@kamuizin The way I like to think of all the religious classes- paladins, clerics talos, ect- is through the lens of you being a child of bhaal. The gods are, to some extent, aware of the children of bhaal- we see in TOB that Cyric wants to intervene to kill you, and the other gods seem to have reached an agreement.
So its easy to think Talos/ a good God of paladins would want to intervene by giving religious revalations to a bhaalspawn. I think this can also work for druids to an extent, as I said above.
@the_spyder I think with bilbo, I don't envision him as a level 1 thief when he leaves hobbiton. As far as I'm concerned, he becomes a thief during his journey. Possibly this reflects a systems limitation though.
In 2nd ed, 1st level is more talent and power than 90% of the population will ever have. It is significant. For religious classes, god did it works; most can be explained. I think a few, though, like guardian and ranger, its just hard to make work well.
I'm curious how you could justify being a druid when you spent your entire life behind the walls of candlekeep. I'm having a difficult time justifying being a druid or ranger from Candlekeep. Mind you, theres always the "I wanted to be one so I am one" excuse, but I'd like something a bit more immersive.
I'm also just pondering RPing some other class and dual classing into druid soon after leaving candlekeep. Perhaps claiming Jaheira as a mentor and inspiration. Any other ideas?
What about starting as a fighter, then dual classing to a druid after spending some times with Jaheira and/or Faldorn, and meeting the druids NPC in Cloakwood ? You could claim the Shadow Archdruid's Giant Tree for yourself... (by the way, a mod to add stronghold in BGEE would be great...)
As a side bonus, from a powergaming point of view, a fighter 7 (even better, berserker 7)/druid X is a far better option than any druid kit. ;-)
@Tinter - I kind of disagree with you on several points.
First, I think that Bilbo is the definition of a first level. He knows just enough about the class to understand it is different from say a Grocer. And certainly no one teaches him his profession. But then it is a literary reference and the author is going to do whatever it takes to further the story.
Possibly a better example is Raistlin from the Dragonlance series. Prior to the beginning of the first book, the entire group set off on a 5 year quest to 'Find real healers'. At that time, Raistlin doesn't even call himself a Wizard, but an apprentice. he doesn't take his 'Test' and wear the colored robes until he is 5th level. He has VERY limited ability as a wizard until he takes his test. But the point is, he has very little more than a simple notion of what it is like to be a wizard even during his first five years of adventuring.
Secondly, I agree that the vast majority of the world are zero level nobodies. Still, I see most of them as farmers and the serfs of the society. I think that easily 10-15% of the population register as some level of 'Level' characters. Every town has a Cleric of some definition. The town Hedge Wizard/witch provides simple potions and enchantments. The local militia are usually lead by seasoned warriors etc... And the town elders are usually more powerful personalities of some sort. then you get into the nobility and that is a whole other thing. At least that is the world that my adventures have always taken place in.
@the_spyder -I agree that Raistlin is a good example. But, he doesn't match the PC. A PC mage is way further up the power tree than that, he can cast real, useful spells.
I think this comes to the second point as well, its not that I disagree with what you said that much, its just that reasoning leads me to a different view of 1st level power. I think we envision the level of skill 1st level represents in the game world differently. Which is fine- theres room for both our interpretations, after all!
I believe that NPCs without class should have more than 1 hit dice, it's ridiculous that a advanced wizard has more life than a brute farmer that work a lot and has a very defined body in reason of his work.
Commoners shoudn't be killable with 1 hit, they should be level 0, but then, lvl 0 shoudn't means a weak person, should meant a non defined character in rule sets person.
A strong miner in my view for example should be a level 0 miner, what means that his Thac0, hp, AC and other status shoudn't be related to his level, but rather set by the dungeon master to portrait something more realistic and set the difficult level of that NPC (in terms of fight, banter...etc...) to match the exactly difficult intended by that DM.
@Tinter - A wizard at 1st level has one single spell. In PnP 1e/2e, you literally started out with four spells in your book and you didn't pick them; your DM did (at least that is the way I always played). So you could end up with Friends, Protection from Evil, Light and Detect Undead if your DM was really mean. I don't see that as "real, useful spells". Granted Sleep, magic missile and armor all are, but you had no guarantee of getting any of those, usually leaving the would-be wizard to quest for them at the earliest opportunity. And you can only cast them once per day. That's pretty weak in my book. Any farmer with a decent pitching arm and a rock could take you out, and that was more or less the point.
Granted, Wizards start off with some prereqs in the form of book learnin and so maybe that isn't exactly apples to apples, but they really aren't more powerful than zero levels, many of which have more hit points than your average wizard.
And the BG game really slants things in the player's direction, giving advantages that they didn't have in PnP (such as an early find of the ring of wizardry) simply because wizards are so weak at 1st level. So it is really difficult to compare. Except that Kobolds (who are supposed to be half hit die monsters) can take out a party of 1st levels as often as not.
But we can agree to disagree. To me, coming out of Candlekeep 'wet behind the ears' and with just barely enough info to claim apprenticeship in a given class is exactly what was intended and exactly what we got. I think from there extrapolating that any class could gain a legitimate baseline simply through book reading and the occasional tutor makes perfect sense to me. But that is merely my opinion.
I believe that NPCs without class should have more than 1 hit dice, it's ridiculous that a advanced wizard has more life than a brute farmer that work a lot and has a very defined body in reason of his work.
Commoners shoudn't be killable with 1 hit, they should be level 0, but then, lvl 0 shoudn't means a weak person, should meant a non defined character in rule sets person.
A strong miner in my view for example should be a level 0 miner, what means that his Thac0, hp, AC and other status shoudn't be related to his level, but rather set by the dungeon master to portrait something more realistic and set the difficult level of that NPC (in terms of fight, banter...etc...) to match the exactly difficult intended by that DM.
Theoretically that sounds very nice, but do you have any clue what a hell of a job it would be to program that into the game?
@the_spyder If going by PnP you get a lot of non-weapon proficiencies and the like. I think the know how is higher- still pretty low but post-apprenticeship. But yes, differing interpretations, and I do only object to a couple of classes.
I believe that NPCs without class should have more than 1 hit dice, it's ridiculous that a advanced wizard has more life than a brute farmer that work a lot and has a very defined body in reason of his work.
Commoners shoudn't be killable with 1 hit, they should be level 0, but then, lvl 0 shoudn't means a weak person, should meant a non defined character in rule sets person.
A strong miner in my view for example should be a level 0 miner, what means that his Thac0, hp, AC and other status shoudn't be related to his level, but rather set by the dungeon master to portrait something more realistic and set the difficult level of that NPC (in terms of fight, banter...etc...) to match the exactly difficult intended by that DM.
Understand that the concept of Hit points is not supposed to represent literally being able to take greater and greater amounts of damage, but the ability to actually survive the hit better. A zero level takes a hit from a sword and might bleed to death. A 5th level warrior has learned how to roll with the punches (so to speak) and twist such that the sword didn't hit anything vital. Same hit, just with a greater chance of surviving and being hurt less. That is the concept anyway.
How that translates in actuality is a bit different. But basically if you get in enough scrapes, a punch that would take you out as a zero level, only gives you a bloody nose as a 5th level.
@the_spyder If going by PnP you get a lot of non-weapon proficiencies and the like. I think the know how is higher- still pretty low but post-apprenticeship. But yes, differing interpretations, and I do only object to a couple of classes.
Not in 1e/2e. the non-weapon proficiencies weren't implemented till after I stopped playing (basically I got as far as the latter days of Advanced and then stopped playing). With them, I might be more inclined to agree with your stance though.
@IkMarc, in fact baldur's gate does just that, enable console and cheat keys and take some random peasants to your party. see that they doesn't have level or class (sometimes not even race).
If you EE keeper those people, with EE keeper you can freely set the thac0 number, hp number and a lot of other features.
So i don't think this would be so hard to do in BG EE, cos in fact it's already done. I gave that suggestion more for PnP games in fact, to discuss that we doesn't need to always be stricted to game rules when making characters, just like in BG EE.
@kamuizin - I don't think that the individual random people you are EE Keepering are intended to be 'Higher level zero level NPCs'. They probably have better thac0 and/or hp due to game balancing.
much harder will be justify how charname became a priest of Talos in Candlekeep, an paladin without an order to take the char name votes around or a monk by the way (a martial monk) without a proper teacher or an monk order nearby.
Talos is a normal religion in the Forgotten Realms universe. It is not a belief that requires hidden cults in dark temples. The average citizen of Baldur's Gate might pray to Talos or pay tithes to his clerics in order to appease the wrathful deity and keep the natural disasters to a minimum this year. CHARNAME could easily read about Talos in the Candlekeep library, and nobody would really have any cause to question his or her interest in that faith for the reasons listed above.
Paladins can get their power from virtually any deity. Given CHARNAME's...special nature, a deity like Tyr, Ilmater, or Sune might have divinely inspired him or her in order to curb CHARNAME's bloodborne thirst for destruction, death, and power.
A monk of (insert order here) was passing through Candlekeep on pilgrimage. He/she took a liking to CHARNAME, who had a youthful enthusiasm for the exotic, and taught them the ways of the order.
@IkMarc, in fact baldur's gate does just that, enable console and cheat keys and take some random peasants to your party. see that they doesn't have level or class (sometimes not even race).
If you EE keeper those people, with EE keeper you can freely set the thac0 number, hp number and a lot of other features.
So i don't think this would be so hard to do in BG EE, cos in fact it's already done. I gave that suggestion more for PnP games in fact, to discuss that we doesn't need to always be stricted to game rules when making characters, just like in BG EE.
I was referring to the time intensity of setting the logical values for all kinds of npc's with different traits in different settings. They standardized it and kept it simple for good reasons.
I agree you could totally become a cleric of Talos, but totally normal faith is going a bit too far. FR may be polythestic, but evil and destructive faiths such as talos are banned or ostracised in many lands.
Its unlikely to be so on the sword coast and isn't in Amn, but its not quite "just another faith". FR does differentiate somewhat between casual worship to placate (i.e sailors to Talos) and active clergies worship, especially of evil gods.
Not an issue for your character becoming one but in role play terms its likely people are giving you more than just funny looks.
To provide a 'Real world' counter to this, it was routine for temples to Ares in Ancient Greece. His worship was both common place and widely accepted even though he represented "overwhelming, insatiable in battle, destructive, and man-slaughtering." And worshiping him wasn't exclusively to placate him. There were sects of devout followers of Ares (and other more 'Evil' Deities) in Greek society. Likewise in other ancient poly-theistic societies.
Although there are (and intentionally so) parallels between the Forgotten Realms and present day real life society, they don't all translate exactly. The worship of 'Evil' gods was much more accepted in Greek and Roman society than is common in today's 'IRL' society.
We see that there is a temple to Umberlee in Baldur's Gate. This isn't considered 'A necessary evil' or some place to 'Placate' the gods. it is an actual place of worship that every day citizens visit and worship at.
I agree you could totally become a cleric of Talos, but totally normal faith is going a bit too far. FR may be polythestic, but evil and destructive faiths such as talos are banned or ostracised in many lands.
Its unlikely to be so on the sword coast and isn't in Amn, but its not quite "just another faith". FR does differentiate somewhat between casual worship to placate (i.e sailors to Talos) and active clergies worship, especially of evil gods.
Not an issue for your character becoming one but in role play terms its likely people are giving you more than just funny looks.
Gods like Talos and Umberlee are prayed to by normal people seeking their favor, so neither god drowns them or obliterates their house with a hurricane. There are also clergy members of those faiths who have public temples so people can come to them to worship, get advice, pay tithes, or receive blessings or pay for curses on people they don't like. It doesn't matter what alignment these gods are, as society doesn't know what alignments are, nor does society care. Not being struck by lighting all the time is more important than how big a jerk a god might be.
@the_spyder used Ares as a perfect real life example of a "nasty" deity that is worshiped by society normally. Ares isn't just the god of fighting, like say Tempus is in Forgotten Realms. He's also the god of the darker aspects of war, the brutality and bloodlust. Hell, the guy sleeps on bedding made from the skin of his enemies. But, people sometimes need to be in that mindset, they feel like calling up the savagery of war into their hearts might be the only way to keep their knees from shaking before the next battle. Ares worship was part of the culture, not resigned to hidden cults.
Placating prayers are totally a thing that many people do. They do that, though, without a clergy (of whom Talos has very few), at least in the case of Talos, Auril and many other evil gods. Umberlee is a bit more placation-oriented.
The clerical classes are different, and while they participate in that to an extent, its not really their primary function. The nature of FR deities is their clergy are supposed to do things that serve their Deities portfolio; in Talos case, this would be "so long as they call up a storm or engage in random, wanton acts of violence every tenday or so". Real life priests couldn't actually, you know, blow up your house, and certainly weren't supposed to do so as an instruction/
Thats why in FR the forces of good will generally oppose all evil clerics to some extent, because almost all of their dogma require them to do evil things.
FR has a polythestic system but it isn't an expy of real world ancient religions in that way, its cosmology is different. If we were debating historical reality, I'd agree with you in many cases, but we aren't.
In the forgotten realms, there are spells of detect alignment. Good and evil are actual metaphysical forces, so people in FR are 100% aware of whats evil at least in deific terms, and Talos and some other evil gods are illegal in a number of places.
This is much less so in the world of Baldur's Gate the videogames, so I'm not saying its as unusual or frowned upon as it would be in the FR books. In any case, neither the Baldur's Gate nor Amn are one of the areas it would be illegal. People, though, would generally be quite unfavourable towards it- evil is evil in FR.
@Tinter - the intent and use of 'Detect good/evil' as designated in Advanced or 2e did not apply to commoners or even adventurers. You couldn't simply walk into a tavern and say 'That guy is EVIL' and be able to prove it with a 1st level spell or ability. That would seriously undermine most non-linear plot lines. I think you might even find words to that effect in the DMG or even in the PHB for the relevant editions of the game. "Know alignment" is a much higher level spell, but even then would not and could not be used to blanketly condemn someone without proof or evidence of wrong doing. And generally most DMs would simply not allow such use in normal game play as very few people are 'hard core' enough to really make a difference alignment wise.
Additionally, "Good and Evil" might be metaphysical forces in the world of the Forgotten realms as you say (and maybe they are in this world as well) but they take the form of Demons and angels and monsters and saints rather than manifesting in every day life for the 'Normal folk'. Maybe less than 1 percent of actual participants in the forgotten realms would be listed as unredeamably and unrepentantly evil or (on the other side of the coin) saintly and angelic. These terms, although generally describe bents of personality, are not 'Forces of metaphysics' in the common person.
Also, keep in mind that gods in FR or in ancient Rome/Greece that represented the nastier side of life often represented less 'Evil' and more simply aspects of reality that needed to be controlled. Thus a god of War (for instance) wouldn't necessarily be worshiped by someone who was bloodthirsty and had to kill his neighbors every third Wednesday, but more by someone that realized the reality of war and it's existence. Thus Umberlee is probably worshiped and respected by anyone who has been caught in a storm at sea or relies on the sea in any form for their livelihood. Talos as well.
You feed the angels that you can and the demons that you must. People wouldn't look down on you for doing so. And priests of these religions are seen as performing a very valid and important function. They don't hide in the shadows in reality or in fantasy.
Finally, being part of a religion in real life or in fantasy or in ancient Greece or Rome is (in my view) at least partly as a method of placating the 'Powers that be'. That doesn't make the worship any less real or valid. People believe in that which will make their lives better, smite their enemies, protect themselves and generally allow them to get on with their lives.
As for the FR books, I haven't read very many of them. I will say that the authors are less painting a window into the world and more trying to sell a story. Interpretations of various styles and behavior patterns are going to be subjective at best.
On good and evil, I'm not talking about the daily use of it, I'm talking about its existence as objective fact, which is realmslore, regardless of how it might apply in game terms.
Yes, it applies strongest to metaphysical forces like Demons, angels, and which other type of character lives in the same part of the planes? The deities!
The gods in Rome/Greece were that. In FR, they are evil. Partly so, you know, adventurers can go and kill their servants.
They have the "placation" aspect as well, yes. Thats why they get what little worship they do.
The clergy, though, are mapped out differently. A cleric of Talos isn't a guy who helps keep storms away from the local community, hes a guy who likes killing people with lightning. He literally has to be an evil person (or CN, evil-lite), and is instructed by Talos that he must destroy things because thats what being Talos means- wanting destruction. The quote from before is from the description of Talos in the Faiths and Avatars sourcebook; he tells them to go and destroy stuff. All the evil deities roll that way.
Priests of Talos, and most evil gods, do, most of the time, exist on the margins of society; Umberlee and a few others have some marginally more mainstream clergy but generally, evil god = outside the mainstream, because it means doing evil things. Placation-intended worship is done informally, without clerical institutions.
This is also why you have say, Talona, god of poison. That wouldn't exist in the real world cosmologies but does in the realms. I'm not debating Rome/Greece because while FR obviously borrows some elements, but its not the same. Obviously, part of the decision was to create paragons of good and evil to generate campaign conflict, but I don't think its wholly uninteresting. Real life Gods had to be percived to serve the community because, you know, they weren't real. FR gods are real so they can get by through you know, their ability to perform vast magics.
And, also, the way Baldur's Gate implements evil clerics is probably a little less evil than this. But, they are still evil and unpleasant types. Its certainly not a valued community role!
In terms of books, I mean the sourcebooks. If the sourcebooks don't matter at all, then you may as well just say its entirely arbitrary (which is fine largely, since it is per individual game anyway). Like, running campaigns where Deific worship is more related to mainstream religion might be fun, but thats not FR religion; FR is a very black and white world.
@Tinter - you were using good and evil to indicate that worshipers of an 'Evil' god was a nasty sob and that clergy of same would be even worse and therefore would be chased out or ostracized. What we are trying to express is that isn't necessarily the case. Certainly an adventurer cleric of Talos or Umberlee would be quite a bit nastier than your average, but that's a whole different animal.
Nor would worshiping a god of storms necessarily mean that they actively engage in summoning storms to harm the neighbors. Again, they recognize that Umberlee and Talos are responsible for these calamities, but they don't try and emulate their god. I don't think that Talos would take kindly to that type of attitude. they would respect and worship the destruction brought on BY their god, but don't necessarily desire to cause it. Again, feed the angels that you can and the demons that you must to make your life easier.
The fact that the Temple of Umberlee is out in the open in the Docks district of Baldur's gate should be enough proof of what I am saying. It is a valid religion and probably well respected. People know not to go messing with the priestesses, but that is just common sense. Piss off the servant of Helm or Torm and you might get a stern yelling at. Piss off the priestess of storms and.... Well, they say to let sleeping dragons lie. You get the point.
As for the books, I thought you were referencing the novels, not the source books. However, even the source books can be inconsistent in their material. And what is found in those tomes are largely for the benefit of defining adventurers and their foes, not the common man.
Clerics are not the common man, and the sourcebooks outline what clerics of evil gods do quite explicitly. I already said, yes, there is also placating worship, but this doesn't involve clerics.
Clerics of evil gods in FR are essentially universally told to go and do evil things. Clerics are supposed to emulate their god. The gods take very kindly to this. Its written in the books I am literally looking at right now.
They aren't really "emulating" their Gods though- Clerics, in D&D and FR, are active channels for their Gods. Talos is effectively acting through the Clerics do destroy things with the power of Talos. And since clerics are channels of Talos's power, they have to act as Talos would want to act; i.e., destroy stuff.
However, the FR Gods also approve of things happening as per their portfolio whether they intervene or not. Do you think Torm only likes good done through him? Chauntea, only crops grown with prayers to her? No. And Talos just likes things being destroyed, because that is the nature of Talos.
As I said, I'm willing to take that they are slightly less evil in BG due to the temples; but, the alignment for Talos? Still Evil or CN, required. There are still obviously Evil only gods, such as Talona. And yes, people don't mess with the priestesses of Umberlee because they fear them (which is how evil clerics get by in society to the extent they do); I'm not sure "people are scared of you" rebuts anything I have to say.
I'm going to leave it here, because I've said my part, and its not that I don't think your interpretation would make for a bad campaign. Its just not true in the world of FR, and I'm not really interested in debating the nature of the world of the Forgotten Realms/Talos without referencing the books which are essentially where it exists/ is outlined/ was created.
I still think that you are confusing 'Adventurer' clerics as described by the source books (about adventures) and the average run of the mill clerics. And that is the fundamental difference between our points of view. A denizen of Candlekeep could quite reasonably encounter relatively innocuous priests of Talos enough to be indoctrinated into the religion with little or no problems, which was the sum total of my point.
Comments
So its easy to think Talos/ a good God of paladins would want to intervene by giving religious revalations to a bhaalspawn. I think this can also work for druids to an extent, as I said above.
@the_spyder I think with bilbo, I don't envision him as a level 1 thief when he leaves hobbiton. As far as I'm concerned, he becomes a thief during his journey. Possibly this reflects a systems limitation though.
In 2nd ed, 1st level is more talent and power than 90% of the population will ever have. It is significant. For religious classes, god did it works; most can be explained. I think a few, though, like guardian and ranger, its just hard to make work well.
As a side bonus, from a powergaming point of view, a fighter 7 (even better, berserker 7)/druid X is a far better option than any druid kit. ;-)
First, I think that Bilbo is the definition of a first level. He knows just enough about the class to understand it is different from say a Grocer. And certainly no one teaches him his profession. But then it is a literary reference and the author is going to do whatever it takes to further the story.
Possibly a better example is Raistlin from the Dragonlance series. Prior to the beginning of the first book, the entire group set off on a 5 year quest to 'Find real healers'. At that time, Raistlin doesn't even call himself a Wizard, but an apprentice. he doesn't take his 'Test' and wear the colored robes until he is 5th level. He has VERY limited ability as a wizard until he takes his test. But the point is, he has very little more than a simple notion of what it is like to be a wizard even during his first five years of adventuring.
Secondly, I agree that the vast majority of the world are zero level nobodies. Still, I see most of them as farmers and the serfs of the society. I think that easily 10-15% of the population register as some level of 'Level' characters. Every town has a Cleric of some definition. The town Hedge Wizard/witch provides simple potions and enchantments. The local militia are usually lead by seasoned warriors etc... And the town elders are usually more powerful personalities of some sort. then you get into the nobility and that is a whole other thing. At least that is the world that my adventures have always taken place in.
I think this comes to the second point as well, its not that I disagree with what you said that much, its just that reasoning leads me to a different view of 1st level power. I think we envision the level of skill 1st level represents in the game world differently. Which is fine- theres room for both our interpretations, after all!
Commoners shoudn't be killable with 1 hit, they should be level 0, but then, lvl 0 shoudn't means a weak person, should meant a non defined character in rule sets person.
A strong miner in my view for example should be a level 0 miner, what means that his Thac0, hp, AC and other status shoudn't be related to his level, but rather set by the dungeon master to portrait something more realistic and set the difficult level of that NPC (in terms of fight, banter...etc...) to match the exactly difficult intended by that DM.
Granted, Wizards start off with some prereqs in the form of book learnin and so maybe that isn't exactly apples to apples, but they really aren't more powerful than zero levels, many of which have more hit points than your average wizard.
And the BG game really slants things in the player's direction, giving advantages that they didn't have in PnP (such as an early find of the ring of wizardry) simply because wizards are so weak at 1st level. So it is really difficult to compare. Except that Kobolds (who are supposed to be half hit die monsters) can take out a party of 1st levels as often as not.
But we can agree to disagree. To me, coming out of Candlekeep 'wet behind the ears' and with just barely enough info to claim apprenticeship in a given class is exactly what was intended and exactly what we got. I think from there extrapolating that any class could gain a legitimate baseline simply through book reading and the occasional tutor makes perfect sense to me. But that is merely my opinion.
How that translates in actuality is a bit different. But basically if you get in enough scrapes, a punch that would take you out as a zero level, only gives you a bloody nose as a 5th level.
If you EE keeper those people, with EE keeper you can freely set the thac0 number, hp number and a lot of other features.
So i don't think this would be so hard to do in BG EE, cos in fact it's already done. I gave that suggestion more for PnP games in fact, to discuss that we doesn't need to always be stricted to game rules when making characters, just like in BG EE.
Paladins can get their power from virtually any deity. Given CHARNAME's...special nature, a deity like Tyr, Ilmater, or Sune might have divinely inspired him or her in order to curb CHARNAME's bloodborne thirst for destruction, death, and power.
A monk of (insert order here) was passing through Candlekeep on pilgrimage. He/she took a liking to CHARNAME, who had a youthful enthusiasm for the exotic, and taught them the ways of the order.
Its unlikely to be so on the sword coast and isn't in Amn, but its not quite "just another faith". FR does differentiate somewhat between casual worship to placate (i.e sailors to Talos) and active clergies worship, especially of evil gods.
Not an issue for your character becoming one but in role play terms its likely people are giving you more than just funny looks.
Although there are (and intentionally so) parallels between the Forgotten Realms and present day real life society, they don't all translate exactly. The worship of 'Evil' gods was much more accepted in Greek and Roman society than is common in today's 'IRL' society.
We see that there is a temple to Umberlee in Baldur's Gate. This isn't considered 'A necessary evil' or some place to 'Placate' the gods. it is an actual place of worship that every day citizens visit and worship at.
@the_spyder used Ares as a perfect real life example of a "nasty" deity that is worshiped by society normally. Ares isn't just the god of fighting, like say Tempus is in Forgotten Realms. He's also the god of the darker aspects of war, the brutality and bloodlust. Hell, the guy sleeps on bedding made from the skin of his enemies. But, people sometimes need to be in that mindset, they feel like calling up the savagery of war into their hearts might be the only way to keep their knees from shaking before the next battle. Ares worship was part of the culture, not resigned to hidden cults.
The clerical classes are different, and while they participate in that to an extent, its not really their primary function. The nature of FR deities is their clergy are supposed to do things that serve their Deities portfolio; in Talos case, this would be "so long as they call up a storm or engage in random, wanton acts of violence every tenday or so". Real life priests couldn't actually, you know, blow up your house, and certainly weren't supposed to do so as an instruction/
Thats why in FR the forces of good will generally oppose all evil clerics to some extent, because almost all of their dogma require them to do evil things.
FR has a polythestic system but it isn't an expy of real world ancient religions in that way, its cosmology is different. If we were debating historical reality, I'd agree with you in many cases, but we aren't.
In the forgotten realms, there are spells of detect alignment. Good and evil are actual metaphysical forces, so people in FR are 100% aware of whats evil at least in deific terms, and Talos and some other evil gods are illegal in a number of places.
This is much less so in the world of Baldur's Gate the videogames, so I'm not saying its as unusual or frowned upon as it would be in the FR books. In any case, neither the Baldur's Gate nor Amn are one of the areas it would be illegal. People, though, would generally be quite unfavourable towards it- evil is evil in FR.
Additionally, "Good and Evil" might be metaphysical forces in the world of the Forgotten realms as you say (and maybe they are in this world as well) but they take the form of Demons and angels and monsters and saints rather than manifesting in every day life for the 'Normal folk'. Maybe less than 1 percent of actual participants in the forgotten realms would be listed as unredeamably and unrepentantly evil or (on the other side of the coin) saintly and angelic. These terms, although generally describe bents of personality, are not 'Forces of metaphysics' in the common person.
Also, keep in mind that gods in FR or in ancient Rome/Greece that represented the nastier side of life often represented less 'Evil' and more simply aspects of reality that needed to be controlled. Thus a god of War (for instance) wouldn't necessarily be worshiped by someone who was bloodthirsty and had to kill his neighbors every third Wednesday, but more by someone that realized the reality of war and it's existence. Thus Umberlee is probably worshiped and respected by anyone who has been caught in a storm at sea or relies on the sea in any form for their livelihood. Talos as well.
You feed the angels that you can and the demons that you must. People wouldn't look down on you for doing so. And priests of these religions are seen as performing a very valid and important function. They don't hide in the shadows in reality or in fantasy.
Finally, being part of a religion in real life or in fantasy or in ancient Greece or Rome is (in my view) at least partly as a method of placating the 'Powers that be'. That doesn't make the worship any less real or valid. People believe in that which will make their lives better, smite their enemies, protect themselves and generally allow them to get on with their lives.
As for the FR books, I haven't read very many of them. I will say that the authors are less painting a window into the world and more trying to sell a story. Interpretations of various styles and behavior patterns are going to be subjective at best.
Yes, it applies strongest to metaphysical forces like Demons, angels, and which other type of character lives in the same part of the planes? The deities!
The gods in Rome/Greece were that. In FR, they are evil. Partly so, you know, adventurers can go and kill their servants.
They have the "placation" aspect as well, yes. Thats why they get what little worship they do.
The clergy, though, are mapped out differently. A cleric of Talos isn't a guy who helps keep storms away from the local community, hes a guy who likes killing people with lightning. He literally has to be an evil person (or CN, evil-lite), and is instructed by Talos that he must destroy things because thats what being Talos means- wanting destruction. The quote from before is from the description of Talos in the Faiths and Avatars sourcebook; he tells them to go and destroy stuff. All the evil deities roll that way.
Priests of Talos, and most evil gods, do, most of the time, exist on the margins of society; Umberlee and a few others have some marginally more mainstream clergy but generally, evil god = outside the mainstream, because it means doing evil things. Placation-intended worship is done informally, without clerical institutions.
This is also why you have say, Talona, god of poison. That wouldn't exist in the real world cosmologies but does in the realms. I'm not debating Rome/Greece because while FR obviously borrows some elements, but its not the same. Obviously, part of the decision was to create paragons of good and evil to generate campaign conflict, but I don't think its wholly uninteresting. Real life Gods had to be percived to serve the community because, you know, they weren't real. FR gods are real so they can get by through you know, their ability to perform vast magics.
And, also, the way Baldur's Gate implements evil clerics is probably a little less evil than this. But, they are still evil and unpleasant types. Its certainly not a valued community role!
In terms of books, I mean the sourcebooks. If the sourcebooks don't matter at all, then you may as well just say its entirely arbitrary (which is fine largely, since it is per individual game anyway). Like, running campaigns where Deific worship is more related to mainstream religion might be fun, but thats not FR religion; FR is a very black and white world.
Nor would worshiping a god of storms necessarily mean that they actively engage in summoning storms to harm the neighbors. Again, they recognize that Umberlee and Talos are responsible for these calamities, but they don't try and emulate their god. I don't think that Talos would take kindly to that type of attitude. they would respect and worship the destruction brought on BY their god, but don't necessarily desire to cause it. Again, feed the angels that you can and the demons that you must to make your life easier.
The fact that the Temple of Umberlee is out in the open in the Docks district of Baldur's gate should be enough proof of what I am saying. It is a valid religion and probably well respected. People know not to go messing with the priestesses, but that is just common sense. Piss off the servant of Helm or Torm and you might get a stern yelling at. Piss off the priestess of storms and.... Well, they say to let sleeping dragons lie. You get the point.
As for the books, I thought you were referencing the novels, not the source books. However, even the source books can be inconsistent in their material. And what is found in those tomes are largely for the benefit of defining adventurers and their foes, not the common man.
Clerics of evil gods in FR are essentially universally told to go and do evil things. Clerics are supposed to emulate their god. The gods take very kindly to this. Its written in the books I am literally looking at right now.
They aren't really "emulating" their Gods though- Clerics, in D&D and FR, are active channels for their Gods. Talos is effectively acting through the Clerics do destroy things with the power of Talos. And since clerics are channels of Talos's power, they have to act as Talos would want to act; i.e., destroy stuff.
However, the FR Gods also approve of things happening as per their portfolio whether they intervene or not. Do you think Torm only likes good done through him? Chauntea, only crops grown with prayers to her? No. And Talos just likes things being destroyed, because that is the nature of Talos.
As I said, I'm willing to take that they are slightly less evil in BG due to the temples; but, the alignment for Talos? Still Evil or CN, required. There are still obviously Evil only gods, such as Talona. And yes, people don't mess with the priestesses of Umberlee because they fear them (which is how evil clerics get by in society to the extent they do); I'm not sure "people are scared of you" rebuts anything I have to say.
I'm going to leave it here, because I've said my part, and its not that I don't think your interpretation would make for a bad campaign. Its just not true in the world of FR, and I'm not really interested in debating the nature of the world of the Forgotten Realms/Talos without referencing the books which are essentially where it exists/ is outlined/ was created.
I still think that you are confusing 'Adventurer' clerics as described by the source books (about adventures) and the average run of the mill clerics. And that is the fundamental difference between our points of view. A denizen of Candlekeep could quite reasonably encounter relatively innocuous priests of Talos enough to be indoctrinated into the religion with little or no problems, which was the sum total of my point.