Talk:Banehold

This is the one with the correct name, as far as I can see. Just grab all the text from The Barrens of Doom and Despair and shove it on here? Fw190a8 19:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Or just move it ;) Zerak talk 19:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Same as Banehold
Does anybody agree? The FRCG seems to describe Banehold in much the same manner. If so, should this page be moved to Banehold? What do you think? Niirfa-sa 23:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not having the campaign guide itself, can you justify that the Barrens of Doom and Despair are the same place as Banehold with a reference from that product? If so, I'd say move it, then make mention of the old name being linked to the new one. Fw190a8 22:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, here we go.


 * "From his Black Bastion, Bane rules supreme in this dominion, his consort Loviatar at his side. Under the oppressive sky lit by baleful green light, Banehold is divided into fiefs held by the Black Lord's divine vassals. These lands are bleak and plagued by constant strife.

An outlying deslation still holds ruined citadels and blasted landscapes of rock, obsidian, sand, and pitted iron. Over this hangs a red sky broken by black stormclouds. These areas serve as warnings to those beings that Bane subjugated during the Spellplague in these outlands. Bane's servant Tiamat lurks and plots in the various layers that Bane allowed her to build."

- Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide, page 62


 * Sound the same? Similar? Niirfa-sa 00:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The description of the outlands is almost exactly the same as the Barrens. Since only greater deities were able to keep their divine realms and Bane was the only greater power on the Barrens, it is almost certain that the two planes are one and the same. I think it'd be logical to move it. hashtalk 17:49, 1st October, 2008 (GMT)

Keep the different Patheons seperate
The Pantheon of 2nd edition Gods and the 3rd edition gods are different, the same applies to the 4th edition Pantheon. The Spellplaugue changed the world, you need to keep the history as it was at that time. Writing everything as it was all only right now is just not going to work. Hurtzbad 09:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Creating a new artical take very little time and adds to both this wiki and to the history of the realms it's self (remember the quote on the Main Page) Hurtzbad 09:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My intention is not to say the Barrens of Doom and Despair never existed or to erase the existing information. My intention is simply to redirect and rename them as Banehold, since it seems to me (and I've yet to here otherwise) that they are one and the same. If you can argue otherwise I'm willing to hear the rebuttal. But, frankly, I think it would be ridiculous to create a new 4e page for every article. Niirfa-sa 16:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous as it may sound, creating new articals for quite a lot of the 4th ed stuff is what needs to happen. 4th ed changes quite a number of big picture items and these need to be written as seperate pages, both to record what happened and to allow the reader to diferentiate. Take the real world example of Germany. It split into West Germany & East Germany and then remerged into Germany again. What do you do? Do you remove all references to West & East Germany and merge them into the Germany artical as a history section? Do you leave them as seperate articals and create a new Germany artical. In all encycopedic texts the latter has been the convention. The same applies in the realms, there are sections of the world (and the planes) which have undergone large changes. We need to document those changes, while keeping the context and flavour of when it occured. Think of it as contemporary history. It should be written about at the time it happened. Hurtzbad 21:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you're coming from. Nobody's proposing the merging of articles that are, in fact, separate entities - like for instance the Plane of Shadow and the Negative Energy Plane, which, in the German analogy, were West and East Germany to 4e's Shadowfell. This is more like renaming Burma "Myanmar" or the DRC "Zaire." This isn't a separate plane of existence - it's one that already exists and just happens to have a different name now. It's not the situation you're describing and nobody's proposing that - in fact I've created new articles for things like the Shadowfell, where the new is separate from the old. But that is not what I think is the case with the Barrens and Banehold. I think it's more like the difference between Faerie/Feywild or genasi/deva - pure nomenclature. Niirfa-sa 00:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * - I think what your missing is they are seperate planes. After the spellplague the planes changed and changed quite a bit. Some gods held thier planes togeather and their names didn't change. Other gods failed and their planes changed (and thier names changed) Now why did Banes plane change name. Well I don't know, but I do know a lot of Banes plane did change. I would seperate the two with links between them. We don't currently know why the plane changed (very little real detail in current source books) but we do it changed quite a bit. That way the description of what was before is kept, and the details of what is now is expanded.Hurtzbad 05:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that the planes changed in general. For instance, Chauntea now resides in the Green Fields rather than the House of Nature. What you aren't getting is that we have no reason to believe Banehold is any different from the Barrens other than the change of name. The only details we have on Banehold suggest it is the same plane as the Barrens. A name change is not justification enough to create a new article, anymore than in the case of aasimar/devas or Astral Plane/Astral Sea.Niirfa-sa 06:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)