Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Todesherr 11-16-07, 08:06 PM	-unishment. Mask of the Betrayer, a Neverwinter Nights 2 Forgotten Realms PC game came out some time ago and some of its story elements would be of interest to any D&D aficionado. The crux of the story is a Crusade that was led against Myrkul and the Wall of the Faithless. The participants of the Crusade were a hodgepodge of different beings, dragons, celestials, ordinary mortals, etc. The premise is that just anf righteous mortals who die without faith in one of the gods are doomed to be punished for all eternity and be absorbed into the mold of the Wall of the Faithless although their behaviour in and of itself never warranted such a dismal afterlife and demise. There are factions which find this cruel and unusual punishment and revolt. Of course they do not win, but I find the concept of the Faithless and their respective punishment a bit absurd. I can understand the issue with the False but I think the theme of the game has some valid points to it. What say you?
GreenKnight 11-17-07, 01:43 AM	The premise is that just anf righteous mortals who die without faith in one of the gods are doomed to be punished for all eternity I say the developers of the game should've paid a bit more attention to Realms lore. You don't suffer for eternity in the Wall of the Faithless. You suffer for 1d10 days.
Todesherr 11-17-07, 03:12 AM	I say the developers of the game should've paid a bit more attention to Realms lore. You don't suffer for eternity in the Wall of the Faithless. You suffer for 1d10 days. And then you fade away to nothingness...
Mirtek 11-17-07, 06:46 AM	The thing is that there isn't a grand justice in the D&D multiverse. There is no punishment for the bad and no reward for the just. While going to Hell, the Abyss or any other of the lower planes might seem like (and often work out as) a punishment, that's not the intent. In D&D good is not right and evil is not wrong. Both are just equally important building blocks of the universe and both are equally right.
GreenKnight 11-18-07, 12:22 AM	And then you fade away to nothingness... Which isn't the same as suffering for all eternity, because you no longer exist. You can't suffer if you don't exist.
Tergiversant 11-18-07, 02:30 PM	I haven't played Mask of the Betrayer, but there might be a reasonable reason for the treatment of the Faithless. Souls who worship a god go to be with that god, or to merge with an appropriate plane, or whatnot. What happens to souls that don't worship a god? What if their souls would go to power something... bad? I think there were a couple of hints about this buried in 2nd edition Planescape. I don't know which books, though.
Lord Karsus 11-18-07, 04:40 PM	You don't suffer for eternity in the Wall of the Faithless. You suffer for 1d10 days. And then you fade away to nothingness... -Wonder which is worse. I'd say the latter...:(
GreenKnight 11-18-07, 05:35 PM	Simple solution: Don't die Faithless. Hell, according to the FRCS, you can even pick a deity after death. It's not like you don't have plenty of chances to avoid that fate, or plenty of options to choose from.
Todesherr 11-18-07, 07:05 PM	Simple solution: Don't die Faithless. Hell, according to the FRCS, you can even pick a deity after death. It's not like you don't have plenty of chances to avoid that fate, or plenty of options to choose from. If you are a one year old child that dies without knowledge of the gods, how is that the child's fault?
GreenKnight 11-18-07, 07:12 PM	Your parents would've done an equivalent to baptizing, which would've left you covered.
Zireael 11-19-07, 09:31 AM	Just don't be faithless. And personally, fading to nothingness is better than serving others as dretch for half an eternity... and getting erased in some conflict.:(
Vasyek 11-19-07, 12:23 PM	Your parents would've done an equivalent to baptizing, which would've left you covered. Even if that's true, there's also stillbirths and the like to consider. But be it one year-old children, virtuous people, or babies who couldn't quite muster that first breath, I don't think it's unjust if they all get packed into the wall. Unfair, maybe, but souls have no intrinsic rights and gods have no particular duties to souls beyond those that are pledged to them (which they can still treat as they see fit, within possible self-imposed limits of decency or common sense.) It's a give and take proposition on both sides, and if either side can't or won't play then they might as well dwindle away to nothing.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-19-07, 01:51 PM	I hate "quid pro quo" religion. In my Realms, I tend to think there's more to spirituality than that.
Vasyek 11-19-07, 01:59 PM	I hate "quid pro quo" religion. Hate it or not, it's there in every peasant that tries to sweet talk Chauntea into making their crops thrive, in every adventurer that looks to Tymora to see them through whatever feat of daring-do they're currently engaged in. In my Realms, I tend to think there's more to spirituality than that. There certainly can be, but I think that the higher principles of faith tend to emerge, if at all, once the more basic needs of each party are satisfied. It's not something I'd expect of the layfolk/majority of the population in most cases, however.
Lord Karsus 11-20-07, 12:08 PM	In my Realms, I tend to think there's more to spirituality than that. -The definitions of deities are much more well defined in the Realms, and they are very much real. That eliminates a lot of the "spirituality" idea.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-20-07, 12:19 PM	-The definitions of deities are much more well defined in the Realms, and they are very much real. That eliminates a lot of the "spirituality" idea. I think there can still be a lot of spirituality because even though deities are known to exist, that doesn't mean their ways are easily understood by mortals. At least, that's the way deities in *my* Realms work. I go by what Ed says on this: that the gods are ultimately still mysterious. Some people (like Charles Phipps) think of them as more human (nothing wrong with that, just not how I think of it).
Lord Karsus 11-20-07, 12:25 PM	I think there can still be a lot of spirituality because even though deities are known to exist, that doesn't mean their ways are easily understood by mortals. -Spirituality, by definition, is "concern with things of the spirit". Invoking the good graces of whatever deity (while not naming them) isn't going to really get one much. Believing that the deities are know to be real, and invoking someone to aid you with your crops isn't going to yield a return. What's Chauntea getting from it? Nothing, as the person is not technically invoking her. So, the crops of those preying to Chauntea are getting answered, while yours aren't. I know I'd try another method, after a while. -It's not that I don't think spirituality can exist in the Realms, but it's that I don't think it can exist very long.
Stigger 11-20-07, 12:49 PM	You could fairly easily define one's soul as having to do with the spirit... so caring for your own soul be belief in and worship of deities is fairly easily defined as spirituality. As to worshippers having a mercenary relationship with their deities... why would they? From all the studies I know of, humans are kinda hard-wired for some religious beliefs, a part of that pattern-finding tendency of ours as I recall it, and we really like understanding the world and our place in it. We, as a species want to understand the world, our place in it, where we fit in relation to others... its that same drive that started us down the path of scientific study in the first place. But before we figured out science, we pursued that through religion... I might get in trouble for this next bit a little, but had Earth's religions proved to offer more tangible results and explanations for things, they would still be very much in power, and no one would have really bothered with science as much as we have, since it wasn't as necessary. I think Gond kinda proves that personally, that scientific and technological progress is treated as a religious expression, an act of devotion, not as a way to explain the world outside of the context of religion. Largely though, I tend to agree with Rinonalyrna, spirituality has a huge place in the Realms. Really, what spirituality comes down to is exactly what I spoke of in the first part of this post, figuring out where you stand, what your place is in relation to divinity and coming to terms with the state of your soul. Were that not a big issue to humanity, things like the Reformation never would have occurred... you hear people say that the Reformation had to do with the corruption of the Church, but what you don't hear is that the Church was facing charges of corruption because the average person wanted a personal relationship with God, and the Church was actively trying to stamp out the practice as it threatened their power and influence. If that peasant can have a relationship with God, what exactly is the purpose of the priest, much less the rest of the Church's heirarchy? On Faerun, we have that answer in divine spellcasting... In otherwords, the Commoners personal relationship (read spirituality) with their deity isn't a threat to the clerics position in society, since that ability to cast divine spells makes it clear that this person is selected by the deity in question as one of their representatives... if you see where I'm going with that.
Lord Karsus 11-20-07, 01:04 PM	I might get in trouble for this next bit a little, but had Earth's religions proved to offer more tangible results and explanations for things, they would still be very much in power, and no one would have really bothered with science as much as we have, since it wasn't as necessary. -I disagree here. You are preassuming that by religion, we are talking about Catholic Christianity, which was the predominant religion of Europe at the time. Plenty of other cultures that existed at the same time, or before, and adhered to different religions, placed an emphasis on science.
Stigger 11-20-07, 01:14 PM	Not really seeing how I'm doing that... it is intended as a very general statement to contrast and compare religion as a method of explaining the world, versus science as essentially the same thing. Advocating science or decrying it doesn't really matter, though I'm wondering what religions you're speaking of that put an emphasis on science? I'm aware of Eastern philosophies that do, but I tend not to think of them as religions per se. My own thoughts tend towards if it tries to explain the world and the way it works, its a religion, if it advocates a system of behaviour and thought for a society or individual, its a philosophy. <edit> I realize that's a very simplistic way of putting it, and I know that religions offer systems of behavior, but I'm just not in the mood to go into a big explanation of it right now... maybe after a cigarette and more coffee.
Lord Karsus 11-20-07, 01:44 PM	Advocating science or decrying it doesn't really matter, though I'm wondering what religions you're speaking of that put an emphasis on science? I'm aware of Eastern philosophies that do, but I tend not to think of them as religions per se. -There's the rub. I consider various eastern philosophies religions (since, for all intents and purposes, they meet the same criteria). Also, don't forget the ancient Mayans, who were excellent astrologers, the ancient Greeks- though, it was really their culture advocating the expansion of sciences, not their specific religions, the ancient Indians (Aryans?), among others.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-20-07, 01:49 PM	Obviously I think there are all kinds of ways of looking at this topic. What I do in my Realms doesn't affect anyone else, and vice versa, so I'm not going to try to get others to see things my way. However, I will say that science (and I think this applies to even the FR setting) is very useful, ultimately it can only explain what is--it cannot explain (or at least, shouldn't attempt to) the "why" (as in, "what's the point of it all?"). Science doesn't tell us why we exist or what we should do with our lives. That's where religion and philosophy comes in, and yes, I think there's room for spirituality there. But again, I am of the opinion that even though mortals in the FR *know* the gods exist, that doesn't mean mortals know exactly how the gods work and what their plans are. Consider also that the dogmas of the gods are not necessarily objective. Many gods tell their followers that they are the supreme god and that their race will someday be raised above all others, but such statements are not true simply because they come out of the mouth of a deity. I hope that all made sense.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-20-07, 01:51 PM	Also, don't forget the ancient Mayans, who were excellent astrologers... You mean "astronomers", I think.;)
Stigger 11-20-07, 01:55 PM	Why were the Mayans delving into Astrology though? In all likelihood, it was an effort to understand the omens and portents in the skies... bit of a religious tone there... probably true of most of them actually, the motivations behind it weren't necessarily scientific in origin, even if they were scientific in result, if you see what I'm saying there. Really, what it comes down to, is I think that applying the modern rationale behind scientific research and applying it to those ancient cultures just doesn't work in most cases, although it could be true in a few cases. But recall however that science and religion back then weren't mutually exclusive of each other, and religion often, if not almost always, influenced the conclusions and interpretations reached by that scientific delving. Except possibly the Greeks, but with their gods, I'd be looking for alternatives in a hurry myself... :P Keep in mind there Rino that there was effectively no difference between Astrology and Astronomy up until fairly recently. ;)
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-20-07, 02:05 PM	Keep in mind there Rino that there was effectively no difference between Astrology and Astronomy up until fairly recently. ;) Makes sense to me.:)
Lord Karsus 11-20-07, 02:08 PM	You mean "astronomers", I think.;) -You say tomato, I say tomato. EDIT: Bleh, that one doesn't really work when typed. ;) Why were the Mayans delving into Astrology though? In all likelihood, it was an effort to understand the omens and portents in the skies... bit of a religious tone there... probably true of most of them actually, the motivations behind it weren't necessarily scientific in origin, even if they were scientific in result, if you see what I'm saying there. -Don't know. I'm no scholar in Meso-American..."doings". But, I don't think that the exact reasons for their research matters, here. The fact remains that they were still "bothering" with science.
Stigger 11-20-07, 02:24 PM	The reasons for it are kinda the crux though... were they doing it simply for their academic understanding, or was there a religious (and hence spiritual) undertone? If they were doing it for religious purposes, then it points towards an attempt to further their knowledge of the spiritual, rather than furthering their efforts to understand the physical world. Admittedly however, they did have a remarkably practical side to them, as many Meso-American inventions are still in use today, as can be seen in almost any dentist's office, albeit in very modernized forms. However, havind said that, the rationale behind it still matters, as scientific pursuit in the name of religion still has religious connotations and foundations, even if the result is applicable in daily life (and yet more proof of the greatness of the gods and their gifts).
Suin Bahhar 11-22-07, 09:59 AM	Do philosophers in the realms have any weight in the scheme of cultural movements and such? Clerical dogmas are more easily fortified in cultures as divine blessings prove thier points. Philosophies and concepts don't grant powers. Except for arcane philosophies that is... or powerfull retorics held by bards... A villain with bard levels seems more interesting for me suddenly.
Stigger 11-22-07, 12:08 PM	Clerical dogma has plenty of room for philosophy... the Catholic church is full of examples of that, from Thomas Aquinas to Saint Francis to Saint Agustine. That's how religions grow and develop, trying to keep themselves relevant to the days problems. Doesn't seem to happen as much these days though without really centralized churches... seems almost regressive with modern religions really, but that's beside the point. The point is that philosophers can have a lot of weight, socially and religiously, at least I would say so. Philosophy can also be applied to new governmental forms, scientific reasoning, thoughts on behaviour... some of which can be, but doesn't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive with religion.