I can see the difference. It's big.
Bane is the evil general.
Asmodeus is the evil king.
However the evil general has to lead their armies and their conquered lands. And this one is a tyrant when he does so.
The evil king has to lead armies sometimes. And he is an evil general when he does so.
As I posted, I don't see this as a significant difference. Bane is not a general
in service of someone else. And Asmodeus
leads his own, extensive, military force. I feel this point is only strengthened by considering that the civilian/military distinction - while very important to many contemporary theories of government - holds little or not significance in the sorts of quasi-historical worlds that D&D is concerned with.
Bane cares about the conquering. Asmodues care most about his conquered. Asmodeus is often happy at his throne not actively attacking anyone. Bane literally cannot sit still and much keep going so he stomps on the occupied and is brutal to insubordinate warriors tokeep himself looking forward.
<snip>
Bane and Asmodeus look similiar at first glance. That's because they have the same personality at different intensities. However if you look at them directly you see difference in images, goals, and which parts of society they focus on.
The differences you identify in the first of these two paragraphs seem to me like differences of personality or inclination. But not differences that mean they stand for different things from the point of view of ideality and worship.
Does the ruler of a band of militaristic hobgoblins worship Bane, or Asmodeus? Does a human tyrant who maintains rule through the use of armed bands to put down any opposition and extract taxation from the peasantry worship Bane, or Asmodeus? Does a regimental commander who is preparing to take power by way of a coup pray to Asmodeus or Bane for victory?
In my mind, either would make sense. Both reject pity and mercy. Both uphold domination by the display and the use of strength/might. Both are into cunning stratagems. Both came to their current positions through acts of betrayal.
Of the gods of the 4e setting, I think these two come the closet in their overlap. As I posted, I don't see this as a problem. But in my view it is a thing.
Why? Is it because you believe that's just what evil does? Or do you believe that indulgence and tyranny are in competition?
Because of the material I quoted, from the 4e DMG, which tells us that one is about
tyranny and ruling without pity or mercy, and the other is about
conquest and ruling by punishing insubordination and driving fear into the heart of the opposition. There is no meaningful difference between those two sets of ideals! And this is only driven home further by considering a wider range of 4e material discussing these beings.
The notion of
indulgence doesn't figure at all in any of the 4e gods as presented in the DMG, or even as elaborated upon in the material I'm familiar with. Tiamat probably comes closest, though in some context Avandra would also be apposite. (Depending whether we are focusing on
selfish indulgence or
well-earned comforts.)
Furthermore, and agreeing once again with
@Chaosmancer, I personally have never seen any account of Asmodeus that links him to indulgence in any serious fashion. Across the original MM and MM2, Ed Greenwood's well-known Dragon articles in the 1980s, the original MoP, and the 4e material, Asmodeus has been presented as an active, energetic figure who uses a combination of strength and clever manipulation to achieve and maintain the power that he desires.
