PDA

View Full Version : [4e] Why is Bane Evil?



KillianHawkeye
2008-07-24, 08:17 PM
Let me start by saying that I am not familiar with prior incarnations of Bane or his followers from FR or whatever setting he is from originally. Therefore, this question is based on the limited information found on pgs. 162-163 of the DMG.

Bane's Commandments
- Never allow your fear to gain mastery over you, but drive it into the hearts of your foes.
- Punish insubordination and disorder.
- Hone your combat skills to perfection, whether you are a mighty general or a lone mercenary.

So back to my question: what about Bane makes him Evil? Compared to the other Evil Gods, he really doesn't seem very bad. #2 and #3 above don't seem Evil at all. So is it because he encourages spreading fear to your enemies? Attacking the opposing force's morale is a pretty valid combat strategy, and doesn't seem that bad on the Evil scale to me.

Or is it because of some Real World "war = bad" feeling? Because I don't see it. Or at least, I don't see bad = Evil in this case. I mean, it takes two sides to have a war, right? In D&D at least, usually one side is the Good side and one side is the Bad side, so that would make the act of war neither Good nor Evil.

Let's compare Bane's commandments with the single most Evil commandment of the other Evil Gods, shall we?

Asmodeus: Repay evil with evil. If others are kind to you, exploit their weakness for your own gain.
Gruumsh: Let your strength crush the weak.
Lolth: Do whatever it takes to gain and hold power.
Tharizdun: Pursue the obliteration of the world, in anticipation of the Chained God's liberation.
Tiamat: Take what your desire from others. Those who lack the strength to defend their possessions are not worthy to own them.
Torog: Delight in giving pain, and consider pain you receive as homage to Torog.
Vecna: Find the seed of darkness in your heart and nourish it; find it in others and exploit it to your advantage.
Zehir: Kill in Zehir's name and offer each murder as a sacrifice.

IMO, not one of Bane's commandments is as Evil as any of those. Am I the only one who really doesn't see where the Evil is? Fighting in general is definitely not Evil, so war (which is just fighting on a grander scale) should not be Evil either. Is conquest for the sake of conquest Evil? I wouldn't have thought so, but maybe I'm wrong? Certainly, Evil acts can happen when you're conquering a foreign land, but does that make the conquesting itself Evil?

Personally, I would have put Bane (as described in the DMG) into the Unaligned column. (Under the previous alignment system, I'd say extremely LN.) So, playgrounders, what am I missing?

Gorbash
2008-07-24, 08:30 PM
They'll probably expand his evilness in a splatbook, but he's evil in Faerun, so he stays evil in 4th edition.

ArtifexFelicis
2008-07-24, 08:34 PM
Well, he let everyone out of Arkham and then proceeded to systematically break the Batman in the worst way possible.

Oh, wrong guy. Sorry.

Bane's the God of War and Conquest. Agression and the willingness to start as war and to crush the enemy and probably also their homeland as best they can. I don't believe Bane would be on the side of Troy, if you get my meaning.

Fear Tactics is generally an accepted practice in War. A morale broken man is easier to beat then one with resolve. But at the same time that is not something anyone would want to be known for. Fear itself could be said to be the very worst emotion of all, crippling and breaking a man before fancy karate gimmicks are even needed.

I might have gotten off point. Bane is also the god of War and Conquest. Conquest in this case not fighting for survival, but rather due to more selfish reasons. One example is the Just War. Which in itself can only be done by a defensive nation. This requires someone to initate the war, and thusly loses any pretext of being "just."

Sides, War's Bad. there's very little, is anything that comes from war, and I think Bane would be the god to revel in the actual slaughter and crushing of enemies on the field and then to their homes as well.

To boil it down. War is bad, and the person who starts it tends to be considered evil. Bane's the god of the guy who started it.

skywalker
2008-07-24, 08:55 PM
Another point, just because someone's commandments aren't evil, doesn't mean they themselves can't be evil. Just like some of the commandments of the good gods aren't necessarily good. In particular, those of Moradin:
- Meet adversity with stoicism and tenacity.
- Demonstrate loyalty to your family, your clan, your leaders, and your people.
- Strive to make a mark on the world, a lasting legacy. To make something that lasts is the highest good, whether you are a smith working at a forge or a
ruler building a dynasty.

#s 1 and 3 really don't inspire a "wow, that's good" reaction in me, and 2 seems like a bit of a stretch. I personally find loyalty a good thing, but I don't consider it the bedrock of good. I consider it the bedrock of lawfulness, but that's a completely different subject. I'm not looking to start an alignment debate(which, regardless of the fact that I think the other side won, I'm glad 4e seems to have killed) but law /= good. Likewise, the commandments of Avandra(my personal favorite 4e deity) don't seem very "good." That doesn't mean she can't be good and Bane can't be evil.

Cybren
2008-07-24, 09:05 PM
Sides, War's Bad. there's very little, is anything that comes from war, and I think Bane would be the god to revel in the actual slaughter and crushing of enemies on the field and then to their homes as well.
"war is bad" is a fairly anachronistic concept to most medieval worlds, though. After all, in Middle Age Europe the system was "Those who work, those who fight, and those who pray". Those who fight? They're also the ones who rule.

The Gilded Duke
2008-07-24, 09:06 PM
Actually working on designing a culture of Kobolds with a non-Evil variety of Tiamat worship. Probably going to call it something like Cult of the Prismatic Lady, or Saints of the Prismatic Lady. Focusing on Tiamat's wisdom as guidance in all acts.

-Hoard Wealth: Do not let today's success tempt you to sloth. The excesses of today may fill the needs of tomorrow.

-Forgive no slight and leave no wrong unpunished: Do not forget the actions of the guilty, lest they perform them again, either because of their own lack of discipline, or because of your lack of response.

-Take what you desire from others. Those who lack the strength to defend them are unworthy of their ownership: Would you let a weak man rule? Would you let a weak man guard the gate? If they cannot defend their possessions why should they manage them?

With the right lens and vision all the colors can be seen in light. So can the Prismatic Lady's wisdom be seen in all of existence.

-----------------
So far these are the closest things to good guys the players have encountered between the cannibalistic ghost worshiping humans and the tiefling followers of Ioun dedicated to rediscovering the knowledge of long lost Bael Turach.

Vexxation
2008-07-24, 09:11 PM
"war is bad" is a fairly anachronistic concept to most medieval worlds, though. After all, in Middle Age Europe the system was "Those who work, those who fight, and those who pray". Those who fight? They're also the ones who rule.

Yeah, but very often those who ruled were corrupt tyrants, sucking the life out of their serfs. There's a reason we don't do that any more.

If you rule for power, or for glory, or any reason other than "it's in the best interest of everybody if I guide them" and you truly mean it, then you are not ruling as a Good ruler. You are at best neutral. Good is altruism; you rule because if you didn't, a tyrant or fool would lead the people into chaos and suffering. Ruling because you can instead of because you should is not a good act at all.


Take what you desire from others. Those who lack the strength to defend them are unworthy of their ownership: Would you let a weak man rule? Would you let a weak man guard the gate? If they cannot defend their possessions why should they manage them?

Evil much? That's like the epitome of Sith teaching right there.

KillianHawkeye
2008-07-24, 09:18 PM
@skywalker: Point taken about the commandments not being the best guide for the God's alignment.

@ArtifexFelicis: That's a good point about agression. You're right that a guy who wants armies of people to kill each other is going to tend to be a bit on the Evil side. He's at least going to be more popular with the Evil folk, but I can still see a Good person following him. In the same way that I can see an Evil person following Kord, I guess.

I have to disagree (as I already mentioned in the OP) with the generic war = bad "just because" line however. Certainly bad things can come from war, but so too can good things. For instance, historically war has been the #1 cause of technological advancement IRL, which is generally considered a "good thing". Without wars, we'd never have teh Internetz, because we wouldn't have computers, because we wouldn't have ever needed them for anything and we'd still be living in mud huts. :smallamused:

Anyway, with a name like Bane, I guess it's no surprise that he's Evil. I was just hoping somebody could fill in the blanks a bit since the fluff is so light in the DMG (and everyplace else in 4e, for that matter).

Admiral_Kelly
2008-07-24, 09:18 PM
I agree with the original poster. Perhaps I am missing something, Bane does not sound evil at all especially in comparison with the 'other' evil gods. Spread fear into your enemies is not evil; heck, considering it can make your opponent back down and surrender, this is actually a good thing as opposed to engaging in battle and suffering major casualties on both sides.

However, these laws could be very well used by forces of evil and therefore dose not mean Bane is good. Still, he is listed as evil and I would like to know why.

Vexxation
2008-07-24, 09:30 PM
Anyway, with a name like Bane, I guess it's no surprise that he's Evil. I was just hoping somebody could fill in the blanks a bit since the fluff is so light in the DMG (and everyplace else in 4e, for that matter).

I'll type up a bit of fluff about Bane from the Faerun Faith and Pantheons supplement.

"The Black Lord, the Black Hand, the Lord of Darkness."
Symbol: Green rays squeezed forth from a black fist.
Home Plane: The Barrens of Doom and Despair
Alignment: Lawful Evil
Portfolio: Strife, hatred, tyranny, fear
Worshipers: Conquerors, evil fighters and monks, tyrants, wizards
Cleric Alignments: LN, LE, NE
Domains: Evil, Destruction, Hatred, Law, Tyranny
Favored Weapon: "The Black Hand of Bane" (a gauntlet)

Though Bane transcended mortality centuries ago, his primary goal remains notably human-he seeks nothing short of the total domination of Faerun. When his servants sit upon the throne of every land, when commoners serve their masters in fear for their very lives, and when altruism and hope have been erased from the world, then will Bane rest. Until that day, however, the Black Hand has eternity to hatch demented plots and vile intrigues. Eventually, he will rule all of Faerun, but there's no hurry. Getting there will be half the fun.

He seems pretty evil to me, after reading that.

Admiral_Kelly
2008-07-24, 09:35 PM
Alright, he is evil; but those commandments in of themselves are not.

KillianHawkeye
2008-07-24, 09:38 PM
Well, he certainly is living up to his name now. Thanks, Vexx!

RTGoodman
2008-07-24, 09:45 PM
For what it's worth, I think one of the preview articles late last year or early this year (the one that talked about the gods) said that the 4E Bane not supposed to just be the same as the FR Bane, even though they're similar gods with the same name. They started with that name as a placeholder for [Evil God of Conquest] and when they realized it was the best they could come up with, it stuck.

Those commandments don't sound all that Evil, but those aren't the only things Bane wants and they certainly aren't what determines his alignment. He's the God of War and Conquest, pure and simple, and not some namby-pamby "Ooh, I don't like them, so we're going fight" War and Conquest. More like, "I want that and I'm gonna kill anyone I have to so I can take it for myself." He's probably closer to Unaligned than the rest of the Evil gods and probably the most likely to have non-Evil worshipers, but I still think he's definitely Evil.

AmberVael
2008-07-24, 09:46 PM
Alright, he is evil; but those commandments in of themselves are not.

Presumably that's why a Lawful Neutral cleric can worship him.
Come to think of it, it would be interesting to see how many deities have "neutral" commandments. It would explain how there could be such moral diversity among clerics of the same god, and why they still all receive spells.

Covered In Bees
2008-07-24, 10:13 PM
I don't know, that's a good question. Why is Bane evil? Maybe his followers meddle in politics, urging nations to go to war. Maybe he, personally, reaches down and smites puppies. Maybe he's actively opposed to peace.

The answer is whatever improves your campaign world.

ShaggyMarco
2008-07-24, 10:20 PM
More importantly, Bane is, traditionally, the evil God who most commonly is openly worshipped in civilized lands.

In a country that has constantly been beseiged by monsters and demon-worshipping savages, a church promising strength against their enemies, order in a chaotic land, and freedom from fear would be VERY appealing.

This is where the points of light concept shines--Bane becomes a major God in many of thos epoints of light because the setting itself just BEGS for him to come in and "save" the isolated and fearful with his dogma.

Plus, it is great when the gung-ho good guy adventurers walk into town needing a heal and they find out the town's major temple is a temple to Bane.

Isomenes
2008-07-24, 10:34 PM
http://userpages.umbc.edu/~skille/sontaranstrategem.jpg

Sontar-ha!!

mikeejimbo
2008-07-24, 10:36 PM
Another point, just because someone's commandments aren't evil, doesn't mean they themselves can't be evil. Just like some of the commandments of the good gods aren't necessarily good. In particular, those of Moradin:

Of course it's interesting to note that Moradin was previously Lawful Neutral, and when trying to decide whether he would be Lawful Good or Unaligned, his Lawful nature won out, so he's Lawful Good now.

Kiara LeSabre
2008-07-25, 12:07 AM
Actually working on designing a culture of Kobolds with a non-Evil variety of Tiamat worship. Probably going to call it something like Cult of the Prismatic Lady, or Saints of the Prismatic Lady. Focusing on Tiamat's wisdom as guidance in all acts.

-Hoard Wealth: Do not let today's success tempt you to sloth. The excesses of today may fill the needs of tomorrow.

-Forgive no slight and leave no wrong unpunished: Do not forget the actions of the guilty, lest they perform them again, either because of their own lack of discipline, or because of your lack of response.

-Take what you desire from others. Those who lack the strength to defend them are unworthy of their ownership: Would you let a weak man rule? Would you let a weak man guard the gate? If they cannot defend their possessions why should they manage them?

With the right lens and vision all the colors can be seen in light. So can the Prismatic Lady's wisdom be seen in all of existence.

-----------------
So far these are the closest things to good guys the players have encountered between the cannibalistic ghost worshiping humans and the tiefling followers of Ioun dedicated to rediscovering the knowledge of long lost Bael Turach.

{scrubbed}

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-25, 12:20 AM
{Scrubbed}

Careful, thin ice can crack.

Really, certain evil gods have dogmas that are honestly neutral, but are evil largely because of their context in the setting.

Vecna, for example. The power of secrets could easily be a neutral god of espionage or intelligence, but the flavor makes him an evil lich god of blackmail.


Bane, I think could be a lawful netural god of military logistics, but the setting makes him the god of the hobgoblin hordes.

Killersquid
2008-07-25, 12:44 AM
Bane, I think could be a lawful netural god of military logistics, but the setting makes him the god of the hobgoblin hordes.

In 4e core, definately, however in FR that goes to the Red Knight, goddess of strategy and warplanning.

Hawriel
2008-07-25, 01:40 AM
Bane is a tyrant. Pure and simple he is a devine dictator in every sence a dictator is evil. when he wants to punish toughs who disobay it meens kill them horrificly. He causes strife, hatred and fear. Thats his portfolio. He is a lawful god because he wants to controle. Order through tyrany. Stalin is a perfect example of what Bane wants in a follower. That is why he is evil.

Kurald Galain
2008-07-25, 03:39 AM
With a name like "Bane", how could he not be evil?

It's like waking up one morning and realizing that since your name is Victor Von Doom anyway, you might as well put it to use because everybody's going to think you'lre intent on taking over the world.

ghost_warlock
2008-07-25, 04:28 AM
With a name like "Bane", how could he not be evil?

It's like waking up one morning and realizing that since your name is Victor Von Doom anyway, you might as well put it to use because everybody's going to think you'lre intent on taking over the world.

That makes me want to make a lawful good paladin named Murderface Bloodyblades. :smallbiggrin:

hamishspence
2008-07-25, 04:37 AM
of course, with 4th ed, your Bane-worshipper could be like old LN, N, or CN, depending on personality traits.

You could have a LG cleric or paladin of Bane who has "fallen" away from evil, but still follows some of Bane's tenets. You could have this for any deity.

Aquillion
2008-07-25, 04:41 AM
Or is it because of some Real World "war = bad" feeling? Because I don't see it.I think it's more a cultural thing. It isn't really visible from the commandments, but read the part directly above them:

Bane is the evil god of war and conquest. Militaristic nations of humans and goblins serve him and conquer in his name. Evil fighters and paladins serve him. He commands his worshipers to:

Bane encourages his followers to embrace and seek wars of conquest for their own sake. This makes him evil. It isn't "war = bad", but "militarism = bad", which is a somewhat different thing.

And D&D isn't historical. While some things are based on history, its moral system is intended to be palpable and logical to its players, not to people from the 10th century.

KillianHawkeye
2008-07-25, 04:42 AM
Of course it's interesting to note that Moradin was previously Lawful Neutral, and when trying to decide whether he would be Lawful Good or Unaligned, his Lawful nature won out, so he's Lawful Good now.

Um, Moradin has always been Lawful Good. At least, ever since 3e came out 8 years ago; I'm not sure about before that. Maybe you're thinking of someone else?

bosssmiley
2008-07-25, 05:36 AM
Q: Why is Bane Evil?
A: Because he stole Hextor and Erythnul's trappings and portfolios wholesale and tried to pass them off as his own. There's no greater evil than plagiarism. :smallwink:

Seriously though. Bane is probably supposed to be 4E's Erythnul; the god of the frothing horde than storms over the hill, burns your farmstead and loots/kills/etc anything or -one that doesn't flee, then builds pyramids of skulls and rides off laughing about it. He's supposed to represent the unacceptable face of war; just as Heironyous (now Paladine Bahamut) represents war as necessary self-defence.

Evil in D&D = stuff we don't like. No-one likes getting their home torched and their stuff looted. Therefore Bane (god of torching and looting) = Evil.

edit: V-- videogames, just ask Jack Thompson

Charity
2008-07-25, 05:49 AM
I blame the parents.

Torchlyte
2008-07-25, 05:52 AM
I blame the parents.

You win the thread.

Kurald Galain
2008-07-25, 05:53 AM
Evil in D&D = stuff we don't like. No-one likes getting their home torched and their stuff looted. Therefore Bane (god of torching and looting) = Evil.

So who's the god of "rolling a one three times in a row", then? :smallbiggrin:

Conners
2008-07-25, 06:40 AM
I thought Bane was the guy who gave his power to Bhaal and the other two guys (making them into the gods or Murder, Death, and Tyranny for the third one I think) in the Forgotten Realms setting? Maybe I'm thinking of someone else?

Attilargh
2008-07-25, 06:46 AM
You are. It was Jergal who gave up his divinity to the deities now known as the "Dead Three", Bhaal, Myrkul and Bane.

hewhosaysfish
2008-07-25, 07:17 AM
Q: Why is Bane Evil?
A: Because he stole Hextor and Erythnul's trappings and portfolios wholesale and tried to pass them off as his own. There's no greater evil than plagiarism. :smallwink:

Seriously though. Bane is probably supposed to be 4E's Erythnul; the god of the frothing horde than storms over the hill, burns your farmstead and loots/kills/etc anything or -one that doesn't flee, then builds pyramids of skulls and rides off laughing about it. He's supposed to represent the unacceptable face of war; just as Heironyous (now Paladine Bahamut) represents war as necessary self-defence.

Evil in D&D = stuff we don't like. No-one likes getting their home torched and their stuff looted. Therefore Bane (god of torching and looting) = Evil.

edit: V-- videogames, just ask Jack Thompson

Actually, I think it is Gruumsh who does the whole frothing-hordes-and-a-pyramid-of-skulls thing (i.e he got all Erythnul's stuff when the designers realised they didn't need one god for orcs doing it and another god for everyone else doing it).
Bane doesn't have hordes so much as legions and they don't froth, they march in step (if the DM is heavy handed, probably a goosestep).
They don't decapitate the populace and pile up the severed heads: they leave the populace alive to work, beat them with sticks if they aren't productive enough and use the profits to fund the war efffort and erect enormous statues of Bane and/or his current earthly representative.
Bane may occasional do the pile-of-skulls thing, I suppose, but only in towns that try to resist his forces, to make an example for the future.

Pronounceable
2008-07-25, 09:02 AM
Evil in D&D = stuff we don't like. No-one likes getting their home torched and their stuff looted.

What does that make PCs?

shadow_archmagi
2008-07-25, 09:06 AM
Actually, I think it is Gruumsh who does the whole frothing-hordes-and-a-pyramid-of-skulls thing (i.e he got all Erythnul's stuff when the designers realised they didn't need one god for orcs doing it and another god for everyone else doing it).
Bane doesn't have hordes so much as legions and they don't froth, they march in step (if the DM is heavy handed, probably a goosestep).
They don't decapitate the populace and pile up the severed heads: they leave the populace alive to work, beat them with sticks if they aren't productive enough and use the profits to fund the war efffort and erect enormous statues of Bane and/or his current earthly representative.
Bane may occasional do the pile-of-skulls thing, I suppose, but only in towns that try to resist his forces, to make an example for the future.


Ah. So he's Lawful Evil.

Kurald Galain
2008-07-25, 09:13 AM
Ah. So he's Lawful Evil.

Nope, because Five Alignments is way more realistic than Nine!

Morty
2008-07-25, 09:28 AM
What does that make PCs?

Looters and murderers with better PR?

Starbuck_II
2008-07-25, 09:51 AM
Nope, because Five Alignments is way more realistic than Nine!

LE is Evil in 4th so he is still Lawful Evil.

Conners
2008-07-25, 09:54 AM
You are. It was Jergal who gave up his divinity to the deities now known as the "Dead Three", Bhaal, Myrkul and Bane. Ah, that's why I got mixed up (I never remembered Bane's name, only his status). Thanks for reminding me of their names, they'll be a feature of my campaigns.

One thing that confuses me, however: Didn't Bane choose to rule the world, not just be a god who has an effective army? Was it just the fact Jergal gave him as much ruling-power as was possible, or did he lose power in the Time of Troubles?
Also: What is status of those three? Bhaal is dead, I'm pretty sure, and I heard Myrkul bit the dust--but I also heard Bane did, and now he seems to be a part of 4th edition. What's up with that?

Totally Guy
2008-07-25, 11:28 AM
The Brotherhood of Bane is evil so the the players are justified in killing their members. Plus you could do good backstories for warlords and fighters trying to unjoin their ranks. I like the the whole redeemably evil concept of course I don't think the concept synergises well with military background but it's still good for (formerly explicit) Lawful people.

The odd thing is I was planning on on having a low level bunch of redeemable villains about called the Brotherhood of Bane before I'd even read the 4E god's names.

ashmanonar
2008-07-25, 12:21 PM
@skywalker: Point taken about the commandments not being the best guide for the God's alignment.

@ArtifexFelicis: That's a good point about agression. You're right that a guy who wants armies of people to kill each other is going to tend to be a bit on the Evil side. He's at least going to be more popular with the Evil folk, but I can still see a Good person following him. In the same way that I can see an Evil person following Kord, I guess.

I have to disagree (as I already mentioned in the OP) with the generic war = bad "just because" line however. Certainly bad things can come from war, but so too can good things. For instance, historically war has been the #1 cause of technological advancement IRL, which is generally considered a "good thing". Without wars, we'd never have teh Internetz, because we wouldn't have computers, because we wouldn't have ever needed them for anything and we'd still be living in mud huts. :smallamused:

Anyway, with a name like Bane, I guess it's no surprise that he's Evil. I was just hoping somebody could fill in the blanks a bit since the fluff is so light in the DMG (and everyplace else in 4e, for that matter).

Kord is unaligned in 4e. It kinda makes sense, really; he was Chaotic Good before anyways. He's kind of a one-dimensional god, really. Protect the weak with your strength, etc.

Morty
2008-07-25, 12:25 PM
Also: What is status of those three? Bhaal is dead, I'm pretty sure, and I heard Myrkul bit the dust--but I also heard Bane did, and now he seems to be a part of 4th edition. What's up with that?

4ed Bane and 3ed FR Bane share only name and portfolio- they're separate dieties, so Bane's status in FR is irrelevant. And in FR Bane's alive anyway- he managed to weasel his way back.

Project_Mayhem
2008-07-25, 04:45 PM
So who's the god of "rolling a one three times in a row", then?

That would be the Traveller

RTGoodman
2008-07-25, 04:55 PM
That would be the Traveller

Or Fharlanghn and Olidammara, who've teamed up to wreak havoc on gamers' dice because they were cut out of 4E (and because they were cursed with names that seem nigh unpronounceable). :smalltongue:

bosssmiley
2008-07-25, 05:31 PM
What does that make PCs?

Why Designated Heroes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DesignatedHero) of course. Ah, good ole TV Tropes. Is there anything that website doesn't have a pat answer for?*

* Other than "My work here is done". TV Tropes has NO page for this. :smalleek:

@hewhosaysfish: Thanks for the catch mate. Looks like Bane looted the Hextor/Azrai/Torak dress-up box for garb.

KillianHawkeye
2008-07-25, 06:36 PM
Kord is unaligned in 4e. It kinda makes sense, really; he was Chaotic Good before anyways. He's kind of a one-dimensional god, really. Protect the weak with your strength, etc.

Ah, you're right! I forgot he became more neutral now. But Kord is a major deity in my 3.5 game right now and I still have at least one Evil NPC who worships him. I guess it's just too easy to warp and corrupt the dogma of a strength-based religion. :smallwink:

wodan46
2008-07-25, 11:28 PM
Interesting as while Bane might be evil based on his actions, his commandments aren't, at least as far as a typical adventuring party goes. It would be fun to make a Bane-Worshipping Paladin whose attitude is that of a Blood Knight (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BloodKnight). It would be a way of building an evil Paladin who could fit in a regular party of do-gooders without causing total loss of party cohesion, especially since Bane opposes insubordination and disorder.

As pointed out by others, in D&D, good aligned adventurers spend most of their time running around killing and looting stuff anyway, so its not like the Bane Paladin would get bored. Unless his allies tried something stupid like Diplomacy.

Wonder what kind of Channel Divinity Feat Bane would give. Probably +2 attack and +2/4/6 damage for your next attack if the enemy is Bloodied.

EndlessWrath
2008-07-26, 12:43 AM
Look at the definition of the word "Bane" which is the name of this god.

bane
n : something causes misery or death; "the bane of my life"
[syn: curse, scourge, nemesis]

hmm... with just the name he sounds evil. ..coincidence? I think not!

AJCSIV
2008-07-26, 03:36 AM
I still cast a vote for ignore any indication of good or evil and look at it in terms of beneficial or detrimental {IE: Sod subjective morality and go what's objectively present}. However, if you want to define good as what is beneficial and evil as what is detrimental, then Bane is basically in the middle. Some would argue he's not completely evil because he can easily be beneficial for entire empires via expansion and unifying of a countryside by militarism, using fear to induce public order and making the country more powerful and thus staving off invasion from say the demon hordes of Antarak.
However, the general flavour given to him is what one would call a self-serving militarism and though all the war and fear he might cause could have been put to good use, his selfish nature will horde it all for himself and will seek to war and conquest to increase his holdings, not to benefit them. So he's bad right? Not necessarily. Any effective ruler knows that if you can make the lands you own prosper without giving the people too much power you can tripple your own power/prestige/finances/whatever and be of immense benefit to the people. So, if Bane is smart, he'd be trying to help his worshippers and underlings prosper just enough to give him and his underlings maximum benefit with minimum detriment to himself. Of course that last bit relies completely not on his tennants but on his personal character, and it's his character that makes him 'good' or 'evil', not his tennants.

Killersquid
2008-07-26, 03:43 AM
I still cast a vote for ignore any indication of good or evil and look at it in terms of beneficial or detrimental {IE: Sod subjective morality and go what's objectively present}. However, if you want to define good as what is beneficial and evil as what is detrimental, then Bane is basically in the middle. Some would argue he's not completely evil because he can easily be beneficial for entire empires via expansion and unifying of a countryside by militarism, using fear to induce public order and making the country more powerful and thus staving off invasion from say the demon hordes of Antarak.
However, the general flavour given to him is what one would call a self-serving militarism and though all the war and fear he might cause could have been put to good use, his selfish nature will horde it all for himself and will seek to war and conquest to increase his holdings, not to benefit them. So he's bad right? Not necessarily. Any effective ruler knows that if you can make the lands you own prosper without giving the people too much power you can tripple your own power/prestige/finances/whatever and be of immense benefit to the people. So, if Bane is smart, he'd be trying to help his worshippers and underlings prosper just enough to give him and his underlings maximum benefit with minimum detriment to himself. Of course that last bit relies completely not on his tennants but on his personal character, and it's his character that makes him 'good' or 'evil', not his tennants.

Bane erupted out of the flesh of his own son to regain his divinity. That is evil (and badass).

AJCSIV
2008-07-26, 03:44 AM
{Oh there's a second page to read, missed that}

On the note of etymology, how much fun could you have by turning every one of those into a good thing thus making Bane a good god but absolutely hated and persecuted by the other religions. Now that would make an interesting adventure, especially if the players are the persecutors and only realise what they're doing halfway through.

Starshade
2008-07-26, 05:01 AM
Presumably that's why a Lawful Neutral cleric can worship him.
Come to think of it, it would be interesting to see how many deities have "neutral" commandments. It would explain how there could be such moral diversity among clerics of the same god, and why they still all receive spells.

Well, i feel we got a definition problem of evil. What is evil? A negative act done against a human, a group of human, or something we care for.

Personally, if i was to imagine what id do as a evil D&D god, id allow all 9 allignments to worship me. What is more evil than having your own knightly lawfull good order of Paladins doing your bidding, following guidlines as:
- Be strong, protect the pure.
- Never let a bad deed go unpunished, equality demands justice
- Purity of blood demands expurgation of the Impure, etc.

Isnt that actually more evil, having faithfull Good assisting demons and evil Chaotic Evil priests, than not? :smallbiggrin:
Some strange justification for doing the work could always exist, and it would make D&D look more realistic imo. :smallsmile:

Titanium Dragon
2008-07-26, 05:24 AM
Being evil doesn't mean you eat babies. I've played many an evil character, and they've ranged from mercenary to slaughtering people for their souls so he can feed them to a demon who can break down some magical barriers.

I don't see Bane as a particularly evil god personally; while he's not a nice guy, he's not baby-eating evil.

In order of the evil gods, from least evil to chaotic stupid (from the limited descriptions, ignoring stuff outside of it):

Bane
Tiamat
Asmodeus
Lolth
Vecna
Torog
Zehir
Gruumsh
Tharizdun

I don't know if that's particularly accurate, but Asmodeus' worst is basically "eye for an eye", which really isn't all that bad.

Honestly, I think the whole alignment thing confuses a lot of people and makes them think of things as too black and white. Not all evil gods need to be all that bad or to be exemplars of their alignment. They may be exemplars of their IDEALS, or may be hypocrites, or they may just people imperfect or bad, but just because a god is evil doesn't mean he has to be horrible or impossible to respect.

Indeed, I find it interesting to mess with people with evil gods whose followers and even teachings the players or PCs don't entirely disagree with. It can also lead to interesting tension on your own side; you're defending a city and the best defenders other than you are the Baneites. Can you deal with the strict, unpleasant Banites while fighting off the orc horde? Maybe they're your best chance of success, even if it leaves a bad taste in your mouth how they revel in battle.

Killersquid
2008-07-26, 05:29 AM
Being evil doesn't mean you eat babies. I've played many an evil character, and they've ranged from mercenary to slaughtering people for their souls so he can feed them to a demon who can break down some magical barriers.

I don't see Bane as a particularly evil god personally; while he's not a nice guy, he's not baby-eating evil.

In order of the evil gods, from least evil to chaotic stupid (from the limited descriptions, ignoring stuff outside of it):

Bane
Asmodeus
Lolth
Tiamat
Vecna
Gruumsh
Torog
Tharizdun

I don't know if that's particularly accurate, but Asmodeus' worst is basically "eye for an eye", which really isn't all that bad.

Honestly, I think the whole alignment thing confuses a lot of people and makes them think of things as too black and white. Not all evil gods need to be all that bad or to be exemplars of their alignment. They may be exemplars of their IDEALS, or may be hypocrites, or they may just people imperfect or bad, but just because a god is evil doesn't mean he has to be horrible or impossible to respect.

Indeed, I find it interesting to mess with people with evil gods whose followers and even teachings the players or PCs don't entirely disagree with. It can also lead to interesting tension on your own side; you're defending a city and the best defenders other than you are the Baneites. Can you deal with the strict, unpleasant Banites while fighting off the orc horde? Maybe they're your best chance of success, even if it leaves a bad taste in your mouth how they revel in battle.

Of course Bane isn't Baby-Eating Evil, he's Lawful Evil. His church focuses around pure thought, they don't go around slaughtering people. They think their plans through, and wait, then strike at the best time.

Bane himself is also a selfish god, wanting the whole world for himself. He is most dangerous kind of evil: Methodical.

(All of this information is based on Forgotten Realms bane, and may differ from 4e core.)

Drider
2008-07-26, 06:40 AM
What does that make PCs?

We hate when it happens...to us. When we do it to other people, it's the opposite. the opposite of evil is good. That makes PC's good guys. To clarify,
people taking stuff from us -> we have less stuff -> evil :smallfrown:
us taking stuff from people -> we have more stuff -> good :smallsmile:

AslanCross
2008-07-26, 05:15 PM
The "PCs-looting corpses" thing is indeed quite a gray area. One of the PCs in my group, a LG cleric of Kelemvor (FR LN God of death--death as a natural part of life, an inevitable end after which one is judged fairly, and undeath is an abomination) sort of refuses to loot corpses after the party kills them. Of course I stressed that she needs the loot, so she reluctantly agrees.

Anyway, I've always thought of Bane as a "crush the life out of the weak" type. He's methodical about it and rewards those who follow him well enough, but he smashes those who don't follow.

Furthermore, his church is closely affiliated, almost entirely interchangeable with the Zhentarim. The Zhentarim is a network of clerics and wizards with a rather large standing army. They work with Beholders too. Their goal? Total domination of Faerun through force of arms and trade. That seems pretty LE to me. Though again someone did make the argument that 4E Bane and FR Bane are two different deities, but I guess we'll find out soon enough when the 4E FRCS comes out.

Ascension
2008-07-26, 06:22 PM
Pardon me, I realize this is off topic, but I was away from the boards when 4E first hit, missed all the initial craziness, and still haven't read any of the books, so I'm a bit confused by the talk about the changes to alignment... What happened? What alignments are left?

Gralamin
2008-07-26, 06:33 PM
Pardon me, I realize this is off topic, but I was away from the boards when 4E first hit, missed all the initial craziness, and still haven't read any of the books, so I'm a bit confused by the talk about the changes to alignment... What happened? What alignments are left?

CG and NG fused into Good. LN, CN, and N, combined into Unaligned. LE, and Ne fused into Evil. So you now have
Lawful Good
Good
Unaligned
Evil
Chaotic Evil

LoopyZebra
2008-07-26, 06:35 PM
It should be noted that while there are only five now, the relative lack of mechanical influence allows you to easily expand the list back into 9 alignments, keep the 5, or just entirely disregard them.

Ascension
2008-07-26, 06:38 PM
So the default good is chaotic, the default evil is lawful, and if you're good-evil neutral you have to be law-chaos neutral? Weird.

Sir_Elderberry
2008-07-26, 07:36 PM
So the default good is chaotic, the default evil is lawful, and if you're good-evil neutral you have to be law-chaos neutral? Weird.

Except that, as has been said, alignment has no mechanical influence. There's no "detect evil". There's no 'smite good'. There's no "Unholy blight". So you can be "unaligned" and act LN. It's just that there isn't a word on your character sheet to distance you from someone who's CN.

Ascension
2008-07-26, 08:01 PM
Except that, as has been said, alignment has no mechanical influence. There's no "detect evil". There's no 'smite good'. There's no "Unholy blight". So you can be "unaligned" and act LN. It's just that there isn't a word on your character sheet to distance you from someone who's CN.

Well, yeah, but it seems like they'd at least officially give you the option to declare your alignment in more specific terms. And with NG and CG combined and NE and LE combined, it seems like they're making a connection between the moral axis and the order axis, suggesting that under ordinary circumstances evil tends towards law and good tends towards chaos. It just strikes me as weird.

AJCSIV
2008-07-26, 08:14 PM
It strikes me as weird that they tried to remove the cosmological entity of good and that of evil, tried to make something that worked without it, then when they realised they could but really wanted alignments back in they didn't reorganise the basis they just slapped in elements of great good and great evil into a theoretically neutral system and made something that doesn't entirely make sense. I mean what does unalligned mean exactly if you're removing the idea of a cosmological entity of good or evil? Assuming you're completely new to the game it basically fills the role of 'oh I don't know what I am I'll just kill and loot thousands of people until I work it out' and if allignment was at all needed in the game unalligned would not exist.

In any case, I definately agree with the comment about standard definition for evil must then mean lawful, but tell me what is lawful? Is it adhering to a set of ethical standards? Is it obeying the laws of the city? Is it obeying every individual law in the world? I remember one of my early PCs I played with this notion and made a lawful good elf character who adhered only to the elven laws but no one else's. As a result I never showed respect to any human royalty as the only people I would kneel to was my own elven superiors. And of course all humans are lesser than elves, we're such longer lived wiser and more individually powerful than they are. But my character was such a good character and so closely adhered to the elven laws that he could be nothing but lawful good even though through the entire series of adventures we only encountered one other elf. So where do you get your cosmological definition of law from?
Who said Bane couldn't be something like that?

Agrippa
2008-07-26, 08:29 PM
Law is the belief that the group should reign supreme over the individual. At least that's how I see it.

Aquillion
2008-07-26, 08:39 PM
Law is the beleife that the group should reign supreme over the individual. At least that's how I see it.Uh, no. That's not all. Law encompasses a strong tendency towards any sort of order. People who believe in moral absolutes, natural hierarchies, and so on are hyper-lawful; if you reject groups of people in favor of placing your belief in a divine law or a clear system of moral absolutes, you're still hyper-lawful.

A truly chaotic person has no laws. Their morality is, in a broad sense, flexable and open to interpretation; they don't rigidly follow the tenets of any faith or philosophy. A chaotic good character could still steal from others occasionally (even without a 'greater good' reason) and still be chaotic good; and they could steal from others constantly if they felt they had a good reason (Robin Hood in most traditions is the archtypical chaotic good character, and he certainly isn't defined by any particular care about groups or individuals -- he just wants to steal from the rich and give to the poor.)

Gralamin
2008-07-26, 08:42 PM
Well, yeah, but it seems like they'd at least officially give you the option to declare your alignment in more specific terms. And with NG and CG combined and NE and LE combined, it seems like they're making a connection between the moral axis and the order axis, suggesting that under ordinary circumstances evil tends towards law and good tends towards chaos. It just strikes me as weird.

It all suggests Lawful Good is "better" then good, and chaotic evil is "worse" then evil. (Note suggests).


Law is the belief that the group should reign supreme over the individual. At least that's how I see it.

That can be part of it, but Law and Chaos are both very complex. I see law as mostly attempting to apply Logic to reach a conclusion or course of action, while Chaos will tend to use emotion to reach a conclusion. This does not mean Chaos's plans can not be logical or reasonable, just as it does not mean Emotion isn't taken into account by Law.
Another very good way of looking at it is that Law focuses on a goal, and works towards it methodically. If Winning the war in two days requires you to allow a city to be destroyed tomorrow, then winning the war would how a being focusing on Law would act (unless they had a personal code that would object to such an action).
Looking at the reverse, Chaos would look at the present situation, and take their goals into account but act on other beliefs. Following the same example someone who focused on chaos might choose to save the city for any number of reasons, including to save the lives of the people there or to continue the war to cause more slaughter. They may also choose to finish the war, depending on their other beliefs, but they would tend toward saving the city.

But that's just what I've come up with over the course of 3.5. A few more examples of law: Spock with "The needs of the many out weigh the needs of a few." is law, as is when the crew rescued him and Kirk from Genesis (The needs of the many equaled the needs of the few even).
I'd give a few more examples of chaos, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Grommen
2008-07-26, 08:53 PM
Is nothing sacred anymore?

Bane is...well was pure evil. Selfish, down right, evil for the sake of being evil. He even hated other evil gods because they were not evil enough. He died and got brought back from the dead because he was just that evil. Strife, aggression, domination. He wanted it all. Dammit just find another name for the god of war. Ya sure Bane kicked off several wars. But it was to dominate the world. Gods of war just like war for the sake of war. O well it's appearently their game and damm us for wanting some consistency within it.

So now they changed his outlook, portfolio, and what.. the history of the god to suit this new version of the game? That is like saying warriors can cast spells, and wizards can heal.

O ya....they did that too.

Someone shoot me please. Or better yet drag the game writers out in the street and visit some aggression upon them.

You all can discuss if that is "evil" or "unaligned".

EndlessWrath
2008-07-26, 08:54 PM
Bane? Evil? Google the word... its very dark sounding.

Banes commandments are also more mallable as evil actions...as "Punishment" tends to not be such a good action.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-26, 09:28 PM
Is nothing sacred anymore?

Bane is...well was pure evil. Selfish, down right, evil for the sake of being evil. He even hated other evil gods because they were not evil enough. He died and got brought back from the dead because he was just that evil. Strife, aggression, domination. He wanted it all. Dammit just find another name for the god of war. Ya sure Bane kicked off several wars. But it was to dominate the world. Gods of war just like war for the sake of war. O well it's appearently their game and damm us for wanting some consistency within it.

So now they changed his outlook, portfolio, and what.. the history of the god to suit this new version of the game? That is like saying warriors can cast spells, and wizards can heal.

O ya....they did that too.

Someone shoot me please. Or better yet drag the game writers out in the street and visit some aggression upon them.

You all can discuss if that is "evil" or "unaligned".
Actually, they didn't change him at all.

Forgotten Realms' Bane is the same old guy. The "standard" DnD just has new version of Bane.

AslanCross
2008-07-27, 12:57 AM
It should be noted that while there are only five now, the relative lack of mechanical influence allows you to easily expand the list back into 9 alignments, keep the 5, or just entirely disregard them.

This is actually what I like about the new alignment system. Even the Magic Circle is tied to origin (elemental, shadow, etc) and not alignment, so you can use the ritual for demons, devils, or undead. The paladin isn't "smite evil only," so you can actually just drop the whole alignment thing.

RTGoodman
2008-07-27, 01:39 AM
So now they changed his outlook, portfolio, and what.. the history of the god to suit this new version of the game?

Again, IT'S NOT THE SAME BANE. The name fit well for "Generic God of Conquest and Tyranny," so they went with it. You can call him Nimbly-Bimbly or Snurn or whatever you want if you want to distance him from the FR version. It's just a cool name for that type of god, so they went with it.


That is like saying warriors can cast spells, and wizards can heal.

O ya....they did that too.

I'm not sure if that's an attack on 4E or what, but that's been going for a LONG time now. See also: 3.x multi-classing (EDIT: and classes from later sources, including the Duskblade). As far as straight-classed characters, I don't see anything like that in 4E - a Fighter might have a set of powers maneuvers exploits, but there's nothing magical to hitting a guy hard with a sword and pushing/stunning/dazing him. And I'm pretty sure Wizards don't "heal" at all, other than the fact that they can get an adrenaline rush (Second Wind) once per encounter (just like, you know, everyone else).


Someone shoot me please. Or better yet drag the game writers out in the street and visit some aggression upon them.

You all can discuss if that is "evil" or "unaligned".

Well, that's a bit of a harsh reaction, don't you think? :smallwink:

EDIT: Regarding alignment in 4E - personally, I don't like to think of it as Good being a combo of CG and NG, and Evil being LE + NE. Instead, I sort of see it as Lawful Good is the very paragon of virtue (like Paladins in 3.5) - people who actively seek out and try to get rid of Evil (and sorta like Good+). Good is your general good people that care for others and whatnot. Unaligned is anything not related to others, from an apathetic guy to a druid-ish "MUST MAINTAIN BALANCE." Evil is generic evil, be it tyrannical or just bad. Chaotic Evil is slavering hordes of demons and whatnot, bent on pure destruction.

Dhavaer
2008-07-27, 01:50 AM
That can be part of it, but Law and Chaos are both very complex. I see law as mostly attempting to apply Logic to reach a conclusion or course of action, while Chaos will tend to use emotion to reach a conclusion.

Third option: Law and Chaos are defined by how they choose their goals, not how they accomplish them. For example, the Lawful cleric of Ioun decides to go hunt down the cultists of Vecna because Ioun's dogma says that they're bad. On the other hand, the Chaotic swordmage thinks that the Prince is a hottie, so maybe if they defeat the cultists of Vecna that are threatening the kingdom, that will get them in good with the Queen and give them a foot in the door to seducing the Prince. Lawful characters choose their goals by what their in-group (nation, religion, cabal, whatever) says is good or bad, whereas Chaotic character care more about what seems to them to be good or bad.
This would also set thier limitations: the cleric would avoid harming other people friendly to Ioun and her goals, and probably also avoid destroying the secrets that the cultists have gathered (so no setting fire to their library to cover your escape: destroying knowledge is bad). The swordmage wouldn't knowingly endanger the Prince (so no using him as bait) and will probably try to stay on the good side of the city guards (hurting them might piss off the Queen).

Aquillion
2008-07-27, 08:30 AM
Is nothing sacred anymore?Shouldn't that be "is nothing profane anymore?"

Doresain
2008-07-27, 01:32 PM
imo, bane is evil because he chose his position as the tyrant god...all the other gods were either there to begin with or ascended to where they are now...bane made the choice to be the god he is now and even rez'd himself through his sons body (thus killing his son to come back to life)

if that isnt evil, im not sure what is

KillianHawkeye
2008-07-27, 11:43 PM
So now they changed his outlook, portfolio, and what.. the history of the god to suit this new version of the game? That is like saying warriors can cast spells, and wizards can heal.

O ya....they did that too.

Someone shoot me please. Or better yet drag the game writers out in the street and visit some aggression upon them.

You all can discuss if that is "evil" or "unaligned".

It's like I'm watching people play "How many times can we change the topic of this discussion thread?" I started off with a question regarding Bane's personality vs his commandments in regards to his alignment (which was answered more or less promptly), which then naturally evolved into a general discussion of the nature of Good/Evil vs Unaligned vs personality vs commandments. Then it suddenly became about the changes of the 4e alignment system (already done in TONS of threads). Now somebody is trying to turn it into a "4e sucks! OMG!!1" thread?? WTF??

If you guys want to start a different discussion, start a different thread and let this one die out. :smallannoyed:

Grommen
2008-07-31, 08:54 PM
Shouldn't that be "is nothing profane anymore?"

Dammm.. You got me one that one.:smallfurious:

TricksyAndFalse
2008-08-01, 01:03 PM
I think Bane is evil not because his commandments are evil, but because evil fits best from a setting and gameplay perspective.

First, evil is not necessarily as bad as it looks. I think I recall (at work, no book to check references) the 4E DM's Guide discussing the idea of pantheistic worship. I believe the default assumption of the game designers is that the majority of characters (PCs and NPCs) do not dedicate themselves to one god or goddess, but instead participate in celebrations and rituals that please or appease whichever collection of gods the locals favor. So, even though Bane is evil, a non-evil community might try to propitiate him with prayers and rituals to make him happy--keep peace for another month by bribing the god of conquest to leave them alone. In this way, many of the evil gods are worshipped not to draw their favor, but to avert their anger. Bane's commandments themselves are not evil, so he's probablly honored by more non-evil communities than most, but he himself can still be evil.

Bane being evil makes sense in the context of the deault 4E setting. All the old empires and kingdoms have collapsed, and civilization is reduced to tiny, unconnected pockets. Erathis is not a passive goddess of laws and architecture, she's a beleaguered defender, trying to sustain what little civilization remains. In my mind's eye, I picture her frazzled, strands of hair falling in front of her face because she's too busy trying to keep the spark of civilization alive to fix her hair in place. Numerous wars are what have shattered the old civilizations, and Bane gleefully wants the mortals of the material world to continue to pursue more wars. It's not the commandments that Bane wants his followers to obey that makes him evil, it's that in the default setting, Bane's portfolio threatens to extinguish what little remains of civilization. In another context, where civilization has a stronger foothold, and war is not a constant threat, Bane might very well be unaligned. Of course, in a different context, he'd be a different god than the one presented in the DM's Guide.

From a gameplay perspective, Bane's alignment is almost irrelevant. The only things it affects are that his PC paladins must be evil, that his PC clerics can't be good, and that neither has access to a published divinity feat. That sounds reasonable to me. Mortal champions of conquest don't seem plausible as good-guys to me. At best, they sound like anti-heroes. While future books will likely expand on options for anti-heroes and for evil characters, good-guys are the focus of the current core books.