Eric Greenhilt

[Kish]

Let me clarify, lest I be mistaken for having randomly insulted the D&D game developers, that I understood malloyd's assertion "It is a construction of sentient beings" to mean that the OotS cosmology was created in-setting by sentient and fairness-concerned beings...which is what requires a citation. (An exceptionally strong citation given that the assertion is being made to contradict the author's explicit statements about that setting's afterlife, vis-a-vis where the dead child of an evil-aligned mother would go.)

I'm reasonably sure malloyd did not mean to state that either Rich Burlew, Monte Cook, Gary Gygax, or anyone else in our world expressed willingness to spend eternity judging souls for their adherence to the proper alignments!

[veti]

Daaaang, that's cold.

I know the designers never had the most coherent of cosmologies in place due to the whole pastiches of pastiches angle, and Rich has had to make the best he could with it, but... Ouch.

If it makes you any happier... Really, it's just an example of the kind of fridge logic that you'll always run into sooner or later in a "standard" D&D cosmology. Like Rich says: it doesn't make sense, and there's no satisfactory way to make it make sense without seriously compromising the cosmology.

(You can do that, of course, within your own campaign, but that would take us very close to Real World Religion territory so we can't discuss it here. Suffice it to say it would raise a whole set of new questions, which you may or may not be comfortable with working through.)

[Storm_Of_Snow]

I don't think that it -always- work like that, becouse it shouldn't be true that a child son of a CE mother must go to CE afterlive.

Maybe the child has a chance of becoming a powerful denizen of that plane, being unaffected by anything except their parental upbringing.

However, there is one think that we should considerate: the decision of what afterlife you can go is not absolute, but there is an intelligent being making it. So, when the deva has make the interview to Eric's mother, the deva thought that Eric should go to LE afterlife. And he's right.

Lawful Good, not Lawful Evil. And Sarah pretty much states that Eric's been in Celestia since he died, not waiting somewhere until Sarah died so they could be together.

#496 - panel 4.
He's - he's here???
:sarah: Yes, Has been for 18 years, apparently.

I assume the archons of Celestia looked after him until Sarah died.

And while I like the Giant's theory, another possible alternative is that Eric's upbringing was just enough to move him into LG by rights, and maybe at some point he'll be ready to go further up the mountain on his own.

[Chronos]

How about this? A dead infant gets a choice. It's a very rudimentary choice, of course, based on limited information... but then again, from an eternal point of view, any choice made by mortals is very rudimentary. Most infants (including Eric) probably choose something like "I want to be with Mama", and so get sent to the same afterlife that Mama would be sent to. But an infant with a particularly cruel or unloving mother might choose differently-- Maybe choosing to be with someone else in their life who was loving, or maybe a more generic "I want to be somewhere nice", or whatever. Or, of course, maybe the infant chooses "I want to go where I can be the strong one", or chooses to be with Mama even though she's mean, or whatever.

And before you object that an infant can't articulate a choice like that, remember, this is also a world where a low-level spell can enable a frog or turtle to articulate a thought about as complex as that. Even an infant has more intellectual capacity than that.

[hamishspence]

And before you object that an infant can't articulate a choice like that, remember, this is also a world where a low-level spell can enable a frog or turtle to articulate a thought about as complex as that. Even an infant has more intellectual capacity than that.

This is also a world where turtles carry suitcases.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0551.html

[Psyren]

Regarding the "child of CE mother goes to her afterlife" thing - remember that the E afterlives are intended to be punitive in nature. While a good afterlife might reward you by letting you reunite with the child you lost and work through your guilt that way, an evil one might actually keep the child out just to make you feel even worse. What could be more painful than knowing you will never see your child again, for eternity? Probably that would be worse than any number of thumbscrews or pokers they could come up with.

So, N or G afterlife - the kid is there with you, thus their destination is N or G. E afterlife, the kid is kept out to torture you more - thus their destination is still N or G. Either way, no babies in the Fire Below.

[Keltest]

Regarding the "child of CE mother goes to her afterlife" thing - remember that the E afterlives are intended to be punitive in nature. While a good afterlife might reward you by letting you reunite with the child you lost and work through your guilt that way, an evil one might actually keep the child out just to make you feel even worse. What could be more painful than knowing you will never see your child again, for eternity? Probably that would be worse than any number of thumbscrews or pokers they could come up with.

So, N or G afterlife - the kid is there with you, thus their destination is N or G. E afterlife, the kid is kept out to torture you more - thus their destination is still N or G. Either way, no babies in the Fire Below.

in most D&D cosmologies that im familiar with, that's not the case. Certainly they aren't nice for most people in any sense of the word, but that's more a result of being trapped in a plane filled almost exclusively with evil manipulative people who have no problems with stepping on the new guy to get ahead, rather than a deliberate attempt to punish you.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

remember that the E afterlives are intended to be punitive in nature.

No, they are not. They are punitive only to those who don't belong there. Belkar would much rather spend an eternity fighting for supremacy in the CE than bored out of his mind in one of the peaceful G afterlives. That was Rich's point: the afterlives are supposed to be all equal - there aren't "good ones" and "bad ones" - only Good ones and Evil ones. Each one is appropriate for one of the alignment classifications, and whichever one you get is the one where you fit best and were you will spend a satisfying time until you are ready to move on, in whatever form that takes. And yes, that means that if you poke at the concept enough, you'll find plenty of holes - which was also Rich's point.

Grey Wolf

[hamishspence]

No, they are not. They are punitive only to those who don't belong there.

Getting "snipped" every morning might seem pretty punitive:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0635.html

[Kish]

I don't see the ambiguity. "Babies go wherever their mother is/will go"; that's Word of the Author. All the protests and countertheories strike me as a lot like, "But I don't want fire to cause excruciating pain and death. Let's say that it doesn't."

[Keltest]

Getting "snipped" every morning might seem pretty punitive:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0635.html

Its also the result of a bunch of superpowerful evil beings having nothing better to do with their time. And also, as mentioned, a ton of holes and contradictions in the D&D cosmology. Im pretty sure they have several conflicting fates for evil dead people, for example.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Getting "snipped" every morning might seem pretty punitive

It might, but so is having to share a house with your mom when you are trying to have a one-night stand. We don't know what the snipped singers get out of the arrangement - it might be a way to ingratiate themselves to a higher power, in order to gain rank, or part of a deal (LE only), etc. We know the purpose of the afterlife is to help the dead get rid of their "earthly attachments" so to speak. The LG does it in a rather relaxed way, but it is not the only way. That E afterlife seems to prefer the "fast tug on the band-aid" approach to that particular attachment.

Grey Wolf

[Psyren]

Getting "snipped" every morning might seem pretty punitive:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0635.html

Thank you for saving me the trouble of quoting that.

No, they are not. They are punitive only to those who don't belong there.

In addition to hamish's quote - I suppose Xykon's "anything to avoid the Big Fire Below" was a desire to avoid heatstroke?

Yeah, not buying it for a second.

It might, but so is having to share a house with your mom when you are trying to have a one-night stand.

Uh, no, that's hardly "punitive." Inconvenient, maybe, but given Sara's only proclivities she may not even have noticed when he had "company" over.

I don't see the ambiguity. "Babies go wherever their mother is/will go"; that's Word of the Author. All the protests and countertheories strike me as a lot like, "But I don't want fire to cause excruciating pain and death. Let's say that it doesn't."

I have no trouble with the mother going there if she is CE. But the baby getting punished before s/he has an alignment, don't you think that's a bit harsh? I doubt Rich would have intended that result given his view of, say, black dragon eggs.

[Keltest]

In addition to hamish's quote - I suppose Xykon's "anything to avoid the Big Fire Below" was a desire to avoid heatstroke?

Yeah, not buying it for a second.

Xykon has been known to regularly spout crap for any or no reason. Youll notice he also listed vampirism there, when it is worse than death for the soul. Furthermore, Roy decidedly wanted to avoid death even when its totally wonderful for him. That stands as pretty clear evidence that death does not need to be punitive to be undesirable.

Uh, no, that's hardly "punitive." Inconvenient, maybe, but given Sara's only proclivities she may not even have noticed when he had "company" over.

it doesn't matter what Sara is doing, if Roy wants to have a one night stand, he has to do it in his mom's house. Oftentimes its bad enough just living with your mother at his age, let alone having a girlfriend over for the night when shes in the house. If anything, her proclivities may make things worse for him.[/QUOTE]

[Psyren]

Xykon has been known to regularly spout crap for any or no reason. Youll notice he also listed vampirism there, when it is worse than death for the soul.

For a GOOD soul, sure. The evil one may not be in control, but they are still around and doing evil, and more importantly not getting snipped every morning.

Furthermore, Roy decidedly wanted to avoid death even when its totally wonderful for him. That stands as pretty clear evidence that death does not need to be punitive to be undesirable.

I never said it needed to be punitive to be undesirable - but if it IS punitive, that is indeed undesirable.

it doesn't matter what Sara is doing, if Roy wants to have a one night stand, he has to do it in his mom's house. Oftentimes its bad enough just living with your mother at his age, let alone having a girlfriend over for the night when shes in the house. If anything, her proclivities may make things worse for him.

That was a temporary arrangement. We've all had to put up with some temporary arrangements that were annoying for a little while. Such as, say, climbing a giant mountain to get to your reward.

[Keltest]

For a GOOD soul, sure. The evil one may not be in control, but they are still around and doing evil, and more importantly not getting snipped every morning.



I never said it needed to be punitive to be undesirable - but if it IS punitive, that is indeed undesirable.



That was a temporary arrangement. We've all had to put up with some temporary arrangements that were annoying for a little while. Such as, say, climbing a giant mountain to get to your reward.

Ok, let me ask you this. Have you seen any indication from characters who know what theyre talking about (so priests and/or people who have died and/or people involved in the process of death) that evil afterlives are punitive? And before you mention the snips, we have no idea of what the circumstances of that are. The fact that theyre chanting in not latin rather than, say, writhing around in agony suggests that theyre getting something out of the deal, or at least not being held at swordpoint.

edit: and a followup question: why would an evil god make their afterlife punitive? They want to encourage people to be evil, not scare them away by saying "be evil and you'll get tortured forever!"

[Vinyadan]

Xykon has been known to regularly spout crap for any or no reason. Youll notice he also listed vampirism there, when it is worse than death for the soul.

In the sourcebooks there is a reference to such things happening - a powerful mage being turned into a vampire spawn after paying mercenaries to kill his sire after a short time, this becoming a free-willed vampire. Xykon may have known about something similar happening before; he must have known about the chance of it happening. Given the little reason vampires have to explain how vampirism really works, I think he was talking about the attitude of the guy who makes such a choice, without having any idea of how it really works. It may also be true that he has no idea of how hell or similar places work, but that's a separate problem.

Regarding the "child of CE mother goes to her afterlife" thing - remember that the E afterlives are intended to be punitive in nature. While a good afterlife might reward you by letting you reunite with the child you lost and work through your guilt that way, an evil one might actually keep the child out just to make you feel even worse. What could be more painful than knowing you will never see your child again, for eternity? Probably that would be worse than any number of thumbscrews or pokers they could come up with.

So, N or G afterlife - the kid is there with you, thus their destination is N or G. E afterlife, the kid is kept out to torture you more - thus their destination is still N or G. Either way, no babies in the Fire Below.

I think you are underestimating how evil some of these people may be - we are literally talking about the whole group of evil people on earth -; I'm afraid there is a very high chance of some of these people being happy about their infant children being tortured with them.

Anyway, searching for a working eschatology based on merit in D&D is quite useless. The simple presence of soul binding and some interpretations of the relationship between soul and undead make it impossible, and the way alignments work make it unthinkable, unless evil is accepted as a status causing suffering in and of itself. Which makes you wonder, anyway, why Arcadia should be needed.

[Kish]

I have no trouble with the mother going there if she is CE. But the baby getting punished before s/he has an alignment, don't you think that's a bit harsh? I doubt Rich would have intended that result given his view of, say, black dragon eggs.

Yes it's harsh, but that doesn't matter. Your unstated premise here is that the cosmology is just. I think it's far more likely that the cosmology is uncaringly brutal. If you drop your infant into a fire s/he will die horribly despite any amount of protests about how innocent s/he was. If you're a newly hatched black dragon who, divination magic will show, was going to grow up to become a paladin, and some crazy elf slaughters you and your Chaotic Evil mother to punish your cousin-fourteen-times-removed, you go to the Chaotic Evil afterlife.

[Psyren]

Ok, let me ask you this. Have you seen any indication from characters who know what theyre talking about (so priests and/or people who have died and/or people involved in the process of death) that evil afterlives are punitive? And before you mention the snips, we have no idea of what the circumstances of that are. The fact that theyre chanting in not latin rather than, say, writhing around in agony suggests that theyre getting something out of the deal, or at least not being held at swordpoint.

In addition to IFCC's direct statement (who are about as authoritative on the lower planes as you're likely to get, unless Asmodeus is in the strip or something), we also have Lee's inbox, which is indicative of the evil afterlife's dehumanizing nature. Compare to Celestia's velvet roped line, golden gate with cherubim and a personalized archon for every petitioner.

edit: and a followup question: why would an evil god make their afterlife punitive? They want to encourage people to be evil, not scare them away by saying "be evil and you'll get tortured forever!"

The easiest answer is because they don't view it as punishment. They feel that long periods of soul-crushing torture are the best way to erase your weakness Take a god like Bane, or Talos - they don't want another squishy mortal, because if you were capable of succeeding in that form you wouldn't be dead. They want either more fiends, or failing that, just to eat your soul and make magic items for your successors with it.

Only a handful of souls are capable of retaining their memories/humanity down there, and those are typically the ones so ruthless and vile they might as well be fiends anyway. This is where the Splices would fall.

Also, some are just plain crazy, like Shar or Rovagug.

Yes it's harsh, but that doesn't matter. Your unstated premise here is that the cosmology is just. I think it's far more likely that the cosmology is uncaringly brutal. If you drop your infant into a fire s/he will die horribly despite any amount of protests about how innocent s/he was. If you're a newly hatched black dragon who, divination magic will show, was going to grow up to become a paladin, and some crazy elf slaughters you and your Chaotic Evil mother to punish your cousin-fourteen-times-removed, you go to the Chaotic Evil afterlife.

If it were truly as uncaring as you say, it seems to me that they would have stuck with the RAW regarding Eugene's (and Roy's) Blood Oath of Vengeance, rather than waiving it and letting him proceed to the afterlife. It also explicitly rewards him, not for being Lawful Good, but for trying to be Lawful Good.

Also, your cite is pre-Cerebus, and Thor's attitude is explicitly not indicative of the cosmology itself.

[Keltest]

In addition to IFCC's direct statement (who are about as authoritative on the lower planes as you're likely to get, unless Asmodeus is in the strip or something), we also have Lee's inbox, which is indicative of the evil afterlife's dehumanizing nature. Compare to Celestia's velvet roped line, golden gate with cherubim and a personalized archon for every petitioner.



The easiest answer is because they don't view it as punishment. They feel that long periods of soul-crushing torture are the best way to erase your weakness Take a god like Bane, or Talos - they don't want another squishy mortal, because if you were capable of succeeding in that form you wouldn't be dead. They want either more fiends, or failing that, just to eat your soul and make magic items for your successors with it.

Only a handful of souls are capable of retaining their memories/humanity down there, and those are typically the ones so ruthless and vile they might as well be fiends anyway. This is where the Splices would fall.

Also, some are just plain crazy, like Shar or Rovagug.



If it were truly as uncaring as you say, it seems to me that they would have stuck with the RAW regarding Eugene's (and Roy's) Blood Oath of Vengeance, rather than waiving it and letting him proceed to the afterlife. It also explicitly rewards him, not for being Lawful Good, but for trying to be Lawful Good.

Also, your cite is pre-Cerebus, and Thor's attitude is explicitly not indicative of the cosmology itself.

First off, let me address all of this by saying that youre reading way too much into one off jokes. Historically Rich has not developed anything beyond what is necessary to move the plot forward.

now then, let me ask you something. If the evil gods and fiends don't view what theyre doing as a punishment, how does that translate to a punitive afterlife? If its punitive, they have to have been sent there to be, well, punished for their deeds. If the fiends aren't doing something to punish them, its an ironic twist of fate at worst. And you still didn't really answer the question, other than to further highlight the dislogic I was pointing out: If the gods are deliberately making things unpleasant in the evil afterlives, why would anyone follow them when theyre mortal? For power? Ok, except that we haven't seen the evil gods give out anything the good gods cant/wont. Out of fear? Well, they cant really affect you if you aren't evil, so that option is out. Out of a desire to do evil things to people? Well if the afterlife is punitive, that wont come close to paying off in the long run. So you basically end up with a system that repels anyone smart enough to think about it for a bit.

[Kish]

If it were truly as uncaring as you say, it seems to me that they would have stuck with the RAW regarding Eugene's (and Roy's) Blood Oath of Vengeance, rather than waiving it and letting him proceed to the afterlife. It also explicitly rewards him, not for being Lawful Good, but for trying to be Lawful Good.

Broad pronoun reference. You're equating a deva who represents the Forces of Pure Law and Good with the architects of the entire nine-alignments cosmology. Do you think Roy would have been let into the afterlife if he was Lawful Neutral? Lawful Evil? I sure don't. This amounts to, "Lawful Good is Lawful Good. Therefore, the powers which created the system in which people of all nine alignments coexist with approximately equal amounts of power, are also Lawful Good."

Now I ask you...if beings with the same sense of justice as Roy's bureaucratic deva make all the rules...why is Xykon allowed? Why does "this doesn't happen, since it would be unjust" apply to where one child goes in the afterlife, and not to whether another child gets slaughtered in front of his father to the sound of Xykon's laughter, or two of the greatest heroes their world has known get brutally smashed and stuck in a black gem in the pocket of a brutal skeletal butcher? Do Lee, Nero, and Cedrik look like they really care about fairness? If there's some kind of Dragonlance-style High God here, I need evidence. (Really strong evidence, to override Word of the Author on the subject; Rich could have said "if you die as a child you go to your mother's afterlife if she's Neutral or Good" rather than "if you die as a child you go to your mother's afterlife" if he meant the former rather than the latter.)

Also, your cite is pre-Cerebus, and Thor's attitude is explicitly not indicative of the cosmology itself.

I confess I am completely at a loss for how a portrayal of a nominally-good god blindfolded and throwing around lightning bolts at random while he yells "Whee!" is an argument against a lack of cosmic justice.

[Keltest]

I confess I am completely at a loss for how a portrayal of a nominally-good god blindfolded and throwing around lightning bolts at random while he yells "Whee!" is an argument against a lack of cosmic justice.

There may be some straw grasping here, but I believe he is trying to say that Thor is simply incompetent at his job, and that not every member of the cosmology is as drunk as he is. Now, the straw grasping part comes in because Thor is one of the most powerful gods in his pantheon, and presumably a cosmology that cared that much about fairness would not put someone as out of control as Thor in the driver's seat. And Thor of all people had to tell Odin not to touch Argent because he doesn't know where its been. Confidence inspiring, that is not.

[Psyren]

Broad pronoun reference. You're equating a deva who represents the Forces of Pure Law and Good with the architects of the entire nine-alignments cosmology. Do you think Roy would have been let into the afterlife if he was Lawful Neutral? Lawful Evil? I sure don't. This amounts to, "Lawful Good is Lawful Good. Therefore, the powers which created the system in which people of all nine alignments coexist with approximately equal amounts of power, are also Lawful Good."

She explicitly states that, looking at accomplishments alone, he could be easily TN. It is only when they factor in intent and attitude that he makes it in. Justice requires mitigating circumstances and intent, therefore what happened to Roy was in fact justice.

They also didn't penalize him for effectiveness where the oath was concerned., which is again factoring his intent - justice again.

Now I ask you...if beings with the same sense of justice as Roy's bureaucratic deva make all the rules...why is Xykon allowed?

You mean "why does evil exist?" That's a pretty loaded question, and one I'm not sure we can discuss here. All I will say is that your statement is incomplete - instead, it should be "beings with the same justice as Roy's bureaucratic deva make all the rules in the afterlife." You are the one assuming their jurisdiction extends to the mortal realm - however, it seems that both sides are restricted with how much they can interfere on the Prime Material, and that applies just as much to the gods as we saw with Darkon's weather stunt.

I confess I am completely at a loss for how a portrayal of a nominally-good god blindfolded and throwing around lightning bolts at random while he yells "Whee!" is an argument against a lack of cosmic justice.

The issue is that you are using Thor's attitude to evidence a lack of cosmic justice, whereas I see the two as completely unrelated. It's like saying "Lions eat meat, therefore roller skates exist."

Rather, OotS - as in D&D - has cosmic forces that exist separately from the gods. The gods are particularly powerful representatives of such forces, but they neither embody nor define them.

[Vinyadan]

The issue is that you are using Thor's attitude to evidence a lack of cosmic justice, whereas I see the two as completely unrelated. It's like saying "Lions eat meat, therefore roller skates exist."

How am I supposed to outrun a lion in urban environment otherwise? Especially on rush our.

[Kish]

You are the one assuming their jurisdiction extends to the mortal realm

Rather, I am rejecting your assumption that these speculative entities who contradict and override the author exist.

Rather, OotS - as in D&D - has cosmic forces that exist separately from the gods. The gods are particularly powerful representatives of such forces, but they neither embody nor define them.

Evidence?

(Evidence that doesn't hinge on the unsupportable assumption that a type of creatures who can clearly be both tricked and physically overpowered by Eugene and, oh yeah, refer to themselves with the term "deva," a specific kind of celestial, are above the gods and make the rules for all afterlives, not just for the single afterlife that matches their alignment?)

[Psyren]

Rather, I am rejecting your assumption that these speculative entities who contradict and override the author exist.

You are framing the question as "Psyren thinks Rich is wrong about his own setting" but I would instead frame it as "Psyren doesn't think Rich was considering the possibility of chucking babies into Hell when he wrote that." Which is a possibility; he was responding specifically to a question about Eric Greenhilt in the story, not necessarily writing an ironclad rule for all children in the setting regardless of race.

Evidence?

Paladins and Druids exist, and have alignment restrictions despite not getting their powers from a deity specifically?

[Kish]

You are framing the question as "Psyren thinks Rich is wrong about his own setting" but I would instead frame it as "Psyren doesn't think Rich was considering the possibility of chucking babies into Hell when he wrote that." Which is a possibility; he was responding specifically to a question about Eric Greenhilt in the story, not necessarily writing an ironclad rule for all children in the setting regardless of race.

Again, he was not forced by any means not to write, "Eric Greenhilt was" instead of "children are," if he did not mean "children are." He even allowed for the hypothetical child predeceasing her/his mother.

Paladins and Druids exist, and have alignment restrictions despite not getting their powers from a deity specifically?

Sorry, let me try with more words.

What evidence is that that some power above the gods enforces justice? It's not enough for the power above the gods to exist. You also need to prove that that power is Lawful Good itself, like the High God from Krynn, the kind of overgod who would respond to "That's not fair!" with "Then I better fix it," not like Ao from Faerun, the kind of overgod who would and did respond to the Lord of Murder tricking and murdering another god and the Lord of Intrigue hiding the murder from the rest of the gods with, "Why are you bothering me? Of course they did. It's their portfolios."

[veti]

Xykon may have known about something similar happening before; he must have known about the chance of it happening. Given the little reason vampires have to explain how vampirism really works, I think he was talking about the attitude of the guy who makes such a choice, without having any idea of how it really works. It may also be true that he has no idea of how hell or similar places work, but that's a separate problem.

I am reasonably sure that Xykon has fewer ranks in "knowledge: religion" than anyone here who's read "Manual of the Planes". He's never shown, or had reason to take, any particular interest in the subject.

But we have seen three people who do know a thing or two about the Evil afterlife at first-hand: Ganeron, Haera and Jephton. They don't look particularly elated about getting a break from their afterlives, and they don't seem to be particularly upset about going back to it either.

Edit: there's also Jirix, of course.

[Psyren]

But we have seen three people who do know a thing or two about the Evil afterlife at first-hand: Ganeron, Haera and Jephton. They don't look particularly elated about getting a break from their afterlives, and they don't seem to be particularly upset about going back to it either.

Which is why they have to send someone to collect her, right? Because she's so eager to go back?

Edit: there's also Jirix, of course.

Woohoo, neverending and meaningless war in the name of the guy who got you killed in the first place. While the good guys get to simply rest and have fun with their families. I'm sure that won't get old at all!

I wonder - what happens to the goblins who don't want to wage war in the Dark One's name forever? Is Right-Eye somewhere in that horde, Goblin Soldier #37,769B? Are his wife and son there?

Again, he was not forced by any means not to write, "Eric Greenhilt was" instead of "children are," if he did not mean "children are." He even allowed for the hypothetical child predeceasing her/his mother.

Being able to write something and not writing it can have a number of explanations, not just the single one you have come up with. As it is, unless he says specifically "yes, Hell has a dumpster/inbox/daycare where they toss all baby petitioners" I don't think it's unreasonable to assume he was specifically talking about the babies of non-evil parents.

Sorry, let me try with more words.

What evidence is that that some power above the gods enforces justice? It's not enough for the power above the gods to exist. You also need to prove that that power is Lawful Good itself, like the High God from Krynn, the kind of overgod who would respond to "That's not fair!" with "Then I better fix it," not like Ao from Faerun, the kind of overgod who would and did respond to the Lord of Murder tricking and murdering another god and the Lord of Intrigue hiding the murder from the rest of the gods with, "Why are you bothering me? Of course they did. It's their portfolios."

You mean The Book?

Well for starters, I'm not sure how you could call Ao "unjust" in that example. If a deity exists to champion/monitor a thing, and they do that thing, they're pretty much doing their job. But if, say, Eldath grabbed a battleaxe and went on a killing spree, you can probably imagine Ao would either reclassify her or revoke her status entirely.

As for your actual question - the fact that you can be impious at all/just want to be left alone by the gods, and still get all the same rewards as the folks who have been devoutly religious their entire lives, tells me that the gods are not the arbiters in this particular cosmology.

[Keltest]

Well for starters, I'm not sure how you could call Ao "unjust" in that example. If a deity exists to champion/monitor a thing, and they do that thing, they're pretty much doing their job. But if, say, Eldath grabbed a battleaxe and went on a killing spree, you can probably imagine Ao would either reclassify her or revoke her status entirely.

given the number of times gods have more or less literally done that and gotten away with it, im going to say that no, he wouldn't.