| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 17 Aug 2021 : 03:06:51
I've shared my thoughts on Bane 2.0 and Iyachtu Xvim many times in the past, here.
However, I was recently given a couple more things to add to my list of reasons to speculate.
I've decided that instead of continuing to post and repost my thoughts, it would work better if I collected them all in one place.
And I've cleaned up the list a bit, too; it should be easier to read it all, now. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| redking |
Posted - 30 Apr 2023 : 07:35:01
Wooly Rupert's Xvim-Bane is my headcanon Bane. It just makes sense. Xvim had plenty of reasons to make the change, mainly that there there still lots of orthodox banites out there getting clerical powers from Cyric, and as Xvim, he could not gain their loyalty. After Bane's apparent death during the Time of Troubles, his church was left in disarray. This would have created an opportunity for Xvim to step in and consolidate power under the guise of Bane's return, which would be more readily accepted by the church's followers than a complete takeover by Xvim himself.
Also, the story of divine resurrection is a powerful narrative, even it it's not true. |
| Charles Phipps |
Posted - 21 Mar 2023 : 00:46:26
Well, my opinion here would be HEAVILY INFLUENCED by Planescape that I've always viewed as the defacto "canon" way that gods work. It's absolutely NOT how gods are treated in the Forgotten Realms novels or how Ed Greenwood has created them but it provides a lot of interesting twists on it.
Pro-Bane replaced Xvim
1. I don't hate the idea that Bane had a master plan from the very beginning to use Xvim as his horocrux or phylactery. Bane isn't the kind of guy who would have children that he cared about and since Bhaal canonically saw his death coming in the Time of Troubles to make a bunch of Bhaalspawn, I don't see why Bane couldn't have done the same thing. That's an interesting take on Xvim and adds a tragedy to his character that all of his attempts to get out of his father's shadow was just playing right into his hands.
2. In-universe, we know that the worship of Cyric and Xvim never really replaced Bane worship despite the fact he was dead. For whatever reason (Baneliches, Dead Priests) there's always been people continuing to worship the Dead Three. If a deity dies because of a lack of worshipers, surely continuing to worship a "god"
3. Another interesting possibility is that Xvim planned to just impersonate his father but you can't DO THAT without consequence. Shar can get away with impersonating a minor cavern god because she's got a massive following of their own and the same for Lolth and Moander. However, if Xvim is PRIMARILY known as Bane then he'd slowly BECOME Bane. He may not be THE Bane but he might have become so simply by assuming his father's mantle and the worship of him changing his nature.
"What can change the nature of a man?"
"Belief." |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 04 Mar 2023 : 12:01:09
Bane lore from Ed (2019).
Before/after ToT: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1179360141793206272.html
Background: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1179564803083395072.html
Background and Xvim: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1179837233454555139.html |
| Kelcimer |
Posted - 03 Sep 2021 : 06:29:40
Hello sleyvas!
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
See, you already lay out concepts for where this "scenario" can make an interesting form of play that's not just "And here's the big bad enemy... go kill it". I quickly get tired of games where all a DM does is shove a bad guy in front of me, because half the time I quickly figure out that he made it too powerful and behind the screen he is just fudging dice rolls. I consider that lazy DM'ing.
I completely agree. |
| bloodtide_the_red |
Posted - 03 Sep 2021 : 00:18:06
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I would wonder, for those who think Bane 2.0 is Bane 1.0, what explanation they would offer for Bane 1.0 changing so many things to match Xvim? Not trying to argue; it's those changes that make me think Bane 2.0 is either some gestalt entity or Xvim faking it. If Bane 2.0 acted like Bane 1.0, I'd accept them as the same entity -- I'd've never considered any other options.
For me it's a very sad case of Teal Life Writes the Game Reality. The whole Bane is gone and, oh, um, Bane is back makes no sense. Except in the real world .
The corporate overlords forced the removal of the "bad" stuff and forced them to make it "not so bad lame kid stuff".
The get people who are clueless about the Realms, or worse simply don't care about the Realms...or way worse HATE the Realms. That person or persons just do whatever they want, fueled by cluelessness and hate.
And you get the mess of the Realms. And we see it n all franchises.
So as much as I do LOVE the "oh page X of book X says X and that means it is 100% OFFICIAL REALMSLORE FOREVER, somethings like the Bane mess I just skip over. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 02 Sep 2021 : 13:21:43
quote:
Originally posted by Kelcimer
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
so knowing the truth [that Bane 2.0 is really Xvim] behind it becomes essential to eradicating the threat.
Is it? Regardless of what the nature of the big bad is, it needs to be put down. That doesn't change what they players have to do.
I just thought of how to improve your scenario and make it the truth that Bane 2.0 is really Xvim actually matter. So the players are trying to kill the big bad/sentient cloak/Gilgeam/Bane 1.0, but find that Priests of Bane 2.0 have the same goal as they do. And then have the Priests of Bane 1.0 help the players. They then start to realize they might just be helping out Bane. Do they want to be doing that? Then they somehow get the info that Gilgeam is Bane 1.0 and that Bane 2.0 is Xvim. Then they have a dilemma. Knowing the true nature of these guys, what do they do? Would they prefer an end game where Xvim is the god of tyranny or Bane 1.0. They then have an informed choice. If they prefer Xvim, then they are choosing to do away with Bane 1.0 and therefore strengthen Xvim. Is that something they want? Or if they back away from it and let Gilgeam continue, he'll give Xvim a lot of headache for a good time to come. Is it in the best interest of the Realms to have these gods focused on tearing each others churches apart? Under which option would more people die? It might be good in the short term for the region to kill Gilgeam, but what about the long term? As a DM I would be interested to see how the players handle that situation.
See, you already lay out concepts for where this "scenario" can make an interesting form of play that's not just "And here's the big bad enemy... go kill it". I quickly get tired of games where all a DM does is shove a bad guy in front of me, because half the time I quickly figure out that he made it too powerful and behind the screen he is just fudging dice rolls. I consider that lazy DM'ing.
Regarding your question back to me of "is it critical that the party know what's going on".... all I can say is you need to really look at this from an outsider's standpoint for just a minute. Not from the DM's viewpoint where you KNOW what's going on, but from the party that needs to figure out all these details and put them together in order to figure out HOW to combat the threat. In some ways, fighting this creature is like fighting a lich, except with a lich you know "it has a phylactery, and in this edition the phylactery needs to be nearby.... or in previous editions there also needed to be a body for the phylactery to inhabit". The players don't KNOW where things will go after they knock down this threat, but they might if they figure out the back story. Partly because I want to use the bad quote... but it's like GI JOE says... "Knowing is half the battle".
On the "types" of gods that I laid out, if I dug, I could probably find more. However, those are all examples that exist in FR canonically. Manifestations are what the mulan gods were, but it may have also been what Torm, Mielikki and Eldath were prior to the time of troubles (I've also used the term, "prime-bound gods" for this as well). The intellect within an item can be seen with like the Crown of Horns holding Myrkul, but I'm sure I can find others (and arguably, some minor church artifacts from like Prayers of the Faithful may include some reduced sentience of a god). I didn't include the final "Kind", because I don't consider them "the gods"... but more like "chosen" .... incarnations... which are only found in Mulhorand. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Sep 2021 : 11:10:38
Moving the goalposts does not change the fact that I presented several ideas that could be developed into adventures. You asked how players could be involved in a thing where Bane was actually Xvim, and I gave you exactly that. |
| Kelcimer |
Posted - 02 Sep 2021 : 07:16:48
Hello Wooly Rubert!
You previously asked:
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
So how could you use this in a way that would involve players?
And then affirmed:
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Oh, let me count the ways!
Just ratting off that there could be some conflicts is a far thing from relating those conflicts to an adventure that you would run players in. And what you described did not hinge upon the players finding out the knowledge that Bane 2.0 is Xvim, which is ket to my criteria.
It seems as if you consider just inserting lore into a game just to insert lore into the game, tangentially related to the conflict in game is someone making said lore "something the players have to deal with". If so, then that's pretty weak.
Now sleyvas took up the challenge, in good faith, and presented a scenario. [Hat tip to sleyvas] With his pleasant persistence in advocating for the scenario and adding clarity where I did not understand him, he ultimately persuaded that it could definitely fit my criteria of being "something the players have to deal with". (Being the last piece of information necessary for the players to make a fully informed choice about something with far reaching consequences definitely means the players have to deal with it.)
You have not done this.
Bragging that you can do a thing, but being bashful about actually doing said thing, is not persuasive. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Sep 2021 : 05:00:34
quote:
Originally posted by Kelcimer
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I also listed ways to do that.
I don't think you have.
If all the different potential conflicts I listed don't give you something that you can use to involve players, then I'm sorry, I can't help you. |
| Kelcimer |
Posted - 02 Sep 2021 : 04:42:55
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
You may have a problem with it, but the references you refer to about only a god can kill a god are from 2e F&A (there may be some other sources), and there's plenty of other sources that indicate otherwise whenever you're dealing with a deity who is in physical form.
I don't have a problem with it because of the lore. I am ambivalent about that bit of lore. If a mortal were to be in a position to kill a deity then they should get full credit for it, as it were. Good to know that that bit of lore has been retconned.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Also, just as with any other character who is powerful, "killing" them doesn't mean they can't come back again. It might just be stopping whatever their plans were for. As I've laid out, I view "gods" in multiple varieties... the non-physical, the "avatar" body that's entirely made of magic, the "manifestation" which is like an avatar but is unable to leave to the outer planes or create additional copies of itself, the "lesser avatar" which is when the life force of a god inhabits another being's body, and finally the "sentience left over in a magic item". In the idea I describe, this version of Bane would be advancing itself up that ladder. Eventually, if unchecked, he might be able to vie with Bane 2.0 for his old position (which might involve him for instance using his new empire to assault some bastion of Banite love like Zhentil Keep or Mulmaster).... or players may even aid him in this effort to oust Bane 2.0/Xvim (the reasoning behind this might be multiple... Xvim's/Bane 2.0's clergy might be doing something the players need to stop, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend, etc...).
Or in short... I can keep laying out ideas, but it is like Wooly said, there's a lot of ways you can do this.
You lay out a far more textured view of gods in a succinct manner then I have heard of before. Eh? Okay sure. If it is articulated in the adventure that he's not an actual god, but has the capacity to fast track back to being a god, then okay, that's an adventure that has proper scale.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
so knowing the truth [that Bane 2.0 is really Xvim] behind it becomes essential to eradicating the threat.
Is it? Regardless of what the nature of the big bad is, it needs to be put down. That doesn't change what they players have to do.
I just thought of how to improve your scenario and make it the truth that Bane 2.0 is really Xvim actually matter. So the players are trying to kill the big bad/sentient cloak/Gilgeam/Bane 1.0, but find that Priests of Bane 2.0 have the same goal as they do. And then have the Priests of Bane 1.0 help the players. They then start to realize they might just be helping out Bane. Do they want to be doing that? Then they somehow get the info that Gilgeam is Bane 1.0 and that Bane 2.0 is Xvim. Then they have a dilemma. Knowing the true nature of these guys, what do they do? Would they prefer an end game where Xvim is the god of tyranny or Bane 1.0. They then have an informed choice. If they prefer Xvim, then they are choosing to do away with Bane 1.0 and therefore strengthen Xvim. Is that something they want? Or if they back away from it and let Gilgeam continue, he'll give Xvim a lot of headache for a good time to come. Is it in the best interest of the Realms to have these gods focused on tearing each others churches apart? Under which option would more people die? It might be good in the short term for the region to kill Gilgeam, but what about the long term? As a DM I would be interested to see how the players handle that situation.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I also listed ways to do that.
I don't think you have.
|
| sleyvas |
Posted - 01 Sep 2021 : 18:33:11
quote:
Originally posted by Kelcimer
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
So, a party of high level characters could challenge such an entity
I kinda have a problem with that. One of the things that I like to do is not sell something short. If a being is a god, then they are a god. Here's how it feels to me: "Well, it's not really a FULL god. It's mostly a god. Okay. A part of a god. Really just a piece. And not important enough for other gods to make sure it was ended permanently." At that point the players aren't fighting a God anymore, just a leftover.
BTW I am generally aware that the lore says only a god can kill a god. (At least that was what was in the source books I read.) I don't really have an opinion on this lore as such. Just bringing it up to better understand your interpretation. Because if you accept it, then if the players can kill the thing, then it isn't really a god, its just a leftover. Or is it really a god and you are disregarding that lore. Which is cool if you are. Just wondering which way you go on that.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Also, you're going way too big with "waging war on Faerun". I'm talking gathering and solidifying a piece of ground... "Returned Unther"...
I am sorry, I was unclear. I did not mean to imply waging war on ALL of Faerun. I understood you were keeping the conquests to a confined area. That's confined area is still part of Faerun and so that is why I consider it "waging war on Faerun". Does that make sense?
Anyway, I think we have drifted away from the point that stumps me. How would you bring the detail that Bane 2.0 is really Xvim into a game and make it something the players actually have to deal with? Yes, you have outlined a way to have a divine being being the big bad in a high level game. But how does that detail come into play?
And Wooly Rupert said he could count the ways to do that.
You may have a problem with it, but the references you refer to about only a god can kill a god are from 2e F&A (there may be some other sources), and there's plenty of other sources that indicate otherwise whenever you're dealing with a deity who is in physical form. Also, just as with any other character who is powerful, "killing" them doesn't mean they can't come back again. It might just be stopping whatever their plans were for. As I've laid out, I view "gods" in multiple varieties... the non-physical, the "avatar" body that's entirely made of magic, the "manifestation" which is like an avatar but is unable to leave to the outer planes or create additional copies of itself, the "lesser avatar" which is when the life force of a god inhabits another being's body, and finally the "sentience left over in a magic item". In the idea I describe, this version of Bane would be advancing itself up that ladder. Eventually, if unchecked, he might be able to vie with Bane 2.0 for his old position (which might involve him for instance using his new empire to assault some bastion of Banite love like Zhentil Keep or Mulmaster).... or players may even aid him in this effort to oust Bane 2.0/Xvim (the reasoning behind this might be multiple... Xvim's/Bane 2.0's clergy might be doing something the players need to stop, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend, etc...).
Or in short... I can keep laying out ideas, but it is like Wooly said, there's a lot of ways you can do this. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 01 Sep 2021 : 18:08:44
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
Yeah, Alasklerbanbastos requieres the corpse of another blue dragon to revive. He is prepped, however. In the novels, is mentioned he has many corpses ready in his cave for the eventuality. He lost his most powerful body (at the time) at the Battle of Lutqcheq, but I guess he must have had at least one or two fearsome corpses out there, just in case.
And yeah, Aoth and Cera Eurtos got a hold of his phylactery, for a time. They lost it when they fought the fake Alasklerbanbastos in Akanűl, and Alasklerbanbastos recovered it and used it to transfer himself to his "most powerful body" (the one destroyed later).
AS for Tchazzar, well, there are like 8-10 years between his death and his rebirth, so, I guess his cult or Tiamat's could have resurrected him. Heck, even Tiamat herself may have done it, if she thought Tchazzar would be necessary again. I also think he should be diminished, somehow. Perhaps he is still mad, or curing his madness cost some of his powers. Or perhaps this is not THE Tchazzar we know...
See... THIS is why I like passing ideas back and forth on these forums.... yeah... what did happen to Tchazzar's body when he "died". I had been talking about the "godflesh" of manifestations like Gilgeam, and the idea that this "fleshy" form might be somehow different from normal mortal bodies. Tchazzar in some ways might be considered a kind of lesser "godflesh" as well that gets left behind.... we know that the Millenium dragon is in a body that's so decayed it can't even leave its lair, but it can act remotely through a "magical body" of sorts. What if this dragon ascendant finally gave up his failing body after returning from Abeir, and he inhabits Tchazzar? He's a good bit different in personality (more conniving/patient, more of an information gatherer, etc...) and he apparently doesn't like Gilgeam. Could be a good story. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 01 Sep 2021 : 10:41:53
quote:
Originally posted by Kelcimer
Anyway, I think we have drifted away from the point that stumps me. How would you bring the detail that Bane 2.0 is really Xvim into a game and make it something the players actually have to deal with? Yes, you have outlined a way to have a divine being being the big bad in a high level game. But how does that detail come into play?
And Wooly Rupert said he could count the ways to do that.
I also listed ways to do that. |
| Kelcimer |
Posted - 01 Sep 2021 : 06:07:43
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
So, a party of high level characters could challenge such an entity
I kinda have a problem with that. One of the things that I like to do is not sell something short. If a being is a god, then they are a god. Here's how it feels to me: "Well, it's not really a FULL god. It's mostly a god. Okay. A part of a god. Really just a piece. And not important enough for other gods to make sure it was ended permanently." At that point the players aren't fighting a God anymore, just a leftover.
BTW I am generally aware that the lore says only a god can kill a god. (At least that was what was in the source books I read.) I don't really have an opinion on this lore as such. Just bringing it up to better understand your interpretation. Because if you accept it, then if the players can kill the thing, then it isn't really a god, its just a leftover. Or is it really a god and you are disregarding that lore. Which is cool if you are. Just wondering which way you go on that.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Also, you're going way too big with "waging war on Faerun". I'm talking gathering and solidifying a piece of ground... "Returned Unther"...
I am sorry, I was unclear. I did not mean to imply waging war on ALL of Faerun. I understood you were keeping the conquests to a confined area. That's confined area is still part of Faerun and so that is why I consider it "waging war on Faerun". Does that make sense?
Anyway, I think we have drifted away from the point that stumps me. How would you bring the detail that Bane 2.0 is really Xvim into a game and make it something the players actually have to deal with? Yes, you have outlined a way to have a divine being being the big bad in a high level game. But how does that detail come into play?
And Wooly Rupert said he could count the ways to do that. |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 01 Sep 2021 : 01:43:04
Yeah, Alasklerbanbastos requieres the corpse of another blue dragon to revive. He is prepped, however. In the novels, is mentioned he has many corpses ready in his cave for the eventuality. He lost his most powerful body (at the time) at the Battle of Lutqcheq, but I guess he must have had at least one or two fearsome corpses out there, just in case.
And yeah, Aoth and Cera Eurtos got a hold of his phylactery, for a time. They lost it when they fought the fake Alasklerbanbastos in Akanűl, and Alasklerbanbastos recovered it and used it to transfer himself to his "most powerful body" (the one destroyed later).
AS for Tchazzar, well, there are like 8-10 years between his death and his rebirth, so, I guess his cult or Tiamat's could have resurrected him. Heck, even Tiamat herself may have done it, if she thought Tchazzar would be necessary again. I also think he should be diminished, somehow. Perhaps he is still mad, or curing his madness cost some of his powers. Or perhaps this is not THE Tchazzar we know... |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 31 Aug 2021 : 22:06:01
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
Well, there is another problem there. Alasklerbanbastos was destroyed, yes. In 1479 DR. That is not "recently". That is like 8 years before Gilgeam returned. And his philactery was "safe and well", so Alasklerbanbastos has no impediments for his return in that period of time. So, no Threskel for returned Gilgeam/Banegeam. At least, not that easy.
Sorry to be the party popper, but I'm just providing the canon info about the topic.
No problem, I honestly was thinking to myself "why again was it so special when they killed him, wouldn't he just come back". Looking back on the novels via the FR Wiki, it seems that he's one of the dracoliches that requires another dragon skeleton to occupy or else he's trapped in his phylactery (honestly trying to remember here... ).... so maybe he wasn't prepped? Maybe he was? There's also something from those novels where Aoth and company also got ahold of his phylactery, and if a god were to get ahold of such a magical object, he might be able to manipulate it to "kick out" the dragon and insert his own godhood (the phylactery might have to be "enhanced" to hold a god's essence though).
Along those lines though... going back to the events of those novels AND the events in the SCAG, and trying to make both true. The one thing we see is Tchazzar back yet again in the SCAG, but he died in the novels, and that was supposed to be a major thing in the novels if I recall correctly. This being like the 3rd time now that he's died and come back (fourth?)... just to throw out an idea, what if he's back, but "lessened" somehow. I'm not exactly sure how, but maybe he's like a ghost who is tied to his home region/city? Maybe he can still grant priest spells, but only within a certain range? Just thinking that "he's back again and no explanation or difference" rings like a bad story. |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 31 Aug 2021 : 18:06:33
Well, there is another problem there. Alasklerbanbastos was destroyed, yes. In 1479 DR. That is not "recently". That is like 8 years before Gilgeam returned. And his philactery was "safe and well", so Alasklerbanbastos has no impediments for his return in that period of time. So, no Threskel for returned Gilgeam/Banegeam. At least, not that easy.
Sorry to be the party popper, but I'm just providing the canon info about the topic. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 31 Aug 2021 : 18:01:52
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
Well, actually Gilgeam was destroyed way before the Spellplague. It was destroyed aa few hours after it was revived, using the Alabaster Staff as well. The body got completely disintegrated. The only ambiguous thing in that novel is if the protagonist survived the stuff or not.
So... the body disintegrated... or to an observer, it might be the body disappeared... or crumbled here and "reassembled" elsewhere. There's a lot of ambiguity with "disintegration" and "teleported" and such things where the person seeing it may not actually truly understand what happened. After all, to an observer for instance, people beaming with star trek technology might appear to be disintegrating. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 31 Aug 2021 : 17:51:21
quote:
Originally posted by Kelcimer
Hello sleyvas!
If I understand you correctly, the scenario that you are talking about is putting a sentient cloak up against the players. That can be done without the need for the divine backstory.
If you are talking about having the avatar of a god waging war on Faerun in the flesh, then how exactly are the players supposed to win that one? Even epic level ones? if I play the avatar of the God competently to the extent of his powers, then the players should be toast. I'd have to dumb down the avatar so much in order to make it a contest.
And so what if the evil church they are fighting isn't Gilgeam? Whether the evil church is of Gilgeam or Bane, they are still an evil church that needs to be opposed. It doesn't change what the players need to do. It just puts the scale of the adventure beyond their reach.
Players won't be toast. Gilgeam/Bane would be on the power level of a "lesser avatar"..... basically a power level of the avatars as seen during the Time of Troubles. This isn't the power level of say the avatars as seen in Faiths and Avatars, and many might be comparable to say a 20th+ level character. So, a party of high level characters could challenge such an entity
As to the sentient cloak, it's not that the cloak is sentient... it's that the cloak represents some portion of the intellect of a god "trapped" in a minor divine artifact (somewhat like Myrkul "trapped" in the crown of horns). Almost like a "backup copy" or "phylactery" or "horcrux" of the god. The cloak is just the means by which the flesh is then "possessed" or the consciousness transferred... and after that, for all we know, the cloak just becomes a powerful item "The Black Lord's Cloak".... or it becomes another place for the mind to flee to if the body is destroyed, so knowing the truth behind it becomes essential to eradicating the threat. A third option is that there is a "split sentience" of Bane (one in the cloak that's still operating and one in the godflesh as well). A fourth option might become available if this sentience could turn around and also infect OTHER godkings that are in the flesh again. It's all these myriad options that become available if the plot isn't just "its returned Gilgeam".
Also, you're going way too big with "waging war on Faerun". I'm talking gathering and solidifying a piece of ground... "Returned Unther"... and maybe gathering some/all of Threskel since the dracolich that used to rule there was recently deceased... and maybe even going up against Chessenta (which may have its own "returned god in flesh" in the form of Tchazzar). Basically, a returned tyrant god trying to solidify an empire under his thumb so that he can begin to work up from there.
And now I'm thinking about "what if the "phylactery" of the dracolich can hold the intellect of a god as well?" |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 31 Aug 2021 : 17:37:26
Well, actually Gilgeam was destroyed way before the Spellplague. It was destroyed a few hours after it was revived, using the Alabaster Staff as well (yeah, it was used to revive him and then later to destroy it). The body got completely disintegrated. The only ambiguous thing in that novel is if the protagonist survived the stuff or not. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 31 Aug 2021 : 16:59:32
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
Well, the only thing that goes against your theory is the name. If Bane 1.0 was Gilgeam, he would have renamed him Banegeam or something like that 
It's all about order of operations. Gilgeam existed. He was a relatively good guy. Then he turned into a tyrant according to history. The question then becomes, was this a natural progression... or was Gilgeam subsumed/infected long ago? When later Gilgeam dies after/during the ToT, was he effectively "back to himself" at this point (after all, Bane 1.0 would have been purged from Gilgeam by Ao during/after the Time of Troubles)? So, was there a brief glimpse of the old Gilgeam, and then suddenly Tiamat kills him. Later, priests of Gilgeam use the alabaster staff to raise the preserved godflesh of Gilgeam to fight the forces of Mulhorand that are invading Unther. Then spellplague... Unther to Abeir. |
| Kelcimer |
Posted - 31 Aug 2021 : 02:54:11
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
So how could you use this in a way that would involve players? Oh, let me count the ways!
Okay. Go! |
| Kelcimer |
Posted - 31 Aug 2021 : 02:06:27
Hello sleyvas!
If I understand you correctly, the scenario that you are talking about is putting a sentient cloak up against the players. That can be done without the need for the divine backstory.
If you are talking about having the avatar of a god waging war on Faerun in the flesh, then how exactly are the players supposed to win that one? Even epic level ones? if I play the avatar of the God competently to the extent of his powers, then the players should be toast. I'd have to dumb down the avatar so much in order to make it a contest.
And so what if the evil church they are fighting isn't Gilgeam? Whether the evil church is of Gilgeam or Bane, they are still an evil church that needs to be opposed. It doesn't change what the players need to do. It just puts the scale of the adventure beyond their reach. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 30 Aug 2021 : 20:51:30
quote:
Originally posted by Kelcimer
Beyond that, how would you bring that detail into a game and make it something the players actually have to deal with?
Well, there's already a canon heresy about it -- which means you could have conflict between those who like Bane 2.0 and those who think Bane 1.0 was better or that there's no way Bane 2.0 could be anything other than Bane himself. You could even have a surviving Banelich, somewhere, on one side of that conflict or the other.
And if Bane 2.0 is Xvim, maybe he doesn't know everything Bane 1.0 knew. Maybe some past arrangement/agreement made by 1.0 comes up, and 2.0 doesn't handle it correctly or doesn't know how to address it. Maybe the culmination of a centuries-old plot is at hand, but no one knows the final step to bring it to proper fruition. Maybe one of the Lost Gods thrown down by the Dark Three manages to come back, and this lost deity causes trouble that Bane 1.0 could have handled, but Bane 2.0 can't (he doesn't know a key weakness, or the deity won't listen to Xvim because the deal was with Bane 1.0, etc).
And the 5E mess that has Bane as an avatar, for reasons -- maybe this avatar is Bane 1.0, and he's seriously not happy that Junior has taken over. As previously noted, this could be a fun mess, because Bane 1.0 would have to be careful not to weaken 2.0 too much, because that would make things harder for 1.0 once he resumed the top spot -- but of course he'd work very diligently towards deposing Junior and getting back in there.
So how could you use this in a way that would involve players? Oh, let me count the ways! |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 30 Aug 2021 : 20:41:18
Well, the only thing that goes against your theory is the name. If Bane 1.0 was Gilgeam, he would have renamed him Banegeam or something like that |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 30 Aug 2021 : 19:11:49
Regarding Kelcimer's statements of not quite knowing how to use it in game, from an adventure/plot standpoint and how to use it, this is why I like to get into the nitpicky details of HOW I think Bane 2.0 is xvim and "Gilgeam" is Bane 1.0 wearing "Gilgeam's" meatsuit (and that the "lesser avatar" of Bane that we're told exists of the dark 3 are different than Bane). So, as I see it, "Gilgeam"/Bane 1.0 has a temple of Bane in the city of Mourktar on the borders of northern Unther prior to the spellplague. It's known as "The Black Lord's Cloak" because it is believed to have a "cloak" of the black lord (a divine artifact that he supposedly wore) that's sentient and is said to fly around in secret and drink blood. Perhaps this artifact had willing servants which (like a vampires in stories) allowed it to feed from them (and these were ardent worshippers of Bane.
So, as a story, that portion of Mourktar goes to Abeir (as not all of every city is necessarily affected). The sentient artifact takes this opportunity to retrieve the godflesh of Gilema and... like a vampire... bleeds into the godflesh and animates it. Meanwhile, it starts a heresy while in Abeir that "Gilgeam has always been Bane" (which may have in fact had SOME truth to it... but that's another story for another day). In order to gain power, he intends to slay the primordial tyrant, Karshimis - ruler of the citadel of Ice & Fire in Shyr, and become the tyrant of Shyr in his place. Then the worlds change again. He finds himself back on Toril just as he was about to attack, and he blames Ao for ripping the carpet from beneath his feet yet again. He is now intending to rebuild Unther as a new tyrannical empire.
Where to go from here might have a lot of avenues. It might be that he intends to seize Threskel and portions of Chessenta, meanwhile possibly trying to return to some of his old places of power by revealing his "heresy" that the current Bane is not the true black lord to groups that are currently loyal to Bane 2.0. Possibly he goes into Thay, proposing to Szass Tam that his "agreement" is with Xvim, and that it will be null and void if he helps "Gilgeam"/Bane 1.0 kill Xvim/Bane 2.0. In return, he would allow a return of other deities to Thay (and he makes this known as a means to encourage other dark gods to aid him). In the end, the god of tyranny in the southern and eastern realms might become Gilgeam/Bane 1.0 and areas in the heartland and Moonsea might remain loyal to Xvim. Meanwhile, both deities set their eyes on Telos and his warlock knights.... thinking to conquer the primordial and the power of his body/felliron.
Hmmm, and perhaps the location where Telos' body is located is another link in the portal network recently created by Eric and George (this Garuut-Omrum) that has links at Castle Perilous/Sorceror's Isle/Ironfang Keep. If those are locations with gold, copper, and silver .... this one could be the "felliron portal"... much like I was proposing another link in the citadel of conjurer's with the adamantine seal and some other link in Dun-Tharos (the chardalyn seal? The electrum/brass/bronze/mithril seal? Maybe somewhere in the area is "the bloodstone seal"). |
| Kelcimer |
Posted - 30 Aug 2021 : 06:56:48
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
My players don't care, so the topic has never become something relevant in my campaigns. I don't know much of Xvim to say if he is really something like Bane 2.0, tho.
I kinda feel the same. It seems like one of those real world religious schisms. To people inside the schism it is a matter of life and death, but to those people outside of it, they can't really tell what it is about.
I recognize that there is continuity in that direction. I don't do anything to reference it, and neither do I do anything to contradict it. If I should ever have a player who cares about it, then it is there.
I vaguely remember when the Bane was brought back. What I thought at the time was that this was a way of undoing one of the unsuccessful consequences of the Times of Trouble. Basically, it seemed to me like "Oh we killed Bane and Cyric isn't working out! We didn't really think that one through. Lets find a way to bring Bane back!" It seemed pretty weak to me, so why not (as a DM) just ignore that whole Time of Troubles thing and just act as if Bane has been here all along?
Not having a dog in this fight, I find Wooly Rupert's analysis pretty interesting. I am persuaded that his option 3 makes for the best story, given the continuity, in and of itself.
That said, I don't think I could find a way to make this piece of information a useful part of an adventure. As a practical matter, why should a player character care? Xvim's deception extends to his own priesthood, so how should the player characters even find out? And what does it matter to any god or priest that this is so? They still have to deal with the Church of Bane as it is.
If I had a player character who was a priest of Bane 1.0, had gone through Cyric and Xvim, and then moved right on to Bane 2.0, how would it even matter to that player character? I don't think it would. Either Bane 2.0 is the kind of God he wants to dedicate himself to or he isn't, and if he worked his way through the previous three gods, then I shouldn't think he'd have a problem with Bane 2.0.
Now if I had a player character who was a priest of Bane 1.0, had sat on the sidelines for a few years during Cyric and Xvim, and came back to the fold with Bane 2.0, how would it even matter to that player character? It might matter a bit. Because he didn't just jump on to the next bandwagon. There could be some interested roleplaying experiences between NPC's and the player about the philosophy of it all. It might be that the player character has to make a choice of "is this god close enough or is it a matter of accept no substitutes?".
Beyond that, how would you bring that detail into a game and make it something the players actually have to deal with? |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 29 Aug 2021 : 22:14:58
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
What I saw in the novels was that Bane 1.0 was the "evil for evil's sake" type. Maybe that's not what was intended, but that's how he came across -- the kind of deity that'd drop-kick a kitten simply because it was evil to do so.
Xvim, when we saw him in action, at least had style. Sure, he was also evil, but he wasn't evil just to be another Evil Overlord™, and his plots and activities made sense.
That's why I like Xvim.
I would wonder, for those who think Bane 2.0 is Bane 1.0, what explanation they would offer for Bane 1.0 changing so many things to match Xvim? Not trying to argue; it's those changes that make me think Bane 2.0 is either some gestalt entity or Xvim faking it. If Bane 2.0 acted like Bane 1.0, I'd accept them as the same entity -- I'd've never considered any other options.
Well, since I got to the Realms nearly at the end of 3.x/the start of 4e, I already experimented the changed Bane. I didn't knew that there was a difference until read some posts here, years later. So, when I used Bane in my earlier campaigns, he was Bane 1.0. Xvim to me was some random NPC I even didn't knew much about.
Now I tend to believe that the Bane 2.0 is either Bane fused with Xvim or, as mentioned before, that Achra took Bane's domain in the Realms. My players don't care, so the topic has never become something relevant in my campaigns. I don't know much of Xvim to say if he is really something like Bane 2.0, tho. |
| Delnyn |
Posted - 29 Aug 2021 : 17:35:10
Scribes,
Assuming Bane 2.0 is Xvim masquerading as Bane, how would he handle specialized divine spellcasters, most specifically authlim.
1. Would they be grandfathered into the new church of Bane?
2. Would they be converted to comparable dreadmasters or standard clerics?
3. Would they have an entirely new role? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 29 Aug 2021 : 17:25:03
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
I was a "late" comer to FR, so I never understood why Xvim has so many fans. For me, he was just a plot of Bane for his eventual return, for a metaplot that was background to me. I'm with bloodtide here: Bane is Bane. Either his 1.0 form, or Achra (NV Bane) taking his place.
What I saw in the novels was that Bane 1.0 was the "evil for evil's sake" type. Maybe that's not what was intended, but that's how he came across -- the kind of deity that'd drop-kick a kitten simply because it was evil to do so.
Xvim, when we saw him in action, at least had style. Sure, he was also evil, but he wasn't evil just to be another Evil Overlord™, and his plots and activities made sense.
That's why I like Xvim.
I would wonder, for those who think Bane 2.0 is Bane 1.0, what explanation they would offer for Bane 1.0 changing so many things to match Xvim? Not trying to argue; it's those changes that make me think Bane 2.0 is either some gestalt entity or Xvim faking it. If Bane 2.0 acted like Bane 1.0, I'd accept them as the same entity -- I'd've never considered any other options. |
|
|
