Wall of the Faithless(FR)

[Hyena]

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

I've literally read the entire thread just to see if anyone posted this.

[Andezzar]

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

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

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

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

[Psyren]

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

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

[georgie_leech]

{{scrubbed}}

[Andezzar]

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

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

[Svata]

{Self-scrubbed,as the mod missed it}

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

[Sian]

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

RAW vs RAI on Fluff

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

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

[Nilehus]

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

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

[Gildedragon]

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

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

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

[Psyren]

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

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

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

[AuraTwilight]

{{scrubbed}}

[atemu1234]

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

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

[DeltaEmil]

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

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

[Psyren]

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

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

Then you realize you may as well just play Greyhawk.

[Talya]

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

[Sian]

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

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

[Talya]

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

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

there's an incongruity there that good deities get their power and life as a result of such an unequivocally evil thing. It basically turns all the gods into despotic monsters. if that's how they were fluffed, that'd be fine, but instead some are supposed to be holy and good, and that is at odds with the divine protection racket they are running.

[Gildedragon]

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

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

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

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

[DeltaEmil]

IMO its kinda like moaning that you can't play a Elf in a World of Darkness game

You can play a fae in WoD. It just might not be fitting to the tone if you play a fae from the Changeling rule-set in a WoD werewolf-game.

[Andezzar]

You can play a fae in WoD. It just might not be fitting to the tone if you play a fae from the Changeling rule-set in a WoD werewolf-game.

Or you could ask your local Tzimisce to give you funny ears. ;)

[Gildedragon]

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

[LibraryOgre]

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

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

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

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

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

And, since I'm here... being evil doesn't carry punishment in the core cosmology. That's not the way the planes are set up. I go into it more here.

[A Tad Insane]

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

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

Ethnocenticism is a powerful force

[Psyren]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[atemu1234]

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

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

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

[Gildedragon]

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

Actually more like bricks. It's the moss that acts as the mortar/plaster that joins the people bricks.

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

+1. One doesn't blame folk for being dissatisfied with a fallible (because FR gods are fallible) system they can do nothing to affect

[LibraryOgre]

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

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

[Andezzar]

But you can get that without the Wall. The mere fact that Ao switched their power source over to mortal worship means they shouldn't need the Wall anymore - rather, they should appeal to mortals with the benefits of choosing a patron rather than waving the punishing stick for not doing so.

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

In short, nobody should ever, for any reason, have wanted to end up on the Wall since the ToT - and yet, people still do.

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

[Psyren]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Coidzor]

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

Then you realize you may as well just play Greyhawk.

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

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

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

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