AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

Dead wrote:

Here is a big question and a suggestion.

The faithless in FR get stuck in The Wall if they die without a patron deity or if another pact is sealed. In FR atheism is extremely rare as I understand it, and upon Amia I am seeing more and more people getting faithless, mainly because they have no idea of this dire penalty. Why is this penalty not a case on Amia? It's cannon lore and it should be highly encouraged.

If not, what is the official ruling?

jimbono1 wrote:

I am somewhat agreed with this. There should be more penalties for those who do not follow a God. It can only serve to promote more religious RP too. Get more people involved in Churches and the like. Sure it maybe unfair to people who don't like Gods, but when was the world ever fair.

EDIT: I would just like to add that as a penalty, Permadeath maybe a bit too harsh, but maybe higher Gold/XP loss as a result could work.

How about this?

Playing a faithless myself (and having been aware of that subtle bit of lore), the threat of enforced perma-death wouldn't really motivate me to well, break character and pick a deity. But I'm not really keen on having to perma my character every time he trips and gets gored by a random spawn or a bad day in PvP. If it gets ruled that we're following the lore here (nevermind that raise scrolls as they are, respawns and the absence of enforced perma-death outside of special DMy circumstances aren't really lore-appropriate either - death in the game is just really a bit of a lore-mess). At most I'll pick a throwaway deity with absolutely minimal investment and then continue on as if nothing changed. It's not that I can't perma my character, I'd just rather not do so unless dramatically appropriate (which does fill a broad category but "and then one day he was out killing giants, lagged out, and thus the epic tale came to a sudden end in the middle of Act 2" doesn't sit well with me).

So, I really don't think it's worth enforcing this, personally.

Well, I would consider it to have impact only after a period of several days. Souls aren't judged immediately upon death, just like they aren't taken to their patrons' planes right away.

The same should apply to the False equally well, but you aren't determined False until the bureaucracy has time to get to you. How could it be immediate for the Faithless, then?

Respawning doesn't make any sense unless it's assumed your character almost died and limped away to fight another day. Actually being killed and brought back by a Raise Dead scroll, etc, is a different story, and 'I don't like this rule so I'm going to ignore it' breaks immersion and paints a wildly different picture for all of the characters who have realized just how important it is to have faith in the Realms.

"I follow Kelemvor because if I don't, I won't come back! I want to come back."

"Oh really? You're an idiot, you can come back even if you're an Atheist."

"I guess I am!"

I think I'd like to see a legitimate reason that Amia is different from the rest of the Forgotten Realms if we don't implement a system for this. And I don't think we should implement a system for permadeathing anyone who's faithless. There are to many people who decided they want to be cool and ironic by not following a god in a setting where the gods are relevant and reward you as opposed to reality where it's far more ambiguous. (Or they didn't see an appropriate faith for that character, I'unno)

A real reason would be nice though. Jergal is probably pissed.

Last edited by IronAngel on Sun, Sep 09 2012, 19:50 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Amia is not different. This is how it works everywhere. Just like if we make spell balance changes we don't assume there's an IC anomaly in the weave localized around the areas that Amia's module just happens to encompass.

I think I already gave a good IC reason why it is so. The PnP rule never made sense in the first place, considering it's specifically stated people aren't judged immediately after death. There's a line. If you're raised while you're still waiting in the line, it doesn't matter if you're a saint, False, or Faithless. And in Amia, raising happens immediately on the battlefield so there's no issue. If you want to bring your PC back after a long time and need DM help, then you might be out of luck.

I think it's misleading to paint a picture of a world where faith is based on the theory of what happens after death. People don't worship gods because they've just heard the news that Kelemvor has this Wall he puts people into. People worship gods because they're gods. It's easy for players to distance themselves from the setting and evaluate the costs and benefits, but that's now the common man would experience the divine.

IronAngel wrote:

Amia is not different. This is how it works everywhere. Just like if we make spell balance changes we don't assume there's an IC anomaly in the weave localized around the areas that Amia's module just happens to encompass.

I think I already gave a good IC reason why it is so. The PnP rule never made sense in the first place, considering it's specifically stated people aren't judged immediately after death. There's a line. If you're raised while you're still waiting in the line, it doesn't matter if you're a saint, False, or Faithless. And in Amia, raising happens immediately on the battlefield so there's no issue. If you want to bring your PC back after a long time and need DM help, then you might be out of luck.

People don't come back because a spell crosses the distance and teleports them back into their bodies. The "Raise Dead" spell is more akin to a request that asks a God to return a specific soul to life. Without a God in question who is interested in doing that, the spell doesn't work. That's why the book says you require the intervention of another deity (or titanically powerful arcane magic) to bring the faithless back to life (IE, Wish or Miracle).

EDIT: Haha, you and your ninja edits.

I'm speaking purely about adventurers, for whom dying and coming back is a regular occurrence. Even purported atheists amongst them would be weeded out by the prospect of not coming back at all, hence paying at least lip service to the guy who would keep you there eternally seems prudent.

Yes, but that's inconsistent. That would mean you can't raise someone before they've been taken to their afterlife, and that takes a week or so. If you haven't even been claimed by a deity yet, they certainly wouldn't intervene on your behalf. They probably don't even know you exist.

I think it's safe to say the sensible interpretation of Raise Dead is that the god of the cleric performs the action. It's that deity that the deceased gets to identify and choose whether he wants to be raised or not. Yeah, there may be some instances where it seems the god of the deceased is the one that determines success. But considering we have the facts of how the spell actually works and we have a perfectly plausible explanation, I don't see why need to make it more difficult. Either way it's clear there won't be a consistent canon answer.

IronAngel wrote:

Yes, but that's inconsistent. That would mean you can't raise someone before they've been taken to their afterlife, and that takes a week or so. If you haven't even been claimed by a deity yet, they certainly wouldn't intervene on your behalf. They probably don't even know you exist.

No.

"Of more concern to most adventurers, a character who dies without a patron deity cannot be raised from the dead by any mortal means short of a miracle or wish. When such a character dies, he is considered one of the Faithless, and his soul is used to form part of the wall around the realm of Kelemvor, the god of the dead. Mortal action cannot reverse this fate, so unless the character's friends can arrange direct intervention by another deity ( or expend a miracle or wish, spells symbolizing intervention by another deity), that character is unlikely to return to life."

This is a direct quote from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. Whether you're waiting in line or actually part of the wall is irrelevant, the important part is that they are retrieved by the god they've selected to worship, and without one they're left alone. I don't know where you're getting this "waiting period" stuff, nor does anything in the book support it. Not to mention that time is relative on other planes, so while you may feel like the line takes an eternity, rest assured when your compatriots get around to raising you 5 minutes later, you're brick and mortar.

IronAngel wrote:

I think it's safe to say the sensible interpretation of Raise Dead is that the god of the cleric performs the action. It's that deity that the deceased gets to identify and choose whether he wants to be raised or not.

The caster makes the request, their god empowers the question, the god of the deceased retrieves the soul and delivers it. It couldn't be clearer.

I'm just going to wait half an hour to reply to everything you post so I can be sure you've gotten all your thoughts in.

Last edited by IronAngel on Sun, Sep 09 2012, 20:14 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Every soul waits for their god to retrieve them, correct? They're not instantly swooped to Arvandor or wherever, they hang around the Fugue. "In line", or just wandering its plains. When the god comes to retrieve his retainers, he may judge some of them False and leave them behind to go to eternal torment, right? Now then, the Faithless are a case of souls no god ever comes to retrieve. Common sense says they can't immediately go to the Wall because Kelemvor doesn't know yet if some god will claim them. (And yes, we must grant for the possibility that gods have free will to claim souls that seem Faithless at first but on closer inspection can be said to revere them in some way; in fact, retainers mean power so I would imagine they outright fight over the right to claim undecided souls.) So until this determination is made, until the gods make their choice and Kelemvor sorts out those who're left, all the freshly arrived souls in the Fugue are probably one mixed crowd. At that point, it makes perfect sense that you're still able to raise souls who haven't gone to the Wall or the City to be tormented yet.

And if you insist there are two gods at work, then it seems believable that Kelemvor (or each race's respective god of the dead) is the one who agrees to send back those who're yet to be claimed and judged.

We can grant that time is relative on the planes if we need to. But our goal is to explain why things work how they work in our setting, and will continue to work in the future. I don't see how it's productive to complicate the issue when everybody knows there won't be a mechanical raise block to "Faithless" PCs (a distinction that can't even be mechanically detected in all cases).

Haha, sometimes I get up from bed fourty minutes later to edit something in, so just post away. >_>

IronAngel wrote:

The PnP rule never made sense in the first place, considering it's specifically stated people aren't judged immediately after death. There's a line. If you're raised while you're still waiting in the line, it doesn't matter if you're a saint, False, or Faithless. And in Amia, raising happens immediately on the battlefield so there's no issue.

All of that sounds pretty irrelevant considering that a raise dead spell doesn't function without a god. If you're faithless, that god wouldn't bother wasting its efforts on you. It stands to gain nothing. In the Forgotten Realms people do not get brought back without a faith. Period. So either Amia needs a reason to be distinct or a system needs to be worked out.

The expediency of the resurrection has absolutely nothing to do with weather or not the god will allow it. Divine Magic is all given to you by your god. It's not the same as if you'd casted an arcane spell and were doing stuff to screw with the weave yourself. You're talking about magic come with conditional, possibly ritualistic requirements. Clerics have to pray for their spells at certain times of the day.

It's not dependent on anything barring weather or not the god will allow it, unfortunately.

IronAngel wrote:

(And yes, we must grant for the possibility that gods have free will to claim souls that seem Faithless at first but on closer inspection can be said to revere them in some way; in fact, retainers mean power so I would imagine they outright fight over the right to claim undecided souls.)

Actually, Kelemvor can overrule another gods decision on followers if he thinks they're false or faithless. Why do you think Mystra left him?

Bob, I don't see your point. The spell is a favor granted by the patron of the priest casting it. That in and of itself says nothing about the patron (or lack thereof) of the target being raised. You might as well say a Torm has no more reason to raise a follower of Bane than a Faithless man, but still it's a possibility his priests have. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Yes, it can be argued that the patron of the deceased has some role to play, too, but no source states that directly.

And no, I can say with 99% certainty that whatever answer the DMs choose to decide upon, there will be no difference between Amia as a geographical region and the rest of the Realms. If things work one way on the island, they work that way all across Toril. The technicalities of magic and the divine are the kind of things DMs will determine at whim and we'll all adjust to the fact "that's how it's always been" to our characters. I wouldn't hold your breath for an answer that presupposes regional differences in the rules of magic and death.

Mind that I'm not looking for the original, most likely canon answer here. I'm explaining why things are the way they de facto are in our setting, in a way that's lorewise believable and consistent.

The argument you're making hinges on an unsupported assumption that this "fact checking" takes any time at all. When you're dead, there's no miscommunication or error (unless the DMs want there to be, I suppose!). Kelemvor knows where you're supposed to go, and you go there. He's the judge.

You're also still assuming that using Raise Dead spells or the like doesn't involve the deity of the deceased. They do, they're specifically stated that they do, and it's specifically stated the consequences if you don't have one (you stay dead unless Miracle or Wish are employed).

We can go back and forth about mechanical differences all you like. Ways in which the mechanics of this game don't support RP outcomes (when no DMs are on or paying attention to you!); for instance how Paladins can perform evil acts and not get instantly fallen, or wizards can cast Hellball in a Library only to see nothing change about their environments ("My Hellball must be broken! Hm!"), or the like. But I think instead we're all working toward a RP experience that involves using the tools we have at hand (NWN) to replicate an immersive, complete Faerun experience rather than just justifying everything lying around 'because it works.'

bobofwestoregonusa wrote:

Actually, Kelemvor can overrule another gods decision on followers if he thinks they're false or faithless. Why do you think Mystra left him?

How is that in contradiction with what I said? If the souls can be interpreted to be followers of a certain god, then those gods will argue for their case infront of the impartial judge that Kelemvor is. However strict his judgements, it seems uncharacteristic that they would happen before a trial.

And even then we're only talking about humans, here. Other races are probably not subject to Kelemvor's rules at all, even if the FRCS and F&P are written from that perspective. It's a anthropocentric bias of human game designers not to be taken as the final truth.

IronAngel wrote:

And even then we're only talking about humans, here. Other races are probably not subject to Kelemvor's rules at all, even if the FRCS and F&P are written from that perspective. It's a anthropocentric bias of human game designers not to be taken as the final truth.

I'll agree that it's vague, but for certain pantheons that don't have gods of death (The Drow Pantheon comes to mind), assuming that they handle their own is a bigger assumption than assuming that they leave the work to Kelemvor. I mean, the last guy who did his job was a bug, do you think he was racist too?

CouncilofAutumn wrote:

*Zip*

Yes, I'm making those assumptions: the judging is not instantaneous, and until the soul has left for its final resting place the Raise process is simple and easier in that it doesn't involve the god who's claimed the soul.

Those assumptions aren't necessarily true. But they're necessary to explaining what actually happens in our setting. Perhaps you could argue it shouldn't happen the way it does, but I think it's realistic to assume Raise Dead is going to continue working as it has until now. (The hypothetical change would be an Improving Amia topic, anyway.) I foresee no actual benefit from scripting a block to those who don't use the imperfect and optional Deity System, and I highly doubt it's ever going to happen. You're only going to create awkward inconsistencies if you intend to hold onto a PnP claim that is empirically untrue in the world we play.

If ever the designers do change the way Raise Dead works in the Faithless, we'll retcon our characters' experiences and accept what we see. But until then, I see a believable explanation of the status quo to be the only reasonable option.

IronAngel wrote:

CouncilofAutumn wrote:

*Zip*

Yes, I'm making those assumptions: the judging is not instantaneous, and until the soul has left for its final resting place the Raise process is simple and easier in that it doesn't involve the god who's claimed the soul.

Those assumptions aren't necessarily true. But they're necessary to explaining what actually happens in our setting. Perhaps you could argue it shouldn't happen the way it does, but I think it's realistic to assume Raise Dead is going to continue working as it has until now. (The hypothetical change would be an Improving Amia topic, anyway.) I foresee no actual benefit from scripting a block to those who don't use the imperfect and optional Deity System, and I highly doubt it's ever going to happen. You're only going to create awkward inconsistencies if you intend to hold onto a PnP claim that is empirically untrue in the world we play.

If ever the designers do change the way Raise Dead works in the Faithless, we'll retcon our characters' experiences and accept what we see. But until then, I see a believable explanation of the status quo to be the only reasonable option.

I hear you when you say that we should just accept it because it works. I hope you read the rest of what I said, about how people can do things without DM supervision in other areas and enjoy freedom from those consequences as well. How do you justify the fact that you can cast Meteor Swarm in a town, with NPCs and buildings all around, and watch precisely nothing happen to the environment because of it? Is there a justification for that? There should be a balance between what is accepted because it works in the system, and what is refused because it doesn't make sense or isn't supported.

CouncilofAutumn wrote:

Respawning doesn't make any sense unless it's assumed your character almost died and limped away to fight another day. Actually being killed and brought back by a Raise Dead scroll, etc, is a different story, and 'I don't like this rule so I'm going to ignore it' breaks immersion and paints a wildly different picture for all of the characters who have realized just how important it is to have faith in the Realms.

That's a pretty weak justification for respawns given that you are definitely dead, and if you were killed by a death spell you're not limping away from that. In fact, if you were killed by a Death spell you can't be raised with anything short of Resurrection anyway, and I guess everyone aware of it who doesn't check is ignoring the rules in the same way. It seems a bit of a double standard to me.

Aside from that I'm in agreement with Iron about the judging period, and I agree that the "you need to have a deity to be raised" makes no sense at all and is only there because the FRCS says so. It's pretty inconsistent when yeah, a cleric can raise even a follower of their deity's enemy, or cast any other spell on a faithless with no problems. I guess we can just accept it regardless and like I said, me being someone who would actually be affected by this, totally okay with it (though I resent the assertions that I must be a hipster/playing the game wrong because my character had a perfectly legitimate reaction to deities), but it just seems pointless and a double-standard.

I'm all for any and all punishments/difficulties for those silly faithless.

serbiris wrote:

That's a pretty weak justification for respawns given that you are definitely dead, and if you were killed by a death spell you're not limping away from that. In fact, if you were killed by a Death spell you can't be raised with anything short of Resurrection anyway, and I guess everyone aware of it who doesn't check is ignoring the rules in the same way. It seems a bit of a double standard to me.

The alternative is that if you're traveling alone and you respawn, you were raised by nothing at all. How does that even work? Did the Troglodytes feel nice that day and decide to put you back in Cordor rather than kill you forever, knowing you're just going to come back? I agree that lag deaths are bullshit. But there's zero justification that if you were killed by a race of malicious creatures in their home, they're ever going to let you leave, dead or otherwise.

serbiris wrote:

Aside from that I'm in agreement with Iron about the judging period, and I agree that the "you need to have a deity to be raised" makes no sense at all and is only there because the FRCS says so. It's pretty inconsistent when yeah, a cleric can raise even a follower of their deity's enemy, or cast any other spell on a faithless with no problems. I guess we can just accept it regardless and like I said, me being someone who would actually be affected by this, totally okay with it (though I resent the assertions that I must be a hipster/playing the game wrong because my character had a perfectly legitimate reaction to deities), but it just seems pointless and a double-standard.

I think we've all moved past the fact that no one can actually refute what I've said from a lore standpoint, and are fully moving on to the fact that people in this game can do things that their characters wouldn't be able to do in Tabletop (or with DM supervision).

And no, I have no problem with your character coming to those conclusions because there seems to be a system that supports him thinking that way. I'm not calling you stupid or anything. I just think we should take note of the fact that it isn't supposed to be that way.

Concerning the post before Serbiris's: That's true, but those are things of a somewhat different caliber. I think most importantly, if you do stuff like that without DM supervision you're already bordering on rules transgression. There's no reason not to assume that a meteor storm or earthquake you cast in a fight doesn't leave marks on the surroundings, and if you're witnessed doing it in town there probably will be consequences. I don't think Paladins would necessarily immediately Fall, either. It seems irrelevant to the theme and dedication of the class whether it happens automatically or a little later, as the guilt of your crime slowly creeps up to you. Now, if you're just breaking your code of conduct without reporting it to a DM you're being a bad sport, so I don't think that should count. All of these things may have consequences to the world and you when there's a DM to play that reaction.

But Raise Dead systematically works. (Personally, I don't even like that we grant the PnP option of not accepting a Raise, because it doesn't comply to the mechanisms of the game nor does it add any clear benefit to storytelling.) It doesn't just work on the off-chance nobody happens to be there to say otherwise.

But ultimately it boils down to what PnP details we want to incorporate and what we don't consider that important. The environmental effects of physical and magical on the world, or the accountability of the paladin, are rather integral to RP. Whether or not someone has clicked on an statue before getting returned from his daily trip to the Fugue seems less important, though it does have some implications. Those implications are just trivial compared to the awkward inconsistency of something that justifies the very existence of PCs on a daily basis.

As for respawn, it's never been IC and DMs have stated that repeatedly. It's one of those things we just can't get rid of but can't really give a perfect explanation to, either. It's not unreasonable to assume that you would lie dead for some time and another adventuring party dragged you a road where a travelling priest of Salandra had mercy. Or something equally creative. Most of the time it's probably best to RP PvM death as being incapacitated and surviving by the skin of your teeth.

I'm having a hard time arguing this point with you, since you're trying to stand on both sides.

You admit that there are things in this game that mechanically work but don't work in the system, IE casting spells that would destroy things in game that don't actually cause any damage, evil clerics raising the dead of good aligned people without their permission, etc.

But you also deny the fact that there is something wrong with things in this game that mechanically work but don't work in the system, IE raising the dead of the faithless without intensely powerful magic.

Pick an argument, stick with it, and I'll debate it with you.

IronAngel wrote:

It's that deity that the deceased gets to identify and choose whether he wants to be raised or not. Yeah, there may be some instances where it seems the god of the deceased is the one that determines success. But considering we have the facts of how the spell actually works and we have a perfectly plausible explanation, I don't see why need to make it more difficult. Either way it's clear there won't be a consistent canon answer.

IronAngel wrote:

But Raise Dead systematically works. (Personally, I don't even like that we grant the PnP option of not accepting a Raise, because it doesn't comply to the mechanisms of the game nor does it add any clear benefit to storytelling.) It doesn't just work on the off-chance nobody happens to be there to say otherwise.

Case in point.

IronAngel wrote:

(...) Most of the time it's probably best to RP PvM death as being incapacitated and surviving by the skin of your teeth.

Brief aside: is it the case that we can do this now? I recall debating the whole death vs. incapacitated in PvM thing some while (like, months to a year) ago and being told in no uncertain terms that if you are killed, you are killed and you shouldn't be RPing it as anything else; that the death screen is the final arbiter, essentially. (Which I still do not agree with and prefer to be able to use a thematic approach to let death maintain its impact.)

But I'm not convinced it "should" work one way or the other. The system is what we say it is. It may be surprising since I'm usually a stickler for lore, but I couldn't care less what we arbitrarily decide about the workings of magic or the metaphysics of the divine. It's ultimately just a way to facilitate the game, and I feel no compelling responsibility to adhere to PnP rules. They're quite seperate from the culture and history of the Realms that are really relevant to our characters. (Though I'm not denying that being able to be raised as a faithless has some implication; but it won't prolong your life past its natural point anyway, so you're still going to the Wall.)

The quoted part simply shows my determination to take what's true on Amia and explain it believably. I don't like that there's a rule about refusing raises, but it's allowed and empirically happens so I can't deny it either. So yes, it should be accounted for in the lore explanation.

Letum: I don't know who told you that, but several DMs including Nekh and myself were quite adamant that Respawn is not IC and that PvM death need not and probably should not be always RPed as real death. I recall Tormak may have disagreed. There's never been a posted rule about it, though, so feel free to pick whatever DM statement you wish I guess. Or post in the Unwritten Rules topic if you want to give up that freedom.

IronAngel wrote:

They're quite seperate from the culture and history of the Realms that are really relevant to our characters.

Okay. I'll come back later if someone else has a point to raise.

I have a point:

bobofwestoregonusa wrote:

In the Forgotten Realms people do not get brought back without a faith. Period. So either Amia needs a reason to be distinct or a system needs to be worked out.

*waits for the DMs*

To clarify on what I said before though (as Dead quoted) I would really prefer for there to be a reason for Amia be unique to this rule in the forgotten realms. That way instead of just living with ambiguities like the ones that Bioware gave us through their mechanics, we can just enjoy the game and know that the things we do happen and work for a reason.

I know being "an atheist" seems preferable in most cases to worshiping a god to a lot of people because it comes with no hassle from the god you worship because you don't. And I understand that some people just like the idea of a faithless character for the controversy it allows. But in the Forgotten Realms, faithless don't come back from the dead. A wish spell and certain other exceptions may exist. But divine magic will not do it. And a lot of people WILL pay gods lip service for this very reason. Hell, I think it even says that people do it for the furies all the time.

But I don't think we should punish people who want to play faithless characters with a mechanic. Role playing is one thing, but building your module to punish people for not filling out the deity form is to much.

So I would just prefer for there to be a reason that casting raise dead on the Faithless actually works.

I'm not sure what more reason you need than the explanations already given. Can you be more specific of what exactly you want? What kind of a "reason" are you looking for? The fact that it's pointless to mechanically enforce it with a script should be reason enough. I really don't see how it would be possibly preferable to you to leave the game mechanism as it is but enforce the RP that those people didn't actually get Raised. Do you just ignore their RP henceforth and pretend they're actually dead?

"In our Forgotten Realms people do get brought back with or without faith. Period." That's just how it is.

But just to comment on a lore point:

Quote:

And a lot of people WILL pay gods lip service for this very reason. Hell, I think it even says that people do it for the furies all the time.

I can't accept that as a serious explanation of religion in the Realms. Most people will never see or even hear of anyone being raised from the dead. This detail of game design is completely irrelevant to them. It's only relevant to rich and successful adventurers and heads of state. People worship gods simply because they're gods, and because they affect their lives every day. They don't revere the Furies because they want Raise Dead to work, they revere them so they won't drown or freeze to death or get torn apart by wolves. Afterlife factors into it, too. But the question of afterlife is just as compelling whether the Raise Dead rule exists or not. You can't be magically cured of old age, so everybody eventually dies and goes to their eternal resting place. That should be motivation enough to acknowledge the gods, if their sheer divinity and all-encompassing presence didn't convince you. The argument that the Raise Dead rule is somehow integral to Faerûnian religion and the way the setting works rests on a weak basis. It clearly is not a central motivation at all.

Furthermore, I preformed a search on my PDFs of the original, 1987 Forgotten Realms Campaign Set box and the 1993 revised Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (which is incidentally probably the best overview of the setting ever), and neither of them mention the Faithless. It seems to be a new invention that came to be with Kelemvor's reign. Yet there was no shortage of religious activity in the Realms before that. That should be evidence enough that faith isn't at all dependent on some restriction concerning a rare and expensive clerical spell.

I'm not really sure who these numerous Amian Faithless are and why they bother you so much. I don't remember seeing any, at least none so overt that they seem unbelievable and disruptive in the setting. It's not like there's some Faithless Association handing out flyers on Cordor Square. You're probably prying into people's religious beliefs if you come across this phenomenon frequently, and that means you too are unaware of the lore of the setting: as the original Campaign Set states, "it is often anaffront of the highest order to ask such information openly. Some people have been known to attack individuals inquiring as to their faith." That is a humorous way of saying you'll just get burned if you let things bother you too much. Sure, I'm annoyed too when it turns out my character knows more about different races and churches than characters actually part of those groups. It happens every day, and I want to scream at them and hammer their heads with books. But that would be breaking character, borderline metagaming and would embarrass people whose characters should know better than mine. If I tried to educate everyone and police everything, I'd lose whatever friends and fun I have here.

IronAngel wrote:

Furthermore, I preformed a search on my PDFs of the original, 1987 Forgotten Realms Campaign Set box and the 1993 revised Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (which is incidentally probably the best overview of the setting ever), and neither of them mention the Faithless.

Yeah, and the requirement to be a Bard back then were insane too. You have to have three other classes already just to do it. But we're not running first edition, nor are we running second edition. Hell, we're not even running flat third. We're running a 3.5 based world. The world is more fleshed out in 3.5 than it was in second edition. More books have been written, and not just rule books. Most of the Forgotten Realms lore comes from the novels. That's why so many of the gods in 3.5 are dead in 4e and will be in 5e. If you want to argue that the rules and laws set by the gods of that universe are invalid because they didn't exist 25 or 19 years ago (Those are the years of the books you quoted and that is probably why they aren't a valid source anymore, especially not for the setting we're in.) then be my guest, but that's like quoting a law that says we should cut off a man's hand for stealing a horse. That's harsh and no one rides horses anyway. So it's outdated, like the second edition rules, even if a lot of people loved how fighters had to use darts in order to be useful back then.

I honestly believe that the whole concept of the Faithless and the False and what their fates in the afterlife are, came as a direct result of several novels, not sourcebooks. It was created as storyline in the Avatar series by Richard Awlinson (Shadowdale, Tantras, and Waterdeep) and the one offs that followed that storyline, Prince of Lies by James Lowder, and Crucible: The Trial of Cyric the Mad.

As this detail was added in novels, published during the 2 ed era of gaming, after the source material had been released, it was not in the 1st or 2nd ed sourcebooks. When they updated the sourcebooks in 3rd ed, it was added to the sourcebooks to tie it all in.

IronAngel wrote:

Furthermore, I preformed a search on my PDFs of the original, 1987 Forgotten Realms Campaign Set box and the 1993 revised Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (which is incidentally probably the best overview of the setting ever), and neither of them mention the Faithless. It seems to be a new invention that came to be with Kelemvor's reign.

I believe it was Myrkul who put up Wall of the Faithless. Unlike Kelemvor, he kept it a secret from mortals (or at least didn't propagate knowledge of it's existence). I guess he enjoyed the view.

Remal wrote:

IronAngel wrote:

Furthermore, I preformed a search on my PDFs of the original, 1987 Forgotten Realms Campaign Set box and the 1993 revised Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (which is incidentally probably the best overview of the setting ever), and neither of them mention the Faithless. It seems to be a new invention that came to be with Kelemvor's reign.

I believe it was Myrkul who put up Wall of the Faithless. Unlike Kelemvor, he kept it a secret from mortals (or at least didn't propagate knowledge of it's existence). I guess he enjoyed the view.

As I recall from the novels I read ages ago, I believe this is accurate. Although I cannot speak to the aesthetics of that dark deity. : )

The Faithless, the False, the Fugue Plane, and the Wall are discussed in Faiths & Avatars, a 2nd Edition sourcebook. It's true that the sourcebooks seemed to lag behind the novels during that time period, retroactively picking up ideas that had been introduced by fiction writers for narrative purposes, not by game designers for RP purposes. But that doesn't make those concepts any less valid, or somehow questionably canonical.

However, and more to the larger point: I pretty much agree with Iron. The rules regarding who can and can't be raised from the dead on the Amia server are almost certainly not ever going to be changed to penalize Faithlessness. So there's really no point in clinging to the lore that mandates that that should happen. It's been overruled.

And it would almost certainly the case, btw, that the lore has been overruled on Amia *the server,* not just on Amia *the island.* An Amian character who found a way to go to Calimport or Waterdeep or whatever would find that Faithless can be raised normally there too, and they always could, just like in Cordor or Caraigh.

Lizzie wrote:

The Faithless, the False, the Fugue Plane, and the Wall are discussed in Faiths & Avatars, a 2nd Edition sourcebook. It's true that the sourcebooks seemed to lag behind the novels during that time period, retroactively picking up ideas that had been introduced by fiction writers for narrative purposes, not by game designers for RP purposes. But that doesn't make those concepts any less valid, or somehow questionably canonical.

Just for clarification, I as not arguing against them being canon. It was my intent to explain why they were not in the sourcebooks of 1st and 2nd edition. No argument from me.

But they *are* in 2nd Edition. And 1st Edition Forgotten Realms... technically existed, but only in the most marginal of ways. There wasn't a campaign setting guidebook until the beginning of 2nd Edition. So saying it wasn't in 1st Ed FR doesn't really mean anything: almost nothing was in 1st Ed FR.

I haven't read this all, admittedly, and I probably won't have the time to follow this conversation as any on here tend to fill up - and fast. Let me point this out though, as much as we all like to stay in character and role-play and may even consider avoiding opportunities for our characters (like Teriana going to hunt more, for random monsters) becaquse of role-play, we have to realize that this is also a game and meant as a hobby and a place to relax from a hard day's work. I play a faithless myself, mostly because of a OOC mistake, but I thought it put an interesting twist on things AND gives a chance to indulge into a god-quest later in her career. I don't want to be punished for this though ... that's just silly. You'd be punishing me because I wanted to role-play something different and give myself more depth to my own character and thus ruining the game for someone who would rather permadeath on their own terms and not some mechanic that's put in place to force role-play.

I 100% disagree and go against this rule. If you need to role-play it out, do it with a DM or by yourself. You don't need some OOC tool to force it on you.

Lizzie wrote:

It's been overruled.

With what? If there's no penalty, if its homebrew then what's the "official" lore of the server concerning this? I'm tired of assuming that "mysteriously those people are faithless and returning from the dead even though I am quite sure it is impossible."

Dead wrote:

Lizzie wrote:

It's been overruled.

With what? If there's no penalty, if its homebrew then what's the "official" lore of the server concerning this? I'm tired of assuming that "mysteriously those people are faithless and returning from the dead even though I am quite sure it is impossible."

It's been overruled with WYSIWYG, I suppose? A cleric casts Rez, and it works. The target gets back up, and isn't dead any more. Therefore it must be that Faithless are not ineligible to be raised.

WYSIWYG is not an explanation.

2nd edition of AD&D was published in 1989. The Forgotten Realms were properly launched with the Grey Box in 1987, during 1e of AD&D (not the original D&D, of course).

But my reference was not there to question the validity of the status quo. The lore in the two first FRCS:s is partially outdated, that's not in question. But it was valid in its time and thus a useful comparison. It was claimed that faith in the gods depends on the details of the Raise Dead spell. I showed a historical example: the spell didn't always work as it works now, and still there was no lack of faith in the Realms. If Ed Greenwood had believed the inability to Raise Dead was the motive for religion in his world, he probably would have brought it up earlier. A statement to the contrary is fallacious.

Furthermore, elves have always been very religious too. Yet they couldn't be raised until 3e. More evidence against the relevance of the rule.

Dead wrote:

WYSIWYG is not an explanation.

No, but you don't need an explanation for WYSIWYG. Beliefs concerning sensory experience are prima facie justified. You act as if your character should consider the resurrection of Faithless somehow mysterious and inconsistent; he doesn't. That's how it's always been in our world and he has no reason to wonder about it. It's metagaming to react otherwise. (Assuming the DMs confirm that, indeed, there's no rule in our setting preventing the Faithless from coming back.)

What about those people who are not forcefully resurrected, and go to the plane with the standing stones and rez themselves? Is this "experience and gold hit" zone mentioned anywhere in the server lore, aside from the woman who warns you about the incoming fees?

Edit: I think it would be interesting if some of the more scholarly characters, who are interested in death and the afterlife, would get together and try and study this. There's a myriad of ways this kind of study can be done, from ethical philosophy to unethical experimentation. Trying to find out IG with enough effort could lead to some interesting solid Amian lore.

Any feedback from DMs?

Not really, no. There might be once we force people to read everything about FR so that they can make an informed decison about a deity to follow to avoid undeserved permadeath.

Yossarin wrote:

Not really, no. There might be once we force people to read everything about FR so that they can make an informed decison about a deity to follow to avoid undeserved permadeath.

Forced perma sounds terrible, but what if a faithless died and "hit re-spawn" when they did they end up in an alternative area that has a lot of lore about the faithless and some kind of NPC that explains it all, and tells them they have to chose a faith or hope someone returns them, for the longer they wait the more likely it is the wall will take them

etc etc

Read between the lines, Talia.

Yossarin wrote:

Read between the lines, Talia.

>.< Yossarin forever with the hints and subtleties lol (just maid you confirm it though >.<)

Faith and faithless

Who is online