tony Allessandra did. He's not an anthropologist, but a self-help guru. Okay.

There is an anthropological principle of avoiding ethnocentrism, which isn't quite your "Platinum Rule". Don't judge other cultures using your own values, try to view a culture from an inside perspective, rather than the perspective of an outsider.



Since you are getting your own anthropological information from a self-help guru, I'm just going to wryly chuckle at this one.



No, I haven't. I am sharing a change I've made to my game based on my personal beliefs. Wait, we've covered this already, right? Oh, sorry, forgot. I'm lying about my intentions. Right.



No, you haven't. You ask me for citations but make some pretty wild claims yourself without any backup. I'm not asking you to provide sources, because we're having a "friendly" forum discussion about D&D. Opinions, at least the non-insulting ones, welcome, research not required.



Um, yeah? I think that's exactly what I stated. Several times. I don't like the idea of (good) gods judging people faithless. It's not right by my standards, which are very modern.



While D&D obviously takes some serious inspiration from real-world mythology, it most certainly does treat good and evil as universal forces. It's called alignment, and the outer planes are pretty much built around it. Demons, devils, and other creatures aren't evil by choice, but by nature. You can even cast spells to detect this "force" of evil. It's kinda baked right into the game.



Cool. You do you, and I'll do me. Nice how the game supports us both.



They? WotC? How are they sanitizing the game to suit the "modern crowd"? By removing all references to demons, devils, and other real-world inspired mythic figures? No, wait, that was TSR back in the day, WotC brought all that back. How exactly is WotC "sanitizing" the game?

Wait, nevermind. It's off-topic, and I'm not really interested in continuing the conversation we are already having, much less starting a new fun one.



Fumbled, more like.

Once again not a single source quoted to back up what you said and I fumbled? In your opinion of course. We were not having a discussion. This was a topic started as a debate on the nature of The Wall of the Faithless. I pursued it as such. A debate generally requires supporting one's position with more than just "my opinion." Which you have not done at all.

I explained how the anthropology teacher framed The Platinum Rule in terms of anthropology. It most certainly is not The Golden Rule. Most anthropologists know that such a rule doesn't apply universally, nor are ideas of good and evil universal. That's why you have gone from stating something ridiculous like there is a universal good to admitting it is merely your personal opinion. You fumbled a long time ago because you chose a position that has been proven wrong many, many, many times by much more educated folk than myself. Good and evil are not, and never will be, something concrete no matter how many people attempt to assert it. That is why gods controlling certain abstract moral ideas as well as physical parts of the world and demanding worship in a fantasy setting doesn't seem wrong to me in the slightest. Even good deities demand certain behaviors from their followers. Always have, always will.

And we are done.

 

[Celtavian]

The entire concept of an afterlife was originated by religious folk with the intent of rewarding the faithful. It was not created so some faithless soul that had been "good" could get away with not worshiping anyone and still obtain paradise. So if you are faithless, you most certainly should suffer for having been so. Being faithless is one of the great sins of the religious world, often considered a greater sin than murder. Yet we have an ongoing discussion that wants to make faith and faithlessness equal, yet faithlessness is an active choice not to believe in a deity. Why should it be rewarded alike to a faithful person who also must conform to the rules of his deity? This is the part I do not understand in this argument. No one has explained why faithlessness isn't a sin in a world with gods. Or why a faithless person should obtain paradise like a faithful follower of a religion. It isn't like a faithful follower gets to go to paradise just for believing. They must also adhere to the rules that god puts forth to achieve paradise. Actively believing is not enough in a world with gods. You must follow their edicts.

I'm still waiting for I'm a Banana to show me all these religions that tolerated faithnlessness given he is a student of religion. And explain why faithlessness is not wrong in a world with gods. I've read a lot on mythology and religion. And the non-believer is nearly always a character that is punished for his faithlessness. Why should the Realms be different?