Actually, I wasn't necessarily referring to Kelemvor's wall. I was referring to the fact that when a soul is faithless, such that when they get to Kelemvor's realm and they don't have a deity waiting there to claim their soul, they are vulnerable to certain deities effectively stealing or highjacking their soul right from under Kelemvor's nose. Llolth was famous for doing this, and so was Shar. They would capture these souls before they came under Kelemvor's control and forcibly take them to their realms as their prize. Kelemvor would angrily denounce this practise, but he was powerless to stop it.
Ah, fair enough - I was trying to make sure those interested understood the clear distinction between Faithless (capital 'f'), and simply not having a patron deity or one you directly served/followed. Important distinction.
I believe (I'll admit I'm slightly fuzzy here) that what you're describing was most rife at the time more or less synonymous to 3.5 edition times for us. Post second-sundering this seems to happen a lot less, if at all. Those souls who aren't destined for the divine realms of particular deities spend only a very brief time in transition before moving on to the outer plane that best correlates to the nature of their soul. Other powers still attempt to interfere with souls in this brief stretch of vulnerability, but they're forced to do so by temptation, bargaining, deception and other means of that nature - tricking potential souls, rather than taking them by force. (Though devils stealing souls from the wall itself is still a thing that happens, I believe)
I'm not sure what you were asking with the last bit - I'm certainly not against paladins being able to select a deity and follow one actively, I'm just making the note that it's not necessary, in any realm, FR included - so it should very much be an option, but amongst the various deity options, 'no specific deity' must remain available as well. I touched on the mechanics of how paladins gain and use their power without an intermediary deity before, if that's what you were meaning? I can try to go into a bit more detail on that, but we begin to run out of material for the specifics once you get that close in. I can talk about the intention of the philosophy, but I won't have any documents to point at or reference to back that up.
