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

[Alzrius]

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.

You're right not to be convinced. There are metaphysical differences in several of the official campaign worlds.

There's the issue of the Fugue Plane and the Wall of the Faithless for the crystal sphere around Realmspace (though only for those who worship the Faerunian pantheon).

In the crystal sphere around Athas, the Border Ethereal is completely replaced by the Gray (and, within the Gray, the Black). Everyone who dies on Athas goes to the Gray, where they lose their memories and exist in the same dreary afterlife regardless of how they lived their lives.

In the crystal sphere around Aebrynis (the planet of the Birthright setting), there's the Shadow World (also apparently replacing the Border Ethereal). It doesn't affect the metaphysics of the afterlife, but it's still a fairly major departure from how things work in most crystal spheres.

In the Clusterspace crystal sphere (from The Astromundi Cluster boxed set) a group of wizshades have linked themselves to the fabric of the crystal sphere, making it impossible to physically leave unless you're riding on a living ship. Planar travel is also affected, in that if you go to another plane, when you return to the Material Plane you must re-enter Clusterspace; you can't use the planes to hop from one Material Plane world to another.

Mystara was kicked over to AD&D 2E towards the end of its life, with its deities appearing as living on the Outer Planes. Presuming that the rest of the setting is kept as-is, that makes it notable that all of its gods are former mortals, and there's a semi-formalized process for helping new mortals ascend, even if it's only rarely completed.

This can be summarized by The Planewalker's Handbook, for Planescape, which notes that Material Plane worlds are all very different, and that it's dangerous to go to one assuming it's just like every other world.

 

[Mirtek]

There's the issue of the Fugue Plane and the Wall of the Faithless for the crystal sphere around Realmspace (though only for those who worship the Faerunian pantheon).

They're still there, people from other areas just don't go there. You could go from Greyhawk to the Fugue, you'd just be bored there

 

[Hussar]

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.

/snip

See, no, I disagree. We're not talking about some minor disagreement here. We're talking about one character denying another character's complete belief system. And, not only that, but having the stated goal that if the character ever has the opportunity, that character will tear down the other character's belief system. If the only reason we're keeping the faithless character around is to be a "meat shield" why would we not get a meat shield that we could actually count on and trust? It's not like a given character isn't replaceable.

To go back to your gnome character. There's a very salient point there. Yup, he's a god defying character. He's also insane. It makes his defiance of the gods somewhat suspect when he's wearing his underpants on his head. It would be very interesting to see what that character would believe if his insanity was ever cured - through a Heal spell (does that still cure insanity in 5e?) or whatnot. Would he still believe what he believes if he wasn't insane?

So, sure, if your background is, "Yeah, I defy the gods and all they stand for, but, I'm also crazier than a bag of rats and about as reliable as a cardboard hammer" then, no worries. It's not like anyone is going to take your beliefs seriously, regardless of what those beliefs are. I was thinking more in a case of a group where the characters are being played straight. I'm still wondering why a group would accept someone whose stated goals are pretty much what people burn people at the stake for. "Oh, he's a heretic, but that's okay, he kills orcs good" doesn't ring very true to me.

 

[hawkeyefan]

See, no, I disagree. We're not talking about some minor disagreement here. We're talking about one character denying another character's complete belief system. And, not only that, but having the stated goal that if the character ever has the opportunity, that character will tear down the other character's belief system. If the only reason we're keeping the faithless character around is to be a "meat shield" why would we not get a meat shield that we could actually count on and trust? It's not like a given character isn't replaceable.

To go back to your gnome character. There's a very salient point there. Yup, he's a god defying character. He's also insane. It makes his defiance of the gods somewhat suspect when he's wearing his underpants on his head. It would be very interesting to see what that character would believe if his insanity was ever cured - through a Heal spell (does that still cure insanity in 5e?) or whatnot. Would he still believe what he believes if he wasn't insane?

So, sure, if your background is, "Yeah, I defy the gods and all they stand for, but, I'm also crazier than a bag of rats and about as reliable as a cardboard hammer" then, no worries. It's not like anyone is going to take your beliefs seriously, regardless of what those beliefs are. I was thinking more in a case of a group where the characters are being played straight. I'm still wondering why a group would accept someone whose stated goals are pretty much what people burn people at the stake for. "Oh, he's a heretic, but that's okay, he kills orcs good" doesn't ring very true to me.

I honestly feel like you didn't read the post you quoted.

Edited to add that I don't mean that in a snarky way...I genuinely think you may have missed his point. Sorry if it came across wrong.

 

[Neonchameleon]

See, no, I disagree. We're not talking about some minor disagreement here. We're talking about one character denying another character's complete belief system. And, not only that, but having the stated goal that if the character ever has the opportunity, that character will tear down the other character's belief system.

I'm an atheist. I have Christian friends. I'm not going to say on this forum what I think of certain Christian teachings (even in Geek Talk and Media they'd be incendiary) - but I went out with an extremely devout Catholic for years. The core difference would be little bigger.

If it works in the real world (and it does) to say it doesn't in the fictional world is counterfactual.

To go back to your gnome character. There's a very salient point there. Yup, he's a god defying character. He's also insane. It makes his defiance of the gods somewhat suspect when he's wearing his underpants on his head.

And this is your perception of that character. "The gods aren't worthy of worship" is a value statement, not insanity.

So, sure, if your background is, "Yeah, I defy the gods and all they stand for, but, I'm also crazier than a bag of rats and about as reliable as a cardboard hammer" then, no worries. It's not like anyone is going to take your beliefs seriously, regardless of what those beliefs are. I was thinking more in a case of a group where the characters are being played straight. I'm still wondering why a group would accept someone whose stated goals are pretty much what people burn people at the stake for. "Oh, he's a heretic, but that's okay, he kills orcs good" doesn't ring very true to me.

See my example upthread. "Oh, he's a heretic" applies to every single CN/CE thief in any party with good characters ever. And a CE Thief is far more of a danger to the party than a maltheist.

 

[Hussar]

I honestly feel like you didn't read the post you quoted.

Edited to add that I don't mean that in a snarky way...I genuinely think you may have missed his point. Sorry if it came across wrong.

No, I get it. The group is supposed to be a team. I totally agree with this and I'm a big fan of creating groups together as a group and not in isolation. Unfortunately, in my group, I'm pretty much the only person who apparently feels this way, so, we wind up with groups that are a bit more ... idiosyncratic ... than I might be 100% comfortable with. However, we have made it work rather well. So, MG0's point that a groups can make things work, even with wildly disparate characters, is true.

So, yes, you could certainly lampshade the issue and just not make it a big deal. I do not like that solution because it cheapens the divine classes. I hate it when people play clerics as just fighters with healing spells. If you're a spell casting member of a faith, that makes you pretty darn important. Being casual about your faith makes that seem too cheap and easy. Which brings me back around to really questioning why a theist character would willingly adventure, endangering not only his own life but the life of others, in the company of someone who's stated goals make him an enemy of the theist character's faith.

In our Dragonlance campaign it works because the atheist character is also insane. His atheism is just an outgrowth of his obvious insanity. He's just a poor unfortunate and rather confused individual. He's not an enemy of the faith, he's just sick. Fair enough. At least, that's pretty much what the rest of the group thinks.

I'm getting the sense though, that that's not going to work as a solution in most groups. Playing a character who has stated goals that are going to destroy another character's belief system is not going to lead to party cohesion. At some point in the game, that's going to come to a head. In the Realms, not having a god is a bad thing. The belief is, that this is a bad thing. Removing the Wall is a very bad thing - this has been proven already. A character whose goals are to remove or circumvent the Wall is basically telling the theist character that everything he believes about his god and his afterlife is ballocks and needs to be torn down. A character who acts on those goals is directly trying to destroy elements of the other character's faith.

This is going to be a problem.

 

[Hussar]

I'm an atheist. I have Christian friends. I'm not going to say on this forum what I think of certain Christian teachings (even in Geek Talk and Media they'd be incendiary) - but I went out with an extremely devout Catholic for years. The core difference would be little bigger.

If it works in the real world (and it does) to say it doesn't in the fictional world is counterfactual.

With one very big difference. In the fictional world, we KNOW that the teachings of faith are true. These aren't beliefs that the gods exist or the Wall is there or whatnot. These are actual facts. So, I'd say the difference is considerably bigger. If your extremely devote Catholic partner was regularly creating miracles, and could actually directly speak to his or her deity, I'm thinking your conversations might be a bit different.

And this is your perception of that character. "The gods aren't worthy of worship" is a value statement, not insanity.

Note @I'maBanana flat out stated that his character was insane. That's not in question. The character is, in fact, insane. From a theist's perspective though, "The gods aren't worthy of worship" isn't a value statement, it's proof of insanity. How could it not be? They are gods. That's not a question. They don't have to be "worthy". Who are you to possibly judge that? ((Note, I'm making an in-character argument here, not actually directly to you)) From a theist character's perspective, thinking the gods aren't worthy is like not believing in the color blue.

See my example upthread. "Oh, he's a heretic" applies to every single CN/CE thief in any party with good characters ever. And a CE Thief is far more of a danger to the party than a maltheist.

And, in most groups, they'd kick the CE thief to the curb. They wouldn't adventure with him. The first time he stole from the party would be the last time. "No evils" is hardly a rare limitation on character creation. "No creating characters with stated goals to tear down other character's belief systems " might not be a common limitation (it's too damn hard to say) but, I'd say it's probably fairly commonly understood.

 

[Scribe]

With one very big difference. In the fictional world, we KNOW that the teachings of faith are true. These aren't beliefs that the gods exist or the Wall is there or whatnot. These are actual facts. So, I'd say the difference is considerably bigger. If your extremely devote Catholic partner was regularly creating miracles, and could actually directly speak to his or her deity, I'm thinking your conversations might be a bit different.
.

This is the difference to me as well. As I noted in my first post, I am atheist, my entire extended family is not. I dont even mention religion around them, as there is literally nothing positive I can say about their world view, and the same for them about mine.

In the FR setting, as a Cleric, I am in the right. Gods exist. If you get to their plane, they are all seeing, all knowing, and all powerful.

I like to think in the Real World, I am also in the right, but hey lets not start my tenure here on the wrong foot.

 

[Neonchameleon]

With one very big difference. In the fictional world, we KNOW that the teachings of faith are true.

Slipping into the voice of such a character.

"Gods you call them? Seriously? I've seen some of Elminster's displays. I've met and taken down a dozen warlocks. You were there, remember. And yes, I know that Mystra is a lot more powerful than I am. A lot more powerful even than Elminster, he says. So ****ing what? That just makes her a powerful being that demands to be worshipped. How are you going to prove that she isn't just a really powerful wizard? Far as I'm concerned, if Elminster wanted to call 'imself a God then I'd not be able to stop 'im. How's your Selene different? And remember we beat up Lolth in the Demonweb Pits. She's apparently a God. Nah, way I see it, God's just another name for a powerful being who wants you to worship it."

Now try and disprove that. The argument isn't that Gods don't exist at all. It's just that they are like super-powerful mages.

If your extremely devote Catholic partner was regularly creating miracles, and could actually directly speak to his or her deity, I'm thinking your conversations might be a bit different.

As they would have been if I could cast spells. Different type of magic.

Note @I'maBanana flat out stated that his character was insane. That's not in question. The character is, in fact, insane. From a theist's perspective though, "The gods aren't worthy of worship" isn't a value statement, it's proof of insanity. How could it not be? They are gods. That's not a question. They don't have to be "worthy". Who are you to possibly judge that?

Someone who doesn't worship Asmodeus, Lovitar, and Velsharoon. And someone who's been through the Demonweb Pits, alongside you, beating up Lolth along the way. I had no idea that rather than spoil the schemes of the worshippers of Cyric you wanted to join them in worship!

You're a bloody hypocrite if you ask who I am to not worship Gods while you try to stop them yourself!

No, stepping back out of character, your entire argument here falls apart. Unless your Paladins really do all worship Tiamat and therefore don't want to stop all her machinations.

((Note, I'm making an in-character argument here, not actually directly to you)) From a theist character's perspective, thinking the gods aren't worthy is like not believing in the color blue.

Then I guess that Q1 Queen of the Demonweb Pits can only be undertaken by atheists. Either that or that in an overtly polytheistic setting with active deities like the Realms, any theist needs to choose which Gods they worship, and which they oppose. Which means that almost every polytheistic PC believes that some of the Gods aren't worthy of worship. At which point it's a short step to "I've yet to run into a God that was."

And, in most groups, they'd kick the CE thief to the curb. They wouldn't adventure with him. The first time he stole from the party would be the last time. "No evils" is hardly a rare limitation on character creation. "No creating characters with stated goals to tear down other character's belief systems " might not be a common limitation (it's too damn hard to say) but, I'd say it's probably fairly commonly understood.

The problem with Chaotic Evil PCs is that they stab you in the back. Characters of opposed beliefs that can work together? Any group I know would consider that an awesome source of drama and be disappointed if the game didn't go on long enough to bring it to the fore.

 

[Hussar]

Slipping into the voice of such a character.

"Gods you call them? Seriously? I've seen some of Elminster's displays. I've met and taken down a dozen warlocks. You were there, remember. And yes, I know that Mystra is a lot more powerful than I am. A lot more powerful even than Elminster, he says. So ****ing what? That just makes her a powerful being that demands to be worshipped. How are you going to prove that she isn't just a really powerful wizard? Far as I'm concerned, if Elminster wanted to call 'imself a God then I'd not be able to stop 'im. How's your Selene different? And remember we beat up Lolth in the Demonweb Pits. She's apparently a God. Nah, way I see it, God's just another name for a powerful being who wants you to worship it."

Now try and disprove that. The argument isn't that Gods don't exist at all. It's just that they are like super-powerful mages.

When super powerful mages die, reality doesn't fall apart. When there was no god of death, everyone stopped dying. When Mystra came about, it was to stop magic from leaving the Realms and the Weave from being destroyed. When Tymora was trapped, Volo stopped having luck - his random chance ceased to exist. Imagine what the actual consequences of a purely deterministic universe would be for just a moment.

That's why you worship the gods. Because if you don't, reality falls apart. Literally.

As they would have been if I could cast spells. Different type of magic.



Someone who doesn't worship Asmodeus, Lovitar, and Velsharoon. And someone who's been through the Demonweb Pits, alongside you, beating up Lolth along the way. I had no idea that rather than spoil the schemes of the worshippers of Cyric you wanted to join them in worship!

You're a bloody hypocrite if you ask who I am to not worship Gods while you try to stop them yourself!

No, stepping back out of character, your entire argument here falls apart. Unless your Paladins really do all worship Tiamat and therefore don't want to stop all her machinations.

Why wouldn't they recognise Tiamat as part of the pantheon. Nothing those paladins are doing says, "Tiamat isn't a god, nor is she worthy of devotion". That doesn't mean we'll allow her to take over the world, but, just like in any pantheon, there are gods that people don't like very much, but are still part of the pantheon.

Then I guess that Q1 Queen of the Demonweb Pits can only be undertaken by atheists. Either that or that in an overtly polytheistic setting with active deities like the Realms, any theist needs to choose which Gods they worship, and which they oppose. Which means that almost every polytheistic PC believes that some of the Gods aren't worthy of worship. At which point it's a short step to "I've yet to run into a God that was."

You're confusing issues here. Recognising something as a god and as part of the pantheon does not equal patronage. Again, nothing, not one single note in Q1 says anything to cast in doubt that Lolth is a god of the drow. That she isn't my god doesn't change anything. No one has to worship all the gods equally. That's not an issue at all.

The problem with Chaotic Evil PCs is that they stab you in the back. Characters of opposed beliefs that can work together? Any group I know would consider that an awesome source of drama and be disappointed if the game didn't go on long enough to bring it to the fore.

We're not talking about simply opposed beliefs here though. You're a priest of X and I'm a paladin of Y and we have friction because of it. Fair enough. Great role play. I'm a character whose stated goal is to murder your god (which is what would happen if people stopped worshipping - if I'm right and the gods are not worthy of worship, they die) is a little more than a opposed belief.