| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3736 Posts |
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4685 Posts |
 Posted - 19 Mar 2021 : 00:16:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
When a tie, flip a coin. No magic allowed to effect the coin.
-Tymora wins.
I feared that would come soon. |
 |
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2021 : 00:46:01
|
I'm not arguing against religion in the realms, gods in the realms or interactions between mortals and gods in the realms.
The Wall is just of absolutely no value after a certain point.
Truth be told it should just boil down to: if nobody claims the soul then the Lord of the Dead gets them...but why in the hells would they have to be put in a wall?
It is just something that smacks of having at least SOME sort of punishment for individuals who claim no religion in the realms...and that should have been avoided. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2021 : 01:06:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
That would be like building a city wall out of sandwiches, though.
That's exactly the point, snatch raids (like the tanar'ri ones) stop at the Wall to get a few second-hand expired sandwiches and never get to the City foodstores.
Gotcha; makes sense. Though that makes me think about building a wall with half-eaten or near-expired sandwiches. Guess the raiders need to be the kind that settles for the "good enough" to stop at that (or that they need to be starving).
-----
As for the rest, I don't really agree with the statement that people jump to conclusions (in this case). For example, let's take the quote from Elminster's FR as a whole:
quote:
The average Faerunian lives long enough to worship (or serve through one's actions) one deity above all others-though in many cases, which 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. Only those who repudiate the gods (or who as a result oftheir actions are renounced by their gods), despoil altars and frustrate the clerical aims of any deity, or never pray or engage in any form of deliberate worship will qualify as either Faithless or False.
This is VERY confusing, even if you go in with the most positive attitude. The "otherwise he ends up..." sentence likely refers to "if a mortal dies before finishing a mission...", which covers a narrow number of cases, and those cases still only include people who serve the gods. Then we have that serving through actions saves you from the wall, but that not engaging in deliberate worship will get you walled. If we try to link these two sentences in a way that makes sense, the result is that serving through actions needs to also be deliberate worship. Which means that you must dedicate your actions to a deity. This still means that some person who just does their thing, doesn't hurt anyone, doesn't antagonize the gods, will still get walled. Now, add the SCAG and other sources to this, and it's not hard to see why people may draw certain conclusions, because they would need to read the insight from the mouth of the designers themselves to have a clear confirmation that, unless you actively oppose the gods as a whole, you won't end up in the wall. If one wants to split hair, even this leaves room for some ambiguity. What if you don't actively worship anyone, but you also actively campaign against a murderhobo cult of Cyric, destroy their altars, curse Cyric's name because he granted his followers the power to kill someone you loved, and so on? Of course, I won't assume that you get walled, but someone else--already confused by the contradictions--might form a doubt. The problem is that FR canon seems to actively encourage confusion on this matter, and it's not a good design choice. Which was my main point.
I don't for a single moment assume that the FR deities are out to punish and torture mortals (well, unless you count the "hurr durr, ebil iz kewl" ones). I really like FR deities, despite how they're often portrayed. A few of them are among my favorite characters. However, for a new player, DM, or reader it's easy to form a very polarized idea, when they see such a thing portrayed as a force of balance or whatever, and not just as the result of Myrkul being a dick.
That said, I agree that you can ignore the Wall. If I'll find myself running FR, I'll certainly ignore it, because unless you're running a "NWN2: MotB"-like campaign (amazing game, btw; blows the main storyline out of the water), it adds nothing. But I don't find it hard to see why people might be offput by the Wall. In general, I agree with Dalor Darden's stance. However, if WotC *really* have to use the Wall, they need to create a compelling narrative conflict around it, because that's what controversial elements are for. Otherwise, you're better off without them.
PS: I know this will sound snarky, but really, knowing the kind of stories WotC puts out (BBEG wants to smash!), they won't be able to create compelling narrative conflict around anything. So they're ultimately left with 1 choice. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 19 Mar 2021 02:44:18 |
|
|
|
Azar
Master of Realmslore
1286 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2021 : 05:03:50
|
| Did my subconscious have a field day when I wasn't looking, or did someone - somewhere - mention that belief (no matter the god) is a force that keeps unsavory entities outside of Realmspace at bay? If so, that could be semi-justification for the existence of the Wall of the Faithless. |
Stand with anybody that stands right. Stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong.
Earth names in the Realms are more common than you may think. |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2021 : 05:07:57
|
| It was a speculation, and it might be a decent first step to build some meaningful conflict around the wall (freedom vs safety). But there's no trace of that in canon AFAIK. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 19 Mar 2021 05:08:18 |
|
|
|
Demzer
Senior Scribe
873 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2021 : 10:07:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
When a tie, flip a coin. No magic allowed to effect the coin.
-Tymora wins.
Flip Tymora |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2021 : 12:50:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
That would be like building a city wall out of sandwiches, though.
That's exactly the point, snatch raids (like the tanar'ri ones) stop at the Wall to get a few second-hand expired sandwiches and never get to the City foodstores.
Gotcha; makes sense. Though that makes me think about building a wall with half-eaten or near-expired sandwiches. Guess the raiders need to be the kind that settles for the "good enough" to stop at that (or that they need to be starving).
OR just that they realize they'd have to get PAST that wall... while under enemy fire of some sort.... to get further into the city to get that more pristine thing that may only be worth 5% more to them.
Bear in mind that the "value" of things may differ between different groups. For a comparison, to the people of faerun, a gold coin is valuable.... to the people of Maztica it holds less value, but a cacao bean is probably more valuable. To a farmer, a few silver may be nice to have, but they'd be much happier to have a huge bag of corn kernels and grain seeds that they can plant are much more useful. To a person with just their family, a home in a city where jobs are more plentiful is important, but someone who has a thousand head of sheep would value "useless" land covered in grass.
The same thing might be said of souls. There may be the "outer shell" of the soul and then there may be "the inner kernel" of the kernel. Some people may only need that outer shell and toss that inner kernel aside, so maybe the people in the wall are just as useful to them. Other people may be interested in that ooey gooey center.
As a weird side note to this, as I'm thinking on it, perhaps there is something to consider with this that is specific to realms lore as well. By that I refer to Rashemen and its "telthors", most of which are the spirits of animals. IS there something different about the "spirits" of animals that's different from the "souls" of mortals? Are "spirits" just missing some component that "souls" have (i.e. soul = spirit/telthor + faith + OtherFactors).
Which... ok, this is weird... brings me back to what I originally, somewhat jokingly said... maybe babies that die didn't "live" long enough to "grow" that faith component. Maybe they didn't BECOME anything more than a telthor/spirit. Maybe they might become a reborn animal as a result. Please don't hate me for saying that. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
Edited by - sleyvas on 19 Mar 2021 12:53:06 |
|
|
|
Demzer
Senior Scribe
873 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2021 : 14:39:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
Gotcha; makes sense. Though that makes me think about building a wall with half-eaten or near-expired sandwiches. Guess the raiders need to be the kind that settles for the "good enough" to stop at that (or that they need to be starving).
I think this is the case with most soul consuming planar businesses, I mean, how refined do we think larvae are? They are the first rung of all the Lower Planar hierarchies of devils and demons yet they're just non-descript tortured souls. Maybe it's even easier to process a soul that has no spiritual tether in the afterlife.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
As for the rest, I don't really agree with the statement that people jump to conclusions (in this case). For example, let's take the quote from Elminster's FR as a whole:
[snip]
This is VERY confusing, [...]
It is indeed very confusing but that's exactly why I argue that since there are several different interpretations at odds with each other, people shouldn't run off with the worst one (i.e. the Wall is a tool to torture souls, whatever small number of them each year, Kelemvor is a total d**k and the entire pantheon just sits and watch with popcorns so they must be too). This should be the point were people go "oh, I don't really like where this is going" or "I can't find a good way to present/use this without contradicting other pieces" and the next logical step is to rule zero it into oblivion or usability at their own table.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
Then we have that serving through actions saves you from the wall, but that not engaging in deliberate worship will get you walled. If we try to link these two sentences in a way that makes sense, the result is that serving through actions needs to also be deliberate worship. Which means that you must dedicate your actions to a deity. This still means that some person who just does their thing, doesn't hurt anyone, doesn't antagonize the gods, will still get walled.
Since the "serving through action" is decoupled (in the text) from the "worship" I'm inclined to assume that you don't have to dedicate anything. Remember that the gods supervise the actions/essence/phenomena themselves, not only the people that carry them on or dedicate those to them. To make it clearer, Talos is gonna be reveling in a fierce eruption whether or not some random mortals spots it and utters a prayer to his name; if you start setting stuff on fire Kossuth is gonna be there watching even if nobody says or curses his name; if there is a casino with the sign "no prayers allowed" you can bet that Tymora is still presiding over all games held within, maybe playing her own against Beshaba; a random couple caught in the act would probably not have the willpower or attention to stop and praise Sharess but she is going to purr and feel all warm and fuzzy inside regardless.
So the hypothetical someone that lived doing a job for their whole life and pursuing some random hobbies and passions throughout, all the while never encountering the divine, will have still contributed towards the domain of several deities and be picked up by one.
Say a blacksmith (Gond) that served in their town militia (Helm/Tempus) and sold their wares (Waukeen) with a hobby for reading books (Oghma) and writing love poetry (Deneir/Sune) while raising assorted pet animals and keeping a garden (Chauntea/Silvanus/Lurue). Depending on which one of these activities was dearest to their heart, they will be picked up by the corresponding deity and will be doing that forevermore.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
What if you don't actively worship anyone, but you also actively campaign against a murderhobo cult of Cyric, destroy their altars, curse Cyric's name because he granted his followers the power to kill someone you loved, and so on? Of course, I won't assume that you get walled, but someone else--already confused by the contradictions--might form a doubt.
I agree that there can be a doubt but if you think about it, deciding that the above person gets walled for killing Cyricists and destroying their temples means the Wall is in truth stuffed with the militant followers of all the faiths because that's what they do. You would get devout paladins of Tyr and murderhobos of Cyric joyously killing each other for their faith and then BOTH ending up in the Wall. Now this would be perfect genius from Myrkul's viewpoint but you don't think the rest of the pantheon would let it stand for long, right? So the implications of going all walling should seem too illogical from a pantehon-building point of view.
In the case above, the reasons why that person went all murderhobo on the murderhobos should be enough to get them a place somewhere decent: were they acting out of vengeance (Hoar) or to defend their community (Helm) or to bring the Cyricists to justice (Tyr/Torm) or to show the Cyricists inherent weakness (Bane) or simply because they wanted a tough prey (Malar/Garagos)?
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
The problem is that FR canon seems to actively encourage confusion on this matter, and it's not a good design choice. Which was my main point.
I completely agree with your main point, canon here it's a mess and not a good design choice. But we, the players/DMs/fans have the power to disregard it completely or bend it to our wills to make our own experience in the Realms better. Especially because the afterlife is by itself a pretty nebulous aspect of life both in reality and in roleplaying games.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
I don't for a single moment assume that the FR deities are out to punish and torture mortals (well, unless you count the "hurr durr, ebil iz kewl" ones). I really like FR deities, despite how they're often portrayed. A few of them are among my favorite characters. However, for a new player, DM, or reader it's easy to form a very polarized idea, when they see such a thing portrayed as a force of balance or whatever, and not just as the result of Myrkul being a dick.
I know, your predilection for the Dark Maiden is evident and always nice to read. But the same way you do not stand idly by when someone says the Lady Penitent trilogy is a good depiction of Eilistraee, I try to present counterpoints whenever someone decides to state in no uncertain terms that the Wall of the Faithless is a torture device allowed to stand by the whole pantheon.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
That said, I agree that you can ignore the Wall. If I'll find myself running FR, I'll certainly ignore it, because unless you're running a "NWN2: MotB"-like campaign (amazing game, btw; blows the main storyline out of the water), it adds nothing. But I don't find it hard to see why people might be offput by the Wall. In general, I agree with Dalor Darden's stance. However, if WotC *really* have to use the Wall, they need to create a compelling narrative conflict around it, because that's what controversial elements are for. Otherwise, you're better off without them.
PS: I know this will sound snarky, but really, knowing the kind of stories WotC puts out (BBEG wants to smash!), they won't be able to create compelling narrative conflict around anything. So they're ultimately left with 1 choice.
The beauty of a made up world for a roleplaying game is that you can ignore or bend any fact that don't match with your own preferred narrative of it and that your limit to that is only in finding a good common ground with the people you actively play with.
I'll give you a personal example, I absolutely despise the way the Red Wizards, the Zhentarim and Cormyr are presented in canon. The Red Wizards are presented as evil, but despite most of them having supposedly supragenius intelligence they all act like idiots. The Zhentarim have uncountable resources but they seem to be able to hire only papercut mercenaries good only to pad the kill count of the heroes. Cormyr is a kingdom with gestapo-like magical police with a clear cut (social) class split and they also have infinite money, not because of diplomacy, good trading relations with neighbours or natural resources but because they have a cave of basically infinite sapphires (yeah that sound you just heard was a collective sigh from all the dwarven souls of those that died defending a dry mineshaft). Oh but Cormyr is still the good guys, don't worry.
Sigh.
Luckily WOTC seems going for a "swipe under the carpet" move so in a few years we will not have to have debates like this every month or so. |
Edited by - Demzer on 19 Mar 2021 14:40:38 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2021 : 19:06:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
Gotcha; makes sense. Though that makes me think about building a wall with half-eaten or near-expired sandwiches. Guess the raiders need to be the kind that settles for the "good enough" to stop at that (or that they need to be starving).
I think this is the case with most soul consuming planar businesses, I mean, how refined do we think larvae are? They are the first rung of all the Lower Planar hierarchies of devils and demons yet they're just non-descript tortured souls. Maybe it's even easier to process a soul that has no spiritual tether in the afterlife.
<snip>
The beauty of a made up world for a roleplaying game is that you can ignore or bend any fact that don't match with your own preferred narrative of it and that your limit to that is only in finding a good common ground with the people you actively play with.
I'll give you a personal example, I absolutely despise the way the Red Wizards, the Zhentarim and Cormyr are presented in canon. The Red Wizards are presented as evil, but despite most of them having supposedly supragenius intelligence they all act like idiots. The Zhentarim have uncountable resources but they seem to be able to hire only papercut mercenaries good only to pad the kill count of the heroes. Cormyr is a kingdom with gestapo-like magical police with a clear cut (social) class split and they also have infinite money, not because of diplomacy, good trading relations with neighbours or natural resources but because they have a cave of basically infinite sapphires (yeah that sound you just heard was a collective sigh from all the dwarven souls of those that died defending a dry mineshaft). Oh but Cormyr is still the good guys, don't worry.
Demzer,
First let me say I like your idea that the wall is there as a snatch/grab stop point to protect the "more valuable" other souls. I too wonder if the creation of larvae requires "something less" than a soul, and maybe the lack of faith in them doesn't have the slightest bearing on them.
Second, I so hear you on the representation of those 3 groups (especially the red wizards). Though I hated what HAPPENED in the thayan civil war trilogy (and thought some of it wasn't well thought out from a "what can a wizard do" standpoint, like Lauzoril theoretically dying from stepping off a cliff), I very much appreciated that they gave its citizenry something that resembled a believable national pride to at least some degree. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3736 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2021 : 00:08:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
As a weird side note to this, as I'm thinking on it, perhaps there is something to consider with this that is specific to realms lore as well. By that I refer to Rashemen and its "telthors", most of which are the spirits of animals. IS there something different about the "spirits" of animals that's different from the "souls" of mortals? Are "spirits" just missing some component that "souls" have (i.e. soul = spirit/telthor + faith + OtherFactors).
-I don't know if this is actual canon from somewhere or something that I just kinda made up in my head to make sense of things but I always differentiated the two with sentience; an animal is alive and has a spirit, a sentient, thinking creature is alive and has a soul. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2021 : 01:15:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
I think this is the case with most soul consuming planar businesses, I mean, how refined do we think larvae are? They are the first rung of all the Lower Planar hierarchies of devils and demons yet they're just non-descript tortured souls. Maybe it's even easier to process a soul that has no spiritual tether in the afterlife.
Yeah, this can make sense too. The point is to come up with an idea that creates an interesting narrative conflict around the Wall. This should be true for almost all major elements of worldbuilding--if something's there, there must be some kind of conflict (not necessarily as in battles, wars, etc...) revolving around it. Otherwise it's just a sitting duck.
quote:
It is indeed very confusing but that's exactly why I argue that since there are several different interpretations at odds with each other, people shouldn't run off with the worst one (i.e. the Wall is a tool to torture souls, whatever small number of them each year, Kelemvor is a total d**k and the entire pantheon just sits and watch with popcorns so they must be too). This should be the point were people go "oh, I don't really like where this is going" or "I can't find a good way to present/use this without contradicting other pieces" and the next logical step is to rule zero it into oblivion or usability at their own table.
True, but then material like the SCAG double down on the "absence of deliberate worship->Wall", which can give pause even to people who go in with the best of intentions.
I agree on the points you make regarding the specific issues; I was making examples of logical thought processes that may occur to someone who approaches the Realms, to show that forming a negative idea of the system behind the Wall isn't necessarily caused by a desire to hate on the pantheon.
For example, if I hadn't had confirmations from CK, if I hadn't been aware that certain actions automatically fuel certain deities, then I would have thoght that the Elminster's FR quote implied that people who don't deliberately worship, or who don't explicitly dedicate actions to the gods, get walled.
Not everyone has the time, or even the patience, to go take bits of information from various sources, put them together, go through various interpretations, and decide which is the correct one. That's especially true for someone who has just started approaching the Realms: they will hardly have a complete knowledge and enough familiarity with it to be able to do that kind of operation.
Ultimately, I think that the number of people who want to hate on the FR gods is much smaller than the number of people who saw the confusing statements and simply were like: "yo, wtf is this? Sounds kinda sh*tty".
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
I completely agree with your main point, canon here it's a mess and not a good design choice. But we, the players/DMs/fans have the power to disregard it completely or bend it to our wills to make our own experience in the Realms better. Especially because the afterlife is by itself a pretty nebulous aspect of life both in reality and in roleplaying games.
[...]
The beauty of a made up world for a roleplaying game is that you can ignore or bend any fact that don't match with your own preferred narrative of it and that your limit to that is only in finding a good common ground with the people you actively play with.
I definitely agree that hating on the FR as a whole for something like this is going super overboard, because people would be throwing away a lot of good material for one thing that they can easily ignore, and that maybe they're already ignoring.
But, once again, trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who approaches the Realms, and setting aside the confusion factor (which is the biggest offender IMO), even if that someone is more than willing to appreciate the FR and its gods, the wall can still feel offputting because of how it's done. It's just casually dropped there, as a truth of the world and supposedly a force of balance (having been approved by Kelemvor, who's definitely not an ass, and has a quite compassionate view of death). There's no conflict that the designers created around it, it doesn't come up anywhere, it's essentially like making a statement. The problem would probably vanish (or be lessened) if some good design was applied to the wall.
I'll just echo the point that I made at the top of this comment--the designers should have thought:
Ok, so, we have this element that's obviously going to be controversial. Why do we want it in? Do we have an interesting conflict to offer to the readers that can be built on it? A conflict that can be a good idea for campaigns as well as for books and maybe even discussions?
It doesn't even take anything complex to achieve that. Maybe, like many propose, the wall is keeping aberrations or whatever away, and whether this system is good or not would now be subject of a very complex issue, that you can translate in the setting via creating factions and characters (even including gods) that are invested in the issue and represent all its facets--from the utilitarian vision, to a total condemnation of the wall, to factions pushing research on alternative solutions to keep the aberrations out, etc... In this case, the wall would no longer be unmistakably portrayed as a truth of the world/a force of balance. It would be portrayed as an (arguably) necessary evil acting as a barrier against a cataclysmic danger. Or maybe as the currently easiest (and apparently most reliable) solution to a problem, compared to others that require tons of work and research (you know, like tons of big RW problems). Once you have a situation like this, you're on a decent path to make something compelling.
Basically, while there surely exist people who just like to hate on the FR and its gods (they exist for anything you may create), my take is that most people find the wall offputting because of confusion and lackluster design choices.
quote:
I know, your predilection for the Dark Maiden is evident and always nice to read. But the same way you do not stand idly by when someone says the Lady Penitent trilogy is a good depiction of Eilistraee, I try to present counterpoints whenever someone decides to state in no uncertain terms that the Wall of the Faithless is a torture device allowed to stand by the whole pantheon.
It's perfectly understandable, and it's the right thing to do, because dispelling confusion and misconceptions is always good, even about fiction.
But, for example, when I show how Eilistraee has nothing to do with Smedman's and Athans' own headcanon, I try to keep in mind that the person likely didn't *want* to hate Eilistraee. I know that, if I had come to know Eilistraee from LP (or even Smedman's/Athan's books in WotSQ), I would have actively despised her character (unlike Lolth, who--as a character--elicts no reaction beyond an eyeroll in me, because she's a caricature). Likewise, the person I'm talking to may only (or mainly) know the self-righteous, massively hypocritical PoS with Eilistraee's name slapped on that Smedman and Athans try to pass as her.
Even though those novels have been essentially retconned, with all the confusion going on, someone could easily assume that Eilistraee is actually like that (in this case, it's even more understandable, because the goal of those novels was precisely to get people to dislike Eilistraee, aside from removing the Dark Seldarine as a whole). I think the same logic can be applied to most people who have problems with the FR pantheon because of the wall (even though I definitely agree that it can be frustrating).
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
I'll give you a personal example, I absolutely despise the way the Red Wizards, the Zhentarim and Cormyr are presented in canon. The Red Wizards are presented as evil, but despite most of them having supposedly supragenius intelligence they all act like idiots. The Zhentarim have uncountable resources but they seem to be able to hire only papercut mercenaries good only to pad the kill count of the heroes. Cormyr is a kingdom with gestapo-like magical police with a clear cut (social) class split and they also have infinite money, not because of diplomacy, good trading relations with neighbours or natural resources but because they have a cave of basically infinite sapphires (yeah that sound you just heard was a collective sigh from all the dwarven souls of those that died defending a dry mineshaft). Oh but Cormyr is still the good guys, don't worry.
Setting the Zhents aside, this is the kind of problems that you get when you try to portray something as complex as a nation as either "good" or "evil", instead of letting the facts speak and the readers decide. It's the classic example of how, in fiction, telling is trash and showing is the only choice. Which is kinda similar to the problem with the design of the wall, though not entirely the same, because with the wall you don't get explicit statements about it being a good or bad thing, just an implication because of how it's done. Still, nothing is shown about it. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 20 Mar 2021 05:15:35 |
|
|
|
TKU
Learned Scribe
USA
158 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2021 : 05:01:24
|
Reincarnation makes sense for those unable to choose to follow a deity, like children. If the Wall is to act as a deterrent, then it would make sense to focus its menace in the minds of the unbelievers on its intended targets, and not have it as this monstrous thing that senselessly eats the souls of those who lack agency. It would make people resent the gods, which seems like one of the things they are trying to avoid.
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-The "you go where your interests/actions/morals/ethics most closely match" raises some interesting questions about how that process works. Chauntea and Lathander would both have legitimate claims on the soul belonging to a farmer in the improbable situation we're theorizing where people are completely ignorant to deities and their churches. Bane and Tempus both could have legitimate claims on the soul of a war criminal-type of general. Wonder what the process of collecting would be like and the conflicts that come up.
Stuff like this being introduced to lessen the impact of the Wall just makes things even more confused and problematic to try and figure out, IMO. If priests can do something as basic as perform death rites to lay claim on the souls of the deceased, that can make things really horrid, really fast if the deceased was a member of an opposed church. Sometimes it seems implied that human(or elf/dwarf/etc) sacrifice serves to send the soul of the sacrificed off to their evil deity, but if any priest can potentially lay a claim on a soul by saying a prayer over the fallen, that opens up another whole can of worms.
This ambiguity seems like it would create a host of problems on the Fugue Plane if representatives of several gods show up to claim the petitioner, esp since Kelemvor doesn't see them to judge them unless they don't get scooped up by anyone, so I'm not sure how competing claims would get sorted out. (would the soul have a say?) I imagine there wouldn't be many False either if this was the case since the same circumstances would apply to these-just less competition since it means one less deity that wants to claim their soul. And at that point there's some serious muscling in on the Devil's arrangement with Kelemvor. It adds a level of headache-inducing complexity to a something that already feels like it's missing a level of bureaucracy to sort out the souls that arrive on the Fugue Plane. |
Edited by - TKU on 20 Mar 2021 05:02:30 |
|
|
|
Wendolyn
Seeker
56 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2021 : 12:41:41
|
I've enjoyed reading this thread and what you wise sages have to say. I am much less knowledgable regarding the wall than all of you, but to throw in my two cents, my initial impression was that it was a very half baked idea. Like something pulled thoughtlessly Dante's Infenro and thrust in the Realms. Why do the faithless and the false go there? Why does Kelemvor, who I take to be a reasonable god, do such a thing? Why did Lord Ao set things up to be thus? And what purpose, if any, does the wall serve?
There are other questions about souls and the afterlife that I have about the Realms. The biggest being, where do souls come from? We know more or less where souls go (though not why in all cases). In some cases souls will be reincarnated. But what souls that are not reincarnated, say, the souls of babies born to a growing population?
If I were to try and make the Wall designed better, I would try and tie it in to some of these other mysteries we have about the movement of souls, the nature of the planes, and the nature of the gods, even Ao himself. Something "big", because it would need to be big for Kelemvor to do such a cruel act on a regular basis, and for everyone to treat it like it is normal and mundane. |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2021 : 14:28:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
As a weird side note to this, as I'm thinking on it, perhaps there is something to consider with this that is specific to realms lore as well. By that I refer to Rashemen and its "telthors", most of which are the spirits of animals. IS there something different about the "spirits" of animals that's different from the "souls" of mortals? Are "spirits" just missing some component that "souls" have (i.e. soul = spirit/telthor + faith + OtherFactors).
-I don't know if this is actual canon from somewhere or something that I just kinda made up in my head to make sense of things but I always differentiated the two with sentience; an animal is alive and has a spirit, a sentient, thinking creature is alive and has a soul.
That's actually what some real world religions believe. There was also at one point some discussion of the idea of elves having spirits and humans and other being having souls (and thus at one point, elves couldn't be raised from the dead, etc...). Telthors present an interesting quandary to this, because there are telthors of animals AND humans in Rashemen. That being said, the quandary is easily handled by saying "yeah, the people in the know aren't in the know truly.... the human ones are just ghosts or weaveghosts or a variant of watchghost or spectral mage, etc...". |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Demzer
Senior Scribe
873 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2021 : 20:19:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by TKU
If priests can do something as basic as perform death rites to lay claim on the souls of the deceased, that can make things really horrid, really fast if the deceased was a member of an opposed church. Sometimes it seems implied that human(or elf/dwarf/etc) sacrifice serves to send the soul of the sacrificed off to their evil deity, but if any priest can potentially lay a claim on a soul by saying a prayer over the fallen, that opens up another whole can of worms.
No mortal agency that we know of in canon can change the final destination of the soul of another. The closest you can get is to sequester the soul with magic jar or similar soul-imprisoning spells. But that just stops the voyage of the soul and is reversible, it doesn't change the end of the voyage.
The deal with a lot of sacrifices is that the fact that you are killing one of your chosen enemies gives more mystical power to whatever you are doing because of the symbolism involved. At least that's how I've always intended and encountered it.
quote:
Originally posted by TKU
This ambiguity seems like it would create a host of problems on the Fugue Plane if representatives of several gods show up to claim the petitioner, esp since Kelemvor doesn't see them to judge them unless they don't get scooped up by anyone, so I'm not sure how competing claims would get sorted out.
There are no rules to judge these cases because each individual case is different. Several godly agents would show up but the soul would recognise the one that more closely reflected it's mortal desires and longings. Kelemvor is there to prevent any foul play and to check that everything is done truthfully, honestly and transparently (hence the whole thing with the Crystal Spire and the perfect mirror). |
|
|
|
Demzer
Senior Scribe
873 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2021 : 20:52:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
big snip
I think we agree on most things, the Wall is problematic and it could've used a more complex approach and some proper explanations back in the days when it was introduced and presented.
Its existence has been perpetuated out of habit without giving more details or dispelling doubts and at this point ignoring it (since it never contributed anything meaningful to the setting) seems like the best choice, considering a proper, detailed treatment or send-off it's unlikely.
To quickly go back to the original point of the thread, I searched the pdfs of the collected Ed's replies without finding a definite quote, I think asking Ed on twitter might be worth a shot. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7968 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2021 : 20:54:12
|
Spells like resurrection (or it's reverse, destruction), wish, binding, and trap the soul can forcibly alter the trajectory of a soul's afterlife. And there are (or were) other spells which forcibly "convert" the victim's alignment, faith, etc. Even a geas or a lowly charm can fundamentally change the target's thinking and beliefs.
And some spells like death spell are described as "completely and irrevocably snuff out or erase the soul" of the target. Which a rather cruel and needless overkill, in my opinion, but a necromancy's gonna do what a necromancy's gotta do.
Not to mention countless other "mortal agencies" which take the soft approach ... teaching, prayer, religion, etc. Or which take the visceral approach ... they demonstrate compassion, love, war, greed, etc. These aren't "magic" or "spells" in the usual game rules sense, but they absolutely allow mortals to influence and (re)direct souls towards afterlives. Realmslore has examples where Good-aligned folks have been forced to Evil, where Evil-aligned folks have been redeemed.
Generalizations are always wrong. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Demzer
Senior Scribe
873 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2021 : 21:20:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Spells like resurrection (or it's reverse, destruction), wish, binding, and trap the soul can forcibly alter the trajectory of a soul's afterlife. And there are (or were) other spells which forcibly "convert" the victim's alignment, faith, etc. Even a geas or a lowly charm can fundamentally change the target's thinking and beliefs.
And some spells like death spell are described as "completely and irrevocably snuff out or erase the soul" of the target. Which a rather cruel and needless overkill, in my opinion, but a necromancy's gonna do what a necromancy's gotta do.
Not to mention countless other "mortal agencies" which take the soft approach ... teaching, prayer, religion, etc. Or which take the visceral approach ... they demonstrate compassion, love, war, greed, etc. These aren't "magic" or "spells" in the usual game rules sense, but they absolutely allow mortals to influence and (re)direct souls towards afterlives. Realmslore has examples where Good-aligned folks have been forced to Evil, where Evil-aligned folks have been redeemed.
Generalizations are always wrong.
You are right, I miswrote when generalising to "mortal agencies". I'll amend my position to specify that I was replying to a post which discussed "end of life" snatch tactics (administering last rites, sacrifices) and I had these in mind when I wrote my counter.
Without going into further details, I rest my case, Your Honour. |
|
|
|
Azar
Master of Realmslore
1286 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2021 : 22:58:39
|
I don't need no arms around me
And I don't need no potions to calm me.
I have seen the writing on the wall.
Don't think I need anything at all.
No! Don't think I'll need anything at all.
All in all it was all just souls in the wall.
All in all you were all just souls in the wall.
Goodbye, cruel world
I'm leaving you today
Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye
Goodbye, all you people
There's nothing you can say
To make me change my mind
Goodbye |
Stand with anybody that stands right. Stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong.
Earth names in the Realms are more common than you may think. |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3736 Posts |
Posted - 21 Mar 2021 : 02:45:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Spells like resurrection (or it's reverse, destruction), wish, binding, and trap the soul can forcibly alter the trajectory of a soul's afterlife. And there are (or were) other spells which forcibly "convert" the victim's alignment, faith, etc. Even a geas or a lowly charm can fundamentally change the target's thinking and beliefs.
And some spells like death spell are described as "completely and irrevocably snuff out or erase the soul" of the target. Which a rather cruel and needless overkill, in my opinion, but a necromancy's gonna do what a necromancy's gotta do.
Not to mention countless other "mortal agencies" which take the soft approach ... teaching, prayer, religion, etc. Or which take the visceral approach ... they demonstrate compassion, love, war, greed, etc. These aren't "magic" or "spells" in the usual game rules sense, but they absolutely allow mortals to influence and (re)direct souls towards afterlives. Realmslore has examples where Good-aligned folks have been forced to Evil, where Evil-aligned folks have been redeemed.
Generalizations are always wrong.
-You can make the case that, of those spells/powers mentioned, the ones derived from Divine Magic need the blessings and go-ahead from the deities granting those spells, so it isn't really in the hands of mortals, but yes, your point remains. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
BrennonGoldeye
Learned Scribe
105 Posts |
Posted - 21 Mar 2021 : 17:04:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-You can make the case that, of those spells/powers mentioned, the ones derived from Divine Magic need the blessings and go-ahead from the deities granting those spells, so it isn't really in the hands of mortals, but yes, your point remains.
Nice to see the oldsters still around.  |
Sam |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 23 Mar 2021 : 05:11:58
|
If beings are actively recruiting "for their team" then there would be no sense...no logic...in punishment.
Even evil beings get "rewarded" eventually, for example, in the Hells.
If anything, there should be an "Afterlife Romance" between outer-planar beings and any "lost soul" that hasn't picked a team.
It, to me, is like a bunch of College Recruiters standing in a ring around a prospective player and saying "Either join one of us...or we break your legs."
Nonsense. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
TKU
Learned Scribe
USA
158 Posts |
Posted - 23 Mar 2021 : 15:58:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by DemzerThere are no rules to judge these cases because each individual case is different. Several godly agents would show up but the soul would recognize the one that more closely reflected it's mortal desires and longings. Kelemvor is there to prevent any foul play and to check that everything is done truthfully, honestly and transparently (hence the whole thing with the Crystal Spire and the perfect mirror).
Yeah, this is what I'm talking about. If a deity can have claim on a soul for something as flimsy as having a wooden toy of Helm as a child, or for their choice of associates or occupation in absence of an explicit dedication to a specific deity, then reps from multiple gods should be showing up to lay claim to a deceased soul regularly, but afaik this is unheard of. Souls do apparently have a degree of agency on the fugue plane in which they seem to be able to act in what they perceive as their best interest since they can choose to make a deal with a Baatezu as an alternative to facing Kelemvor's judgement or going with whatever deity's rep would normally come to pick them up, so it's not hard to imagine a situation where you'd see several divine reps show up for a soul, in which case, wouldn't many just go with the more appealing deity? I mean, given the choice between say Selune or Cyric, etc.
So would a False or Faithless have to consciously rebuff each and every one of these folks who would inevitably come for them to be judged by Kelemvor? I'd imagine there wouldn't be many of either if that was the case.
I like to think that when a soul arrives on the Fugue plane and starts wandering towards the City of Judgement the proper divine authorities are alerted, decide if they want to file a claim or not, and Kelemvor hears their cases and makes his judgement. Sometimes this is an open-and close case, and the divine rep is given the go ahead to swoop in and collect the petitioner well before they reach the city, but other times there are competing claims etc (maybe even lawyers  ) and Kelemvor has to rule which one has the most merit. This is why we don't see souls collected solely on who can get to them first or by petitioners just choosing whoever has the better afterlife.
The idea that Kelemvor only judges on the false/faithless distinction and only when nobody comes to collect a soul just seems odd to me. Like that should be the clearest, least complicated part of his job description and navigating competing claims over souls should logically be a huge part of his job description instead of this strangely hands-off treatment he seems to go with. |
Edited by - TKU on 23 Mar 2021 15:59:33 |
|
|
|
Mirtek
Senior Scribe
595 Posts |
Posted - 23 Mar 2021 : 19:15:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-The "you go where your interests/actions/morals/ethics most closely match" raises some interesting questions about how that process works. Chauntea and Lathander would both have legitimate claims on the soul belonging to a farmer in the improbable situation we're theorizing where people are completely ignorant to deities and their churches. Bane and Tempus both could have legitimate claims on the soul of a war criminal-type of general. Wonder what the process of collecting would be like and the conflicts that come up.
First come first served was I believe denoted in a novel. I could be wrong.
IIRC in the novel messengers and proxies of every deity hang out at Kelemvor's court and whenever a soul is up for grap they step forward and deliver a speech why their deity should be allowed to claim it (or why a rival deity should not even if theirs has no chance)
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I'm not arguing against religion in the realms, gods in the realms or interactions between mortals and gods in the realms.
The Wall is just of absolutely no value after a certain point.
Truth be told it should just boil down to: if nobody claims the soul then the Lord of the Dead gets them...but why in the hells would they have to be put in a wall?
Well, it needs to be something that is of little value to the Lord of Death as possible.
Souls are power and no deity wants a rival deity to be allowed to claim the tiniest morsel as long as there's an argument to be made against it |
Edited by - Mirtek on 23 Mar 2021 19:18:01 |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3736 Posts |
Posted - 24 Mar 2021 : 00:11:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mirtek
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-The "you go where your interests/actions/morals/ethics most closely match" raises some interesting questions about how that process works. Chauntea and Lathander would both have legitimate claims on the soul belonging to a farmer in the improbable situation we're theorizing where people are completely ignorant to deities and their churches. Bane and Tempus both could have legitimate claims on the soul of a war criminal-type of general. Wonder what the process of collecting would be like and the conflicts that come up.
First come first served was I believe denoted in a novel. I could be wrong.
IIRC in the novel messengers and proxies of every deity hang out at Kelemvor's court and whenever a soul is up for grap they step forward and deliver a speech why their deity should be allowed to claim it (or why a rival deity should not even if theirs has no chance)
-I can get behind that, but it sucks that basically any concept of free will is null and void and that everybody ends up at the whim of Kelemvor's judgement (which in the past wasn't the best, but seemingly got better). |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
Demzer
Senior Scribe
873 Posts |
Posted - 24 Mar 2021 : 09:38:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-I can get behind that, but it sucks that basically any concept of free will is null and void ...
Uh? The mortal had free will it's entire life, the moment of judgement is where they found out where that free will took them, it's called consequences.
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
... and that everybody ends up at the whim of Kelemvor's judgement (which in the past wasn't the best, but seemingly got better).
This is a bit of a misrepresentation, Kelemvor has got a few rules and plays traffic cop, he doesn't go "Oh so you love kittens and dancing? Good, off to Garagos you go, next!". That's kinda what Cyric was doing (appearing to mortals while still alive and messing with them to frag up their chances at a proper afterlife, i.e. Adon, Gwydion, probably others).
The supposed trouble with Kelemvor was that he was mightily rewarding some life choices and apparently this transpired to the mortal world and people were throwing away their lives. I don't agree with how this whole thing was presented (too simplistic, apparently everyone in Faerun got a memo that they could happily suicide in supposed acts of bravery and be happy everafter ...) and handled but that's as far as Kelemvor misrule went. |
|
|
|
Storyteller Hero
Learned Scribe
USA
329 Posts |
Posted - 24 Mar 2021 : 09:38:29
|
Regarding the Avatar series' depiction of Kelemvor's judgement:
Souls first wind up on the barrens outside of Kelemvor's city. There the souls call out to deities or contemplate their desired afterlife, collected by Kelemvor's servants after they run out of time on some unknown meter. According to setting books, it is during this stage that devils may also be encountered, offering contracts to those who might be headed for judgement otherwise.
Gods, angels, proxies may arrive in the barrens to ferry souls to afterlives.
Souls collected by Kelemvor's servants are sent to the city, and herded to Kelemvor's palace, where he awaits to judge souls, one by one with Jergal reading aloud information about each soul. A soul is allowed to speak and might possibly avoid the wall if Kelemvor can be convinced.
Judgement is on a case by case basis, and some expecting the Wall might be punished in some other way, like being turned into a rat to skitter about in the city.
-----
I'd like to add:
More than a hundred years later, my opinion is that Kelemvor would have learned from the complicated case of Avner and gained inspiration from his own experience witnessing the going-ons of both a mortal trial and a divine trial in the novels. For more complex cases, I believe that he would have set up a more comprehensive court system by the current era, with gods and proxies in attendance to speak on behalf of souls or in condemnation of them, with Kelemvor making the final judgement. Kelemvor had a humbling experience and it might not be out of logic for him to borrow the wisdom of all gods of death currently operating in Realmspace --- A Court of Souls as it were.
I wrote up a good-sized description of such a Court for my Kelemvor pamphlet on DMsGuild. I learned during research that there are a lot of death-related gods operating in Realmspace.
|
My Blog: https://www.facebook.com/Johnnys-Tabletop-RPG-Design-Blog-1697026710539149/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel
My DMG Shop: http://www.dmsguild.com/browse.php?x=0&y=0&author=Johnny%20Tek
|
Edited by - Storyteller Hero on 24 Mar 2021 09:41:19 |
|
|
|
LordofBones
Master of Realmslore
1477 Posts |
Posted - 24 Mar 2021 : 12:30:34
|
I imagine that Kelemvor nowadays rules sort of like Pharasma does in Pathfinder; he sends souls not bound to gods out to their relevant afterlives, with his servants dealing with 'special' cases like the truly faithless. Ur-priests, for example, are the sort of people Kelemvor doesn't mind punting to the lowest, deepest, darkest hole he can think of.
He and Myrkul may have pretty much ruled the same way, come to think of it, just with a lot more evil laughter on Myrkul's side of the room. The real outlier amongst the four death gods was Cyric, since Jergal had no issues with Myrkul's tenure while it took all of a decade for him to start undermining Cyric. |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2021 : 01:32:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Souls do not have eternal afterlives in D&D. Some are rewarded with paradise, others are punished with torment ... either way, they eventually merge or dissolve into the stuff of their plane.
Why should it be any different for "faithless" souls who have no particular affinity towards a deity, alignment, or plane?
They gradually dissolve into oblivion - they cease to exist as individuals - maybe they're somehow recycled or reformatted or reincarnated - but variations of the same ultimate fate happen to every other soul.
But (at least according to On Hallowed Ground, which I admit is my only exposure to Planescape) even when souls merge with the plane or their deity, they still maintain a sense of self/consciousness:
A petitioner who merges with her power doesn't lose her identity fully: it remains as an integral part of the union, something that gives more strength to the god. Her personality is subsumed into the power's, and she becomes one of the voices in his head. The god maintains his force of will, and the petitioner (to a lesser extent) maintains hers...Apparently, a petitioner who merges with her plane goes through much the same experience, only to an even grander scale. (pg 32-3). For some, merging with their deity could be considered the ultimate "ascension". So I would not say that dissolving/oblivion is the ultimate fate (and, even if it was, it takes a long time (to the point where it seems "eternal", because the amount of time is that long). You could of course, make the argument that there is an eventual cessation of self--but merging is more like a higher form of self, if we go by the above quote. A 'one with you god/the universe", if you will. If souls are energy, and energy can only be changed, then Franomir the Farmer may eventually cease to be the average joe petitioner--which is probably a goal of most petitioners--and again, you could make the argument that the "self" that is Franomir fades, I would still argue that it is more of a "higher form of Franomir". Not in a deific sense, but the aforementioned higher form of self.
@All: I love afterlife stuff, so I will have to read through this entire thread eventually, but in response to the OP, this is a question I asked Ed recently, due to a similar conversation on Reddit. Here is his response: https://twitter.com/TheEdVerse/status/1370966179171422216 .
EDIT: reading through more of the comments, I wanted to add a couple of things. From my understanding, only souls of the main continent are subject to the "rules" of the afterlife, as Kelemvor does not "govern" the fate of the people of places like Kara-Tur (not sure about Rashamen, as I'm blanking on where it's located), but these people do not worship the Faerunian pantheon, and have their own afterlife, so they do not "answer" to Kelemvor. Ed also confirmed that animals do indeed have afterlives.
This is pure speculation on my part, but what if the Wall is punishing the gods as much as it is the Faithless? Since gods want/need followers post-ToT, the Wall is Ao's way of saying, "See what you missed out on? Gotta try harder". The dead matter to the gods as much as the living mortals who worship them, so the Wall represents all those missed opportunities.
Ed has also said that ending up on the Wall is very rare. Sure, it's a wall, but one that has been built over long periods of time, but, as Wooly pointed out earlier, it's kind of the "boogey-man's" tale, whispered at tavern tables and used as a scare tactic. It exists, but is not a common fate.
Mod edit: Put a space after the Twitter link so that the period wouldn't be read as part of the URL and thus not work.  |
Sweet water and light laughter |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 25 Mar 2021 03:09:06 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Children and the wall.
