67 replies to this topic

[Surtr]

A Netherese deity of order and the sun, Amanautor was also revered as a patron of law and time. The justice he dealt was always harsh but emenitely fair. Amanautor was a careful and meticulous deity who made certain that every agreement was written down, contracted, signed, sealed, and witnessed. When Netheril fell, Amanautor was largely abandoned by the common folk because the believed that he had done nothing to prevent the disaster. Some religious scholars insist that Amauntor died, but others (noteable the sunmasters of Lathander's church) argue that he was reborn as Lathander. Still others believe he survives as the vengeful Bedine deity known as At'ar the Merciless.

Don't know how clear or true this infomation is, but it seems that Amanautor's fate is somewhat unknown to the scholars.


Oh, what for a deity is the better one for Ariena: Malar or Garagos?
I personally vote for Malar.

[Deathsangel]

I am very much in doubt. Though Malar is some parts better than Garagos, the problem is that Ariena at some parts will kick against some other parts of Malar's interests. Will a god have a problem with that, if the worshipper is no cleric that is?

[Andyr]

The deity probably wouldn't care if a non-Priest follower is not an always an exemplar of their ideals.

[Deathsangel]

Any other votes which god is better?

A bit OT: Also a time-line question. Did Thay already exist 500 - 800 year ago?

[oralpain]

Any other votes which god is better?

A bit OT: Also a time-line question. Did Thay already exist 500 - 800 year ago?

I think Malar is a bit too wilderness oriented. Personally, I'm don't even think she needs to really worship anyone, but out of the two I think Garagos would fit a bit better. If she really needs a god, one of violent revenge would might suit her the best.

No. Thay is only about 400 years old.

[Deathsangel]

Any other votes which god is better?

A bit OT: Also a time-line question. Did Thay already exist 500 - 800 year ago?

I think Malar is a bit too wilderness oriented. Personally, I'm don't even think she needs to really worship anyone, but out of the two I think Garagos would fit a bit better. If she really needs a god, one of violent revenge would might suit her the best.

No. Thay is only about 400 years old.

Problem with no god is that someone ends upon the wall of the faithless. Ariena is also NE, because she is very self-centered and because though she is a more of a loner she sees strength in number and in being backed-up by a higher power.

[oralpain]

Problem with no god is that someone ends upon the wall of the faithless. Ariena is also NE, because she is very self-centered and because though she is a more of a loner she sees strength in number and in being backed-up by a higher power.

Wall of the faithless?

Also, faith and belief are two different things. There are priests out there who are granted spells/power that have very little or no faith. You don't need faith to believe when you have proof.

[Deathsangel]

Every person on Toril that believes in no god, alike Valygar (that is why he is somewhat strange, ends upon the wall of the faithless in Kelemvor's realm.

I'm not good enough in english to understand your second parth. Do you mean faith as in a form of hope.

[oralpain]

Faith is basically belief and trust, without the need for proof/evidence.

Belief can come from faith, or it can come from observation/experience/fact.

In the real world, belief in a divine being(s) requires faith. This is not so with the AD&D game. Gods talk to people, they grant spells to devout followers, they send avatars, they are proveable, often in a direct fashion. Faith is not needed to acknowledge their existance.

I'm basically saying that in the D&D multiverse, there are many people who have belief in the various powers, but do not have faith in them.

I'm not exactly sure how the situation works with regard to faith vs. belief in the forgotten realms, but I find it very odd that worship (as opposed to acknowledegment) would be required to avoid this "wall of faithless".

Edited by oralpain, 02 May 2005 - 03:07 AM.

[NiGHTMARE]

Amaunator's death was not necessarily linked with the Dawn Cataclysm.

Though this topic has been debated a lot at WotC boards...

I'm not saying that his death is linked with the Dawn Cataclysm, rather that his death must have happened before and not after the Dawn Cataclysm.

Faith is basically belief and trust, without the need for proof/evidence.

I'd say that if the deity has been proven to exist, faith in him or her becomes loyalty and trust. Besides, just because you know someone exists, doesn't mean you can't also believe in them. Have you never heard of someone who's about to attempt some difficult task, and another person wishes them well with "I believe in you?"

I find it very odd that worship (as opposed to acknowledegment) would be required to avoid this "wall of faithless".

When someone in the Realms dies, their soul travels to the "fugue plain", where they wait around until servants of the god they worshipped come along to pick them up and take them to that deity's plane.

If they didn't worship a deity in life, they pretended to worship a deity but didn't hold to that deity's ideals, or they some betrayed their god, eventually the servants of Kelemvor (originally Jergal, then Myrkul, and then Cyric) will come along and escort them to the City of the Dead, where they are judged by Kelemvor and sentenced according to how they lived their lives.

When Kelemvor first took over, good people got treated well and evil people harshly, but the other gods forced him to adopt a more neutral approch.

Edited by NiGHTMARE, 02 May 2005 - 04:18 AM.

[Deathsangel]

Nightmare you are knowledgable on the Wall of the Faithless can you help in the discussion of me and oralpain, which is On Topic

[NiGHTMARE]

There's some discussion on the False & the Faithless here.

If a person only pays token lip service to one or more deities but breaks the ideals of those gods (e.g. a corrupt guardsman who attends services in a temple of Tyr), he'll be considered one of the False after he dies.

Edited by NiGHTMARE, 02 May 2005 - 04:24 AM.

[oralpain]

Faith is basically belief and trust, without the need for proof/evidence.

I'd say that if the deity has been proven to exist, faith in him or her becomes loyalty and trust. Besides, just because you know someone exists, doesn't mean you can't also believe in them. Have you never heard of someone who's about to attempt some difficult task, and another person wishes them well with "I believe in you?"

If you know someone exists, belief in their existance is a given. You can also have faith and trust in that person of course, but it's far from necissary to ackowledge their existance. Thats all I was saying.

If they didn't worship a deity in life, they pretended to worship a deity but didn't hold to that deity's ideals, or they some betrayed their god, eventually the servants of Kelemvor (originally Jergal, then Myrkul, and then Cyric) will come along and escort them to the City of the Dead, where they are judged by Kelemvor and sentenced according to how they lived their lives.

What about the case of someone who had nothing to do with the gods, someone who acknowledged their existance, but did not claim to worship anyone of them? What if this persons actions happend to follow the ideas of a particular god or group of gods?

Also, what is the downside to this wall of faithless? In the case where someone truely lacks belief in dieties and thier powers or has an active disdain for them, threat of ending up on this wall will mean nothing. The former group won't believe in the existance of the wall and the latter group would rather face the wall than bow to will of some medling diety. Is it only a deturrent for those who were faithful, but have now strayed?

From what I've seen so far I don't like the changes made to the FR since the end of 2nd edition, or even since the end of 1st edition. Keeps getting more and more disconnected from the rest of the multiverse and more overpowered/absurd in general.

The current setup with Ao as a supreme overgod and the existance of a wall of faithless seems to have been added to simply maked D&D more friendly to real world monotheisim.

Edited by oralpain, 02 May 2005 - 06:39 PM.

[NiGHTMARE]

If you know someone exists, belief in their existance is a given. You can also have faith and trust in that person of course, but it's far from necissary to ackowledge their existance. Thats all I was saying.

What I was saying is that belief is far more than merely an acknowledgement of someone or something's existence. It also means "the mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another".

What about the case of someone who had nothing to do with the gods, someone who acknowledged their existance, but did not claim to worship anyone of them? What if this persons actions happend to follow the ideas of a particular god or group of gods?

After you die, your final destination is generally one of two places - the domain of your god, or the City of the Dead. If you don't have a god, the City of the Dead will almost certainly be where you end up. However, Tanar'ri and Baatezu both have a habit of launching raides on the fugue plain and abducting unclaimed souls before Kelemvor's servants can arrive to help them move on to the City...

Once in the City of the Dead, souls are allowed to call out to any one of the gods, and attempt to persuade said god to adopt them and bring them to their realm. If they lived their life in a way that's compatible with the god's dogma (e.g. a heroic and brave warrior tries to persuade Torm to adopt him), chances are it'll work - though good gods are generally more accepting than evil gods.

Also, what is the downside to this wall of faithless? In the case where someone truely lacks belief in dieties and thier powers or has an active disdain for them, threat of ending up on this wall will mean nothing. The former group won't believe in the existance of the wall and the latter group would rather face the wall than bow to will of some medling diety. Is it only a deturrent for those who were faithful, but have now strayed?

If you've strayed from your faith you'll be one of the False, rather than one of the Faithless. In which case you'll be judged by Kelemvor, and sentenced to an existence that fits how you lived your life (there's no good/evil bias in his rulings, however). Typically you'll be sent to "live" and work in a certain part of the City of the Dead. You will be able to attempt to redeem yourself in some way, and if successful you'll be sent off to your god's realm.

BTW personally I think anyone who refuses to acknowledge the existence of gods in a world were clerics and paladins go around casting divine spells, there was great mayhem when the gods were cast down a few years ago, etc, etc to be rather intellectually challenged to say the least. Same goes for anyone who would prefer to spend all eternity trapped in a wall, rather than live their brief life in accordance with the tenets of a deity and his church .

From what I've seen so far I don't like the changes made to the FR since the end of 2nd edition, or even since the end of 1st edition. Keeps getting more and more disconnected from the rest of the multiverse and more overpowered/absurd in general.

As far as I know, this afterlife system has been around since the Forgotten Realms was first invented, or at least shortly afterwards. Certainly 1st Edition had a god of the dead, Myrkul, and Kelemvor came to power during the very first year of 2nd Edition.

The current setup with Ao as a supreme overgod and the existance of a wall of faithless seems to have been added to simply maked D&D more friendly to real world monotheisim.

The "current setup"? Ao has been around since the Realms were invented in the mid 80's, and the Wall of the Faithless since at least the early nineties, probably earlier.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion anyway - if they had made Ao the only god and had everyone start worshipping him, with all the other gods becoming merely angels and demons then I would agree. But since there are still dozens if not hundreds of other gods, and Ao specifically doesn't want any mortal worshippers and does his best to distance himself from them, I'm afraid I don't.

Edited by NiGHTMARE, 03 May 2005 - 02:41 AM.

[oralpain]

The current setup with Ao as a supreme overgod and the existance of a wall of faithless seems to have been added to simply maked D&D more friendly to real world monotheisim.

The "current setup"? Ao has been around since the Realms were invented in the mid 80's, and the Wall of the Faithless since at least the early nineties, probably earlier.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion anyway - if they had made Ao the only god and had everyone start worshipping him, with all the other gods becoming merely angels and demons then I would agree. But since there are still dozens if not hundreds of other gods, and Ao specifically doesn't want any mortal worshippers and does his best to distance himself from them, I'm afraid I don't.

Also, The Wall of the Faithless has been around since at least the early nineties

I was aware that Ao had been part of the realms almost since its conception, but except for the time of troubles, he seemed to do fairly little untill the end of 2E. It's his more active roll I have the problem with not his existance/status.

This thread is the first time I've heard of the wall of the faithless.

Most every campaign setting or pantheon has a god of the dead, but as far as I know the FR system is the only one that totaly supersceeds the more standard (planescape) system for what happens to beings that die.

Edited by oralpain, 03 May 2005 - 02:43 AM.

[NiGHTMARE]

Other than the Time of Troubles, I haven't heard of Ao doing anything that directly affects mortal.

The earliest reference to the Wall of the Faithless I know of is in the 1993 novel "Prince of Lies", but it may well have been invented earlier.

[oralpain]

Is the wall mentioned in any game products (non novels) before the year 2000?

[NiGHTMARE]

Yep, page 3 of 1996's Faith & Avatars for one.

[Deathsangel]

What about the case of someone who had nothing to do with the gods, someone who acknowledged their existance, but did not claim to worship anyone of them? What if this persons actions happend to follow the ideas of a particular god or group of gods?

After you die, your final destination is generally one of two places - the domain of your god, or the City of the Dead. If you don't have a god, the City of the Dead will almost certainly be where you end up. However, Tanar'ri and Baatezu both have a habit of launching raides on the fugue plain and abducting unclaimed souls before Kelemvor's servants can arrive to help them move on to the City...

Once in the City of the Dead, souls are allowed to call out to any one of the gods, and attempt to persuade said god to adopt them and bring them to their realm. If they lived their life in a way that's compatible with the god's dogma (e.g. a heroic and brave warrior tries to persuade Torm to adopt him), chances are it'll work - though good gods are generally more accepting than evil gods.

Due to this post I reckon Ariena will be quite agnostic and will pay minimum lip service, if so it will be to either Malar or Garagos.

[NiGHTMARE]

Many people in the Realms pay lip service to multiple gods (with the god they worship the most being their "patron deity"); for example, it's fairly common for Red Wizards to try to appease as many as a dozen gods. Since Malar and Garagos are not enemies, Ariena could easily pay tribute to both.

Edited by NiGHTMARE, 04 May 2005 - 05:37 AM.