My post was mainly in regard to the Cataclysm of Dragonlance, of which I'm more familiar, though not an expert. Of the FR "Wall of the Faithless" I know little or nothing. The setting, to me, is such a hotchpotch of different philosophies and building blocks as to be quite a mess.
I will say that there seems to be a big difference between "No one is allowed to go into the Dungeon" and a very esoteric question of the fate of the certain souls in the afterlife. The former is likely to come up in play, either by the players themselves trying to enter the forbidden area (IME, nothing gets some players more interested in doing something or going somewhere that is 'forbidden'), or defending it; the later is more a complex issue of a PC's faith, beliefs and motivation. You present the options as absolute, a kind and merciful PC must either reject the gods or view this as a just punishment of apostates. It could be that this is just how some people or scholars interpret things, or how some sects translate ancient scripture. They don't know for sure what really happens. Or it could be that this is the default fate of Souls in eternity and, the gods, in their mercy, are able to save some souls if they dedicate themselves to them. Perhaps they don't make the rules, but must work within them. There were plenty of similar dichotomies in medieval Christianity, which supposedly espoused kindness and mercy as well.
I do disagree with the notion that the DM's needs to know everything; especially about esoteracisms as this. This requirement, in essence, requires the DM to be god, and that leads to more problems, imho. Sure, if the DM presents a Chekhov's Gun of a sealed Dungeon Door, he better be prepared with more information about the Who, What, Why for play. But if we're getting into deep questions on theory of existence and the afterlife, then maybe its time to take a step back and refocus. At least, that's my take, I guess I'm more in it for bashing a few monsters and getting some nice trinkets and a good tale to tell along the way type of guy though, ymmv.
Well "everything" is a bit much, I don't expect DMs to know the last names of merchants, or their family ties, but I do think that if you have a merchant quarter burn down, you need to know who started the fire. You correctly, I think, labeled this as Chekhov's Gun.
The Wall exists, and if it never comes up in play, it may as well not exist. But, the moment it comes into play, it has the potential to be something that is going to Matter.
And the Cataclysm is a perfect counter-example to this.
What happened with the Cataclysm? A giant flaming mountain fell on some people because of the Gods actions. Why did they do it? Well, they give us a few reasons, a bit of a mix and a match, but at the end of the day it is agreed that the gods felt that those individuals did something worth punishing. I personally like the version where the Religious Leader tried to summon one of the Gods. That is an act of hubris I can see causing Divine Wrath.
But, what about the Wall?
Well, it isn't a one time thing. It is a constant punishment. And it didn't start at the start of creation, it was explicitly created by Myrkul, who became a god around -3,700 DR. And why did he create it? We are told it was to punish the people who did not worship the gods.
But, unlike with the Cataclysm, where we could see this single moment, there are a lot of problems that start cropping up. Kelemvor is now the god of the Dead. It is within his power to destroy the wall. We are told he doesn't, because the other gods would stop him from doing it.
But, Corellon Larethian, the creator of Elvish souls existed as far back as -14,000 DR, nearly ten thousand years before Myykul. Why did he allow Myrkul, this new upstart, to create a way to destroy Elvish souls? We don't know.
Why did the even older gods, because we now the planet existed at least as far back as -37,000 DR, not stop him? We don't know.
And we know they could have, because the evil and neutral gods of Today can stop Kelemvor from tearing it down.
And, one thing we have been told is that maybe AO wants the wall, to punish mortals who don't worship the gods. But, there is a small problem with that. AO changed the universe to make mortal worship neccessary to the Gods existence
as a punishment to the Gods.
So, we have AO making it so that if the Gods ignore their worshippers, they are punished by a loss of power. But, if the worshipers don't worship... they are destroyed for all time by the Wall... on AO's decree? Thereby circumventing the requirement that the Gods actually need to pay attention to their followers, because all the Gods need to do know is say that if you don't worship them you are destroyed utterly, and then they can go back to ignoring them.
Which is where we come back full circle to people claiming that "we don't know the true reason". That the Wall wasn't created to punish non-worshippers, it serves some other purpose... but we aren't told what that purpose is. If there is another purpose, we as the DM need to be told. We need to know that there is a second purpose. But as it stands, we are just assuming there has to be a second purpose, because the reasoning we have been given makes no sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh, I'm okay with things in the (published) campaign that aren't explained well, or at all. What was Myrkul's true purpose in building the Wall of the Faithless? I'm okay not knowing the official answer to that. This particular nugget isn't likely to impact gameplay in any FR game I run (or play in), and I can figure it out as necessary if and when it does.
I'm even OK with setting up mysteries with no answers (yet) in a homebrew campaign, as in your "no one is allowed in the catacombs beneath the castle" example. Again, there IS a reason, even if as the DM I haven't figured it out yet. I'll worry about it when I need to. World-building can be detailed upfront before player's encounter the world, but it can also grow organically with the story improvisationally.
Sure, and I don't want to sound like I'm against improvisational stuff. I do that sort of thing all the time, but in a homebrew game, I still know the answer as the DM.
I might not have written it yet, but I am still the one who knows the answer when the players crack open that door and start going where they should not go.
And, like I said, The Mourning in Eberron is a mystery. No one knows why it happened, and there is no official answer. It is meant to be filled in by the DM, and I'm fine with that.
But, the Wall of the Faithless is not like that. We have
an answer. The wall was built to punish those who did not worship the Gods. The problem is, that answer causes so many problems, that we have to step in and say "oh no, that isn't the
real reason. "
Well, if there is a real reason, we need to know what it is. If there isn't a second reason, then we have this laundry list of problems.
I think what is comes down to is, presentation. The Wall is presented to us in such a way to break the setting. The more you dig into it, the more ridiculous it becomes. But, something like the Mourning is explicitly part of the setting, and there are many possible answers, all of which make sense within the setting, and all of them dealing with different themes you might want to explore. One works with the setting, the other against it.
