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

[Mirtek]

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?

Because you keep rattling on about said characters rising up to chalkenge this "unfair" system, not merely pragmatists who accept it as a status that just is how things are even if he dislikes it.

Does that same cleric feel the need to loudly proclaim the greatness of his god to all the other party members constantly?

AS an adventuring cleric probably, even most likely

Why don't they just kill him as well?

Because they don't care, as religion is not the bedrock in which their life and afterlife stands.

If it is sure they will not stay together for long if one if the non divine PC is also a passionate worshipper if a deity

 

[MG.0]

Totally agree with this. But, unfortunately this was never the issue.

Actually it is entirely the issue. I'll just direct you to I'm a Banana's reply to your post as he put it very well.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

The thing is even if your name is Elminster I still don't believe you actually can tear down the Wall of the Faithless. And you might be a heathen but you get a lot of slack from me because of your second character trait. That you're brave enough and strong enough to stand shoulder to shoulder with me while we face down Orcus. I know why you want the Wand of Orcus - and when and if we kill him I'm going to try to keep it from you - and you know this as well as I do. But that assumes we can kill Orcus first. And there are maybe three other people I'd trust to stand beside me and attempt to kill Orcus.

Yes, we have our disagreements. Major ones. But there's so much more and so much more immediate that we don't disagree on that we've probably been working together and friends for years. We're friends, with a friendship forged in fire.

 

[MG.0]

To turn things completely inside out I will refer to I'm a Banana's earlier (possibly tongue-in cheek) mention of a campaign idea:

"A Story is taking shape in my mind: you've got a heroic band of misfits from various worlds and dimensions heading through portals to FR (like the portal through Arvandor, or the Gates of the Moon, or whatnot). Their job? To smuggle people off the plane. They create refugees from the corrupt leadership of Toril. Aided, perhaps, by some of the Good gods of the pantheon who agree that self-sacrifice is better than allowing innocents to suffer,. The Evil Gods put up some hissy fit perhaps, and AO likely does his "CUZ I'M THE BOSS THAT'S WHY YOU CAN'T TAKE MY TOYS" thing, maybe even tries to cut off the planes, but with the power of the Athar, they manage to reduce the gods' influence. The Wall is torn down. The people leave. Spelljammers criss-cross the world, over-burdened with people. The climactic battle is this group of saviors, those who gave the people freedom from a corrupt and brutal regime, trying to keep the last portal open for a few moments longer as the Good gods, bathed in the divine remnants of their evil kindred, send their last few noble defenders through, and utter a quiet "I'm sorry," before AO's fury falls upon them for the last time, and the crystal sphere is cut off, once more a cage, a prison for an omnipotent and petty child.
The second half of the campaign is dealing with the refugee crisis on the planes."


Now here we are obviously talking about a campaign - an entire party, so arguments based on a lone disruptive jerk of a player are null and void. I threw in some ideas, perhaps a subplot that AO is actually an agent of the Far Realm in a grand cosmic conspiracy to destroy the multiverse, but that is neither here nor there.

Even in a campaign like this I would allow a player who said he wanted to play a pious cleric of Torm who travelled with the party and harbored deep doubts or outright disagreement with what the party as a whole was trying to do. It could be made to work...probably with some awesome roleplaying opportunities. Now if the player was doing it just to be contrary, then you have a completely unrelated problem...a bad player. Players like that get booted from my games pretty quick, but I've found they are very few and far between once players get used to the idea of working as a team despite their characters' differences. If I just outright prevented the player from even trying the idea, then I would be a bad DM.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

I think it is, actually. I think that part of the problem in this discussion is that you heard a brief description of a character "defying the gods" and for you that conjured up the idea of a character whose mission was to tear all gods down. But I think that both [MENTION=6799436]MG.0[/MENTION] and myself meant a somewhat more nuanced character.

I don't really feel that most faithful characters would have their faith rocked to its core by one person they met who defied the divinity of the gods. I would imagine most would look on them with either pity or amusement, or a mixture of those two. A faithless person would have to really go out of their way for a cleric to actually perceive them as a threat to the gods.

To use a modern analogy, I see the faithful as voters in an election...they've chosen their candidate and support him/her. The faithless character chooses not to vote...perhaps out of apathy or out of disgust for the system or maybe because he can't bring himself to pick any of the options. Now, the voter may have a strong opinion about the non-voter, but I wouldn't expect him to view him as a dangerous dissident that was a threat to all of democracy except in extreme circumstances.

The thing is even if your name is Elminster I still don't believe you actually can tear down the Wall of the Faithless. And you might be a heathen but you get a lot of slack from me because of your second character trait. That you're brave enough and strong enough to stand shoulder to shoulder with me while we face down Orcus. I know why you want the Wand of Orcus - and when and if we kill him I'm going to try to keep it from you - and you know this as well as I do. But that assumes we can kill Orcus first. And there are maybe three other people I'd trust to stand beside me and attempt to kill Orcus.

Yes, we have our disagreements. Major ones. But there's so much more and so much more immediate that we don't disagree on that we've probably been working together and friends for years. We're friends, with a friendship forged in fire.

I just wanted to point out that this is a great example.

 

[Phantarch]

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.

I drive on the right side of the road in the United States, so it makes absolutely no sense that I can't drive on the right side of the road in England.

That argument doesn't hold up because they are completely different locations with completely different laws and rules. The reasons for those are many, nuanced, and varied, but it doesn't do you a whole lot of good to cite American law in an English court or vice versa.

Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk aren't even in the same universe; they are on completely different planes of existence. Expecting them to have the same rules seems like a bit of a stretch to me. In real world physics, there are hypothetical arguments that alternate universes in the multiverse may have completely different laws of physics and not function at all like our universe. Why would we expect metaphysics to remain constant across the multiverse?

Now, I'm not really familiar with Planescape material. How many different prime material planes are actually presented? Are the metaphysics of each one presented exactly like Greyhawk? Does Forgotten Realms really standout as the one exception?

When I compare D&D campaign settings that I'm familiar with, there really isn't any sort of consistency to the afterlife. Greyhawk follows the Great Wheel model where souls go to their alignment planes. Forgotten Realms is a modified version where all souls go to the fugue plane first. Dark Sun has everyone go to the Grey with NO hope of going past that (and no gods). Eberron has Dolurrh which seems about the same as the Grey, except that numerous religions preach that your soul will be joined with your deity in the after-afterlife, though there is no tangible evidence of that. (If anything, Greyhawk stands out as not having a crappy, depressing place as the first stop of your soul).

In short, I think there are plenty of arguments for allowing the Forgotten Realms to stand alone without holding it up to the standard of Greyhawk or Planescape. The more compelling argument to me are the different continents on Toril that apparently have different afterlives. That, to me, is probably a result of trying to force different campaign settings onto a single world, which is really just poor design choice.

Anyway, I should clarify that I have no problems with a character deciding the wall is evil and wanting to destroy it. I just think there are going to be in world consequences, and the character shouldn't be surprised if the common people view him as a heretic. Now, I might get annoyed if the same player played every single character in the Forgotten Realms as having the same views and goals, but I still wouldn't outright ban it. I also am of the camp that their are plenty of ways for a devout character and an atheist to work together. Heck, I think it'd be hilarious roleplaying to have the cleric give a little dig with each healing spell. "Guess you needed some divine help, afterall..." I'm also totally fine with the campaign ideas of rescuing the people from Toril and its crazy gods. Go for it!

What I have been arguing against is the concept that there is no justification for the metaphysics of the Forgotten Realms and that it is inherently wrong. A lot of the arguments in this thread have seemed less "I should be able to play an atheist character" and more "playing a good, devout character is impossible". As such, I have tried to present numerous explanations and justifications for how the metaphysics can be interpreted in such a way that allows for good and devout characters.

And, as I said, I find statements of "that is wrong" to be boring. It is far more interesting to take seemingly incongruous facts and try to make a cohesive whole out of it.

Fact: The Good gods are good.
Fact: Faithless are tormented and put into the Wall.

Easy and boring: That is wrong.
Complex, interesting, and entertaining: How can I make this work?

 

[I'm A Banana]

I drive on the right side of the road in the United States, so it makes absolutely no sense that I can't drive on the right side of the road in England.

If driving on the right side of the road caused innocent people to suffer for eternity - even if it was a minority of people - don't you think there'd be people who objected to right-side-road driving?

Even if all the lawmakers decreed that it was necessary because otherwise there would be chaos, don't you think it'd be important - even necessary - for those who cared about the suffering of others to do something about that law? Or should they accept it as the way things must be because it is the way things are?

After all, someone put that law in place. It was chosen, perhaps at the creation of our body of laws, perhaps by one venal and wicked lawmaker, but other choices are possible. I mean, England clearly made another choice. Some of our lawmakers are even originally from these other places, many of which don't require that you cause eternal human suffering on your way to work in the morning.

That's FR's situation, using your analogy.

That argument doesn't hold up because they are completely different locations with completely different laws and rules. The reasons for those are many, nuanced, and varied, but it doesn't do you a whole lot of good to cite American law in an English court or vice versa.

But you can change law. Laws, like FR's soul arrangement, were put in place by powerful people, and if there is reason to change it, they can and do change. And the reason is that wailing, moaning, suffering bit of mortar that yesterday was a dragonborn paladin who was saving orphans from being drowned by night hags.

Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk aren't even in the same universe; they are on completely different planes of existence. Expecting them to have the same rules seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

As the setting has been written, that's not really true. FR is home to LOTS of links to other worlds - many of the gods are even from other worlds, Greyhawk among them. It's more like Toril is one planet among many in the same cosmos, with Greyhawk being another one, and there's also gates that link them together and wizards can travel between them and spelljammers can flow in the space that separates them. This doesn't even involve going to other settings - FR does plenty of this in things with FR's own name on 'em.

But even if it WAS true, there's every reason to suspect that the current set up of souls is a scenario that can and should change.

When I compare D&D campaign settings that I'm familiar with, there really isn't any sort of consistency to the afterlife. Greyhawk follows the Great Wheel model where souls go to their alignment planes. Forgotten Realms is a modified version where all souls go to the fugue plane first. Dark Sun has everyone go to the Grey with NO hope of going past that (and no gods). Eberron has Dolurrh which seems about the same as the Grey, except that numerous religions preach that your soul will be joined with your deity in the after-afterlife, though there is no tangible evidence of that. (If anything, Greyhawk stands out as not having a crappy, depressing place as the first stop of your soul).

FR, according to its own material, shares a cosmos with Greyhawk (or "D&D," in 5e). Dark Sun, likewise (there's githyanki and planar travel and different Ages and whatnot). Eberron...not so much.

In short, I think there are plenty of arguments for allowing the Forgotten Realms to stand alone without holding it up to the standard of Greyhawk or Planescape. The more compelling argument to me are the different continents on Toril that apparently have different afterlives. That, to me, is probably a result of trying to force different campaign settings onto a single world, which is really just poor design choice.

Whether you agree with it or not, it's how FR presents itself. If you're talking about FR as a setting and not as you might play it, part of that baggage is that it is one of many worlds in a cosmos.

What I have been arguing against is the concept that there is no justification for the metaphysics of the Forgotten Realms and that it is inherently wrong. A lot of the arguments in this thread have seemed less "I should be able to play an atheist character" and more "playing a good, devout character is impossible". As such, I have tried to present numerous explanations and justifications for how the metaphysics can be interpreted in such a way that allows for good and devout characters.

And, as I said, I find statements of "that is wrong" to be boring. It is far more interesting to take seemingly incongruous facts and try to make a cohesive whole out of it.

Fact: The Good gods are good.
Fact: Faithless are tormented and put into the Wall.

Easy and boring: That is wrong.
Complex, interesting, and entertaining: How can I make this work?

One of the ways you can make it work is by having the Good gods conspire to kill Kelemvor and tear down thew Wall, knowing that it is wicked, possibly going against Ao in the process.

That makes a more interesting story than "This is just the way it works, accept it!" does.

 

[Mirtek]

Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk aren't even in the same universe; they are on completely different planes of existence.

they aren't. They're on the same and only Material plane in different crystal spheres

 

[MG.0]

they aren't. They're on the same and only Material plane in different crystal spheres

While Toril, Oerth, Krynn, and probably Athas share the same material plane...whether or not there are other material planes depends on the reference material and edition. How you might travel to those alternates has changed over time too.

Spelljammer added an interesting twist to the default cosmology by introducing the Phlogiston: a part of the prime material existing between the crystal spheres; cut off from all other planes and impenetrable to gods and their magic.

 

[Phantarch]

If driving on the right side of the road caused innocent people to suffer for eternity - even if it was a minority of people - don't you think there'd be people who objected to right-side-road driving?

Even if all the lawmakers decreed that it was necessary because otherwise there would be chaos, don't you think it'd be important - even necessary - for those who cared about the suffering of others to do something about that law? Or should they accept it as the way things must be because it is the way things are?

After all, someone put that law in place. It was chosen, perhaps at the creation of our body of laws, perhaps by one venal and wicked lawmaker, but other choices are possible. I mean, England clearly made another choice. Some of our lawmakers are even originally from these other places, many of which don't require that you cause eternal human suffering on your way to work in the morning.

That's FR's situation, using your analogy.


But you can change law. Laws, like FR's soul arrangement, were put in place by powerful people, and if there is reason to change it, they can and do change. And the reason is that wailing, moaning, suffering bit of mortar that yesterday was a dragonborn paladin who was saving orphans from being drowned by night hags.

And all of that, I'm OK with. Those are all in-world arguments. The point of my analogy was that the flaw in reasoning is arguing that because something is a certain way in one place it should be in another place.

As the setting has been written, that's not really true. FR is home to LOTS of links to other worlds - many of the gods are even from other worlds, Greyhawk among them. It's more like Toril is one planet among many in the same cosmos, with Greyhawk being another one, and there's also gates that link them together and wizards can travel between them and spelljammers can flow in the space that separates them. This doesn't even involve going to other settings - FR does plenty of this in things with FR's own name on 'em.

But even if it WAS true, there's every reason to suspect that the current set up of souls is a scenario that can and should change.

FR, according to its own material, shares a cosmos with Greyhawk (or "D&D," in 5e). Dark Sun, likewise (there's githyanki and planar travel and different Ages and whatnot). Eberron...not so much.

Whether you agree with it or not, it's how FR presents itself. If you're talking about FR as a setting and not as you might play it, part of that baggage is that it is one of many worlds in a cosmos.

And I am admittedly out of my element here. All of the baggage of published settings is why I typically do homebrew settings. It's frustrating to think that somebody should HAVE to take into consideration 40 years of multiple campaign settings across multiple editions to make sense of a single campaign setting.

I'm still not convinced that even the interconnectedness of the various worlds and crystal spheres necessitates a sameness in metaphysics, nor that it places culpability on the faerunian gods by having a different setup. However, I haven't the time nor the inclination to research Spelljammer, Planescape, et. al. to formulate a counter argument, so I will defer.

My interest lies in this question: Can an insular, unattached campaign setting have the afterlife setup of the forgotten realms and still have good deities?

One of the ways you can make it work is by having the Good gods conspire to kill Kelemvor and tear down thew Wall, knowing that it is wicked, possibly going against Ao in the process.

That makes a more interesting story than "This is just the way it works, accept it!" does.

And I fully agree that having the Good gods conspire against Kelemvor is a solution and interesting.

I hope that I haven't come across as saying "this is just the way it works, accept it!". That is as boring to me as "It's just wrong". I have rather been trying to offer scenarios in which the current setup could be justified. I'm not trying to invalidate the solution of having the Wall torn down as evil, so much as I'm trying to say that this isn't the ONLY way to play forgotten realms.