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

[Irennan]

Normally the deities make sure their area of responsibility runs smoothly and do not micromanage every single act.

So if Tymora specifically intervenes with the murderer's blade, this is a very special case and might be special enough for the lord of murder to try to intervene himself just out of principle. Normally neither of them takes a special interest and let the mortal's skill and luck decide it automatically, just making sure that neither is cosmically unbalanced at the moment

Ok, that makes sense. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Mirtek]

A large amount of the FR material is written assuming that FR is the ONLY universe. Yes, periodically, some authors have written tie ins to other worlds and in 2e all the worlds were forcibly connected together using the Great Wheel.

FR was connected to the FR multiverse since Ed wrote his earliest Dragon articles using FR in conjunction with the then new D&D. He must have had something different in mind when he started the first sketches of what would become the FR, since D&D and it's multivers didn't exist yet (or maybe didn't flesh this part out before moving his setting to D&D), but he joined it from his earliest article for Dragon, long before TSR bough the rights to make FR an official setting.

The vast majority of FR supplements and novels were written during the time when it was fully connected to the D&D multiverse.

Each crystal sphere created in the image of the gods that are native to that sphere. They control everything about how reality works in that sphere

And doing so they set the rules for the wall and no spells from just a cause.

But I don't look at it as so much "blocking the ability to worship causes" as having changed their universe to a different setting.

Turning the dial to the "no cause setting" is pretty much the same as blocking the ability to worship a cause to me

 

[MG.0]

Buy having his world-view trump that if his fellow players.

A useless strawman argument.

I'm the one arguing that all the players' views are important.

Because only your's should?

Another strawman...you are 0 for 2.

All the players' views should be considered important by the DM. Players can indeed make contrasting concepts work just fine in the same party if they apply more than one brain cell to the problem, or aren't deliberately being jerks. Sometimes the DM can offer some guidance in how to roleplay their differences without creating friction between the players - because the players having fun is the ONLY point to the game. A DM deciding outright a player can't choose to play a character that doesn't worship the gods without subjecting him to ridiculous in-game punishments is bad DM'ing. In fact, it's pretty much synonymous with being an .

You don't like the religion in the FR and are appaled and offended that you in a small minority and want to force your distaste on everyone else

...and then you go completely off the rails and start making assumptions about me....strike three, you lose.

I actually don't have much of an opinion on the religion of the Realms. Overall I think the Realms is a pretty lousy campaign setting because it has been bastardized for years by a flood of authors and poor material. Greyhawk is better - mostly simply by virtue of having been ignored.

The only problem I have is certain people on the forum who seem to have to try overly-eagerly to discredit every possible idea thrown out that would allow alternative interpretations of religion, faith, gods, and cosmology in general. I've known just a handful of those types of people in person while gaming over the years. Invariably, they are bad DM's and bad players. They will cite every reason under the sun as to why "this" can't be or "that" would never work. They incite friction between players by insisting on interpreting things like alignment or racial behavior in the strictest, most narrow interpretation possible and allowing no other interpretation. In short: narrow-minded, often bigoted, and unimaginative.

 

[Mirtek]

I'm the one arguing that all the players' views are important.

No, you are arguing that only the player who represents your world-view is important, the other players should shut up and try to accommodate to him

All the players' views should be considered important by the DM. Players can indeed make contrasting concepts work just fine in the same party if they apply more than one brain cell to the problem, or aren't deliberately being jerks

Which to your definition is as simple as putting aside their view to let him have his without any natural drawbacks

strike three, you lose.

Well, if one were to decide it by the majorty view in this thread, it's pretty clear who lost long ago and if only shouting from the offside as he's not even in the game anymore.

Overall I think the Realms is a pretty lousy campaign setting because it has been bastardized for years by a flood of authors and poor material. Greyhawk is better - mostly simply by virtue of having been ignored.

Of course "ignored" in this case not only means by the publisher (so they at least didn't ruin it), but also by the D&D fanbase, as FR's huge lead in popularity proves.

They incite friction between players.

Yeah, because bringing a character who continously proclaims that the most sacred believe of the divine class PC, the one that serving is the center of their live and the next one too, is a fraud not worthy of worship is totally lubing the party's gears

Clergy of most good deities would walk away very soon after he proves unreformable, with very few exceptions (maybe clerics of Ilmater), while most clerics of neutral deities might get violent much sooner (better not try this with a priest of Tempus) although even some very stern LG warrior deities could have clergy that would violently defend their deity from such slander (Tyr seems likely)

 

[MG.0]

No, you are arguing that only the player who represents your world-view is important, the other players should shut up and try to accommodate to him

Show me one single quote that proves that. Oh that's right, you can't because that is not at all what I was saying.

Edit: But thanks anyway for trying to tell me what I am arguing for. It shows you wish to help...I guess.

Which to your definition is as simple as putting aside their view to let him have his without any natural drawbacks

...off the rails again I see...my definition?

Well, if one were to decide it by the majorty view in this thread, it's pretty clear who lost long ago and if only shouting from the offside as he's not even in the game anymore.

Decide what? What is "right"? That isn't even a thing...this is a discussion about imaginary things taking place in an imaginary world. The only thing that matters is whether or not people can have fun with it. Everything else is just mental masturbation.

Of course "ignored" in this case not only means by the publisher (so they at least didn't ruin it), but also by the D&D fanbase, as FR's huge lead in popularity proves.

Ooh, we should only play in popular worlds. Until we aren't twelve anymore and we grow up...and actually homebrewed worlds are more popular than FR, which at least shows imagination in D&D isn't totally dead.

Yeah, because bringing a character who continously proclaims that the most sacred believe of the divine class PC, the one that serving is the center of their live and the next one too, is a fraud not worthy of worship is totally lubing the party's gears

That's YOUR interpretation of how it would be played, not MINE. Try not to confuse yourself. If you really think that, then I can imagine your games are a real hoot.

Clergy of most good deities would walk away very soon after he proves unreformable, with very few exceptions (maybe clerics of Ilmater), while most clerics of neutral deities might get violent much sooner (better not try this with a priest of Tempus) although even some very stern LG warrior deities could have clergy that would violently defend their deity from such slander (Tyr seems likely)

An unimaginative intterpretation if ever there was one.

 

[Scribe]

What exactly is your argument MG.0? That a party should just be a party and support everyone's views? Why would a CE Cleric of Talos accept someone saying Talos is a fake, unworthy of service? Why would they not simply drop a Thunderbolt on them and say 'I disagree?'

Do you disagree with the concept of Alignments and the Great Wheel as well? The Blood War (which I hope comes back as a thing...)?

I mean I'm a Planescape guy more than anything else but standing against the Gods, in FR, you may as well just not be in the Realms imo. Which is totally fine, but Gods in D&D are a thing, they are central to the setting, the function of the Multiverse....

 

[hawkeyefan]

[MENTION=6801685]Phantarch[/MENTION] I understand your point about worship being NECESSARY. But I still think worthiness of worship is a major part of the discussion.

The afterlife system presented by the setting, including all the trappings like the Fugue Plane and the Wall of the Faithless and so on, seems flawed. Or it seems flawed in certain ways, at least, especially if viewed as a Good-aligned character may view it.

As such, I can fully understand a character taking the stance of being Faithless. There could be any number of reasons for this. I could even see it being something done subconsciously. It might not actually be a choice on the character's part.

 

[MG.0]

What exactly is your argument MG.0? That a party should just be a party and support everyone's views?

Sometimes, yes - because at the end of day a party isn't a group of characters adventuring, it is a group of players playing a game. In-game realism sometimes needs to take a back seat to player enjoyment.

Players need to be mature enough to be able to get together as a party and present their ideas to one another and be able to hammer out ideas that work. This often needn't involve compromising any individual ideas if the players are the least bit inventive, and not complete jerks. I sometimes see tripe on the forums like "you can't have a chaotic evil assassin in a party with a lawful good paladin" along with other variations of "you can't do that...because [insert random interpretation of alignment or race or class or whatever]". They are ---all of them--- wrong. I've been playing groups with every one of those "can't work" combinations for decades. If you have players who aren't dicks and a DM who isn't either, it does work. And I don't mean it just kind of works because people ignore the elephant in the room, I mean it full-on works with involved roleplay that everyone participates in and helps drive.

Why would a CE Cleric of Talos accept someone saying Talos is a fake, unworthy of service? Why would they not simply drop a Thunderbolt on them and say 'I disagree?'

That is a variation of the same tired example that keeps getting trotted out. If I had a character who didn't think the gods were worthy of worship, why would that automatically mean I he must loudly proclaim it in the cleric's ear constantly? Why is that even believable unless you have already decided that said character or player is an ass? Does that same cleric feel the need to loudly proclaim the greatness of his god to all the other party members constantly? Why don't they just kill him as well? No, it's a strawman argument.

Do you disagree with the concept of Alignments and the Great Wheel as well? The Blood War (which I hope comes back as a thing...)?

I mean I'm a Planescape guy more than anything else but standing against the Gods, in FR, you may as well just not be in the Realms imo. Which is totally fine, but Gods in D&D are a thing, they are central to the setting, the function of the Multiverse....

Not at all. I very much like the Great Wheel and I think alignments work just fine. Been playing since before there was a center to the wheel.

I generally don't set my games in the Realms. The only time I ever really did was as a destination in Spelljammer.

Gods are fine too, but I fail to see the need to punish someone who doesn't want a religious character. There's simply no need to punish that player for their choice of character. And in the name of what exactly...realism?

Below is a quote of mine from another thread. It mentions alignments mostly, but is actually a general rule for all of my games that is applied to everything - races, classes, alignments, backgrounds, religion, everything:

You can mix any combination of alignments in a party if you follow two rules:

1) Players before characters. Do not use your character as an excuse to make other players or the DM miserable. Insist on the same treatment from others. Avoid games where people refuse this basic rule.

2) Use your imagination. People are complicated and all alignments can coexist, easily. Perhaps you have a lawful good Paladin who has known the assassin since childhood and has a 'blind spot' where he is concerned..unable to see the person he truly is (example: Caramon toward his brother Raistlin, from Dragonlance). Or perhaps the Paladin simply sees a chance for redemption for the assassin. It can work if it is not played to annoy the assassin's player. Perhaps the assassin isn't even overtly evil. Some evil only manifests in specific circumstances (again see Raistlin, he is evil when push comes to shove, but he isn't immune to helping others or feeling sympathy.)


Edit:
In my long experience as DM, any problems with combinations of alignment, class, race etc. boils down to a violation of one of the two rules above. Either someone is failing to be considerate of their fellow players, or someone isn't putting their imagination to work. Sometimes it's both.

 

[Alzrius]

Just tossing this out there, but since Tymora was brought up as an example, we actually got a glimpse of what happened in the Realms when she was incapacitated. In the novel Tymora's Luck - a Forgotten Realms-Planescape-Dragonlance crossover novel - Tymora is having her power drained by an unknown entity. As a side effect, good luck starts to leak out in prodigious amounts to some of those she favors (e.g. Volo can't stop rolling sixes in a dice game he's playing).

 

[Phantarch]

@Phantarch I understand your point about worship being NECESSARY. But I still think worthiness of worship is a major part of the discussion.

The afterlife system presented by the setting, including all the trappings like the Fugue Plane and the Wall of the Faithless and so on, seems flawed. Or it seems flawed in certain ways, at least, especially if viewed as a Good-aligned character may view it.

As such, I can fully understand a character taking the stance of being Faithless. There could be any number of reasons for this. I could even see it being something done subconsciously. It might not actually be a choice on the character's part.

I should state that (as I think I did once 300 posts ago in this thread) I'm actually not a huge fan of the wall myself. Actually, I find the great wheel cosmology revolting as well (your soul is slowly consumed by whatever plane you go to until you disappear or become an altogether different entity with no memories of your former life...WTF?!). I actually prefer systems like Eberron's afterlife where everybody goes to a crappy place like dolurrh and slowly fades from existence...but the various religions teach that there is a glorious afterlife that awaits after you fade away from the crappy purgatory. This opens up all sorts of religions AND atheism that can't be proven one way or another.

That being said, if I were going to play in the forgotten realms, I think that I would try to work within the framework presented, and that is the stance that I've been arguing. Given the framework, I think that a truly faithless person is anathema and evil in the system.

However, I think it's a pretty big leap to go from "I hate the wall" or "I'm mad at the gods" to being a Faithless or an atheist. I have argued previously that there are plenty of in-story justifications for the good gods tolerating the wall. Also, there's probably an obscure god of rebellion that hates the wall and would gladly accept your worship AND your goals of tearing down the wall.

The way I see it, there are three legitimate options in the forgotten realms:

1) Accept the status quo and worship the gods that influence your life. And this is probably the only real option for the mass majority of the population.

2) Seek to become a god by creating some minor portfolio that hasn't been created yet (I am Featherbrain, lord of Bird Watchers!).

3) Seek to overthrow an existing god who you feel hasn't been living up to your expectations of its portfolio.


With either 2 or 3, you can then, perhaps, start to affect change within the system and actually start working toward dismantling the wall and finding a more humane option. Obviously, 2 & 3 are one in a billion shots and are long roads, but those are the only real options that I see for affecting a change of the cosmos. And to successfully pull off 2 or 3, you are probably going to have to give in to the gods a little bit.