Great artwork but that pose.... does not strike me as an imposing terrifying tyrant in that pic. Glad that pic is for the 'Core' Bane and not the FR Bane. Other than that nice Dragon Mag article.
BANE VS. BANE
The Bane of the core D&D® setting is not the same god as the Bane of the FORGOTTEN REALMS® setting! Oh, there’s substantial conceptual overlap. (The matching names probably clued you in on that.) They serve roughly the same purpose in the pantheons, their religious precepts have a great deal in common, and they make use of similar tactics and servitors. Yet their differences are many as well, especially in terms of personal history, behavior, and even appearance. All that follows describes the core Bane, and it shouldn’t necessarily apply to the Bane of Faerûn.
Apparently he's some guy named Achra, the brother of Tuern and Kord, and was born a god, never a mortal. Damn. Then what was the point of calling him Bane if he's not the same guy? Oh well.
And yeah, the pose is pretty goofy. But he does look pretty cool. I guess this Bane's a Spartan. ;)
Then what was the point of calling him Bane if he's not the same guy? Oh well.
-I honestly don't know...
I recall Rich explaining that when they had worked out the concept for this deity, they called him something to the effect of "some guy like Bane." They later figured that they might as well just call him "Bane" (the name apparently glued itself to the concept).
Does anyone get the sense that WoTc is trying as hard as they can from letting FR bleed into their "Core" gaming world? They will use names, ideas, and concepts from FR but wipe away any hint of where it came from. It's almost like they bought into this idea that there are all of these FR haters out there and if anything FR creeps into the "Core" 4E world then it will drive away all these mythical FR hating customers. I have definitely seen this in some posts Rich Baker has made in his explanation as to why FR wasn't made the core world. Actually here is the quote:
We considered making the Realms the default setting. But ultimately we shied away from it because FR carries a very significant set of negatives with the D&D core audience. Many, perhaps most, core D&D players would have been fine with it, or at worst indifferent. But we just didn't feel we should give the FR-haters in the core audience a reason why they shouldn't try out 4e.
Ok, so lets go on this wild assumption that there is this sizable contingent of FR haters out there. So if they hate FR so much, don't steal our material then put your own name on it. If you want Bane to be a god in the "Core" 4E world then put Bane in there, not some dude with his name. All you are doing is disrespecting FR fans and Ed Greenwood by making your Bane the more important god because he is in your "Core" world.
But that is assuming that there is this large amount of FR haters out there, which I don't believe for a minute. I'm more inclined to believe that MOST DnD players are FR fans but they have problems with this aspect or that (7 Sisters/Elminster). I feel that along the way WoTc took this as an outright dislike of FR.
Sigh.....anyways, this Bane article is bullocks. They should have just used the FR Bane and said he opened up franchises in other planes. I find their lack of vision is disturbing.
I recall Rich explaining that when they had worked out the concept for this deity, they called him something to the effect of "some guy like Bane." They later figured that they might as well just call him "Bane" (the name apparently glued itself to the concept).
They wanted a guy like Bane. And Bane was the best name a dozen or more (roughly estimated ;)) people came up with? Prizeless.
Wow.
That pose is so... so... you know, I don't think I've ever been so tempted to use the word in this context, and I'll refrain from doing so, but... damn. Just... damn.
Damn.
That said, they did not take anything from us by using the name. Nor did they cheapen FR.
Not exactly intimidating, to be sure!Ehhh, stand alone, I like it. Bane, FR'ish, not so much.
That said, they did not take anything from us by using the name. Nor did they cheapen FR.
Maybe I'm being a bit dramatic......meh. But my main point is that WoTc seems to think that FR is a damaged product. I just disliked the Bane article and I used this post to make a statement......sorry my bad.
-Bow down to my washboard abs, lest I smite thee with my fabulous pec-lasers.
I laughed out loud here at work. I'm glad most people are on lunch because they'd have looked at me weird. Good show LK
I liked the article well enough, the core "Bane" has an interesting background story imo. That being said, that they aren't the same diety, I'd have preferred a different name.
I laughed out loud here at work. I'm glad most people are on lunch because they'd have looked at me weird. Good show LK
I liked the article well enough, the core "Bane" has an interesting background story imo. That being said, that they aren't the same diety, I'd have preferred a different name.
Well, they did give his OG name... so it is there to use, if you so chose...
Well, they did give his OG name... so it is there to use, if you so chose...
Good point.
I liked the article well enough, the core "Bane" has an interesting background story imo. That being said, that they aren't the same diety, I'd have preferred a different name.
Agreed on all points. The article was a good read, but it's pretty irritating having two guys who share a name, tenets, and holy symbol, but aren't the same guy. They either should've made the Bane in core the same as the Bane in the Realms, or used a different name (and not changed the holy symbol of the Bane in the Realms to match that of the core Bane, and not attached all the "Black Hand" stuff to core Bane, etc).
Well, they did give his OG name... so it is there to use, if you so chose...
Ah, good point. If the campaign I'm about to start ends up set in the core world, I think I'll just use his original name
I think that the campaign will be FR though.@ LK:
You're frickin hilarious!
-Joni
-Bow down to my washboard abs, lest I smite thee with my fabulous pec-lasers.
Strike a pose!
Vogue!
Vogue!
Vogue!
Vogue!
ginyu
But again, aside from the point where it makes it clear they aren't actually the same (Although there are several overlaps between the two in the core setting and FR I've noticed) there is nothing about HOW the FR Bane is different. That would be useful information to say the least, but isn't included. Very typical, but the article is still somewhat useful to me. Not that I intend to do much with Bane at the moment anyway.
But yes, doesn't look much like how I envisioned Bane (in both FR and Core).
Still, kinda cool to finally have a Core god who is gay ;)
-Bow down to my washboard abs, lest I smite thee with my fabulous pec-lasers.
That is Freakin' hilarious.......
and a bit disturbing....
I think the artwork is great. It's not necessarily perfect, but I think it's a really big impact image. He certainly has a touch of top model fierceness and a prominent washboard there, but he's supposed to have an attractive, maybe even heroic, valiant, or comforting quality that makes him "the most insidious of them all." It's a strikingly bold pose, in my view, considering he's standing on skulls. I imagined he was leaning back into a searing, smoky wind, surveying the blasted landscape of his latest conquest. I love the lines, the lighting, the color, and the cloth. I highly doubt the correspondence to 300 (or to Ares) was lost on the artist. It also is clearly not intended to capture the everything of the FR Bane.
I think the article itself was really good. I'm all for more articles like this and the Hall of the Frostmaiden one. Having core Bane echo Ares somehow is nearly unavoidable and more likely an indicator that it's hitting on something correctly. Also, to Marmel's credit core Bane sounds much more disciplined than Ares ever did. I think the almost-but-not-quite Bane vs. Bane (core vs. FR) thing exemplifies the blended settings and sources concept. It models the line of thinking that, "I love the deity Bane from the Forgotten Realms, but the best way I can use him in my campaign requires some changes." Naming the core deity of war & conquest Bane is an homage to FR, not a rip from it.
But again, aside from the point where it makes it clear they aren't actually the same (Although there are several overlaps between the two in the core setting and FR I've noticed) there is nothing about HOW the FR Bane is different. That would be useful information to say the least, but isn't included.
-Technically, all you've got to do (or rather, them) is use the "Multiple Reality DC" thing. You know: The Forgotten Realms Bane is Bane Prime. This Core Bane here is Bane 174. There could be another Bane who is Bane 883,995. And so on, and so on, and so on.
So Earth-1 Bane and Earth-2 Bane?
-Yeah, sure, like that.
Hasn't it been established already that the FR Lolth is different from, say, the Greyhawk Lolth?
-Yes, it all started in 3e, and continues in 4e. The only difference, I guess, is that Bane was never known to be multispheric, whereas Lolth was.
-Yes, it all started in 3e, and continues in 4e. The only difference, I guess, is that Bane was never known to be multispheric, whereas Lolth was.
According to the Finder novels Bane did at least try to etablish himself on other worlds
...in the "core" pantheon, Asmodeus is the god of tyranny, Bane is the god of war).
Ooops. I shouldn't have labeled the core Bane as god of tyranny. Thanks!
-Yes, it all started in 3e, and continues in 4e. The only difference, I guess, is that Bane was never known to be multispheric, whereas Lolth was.
And it goes even a step further, since those Bane-guys' appearances are completely different. Could as well be just a minor triviality, of course.
Yes, it all started in 3e, and continues in 4e.
I'd say it started in 2E and was codified in 3E. The implication for Lolth in particular was "same but different" in various 2E sources, most obvious in how ToT was such a big deal in the Realms but meant squat in any other universe to any god with multiversal appearance, or that Greyhawk novel whose name escapes me where she gets outright killed (even if I seem to recall the latter was deemed non-canon anyway).
Sure those events might have been explained away in-continuity but that doesn't really change the principle of the matter.
According to the Finder novels Bane did at least try to etablish himself on other worlds
-Refresh my memory. I remember the Spelljamming aspects, I remember Walinda and I remember the Banelich. How did the bunch of them mix?
I'd say it started in 2E and was codified in 3E.
-In 2e, things were still interconnected. The Time of Troubles threw a wrench in things, but the Lolth in Realmspace was still the same entity as the Lolth in Greyhawk, and somewhere else, and so on and so on.
i can say that each individual piece as the artist drew it is in itself perfect
the pose however was an after thought i think, as was the background. the skulls i imagine that the art development for this type of thing is as rigorous as the novel editors and when that sort of thing happens, this is what you get.
i would have loved to be a fly on the wall in this studio and check to see. the helmet as well isn't sized as well as it should, an old artists trick to infer size. my biggest complaint isn't the pose, its the absence of the second leg.
my nationality being greek, i actually like this nod to bane-like ares.
i also like broms version back in 3.0-5 and i think that fits for FR better then this.
FR Bane is renamed: Tyrannos!
my biggest complaint isn't the pose, its the absence of the second leg.
This is the same for me. I just didn't have the heart to point it out. :P ...But yes, I do agree.
my nationality being greek, i actually like this nod to bane-like ares. i also like broms version back in 3.0-5 and i think that fits for FR better then this.
Do you have a link? I don't remember this one.
That's Todd Lockwood.
This is Brom.
Also Brom.
-Refresh my memory. I remember the Spelljamming aspects, I remember Walinda and I remember the Banelich. How did the bunch of them mix?
It's also a long time for me since I read it, all I can recall is that they discover some ancient withered statue of Bane somewhere (not on Toril) and conclude that Bane must have tried to spread his worship to this world.
You mean:
That's Todd Lockwood.
This is Brom.
Also Brom.
Hmm. I should probably clarify: those are pictures of Bane, not portraits of Brom or Todd Lockwood. Though I have not seen either of these men in any form, I am fairly certain that they are not muscle-bound giants, nor do have pointed ears and probably don't have fangs from their chins. Claws, maybe.
:D
That middle picture of Bane looks like he'd made a great pro-wrestler, with that trophy belt.
hes coming out to the ring now! its bane! all time dark champion! theme music and all!
Hmm. I should probably clarify: those are pictures of Bane, not portraits of Brom or Todd Lockwood. Though I have not seen either of these men in any form, I am fairly certain that they are not muscle-bound giants, nor do have pointed ears and probably don't have fangs from their chins. Claws, maybe.
:D
That middle picture of Bane looks like he'd made a great pro-wrestler, with that trophy belt.
The book Masters of Dragonlance Art has self-portraits of each of them in a fantasy style. No they are not muscle-bound giants. :P
But if you are interested in getting an idea of what they look like, that book has a picture of each artist at the beginning of each of their sections.
It's also a long time for me since I read it, all I can recall is that they discover some ancient withered statue of Bane somewhere (not on Toril) and conclude that Bane must have tried to spread his worship to this world.
-Don't remember that. Not saying you're wrong, just that I don't remember that.