[Dragonlance/Faerun] Anyone here met any Cataclysm/Wall of the Faithless defenders?

[Libertad]

In the vein that they view the Cataclysm that the gods sent to the mortal world for Istar's corruption as justified to some extent. Or believe that consigning antitheists and atheists to cosmic building blocks is a necessary evil for the greater good.

Dragonlance has been on my mind lately for various reasons, and between it and Forgotten Realms I notice that the tabletop social circles I notice certain acts of divine violence as a big dealbreaker for people who'd otherwise be interested in the settings. Or they like the settings but would either retcon or alter said aspects, or even cast the gods in a more antagonistic role.

But the number of Wall/Cataclysm defenders I know of can be counted on one hand. And I've been on quite the number of forums.

Has anyone here encountered such defenders? What was their reasoning?

And if any posters happen to be such defenders, I wouldn't mind hearing your rationales.

[Glorthindel]

I wouldn't call it a defence, but my theory on why the Wall of the Faithless is a necessary and vital function, is to interpret it as less a deliberate and spiteful divine punishment, and more as a celestial trash compactor. If you work on the principle that souls have to go somewhere after death, and that the only way into places other than purgatory is by direct shepherding by divine beings, then you have one of two things occuring without the existence of the Wall (or a similar functional object/location).

The first alternative is all divine beings start sweeping up as many souls as they can get their hands on (Demons and Devils certainly opt for this approach). But this creates the problem that you might sweep up souls who would rather be one place, and drag them somewhere they don't want to be (again, Demons and Devils have no problem with this, but Good Outsiders would probably suffer an existential crisis over doing this), and that would either be traumatic for the soul, or create am imbalance in your home plane (if you pile too many other-aligned souls into it). So its not a great solution. Sucks to be a devout soul dragged into the wrong place due to the need to grab souls fast before someone else does, though it might be better for those who follow no deity, as at least they end up somewhere (even if it is a coin-flip on whether it suits their ethos or not)

Option two is you just let the souls build up in a massive pile, try and sort out 'your' souls, and hope you don't lose anyone in the crush. Its hard to put finite levels of power on divine beings, but sooner or later (and with sudden unexpected mass soul influxes), as the weight of 'unaligned' souls build up with nowhere to go, ones that should be moved on might end up lost and forgotten in the pile. Sucks to be a devout follower who gets forgotten because they crossed over with a few hundred of an alternate alignment, so your patron doesn't see you in the pile, and sucks for those who follow no deity as they are sat in the pile for eternity. Consider the afterlife like a baggage claim carousel; if say for some strange reason 1 bag in 10 goes uncollected, if no-one ever shifts the unclaimed bags into storage, how many flights will come in before the entire carousel is jammed solid by unclaimed bags, so its impossible for bags which would be claimed to get to their waiting owners.

So, and I am well aware this is probably more personal head-canon than as-written, I see the Wall as a necessary place to file away anyone who the good-aligned deities feel they can't legitimately claim, so they aren't cluttering up the place for those they do need to claim, and at least it gives them somewhere they cant be easily dragged off from by Demons and Devils. Sure, does it suck to end up in the Wall, of course it does, but if you assume the cosmology doesn't allow for finding your own place, and relies on the shepherding by others, at the end of the day, there needs to be somewhere to dump those that cant be moved on, once they have sat for a sufficient time in baggage claim.

Note: I am not saying the Wall is a great thing, and certainly you could expect the divine powers to come up with something more humane (though I don't personally see Dolurrh in Eberron as any more humane, its basically the same thing, except you can walk around a bit, and everyone gets dumped there), but something has to be done with the 'junk' souls with nowhere to go, and this is the most efficient system they could devise for the benefit of the souls that can move on

[Saintheart]

In the vein that they view the Cataclysm that the gods sent to the mortal world for Istar's corruption as justified to some extent.

This is one of those loaded questions where if one post goes the wrong way, we wind up with a locked thread, so, I will try to proceed with caution.

The only justification for the Cataclysm springs from two things:
(1) The Dragonlance gods are sentient, and imperfect beings but not omnipotent; and
(2) The entire setting is premised on the absolute necessity of good and evil coexisting in the world, which is a pretty weird way to view reality.

The justification for the Cataclysm is given by Paladine: they (or he alone, in some accounts) saw that the Kingpriest of Istar if unchecked would proceed to use the gods' powers to eliminate not just evil, but anything that disagreed with him. After 13 Warnings, and after pulling out all the clerics who still actually believed in their gods (most didn't), the gods hurled the fiery mountain at Istar, destroying it and sending the world into disaster. It also had the effect of removing all current power bases which were essentially dependent on, or followed the views of, Istar. The Solamnic Knights survived but were shamed into exile in pretty well every land except Solamnia itself. It was a brutal way to reset the board, but the gods didn't apparently see any other way to intervene with the Kingpriest and restore the balance. Not to mention that as said, the gods had already pulled out all of their clerics and anyone who still believed and followed the will of the gods (Lord Soth being one who believed in the gods and had the chance to avert the Cataclysm, but purposefully turned away from the opportunity to save the world.)


This justification is pretty contestable from a moral standpoint in our world, but it is internally consistent to the setting - remembering that the setting requires coexistent good and evil and maintains gods who can see the future but are not omnipotent and who are not perfect. So that's the justification: it's required by the rules the setting puts up for itself. This is a separate issue from whether it's icky or genocidal or immoral to throw fiery mountains at people in our own world.

[Yora]

I never heard of anyone complain about this. How many people are actually bothered by it?

[RifleAvenger]

I never heard of anyone complain about this. How many people are actually bothered by it?

Wall of the Faithless bothers me something fierce, and I'd never play in a Forgotten Realms game that actively acknowledges it exists.

I more laugh at the Cataclysm as an standout example of how Dragonlance's core setting conceits are inimical to any story I'd ever care to read, let alone take part in.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

My objections to both are largely based in Doylist reasons. Most of the people I've met who defend them either:

1) Are playing devil's advocate. The most common.

2) Take it on face value that these things make sense in-universe even if objectionable otherwise. Second by a wide margin.
(I'd argue that the Wall actually DOESN'T make sense, and is just a piece of preserved kludge in the fossil assemblage that is FR lore; That it didn't exist prior to Myrkul and was viewed as a VERY BAD THING to the point of its original destruction undermines arguments for the necessity of its existence. Cataclysm does make internal sense to Dragonlance).

3) Their personal values cause them to agree with the existence of one or both.

4) Some combination of 2&3.

[Millstone85]

I know nothing about the Cataclysm, bur here is my problem with the Wall.

If you work on the principle that souls have to go somewhere after death, and that the only way into places other than purgatory is by direct shepherding by divine beings, then you have one of two things occuring without the existence of the Wall (or a similar functional object/location).

That is explicitly not the case in the Great Wheel cosmology, where the Outer Planes themselves attract souls that match their alignment. So if one considers Faerûn to be part of that cosmology, as I do, it makes Torilian souls somehow shielded from that attraction.

How? Why? Why do all Torilian souls first go the Fugue Plane, which by the way is part of the neutral evil plane of Hades, and remain stuck here unless claimed by a god? According to the novels, it is because only the evil gods are able to keep their followers without the threat of the Wall. Wow, the rest of the pantheon must be really incompetent!

And I do believe you are the first Wall defender I met.

[Glorthindel]

I know nothing about the Cataclysm, bur here is my problem with the Wall.

That is explicitly not the case in the Great Wheel cosmology, where the Outer Planes themselves attract souls that match their alignment. So if one considers Faerûn to be part of that cosmology, as I do, it makes Torilian souls somehow shielded from that attraction.

How? Why? Why do all Torilian souls first go the Fugue Plane, which by the way is part of the neutral evil plane of Hades, and remain stuck here unless claimed by a god? According to the novels, it is because only the evil gods are able to keep their followers without the threat of the Wall. Wow, the rest of the pantheon must be really incompetent!

Oh, absolutely, the whole thing breaks down when you apply the Great Wheel (and maybe the World Tree, I don't really know how that worked and blacked out its existence entirely), though that isn't just a feature of the Realms (Eberron and Ravenloft have their own rules for souls, and many of the others choose not to say anything). It is definitely a good question why Torilian souls act the way they do (though I suspect it is just because every setting pretends the Great Wheel and other settings do not exist except in explicit crossovers), but they do act that way, so I see the Wall as a solution to a problem caused by that fact. Not a good one, but it does the job.

And I do believe you are the first Wall defender I met.

If there was a medal for that accolade, I am picturing it in matt grey with a sad face My only defence is I thoroughlly agree the Cataclysm was bonkers.

[Jason]

(2) The entire setting is premised on the absolute necessity of good and evil coexisting in the world, which is a pretty weird way to view reality.

The real world theosophical Problem of Evil is usually argued along the lines that in order for good to really be good it must include free will. In order for free will to exist evil has to be allowed to exist, at least temporarily. A perfectly good and omniscient God understands the necessity of free will and therefore allows evil to exist (at least for the moment).

In Krynn it's the gods of Neutrality who insist on defending free will. If either the gods of good or evil had their way free will would cease to exist. Hence the cataclysm. And yes, that is a consequence of the gods of Krynn being imperfect and not omniscient. Like the Fogotten Realms and Tolkien there is an "over god" in the background of the Krynn pantheon who is in essence the real God of the setting and who protects free will by allowing evil to (temporarily, at least) exist.

In the beginning were the gods from Beyond. There, before the beginning, they dwelt in joy in the presence of the High God whose children they were. It was there decreed that a new time and place would come to be. Time would there begin again, spirits would live and, in the course of time, new power would come to be...
...The High God decreed that each spirit could choose his own way through life. Then would come death, the passage from Krynn to the next state of existence....
...4. The Law of Consequence: This final law was given by the High God himself to rule over all other laws. For every law and rule that is obeyed there is a reward and blessing; for every law transgressed there is a punishment. Blessings and punishments may not come about immediately, bur they occur eventually.

[Vahnavoi]

No, I haven't met any such people, because people who have no problems with these things don't raise a fuss and I personally don't run games in Krynn or Faerun.

This said, what people often seem to forget is that D&D has always had a strong undercurrent of horror in it. Survival horror, gothic horror, body horror, religious horror, cosmic horror, it's all been there practically from the start. Original Deities & Demigods had Lovecraft's pantheon next to those borrowed from real myth. D&D settings like Krynn and Faerun are grown from that cross-section of pretty much everything horrible ever invented. I question the purpose of singling out things like the Cataclysm or the Wall in this veritable sea of horrors.

Amidst all disturbing details in these settings, one actually got to you? That's a feature, not a bug.

[Warder]

Until I saw this thread I had no idea people had strong feelings either way. In the FR games I've been a part of the Wall of the Faithless has absolutely been a part of the lore, but no one at any table has expressed any kinds of feelings about it, positive or negative. It's very far detached from most of what goes on in regular campaigns, after all. The one time it's been featured prominently in a storyline that I've been a part of wasn't in tabletop gaming at all, but in Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer. I thought its inclusion there was fantastic. Just thinking about MotB makes me want to play it again, it's been far too long.

[Saintheart]

The real world theosophical Problem of Evil is usually argued along the lines that in order for good to really be good it must include free will. In order for free will to exist evil has to be allowed to exist, at least temporarily. A perfectly good and omniscient God understands the necessity of free will and therefore allows evil to exist (at least for the moment).

In Krynn it's the gods of Neutrality who insist on defending free will. If either the gods of good or evil had their way free will would cease to exist. Hence the cataclysm. And yes, that is a consequence of the gods of Krynn being imperfect and not omniscient. Like the Fogotten Realms and Tolkien there is an "over god" in the background of the Krynn pantheon who is in essence the real God of the setting and who protects free will by allowing evil to (temporarily, at least) exist.

I'm aware of the Problem, I get the argument, but Krynn takes it way further and just about insists that good and evil have to be more or less in equal measure in the world for there to be balance. Right down to three gods of magic whose minions have equal representation in the Wizards' Conclave. I don't think the Problem of Evil suggests that the amount of evil in the world has to basically equal the amount of good, which is more or less what the Krynn system goes with. But anyway ... close to lock-line :)

[Jason]

Hey, in Eberron nobody gets a rewarding afterlife. Priests may claim that the gods will spare you from fading away in apathy in Dolurrh, but nobody has ever proven if the gods even exist.

Dolurrh, the Realm of the Dead
A place of hopelessness, eternal despair, and consuming apathy, Dolurrh is the realm where mortal souls go after death. It is not a reward. It is not a punishment. It just is.

[Anymage]

I'm aware of the Problem, I get the argument, but Krynn takes it way further and just about insists that good and evil have to be more or less in equal measure in the world for there to be balance. Right down to three gods of magic whose minions have equal representation in the Wizards' Conclave. I don't think the Problem of Evil suggests that the amount of evil in the world has to basically equal the amount of good, which is more or less what the Krynn system goes with. But anyway ... close to lock-line :)

The only thing I can say in defense of Dragonlance is that such balance fetishism makes sense in the fiction where Law vs. Chaos were the defining cosmic forces. When you attempt to follow that logic in a setting with a literal Good vs. Evil axis it breaks down, but that's more about being silly and nonsensical than anything else. I haven't met anyone who gets actively upset about Good vs. Evil balance fetishism, mind. Just a lot who think it's silly and nonsensical.

Hey, in Eberron nobody gets a rewarding afterlife. Priests may claim that the gods will spare you from fading away in apathy in Dolurrh, but nobody has ever proven if the gods even exist.

Without going on a long rant about how offensive and gobsmackingly stupid The Wall is, I'll just point out that Dolurrh isn't predicated on the idea that good people would stop worshiping and empowering good gods if they thought they could get a good afterlife through deeds alone. Simply having a crapsack afterlife isn't the problem. Writers consistently bungling it and doubling down is.

[JadedDM]

Dragonlance's Cataclysm, bad as it is, gets way worse if you ever read about Taladas, the lesser known continent of Krynn. It also got smashed by a giant meteor, oceans rose, mountains fell, all clerics lost their power, hundreds of thousands died, war and plague covered the land, entire nations fell, etc., but nobody had any idea why. The vast majority of people in Taladas had never even heard of the Kingpriest or Istar.

[Eldan]

I mean, I don't have a problem with the wall existing, as such, but I have a problem with any setting material that claims it's somehow necessary or justified. As written, it's very clearly a direct threat from antagonistic gods that can't stand not being worshipped.

[Warder]

I mean, I don't have a problem with the wall existing, as such, but I have a problem with any setting material that claims it's somehow necessary or justified. As written, it's very clearly a direct threat from antagonistic gods that can't stand not being worshipped.

That's how it's framed in Mask of the Betrayer. I won't go into any spoilers, but its presentation there is excellent. The more I think about MotB, the more I actually like that the Wall exists, and I've felt decidedly indifferent about it before. :P

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Yora
I never heard of anyone complain about this. How many people are actually bothered by it?

Originally Posted by Warder
In the FR games I've been a part of the Wall of the Faithless has absolutely been a part of the lore, but no one at any table has expressed any kinds of feelings about it, positive or negative.

I’ve never heard any complaints about it either. Almost all of my 3.5 experience has been playing in various campaigns in the Forgotten Realms, and not once did this ever come up. We even had a priest of Kelemvor with us for one campaign and it was never mentioned. For the great majority of campaigns it’s simply not relevant.

Originally Posted by Vahnavoi
Amidst all disturbing details in these settings, one actually got to you? That's a feature, not a bug.

Exactly this. It seems like a strange detail to be concerned about, compared with everything else going on.

[Willie the Duck]

I never heard of anyone complain about this. How many people are actually bothered by it?

Until I saw this thread I had no idea people had strong feelings either way.

I’ve never heard any complaints about it either.

I think a fair amount of people think one or the other is silly/stupid/not what they want in a game, and change it/play another setting/move on with their lives. Forums and other such navel-gazing conglomerations sometimes cycle through breakdowns of the things. Although, to be fair, I haven't seen the subject come up except on three or four forums very recently (this one included), all with the same language (so either the OP started them all, or is reposting a subject they saw elsewhere), so it could be that it bothers exactly one person/one person wants to discuss it.

Personally I don't overthink the D&D canon. The Forgotten Realms writers put a thing in for a storyline, realized that it explained why non-cleric PCs should choose a deity/be invested in all the lovely gods they created and for which they wrote so much fiction, and kept it. Gary liked him some Appendix N novels* where enforcing a balance between the forces of good and evil (actually probably law and chaos), made it a big thing in 1e, Weis and Hickman noticed it benefited stories they wanted to tell and ran with it. None of this stuff was designed to pass more than casual scrutiny and the large scale moral or existential questions/implications they might raise were not broadly considered. D&D is a game inspired by pulp fiction and hammer horror movies, and lives up to the genres in spades (including the part where it doesn't worry too much about the messy details).
*I forget which they would be.

[GrayDeath]

I love to loathe the Wall. Especially since the excellent Mask of the Betrayer.

As for Dragonblance cataclysms....I am of 2 minds.

If you only see what actually happened, and where, it is completely, entirely out of proportion evil and ignoring short term consequences.

If you read the Justification, it makes more sense in World logic wise (not that I agree with the exact interpretation) but in turn makes one lose any form of respect in the gods.

I mean REALLY? They didnt have the ability to simply make the King Priest and all his lackeys explode and the blood form everburning letters writing "There are multiple ways of Good, dangit!"?
Heck if they still ahd divine Casting but not from them, they could have used a few loyal clerics to sacrifice themselves to do it, as last resort...

My Level 23 Wizard could have done that with prep time, and he aint a God, no sir...

[Glorthindel]

One of the things with Dragonlance, is I've always considered it a 'novel' world more than an 'rpg' one.

By this I mean that a lot of the world doesn't work if you are not following the linear journey of a specific group of story-book characters; the settlements are weirdly arranged in a way that would make real-world communication and travel either impossible or utterly bizarre (to facilitate characters going sequentially from one to another as the novel story progresses) and civilisations seem locked in weird situations that have persisted for bizarrely long periods of time unchanged (the Elves and Knights of Solamnia fall into this category nicely). Alongside the other oddities of Krynn, the Cataclysm is just yet another thing that just 'is', and doesn't make a lot of sense if examined in any level of detail.

[LibraryOgre]

I generally support the Wall of the Faithless BUT only in its 2e incarnation, where it was explicitly for those who outright rejected the gods, or who had actively betrayed their deities.

[Xervous]

I generally support the Wall of the Faithless BUT only in its 2e incarnation, where it was explicitly for those who outright rejected the gods, or who had actively betrayed their deities.

Could you elaborate more on what constitutes rejection here?

Plenty of editions have terrible fates for those who fool around with loyalty and gods, so that part I’m all clear on. Though it does leave me wondering if the wall could conceivably be tied to a vestige it at least indirectly.

[Jorren]

I think a fair amount of people think one or the other is silly/stupid/not what they want in a game, and change it/play another setting/move on with their lives. Forums and other such navel-gazing conglomerations sometimes cycle through breakdowns of the things. Although, to be fair, I haven't seen the subject come up except on three or four forums very recently (this one included), all with the same language (so either the OP started them all, or is reposting a subject they saw elsewhere), so it could be that it bothers exactly one person/one person wants to discuss it.

Personally I don't overthink the D&D canon. The Forgotten Realms writers put a thing in for a storyline, realized that it explained why non-cleric PCs should choose a deity/be invested in all the lovely gods they created and for which they wrote so much fiction, and kept it. Gary liked him some Appendix N novels* where enforcing a balance between the forces of good and evil (actually probably law and chaos), made it a big thing in 1e, Weis and Hickman noticed it benefited stories they wanted to tell and ran with it. None of this stuff was designed to pass more than casual scrutiny and the large scale moral or existential questions/implications they might raise were not broadly considered. D&D is a game inspired by pulp fiction and hammer horror movies, and lives up to the genres in spades (including the part where it doesn't worry too much about the messy details).
*I forget which they would be.

The Great Wheel cosmology and the default D&D notions of the afterlife are pretty much garbage. The Wall is just one more thing added to the pile. It could be made into an interesting focal point for a campaign but can otherwise be ignored or changed as needed.

The note about ‘casual scrutiny’ is spot on. If you want something coherent and interesting I would design it into your own setting. FR has been saddled with a large amount of lore and baggage over the years and its convoluted patchwork of setting details are either a draw or a turnoff depending on what you like in a game world.

Just skimming this makes my eyes hurt: https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Afterlife

[LibraryOgre]

Could you elaborate more on what constitutes rejection here?

Plenty of editions have terrible fates for those who fool around with loyalty and gods, so that part I’m all clear on. Though it does leave me wondering if the wall could conceivably be tied to a vestige it at least indirectly.

The 2e definition was

Those who firmly deny any faith or have only given lip service most of their lives and never truly believed are known as the Faithless after death. They are formed into a living wall around the City of Strife—Kelemvor, the new lord of the dead, may soon rename it—in the realm of the dead in Oinos in the Gray Waste and left there until they dissolve. The unearthly greenish mold that holds the wall together eventually destroys them. The False, those who intentionally betrayed a faith they believed in and to which they made a personal commitment, are relegated to eternal punishment in the City of Strife after their case is ruled upon by Kelemvor in the Crystal Spire (Kelemvor's abode in the City of Strife).

So, the only "Faithless" are those who are atheists in a realm of verifiable deities. The False are those who intentionally betrayed a faith... but that arguably requires them to have not acquired a new patron, who could intercede on their behalf.

[noob]

I wouldn't call it a defence, but my theory on why the Wall of the Faithless is a necessary and vital function, is to interpret it as less a deliberate and spiteful divine punishment, and more as a celestial trash compactor. If you work on the principle that souls have to go somewhere after death, and that the only way into places other than purgatory is by direct shepherding by divine beings, then you have one of two things occuring without the existence of the Wall (or a similar functional object/location).

The first alternative is all divine beings start sweeping up as many souls as they can get their hands on (Demons and Devils certainly opt for this approach). But this creates the problem that you might sweep up souls who would rather be one place, and drag them somewhere they don't want to be (again, Demons and Devils have no problem with this, but Good Outsiders would probably suffer an existential crisis over doing this), and that would either be traumatic for the soul, or create am imbalance in your home plane (if you pile too many other-aligned souls into it). So its not a great solution. Sucks to be a devout soul dragged into the wrong place due to the need to grab souls fast before someone else does, though it might be better for those who follow no deity, as at least they end up somewhere (even if it is a coin-flip on whether it suits their ethos or not)

Option two is you just let the souls build up in a massive pile, try and sort out 'your' souls, and hope you don't lose anyone in the crush. Its hard to put finite levels of power on divine beings, but sooner or later (and with sudden unexpected mass soul influxes), as the weight of 'unaligned' souls build up with nowhere to go, ones that should be moved on might end up lost and forgotten in the pile. Sucks to be a devout follower who gets forgotten because they crossed over with a few hundred of an alternate alignment, so your patron doesn't see you in the pile, and sucks for those who follow no deity as they are sat in the pile for eternity. Consider the afterlife like a baggage claim carousel; if say for some strange reason 1 bag in 10 goes uncollected, if no-one ever shifts the unclaimed bags into storage, how many flights will come in before the entire carousel is jammed solid by unclaimed bags, so its impossible for bags which would be claimed to get to their waiting owners.

So, and I am well aware this is probably more personal head-canon than as-written, I see the Wall as a necessary place to file away anyone who the good-aligned deities feel they can't legitimately claim, so they aren't cluttering up the place for those they do need to claim, and at least it gives them somewhere they cant be easily dragged off from by Demons and Devils. Sure, does it suck to end up in the Wall, of course it does, but if you assume the cosmology doesn't allow for finding your own place, and relies on the shepherding by others, at the end of the day, there needs to be somewhere to dump those that cant be moved on, once they have sat for a sufficient time in baggage claim.

Note: I am not saying the Wall is a great thing, and certainly you could expect the divine powers to come up with something more humane (though I don't personally see Dolurrh in Eberron as any more humane, its basically the same thing, except you can walk around a bit, and everyone gets dumped there), but something has to be done with the 'junk' souls with nowhere to go, and this is the most efficient system they could devise for the benefit of the souls that can move on

but there was at some point a god which decided "if nobody wants a soul I claim it and punish or reward it depending on its behaviour" and then that god got punished and prevented from doing that "for favouring good too much and possibly causing the extinction of the evil gods".
So the wall is not still here because there is souls nobody would claim: there was a god willing to claim all the souls other gods did not want and to dispatch to gods the souls they wanted and Ao could have told "yes it is fine as long as you do not punish the bad guys you claim" and thus prevented the need to use the wall again.

[LibraryOgre]

but there was at some point a god which decided "if nobody wants a soul I claim it and punish or reward it depending on its behaviour" and then that god got punished and prevented from doing that "for favouring good too much and possibly causing the extinction of the evil gods".
So the wall is not still here because there is souls nobody would claim: there was a god willing to claim all the souls other gods did not want and to dispatch to gods the souls they wanted and Ao could have told "yes it is fine as long as you do not punish the bad guys you claim" and thus prevented the need to use the wall again.

Wouldn't that be more or less the function of a God of the Dead? Making sure that only the correct deity claimed the soul, and figuring out something to do with those who are unclaimed?

[noob]

Wouldn't that be more or less the function of a God of the Dead? Making sure that only the correct deity claimed the soul, and figuring out something to do with those who are unclaimed?

they were and still are the god of the dead of the forgotten realms: kelemvor.
But AO placed their veto and told "no you can not reward or punish the unclaimed souls and you must send them all to the wall"

[Willie the Duck]

The note about ‘casual scrutiny’ is spot on. If you want something coherent and interesting I would design it into your own setting. FR has been saddled with a large amount of lore and baggage over the years and its convoluted patchwork of setting details are either a draw or a turnoff depending on what you like in a game world.

Well, I mean, that's where I land on this. I mentioned the pulp stories and hammer horror for a reason. Mary Shelley wrote a complex novel that explores what it means to create life or to be a created life and having to forge your own path through the world etc. etc. etc. Hammer Horror turned that into a guy with bolts in his neck lumbering around. D&D comes right from that vein and never left. Most of FR is not unlike the Battletech novels, excepting that some people take it more seriously (so, maybe more like the various Star Wars/Trek novels). It was never meant for the level of rigor to which people sometimes hold it.

[Lord Raziere]

Exactly this. It seems like a strange detail to be concerned about, compared with everything else going on.

The concept that DnD was built on horror is the first I'm hearing of this. while I don't doubt its true, I don't play horror games, as I don't come to DnD for that kind of feeling. I come for the action and heroism. now I may have to reconsider.

[Millstone85]

Those who firmly deny any faith or have only given lip service most of their lives and never truly believed are known as the Faithless after death.

So, the only "Faithless" are those who are atheists in a realm of verifiable deities.

I don't know about that reading.

Say you ask someone in Faerûn about their faith and they open to you. "Most of my family is Lathanderian, with quite a few Selûnites on my mother's side. Of course, we honor other gods as appropriate: Chauntea for a good harvest, Tempus so that our nation's defenders be victorious, and so on. Talos? When a storm is upon us, yes, we pray to appease him. Who doesn't? But me, personally, I don't really have a preference. There are just so many gods, each so powerful in their domain, and I guess I just have never felt that special connection I keep hearing about."

The character does not put in question the existence of Lathander, nor the fact that Lathander is a god. And if they became a truly devout follower of the Morninglord, they would not be expected to denounce any of the others as myths or false gods. At most, their new faith in Lathander would give them the nerve to want none of Talos' mercy.

But if they were to die now, would any psychopomp scouring the Fugue Plane see their soul and think "Eh, good enough"?