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

[Hussar]

There is a separate but very related issue here.

It's part of the social contract in the game that you (the generic you, not you specifically) will make a character that fits with the setting. Bringing a Jedi to a Dragonlance game is considered, for the most part, to be bad form. The onus is on the player to create a character that works in that setting. In Forgotten Realms, the gods are very, very important. That's fairly obvious - Two of the first three WotC AP's deal directly with gods and cults. I'm not familiar enough with Out of the Abyss to know, but, since we're bombing demon lords into the setting, I imagine that various religious groups are going to be involved in the resolution of the scenario.

Religion matters in Forgotten Realms. The gods are everywhere and they are very active. Now, in a home game, you can certainly ignore this, and fair enough, but, as far as the Realms are presented in published material goes, the gods are very much in the forefront of the setting. My question is, why are you bringing an atheist character into this setting? [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION] talks about how he feels the Wall is unjust. Fair enough, but, it is a fact of the setting. Why bring in a character who's backstory and goals are so out of sync with the setting? And, why would anyone actually expect, or in some cases, practically demand, that this character be allowed to be played in this setting?

In a more home-brew setting where the gods are not such a major element? Sure, I could see this being very interesting. In Eberron, for example, I could easily see this working very well. The gods are distant and don't directly involve themselves in the setting. Cool beans. In Forgotten Realms, why would a cleric not find himself on the outs with his very active deity for helping someone who's stated goals are antithetical to faith? How is adding a character that is very much out of step with the setting a good fit for that setting?

What's the point of playing in a published setting only to create a character that wants to tear down that setting?

 

[sunshadow21]

As far as an atheist and a devout cleric getting along in the same party goes, I am currently in a Star Wars campaign that has a determined Jedi and multiple Sith. The Sith characters cringe everytime that the Republic wardroid under the Jedi's control goes into battle crying out Republic battle cries, but the campaign has somehow managed to last to level 10, and there is no clear end in sight. While there have been many times I have cringed during it, it does work, mostly. The DM has come up with a threat that is larger than the Jedi-Sith conflict giving them reason to work together. When that greater threat is clear and present, it is actually enjoyable; when it's not, we still get through it somehow. So an atheist, even an outspoken atheist, can get along just with a devout cleric; as long as the party is willing to put up with the inevitable tensions when they come up. Personally, it's not a group setup I tend to enjoy, and as a DM, I tend to actively discourage that kind of setup, but there are people who enjoy it, and as long the player understands there are consequences (maybe only getting healed just enough to stay alive or the character not having raise dead cast his corpse), I would be willing to find a way to make it work if I were the player of the cleric.

 

[Cristian Andreu]

Though I don't particularly like the execution of the Wall of the Faithless, I like the concept. It seems fitting than a world ruled by fickle, egotistical deities there would be a similarly unsavoury method of dealing with souls that feel they can ignore them.

I think that hand-waving deities as a character in the Forgotten Realms is a disservice to the story being played; sure, you can do it, but you shouldn't point at the setting if there are consequences because of it. In Athas, no problem; in Ravenloft, ignoring deities is probably the sensible option half the times. But Forgotten Realms is pretty explicit about its powers being an important aspect of the setting, so it's entirely reasonable that the story expects characters to treat said powers as an important aspect of themselves, even if antagonistically.

It's par for the course, I believe.

 

[Phantarch]

Yeah, I'm currently in a 3.5 campaign where I'm a LN Incarnate playing with a CN Incarnate. Our characters HATE each other, but it's fun. My character basically views the other as an expendable but useful tool. I regularly provide him healing, but I also frequently manipulate and encourage situations that put him in mortal danger. Not so much in an attempt to get him killed, but rather risky ventures that further our groups mutual cause. If he succeeds, it's usually a great benefit for us; if he fails, well, no major loss. I do have to say that if he died, I certainly wouldn't expend any resources to get him raised. And this game has gone on intermittently for 8 years.

I think there are plenty of ways to get around an antitheist character in the Forgotten Realms without it coming to blows. I actually think most divine characters would just think such a person was a joke.

Antitheist: "I'm going to tear down the wall of the faithless and kill the gods!"
Cleric: "Hehe...yeah, you do that, Bob. Good luck!"

In fact, a cleric in that situation might just stick around to watch him spectacularly fail, which is pretty much the inevitable outcome. Seriously, though, I don't think any truly devout character would feel that the antitheist is a remote threat at all. Now, if the antitheist starts to imply that he is going to try and kill the cleric, that's another story, but just general metaphysical disagreement? That's not a problem.

I think most clerics of the good deities would try to convince him to rethink his ways, and would likely be merciful, hoping to show their deities goodness and convince him that his hatred of the gods is misplaced. As for neutral and evil deities, they'd probably do what I'm doing in my current campaign. Never underestimate how useful an expendable party member is. A little healing now and again is a small price to pay.

 

[Hussar]

Never underestimate how useful an expendable party member is.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...he-Wall-of-the-Faithless/page57#ixzz3uRi6iun8

You, sir, win the thread for that quote alone.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

Well, that doesn't have to be the case. I mean, in the examples you gave of Mystra and the god of death and Tymora...all were being worshipped, and that didn't stop them from being killed or captured leading to their spheres of influence running amok. Worship didn't restore them either.

Plus, when I play pious characters, they are generally pious not because bad things will happen if they are not, but because good things will happen if they are. Someone doesn't worship Mystra because they don't want a Spellplague to happen....

But here's a thought...just a concept...mortal worshippers empower the gods, right? And the gods then oversee a sphere of some sort...weather, luck, magic, and so on. So mortal belief is actually what controls those spheres. The gods are just the middle men. So perhaps they have this structure in place to keep mortal kind from realizing this.

Just a concept for a campaign or even just how one character might view things. Doesn't mean it has to be the focus of the stories, but it certainly could be if everyone was interested.

What's the point of playing in a published setting only to create a character that wants to tear down that setting?

Tear down would be extreme, and very likely beyond the reach of one PC. If all the players were interested in the concept, then the DM could run with it and design a campaign like the one I described above, or like the ones [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6799436]MG.0[/MENTION] mentioned earlier in the thread.

However, as with any character trait, it has to coincide with what the group wants. If no other player is interested in the concept of challenging the gods, then the focus should be on something else. Same as if one player wanted to destroy the local thieves guild but none of the other players were interested.

It all depends on what the goal of the campaign is...if it's to stop Tiamat from rampaging across Faerun, or to send the Demon Princes back to the Abyss...then you just give the faithless character and the faithful character that mutual goal, and there should be no issue.

It could just be a character's outlook and not the focus of the campaign.

 

[Laznabog]

I am sorry if this was hit on earlier, as this is a very long thread I didn't read a lot of the middle, but I don't understand the problem.

If it is torturous to become part of the wall I think that.....annoying at best. But once you become the wall you essentially cease to exist as a consciousness right? Some people find that idea scary, but others, myself included, find it kind of comforting. This could launch into a long discussion about fears associated with the afterlife or putting extra value into this one, but I am going to try and keep it short and sweet.

Is stopping consciousness rather than having a reward/punishment eternal afterlife such a bad ending?

 

[Scribe]

Is stopping consciousness rather than having a reward/punishment eternal afterlife such a bad ending?

In character answer or not? I think that is a central question about faith and the afterlife period, not just in D&D/FR. For some, yes I have to imagine that would be more than acceptable, but in a setting where there IS an afterlife and it CAN match your perfect version of 'Heaven' if you wish for it to be? I would think that would be fairly terrible.

 

[sunshadow21]

In character answer or not? I think that is a central question about faith and the afterlife period, not just in D&D/FR. For some, yes I have to imagine that would be more than acceptable, but in a setting where there IS an afterlife and it CAN match your perfect version of 'Heaven' if you wish for it to be? I would think that would be fairly terrible.

Why would it be terrible? What if your perfect version of 'Heaven' is oblivion or true, complete, unquestioned rest? It's terrible to our modern sense where individuality is dominant over group identity, but for most of the real life societies that the Realms is based on, there are several positive interpretations one could put on it. One, if someone had a crappy life or felt really guilty about their life choices, chances are they aren't looking forward to an eternal afterlife of any kind, so the Wall with it's loss of identity and/or oblivion probably wouldn't bother them. Two, depending on what they were taught the Wall was for and how strong their sense of community was, many might accept that fate, surrendering their own comfort and identity for the good of the world as a whole. Just because an afterlife is far more likely in the Realms doesn't mean that more people will want it over oblivion and/or the end of their individual consciousness. Real world religions usually offer rather enticing afterlifes as a carrot to get followers, and it's still usually the stick of a bad afterlife that gets people to behave; even that stick isn't enough to get a lot of people's attention. I would imagine life in the Realms wouldn't be terribly different. There would be a lot that would be absolutely drawn to the promise of the afterlife, even more that would prefer a nice afterlife to a bad one, but not enough to change their behavior here and now, and a still notable minority that would prefer oblivion over anything else. I touched upon this earlier before in a limited context, but there are a lot of people that would absolutely not be bothered by the concept of the Wall. Even people who spent their lives doing good and supporting the gods may well appreciate the idea of true rest or oblivion over going to live in the realms of this or that god or that outer plane.

This thread has delved quite deep into how people react to the gods, but very little about how people might react to the thought of an afterlife, and the two issues are not the same. One might reject the gods but want an afterlife, one might reject the gods and want nothing more than oblivion, one might be an active cleric (or even paladin) that wants oblivion/rest when their time on this world is over, or one might be an active cleric that wants to eternally support their god.

 

[MG.0]

But here's a thought...just a concept...mortal worshippers empower the gods, right? And the gods then oversee a sphere of some sort...weather, luck, magic, and so on. So mortal belief is actually what controls those spheres. The gods are just the middle men. So perhaps they have this structure in place to keep mortal kind from realizing this.

Funny, but you sort of hit on something I've actually been doing in a campaign of mine for a long time.

It started with the planes - which are one of my favorite aspects of D&D. (1st/2nd/5th edition arrangment mostly, 3rd and 4th are brain dead IMHO)

First consider this: Why do all the different worlds have different creation myths (sometimes even contradictory ones on the same world), typically involving the entire cosmos and yet we know that the Gods powers are typically restricted to a single world or handful of worlds at best?

I realized that instead of looking at the planes in the traditional sense - where Gods from their homes in the Outer Planes took matter and energy form the Inner Planes and created the Prime Material and all the crystal spheres and all the worlds - it could be seen another way. A way that makes more sense:

The Prime Material came first. It's creation remains a mystery (in so far as I haven't revealed it yet).

At first the Prime Material contained simple matter and energy which grew in complexity as it combined into new forms. The Ethereal plane formed around the Prime as the embodiment of that pure physicality. The Inner Planes then formed, each representing the embodiment of the purest essences on the Prime. Each Inner Plane touching the Prime through the Ethereal. Far flung parts of the Prime connect more closely with different elements. This is why there doesn't seem to be agreement across worlds as to the number of inner planes, with some worlds reporting additional elemental planes like Metal and Wood, and also the para and quasi elemental planes varying in number, arrangement, and nature.

Eventually life arose in the Prime, followed quickly by thought. The Astral plane formed as the embodiment of that thought, just as the Ethereal embodies physicality. The Outer Planes corresponding to the alignments formed as representations of those beliefs. The Great Wheel of connections between them are merely a natural result of the closeness of the beliefs themselves. They have no physical nature whatsoever; they are all purely a state of mind. Other aspects of thought like Dreams, and Madness (aka the Far Realm) naturally formed less structured Outer Planes again reached via the Astral.

This is why the Prime sits at the center, like a spider in a web. It is the source of all. The true beginning.

Now back to the Gods and creation. Energy and matter in the Prime became the Ethereal and Inner Planes, followed by the Primoridals. Life in the Prime possesses thought which became the Astral and the Outer Planes, followed by the Gods. Now we see why the primoridals come first in most creation myths...as the Inner Planes came before the Outer Planes.

The Gods didn't create the universe, or even the world. Rather the reverse.

Mortals are the key to the outer planes. That's why souls travel to the outer planes when they die, as they (both souls and the outer planes) are thought and belief itself. Gods draw power from mortal belief, not in some parasitic fashion, but because they are nothing more than the combined belief itself.

The universe is literally whatever mortals make of it.