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


Folks,

The tenor of some of the posts in this thread is... not so great.

Look, I know folks can get passionate about things, but we expect and require you to show respect for each other. You should be able to treat each other well - like fellow good and intelligent people.

If you can't do that, it is time to walk away. Understood? If not, please PM or e-mail one of the moderating staff to discuss it. Thanks.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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.

4) Treat the gods as a fact of existence, to be feared and perhaps respected as fire is respected, but not worship them.

I do get the basic trappings of the setting, and I understand that it doesn't exactly promote a more challenging view of the nature of divinity much beyond the god/cleric relationship, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

I suppose it seems so obvious to me because my campaign is more Planescape driven, with multiple Prine worlds, Toril being one of them. Within that scope, the quirks of the FR afterlife and divine structure really stand out. I suppose I've sanded down the rough edges over the years to make it more compatible with everything else, and so my take on it is more flexible than that of others'.

I'm just surprised to see so many folks shoot down the idea that the system in place, with the Wall of the Faithless, is flawed, and insisting that any character who doesn't adhere to that system is more fundamentally evil then the Faithful of the likes of Bane. And that players of such faithless characters are one note zealots who only want to see the whole thing torn down.
 

I'm just surprised to see so many folks shoot down the idea that the system in place, with the Wall of the Faithless, is flawed, and insisting that any character who doesn't adhere to that system is more fundamentally evil then the Faithful of the likes of Bane. And that players of such faithless characters are one note zealots who only want to see the whole thing torn down.

I completely agree with this.
 

4) Treat the gods as a fact of existence, to be feared and perhaps respected as fire is respected, but not worship them.

I do get the basic trappings of the setting, and I understand that it doesn't exactly promote a more challenging view of the nature of divinity much beyond the god/cleric relationship, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

I suppose it seems so obvious to me because my campaign is more Planescape driven, with multiple Prine worlds, Toril being one of them. Within that scope, the quirks of the FR afterlife and divine structure really stand out. I suppose I've sanded down the rough edges over the years to make it more compatible with everything else, and so my take on it is more flexible than that of others'.

I'm just surprised to see so many folks shoot down the idea that the system in place, with the Wall of the Faithless, is flawed, and insisting that any character who doesn't adhere to that system is more fundamentally evil then the Faithful of the likes of Bane. And that players of such faithless characters are one note zealots who only want to see the whole thing torn down.

I'd point out that the idea of "one note characters" is pretty germane to the discussion since that's the example that was presented - characters that would actively oppose the gods and do everything in their power to tear down the wall. If the character is simply not terribly pious and doesn't talk about his faith (or lack thereof) in the game, then who cares? It's not like it would matter. I was under the understanding that we're talking about characters who not only believe that the system is unjust but also are actively doing something about it.
 

I'd point out that the idea of "one note characters" is pretty germane to the discussion since that's the example that was presented - characters that would actively oppose the gods and do everything in their power to tear down the wall. If the character is simply not terribly pious and doesn't talk about his faith (or lack thereof) in the game, then who cares? It's not like it would matter. I was under the understanding that we're talking about characters who not only believe that the system is unjust but also are actively doing something about it.

That's the problem in a nut shell:

"one note character" is not synonymous with "characters who not only believe that the system is unjust but also are actively doing something about it"

It is not beyond reason to think a character could be intelligently portrayed taking on a personal quest to make a difference while still adventuring with a party of people with differing beliefs and priorities. My parties routinely juggle differences in opinion, often with the players themselves working out in advance how they would like to see me handle issues where one or more characters (not players, whose common goal is to have fun) find themselves at cross purposes. It can be done, and done well. Anything less is just a cop-out by the DM or a player.
 

4) Treat the gods as a fact of existence, to be feared and perhaps respected as fire is respected, but not worship them.

Arguably, fear and respect ARE worship. There are certainly many religious practices that solely existed to appease the gods, and weren't performed out of love and devotion. Within the Forgotten Realms, Umberlee is a classic example of this.

I do get the basic trappings of the setting, and I understand that it doesn't exactly promote a more challenging view of the nature of divinity much beyond the god/cleric relationship, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

I suppose it seems so obvious to me because my campaign is more Planescape driven, with multiple Prine worlds, Toril being one of them. Within that scope, the quirks of the FR afterlife and divine structure really stand out. I suppose I've sanded down the rough edges over the years to make it more compatible with everything else, and so my take on it is more flexible than that of others'.

And this seems to be a major source of the divide. Those who have been defending the Wall have seemed to have a stronger tendency to view the realms separate from all other settings, and those most opposed have seemed to be coming from a planescape many worlds standpoint.

For me personally, I like to view each campaign setting in a vacuum, so to speak. Trying to find cohesion in the metaphysics of all of the campaign settings to me ends up making as much sense as if you tried to create one super religion out of all of the world's religions. In both situations, it's a lot easier to find internal consistency.

I'm just surprised to see so many folks shoot down the idea that the system in place, with the Wall of the Faithless, is flawed, and insisting that any character who doesn't adhere to that system is more fundamentally evil then the Faithful of the likes of Bane. And that players of such faithless characters are one note zealots who only want to see the whole thing torn down.

I think a lot of it comes down to accepting the tone of the setting. Most people don't balk at the idea of dark sun not having gods at all. Most people WOULD balk at a character trying to play a cleric devoted to a god in Dark Sun. For those defending the Wall and the religious setup of the realms, I think it's a fundamental part of the tone of the setting.

For me personally, it's just a fun exercise. I have a bit of history in apologetics, and enjoy the exercise of accepting the tenants of a faith and trying to find arguments to justify and defend it. It's pretty easy to say a religion is wrong; it's more challenging frequently to prove that it's right. In real life, I'm agnostic now, so I don't do a lot of defense of religion anymore. As a result, fictional religions are all I get to exercise that part of my brain on.
 

I'd point out that the idea of "one note characters" is pretty germane to the discussion since that's the example that was presented - characters that would actively oppose the gods and do everything in their power to tear down the wall. If the character is simply not terribly pious and doesn't talk about his faith (or lack thereof) in the game, then who cares? It's not like it would matter. I was under the understanding that we're talking about characters who not only believe that the system is unjust but also are actively doing something about it.

Well I think it's a bit hard to keep track of exactly who is discussing what, as several examples have been given. I provided a few different scenarios of a character without faith working with those that have faith.

Personally, in my game, my PCs are all devoted to the destruction of one specific deity. That's their end goal. As such, they've had to examine how to go about that, and what it would mean. The other Powers have also reacted to their mission and methods, and become involved in one way or another.

At this point in the story, they aren't trying to tear down the gods, but they also don't quite have the same view of the gods as they did at level 1.

Arguably, fear and respect ARE worship. There are certainly many religious practices that solely existed to appease the gods, and weren't performed out of love and devotion. Within the Forgotten Realms, Umberlee is a classic example of this.

And this seems to be a major source of the divide. Those who have been defending the Wall have seemed to have a stronger tendency to view the realms separate from all other settings, and those most opposed have seemed to be coming from a planescape many worlds standpoint.

For me personally, I like to view each campaign setting in a vacuum, so to speak. Trying to find cohesion in the metaphysics of all of the campaign settings to me ends up making as much sense as if you tried to create one super religion out of all of the world's religions. In both situations, it's a lot easier to find internal consistency.

I think a lot of it comes down to accepting the tone of the setting. Most people don't balk at the idea of dark sun not having gods at all. Most people WOULD balk at a character trying to play a cleric devoted to a god in Dark Sun. For those defending the Wall and the religious setup of the realms, I think it's a fundamental part of the tone of the setting.

For me personally, it's just a fun exercise. I have a bit of history in apologetics, and enjoy the exercise of accepting the tenants of a faith and trying to find arguments to justify and defend it. It's pretty easy to say a religion is wrong; it's more challenging frequently to prove that it's right. In real life, I'm agnostic now, so I don't do a lot of defense of religion anymore. As a result, fictional religions are all I get to exercise that part of my brain on.

I don't really agree about fear and respect being the same as worship. I have a healthy respect of guns and I can certainly fear guns under the right circumstances, but that doesn't mean I worship them. Or tornadoes or fire or serial killers. I suppose in a setting like FR, it could be true, depending on the deity, but generally speaking I would separate them.

I agree that ultimately, it's not of great consequence, but makes for interesting discussion. I can't imagine too many games that would be affected by all this, even though I suppose mine is...although as I said above, I've altered the setting to match my outlook and that of my players.

I suppose that I don't see the gods as being all that fundamental to the setting...at least not in the sense that we've been discussing, with the afterlife structure and the requirement of worship and so on. I feel like only a few of the novels have really delved into that, and those were the ones that followed the Avatar Trilogy. Most of the novels I've read since that time include the deities and so forth, but not in the same manner....the gods are not protagonists, and we aren't privy to the workings of the planes and the afterlife and so on. Although I'll admit that I could be off on that as I read less and less FR novels as time goes on.

So I suppose I don't see the Wall as a fundamental aspect of the Realms in the same way no deities is fundamental for Dark Sun, or the Mists are fundamental for Ravenloft. I see it more as one small factor in an otherwise huge canon of material. No more fundamental to the setting than the city of Mezro in Chult.
 

That's the problem in a nut shell:

"one note character" is not synonymous with "characters who not only believe that the system is unjust but also are actively doing something about it"

It is not beyond reason to think a character could be intelligently portrayed taking on a personal quest to make a difference while still adventuring with a party of people with differing beliefs and priorities. My parties routinely juggle differences in opinion, often with the players themselves working out in advance how they would like to see me handle issues where one or more characters (not players, whose common goal is to have fun) find themselves at cross purposes. It can be done, and done well. Anything less is just a cop-out by the DM or a player.

Totally agree with this. But, unfortunately this was never the issue. The issue was with a character that is declaring himself a heretic and then expecting the same faith that he denounces to then aid him in his quest to destroy events of the very faith he's asking help from.

Now, if the character never actually brings it up at the table then who cares? You can believe whatever you like. But, we were talking about chapters that have openly declared their defiance of the gods. That's not just a simple difference of opinion.
 

Note [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION], if the entire group is on board, then that is never a problem. Great. Everyone is happy
 

Totally agree with this. But, unfortunately this was never the issue. The issue was with a character that is declaring himself a heretic and then expecting the same faith that he denounces to then aid him in his quest to destroy events of the very faith he's asking help from.

Now, if the character never actually brings it up at the table then who cares? You can believe whatever you like. But, we were talking about chapters that have openly declared their defiance of the gods. That's not just a simple difference of opinion.

If you have a one-note character, the problem is a one-note character, not the note the character happens to be playing. In the hands of another character, that note is part of their symphony.

That one note could also be "I love crystal dragon zeus and refuse to associate with anyone who would not love him, too!"

It's a basic expectation of D&D that you work together as a team. If the player of the atheist character is willing to put up with being the meat shield for the faithful or healing the faithful or disabling the enemies that would kill the faithful or whatever, I'd expect the faithful characters to return the favor.

As a player of a god-defying character in a party with some faithful characters, I expect that most of the time, our characters will share goals and be united despite our differences. It's not like I'm going to lightning bolt the paladin just because he believes in a lie, or stand idly by while the enemies pick him apart, so I'd imagine he'd return the favor of healing me if I need it. Most of the time, it's not the most urgent concern on either of our minds.

But maybe someday it will be. And that will be some interesting RP!

Or maybe it won't ever really be. And that will be fine, too.

There's no problem with the characters' beliefs, because there's no problem with the way they're being played.

You could do the same thing in FR.

Phantarch said:
Those who have been defending the Wall have seemed to have a stronger tendency to view the realms separate from all other settings, and those most opposed have seemed to be coming from a planescape many worlds standpoint.

One of the critical problems with a "separate from all other settings" standpoint is that that's not how the Realms sees itself. You can choose to ignore other settings, but the Realms is written as if it's a part of them, not separate from them.

The metaphysics as written don't require the Wall as written.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top