PDA

View Full Version : [Forgotten Realms] Understanding The Divine



Archpaladin Zousha
2010-08-17, 05:04 PM
After spending the past few weeks playing Neverwinter Nights 2, I've once again become enamored with the Forgotten Realms setting. But some things have been bugging me as I learn more and more about the setting, namely, the way the gods of the setting behave.

It seems like throughout Faerun's history, the gods were arbitrarily set in charge of things and for the most part seem too focused on their own petty squables or pet projects, rather than providing emotional succor and a kind of community for their followers, which is what a religion is.

The first thing that bugs me is that at times the gods seem to be REALLY stupid.

The two events that spring to mind are during the Time of Troubles, when Mystra got herself killed going up against Helm, because apparently she wanted to tell Ao the identities of the gods who stole the Tablets of Fate personally. This seems incredibly dumb from my point of view. Mystra has been made mortal, and she's up against Helm, who not only the only remaining god, so going up against him is suicidal, but also completely trustworthy and loyal, so she likely'd be able to trust him. Helm even offers to relay Mystra's information to Ao, but Mystra, for some unfathomable reason, decides her information is too important to trust HELM with and attacks him, getting herself killed and passing the torch on to Midnight.

The second is the courtship of Sune described in the Grand History of the Realms. I'm not sure where to start with this. First, there's the fact that Tyr, the embodiment of justice, decides he wants to get all romantic with the fickle-but-well-meaning goddess of love and beauty, with Helm, whom I must state again is trustworthy to the end. I don't understand WHY they would want to do something like this. It's got nothing to do with their duties as gods. Second, apparently Cyric manipulates Tyr into thinking Helm is putting the moves on Sune, causing Tyr to challenge Helm to a duel and killing him. What. The. Hell?! Why would Tyr, literally justice incarnate listen to the words of a raving megalomaniac and noted murderer of gods like Cyric? Cyric is Chaotic Evil, Tyr was Lawful Good. There's no reason for the two of them to even associate! Secondly, why would Tyr deem it necessary to fight Helm. Helm does not decieve. He was so trustworthy that he was the only god allowed to keep his divinity during the Time of Troubles. How could Tyr think for a minute that Helm would lie to him? Finally, this whole thing gets started for the love of a goddess, something that isn't really necessary. The whole thing seems like a pointless melodrama, something gods should be above.

While we're on the subject of Cyric, lets discuss evil gods. Why does Ao keep these guys around? I suppose there's supposed to be a "balance between good and evil" thing, but it seems that evil gods really just exist to screw things up. Cyric has murdered multiple gods at this point, and is now responsible for the single greatest disaster the Realms has ever seen. All he seems to get for these crimes is a slap-on-the-wrist imprisonment. Bane and Myrkul stole the Tablets of Fate, and while they were punished with the rest of the gods, and Myrkul was killed, Bane ended up becoming the Comeback King of the Realms, and many of Myrkul's old creations (The Wall of the Faithless, the Crown of Horns and the Spirit-Eater Curse) still survive and are even supported by the rest of the pantheon. Shar aids and abets all of these, including distracting Azuth with her dancing (again, gods should be above distractions such as these) so Cyric could murder Mystra and cause the Spellplague, and Shar didn't even recieve any sort of punishment for her hand in Mystra's death (plus the death of Azuth when he fell into the Nine Hells and was eaten by Asmodeus). Evil gods seem to exist solely to make devastating bids for Realm-domination, heedless of the destruction they cause to both the people who they command and the people they seek to subjugate, and the gods of good seem either ineffectual or apathetic to these things.

I find it hard to take the gods of Faerun seriously sometimes, since it seems like they don't act like gods, instead acting like superheroes and supervillains from a bad comic book. They show no concern for the harm their actions cause their mortal followers and mortals in general, and act like their melodramas are more important than their duties.

I know that I'm probably generalizing a great deal, since my closest contact with the Realms comes from playing Neverwinter Nights 2 and paging through random FR books from both editions. I've never read any of the FR novels, especially the Avatar series that discusses the Time of Troubles. I know that there are plenty of examples of gods being melodramatic jerks (Greek myth especially) but the gods of Faerun don't seem to be designed with that kind of a theme. They're the engineers of the cosmos, making sure the sun comes up each morning, that gravity works properly and that the dead go to the afterlife, rather than a giant self-absorbed inbred family of degenerates.

dsmiles
2010-08-17, 05:05 PM
Do not attempt to understand the divine (you will get a headache).

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-08-17, 05:12 PM
I've already got one. I'm trying to figure out how to do an FR campaign with such a messed-up bunch of powers-that-be.

Calmar
2010-08-17, 05:33 PM
Gods and religion in FR has nothing in common with real gods and religions. They're simply sources of divine spells and if you manage to kill one (:smallsigh:) you get his portfolio and followers and no one gives a damn. In the words of the Athar from PLANESCAPE: they're nothing more or less than extremely powerful people, not divine and not worth of worship.

In my games I strive to portray the gods similar to the way they work in real mythology: mysterious, subtle, and dignified - no harmful messing with the world, no killing each other on a regular basis and no favoritism of certain "chosen" cranks. :smalltongue:

Aroka
2010-08-17, 05:42 PM
You seem to assume deities are somehow perfect. D&D deities are usually most closely related to Greek or maybe British Celtic/Irish deities, who displayed exceedingly human traits.

And on the other hand you assume that Ao, who probably is perfect, has anything akin to human morality. That would defeat the whole point of him. Why wouldn't he keep the evil gods around? They screw things up, sure, but what's wrong with that, exactly? Ao isn't there to keep up some kind of order or status quo or specific state of things.

Greymane
2010-08-17, 05:46 PM
Welcome, Archpaladin Zousha, to the insanities that is the writing behind the behavior of the Gods of Faerun.

Honestly? I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments. It's something I've struggled with explaining to my players when we've run FR in the past, and something I've given myself a headache over as I bash my head into the wall when I read some of these things.

Most of the glaring problems are the very things you've mentioned, and so I would recommend either finding a less crazy interpretation for the events that happened, which is what I do, or never, ever let your players or the general populace ever find out what dim-witted emotional wrecks the people they pray to on a daily basis are.

Because truly, why wouldn't you spend more time on your followers? Your powers are keyed to how many you have, and the whole reason for the Time of Troubles was because they weren't paying attention to the insipid little mortals.

In short: Running a campaign with simultaneously the greatest number of deities (great flavor for most of them, too), who occasionally act like they were born yesterday? Good luck.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-08-17, 05:48 PM
You seem to assume deities are somehow perfect. D&D deities are usually most closely related to Greek or maybe British Celtic/Irish deities, who displayed exceedingly human traits.
Not exactly perfect, more like representatives of an ideal the average person should strive for if they wish to have a pleasant afterlife.

Which also raises another question. Who in their right mind would willingly worship a god who encourages you to do evil things like torture, kill and steal, and then when you get to the afterlife, you're just eternally tortured for your loyalty?

And on the other hand you assume that Ao, who probably is perfect, has anything akin to human morality. That would defeat the whole point of him. Why wouldn't he keep the evil gods around? They screw things up, sure, but what's wrong with that, exactly? Ao isn't there to keep up some kind of order or status quo or specific state of things.
Then what IS he there for? He just seems to show up and say "Bing! You're powers are gone!" to kick off the Time of Troubles and that's it. If the gods are supposed to be doing their jobs of keeping the natural order safe, then why would he tolerate ones who basically ignore their duties and cause other deities to fail in their duties with catastrophic results?

Mnemnosyne
2010-08-17, 05:59 PM
Realms gods are a very active pantheon. Some of them are jerks. Even the good ones can be jerks sometimes. This is somewhat similar to greek gods where they often screwed with mortals.

Another thing to remember is that many of the gods of the realms are ascended mortals. As Karsus proved, when you become a god, you do not automatically gain knowledge and wisdom suited to the task. You simply become a god. And in this setting there are very few gods that are detached. Most of them have their own intentions and plans, and that's the way they're supposed to be. They can be petty, they can be childish, and they can be wrong. Just like the ancient greek gods, again.

As for some of the situations you question, for the Mystra and Helm one, that one never fully made sense to me either, but it is relatively clearly shown in the Avatar Trilogy that Mystra was aware, even before being cast down, that she would die, and had been preparing Midnight for exactly that reason. Similarly, Mystra herself was prepared and brought up in almost exactly the same way, when Karsus stole Mystryl's power. One of the Arcane Age trilogies shows us Mystra's existence before the Fall, as some sort of specially prepared human. Therefore you could ask the same question about Mystryl - why didn't she just smite Karsus before he instigated the Fall of Netheril by casting Karsus's Avatar? The answer appears to be, because they were aware of the results of their actions and somehow knew them to be necessary. Possible example: Without the Fall, perhaps the Sharn would have been unable to imprison the Phaerimm behind the Sharn Wall, and the Phaerimm would have eventually succeeded. Similarly, perhaps without setting Midnight and the others on their quest, the Dead Three would have accomplished something terrible. Perhaps Ao would have never reinstated the gods, or decided to wipe the slate clean and start over, or something of that nature.

As for the 4th edition stuff, I don't consider it at all. After reading through the 4E realms stuff, it feels like they didn't really even try to keep with the feel of the Realms anymore. A great deal of it, not just the gods part, feels like a complete break from the history we know of the Realms, far beyond any of the twistings and changes that came in 3E.


Which also raises another question. Who in their right mind would willingly worship a god who encourages you to do evil things like torture, kill and steal, and then when you get to the afterlife, you're just eternally tortured for your loyalty?
You're not eternally tortured. You go to that gods realm, and are rewarded with power and authority. Generally speaking. The lower planes are not a punishment for those who have powerful patrons there like gods. They are the appropriate place for such people, an environment perfectly suited to them where they can gain power and continue to be as they have been in life. Only those that tried to be 'good' but didn't make the cut are the ones that tend to wind up tortured in the lower planes.


Then what IS he there for? He just seems to show up and say "Bing! You're powers are gone!" to kick off the Time of Troubles and that's it. If the gods are supposed to be doing their jobs of keeping the natural order safe, then why would he tolerate ones who basically ignore their duties and cause other deities to fail in their duties with catastrophic results?
He's there to maintain an order far beyond that which you're looking at. You're looking at catastrophic results for the people of Faerun, he's considering something far beyond that, a balance on a scale beyond that of the gods and the planes themselves.

QuickComment
2010-08-17, 06:08 PM
It seems like throughout Faerun's history, the gods were arbitrarily set in charge of things and for the most part seem too focused on their own petty squables or pet projects, rather than providing emotional succor and a kind of community for their followers, which is what a religion is.

The first thing that bugs me is that at times the gods seem to be REALLY stupid.

I think what you're describing is not so much the gods being stupid as them being imperfect and occasionally irrational. Sometimes they fall in love and act rashly. Sometimes they trust people who should not be trusted, and sometimes they mistrust people who are trustworthy. (Having established that the gods are fallible, though, it's not at all clear that using the alignment charts and agendas of the gods to decide who is trustworthy is sufficient.)

To most people who have grown up with or around modern, and especially monotheistic, religions, this is a weird way to think about gods. Aren't gods supposed to be better than humans; perfect beings? Aren't they supposed to embody some concept completely?

Well, no, that doesn't seem to be how it works in ancient pantheons (such as the D&D pantheon is mostly modelled after). Gods are respected and worshipped essentially because they are extremely powerful. Of course, you don't say that to their face if you actually believe in them and worship them, so you tend not to hear that said in as many words. But in ancient myth, gods tend to behave distinctly imperfectly. For instance, from Greek myth:

Athena, Greek goddess of, among other things, wisdom, punished a woman for claiming that she was a better weaver than Athena (also the goddess of weaving), when, as it turns out, she actually was and was able to prove it in a weaving contest.
Zeus famously used godly his powers of shapeshifting to seduce/rape various mortal women (e.g. Europa, Leda). Besides the issue of consent being anything from very murky to very clear on the wrong side of the line, Zeus was also married to Hera who did not appreciate all this infidelity.

Now, humans would probably regard Zeus as a pretty trustworthy guy. If there was a guidebook listing for him, he'd probably have some sort of "Pretty Trustworthy Guy" agenda. For instance, he was the "keeper of oaths" and the guy in charge of punishing dishonest traders. However, to another god or goddess , that's not enough: clearly Hera has no good reason to trust hum absolutely.

This sort of imperfection creates potential for misunderstandings and conflict across shifting lines, which makes for more interesting myths, whether the myths are created as a serious attempt to explain the unexplainable or as a fiction for use in roleplaying.

As I see it, the D&D gods are like this. Think of them as rash, impulsive people who are used to getting their way -- very powerful people without a greater society to keep them in check. Don't expect them to be rational, calm or in any way perfect. Specifically, don't expect them to embody their agendas or their alignments perfectly. Expect them to make mistakes and to have major personal failings such as excessive pride and lust. Forget everything you know about Judeo-Christian mythology; these gods are very unlike anything found in that.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-08-17, 08:30 PM
It's kind of hard to reconcile those ideas when you've got gods that embody concepts to a tee. Consider gods like Kelemvor and Helm. They perform their roles exactly as one might expect them to. Helm was the only god during the Time of Troubles to remain a god because he embodied the concept of guardianship and duty so well. Kelemvor found out the hard way that in order to judge the dead, you need to be impartial and willing to do dark things for the sake of the whole, and when you actually encounter him in Mask of the Betrayer, he's pretty damn reasonable. He only kept the Wall of the Faithless around because the other gods demanded that he do so. Tyr is supposed to represent justice, impartial and fair. That's why he's depicted as blind and his name is invoked in courts. How does it make the whole concept of justice look if he turns around and throws a hissy fit over a woman? Kelemvor could be a better god of justice than Tyr!

Tiki Snakes
2010-08-17, 08:48 PM
I'm going to let you in on a little secret, Zousha. Which is to say opinion.
For any ambitious character in Faerun, there is only one possible valid goal.

The Gods Must Die.

Every last one of them needs to be taken down and Ao most of all. The whole system is fundamentally corrupt and it is the moral duty of Mortal-Kind to end the Tyrany of the Divine.
Row Row Fight the Power.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-08-17, 09:07 PM
I've been toying with making the campaign something like that. Like the PCs decide the gods need to get their act together and basically raise enough ruckus in the Outer Planes that Ao is forced to show up and at least parley.

Tiki Snakes
2010-08-17, 09:13 PM
That's when you strike, and just remember....

Aim for the eyes Boo. Aim for the eyes.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-08-17, 09:14 PM
How would someone kill Ao though. I'm pretty sure it's established that he's the FR equivalent of Caine from VtM. The rules for fighting him are "You lose."

Tiki Snakes
2010-08-17, 09:19 PM
How would someone kill Ao though.

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/2046/22jb7.jpg
WITH MY DRILL!

*cough*
I'm not saying it would be easy, but I am going to say that I believe that it's the correct and worthy goal.
And just because everybody knows you can't fight Ao doesn't mean you can't fight Ao.

It doesn't even mean you can't fight Ao and have a chance at winning. Some people/entities just need a good sock in the mouth (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DidYouJustPunchOutCthulhu).
Okay, that's too much tropey meme think for one post. Time to sleep.

Navigator
2010-08-17, 09:28 PM
Everything about the Spellplague really bothers me. As far as I see it, Forgotten Realms was definitely turned upside-down in favor of the new 4th edition mechanics, it being the new "Living" campaign setting, and this new "Points of Light" concept. That and Drizzt is still alive, of all the heroes from FR.

This isn't to say that silly things haven't happened before the current edition, but Tyr killing Helm? Really? For all my FR setting information, I completely disregard the Grand History of the Realms, because it's not writing, it a bunch of writers destroying the setting into Eberron 2.0 for reasons that have nothing to do with FR.

Or I'm just ranting!

Kish
2010-08-17, 09:54 PM
After spending the past few weeks playing Neverwinter Nights 2, I've once again become enamored with the Forgotten Realms setting. But some things have been bugging me as I learn more and more about the setting, namely, the way the gods of the setting behave.

It seems like throughout Faerun's history, the gods were arbitrarily set in charge of things and for the most part seem too focused on their own petty squables or pet projects, rather than providing emotional succor and a kind of community for their followers, which is what a religion is.

This strikes me as...dangerous on this board. That's not what a religion is in D&D. Community, sure, particularly for Lawful gods. Emotional succor?...Maybe, if it happens to be part of that god's portfolio, but it's never likely to be more than secondary.


The first thing that bugs me is that at times the gods seem to be REALLY stupid.

Not stupid. Insane, by mortal standards. Talos sees everything in terms of how it relates to destruction, Lathander in terms of how it relates to renewal. Other concepts are irrelevant to them.


The two events that spring to mind are during the Time of Troubles, when Mystra got herself killed going up against Helm, because apparently she wanted to tell Ao the identities of the gods who stole the Tablets of Fate personally. This seems incredibly dumb from my point of view. Mystra has been made mortal, and she's up against Helm, who not only the only remaining god, so going up against him is suicidal, but also completely trustworthy and loyal, so she likely'd be able to trust him. Helm even offers to relay Mystra's information to Ao, but Mystra, for some unfathomable reason, decides her information is too important to trust HELM with and attacks him, getting herself killed and passing the torch on to Midnight.

You're missing the point. She wanted her power back. She didn't want to get a message to Ao; she wanted to go home. And, like all the deities, she was unused to anyone saying No to her, and inclined to view it as inherently wrong.


While we're on the subject of Cyric, lets discuss evil gods. Why does Ao keep these guys around?

Because Ao isn't good.

I suppose there's supposed to be a "balance between good and evil" thing, but it seems that evil gods really just exist to screw things up. Cyric has murdered multiple gods at this point, and is now responsible for the single greatest disaster the Realms has ever seen. All he seems to get for these crimes is a slap-on-the-wrist imprisonment.

Of course. He did what he was supposed to do, as god of Strife and Death.

and Shar didn't even recieve any sort of punishment for her hand in Mystra's death

Why would Shar be punished for doing exactly what she's supposed to do, promoting oblivion? The substance of all these complaints seems to be that Ao is supposed to be good. He isn't.


I find it hard to take the gods of Faerun seriously sometimes, since it seems like they don't act like gods,

There is certainly an undeniable mismatch between your concept of "gods" and the concept of "gods" in the Forgotten Realms, and, actually, every D&D setting I know of that has gods.

Edit: Oh, and Helm retained his godhood because Ao, in the interests of having someone block the ex-gods from going home, decided Helm's punishment would be to be forced to guard the outer planes from the ex-gods, and, afterward, to be widely resented by both the restored gods and the mortals who blamed him for the gods being forced to walk the land. Not because Ao decided to spare Helm from punishment when he punished all the others.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-08-17, 09:54 PM
What makes you say Eberron 2.0? :smallconfused:

Aroka
2010-08-17, 10:15 PM
If your god of insanity, deception, and murder isn't insanely deceptively murdering everything, it's broken. Hope you've still got warranty on that.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-08-17, 10:21 PM
You're missing the point. She wanted her power back. She didn't want to get a message to Ao; she wanted to go home. And, like all the deities, she was unused to anyone saying No to her, and inclined to view it as inherently wrong.
That's no excuse for making a suicidal decision.

Because Ao isn't good.
...
Of course. He did what he was supposed to do, as god of Strife and Death.
...
Why would Shar be punished for doing exactly what she's supposed to do, promoting oblivion? The substance of all these complaints seems to be that Ao is supposed to be good. He isn't.
The substance of the complaints is that the gods politicking causes millions of mortals to get hurt. Mortals the gods are supposed to be serving because they depend upon those mortals for their power.

There is certainly an undeniable mismatch between your concept of "gods" and the concept of "gods" in the Forgotten Realms, and, actually, every D&D setting I know of that has gods.
What am I getting wrong then?

Edit: Oh, and Helm retained his godhood because Ao, in the interests of having someone block the ex-gods from going home, decided Helm's punishment would be to be forced to guard the outer planes from the ex-gods, and, afterward, to be widely resented by both the restored gods and the mortals who blamed him for the gods being forced to walk the land. Not because Ao decided to spare Helm from punishment when he punished all the others.
But he did his job without complaint.

Kish
2010-08-17, 10:25 PM
The substance of the complaints is that the gods politicking causes millions of mortals to get hurt. Mortals the gods are supposed to be serving because they depend upon those mortals for their power.

Yes. Ao added the "your power will, from now on, be dependent on your worshipers" clause after the Time of Troubles, specifically because he was aggravated that all the gods--good and evil alike--tended to treat all mortals as chess pieces. Most of the gods found the entire idea revolting. ("Depend on mortals? Serve them?")


What am I getting wrong then?

You're expecting the God of Murder to consider millions of people, or other gods, being murdered a bad thing. You're expecting the God of Strife to get punished for promoting strife. So on and so forth with "destruction," "oblivion," etc.

Aroka
2010-08-17, 10:26 PM
That's no excuse for making a suicidal decision.

She probably didn't. She may not have been cognizant of what her mortality meant (that would be a bit odd, admittedly, since Mystra specifically was raised from a mortal when Mystrul was destroyed by Karsus). A god stripped of godhood is going to have serious problems adjusting to the world not changing to suit her whims. (Anyway, I always got the imperssion that Helm was a bit overzealous about the protecting and saw it as more of a "Hey I've got these tabl-uurrgggghh" thing.)


The substance of the complaints is that the gods politicking causes millions of mortals to get hurt. Mortals the gods are supposed to be serving because they depend upon those mortals for their power.

I think you've got that the wrong way around; mortals serve deities. Traditionally on pain of pain and calamity, or at least in order to reap their blessings.

I do agree with the Tyr-Helm-Sune thing sounding like pure idiocy, but bad writers are going to be bad writers. Faerūn's deities are still pretty much what you found in ancient mythology, which is far more interesting than divine vending machines that never do a thing.

You're basically trying to apply modern real-world human ethics to Faerūn's deities, and that's got 3-4 things wrong with it (depending on the deity's alignment).

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-08-17, 10:30 PM
Some things are simply wrong. Murder is always wrong, regardless of the circumstances. Genocide, by extension, is equally wrong. I think most people would agree with me.

How is one supposed to play a proper paladin in FR when none of the gods seem to set the kind of examples paladins need. Mortal paladins make one little mistake and their lives are ruined. Gods make a mistake and millions of people die, and nobody cares.

DeltaEmil
2010-08-17, 10:32 PM
So? Ao decided that there should be a god of murder, and that's it.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-08-17, 10:33 PM
I just can't believe that it's possible to be a mortal in FR and be morally superior to the gods themselves.

Aroka
2010-08-17, 10:34 PM
Some things are simply wrong. Murder is always wrong, regardless of the circumstances. Genocide, by extension, is equally wrong. I think most people would agree with me.

Okay, again: modern real-world human ethics.

Modern: The popular feeling that killing someone else is wrong is pretty new, historically. It's not even that widespread, and it goes in and out of fashion in any one region constantly. Real people don't set out to do "evil", they just do things they don't think are evil because they are somehow justified. The same goes for, yes, genocide. That's not a crime committed by an individual, ever - it's one committed by entire nations, peoples, or at least governments.

Real-World: D&D is built around playing a bunch of home-invading murderers who, usually, slaughter anyone - including other humans or "good" humanoids - who raise a hand against them.

Human: These are deities. What does a mortal life matter to them? It can like people and ants - those things are so far beneath them it's ridiculous to posit they're of comparable importance, at least individually. And besides, once they die, their souls go on to where they should be - often the deity's realm in the afterlife.

Ethics: Many of these deities are evil. They wouldn't care even if it wasn't for the above.

Kish
2010-08-17, 10:35 PM
I just can't believe that it's possible to be a mortal in FR and be morally superior to the gods themselves.
Why would that be?

...In any D&D setting that has gods, it's possible to be a more moral person than most of the gods. Why are you expecting D&D gods to be particularly moral? What books have you been reading?

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-08-17, 10:36 PM
The idea that murder is wrong is a relatively new concept? :smallconfused:

DeltaEmil
2010-08-17, 10:37 PM
Why not? Perhaps that truly more moral paladin will one day become a better god than the one he served? Such things happen all the time in the Forgotten Realms.
The gods of Toril suck. They also die in masses whenever a new edition comes. Paladins in 3.x edition suck as well with their weak-ass powers, so being one is a form of self-punishment, especially in the world of the forgotten realms. Some deal with it, others fall and become lame-ass blackguards, or just die.

Alleran
2010-08-17, 10:39 PM
It seems like throughout Faerun's history, the gods were arbitrarily set in charge of things and for the most part seem too focused on their own petty squables or pet projects, rather than providing emotional succor and a kind of community for their followers, which is what a religion is.
This is in fact the exact reason why Ao instigated the Time of Troubles to begin with. They were supposed to monitor their portfolios and maintain the balance, but they were arrogant, and weren't doing their jobs. So first he booted them down to spend time with the mortals that they had been neglecting. Then, when all that they could think about was getting their power back and going home by getting him the Tablets of Fate, it wound up being a mortal who got Ao the Tablets. And Ao was so disgusted that he just shattered the Tablets (it being originally Myrkul and Bane who stole them, thinking that it might weaken Ao... which it didn't) and told them that the entire reason the Tablets existed was to remind the gods that they were servants of mortals and maintainers of the Balance, not rulers. So he did things another way. He made their strength and power dependent on mortal worship (Mystra is the only possible exemption because of her actually being the Weave, but she does still gain or lose power from worship as well as that). And the gods howled in fury. They had no choice, though, and presumably they learned a lesson.


Mystra has been made mortal, and she's up against Helm, who not only the only remaining god, so going up against him is suicidal, but also completely trustworthy and loyal, so she likely'd be able to trust him.
Mystra had gained a good portion of her power back when she took her avatar, so she thought she might be a match for Helm (who would be as nothing to her if she had her full strength). As it turned out, she wasn't.


Helm even offers to relay Mystra's information to Ao, but Mystra, for some unfathomable reason, decides her information is too important to trust HELM with and attacks him, getting herself killed and passing the torch on to Midnight.
She wanted to go home. There are also hints that she was already setting things up for Midnight to take over. In fact, Ed Greenwood has compared Mystra to being a bit like a computer at times in how she is the Weave of magic. Every so often, a restart does them good, rather than just constantly running for century upon century. It's not quite the same, but there are similarities


The second is the courtship of Sune described in the Grand History of the Realms. I'm not sure where to start with this.
My advice would be to not bother. It was a pointless gesture, ridiculously out of character, and was just done in order to set things up for the Sellplague that brought around 4th edition.


Why does Ao keep these guys around?
Why not? Ao isn't good. Nor is he evil. He just is. He has a job to do, and in that fashion he's a bit like a traffic cop. As long as a god isn't upsetting the Balance that he has laid down or failing to do the job their portfolios set for them, he's not going to interfere with them.


Bane and Myrkul stole the Tablets of Fate, and while they were punished with the rest of the gods, and Myrkul was killed, Bane ended up becoming the Comeback King of the Realms, and many of Myrkul's old creations (The Wall of the Faithless, the Crown of Horns and the Spirit-Eater Curse) still survive and are even supported by the rest of the pantheon.
Myrkul did actually survive, or a fragment of him did, existing within the Crown of Horns. Bane returned because he used Iyachtu Xvim to jumpstart his reincarnation - he's like Bane 2.0 just in the same fashion as Midnight became Mystra 2.0, or how Bhaal tried to reincarnate as Bhaal 2.0 through the use of the Bhaalspawn (but was prevented from doing so, obviously). By investing some of his essence into Xvim, Xvim was "metamorphosised" into Bane at some preset time. It was getting around Ao saying that he would leave Bane dead. Ao didn't recombine his essence to resurrect him (like he did for IIRC Torm - he rezzed Torm because the god died fulfilling his portfolio and thus his part of the Balance, having "learned his lesson"), he did that all on his own. Of course, there are also some heavy non-disclosure agreements surrounding his rebirth, which has prevented it from being fully explained.


Evil gods seem to exist solely to make devastating bids for Realm-domination, heedless of the destruction they cause to both the people who they command and the people they seek to subjugate, and the gods of good seem either ineffectual or apathetic to these things.
Eh, not quite. All the gods act in concert with their portfolios. This by its very nature means that Bane will always attempt to promote tyranny and gain control of things. Taking over the entire realms is the ultimate expression of acting in concert with his portfolio of tyranny, just as the good gods act in concert with their own portfolios to stop him (e.g. Tyr being justice-related means he will oppose Bane). Similarly, Cyric's portfolio is to spread strife, lies and hatred. As long as he's doing that, he's upholding his portfolio and Ao won't interfere. If he turns into sweetness and light and stops maintaining his portfolio, of course, then Big Daddy will step in and slap him down, because he won't be in concert with his appointed duties. He also can be held up if he doesn't spread strife equally (e.g. he was almost demoted and destroyed at the conclusion of the Avatar saga when only his own followers were causing strife, and then only amongst each other - he has to do it to everybody).

Mystra is similar - she promotes the spread of magic, used equally by all. She can be whatever alignment she likes (and is/was NG), but she can't withhold magic from evil spellcasters and favour good ones. She's NG because that alignment best matches with her doctrine of spreading magic around, and she instructs her servants to spread it as well (which they do in their own way). One example is that giant black dragon dracolich (Dhaurdragoth?). One would think that he'd be chased after by the Chosen, but she has instructed them to leave the thing alone, because he helps invent and spread new magic. Same deal with Larloch (though there's also something going on there that nobody is quite sure about... except Larloch himself). She prefers good servants (and particularly good-aligned Chosen) because generally, she has found that good individuals are better at spreading stuff around than evil ones. She's had evil Chosen in the past, but found that they tended to keep power to themselves instead of spreading it around, so she doesn't bother with evil ones nowadays.

The point was also raised with Kelemvor, who initially treated the dead unfairly based on his previous actions while alive (and it was Cyric who pointed it out to him). He started treating everybody equally, and became a better god for it.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-08-17, 10:39 PM
Why would that be?

...In any D&D setting that has gods, it's possible to be a more moral person than most of the gods. Why are you expecting D&D gods to be particularly moral? What books have you been reading?

The Great Divorce, The Problem of Pain, The Iliad, The Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. I've also recently finished playing Mask of the Betrayer, so the idea of the Wall of the Faithless and Kaelyn the Dove's problems with it are still fresh in my mind. Fable II as well.

Kish
2010-08-17, 10:41 PM
The Great Divorce, The Problem of Pain, The Iliad, The Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. I've also recently finished playing Mask of the Betrayer, so the idea of the Wall of the Faithless and Kaelyn the Dove's problems with it are still fresh in my mind. Fable II as well.
What D&D books have you been reading that give you the idea that it's hard to be more moral than most D&D gods as a D&D character?

Aroka
2010-08-17, 10:42 PM
The idea that murder is wrong is a relatively new concept? :smallconfused:

Yeees?

People went out, found someone with stuff, and killed them and took the stuff. This was perfectly acceptable to them and everyone they knew, because their victims weren't related to them. This is how things worked up until the 19th century, pretty much. They still work this way in many areas.

Seriously, look at history. Human life generally hasn't been considered worth much, unless that person was part of your group (and even then the price - literally - could be fairly low).


I just can't believe that it's possible to be a mortal in FR and be morally superior to the gods themselves.

That was pretty much the case with Greek philosophers, and they pointed it out (and some were atheists/deists because on this).

darkpuppy
2010-08-17, 10:43 PM
Zousha, the concept of a god dying is alien to a god. Mystra, even as she was making her backup plans, didn't actually believe she would really get the smackdown. I believe it even mentions how enraged she was at some point that Helm had dared do what he was told to do. You'll also notice when you get into the whole crown of madness shizzle that, as time went by, Midnight became less a human being, and more, as with all the other god(dess)/-thing(s), the anthropomorphic personification of ideas. Kelemvor, for example, does his job well (not perfectly, he was tricked by Cyric, for example), not because he's perfect, but because he embodies a different aspect to the old god of death (the old one: Death comes for everybody. Kelemvor: Death as an appointment, just something that happens)

Helm did his job without complaint because, essentially, he is the embodiment of guarding stuff and duty. The punishment was, as already noted, to be hated by all the other god-beings for being their jailor's lackey. Ao is the Overgod of Faerun (although not, as the trilogy's ending shows, necessarily the Head Honcho), and, like all overgods, is essentially true Neutral. Good must balance evil. Selfishness must balance selflessness, so that everything works. He's not good, he's not bad, he just is.


They didn't seem to learn their lesson, as Cyric (a former mortal, I might add) decided it'd be fun to cause the single-most devastating cataclysm in the history of the setting.

Which part of god of destruction, chaos, and madness didn't you understand?

Thinking of gods like humans doesn't work. It's like assuming Great Cthulhu only wants to work in a chip-shop, and that all this "devour the world when he awakes" stuff is just a cry for help. No. It's what he does. Why? Who knows? Religion doesn't work like that, even with the more "modern" religions like christianity. the christian god, for example, is apparently unknowable. This is true of all gods, goddesses, and god-things. Because a human is not equipped to think like they do. And the Tyr-Helm thing? that's a darned good example of people trying (and failing)... oh, and bad writing.

Lemme put it a different way. A tree does not care about interest rates. It grows, it doesn't like eternal darkness and lack of water or nutrients, and that's just about it. Cyric, our best example, embodies madness. This means he is a loony. He embodies destruction, so he wants everything dead or burned, preferably both, and, because he is a god of madness, doesn't give a rat's ass about the consequences. Cyric is a god, like Beshaba, that you don't so much worship... as bribe to stay the hell away. Only the insane, the bloodthirsty, and the paranoid worship Cyric, and it often says as much in the literature.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-08-17, 10:45 PM
What D&D books have you been reading that give you the idea that it's hard to be more moral than most D&D gods as a D&D character?
The Book of Exalted Deeds

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-08-17, 10:46 PM
That was pretty much the case with Greek philosophers, and they pointed it out (and some were atheists/deists because on this).
I've been reading a lot of those guys too.

darkpuppy
2010-08-17, 10:50 PM
Hrm. Book of Exalted Deeds. It's actually incredibly easy to be more "moral" than any gods/goddesses/god-things, because morality is a human concept, and very relativist at that. If you ever read Deathworld 2, by Harry Harrison, the best argument about moral relativism is contained in there. But the sum of it is this:

"Is cannibalism wrong?"
"Well, yes, of course it is!"
"Ah, to you, yes. But to certain people, for example, cannibal tribes in africa, it's the highest honour you can pay your enemy. There, not eating him would be the immoral thing."
"Errrr..."

Gods are not moral because they follow their folios, and that's about it. Once you get past that hurdle, and the hurdle that the whole Spellplague thing is just bad writing, you'll be alright.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-08-17, 10:52 PM
But if someone was going to eat YOU, you'd consider that wrong, wouldn't you? I mean, you'd die. Dying is scary.

I hate moral relativism. Something is right or it's wrong. You're good or your evil, no gray areas. I can't wrap my brain around these so-called gray areas.

Why do you think I play D&D? To be the beacon of morality, industriousness and maturity because I'm a bad, lazy and immature person in real life.

Aroka
2010-08-17, 10:52 PM
Which part of god of destruction, chaos, and madness didn't you understand?

Thinking of gods like humans doesn't work. It's like assuming Great Cthulhu only wants to work in a chip-shop, and that all this "devour the world when he awakes" stuff is just a cry for help. No. It's what he does. Why? Who knows? Religion doesn't work like that, even with the more "modern" religions like christianity. the christian god, for example, is apparently unknowable. This is true of all gods, goddesses, and god-things. Because a human is not equipped to think like they do. And the Tyr-Helm thing? that's a darned good example of people trying (and failing)... oh, and bad writing.

Lemme put it a different way. A tree does not care about interest rates. It grows, it doesn't like eternal darkness and lack of water or nutrients, and that's just about it. Cyric, our best example, embodies madness. This means he is a loony. He embodies destruction, so he wants everything dead or burned, preferably both, and, because he is a god of madness, doesn't give a rat's ass about the consequences. Cyric is a god, like Beshaba, that you don't so much worship... as bribe to stay the hell away. Only the insane, the bloodthirsty, and the paranoid worship Cyric, and it often says as much in the literature.

This so much. Deities are their agenda. Cyric has to exist because strife and murder and madness exist. They don't exist because Cyric does, but he exists because they do - because that's how the deities and portfolios work. If a concept is "real" (on some value of "real"), some deity is related to it.

And yes, deities like Cyric are worshipped by the credulous ("No, really, when you die you'll live in a palace next to Cyric's and everyone you've killed will be your servant") and the amoral or insane (who will probably want to live forever anyway; there's an entire separate kind of lich related to Bane).


But if someone was going to eat YOU, you'd consider that wrong, wouldn't you? I mean, you'd die. Dying is scary.

I hate moral relativism. Something is right or it's wrong. You're good or your evil, no gray areas. I can't wrap my brain around these so-called gray areas.

This has nothing to do with moral relativism. Nobody's talking about what is right or wrong. We're talking about what people consider right or wrong (or deities). Mostly, historically, people didn't consider killing people to be automatically wrong or a big deal. People who complain about "moral relativism" often don't seem to make this distinction at all.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-08-17, 10:56 PM
This is the part where I'm talked into a corner and I can't offer a rebuttal without saying something I shouldn't say or revealing my neurological disorder. :smallsigh:

darkpuppy
2010-08-17, 10:59 PM
But if someone was going to eat YOU, you'd consider that wrong, wouldn't you? I mean, you'd die. Dying is scary.

I hate moral relativism. Something is right or it's wrong. You're good or your evil, no gray areas. I can't wrap my brain around these so-called gray areas.

Then you are a true arch-paladin, sirrah, take that as you will. Personally, if a cannibal was going to eat me, I'd make sure I was already dead before he began cooking me, ta muchly. Being a taoist and a reincarnationist, I really don't have a problem with dying, beyond being annoyed if I hadn't done what I wanted to do at the time, and, obviously, going through the normal survival mechanism stuff (being scared, screaming, whatnot)

And I'm afraid grey areas are a fact of life. I think the most blacky funny example of this would be a webcomic (I think it was VGCats), where Morighann (the annoying Kreia of Dragon Age) is disapproving, as usual.

"I saved the village." "'twould have been better to see them burn."
"I killed the village." "'twould have been better to see them burn."
"LOOK, I'M P&!*ING ALL OVER THIS BURNING PUPPY!"
"...Er... are you doing that in a good way or a bad way?"

Obviously, not a good real world example, but there really is no strict right or wrong, no particles of "good", or atoms of "evil". Good and evil are relative concepts. As noted before, pre 19th century, killing someone was often a legally accepted, even celebrated way of ending an argument. It was called a duel, and had its own set of laws, the duello. Then, to back down from a duel was considered both losing the argument, and the act of a coward. Concepts of what is "right" and "wrong" change, both in time and space.

Aroka
2010-08-17, 11:02 PM
I don't see what the corner can possibly be. We have, essentially, two statements:

1. X is right, Y is wrong.
2. Some consider Y to be right, and X to be wrong.

These are not mutually exclusive statements. They do not conflict in any way. The opinions the express conflict, but the second statement does not espouse the opinion!

To offer you a real example:
I am of the opinion that killing anyone for any reason is immoral.
I know that this is, historically, a minority opinion by far.

My own morals cause me no problems in looking at either historical or fictional societies and understanding how they operated by their values. Indeed, I find it enormously fun to read about or roleplay in societies with completely different values; it's why Glorantha, with its intricately detailed cultures, religions, myths, and societies are so interesting and fun to me. Their values would be reprehensible in reality, but they're not reality.


Further, we have the issue of deities: Faerūnian deities do not act like real-world modern humans, and are not necessarily ethical. They may not even be moral agents. They exist because the concepts they represent exist, and they act based on the portfolio of this representation. (And sometimes based on shoddy writing.)


Obviously, not a good real world example, but there really is no strict right or wrong, no particles of "good", or atoms of "evil". Good and evil are relative concepts. As noted before, pre 19th century, killing someone was often a legally accepted, even celebrated way of ending an argument. It was called a duel, and had its own set of laws, the duello. Then, to back down from a duel was considered both losing the argument, and the act of a coward. Concepts of what is "right" and "wrong" change, both in time and space.

I wasn't even referring to duels, actually; those were often legal even though you were killing someone who was protected by your society. I was talking about the whole general human principle of "you have stuff, I want stuff, I kill you and take your stuff." This was not, mostly, considered a bad way to go about things, unless you were doing it to someone who was part of your social group (clan, tribe, village, country, whatever).

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-08-17, 11:04 PM
2. Some consider Y to be right, and X to be wrong.
This is the statement a person with Autism like me has a problem with. (I hate having to throw out the Autism card! :smallfurious: )

Lord Raziere
2010-08-17, 11:05 PM
eh, doesn't surprise me. like the gods before them in so many mythologies, they are jerks/idiots and screw everything up because they can. What I find stupid about the whole thing is assigning the gods morality; I can deal with stupid amoral gods screwing things up because they're amoral, but moral/immoral gods I expect to be smarter and more true to the ideals they are supposed to represent.

like everything else in DnD, alignment seems to be just a hastily slapped on sticker on the gods.

Starbuck_II
2010-08-17, 11:06 PM
Which also raises another question. Who in their right mind would willingly worship a god who encourages you to do evil things like torture, kill and steal, and then when you get to the afterlife, you're just eternally tortured for your loyalty?


If you don't worship a god (pick one) you get spackled on the wall of faithlessness.
Oh, a most good Gods in D&D aren't Exalted. Most paladins aren't exalted.
Exalted is good turned to 11 (on a dial of 1-10).
It is hard and trying to be exalted can break you. Which is why few are.

Aroka
2010-08-17, 11:11 PM
This is the statement a person with Autism like me has a problem with. (I hate having to throw out the Autism card! :smallfurious: )

Okay, I can totally understand that, and now I'm aware that we may not ever be able to reach an understanding on that topic through discussion. (Also, it does actually help me to understand your side; the first times I argued with someone autistic on the Internet, I was completely convincede they were a troll, because I had never really interacted with anyone except neurotypical people.) It's not really a card IMO anyway - it's not like I'm going to throw up my hands and declare defeat. I just have to acknowledge that this is probably an obstacle we can't surmount by discussion or argument, at least in this forum.

People just have different opinions, including about morality. I, too, sometimes consider people who have different opinions about essential moral questions (like killing) than I do to be completely wrong-headed, but I can understand where they're coming from (easier for me since I'm NT, I assume).

Understanding doesn't equate to approval or endorsement. (Indeed, understanding what you disapprove of may be essential in changing it.)

darkpuppy
2010-08-17, 11:14 PM
There's no shame in having problems with a concept for any reason except not bothering to try, Zousha. You've obviously tried, and are still trying, to some extent, so it's cool. I've actually been racking my brains to come up with a decent explanation of moral relativism... but explaining it well all depends on how you perceive, because I learned a long time ago that everyone perceives differently, even if only on a level even they are not aware of. One of my exes, for example, pictures things in terms of programming code. strange, but true!

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-08-17, 11:18 PM
I just don't know what to think about Forgotten Realms. I really like playing paladins, but virtually all the deities seem to have varying levels of suckiness in terms of behavior. I don't know what other class I'd play. I'm so used to being the righteous warrior with armor polished so bright it blinds you.

Kish
2010-08-17, 11:19 PM
This is the statement a person with Autism like me has a problem with. (I hate having to throw out the Autism card! :smallfurious: )
The Forgotten Realms gods, in particular, are entirely locked into a perspective defined by their portfolios. The only god who really cares about justice, as such, is Tyr, because it's part of his portfolio. Almost any mortal has a more complete and nuanced perspective than any god. You don't have to like that, it's just the way it is.

The Book of Exalted Deeds does not say or imply that a mortal cannot be more moral than the gods. A good mortal is, by definition, more moral than all neutral or evil gods, and that's the majority of the gods in every campaign setting that has gods at all.

I wouldn't have a problem playing a paladin of Tyr or Lathander. If you have a problem playing a religious character who worships a god whose perspective is limited, then play a fighter as a knight in atheistic shining armor, who rejects worshiping all the gods because he has a better moral sense than any of them. (We won't discuss what will happen to him when he dies.)

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-08-17, 11:23 PM
What DOES happen to a character who basically says "Yeah, I know the gods exist, but I'm not gonna worship them because their morals suck"? Are they Faithless or False?

darkpuppy
2010-08-17, 11:23 PM
Well, first off, remember that paladins are not actually meant to be always good. I know it says that in the PHB, but frankly, it leaves a lot to be desired with a world like Faerun. For example, while Lathander wins on the "goody-two-shoes" front, there are "paladins" of Cyric (who are, quite frankly, bloodthirsty psychos... in rules terms, paladins with a load of class substitution)... each order of paladins has a different code of laws that they must follow, and your basic DnD paladin, as set out in the PHB, just can't handle that.

You want the morally righteous good guy, protecting the weak, smiting the evil? go Lathander. You want to follow orders? go Helm. Want to bring holy justice to the crims? go Tyr. Want to make sure the dead stay dead? go Kelemvor... the list goes on.

EDIT: The answer to your question is: The Faithless. They reject the gods.

Kish
2010-08-17, 11:25 PM
What DOES happen to a character who basically says "Yeah, I know the gods exist, but I'm not gonna worship them because their morals suck"? Are they Faithless or False?
Faithless. They get the wall. You're False if you claim to worship (say) Cyric, but don't murder anyone, lie, or spread madness.

(You're also Faithless if you worship Ao, 'cause he says he doesn't count.)

Lord Raziere
2010-08-17, 11:29 PM
Faithless. They get the wall. You're False if you claim to worship (say) Cyric, but don't murder anyone, lie, or spread madness.

oh yea, one of the things I also don't like: the WALL. It just shows how screwed up Forgotten Realms is: the apparently good gods don't help faithless or anything, they just let let them rot there, gradually becoming the wall, even if they are lawful good and never did one bad deed in their life, if don't worship any god they get the wall, instead of, you know....the good gods saving them or anything from eternal boredom? :smallmad: how is that morally right?

darkpuppy
2010-08-17, 11:31 PM
I think, Lord Raziere, that we already established the gods don't subscribe to the "morality" system.

DeltaEmil
2010-08-17, 11:37 PM
Meh, doesn't matter if a anti-theist goes into a wall or a true believer ends on the plane of his beloved deity. You dissolve and cease to exist after a few years in both cases. The forgotten realms are grimdark in that case. Abandon all ideas of an immortal soul. Every archlich and his lich-dog has an epic (and sometimes even non-epic) spell that can destroy your soul forever (unless a more powerful spell negates that), gods and their realms eat your souls, the underplanes eat your souls, the upper planes also shatter your souls and harvest this energy to sustain itself.

Now this might perhaps have changed for 4th edition, but I really never cared for the Forgotten Realms in any edition, so whatever...

As for your problems, Archpaladin Zousha, the forgotten realms are not a pseudo-middle ages-european setting with one true god everybody believes and who is good and just, and everybody else is some kind of worshipper of satan and the likes. The forgotten realms are the sucky settings of a hundred idiotic gods with hack-neyed behavior that is forced upon them by the overdeity, who serves an even higher being and other such idiocy.

Lord Raziere
2010-08-17, 11:54 PM
I think, Lord Raziere, that we already established the gods don't subscribe to the "morality" system.

yet they have assigned alignments just like the players. if you were to truthfully portray the DnD world or the FR, it would be a very dark world not much different from warhammer, only difference is that there is no empire to help anyone, just a bunch of scattered weak states, so you can actually argue that its worse.

Mnemnosyne
2010-08-17, 11:56 PM
You don't cease to exist when you dissolve as a petitioner. You join with the essence of your plane.

And I don't think you do that if you're the petitioner of a particular god. I seem to remember something to the contrary, but I can't recall the reference source so I'm just going on memory. Does it say anywhere that you dissolve and cease to exist?

As for the Wall of the Faithless, uh, again, unless I missed something big, no. You don't cease to exist or dissolve, and I vaguely recall mention of some particular dude in the wall getting pulled out at some point. Or one of the ones from pre-Netheril era saying something to someone. Sadly again, I don't recall the reference.


oh yea, one of the things I also don't like: the WALL. It just shows how screwed up Forgotten Realms is: the apparently good gods don't help faithless or anything, they just let let them rot there, gradually becoming the wall, even if they are lawful good and never did one bad deed in their life, if don't worship any god they get the wall, instead of, you know....the good gods saving them or anything from eternal boredom? :smallmad: how is that morally right?
I think Kelemvor tried that (can't recall the details) and wound up getting told off by Cynosure. Short of it is, You Can't Do That. Souls that do not follow a god are not that god's to tamper with. They don't belong to you. They belong to the god of the Dead, and he isn't allowed to make nice to them, either (and by that measure, isn't allowed to count them among 'his' petitioners).

On occasion they try, and once in a while they get away with it, but if any god or group of gods started doing that regularly, Ao would smack them down so hard they wouldn't know what hit them.

darkpuppy
2010-08-18, 12:00 AM
And I would argue that you obviously haven't eaten in the finest waterdhavian inns, sampled the grandeur and oddity of a wizard's fair, and generally seen a lot more of the cool, happy, and otherwise froody sights of the Realms. Were I truthfully to portray the gods, I'd truthfully portray them as aspects of reality made flesh, same as I would do in any setting, and same as i consider them in real life.

And besides, the Empire of Man is a ghoulish construct itself. It's Emperor kills millions of "his" subjects a day just to stay alive, aliens are hated just because they're alien, technology is only meant to be maintained by a specialist priesthood who burn you for having certain items, and can't even remember how to do some of their tech support anymore (perfect example: the jetbike)

No, FR is a brighter setting, because, in FR, there's always some hope.

Aroka
2010-08-18, 12:09 AM
I just don't know what to think about Forgotten Realms. I really like playing paladins, but virtually all the deities seem to have varying levels of suckiness in terms of behavior. I don't know what other class I'd play. I'm so used to being the righteous warrior with armor polished so bright it blinds you.

You blaspheme Torm!

Also Lathander is pretty great. Paladins who reflect him would probably be earnestly hyper, endlessly cheerful, and pretty indomitable. Energizer Bunnydin?

My personal favorite is probably Milil, though. There's just something completely awesome about being a paladin (or bardadin, preferrably) of a deity of joy and song.


The Forgotten Realms gods, in particular, are entirely locked into a perspective defined by their portfolios. The only god who really cares about justice, as such, is Tyr, because it's part of his portfolio. Almost any mortal has a more complete and nuanced perspective than any god. You don't have to like that, it's just the way it is.

The Book of Exalted Deeds does not say or imply that a mortal cannot be more moral than the gods. A good mortal is, by definition, more moral than all neutral or evil gods, and that's the majority of the gods in every campaign setting that has gods at all.

I wouldn't have a problem playing a paladin of Tyr or Lathander. If you have a problem playing a religious character who worships a god whose perspective is limited, then play a fighter as a knight in atheistic shining armor, who rejects worshiping all the gods because he has a better moral sense than any of them. (We won't discuss what will happen to him when he dies.)

Technically, the gods aren't moral or immoral or even amoral at all if they're defined by their portfolios (which, I think, is only true in some cases; Mystra, for instance, has had different alignments in different incarnations despite having the same portfolio). If a deity of evil cannot stop being a deity of evil, that deity is not a moral agent/actor (it's still evil, because that's how D&D alignment works; you can be good or evil despite not having moral agency, and it actually makes sense because they're not just moral concepts, they're also concrete objective things).

I do think many FR deities are very human-like, and therefore understand things outside of their portfolios, but they're still not human, and they're still bound to certain cosmic rules. I even think FR deities could probably stop being deities if they really made the choice to.


oh yea, one of the things I also don't like: the WALL. It just shows how screwed up Forgotten Realms is: the apparently good gods don't help faithless or anything, they just let let them rot there, gradually becoming the wall, even if they are lawful good and never did one bad deed in their life, if don't worship any god they get the wall, instead of, you know....the good gods saving them or anything from eternal boredom? :smallmad: how is that morally right?

Er.

Lots of examples of that in popular real religions, but we can't discuss it.

Lord Raziere
2010-08-18, 12:10 AM
.....hope that quickly gets snuffed out by demons, evil gods and eldritch abominations and is surrounded by vicious orcs, goblins, ogres and trolls who want a little helping of 'hope' themselves.

darkpuppy
2010-08-18, 12:32 AM
Think of FR as pseudo-medieval. Yes, times are rough, but there are good things out there too. Think of Warhammer universe (40K or fantasy) as dark as anything... there, the Daemons are the true masters of reality. In FR, there is balance... yes, there is conflict, but there is also balance. In 40K, there is no balance. Humanity crumbles from within and without. But in FR, things are stable, and it's a lot like MIB. Sure, every day there's a dragon or a doomsday device, or whatnot, but there's always... adventurers.

Lord Raziere
2010-08-18, 12:37 AM
Think of FR as pseudo-medieval. Yes, times are rough, but there are good things out there too. Think of Warhammer universe (40K or fantasy) as dark as anything... there, the Daemons are the true masters of reality. In FR, there is balance... yes, there is conflict, but there is also balance. In 40K, there is no balance. Humanity crumbles from within and without. But in FR, things are stable, and it's a lot like MIB. Sure, every day there's a dragon or a doomsday device, or whatnot, but there's always... adventurers.

who are kleptomaniac mercenary murderers who go into peoples homes on the word of ignorant villagers who couldn't possibly tell if that tribe of orcs nearby are evil or not just for a sack of gold coins, and kill them, taker what little valuable possessions they have and leave their children to grow up without fathers and vow revenge upon them.

LibraryOgre
2010-08-18, 12:39 AM
In many cases, the deities of FR are used a playing pieces to tell the story that TSR/WotC wants to tell. "We want to shake up the deities... something drastic to show that 2e isn't the same as 1e." "Let's kill several deities! Maybe make some mortals into deities?" "Great idea!"

Recently, I've been going back to the 1st edition box for my game world, using later stuff to supplement it where I don't have resources (or where the later stuff is better). Part of that is figuring out how deities interact with the people who worship and placate them. Malarites are frequently bounty hunters... not because they like the law or society in general, but because it lets them hunt and kill in good lands. Mask-worshipers run shrines, usually staffed by "disabled" thieves (a lot of shrine-watchers have no thumbs). Pay a few gold to the shrine of Mask, and you have his protection (i.e. if you make regular payments, local thieves know not to steal from you). Everyone going to sea throws a coin to Umberlee, because you don't tick off the sea.

Harperfan7
2010-08-18, 12:46 AM
{Scrubbed}

Agrippa
2010-08-18, 12:50 AM
This is why I prefer Oerth's pantheon, especially Murlynd (http://www.canonfire.com/wiki/index.php?title=Murlynd). At least thier ex-human gods remember what its like to be human and thier Good aligned deities care about thier worshippers.

Caustic Soda
2010-08-18, 05:47 AM
As has been pointed out, the ultimate duty/purpose of the FR gods is to embody their portfolio. Umberlee must be capricious and dangerous like the sea. Gond must promote invention, whether it's something beneficial like streetlights or something dangerous like weapons. The few times when the gods have gone against that ,they have been brought up short. IIRC, Cyric of all deities was put on trial for not being insane and destructive enough.

The gods can be human-like at times, but their perceptions are colored by their portfolio. IIRC, the FR gods know everything related to their portfolio. So Milil knows all songs and joys, from Polka to Twist. The joy of a mother over her child, the joy of a sadist psycho over torturing someone to death. That kind of thing means the gods are fundamentally colored by the concepts they are responsible for, even if they (partially) have their own goals, too.


The idea that murder is wrong is a relatively new concept? :smallconfused:

Not necessarily, but the idea of what is murder has varied wildly. Is it murder to kill a foreigner or a slave? in many times and place IRL it wasn't. If you killed someone else's slave in pre-Christian Scandinavia then you had to pay a fine to the owner for his lost 'property', that was all.

It has been the case in various cultures that you were allowed to duel with and kill someone who insulted your honor. Indeed, it could often be expected of you to 'prove your manhood', avenge slights etc. The kind of thing that can lead to blood feuds.

If I understand correctly, it was expected in the Roman republic that the pater familias would kill deformed infants, especially girls. while on the subject of Rome, the vestal >virgins were expected to be just that, virgins. And if they had sex with someone, willingly or not, they were to be killed.

Heck, the concept of outlawry was basically 'this guy did something so bad, the law won't care what you do to him. enslave him, torture him, rape him, kill him, we won't punish you'.

In that respect the modern western world is a generally nicer place than many (if not most) past cultures.

edit @ Hamishspence: Right, I got the story the story off the 'net, so I suppose it's not surprising it got garbled a bit. Thanks for the heads-up.

hamishspence
2010-08-18, 05:53 AM
The few times when the gods have gone against that ,they have been brought up short. IIRC, Cyric of all deities was put on trial for not being insane and destructive enough.

Technically, it was because, through being insane, he was failing in his other duties, hence the charge was "Innocence by reason of insanity"

He went sane during the trial (through reading the True Life of Cyric) and then pointed out that even while insane, he was doing his job of spreading strife, breaking up relationships, etc, and citied his destruction of Mystra and Kelemvor's relationship as proof, showing their "tears of broken-hearted lovers" that he'd collected from them.

Tiki Snakes
2010-08-18, 08:38 AM
Zousha? Don't stress it. You seem to have a very firm grasp on the situation to me. You know what must be done. :smallcool:

Ahem. Yeah, personally I just can't help but want to tear it all down from inside whenever I hear this much about the Gods and the Divine in Faerun. It would make an awesomely cathartic campaign, if you like that kind of thing.

I'd say were you to play in the setting, you should look at going paladin-of-ideal as it were and do your utmost to acheive your epic destiny before death. Which is to say, break the divine hegemony and topple the overgod for the good of mankind.

Because it's generally hard to be worse than the Gods of Faerun.

Caustic Soda
2010-08-18, 11:42 AM
Because it's generally hard to be worse than the Gods of Faerun.

True, they're flawed in a major way, seen from a human perspective. Peehaps not quite as flawed as Zeus, the repeat rapist, but sitll.

The one thing I do like about the 50+ gods of Fr is that there isn't just one single Nature God who dances naked through the trees and loves everyone so huggy-muggy much. Different gods for different parts of nature, many of which are rather unpleasant is more believable to me.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-08-18, 12:30 PM
As for the Wall of the Faithless, uh, again, unless I missed something big, no. You don't cease to exist or dissolve, and I vaguely recall mention of some particular dude in the wall getting pulled out at some point. Or one of the ones from pre-Netheril era saying something to someone. Sadly again, I don't recall the reference.
I wouldn't know about the issues of which you speak, but I do know what happens in Mask of the Betrayer.
The events that started the conflict you get caught up in that story begin with Myrkul and the Wall of the Faithless. Two boys are given to Myrkul's church in Rashemen, one named Akachi and the other named Eveshi (though everyone calls him Ahhraman, which means something about smiling, if I recall). The brothers grow up to become Myrkul's most potent servants, Akachi even posessing the Silver Sword of Gith, until Akachi falls in love with a Thayan wizard. Myrkul decides to test Akachi by disrupting his lover's concentration, causing her to fumble a spell that ends up killing her. Since she's Faithless, she goes to the Wall. Because of this, Akachi turns his back on Myrkul and with Eveshi leads a force of celestials, dragons, undead and other people PO at the gods and launches an assault on the Wall. Akachi succeeds in tearing his lover's soul from the Wall, but the Crusade fails and Myrkul punishes Akachi the Betrayer by sticking him in the wall in his lover's place. According to this, the Wall DOES dissolve the souls trapped in it, torturing them and eating away their memories until there's nothing left. When Akachi was almost gone, Myrkul pulled him out, leaving him with next to nothing but an unending hunger. Thus the Spirit-Eater curse was created, and loosed upon the land Akachi once called home. His lover retreated to Thay and built the Academy of Shapers and Binders, and dedicated herself to finding a way to end Akachi's pain. Eveshi repented on his knees before Myrkul, who demanded that he hunt down Akachi's lover and kill her, making him immortal and setting a geas upon him so he would never turn on Myrkul again.

Fast forward to many years later, you've just slain the King of Shadows, an extension of the Shadow Weave that was threatening Neverwinter and the whole of the Sword Coast. You possess the Sword of Gith yourself, though only partially repaired after it was broken and a shard of it was lodged in your chest. Akachi's lover, The Founder, kidnaps you as the KoS's temple collapses around you, cuts the shard from your chest, and lets you take Akachi's soul into you, which sends your soul to the Wall in its place and makes you a spirit-eater. Eventually, you also meet one of your former companions, Bishop, who was Faithless (though you'd only know that if you bothered to look at the deity slot on his character sheet), and is now in the Wall, close to being completely dissolved, since he doesn't fight it like the others do. This all culminates in you leading a Third Crusade against the Wall (or turning on the Crusade and helping Kelemvor defend the city). Regardless of your decision, Kelemvor allows you to take your soul from the Wall to rid yourself of your curse, and depending on how things end up, you either are free and so is Akachi, or you imprison Akachi in your soul, requiring you to stay in the City of Judgment forever, with an honored place in Kelemvor's court as a pretty swell consolation prize.
So, yeah. The Wall DOES destroy souls in a very nasty way.

I think Kelemvor tried that (can't recall the details) and wound up getting told off by Cynosure. Short of it is, You Can't Do That. Souls that do not follow a god are not that god's to tamper with. They don't belong to you. They belong to the god of the Dead, and he isn't allowed to make nice to them, either (and by that measure, isn't allowed to count them among 'his' petitioners).

On occasion they try, and once in a while they get away with it, but if any god or group of gods started doing that regularly, Ao would smack them down so hard they wouldn't know what hit them.
Kelemvor says as much when you encounter him in MotB, though personally I think he hates the Wall as much as he did, but just keeps it around because the other gods will complain.

You know, a thought just occured to me. Why would someone be Faithless in the first place? The gods constantly give evidence of their existence (even if that evidence turns nasty), and there's plenty to choose from to suit your temperment.

hamishspence
2010-08-18, 12:38 PM
Manual of the Planes, written after FRCS, in it's short description of the afterlife in the Realms, does have a tighter definition of the Faithless. It suggests that people who worshipped no deity, simply wander the Fugue Plane (until a particularly compassionate deity picks them up anyway, or until either the devils or demons grab them).

Those who "actively opposed the worship of the gods" go to the Wall.

I think a possible reason to be Faithless might be: If a person has had enough of a bad experience with deities in general, he may consider them all unworthy of worship- and go out of his way to tell others this.

I think Artemis Entreri might be close to this point, thanks to his knowledge that his mother was coerced into intimacy, and then abandoned, by a cleric of Selune, a "Good" deity.

Kish
2010-08-18, 01:05 PM
You know, a thought just occured to me. Why would someone be Faithless in the first place? The gods constantly give evidence of their existence (even if that evidence turns nasty), and there's plenty to choose from to suit your temperment.
In this thread, you have advanced arguments:
1) That none of the gods of the Forgotten Realms are worthy of worship.
2) That it is mysterious and inexplicable not to worship one of them.
Could you possibly make up your mind?

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-08-18, 01:06 PM
I don't know what to think now! :smallsigh:

SITB
2010-08-18, 01:45 PM
RE: Paladins, while it possibly wouldn't work in FR you could play a Athar paladin who believes that all gods are not worthy of serving and thus "worshp" the good aspect of the Great Unknown.

He could think all deties are bound by their protfolios and thus are too rigid to adapt to new ideas/expreinces; thus he wouldn't put his belief in a 'perfect' deity with an answer to everything but would rather serve the promotion of good in all of it's forms. With the knowledge that while he is failable, he can still sterve for a perfect ideal.

LibraryOgre
2010-08-18, 01:53 PM
The one thing I do like about the 50+ gods of Fr is that there isn't just one single Nature God who dances naked through the trees and loves everyone so huggy-muggy much. Different gods for different parts of nature, many of which are rather unpleasant is more believable to me.

Eilistraee. She even does it with a sword.

hamishspence
2010-08-18, 01:59 PM
In this thread, you have advanced arguments:
1) That none of the gods of the Forgotten Realms are worthy of worship.
2) That it is mysterious and inexplicable not to worship one of them.
Could you possibly make up your mind?

Maybe it's a case of "better to worship the most worthy of the very unworthy gods, than the Wall"

Mnemnosyne
2010-08-18, 02:03 PM
Thing is, far as I can tell the average commoner doesn't know about the Wall of the Faithless. Midnight wasn't aware of the details when she visited Bone Castle during the Avatar Trilogy if I remember right, and she's an intelligent, well-studied mage that has more cause to know than most. Average farmer sure as the hells isn't going to know about the Wall if she didn't.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-08-18, 02:05 PM
I was actually about to ask whether the Wall is common knowledge or not. Though in MotB, it seemed that the Church of Kelemvor advertises it. Their temple in Mulsantir has a miniature stone replica of the Wall of the Faithless surrounding it. The ruling Hathrans have occasionally tried to get the doomguides there to take it down because it scares people or something, but the clerics have refused because they need to remind the people of the consequences of Faithlessness.

SurlySeraph
2010-08-18, 02:44 PM
The one thing I do like about the 50+ gods of Fr is that there isn't just one single Nature God who dances naked through the trees and loves everyone so huggy-muggy much. Different gods for different parts of nature, many of which are rather unpleasant is more believable to me.

Elistraee, Selune, Mielikki... there are lots of "Freedom! Nature! Bunnies!" deities in Faerun.

Coidzor
2010-08-18, 03:08 PM
FR is the poster-child for maltheism, and they know it, which is why they have the wall to deal with misotheists.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-08-18, 04:09 PM
What's maltheism? And what's a misotheist? :smallconfused:

Aroka
2010-08-18, 04:42 PM
Thing is, far as I can tell the average commoner doesn't know about the Wall of the Faithless. Midnight wasn't aware of the details when she visited Bone Castle during the Avatar Trilogy if I remember right, and she's an intelligent, well-studied mage that has more cause to know than most. Average farmer sure as the hells isn't going to know about the Wall if she didn't.


I was actually about to ask whether the Wall is common knowledge or not. Though in MotB, it seemed that the Church of Kelemvor advertises it. Their temple in Mulsantir has a miniature stone replica of the Wall of the Faithless surrounding it. The ruling Hathrans have occasionally tried to get the doomguides there to take it down because it scares people or something, but the clerics have refused because they need to remind the people of the consequences of Faithlessness.

I think reading the supplements etc. is likely to give a person the impression that everything in them is common knowledge, because D&D books usually describe things objectively rather than from a subjective in-world point of view (a method I much prefer). I think it's very unlikely that most people who aren't high-level magic-users have any clue about the truths of afterlife, how deities work, the Wall of the Faithless, and so on. They just get told that if they follow deity X, they will get a wonderful paradise after death (which no doubt leads to many surprises when they're turned into Lower Plane maggots).

I also wouldn't take anything in a D&D computer game - Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights, or the old gold box games - as canon. The games are mostly written by people who don't write the sourcebooks, and things won't always line up.


Maltheism is the belief that the deities are cruel, uncaring, or evil ("mal", bad, and "theism"); misotheism is a hatred of deities (compare misogyny, misanthrope).

DeltaEmil
2010-08-18, 04:56 PM
In third edition, the Forgotten Realms had a different cosmology than the great wheel presented in the manual of the planes.

Aroka
2010-08-18, 05:04 PM
In third edition, the Forgotten Realms had a different cosmology than the great wheel presented in the manual of the planes.

It does, but it's basically just a rearrangement; the aligned planes have basically been replaced with themed planes, but pretty much everything from the standard cosmology is included somewhere.

Tiki Snakes
2010-08-18, 08:09 PM
Surely the whole point of such a nightmarish torture device as the wall of the faithless is that people, knowing about it, are forced to choose a side?

Lord Raziere
2010-08-18, 08:30 PM
Surely the whole point of such a nightmarish torture device as the wall of the faithless is that people, knowing about it, are forced to choose a side?

which is exactly why the gods aren't moral at all; the good gods should tolerate freedom and choice of belief for the mortal races without punishing them with the Wall. instead they let it exist. in a way the good gods are evil to.

on the "Wall ain't common knowledge thing": so the common people not only will go to some Wall to be boredom'd to death if they don't believe, but the gods didn't tell anyone about this?

That only makes it worse!

Aroka
2010-08-18, 08:32 PM
which is exactly why the gods aren't moral at all; the good gods should tolerate freedom and choice of belief for the mortal races without punishing them with the Wall. instead they let it exist. in a way the good gods are evil to.

In what way would they go about not letting it exist?

Lord Raziere
2010-08-18, 08:37 PM
In what way would they go about not letting it exist?

let all the peoples souls in the wall free? then destroy it? or at least free all the good and neutral people, then create a new plane of existence(s) where they go where they actually deserve? ever think about that? :smallmad:

Aroka
2010-08-18, 09:02 PM
let all the peoples souls in the wall free? then destroy it? or at least free all the good and neutral people, then create a new plane of existence(s) where they go where they actually deserve? ever think about that? :smallmad:

Okay, and explain in detail, within existing parameters, how they do this when Ao, who can grant or remove all their powers at will, wishes the wall to exist?

Also, wouldn't good deities not be good because they let evil deities exist? No. Why? All of this alignment nonsense is subsumed by something much more fundamental and important: basic cosmic order, which is set by Ao. It requires both good and evil gods, is probably ineffable (again, a completely standard concept even in modern mainstream religions), and now happens to require a Wall of Souls.

Tiki Snakes: Fair cop, but I still don't think the majority of people would know. I'd assume that deities know, and pass on the information in some way to the followers closest to them (probably often as something like "if people don't worship me, they'll end up prey for fiends!"), and it filters down from there in less and less accurate forms, until the common people just get "I must worship my deity!"

darkpuppy
2010-08-18, 09:09 PM
*sighs* there's a very good reason The Wall is up, and nobody's mentioned it yet. Devils and Demons quite often go to the realm of the dead. Demons try to tempt people, whereas Devils just attack en masse, and steal any corpse not within the Wall, and often, souls who are part of the wall. The Faithless, essentially, are the first line of defence against all the souls of the dead nicked by those klepto Devils and Demons.

Yeah, the gods aren't fluffy, nice people. Not seen a god yet who is, both in RP and RL. Get used to it.

Aroka
2010-08-18, 09:21 PM
Lord Raziere,

Moreover, you too are applying modern real-world human ethics to medieval fantasy deities. This is wrong on many levels, but comes down to the basic assumptions of the setting's reality:

Faerūn's deities are beyond mortals. They perceive and understand things on a different level. They look at a bigger picture than mortals can. They are not constrained by human morality, and even the silly objective alignment system applies to them differently (and why not, since they may define alignment anyway?). They understand - not necessarily rationally, perhaps only on an intuitive level - that the order of the world requires them to do certain things or be a certain way. (Or they may simply have neither understanding nor the facility to question, instead simply being what they are, personifications of concepts, not even moral agents.)

Mortal judgments or ethics or morals clearly cannot be successfully applied to these deities - they play by completely different rules and have responsibilities to things more important and fundamental than the opinions of others (and possibly more so than alignments; especially in Toril, where the Outer Planes are more closely tied to deities than to alignments). Attempting this just brings about futility, despair, or ennui, and may eventually lead to existentialist nihilism that causes one to become Faithless.

Note that none of the above is any kind of commentary on any kind of real value system, objective or subjective. It's commentary on the value system in place in the game. If you can pretend that magic exists and the very laws of physics are different, I don't see why you can't pretend that the essential truths of morality (or, rather, alignment) are different, too. It's not very hard at all for me, and it requires no acceptance or endorsement of any particular set of values, because they're all imaginary. Just like writing a fictional story about murder doesn't mean I approve of murder.


I find it surprisingly interesting and enjoyable to examine this mindset of faith and divinity in RPGs, considering I'm a weak atheist, strong agnostic, and secular humanist. I also have no problem at all slipping into that imaginary mindset, because it's just pretend.


Darkpuppy: Interesting point. Basically, in a classic move for religions, deities extend protection from the fiends to those who worship them - each deity to their worshippers. This may be for good reason - it may take power to do it, and they can't afford to spend that power on someone who didn't feed them power through faith. The Faithless are left there to keep the fiends "satiated", so they don't prey on the souls of the faithful (even if they could).

Of course, this interacts a bit poorly with the whole "become an infernal maggot that probably won't even get to grow into the lowest order of fiend before its soul is consumed in some evil magic" afterlife that is the default lot of evil-aligned people in the main D&D cosmology - but is that actually how it works in Faerūn at all? I'm pretty sure evil orcs who follow Gruumsh, for instance, go to Gruumsh's realm as orc petitioners. Why wouldn't Bane's and Cyric's followers go to their deities realms and become petitioners, too?

darkpuppy
2010-08-18, 09:27 PM
Aroka - The Blood War still exists in Faerunian cosmology, but most of the lemures come from souls stolen by the Devils, while the other ones are souls tricked by Demons. Lemures, oddly, have a better chance of survival in the Faerunian cosmology, because there are less of them. But, at the same time, those who faithfully worshipped their gods do indeed get transported to their respective deity's domains, although even there, they are not completely safe. The Gods basically do their best.

And you are also correct in what you've said: The only thing sillier than applying human (specifically "western") moral values on a deity is ascribing human psychology to spirits in any Werewolf game. They don't think like us, they don't act like us. If you think of deities in DnD as being a lot like really high choir spirits from Werewolf, then you're actually getting the hang of them...

Kish
2010-08-18, 09:35 PM
What's maltheism?

The belief that the gods are evil.

And what's a misotheist?
An enemy of the gods.

Aroka
2010-08-18, 09:38 PM
Yep. I always find any fantasy/SF game or setting is far, far better when things that aren't human really aren't human (or even human-like). Great examples are the Fae of WoD's Changeling, the Aldryami elves and Mostali dwarves of Glorantha, and properly done Cthulhu Mythos monsters and gods. Similarly, human/humanoid cultures that feel different but real are excellent.

And the Blood War/fiend stuff makes sense to me: make those fiends work for their stolen souls. It makes evil deities much more sensible; Gruumsh promises you an eternity of glorious battle and testing your strength, and orcs want that. Some can still be unpleasant - Bane and Cyric probably offer afterlives of plotting and struggling and living in terror, subjugation, or paranoia even while inflicting them on others - but they can seem like acceptable exchanges.

Also, remember that someone who hasn't actually been dead and to the afterlife may not really believe that it exists on a completely concrete level; and considering that petitioners seem to lose their memories and individuality - if I recall my Planescape right - it seems to me that it's not really you suffering in that afterlife. By the same token, it's not really you enjoying a paradise - your personality, your individuality, is probably gone, and it isn't quite "real." This makes it possible/plausible for worshippers, and even Faithless, who know the "facts of afterlife" to maintain a certain blase or unworried attitude toward it.

Lord Raziere
2010-08-18, 11:06 PM
Lord Raziere,

Moreover, you too are applying modern real-world human ethics to medieval fantasy deities. This is wrong on many levels, but comes down to the basic assumptions of the setting's reality:

Faerūn's deities are beyond mortals. They perceive and understand things on a different level. They look at a bigger picture than mortals can. They are not constrained by human morality, and even the silly objective alignment system applies to them differently (and why not, since they may define alignment anyway?). They understand - not necessarily rationally, perhaps only on an intuitive level - that the order of the world requires them to do certain things or be a certain way. (Or they may simply have neither understanding nor the facility to question, instead simply being what they are, personifications of concepts, not even moral agents.)

Mortal judgments or ethics or morals clearly cannot be successfully applied to these deities - they play by completely different rules and have responsibilities to things more important and fundamental than the opinions of others (and possibly more so than alignments; especially in Toril, where the Outer Planes are more closely tied to deities than to alignments). Attempting this just brings about futility, despair, or ennui, and may eventually lead to existentialist nihilism that causes one to become Faithless.

Note that none of the above is any kind of commentary on any kind of real value system, objective or subjective. It's commentary on the value system in place in the game. If you can pretend that magic exists and the very laws of physics are different, I don't see why you can't pretend that the essential truths of morality (or, rather, alignment) are different, too. It's not very hard at all for me, and it requires no acceptance or endorsement of any particular set of values, because they're all imaginary. Just like writing a fictional story about murder doesn't mean I approve of murder.


I find it surprisingly interesting and enjoyable to examine this mindset of faith and divinity in RPGs, considering I'm a weak atheist, strong agnostic, and secular humanist. I also have no problem at all slipping into that imaginary mindset, because it's just pretend.


so? that is you, not me.

and technically, its not medieval times, it medieval fantasy not real medieval times, but fantasy medieval, if I want the morals in a setting to make sense from my perspective, then they will become that, its precisely because its pretend that I want the morals to make sense, you can defend all you want about how gods "are beyond mortals ken" because well- screw that.

screw all this garbage and bull about futility, ennui, despair, pride, screw these idiotic gods and their screw ups, screw the Wall and screw this "pretending the morality is different." if I think the gods are doing wrong and I don't like that in my setting, I go up there, kill them all for being idiotic jerks then make new gods who DO make sense, then sit down and play the way I want to play. then I have FUN.

You have your pretend game where you believe the "gods work in mysterious ways" excuse which I personally think is garbage, I have mine, leave yours outta mine, ok? :smallcool:

Aroka
2010-08-19, 03:29 AM
You have your pretend game where you believe the "gods work in mysterious ways" excuse which I personally think is garbage, I have mine, leave yours outta mine, ok?

This does not even make sense. How am I putting anything in your game? Why are you discussing this if you don't want to discuss it? And what's with the hostility?

Starbuck_II
2010-08-19, 09:07 AM
This does not even make sense. How am I putting anything in your game? Why are you discussing this if you don't want to discuss it? And what's with the hostility?

You did pull some "Gods can't be explained" strawman-like argument. Most people don't like being told you don't understand.

darkpuppy
2010-08-19, 09:23 AM
What Aroka's trying to say, Starbuck, is that Lord Raziere doesn't have to take this information into his game, and so the verbal attack was unjustified. In your FR campaign, the gods may be perfectly understandable. In Aroka's, they're not understandable, doing things for their own reasons. In mine, they act much like spirits from Werewolf (whether o or nWoD), so, while to an extent understandable, they still can't truly be understood.

In short, neither myself nor Aroka can understand the hostility to what is essentially an opinion, that will not affect how you run a game whatsoever.

Aroka
2010-08-19, 09:43 AM
You did pull some "Gods can't be explained" strawman-like argument. Most people don't like being told you don't understand.

How is it a strawman? It's my argument. A strawman is an argument one puts up, claiming it's someone else's, and then knocks down to look clever. And I'm not saying "you don't understand", I'm saying "as in many popular real religions, these fictional deities may be beyond human understanding, which adequately explains why they can't be understood".

JBento
2010-08-19, 10:00 AM
I do believe there's an extra purpose to the Wall of the Faithless: it's supposed to keep something out (duh), but not from the city of the dead, nor to keep the demons from going viking on worshippers' souls - though those are nice side effects. It is hinted and said here and there that it is required to maintain the stability of the universe.

I haven't found it specified anywhere exactly WHAT it's supposed to keep out (though I nurture little more than despise for FR, so I haven't read the setting books anything close to extensively), I always believed it to be the Far Realm - which is something that you REAAAAAALLLLLY want to keep out from anywhere you are.

Aroka
2010-08-19, 10:23 AM
I haven't found it specified anywhere exactly WHAT it's supposed to keep out (though I nurture little more than despise for FR, so I haven't read the setting books anything close to extensively), I always believed it to be the Far Realm - which is something that you REAAAAAALLLLLY want to keep out from anywhere you are.

I actually rather like the idea that the deities simply serve the cosmic balance at Ao's instruction without actually understanding it too well. "We've got to have this wall, that's how it is." The mystery cult thinking suits fantasy religion very well - there's deeper and deeper levels of knowledge and truths, and each level completely changes your understanding of the world and negates the previous levels. The basic levels here would seem to be mortal understanding, deity understanding, and Ao understanding. Is there something beyond that? Maybe, but does it matter to any mortal, ever? Probably not.

Starbuck_II
2010-08-19, 10:42 AM
How is it a strawman? It's my argument. A strawman is an argument one puts up, claiming it's someone else's, and then knocks down to look clever. And I'm not saying "you don't understand", I'm saying "as in many popular real religions, these fictional deities may be beyond human understanding, which adequately explains why they can't be understood".

Which is why I said "strawman-like". While not a strawman it is worded the same way. Instead of answering the topic, it seems to distract the discussion.

But anyway I was just explaining why he might be hostile. :smallbiggrin:

Roland St. Jude
2010-08-19, 11:14 AM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Real world religion is an Inappropriate Topic here and we don't tolerate insulting others based on playstyle preferences. Thread locked for review.