| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 15 Aug 2025 : 16:57:23
Hopefully this isn't too much of a sore subject to discuss, but I figured I'd wonder on this because it could lead to some discussions on ideas for the LIFE of the MORTAL beings that were Myrkul, Bane, and Bhaal.
So, there's the Wall of the Faithless, and canonically Myrkul made it. It holds the souls of those who didn't worship the gods. Myrkul is also believed to have been a Prince of Murghom during his lifetime.
So Murghom is squarely in Imaskari territory, but the Imaskari had fallen probably two thousand-plus years prior to his arising as a deity. But they were decidedly disrespectful of the gods. They even went so far as to put up a wall to prevent gods from entering the world.
So, the question becomes ... did he have some kind of grudge against the Imaskari? Did he arrive as lord of the realm of the dead to find it was "filled with" faithless Imaskari? Did the circle of greater powers at the time allow the wall to be built BECAUSE the Imaskari had defied gods SOOOO much by erecting a Godswall that may have affected them somehow? Did the circle of greater powers allow the wall to be built because the Imaskari had brought the elder evil known as Pandorym to the world (which may have been known as Entropy the Godswallower)? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Demzer |
Posted - 27 Aug 2025 : 14:38:48
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
Nobody likes the mary sue's, but she is unique because she is the only god that can essentially inhabit the material plane on a permanent basis.
I'll wait here while you go and tell Chauntea that ...
Also, even on our own Earth eclipses are never total on most of it (there are paths, you can look it up on the web). So even physics, if you want to get that into the discussion, allows for more localised eclipsing phenomena.
And if you want to go full fantasy, maybe for that eclipse it was not Selune getting in the way but Gruumsh or some orcish thingamajig.
quote:
Originally posted by Scots Dragon
Do you want Spellplagues? 'Cause that's how you get Spellplagues.
Actually, without Mystr* being a special snowflake Faerunians would not have all these problems everytime she faceplanted.
Anyway, it's my third post so time to get back on topic.
Regarding the Wall of the Faithless, given the way belief works on Toril, I think it is basically unused most of the time in modern history outside the catastrophes. In the past Faerun had empires openly defying gods with all their might and that's what makes the Wall of the Faithless stand.
In the 1300s DR there might have been a resurgence of new bricks given the fact that the gods effed up big time and people might have taken it personally (and this would be a real injustice that would need looking into). I don't think the Spellplague caused too many changes over there because the involvment of gods (as in, deities in general) was quite lessere than previous catastrophes and people were just angry at Cyricists and maybe Sharrans.
Another shipment of bricks could've come after the Second Sundering with people from Abeir and servants of the Primordials stranded on Toril and judged harshly (maybe too harshly).
I think it is important also to look at the different gods of death and how they used and handled their powers and portfolios.
It's clear Jergal was above any type of concern of mortals disregarding his authority and was very creative in his punishments (look at the Cult of Jathiman) but he didn't feel the need to permanently punish souls (also because souls are more useful than bricks).
Myrkul on the other hand was a mortal and was way more bitter and sadistic. So that one of the first thing he did was to permanently destroy the souls of all those that shared his view of godhood (simplifying, "just a glorified spellcaster, anyone can get there") to remove the chance of dangerous rivals from suddenly coming back and go to town on his newly deified self.
Just think about all those souls of uber Netheres arcanists and Imaskari artificers simply hanging out in the Astral/Ethereal and trading knwoledge with no real reason (but maybe some contingencies already placed) to go back to life and then suddenly a rather obscure fellow of them (and a warlord! and a thief!) become gods ... and then before they get the chance to do anything BAM Wall of the Faithless, no chance of endangering the upstarts anymore.
As to why Kelemvor didn't do anything well, I think he is clearly one of those cases of someone being unfit for their duty, he is a bad god of death, at least he is not sadistic but he clearly didn't know what he was doing in the late 1300s. Maybe he got better with a century of practice but I bet Jergal was running the show behind the curtains. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 27 Aug 2025 : 14:02:57
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
That makes as much sense as flat earth.
Toril has one sun, it is eclipsed by its moon and other planets (and occasionally massive star beasts). You cannot suddenly have it eclipsed only within the confines of Unther and Mulhorand.
But regardless, gods are not their portfolios (according to Ed)
Sure it can... something fairly local blocking it... an illusion as well... hell, a "dome" that blocks light as well. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 27 Aug 2025 : 14:00:19
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
snip
I would have to doublecheck all instances you cite but going from memory in all of those cases there were other deities taking up the spot almost immediately. All the strife between regional pantheons that produced the final Faerunian pantheon was deities expanding their territories, so to speak, and taking up the mantle and duties of other deities.
For the Mulhorandi and Untheric pantheons, even if you check the original Old Empires you see that the two pantheons merged with deities from one side taking up an alias and filling the gap of their equivalent in the other pantheon when they disappeared. If I'm not mistaken, there was also something about an eclipse when Re was killed? And Horus was there to take on the mantle immediately.
So yeah, of course when you get to divine things everythings is muddy, but we can still see the patterns, I think.
EDIT: or maybe I just dislike special snowflake Mystr* and don't want her to be that unique, who knows
Yes, when Re (and POSSIBLY another sun god UTU .. since we don't have exact dates, where, how, who, etc...) died there WAS an eclipse of the sun.
This somewhat leads back to a discussion I've had in the past about the Mulan gods with the idea that they may have been a lot more prolific with trying to establish secondary aspects of themselves throughout the realms by possibly joining, subsuming, killing, or SOMETHING ELSE with other gods. It may have been that they did SOME of this via their offspring as well (i.e. the incarnations of the gods). So, by that I mean that Jergal may have come about via Nergal's offspring interacting with a spellweaver god of the dead... Amaunator may have come about by one of Re's offspring interacting with the goddess At'ar (so a name like Amon-Re + At'ar becomes Amaunator)... the offspring of Anshar bonding with a power of darkness to become the embodiment that is Shar (so Shar is an aspect of an earlier part of herself and ever changing and ever being destroyed herself).... the offspring of Dahak possibly become Null, etc... and other deities of the pantheon fleeing to become deities not under the control of the Mulan gods (i.e. the idea of the Untheric version of Ishtar becoming Eldath, Bast "fleeing" the pantheon to a degree, Assuran being forced out to become Hoar, etc..)
I somewhat wonder if there isn't even MORE of a story revolving around these gods and the rise of Bane, Myrkul, and Bhaal... and possible ties of Bane to Gilgeam, Myrkul as a possible incarnation of Set, and Bhaal as a godly offpsring as well (especially given the stories of Bhaalspawn).
Just for aiding this discussion, providing the relevant definition of an incarnation from Old Empires, because sometimes it helps
Another important concept is that of an incarnation. The incarnation is a mortal form of a deity. An incarnation is very powerful, equal to a high-level character, occasionally possessing minor divine powers, but still capable of being slain (Tholaunt, an incarnation of Anhur, was slain 30 years ago by Valerios of Pyardos, one of the Tharchions of Thay). Incarnations compose most of a pharaoh's royal family, but the eldest is always an incarnation of Horus-Re.
An incarnation has the general temperament
of a manifestation, but it is not
under the direct control of the deity
and can be affected by mortal weaknesses
and foibles. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 27 Aug 2025 : 13:26:34
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
I tried not to get into this argument again because in the end we just run around in circles.
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
... because it does something that no other being in D&D can do. It does something no pantheon, power, god, deity, celestial, fiend, or proxy can do.
But this is just not true.
Plenty of things in D&D can trap, destroy or warp the souls of mortals with no going back (except plot armour or DM fiat). Demiliches devour souls, and that's the end. Devils, demons, yugoloths and their lot, they all torture souls until they are not recognizable anymore and then build up effed up evil outsiders from them. Some form of undeath make souls completely unfit for a "normal" afterlife. Souls could even be trapped for eternity by mortal spellcasters on a whim. And that's without getting into higher powers shenanigans (which are most of the time just plot devices and comparable to DM fiat).
The other point that people are forgetting is that in Faerun a deity is her portfolio and her portfolio is the deity. You don't see nature collapsing or rivers drying up because Chauntea and Eldath are too smart to get offed every 5 seconds like Mystr*. But in the offchance it happened, the consequences would be catastrophic, without a suitable replacement ready. This means that "refusing the gods" for real would mean not interacting with the world at all. Because every wave of the sea is Umberlee, every storm is Talos, every rock is Grumbar, every gust of wind is Akadi, every glint of the morning light is Lathander, and so on.
There is a surprisingly insightful passage about this I think in one book of the post-ToT serie (pardon my faulty memory here) when the protagonists go to a monastery of Cyricists during the spat between Cyric and the rest of the pantheon and the monks of the monastery are being actively denied the action of all other mayor gods. They have no magic, they cannot die, they can't grow food, can't appreciate the beauty of anything, can't stand the sun, and so on.
While I admire the sense of justice that drives some against the idea of the Wall of the Faithless, I must say that these discussions drive home just how much people cannot let go of their own worldviews even when immersing themselves into a fictional world. Which is not bad if your table is all on the same page (the most important thing for any D&D campaign) but is hardly something that applies in general to the whole population of people appreciating the Forgotten Realms.
Appreciate this response, and I agree that I myself do have some issues with some of the things you reference (i.e. I try to build something like "rules" for the gods). Its always as you point out... the gods of various aspects of nature, elements, etc... instead of ideas, ethics, morality, etc... that draw a line. This is why I liked the concept they started discussing in 4e of "primal powers" versus "gods" and versus "Archfey" / Primordials / fiendish & celestial powers, etc... then "the old ones" as being powers from an alien far realm. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 27 Aug 2025 : 13:17:26
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
quote:
The worst thing about the Wall of the Faithless is seeing people trying to give it some sort of "noble goal" like this one to try to make it seem like a good thing. No, you don't need to justify cruelty, evil can be its own justification if you are an evil god trying to do evil deeds. And a god that prefers the eternal damnation of even a single soul just because they are afraid of someone else is not good by any standard.
I personally see the Wall as a cruelty - and an unacceptable, unfair, unjust one - because it does something that no other being in D&D can do. It does something no pantheon, power, god, deity, celestial, fiend, or proxy can do.
It entirely disregards the religion, faith, belief of the soul. It entirely disregards the thoughts and choices made by that soul. It entirely disregards the alignment and deeds of that soul.
Even the Lords of the Nine Hells, the hungry hags of Hades, and the screaming hordes of the Infinite Abyss cannot claim a soul which absolutely refuses to submit. Certainly they can rend the flesh and inflict unimaginable cruelties which would torture a soul, and they can creatively draw these unimaginably fiendish tortures out for a very long time. But they cannot impose an eternity of such suffering on a soul which does not truly deserve or accept this ultimate fate.
What's the point of even having Faith and divinity and religion and an eternal afterlife in D&D at all if things exist in D&D which entirely ignore and circumvent it all?
A noble paladin and paragon of Tyr? Doesn't matter.
A feared and powerful tyrant of Bane? Doesn't matter.
A peaceful, compassionate, empathic lover of Sune? Doesn't matter.
A senseless and destructive blaster of Talos? Doesn't matter.
A unbeliever who consciously refuses to worship these cruel and petty gods? Prepare for half an eternity of cruel suffering followed by ultimate destruction of your immortal essence. Such a crime is unforgivable to the gods, even if they haven't done anything to earn and deserve the faith you might have otherwise chosen to offer them.
Actually, this isn't necessarily true. We have references to demons and devils essentially making raids on unclaimed souls that they then turn into lesser demons and devils.... and for the ones that they can't seem to alter, they may trade them to a night hag who turns them essentially into fuel against the person's will.
So, it almost seems like the gods need to claim the souls of their followers or else the poor follower may end up somewhere unintended. Of course, they don't TELL their followers this, and they let them believe "if you follow my path, you'll come to my place in the afterlife". This also lessens the amount of controls that gods actually have.
In some ways even, having priests be able to return people from the dead may in fact be a form of snatching the dead before the gods have claimed it. The more powerful resurrections may actually be more powerful because they're able to actually work with the gods themelves to request a soul that HAS been claimed.
Certainly not where I saw this topic going, but not a bad discussion to have. From a story standpoint, making it that unclaimed souls are still fraught with perils until they can "journey to their gods home" makes for a good storyline. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 27 Aug 2025 : 13:08:11
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
By that I mean... picture it like a government where the "supreme court" is a council of greater powers. At one point, this council of greater powers convened, were asked by Myrkul if he could take the souls of the faithless and make a wall of punishment. Maybe he paraded a bunch of Imaskari souls in front of these greater powers, and they judged "yeah, that seems a good deterrent and justified for what those guys have done to us" (which again, not saying that's good). So, time passes and that council of greater powers changes to new people. The rulings of their predecessors are now precedent and Ao "has them recorded" as such. If the current lord of the dead wants to maintain the wall, would Ao even allow the council of greater powers to convene and override the prior ruling? At some point, it may become that they can't "undo" the ruling, and making it occur without becoming the lord of the dead themselves won't allow it to be taken down.
The thing with this theory is that in no official source Ao has said something about the Wall of the Faithless. Even in 3e,the Wall was there because Kelemvor wanted it to be there, not because Ao enforced it.
So, Ao has never "not allowed the gods to do something about". The gods just don't want to do something about it by themselves. It was Oghma who stopped Torm when he was complaining about it in Crucible, not Ao.
Well, we don't get crap about what Ao's role is. From the description of Ao however, he is acting as something LIKE a counterpoint to "hold the gods to their jobs". If there's a "council of greater powers" that passes judgments, it would seem that when they make a judgment, it becomes something like a precedent. I can see Ao as the kind that might not want them backing out on these precedents lightly (i.e. you make a judgment, you make sure its right... because you and the mortals under you are living with it until you convince me why I should let you back out on it).
Now, I can totally get someone saying "that's not how the gods work", because we don't have jack on how their mechanics work, but at least this concept works towards some kind of mechanics. |
| Azar |
Posted - 27 Aug 2025 : 08:30:44
Amaunator's priests could "borrow" sunlight from one area. It is magic. Do not invest more thought than is necessary. |
| Athreeren |
Posted - 27 Aug 2025 : 07:10:25
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
Why can't there be an eclipse in just one area?
What rules of divine magic say that?
Imagination rules games...not laws of physics from our world.
Yes, the Sun can be eclipsed for just one dang town if magic is afoot.
When the "nature of divinity" in a fantasy setting is at play, then I imagine an entire area of their divine influence can be eclipsed.
It is a fantasy game...not a "Rules of Physics/Natural Universe" game.
From the Shadowdale novel: "However, the thief soon noticed a wealth of heat soaking his neck. He turned, and found a second sunrise that mimicked the first to total perfection. Off to the north and the south, other suns were rising with visible speed. Illusions or no, the effects were disconcerting. The sweltering heat from the blinding orbs caused the tiny pockets of mud in the road to dry and harden, and the earth itself began to smoke with a foul odor"
Later: "At times the sun appeared to be in the wrong position"
It could be wild magic causing an illusion (nobody is casting it anyway), but the novel is clearly presenting this as Lathander not being able to control the sun's cycle, so it simply decides to appear at different phases at once.
Similarly, at the end of the trilogy, Midnight's ascension prompts new stars to appear in the sky to represent her symbol. Then in the second book of the Cloakmaster series, space travellers remark upon how the Time of Troubles has prompted new stars to appear in Realmspace (as in, those are not lights in the sky but actual pathways through the phlogiston). Astronomy is simply more chaotic than in our world: the stars sometimes do weird things, especially if the gods are not there to make them behave. |
| HighOne |
Posted - 26 Aug 2025 : 23:17:41
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
Why can't there be an eclipse in just one area?
What rules of divine magic say that?
Imagination rules games...not laws of physics from our world.
Yes, the Sun can be eclipsed for just one dang town if magic is afoot.
When the "nature of divinity" in a fantasy setting is at play, then I imagine an entire area of their divine influence can be eclipsed.
It is a fantasy game...not a "Rules of Physics/Natural Universe" game.
Indeed. This seems like Fantasy 101 to me. |
| Scots Dragon |
Posted - 26 Aug 2025 : 22:52:40
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
EDIT: or maybe I just dislike special snowflake Mystr* and don't want her to be that unique, who knows
Do you want Spellplagues? 'Cause that's how you get Spellplagues. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 26 Aug 2025 : 22:12:30
Why can't there be an eclipse in just one area?
What rules of divine magic say that?
Imagination rules games...not laws of physics from our world.
Yes, the Sun can be eclipsed for just one dang town if magic is afoot.
When the "nature of divinity" in a fantasy setting is at play, then I imagine an entire area of their divine influence can be eclipsed.
It is a fantasy game...not a "Rules of Physics/Natural Universe" game. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 26 Aug 2025 : 16:30:46
That makes as much sense as flat earth.
Toril has one sun, it is eclipsed by its moon and other planets (and occasionally massive star beasts). You cannot suddenly have it eclipsed only within the confines of Unther and Mulhorand.
But regardless, gods are not their portfolios (according to Ed) |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 26 Aug 2025 : 15:13:56
Local pantheons have control over local things. An eclipse can happen in one area because "god magic" and not in other areas. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 26 Aug 2025 : 14:49:10
Nobody likes the mary sue's, but she is unique because she is the only god that can essentially inhabit the material plane on a permanent basis.
Gods inhabit the outer planes because they need souls and belief which travels to them via the ethereal or astral (i forget which), but also because their divine realm essentially makes them indestructible - a massive geographic / planar location filled with loyal servants that the deity completely controls and can submerge themselves into so the entire realm has to be destroyed to kill the deity.
But Mystra can merge with the Weave in the same way as a deity merges with their divine realm. The weave funnels all the power of magic to her and it covers pretty much the entire planet, with multiple anchors to protect it from destruction. Thus in theory Mystra should be entirely safe while merged with it, and she can do anything other gods can do while they are on the outer planes (she can send spells to her worshippers, manifest miracles, etc).
She is special and different because she actually is special and different.
I will have to look up the eclipse thing for Ra's death, that could prove problematic. The deaths and mergers of gods and other pantheons was not immediate in any of the instances that i'm aware of (the Netherese, Illuskan, and Calishite / Jhaamdath pantheon mergers took centuries.
More importantly regional pantheons, if the gods were literally their portfolios and said portfolios had power and control over existence, would end up causing localised problems with the destruction of certain gods. How would one explain an eclipse occuring only in Mulhorand / Unther?
It makes far more sense if (following Ed's advice) the portfolios represent a mission statement for the clergy. |
| Demzer |
Posted - 26 Aug 2025 : 13:57:04
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
snip
I would have to doublecheck all instances you cite but going from memory in all of those cases there were other deities taking up the spot almost immediately. All the strife between regional pantheons that produced the final Faerunian pantheon was deities expanding their territories, so to speak, and taking up the mantle and duties of other deities.
For the Mulhorandi and Untheric pantheons, even if you check the original Old Empires you see that the two pantheons merged with deities from one side taking up an alias and filling the gap of their equivalent in the other pantheon when they disappeared. If I'm not mistaken, there was also something about an eclipse when Re was killed? And Horus was there to take on the mantle immediately.
So yeah, of course when you get to divine things everythings is muddy, but we can still see the patterns, I think.
EDIT: or maybe I just dislike special snowflake Mystr* and don't want her to be that unique, who knows |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 25 Aug 2025 : 15:42:12
I disagree on the "the deity is the portfolio". Ed has repeatedly said that portfolios are all but meaningless and are human constructs used to categorise the gods. To a god, a portfolio is really just a mission statement.
When ammaunator vanished from lack of worship, the sun didnt disappear (we dont know when Lathander appeared to replace him, but i doubt it was immediate).
When the orcgate wars occurred and lots of gods in Mulhorand and Unther perished, the laws of the physical universe did not fall apart within the confines of Unther and Mulhorand.
The deaths of Murdane and the other powers of jhaamdath also did not cause a collapse of everything within Jhaamdath.
There are so many deities that have perished in many regional pantheons all across Toril, with no seeming ill effects whatsoever.
The only time this "deity is their portfolio" is remotely true is for Mystra, and that is because she is different and is part of the weave, so when she dies the magic that most people uses falls apart.
|
| Demzer |
Posted - 25 Aug 2025 : 14:56:00
I tried not to get into this argument again because in the end we just run around in circles.
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
... because it does something that no other being in D&D can do. It does something no pantheon, power, god, deity, celestial, fiend, or proxy can do.
But this is just not true.
Plenty of things in D&D can trap, destroy or warp the souls of mortals with no going back (except plot armour or DM fiat). Demiliches devour souls, and that's the end. Devils, demons, yugoloths and their lot, they all torture souls until they are not recognizable anymore and then build up effed up evil outsiders from them. Some form of undeath make souls completely unfit for a "normal" afterlife. Souls could even be trapped for eternity by mortal spellcasters on a whim. And that's without getting into higher powers shenanigans (which are most of the time just plot devices and comparable to DM fiat).
The other point that people are forgetting is that in Faerun a deity is her portfolio and her portfolio is the deity. You don't see nature collapsing or rivers drying up because Chauntea and Eldath are too smart to get offed every 5 seconds like Mystr*. But in the offchance it happened, the consequences would be catastrophic, without a suitable replacement ready. This means that "refusing the gods" for real would mean not interacting with the world at all. Because every wave of the sea is Umberlee, every storm is Talos, every rock is Grumbar, every gust of wind is Akadi, every glint of the morning light is Lathander, and so on.
There is a surprisingly insightful passage about this I think in one book of the post-ToT serie (pardon my faulty memory here) when the protagonists go to a monastery of Cyricists during the spat between Cyric and the rest of the pantheon and the monks of the monastery are being actively denied the action of all other mayor gods. They have no magic, they cannot die, they can't grow food, can't appreciate the beauty of anything, can't stand the sun, and so on.
While I admire the sense of justice that drives some against the idea of the Wall of the Faithless, I must say that these discussions drive home just how much people cannot let go of their own worldviews even when immersing themselves into a fictional world. Which is not bad if your table is all on the same page (the most important thing for any D&D campaign) but is hardly something that applies in general to the whole population of people appreciating the Forgotten Realms. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 25 Aug 2025 : 04:18:44
quote:
The worst thing about the Wall of the Faithless is seeing people trying to give it some sort of "noble goal" like this one to try to make it seem like a good thing. No, you don't need to justify cruelty, evil can be its own justification if you are an evil god trying to do evil deeds. And a god that prefers the eternal damnation of even a single soul just because they are afraid of someone else is not good by any standard.
I personally see the Wall as a cruelty - and an unacceptable, unfair, unjust one - because it does something that no other being in D&D can do. It does something no pantheon, power, god, deity, celestial, fiend, or proxy can do.
It entirely disregards the religion, faith, belief of the soul. It entirely disregards the thoughts and choices made by that soul. It entirely disregards the alignment and deeds of that soul.
Even the Lords of the Nine Hells, the hungry hags of Hades, and the screaming hordes of the Infinite Abyss cannot claim a soul which absolutely refuses to submit. Certainly they can rend the flesh and inflict unimaginable cruelties which would torture a soul, and they can creatively draw these unimaginably fiendish tortures out for a very long time. But they cannot impose an eternity of such suffering on a soul which does not truly deserve or accept this ultimate fate.
What's the point of even having Faith and divinity and religion and an eternal afterlife in D&D at all if things exist in D&D which entirely ignore and circumvent it all?
A noble paladin and paragon of Tyr? Doesn't matter.
A feared and powerful tyrant of Bane? Doesn't matter.
A peaceful, compassionate, empathic lover of Sune? Doesn't matter.
A senseless and destructive blaster of Talos? Doesn't matter.
A unbeliever who consciously refuses to worship these cruel and petty gods? Prepare for half an eternity of cruel suffering followed by ultimate destruction of your immortal essence. Such a crime is unforgivable to the gods, even if they haven't done anything to earn and deserve the faith you might have otherwise chosen to offer them. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 25 Aug 2025 : 00:17:39
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
The worst thing about the Wall of the Faithless is seeing people trying to give it some sort of "noble goal" like this one to try to make it seem like a good thing. No, you don't need to justify cruelty, evil can be its own justification
That's not how writing that is even remotely decent works. You always need a goal--you don't need it to be "noble", but you need a goal that makes sense and is important to the character that does the thing, and they MUST perceive the act as their only viable choice at the time of doing it, or at very least the least damaging thing for their larger scale goal.
When you write, if you write FROM a PoV, you never cast your own judgement and morals on the action, you see things from the perspective of the PoV. When you're thinking about a character doing anything, even in worldbuilding stages, you should visualize it from the character's perspective if you want the narrative to feel authentic. Yes, even if it's wanton murder or sexual violence, which are obviouysly bad in any sane moral system, the character doing them doesn't see them as really that bad, or feels justified in doing them. That's because real people never preceive themselves to actually be the bad guys, even of they say that, they don't.
That's why an ungodly amount of evil characters in fantasy are so hideously dumb, because they were written as if they perceived themselves to be evil, and therefore turn into a caricature.
So, you may ask, how do I express my take on a certain thing as an author? You just show what the consequences of the action are in your worldview--on the one who does the deed, and on other people, and on the story setting as a whole. That's it. That's all it takes, with no boominhg voice from the sky telling the reader"this is wrong!", thus taking away any and all believability from the story. |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 24 Aug 2025 : 20:12:33
quote:
Originally posted by Delnyn
Let's piggyback on Ayrik's atheist thread. I don't pretend this is remotely canon but let it spark your imagination.
Outside the Realms, the souls of atheists go to the Serpent's Coil at the bottom of Nessus where Ahriman/Asmodeus slowly devours them. Suppose the same once applied to the Realms, even though Toril's pantheons don't know this detail. All the gods knew if these particular souls were unaccounted for. Who knows what these souls would be up to? The pantheons just knew the missing souls could pose a threat.
Myrkul built the Wall and sold it to the pantheon as a failsafe to keep the atheist souls harmless. The Wall - unbeknownst to all - also denies Ahriman the souls he needs to heal the wounds he suffered from his fall. Any god - even the most kind and moral - who discovered the truth would more likely support the Wall as a far lesser evil than a healed Ahriman.
My two copper pieces.
The worst thing about the Wall of the Faithless is seeing people trying to give it some sort of "noble goal" like this one to try to make it seem like a good thing. No, you don't need to justify cruelty, evil can be its own justification if you are an evil god trying to do evil deeds. And a god that prefers the eternal damnation of even a single soul just because they are afraid of someone else is not good by any standard.
Heck, in the Nentir Vale, you see Bahamut creating soul arcs from his own treasure to shelter the souls that were denied entrance the domains of the gods for a lot of reasons and now wander in the Astral, providing them a home and protection against demons, devils and other things. You can even add "keeping an eye on them" on that list, too, if the other gods are too scared of missing souls plotting against them. That's what a good god should do.
You don't need to torture atheist souls for all eternity to keep them "accounted for". You just do that if you are some kind of sadist. And if you don't care about the safety of these souls just because they are atheists and don't worship you, again, you are not one of the good gods.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
By that I mean... picture it like a government where the "supreme court" is a council of greater powers. At one point, this council of greater powers convened, were asked by Myrkul if he could take the souls of the faithless and make a wall of punishment. Maybe he paraded a bunch of Imaskari souls in front of these greater powers, and they judged "yeah, that seems a good deterrent and justified for what those guys have done to us" (which again, not saying that's good). So, time passes and that council of greater powers changes to new people. The rulings of their predecessors are now precedent and Ao "has them recorded" as such. If the current lord of the dead wants to maintain the wall, would Ao even allow the council of greater powers to convene and override the prior ruling? At some point, it may become that they can't "undo" the ruling, and making it occur without becoming the lord of the dead themselves won't allow it to be taken down.
The thing with this theory is that in no official source Ao has said something about the Wall of the Faithless. Even in 3e,the Wall was there because Kelemvor wanted it to be there, not because Ao enforced it.
So, Ao has never "not allowed the gods to do something about". The gods just don't want to do something about it by themselves. It was Oghma who stopped Torm when he was complaining about it in Crucible, not Ao. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 24 Aug 2025 : 14:55:35
Wasn't really linking the wall of the faithless to the dawn War.
Was using the dawn War to justify and establish the status quo in other settings and possibly in faerun before faerun became something else which then later added the wall of the faithless (which of course was created after myrkul ascended so cannot be linked to the dawn War. |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 24 Aug 2025 : 04:16:40
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
So I think gods-vs-primordials and the Wall are completely unrelated things.
Yes, that was my point. I was answering to Gary's idea of trying to link the Wall with the primordials vs gods conflict (though, specifically in the D&D version of it), and as you pointed out, it doesn't make sense to try to force these two concepts together.
quote:
Originally posted by Scots Dragon
Honestly I don't think the whole 'faithless' concept makes much sense within a polytheistic setting where most people would not consider worshipping a particular god over the others to be an especially important thing to do. The idea of 'faith' in that sense is very strongly tied into the Christian mindset, while the Forgotten Realms comes off far more pagan, especially in materials released before the Wall of the Faithless was introduced.
You have nailed the core of the question. The issue with the Wall of the Faithless is that the authors who introduced the concept into the Realms knew nothing about polytheism and how religions with many gods work. So, they just applied the Christian mindset into it, creating a whole mess with the lore and feel of the setting that both the fans and the following authors want to maintain for the sake of just keeping it, even if the concept doesn't make sense in the context of D&D and the Forgotten Realms. Even the creator of the Realms, Ed Greenwood, dislike it, and yet people insist on keeping the Wall. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 23 Aug 2025 : 22:17:23
quote:
Originally posted by Delnyn
Let's piggyback on Ayrik's atheist thread. I don't pretend this is remotely canon but let it spark your imagination.
Outside the Realms, the souls of atheists go to the Serpent's Coil at the bottom of Nessus where Ahriman/Asmodeus slowly devours them. Suppose the same once applied to the Realms, even though Toril's pantheons don't know this detail. All the gods knew if these particular souls were unaccounted for. Who knows what these souls would be up to? The pantheons just knew the missing souls could pose a threat.
Myrkul built the Wall and sold it to the pantheon as a failsafe to keep the atheist souls harmless. The Wall - unbeknownst to all - also denies Ahriman the souls he needs to heal the wounds he suffered from his fall. Any god - even the most kind and moral - who discovered the truth would more likely support the Wall as a far lesser evil than a healed Ahriman.
My two copper pieces.
Hmmm, I like this addition to my ideas above as well.. maybe cementing the souls into the wall is a way to make them "UNUSABLE BY ANYONE"... perhaps even as fuel by Myrkul himself. So, perhaps some good gods are like "its better than him using the souls to perform X evil deed by using them as fuel like that guy Nerull did over in that other world". |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 23 Aug 2025 : 22:13:54
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
But the faithless weren't people that didn't choose a particular god, they were effectively people who "disrespected all gods and gave none of them worship". So, effectively people who thumbed their noses at all gods. Which is why my question that started this thread was aimed more at "did Myrkul find a lot of Imaskari souls, and he had a bias against them from his mortal life.... and the gods were nonplussed with the Imaskari as well .... and so it became decided that yeah, maybe we SHOULD build this wall so that people get the idea that you can't disrespect all gods entirely.
The word is "atheist".
Someone who rejects the existence of any god(s) and/or who refuses to worship any god(s). In a setting filled with gods and priests with divine magics this is an intentional choice by the atheist to withhold worship from any god(s), a choice to exist independently of whatever religions the god(s) may try to impose.
Apparently, in Realmslore, an atheist is such a vile creature that its soul deserves a fate which worse than the Infinite Abyss, worse than the Grey Wastes, and worse than the Nine Hells. An absolute abuse of power by arrogant god(s) who place all the blame and all the punishment for such a choice squarely onto those souls who dare to reject them - in short, a one-sided, involuntary, inescapable, and abusive relationship which owns every unfortunate soul who happens to be born in the Realms.
This might be expected from overpowered gods of Death and Tyranny and Evil. But the Wall has been around and unchallenged for so long (and even served Cyric the Godslayer, lol) that it's evident the rest of the pantheon (including the so-called Good deities) tacitly tolerate and passively accept the Wall as well.
Not wanting to debate good, bad, etc... as my reasons for discussing this were ones about "why might this have been allowed between 1 and 2 thousand years ago", and how that might relate into motives of gods that were formerly mortal. However, since you bring up the part about it being allowed for so long, that is an interesting question and possibly another thing worth exploring. By that, I mean just how much control do the gods have over something like this once its been established in precedent and if said thing lies pretty strongly outside their portfolios?
By that I mean... picture it like a government where the "supreme court" is a council of greater powers. At one point, this council of greater powers convened, were asked by Myrkul if he could take the souls of the faithless and make a wall of punishment. Maybe he paraded a bunch of Imaskari souls in front of these greater powers, and they judged "yeah, that seems a good deterrent and justified for what those guys have done to us" (which again, not saying that's good). So, time passes and that council of greater powers changes to new people. The rulings of their predecessors are now precedent and Ao "has them recorded" as such. If the current lord of the dead wants to maintain the wall, would Ao even allow the council of greater powers to convene and override the prior ruling? At some point, it may become that they can't "undo" the ruling, and making it occur without becoming the lord of the dead themselves won't allow it to be taken down. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 23 Aug 2025 : 20:03:35
Because I only use the Old Grey Box...I don't have a wall of the faithless. "Faithless" just go to the plane that most closely aligns with their own alignment at death. |
| Delnyn |
Posted - 23 Aug 2025 : 19:39:22
Let's piggyback on Ayrik's atheist thread. I don't pretend this is remotely canon but let it spark your imagination.
Outside the Realms, the souls of atheists go to the Serpent's Coil at the bottom of Nessus where Ahriman/Asmodeus slowly devours them. Suppose the same once applied to the Realms, even though Toril's pantheons don't know this detail. All the gods knew if these particular souls were unaccounted for. Who knows what these souls would be up to? The pantheons just knew the missing souls could pose a threat.
Myrkul built the Wall and sold it to the pantheon as a failsafe to keep the atheist souls harmless. The Wall - unbeknownst to all - also denies Ahriman the souls he needs to heal the wounds he suffered from his fall. Any god - even the most kind and moral - who discovered the truth would more likely support the Wall as a far lesser evil than a healed Ahriman.
My two copper pieces. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 23 Aug 2025 : 18:39:08
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
But the faithless weren't people that didn't choose a particular god, they were effectively people who "disrespected all gods and gave none of them worship". So, effectively people who thumbed their noses at all gods. Which is why my question that started this thread was aimed more at "did Myrkul find a lot of Imaskari souls, and he had a bias against them from his mortal life.... and the gods were nonplussed with the Imaskari as well .... and so it became decided that yeah, maybe we SHOULD build this wall so that people get the idea that you can't disrespect all gods entirely.
The word is "atheist".
Someone who rejects the existence of any god(s) and/or who refuses to worship any god(s). In a setting filled with gods and priests with divine magics this is an intentional choice by the atheist to withhold worship from any god(s), a choice to exist independently of whatever religions the god(s) may try to impose.
Apparently, in Realmslore, an atheist is such a vile creature that its soul deserves a fate which worse than the Infinite Abyss, worse than the Grey Wastes, and worse than the Nine Hells. An absolute abuse of power by arrogant god(s) who place all the blame and all the punishment for such a choice squarely onto those souls who dare to reject them - in short, a one-sided, involuntary, inescapable, and abusive relationship which owns every unfortunate soul who happens to be born in the Realms.
This might be expected from overpowered gods of Death and Tyranny and Evil. But the Wall has been around and unchallenged for so long (and even served Cyric the Godslayer, lol) that it's evident the rest of the pantheon (including the so-called Good deities) tacitly tolerate and passively accept the Wall as well. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 23 Aug 2025 : 15:35:20
quote:
Originally posted by Scots Dragon
Honestly I don't think the whole 'faithless' concept makes much sense within a polytheistic setting where most people would not consider worshipping a particular god over the others to be an especially important thing to do. The idea of 'faith' in that sense is very strongly tied into the Christian mindset, while the Forgotten Realms comes off far more pagan, especially in materials released before the Wall of the Faithless was introduced.
But the faithless weren't people that didn't choose a particular god, they were effectively people who "disrespected all gods and gave none of them worship". So, effectively people who thumbed their noses at all gods. Which is why my question that started this thread was aimed more at "did Myrkul find a lot of Imaskari souls, and he had a bias against them from his mortal life.... and the gods were nonplussed with the Imaskari as well .... and so it became decided that yeah, maybe we SHOULD build this wall so that people get the idea that you can't disrespect all gods entirely.
Which IF there is some tie between a lot of the Netherese gods and the mulan gods (i.e. a link between Nergal and Jergal, a link between Amaunator and the fallen Re, etc...) which I won't delve too long here, then the "greater powers" WOULD have a grudge against the Imaskari for other reasons as well. |
| Scots Dragon |
Posted - 23 Aug 2025 : 14:58:48
Honestly I don't think the whole 'faithless' concept makes much sense within a polytheistic setting where most people would not consider worshipping a particular god over the others to be an especially important thing to do. The idea of 'faith' in that sense is very strongly tied into the Christian mindset, while the Forgotten Realms comes off far more pagan, especially in materials released before the Wall of the Faithless was introduced. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 23 Aug 2025 : 06:22:55
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
Yet, the war with the Primordials is not exclusive to the Forgotten Realms. The world of the Nentir Vale also has a pantheon of gods who fought in that war, and had a lot problems with the primordials and even gods using souls as sources of power, yet you don't see in that world any kind of prejudice against faithless people.
Several pantheons from our world describe how the gods displaced older gods or entities. The Olympians destroyed or imprisoned most of the titans, who themselves destroyed or imprisoned even older "primordial" beings. The Norse gods replaced giants (and prophesize their own destruction in the final battle against the giants).
Olympian and Norse pantheons (or their members) exist in the Realms and in other D&D worlds. As would their history which recounts how they took their power in an epic gods-vs-primordials sort of battle.
While the Wall is a purely Realms-related invention, apparently constructed by some death god on the Fugue.
The Wall has never been described in any real world mythologies or religions. And it's not present in Krynn, Oerth, Athas, Mystara, Eberron, or other D&D worlds.
So I think gods-vs-primordials and the Wall are completely unrelated things. |
|
|
