| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7968 Posts |
 Posted - 12 Nov 2020 : 23:20:50
|
"Intelligent" items/weapons can have personalities and desires which are uncooperative, cantankerous, difficult.
Some attempt to mentally dominate and control their users. Some attempt to loyally serve their users. Some lack will or volition entirely. Some are annoyingly stubborn and opinionated. Some are garrulously outspoken. Some only speak when direct commanded to respond.
Psionicists apparently imbue an intelligence into the items they empower. One molded from the image of their own "mental essence", although they can "shape" its personality and thoughts into something a little different, and it can "grow" into something even more different as things happen while time passes.
Wizards apparently get or don't get sentient properties in their enchanted items because of the way the dice roll. And the intelligence itself is entirely determined by the rolling of more dice. To me this suggests they basically have no real control over the results, the "soul/spirit" might be any random thing which was somehow attracted or captured by the enchantments.
Priests apparently get much the same treatment as wizards in this regard. Although I'm inclined to think the "soul/spirit" (whatever it is, wherever it came from) must be influenced, selected, or rejected by the deity whose divine power actually manifests as enchantments. |
[/Ayrik] |
 |
|
|
Azar
Master of Realmslore
1286 Posts |
Posted - 13 Nov 2020 : 00:59:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
"Intelligent" items/weapons can have personalities and desires which are uncooperative, cantankerous, difficult.
Some attempt to mentally dominate and control their users. Some attempt to loyally serve their users. Some lack will or volition entirely. Some are annoyingly stubborn and opinionated. Some are garrulously outspoken. Some only speak when direct commanded to respond.
In most D&D games I've participated in and/or read about, it seems like there is a dichotomy with core (i.e., basic) intelligent weapons: either they're subservient or they're opinionated/domineering. There is no - at least from what I've gleaned - "the weapon views its wielder as a partner" equivalent result. |
Stand with anybody that stands right. Stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong.
Earth names in the Realms are more common than you may think. |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4685 Posts |
Posted - 13 Nov 2020 : 01:34:08
|
If the Item has the same purpose as the current owner there is indeed a partnership. However they also tend to be boring.
There are two things to consider. An Item with a purpose/mission can not change, where as flesh creatures can change their goals. Some of those subservient appearing ones are not going to even contest a wielder doing what their purpose is.
|
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 13 Nov 2020 : 02:55:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
"Intelligent" items/weapons can have personalities and desires which are uncooperative, cantankerous, difficult.
Some attempt to mentally dominate and control their users. Some attempt to loyally serve their users. Some lack will or volition entirely. Some are annoyingly stubborn and opinionated. Some are garrulously outspoken. Some only speak when direct commanded to respond.
In most D&D games I've participated in and/or read about, it seems like there is a dichotomy with core (i.e., basic) intelligent weapons: either they're subservient or they're opinionated/domineering. There is no - at least from what I've gleaned - "the weapon views its wielder as a partner" equivalent result.
I did the partner thing for one of my Hooks, a while back: an animated, intelligent longsword that fought beside its partner.
The idea of an intelligent weapon that is entirely powerless without a wielder has never sat well with me. I can see why that would drive some intelligent weapons to dominate their wielders, but otherwise, it's not a gig I like. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
SaMoCon
Senior Scribe
USA
403 Posts |
Posted - 14 Nov 2020 : 21:26:08
|
For intelligent magic items, the grand daddy is the One Ring from "Lord of the Rings" as it was described as having a will of its own to make things happen. That colored everything that followed. Even taking the fact that the One Ring was an evil item that was part of an evil demigod, I agree with Wooly that intelligent items have an alien perspective to that assumed by players for characters. The drives for its emotions are abstracts & perversions of sapient creatures showing the lack of biological impetus and experiential refinement for endearments, rages, and melancholia. Here we have an artificial intelligence, its worldly knowledge is drastically limited and much of the means with which it can learn more lies outside of its control; moreover, we do not have clear knowledge about its lucidity or cognizance when it is outside the possession of a wielder.
A great analogy for this is a heroin addict that craves each hit and has to deal with the drug pushers for each limited batch that always comes with a price. What would a junkie do to secure that next hit? Debase itself for the currency? Try to abstain knowing that temptation & falling off the wagon is ever present? Seizing control of the source and using until it is all used up? This dynamic is not necessarily adversarial but the potential for hostile conflict grows if the drug dealer becomes pushy with frequent demands or grows negligent in satisfying the wants of the addict. The relationship between the two is inherently unequal so any abuses will be even more aggravating for the disenfranchised junkie.
Rather than being campy items like the owl construct from the first "Clash of the Titans" film, these items would be more like Frankenstein's monster from "Frankenstein" struggling with its identity, the titular Pinocchio who wants to be more than a puppet, and the fragmented sword Saika/Mother in "Durarara" that obsessively loves all humanity. The purposes which were instilled in each one of these examples (being the vessel of an esteemed mentor, becoming a child to be cared for, protecting its wielder as a trustworthy blade) became eclipsed and forgotten by the surging desires of these objects. These are tragic figures who despair because they dared to hope and because they are intelligent they leave the paths their creators envisioned when fabricating them. And what do intelligent people do when barriers are put in their way?
...
Are we off topic or what?
Yeah, shame about the wall. I liked it because it was a perfect alternative to the "heaven/hell" concept that a lot of players have and it short-circuits the rebelling-against-authority attitude that I encounter in most new players. There is something about this finality that makes PC death more than an inconvenience for them - I don't know, maybe it taps into their own unconscious notions of their mortality. That said, it doesn't affect me because I have stopped buying FR products since they have done nothing to enhance my game play. |
Make the best use of the system that's there, then modify the mechanics that don't allow you to have the fun you are looking for. |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
Posted - 15 Nov 2020 : 00:52:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon
Yeah, shame about the wall. I liked it because it was a perfect alternative to the "heaven/hell" concept that a lot of players have and it short-circuits the rebelling-against-authority attitude that I encounter in most new players. There is something about this finality that makes PC death more than an inconvenience for them - I don't know, maybe it taps into their own unconscious notions of their mortality. That said, it doesn't affect me because I have stopped buying FR products since they have done nothing to enhance my game play.
In my case, I have a very different opinion about the Wall. It doesn't only feels as if the designers wanted to force their religious ideologies to their clients, but also their design ideas. "If you didn't like the gods we designed for this game, then we are going to inconvenience you". And, as you point it, hearkens back to the "DM vs players" vibe I didn't like from AD&D.
It also present some inconveniences in-universe, making the all good gods seem as hypocrites who only care for themselves...
But well, the Wall was destroyed in my Realms since before 5e... |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6643 Posts |
Posted - 15 Nov 2020 : 00:55:15
|
I'm with Zeromaru. Just because some RW religions like the idea of salvation/sin and purgatory doesn't mean those concepts should feature in the Realms. Such uninspired writing and design.
-- George Krashos |
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7968 Posts |
Posted - 15 Nov 2020 : 01:33:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
I'm with Zeromaru. Just because some RW religions like the idea of salvation/sin and purgatory doesn't mean those concepts should feature in the Realms. Such uninspired writing and design.
Those ideas are also the backbone of Gygax's Outer Planes, along with Planescape and most of the other paradigms which followed.
"Upper Planes" filled with goodness, celestials, and nice stuff.
"Lower Planes" filled with evilness, fiends, and their eternally damned victims.
It makes little sense for the Realms to be structured around these ideas if the Realms is isolated from RW religious inspirations.
It makes more sense for the Realms to be structured around these ideas if they are fundamental building blocks of the cosmos. (Which appears to be why monster alignments, paladins, priests, and alignment-based magics exist.) |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 15 Nov 2020 01:35:40 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 15 Nov 2020 : 03:08:51
|
I once suggested that the Wall had another purpose... Keep in mind, this is just a thought I had, utterly unsupported by anything in Realmslore.
But... What if the Wall wasn't there as a punishment? What if the slow dissolution of souls provided energy/material that was directed elsewhere?
My original idea was inspired, IIRC, by a discussion of Tharizdun or something like him. What if his imprisonment required a constant source of energy? As the Faithless couldn't go to any deity's realm, why not use them for that source of power?
Or maybe you tweak the history of the Wall just a bit, and go with Krash's Lord of the End of Everything write-up -- maybe Jergal was behind the creation of the Wall (directly or indirectly) and he's siphoning that energy off in some other direction, entirely unnoticed...
Again, nothing in canon Realmslore even implies either of these things might be the case. It's just another case of me taking some existing thing and rotating it 90 degrees. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Azar
Master of Realmslore
1286 Posts |
Posted - 15 Nov 2020 : 04:30:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
If the Item has the same purpose as the current owner there is indeed a partnership. However they also tend to be boring.
There are two things to consider. An Item with a purpose/mission can not change, where as flesh creatures can change their goals. Some of those subservient appearing ones are not going to even contest a wielder doing what their purpose is.
Theoretically speaking, if an Intelligent item with a purpose is taken to a place where its purpose is inapplicable/nonexistent (e.g., a glaive that wants to "vanquish evil" is transported to Elysium), would it become dormant?
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
"Intelligent" items/weapons can have personalities and desires which are uncooperative, cantankerous, difficult.
Some attempt to mentally dominate and control their users. Some attempt to loyally serve their users. Some lack will or volition entirely. Some are annoyingly stubborn and opinionated. Some are garrulously outspoken. Some only speak when direct commanded to respond.
In most D&D games I've participated in and/or read about, it seems like there is a dichotomy with core (i.e., basic) intelligent weapons: either they're subservient or they're opinionated/domineering. There is no - at least from what I've gleaned - "the weapon views its wielder as a partner" equivalent result.
I did the partner thing for one of my Hooks, a while back: an animated, intelligent longsword that fought beside its partner.
The idea of an intelligent weapon that is entirely powerless without a wielder has never sat well with me. I can see why that would drive some intelligent weapons to dominate their wielders, but otherwise, it's not a gig I like.
You've given me some nuggets to munch on. For my upcoming game, I may have to create an Intelligent weapon that is looking for an equal instead of a servant or a master. I'm presently thinking that this will result in the classic "spirit trapped in the sword" scenario. |
Stand with anybody that stands right. Stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong.
Earth names in the Realms are more common than you may think. |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4685 Posts |
Posted - 15 Nov 2020 : 04:37:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
If the Item has the same purpose as the current owner there is indeed a partnership. However they also tend to be boring.
There are two things to consider. An Item with a purpose/mission can not change, where as flesh creatures can change their goals. Some of those subservient appearing ones are not going to even contest a wielder doing what their purpose is.
Theoretically speaking, if an Intelligent item with a purpose is taken to a place where its purpose is inapplicable/nonexistent (e.g., a glaive that wants to "vanquish evil" is transported to Elysium), would it become dormant?
An interesting question. My best guess would be the item would try to either find some evil there or do its best to get to a place where there is evil. I do not see any reason the item would go dormant even if there is no evil it can find, it would still be searching for it. |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 15 Nov 2020 : 04:49:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
I'm with Zeromaru. Just because some RW religions like the idea of salvation/sin and purgatory doesn't mean those concepts should feature in the Realms. Such uninspired writing and design.
-- George Krashos
Well, I wouldn't really compare it to heaven/hell and purgatory. Sure, some of the planes are very "heaven" or "hell" like (and you do have the Nine Hells, of course), and, depending on the god you follow, the afterlife you go to is going to be more "heavenly" or "hellish". This makes senses for something like the Realms. I'm glad there is an afterlife in the Realms. And it is not as the though the average Faerunian is going to be super religious (not in the way we think of the term), being polytheistic and paying homage to.various deities.
That said, I've never been a fan of the Wall. I think the Faithless should go to the plane bested suited to them, or serve some sort of penance (not necessarily punishment, just working in the City of Judgement for a time or something).
@Zeromaru: players and DMs are equally guilty of projecting stuff like that (atheists hating FR gods, even though it's fantasy, and on the flip side, religious folks either wanting to worship a RW religious figure in the game, or being offended there are fictional deities). Now, WotC seems to be going in the opposite direction they had been--pushing the gods away, and giving "options" for people who want to play a cleric or paladin, but don't want a god. This makes little sense to me, and is just as bothersome. I agree that the Wall sucks, and if they get rid of it, great, but I want an actual explanation. I've never really understood the hate people have for the FR gods (other than the Wall), regardless of their real world beliefs (or non beliefs). Dragons, magic, and other mythical beings are okay, but gods aren't? Not accusing you personally of doing this, but this seems to be a weird dichotomy that comes up when people discuss the gods of the Realms. Religion works great in fantasy, imho. But, I totally understand the dislike for the Wall. |
Sweet water and light laughter |
Edited by - CorellonsDevout on 15 Nov 2020 05:14:43 |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 15 Nov 2020 : 05:12:01
|
| Oh, I just thought of something, though I am not sure how much merit it has. The Wall was originally created by Myrkul, right? And Kelemvor tried to get rid of it, but wasn't allowed. I forgot why/who stopped him, but what if it was kept around (until recently, apparently) by Ao, as a way to keep balance? Gods benefit from having the souls of their followers in their realms as petitioners, and but since their power became more tied to worship, Ao didn't want then getting the "free souls" of those who had never had a patron deity. So instead of a faithless going where he was best suited, he got the Wall, and the Wall is as much a punishment to the gods themselves as it is to those who refuse to worship them? |
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
Posted - 15 Nov 2020 : 05:42:53
|
My only problem with FR gods are the Wall, and Mystra Sue and Cyric Stu. Specially Cyric Stu 
But I really like mythologies, so I enjoy the FR gods. But I also like coherence, and really the Wall is really incoherent within Realmslore. You don't need to actually punish "unbelievers" in a pantheistic/polytheistic religion. That's a Christian concept. Just look to Asian religions to see how that works...
|
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
Edited by - Zeromaru X on 15 Nov 2020 05:44:03 |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
Posted - 15 Nov 2020 : 05:45:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
Oh, I just thought of something, though I am not sure how much merit it has. The Wall was originally created by Myrkul, right? And Kelemvor tried to get rid of it, but wasn't allowed. I forgot why/who stopped him, but what if it was kept around (until recently, apparently) by Ao, as a way to keep balance? Gods benefit from having the souls of their followers in their realms as petitioners, and but since their power became more tied to worship, Ao didn't want then getting the "free souls" of those who had never had a patron deity. So instead of a faithless going where he was best suited, he got the Wall, and the Wall is as much a punishment to the gods themselves as it is to those who refuse to worship them?
This only works if we acknowledge Ao is an active force of Evil in the cosmos. |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 15 Nov 2020 : 06:05:57
|
If Myrkul created the Wall, what happened to Faithless when Jergal was in charge?
I find myself favoring my new idea that Jergal was pulling some shenanigans with souls, and that the whole "Myrkul did it!" was a bit of PR that Jergal had no issue with. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7968 Posts |
Posted - 15 Nov 2020 : 07:01:52
|
| Perhaps faithless/unaligned souls simply reincarnated back to the Realms. Another lifetime to discover or choose an eternal affinity. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Demzer
Senior Scribe
873 Posts |
Posted - 15 Nov 2020 : 15:39:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
If Myrkul created the Wall, what happened to Faithless when Jergal was in charge?
I find myself favoring my new idea that Jergal was pulling some shenanigans with souls, and that the whole "Myrkul did it!" was a bit of PR that Jergal had no issue with.
Considering that most human "faithlessness" happened during Jergal's time (Imaskar and Netheril, with the active rejection of worship of the intermediate to upper echelons of both societies), I agree with this.
Jergal was probably just using (whatever that means) all unclaimed souls and that's why from splitting his power we got two greater and an intermediate power and he still managed to stay at demigod level and just ... kind of hang around in the background?
The Wall thus acted as a scary punishment for few mortals and a check on the power of the god of the dead. |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
Posted - 15 Nov 2020 : 19:33:14
|
| But that still makes the Wall just a punishment of an evil god to faithless mortals rather than some thing necessary for the balance of the universe. And so, make the supposed gods of good a bunch of hypocrites. |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
Edited by - Zeromaru X on 15 Nov 2020 19:34:07 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7968 Posts |
Posted - 15 Nov 2020 : 21:26:37
|
Some pretty strong accusations in this context.
The Wall might be a necessary unpleasantness to help guide wayward souls. Sometimes parents have to punish their wayward children, demotivate unacceptable behaviour, motivate acceptable behaviour, but that doesn't make the parents "evil" and it doesn't make them "hypocrites".
The Wall does seem to be an unnecessary cruelty. Since the cosmos already sorts souls out to whatever eternal fates they deserve. The gods impose the Wall - or they at least permit it to continue existing, continue growing in power - and they don't attempt to explain why this is necessary (beyond the obvious result of making them more powerful). This suggests to me that while they may not be "evil" and may not be "hypocrites", they are "cruel" or they are "incompetent". They are an extreme example of bad parents. They don't correct bad behaviours, they don't encourage or stimulate good behaviours, they just drop a nuke on every little ant which strays from the path. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 16 Nov 2020 : 00:15:23
|
Meh, faith in a world like the Realms comes with benefits in life, not only in the afterlife. That's all the incentive mortals need to have faith (and for many people it would also be about personal belief or personal stories), no need to involve walls or whatever. The "punishment" for not having faith is no (or less) beneifts.
Moreover, faith doesn't even mean devoting yourself to one or a few gods, it just means praying to them. It's easy to picture nearly all people at some point being like "I have this problem, maybe X god will lend a hand. Let's try; where's the harm?" And if they receive help, maybe they'll leave a token or go to a shrine as thanks, but the act of praying would produce faith on its own. It's equally easy to picture nearly all people asking for assistance in their craft, work, or in an important matter, because the gods are real and might very well be listening, so where's the harm? A very cliché example would be farmers praying to Chauntea, receiving good crops, and deciding to celebrate her.
For that reason, aside from not liking the Wall, I've always wondered how it could even exist, given that only a handful of souls would go to it, and they would decompose over time. Where does this influx of faithless large enough to keep the wall constantly up comes from? |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 16 Nov 2020 00:21:39 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11691 Posts |
Posted - 16 Nov 2020 : 01:48:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I once suggested that the Wall had another purpose... Keep in mind, this is just a thought I had, utterly unsupported by anything in Realmslore.
But... What if the Wall wasn't there as a punishment? What if the slow dissolution of souls provided energy/material that was directed elsewhere?
My original idea was inspired, IIRC, by a discussion of Tharizdun or something like him. What if his imprisonment required a constant source of energy? As the Faithless couldn't go to any deity's realm, why not use them for that source of power?
Or maybe you tweak the history of the Wall just a bit, and go with Krash's Lord of the End of Everything write-up -- maybe Jergal was behind the creation of the Wall (directly or indirectly) and he's siphoning that energy off in some other direction, entirely unnoticed...
Again, nothing in canon Realmslore even implies either of these things might be the case. It's just another case of me taking some existing thing and rotating it 90 degrees.
Gods lying? What? Never!!  |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11691 Posts |
Posted - 16 Nov 2020 : 01:55:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
Oh, I just thought of something, though I am not sure how much merit it has. The Wall was originally created by Myrkul, right? And Kelemvor tried to get rid of it, but wasn't allowed. I forgot why/who stopped him, but what if it was kept around (until recently, apparently) by Ao, as a way to keep balance? Gods benefit from having the souls of their followers in their realms as petitioners, and but since their power became more tied to worship, Ao didn't want then getting the "free souls" of those who had never had a patron deity. So instead of a faithless going where he was best suited, he got the Wall, and the Wall is as much a punishment to the gods themselves as it is to those who refuse to worship them?
This only works if we acknowledge Ao is an active force of Evil in the cosmos.
Wait, you mean you think he's not an ultimately selfish bastard who tries to keep all the power and keep the gods at odds with one another so he can rule over them? I trust Ao has no interests except in how it serves his needs. I also think he's got his hands in a lot more pies than people think, and he's really good at hiding his cards. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11691 Posts |
Posted - 16 Nov 2020 : 02:00:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
If Myrkul created the Wall, what happened to Faithless when Jergal was in charge?
I find myself favoring my new idea that Jergal was pulling some shenanigans with souls, and that the whole "Myrkul did it!" was a bit of PR that Jergal had no issue with.
Considering that most human "faithlessness" happened during Jergal's time (Imaskar and Netheril, with the active rejection of worship of the intermediate to upper echelons of both societies), I agree with this.
Jergal was probably just using (whatever that means) all unclaimed souls and that's why from splitting his power we got two greater and an intermediate power and he still managed to stay at demigod level and just ... kind of hang around in the background?
The Wall thus acted as a scary punishment for few mortals and a check on the power of the god of the dead.
Now THAT is some interesting postulation. I do wonder how many of the Imaskari though actually didn't worship at all. I know the Imaskari thought they could become like gods.
Perhaps even Ao collected the power of anyone that didn't worship. He did seem to show a bit of favoritism to the Imaskari, seeing as how he allowed them to setup the Imaskari Godswall.
Which IF Ao does "feed" on the faithless... and the wall of the faithless is suddenly destroyed after a possible influx of Abeirans... did Ao just need some kind of power recharge? Just a thought, and the numbers going to the wall wouldn't normally be a lot... except again, after the spellplague when all those abeirans came over and refused to worship. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
Edited by - sleyvas on 16 Nov 2020 02:04:41 |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
Posted - 16 Nov 2020 : 04:32:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Some pretty strong accusations in this context.
The Wall might be a necessary unpleasantness to help guide wayward souls. Sometimes parents have to punish their wayward children, demotivate unacceptable behaviour, motivate acceptable behaviour, but that doesn't make the parents "evil" and it doesn't make them "hypocrites".
Well, I see the things this way. What happens if you insult Mystra? (Or any other god you want) Nothing. And this is canon, as any characters in the novels can insult a god without fear of a consequence.
Killing her followers? Nothing. The churches war with each other all the time.
What happens if you don't worship Mystra? Nothing, as long as you worship some other god.
What happens if you don't worship any of them? Your soul is mortared into the Wall until it is ground to dust for your crimes. And you are aware of the process from beginning to end.
And remember the Wall was made before Ao tied the gods fed off of mortal worship, so it was a punishment for a crime that had no consequence*. Choosing not to worship the Gods had about as much impact on your and the world's daily life as prefering coffee over tea. And yet, it is punished. There are far greater insults you can give the Gods, and no special punishment for them, but if you choose not to take part in the rituals of worship, if you chose to not pray, if you choose to not revere any god at all.... that is what gets a special horrific punishment?
It simply breaks logic, it doesn't make sense, and it leads to so many problems of consistency in Reamslore. And I'm going to talk about how this feels hostile to atheist in the real world...
*Although it seems to be a contradiction here, as both Planescape and the OGB describe the gods as needing the worship for their powers and stuff before the ToT... which makes the ToT a nonsense as well. |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
Edited by - Zeromaru X on 16 Nov 2020 04:41:11 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 16 Nov 2020 : 05:20:37
|
Honestly, the part about tying divine strength to their worship being a result of the ToT simply doesn't make sense -- because we know deities had dwindled away from a lack of worship before.
Personally, I prefer to spin it as Ao changed the formula, so it made deities pay more attention to their followers. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Delnyn
Senior Scribe
USA
889 Posts |
Posted - 16 Nov 2020 : 05:32:45
|
| I wondered if in the distant past Ahriman was present in Realmsspace and was the original devourer of Faithless souls. In that case, would the Wall be the way the Elder gods such as Jergal denied Ahriman the Faithless souls? |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 16 Nov 2020 : 10:59:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Delnyn
I wondered if in the distant past Ahriman was present in Realmsspace and was the original devourer of Faithless souls. In that case, would the Wall be the way the Elder gods such as Jergal denied Ahriman the Faithless souls?
Possible, but it seems there would have been other options aside from "we're gonna torture you until you dissolve." |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Delnyn
Senior Scribe
USA
889 Posts |
Posted - 16 Nov 2020 : 12:11:01
|
Wooly,
You raised the perfect point. I would not be in the least bit surprised if "younger" deities such as Torm, Deneir and Eldath asked that question. Here is where I spark the debate:
Until "after the Dawn Cataclysm", I would expect the gods, even so called good gods, to regard mortals as assets and commodities. Consider Chauntea as a classic example. In the 1300 and 1400's DR, she had that image of a nuruting mother. In the Days of Netheril when she was worshipped as Jannath, her image was much closer to Silvanus, and cared more for trees than humans.
The gods were not necessarily hostile to mortals as much as indifferent. They probably thought of the Wall less as a punishment and more a recycling bin. After all, the souls in the Wall did dissolve after a long time.
Keep in mind the passage of time means nothing to immortals, especially deities. The pantheon at the time in fact may have thought of the wall as giving mortals second, third, as many chances as possible to "get it right". From that immortal point of view, a 1,000 years of torment in the Wall is nothing more than a "timeout" given to a disruptive child.
I bet the mortal perspectives only became possible when mortals ascended into the pantheon. Going on a limb, I would claim Torm was the first deity to truly bring compassion and regard for mortals into the pantheon. It is recognized he is an ascended mortal paladin, even if he is tight-lipped about his mortal origins.
Alternate perspectives are welcome. In some aspects, I hope I am wrong. Deities that always were deities just do not and can not understand mortals.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Delnyn
I wondered if in the distant past Ahriman was present in Realmsspace and was the original devourer of Faithless souls. In that case, would the Wall be the way the Elder gods such as Jergal denied Ahriman the Faithless souls?
Possible, but it seems there would have been other options aside from "we're gonna torture you until you dissolve."
|
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11691 Posts |
Posted - 16 Nov 2020 : 14:58:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Honestly, the part about tying divine strength to their worship being a result of the ToT simply doesn't make sense -- because we know deities had dwindled away from a lack of worship before.
Personally, I prefer to spin it as Ao changed the formula, so it made deities pay more attention to their followers.
Very much agreed. He just changed the methods of measurement. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
SCAG Errata--the Wall
