It's a short sentence and probably missed or ignored by many (after all, not everyone plays in FR) but I found it interesting.
[NEW] The Afterlife (p. 20). In the second paragraph, the last sentence has been deleted.
I've seen some speculate that it's a preparation for some upcoming event in FR but my take is that they somehow felt that their flagship setting is more restrictive than their current D&D meta.
After all, after all that time spent on convincing people that they can now play paladins and even clerics without worshipping a deity, they can't very well have a big ol' Wall where faithless go to get punished, right?
Except...well, correct me if I am wrong, but if you take an established setting that has been developed throughout decades with certain elements in the lore, just removing stuff from a book doesn't really get rid of it. I mean, compared to 2e and 3e, the 5e version of FR is very light on details - a lot of stuff hasn't been reprinted, updated, spoken of. It doesn't mean that the previous stuff in all the other regions besides Sword Coast didn't happen.
So...if they want to officially get rid of the Wall, just omitting it is not enough. They need to specifically say that it's not a thing anymore, dunno, as a post-Spellplague effect or maybe 2nd Sundering effect...
Just thought I would share my thoughts on this curious little thing.
The wall of the faithless is actually a massive contradiction for most of the lore. Ed Greenwood is on record as saying that most realms folk worship multiple gods, however the Wall of the Faithless implies that if you don't have a primary god for go-to worship, you're going to the wall of the faithless.
That said, I'd guess that it's more of a thing where some Sensitive Sallies are offended that they have to pick a deity for forgotten realms or suffer potential consequences.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
That’s unfortunate. I’m liberal personally, I love things like “good orcs,” and I do my best to be sensitive to my players’ beliefs, but honestly this just feels insulting to atheists, acting like they can’t separate fantasy from themselves. Sure, some of the Forgotten Realms lore is dark, but it’s (a) not real, (b) not necessarily promoted just because it’s there, and (c) in a world where gods can be empirically proven to exist. Not to mention, if you really don’t like some aspects of a setting, you can write them out or homebrew your own setting: it’s your game! This isn’t a big deal, of course, but I feel like it’s really “talking down” to players to just remove anything potentially offensive to people who can’t separate the game from themselves.
The wall of the faithless is actually a massive contradiction for most of the lore. Ed Greenwood is on record as saying that most realms folk worship multiple gods, however the Wall of the Faithless implies that if you don't have a primary god for go-to worship, you're going to the wall of the faithless.
That said, I'd guess that it's more of a thing where some Sensitive Sallies are offended that they have to pick a deity for forgotten realms or suffer potential consequences.
According to Ed, Wall is reserved for the truly faithless, ie. those who actively deny gods existence.
I also remember reading one of his tweets where he mentions that upon judgement, if someone worshiped in a "standard way" during their life (praying to multiple gods) it was kinda weighed as there was almost never "equal distribution of worship". There are some gods people pray to more often than others.
That’s unfortunate. I’m liberal personally, I love things like “good orcs,” and I do my best to be sensitive to my players’ beliefs, but honestly this just feels insulting to atheists, acting like they can’t separate fantasy from themselves. Sure, some of the Forgotten Realms lore is dark, but it’s (a) not real, (b) not necessarily promoted just because it’s there, and (c) in a world where gods can be empirically proven to exist. Not to mention, if you really don’t like some aspects of a setting, you can write them out or homebrew your own setting: it’s your game! This isn’t a big deal, of course, but I feel like it’s really “talking down” to players to just remove anything potentially offensive to people who can’t separate the game from themselves.
I can't upvote this enough. You're right though, too many people can't or won't separate their fantasy from reality. they just cry about things, and in this age, WOTC just rolls over and gives them what they want. It's why we can't have nice things. By the time they are done, there won't be anything left to actually fight and we'll all be playing Lawyers and Litigation.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Thanks, @crzyhawk! While I don’t totally agree with your way of putting it, I see and worry about the same things you do. D&D is a game about good battling evil, but you can’t have that without battles or without evil. It’s why the best fantasy novels aren’t escapist: they not only include messy issues, but they grapple with them. If some people want to play a purely escapist game, that’s fine, but I think it’s a disservice to players to push all the lore in a less challenging direction.
That’s unfortunate. I’m liberal personally, I love things like “good orcs,” and I do my best to be sensitive to my players’ beliefs, but honestly this just feels insulting to atheists, acting like they can’t separate fantasy from themselves. Sure, some of the Forgotten Realms lore is dark, but it’s (a) not real, (b) not necessarily promoted just because it’s there, and (c) in a world where gods can be empirically proven to exist.
There have long been goodly orcs (the Ondti), at least since 2e, but they've been sadly ignored. Even the Eilistraeens are still being shoehorned. I admit I'm not a fan of the Wall, myself, but I have seen a number of people argue that the reason they hate the gods is because of the Wall, and they try and apply real-world atheism to the Realms, which just doesn't work in a setting like the Realms. This is why I find the non-theistic paladin and cleric option ridiculous for settings like the Realms. For other settings, like Dark Sun, sure, go for it. But not the Realms. It just doesn't make sense. I'm fine if they get rid of the Wall, but, rather than just omitting it, I want an actual canonical explanation for why it is no longer there (and an explanation for what happens to faithless), rather than just omitting it--but given the vagueness and resistance to anything resembling canon in 5e, that's unlikely to happen. 5e also seems to contradict itself in various products it releases.
I honestly do not get the aversion people seem to have to gods in fantasy. Everything else is fine: dragons, mythical races/species, magic, undead, etc. But bring in the divine, and suddenly, there is an issue.
The wall of the faithless is actually a massive contradiction for most of the lore. Ed Greenwood is on record as saying that most realms folk worship multiple gods, however the Wall of the Faithless implies that if you don't have a primary god for go-to worship, you're going to the wall of the faithless.
That said, I'd guess that it's more of a thing where some Sensitive Sallies are offended that they have to pick a deity for forgotten realms or suffer potential consequences.
The polytheistic nature of most of Faerun is not just said by Ed, but is in some source books as well (the 3.0 FR CG, for example, and I believe F&A does, as well), and it's the deity you end up praying to most that will most likely take you in(you of course have clergy and devotees, as well). A farmer will pray to Chauntea for crops to grow, and Talos to keep storms away, for example. A thief may pray to both Mask and Tymora. As they go through life, most will end up leaning towards one deity--however slightly--above the others, and that is the deity that is likely to take them in. It is only those who have never prayed or acknowledged any of the deities that are deemed Faithless. So the issue isn't worshiping multiple gods, it's worshiping no gods.
For my general thoughts on this subject:
One of the things I like about certain D&D settings is that there is a well-established afterlife, and not a gloomy one—well, depending on the god you subscribe to. This is a big reason I’ve stayed away from settings like Dark Sun. So for that reason, I’ve never really liked the Wall (not offended by it, just don't really like it, though it makes a certain amount of sense in a deity-heavy world). I’ve always thought there should be a different fate. Perhaps the Faithless share the fate of the False, which, at least according to the 3.0 FR Campaign Guide, will vary based on the severity of their crimes. For some, this means working in the City of Judgement and serving Kelemvor in varying compacities (though some receive a harsher punishment). Perhaps the Faithless would get a similar penance, and maybe said penance would vary based on how “faithless” they are. Like, the difference between those who just didn’t pay particular attention to the deity, versus those who consciously flipped all of them the bird. But maybe this isn’t much better than the Wall. Hmm.
In a world like Forgotten Realms, being an atheist in the way we think of the term would be exceedingly rare and foolish. The gods are very real and part of the setting. As I said above, most Faeraunians are polytheistic, and most Faerunians end up leaning towards one deity—however slightly—above the others, and this is likely the deity that will collect their soul. Most demihuman species (elves, gnomes, dwarves, etc) worship those in their respective pantheons. Those who are not under Kelemvor/Myrkul’s sphere of influence (Zakhara, for example), answer to their own deities, so I don’t think the Wall applies.
So, on the one hand, I’m happy they’re getting rid of the Wall, though it would be nice if they provided an alternative, and they kept the larvae part, which isn’t really any better, imho. This also just seems like a further move to push the gods out of the picture. We already have non-theistic paladins and clerics (which may work for a setting like Dark Sun, but not for FR). Again, I would rather have an actual explanation for why the Wall no longer exists, rather than them just omitting it. And since they’re keeping the larvae part, an unclaimed soul is basically the same thing as a faithless at this point. I mean, if you’ve never worshiped, there isn’t really a god who can claim you. Removing a single sentence isn’t going to fix the issue, imho.
(Apologies for the jumbled post. This is circulating around, and I was trying to share my thoughts in several places lol).
hopefully my original gangster aberrant mind sorcerers will not be destroyed by the new version.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Thanks, @crzyhawk! While I don’t totally agree with your way of putting it, I see and worry about the same things you do. D&D is a game about good battling evil, but you can’t have that without battles or without evil. It’s why the best fantasy novels aren’t escapist: they not only include messy issues, but they grapple with them. If some people want to play a purely escapist game, that’s fine, but I think it’s a disservice to players to push all the lore in a less challenging direction.
Given that the game is essentially about vigilante executions, D&D has zero bearing to the real world. But hey, we have a whole generation that are trying real hard to equate every single thing to some political bent, whatever that is.
That’s unfortunate. I’m liberal personally, I love things like “good orcs,” and I do my best to be sensitive to my players’ beliefs, but honestly this just feels insulting to atheists, acting like they can’t separate fantasy from themselves. Sure, some of the Forgotten Realms lore is dark, but it’s (a) not real, (b) not necessarily promoted just because it’s there, and (c) in a world where gods can be empirically proven to exist. Not to mention, if you really don’t like some aspects of a setting, you can write them out or homebrew your own setting: it’s your game! This isn’t a big deal, of course, but I feel like it’s really “talking down” to players to just remove anything potentially offensive to people who can’t separate the game from themselves.
I absolutely agree with you here. This errata just makes NO sense without an ingame explanation and really feels like WotC slowly but steadily removing everything even remotely sensible because nowadays, everyone seems to be deeply offended and emotionally disturbed by something (or anything).
I'm all for un-demonizing orcs, duergar, drow, etc. - especially because the latter promote "black skin == evil & kill on sight" - but this errata is just stupid.
That’s unfortunate. I’m liberal personally, I love things like “good orcs,” and I do my best to be sensitive to my players’ beliefs, but honestly this just feels insulting to atheists, acting like they can’t separate fantasy from themselves. Sure, some of the Forgotten Realms lore is dark, but it’s (a) not real, (b) not necessarily promoted just because it’s there, and (c) in a world where gods can be empirically proven to exist. Not to mention, if you really don’t like some aspects of a setting, you can write them out or homebrew your own setting: it’s your game! This isn’t a big deal, of course, but I feel like it’s really “talking down” to players to just remove anything potentially offensive to people who can’t separate the game from themselves.
I absolutely agree with you here. This errata just makes NO sense without an ingame explanation and really feels like WotC slowly but steadily removing everything even remotely sensible because nowadays, everyone seems to be deeply offended and emotionally disturbed by something (or anything).
I'm all for un-demonizing orcs, duergar, drow, etc. - especially because the latter promote "black skin == evil & kill on sight" - but this errata is just stupid.
Sadly, WotC shot themselves in the foot when they went with the motto "drow are evil" in 4e, because prior to that, you had the goodly Eilistraeens. And the Ondti orcs, which have been around since 2e, have also been largely ignored. I wish WotC would look to old lore, at least as a starting point, for their new direction(s).
As for the Wall...I'm glad they're getting rid of it (not because of any religious or non religious leanings, just because I'm not a fan), but I completely agree that just getting rid of it with no explanation, and not providing any alternative or details on what happens instead, we're left in the dark. Sure, maybe they want to leave it up to the DM/players, but, imho, they've taken vagueness too far in 5e. Give us something! Providing more detail never hurt games in the past. I love the old lore for the detail.
removing the reference doesnt get rid of it really.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
As you probably heard before, it could be build-up for some ridiculous Infinity War/Endgame-esk crossover with Eberron and M:tG characters showing up. Maybe a bunch of villains from each setting team-up. I, for one, want to see Vecna meet Lady Illmarrow.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's a short sentence and probably missed or ignored by many (after all, not everyone plays in FR) but I found it interesting.
I've seen some speculate that it's a preparation for some upcoming event in FR but my take is that they somehow felt that their flagship setting is more restrictive than their current D&D meta.
After all, after all that time spent on convincing people that they can now play paladins and even clerics without worshipping a deity, they can't very well have a big ol' Wall where faithless go to get punished, right?
Except...well, correct me if I am wrong, but if you take an established setting that has been developed throughout decades with certain elements in the lore, just removing stuff from a book doesn't really get rid of it. I mean, compared to 2e and 3e, the 5e version of FR is very light on details - a lot of stuff hasn't been reprinted, updated, spoken of. It doesn't mean that the previous stuff in all the other regions besides Sword Coast didn't happen.
So...if they want to officially get rid of the Wall, just omitting it is not enough. They need to specifically say that it's not a thing anymore, dunno, as a post-Spellplague effect or maybe 2nd Sundering effect...
Just thought I would share my thoughts on this curious little thing.
The wall of the faithless is actually a massive contradiction for most of the lore. Ed Greenwood is on record as saying that most realms folk worship multiple gods, however the Wall of the Faithless implies that if you don't have a primary god for go-to worship, you're going to the wall of the faithless.
That said, I'd guess that it's more of a thing where some Sensitive Sallies are offended that they have to pick a deity for forgotten realms or suffer potential consequences.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
That’s unfortunate. I’m liberal personally, I love things like “good orcs,” and I do my best to be sensitive to my players’ beliefs, but honestly this just feels insulting to atheists, acting like they can’t separate fantasy from themselves. Sure, some of the Forgotten Realms lore is dark, but it’s (a) not real, (b) not necessarily promoted just because it’s there, and (c) in a world where gods can be empirically proven to exist. Not to mention, if you really don’t like some aspects of a setting, you can write them out or homebrew your own setting: it’s your game! This isn’t a big deal, of course, but I feel like it’s really “talking down” to players to just remove anything potentially offensive to people who can’t separate the game from themselves.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
https://twitter.com/theedverse/status/1211685898678624257
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2020/06/01/is-there-a-non-theistic-religion-in-the-forgotten-realms-that-doesnt-automatically-result-in-being-slapped-on-the-wall-of-the-faithless/
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2019/12/08/if-mortals-never-embrace-any-deity-in-life-when-they-final-face-kelemvor-in-the-city-of-judgement-what-fate-will-befall-them/
According to Ed, Wall is reserved for the truly faithless, ie. those who actively deny gods existence.
I also remember reading one of his tweets where he mentions that upon judgement, if someone worshiped in a "standard way" during their life (praying to multiple gods) it was kinda weighed as there was almost never "equal distribution of worship". There are some gods people pray to more often than others.
I can't upvote this enough. You're right though, too many people can't or won't separate their fantasy from reality. they just cry about things, and in this age, WOTC just rolls over and gives them what they want. It's why we can't have nice things. By the time they are done, there won't be anything left to actually fight and we'll all be playing Lawyers and Litigation.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Thanks, @crzyhawk! While I don’t totally agree with your way of putting it, I see and worry about the same things you do. D&D is a game about good battling evil, but you can’t have that without battles or without evil. It’s why the best fantasy novels aren’t escapist: they not only include messy issues, but they grapple with them. If some people want to play a purely escapist game, that’s fine, but I think it’s a disservice to players to push all the lore in a less challenging direction.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
There have long been goodly orcs (the Ondti), at least since 2e, but they've been sadly ignored. Even the Eilistraeens are still being shoehorned. I admit I'm not a fan of the Wall, myself, but I have seen a number of people argue that the reason they hate the gods is because of the Wall, and they try and apply real-world atheism to the Realms, which just doesn't work in a setting like the Realms. This is why I find the non-theistic paladin and cleric option ridiculous for settings like the Realms. For other settings, like Dark Sun, sure, go for it. But not the Realms. It just doesn't make sense. I'm fine if they get rid of the Wall, but, rather than just omitting it, I want an actual canonical explanation for why it is no longer there (and an explanation for what happens to faithless), rather than just omitting it--but given the vagueness and resistance to anything resembling canon in 5e, that's unlikely to happen. 5e also seems to contradict itself in various products it releases.
I honestly do not get the aversion people seem to have to gods in fantasy. Everything else is fine: dragons, mythical races/species, magic, undead, etc. But bring in the divine, and suddenly, there is an issue.
The polytheistic nature of most of Faerun is not just said by Ed, but is in some source books as well (the 3.0 FR CG, for example, and I believe F&A does, as well), and it's the deity you end up praying to most that will most likely take you in(you of course have clergy and devotees, as well). A farmer will pray to Chauntea for crops to grow, and Talos to keep storms away, for example. A thief may pray to both Mask and Tymora. As they go through life, most will end up leaning towards one deity--however slightly--above the others, and that is the deity that is likely to take them in. It is only those who have never prayed or acknowledged any of the deities that are deemed Faithless. So the issue isn't worshiping multiple gods, it's worshiping no gods.
For my general thoughts on this subject:
One of the things I like about certain D&D settings is that there is a well-established afterlife, and not a gloomy one—well, depending on the god you subscribe to. This is a big reason I’ve stayed away from settings like Dark Sun. So for that reason, I’ve never really liked the Wall (not offended by it, just don't really like it, though it makes a certain amount of sense in a deity-heavy world). I’ve always thought there should be a different fate. Perhaps the Faithless share the fate of the False, which, at least according to the 3.0 FR Campaign Guide, will vary based on the severity of their crimes. For some, this means working in the City of Judgement and serving Kelemvor in varying compacities (though some receive a harsher punishment). Perhaps the Faithless would get a similar penance, and maybe said penance would vary based on how “faithless” they are. Like, the difference between those who just didn’t pay particular attention to the deity, versus those who consciously flipped all of them the bird. But maybe this isn’t much better than the Wall. Hmm.
In a world like Forgotten Realms, being an atheist in the way we think of the term would be exceedingly rare and foolish. The gods are very real and part of the setting. As I said above, most Faeraunians are polytheistic, and most Faerunians end up leaning towards one deity—however slightly—above the others, and this is likely the deity that will collect their soul. Most demihuman species (elves, gnomes, dwarves, etc) worship those in their respective pantheons. Those who are not under Kelemvor/Myrkul’s sphere of influence (Zakhara, for example), answer to their own deities, so I don’t think the Wall applies.
So, on the one hand, I’m happy they’re getting rid of the Wall, though it would be nice if they provided an alternative, and they kept the larvae part, which isn’t really any better, imho. This also just seems like a further move to push the gods out of the picture. We already have non-theistic paladins and clerics (which may work for a setting like Dark Sun, but not for FR). Again, I would rather have an actual explanation for why the Wall no longer exists, rather than them just omitting it. And since they’re keeping the larvae part, an unclaimed soul is basically the same thing as a faithless at this point. I mean, if you’ve never worshiped, there isn’t really a god who can claim you. Removing a single sentence isn’t going to fix the issue, imho.
(Apologies for the jumbled post. This is circulating around, and I was trying to share my thoughts in several places lol).
hopefully my original gangster aberrant mind sorcerers will not be destroyed by the new version.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Given that the game is essentially about vigilante executions, D&D has zero bearing to the real world. But hey, we have a whole generation that are trying real hard to equate every single thing to some political bent, whatever that is.
I absolutely agree with you here. This errata just makes NO sense without an ingame explanation and really feels like WotC slowly but steadily removing everything even remotely sensible because nowadays, everyone seems to be deeply offended and emotionally disturbed by something (or anything).
I'm all for un-demonizing orcs, duergar, drow, etc. - especially because the latter promote "black skin == evil & kill on sight" - but this errata is just stupid.
Sadly, WotC shot themselves in the foot when they went with the motto "drow are evil" in 4e, because prior to that, you had the goodly Eilistraeens. And the Ondti orcs, which have been around since 2e, have also been largely ignored. I wish WotC would look to old lore, at least as a starting point, for their new direction(s).
As for the Wall...I'm glad they're getting rid of it (not because of any religious or non religious leanings, just because I'm not a fan), but I completely agree that just getting rid of it with no explanation, and not providing any alternative or details on what happens instead, we're left in the dark. Sure, maybe they want to leave it up to the DM/players, but, imho, they've taken vagueness too far in 5e. Give us something! Providing more detail never hurt games in the past. I love the old lore for the detail.
removing the reference doesnt get rid of it really.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
As you probably heard before, it could be build-up for some ridiculous Infinity War/Endgame-esk crossover with Eberron and M:tG characters showing up. Maybe a bunch of villains from each setting team-up. I, for one, want to see Vecna meet Lady Illmarrow.