4 replies to this topic

[Anaximander]

I'm just wondering how death and souls are defined in Forgotten Realms lore.

The only clear definitions of death and souls I can recall reading are Plato's. Plato believed every soul is eternal and indivisible. Souls cannot be destroyed, and they cannot be split into pieces. Eternal and indivisible. The soul is made up of everything that you know, everything that you are, everything that makes you you. This of course includes all thoughts and memories. Plato did not distinguish between the mind and the soul.

Plato's definition of death was any state in which the soul is separate from the body, although he admited that it is impossible for anyone alive to know what death really is.

Now, using Plato's definitions the events of the Baldur's Gate series don't make any sense. If death is any state in which the soul is separate from the body, then Irenics, Bodhi, Charname, and Imoen all should have been dead instantly as soon as their souls were taken from them. I've seen it argued that the only thing keeping Charname and Imoen alive at that point was the taint of Bhaal. Fine. What about Irenicus and Bohdi? If souls include all thoughts and memories, then when Charname's soul is transplanted in to Irenicus, it should no longer be Irenicus at all. It would be Charname living in Irenicus' body.

Clearly, the writers were not relying on Plato's terms. Although I haven't studied modern philosophy, it seems fairly common these days for the mind and the soul to be treated as separate entities. The soul often seems to be depicted as a life giving energy that can be stolen, devoured, diminished, separated, and even destroyed.

In D&D terms, can someone:

1) Define a soul
2) Define death
3) Apply these definition to the events of BG2 and ToB.

[Bluenose]

I'm just wondering how death and souls are defined in Forgotten Realms lore.

The only clear definitions of death and souls I can recall reading are Plato's. Plato believed every soul is eternal and indivisible. Souls cannot be destroyed, and they cannot be split into pieces. Eternal and indivisible. The soul is made up of everything that you know, everything that you are, everything that makes you you. This of course includes all thoughts and memories. Plato did not distinguish between the mind and the soul.

Plato's definition of death was any state in which the soul is separate from the body, although he admited that it is impossible for anyone alive to know what death really is.

Now, using Plato's definitions the events of the Baldur's Gate series don't make any sense. If death is any state in which the soul is separate from the body, then Irenics, Bodhi, Charname, and Imoen all should have been dead instantly as soon as their souls were taken from them. I've seen it argued that the only thing keeping Charname and Imoen alive at that point was the taint of Bhaal. Fine. What about Irenicus and Bohdi? If souls include all thoughts and memories, then when Charname's soul is transplanted in to Irenicus, it should no longer be Irenicus at all. It would be Charname living in Irenicus' body.

Clearly, the writers were not relying on Plato's terms. Although I haven't studied modern philosophy, it seems fairly common these days for the mind and the soul to be treated as separate entities. The soul often seems to be depicted as a life giving energy that can be stolen, devoured, diminished, separated, and even destroyed.

In D&D terms, can someone:

1) Define a soul
2) Define death
3) Apply these definition to the events of BG2 and ToB.

It's hard to do, because there are changes in how souls/spirits are defined from edition to edition and from world to world. As an example, elves are sometimes declared to have spirits rather than souls, and therefore not able to be resurrected with normal magic that restores a bodies soul.

I think the main characteristic in common is that the soul/spirit is the 'force' that animates the body, and includes the personality, memories, etc. When that is separated from the body then the body dies, and returning it makes the body live again. A spirit or soul can exist separately as with ghosts, and a body can be animated without having a soul as is the case with zombies (more intelligent undead are rather harder, since they can retain memories of their life and use learnt abilities).

After death, what happens to the soul does vary rather a lot between campaign settings. In FR lore, the soul usually remains close enough to the Prime for several days, and can be returned to the body with a Raise Dead spell. Unless it becomes a ghost or other spirit it will then travel to the Fugue plane, where souls wait after death. They will be judged by Kelemvor as to whether they were faithful worshippers of a god, and if so they end up in the afterlife appropriate for that god - Tempus has a rather Valhalla style thing going, Oghma has his great library. Some souls gradually lose their memories of their lifetime, though others seem not to. Those judged False by Kelemvor don't travel to their god's afterlife, isntead being left to wander until they are either seized or come to an agreement with an outsider willing to remove them, and this often means devils or demons removing them to the outer planes to become larvae. People who didn't worship any god (Valygar in BG2, Bishop in NWN2) are instead put into the Wall of the Faithless, where they remain.

As for how this relates to BG2, in some ways BG2 information is in direct opposition to parts of it. In theory, Irenicus would be undead after the removal of his spirit, but that doesn't seem to be the case. When Irenicus removes CHARNAME's soul that should be lethal, though there are hints that it will be given time. It's not easy to reconcile, but things done for the sake of the story are generally more acceptable to me.

[Anaximander]

It's not easy to reconcile, but things done for the sake of the story are generally more acceptable to me.

Suspension of disbelief is essential for fantasy stories, and I don't mind a little bit of rule bending for story's sake. However, I do like a story to at least have an internal logical consistency. This is why I'm struggling to make sense of the what happens with Irenicus, Bodhi, Charname, and Imoen.

I think the main characteristic in common is that the soul/spirit is the 'force' that animates the body, and includes the personality, memories, etc

That is the greatest inconsistency for me. I can accept that Charname and Imoen survive having their souls removed because the Taint of Bhaal is there to keep them going. I can even accept that Irenicus and Bodhi survive having their souls removed by virtue of some magical property of the elven race. However, if the soul includes all aspects of personality and memory than what I cannot accept is that Irenicus can steal Charname's soul and still be Irenicus. It should be the soul that determines who a person is, not the body.

For that matter, when Charname and Imoen have their souls removed they should cease to be themselves. If the Taint is the only thing left after the soul is removed, they should both immediatlely become mindless, murderous avatars of Bhaal. The writers of the game decided that instead this process should take time, but there is no explanation as to why. If their memories, thoughts, and experiences were taken with their souls there should be nothing of them left in their bodies.

I was hoping for some kind of logical, consistent explanation. It looks like I may have to settle for "Because the writers said so."

[Azkyroth]

It's not easy to reconcile, but things done for the sake of the story are generally more acceptable to me.

Suspension of disbelief is essential for fantasy stories, and I don't mind a little bit of rule bending for story's sake. However, I do like a story to at least have an internal logical consistency. This is why I'm struggling to make sense of the what happens with Irenicus, Bodhi, Charname, and Imoen.

I think the main characteristic in common is that the soul/spirit is the 'force' that animates the body, and includes the personality, memories, etc

That is the greatest inconsistency for me. I can accept that Charname and Imoen survive having their souls removed because the Taint of Bhaal is there to keep them going. I can even accept that Irenicus and Bodhi survive having their souls removed by virtue of some magical property of the elven race. However, if the soul includes all aspects of personality and memory than what I cannot accept is that Irenicus can steal Charname's soul and still be Irenicus. It should be the soul that determines who a person is, not the body.

For that matter, when Charname and Imoen have their souls removed they should cease to be themselves. If the Taint is the only thing left after the soul is removed, they should both immediatlely become mindless, murderous avatars of Bhaal. The writers of the game decided that instead this process should take time, but there is no explanation as to why. If their memories, thoughts, and experiences were taken with their souls there should be nothing of them left in their bodies.

I was hoping for some kind of logical, consistent explanation. It looks like I may have to settle for "Because the writers said so."

Think of a soul as containing both non-volatile memory and a battery and it'll make sense. (Actually, this is the only way souls make any sense at all).

(As an aside, the tacit conclusions of modern neuroscience are that, in our world, the existence of something answering to the label of "soul" is unsupported evidentially, problematic even in theory, and unnecessary to explain what we observe).

Incidentally, The Longer Road has some dialogue related to this; in it, Irenicus posits that a Faerunian soul comprises an "animal" portion which contains base instincts and "primitive" emotions and a second portion unique to sentient beings. I don't remember the dialogue in question offhand, though.

Edited by Azkyroth, 23 July 2008 - 01:43 AM.

[Anaximander]

Think of a soul as containing both non-volatile memory and a battery and it'll make sense. (Actually, this is the only way souls make any sense at all).

Yes, that's one explanation that could work. What I was really hoping for was an explanation based on Faerunian lore. However, since the game seems to ignore other aspects of the canon as well, I suppose I can accept this.

(As an aside, the tacit conclusions of modern neuroscience are that, in our world, the existence of something answering to the label of "soul" is unsupported evidentially, problematic even in theory, and unnecessary to explain what we observe).

. . .and now you're preaching to the choir.