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

[Mirtek]

Bzw i would not usw Drizzt as an example, as Salvatore clearly doesn't seem to like the FR afterlive and just ignores it in his novels and Drizzt philosophical musings

 

[Tony Vargas]

Most non-theistic religions, and most polytheistic religions. In fact, the historical norm is to not really care about what one believed in - it was about the rules you followed.

OK, with that distinction, I see the point.

 

[jrowland]

Worse, people are punished to the Wall for only giving lip-service to their gods, so not only do you have to "check a box" but you have to earnestly follow their rules, which is absolute BS in my book.

No RAW for you!

 

[Shasarak]

Nah, the idea is that I might want to follow a god who understands the concept of Justice, and isn't cool with good people who accomplish noble deeds in life being given awful, eternal afterlives.

I am sure that Gods understand the concept of bad things happening to good people.

I mean, this is real life not some kind of made up fantasy game! =;o)

 

[Alzrius]

Why, oh why can't the Realms be politically correct for atheists?

Yeah, that's about what I took away from this too.

As it is, I can understand not liking something because it doesn't mesh with your personal feelings about how something "should" be, but I consider one of the main points of role-playing to be stepping outside of that for a little while.

Two questions for folks involved in the discussion here....

First, do we know that becoming part of the wall is a form of suffering? I forget how it's described and I don't have my SCAG on hand...but does it imply or implicitly state that this fate is painful? Or is it just a form of oblivion? Like it happens but the soul is no longer even aware of it?

No, it's explicitly said to be cause the souls involved to suffer. This was mentioned in the novel Prince of Lies, when Cyric placed Gwydion the Quick (who was technically one of the False, not the Faithless) in the Wall for a time just to spite Torm.

Second, is this common knowledge to folks in the Realms?

That's less certain, at least insofar as I'm aware, but I'd suspect that it is. This is a commonality for all of Faerun's religions, so it probably comes up in everyday religious life in at least some capacity.

 

[Xvartslayer]

OK, with that distinction, I see the point.

It is true that in Republican Rome religion was a civic duty and not usually subjected to metaphysical naval-gazing. And if another culture - say Greek or Roman - had a particularly powerful or helpful deity he or she or it was often welcome to come join the club. But the reality of Supernatural Others was taken as an a priori point of fact and to reject this in your public life was very, very transgressive. The distinction between true, internalized faith and mere lip service was also not particularly relevant. If Jupiter wanted you to sacrifice a bull you sacrificed a bull. He didn't sit down with you afterwards to discuss your feelings and intentions. This is not much different that in the Realms.

Ultimately, if I were planning a campaign in which the gods played a meaningful and particular role and a player responded with "I want to be an atheist" or "I want to worship a god that meets my particular concept of justice and your gods are jerks" I would assume the player is not prepared to give the minimum level of buy-in necessary to enjoy that campaign and invite him to sit it out or run his own.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yeah, that's about what I took away from this too.

As it is, I can understand not liking something because it doesn't mesh with your personal feelings about how something "should" be, but I consider one of the main points of role-playing to be stepping outside of that for a little while.

No, it's explicitly said to be cause the souls involved to suffer. This was mentioned in the novel Prince of Lies, when Cyric placed Gwydion the Quick (who was technically one of the False, not the Faithless) in the Wall for a time just to spite Torm.

That's less certain, at least insofar as I'm aware, but I'd suspect that it is. This is a commonality for all of Faerun's religions, so it probably comes up in everyday religious life in at least some capacity.

Okay, cool, thanks for the info. I think I read some of those post-avatar novels, but not all of them, and it was years ago.

Nothing more recent, though? From what I recall, the SCAG is fairly vague about it.

As for the workings of the afterlife, I would just assume the broad strokes are what are known by the average person in the Realms, and something like the Wall and all of that might require some level of education or experience. But it's open to interpretation it seems.

 

[Pauper]

Jumping in late to the conversation here, but I seem to recall reading somewhere (forget where, sadly) that the Wall of the Faithless means something different now than it did when Myrkul created it.

Myrkul, as an evil god of the dead, created the Wall to give him a punishment he could assign to souls that weren't sufficiently devout -- since the souls weren't particularly devout, no deity would stand against Myrkul to challenge his judgment.

However, following the Time of Troubles, Ao the Overgod decreed that the gods would have to enter a covenant with their worshippers -- as the gods derived power from the worship of mortals, so too would the gods need to protect and guide their worshippers to be worthy of that power. As such, the Wall became an active symbol of that covenant -- if a soul was sufficiently devout to provide power to the Faerunian gods, then Kelemvor would assign that soul to an appropriate afterlife.

But if the soul is Faithless? A soul that isn't providing power to the gods via worship is a soul that violates the covenant between the gods and their worshippers. That soul isn't going to be rewarded; it's going to be slapped into the Wall of the Faithless, where all the other souls can look and see what the penalty is for failing to support the Covenant of the Overgod.

It should be noted that the SCAG adds a nice wrinkle to this -- instead of having devils that raid the Fugue Plane looking for souls to drag away into the Hells, Asmodeus now has devils that canvas the Fugue Plane looking for souls that might worry about being Faithless and offers his patronage, recruiting them directly into the infernal hierarchy. As a bonus, they don't even have to wait to be judged by Kelemvor, but go directly to Hell, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

--
Pauper

 

[Sunseeker]

It should be noted that the SCAG adds a nice wrinkle to this -- instead of having devils that raid the Fugue Plane looking for souls to drag away into the Hells, Asmodeus now has devils that canvas the Fugue Plane looking for souls that might worry about being Faithless and offers his patronage, recruiting them directly into the infernal hierarchy. As a bonus, they don't even have to wait to be judged by Kelemvor, but go directly to Hell, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

--
Pauper

I am now convinced the best option to not believing is to become a Warlock, or I guess straight-up sell your soul if they're offering full demonhood.

 

[Mirtek]

JIt should be noted that the SCAG adds a nice wrinkle to this -- instead of having devils that raid the Fugue Plane looking for souls to drag away into the Hells, Asmodeus now has devils that canvas the Fugue Plane looking for souls that might worry about being Faithless and offers his patronage, recruiting them directly into the infernal hierarchy. As a bonus, they don't even have to wait to be judged by Kelemvor, but go directly to Hell, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

Actually that's not new. Devils already did that at least since 3e and probably 2e. Demons were the ones raiding the plane and dragging away any soul (including faithful or alread mortated in) they could get hold off, while devils ware selling their contracts and even did some work withing the walls of the city of the dead