Wall of the Faithless(FR) [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Psyren

2014-07-05, 07:46 PM

So the Forgotten Realms has The Wall of the Faithless, a wall that souls in the afterlife get put in if they had no faith in life. It's a way to encourage that a mortal have faith in life.

But some people don't like it. Why?

It forces you to worship a deity (note - you can't even worship a philosophy or ideal in FR, has to be an actual deity) or be consigned to a fate that in many respects is even worse than hell or an evil god. An evil deity will at least consume your soul leaving you with oblivion, while being in hell/the abyss/gehenna will either do that, or begin the aeons-long process of breaking you down to remake you as a fiend. With the wall you're simply nailed up for eternity until you go mad and then you're still in the wall. Without getting into top if atheism/agnosticism's legitimacy in general - whether a FR citizen believe the FR deities are worthy of such worship (and most are arguably not, due to malice or incompetence) is irrelevant - you must pick one, and not go back on your decision lest you risk becoming one of the False.

Not that Eberron's afterlife is much better, mind you.

TheIronGolem

2014-07-05, 07:51 PM

Well, I like it because player's are easier to control and manipulate when they have a deity, and that makes it much easier to railroad. Not that I do that or anything. Please note that I am currently writing in a non-english language with a gazillion false-cognates, particularly involving the word 'I'.

Ahem. Let's stay on topic, please, and not import grudges from other threads.

As for me, I'm not hugely well-versed on Forgotten Realms, but the Wall seems a bit unnecessarily grimdark for the setting; something that would be more at home in Warhammer 40k or something.

Svata

2014-07-05, 07:56 PM

So the Forgotten Realms has The Wall of the Faithless, a wall that souls in the afterlife get put in if they had no faith in life. It's a way to encourage that a mortal have faith in life.

But some people don't like it. Why?

Because it means if your character doesn't believe the gods deserve to be worshipped, or who just doesn't want to bow and scrape to some cosmic bully, he gets eternally tortured. Infinite punishment for a finite crime just isn't good, so, IMHO, there are no Good-aligned gods in the Forgotten Realms. Well, maybe Lawful Good, because they've been roped into it by cosmic Law, but most certainly no Chaotic Good, and it's an unlikely proposal for NG.

Psyren

2014-07-05, 07:56 PM

Jeff the Green

2014-07-05, 08:01 PM

I like it only as a plothook in an epic campaign: take down Kelemvor and then get enough power to ignore the other gods' whining.

Other than that, I hate it because it flattens characters. Characters should worship and obey a god because they find them worth of such. Thus a fighter stating "I worship Pelor" or "I worship Hextor" say something about them because they don't have to worship a god. But "I worship Bane" or "I worship Torm" doesn't say anywhere near as much.

It also creates the odd situation where destroying the soul of a Faithless person when you kill them is arguably Good because you're being merciful and sparing them eternal torment in the same way you would by conducting a clean impromptu execution instead of turning them over to authorities that would draw and quarter them.

Gildedragon

2014-07-05, 08:01 PM

It is clearly evil and no force of Good does anything to get rid of it.
Heck it then makes a lot of sense why FR is the first setting with the most good-aligned undead PC-able templates.

Lord_Gareth

2014-07-05, 08:06 PM

I like it only as a plothook in an epic campaign: take down Kelemvor and then get enough power to ignore the other gods' whining.

Be fair. Kelemvor's first act as the God of the Dead was to tear down the wall and re-judge the dead within it, and he abolished the Wall of the Faithless for a time. Then Ao forced him to re-make it at gunpoint and has enforced its existence since. Kelemvor despises that wall.

ryu

2014-07-05, 08:11 PM

Be fair. Kelemvor's first act as the God of the Dead was to tear down the wall and re-judge the dead within it, and he abolished the Wall of the Faithless for a time. Then Ao forced him to re-make it at gunpoint and has enforced its existence since. Kelemvor despises that wall.

And that's why I had to get VERY creative when striking down all forms of that wall before it could even come into existence as an idea through the magic of time travel. Why? Because screw that wall. Screw that wall and anything that would willingly allow it to continue existing let alone actively contemplate making it.

thethird

2014-07-05, 08:12 PM

Yeah. Kelemvor is cool and dandy. The earlier death gods weren't as peachy though.

I dislike it because it is rather plain and boring. It only takes options away. It doesn't add much to the game, other than being a potential plot hook for epic characters.

Jeff the Green

2014-07-05, 08:14 PM

Psyren

2014-07-05, 08:15 PM

Lord_Gareth

2014-07-05, 08:27 PM

True. However, the plan would probably require being the god of death and I think Kelemvor's too much of a coward to go against Ao.

Since Ao can un-create him with a snap of His fingers, I'd call it prudence more than cowardice. Kelemvor continues to strive for justice in death.

For this to make sense you need to understand the history of death in the Forgotten Realms. The first lord of the dead was Jergel, the Lord of the End of Everything. He instituted the Wall not to enforce faith in the gods, but in keeping with his nihilistic, all-consuming portfolios. But Jergal's power was literally so great that he spent most of his time trying not to implode beneath the weight of his responsibilities. In keeping with his nature, he raised Myrkul to Lord of the Dead, because he felt that Myrkul would execute the duties of that office in an appropriate fashion. Myrkul did, but he replaced Jergal's cold, malicious indifference with an active malevolence nearly without equal. Beneath the Lord of Bones, death was not simply unjust, it was actively cruel.

Kelemvor's rule is a new kind of death, one Jergal did not anticipate or plan for. The concept that death should be a just, fair process is one that the Lord of the End had not previously comprehended. Jergal is an orderly god, and he remains to observe what effect this will have on his former realm.

In the meantime, he waits. The end is coming. He needn't hasten it.

malonkey1

2014-07-05, 08:28 PM

The wall did strike me as odd, but I suppose Ao's rules, and his enforcement of them, necessitate it. Ao forced the gods to depend on worshipers, so they couldn't just screw off on their portfolios. Logically, in order to survive, they would want to ensure as many worshipers as possible, which means they would have to have extreme consequences for not worshiping. That extreme deterrent from agnosticism happens to be this wall. The fact that Ao forced Kelemvor to reinstate it just proves that that's purpose it serves. It's a bad idea, and it's obviously evil, but when you stop thinking of worshipers as people, and think of them as dots on a screen, it makes sense. And it's pretty obvious that Ao only thinks of the Faerûnian people as fots on a screen.

Vhaidara

2014-07-05, 08:38 PM

I would object to it more if the following weren't true
1. FR has an obscene number of gods. If you can't find one you like, you haven't looked enough :smalltongue:
2. It is an interesting setting specific gimmick
3. Mask of the Betrayer was awesome.

Jeff the Green

2014-07-05, 08:49 PM

thethird

2014-07-05, 08:50 PM

Poor poor Kiaransalee.

Kantolin

2014-07-05, 08:56 PM

Most of my realms games simply note, offhand, that a heroic group of adventurers got rid of the wall but their exploits are lost to time.

As the wall is not worthy of more than a sentence. Something that silly certainly doesn't deserve my putting actual attention on it. Otherwise most games run in the realms would end up being 'Okay now we have to go wreck the wall', which would be cute once or maybe twice.

As a side note, most players won't be playing their characters once their character's soul has gone on to an afterlife or not, so I actually can't see this stopping most player characters from not having deities nor really 'controlling' them.

(Although a game where the gods actively force each and every individual character, religious or not, to behave a certain way 'Or it's the wall with you!' in a controlling manner would actually be really entertaining. I'm seeing that as a kind of 'shadow hunters game', as a group of adventurers - each giving obviously fake lip service to some deity or another - are working to free the enslaved mortalkind from the tyranny of the gods.)

Captnq

2014-07-05, 09:02 PM

Psyren

2014-07-05, 09:07 PM

Uhh... You guys know that Kelemvor took down the wall for a while, right? Then the other gods tried him for the crime of being Human and he had to get his Heartlessness back on or lose his job, right?

Which just goes to show that, as someone said above, there really aren't any Good gods in FR. Or if there are, they are perilously incompetent/weak/dumb.

ryu

2014-07-05, 09:09 PM

Uhh... You guys know that Kelemvor took down the wall for a while, right? Then the other gods tried him for the crime of being Human and he had to get his Heartlessness back on or lose his job, right?

Oh we covered that. I never said old Kelly got the sharp end of the stick. Most of the older cast from the very early days of the setting got proactively offed though.

Blackhawk748

2014-07-05, 09:09 PM

All i can say is, GO KELEMVOR, hes my favorite death god, pretty much because hes the only one i can find thats neutral that isnt a controlling biotch (im looking at you Wee Jaas). And now i find out he ripped down this incredibly evil wall (woo!) but was then forced to put it back up "or else" (boo). I think i may have a new favorite diety, and yet one more reason not to adventure in faerun, if Thay wasnt reason enough.

Slightly related Kingdoms of Kalamar actually has a group whose whole point is proving that the gods are not deserving of worship, and they make several good points, though the gods in KoK have to be pretty hands off because of their Accord.

Psyren

2014-07-05, 09:10 PM

How is Wee Jas controlling? She doesn't even hate necromancers, she just wants them to be respectful.

Nerull is the jerk in GH.

Blackhawk748

2014-07-05, 09:14 PM

I remember reading somewhere that she was incredibly strict, like Nazi level, though that may have just been a past DM, and i freakin HATE Nerull. Gives Death and all Necromancers a bad name, i mean Vecna i can at least respect, but Nerull is just a jerk that kicks the table while most of the gods are playing chess and the Chaotic gods are off playing tag with their favorite weapons.

Pan151

2014-07-05, 09:23 PM

Averis Vol

2014-07-05, 09:27 PM

The Wall was primarily intended as a way to say "players must pick a deity in this setting" and answer the obvious follow-up question of "well, what happens to the people that don't?" I would wager that in modern Faerun relatively few people get saddled with that fate. I doubt Greenwood et al. really thought through the implications of such a construct when paired with such obviously petty or foolish deities.

I feel like I should mention how absolutely wrong this statement is. The wall of the faithless is basically a waiting room until a god accepts you. You don't have to worship anyone, and if you choose not to, guess what, you have to twiddle your thumbs until some (not a person, an absolute cosmic power) god in line with your morals says" Okay, you just about line up with me, feel free to come chill in my plane.)

If it is a well known fact that the gods control the afterlife realms, and you choose not to coincide with any of them (because there is a god for basically every single type of person), you have no reason to complain when you get stuck to a wall and have to petition to get into an afterlife.

----------

Most of the complaint I see about the wall is from players who don't want to choose a god because they think they then have to exactly follow his or her dogma, which is only true if you're a cleric or paladin. You can worship a god and not follow his dogma to a ''T'' just fine.

Blackhawk748

2014-07-05, 09:39 PM

How is Kelemvor not a control freak? Last I checked, he has an entire order of doomguides dedicated to introducing any and all necromancers, undead and anyone defying death in general to the sharper end of a blade.

Even Jergal, the original god of Death and Tyranny, is mostly fine with necromancy and undeath.

I know and now having read a bit more about Wee Jaas, thank you Complete Divine, i think ill prbly be making characters who follow her more.

I think my DM was being nice when i was playing a Knight of the Raven that followed Kelemvor. I slaughtered undead and necros in this order. EVULLLL, EVILLLLL, Evil, Neutral, Good, and i would only get to the neutral or good ones after the other three steps where completed. IE never.

Psyren

2014-07-05, 09:42 PM

I feel like I should mention how absolutely wrong this statement is. The wall of the faithless is basically a waiting room until a god accepts you. You don't have to worship anyone, and if you choose not to, guess what, you have to twiddle your thumbs until some (not a person, an absolute cosmic power) god in line with your morals says" Okay, you just about line up with me, feel free to come chill in my plane.)

I feel like I should mention how little you clearly understand FR. FRCS 39:

Religion

The deities of Faerûn are deeply enmeshed in the functioning of the world’s magical ecology and the lives of mortals. Faerûnian characters nearly always have a patron deity. Everyone in Faerûn knows that those who die without having a patron deity to escort them to their proper judgement in the land of the dead spend eternity writhing in the Wall of the Faithless, or disappear into the hells of the devils or the infernos of the demons.

There is no "petitioning" after death. If you die without a patron, it's too late unless a deity specifically intervenes on your behalf - a process over which you, the dead soul, have no agency or say. In fact, FRCS specifically mentions that if no deity intervenes on your behalf, your living friends must arrange for you to get help (typically by casting Miracle or Wish - both of which represent divine intervention in FR.) And if you don't have any living friends, or they were "heathens" like you and died when you did, tough cookies.

TL;DR - if you die without a patron, someone external must decide to save you - you cannot save yourself.

Of more concern to most adventurers, a character who dies without a patron deity cannot be raised from the dead by any mortal means short of a miracle or wish. When such a character dies, he is considered one of the Faithless, and his soul is used to form part of the wall around the realm of Kelemvor, god of the dead. Mortal action cannot reverse this fate, and so unless the character’s friends can arrange direct intervention by another deity (or expend a miracle or wish, spells symbolizing intervention by another deity), that character is unlikely to return to life.
...
All of the Faithless receive the same punishment: They form a living wall around the City of Judgment, held together by a supernatural greenish mold. This mold prevents them from escaping the wall and eventually breaks down their substance until the soul and its consciousness are dissolved.

Now, do I think it's necessarily smart to be atheistic or defiant in a setting like FR? No, of course not - but being dumb or stubborn are not crimes worthy of everlasting torment.

Pan151

2014-07-05, 09:43 PM

Xar Zarath

2014-07-05, 11:49 PM

Since Ao can un-create him with a snap of His fingers, I'd call it prudence more than cowardice. Kelemvor continues to strive for justice in death.

For this to make sense you need to understand the history of death in the Forgotten Realms. The first lord of the dead was Jergel, the Lord of the End of Everything. He instituted the Wall not to enforce faith in the gods, but in keeping with his nihilistic, all-consuming portfolios. But Jergal's power was literally so great that he spent most of his time trying not to implode beneath the weight of his responsibilities. In keeping with his nature, he raised Myrkul to Lord of the Dead, because he felt that Myrkul would execute the duties of that office in an appropriate fashion. Myrkul did, but he replaced Jergal's cold, malicious indifference with an active malevolence nearly without equal. Beneath the Lord of Bones, death was not simply unjust, it was actively cruel.

Kelemvor's rule is a new kind of death, one Jergal did not anticipate or plan for. The concept that death should be a just, fair process is one that the Lord of the End had not previously comprehended. Jergal is an orderly god, and he remains to observe what effect this will have on his former realm.

In the meantime, he waits. The end is coming. He needn't hasten it.

AFAIK, the Wall was introduced during NWN2 MOTB. But you may have more info on the matter.

From what I know, Myrkul made the Wall to punish the Faithless and make them choose worship. It was derided but even the goodly gods saw the use in it, however despicable especially with Ao enforcing that without worshipers they were dead meat.

When Kelemvor got the job, he tried not using the Wall. Every Faithless was judged by the actions and alignments in life and were rewarded appropriately. However he judged with a mortal's heart and gave mercenaries and warriors the better deal. It got so bad, mortals who died knew that Kelemvor would given them a free pass.

That's when the Midnight Mystra went all up in his face and their relationship soured. He ended up ditching the man and giving in to the god, ruling as he did. He made the plane grey and sombre, making death not evil or good but a necessity that came with living.

After that the Wall was put back into use. When you meet Myrkul in MOTB and if you have Kaelyn with you, the dead god will say "dismantling Mount Celestia stone by stone is easier than breaking my wall" or a variation thereof.

AuraTwilight

2014-07-06, 12:09 AM

Not that Eberron's afterlife is much better, mind you.

Well, strictly speaking, it's a LOT better. Putting aside petty details like "Atleast you can move around freely, even if there's nothing to see or do", it's not ACTIVELY UNJUST, it's perfectly fair. It's not a punishment, it's not a reward, it's just a natural fact of the cosmos that no one can claim responsibility for.

And it's a great setting piece because every religion in Eberron ultimately revolves around avoiding that afterlife in hopes of getting a better one, and whether that's even possible is never addressed.

Atleast Eberron's afterlife isn't "Eff you, atheists."

Psyren

2014-07-06, 12:39 AM

Atleast Eberron's afterlife isn't "Eff you, atheists."

It's more like "eff everyone." In one respect it is indeed perfectly fair - everybody, from commoners to kings, gets the same fate.

In another respect it's not fair at all. In Eberron, you can be a complete bastard all your life and end up lumped in with people who were complete saints. Granted, being a complete bastard or complete saint is very hard to do in Eberron, but it's not impossible, and that outcome is very unsatisfying to me (even moreso than the Wall.) I don't blame the Aerenei for wanting to stick around when there's so little to bloody do on the other side, nor the Blood of Vol for believing that the gods are ultimately pointless since they don't or can't do anything to spare mortals from this fate, if they ever even existed to begin with.

Golarion is again my preferred take on this situation.

Snowbluff

2014-07-06, 12:40 AM

Would you personally like being denied afterlife and instead being stuck in a wall with millions of other souls for all of eternity, just because a handfull of people (gods) don't want to lose their jobs?

To be fair, we've probably done worse at one point in our careers to keep our jobs as adventurers. I spent a lot of in Golarion as a "Neutral Good" guy acting like a 1940's gangster.

Psyren

2014-07-06, 12:43 AM

AFAIK, the Wall was introduced during NWN2 MOTB. But you may have more info on the matter.

The Wall in its current form has been around since at least FRCS (3.0) which came out in 2001, before the first NWN (never mind the second one.)

I don't know what it was like in 2e.

Alleran

2014-07-06, 01:00 AM

There is no "petitioning" after death. If you die without a patron, it's too late unless a deity specifically intervenes on your behalf - a process over which you, the dead soul, have no agency or say. In fact, FRCS specifically mentions that if no deity intervenes on your behalf, your living friends must arrange for you to get help (typically by casting Miracle or Wish - both of which represent divine intervention in FR.) And if you don't have any living friends, or they were "heathens" like you and died when you did, tough cookies.
This is not entirely true - there are gradations.

"The average Faerunian lives long enough to worship (or serve through one's actions) one deity above all others - though in many cases, the deity a given person has served most might not be clear to a dying mortal or anyone else. If a mortal dies before finishing a mission or a task for a particular deity and it's a matter he felt strongly about in life, he could be sent back by that deity, reborn as another mortal, to try to complete that task. Otherwise, he ends up in the afterlife serving the deity most appropriate to his moral and ethical outlook." ~Elminster's Forgotten Realms, pages 132-133.

It's absolutely possible to die without a stated patron, yet to have had one that you've been serving for years without you ever realising it. You could have never thought twice about it, as long as your actions were in line with that deity. Being declared Faithless or False is more about actively declaring your own private war against the divine.

When Kelemvor got the job, he tried not using the Wall. Every Faithless was judged by the actions and alignments in life and were rewarded appropriately. However he judged with a mortal's heart and gave mercenaries and warriors the better deal. It got so bad, mortals who died knew that Kelemvor would given them a free pass.

That's when the Midnight Mystra went all up in his face and their relationship soured. He ended up ditching the man and giving in to the god, ruling as he did. He made the plane grey and sombre, making death not evil or good but a necessity that came with living.

After that the Wall was put back into use.
Kelemvor didn't actually put the Wall back up after he made the plane grey and sombre, at least not in the novels that dealt with the change. It's mentioned that a Faithless/False soul would only have to live with souls ethically similar to themselves in his city, while Kelemvor's petitioners and/or clergy protect the city in their afterlife from attacks by demons/devils.

The Wall's reappearance after Kelemvor first took it down (back in 2E) was in the 3E FRCS, but with no explanation of where it came from or why it was back, or any (off the top of my head) acknowledgement elsewhere. For example, nowhere in his entry in Faiths & Pantheons is the Wall mentioned, at least that I can spot (it's late, though, so I could be missing it). Come 4E the Wall disappeared again as part of the Sellplague, so Faithless/False souls just hang out on the Fugue Plain until they fade into oblivion.

squiggit

2014-07-06, 01:06 AM

That wall does seem pretty awful, seems a bit mind boggling that frankly anyone who calls themselves "good" would go along with that.

Manipulating a Paladin of Tyr is easy.
Man, why does everyone hate Tyr?

Also I think I'm one of the only people who likes Nerull too. And why I hate 4e's cosmology.

Pan151

2014-07-06, 01:20 AM

Man, why does everyone hate Tyr?

Because he's the kind of guy that would be so cliche as to challenge another man to a duel to the death for the hand of a woman (which he did do, btw, he challenged the god Helm and killed him over a completely unfounded accusation that he was trying to steal his girlfriend. He is otherwise - supposed to be - the god of justice)

squiggit

2014-07-06, 01:24 AM

Because he's the kind of guy that would be so cliche as to challenge another man to a duel to the death for the hand of a woman (which he did do, btw, he challenged the god Helm and killed him over a completely unfounded accusation that he was trying to steal his girlfriend. He is otherwise - supposed to be - the god of justice)

Yeah that was really stupid... and feels really, really out of character for someone who's supposed to be the ultimate symbol of law and justice and good. Forgot about that one.

Then they killed him off in a footnote.

Psyren

2014-07-06, 01:24 AM

This is not entirely true - there are gradations.

*snip*

As near as I can tell, that book came out in 2012 and so would pertain to 4e FR, or at the very least be a retcon of what was presented in 3e FR. (It's also likely a response to backlash about the 3e FR situation.)

In any event, it's not information I would have been privy to, nor does it mitigate this thread's topic, which is asking "why were people so upset about the Wall?" The fact that they changed/softened the nature of the Wall after the fact, subsequent to people getting upset, does not negate the fact that they were made upset by what was presented prior.

It also doesn't really address the core issue - if you are a Faerunian who considers none of the gods to be worthy of worship, because the evil ones are bastards and the good/neutral ones are either unwilling or powerless to stop the evil ones from being bastards, then either you get nailed to the Wall (if they can't find a deity to match you), or they automatically assign you one after death to keep you out of the Wall, which does not at all address your core problem with the FR divine system in the first place. This is like voting no confidence in an election or writing in Mickey Mouse, but after the election the electoral board comes to your house, dips your thumb in ink against your will, rubs it on one of the candidate's pieces of paper against your will and then for the rest of eternity you are considered a supporter of that candidate and permanently affixed to their mailing list.

kardar233

2014-07-06, 01:35 AM

The first appearance of the Wall that I know of was in the Avatar Trilogy, which showed the Time of Troubles, introduced Cyric, Midnight and Kelemvor. Those books came out in 1989, so the Wall has been around at least since late 1e.

Alleran

2014-07-06, 02:30 AM

As near as I can tell, that book came out in 2012 and so would pertain to 4e FR, or at the very least be a retcon of what was presented in 3e FR. (It's also likely a response to backlash about the 3e FR situation.)
It deliberately highlights that it isn't 4E FR - it's set well before the 4E transition, but looks at all elements of the setting (it's a "life in the Realms" book, you could say).

It also doesn't really address the core issue - if you are a Faerunian who considers none of the gods to be worthy of worship, because the evil ones are bastards and the good/neutral ones are either unwilling or powerless to stop the evil ones from being bastards...
That stumbles into the "why does good allow evil to exist" question, a much larger philosophical debate than a RPG setting, in my opinion, should be expected to deal with* and/or provide the perfect answer to. The good and evil gods are opposed, and they do plenty of work against one another through mortals. But the deities aren't the player-character adventuring party, so Tyr isn't going to pick up his +12 hammer of justice and plane shift into Cyric's throne room to swing it at his face for being evil.

Really, though, there are so many gods, with so many viewpoints, that if you can't find one who more or less agrees with you, then I'd wonder how hard you're looking. A guy who wants to (and does) wander around the forests all his life, kill loggers and people despoiling natural beauty, replant trees wherever he can? He might well never offer a single word to Silvanus, might not even know Silvanus' name, but the vast majority of everything he'd do there is exactly in line with what Silvanus likes. So when he dies, Silvanus will claim him, and he gets an afterlife exactly in line with his moral and ethical outlook. Should he be displeased at getting exactly what he would want?

This is like voting no confidence in an election...
The analogy kind of breaks down if you push it too far, but you'd actually just find out that your views have aligned with one political party or another all along (the "serve through actions" part). Whether you actively support that party, vote for them, donate money to the cause? That doesn't necessarily matter.

* A big reason, of course, is that if the player characters don't have an evil to fight against then it'd be pretty damn boring. If good already destroyed evil and the Happily Ever After has arrived, then it's not really an RPG setting. Stories need lead characters, heroes need villains. Or at least PCs need things to kill and corpse-rob to acquire Loot and Experience, given the moniker of murder-hobo.

squiggit

2014-07-06, 02:36 AM

so Tyr isn't going to pick up his +12 hammer of justice and plane shift into Cyric's throne room to swing it at his face for being evil.

He kinda does. He's described as dying fighting vaguely defined demons at some vague time point in time.

The Insaniac

2014-07-06, 02:41 AM

First, I dislike the wall because it imposes a more severe punishment on people who are apathetic or uninterested in the divine (the faithless) than those who actively go against their god's ideals (the false).

Second, Ao has nothing to do with the wall or Kelemvor's reinstatement of it. Kelemvor's trial happened at the behest of the gods of evil (Shar, Cyric, Bane and company) who seem to have a stronger presence on the council of greater deities than the good gods do. The wall is entirely the purview of the god of death but Kelemvor was deemed too lenient towards the "good" dead, especially the faithless and the false.

Psyren

2014-07-06, 02:51 AM

That stumbles into the "why does good allow evil to exist" question, a much larger philosophical debate than a RPG setting, in my opinion, should be expected to deal with and/or provide the perfect answer to.

And yet, other settings do not punish you simply for voting no confidence, or presume to vote for you even if you don't wish to. In Golarion and Greyhawk, I can get into Elysium/Nirvana without ever believing in Pelor or Sarenrae themselves. I can even worship a unique philosophy or ideal all of my very own, because ultimately, that is what is more important - the cosmic forces of belief behind the gods, not the gods themselves, who are simply representatives of those concepts (and imperfect ones at that.)

Only Faerun forces you to go through these superpowered outsider bullies as gatekeepers to the concepts themselves. You can't even be a druid without worshiping one of them in FR, even as their internecine politics harm the very nature they are supposed to be safeguarding. And you have to do this even if you aren't a divine caster at all! That is the main problem so many have with the setting.

Really, though, there are so many gods, with so many viewpoints, that if you can't find one who more or less agrees with you, then I'd wonder how hard you're looking. A guy who wants to (and does) wander around the forests all his life, kill loggers and people despoiling natural beauty, replant trees wherever he can? He might well never offer a single word to Silvanus, might not even know Silvanus' name, but the vast majority of everything he'd do there is exactly in line with what Silvanus likes. So when he dies, Silvanus will claim him, and he gets an afterlife exactly in line with his moral and ethical outlook. Should he be displeased at getting exactly what he would want?

If he did not consciously choose it? Absolutely. Free will matters.

Even if you like many of the same aspects of nature as a true Silvanite, you might view his rituals and holidays as arbitrary and pointless (or even cruel - Thorncall anyone?) You may dislike that his clergy are commanded to "watch and manipulate." Or the fact that he redirects streams, seals caves and makes trees for no better reason than he feels restless ("Night the Forest Walks.")

The analogy kind of breaks down if you push it too far, but you'd actually just find out that your views have aligned with one political party or another all along (the "serve through actions" part). Whether you actively support that party, vote for them, donate money to the cause? That doesn't necessarily matter.

No, it means that I myself and that candidate/party/representative may share some, or even many of the same views. But I can do that and still be against the system itself, even vehemently so. At least, I could except in FR - where my choices are "choose before death," "accept what we assign you after death based on these datapoints" or if that fails "become cosmic plaster for eternity." (The Faithless currently in the Wall came from somewhere, so obviously, their cosmic eHarmony service is not perfect, now is it?)

Sian

2014-07-06, 03:25 AM

part of is i guess is a question between Fluff and active player involvement.

Wall of the Faithless is for:

1. Those actively denying the deities (in a setting that more than any other have deities interacting with the world)
2. Those worshipping a dead god (with the cave-at that the dead god can bring them in if he 'gets better')

Its not explicitly for those not being specificly pious (as those are 'expected' to be laypersons to several gods, depending on the specific act they're doing, but it's run on the same level of active character involvement as handwaving that character take a poop when need be')

On Candlekeep (http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=15988&whichpage=46) Ed Greenwood (or rather, one of his regular players in his private group that handles those kinds of question) have talked a bit on it

Q: “That's good to know, actually. I've wondered about that myself sometimes, since some characters do not pay homage to one particular deity, but maybe several, or none in particular, but will say things like "by the gods!" How does this relate to the wall of the Faithless and the False? Is that reserved for those who don't acknowledge the gods at all or?”

Ed replies:

The Wall of the Faithless and the False are for those who repudiate some or all of the gods, or seek to defy “the system” (usually because they have become insane) by denying that the gods and faith have any usefulness or validity at all - - or who assert that EVERYTHING mortals know about the gods is utterly wrong because the gods deceive mortals habitually, all the time, about all matters. It is more of a threat to living mortals than a popular, heavily-populated destination, and in the past the ranks of the tortured entities there have been raided by deities and mighty-in-magic individuals (such as certain archwizards, dragons, and others) for “raw materials” (sentiences) to empower new creature creations. Which is a topic I shouldn’t elaborate more on, just now.

Alleran

2014-07-06, 03:29 AM

And yet, other settings do not punish you simply for voting no confidence, or presume to vote for you even if you don't wish to. In Golarion and Greyhawk, I can get into Elysium/Nirvana without ever believing in Pelor or Sarenrae themselves.
In Golarion?

"The Graveyard of Souls: Beyond and surrounding the courts lies a vast and seemingly endless expanse of graves, crypts, and funerary monuments in the styles of nearly every race and culture across the mortal sphere, representing the ultimate destination of those souls whose very nature denied and corrupted itself: atheists. Some atheist souls escape this fate, and are allowed to exist as strange disembodied spirits in the Astral or even to reincarnate on the Material Plane, as according to complex judgements rendered by Pharasma, but most end up buried here, their imprisonment less a punishment than it is a quarantine."

Arguably, Pharasma might also be feeding the souls of some of those atheists to Groetus (which amounts to oblivion for the soul). The fate of atheists (granted, it's more like misotheism) is Rahadoum's entire schtick. One of the Tales novels has Salim, a Rahadoumi, go into a long spiel about why his people chose that fate for themselves.

If he did not consciously choose it? Absolutely. Free will matters.
What you're saying is that somebody should be angry because he got exactly what he wanted out of an afterlife. He got the afterlife associated with his moral and ethical outlook - he served Silvanus through his actions, actions that he agreed with and Silvanus agreed with, and so his afterlife will be more of what he agreed with in life, an afterlife appropriate to his morals and ethics.

If he held and followed a moral and ethical outlook that would align him to Malar (in general meaning hunt often, slaughter bloodily, strong do what they want and weak die, etc.), then he goes to that afterlife.

If he held and followed a moral and ethical outlook that would align him to Mielikki (in general meaning love and respect life, drive out unnatural blights, be a good protector, etc.) then he'd go to that one.

But he doesn't go to Mielikki if he was aligned to Malar, because that isn't the afterlife that his actions in life got him. His actions in life were his choice for his afterlife.

But I can do that and still be against the system itself, even vehemently so.
Thus, you don't vote. Yet your views (and/or you yourself) will still fall under liberal, or conservative, or republican, or whatever. To get declared Faithless you'd have to do something like take up a gun to declare war on the government and start shooting up the voting booths.

AuraTwilight

2014-07-06, 04:14 AM

It's more like "eff everyone." In one respect it is indeed perfectly fair - everybody, from commoners to kings, gets the same fate.

In another respect it's not fair at all. In Eberron, you can be a complete bastard all your life and end up lumped in with people who were complete saints. Granted, being a complete bastard or complete saint is very hard to do in Eberron, but it's not impossible, and that outcome is very unsatisfying to me (even moreso than the Wall.) I don't blame the Aerenei for wanting to stick around when there's so little to bloody do on the other side, nor the Blood of Vol for believing that the gods are ultimately pointless since they don't or can't do anything to spare mortals from this fate, if they ever even existed to begin with.

Golarion is again my preferred take on this situation.

Yes, well....so? It'd be the same as if there were no afterlife at all. Does that make it 'unfair'? Eberron is atleast ethically consistent in that it takes the stance that morality is less black and white than in other settings and that characters need to find their own meaning in a positive-nihilistic manner.

...And if you don't like it, change the way the world works. It's WAY easier in Eberron than in Faerun, which is kind of up it's own end with super-epic NPCs who are 2awesome4u to matter.

Psyren

2014-07-06, 04:25 AM

In Golarion?

Yes, Golarion. Where's your quote from, because mine is from ISWG:

"The souls in the Boneyard are each assigned to their ultimate destination within the Outer Sphere, be it Heaven, Hell, Elysium, the Abyss, or any other plane or god’s domain. When the ownership of a soul is in dispute, deific representatives petition them to settle their claims, although in the case of souls bound by contract to an archfiend or similar planar entity, Pharasma herself plays the determining role.

Far beyond Pharasma’s palace and the surrounding necropolis, the souls of the neutral dead are transformed into strange entities of a dualistic nature—these creatures are the aeons (see the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 2). They serve Pharasma and the Boneyard as advisors, arbiters, caretakers, explorers, guardians, guides, and even soldiers in times of need."

Seems an agreeable fate to me.

Arguably, Pharasma might also be feeding the souls of some of those atheists to Groetus (which amounts to oblivion for the soul). The fate of atheists (granted, it's more like misotheism) is Rahadoum's entire schtick. One of the Tales novels has Salim, a Rahadoumi, go into a long spiel about why his people chose that fate for themselves.

ISWG has nothing about any of that. Groetus hovers over the boneyard - a giant moon - but is not a destination for any of the souls that pass through (unless travelers go there themselves, which generally drives them mad.)

What you're saying is that somebody should be angry because he got exactly what he wanted out of an afterlife. He got the afterlife associated with his moral and ethical outlook - he served Silvanus through his actions, actions that he agreed with and Silvanus agreed with, and so his afterlife will be more of what he agreed with in life, an afterlife appropriate to his morals and ethics.

And if you are not in 100% lockstep with Silvanus, what then? And even if you are, but you think mortals rather than deities should determine their own fate, or that Silvanus' very presence undermines the balance he is supposed to uphold by not dealing with Talos/Talona permanently?

Thus, you don't vote. Yet your views (and/or you yourself) will still fall under liberal, or conservative, or republican, or whatever. To get declared Faithless you'd have to do something like take up a gun to declare war on the government and start shooting up the voting booths.

For starters, you are listing very different things, which leads me to believe you don't understand the fundamental difference between them. The third item on your list is not synonymous with the second item (I'll refrain from using names to avoid getting the thread locked), and likewise a deity is not the embodiment of a philosophy even if he follows that philosophy. (Especially not in FR, where the deities are often childish/fickle when they're not outright stupid.)

Consider Lathander, who has done so many dumb things that even the other gods don't trust him. And you expect mortals to do so? Consider Mystra, who is on what, her third life? Consider Mask, who derped himself into losing nearly all of his divine power. Consider Talos, who accidentally created another deity because his own trick failed. Or Corellon, who created the setting's greatest race war by not realizing what an evil shrew he was married to until she nearly killed all of his children. These are not infallible paragons of divinity - they are nearly as flawed as any mortal, with consequences far more disastrous. In a sane setting, you could choose to ignore the lot and seek enlightenment on your own; not here.

Yes, well....so? It'd be the same as if there were no afterlife at all. Does that make it 'unfair'? Eberron is atleast ethically consistent in that it takes the stance that morality is less black and white than in other settings and that characters need to find their own meaning in a positive-nihilistic manner.

That's fine, but it begs the question - if you just rot in the ground Dolurrh, why not stick around? Seems to me that anybody with 2 ranks in Knowledge: Planes to rub together should be setting up recruitment drives for Vol, if they're not trying to stick their brain into a Warforged body or french kiss a Quori.

Anyway, it's not a big deal as Eberron isn't the focus of this thread, I was just explaining why I didn't really think their take was all that much better. It is better though, in that it doesn't rely on so-called good gods to be complicit in the cosmic suck.

...And if you don't like it, change the way the world works. It's WAY easier in Eberron than in Faerun, which is kind of up it's own end with super-epic NPCs who are 2awesome4u to matter.

See I would, but as I mentioned - there are already settings I like better in this regard, because they handle it better. No need for me to waste any processing power re-inventing the wheel.

Alleran

2014-07-06, 05:46 AM

Where's your quote from, because mine is from ISWG
Great Beyond: Guide to the Multiverse. The Salim reference comes from his first Tales novel, Death's Heretic. If you're an atheist, you explicitly don't get transformed (or if you do, it's extremely rare). The "neutral dead" is a very different thing, for a very obvious reason: not all neutral dead are atheist.

And if you are not in 100% lockstep with Silvanus, what then?
You'd still get to go there, because you go to the deity most appropriate, and presumably you don't have to be 100% in lockstep for him to take you (after all, Mystra still accepted the LN/LE followers and clerics of her predecessor despite a NG alignment, and even clerics, who have the least reason to not be in lockstep, can still be within one alignment step and thus have slighly differing philosophies to the mainstream faith).

If you differ enough that there's a better deity (and aren't a cleric sworn to a god), then you would go to the better option, because that is where your choices, actions, and moral/ethical outlook have led you. If there is legitimate doubt over which god has a claim, then it falls to Kelemvor to determine what afterlife is best suited for you based on your life, your actions, choices and morals.

And even if you are, but you think mortals rather than deities should determine their own fate, or that Silvanus' very presence undermines the balance he is supposed to uphold by not dealing with Talos/Talona permanently?
Mortals do determine their own fate. That's the entire point of actions (i.e. your choices) as a metric to judge one's afterlife. Unless you subscribe to the casually deterministic school of thought, which is a philosophical element that I do not expect (nor want) to see in an RPG setting for playing games in as a hobby. As to Talos, where they clash, they are opposed. Where they don't, they are not opposed. For example, Silvanus might find it very useful to have a lightning strike start a forest fire that clears out dead growth or similar. And that same forest fire allows for rebirth and renewal, which helps Lathander.

(Personally, I would have no compunctions about removing alignment from deities entirely if it were up to me, and having their "alignment" be judged by their creed. But that's neither here nor there.)

The third item on your list is not synonymous with the second item (I'll refrain from using names to avoid getting the thread locked), and likewise a deity is not the embodiment of a philosophy even if he follows that philosophy. (Especially not in FR, where the deities are often childish/fickle when they're not outright stupid.)
It's not necessarily supposed to be. Hence the "whatever" added. Whatever your view, you still hold that view, even if you don't take part. Deities generally do act in accordance with their portfolios, and are in some ways shaped by them. Kelemvor embracing a role as God of Death had severe repercussions for his own views and alignment.

kalasulmar

2014-07-06, 07:28 AM

Fizban

2014-07-06, 07:56 AM

And that's why I had to get VERY creative when striking down all forms of that wall before it could even come into existence as an idea through the magic of time travel. Why? Because screw that wall. Screw that wall and anything that would willingly allow it to continue existing let alone actively contemplate making it.
Late to the party and responding to a quote from the first page, but does this remind anyone else of a certain "dark" magical girl anime? I find this greatly amusing.

Very nice discussion above, I didn't know anything about the Wall aside from Mask of the Betrayer either.

Blackhawk748

2014-07-06, 09:55 AM

In Faerun, you know who runs the show and what the stakes are. Ignore the rules of the game and you will lose your soul.

While this may be true, the bulk of the gods in Faerun are barely worthy of being worshipped. Hell they had to be threatened by their creator to do their jobs.

Ao: Hey why are you guys not listening to your mortals? AND WHO JUST CREATED A RANDOM MOUNTAIN CHAIN?
Gods (all at once): He/She did it!!
Ao: Ok thats it, if you dont listen to your mortals your all gonna lose your powers, so you better start doing your jobs! And i swear to me if another random geographical feature appears for no good reason im gonna start knockin heads!

This isnt how it went, but i find it funnier when you think of them as a bunch of toddlers.

Baroknik

2014-07-06, 11:14 AM

While this may be true, the bulk of the gods in Faerun are barely worthy of being worshipped. Hell they had to be threatened by their creator to do their jobs.

Ao: Hey why are you guys not listening to your mortals? AND WHO JUST CREATED A RANDOM MOUNTAIN CHAIN?
Gods (all at once): He/She did it!!
Ao: Ok thats it, if you dont listen to your mortals your all gonna lose your powers, so you better start doing your jobs! And i swear to me if another random geographical feature appears for no good reason im gonna start knockin heads!

This isnt how it went, but i find it funnier when you think of them as a bunch of toddlers.

Voting "no confidence" results in the system not being changed, though.

Sure, in your characters mind they may not be "just" in having the wall, but until that is changed in the universe you better follow the rules or accept the punishment.

Hell, I agree that the wall is silly, but have no problem with it existing in some universe. Characters that revile the wall face an interesting choice: a willingness towards oblivion to stand by their beliefs or the loss of their ethics.

In a universe where the cosmology says "worship or cease to be" those who embrace the latter better be prepared to fully commit to their self-assigned martyrdom (which sounds like a fun character to me).

Psyren

2014-07-06, 11:19 AM

Great Beyond: Guide to the Multiverse.

Perfect, so it's from Golarion's 3.5 days, outdated and therefore irrelevant. I'm talking about the current Golarion.

You'd still get to go there, because you go to the deity most appropriate, and presumably you don't have to be 100% in lockstep for him to take you (after all, Mystra still accepted the LN/LE followers and clerics of her predecessor despite a NG alignment, and even clerics, who have the least reason to not be in lockstep, can still be within one alignment step and thus have slighly differing philosophies to the mainstream faith).

You're still assuming that them "taking you" is a good thing. It is merely the lesser of two evils (because the alternative is the Wall.) Amputating a limb may be better than being shot in the head, but if you want neither, you have no recourse in FR.

Mortals do determine their own fate. That's the entire point of actions (i.e. your choices) as a metric to judge one's afterlife.

Then why is there a Wall in the first place, if their eHarmony service can judge actions so perfectly? Clearly there are some who slip through the cracks, or there would be no Wall. It's very existence undermines your whole argument.

Unless you subscribe to the casually deterministic school of thought, which is a philosophical element that I do not expect (nor want) to see in an RPG setting for playing games in as a hobby. As to Talos, where they clash, they are opposed. Where they don't, they are not opposed. For example, Silvanus might find it very useful to have a lightning strike start a forest fire that clears out dead growth or similar. And that same forest fire allows for rebirth and renewal, which helps Lathander.

Faiths and Pantheons has them pretty solidly opposed all the time actually.

It's not necessarily supposed to be. Hence the "whatever" added. Whatever your view, you still hold that view, even if you don't take part. Deities generally do act in accordance with their portfolios, and are in some ways shaped by them. Kelemvor embracing a role as God of Death had severe repercussions for his own views and alignment.

Can I hold that view without being assigned a petulant 40 HD outsider against my will maybe?

Sith_Happens

2014-07-06, 02:55 PM

Can I hold that view without being assigned a petulant 40 HD outsider against my will maybe?

No one said you have to talk to them, you just have to live in the same neighborhood.:smalltongue:

Blackhawk748

2014-07-06, 02:58 PM

No one said you have to talk to them, you just have to live in the same neighborhood.:smalltongue:

For all of eternity. Guess im gonna grow a REALLY obnoxious tree that will drop its seeds all over THAT guys lawn :smallcool:

Gildedragon

2014-07-06, 03:14 PM

Get together all the epic petitioners in the neighborhood association to protest the eyesore that the wailing wall of despair is and demand it be taken down (it blocks the view of Celestia, it makes too much noise at night, it was put there without consulting the onetime mortal members of the association)

Coidzor

2014-07-06, 03:18 PM

Blackhawk748

2014-07-06, 03:18 PM

AuraTwilight

2014-07-06, 03:22 PM

It seems to me that the main problem most of the people posting in this thread have against the afterlife in a fantasy world is that it doesn't line up with their "modern" view on religion. In a world created and controlled by gods, telling them to go take a hike has tangible consequences. Not so much in the world we live in. We don't have contact with dead souls to give us answers about the afterlife. For us it is purely faith that gets us through. Religious types have faith that they have chosen the "true path" and will be rewarded for it with whatever their god deems is a worthy afterlife. Atheists have faith that their science proves that they don't have to worry about eternal consequences of their actions in this life. They think they will just be dead and gone. In Faerun, you know who runs the show and what the stakes are. Ignore the rules of the game and you will lose your soul.

The "R" in rpg stands for role, so play the role in that game. You really aren't committing yourself to a certain religious ideology by having your character tithe to a fantasy religion, no more than all of the theft and murder you all enjoy so much in these games will condemn you to a real prison.

Okay, first of all this is baiting a bad conversation and is very close to insinuating that anyone who dislikes the wall is just unable to reconcile it with their real-life beliefs or something.

Secondly, atheists don't have 'faith' in 'science'. Just...don't go there. Just do not.

In Faerun, none of the gods are worthy of worship because they all explicitly put their personal power over the wellbeing of the countless mortals in their care. They literally had to be scolded by Big Daddy Ao over it. Why SHOULD you worship them? Belief in a deity does not automatically justify worshipping them, that's why misotheism exists.

Finally, your last paragraph ignores the complaint raised that the Wall of the Faithless LIMITS roleplaying. No one can be a sort of Buddhist/Taoist-y sort of "philosophical" cleric. Literally everyone in the setting has to pick a god or suffer horribly for it. It explicitly tells all of these characters that they might as well play because they're not going to matter.

The Wall of the Faithless also basically means there's no truly Good gods. What do the saints and the truly pure hearted do, then? Who should they worship? What about the people who, like Kelemvor, want justice in death? The world of possible characters is smaller. The roleplaying options are smaller. The range of meaningful choices for character ideology are smaller. And it paints Ao, a True Neutral entity, as basically taking the side of Evil, because the 'Good' gods are the only ones who really lose out in this set up.

Anlashok

2014-07-06, 03:23 PM

I could have sworn reading somewhere that there was a patron god of atheists somewhere in faerun's portfolio (Which would make the wall worthless).

The Wall of the Faithless also basically means there's no truly Good gods.
Or it means the good gods can't do anything about it. D&D has always justified "How can Good stand for this?" By making the evil stronger.

Finally, your last paragraph ignores the complaint raised that the Wall of the Faithless LIMITS roleplaying. No one can be a sort of Buddhist/Taoist-y sort of "philosophical" cleric.
Except nothing stops you from doing exactly that.

It explicitly tells all of these characters that they might as well play because they're not going to matter.
Really? Because that stance requires you to take the position that the only thing that matters about a character is what happens after they die (which is usually the end of a character's career as an adventurer).

Blackhawk748

2014-07-06, 03:29 PM

Really? Because that stance requires you to take the position that the only thing that matters about a character is what happens after they die (which is usually the end of a character's career as an adventurer).

Would YOU want a character you've played for months to be turned into torture plaster when he dies? I certainly dont, i want my character to have a nice afterlife (or a horrible one if i was evil)

Personally im with Kelemvor on this, lets get our god-tier sledge hammers and get our Berlin on!!

ryu

2014-07-06, 03:31 PM

I could have sworn reading somewhere that there was a patron god of atheists somewhere in faerun's portfolio (Which would make the wall worthless).

Or it means the good gods can't do anything about it. D&D has always justified "How can Good stand for this?" By making the evil stronger.

Except nothing stops you from doing exactly that.

Really? Because that stance requires you to take the position that the only thing that matters about a character is what happens after they die (which is usually the end of a character's career as an adventurer).

Okay I'm curious. Do you actually believe that last bit?

Gildedragon

2014-07-06, 03:35 PM

Would YOU want a character you've played for months to be turned into torture plaster when he dies? I certainly dont, i want my character to have a nice afterlife (or a horrible one if i was evil)

Personally im with Kelemvor on this, lets get our god-tier sledge hammers and get our Berlin on!!

"Mr. Aochev, tear down this wall!" Ro'n Ad-Ri'Gan, Bard

Anlashok

2014-07-06, 03:35 PM

Okay I'm curious. Do you actually believe that last bit?

In hindsight I phrased it wrong.

By the time a character is going to the afterlife for realsies, their adventure is (probably) over.

Would YOU want a character you've played for months to be turned into torture plaster when he dies? I certainly dont, i want my character to have a nice afterlife (or a horrible one if i was evil)
Of course I wouldn't like it, but that doesn't mean I disagree with the idea that my character doesn't matter at all if he does end up that way somehow.

But again, coulda sworn Oghma was the patron god of atheists.

Gildedragon

2014-07-06, 03:37 PM

The wall is actually evidence warblades don't exist in the realms, or at least no faithless warblades. Moment one found themself in the wall they'd IHS it away

Blackhawk748

2014-07-06, 03:37 PM

"Mr. Aochev, tear down this wall!" Ro'n Ad-Ri'Gan, Bard

Im totally sig quoting this

The wall is actually evidence warblades don't exist in the realms, or at least no faithless warblades. Moment one found themself in the wall they'd IHS it away

I thought they'd just Ancient Mountain Hammer it for a few hours, much more satisfying.

Kalmageddon

2014-07-06, 03:40 PM

Because it's basically evil? It requires a huge pretzel of logic to get the good-aligned gods to go along with it and it's not really justifiable. It exists to scare mortals into picking any faith, which the gods of Faerun only care about because they need faith to survive, which is only true because Ao had to punish them for abusing mortals and neglecting their followers.

Essentially, the Wall of the Faithless is a cosmic testament to the irresponsible and terrible passing the buck of their punishment to the helpless, powerless masses. It's the greatest Injustice conceivable.

Pretty much this, yes. It basically strips most of the FR gods of any sympathy one might have had for them.

Gildedragon

2014-07-06, 04:15 PM

Im totally sig quoting this

Please do! :D Don't think I've been sig-quoted yet so it is a ticklesome delight.

I thought they'd just Ancient Mountain Hammer it for a few hours, much more satisfying.
Well yes, but you'd hurt the other souls in the process. Best to just go "mmm nope!" and make the grout and mold vanish.

though perhaps the reason is that maybe souls of dead warblades IHS their dead condition away.

Blackhawk748

2014-07-06, 04:24 PM

Please do! :D Don't think I've been sig-quoted yet so it is a ticklesome delight.

Well yes, but you'd hurt the other souls in the process. Best to just go "mmm nope!" and make the grout and mold vanish.

though perhaps the reason is that maybe souls of dead warblades IHS their dead condition away.

I remember the first time i got sig quoted, it actually happened two different times on the same day.

and have we just got a case for immortal warblades?

Zaq

2014-07-06, 04:29 PM

Well, being Dead doesn't bar you from taking actions, so . . .

Psyren

2014-07-06, 04:33 PM

No one said you have to talk to them, you just have to live in the same neighborhood.:smalltongue:

Given that the vast majority of those neighborhoods tend to be divinely morphic, not to mention surrounding you with the pro-deity folks, eternity could get awkward after awhile :smalltongue:

Which is another thing I dislike about FR's afterlife. In Greyhawk, the gods and other major players merely inhabit this or that corner of {insert Outer Plane here.} It's possible (and likely preferable, if you are one of the "worship a philosophy" types) to find a patch of plane that is between jurisdictions and spend eternity mostly unmeddled with. Pelor, for instance, does not hold sway over the length and breadth of Elysium - rather, he lives in one particular part of it known as the Fortress of the Sun.

In FR, the afterlife destinations are literally named for the deities in charge of them - if you are sent to the House of the Triad, you are subject to those three deities at every turn. If you are assigned to the Demonweb Pits, you are under the sole jurisdiction of one.

Except nothing stops you from doing exactly that.

Nothing except undermining your choice by forcibly giving you a deity anyway, or nailing you to the Wall if their eHarmony service is on the fritz.

Well, being Dead doesn't bar you from taking actions, so . . .

Off-topic but I've seen this meme a lot; what people forget is that by RAW you can't be dead without being unconscious, which does block the majority of them.

AuraTwilight

2014-07-06, 04:44 PM

Or it means the good gods can't do anything about it. D&D has always justified "How can Good stand for this?" By making the evil stronger.

This would be a valid point if the Good Gods weren't JUST as guilty in Ao's original decree that started this whole mess, and if the Good Gods werent' JUST as angry as everyone else at Kelemvor for trying to take down the Wall once.

This is an issue the gods, good and evil, are more or less agreed upon. The Good gods try to morally justify this unambiguously evil thing because to actually take Good to its logical conclusion means the Good Gods have to inconvenience themselves, and that's something none of them are willing to do.

Yes, if they actually did that, they'd weaken and Evil would become stronger, but that's ALL THE MORE REASON they, and the neutral gods, should be petitioning Ao about this. He's truly neutral, and his decisions are giving evil an unfair advantage in the FR universe. That's bull.

Doc_Maynot

2014-07-06, 04:51 PM

Off-topic but I've seen this meme a lot; what people forget is that by RAW you can't be dead without being unconscious, which does block the majority of them.

Though in this case, couldn't the spirit trapped on the wall just use the surge regardless of their (now dead) mortal body's state?

Psyren

2014-07-06, 05:32 PM

Though in this case, couldn't the spirit trapped on the wall just use the surge regardless of their (now dead) mortal body's state?

Nope - you become a petitioner during the judging process, which strips your class features away and leaves you as a 1 HD outsider.

Doc_Maynot

2014-07-06, 05:58 PM

Nope - you become a petitioner during the judging process, which strips your class features away and leaves you as a 1 HD outsider.

Well, ain't that is a fate worse than death... Oh wait.

ryu

2014-07-06, 05:59 PM

Nope - you become a petitioner during the judging process, which strips your class features away and leaves you as a 1 HD outsider.

Just iron heart surge the judging process then.

Sith_Happens

2014-07-06, 06:03 PM

Nope - you become a petitioner during the judging process, which strips your class features away and leaves you as a 1 HD outsider.

Meh, nothing a good Iron Heart Surge or two can't solve.:smallwink: Also, they have 2 HD.

Svata

2014-07-06, 06:14 PM

(which is usually the end of a character's career as an adventurer).

Well, that would be almost ok, if it didn't require a Miracle or Wish to bring you back, and have you indebted to a deity for interceding onyour behalf.

Anlashok

2014-07-06, 06:24 PM

Nothing except undermining your choice by forcibly giving you a deity anyway, or nailing you to the Wall if their eHarmony service is on the fritz.
Which, again, aren't really relevant to your state as an adventurer. Yeah, having a ****ty afterlife sucks. Yeah, I think it's stupid fluff and doesn't make any sense (especially given that Ao enforces it even though it should undermine Ao's position on worship)... I just don't think it "wrecks" atheistic adventurers.

AuraTwilight

2014-07-06, 06:55 PM

Which, again, aren't really relevant to your state as an adventurer. Yeah, having a ****ty afterlife sucks. Yeah, I think it's stupid fluff and doesn't make any sense (especially given that Ao enforces it even though it should undermine Ao's position on worship)... I just don't think it "wrecks" atheistic adventurers.

You're forgetting that FR, as a setting, is basically a stage for the myths of this cosmology. For gods to take actions and have conflicts and for mortals to be their representatives. In such a setting, not only do atheist adventurers have nothing to show for their accomplishments, but they'll never really be acknowledged for them, and they will either be overridden by the next group of theistic representatives or taken credit for.

The afterlife for atheists and faithless in FR is basically a symptom of the problem that really, only the gods and high-level NPCs in Faerun matter. Everyone else has to either suck up and/or cooperate with them or basically get erased from the history books.

Also, from an in-character perspective, why should I adventure and risk my one lifetime if I'm utterly boned if something happens to me? Only people who believe in a god would have the courage to risk their lives, surely, else the adventurer is a foolhardy idiot. Again, limiting roleplaying options.

ryu

2014-07-06, 07:07 PM

You're forgetting that FR, as a setting, is basically a stage for the myths of this cosmology. For gods to take actions and have conflicts and for mortals to be their representatives. In such a setting, not only do atheist adventurers have nothing to show for their accomplishments, but they'll never really be acknowledged for them, and they will either be overridden by the next group of theistic representatives or taken credit for.

The afterlife for atheists and faithless in FR is basically a symptom of the problem that really, only the gods and high-level NPCs in Faerun matter. Everyone else has to either suck up and/or cooperate with them or basically get erased from the history books.

Also, from an in-character perspective, why should I adventure and risk my one lifetime if I'm utterly boned if something happens to me? Only people who believe in a god would have the courage to risk their lives, surely, else the adventurer is a foolhardy idiot. Again, limiting roleplaying options.

Obtain enough resources for the eternal life method of you're choice? Otherwise you get to enjoy a rather fatalistic and miserable waiting game for the rest of your life.

Andezzar

2014-07-06, 07:10 PM

Well, that would be almost ok, if it didn't require a Miracle or Wish to bring you back, and have you indebted to a deity for interceding onyour behalf.How does the casting of an arcane spell (wish) cause the faithless to be indebted to a god?

Did I imagine it, or does the wall of the faithless also serve the purpose of keeping the horrors of the far realm out?

Gildedragon

2014-07-06, 07:49 PM

How does the casting of an arcane spell (wish) cause the faithless to be indebted to a god?

Did I imagine it, or does the wall of the faithless also serve the purpose of keeping the horrors of the far realm out?

Imagine it. Though nice fluff. a lesser of two evils sorta deal

AuraTwilight

2014-07-06, 08:30 PM

How does the casting of an arcane spell (wish) cause the faithless to be indebted to a god?

Because even the Wish version of "Get this dude out of the Wall" require's divine intervention.

And all Arcane magic comes from atleast one god anyway. Gods do EVERYTHING in Faerun.

squiggit

2014-07-06, 08:44 PM

Also, from an in-character perspective, why should I adventure and risk my one lifetime if I'm utterly boned if something happens to me?
As it is an aethist wouldn't be expecting much from an afterlife anyways and that doesn't stop them from doing good.

Again, limiting roleplaying options.
Not really. It doesn't hinder your roleplaying options in the slightest. You're just refusing to roleplay the character in the scenario. "Half elves aren't allowed to be wizards" is limiting your options. "You can't roleplay a cleric with no god" is limiting your options. "Atheists may or may not be screwed when they died" doesn't limit anything. It just tells you that the world is pretty screwed up.

Psyren

2014-07-06, 08:50 PM

How does the casting of an arcane spell (wish) cause the faithless to be indebted to a god?

In FR, Wish is basically "Mystra Miracle." You are asking the Weave (and therefore her, since she is the Weave) to do whatever, and therefore she petitions on behalf of the schlub you're trying to save because being able to cast Wish demonstrates your dedication to the arcane and blah blah blah.

Graypairofsocks

2014-07-06, 10:24 PM

But again, coulda sworn Oghma was the patron god of atheists.

Um, isn't that a bit contradictory.

malonkey1

2014-07-06, 10:45 PM

Um, isn't that a bit contradictory.

You can be god of atheists, it's just that a chunk of your portfolio denies your existence. Although, looking at Oghma's portfolio, it doesn't include atheists.

ryu

2014-07-06, 10:59 PM

You can be god of atheists, it's just that a chunk of your portfolio denies your existence. Although, looking at Oghma's portfolio, it doesn't include atheists.

I don't even know how one could conceivably be an atheist or agnostic in the realms. You could make a good case for misotheism as previously discussed. You could make a case that since deities draw power from mortals pantheism is the correct position. You could state that all deities were actually just mortal perceptions of ideas given form, power, and self determination, but still weren't more than particularly powerful mortals as even gods can be forgotten and die.

Atheist or Agnostic though? How does that even work in this context?!

hamishspence

2014-07-07, 02:22 AM

Cadderly in the R. A. Salvatore Cleric Quintet, was an agnostic cleric for a while.

ryu

2014-07-07, 02:27 AM

Cadderly in the R. A. Salvatore Cleric Quintet, was an agnostic cleric for a while.

Okay how did it work?

Anlashok

2014-07-07, 02:28 AM

Um, isn't that a bit contradictory.

I believe the way it was described was that, being a god of knowledge, he encouraged his followers to question everything. Including his own tenants and status. Or something.

Cadderly in the R. A. Salvatore Cleric Quintet, was an agnostic cleric for a while.

That's probably what I was thinking of I guess, though the author doesn't sound familiar.

Sian

2014-07-07, 03:32 AM

Jeff the Green

2014-07-07, 04:09 AM

one thing that seems to go over everyones head is that the gods are very active in the Realms, hence noone (except some of those being highly megalomaniac) have reason to believe that the gods doesn't exist. Some people might not be specificly pious, but to say that you feel restricted by being 'forced' to at least acknowledge the gods is kinda like moaning about that you can't be a Luddite in Silicon Valley. If you want to play a god-hater, then Faerun is not the place for you, since all the fluff is set up for those being certified and shipped to an asylum at first oppotunity.

Good gods can't be stated to not be god because they don't cater to insane people, as pulling modern western philosophy and morality on religion over the Realms is like round peg, square hole.

You seem to be confusing atheism with misotheism. The former is probably not justifiable, especially given the recency of the Time of Troubles. The latter is absolutely justifiable, especially given the recency of the Time of Troubles.

I wonder, though, whether theism is necessarily the only rational position. How likely is it that anyone's witnessed something that is absolutely the result of deific intervention? Considering that divine magic is not significantly different in appearance than arcane magic to most people (and has almost no distinction in Mulhorand), it doesn't count.

kardar233

2014-07-07, 04:34 AM

Yeah, the "gods are sufficiently powerful outsiders" shtick that one of the Planescape factions (Athar, I think?) are big on doesn't seem to be nearly as common in Forgotten Realms. I think that's how Cadderly justifies his non-worship but it's been too long for me to remember.

Alleran

2014-07-07, 04:36 AM

Perfect, so it's from Golarion's 3.5 days, outdated and therefore irrelevant. I'm talking about the current Golarion.
Whether it's 3.5e rules or not is irrelevant. Setting is not mechanics. If you're an atheist, you're stuck in the graveyard. You can be LG dead atheist, neutral dead atheist or CE dead atheist. It doesn't matter. You're an atheist, so that's where you're quarantined off from the rest of the multiverse.

You're still assuming that them "taking you" is a good thing.
It's what your morals and ethics want/agree with from an afterlife. I don't complain about the taxi service leading me to my 5-star hotel.

hamishspence

2014-07-07, 06:11 AM

I believe the way it was described was that, being a god of knowledge, he encouraged his followers to question everything. Including his own tenants and status. Or something.

That's about right.

Psyren

2014-07-07, 08:11 AM

Cadderly in the R. A. Salvatore Cleric Quintet, was an agnostic cleric for a while.

It was more that he was having a crisis of faith. You don't fall instantly for one of those, and he quickly became one of Deneir's Chosen, which is about as patron deity as you can get.

Whether it's 3.5e rules or not is irrelevant. Setting is not mechanics.

Unfortunately in this case you are wrong, because ISWG was written specifically to replace all the setting books from Golarion's 3.5 era. For example, Vudra is no longer packed with psions because psionics is no longer a thing in Golarion (officially anyway.)

It's what your morals and ethics want/agree with from an afterlife. I don't complain about the taxi service leading me to my 5-star hotel.

And if I feel like walking? Yeah it's not as easy/short as a cab ride, but finding enlightenment - excuse me, "my hotel" - on my own has meaning too.

Andezzar

2014-07-07, 08:41 AM

Has it ever been explained what you have to do to pick a patron deity? Is it possible to change it? And if so, what would that require?

Psyren

2014-07-07, 08:52 AM

FRCS covers this;

A character’s choice of a patron deity does not create any special obligations for that character. Choosing a patron merely indicates which deity happens to be the character’s personal favorite. A character’s choice of a patron reflects the character’s ambitions and self-image (most people want to be as much like their patron deity as possible for a mortal), and reflects the character’s values.

Unless she is a divine spellcaster, a character is under no obligation to proselytize on her patron deity’s behalf, make special sacrifices, or even tell other mortals which patron deity she honors. Even clerics and druids aren’t expected to constantly seek converts. An adventuring cleric represents her faith through her actions and the causes she fights for, not by haranguing her comrades at every opportunity.

It's as simple as saying "I like X and want them to be my favorite" (though being too spurious about it can end up making you one of the False.) However, if you - quite legitimately, given FR's history - consider none of them to be particularly worthy of worship, you get to eat sh{{mud}}.

Andezzar

2014-07-07, 08:59 AM

Even for misotheists it will be difficult to hate all deities equally. Wouldn't hating one less than the rest also qualify for picking a patron deity? So it might actually be very difficult to not choose one.

Psyren

2014-07-07, 09:04 AM

It's quite possible to hate all the gods equally - there are at least two PrCs based around the concept, though of course pursuing them might work out badly for a denizen of Toril.

Andezzar

2014-07-07, 09:18 AM

It's quite possible to hate all the gods equally - there are at least two PrCs based around the concept, though of course pursuing them might work out badly for a denizen of Toril.Are those PrCs really about hating all of them equally? I would wonder why a character would hate a deity with one ideology exactly in the same way as one with a different ideology. While you can abhor the concept of deities, I'd still think such a character would prefer for example Ilmater or Lathander over Cyric or Malar, if only for the impact they have on mortals.

Psyren

2014-07-07, 09:32 AM

If you're against deific meddling as a concept, then the individual agendas of the gods are irrelevant. Especially if, in your view, their internecine politics cause more harm than good.

This is particularly relevant in Faerun, where actually convincing everyone to stop worshiping the gods en masse could potentially starve them and shatter the entire corrupt system, Wall and all. At a minimum it would force Ao to re-examine things instead of enforcing the status quo. The possibility is certainly remote, but it's a feasible principled stand nonetheless.

ryu

2014-07-07, 09:35 AM

Are those PrCs really about hating all of them equally? I would wonder why a character would hate a deity with one ideology exactly in the same way as one with a different ideology. While you can abhor the concept of deities, I'd still think such a character would prefer for example Ilmater or Lathander over Cyric or Malar, if only for the impact they have on mortals.

You can hate both sides immensely for different reasons. Desire the latter killed for what they do. Desire the former killed for actively tainting the name of stances you actually hold with their evil hypocrisies. It doesn't have to be equal either. No god you would actively wish death on is a patron. Period.

Jeff the Green

2014-07-07, 09:36 AM

Zanos

2014-07-07, 09:50 AM

Huh. I may make this a goal of a character I play sometime in the future. It'd probably have to involve an epic-level mass mindrape psionic power so as to bypass the Weave.
Mystra is notoriously bad at stopping people from using magic that will ruin her through the Weave. Just look at Karsus. She didn't do anything about someone casting an Epic Spell that was designed to eat her. I doubt she'd stop you from making an arcane mass mindrape.

Which is something else that bothers me. How the hell is Mystra a Good aligned deity if it's a non action for her to stop Evil wizards from butchering entire villages? You'd think a deity that allowed unrestricted access to a source of incredible power regardless of your motivations would be neutral at best.

ryu

2014-07-07, 09:55 AM

kalasulmar

2014-07-07, 10:01 AM

ryu

2014-07-07, 10:07 AM

{{scrubbed}}.

You do understand that the word theory has a significantly different meaning in the scientific community than when ordinary people use it right? Law is a weak thing in science. Laws can tell you what phenomena will happen in what situations. Theories are more complete and do that plus stating WHY.

Zanos

2014-07-07, 10:09 AM

I thought the evil ones were working off some dark evil god based weave hippity skippity?
Shar does maintain the shadow weave, but almost all major 3.5 evil casters still used the regular weave. The shadow weave is fairly exclusive to Shar's worshippers and you need a feat to even access it.

Lord_Gareth

2014-07-07, 10:14 AM

Shar does maintain the shadow weave, but almost all major 3.5 evil casters still used the regular weave. The shadow weave is fairly exclusive to Shar's worshippers and you need a feat to even access it.

Anyone with sufficient Wisdom can access it with the feat as well.

Mystra is another 'hands tied' case. She inherited the post from the previous goddess of magic etc. so forth blah blah, and actually did try for a brief period to control the Weave so that benevolent casters had an edge.

Aaand then Big Daddy Ao comes around...

You kinda get the story here.

Coidzor

2014-07-07, 10:20 AM

Okay how did it work?

The agnostic cleric in an entire community of clerics that never cast was the hinkiest part of the series. I might be misremembering the amount of casting going on there, though.

Psyren

2014-07-07, 10:22 AM

Mystra is notoriously bad at stopping people from using magic that will ruin her through the Weave. Just look at Karsus. She didn't do anything about someone casting an Epic Spell that was designed to eat her. I doubt she'd stop you from making an arcane mass mindrape.

Actually, she kind of already stopped it. That first Mystra (Mystryl, really) was basically a rubberstamp DM as far as custom magic went. Now, all custom spells (or at least the high-level ones) more or less have to go through her, including all epic magic, and true 10th-level spells no longer exist (those higher slots are only usable for metamagic'd lower ones.

Also, making it psionic doesn't actually bypass the weave. Psionic energy still need the weave in order to leave your mind and affect anything outside your mind (which apparently includes your own body, so really, the difference between psionics and magic from a weave standpoint might as well be nil.)

Which is something else that bothers me. How the hell is Mystra a Good aligned deity if it's a non action for her to stop Evil wizards from butchering entire villages? You'd think a deity that allowed unrestricted access to a source of incredible power regardless of your motivations would be neutral at best.

She can't actually shut off Weave access to evil. Or rather, she can, but because she is the Weave, denying it to various groups will kill her. Basically her ability to shut it off is absolute in theory but actually very limited in practice.

Of course, she was probably rethinking this stance around the time Shar was holding her down so Cyric could stab her, but what are you going to do.

Zanos

2014-07-07, 10:37 AM

Actually, she kind of already stopped it. That first Mystra (Mystryl, really) was basically a rubberstamp DM as far as custom magic went. Now, all custom spells (or at least the high-level ones) more or less have to go through her, including all epic magic, and true 10th-level spells no longer exist (those higher slots are only usable for metamagic'd lower ones.

Yeah she got rid of true 10th level magic, but she didn't do anything to actually stop Karsus from eating her. For having divine insight upon all magic, she was pretty blind to someone creating the most powerful spell ever made and aiming it at her. She took 0 precautions until Karsus was trying to borrow the weave and then she went "oh wow I guess I should have paid more attention to those wacky mortals."

I don't remember reading anything that Epic Magic in setting has to be "approved" by Mystra.

She can't actually shut off Weave access to evil. Or rather, she can, but because she is the Weave, denying it to various groups will kill her. Basically her ability to shut it off is absolute in theory but actually very limited in practice.

Of course, she was probably rethinking this stance around the time Shar was holding her down so Cyric could stab her, but what are you going to do.
Letting other people suffer to improve your own life or maintain your existence doesn't really seem like something a Good deity should be doing on a daily basis.

BWR

2014-07-07, 10:45 AM

Yeah she got rid of true 10th level magic, but she didn't do anything to actually stop Karsus from eating her. For having divine insight upon all magic, she was pretty blind to someone creating the most powerful spell ever made and aiming it at her. She took 0 precautions until Karsus was trying to borrow the weave and then she went "oh wow I guess I should have paid more attention to those wacky mortals."

I don't remember reading anything that Epic Magic in setting has to be "approved" by Mystra.

I think you're mixed up. Mystryl allowed just about everything, including 12th level spells. She died because of that and the first thing Mystra did when she took over was reorganize the Weave (how people could learn and cast spells) and put serious restrictions on any magic above 9th level. So Mystryl died for being too permissive and short-sighted, Mystra tried to stop such things from happening again. This was before 3e came along with the epic rules, and I never paid much attention to the ELH or 3e FR so I have no idea what changes have been made since then.

Zanos

2014-07-07, 10:50 AM

I think you're mixed up. Mystryl allowed just about everything, including 12th level spells. She died because of that and the first thing Mystra did when she took over was reorganize the Weave (how people could learn and cast spells) and put serious restrictions on any magic above 9th level. So Mystryl died for being too permissive and short-sighted, Mystra tried to stop such things from happening again. This was before 3e came along with the epic rules, and I never paid much attention to the ELH or 3e FR so I have no idea what changes have been made since then.
I can see how my post could be read as mixing it up. I usually refer to Mystra and Mystryl as the same entity, because Mystra is a reincarnation and not an original being.

Graypairofsocks

2014-07-07, 11:21 AM

You can be god of atheists, it's just that a chunk of your portfolio denies your existence. Although, looking at Oghma's portfolio, it doesn't include atheists.

This gives me an idea:

Become Deity.
Gain Atheists, Faithless, and the False as part of your portfolio.
Claim that since Atheists, Faithless, and et cetera are part of your portfolio they should go to your divine realm.
Avoid Ao smiting you.
???
Profit!!!

137beth

2014-07-07, 11:35 AM

In the immortal words of Rich Burlew,

D&D cosmology is utterly incoherent, being a pastiche on several real world religions that's then strained through a fundamentally incompatible alignment system where Good and Evil are both valid life choices with equally powerful patrons. D&D writers have been trying to make it make sense for 40 years; it still doesn't.

The Wall of the Faithless is an attempted patch to blend together the already-nonsensical D&D cosmology with the FR pantheons, and it makes even less sense than either of the things it is suppose to fix.

CombatOwl

2014-07-07, 01:36 PM

Sith_Happens

2014-07-07, 02:18 PM

Um, isn't that a bit contradictory.

You can be god of atheists, it's just that a chunk of your portfolio denies your existence. Although, looking at Oghma's portfolio, it doesn't include atheists.

AFB right now, but I'm pretty sure one of the Illumian gods is a god of atheists (of the "gods aren't fundamentally different from other Outsiders" sort, the "gods don't exist" sort is indeed nonsensical in most settings that aren't Eberron). That's not standard Realms though.

Gildedragon

2014-07-07, 02:25 PM

AFB right now, but I'm pretty sure one of the Illumian gods is a god of atheists (of the "gods aren't fundamentally different from other Outsiders" sort, the "gods don't exist" sort is indeed nonsensical in most settings that aren't Eberron). That's not standard Realms though.

Soorinek: The Doubter LE

Portfolio: Intrigue, secrets, be trayal.

Soorinek on religion: "mere trappings designed to accrue power from the gullible and weak-minded.”

"she is unwilling to behave like an omniscient, omnipotent deity, and she uses the power of her church to tear down anyone or any group that exceeds its rightful place and authority.. Even her fellow deities aren’t immune to Soorinek’s drive to make sure no one exceeds their station." RoD, 75

Kinda like a much cooler Vecna

Sith_Happens

2014-07-07, 03:37 PM

Yeah, she pretty much fits the bill for "god of the Faithless" point for point, so importing her is probably the quickest and easiest way to write the Wall out of your Realms campaign without retconning much the setting's history.

Sian

2014-07-07, 03:37 PM

2e Mystra =/= 3.5e Mystra

inbetween there was this 'Times of Troubles' where Mystra (LN) got killed by (IIRC) getting thrown off the staircase by Helm on orders of Ao since she tried sneaking back in after having been thrown out ... she was replaced by a young mageling named midnight, which took over the chair and tried moving towards NG instead, and got beat into accepting the rules of Ao by not being allowed to lock for access to evil arcanists, so at the time of death (which is strictly 4e) she was still among the youngest of the gods (together with Cyric and Kalemvor which was raised at approximately the same time)

Zanos

2014-07-07, 03:47 PM

AuraTwilight

2014-07-07, 06:14 PM

137beth

2014-07-07, 06:56 PM

Alleran

2014-07-08, 05:59 AM

Unfortunately in this case you are wrong, because ISWG was written specifically to replace all the setting books from Golarion's 3.5 era.
No, it was not, and as I pointed out, "neutral dead" are not "dead atheists" - one is perfectly capable of being a dead neutral follower of Pharasma, for example (and I would also note that even if you were correct, the ISWG explicitly states that those neutral dead who do get transformed serve her anyway... so an atheist afterlife would still have them doing the bidding of a deity even if they didn't want it). One is also perfectly capable of being a dead LG atheist. And "Lawful Good" is in no way "neutral dead."

I see you're not going to budge on this point for some reason, though, so I'll instead point out text from two points, written well into the days of the PF ruleset era. First, Death's Heretic, a PF Tales novel (2011). In it the characters visit the Boneyard, and see this:

They were in a graveyard, but a graveyard like none on their world. In three directions, the endless plain of graves stretched away out of view, unbroken by any structure larger than a mausoleum. Headstones and markers of every size and shape made a thick stone carpet around their feet, many of them toppled or halfshattered by unknown forces. From out in the forest of monuments came faint whisperings which might have been the sighs of the wind playing through the stonework, save that neither of the travelers’ cloaks twitched in any breeze.

Salim paid no attention to the noises, instead fixing his eyes on the fourth horizon. There the line of graves also stretched out until the markers were little more than a low gray haze, yet this time larger structures sprang up beyond them, dominated by a collection of pale, thin towers that loomed over the lesser buildings like men over ants. Above them all hung a dead gray moon, closer than any real moon should be, its face a grinning skull. Salim grunted his approval.

“Better,” he said, and turned to Neila. “This way.” He began walking, and without protest Neila stepped quickly to join him, staying close to his side as they picked their way carefully among the graves.

“What is this place?” she asked. She reached out with one hand and let her fingers play lightly over the top of a stone as they passed. She started to do the same for the next one, but Salim caught her hand and shook his head without bothering to face her.

“The Graveyard of Souls,” he said. “The last resting place of atheists.”
Clearly, the Graveyard didn't go anywhere. Or get retconned out.

The Inner Sea World Guide was, according to my copy, published in 2011 (or at least that's what the copyright label says). Pathfinder #64, Beyond the Doomsday Door, is 2012, post-dating it. It includes an article on Groetus. In it, there is enlightening text detailing his relationship with Pharasma. I've copied the relevant portion:

"It is known that the souls of Pharasma's Court draw his [Groetus] moon-realm closer, and a few know that the crystallised souls of true atheists repel him - both incidentally by their proximity, and sometimes directly when the Lady of Graves "feeds" him the essence of one (though whether this is a literal feeding or a transfer of essence is unknown) to push him farther away." ~Beyond the Doomsday Door, page 73.
Well, that's a terrible way to spend eternity.

Atheists get quarantined in part of the Boneyard forever to keep Groetus away. Or get fed to him. Again, to keep him away. Were I an atheist in either of these settings, I'd take my chances with FR's deities over Golarion's, since at least those ones don't care if I never gave them an offering in life as long as I served through my actions. Nor are they (the good ones, at any rate) likely to feed me to another god.

And if I feel like walking?
Then you made your choice and can deal with the winter chill (or whatever).

Which is something else that bothers me. How the hell is Mystra a Good aligned deity if it's a non action for her to stop Evil wizards from butchering entire villages?
She's free to promote the use of magic in whatever way she wants. She's not free to force people to use magic the way she wants. She can have her clergy engage in opposition to the hypothetical evil wizard butchering a village and oppose them, though.

Similarly, Tempus is free to promote battle in whatever way he wants (random barbarian raiding, one-on-one duels, regimented civilised warfare, whatever). He's not free to force people to engage in war the way he wants. However, he can have his followers, well, follow his creed, which would promote warfare the way he likes it.

Tyr is free to promote justice in whatever way he wants. He's not free to force justice (e.g. he can't just show up in Zhentil Keep and say "you're doing things my way now" - though his clergy, be they clerics, paladins or whatever, could certainly make the attempt).

And so on and so forth for the rest of the pantheon.

Psyren

2014-07-08, 06:26 AM

The belief of a character in a novel represent's that character's understanding of the cosmology. It is not (necessarily) inviolate setting truth. Salim in particular is an inhabitant of Rahadoum, the atheist nation, who was pressed into Pharasma's service as an Inquisitor due to his cleric-hunting skills.

Let's assume for the moment however that this passage is accurate, and most atheist dead simply rot in the Boneyard. That is still a far cry from being kept conscious and writhing in torment as cosmic plaster in the Wall.

For your second quote, it sounds like you yourself are showing that true atheist spirits serve a valuable function in keeping Groetus at bay. The Wall serves no purpose but to frighten the living into making a choice, whether they want to or not. And even the "feeding" - which is a rumor at best - would simply result in oblivion for that soul, which is again a far cry from endless torment as cosmic plaster.

And finally, you need to clarify the definition of "atheist" - in Pathfinder, worshiping an ideal or philosophy counts as religion.

Then you made your choice and can deal with the winter chill (or whatever).

And so I would, but what FR would do is nail me to a bridge in the rain for eternity because I had the temerity to prefer walking. It is active malice.

Alleran

2014-07-08, 08:05 AM

The belief of a character in a novel represent's that character's understanding of the cosmology. It is not (necessarily) inviolate setting truth.
Except that belief lines up exactly with what is presented in Great Beyond, and the characters are actually standing in the graveyard at the time, not arguing about "from a certain point of view" or "through mortal eyes" at all. It's not a belief, it's what happens. He supports the quarantine out of his own personal perspective (paraphrasing, "better to rot here on principle than enslave oneself to a god" - there's a decent bit of self-loathing for obvious reasons).

And even the "feeding" - which is a rumor at best - would simply result in oblivion for that soul, which is again a far cry from endless torment as cosmic plaster.
What's unclear is what the feeding constitutes, not that they get fed. Pharasma is feeding souls (perhaps she sends the essence of their existence to the moon, perhaps she just chucks them in wholesale) to the apocalypse-moon to preserve the lives of herself and the current order, that's not in doubt. Presumably she will continue to do so until the end of eternity, at which point Moon Falls, Everybody Ceases To Exist Anyway.

And finally, you need to clarify the definition of "atheist" - in Pathfinder, worshiping an ideal or philosophy counts as religion.
You'll want to look at Faiths and Philosophies for their definition. Salim also has one that matches with dystheism/misotheism ("yes, we believe the gods exist, but we don't worship them") and by and large concurs with the former. Don't worship a god, get fed to the apocalypse-moon. FR's gods are usually willing to take you if you never even paid them lip service, as long as your heart and actions were true to them.

And so I would, but what FR would do is nail me to a bridge in the rain for eternity because I had the temerity to prefer walking. It is active malice.
Well, no. In the analogy, you'd choose to walk and probably die from the frostbite because you chose not to take the taxi, unless some mafia boss offers you a really nice deal to get in out of the cold that has no strings attached, honest-to-evilness.

Psyren

2014-07-08, 10:07 AM

What you're forgetting is that, again, you are allowed to worship a philosophy or ideal in Golarion. In fact, nearly every Druid does exactly that ("The Green Faith", which grants domains/spells/etc and works with any neutral alignment including NE.) IF you tried that crap in Faerun, you'd either be nailed to the Wall in no time, or conscripted by some nature deity or other regardless of fit.

Furthermore, the dead can be called back from the Boneyard without restriction (excepting of course old age.) This is in fact the very plot point of the book you're quoting - a dead soul was stolen from it and held hostage, preventing him from being brought back to life. In FR, if you're destined for the wall, your comrades have a scant 1d10 days to bring you back, otherwise nothing short of miracle, wish or a deity's direct sponsorship will get you out of it.

Now, let's assume for a moment that Salim is right about the Boneyard and everyone with no deity ends up there regardless of philosophy or ideal. Even if that's the case, it and oblivion still beat the Wall by a mile. The souls comprising the Wall "writhe in torment for eternity" - a pretty raw deal compared to quietly rotting away or being instantly consumed. And at least Pharasma has the excuse of Groetus for the occasional sacrifice - Kelemvor's only excuse is "because Ao and even the other so-called Good gods are douchebags."It's a crapsack setting. There is no overdeity in Golarion who could brush Groetus aside like so much chaff if he truly threatened creation. They even have a Snarl in the planet's core they can't really do anything about because, again, no Ao.

You'll want to look at Faiths and Philosophies for their definition. Salim also has one that matches with dystheism/misotheism ("yes, we believe the gods exist, but we don't worship them") and by and large concurs with the former. Don't worship a god, get fed to the apocalypse-moon. FR's gods are usually willing to take you if you never even paid them lip service, as long as your heart and actions were true to them.

It seems to me that someone who rejects the gods would actually prefer oblivion to eternity living with them - which, surprise surprise, is actually the stance taken by most Rahadoumi.

Well, no. In the analogy, you'd choose to walk and probably die from the frostbite because you chose not to take the taxi, unless some mafia boss offers you a really nice deal to get in out of the cold that has no strings attached, honest-to-evilness.

Except you don't "die" on the Wall - you "writhe in torment for eternity." Oblivion is infinitely preferable.

Andezzar

2014-07-08, 10:59 AM

Sian

2014-07-08, 11:03 AM

Except you don't "die" on the Wall - you "writhe in torment for eternity." Oblivion is infinitely preferable.

Partially wrong ... you stay until either a deity or a "mighty-in-magic" Wizard, Dragon or something decides that you're good for fueling their latest gadget

let me repeat part of the quote I gave earlier

[...]and in the past the ranks of the tortured entities there have been raided by deities and mighty-in-magic individuals (such as certain archwizards, dragons, and others) for “raw materials” (sentiences) to empower new creature creations.

And remember that the argeement between Greenwood and TSR (which have continued through to WOTC) is that unless they publish a book that explicitly says otherwise, his word is canon lore

atemu1234

2014-07-08, 11:42 AM

Slithery D

2014-07-08, 10:54 PM

I found an update to the fate of atheists in Golarion.

Page 13 of Champions of Balance, published March 2014, states about the Boneyard: "The Boneyard also houses the souls of atheists, save for those whose evil natures demand punishment. Atheists reside in the Graveyard of Souls on the Boneyard's outskirts, left to wile away eternity without harassment from deities. Non-atheist souls uncommitted to any deity and free from evil may choose to enter the Realm of the Content, a land maintained by Pharasma where such souls are free to pursue their interests."

Forrestfire

2014-07-08, 11:04 PM

Wow, Golarion's agnostic afterlife is pretty nice.

Psyren

2014-07-08, 11:26 PM

Coidzor

2014-07-09, 02:24 AM

I think the impressive thing is that this may be the first D&D-related afterlife that isn't horrible in some way or another. :smallconfused:

Do they still have the Petitioner thing in PF/Golarion where the personality is completely unmade and a caricature of it is put in its place?

Alleran

2014-07-09, 06:12 AM

What you're forgetting is that, again, you are allowed to worship a philosophy or ideal in Golarion. In fact, nearly every Druid does exactly that ("The Green Faith", which grants domains/spells/etc and works with any neutral alignment including NE.) IF you tried that crap in Faerun, you'd either be nailed to the Wall in no time, or conscripted by some nature deity or other regardless of fit.
You really should get hold of Faiths and Philosophies:

"As a druidic belief system, it is shamanistic, but also has elements of the ecclesiastical in its strong hierarchy and an underlying current of worship of Gozreh." ~Faiths and Philosophies, page 12.

There's some deity worship involved in the Green Faith, as well as no small touch of the First World/Eldest. Further:

"The Green Faith has no domains or favored weapons, nor any particular shade of neutrality as its alignment." ~Faiths of the Balance, page 18.

No domains for you!

Furthermore, the dead can be called back from the Boneyard without restriction (excepting of course old age.)
No, they can't. Once a soul has been judged, it cannot be resurrected. The ability to use resurrection spells only up until a certain point is representative of getting that person before Pharasma has consigned them to their afterlife. The dead soul in question was stolen from Pharasma's purview, and the entire plot of the novel was "how is this possible" because it was a Big Deal. Bolded for emphasis.

It seems to me that someone who rejects the gods would actually prefer oblivion to eternity living with them...
That would depend on the person, and stretches a bit closer to real-world philosophical/religious belief than I'd like (at least the way my thought process is taking it), so I'll back away from that.

Except you don't "die" on the Wall - you "writhe in torment for eternity." Oblivion is infinitely preferable.
Oh, you get ground down to oblivion eventually. And your soul can always be nicked in a raid on the Wall. Assuming you chose to say "screw you" to somebody who holds your moral/ethical outlook and is willing to give you a cushy afterlife even if you never gave them a single prayer.

What, no cosmic tortured plaster subject to raids? Heresy I say!
Of course, it also looks like there's even more confirmation for the Graveyard not being retconned at all. No more "assuming" Salim is right about its existence, because he is right.

Talya

2014-07-09, 07:35 AM

Because it's basically evil? It requires a huge pretzel of logic to get the good-aligned gods to go along with it and it's not really justifiable. It exists to scare mortals into picking any faith, which the gods of Faerun only care about because they need faith to survive, which is only true because Ao had to punish them for abusing mortals and neglecting their followers.

Essentially, the Wall of the Faithless is a cosmic testament to the irresponsible and terrible passing the buck of their punishment to the helpless, powerless masses. It's the greatest Injustice conceivable.

Yeah, i've never been overly fond of the idea of a bunch of spiritual bullies demanding worship "or else."

Note though that the wall of the faithless is older than Ao's decree, it existed before the gods were dependent on worship.

Psyren

2014-07-09, 07:56 AM

So pick an animal companion then. *shrug*

I don't know why the thought of tossing your principles aside for "a cushy afterlife" with a being you don't think deserves to be in charge of it" is a concept you're incapable of grasping. Especially when if everyone chose the Wall they might actually get the fool thing torn down.

By the time you've been worn down to oblivion in the wall, you've been conscious and tortured for who knows how long. The fact that you die at the end of torture does not, in fact, make torture acceptable. You might not even be able to appreciate it after that long. (I don't know which is worse, that a soul might go insane or that it might not be able to.)

Of course, it also looks like there's even more confirmation for the Graveyard not being retconned at all. No more "assuming" Salim is right about its existence, because he is right.

Well duh :smalltongue: I never said the Graveyard "didn't exist." I said not every atheist would stay there, and I was right.

kalasulmar

2014-07-09, 03:00 PM

Gildedragon

2014-07-09, 03:18 PM

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-3/Newton-s-Law-of-Universal-Gravitation

Gravity is a law of physical science. LAW. Little bit different from a theory. Even a scientific theory. Which can be falsified. Part of the definition, I do believe.

Also, a Buddhist "cleric" is known as a monk. And there are rules for that sort of thing. I think.

eh... not quite accurate. Also, quite inaccurate if dealing with D&Dverse interpretations of the terms.

A Reforged* Cleric or a Path of Light Cleric are v. different things from a Reforged Monk or a Path of Light Monk. Even if said clerics are ascetics that live in an abbey/temple complex.

*I am aware these are eberron faiths but they are fairly similar ideologically to branches of the aforementioned -ism

Psyren

2014-07-09, 03:23 PM

Also, a Buddhist "cleric" is known as a monk. And there are rules for that sort of thing. I think.

Clerics (and Druids, for that matter) of an ideal/cause/philosophy are a thing in Golarion. They are not in FR.

Hyena

2014-07-09, 03:32 PM

"Mr. Aochev, tear down this wall!" Ro'n Ad-Ri'Gan, Bard
I've literally read the entire thread just to see if anyone posted this.

Andezzar

2014-07-09, 04:08 PM

Clerics (and Druids, for that matter) of an ideal/cause/philosophy are a thing in Golarion. They are not in FR.Yes they are. The Player's Guide to Faerûn overwrites the chapter of the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting that contains the rule forcing divine casters to pick a deity. That rule does not exist in the Player's Guide to Faerûn.

Faerunian clerics function as described in the Player's Handbook, except that no clerics serve just a cause, philosophy, or abstract source of divine power.

Chapters 1 through 3 of Player’s Guide to Faerûn update and supersede Chapters 1 and 2 of the FORGOTTEN REALMS Campaign Setting

Psyren

2014-07-09, 04:15 PM

Yes they are. The Player's Guide to Faerûn overwrites the chapter of the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting that contains the rule forcing divine casters to pick a deity. That rule does not exist in the Player's Guide to Faerûn.

If WotC had truly wanted to abolish the Wall, they wouldn't still be referring to Faithless all over PGtF, so this editing error means nothing to me.

georgie_leech

2014-07-09, 04:16 PM

Andezzar

2014-07-09, 04:34 PM

If WotC had truly wanted to abolish the Wall, they wouldn't still be referring to Faithless all over PGtF, so this editing error means nothing to me.The existence or non-existence of the wall has nothing to do with whether divine casters need to worship a deity. They can worship an ideal but suffer the same consequences as anyone else.

Svata

2014-07-09, 04:39 PM

{Self-scrubbed,as the mod missed it}

I agree with you, but ixnay on the ealray orldway eligionray alktay. Don't want the thread closed.

Sian

2014-07-09, 04:46 PM

Yes they are. The Player's Guide to Faerûn overwrites the chapter of the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting that contains the rule forcing divine casters to pick a deity. That rule does not exist in the Player's Guide to Faerûn.

RAW vs RAI on Fluff

PGtF updates whats writen in the Campaign setting and supercede the parts which it change.

Never heard anyone even in jest suggesting that PGtF said that clerics didn't have to pick a deity

Nilehus

2014-07-09, 04:56 PM

Gildedragon

2014-07-09, 04:58 PM

A non-theistic cleric in Faerun is like a wizard without a spellbook. Call yourself whatever you want, but you can't do squat.

With how petty, greedy, and malevolent the deities in Faerun tend to be, do you really think they'd let that happen?

Worse. A wizard can take Eidetic Spellcasting, Spell Mastery, and prep spells off scrolls!

Psyren

2014-07-09, 05:21 PM

The existence or non-existence of the wall has nothing to do with whether divine casters need to worship a deity. They can worship an ideal but suffer the same consequences as anyone else.

So you're saying under this interpretation that they would get powers from an ideal, and then get punished for it when they had even more reason to believe it was legitimate?

I didn't think it was possible, but you made FR even worse!

AuraTwilight

2014-07-09, 05:28 PM

atemu1234

2014-07-09, 05:28 PM

Clerics (and Druids, for that matter) of an ideal/cause/philosophy are a thing in Golarion. They are not in FR.

They're also a thing in the 3.5 player's handbook. Is there a separate one for forgotten realms where it says that?

DeltaEmil

2014-07-09, 05:37 PM

They're also a thing in the 3.5 player's handbook. Is there a separate one for forgotten realms where it says that?Yes, in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Book (which is 3.0). Andezzar argues that Player's Guide to Faerûn lifted that rule, but I'm not so sure, Still, it's a very stupid rule anyway, so I would advise to simply ignore it, no matter what's written in either book. And of course also ignore the rule of being forced to split up Knowledge (local) for several regions.

Psyren

2014-07-09, 05:50 PM

Yes, in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Book (which is 3.0). Andezzar argues that Player's Guide to Faerûn lifted that rule, but I'm not so sure, Still, it's a very stupid rule anyway, so I would advise to simply ignore it, no matter what's written in either book. And of course also ignore the rule of being forced to split up Knowledge (local) for several regions.

And while you're at it, ignore the Wall and Faithless.

Then you realize you may as well just play Greyhawk.

Talya

2014-07-09, 06:00 PM

i actually like faerun's dependance on deities. i find the entire concept of "cleric of an ideal" to be idiotic, thematically.

Sian

2014-07-09, 06:00 PM

Talya

2014-07-09, 06:04 PM

Gildedragon

2014-07-09, 06:06 PM

Actually, a question ... raise of hands, anyone have actually had issues with the Wall other than "I don't like the fluff"?

Starting to feel more and more like a glorified "I don't like being told that i can't play something completely outside the accepted guidelines in this setting" ... IMO its kinda like moaning that you can't play a Elf in a World of Darkness game

Well...
The Wall of Faithless is just that, fluff. The Cleric-Deity dependence is one of very few mechanical effects linked to that fluff, and even then it isn't to the Wall itself but the deities who made the wall.

The fluff is the issue. It is an Evil (nay Vile) structure and the gods and agents of cosmic Good just twiddle their thumbs and hum and haw and don't do anything about it. No good god takes under their portfolio those good-aligned who deny the gods' right to rule over others and make a section of their domain a hands-off zone. There is no fluffed tension between Good and Evil over that wall, it, at best, is just a sign that Evil can get their way over Good; at worst is a 'good' condoned extortion racket on mortals, meaning there can be no Good greater gods in Faerun.

DeltaEmil

2014-07-09, 06:07 PM

IMO its kinda like moaning that you can't play a Elf in a World of Darkness gameYou can play a fae in WoD. It just might not be fitting to the tone if you play a fae from the Changeling rule-set in a WoD werewolf-game.

Andezzar

2014-07-09, 06:10 PM

You can play a fae in WoD. It just might not be fitting to the tone if you play a fae from the Changeling rule-set in a WoD werewolf-game.Or you could ask your local Tzimisce to give you funny ears. ;)

Gildedragon

2014-07-09, 06:13 PM

A problem with god-cleric dependence is... well... in FR you might not find a god that matches your vibe. Or you need to look very deep... and then you find out it is a women only order, or that the god is secretly evil, or doesn't take clerics of your alignment...

LibraryOgre

2014-07-09, 06:14 PM

The Mod Wonder: Folks, please remember to leave real-world religion out of discussions on this forum. And to treat each other with respect, even if you disagree.

EDIT: Gone through and removed the worst of it. Please, folks, treat each other kindly, and leave real-world religion to other forums.

That said (and this part is out of mod voice, obviously), the Wall of the Faithless is a weird little bit of Realmslore, IMO. As mentioned, it predates the decree that Gods are dependent upon the worship of mortals for their power, and so might be an artifact of Myrkul or even Jergal that Kelemvor inherited; as God of the Dead, his responsibility is to all the dead, shepherding those who are claimed to their deity, and dealing with those who are not claimed. This makes their disposition Kelemvor's moral responsibility, IMO.

As to why the earlier deities didn't protest this? Because they couldn't... not without starting a deific war. As the responsibility of the god of the dead, interfering with his domains would be like someone invading Tyr's realm and demanding to hand out justice, or usurping Mystra as magic. Some (Ilmater, for example), might want to console those in pain, but so long as someone else holds the portfolio, it's their responsibility... and only Ao can really change that, which kicks the moral responsibility to him (but he's also avowedly amoral, in the truest sense).

Oh, and 2e Mystra = 3.x Mystra, but 2e Mystra =/= 1e Mystra. The Time of Trouble was between 1st and 2nd edition, and saw the death of the "old" Mystra (at the hands of Helm, her lover), and the assumption of the name by Midnight, a human wizard.

And, since I'm here... being evil doesn't carry punishment in the core cosmology. That's not the way the planes are set up. I go into it more here (http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/2013/07/corpses-and-caches.html).

A Tad Insane

2014-07-09, 06:43 PM

Psyren

2014-07-09, 06:51 PM

Actually, a question ... raise of hands, anyone have actually had issues with the Wall other than "I don't like the fluff"?

You have 1d10 days to rez someone before they are judged (and turned into plaster, if they had no patron,) so the crunch is bad too. But most of my objections are fluff-based, yes.

Starting to feel more and more like a glorified "I don't like being told that i can't play something completely outside the accepted guidelines in this setting" ... IMO its kinda like moaning that you can't play a Elf in a World of Darkness game

The thread is asking what we think of this aspect of the setting itself. I never said anything about wanting to play some kind of special snowflake character that goes against the setting; rather, I would just not play in the setting at all.

FR was actually the first D&D setting I learned anything about (thanks to Baldur's Gate and NWN.) It wasn't until I learned about Greyhawk, Eberron, and later Golarion that I realized how much more there was out there and setting artifacts like the Wall started to grate on me.

i actually like faerun's dependance on deities. i find the entire concept of "cleric of an ideal" to be idiotic, thematically.

But you can get that without the Wall. The mere fact that Ao switched their power source over to mortal worship means they shouldn't need the Wall anymore - rather, they should appeal to mortals with the benefits of choosing a patron rather than waving the punishing stick for not doing so. In short, nobody should ever, for any reason, have wanted to end up on the Wall since the ToT - and yet, people still do. In spite of the horrible portrait painted of it, I still find it hard to blame those people for not choosing. It also means that, for whatever reason, their cosmic eHarmony matching service is somehow broken; either that, or their truly isn't a deity for everyone out there, but you can hardly blame the mortals for that.

atemu1234

2014-07-09, 06:55 PM

Gildedragon

2014-07-09, 06:55 PM

You have 1d10 days to rez someone before they are judged (and turned into plaster, if they had no patron,) so the crunch is bad too. But most of my objections are fluff-based, yes. Actually more like bricks. It's the moss that acts as the mortar/plaster that joins the people bricks.

But you can get that without the Wall. The mere fact that Ao switched their power source over to mortal worship means they shouldn't need the Wall anymore - rather, they should appeal to mortals with the benefits of choosing a patron rather than waving the punishing stick for not doing so. In short, nobody should ever, for any reason, have wanted to end up on the Wall since the ToT - and yet, people still do. In spite of the horrible portrait painted of it, I still find it hard to blame those people for not choosing. It also means that, for whatever reason, their cosmic eHarmony matching service is somehow broken; either that, or their truly isn't a deity for everyone out there, but you can hardly blame the mortals for that. +1. One doesn't blame folk for being dissatisfied with a fallible (because FR gods are fallible) system they can do nothing to affect

LibraryOgre

2014-07-09, 06:57 PM

Actually, a question ... raise of hands, anyone have actually had issues with the Wall other than "I don't like the fluff"?

The thing is, the Wall IS fluff... or, as I like to say it, the Wall is Meat. It doesn't have any effect on the bones of the game (the crunchy bits that the meat hangs off of), but it's pure meat.

Andezzar

2014-07-09, 07:02 PM

But you can get that without the Wall. The mere fact that Ao switched their power source over to mortal worship means they shouldn't need the Wall anymore - rather, they should appeal to mortals with the benefits of choosing a patron rather than waving the punishing stick for not doing so.I have not read about clerics running around preaching: "the end is nigh, repent and choose a deity or become part of the Wall of the Faithless when you die."

In short, nobody should ever, for any reason, have wanted to end up on the Wall since the ToT - and yet, people still do.I know of no such people. Are they documented anywhere? Only Akachi's lover comes to mind and he/she existed before the Time of Troubles.

Psyren

2014-07-09, 07:03 PM

The thing is, the Wall IS fluff... or, as I like to say it, the Wall is Meat. It doesn't have any effect on the bones of the game (the crunchy bits that the meat hangs off of), but it's pure meat.

As I mentioned, it's not wholly fluff, because it actively prevents resurrection if you take too long to bring back a companion (less than the time limits given in the spells themselves.) I believe there's a line instructing the DM to only make it relevant to NPCs however so as not to punish players who haven't chosen a deity during the campaign yet.

I have not read about clerics running around preaching: "the end is nigh, repent and choose a deity or become part of the Wall of the Faithless when you die."

FRCS clearly states that the Wall is common knowledge in FR, so somebody is preaching about it.

I know of no such people. Are they documented anywhere? Only Akachi's lover comes to mind and he/she existed before the Time of Troubles.

So you're saying the Wall no longer serves a purpose? Why not break it and release the ones that haven't dissolved yet, then? Why continue the torture of those souls?

If the Wall was no longer active, FRCS and PGtF would have said so, no?

Coidzor

2014-07-09, 07:11 PM

And while you're at it, ignore the Wall and Faithless.

Then you realize you may as well just play Greyhawk.

I dunno, it seems like even without the deities are constantly breathing down your neck angle there could be *something* about FR that it has and Greyhawk doesn't, at least, not exactly. Certainly there seems to be more focus on evil organizations in FR than in Greyhawk which seems to more deal with solo supervillain types and kingdoms.

i actually like faerun's dependance on deities. i find the entire concept of "cleric of an ideal" to be idiotic, thematically.

You must hate the more philosophically inclined Athar from Planescape, then. :smallconfused: Even without going into the various precedents we have for the concept, idiotic is not quite what I would term a holy person who has discovered a link to the Divine without playing around with an overgrown Toddler personality on top of it. Funnily enough, I think that's how one of the mortal-turned-Gods in Golarion actually achieved his apotheosis.

Or, heck, someone so virtuous that they're empowered by cosmic goodness. Or even an individual that believes that the universe itself is divine and can tap into and channel it because they are part of the divinity of the universe.

137beth

2014-07-09, 07:17 PM

Clerics (and Druids, for that matter) of an ideal/cause/philosophy are a thing in Golarion. They are not in FR.

Pretty sure they aren't a thing in Golarion either, since James Jacobs keeps posting about how he'd rather not have them be a thing in the CRB either.

Talya

2014-07-09, 07:21 PM

But you can get that without the Wall. The mere fact that Ao switched their power source over to mortal worship means they shouldn't need the Wall anymore - rather, they should appeal to mortals with the benefits of choosing a patron rather than waving the punishing stick for not doing so. In short, nobody should ever, for any reason, have wanted to end up on the Wall since the ToT - and yet, people still do. In spite of the horrible portrait painted of it, I still find it hard to blame those people for not choosing. It also means that, for whatever reason, their cosmic eHarmony matching service is somehow broken; either that, or their truly isn't a deity for everyone out there, but you can hardly blame the mortals for that.

I'm the choir, you're preaching. i've said elsewhere that the wall is 'unequivocally evil,' a 'divine protection racket' and that i have no use for 'spiritual bullies who compel worship or else.' I do, however, prefer divine magic to require the divine.

Coidzor

2014-07-09, 07:23 PM

Pretty sure they aren't a thing in Golarion either, since James Jacobs keeps posting about how he'd rather not have them be a thing in the CRB either.

Sometimes you just need a good gag order.

atemu1234

2014-07-09, 07:24 PM

malonkey1

2014-07-09, 07:25 PM

More like complaining you can play an elf, but regardless of what they do they wind up in a fate worse than hell.

Except, isn't that your eventual fate, regardless of what you are?

Talya

2014-07-09, 07:26 PM

You must hate the more philosophically inclined Athar from Planescape, then. :smallconfused: Even without going into the various precedents we have for the concept, idiotic is not quite what I would term a holy person who has discovered a link to the Divine without playing around with an overgrown Toddler personality on top of it. Funnily enough, I think that's how one of the mortal-turned-Gods in Golarion actually achieved his apotheosis.

Or, heck, someone so virtuous that they're empowered by cosmic goodness. Or even an individual that believes that the universe itself is divine and can tap into and channel it because they are part of the divinity of the universe.

If a setting has gods, those gods are the ultimate source of "the Divine" (or else they are not gods, just angellic servant beings). i'm okay with a god sponsoring someone they approve of without that person worshipping them, but the concept of power from an ideal is much too "mind over reality" for me.

atemu1234

2014-07-09, 07:27 PM

Except, isn't that your eventual fate, regardless of what you are?

I'm making a point.

Coidzor

2014-07-09, 08:46 PM

If a setting has gods, those gods are the ultimate source of "the Divine" (or else they are not gods, just angellic servant beings).

That's not necessarily true. It's quite possible that the gods are imperfect representations of the Divine, but closer to it based upon their nature than that of material beings, which allows for worship to not be incorrect while at the same time affording a basis for a veneration of the world soul or The Divine in its purest form.

Even in Forgotten Realms, Ao is closer to The Divine of TSR/WOTC than the gods are and those are closer to TSR/WOTC than player characters. And even Ao has some references to having a boss, in-universe without going meta.

i'm okay with a god sponsoring someone they approve of without that person worshipping them, but the concept of power from an ideal is much too "mind over reality" for me.

That has only a very little bit to do with mind over reality, considering that's just the Psionics subsystem and certain forms of general magic.

Gildedragon

2014-07-09, 08:53 PM

If a setting has gods, those gods are the ultimate source of "the Divine" (or else they are not gods, just angellic servant beings). i'm okay with a god sponsoring someone they approve of without that person worshipping them, but the concept of power from an ideal is much too "mind over reality" for me.

Worshiping an ideal or cause is... well like a sort of animism or pantheism or well ideal-ism.
There is a transcendental all-real X and one worships that (be it Good, or Magic, or Nature) or X is an aspect of the whole all-pervasive divinity (a monotheistic faith in D&D might end up playing out quite similar to clerics of an ideal as the clerics' domains indicate a particular aspect of that All they worship)
Yeah it does sound a bit namby-pamby psion-hippyweed talk but it is a philosophy and interesting character choices.

AuraTwilight

2014-07-09, 09:06 PM

Not to mention that implying non-theistic religions are less valid for Clerics somehow is....extremely problematic.

Sith_Happens

2014-07-10, 02:12 AM

A non-theistic cleric in Faerun is like a wizard without a spellbook. Call yourself whatever you want, but you can't do squat.

With how petty, greedy, and malevolent the deities in Faerun tend to be, do you really think they'd let that happen?

Considering that Elder Evils has a "Sertrous in Faerun" section explaining that Sertrous's being the discoverer of non-theistic Cleric magic makes him even more of an abomination in the Realms than in most settings? Yeah, they let it happen.

Actually, a question ... raise of hands, anyone have actually had issues with the Wall other than "I don't like the fluff"?

It makes you harder to resurrect.

Erik Vale

2014-07-10, 04:58 AM

I like it only as a plothook in an epic campaign: take down Kelemvor and then get enough power to ignore the other gods' whining.

That's 1/2 the main plot of NWN2:MotB, where you can get it torn down [or have lots of souls ripped out of it and the soul eating entity/god within it destroyed, not certian], thus allowing you to cannanoically play 3.5 sans the wall of the faithless.
However, I haven't played in a long while so take with salt.

*Continues reading*

Alleran

2014-07-10, 05:10 AM

I don't know why the thought of tossing your principles aside for "a cushy afterlife" with a being you don't think deserves to be in charge of it" is a concept you're incapable of grasping.
Oh, I get the idea. I can respect people willing to go into oblivion or whatever for their principles. Granted, in a propitiatory-and-rewards based world with gods that are real, active forces, I'd probably be venerating them as needed anyway (if I'm going on a sea voyage, sure, I'll toss a few coins Umberlee's way). It doesn't really bother me.

Especially when if everyone chose the Wall they might actually get the fool thing torn down.
Nah. What'd probably happen if everybody picked it is the Wall would swell with souls, the deities would lose power and die, and then Ao would step in and have to change the system - again - so that they weren't dependent on worship, like how it was pre-ToT, also the time period when the Wall first went up. I doubt that Ao would bother taking the Wall down (he didn't say a word when Kelemvor took it down post-ascension), he'd just switch the gods back into "don't need belief" mode and bring them all back. Making them dependent on mortals was a punishment in the first place because not enough of them were doing their job.

Amusingly, it seems to mostly be the ascended mortals who have a track record for screwing up the world. Running down the list:

- Mystra 1.0 created Chosen, thus inspiring a million cries of rage from disgruntled players of super-speshul RPG characters throughout the halls of the Internet (once people had an Internet to use) because they were no longer the only super-speshul ones. Does that count? Oh, and she made it so wizards weren't gods after Netheril.
- Azuth might be the only one who hasn't screwed anything up. Yet.
- Bane, Bhaal and Myrkul. I'll just say "Time of Troubles" and leave it at that. Which really started the problems with everybody else on this list.
- Iyachtu Xvim let Bane resurrect. The same Bane that Ao wanted to stay dead because he spent too much time trying to subvert the system.
- Kelemvor almost accidentally the whole everything and left Faerun for the cowards and weak because people were too scared of him disapproving post-mortem.
- Mystra 2.0 was forcing her own opinions on how magic should be used until she wised up. And let us not forget the "hey Kel, deny death to everybody and blackmail the other gods into dropping the charges so we can remake the world into a Good paradise" plan.
- Finder Wyvernspur didn't have a very good track record when he was a mortal. Then mucked about far too much once he ascended.
- Velsharoon... hmm. He might be another one who hasn't ruined some vital function of the universe.
- Cyric. Do I really need to get into Cyric as if it isn't obvious?

I think I got most of them, and the recent ones (including Bane's re-ascension post-ToT) were all within the span of five or ten years. Ao should require an internship or something.

Well duh :smalltongue: I never said the Graveyard "didn't exist." I said not every atheist would stay there, and I was right.
You did say it had been retconned out and ISWG overruled GB. :smalltongue: It does say non-atheist souls in the CoB section get a reasonable eternity.

Pretty sure they aren't a thing in Golarion either, since James Jacobs keeps posting about how he'd rather not have them be a thing in the CRB either.
Yeah. Trying not to paraphrase too much, his argument is, I think, that a cleric represents a follower of a deity, so they should have a deity. Ideal-based divine casters or the like are, to him, stuff like Oracles.

Bronk

2014-07-10, 07:21 AM

As to why the earlier deities didn't protest this? Because they couldn't... not without starting a deific war.

Well, they're all still sort of stuck in the remains of the last war, the Blood War. While they let evil duke it out between Law and Chaos, everybody else must be under an intense truce. Maybe the wall would be one of the targets if the Blood War expands back out into the war between good and evil again.

The afterlife in the Realms or in any of the other worlds is just fraught with peril anyway though... once someone dies, they almost (barring the wall) never go to an eternal reward as themselves... the best they can hope for is a couple of centuries as a aphasic petitioner before merging with their deity or the plane, becoming a mane or lemure and hoping to be one of the scant few who remember their past, or some form of undeath or immortality, bypassing the whole deal completely.

Even in the time they have as a petitioner, they could be killed by other beings on the plane, plane hopping mortals, or something like Kesef the Chaos Hound, all without the benefit of whatever class levels they might have had as a mortal.

And what happens if you merge with a deity, and then they get killed somehow?

It's definitely a rough deal.

Psyren

2014-07-10, 08:49 AM

I'm the choir, you're preaching. i've said elsewhere that the wall is 'unequivocally evil,' a 'divine protection racket' and that i have no use for 'spiritual bullies who compel worship or else.' I do, however, prefer divine magic to require the divine.

The problem here is that you are conflating "deity" with "divine." In non-FR D&D this is not at all the case. Eberron is a bit more explicit about it than other settings but it's there in nearly all of them. It has to be, because Ur-Priests are a thing that exist and non-FR Druids are a thing that exist.

If a setting has gods, those gods are the ultimate source of "the Divine" (or else they are not gods, just angellic servant beings). i'm okay with a god sponsoring someone they approve of without that person worshipping them, but the concept of power from an ideal is much too "mind over reality" for me.

It doesn't have to be this way at all. Worshiping an ideal can simply be hard, and worshiping a deity much easier. Deities (and all their quirky rituals and feastdays) could be a shortcut for a mortal mind to enter the proper receptive state.

Oh, I get the idea. I can respect people willing to go into oblivion or whatever for their principles. Granted, in a propitiatory-and-rewards based world with gods that are real, active forces, I'd probably be venerating them as needed anyway (if I'm going on a sea voyage, sure, I'll toss a few coins Umberlee's way). It doesn't really bother me.

Doing that explicitly does not make her your patron however. This was the specific example given of non-patron veneration given in FRCS. To the Wall with you!

You did say it had been retconned out and ISWG overruled GB. :smalltongue: It does say non-atheist souls in the CoB section get a reasonable eternity.

When did I say the graveyard had been "retconned out?" :smallconfused:

Citing ISWG would make no sense - the Boneyard is clearly mentioned there as a thing which exists. I think you grossly misinterpreted something I wrote.

Yeah. Trying not to paraphrase too much, his argument is, I think, that a cleric represents a follower of a deity, so they should have a deity. Ideal-based divine casters or the like are, to him, stuff like Oracles.

Oracle is another concept that couldn't exist in FR. At best they would be Favored Souls chosen against their will. Of course, the only Mystery then would be "which childish Outsider sponsored me?"

Brookshw

2014-07-10, 09:03 AM

Oh, I get the idea. I can respect people willing to go into oblivion or whatever for their principles. .

To be entirely fair you're semi-doomed to this no matter how you slice it with the standard cosmology, eventually that soul disolves into whatever plane you end up on, well, or your god.

As to the notion of clerics of ideals, some are kinda silly. I mean, I'm a cleric of myself? Vanity is a silly source for cosmic powers if you ask me. I'd buy it a bit more if the notion at least aligns with an element of the outer planes, doesn't stretch the mind quite so much.

Of course now I'm thinking of the lower planes and which align with vanity/self interest.

Talya

2014-07-10, 09:12 AM

To be entirely fair you're semi-doomed to this no matter how you slice it with the standard cosmology, eventually that soul disolves into whatever plane you end up on, well, or your god.

As to the notion of clerics of ideals, some are kinda silly. I mean, I'm a cleric of myself? Vanity is a silly source for cosmic powers if you ask me. I'd buy it a bit more if the notion at least aligns with an element of the outer planes, doesn't stretch the mind quite so much.

Of course now I'm thinking of the lower planes and which align with vanity/self interest.

If you're vain and pretty enough (and otherwise Good), Sune might select you as a favored soul, whether you like it or not. ;)

Psyren

2014-07-10, 09:25 AM

To be entirely fair you're semi-doomed to this no matter how you slice it with the standard cosmology, eventually that soul disolves into whatever plane you end up on, well, or your god.

Right, but the journey matters. In the Upper (Good) planes, you simply become so at peace with your surroundings and yourself that you eventually let go of your sense of identity. More importantly, you choose how quickly or slowly this happens - you decide when to climb the mountain in Celestia, you decide when to stop partying in Arborea etc.

In the Lower (Evil) planes however, you are beaten, abused and tortured until you lose your sense of self. They even wrap your petitioner form back in a semi-mortal casing so you can properly feel all of it. Slowly, mercifully, you lose your sense of awareness and become one with the plane, typically becoming a mane/dretch/lemure to begin the long climb upward. And even in that form you are likely to be simply eaten by a more powerful fiend or slain out of hand. Either way, all sense of your past life has been excised from you.

Brookshw

2014-07-10, 10:41 AM

Right, but the journey matters. In the Upper (Good) planes, you simply become so at peace with your surroundings and yourself that you eventually let go of your sense of identity. More importantly, you choose how quickly or slowly this happens - you decide when to climb the mountain in Celestia, you decide when to stop partying in Arborea etc.

In the Lower (Evil) planes however, you are beaten, abused and tortured until you lose your sense of self. They even wrap your petitioner form back in a semi-mortal casing so you can properly feel all of it. Slowly, mercifully, you lose your sense of awareness and become one with the plane, typically becoming a mane/dretch/lemure to begin the long climb upward. And even in that form you are likely to be simply eaten by a more powerful fiend or slain out of hand. Either way, all sense of your past life has been excised from you.

Well, to be fair we don't know what happens when you get to the top of celestia. And its not so much you lose sense of self (though I'm sure that's part of the process) as much as eventually you just disolve away / get absored completely.

Alleran

2014-07-11, 06:02 AM

Doing that explicitly does not make her your patron however. This was the specific example given of non-patron veneration given in FRCS. To the Wall with you!
Ah, but you don't know that in my life, I have tossed those coins as part of the long sea journeys I have undertaken on my quest to seek out knowledge of magic and its history, and thus my patron Oghma will take me upon my death!

(Or maybe Mystra will take me. Or Azuth.)

When did I say the graveyard had been "retconned out?" :smallconfused:

Citing ISWG would make no sense - the Boneyard is clearly mentioned there as a thing which exists. I think you grossly misinterpreted something I wrote.
"Perfect, so it's from Golarion's 3.5 days, outdated and therefore irrelevant. I'm talking about the current Golarion."

To be fair, I did misremember slightly - you said "outdated and irrelevant" and went on in a subsequent post to say that ISWG replaced all the setting books from the 3.5e era (thus, that your quote from ISWG supercedes/retcons GB).

But this is getting a bit too he said, she said for me, so I'll stop.

Oracle is another concept that couldn't exist in FR. At best they would be Favored Souls chosen against their will. Of course, the only Mystery then would be "which childish Outsider sponsored me?"
I like the concept of an Oracle as somebody who gained power when a god or *something* spoke through them or appeared to them (or maybe just manifested in the same city as them, or any number of things), except it was in such a fashion that the entity broke them (the Oracle Curse) simply by their presence (as a non-controllable thing), yet the act of the break allowed the power to flow in and empower them.

I think Brandon Sanderson does something similar in his books, the Cosmere setting. You have to be "broken" to some extent in order to gain magic (investiture), because it's the cracks and fractures that let the power seep in and fill them/you.

To be entirely fair you're semi-doomed to this no matter how you slice it with the standard cosmology, eventually that soul disolves into whatever plane you end up on, well, or your god.
Also true.

Psyren

2014-07-11, 08:15 AM

Ah, but you don't know that in my life, I have tossed those coins as part of the long sea journeys I have undertaken on my quest to seek out knowledge of magic and its history, and thus my patron Oghma will take me upon my death!

(Or maybe Mystra will take me. Or Azuth.)

And again I point out that if this matching service worked as perfectly as you believe there would be no Wall at all.

Also again, what if you don't want any of those deities? Mystra and Azuth expect a dedication to or at least a love of arcane pursuits that is often beyond the ordinary citizen, assuming they don't just find the idea horrific given their own experiences with wizards and sorcerers during life. They also tolerate necromancers, to the point that they are even shielding the head necromancy deity in the setting, and by doing so are indirectly causing who knows how many innocent souls to be trapped within intelligent undead. Meanwhile Oghma supposedly knows everything yet allows evil to flourish. There's plenty of reasons to reject all three.

"Perfect, so it's from Golarion's 3.5 days, outdated and therefore irrelevant. I'm talking about the current Golarion."

To be fair, I did misremember slightly - you said "outdated and irrelevant" and went on in a subsequent post to say that ISWG replaced all the setting books from the 3.5e era (thus, that your quote from ISWG supercedes/retcons GB).

But this is getting a bit too he said, she said for me, so I'll stop.

I was talking about the book you cited, not the Boneyard itself. Your quote was that atheist souls were somehow "corrupt."

Having said that, I can see where it seemed like I was rejecting the Boneyard itself so I apologize.

I like the concept of an Oracle as somebody who gained power when a god or *something* spoke through them or appeared to them (or maybe just manifested in the same city as them, or any number of things), except it was in such a fashion that the entity broke them (the Oracle Curse) simply by their presence (as a non-controllable thing), yet the act of the break allowed the power to flow in and empower them.

I think Brandon Sanderson does something similar in his books, the Cosmere setting. You have to be "broken" to some extent in order to gain magic (investiture), because it's the cracks and fractures that let the power seep in and fill them/you.

I prefer the "or something." (I really like Dark Tapestry, can you tell?)

Alleran

2014-07-11, 08:28 AM

Also again, what if you don't want any of those deities?
But I do want them.

Meanwhile Oghma supposedly knows everything yet allows evil to flourish.
Oghma is neutral, not good. As long as knowledge flourishes, all the better.

I prefer the "or something." (I really like Dark Tapestry, can you tell?)
The Dark Tapestry with its Lovecraftian elements is good for the "broke the brain just by being there and no active effort on their part" category.

Sith_Happens

2014-07-11, 08:30 AM

Well, to be fair we don't know what happens when you get to the top of celestia.

You ascend to a higher plane of exi (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AscendToAHigherPlaneOfExistence)... Wait a second.:smallconfused:

Psyren

2014-07-11, 08:46 AM

But I do want them.

You do, sure. But not everyone who would donate some quid to Umberless just to stave off a storm would want her or any of them.

Oghma is neutral, not good. As long as knowledge flourishes, all the better.

Right, but that's a good reason to not want him as a patron either. Someone who believes knowledge should be used to combat evil would have good reason to hate his inaction.

Well, to be fair we don't know what happens when you get to the top of celestia. And its not so much you lose sense of self (though I'm sure that's part of the process) as much as eventually you just disolve away / get absored completely.

I suppose it could be a horrifying eradication of existence yet somehow I doubt that. But again, the more important part is that you choose when to go up there. To quote Roy's Archon "it takes most mortals 30 or 40 years to get bored with all the sex and food and such. When they do, they start climbing again, in search of more spiritually satisfying fare."

malonkey1

2014-07-11, 09:43 AM

You ascend to a higher plane of exi (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AscendToAHigherPlaneOfExistence)... Wait a second.:smallconfused:

Dammit man, I had things to do today! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesWillRuinYourLife)

Alleran

2014-07-12, 06:21 AM

You do, sure. But not everyone who would donate some quid to Umberless just to stave off a storm would want her or any of them.
Good for them.

Or bad for them, one would suppose. I was talking about me.

Right, but that's a good reason to not want him as a patron either. Someone who believes knowledge should be used to combat evil would have good reason to hate his inaction.
Knowledge is neither good nor evil. It makes sense to me that the god of knowledge is neither good nor evil, but is primarily concerned with the promulgation and proliferation of knowledge - both good knowledge and bad. Ancient rituals to summon demon lords or how to close rifts that tear holes in reality, it's still knowledge, no matter who possesses it or asks for it. Just as somebody who believes it should be used to combat evil would hate his inaction, some evil-aligned tyrant who believes it should be theirs and theirs alone would hate that he continues to spread it beyond their control. One could choose who they taught it to, thus straying slightly from his overall ethos, but hey. One-step is a thing.

And don't forget that Oghma is the god of knowledge. He cannot deny it. As in, he literally can't. He walked a thin line near self-obliteration just for denying knowledge of the Cyrinishad's location to deities, and the only reason he got away with it was because he limited the denial to deities (mortals were free to learn/know its location) and the book itself was a big pack of lies (which he opposes).

Psyren

2014-07-12, 06:51 AM

Knowledge is neither good nor evil. It makes sense to me that the god of knowledge is neither good nor evil, but is primarily concerned with the promulgation and proliferation of knowledge - both good knowledge and bad. Ancient rituals to summon demon lords or how to close rifts that tear holes in reality, it's still knowledge, no matter who possesses it or asks for it. Just as somebody who believes it should be used to combat evil would hate his inaction, some evil-aligned tyrant who believes it should be theirs and theirs alone would hate that he continues to spread it beyond their control. One could choose who they taught it to, thus straying slightly from his overall ethos, but hey. One-step is a thing.

And don't forget that Oghma is the god of knowledge. He cannot deny it. As in, he literally can't. He walked a thin line near self-obliteration just for denying knowledge of the Cyrinishad's location to deities, and the only reason he got away with it was because he limited the denial to deities (mortals were free to learn/know its location) and the book itself was a big pack of lies (which he opposes).

And I'm fine with that! I really am. Neutral knowledge wahey. "Evil knowledge must exist as surely as good" is a perfectly valid philosophy.

But it is also a perfectly valid reason for some not to want him as a patron.

Alleran

2014-07-12, 07:45 AM

And I'm fine with that! I really am. Neutral knowledge wahey. "Evil knowledge must exist as surely as good" is a perfectly valid philosophy.

But it is also a perfectly valid reason for some not to want him as a patron.
Yes.

(Ten characters.)

Dimers

2014-07-12, 09:15 AM

Actually, a question ... raise of hands, anyone have actually had issues with the Wall other than "I don't like the fluff"?

I didn't before reading this thread, but with what I've learned of the Wall lore, yes. I now have issues with the logic by which it came back:

Ao forced the gods to depend on worshipers, so they couldn't just screw off on their portfolios. Logically, in order to survive, they would want to ensure as many worshipers as possible, which means they would have to have extreme consequences for not worshiping. That extreme deterrent from agnosticism happens to be this wall. The fact that Ao forced Kelemvor to reinstate it just proves that that's purpose it serves. It's a bad idea, and it's obviously evil, but when you stop thinking of worshipers as people, and think of them as dots on a screen, it makes sense. And it's pretty obvious that Ao only thinks of the Faerûnian people as dots on a screen.

Complication: Ao should only care about the gods' fulfillment of their portfolios if he cares about the people of Faerun. Natural world aside -- and that doesn't need any gods to be what it is, so we can set it aside -- almost every portfolio is concerned with the lives and activities of humanoids. If Ao cares nothing for humanoids, he shouldn't give half a damn about the gods fulfilling their jobs. There aren't gods of the weak nuclear force and gravity and conservation of mass/energy; again setting Nature aside, all the gods *do* is fiddle with people.

Ao has nothing to do with the wall or Kelemvor's reinstatement of it. Kelemvor's trial happened at the behest of the gods of evil (Shar, Cyric, Bane and company) who seem to have a stronger presence on the council of greater deities than the good gods do. The wall is entirely the purview of the god of death but Kelemvor was deemed too lenient towards the "good" dead, especially the faithless and the false.

That makes more sense. It doesn't fit with what Mark Hall had to say about divine war, though. Some gods can group together and force another god to change how he handles his domain (violating his principles in the process)? That should either (1) be impossible to do or (2) provoke a divine war.

And one can't even justify the Wall's reinstatement by saying Ao just wants things done the way they were in the olden days. Ao made plenty of changes and hasn't seen fit to change those back.

The wall is actually evidence warblades don't exist in the realms, or at least no faithless warblades. Moment one found themself in the wall they'd IHS it away

You have to be able to move to initiate a maneuver.

Coidzor

2014-07-12, 01:08 PM

- Mystra 1.0 created Chosen, thus inspiring a million cries of rage from disgruntled players of super-speshul RPG characters throughout the halls of the Internet (once people had an Internet to use) because they were no longer the only super-speshul ones. Does that count? Oh, and she made it so wizards weren't gods after Netheril.

If you're talking about all of the epic level spellcasters running around mucking with things, you're grossly misrepresenting why people don't really like that particular element of the campaign setting.

If you're not, then I have no idea what you're going on about because I've never once seen anything on the subject before. :smallconfused:

To be entirely fair you're semi-doomed to this no matter how you slice it with the standard cosmology, eventually that soul disolves into whatever plane you end up on, well, or your god.

As to the notion of clerics of ideals, some are kinda silly. I mean, I'm a cleric of myself? Vanity is a silly source for cosmic powers if you ask me. I'd buy it a bit more if the notion at least aligns with an element of the outer planes, doesn't stretch the mind quite so much.

Of course now I'm thinking of the lower planes and which align with vanity/self interest.

That's more solipsism or narcissism than mere vanity, I'd say.

Though Wee Jas is a Goddess of Vanity in addition to her other roles, so... :smallamused:

Well, they're all still sort of stuck in the remains of the last war, the Blood War. While they let evil duke it out between Law and Chaos, everybody else must be under an intense truce. Maybe the wall would be one of the targets if the Blood War expands back out into the war between good and evil again.

The afterlife in the Realms or in any of the other worlds is just fraught with peril anyway though... once someone dies, they almost (barring the wall) never go to an eternal reward as themselves... the best they can hope for is a couple of centuries as a aphasic petitioner before merging with their deity or the plane, becoming a mane or lemure and hoping to be one of the scant few who remember their past, or some form of undeath or immortality, bypassing the whole deal completely.

Even in the time they have as a petitioner, they could be killed by other beings on the plane, plane hopping mortals, or something like Kesef the Chaos Hound, all without the benefit of whatever class levels they might have had as a mortal.

And what happens if you merge with a deity, and then they get killed somehow?

It's definitely a rough deal.

Yeah, D&D afterlives tend to suck. But they gotta have some way of getting rid of people in them otherwise the infinite expanses would be overrun by former mortals.

Alleran

2014-07-13, 05:35 AM

If you're talking about all of the epic level spellcasters running around mucking with things, you're grossly misrepresenting why people don't really like that particular element of the campaign setting.

If you're not, then I have no idea what you're going on about because I've never once seen anything on the subject before. :smallconfused:
It wasn't meant to be entirely serious, you realise, considering it was the only fourth-wall breaker in that list. Should I have blue-texted it or something?

Amphetryon

2014-07-13, 06:42 AM

Apologies if I missed a response to this earlier which renders what follows moot or redundant:

Actually, it entirely defeats Ao's purpose. He wanted the gods to pay attention to their worshippers and so made them dependent on worship. But then comes the Wall and suddenly the gods don't need to attend to their flocks as long as no one else who is philosophically compatible does any more.

To be fair, Ao is shown to be following the orders of a higher over-deity in at least one source (I believe it was Crucible: The Trial of Cyric the Mad, by Troy Denning. Nope, corrected by hamishpence, below). As this over-deity is both powerful enough to have Ao call Him or Her 'Master' and is never - to my knowledge - given motives or a specific personality that we can discern, the Wall may serve an otherwise ineffable purpose that serves the FR cosmology from a perspective that's simply too remote for us to comprehend without more information.

hamishspence

2014-07-13, 07:12 AM

Actually it was Waterdeep, the last book in the Time of Troubles Avatar trilogy:

Ao closed his eyes and blanked his mind. Soon, he fell within himself and entered the place before time, the time at the edge of the universe, where millions and millions of assignments like his began and ended.
A luminous presence greeted him, enveloping his energies within its own. It was both a warm and a cold entity, forgiving and harsh. "And how does your cosmos fare, Ao?" The voice was at once both gentle and admonishing.
"They have restored the Balance, Master. The Realms are once again secure."

Gildedragon

2014-07-13, 10:36 AM

It wasn't meant to be entirely serious, you realise, considering it was the only fourth-wall breaker in that list. Should I have blue-texted it or something?

Hur hur! I get it

RedMage125

2014-07-13, 11:42 AM

Only read the first page, and so I apologize if this has been addressed...

Where do people get that Kelemvor was "forced" to put the Wall back up? In Crucible: the Trial of Cyric the Mad, Kelemvor realized that he had been allowing his own personal prejudices to affect his judgement in the enacting of his portfolio. Kelemvor re-judged all of the souls in his realm (both Faithless and False), which was a good thing. But then mortals began to learn that if they were just and righteous and valorous, that they didn't NEED to b faithful to any god, because Kelemvor would judge them worthy of eternal reward.

The fact is: Kelemvor was remiss in his duties. By judging souls like that, instead of in a fair and dispassionate manner, he was twisting the way souls were judged towards Good. HOWEVER, because mortals knew about that, Good and Righteous mortals didn't need to be faithful, and thus the power of the Good gods would be weakened.

Mystra was likewise remiss in her duties. She was denying evil spellcasters access to the Weave, while making the spells of Good ones more powerful. She was more concerned with micromanaging how the Weave was being used, as opposed to simply maintaining the Weave for all.

Neither one of them was on trial. Neither one was forced by Ao or by the council of gods in Cynosure, to do anything. But in confronting Cyric with his own failures in his portfolio (Innocence by virtue of Insanity), they realized that they had put personal whim and desire over their responsibility.

Kelemvor CHOSE to put the Wall back up. Because he realized he was being a selfish d-bag by allowing righteous, but Faithless mortals to get a good judgement in the afterlife. He had to set aside his notions of what was "right", and focus on what was "just and fair". And, as a part of that, he had to let go of the love he had for Mystra, and she hers for him.

Cyric, having orchestrated the series of events that made them realize this, collected the tears of both gods and proved to the court of Cynosure that-even while insane-he had executed his portfolio of Strife by destroying a love between gods. All while also forcing those gods to maintain the cosmic balance of their portfolios that all gods -good and evil-are beholden to.

Kish

2014-07-13, 02:47 PM

Mystra is notoriously bad at stopping people from using magic that will ruin her through the Weave. Just look at Karsus. She didn't do anything about someone casting an Epic Spell that was designed to eat her. I doubt she'd stop you from making an arcane mass mindrape.

Which is something else that bothers me. How the hell is Mystra a Good aligned deity if it's a non action for her to stop Evil wizards from butchering entire villages? You'd think a deity that allowed unrestricted access to a source of incredible power regardless of your motivations would be neutral at best.
She tried denying magic to Cyric's followers once; Ao yelled at her for it.

Her office is Lawful Neutral. That's why she has the special rule for clerics (they can be either "within one step of" her true Neutral Good alignment, or her office's Lawful Neutral alignment). Her rulings as a god have to be Lawful Neutral ones, or Ao will overrule them.

Okay how did it work?
Cadderly spent a little while thinking, "I read this book, which the other priests of Deneir call our religion's holy book, and then I throw around fire, so...how exactly am I different from a wizard?"

Then he got high enough in level to cast a spell which involves the direct intervention of the deity in question and went, "Oh, huh, there's something there after all."

I dunno, it seems like even without the deities are constantly breathing down your neck angle there could be *something* about FR that it has and Greyhawk doesn't, at least, not exactly.
Beyond-ludicrous levels of power creep?

I'm the choir, you're preaching. i've said elsewhere that the wall is 'unequivocally evil,' a 'divine protection racket' and that i have no use for 'spiritual bullies who compel worship or else.' I do, however, prefer divine magic to require the divine.
Which classes does that include?

That is, clerics are obvious. How about druids? Rangers? Paladins? Monks? The Forgotten Realms is the only setting I know where you can never cast a single divine spell without a specific patron deity.

(If you were wondering, "I mean I prefer clerics and only clerics to require a specific divine patron" is the only place you could draw that line that I wouldn't disagree with you strongly.)

Sith_Happens

2014-07-13, 05:47 PM

You have to be able to move to initiate a maneuver.

Writhing in agony is a form of movement.

Ao closed his eyes and blanked his mind. Soon, he fell within himself and entered the place before time, the time at the edge of the universe, where millions and millions of assignments like his began and ended.
A luminous presence greeted him, enveloping his energies within its own. It was both a warm and a cold entity, forgiving and harsh. "And how does your cosmos fare, Ao?" The voice was at once both gentle and admonishing.
"They have restored the Balance, Master. The Realms are once again secure."

Well that's awfully ominous. It heavily implies that the over-overdeity in question presides over multiple campaign settings, and that one of its prerogatives is their protection from... something.

atemu1234

2014-07-13, 05:48 PM

well that's awfully ominous. It heavily implies that the over-overdeity in question presides over multiple campaign settings, and that one of its prerogatives is their protection from... Something.

all glory to the great lord gygax!

Nilehus

2014-07-13, 05:54 PM

The more I read in this thread, the more I wonder why Ao even bothers allowing the other gods to exist if he just micromanages them. Maybe he's just too lazy to actually do all the work.

RedMage125

2014-07-13, 06:01 PM

The more I read in this thread, the more I wonder why Ao even bothers allowing the other gods to exist if he just micromanages them. Maybe he's just too lazy to actually do all the work.

Then either you, or the people on this tread whose posts you have read, are confused.

Ao does not micromanage them. He sets down a very general and VERY loose set of guidelines. There are a couple of "DO NOT CROSS" lines that he has laid down, but as long as the gods don't break those rules, Ao does not get involved.

The gods can, of course, request Ao's intervention (see the Lady Penitent Trilogy). But apart from the gods going directly to Ao, he stays in the background.

Ao does NOT step in and "overrule" a bad decision a deity makes. But if a deity begins to neglect the duties of their office, the other deities may take objection to that, and bring the case before Ao. But it's not like he's sitting there approving/disapproving everything they do. If that were the case, Cyric would not have been able to murder Mystra.

Psyren

2014-07-13, 06:06 PM

Well that's awfully ominous. It heavily implies that the over-overdeity in question presides over multiple campaign settings, and that one of its prerogatives is their protection from... something.

What's more ominous is that it had to ask Ao to report the situation rather than simply knowing. So even that entity is not omniscient, which means that lesser beings (the gods) are not either.

Nilehus

2014-07-13, 06:10 PM

Then either you, or the people on this tread whose posts you have read, are confused.

Ao does not micromanage them. He sets down a very general and VERY loose set of guidelines. There are a couple of "DO NOT CROSS" lines that he has laid down, but as long as the gods don't break those rules, Ao does not get involved.

The gods can, of course, request Ao's intervention (see the Lady Penitent Trilogy). But apart from the gods going directly to Ao, he stays in the background.

Ao does NOT step in and "overrule" a bad decision a deity makes. But if a deity begins to neglect the duties of their office, the other deities may take objection to that, and bring the case before Ao. But it's not like he's sitting there approving/disapproving everything they do. If that were the case, Cyric would not have been able to murder Mystra.

Hm. Fair enough. This thread's focused on one of his "DO NOT CROSS" lines, got me a bit confused. I still don't like Ao, though. :smallwink:

Kish

2014-07-13, 06:10 PM

If that were the case, Cyric would not have been able to murder Mystra.
This claim seems based on not having read the novels where Ao states his rules.

The gods appealed to Ao to punish Cyric when he murdered Leira. Ao's response was that Cyric was the god of death, which included the deaths of the gods, and so he had done nothing but exactly what he was supposed to do. Cyric pointed his sword at Tyr and gloated, "There was no crime. Leira died because I willed it. Any of you could be next."

(The fact that Mystra apparently didn't stay dead aside.)

Coidzor

2014-07-13, 06:11 PM

Well that's awfully ominous. It heavily implies that the over-overdeity in question presides over multiple campaign settings, and that one of its prerogatives is their protection from... something.

Players. :smalltongue:

Or losing market share by ceasing to be just right for marketing purposes. The entity is the Corporate Overlord, after all. :smallamused:

What's more ominous is that it had to ask Ao to report the situation rather than simply knowing. So even that entity is not omniscient, which means that lesser beings (the gods) are not either.

Which makes sense, because it's hard for a corporation to always have (or want to have) its left hand knowing what its right hand is doing.

Psyren

2014-07-13, 06:37 PM

Which makes sense, because it's hard for a corporation to always have (or want to have) its left hand knowing what its right hand is doing.

The problem is that deities are more than merely the executives in a corporation. Or at least they should be; if that is truly all they are, then choosing not to worship them is valid, and punishing mortals who make that choice is unjust.

Amphetryon

2014-07-13, 06:51 PM

The problem is that deities are more than merely the executives in a corporation. Or at least they should be; if that is truly all they are, then choosing not to worship them is valid, and punishing mortals who make that choice is unjust.

Omniscience has not been a hallmark of many polytheistic pantheons of which I am aware.

Psyren

2014-07-13, 06:52 PM

Omniscience has not been a hallmark of many polytheistic pantheons of which I am aware.

Neither is the Wall.

Dimers

2014-07-13, 06:55 PM

It heavily implies that the over-overdeity in question presides over multiple campaign settings, and that one of its prerogatives is their protection from... something.

Oh, dear. What if it's ... Chief Circle?

Amphetryon

2014-07-13, 06:58 PM

Neither is the Wall.

Nor did I ever say, or imply, that it was. Your point?

Psyren

2014-07-13, 07:04 PM

Nor did I ever say, or imply, that it was. Your point?

This thread is about understanding the aversion people have to the Wall, an aversion powerful enough to turn some people off the setting as a whole. It's true that expecting polytheistic pantheons to be omniscient may be unreasonable, but FR is the only fantasy setting that punishes people nearly as harshly (if not more harshly) for non-participation as it does for them being evil.

RedMage125

2014-07-13, 08:13 PM

This claim seems based on not having read the novels where Ao states his rules.

The gods appealed to Ao to punish Cyric when he murdered Leira. Ao's response was that Cyric was the god of death, which included the deaths of the gods, and so he had done nothing but exactly what he was supposed to do. Cyric pointed his sword at Tyr and gloated, "There was no crime. Leira died because I willed it. Any of you could be next."

(The fact that Mystra apparently didn't stay dead aside.)

But the gods had to appeal to Ao. Which was my whole point. Ao doesn't micromanage them.

And I read all 5 books of the "Avatar trilogy". Cyric's claim that you quote cannot be taken at face value. He was quite mad, and convinced that EVEYTHING that happened was because of his own will.

Anlashok

2014-07-13, 09:09 PM

The Forgotten Realms is the only setting I know where you can never cast a single divine spell without a specific patron deity.
Not really. Sertrous' teachings are completely 100% compatible with FR. The only thing you need a god for is having a decent afterlife.

Well that's awfully ominous. It heavily implies that the over-overdeity in question presides over multiple campaign settings, and that one of its prerogatives is their protection from... something.
I've seen a few different sources essentially claim that the Being above Ao is essentially a write-in for the DM.

but FR is the only fantasy setting that punishes people nearly as harshly (if not more harshly) for non-participation as it does for them being evil.
It is a bit silly, especially when you consider that having your soul slowly and agonizingly dissolved for eternity by green mold is something that's a concern for good characters more than evil characters.

That "only setting" is not entirely true though, Golarion's faithless are locked away in tombs for eternity, which isn't a great break either.

Kish

2014-07-13, 09:21 PM

But the gods had to appeal to Ao. Which was my whole point. Ao doesn't micromanage them.

And I read all 5 books of the "Avatar trilogy". Cyric's claim that you quote cannot be taken at face value. He was quite mad, and convinced that EVEYTHING that happened was because of his own will.
That's not the point. You made a positive claim that Ao would have found something objectionable in Cyric killing another god. That claim was not only unsupported but directly contrary to what Ao said on the matter.

Psyren

2014-07-13, 09:21 PM

That "only setting" is not entirely true though, Golarion's faithless are locked away in tombs for eternity, which isn't a great break either.

Nowhere is that described as "torture" though, nor indeed does it seem they can feel or are aware of anything at all. For an atheistic or misotheistic entity, oblivion may in fact be the preferable afterlife. And, assuming the theories regarding Groetus are true, the souls in the Boneyard serve an active purpose beyond simply frightening mortals who might end up in the Boneyard, as the Wall does.

The key difference in Golarion is that their cosmology is not portrayed as perfect or their gods infallible. There is no overdeity who can address deific grievances or extinction level events - for instance, faced with what is essentially the Snarl, the best they could do was lock it away inside the planet.

Anlashok

2014-07-13, 09:29 PM

Nowhere is that described as "torture" though, nor indeed does it seem they can feel or are aware of anything at all. For an atheistic or misotheistic entity, oblivion may in fact be the preferable afterlife.
You could argue that, but rarely is oblivion ever described as a positive, nor eternal imprisonment.

The key difference in Golarion is that their cosmology is not portrayed as perfect or their gods infallible.
And FR's are? They can barely keep doing their own jobs and even the good gods tend to be extremely petty.

Hell, WoTC seems to go out of their way to try to make the FR gods less appealing. Tyr murders another good god for almost no good reason and then dies vaguely, they replace Nerull with a woman driven entirely by jealousy and a desire for power (the latter is 4e cosmology but still)... and so on and so on. They tend to make the Greek pantheon look well mannered by comparison.

Psyren

2014-07-13, 09:31 PM

You could argue that, but rarely is oblivion ever described as a positive, nor eternal imprisonment.

It's neither positive nor negative - that's the point.

And FR's are? They can barely keep doing their own jobs and even the good gods tend to be extremely petty.

Yet despite this, you're tortured and dissolved for not picking one. See the problem?

DeltaEmil

2014-07-13, 09:47 PM

they replace Nerull with a woman driven entirely by jealousy and a desire for power (the latter is 4e cosmology but still)... and so on and so on. They tend to make the Greek pantheon look well mannered by comparison.The death of Nerull and his replacement by the Raven Queen takes place in the implied setting world of 4e, the world of the Nentir vale, also jokingly called PoLand (a portmanteau of Points of Light and Land). The Greyhawk Nerull is not affected by his PoLand-twin's death, and is still being a prick towards Wee Jas.

Anlashok

2014-07-13, 09:52 PM

It's neither positive nor negative - that's the point.
I'm not so sure there still. Like I'm not sure how you can spin eternal imprisonment as anything other than a bad thing.

Yet despite this, you're tortured and dissolved for not picking one. See the problem?
Oh yeah, I never disagreed that it wasn't awful.

The death of Nerull and his replacement by the Raven Queen takes place in the implied setting world of 4e, the world of the Nentir vale, also jokingly called PoLand (a portmanteau of Points of Light and Land). The Greyhawk Nerull is not affected by his PoLand-twin's death, and is still being a prick towards Wee Jas.

True, but this was a thread about FR, so the point about them replacing a (relatively serious) god of death with a petty, jealous, greedy old woman who hunts necromancers down not because she despises undeath, but because she's mad that anyone who doesn't work for her has zombies.

... I never understood why there were so many different gods of death.

You know it's sort of funny, even the people I know who enjoy 4e as a game tend to ignore everything it says about FR except maybe the Neverwinter stuff (which for some reason is treated as a completely different campaign setting).

Coidzor

2014-07-13, 10:04 PM

The problem is that deities are more than merely the executives in a corporation. Or at least they should be; if that is truly all they are, then choosing not to worship them is valid, and punishing mortals who make that choice is unjust.

Yeah, but in this case it makes sense because it's just the 4th wall being broken in-universe.

Psyren

2014-07-13, 10:28 PM

I'm not so sure there still. Like I'm not sure how you can spin eternal imprisonment as anything other than a bad thing.

It's a graveyard; does interring a corpse count as imprisoning it?

Yeah, but in this case it makes sense because it's just the 4th wall being broken in-universe.

Maybe I'm being slow but I have no idea what this means.

Raven777

2014-07-13, 10:48 PM

Well, there's your epic campaign - kick Ao in the nuts! :smallbiggrin:

I think Golarion does this right - the "judging" from FR combined with the Great Wheel from Greyhawk. Truly neutral/unaligned souls most often become Aeons, or are simply reincarnated for another go.

I think becoming a Pleroma is a suitable reward for rejecting religion, don't you?

Still, Pharasma feeds the faithless to the Moon from Majora's Mask (http://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Groetus#Relations_with_other_religions), so yeah... Must suck to be from Rahadoum (http://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Rahadoum).

Anlashok

2014-07-13, 10:53 PM

It's a graveyard; does interring a corpse count as imprisoning it?

Given that the corpse is a lifeless husk, no.

Better analogy would be if you replaced corpse with "still living person" because the boneyard is imprisoning conscious entities, not inanimate objects.

Psyren

2014-07-13, 11:12 PM

Still, Pharasma feeds the faithless to the Moon from Majora's Mask (http://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Groetus#Relations_with_other_religions), so yeah... Must suck to be from Rahadoum (http://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Rahadoum).

This was already addressed a few pages back.

Given that the corpse is a lifeless husk, no.

Better analogy would be if you replaced corpse with "still living person" because the boneyard is imprisoning conscious entities, not inanimate objects.

Where does it say they are conscious?

SaintRidley

2014-07-14, 01:01 AM

The continued existence of the Wall and the inaction of the gods makes a very good case for why the only Good god is a dead god.

I need to get character creating now.

malonkey1

2014-07-14, 01:46 AM

The continued existence of the Wall and the inaction of the gods makes a very good case for why the only Good god is a dead god.

I need to get character creating now.

Ur-Priest is a must, of course.

Sith_Happens

2014-07-14, 04:21 AM

Oh, dear. What if it's ... Chief Circle?

http://i.imgur.com/tjheJV3.gif

Yet despite this, you're tortured and dissolved for not picking one. See the problem?

It is entirely in-character for them, though.

the Moon from Majora's Mask (http://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Groetus#Relations_with_other_religions)

"Cleric Alignments: CG, CN, CE, N."

What exactly does a Good Cleric of the god of the end of the world look like?:smallconfused:

123456789blaaa

2014-07-14, 04:32 AM

<snip>
"Cleric Alignments: CG, CN, CE, N."

What exactly does a Good Cleric of the god of the end of the world look like?:smallconfused:

Believe it or not there was actually a thread on this topic (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jasw?Groetus-and-Good-Clerics)at the Paizo forum. IMO there are some pretty good answers in it.

Psyren

2014-07-14, 07:56 AM

It is entirely in-character for them, though.

Oh, no doubt - by and large they are either vile or feckless entities.

All I'm saying though is that WotC can't deliberately write their deities and cosmology in such a heinous, then act surprised when folks are disillusioned or turned off by it. And that hopefully this discourse has answered the OP's query.

SaintRidley

2014-07-14, 12:23 PM

Ur-Priest is a must, of course.

I find the whole evil thing with them silly, so I'd probably aim to get that waived - I imagine, for instance, a LG Ur-Priest/Prestige Paladin, who turns the power of the unrighteous back against them.

Probably wouldn't be too hard to put together a build and character outline, either. Probably not Prestige paladin specifically, either. But something of the very Paladinish type.

Anlashok

2014-07-14, 12:38 PM

Where does it say they are conscious?

Where does it say they aren't? Or that souls in Golarion can even have states of wakefulness in the first place? Presumably if there was some special situation for those souls where they were put to sleep it'd be mentioned somewhere, so I'm not sure where you're getting this assumption that there's a special state for these particular creatures.

Oh, no doubt - by and large they are either vile or feckless entities.

All I'm saying though is that WotC can't deliberately write their deities and cosmology in such a heinous, then act surprised when folks are disillusioned or turned off by it. And that hopefully this discourse has answered the OP's query.

The biggest problem here is that WotC presents FR as a high fantasy, fairly optimistic land for clean, epic adventure... and in a setting like that the relative grimdarkness of the way they portray the gods and the wall is really incongruous.

Ur-Priest is a must, of course.

Ironically Ur-priests probably get off better than the faithless. You're more liable to go to hell or be claimed by Sertrous and even if those don't happen the False don't seem to get it any worse than the faithless do.

Really the most hilarious thing about the Wall is that eternal damnation is more likely for a Good character than anyone else.