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

[MG.0]

...each DM's Realms is their own. Even among the published materials there is a lot of inconsistencies and incompatibilities...

We all have to pick and choose what we keep and what we throw out based on the game books.

This. A thousand times, this.

Pick what you like. Toss the rest. There is no "standard" Realms to compare your campaign to.

 

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

Good point.

That, and when it comes to the Realms even the most dry, direct statements about the setting as found in sourcebooks are open to interpretation.

 

[Hussar]

This. A thousand times, this.

Pick what you like. Toss the rest.

I'd 100% agree with this.

There is no "standard" Realms to compare your campaign to.

This, not so much. If we're simply going to start comparing home games, we'd have to establish lengthy baselines every single conversation and have to do so for discussions with every single other player we talk about.

If I say "I'm playing in FR", it's probably safe to assume that there is a Cormyr and a Waterdeep and a bajillion gods that govern the physics of the setting. If I want to depart from that, I should state so up front that that's what I'm doing.

Note, this entire conversation has been about canon FR. About trying to pin down exactly what that canon is. Now, for my home game, I can do whatever I please and I'd probably go back to the idea that the Wall is there to keep the Far Realms out. Something I mentioned way back at the beginning of this thread. But, for the purposes of discussing the Realms with other people, I certainly can't assume that my version of the Wall is anything other than my version of the Wall.

It's like when you try to discuss game rules. If I say I'm playing Edition X, it's safe to assume that the RAW of Edition X is what we're talking about. I've seen far too many conversations entirely derailed by people trying to pass of their version of the rules as what the rules actually say. It leads to far too much confusion. We need a common baseline to start from and then we can go from there.

 

[MG.0]

This, not so much. If we're simply going to start comparing home games, we'd have to establish lengthy baselines every single conversation and have to do so for discussions with every single other player we talk about.

If I say "I'm playing in FR", it's probably safe to assume that there is a Cormyr and a Waterdeep and a bajillion gods that govern the physics of the setting. If I want to depart from that, I should state so up front that that's what I'm doing.

Note, this entire conversation has been about canon FR. About trying to pin down exactly what that canon is.

That very canon is a nebulous thing, full of vague descriptions, incompatible ideas, and more. It is incapable of being completely reified - and I would add: That is a good thing. While there might be a city called Waterdeep, it probably doesn't look the same in any two games. Are we talking about the Realms where the Fugue plane is a realm within Hades, or a plane floating in the Astral Sea, or whatever it is now in 5th edition given that the Astral Sea is once again the Astral plane? Is this the Realms where the Negative energy plane doesn't exist, or the one that does, or the one where it did, then didn't, then did again?

But, for the purposes of discussing the Realms with other people, I certainly can't assume that my version of the Wall is anything other than my version of the Wall.

That's what I'm saying.

It's like when you try to discuss game rules. If I say I'm playing Edition X, it's safe to assume that the RAW of Edition X is what we're talking about. I've seen far too many conversations entirely derailed by people trying to pass of their version of the rules as what the rules actually say. It leads to far too much confusion.

I strongly disagree that discussing rules is anything like discussing the nature of a campaign setting. If we were discussing sodas, the former would be disagreeing about the size of a cup, while the latter would be disagreeing about which flavor is best.

We need a common baseline to start from and then we can go from there.

Why? Why do we need a common baseline? What benefit does it give me for my games that a set of deliberately incomplete descriptions does not? How does arguing that the Wall exists and must work the way it is described in some obscure novel help anyone run a game?

 

[Hussar]

Why? Why do we need a common baseline? What benefit does it give me for my games that a set of deliberately incomplete descriptions does not? How does arguing that the Wall exists and must work the way it is described in some obscure novel help anyone run a game?

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...he-Wall-of-the-Faithless/page64#ixzz3vThNpWj9

Because without that common baseline, we're just not speaking the same language. No one is saying that it "must" work a certain way. What's being said is that the Wall has been presented a certain way.

If I say Lolth is a force of good for the Elves and is all about promoting peace and harmony, that could be 100% true in my home game. Maybe I've repurposed Drow and changed their flavour. My Drow are still matriarchal but are now a force of good in the world, using their knowledge and magic to protect the world from the evil, dastardly gnomes that want to burrow up through the floors and eat your children.

I certainly could say that. But, if I go into a conversation about Forgotten Realms that is talking about Lolth and I try to claim this as anything more than my home-brew version of Lolth, i'd be rightly laughed out of the thread. That is not how Lolth has ever been presented, there is no evidence to support my version of Lolth and my version of Lolth runs contrary to every representation of Lolth in the game. Sure, it might be an interesting concept, but, we're not talking about my home game.

Or your home game.

Or Bob's home game.

We're talking about how the material has been presented to the public and trying to reconcile that presentation with other material. Since we're talking about 5e, then using other editions flavour is problematic at best. But, then again, we SHOULD establish that baseline. Earlier in this thread, people talked about using Planescape material (I forget the name of the book) to talk about how souls are dealt with in D&D. So, are we talking about Forgotten Realms or Forgotten Realms plus Planescape? If it's the latter, then I have nothing to add to the conversation because I have little or no knowledge of Planescape.

Recognising the baseline of the conversation is key to being able to contribute anything of value to the conversation. Without that baseline understanding, we're just talking past each other. Does it matter if the Fugue Plane is in Hades, or the Astral Sea or the Astral Plane? I honestly don't know. I don't think it does, but, if it actually does, then that should get established. Are we using Dieties and Demigods gods or Forgotten Realms gods? After all, DDG gods are not powered by faith - they just are. Which makes the Wall completely superfluous and, really, downright nasty. OTOH, in FR, gods are powered by faith, meaning that the Faithless are actually actively harming the gods. Stuffing them in the Wall does make some logical sense then. Not for punishment so much at deterence and also to prevent the Faithless souls from becoming demon food or devil fodder.

So, what, exactly, are we talking about?

 

[hawkeyefan]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] I think that the original question posed was how justified the Wall of the Faithless is as it's presented.

For you, it makes sense for the gods to punish the faithless with the Wall, even if only as a deterrent to keep their system going. Basically to say, worship at least one of us, or else it's the Wall for you.

Which is all well and good. I think the question that [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION] had was how the good deities of the Realms could support such a system.

For purely good beings, would worship be required? Wouldn't they prefer you choose to believe in them or worship them because you believe in the ideas that they personify, not because you don't want to wind up in the wall.

A character would worship Torm because that characters believes in the cause of justice, not because the character was afraid of the Wall. And you would think that as a Good deity, devoted to the causes of justice and loyalty would not allow souls who furthered their cause to suffer for eternity just because he did not do so in Torm's name.

It seems a very flawed system and as interesting as it is, I'd much rather read about folks challenging the system rather than simply accept it as being correct and just, whether the characters are the likes of Torm and Kelemvor, or simple mortal adventurers.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] I think that the original question posed was how justified the Wall of the Faithless is as it's presented.

For you, it makes sense for the gods to punish the faithless with the Wall, even if only as a deterrent to keep their system going. Basically to say, worship at least one of us, or else it's the Wall for you.

Which is all well and good. I think the question that [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION] had was how the good deities of the Realms could support such a system.

For purely good beings, would worship be required? Wouldn't they prefer you choose to believe in them or worship them because you believe in the ideas that they personify, not because you don't want to wind up in the wall.

Why? Since when does personal choice come into this? Why would a good god care that the only reason you chose the path of good was fear of the Wall. From their point of view, that's a net win. You were good, you did good things, you believed in a good god and you promoted the causes of good throughout your life. So you did it because you were afraid of oblivion? Ok, cool. Now here's your everlasting happy afterlife as a reward. Why would Torm, a god of duty and honor give a toss about the idea of personal choice?

A character would worship Torm because that characters believes in the cause of justice, not because the character was afraid of the Wall. And you would think that as a Good deity, devoted to the causes of justice and loyalty would not allow souls who furthered their cause to suffer for eternity just because he did not do so in Torm's name.

Ah ah ah. Careful. You don't suffer for eternity in the Wall - you are granted oblivion. Additionally, so long as you didn't outright deny the gods, you'd still go to Torm's afterlife even though you didn't believe or worship Torm if you are judged by Kelemvor to have been following Torm's teachings throughout your life. All it takes is not outright denying the gods. You don't have to have a patron god in order to not go to the Wall. it is the Wall of the Faithless after all.

It seems a very flawed system and as interesting as it is, I'd much rather read about folks challenging the system rather than simply accept it as being correct and just, whether the characters are the likes of Torm and Kelemvor, or simple mortal adventurers.

It's only a flawed system if you choose to add in alternatives. For someone in FR, there are no other options. The only way you get to your afterlife is through the Fugue plane and part of that is a point where you are judged. End of story. It's like trying to argue that The Lady of Pain is ultimately unfair and we should talk about why don't all the Factions rise up and destroy Her. Or why don't the inhabitants of Dark Sun not simply rise up and destroy the Sorcerer Kings - a force of incredible evil in the setting. Why do the Good Gods allow things like Ravenloft to exist? Heck, why are the Good Gods groovy with all those undead rising up too? They should be hunting down Velsharoon should they not?

I'd much rather try to figure out how to reconcile what the setting actually is saying than try rewriting the setting just to satisfy my own personal moral views and imposing those moral views on the game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Personal choice clearly matters since each of the gods is apparently hoping a given individual chooses to worship them. Aren't they all competing for worship, since that's what powers them?

And I would also imagine, with alignment existing more as a game mechanic, that there are people of varying alignments that worship each god. So it may not be a matter that every follower of a good god is actually good. Some are likely evil, though they may not think of things that way.

So yes, I think intent absolutely matters. My goal for doing something just should be justice, not to receive a reward or avoid a punishment.

So again, their personal choices should matter. How they behave should dictate which god they venerate. And in some cases it seems to...you mention Kelemvor deciding whom a soukd worshipped based on his actions. But even still, many select a Patron deity. So what happens when a soul has venerated both duty and luck in equal measure? Or what happens when a person who worships Helm as his patron deity, but in all ways seems to venerate Tyr? The books would support that there are many such vague cases and that multiple gods may lay claim to a soul for various reasons.

As for the Wall, I believe that it was established earlier in the thread that there is a good deal of suffering as souls are slot ground into oblivion, or something to that effect. My choice of words may not have been exact...but I am also going off what was described in the OP.

As for the system only being flawed if I introduce alternatives....I don't think so. There are several novels about the system being flawed. The setting is presented that way. As I mentioned above, there are many examples in the novels of the gods arguing over souls like spoils, and Kelemvor's whole role seems to be to step in and abdicate such matters.

I am taking what the setting tells me. There is no one presentation that's widely accepted. There are aspects that certainly are, but not the whole. As for the other settings you mentioned...the Lady of Pain is unfair, or at least lays no claim to being fair. And Factions have tried to usurp her power. Many people of Athas have attempted to overthrow the Sorcerer Kings....again, there are novels and game modules about exactly that.

Your point about the undead and Ravenloft is closer to the actual point....the gods do oppose certain things. A god of good would oppose evil, a god of life would oppose the undead...they usually very actively oppose causes antithetical to their own. I think an interpretation that there would be gods who opposed the system in place in favor of one that better fit their idea of good and jusice is a valid interpretation.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

We're talking about how the material has been presented to the public and trying to reconcile that presentation with other material. Since we're talking about 5e, then using other editions flavour is problematic at best. But, then again, we SHOULD establish that baseline. Earlier in this thread, people talked about using Planescape material (I forget the name of the book) to talk about how souls are dealt with in D&D. So, are we talking about Forgotten Realms or Forgotten Realms plus Planescape? If it's the latter, then I have nothing to add to the conversation because I have little or no knowledge of Planescape.

...

So, what, exactly, are we talking about?

I think this is exactly the point about there being no baseline. While I agree in principle that in a given debate or discussion it's good to know the baseline. But in a shared world like the Forgotten Realms, that baseline is nearly impossible to meet. Even in my own campaign.

15 years ago I had every single supplement, novel, article, computer game, etc. published for the Forgotten Realms, and had compiled that information into a combination updated rulebook/index for our campaign. This included Kara-Tur, Zakhara, Maztica, Planescape, and Spelljammer. I knew them in great detail, and had compiled them into an updated group of rulebooks so the rules would be in a single place, and a timeline/index to locate important lore and campaign information that weren't 'rules.'

Today, I'm running 5th edition campaigns using the 5th Ed published supplements, picking and choosing from the 4th ed stuff, and the vast majority of 1st - 3rd edition material that hasn't been superseded by the published 5th ed materials.

In the 4th Edition, the Gods and the planes changed drastically, such as Bane, but then they didn't because there was an article about Bane that said it wasn't the same Bane as the one in the Realms, etc. Beyond that, the interpretation of the many (contradicting) sources is a huge part of determining what is 'canon' in the Realms.

With the vast amount of material published for the Realms, along with Wizards officially indicating that everything previously published is considered 'official' - but your campaign may be based in the Arcane Age, or the Gray Box Age, or the Current Age, or 4th Edition Age. Short of everybody listing which supplements they own/use I'm not sure how you come up with a baseline.

My preference is to discuss my interpretation, why it works for us, and learn about others interpretation to see what I can steal, or what helps me clarify my interpretation. I often learn about written material that I have long since forgotten. I share because my interpretation might help others. Even if they don't like my interpretation, it helps them figure out what works for them.

To me, the input of everybody has value, as long as it's presented in goodwill. If you don't have the Planescape material, that doesn't invalidate your opinion because even for those that do, we can always learn something, and there are a great many who don't have it either. So learning how things work in your campaign without the Planescape material has benefit.

I always approach published materials from the concept of 'this is what is reported or known' by those writing it as if they lived there. For example, there have been many maps published over the years, and they don't all agree or cover the same details. I have no problem with that, each was drawn by a different cartographer, with the information they had at the time. This would be the case with any map purchased in the Realms as well. Think of it as a different newscast or account of the same event by different people.

There is no absolute 'fact' or 'truth' in the published material. Sure there's stuff that all of us pretty much agree with nearly 100%. But the only 'fact' or 'truth' in a Forgotten Realms campaign is that as set forth by the DM. It might be because they actively changed it, or maybe it's just by omission because they missed something or don't own that book.

--

I've always liked the Wall of the Faithless. If this is indeed a universe where a person's actions and faith have a direct impact on their place in the afterlife, and their soul must be claimed by the servants of a particular God. Then there will undoubtedly be those that go unclaimed. The pantheon consists of Gods of every alignment, that are forced into these arrangements and agreements one way or another. Just like we may dislike the human rights violations of a given country, we might still have to conduct trade with them. The faithless are under Kelemvor's domain. Regardless of what the good Gods might believe, he is the only one that can decide what to do with them. Becoming part of the Wall is a law of the 'natural order' constructed within the Realms and its universe and cosmology. Just as the Gods usually do not jump in to save an individual from the law of gravity if they choose to walk off a cliff, they likewise will not interfere with the soul of an individual who has denied their existence.

The realms of the Gods, including the good Gods, are unique in that only a certain group of people based on their actions are qualified to reside there. Their concern for others that have already made the journey to the afterlife is moot. They can't be changed. But they can try to gain more souls on Toril. So their focus and attention would be on the ones they can 'save', not those they can't.

Ilbranteloth

 

[I'm A Banana]

First, some relevant bits I discovered over my break.

1 - Erin M. Evans has written a lot about dragonborn in her books. She probably knows Faerunian DB better than anyone. She answered a question from a fan about DB and the Wall of the Faithless acknowledging that nothing is canonical on it, but laying out a few possibilities:
[sblock]
Do Abeiran souls go to the same afterlife as Torilian souls?
(if) YES. Is their lack of worship still relevant?

• YES. The Wall of the Faithless is full of Abeirans and this is what the Vayemniri expect from their afterlife.
• NO. The gods are scooping up deserving Abeirans from the Fugue Plane, and since they clearly haven’t signaled the rules have changed, they continue to scoop Vayemniri and the Vayemniri continue to live their lives to the best of their abilities, without giving the gods much thought.

(if) NO. Is there an Abeiran afterlife?

• YES. Then the Vayemniri may well go to a kind of limbo state, like a god-less upper plane. A god could step in and claim them, but it would be a hard sell.
• NO. Then the Vayemniri’s souls may be obliterated.
• WELL…SORT OF. The Vayemniri’s souls persist as ghosts that stick around their bodies. Maybe your ancestors literally influence you this way.

[/sblock]

2 - A brief twitter convo with Mike Mearls suggesting that the Good gods are maybe a little mixed about the Wall - it encourages their worship, but they also see the problem with worship out of fear. This implies that a storyline like my proposed one, with the Gods of Good in FR allying with the Fantasy Atheists who want to bring down the Wall, would make a certain amount of sense.

Why would a good god care that the only reason you chose the path of good was fear of the Wall. From their point of view, that's a net win. You were good, you did good things, you believed in a good god and you promoted the causes of good throughout your life. So you did it because you were afraid of oblivion? Ok, cool. Now here's your everlasting happy afterlife as a reward. Why would Torm, a god of duty and honor give a toss about the idea of personal choice?

The idea of worshiping someone out of fear of reprisal is fundamentally incompatible with the idea of respecting their autonomy as individuals, and respecting individual autonomy is part of what defines Good in D&D - it is not Good to force people to worship you. It is not Good to obliterate people who disagree with you. It is not Good to extract what you want by threats. Part of what gives duty its Goodness in D&D is that it's something that people choose freely to do. Honor is Good in Torm's eyes because it is something that you choose freely to act according to. A duty you did not choose or an honor you are forced to accept are not Good. Moreso, gods of justice, of compassion, of mercy, of kindness, of healing, of freedom, of independence...all these gods would have cause to hate the Wall and what it stands for.

If you were only "good" because you HAD to be good, or else, then you weren't really Good. You didn't choose freely to help people because you wanted to help people, you chose to help people because of your own selfish desire to avoid punishment. That seems to matter in D&D in general, and in FR specifically.

For someone in FR, there are no other options

That's not the case - FR is part of the broader D&D multiverse. You can't ignore that and pretend it doesn't matter if you're working with the setting as it is written. There's even FR locals who take other options, actively, canonically.

It's like trying to argue that The Lady of Pain is ultimately unfair and we should talk about why don't all the Factions rise up and destroy Her.

Faction War. Plus most of the history of Sigil. For a suitably game DM, that's absolutely on the table.

Or why don't the inhabitants of Dark Sun not simply rise up and destroy the Sorcerer Kings - a force of incredible evil in the setting.

They did in the fiction, which is why Kalak is dead in 4e, and our own DS game continued the job and reversed the job (but we weren't too concerned with being Good).

Why do the Good Gods allow things like Ravenloft to exist? Heck, why are the Good Gods groovy with all those undead rising up too? They should be hunting down Velsharoon should they not?

Canonically, they do. Their power is limited. Because they're Powerful Wizards, not transcendental immortal beings.