Wall of the Faithless(FR)

[Averis Vol]

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]

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]

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]

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.)

Actually, no.

When you die, you go to the Fugue plane. There, if you worshipped a god, or if for some reason a god would accept you in their afterlife, a representative will be there to guide you.

If no god would accept you, there are also denizens of the Lower planes with which you can negotiate deals regarding your afterlife (or, in case they're Demons, they just grab you and Gate out).

If neither of the above happens then you are brought before Kelemvor, and are judged as either Faithless or False. The Faithless are forever stuck to the wall. The False become part of Kelemvor's own afterlife, and serve an eternity of punishment of a degree appropriate for their crimes. In both cases noone will ever come to claim them, as noone did when they died.

[Xar Zarath]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Fizban]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.