"Entirely justified comeuppance" ?

[JonestheSpy]

Okay, I can't help thinking that the Belkar of Olde never would have recognized or admi9tted that he brought any kind of karmic payback on himself.

I rather suspect that his fake character development is turning into real character development without his actually realizing it...

[Optimystik]

Just realizing he needed to fake some CD was actual CD for him, so yes.

Your first point is correct as well. OtOoPCs:

When Roy demonstrates to Belkar that attacking his allies will only result in them wiping him out, the only lesson he takes away from the encounter is that he should wait until after his allies have taken their actions so that he can murder them with impunity.

[Elan's Modron]

Someone recently (the last 24 hours or so) suggested that maybe Belkar is becoming more endearing (for a given value of 'endearing') so that his prophesied death will be that much more of a bummer for us. Which is just good narrative sense = "death means tears."

I fear this might be true.

Off-topic re. Belkar- but on-topic re. Rich's storytelling-fu: I didn't get till now how fortuitous Haley's Icy Burst bow will be now that the party's in an environment where we will surely see some heat-themed monsters...

[veti]

Belkar has acknowledged karma (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0435.html) before. And even earlier, he did understand - if not exactly "accept" the idea of being penalised (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0125.html) for his crimes. I don't think this is a change for him.

[Kupi]

He could also be heading off a fad thread.

[Cracklord]

Go Durkon.

[Sewblon]

That is the point. In general fake character development is a good plot/humor device but not interesting in its own right. But fake character development is real development for Belkar.

[Katana_Geldar]

Sometimes, fake becomes real just like lies beocme true if you repeat them long enough.

[The Pink Ninja]

No, he knows he's evil.

He just doesn't care.

[Skorj]

He could also be heading off a fad thread.

Indeed! "Was Durkon morally justified in frying Belkar?" Yes he was! :smallyuk:

[JonestheSpy]

Sometimes, fake becomes real just like lies beocme true if you repeat them long enough.

That's my opinion. Heck, C.S. Lewis wrote a whole book about that.

[Querzis]

...What? How? Belkar always realized he was evil and deserved punishment, he just never cared and tried to avoid punishment. I really dont get how this is a change for him.

[Katana_Geldar]

That's my opinion. Heck, C.S. Lewis wrote a whole book about that.

A little German man started a "crazy cult" about that.

[BatRobin]

No, he knows he's evil.

He just doesn't care.

This is true.

[LurkerInPlayground]

Belkar is realizing that other people are going to give as good as they get. Especially if he's going to break rules of civility.

Before, Belkar didn't really care to think through the implications of his actions.

[Bibliomancer]

Wait a minute, I think we're all missing something: Durkon had some character development!

In the past, he has been rather silent about the chastising Belkar, leaving it to Roy, and certainly hasn't retaliated in any way.

[Starscream]

Someone recently (the last 24 hours or so) suggested that maybe Belkar is becoming more endearing (for a given value of 'endearing') so that his prophesied death will be that much more of a bummer for us. Which is just good narrative sense = "death means tears."

Might have been me:


I love Belkar so much recently. Is this Rich's way of making sure we all cry when he dies? Because it's working!

I stand by it. Even though Belkar has always been comedy gold, Rich mentioned that there are still a lot of people who take his heroic sociopathy a little too seriously.

In one of the book commentaries he said that there were quite a few readers who were upset when Roy prevented Miko from executing Belkar. They felt that Good should triumph over Evil even though Miko is a terrible example of "good" and that Belkar is a case of evil aiding (on average) the forces of good.

Now that his time is up, giving the Belkster a few great punchlines, and some maybe-even-real character development might be the best way of assuring that when he hits -10 hp the readers won't just scoff and say "Well, he was evil anyway".

[Bibliomancer]

Now that his time is up, giving the Belkster a few great punchlines, and some maybe-even-real character development might be the best way of assuring that when he hits -10 hp the readers won't just scoff and say "Well, he was evil anyway".

This is an interestingly Eberronian view of things. In Eberron, evil characters can help the PCs as often as hindering them and good characters can often stand in their way. As a result, players should be careful about figuring out which is which to avoid trusting an associate or making a enemy out of a potential ally.

Belkar's brand of evil seems to be shifting from "Kill everything" to "Kill everything possible while getting adventuring companions to trust me," which is a significant character shift for him.

[veti]

This is an interestingly Eberronian view of things. In Eberron, evil characters can help the PCs as often as hindering them and good characters can often stand in their way. As a result, players should be careful about figuring out which is which to avoid trusting an associate or making a enemy out of a potential ally.

Isn't that true in every world? Certainly is in the one I live in, and I've encountered it in fantasy games too...

Wasn't that part of the point of Miko, originally - to show that "Good" isn't just one big happy family where everyone works together?

[Shale]

Yeah. If every single person opposing the PCs is evil, and every good person helps them by default, it's not exactly an interesting campaign, character-wise. Hell, just in OotS, Belkar has always been a study of how a character can be CE while still fighting on the good guys' side.

[Warren Dew]

Belkar has acknowledged karma (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0435.html) before. And even earlier, he did understand - if not exactly "accept" the idea of being penalised (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0125.html) for his crimes. I don't think this is a change for him.

I agree: it's not a change. Belkar has never deluded himself about his being evil.

[Nimrod's Son]

...What? How? Belkar always realized he was evil and deserved punishment, he just never cared and tried to avoid punishment. I really dont get how this is a change for him.
Not exactly always.

On the Origin of PCs:
Belkar was outraged that he was imprisoned just because he killed a few humans in a bar fight. And before the term was explained to him, he expected to escape a "guilty" verdict because he didn't feel guilty. Throughout the whole scene, he genuinely seems to think he's done nothing wrong.

[Querzis]

Not exactly always.

On the Origin of PCs:
Belkar was outraged that he was imprisoned just because he killed a few humans in a bar fight. And before the term was explained to him, he expected to escape a "guilty" verdict because he didn't feel guilty. Throughout the whole scene, he genuinely seems to think he's done nothing wrong.

Yes I know, I got Origin, and I really dont see how that change anything. He doesnt look guilty at all in today strip. He just that the revenge was justified and of course it was. Just like he never denied that he killed all these humans and never said that it was right, he simply expected to be able to be able to escape punishment and wasnt feeling guilty. Just like he was obviously not expecting Durkon to take revenge and he sure as hell doesnt feel guilty here either.

[Nimrod's Son]

Yes I know, I got Origin, and I really dont see how that change anything.
In the latest strip, he admits his comeuppance is "entirely justified". In Origin, he says, "Frankly, I think given the circumstances you should be rewarding me..." and, "This is ridiculous. If you humans want people to stop killing so many of you in your towns, you should put up some kind of sign".

It doesn't seem like he thinks his punishment is justified there. I'd say the difference is pretty clear.

[Turkish Delight]

If there is any real character development, it's the attachment he seems to have made with Mr. Scruffy. Going by V's 'Hate-Lust' check, the cat doesn't really seem to fit into either category.

Well...ok, I guess we can't rule out possibility of the latter, but I really don't want to think about that too much. Point is, towards Mr. Scruffy, Belkar's behavior is distinctly not Chaotic Evil.

I have a gut feeling that Mr. Scruffy is going to play a big part in Belkar's death. In particular, if there's even the slightest prayer at all for a Redemption Equals Death moment, it'll involve the cat.

[Fishman]

Point is, towards Mr. Scruffy, Belkar's behavior is distinctly not Chaotic Evil.Even bad guys like cats.

[Starscream]

Even bad guys like cats.

Especially bad guys like cats. There's even a trope (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RightHandCat) for it.

[Rad]

Go Durkon.

indeed :smallbiggrin:

[Turkish Delight]

Even bad guys like cats.

I don't know. I'm guessing if it were Xykon that cat would be dead and zombiefied at this point.

[Ghostwheel]

The whammy laid upon Belkar is this: "Attitude follows behavior." By introducing the concept of selfishness to behaving responsibly, and introducing something to be solely responsible for (the cat), Hinjo showed a knowledge of what we call "tough love."

Some people may argue that motivation trumps actions; but that is not my belief in RL, and it seems to be the literary course that Rich has set for Belkar.

Have a nice day!

[Turkish Delight]

Especially bad guys like cats. There's even a trope (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RightHandCat) for it.

That's more of an Evil Mastermind thing, for the use of those villains who sit in big chairs and contemplate plans to take over the world. Belkar is more of a stab-things-until-they-stop-moving kind of bad guy, and those bad guys tend to get just as much pleasure from chopping a kitten in half as they do from petting it.

[rangermania]

Damn! I should really buy those books :S

[ericgrau]

I think Durkon is forgetting why they bring Belkar along at all. Anything that inhibits his ability to direct his evil rage at their opponents destroys that purpose. Justified or not. OTOH if there's no retaliation, Belkar might start doing more harm than good. Some way to make Belkar suffer without inhibiting his ability to fight or, say, an extra endure elements for when they do get into a fight would have been better.

[veti]

In the latest strip, he admits his comeuppance is "entirely justified". In Origin, he says, "Frankly, I think given the circumstances you should be rewarding me..." and, "This is ridiculous. If you humans want people to stop killing so many of you in your towns, you should put up some kind of sign".

It doesn't seem like he thinks his punishment is justified there. I'd say the difference is pretty clear.

As I read 'Origin', he doesn't believe what he's saying there - it's just the most convenient way of screwing with the heads of the law-'n'-order types who insist on throwing him in jail.

He knows perfectly well that it's where he belongs, but he's never been the type to "go quietly". Or do anything quietly, for that matter.

[Optimystik]

I think Durkon is forgetting why they bring Belkar along at all. Anything that inhibits his ability to direct his evil rage at their opponents destroys that purpose. Justified or not. OTOH if there's no retaliation, Belkar might start doing more harm than good. Some way to make Belkar suffer without inhibiting his ability to fight or, say, an extra endure elements for when they do get into a fight would have been better.

Actually, they bring Belkar along to limit his aggression to evil characters, not specifically because they rely on his physical prowess. Hence Roy relegating him to caster guard duty against Xykon, leaving the MoJ in place during the Azure City battle, and very pointedly not being too worried about his impending demise.


As I read 'Origin', he doesn't believe what he's saying there - it's just the most convenient way of screwing with the heads of the law-'n'-order types who insist on throwing him in jail.

I think he genuinely does believe it i.e. he had no earthly idea why the guards would be so upset at him using lethal force against people that piss him off (and any nearby innocent bystanders.) He proves this later twice, first near the end of Origin and again in the main strip, when the only reason he can see that attacking his party is a bad idea is the retaliation he would be subject to as a result.

[Spiky]

As I read 'Origin', he doesn't believe what he's saying there - it's just the most convenient way of screwing with the heads of the law-'n'-order types who insist on throwing him in jail.

He knows perfectly well that it's where he belongs, but he's never been the type to "go quietly". Or do anything quietly, for that matter.

Attributing deep thoughts to Belkar seems....incorrect.

[Bibliomancer]

I think Durkon is forgetting why they bring Belkar along at all. Anything that inhibits his ability to direct his evil rage at their opponents destroys that purpose. Justified or not. OTOH if there's no retaliation, Belkar might start doing more harm than good. Some way to make Belkar suffer without inhibiting his ability to fight or, say, an extra endure elements for when they do get into a fight would have been better.

Interesting fact: it does not say anywhere that emotional state affects a player's ability to rage. Hypothetically, there could be a character who followed Jainism for the 99% of the time out of rage. However, that would be bending the concept to breaking point.

I object to the implication that Belkar is at his most useful when he charges in blindly. From what I've seen, he's at his most useful when he stops to think and make plans. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0270.html)

[waterpenguin43]

Belkar may be evil, but as Roy said, he is being used to fight more dangerous evils then himself until he meets his end, possibly even redeming him. In fact, I find that Belkar is leaning more towards law as we have progressed. Hey, he actually listens to orders now, so maybe he's dipping into NE and he will build to TN from their. Who knows?

[Fishman]

Some people may argue that motivation trumps actions; but that is not my belief in RL, and it seems to be the literary course that Rich has set for Belkar.I argue that all motivations are ultimately self-centered. People aim to do whatever makes them happy, even if they don't understand WHY, and therefore, those who understand that their motivations are fundamentally selfish possess greater self-awareness and maturity, and are far easier to deal with, than those who believe their own pompous moralizing. I mean, who would you rather be trying to reason with? The new Belkar, or even the old Belkar? Or Miko?

[Optimystik]

Belkar may be evil, but as Roy said, he is being used to fight more dangerous evils then himself until he meets his end, possibly even redeming him. In fact, I find that Belkar is leaning more towards law as we have progressed. Hey, he actually listens to orders now, so maybe he's dipping into NE and he will build to TN from their. Who knows?

Following just the orders you feel like following (particularly the ones that result in fun for you) and carrying them all out in your own way is still Chaotic behavior. We have no need to worry that Belkar will bar himself from further Barbarian progression.

[RecklessFable]

The Redeemer understands revenge. Comeuppance is simply another form of revenge.

The true growth of my Master is that he deigns to let the dwarf live by not escalating to combat, which my master would surely win.

[Kish]

The Redeemer understands revenge. Comeuppance is simply another form of revenge.

The true growth of my Master is that he deigns to let the dwarf live by not escalating to combat, which my master would surely win.
If by "win" you mean "get slaughtered by the entire party," yes. Actually, still no, that's not growth. Belkar only set out to kill another member of the party of his own free will once before, and he dropped it when the others explained to him that they would kill him if he succeeded.

[Optimystik]

If by "win" you mean "get slaughtered by the entire party," yes. Actually, still no, that's not growth. Belkar only set out to kill another member of the party of his own free will once before, and he dropped it when the others explained to him that they would kill him if he succeeded.

Twice, if you count Origin (with a similar reaction from the party.)

Actually, I'm not even sure Belkar could take Durkon on solo. After all, he can fly.

[Bibliomancer]

Twice, if you count Origin (with a similar reaction from the party.)

Actually, I'm not even sure Belkar could take Durkon on solo. After all, he can fly.

Actually, he can only fly with V's help, as seen here. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0507.html) Fly is only accessible to clerics through the Travel domain. I'm not sure what Durkon's domains are (one of them is probably War), but it seems very unlikely that he would have the fly spell and not have used it before now.

[Porthos]

Actually, he can only fly with V's help, as seen here. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0507.html) Fly is only accessible to clerics through the Travel domain. I'm not sure what Durkon's domains are (one of them is probably War), but it seems very unlikely that he would have the fly spell and not have used it before now.

Optimystik is referring to, I presume, the Wind Walk (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/windWalk.htm) spell. :smallsmile:

Course, Durkon actually has to have it memorized that day (or have a scroll), which is no sure bet. :smallwink:

[Herald Alberich]

Optimystik is referring to, I presume, the Wind Walk (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/windWalk.htm) spell. :smallsmile:

Course, Durkon actually has to have it memorized that day (or have a scroll), which is no sure bet. :smallwink:

Especially since he seems to hate it (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0647.html), and has already argued (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0673.html) that it's useless in the desert. You can't fight while incorporeal gaseous anyway.

[holywhippet]

I wonder if Belkar considers this incident different than the one in Origins as the subject in question is a dwarf rather than a human. While I doubt he likes dwarves more than another other race (or specifically he holds them all in equal contempt) it seemed to me he regarded the humans he killed as simply there to be killed and seemed shocked that the guard thought otherwise.

[thelveres]

Here is an idea, good/evil don't really exist in an arbitrary way.

Belkar's actions might be viewed as evil as defined by some people's morals but that doesn't necessarily make him evil.

You could say he is totally selfish, but then again, it can be argued that his sincere behavior towards others, and the antagonism created by his aggressiveness is an ultimate form of "good", or otherwise positive reinforcement.

In the end all actions can be reduced to selfish intentions, for me his sincerity about his feelings thus far had been refreshing, if anything the so called fake character evolution we are seeing in the latest strips could also be characterized as regression.

[Kish]

Here is an idea, good/evil don't really exist in an arbitrary way.

Belkar's actions might be viewed as evil as defined by some people's morals but that doesn't necessarily make him evil.

This is not a good idea. It doesn't lead anywhere that makes any sense.

Belkar is evil. However "cool" anyone may find him to be, he's still evil. Not "as defined by some people's morals"; he knows his own alignment perfectly well.


You could say he is totally selfish, but then again, it can be argued that his sincere behavior towards others, and the antagonism created by his aggressiveness is an ultimate form of "good", or otherwise positive reinforcement.

Arguing something requires more than simply asserting, "X can be argued." His actions don't connect logically to either goodness or to positive reinforcement. "In the end all actions can be reduced to selfish intentions" is an opinion at best. For that matter, Belkar is only particularly sincere when finding a way insincerity can hurt others overtaxes his extremely limited mental capacity.

[Porthos]

In the end all actions can be reduced to selfish intentions...

You are Ayn Rand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand), and I claim my five pounds. :smallsmile:

...

Whaaat? :smalltongue:

[thelveres]

This is not a good idea. It doesn't lead anywhere that makes any sense.

Belkar is evil. However "cool" anyone may find him to be, he's still evil. Not "as defined by some people's morals"; he knows his own alignment perfectly well.

Arguing something requires more than simply asserting, "X can be argued." His actions don't connect logically to either goodness or to positive reinforcement. "In the end all actions can be reduced to selfish intentions" is an opinion at best. For that matter, Belkar is only particularly sincere when finding a way insincerity can hurt others overtaxes his extremely limited mental capacity.

1) No, it actually makes perfect sense, and it leads somewhere, and that is away from arbitrary pinned characterizations which differ among cultures

2) We can define ourselves in any way we want, I can say that I am a rabbit, and I can actually believe in it, that doesn't make it true, and simply repeating that Belkar is evil won't make it so.

3)In the same way that asserting that good is universally defined you mean? Your arguments are contradictory.
All actions can be reduced to selfish intentions, that is not an opinion that is a fact, even wanting to help someone is a selfish desire to feel good about doing it, or for whatever reason you are doing it. Even helping someone to help someone else can follow the same logic, and even if it is to entertain a whim.

Of course his actions don't connect to goodness, since it doesn't exist, as for positive reinforcement I think I made quite a clear connection, but its your prerogative to refuse to see it as such.

Belkar is sincere in his intent not in his actions, and his intent is clearly selfish, weather you are judging the means by which he achieves his (obvious) selfish desires as ""evil"", is a subjective matter.

[Porthos]

All actions can be reduced to selfish intentions, that is not an opinion that is a fact

To paraphrase your own quote at you, "Just because you state that, doesn't mean it is true." :smallsmile:

[Kish]

3)In the same way that asserting that good is universally defined you mean? Your arguments are contradictory.

I don't know who asserted that good is universally defined.

What I do know on the subject is this: Belkar is evil. The contrary cannot be realistically argued by any amount of verbiage, and that is why no one in the comic has ever considered arguing it. Feel free to keep throwing words at it if you want, of course.


All actions can be reduced to selfish intentions, that is not an opinion that is a fact,

Well, if you repeat it enough times...


Belkar is sincere in his intent not in his actions, and his intent is clearly selfish,

Ah, I get it. When you say he's "sincere," you mean not that he acts with sincerity but that he's the only member of the Order who would believe in this "all actions can be reduced to selfish intentions" tommyrot. When you say "positive reinforcement," you don't mean anything found here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/positive+reinforcement) or in any other dictionary; you mean that he has nothing resembling what most people would call a positive relationship with the rest of the Order, no respect or friendship or any of the sentimental feelings that color (for example) Haley's relationship with Elan, just good, clean, honest hatred.

[Raging Gene Ray]

Of course his actions don't connect to goodness, since it doesn't exist, as for positive reinforcement I think I made quite a clear connection...

Actually, I don't think you did. Could you point out how Belkar provides positive reinforcement through selfish actions?

[JonestheSpy]

To paraphrase your own quote at you, "Just because you state that, doesn't mean it is true." :smallsmile:

I would actually go so far as to say that if someone asserts that their personal philosophy is a "fact", thne it's a pretty good sign that said philosophy doesn't actually have much in the way of real-world experience to back it up.

[thelveres]

I don't know who asserted that good is universally defined.

What I do know on the subject is this: Belkar is evil. The contrary cannot be realistically argued by any amount of verbiage, and that is why no one in the comic has ever considered arguing it. Feel free to keep throwing words at it if you want, of course.

Well, if you repeat it enough times...

Ah, I get it. When you say he's "sincere," you mean not that he acts with sincerity but that he's the only member of the Order who would believe in this "all actions can be reduced to selfish intentions" tommyrot. When you say "positive reinforcement," you don't mean anything found here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/positive+reinforcement) or in any other dictionary; you mean that he has nothing resembling what most people would call a positive relationship with the rest of the Order, no respect or friendship or any of the sentimental feelings that color (for example) Haley's relationship with Elan, just good, clean, honest hatred.

Well, if you want to adhere on any of this good and evil manufactured ideal, which differs in every society you are free to do so.

Maybe the use of the words positive reinforcement is misleading, it has to do with respect to the other person to not be politically correct against him, saying your opinion and acting on your beliefs, being an untypical rival to the other guys.

As for the stating that as a fact, it has to do a lot with real world experience. Of course you might argue that someone does not seek personal benefit intentionally, but seeking the nice feeling of doing something positive for someone (even if it is purely that) is still safe.

I have yet to see anyone who has given a real example of a completely unselfish act thus far, in fact, to the people who claim otherwise this is a challenge.

[Optimystik]

Especially since he seems to hate it (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0647.html), and has already argued (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0673.html) that it's useless in the desert. You can't fight while incorporeal gaseous anyway.

Faced with a choice of being stabbed in the liver or blown away, I'd go with the latter.

Also, you can cast spells just fine while incorporeal.

[hamishspence]

Well, if you want to adhere on any of this good and evil manufactured ideal, which differs in every society you are free to do so.

Ironically, while D&D (Especially Exalted deeds) and Rand disagree on almost every point, there are a few on which they agree firmly.

First- a "no-compromise" view- an evil act is an evil act no matter how "good" your intentions- murder is murder even done "for the good of all"

Second- a baseline definition of evil based on aggression- initiation of violence is always evil- the only good reason for violence is defensive-

to protect others from the initiators of violence- and preventative-

to stop the initiators of violence from commiting more violence.

Finally- the main point where they differ- selfishnesss.

In BoED, the only good deeds are unselfish deeds and self-sacrifice in generally, a deed done because benefits the self is "Neutral at best".

Even if others benefit as well.

On the bright side, BoED doesn't recognize unselfishness as "always making an act good" either- murder done solely to save others, even with a net result of self-sacrifice, is still murder.

Under Randian definitions:

Belkar initiates unprovoked and unreasonable violence against others- he is evil.

[Bibliomancer]

Here is an idea, good/evil don't really exist in an arbitrary way.

Belkar's actions might be viewed as evil as defined by some people's morals but that doesn't necessarily make him evil.

Really? This angel (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html) seems to think differently. Also, his level of evil is measured in kilonazis (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html). Are you saying that the actions of the German Nazi Party during World War Two were excusable under Randian morality?

[Cracklord]

The Redeemer understands revenge. Comeuppance is simply another form of revenge.

The true growth of my Master is that he deigns to let the dwarf live by not escalating to combat, which my master would surely win.

Durkon is a first tier class with wisdom in the twenties. Belkar is an example of why certain levels of optimization should be compulsory. If it comes to a fight, my money's on Fuzzy Wuzzy.

[Niknokitueu]

I have yet to see anyone who has given a real example of a completely unselfish act thus far, in fact, to the people who claim otherwise this is a challenge.
This reminds me of an episode of 'Friends', where Phoebe tried to commit an unselfish act. Even giving money to beggars was revealed to be selfish: It made her feel good.

The end result: The only way to be unselfish was to have a Zen-like attitude and just not care. Way to go, logic! :smallyuk:

Belkar is evil. He thinks so, the denizens of purgatory think so, and in AD&D you are defined by your actions (and intentions). Both in his case are explicitly self-serving and evil.

Any claim that Belkar is not evil is just not based in reality. Not even whilst trying to suspend the total un-reality that the web comic stands in. In the comic, people have alignments. Belkar's just happens to be CE. Deal with it.

Have Fun!
Niknokitueu

[thelveres]

This reminds me of an episode of 'Friends', where Phoebe tried to commit an unselfish act. Even giving money to beggars was revealed to be selfish: It made her feel good.

The end result: The only way to be unselfish was to have a Zen-like attitude and just not care. Way to go, logic! :smallyuk:

Belkar is evil. He thinks so, the denizens of purgatory think so, and in AD&D you are defined by your actions (and intentions). Both in his case are explicitly self-serving and evil.

Any claim that Belkar is not evil is just not based in reality. Not even whilst trying to suspend the total un-reality that the web comic stands in. In the comic, people have alignments. Belkar's just happens to be CE. Deal with it.


Niknokitueu

Oh, don't get me wrong, I never claimed that in the world of dnd there is no good and evil, in fact its one of the few examples were good and evil is actually "real".

This discussion was purely in the merits of Belkar as a comic character and not his "in game/comic" defined alignment.

As part of might be another discussion, even in the comic/dnd definition of evil you could definetely say that V is "much more evil" than Belkar is.

Whilst Belkar could lets say kill an army while fighting and enjoying the thrill of battle, for selfish reasons (even though negative intent does not matter much in the dnd world), V not only cast the infamous family side spell, but his attitude while doing so, and the revelation that he thought he was being controlled while he wasn't , shows what could be considered in game terms and even out of game (considering the negative intent) an evil act.

Belkar might be amoral, selfish and chaotic, and you could of course argue that he doesnt appear that evil cause of his lower intellect, but in my opinion V is more negative/evil and about as selfish as Belkar is.

[hamishspence]

it's easier to rationalize familicide, than Haley's behaviour, under Randian ethics-

if the dragons were all "overwhelmingly evil" as MM and BoVD suggest, then destroying them is not evil.

However, these ethics do not acept the sacrifice of others- if the half-dragons are not evil- then their "sacrifice" would be an evil act. Saying their deaths were "for the greater good" would cut no ice here.

By contrast, Haley's acts of theft, are evil by Randian ethics, and "its to ransom my father" would not be an acceptable excuse.

[Trixie]

Indeed! "Was Durkon morally justified in frying Belkar?" Yes he was! :smallyuk:

If anyone tried something like this with one of my characters, he would find a dagger in his back (or other similar scale retaliation).

And I never play evil characters :smallannoyed:

So, not justified.

[Conuly]

If anyone tried something like this with one of my characters, he would find a dagger in his back (or other similar scale retaliation).

And I never play evil characters :smallannoyed:

So, not justified.

What would you do if somebody tried to fling one of your characters from a tree and then keep them in place until a heavy hammer landed on their head?

[Kish]

If anyone tried something like this with one of my characters, he would find a dagger in his back (or other similar scale retaliation).

And I never play evil characters :smallannoyed:

So, not justified.
Doesn't follow. First, if you never play evil characters I'm a tidge puzzled by your apparent sympathy for Belkar here. Second--well--your or my or anyone else's characters, regardless of what alignments we consider them to have, are not arbiters of universal morality, so I'm not sure how bringing up what your character would do adds more weight to your post than it would have if you'd just posted the last two words ("not justified").

[Trixie]

What would you do if somebody tried to fling one of your characters from a tree and then keep them in place until a heavy hammer landed on their head?

Well, that was non-lethal damage resulting from Durkon's stupidity which he can heal on the spot. In return, he disabled an ally out of spite, in torture like manner, while being (ostensibly) cleric of good god (I never bought that 'Durkon being good' part anyway, he is as lawful as Miko was and did a lot of non-good things). That's disproportionate response in my book.


Doesn't follow. First, if you never play evil characters I'm a tidge puzzled by your apparent sympathy for Belkar here. Second--well--your or my or anyone else's characters, regardless of what alignments we consider them to have, are not arbiters of universal morality, so I'm not sure how bringing up what your character would do adds more weight to your post than it would have if you'd just posted the last two words ("not justified").

1) Well, I dislike racist, lacking common sense religious zealots with inhuman views far more (in general) than Belkar types. He at least is predictable.

2) See above - disproportionate response calls for retaliation, especially if it wasn't justified. I added that part to give additional weight to my opinion.

[Shale]

Belkar's got sunburn, not heatstroke. There's a ways to go before this qualifies as torture.

Also, racist? Against what, trees?

[Kish]

Belkar's got sunburn, not heatstroke. There's a ways to go before this qualifies as torture.

Also, racist? Against what, trees?
Interestingly, one member of the Order has, in the past few strips, had two genuinely racist lines. They went, "Dwarf-For-Brains" and "a shaggy, smelly, ill-tempered beast with a hump."

Beyond that, I'm not sure whether to shake my head more at a medical evaluation which places a warhammer falling on someone's head as meaningless and a fit source of humor but a sunburn as vicious, spiteful torture, or at a placement of responsibility that makes Belkar yanking down the tree Durkon's fault and Durkon not using one of his spells to stop the sun from burning Belkar also Durkon's fault.

[Trixie]

Belkar's got sunburn, not heatstroke. There's a ways to go before this qualifies as torture.

Also, racist? Against what, trees?

Humans, Halflings, Elves. Practically everything. It's much milder in the strip that it was in On the Origin of the PCs, but it's there. He fits the stereotipe of racist dwarf to a 'D'.

And considering sunburn in the desert can give you pernament skin, eye and nerve damage I fail to see how it is "non torture". In fact, it is pretty high along the grid.


Interestingly, one member of the Order has, in the past few strips, had two genuinely racist lines. They went, "Dwarf-For-Brains" and "a shaggy, smelly, ill-tempered beast with a hump."

Beyond that, I'm not sure whether to shake my head more at a medical evaluation which places a warhammer falling on someone's head as meaningless and a fit source of humor but a sunburn as vicious, spiteful torture, or at a placement of responsibility that makes Belkar yanking down the tree Durkon's fault and Durkon not using one of his spells to stop the sun from burning Belkar also Durkon's fault.

Which were both true and/or jokes (especially in the context). Read some remarks Durkon did in the past, he was constantly derogating others for not being dwarves. And if you forgot things he said to V, well...

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0591.html

Example #1 - first panel, second comic.

In fact, he called pretty much any OotS member 'daft' at least three times, maybe withh the exception of Roy.

And, um, yes, they're equal, at least in D&D. In fact, non leathal damage less threatening than what Belkar was forced into.

Plus, unless you think Belkar has telekinetic powers, that hammer wasn't his fault. Durkon falling from the tree was, but even Durkon agree he had is coming and he needed it. Yes, the fact he behaved like idiot and needed to be slapped out of it was entirely Durkon's fault, just like failing to protect ally out of spite was.

[Kish]

Which were both true and/or jokes (especially in the context).

I am trying to figure out how "Dwarf-For-Brains" manages to be true. At least figuring out what made it supposedly a "joke" was easy enough (it goes, "If you hate Durkon, then Belkar insulting him is funny").


And, um, yes, they're equal, at least in D&D.

Equal? Funny, that's not what you claimed a minute ago.

In fact, non leathal damage

Why do you keep saying "non-lethal damage"? If you mean in the D&D sense, there is no reason (other than an apparent desire to make Durkon worse than Belkar) to presume Durkon didn't lose hit points. If you mean in the real-world sense, Belkar isn't dead either, so both suffered "non-lethal damage."


Plus, unless you think Belkar has telekinetic powers, that hammer wasn't his fault.

Just as, unless you think Durkon created the sun, Belkar's sunburn isn't his fault.

Go back and look at the panel where Belkar tells Durkon to "hold that thought." Ask yourself why he doesn't want Durkon to move yet.

If the answer you get still says the hammer falling on Durkon's head isn't poor abused Belkar's fault despite him having obviously planned explicitly for it, well, taking your advice and stabbing Durkon would have (still) gotten Belkar killed by the rest of the party, so you want him to act with less wisdom than he actually shows.


Durkon falling from the tree was, but even Durkon agree he had is coming and he needed it.

He said, "Och, mebbe yer right, Belkar. Mebbe I should jus' come--"

That's not "agreeing he had it coming and he needed it," by a long shot--although, of course, the reason this thread was created is that Belkar agreed that he had not getting Endure Heat coming. I'm sure there are people who found it funny, but you may be the only person on this planet or the OotS planet who believes Belkar's getting Durkon thrown from the tree was either morally correct or necessary, including Belkar himself. ("True, but I didn't need to not kill the hobgoblinplay a vicious prank on Durkon, either.")

[the_tick_rules]

He's more aware of what he does, his level of caring is still suspect.

[Conuly]

And considering sunburn in the desert can give you pernament skin, eye and nerve damage I fail to see how it is "non torture". In fact, it is pretty high along the grid.

Being smacked in the head with a hammer (after being told to stay put explicitly so it'd land on you!) can give you permanent eye and nerve damage, or even kill you.

And besides, Durkon can just heal that sun-caused damage if it gets bad enough.

If even Belkar, who isn't known for his insight nor for his sense of responsibility, acknowledges that being stuck sweltering is justified, you really have no place to argue. Unless you're the sort who thinks Belkar calling himself Chaotic Evil doesn't count and he's really good-good-good.

[Cestrian]

(I never bought that 'Durkon being good' part anyway, he is as lawful as Miko was and did a lot of non-good things).

I don't want to seem like I'm picking on you, Trixie, but out of curiosity does that make every single protagonist in the comic whos had their goodness doubted by members of this forum (some more justifed than others, mind)?

I've seen V, Hinjo, Roy, Haley, Shojo, Miko, Belkar, Eugene, Mr. Scruffy, Blackwing and the MITD all have their ethics questioned, certainly. And now Durkon.

Does anyone remember anybody doubting Elan's morality? Or O-Chul's? Or the Katos/Lien?

[Shale]

Mr Scruffy? Is it even possible for a cat to be Good?

[Kish]

Mr Scruffy? Is it even possible for a cat to be Good?
It's not possible for any creature with an Intelligence below 3 to have an alignment other than True Neutral. Except when it is (undead come to mind).

[Spiky]

Which were both true and/or jokes (especially in the context). Read some remarks Durkon did in the past, he was constantly derogating others for not being dwarves. And if you forgot things he said to V, well...

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0591.html

Example #1 - first panel, second comic.

In fact, he called pretty much any OotS member 'daft' at least three times, maybe withh the exception of Roy.



You think "daft" or what he said in #591 constitutes racism? Never experienced actual racism, eh?

[Kulture]

My answer is for people to stop bickering the justification of these acts under Randian philosophical stand points and instead accept the fact that our logic is skewed by personal favouritism, and thus the point is moot.

Some people like Belkar, some Durkon, some would like both catapulted into the sun, the entire venture is assinine.

Belkar is a sociopathic killing machine with a newly aquired sacharine attitude,
Durkon's an angry scottish healbot, there for no other reason then to fill the comic's dwarf/accent/healing quota.

Get over it, you aching great bunch of bell-ends.

/all justification threads

[RecklessFable]

Durkon is a first tier class with wisdom in the twenties. Belkar is an example of why certain levels of optimization should be compulsory. If it comes to a fight, my money's on Fuzzy Wuzzy.

Belkar might have failed to optimize his skills, but I daresay he is rather effective in combat, even to the point of beating Miko down enough to have to help her in order for her to continue the chase through Azure city.

And besides, The Redeemer would not necessarily allow the Cleric a chance to buff up. Casting causes AoOs...