Belkar is...

[Rajhiim]

Awesome! I am so glad he is back to form, even if he is dabbling a bit with a "goodish" alignment =)

[hamishspence]

Just as it took an act of great-self-sacrifice to redeem Vader, so Belkar needs to show much stronger good traits to cease being Evil, given his past history.

Just being a little bit less selfish generally isn't enough- Belkar at the moment is acting more like his Second Devil On Shoulder would suggest- moderating his behaviour a little, to serve "the greater him"

[Prock]

".... A Sexy Shoeless God of War"

=3

[MickJay]

The change seems to be more from CE to NE more than anything else. The good part is, it's impossible to tell to what extent the faking of character development will end up being real character development, since in case of roleplaying they're practically the same thing. :smallbiggrin:

[Rajhiim]

I dont know -- he was interested in other folks' needs (ie. Haley's revenge kill, vs taking the xp for himself) so wouldn't that be a sign his E may be leaning more N to G? Could it be Belks has gone true N ?

Either way, I am very glad the Shoeless god of war has returned! =)

Now if we can get Roy back and some more Xykon action.

[Zevox]

I dont know -- he was interested in other folks' needs (ie. Haley's revenge kill, vs taking the xp for himself)
You don't seem to understand that situation at all. Belkar doesn't give a damn about Haley's revenge - the only reason he spared Crystal is because doing so will allow him to fool her into thinking he has changed. In reality, he hasn't. All he's doing now is being sneakier, getting the others to trust him so that he can later get away with more of his impulses without suffering the consequences of his actions. Shojo gave him "all sorts of sneaky new ways to raise hell," remember? Sparing Crystal was an entirely selfish move on his part, a convenient means to his own ends.

Zevox

[Kroy]

I thought the OP was going to say ...not going to die. Thank god it isn't yet another one of those threads!

[hamishspence]

Interest in other people's needs is a start toward goodness, but its rarely enough on its own. Indeed, it is possible to be almost entirely focussed on the Needs Of Others and be very Evil- Redcloak has a big dose of this, where Others are "The Goblin People"

[Vemynal]

but he's not interested in other peoples needs- he's faking it

[Kaytara]

I second the notion. :) It's almost inconceivable that in one swift, masterful stroke, Rich managed to satisfy BOTH camps - the one saying that Belkar's schtick is stagnant and boring and that he should change, and the one saying gods forbid he changes.

And I actually called it (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4806495&postcount=118)! :) I said Belkar would become more cunning and start taking long-term consequences into account. But even hoping for it didn't prepare me for the awesomeness overload when it finally happened. XD

[Rajhiim]

I like that, awesomeness overload. It is indeed.

I don't know, we're all making assumptions about the Belkster. We are all assuming either, he is faking it or he is sincere... So I guess we'll just have to see (and that's what makes this comic fun to me, actually giving two coppers where it's going!)

=)

[JonestheSpy]

The change seems to be more from CE to NE more than anything else. The good part is, it's impossible to tell to what extent the faking of character development will end up being real character development, since in case of roleplaying they're practically the same thing. :smallbiggrin:


Umm, Belkar's entire vision was a guide from a chaotic character on how to get away with being a rebel who can't stand the restrictions of society and not have everybody hate you and want you dead. "Philosophy of Chaos", you may recall.

Neutral Evil is just Evil evil evil without regard for order or disorder. Belkar is clearly moving toward Chaotic Neutral - in his actions if not inner workings.

[hamishspence]

NE can be the Collaborator with evil, or even the guy who Turns A Blind Eye to evildoing.

the sample example in Vile Darkness was a schoolmaster who Turns A Blind Eye to the occasional kidnapping of his students for mysterious purposes, in return for much money, quietly telling himself he isn't doing anything wrong.

It doesn't always have to be a Card Carrying Villain.

[[TS] Shadow]

You don't seem to understand that situation at all. Belkar doesn't give a damn about Haley's revenge - the only reason he spared Crystal is because doing so will allow him to fool her into thinking he has changed. In reality, he hasn't. All he's doing now is being sneakier, getting the others to trust him so that he can later get away with more of his impulses without suffering the consequences of his actions. Shojo gave him "all sorts of sneaky new ways to raise hell," remember? Sparing Crystal was an entirely selfish move on his part, a convenient means to his own ends.

Zevox

Yes, Belkar's motive for the revenge kill was fueled by selfish motives. However, the action itself was rather unselfish, so it's not hard to assume that the ends justify the means here. If an evil person commits a good act for his own selfish purposes, he's still commiting a good act.

[Linkavitch]

I thought the OP was going to say ...not going to die. Thank god it isn't yet another one of those threads!

Yeah, I know. I started one of those threads, but only 'cuz nobody had posted and idea similar to mine yet. But I still cringe when I see 'em.

[MadScientistMat]

The change seems to be more from CE to NE more than anything else. The good part is, it's impossible to tell to what extent the faking of character development will end up being real character development, since in case of roleplaying they're practically the same thing. :smallbiggrin:

I'm not even sure he's lost his chaotic side until we have further evidence. All he's really lost is a tendancy to be rather stupid about how he practices chaotic evilness. We've started with him just killing for the fun of it, but now he's realized that sometimes his own selfish ends are better served by scheming instead of murdering. For example, the old Belkar probably would have stabbed Pete a lot instead of convincing the cleric of Loki that it would be fun to bash Pete's brains out.

Remember, Belkar learned his new behavior from a vision (halucination? visitation? does it matter?) from Lord Shojo - one of the more chaotic figures in the story. Shojo's just given him a lesson in the practical, subversive application of chaos.

[hamishspence]

BoED calls out "normally Good acts for selfish reasons" as Neutral. Otherwise every Villain With Good Publicity who donates huge sums to charity to get a good rep, would be Good.

[[TS] Shadow]

BoED calls out "normally Good acts for selfish reasons" as Neutral. Otherwise every Villain With Good Publicity who donates huge sums to charity to get a good rep, would be Good.

Yes, but even if they are Neutral, they are still commiting good acts.

[Theodoric]

Shadow;5591691']Yes, but even if they are Neutral, they are still commiting good acts.
sometimes it is necessary to do small Good things to do greater Evil things, and vice versa. :smallwink:

[Xianio]

How exactly is Belkar doing a good thing? He's not murdering someone so that someone else can murder them. In no way is this a "good" act. Letting her go free might be a good act, helping fix her ways might be a good act or even helping Haley and Crystal resolve their issues could be good but he's not doing any of those things. Belkar is simply not landing the finishing blow with full intention of letting Haley get it.

It's not "Good" to not be selfish, it's just not evil either.

[Kaytara]

Just because someone is a bloodthirsty murderer doesn't mean they're above calculated acts of heroism.

Really. Even if the deed of sparing someone is good, it doesn't make the person doing it good, unless they're doing it because it's good rather than because they expect to get money or recognition or are just trying to fool someone.

[MadScientistMat]

Shadow;5591691']Yes, but even if they are Neutral, they are still commiting good acts.

The gods in this strip may not go entirely by intent, but if they and their bureaucrats are the final arbiters of morality in OoTS, it certainly seems that intentions get more weight than actions. Such as the time the angel Roy talks tells him he is considered Lawful Good because that's what he was trying to be, and what he wanted to be, instead of what he actually accomplished. So it doesn't look like an evil character could get ruled good here for doing "good" actions with an evil ulterior motive.

[MickJay]

I agree that Belkar's change was from a berserker to a manipulator, and I see the point how that this still makes him more chaotic than neutral (but not any better on the evil-good axis), if his motives will stay as they were when he received his vision. Still, maybe whole vision was a big rationalisation allowing Belkar to cope with subconscious realisation that he can perform even more evil if he's less chaotic about it, thus allowing him to keep an illusion of still being chaotic? ;) On a more serious note, would not performing less chaotic actions and being more thoughtful make him ultimately less chaotic?

In the long run, we'll need to have a glimpse into Belkar's mind to see if by faking the change he's actually changed, or not...

[pnewman]

How exactly is Belkar doing a good thing? He's not murdering someone so that someone else can murder them. In no way is this a "good" act. Belkar is simply not landing the finishing blow with full intention of letting Haley get it.

It's not "Good" to not be selfish, it's just not evil either.

Belkar is not merely not being selfish, he's actually being selfless. He is knowingly depriving himself of the pleasure of murder so that someone else can have it. The Players Handbook says that killing for pleasure is an evil act. Therefore by not killing for pleasure he is deliberately avoiding an evil act to make someone else happy.

If Belkar avoided eating the last cookie because he knew the cookie was Haley's rival would that be good?

[Flame of Anor]

The cookie is Haley's rival...heh heh...

...it is a PICKLE-FLAVORED COOKIE!!! OH NOEZ!!!1!

[MickJay]

Belkar is not merely not being selfish, he's actually being selfless. He is knowingly depriving himself of the pleasure of murder so that someone else can have it. The Players Handbook says that killing for pleasure is an evil act. Therefore by not killing for pleasure he is deliberately avoiding an evil act to make someone else happy.

If Belkar avoided eating the last cookie because he knew the cookie was Haley's rival would that be good?

He wants Crystal to die by Haley's hand, and have triple pleasure of 1. seeing Crystal die, 2. making (good) Haley do the evil deed and 3. pretending to be better than he is.

Not that 1 and 2 are likely to happen.

[Rajhiim]

Underneath this discussions lays a great death penalty arguement.

In this scenario - Belkar is the jailor/police/who-ever-captured-the-convicted while Haley is the Executor/Governor/etc.

Belks subdued the sentenced (who had blatently attacked the PCs and thus worthy of death)... but left the actual killing to someone else.

Haley may not kill her... who knows.

As for being super manipulative, like Emp Palpatine-esque manipulative, Belk's INT score isn't high enough for this drawn out of a plan though it is deliciously evil.

in this comic, Evil is stupid so good always wins. =P

[Rajhiim]

alignment... I have always questioned alignment.

Vampires are XXXX Evil (usually lawful right?) - why? Is it because they have to kill humans to exist? Does that mean, according to cows and chickens, humans are evil?

We know Redcloak's people see humans as "evil."

Really isn't it all perception? Evil sees good as evil and vice versa? I don't mean in the "Evil is a growth industry" type of way but in the overall "I am not wrong for doing XXX..." while a counter point of view may say you are indeed wrong and therefore evil.

Cops are always bad guys to the robbers.

[JonestheSpy]

in this comic, Evil is stupid so good always wins. =P

Like in Azure City?



Vampires are XXXX Evil (usually lawful right?) - why? Is it because they have to kill humans to exist? Does that mean, according to cows and chickens, humans are evil?

Well, that's not too difficult. I'd say the crux of the issue is sentience - vampires feed on intelligent, thinking beings. It's just a hair away from cannibalism, really.

As for Redcloak's perception of evil vs. human's perception of same, that's a bit trickier. In traditional heroic fantasy, the sides are pretty clear cut - we can count on the orcs, goblins, etc as being consistently evil in a way that has no parallel in the real world. But in OotS, Burlew seems to be saying that there are goblins that would be fine minding their own business not hurting anyone, but prejudice by humans and their gods has resulted in their unjust persecution. What makes it weirder is that paladins can go massacring innocent goblins and still retain their shiny good paladin status, when if there was really any kind of objective morality in the OotS universe such acts would be just as evil as killing harmless human villagers.

Frankly, I think it's a big old snarl...

[The Neoclassic]

alignment... I have always questioned alignment.

Vampires are XXXX Evil (usually lawful right?) - why? Is it because they have to kill humans to exist? Does that mean, according to cows and chickens, humans are evil?

We know Redcloak's people see humans as "evil."

Really isn't it all perception? Evil sees good as evil and vice versa? I don't mean in the "Evil is a growth industry" type of way but in the overall "I am not wrong for doing XXX..." while a counter point of view may say you are indeed wrong and therefore evil.

Cops are always bad guys to the robbers.

Yeah, well, but still: Within this context, I assume we are just talking about the rather arbitrary D&D system (which actually has good/evil absolutes). In that, I'd throw Belkar in NE: more organized and less haphazard, but simply so he can do more stealking ad killing.

Agreement with everyone who points out the truth, the obvious truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth:

:belkar: Belkar is a sexy, shoeless god of war. :belkar:

[Thurnis]

alignment... I have always questioned alignment.

Vampires are XXXX Evil (usually lawful right?) - why? Is it because they have to kill humans to exist? Does that mean, according to cows and chickens, humans are evil?



It also has to do with what is natural. The standard predator/prey relationship is acceptable in the context of nature.
Vampires exist in another sphere altogether. They are not part of nature thus they cannot justify their need to feed in the same way.
Furthermore, the cows and chickens I eat do not rise as creatures given an unholy semblance of life, bound to my iron will 1d4 days after burial... well... except for that one time.

[Zevox]

in this comic, Evil is stupid so good always wins. =P
Redcloak and Kubota beg to differ with the former, and the Battle of Azure City begs to differ with the latter.

Really, the only "evil is stupid" characters we have are Belkar and Xykon, and even they aren't that dumb. They're no geniuses, true, but their problem seems to be more the lack of an attention span than genuine stupidity, at least in most cases.


alignment... I have always questioned alignment.

Vampires are XXXX Evil (usually lawful right?) - why?
Basically because in D&D, at least in 3rd edition, the Undead are always set as "always evil" in alignment, with the exception of a few that were specifically created to be good-aligned Undead, such as the Baelnorn (an Elven variety of Lich from the Forgotten Realms). Hell, they even list Zombies and Skeletons as "always neutral evil" even though they're mindless - which makes very little sense when you consider that they make all animals "always true neutral" on the grounds that they're too stupid to be anything else.


It also has to do with what is natural.
That only works if you assume that whatever is natural is inherently good, and whatever is unnatural is inherently bad. Personally, I'd disagree with you there.


Really isn't it all perception?
In reality, basically, yes. "Good" and "evil" are just terms we use to label behavior we find positive or negative, desirable or undesirable, and so on. In D&D they attempt to make the terms objective, with certain things and creatures always being one or the other, but this doesn't work out so well since it doesn't work that way in reality, resulting in some players always disagreeing with the designers' interpretations of things.

Zevox

[Porthos]

...
...

*reads thread to make sure he's reading it right*

No matter what Rich does with Belkar, people are going to insist that he is something other than Chaotic Evil, aren't they? :smallfrown:

Sigh.

I think I'll just be in that corner over there gibbering quietly to myself....

[Assassin89]

Belkar is not chaotic evil.

He is chaotic evil and a "sexy shoeless god of war" with levels in Ranger and Barbarian.

[Rotipher]

What makes it weirder is that paladins can go massacring innocent goblins and still retain their shiny good paladin status, when if there was really any kind of objective morality in the OotS universe such acts would be just as evil as killing harmless human villagers.

True. In that respect, the paladins' powers seem to be rooted in what the Twelve Gods of the Southern pantheon think is acceptable, rather than in what the D&D alignment system will tolerate in LG characters. Remember, the Twelve Gods aren't necessarily all Lawful Good -- we know that Rat, for one, hangs out with Tiamat and the Dark One -- and they'd endorsed the creation of goblinoids as expendable sword-fodder, in the first place. Between these ethical lapses of their own, and the Northern gods' frequent cameo appearances, it's clear that the Giant depicts the deities of OotS (anthropomorphic or otherwise) as fallible, both in deed and in principle.

[MickJay]

...
...

*reads thread to make sure he's reading it right*

No matter what Rich does with Belkar, people are going to insist that he is something other than Chaotic Evil, aren't they? :smallfrown:

Sigh.

I think I'll just be in that corner over there gibbering quietly to myself....

Rich did with Belkar something that made him act in a rather different way than before. If he keeps acting in a different manner, then it's quite natural that the character development will trigger discussions on whether Belkar's alignment shifted to, for example, NE (or something else) or not.

[Assassin89]

Rich did with Belkar something that made him act in a rather different way than before. If he keeps acting in a different manner, then it's quite natural that the character development will trigger discussions on whether Belkar's alignment shifted to, for example, NE (or something else) or not.

For all we know, Belkar could be faking an alignment change while remaining CE.

[Finwe]

Belkar's only motivation for his newfound "morality" is self-preservation. In order to shift to CN, Belkar needs to start performing Good acts in order to counteract his Evil acts. Right now, he's just doing his best to deceive his comrades into thinking he's grown a conscience: he's still a mass-murdering little bastard, just a more cunning one. If he keeps acting the same way he has since his epiphany, he'll continue to be CE.

[The Neoclassic]

For all we know, Belkar could be faking an alignment change while remaining CE.

Oh, most likely. But it isn't certain. And as others have pointed out, if you act a certain way long enough, sometimes it starts to change you.

[Tredrick]

Like in Azure City?

In Azure City evil stopped being stupid and actually used its advantages.

[Finwe]

Oh, most likely. But it isn't certain. And as others have pointed out, if you act a certain way long enough, sometimes it starts to change you.

You mean the same way that Shojo gradually shifted from CG to LG? :smallamused:


While it's perhaps plausible that Belkar might change alignment, it's been such a short time since his change that there's been no real chance for us to tell much about anything.

[OITS]

...human
...female
...dead
...tall
...lawful
...good
...a paladin

He just pretends, he isn't anything of these.

[Harperfan7]

when did shojo arbitrarily become LG?

[hamishspence]

now reversing it- the Shojo we don't know about, who hadn't yet started conning his paladins, but was happy to send crusades to hunt down the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle (and slaughter everyone he was with- children included) could easily have been a non-CG alignment.

"doing good acts to counter his evil acts" was the schtick of True Neutral in 2nd ed, but in 3.5, routinely doing a lot of Evil makes you Evil. Even if you are doing Good acts regularly as well. Belkar's Evil acts would have to get much rarer, and probably less major, for Neutrality to be feasible- not just doing Good.

[Finwe]

when did shojo arbitrarily become LG?

'Twas sarcasm.



Belkar's Evil acts would have to get much rarer, and probably less major, for Neutrality to be feasible- not just doing Good.

Furthermore, I would maintain that Good acts performed with the motivation of "I better do this to keep my five well armed companions from imprisoning or killing me" do nothing to shift one's alignment towards Good.

[hamishspence]

on the bright side, they don't shift it toward evil either- a person whose every Good-type act was solidly rooted in self-interest, who avoided any Evil acts of note- at least, "nothing that would register a blip on the Mal-evo-meter" :smallbiggrin: would be solidly Neutral, despite being very self-centred.

[ondonaflash]

The change seems to be more from CE to NE more than anything else. The good part is, it's impossible to tell to what extent the faking of character development will end up being real character development, since in case of roleplaying they're practically the same thing. :smallbiggrin:

I agree with you fully. Its pretty clear Belkar has no interest in anything other than his own desires, that is, to kill, cook and fornicate, but he is now coming to realize he can do all these things to a greater degree if he "Plays by the Rules" while at the same time "Cheating". I'd say He's going from a clear CE towards a more NE perspective.

[ondonaflash]

now reversing it- the Shojo we don't know about, who hadn't yet started conning his paladins, but was happy to send crusades to hunt down the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle (and slaughter everyone he was with- children included) could easily have been a non-CG alignment.

"doing good acts to counter his evil acts" was the schtick of True Neutral in 2nd ed, but in 3.5, routinely doing a lot of Evil makes you Evil. Even if you are doing Good acts regularly as well. Belkar's Evil acts would have to get much rarer, and probably less major, for Neutrality to be feasible- not just doing Good.

I'm betting LN, since he was basically cheating the system in order to get an important job done, though the argument for True Neutrality is compelling.

[Ronan]

To be honest I just want him to continue being himself. That is CE or NE at maximum. *Belkar can't be good* It's against the rules of nature :smalleek:(except if he has owl's wisdom :smallwink:).

And bloodshed is always welcome, as I find it to be one of the most beautiful words in english. It's meaning is just so... touching :smallbiggrin:. Seconded only by Bloodlust -> This one describes him wery well. Sure, he is going to be less of a destroyer thet we got used to see, but he will be less predictable now

[Rajhiim]

A little more BELKAR IS....


A PIMP! Yes, I say yes. If you examine the Order, of them all.... I do believe Belkster has been more active, er... has more ranks in, um... well you know what I mean. I would have thought Elan but no, Belkar!

(here's where someone actually counts those sort' of encounters and corrects me hehe)