Why Belkar Should Live

[ThePhantasm]

Note: This is not a thread about theories about why Belkar will or will not live. This is a thread about why Belkar should / should not live. I argue that he should live.

When I first discovered the strip, Belkar was what kept me reading. The concept of a hobbit who was evil was different and frankly, hilarious. Here is my list of reasons why I like Belkar and why he should live.

1. He is comedy gold. He is genuinely funny. I like him a lot and laugh almost all the time when he is featured in a strip. Some of his coarser jokes (such as the one with the bard girl in a towel) are not to my liking, but in general he is the most upbeat and funny of the characters. While other characters angst with their arcs and plot stresses, Belkar remains the one character who remains, for the most part, consistently happy and carefree. Plus, I think the Giant has a special place in his heart for Belkar, and enjoys Belkar's humor as well.

2. He is bad***. Forget Chuck Norris and O-Chul. Who can forget "I am a sexy shoeless god of war?" I have never cheered so much for a strip as I did when Haley and Celia were about to be killed by the thieves guild, all hope was lost, and Belkar showed up to save the day. Its like watching Sylar on Heroes - he enjoys being evil, yes, but when you point him in the right direction, say against evil, the audience can't help but cheer him on. He is a character that people love to hate. At least, I do.

3. He has a shot at redemption. Yeah, I know redemption isn't for everyone, as the strip points out. But Belkar has shown some softer moments, even though they are still motivated somewhat by selfishness. Scenes I have found interesting are those in which he takes the scroll of Owl's Wisdom and becomes good, and when Haley kicks him out of the order and he begs for her not to leave him. That isn't the Belkar response we expect - we see that Belkar wants to be with the order of the stick.

True, his redemption could come through his death. This leads me to my last point:

4. IF Belkar is to die, it needs to be at the end of the series. Don't kill him off anytime soon, please. He is one of the more enduring aspects of the comic series to me personally.

In other words,

it isn't the Order of the Stick without Belkar!

[Kish]

He should die because...

He's freaking evil.

I'm not attached to when, as long as it's in the story at some point. He has no chance for true redemption. He begged Haley to keep him around because, right then, rendered close to helpless by the Mark, he suddenly needed her, for reasons neither sentimental nor unselfish. Funny? Sure, he's funny, when he's suffering. (Belkar's recent prank on Durkon? Obnoxious. Durkon's response? Hilarious.) Exactly once have I found myself cheering for Belkar rather than observing, for example, "The deaths of Haley and Celia being averted is a good thing, and it being done by Belkar makes more sense than it being done by a bookshelf falling on Bozzok, though Belkar deserves no greater moral credit than the bookshelf would." Mr. Scruffy is the one entity other than himself that he cares about. It would amuse me if he got sent to the Chaotic Neutral afterlife because he died saving Mr. Scruffy; it would amuse me more that he would almost certainly, in that situation, be outraged that he had been cheated of his rightful Chaotic Evil afterlife.

In summary, Belkar should die because he's thoroughly evil, such that the story can't have a truly happy ending while he lives.

[Arzoo]

I fail to see how having someone evil still be alive means it can't be a happy ending.

Regardless, I expect that the prophecy will be fulfilled before the end of the strip, and that Belkar will well and truly die for good.

[factotum]

I agree with everything Kish just said. Belkar is out-and-out evil and has never shown any different...him having "adopted" Mr. Scruffy doesn't change that; don't forget there's an article on this very website where the Giant points out that evil people can have friends too! I don't really see this "comedy gold" thing either, because ALL of the Order (with the possible exception of Durkon) have their funny moments. Belkar may have a few more on average than the others, but that doesn't mean the funny is going to go away when he dies. (And note that it's a WHEN he dies--the Giant isn't going to completely unravel all the stuff he's set up about the reliability of the Oracle by suddenly making his multiple predictions about Belkar *not* come true).

[Killer Angel]

Long live the sexy shoeless god of war! :smallbiggrin:

[ThePhantasm]

Again, I think Belkar will die. I'm arguing that he shouldn't.

An evil character's existence at the end of the story would not negate a happy ending.

Redemption is just as valid an option as death.

I rarely find Durkon or Haley to be funny. Roy is funny every now and then. Elan is pretty consistently funny, and so is Belkar. I think it would be a grave mistake to remove either Elan or Belkar from the strip. Again, the reason is that all the other characters tend to be angsty and more dry humored, while Elan and Belkar are usually upbeat and funny. Its good to have both types of humor present in the story.

[daggaz]

I hope he doesnt die as well. He is by far my favorite character, and as far as I am concerned, the one with the most depth. Also, he has all the best jokes.

[Mystic Muse]

I like his jokes but he honestly deserves to die and I don't really think I'll miss him

[Rutskarn]

Belkar is entirely beyond redemption. There isn't so much as a kernel of goodwill or generosity in him--his every action is purely motivated out of greedy, hedonistic self-interest.

I don't insist on his death, but I would certainly protest should he be redeemed.

[Itous]

why Belkar should live.....


HE'S BELKAR!

[Thanatosia]

There isn't so much as a kernel of goodwill or generosity in him--his every action is purely motivated out of greedy, hedonistic self-interest.
I do think there is some good in Belkar. If he realy was as absolutely shallow and evil as he acts (and this is not to say its in any way a pretense, he himself believes himself to be absolutely shallow and evil), he would have found a reason and a way to betray the Order by now.

His rejection of Tsukiko's offer to join Team Evil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0520.html) is a perfect example. He could have tossed the Cat in any number of faces, but he happens to chose to toss it in the face of the person offering him a chance to fulfil his every selfish and evil desire? Why didn't he just toss it into Haley's face? I know he plays it off as an entirely capricious and chaotic act, and I think he even tells himself that it was just random impulse - but seriously now, random chaotic behavior can only keep landing on 'stay loyal to the order' for so long before one wonders how random the behavior really is.

The only alternative to him having some latent Goodness/nobility in his character that even he is in denial of that makes any degree of consistant sense to me is that perhaps he is sufficiently Genre Savvy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GenreSavvy) to realize that the Order are the Protaganists of the Story and his best shot to end well is to attach himself to their cause and hold on for the ride to the end.

[Asta Kask]

He should die and rise to replace Tyr as God of War!

[Cracklord]

Two things.
A. Rich does not agree with you, or he would not have put the prophecy in the first place. Perhaps the prophecy is an elaborate hoax. This contradicts everything we've seen, but who cares, little things like logic don't stop people like you.
B. I am a jerk. I try not to be, and usually do pretty well, but I don't like Belkar. When I see threads like this, I see read. So feel free not to read the rest of this passage.


When I first discovered the strip, Belkar was what kept me reading. The concept of a hobbit who was evil was different and frankly, hilarious. Here is my list of reasons why I like Belkar and why he should live.

Read Looking For Group. It's got all the "Look at me I'm a writers wish fulfillment Mary Sue who can do what ever I want and be evil but get away with it" even someone with your clearly prodigious appetites can consume.

But the point of Order of the Stick isn't about gratuitous violence, or even jokes. It's about a dysfunctional group of heroes working to become better people and overcome their differences. Belkar is an obstacle, and from a plot perspective needs to be killed of, or changed so drastically he isn't the character you seem to drool over unhealthily.

And evil Halflings are far from unique in DnD. They are mostly thieves, and their is an entire race of them in the Book of Vile Darkness who make the Drow look tame.


1. He is comedy gold. He is genuinely funny. I like him a lot and laugh almost all the time when he is featured in a strip. Some of his coarser jokes (such as the one with the bard girl in a towel) are not to my liking, but in general he is the most upbeat and funny of the characters. While other characters angst with their arcs and plot stresses, Belkar remains the one character who remains, for the most part, consistently happy and carefree. Plus, I think the Giant has a special place in his heart for Belkar, and enjoys Belkar's humor as well.

So wait. You like him because he has no complexity and development of character? Well then, read a less intellectual comic, probably by Sohmer. You won't have to put up with anything like good writing and complexity there, a constant stream of inappropriate jokes and a jerk getting away with it.

He has one joke for god sake. I'm evil! Hur hur hur. Come on.

The Giant does seem to like the idea, or he wouldn't have written him in the first place. But you have clearly never played DnD. Belkar isn't an unusual character for anyone who has played with their little brother in the group. Its a constant stream of "Look at Me!" And doing stupid things to get the attention of the group. And guess what? It's not as fun from the inside.


2. He is bad***. Forget Chuck Norris and O-Chul. Who can forget "I am a sexy shoeless god of war?" I have never cheered so much for a strip as I did when Haley and Celia were about to be killed by the thieves guild, all hope was lost, and Belkar showed up to save the day. Its like watching Sylar on Heroes - he enjoys being evil, yes, but when you point him in the right direction, say against evil, the audience can't help but cheer him on. He is a character that people love to hate. At least, I do.

:Xykon:Do you know the best thing about wiping out the entire Saphire Guard? Neither do I! I wasn't even paying attention while I did it.
O-Chul out badasses Belkar easily, because he is a good person. He's not affraid to suffer. He'll never give up, never stop fighting. Belkar is a hedonist who gets off on killing. He wouldn't last long in a straight fight, because he wouldn't find being beaten up enjoyable.
Oh, and O-Chul is an interesting, well written character. But hey, thats not something you want, is it? That might mean you have to think instead of laughing on cue.

Speak for yourself, I hated that scene so much.
Look at me, I get a hit every time, and everyone else has to roll ones! How great am I! Wow, this almost makes up for the fact I contribute nothing at all to the party, and am in fact a hindrance. Now I'm going to be a jerk to someone who looked after me even though I'm pretty much a dead weight. And I get away with it!
That point was a low for the series.


3. He has a shot at redemption. Yeah, I know redemption isn't for everyone, as the strip points out. But Belkar has shown some softer moments, even though they are still motivated somewhat by selfishness. Scenes I have found interesting are those in which he takes the scroll of Owl's Wisdom and becomes good, and when Haley kicks him out of the order and he begs for her not to leave him. That isn't the Belkar response we expect - we see that Belkar wants to be with the order of the stick.

No, he doesn't. To be redeemed, you have to genuinely want to be a better person. Ask any ordained member of any religion. He's going for a one way ticket to the Abyss to be Demogorgans toy, where the things that will happen to him will make you cringe.
He wants to be in the Order? Well good for him. Hes a two bit thug with no purpose no imagination, flair, or style. Without them, all he can do is wander around aimlessly, kill a few minor level NPC's, get into a fight with someone handier then him, and go belly up. Without the Order, he has no reason to exist.
But I have my copy of the Book of Vile Darkness handy if you really want to know what he's going to go through.


True, his redemption could come through his death. This leads me to my last point:

4. IF Belkar is to die, it needs to be at the end of the series. Don't kill him off anytime soon, please. He is one of the more enduring aspects of the comic series to me personally.

In other words,

it isn't the Order of the Stick without Belkar!

No. It is the Order of the Stick, it's just not the same thing.
Grow up and look forward. Change is good.


He should die and rise to replace Tyr as God of War!

Yeah right. How. He's a two-bit thug. Better men then him have tried and are thin red smears on the ground. Belakas can kill, but that is all he can do. He has no plans of his own, he doesn't dream, he doesn't aspire. He has no style, he just kills them. Where's the panache? When do we get to the good material?

He'll never become god of war, because he's too damn stupid to dream of being more.
All things strive.
Except Belkar.

Now, I would like to say that in spite of the infamatory nature of my above post, I have nothing against you as a person, and make no judgements about you.
I just really hate Belkar.

[Ceaon]

I hope he doesnt die as well. He is by far my favorite character, and as far as I am concerned, the one with the most depth. Also, he has all the best jokes.

I disagree with Belkar having the most depth. Before his MoJ-arc, he was chaotic evil. No depth at all. Now, after MoJ, he is CE pretending to be good. A little more depth, but still nothing compared to the recently exposed depths of Haley, Roy and Vaarsuvius. I'd say he has less depth than any other Order member except maybe Durkon.

I hope he dies. Not because he is unfunny or annoying, but because the Oracle said he'd die and I want to know how and why.

[Da'Shain]

Belkar needs to die, so we can get this scene that popped into my head as soon as I heard he almost certainly was gonna:

Vaarsuvius: "Dear friends, we are gathered today to pay our last respects to the late Belkar Bitterleaf. In accordance with his wishes, we are burying him as an Elf. Not because he was one, but because he hated elves, and it would have made him happy to bury one." Everyone: nods.

[Revlid]

Belkar =/= Richard.

Richard is a wish fulfillment Mary Sue who does whatever he wants to the response of a stale laughter track and absolutely no serious repercussions whatsoever.

Belkar is evil, sure, but he's restrained fairly realistically by his party members, has funny moments that don't consist of "ha ha ha I stab joo", and gets his comeuppance fairly regularly. He's like a less buttmonkeyish (and less powerful) Black Mage, with Good characters to hold him back.

[Mystic Muse]

Belkar needs to die, so we can get this scene that popped into my head as soon as I heard he almost certainly was gonna:

Vaarsuvius: "Dear friends, we are gathered today to pay our last respects to the late Belkar Bitterleaf. In accordance with his wishes, we are burying him as an Elf. Not because he was one, but because he hated elves, and it would have made him happy to bury one." Everyone: nods.

you made me lol.

[Rustic Dude]

I'd like Belkar to stay until the end of the strip, and discover that he has been cheated by "that old funny old guy" to do lots of Good, being that his personal Hell. Then he can suicide or whatever, but I hope that moment is funny and not drama.

(And, for the record, he's the character I laugh most with.)

[Tempest Fennac]

Regarding the Owl's Wisdom scroll, that could have either just a 1-off joke with no plot significance beyond stopping Elan from dying or it could have been evidence that Belkar's evilness is the result of a below Wis stat (sadly nobody thought about gluing a Wis-boosting stat to him to determine whether he is genuingly Good with better Wis).

[Prowl]

The biggest problem with killing off Belkar is that this is a comic strip and he's by far the funniest character in it. He doesn't have to be a wonderfully complex character; his role is primarily counterpoint. Even as early as the very first strip this is apparent, all the way up the latest (#685).

He also allows the author a lot more creative freedom when writing the Order's parts of the storyline - there's a whole range of things that are allowable and in-character for Belkar that could not plausibly be done with any of the others.

I am not sure that the other humor characters in the strip - Elan and Xykon primarily - could really carry it without him. Roy, Haley, and Durkon are not very funny at all in the bulk of their appearances, and a large percentage of V's humorous side is also Belkar-based.

And then there's Mr. Scruffy, near and dear to my heart, who has adopted Belkar as his ranger companion.

In summary, I sure hope there's a loophole in the Oracle's prediction that will enable the character to stay in the strip, because the strip as a whole is a lot better off for his presence.

[Killer Angel]

B. I am a jerk. I try not to be, and usually do pretty well, but I don't like Belkar. When I see threads like this, I see read. So feel free not to read the rest of this passage.

(snip)

Now, I would like to say that in spite of the infamatory nature of my above post, I have nothing against you as a person, and make no judgements about you.
I just really hate Belkar.

Well, I appreciate the premise and the closing of your post, but I've seen at least a couple of harsh passages that seem directly regardin the OP as a person, and not merely his post:



Read Looking For Group. It's got all the "Look at me I'm a writers wish fulfillment Mary Sue who can do what ever I want and be evil but get away with it" even someone with your clearly prodigious appetites can consume.

(snip)

Grow up and look forward. Change is good.

Just FYI, maybe it's just me.

That said, the OP didn't launch a crusade to safe the doomed life of Belkar. He merely stated why he like the character and he hope only that B. didnt' die 'til near the end of the story.
I don't agree with some of his points, but Belkar is a pillar in the comic and a source of great jokes, even when not involved directly.
I can understand not everyone must like it, but the Order will be a different thing without him. Morally better, but with less gross humor (sometime we need it also).

[Wolfhowl]

I've never thought that Belkar being dead would prevent him from being an active member of the Order, Not in a World where Undead are everywhere, and some of them are free willed.

The Proficies are saying that he would take his last breath before the end of the year, (in game time), well, Vampires don't breath, and wouldn't it be great if he got turned.

Just my point of view, I may (and most likely) be wrong

Wolfie

[Freshmeat]

I hope Belkar dies, but does so in a kind-of-goodish and awesome way (but ultimately for all the wrong reasons). As in 'even the vilest of bastards can still help save the world'.
I'd be disappointed if he lives, because I can't see that ending up well. There's been absolutely no indication thus far that Belkar has been anything but evil, and to make him turn good, even partially, this late into the strip would just come across like character derailment. Maybe if Belkar had made honest intentions about being a team player it could work, but we know he's still just doing it for himself.

If Belkar dies (which he probably will), I'm guessing it will be at the end of the series indeed. He's probably the most favorite character of many people, so to kill him off and then let the comic continue for, say, half a year, would be a poor move. I don't think Belkar is all that funny though, but then I mostly read OotS for its storyline nowadays.

[factotum]

If Belkar dies (which he probably will), I'm guessing it will be at the end of the series indeed. He's probably the most favorite character of many people, so to kill him off and then let the comic continue for, say, half a year, would be a poor move.

I don't see the logic. Many, many really popular characters in fiction die long before the end of the works they're in--see Sturm Brightblade in the Dragonlance books for an example. If popularity is all it takes to ensure a character lives then Xykon can't die either, because he's the favourite character in the strip to some people too!

[Omergideon]

Hmmm.

Whilst interesting I must say that I disagree with the OP on most every point. I do not like Belkar and find him funny only on a few occasions, and then only in conjunction with other characters. However as there were numbered points, here are my reasons why I do not like Belkar.

1) Lack of depth. Until very recently this was my major complaint against the character. Belkar was one note. He had exactly one facet to his personality, that of short sighted, small minded, selfish Jerk, and I prefer characters with multiple facets. Recently though his "pretend to be better" schtick has granted him some depth and so this complaint is fading.

2) His character type. Belkar is a small minded, selfish and self centered Jerk with violent.....tendencies is too weak a word. In short the kind of person I like least in the world. Combine this with his protagonist state, and the lack of character depth and he had no redeeming features as a person.

3) His one joke. Similar to above I do not find Belkar funny on his own. His jokes are all variations on the theme of "evil guy does evil stuff" most of the time. And the number of times his selfish/evil acts screw things up for the order has annoyed me a lot with Belkar himself.

And yet despite this I think he is a valuable part of the story. Belkar works as a foil and counterpart to the other characters in many ways. He provides oppurtunities and situations for them to react to which would be impossible otherwise. And as a second entity in many jokes he has often proven hilarious in my eyes. For instance the "Sexy shoeless God of war" strip was not one I found funny. I found it to be tedious and dull. Until the punchline with Haley and Durkon. That was hilarious. Or Belkars small minded pranks are irritating on their own, but led to V's explosive runes which were nearly always funny, and hilarious when they weren't. He works when he has other characters to play off of/to react to him but not on his own merits.

Also, Belkar allows for an exploration of the idea of petty evil. To explain. Redcloak is evil, but he has noble intentions and a respectable (if not admirable) goal. Xykon shows us complete depravity given the power to do what it wants. Nale and Co show us another kind of antagonist, one that thinks it is more important then he is. Belkar shows us a petty kind of person who cannot do evil on the same scale because he lacks the power etc. But he can be a jerk and so he is. It's also a chance to look at evil being forced to help good in a somewhat realistic way which is clever and inventive.

Finally, just because I dislike a character does not mean I think they have no place in the story. I disliked Miko, but recognize that she belonged in the story for a long time. I dislike Tussiko, but she is an interesting addition to team evil and provides Redcloak a foil who is weaker than him showing her value in story. Xykon is someone I despise (despite him being at times funny) but he is the big bad and so I am happy to hate him. Or to add a simpler example, I do not much like Haley as a character or person BUT she completes the ensemble, has enough quirks to be readable at worst and as Elan's love interest is integral to his plot as well.

So in closing I dislike Belkar a lot, but he has a place in the order and it will change a few things when he finally dies.

[LuisDantas]

Belkar should totally die. The sooner and the most humiliating, the best.

He has left redemption behind a long time ago, at about the time he killed the goblin in the way to the Oracle perhaps.

By this point, Haley looks bad because she chooses to keep him around despite knowing full well how dangerous and callous he is.

On the comedy front, despite some notable recent achievements, Belkar has become largely outdated. There is not much of a place for him in the current vibe of the webcomic, and he is simply not very effective as comedy relief anymore. His recent, cynical attempts at faking character development make him even less suited for comedy, for he has become hypocritical and more serious at the same time.

So by now, either he dies (soon if at all possible) or the Order will quite soon have to deal with his continued presence somehow, lest they become unconvincingly oblivious to a major internal threat. The Order is no longer the bunch of disfunctional me-firsts that once upon a time could afford to pretend to function with Belkar.

[Teddy]

Belkar should die so that we can see him in the afterlife. All demons hail the sexy shoeless god of war! And then he can accidently throw a wrench into the IFCC's plans and stop them from claiming one of the gates.

[Ancalagon]

3. He has a shot at redemption.

Hahaha, *snort*, great joke. Bwahahaha. Thanks for the laugh. :)

[theinsulabot]

i wont miss him. i dont hate him now, but i wont miss him.

[Mugen Nightgale]

There is a turning point in every tale where you have to sacrifice something for the continuity of the story. Belkar is the character with less not to say none at all background. When all is over he has no place to return, no family no friends. Just tavern brawls and whores. I love Belkar but let's face it. It's his fate since the very beginning.

[SatyreIkon]

I know that this is probably only me summoning up all my hopes for Belkar to survive, but...

The Oracle only said that Belkar would draw his last breath. And we all know that, following the conventions of a story (haa-haa!), the predictions of an Oracle that really justifies its capital O need to be taken word for word.

So - maybe Belkar will become an undead? :smallbiggrin:

[Turkish Delight]

Belkar should totally die. The sooner and the most humiliating, the best.

He has left redemption behind a long time ago, at about the time he killed the goblin in the way to the Oracle perhaps.

By this point, Haley looks bad because she chooses to keep him around despite knowing full well how dangerous and callous he is.

He left redemption behind for stabbing an enemy soldier who would kill him if he knew what was actually going on? :smallconfused:

In any case, no one is beyond redemption, not even Belkar. It's just how likely someone is to choose redemption, and Belkar doesn't seem the type to ever consciously choose such without completely breaking character. I tend to lean towards the idea that he might sacrifice himself for Mr. Scruffy's sake at some point only to be really ticked off that he ends up assigned to the Chaotic Neutral afterlife instead of the Chaotic Evil one for his last minute 'noble sacrifice'.

[Adeptus]

He should die because...

He's freaking evil.

Does not follow on any level.

Belkar is one of the best aspects of the strip, and I'm a total care bear. Yes Belkar is evil. It's a common alignment in D&D universes. This doesn't mean he should die, or that he doesn't have redeeming features. :belkar:

[Teddy]

He left redemption behind for stabbing an enemy soldier who would kill him if he knew what was actually going on? :smallconfused:

In any case, no one is beyond redemption, not even Belkar. It's just how likely someone is to choose redemption, and Belkar doesn't seem the type to ever consciously choose such without completely breaking character. I tend to lean towards the idea that he might sacrifice himself for Mr. Scruffy's sake at some point only to be really ticked off that he ends up assigned to the Chaotic Neutral afterlife instead of the Chaotic Evil one for his last minute 'noble sacrifice'.

He'll probably kill whatever being that is judging him for just suggesting that.

[Winthur]

Since I believe in Rich as a writer, and I just *know* that if Belkar dies, it will be played off in a satisfactory way.

Personally, I don't get why so many people hate Belkar and want him to die. I appreciate him fully as a character. Why so much hate? He's evil and deserves to die? Well, at least this aspect is well written. He's a great inspiration for an evil PC. But he doesn't deserve to die just because he's "evil". Some people seem to get the comic too seriously. Most of it is played for laughs, after all. Order of the Stick is a comedy, firsthand. And yet I still find it baffled how many people hate to laugh. That's almost insulting to the humor that Rich pours into his character. "In your face, Elijah Woods!"



When all is over he has no place to return, no family no friends. Just tavern brawls and whores. I love Belkar but let's face it. It's his fate since the very beginning.

OBJECTION!
One of the most common film/literature/game cliches says otherwise. When someone confesses that he has a wife/kids/goldfish to care for, and he's in the middle of a dangerous adventure or war... Yes, he's going down.

[rainbowjo]

He's a great inspiration for an evil PC.


Ummm, Im sorry youre going to have to explain this one to me...

[LuisDantas]

He left redemption behind for stabbing an enemy soldier who would kill him if he knew what was actually going on? :smallconfused:

My mistake. I meant the gnome (in #539) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0539.html). Sorry.


In any case, no one is beyond redemption, not even Belkar. It's just how likely someone is to choose redemption, and Belkar doesn't seem the type to ever consciously choose such without completely breaking character. I tend to lean towards the idea that he might sacrifice himself for Mr. Scruffy's sake at some point only to be really ticked off that he ends up assigned to the Chaotic Neutral afterlife instead of the Chaotic Evil one for his last minute 'noble sacrifice'.

That would be a bit... pointless.

[Winthur]

Ummm, Im sorry youre going to have to explain this one to me...

Belkar Bitterleaf, the halfling ranger/barbarian, is pondered by me to be a fresh approach towards the idea of roleplaying a persona of dubious morality whose actions are undesirable to the immediate society he surrounds himself in, through his flirt with decisive means to commit human lives to forfeit and ransack their belongings for the benefit of himself, being an item of turbulence for his ring of allies.

Is this elaborate enough now? :smalltongue:

[rainbowjo]

Belkar Bitterleaf, the halfling ranger/barbarian, is pondered by me to be a fresh approach towards the idea of roleplaying a persona of dubious morality whose actions are undesirable to the immediate society he surrounds himself in, through his flirt with decisive means to commit human lives to forfeit and ransack their belongings for the benefit of himself, being an item of turbulence for his ring of allies.

Is this elaborate enough now? :smalltongue:

Yeah, Really all I see is someone with no depth or character whatsoever that kills things just because its funny that any newbie to D&D would play just because its easy and they're probably used to first person shooters.
Not that he isnt funny, but I mean, in an actual roleplaying setting, any nine year old could play that character, there are much better ways to be evil.

[Turkish Delight]

That would be a bit... pointless.

We have an interesting situation developing with Belkar now in which he is 'pretending' to show character development while simultaneously going through actual character development. Several times now we've seen he has an actual attachment, some actual affection for Mr. Scruffy. For once, he actually seems to care whether something lives or dies. Somehow or another, that particular developing plot point is going to come into play. If he just dies without referencing that subject at all, the build-up will have made for a pretty massive anti-climax.

But I guess that isn't out of the realm of possibility, either. Being Chaotic, I'd think Belkar would appreciate a non-sensical death that breaks from all expectations more than most.

[DukeGod]

he should live because it was the Oracle who said he was going to die...I simply would LOVE to see some "written future" fail

by the way you are taking this the wrong way.Dying is different in the strips them here...they have Raise Dead and Ressurection you know...
(even True Ressurection maybe...not to mention Wish,Limited Wish and Miracle)

[rainbowjo]

he should live because it was the Oracle who said he was going to die...I simply would LOVE to see some "written future" fail

by the way you are taking this the wrong way.Dying is different in the strips them here...they have Raise Dead and Ressurection you know...
(even True Ressurection maybe...not to mention Wish,Limited Wish and Miracle)

yeah, but the prediction wasnt blekar will die, it was he will breath his last breath ever, and he is not long for this world, and he should saver his cake

[Winthur]

by the way you are taking this the wrong way.Dying is different in the strips them here...they have Raise Dead and Ressurection you know...
(even True Ressurection maybe...not to mention Wish,Limited Wish and Miracle)

Almost dying changes nothing. Dying changes everything. (We are talking about drawing a "last breath".)


Yeah, Really all I see is someone with no depth or character whatsoever that kills things just because its funny that any newbie to D&D would play just because its easy and they're probably used to first person shooters.
Not that he isnt funny, but I mean, in an actual roleplaying setting, any nine year old could play that character, there are much better ways to be evil.

While maintaining loyalty to his party and who doesn't try to trash the game outright from the beginning just to throw a hissy fit. That's enough for a "fun game with friends". And isn't romping through a whole bunch of hobgoblins or saving your teammate from danger kind of a FUN idea? As for roleplaying... after all, he befriended a cat, who was there just to serve as an affirmation over how Shojo is (supposedly) insane. Which, I believe, wouldn't be that important to many players.

So, maybe Belkar is some bad roleplayer who's just going easy, but in my eyes, he's at least trying to do his best.

Besides... how else would you go Chaotic Evil as depicted in the sourcebook? :smalltongue:

It reminds me of my player who wanted eagerly to play a psychopath, yet he was later wrong at me because he kept getting Insanity Points (it was WFRP) for raping and maiming dead bodies and finally died after killing a prostitute in a white day.

Belkar at least doesn't seem to ruin anyone's fun. To the contrary; he's hilarious. How can something without personality be so hilarious? :smalltongue:

[ThePhantasm]

Two things.
A. Rich does not agree with you, or he would not have put the prophecy in the first place. Perhaps the prophecy is an elaborate hoax. This contradicts everything we've seen, but who cares, little things like logic don't stop people like you.

As an author, I love all of my characters in my stories, even those who will die in the end. Just because there is a prophesy that BElkar will die doesn't mean Rich hates him and won't miss him.


Read Looking For Group.

Ugh, no. I've already said I don't like some of Belkar's more disgusting humor. I don't like evil characters just because they are evil. That is an oversimplification of my view. If you really read my first post you'll see that isn't my reason for liking Belkar at all.


But the point of Order of the Stick isn't about gratuitous violence, or even jokes. It's about a dysfunctional group of heroes working to become better people and overcome their differences. Belkar is an obstacle, and from a plot perspective needs to be killed of, or changed so drastically he isn't the character you seem to drool over unhealthily.

See, I don't see Belkar as an obstacle. I see him as one of the heroes. Sure, he is a hero against everything he desires (evil) etc. but he is nonetheless consistently one of the heroes, and when he goes up against the bad guys and kicks butt I can't help but cheer. Belkar is working to become a better person too. Sure, it might appear to be surface changes (and that's what he tells himself) but I think he really does like the Order and his heart has softened a bit since we first met him. I'm not saying he is good, I'm just saying he has the potential to be good.


And evil Halflings are far from unique in DnD. They are mostly thieves, and their is an entire race of them in the Book of Vile Darkness who make the Drow look tame.

Well, I don't play D&D. I do read Lord of the Rings though.


So wait. You like him because he has no complexity and development of character?

He does have complexity and development.


Well then, read a less intellectual comic, probably by Sohmer.

Are you saying that anyone who likes Belkar is an idiot? Why did Rich write the character in the first place? Just because I like the character doesn't mean I endorse what he does. I like the character of Darth Vader, that doesn't mean I cheer when he blows up planets and kills the Jedi.

I guess Star Wars is for losers too.


You won't have to put up with anything like good writing and complexity there, a constant stream of inappropriate jokes and a jerk getting away with it.

You seem to forget that Belkar is an Order of the Stick character. You seem to be arguing that if you like Belkar you shouldn't read the whole comic at all. This is ridiculous.


He has one joke for god sake. I'm evil! Hur hur hur. Come on.

No, he doesn't have one joke. Oversimplification again.


The Giant does seem to like the idea, or he wouldn't have written him in the first place. But you have clearly never played DnD. Belkar isn't an unusual character for anyone who has played with their little brother in the group. Its a constant stream of "Look at Me!" And doing stupid things to get the attention of the group. And guess what? It's not as fun from the inside.

You critiquing Giant here or me?


Oh, and O-Chul is an interesting, well written character. But hey, thats not something you want, is it? That might mean you have to think instead of laughing on cue.

WRONG. O-Chul is 2-dimensional by design. He is meant to be the good bad*** and nothing else.


No, he doesn't. To be redeemed, you have to genuinely want to be a better person.

Guess Darth Vader will never ever ever be redeemed.

Ooh. Or maybe he will.


Belakas can kill, but that is all he can do. He has no plans of his own, he doesn't dream, he doesn't aspire. He has no style, he just kills them. Where's the panache? When do we get to the good material?

Belkar isn't a character designed to have panache. He does dream and aspire.... to kill. I don't like him because of those aspirations, I like him because I think he is well-written and Rich has done a good job in presenting him as an upbeat and funny character.


All things strive.
Except Belkar.

Guess we should hate him then. Not striving must be the unforgivable sin.


I just really hate Belkar.

I just really love him. I doubt any of us can convince the other otherwise. I don't think you are an idiot though because you hate him.

[EleventhHour]

Are you saying that anyone who likes Belkar is an idiot? Why did Rich write the character in the first place? Just because I like the character doesn't mean I endorse what he does. I like the character of Darth Vader, that doesn't mean I cheer when he blows up planets and kills the Jedi.

I guess Star Wars Vader is for losers too.

Bad extrapolation! Bad!

He was commenting on a character, you can't jump to a series!

*retrieves Free Hugs sign*

[Rollory]

this every action is purely motivated out of greedy, hedonistic self-interest.

This is not remotely the same thing as being evil, and it is not any sort of crime, certainly not something that deserves death.

[Calmness]

Yeah, Really all I see is someone with no depth or character whatsoever that kills things just because its funny that any newbie to D&D would play just because its easy and they're probably used to first person shooters.
Not that he isnt funny, but I mean, in an actual roleplaying setting, any nine year old could play that character, there are much better ways to be evil.
Eh, he provides a nice contrast for the rest of the party, immature or not. Though I'll agree with most of the posters here, Belkar has to die. He has hurt so many people and broken so many rules, that there has to be some kind of retribution, redemption be damned.

[ThePhantasm]

Bad extrapolation! Bad!

Sorry. He was saying that if you liked Belkar you shouldn't read OOTS at all so I just took that and said if you like Darth Vader you shouldn't watch Star Wars at all. I think you can dislike Vader and still love Star Wars; I'm just using his argument against him.

[someonenonotyou]

Belkar should die cause Rich says so and rich know what he doing

[Kaytara]

Are we talking about whether Belkar should die, or whether he deserves to die? Because I think people have been mixing the two up.

And are we interpreting "die" to mean get killed and cease all biological functions or leave the comic for good, permanently?

Now.... For a character, it is best to go out with a bang when they are at their peak than to slowly wither away into becoming boring and dull. So to me (who definitely thinks that Belkar adds something to the comic), whether he should stay in the comic depends on his possibilities for future development. If he can continue to develop in interesting directions while remaining himself, I'd love to witness it. If he's about to reach his peak and it would only go downhill from there, better he disappear.

I tend to consider the latter more likely, since I can't imagine how Belkar could further develop without losing what makes him appealing (essentially, the same thing Rich already pulled with him in the MoJ arc), but Rich has surprised me before, so I'm willing to keep an open mind.

[ThePhantasm]

Are we talking about whether Belkar should die, or whether he deserves to die? Because I think people have been mixing the two up.

Good point: Belkar clearly deserves to die (you could argue that Haley and V do too for that matter!). That doesn't mean he should be killed off before the comic's end... he is an interesting and funny character.

[Turkish Delight]

Incidentally, if Belkar ends up with any fate short of being killed to death until he is dead, without resurrection or any cop-out like undeath, it's going to feel very, very cheap. I think the Giant is a good enough storyteller to know that and avoid it. Belkar is a dead man halfling walking.

Whether we get to see him in the afterlife is another question.

[Kish]

I know that this is probably only me summoning up all my hopes for Belkar to survive, but...

The Oracle only said that Belkar would draw his last breath.

And that he's not long for the world.


So - maybe Belkar will become an undead? :smallbiggrin:
An undead who is in another world, you mean? Or are the hopes you're summoning up for Belkar to survive telling you you can ignore everything the Oracle said that wasn't in green?

[Optimystik]

Lots of undead can eat birthday cake too, though they probably won't enjoy it.

...I'm not sure where I was going with this.

[ThePhantasm]

Lots of undead can eat birthday cake too, though they probably won't enjoy it.

...I'm not sure where I was going with this.

The undead don't celebrate birthdays. They celebrate deathdays.:smalltongue:

[Rustic Dude]

An undead who is in another world, you mean? Or are the hopes you're summoning up for Belkar to survive telling you you can ignore everything the Oracle said that wasn't in green?

Heh...Belkar has an affair with Tsukiko and she vampirizes him, and then they live happily, alone, in Snarl-world thereafter. There you have, prophecy fulfilled.


[/joke]

[LuisDantas]

We have an interesting situation developing with Belkar now in which he is 'pretending' to show character development while simultaneously going through actual character development. Several times now we've seen he has an actual attachment, some actual affection for Mr. Scruffy. For once, he actually seems to care whether something lives or dies. Somehow or another, that particular developing plot point is going to come into play. If he just dies without referencing that subject at all, the build-up will have made for a pretty massive anti-climax.

But I guess that isn't out of the realm of possibility, either. Being Chaotic, I'd think Belkar would appreciate a non-sensical death that breaks from all expectations more than most.

Different strokes, I guess.

To me, Belkar seems to have exhausted all his dramatic possibilities sometime between killing the Gnome in #359 and participating in the fight against the Thieve's Guild.

He is too caricatural to develop any true character, much less character development - and therefore I find his current character plot unconvincing in the extreme - while at the same time he is barely useful as comedy relief anymore.

If anything, at this point he is a liability to the strip's suspension of disbelief. He is a very ill fit with the other characters and plots.

[Freshmeat]

Belkar Bitterleaf, the halfling ranger/barbarian, is pondered by me to be a fresh approach towards the idea of roleplaying a persona of dubious morality whose actions are undesirable to the immediate society he surrounds himself in, through his flirt with decisive means to commit human lives to forfeit and ransack their belongings for the benefit of himself, being an item of turbulence for his ring of allies.

Is this elaborate enough now? :smalltongue:

Huh? To me, Belkar just seems like the archetypical token evil teammate (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeroicSociopath). He's a decent character and gets some good lines from time to time, and the heroic sociopath trope is surely not bad, but I wouldn't say that Belkar offers a 'fresh approach' to roleplaying someone evil.

What I find commendable is that the Giant goes out of his way to make it plausible why the Order still tolerates his presence and why he needs to be reined in from time to time, as opposed to a psychopath who can get away with everything he wants. But that's more of a storyline matter and says little of Belkar's character himself.

[Kish]

Yes Belkar is evil. It's a common alignment in D&D universes. This doesn't mean he should die, or that he doesn't have redeeming features. :belkar:
No, the fact that his only redeeming feature is his attitude toward Mr. Scruffy--and that's one--is what means he doesn't have redeeming features (plural). :smalltongue:

Seriously, I get that people look at things like him begging Haley not to leave his vomiting self by the side of the road and say, "See! He cares about Haley and/or his membership by the Order!" But that doesn't make that a logical conclusion there, with his self-interest so blatant. "Belkar cares about anyone but himself and Mr. Scruffy" is the new "Belkar is really Chaotic Neutral."

[ThePhantasm]

Kish, I get it that Belkar is totally evil. On that I agree with you, and you don't have to try to convince me because in that regard we are already on the same page.

What I'm arguing is a) Belkar can be redeemed. It may be a small chance but it is still a chance. This path of feigned redemption may lead him to true redemption. It is not inconceivable that his character arc will lead him to make a sacrificial death, to choose to go beyond feigning heroism to making a real sacrifice.

I'm also arguing b) that just because Belkar is evil doesn't mean he has to be killed off anytime soon. Yes, he deserves to die. You could argue that Haley does as well for killing Celia, robbing young children, and the like. And what about V? People seem to hate Belkar simply because he is evil, but they miss that all the characters have done evil things (except maybe Elan).

[TehSheen]

"He'll draw his last breath ever before the end of the year". A year which is in what terms? We don't even know if a year in the OOTS world is the same as our year in the "Real World". Actually, the Oracle could be referring to a year in a different calender, you know. So there is a slight chance that he might live past the end of the OOTS comic.

[MReav]

"He'll draw his last breath ever before the end of the year". A year which is in what terms? We don't even know if a year in the OOTS world is the same as our year in the "Real World". Actually, the Oracle could be referring to a year in a different calender, you know. So there is a slight chance that he might live past the end of the OOTS comic.

I get the idea that year is defined similarly to our years, but since he lives in the South, he may very well be using the Southern Calendar which is explicitly different from the Northern (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0302.html).

[Kish]

Kish, I get it that Belkar is totally evil. On that I agree with you, and you don't have to try to convince me because in that regard we are already on the same page.

What I'm arguing is a) Belkar can be redeemed. It may be a small chance but it is still a chance. This path of feigned redemption may lead him to true redemption. It is not inconceivable that his character arc will lead him to make a sacrificial death, to choose to go beyond feigning heroism to making a real sacrifice.

I'm also arguing b) that just because Belkar is evil doesn't mean he has to be killed off anytime soon. Yes, he deserves to die. You could argue that Haley does as well for killing Celia, robbing young children, and the like. And what about V? People seem to hate Belkar simply because he is evil, but they miss that all the characters have done evil things (except maybe Elan).
See, now, there's a difference between "have done evil things" and "are evil."

Adeptus brought up evil being a common D&D alignment, but that doesn't make it morally meaningless. Does evil in and of itself necessarily mean an evil character should die? No, it's not a sufficient condition, but it's part of one. Does it mean s/he doesn't have redeeming features? No, but it means s/he has fewer redeeming features than a neutral or good character would have (one demonstrated in Belkar's case).

Do you consider Vaarsuvius evil? Do you consider Haley evil? Unless the answer is "yes" to both, I don't see how they're relevant. (Incidentally, if you do consider Vaarsuvius evil, then I agree with you. Haley, not so much, and it's Crystal, not Celia.) I think the chances of Rich writing Belkar as a living, non-evil halfling for more than a one-strip Owl's Wisdom gag are close to nonexistent. I have no particular desire for Belkar to die soon, as long as he dies in the comic's run at some point, and his recent strips with Mr. Scruffy have made enough of an impact that that I would not begrudge him eternity in the Chaotic Neutral afterlife instead of the Chaotic Evil one--which is really quite remarkable, considering how much innocent blood he's gleefully shed onstage alone. Knowing that Belkar will die within seven weeks doesn't make me unhappy. Knowing Vaarsuvius will die in the same amount of time would make me even happier, but we can't have everything.

[ThePhantasm]

See, now, there's a difference between "have done evil things" and "are evil."

So Belkar is inherently evil? Are characters defined by action or by nature?


Do you consider Vaarsuvius evil? Do you consider Haley evil? Unless the answer is "yes" to both, I don't see how they're relevant.

People are arguing that Belkar should die because he has done evil things. I'm merely stating that V and Haley have done evil things as well. Whether they are inherently evil is beyond the question: justice systems punish because of what you do not because of who you are.

Oh and thanks on the correction, I meant Crystal... that was a typo.


I think the chances of Rich writing Belkar as a living, non-evil halfling for more than a one-strip Owl's Wisdom gag are close to nonexistent.

I don't see it being anything like that. He doesn't have to become Celia. Not even Haley or Roy are as good as Owl-Wisdom-Belkar. I just am saying don't totally rule out repentance. It would be a very satisfying end to Belkar's story.


Knowing that Belkar will die within seven weeks doesn't make me unhappy. Knowing Vaarsuvius will die in the same amount of time would make me even happier, but we can't have everything.

I don't understand the "happiness" derived from killing off evil characters as soon as possible. They make the story more interesting. You can't paint a beautiful picture without some black paint.


Adeptus brought up evil being a common D&D alignment, but that doesn't make it morally meaningless. Does evil in and of itself necessarily mean an evil character should die? No, it's not a sufficient condition, but it's part of one. Does it mean s/he doesn't have redeeming features? No, but it means s/he has fewer redeeming features than a neutral or good character would have.

What is meant by "redeeming features" here? Potential for redemption or merely facets of the character that excuse their existence in this webcomic?

[Kish]

So Belkar is inherently evil?

Define "inherently" in context.


I don't see it being anything like that. He doesn't have to become Celia. Not even Haley or Roy are as good as Owl-Wisdom-Belkar. I just am saying don't totally rule out repentance. It would be a very satisfying end to Belkar's story.

It would be almost impossible to write well and consistently with the way Rich has written Belkar to date. Having Xykon reform would be a little harder--but only a little. I'm sorry, I'm ruling it out. He has never been shown to have the ability to care about any other sapient--without humorous magical boosting.


I don't understand the "happiness" derived from killing off evil characters as soon as possible. They make the story more interesting. You can't paint a beautiful picture without some black paint.

How many times do I have to say I don't particularly want him to die as soon as possible, just sometime before the end? I don't want the story to close with him standing for the same reason I don't want the story to close with Xykon standing.


What is meant by "redeeming features" here?

"Anything that demonstrates a meaningful moral difference between Belkar and Xykon" will do.

(Note, "Moral." Xykon being a lot more powerful and effective than Belkar doesn't count, and neither does anything based on Belkar's self-interest. Being able to laugh and act like friends with someone and then kill the same person brutally a few seconds later is a similarity.)

[Bibliomancer]

He has never been shown to have the ability to care about any other sapient--without humorous magical boosting.

There is an entire camp of "Mr. Scurffy is secretly an Awakened animal"ists who would disagree with you here. Besides, AN emotional attachment is better than none.

However, Belkar's chances of actually being redeemed seem bad. He only reformed in the face of near-certain death, and then he was very careful to avoid doing good for its own sake (all acts help the party). This should not affect the chances of him dieing, but the possibility of seeing him in the Afterlife (especially since there doesn't seem to be enough time left in his prophecy to end the comic) seems reasonable, especially if he infiltrates the IFCC.

[Ted The Bug]

Why all the debate? As we've seen with Roy's death, being killed does NOT take you out of the comic. Who wouldn't love to see Belkar in the CE afterlife?

[ThePhantasm]

Define "inherently" in context.

Belkar is evil in his very essence and being? In other words, if Belkar was in a vacuum, never committing any act whatsoever, he would still deserve death because his very existence is evil? Or is he evil defined by his actions?


It would be almost impossible to write well and consistently with the way Rich has written Belkar to date. Having Xykon reform would be a little harder--but only a little. I'm sorry, I'm ruling it out. He has never been shown to have the ability to care about any other sapient--without humorous magical boosting.

There is no such thing as "almost" impossible. There is either possibility or impossibility. A chance is still a chance. Many might have said the same about Darth Vader or Gollum.


How many times do I have to say I don't particularly want him to die as soon as possible, just sometime before the end?

I'm sorry, I don't want or intend to misrepresent anything you say. You mentioned that you would be happy to discover that V would be dying within the next seven weeks as well. I find it unlikely that the rest of the story will last seven weeks... I assume it will last much longer than that.

Let me ask you this: if Belkar dies without redemption of any degree or kind, then what was the point of his existence in the story in the first place?

Even I have said I'm ok with him dying close to the end. I just don't want it to be anytime soon. You say "don't particularly want." What does that mean? Do you want him to die soon or later? What is your preference?


I don't want the story to close with him standing for the same reason I don't want the story to close with Xykon standing.

That is understandable. But much can change before the end.


"Anything that demonstrates a meaningful moral difference between Belkar and Xykon" will do.

Sure. Belkar has been fighting on the team of the good guys for the entire strip's run, while Xykon has not. His motivations may be selfish and evil, but he has inadvertently accomplished a lot of good. He has been consistently under the authority and influence of good characters, whereas Xykon has not.

His "loyalties" thus far have been to the OOTS. That's a good difference. And before you decry that as being based in self-interest, let me remind you that Haley's motivations for being in the Order have been similarly self-interest based.

To bring things back to the original topic - if you are going to argue that Belkar should die simply based on the fact that he is evil you need to be willing to argue that Haley and V should die too.

[jidasfire]

However this whole prophecy business works out, I would prefer to see Belkar remain a part of the comic. For one thing, he plays an important role in the team dynamic, if for no other reason than he's been there since the beginning and throwing in a new character to replace him would feel awkward and uneven. Despite the current trend of TV to create "another shocking twist!" by killing off important characters regardless of how logical it might be, when you have a story that is clearly about six people, you don't go writing one out of the story. That's shoddy, in my opinion, and betrays your initial premise. That's not to say that none of the characters should ever die, mind you, only that when you're halfway through a story, you don't chuck something important without a darn good reason.

More than that, Belkar does fulfill an important comedic role. He does a lot of slapstick and dark humor that the other characters can't or don't. Given that the story has grown increasingly serious, he's a breath of fresh comedic air. For the record, I do like that OotS has its serious aspect, but I don't want it to lose the comedy, and Belkar is a large part of that comedy.

For those who complain that Belkar is too evil, well, yeah. He is evil. That's the point. He's a selfish jerkass who is one-dimensional by design. The fact that he developed a second dimension of late is proof that the author is aware of the problem, such as it is, but doesn't want to betray the integrity of Belkar's character by making him an emo guy with a tragic past, or get rid of him. To say that there's something wrong with Belkar because he's evil isn't really a fair criticism, because that's who he's designed to be. It's like saying you want Roy dead because he's too sarcastic. If you don't like Belkar as a person, fine. You probably shouldn't, since he's a homicidal maniac. But condemning him as a character is illogical, because he fulfills the role he's meant to in the story.

I fully believe in Mr. Burlew's ability to tell a story. He's proven himself time and again as someone who can balance humor and tragedy, the serious and the silly, the epic and the mundane. Consequently, I think that however this Belkar prophecy plays out, he won't ruin the team, and he won't deprive us of the Sexy Shoeless God of War.

[Aeon221]

Belkar is a bad, bad boy. He clearly deserves a spanking!

Belkar lives by the code, and that code is somethin about living fast, dying young, and leaving a sexy shoeless corpse!

There's the additional advantage that he doesn't go all mawkish and boring whenever anything happens, unlike the rest of the team.

[jidasfire]

To bring things back to the original topic - if you are going to argue that Belkar should die simply based on the fact that he is evil you need to be willing to argue that Haley and V should die too.

Much as I agree with your point in general, neither V nor Haley are evil. Haley skirts the line between good and neutral, while V is squarely in the neutral camp. They've been occasionally ruthless to their enemies, but nowhere near on the same level as Belkar.

[Freshmeat]

Belkar is evil in his very essence and being? In other words, if Belkar was in a vacuum, never committing any act whatsoever, he would still deserve death because his very existence is evil? Or is he evil defined by his actions?

Actions, of course.


There is no such thing as "almost" impossible. There is either possibility or impossibility. A chance is still a chance. Many might have said the same about Darth Vader or Gollum.

Let's put it differently if we're going to go with hardcore semantics:
Belkar can be redeemed. This is perfectly possible. As it's a comic strip, just about anything is, technically speaking.

The question here is: would it be a satisfying and, more importantly, a plausible redemption? Even considering Rich's writing talents, odds are low. Belkar has gone so far down the deep end that to see his entire character and have him redeem himself would just leave a foul taste in everyone's mouths. He might pull off a few good deeds, possibly even intentionally, but he's still pretty rotten to the core and it's going to take an implausible lot of sudden character development for that to change.


Let me ask you this: if Belkar dies without redemption of any degree or kind, then what was the point of his existence in the story in the first place?

Are you implying that a character without depth is pointless?
Belkar might be fairly one-dimensional (even Rich sort of admitted this himself during Belkar's dream sequence) but he's still the primary comic relief in OotS for most people, as well as a valuable front-line fighter and foil to other characters. His purpose seems fairly clear to me. Not to mention that he seems to be the character people just love to hate - most people would rather see him dead than redeemed. In this respect, I'd say Rich has done a good job in creating a character people care about.

Compare with, say, Durkon.


To bring things back to the original topic - if you are going to argue that Belkar should die simply based on the fact that he is evil you need to be willing to argue that Haley and V should die too.

In my opinion, Belkar and V deserve to die, and probably will.
I don't think V is evil and that he just made a really bad call at a time when he was emotionally unstable. It's also commendable that he at least recognizes that he did something incredibly rash, stupid and entirely disproportional, but he certainly deserves to get his comeuppance for wiping out a fourth of an entire species.

I don't consider Haley evil, but it's more of a slippery slope here. She did kill someone in cold blood over an entirely personal slight, however. Still, her crime(s) are not to the magnitude of either Belkar or V and I believe Haley can still make amends and change her life for the better, although she does deserve some kind of punishment.

My predictions:
Belkar will go out with a bang and will probably do some quasi-good act for all the wrong reasons.
V seems like a definite Heroic Sacrifice to me.
Haley is probably going to pull a Karma Houdini, dodging any moral repercussions entirely.

[Cracklord]

As an author, I love all of my characters in my stories, even those who will die in the end. Just because there is a prophesy that BElkar will die doesn't mean Rich hates him and won't miss him.

That's hardly unusual, I spend ages on every one of my characters, until I can understand them, see their motivations. Hell, I've even written about unstable psychopaths myself. But I am being straw-manned.
The point of fact is, you said you see Belkar as an integral part of the strip. If The Giant felt the same way, he wouldn't be planning to kill him off. I did not say Rich hates him.


Ugh, no. I've already said I don't like some of Belkar's more disgusting humor. I don't like evil characters just because they are evil. That is an oversimplification of my view. If you really read my first post you'll see that isn't my reason for liking Belkar at all.

Don't see it. You'll have to elaborate. What it seemed like you said was that you find him consistently funny and interesting due to his lack of complexity. I recommended LFG, a comic that I despise, to you in good faith as a consequence. I like plenty of evil characters. I just don't like Belkar.


See, I don't see Belkar as an obstacle. I see him as one of the heroes. Sure, he is a hero against everything he desires (evil) etc. but he is nonetheless consistently one of the heroes, and when he goes up against the bad guys and kicks butt I can't help but cheer. Belkar is working to become a better person too. Sure, it might appear to be surface changes (and that's what he tells himself) but I think he really does like the Order and his heart has softened a bit since we first met him. I'm not saying he is good, I'm just saying he has the potential to be good.

That's what I hate about him most. How he justify's himself every time he does a mildly good act. He's the whinny kind of evil, of someone who is just doing it for attention. He has no style, no panache. You will disagree to me there, but let me continue.
He never looks further, never tries to be more. He doesn't dream, never tries anything. He just does the same stuff he has been doing since comic #1. Stab people.
You don't see him as an obstacle? Well, how can the group grow closer together while he endures? They can't. He has to overcome his differences, or die.
So either we gat a derailed Belkar, or a dead Belkar. And then another Halfling Ranger will just "Happen" to show up and take his place.


Well, I don't play D&D. I do read Lord of the Rings though.

Reread the raising of the shire, and all those hobbits who "Vere chust followink orders, Herr general."


He does have complexity and development.

I disagree with you, but whatever.


Are you saying that anyone who likes Belkar is an idiot? Why did Rich write the character in the first place? Just because I like the character doesn't mean I endorse what he does. I like the character of Darth Vader, that doesn't mean I cheer when he blows up planets and kills the Jedi.

I guess Star Wars is for losers too.

STOP STRAWMANNING ME! IF I DON"T SAY IT, DON'T PUT THE WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

I dislike Belkar, because despite being evil, he never goes anywhere with it. He stabs people, but that's all. He never plans, doesn't have the cajones to be really bad. He is a self serving hedonist who annoys me.

A little kid with ADD, desperately trying to get attention.

Now, I liked Darth Vader until the prequels, which transformed him from a seven foot tall force-slinging machine to an angsty teenager, but I love the Emperor. He's got so much raw charisma, and so much style it's impossible not to. No motivations, little complexity, but still interesting.

I don't dislike Belkar for being evil, I dislike him because I find him annoying.
I never said Star Wars is for losers either.


You seem to forget that Belkar is an Order of the Stick character. You seem to be arguing that if you like Belkar you shouldn't read the whole comic at all. This is ridiculous.

More strawmanning. What a surprise.
I am saying, I like the comic, but I dislike Belkar, and do not view him as an integral part of the strip. I am further saying I feel with Belkars death the comic would be immeasurably improved.
I swear, I'm a big enough jerk for you not to have to put words in my mouth.


No, he doesn't have one joke. Oversimplification again.

Going to clarify that, or am I going to take your word for it?


You critiquing Giant here or me?

Neither. I am saying just as V is a take on the arrogant wizard approach Belkar is a take on the annoying semi-Munchkin who just wants to kill things.
Most games are scrapped because of that character as he makes it no fun for everyone.
How is this critiquing?


WRONG. O-Chul is 2-dimensional by design. He is meant to be the good bad*** and nothing else.

Missed the scenes with the Moster in the Darkness, did you? Or the scene where he explains to Haley the sad realities of war? Yes, he's tough, but he's also a wise mentor figure.
Looks like complexity to me. But then, he didn't joke so its not worth commenting on, huh?


Guess Darth Vader will never ever ever be redeemed.

Ooh. Or maybe he will.

I am citizen #569456486b. You blew up my planet, killing my friends, family and everyone I knew. I had a daughter. She was three years old, and it was her birthday. I remember seeing the sky turn red, and her face changing from surprise to fear as the air got so hot my flesh bubbled. I don't forgive you just because your son does.

So because Vader was forgiven, everyone else is? What about the Emperor? Where's his forgiveness?
Belkar will not be redeemed just because another character you like was. Star Wars is totally irrelevant to this discussion.


Belkar isn't a character designed to have panache. He does dream and aspire.... to kill. I don't like him because of those aspirations, I like him because I think he is well-written and Rich has done a good job in presenting him as an upbeat and funny character.

I don't see it the same way. Sorry, but that joke stopped being funny a long time ago.


Guess we should hate him then. Not striving must be the unforgivable sin.

Well, yes. What are you, a communist?
Still, if that doesn't do it for you, how about murder, racism, torture; both physical and intellectual, slavery...


I just really love him. I doubt any of us can convince the other otherwise. I don't think you are an idiot though because you hate him.

And I don't think you're an idiot because you like him. I do think your easily pleased, but that's hardly a sin. I feel he's a simple character who is no longer amusing. And not even God himself could convince me otherwise.




I know that this is probably only me summoning up all my hopes for Belkar to survive, but...

The Oracle only said that Belkar would draw his last breath. And we all know that, following the conventions of a story (haa-haa!), the predictions of an Oracle that really justifies its capital O need to be taken word for word.

So - maybe Belkar will become an undead? :smallbiggrin:

And he's not long for this world. Undead are part of this world.
And he doesn't need money.
And he should savor his last birthday cake.
Did you read the prophecies?


Belkar should die so that we can see him in the afterlife. All demons hail the sexy shoeless god of war! And then he can accidently throw a wrench into the IFCC's plans and stop them from claiming one of the gates.

Not a chance. You start as a dretch or a lemure. If you are lucky. Making you what other demons call 'ammunition.' The abyss is the quintessential pyramid scheme. In theory, everyone can get to the top, but there are only so many places, and so many people trying. Even Orchus started out as a Dretch, and he was evil on a level that Belkar couldn't even understand, or even Xykon couldn't understand, and powerful on a far higher level then both of them. A different order of being.

He will then be put in one of the countless wars taking place on the abyss. If he's lucky. If he's not, he will be given a permanent position as a demons punching bag, where he will suffer horrendously. They will humiliate you, debase you, and perform atrocities on you as a way to relieve monotony. Including but not limited to conventional torture, rape, and eating your memories, destroying your identity. Not out of spite or malice, but as a way to alleviate boredom.

If he is sent to the warfront, he will either be fighting evils in the blood war, which will mean being whipped by armies that believe Geneva to be a meaningless collection of syllables, who hate you, and who win the vast majority of the wars, or to fight another Demonlord, which is even worse. Chances are it will be the latter.

Most of these wars will lead to you dying in horrific ways, or being taken prisoner and either dying in even more horrific, drawn out ways or being re educated, tortured, and forced to fight for your captors.

After a few thousand years he has a chance of becoming a higher level demon. Except the thing about the Abyss is: There is always someone bigger. And even if he somehow becomes a demon lord, he'll find that they don't enjoy themselves either. They spend every moment shoring up their defenses knowing if they are perceived as weak they'll be crushed, and all their indulgences have lost their flavor, every second is fearing to lose your power, and your existence is totally meaningless and purposeless. And if you try to leave, you will be killed by Celestials or taken by demons and kept alive. And given to Belial, who is basically a perverted psychopath, who uses rape and torture as a means of establishing dominance to force people to act a certain way, crushes their individualism, and eventually makes them long for the pain because it is the only thing that gives meaning to them anymore. And he has had millennia to perfect his technique, and he's not the worst thing around.

So I'd love to see Belkar's adventures in the abyss, but I'd rather see him rotting on the side of a road, alone and forgotten. It would be even better if Mr Scruffy stuck with him and ate his liver, but that's just me.

Now, I need to take a break.

[LuisDantas]

When Belkar was under the effect of Owl's Wisdom, he did not become "more good aligned" than Roy, Durkon or Celia. It may have seemed so, but one must be aware that the improved Wisdom made Belkar that much more aware of the error of his ways, and therefore more motivated to atone for them. Naturally-good characters (usually) have no such burden in their pasts and therefore have an easier time with themselves.

Sure it is possible for Belkar to redeem himself. But if he comes anywhere near even the start of such a path, he will hardly be recognizable anymore. Heck, he is scaring his own teammates just by faking a conscience now.

I think many people overvalue his attachment to Mr. Scruffy as a redemption course. It is an emotional attachment, sure, but hardly all that different from, say, his desire to have a warlike dog mount or to meddle with kobold head decoration. Evil people are usually more emotionally attached than good people, if anything.

As for V, he's got some major atoning to make down the line. I personally hope he manages it, but there is no doubt to be had: he commited quite a bit of evil by slaying the whole family of the Ancient Black Dragon. No way that will be forgotten.

[bluewind95]

In my opinion, Belkar should die. But not because he's evil, or because of anything he's done.

I think I read once that the Giant mentioned that he had to give Belkar the mark of justice because he found it so hard and implausible for Belkar to still be with the group. I think Belkar is a kind of character who has had the story he's in outgrow him. OotS started out as a comedy strip parodying D&D. Belkar was a great fit there- the typical player who stabs everything, asks questions later (if at all). The character who's evil because he's evil and really has no reason for it, nor any motivation beyond stabbing everything in sight. Not even a goal beyond that. But as the story grew, that kind of character has become somewhat out of place. The villains have goals, motivations, etc. The protagonists... same. Well, except for Belkar. And while he had the mark of justice, well, there he was, being dragged along, plausibly. But then he was of little use to an adventuring party. And therefore, the mark got removed. It says a lot about what Rich thinks, I believe, that he had to be given fake character development in order to be able to continue to fulfill his role in the story. It tells me that Rich is aware that the character perhaps no longer really fits into the story, and rather than watch him decline, he will be taken out in a fitting way. I hope he goes out with a bang, really. The character is pretty well-written for such a one-dimensional character. I don't really like the character, but he still is well-written in my opinion. And as such, I hope he goes out in some kind of epic way.

[Trai]

I don't know. For me, Belkar's gotten a bit tiring. I feel as though all the jokes that could have been used with him have been run through already. I like the whole thing with him and Mr. Scruffy, but I don't think it'll last much longer. I might be sad when he dies, simply from seeing the reactions of the others, but I don't think it'll get to me like Roy's death did.

[ThePhantasm]

Cracklord - I do not plan to respond to the rest of your post. I think we have some legitimate arguments on both sides here, though I respectfully disagree with you.

If I may, however, I would like to maintain that at no point did I strawman you. In your original response you told me to "grow up," you told me that I did not appreciate "intelligent" humor ("go read a less intelligent comic"), and essentially that I was being childish. I never claimed that you made an argument about Star Wars either - that wasn't strawmanning, that was me making an analogy. Now I'm thick skinned and don't take offense to any of this. You are entitled to your opinion. But I just don't want you to think I was twisting your words, when I wasn't.

Its best not to discuss this further though between you and me. It is just a comic strip character after all. The characters of Sabine and Nale irritate me, for example, while others like them. I just wanted to make some sort of argument about why Belkar should be in the strip until the end; I never expected everyone to agree with me.

[Niley]

I don't get you people, how can you NOT like an omnicidal psycopath...?

And seriously, I don't see any reason why Belkar should die as long as he doesn't turn on the Order, right? He might be irritating to some, but he's useful. If I was the leader of the OotS, I'd cope with him stabbing a few people now and then because of that. But well, you know... I'm not Stupid Good.

Personally, I'd classify Belkar as more Good-like Evil than Pure Evil, just like I classified Miko as Evil-like Good. Just like someone else posted before, he might be very evil, but if you point him in the right direction he might do more good than harm. Trust me, I know - I'm quite experienced at creating such characters, both in D&D and novels, not to mention being such a person myself.

[Turkish Delight]

Different strokes, I guess.

To me, Belkar seems to have exhausted all his dramatic possibilities sometime between killing the Gnome in #359 and participating in the fight against the Thieve's Guild.

He is too caricatural to develop any true character, much less character development - and therefore I find his current character plot unconvincing in the extreme - while at the same time he is barely useful as comedy relief anymore.

If anything, at this point he is a liability to the strip's suspension of disbelief. He is a very ill fit with the other characters and plots.

Hmmm...let's put it this way. Whether you and I have a disagreement on the issue isn't that important. What's important is that by all appearances you and the Giant appear to be at odds on this issue. Belkar is a limited character and there isn't much more to do with him, so the Giant is going to off him; on that point, it seems to be reasonably clear to all except those who are grasping at straws.

But does that mean the best course is to, say, just kill him in some random battle so he can be thrown out as quickly as possible? To give him a quick, utterly anti-climactic end without build-up or drama or anything because we thinks he's mean and doesn't have any depth and don't want him to give him an appropriately epic send-off? C'mon, now. That would much more pointless than the alternative I mentioned, and frankly just plain sloppy storytelling. He's been a regularly recurring character from strip one. The building attachment to Mr. Scruffy thing has been referenced for a long time. The latest strip is the most obvious, but I think we'll soon all be looking back on the line near the end of this strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0622.html):


"Anyway, it's you and me from now on, pal. We're in this together, to the top of the heap or bust, until the very, very end."

...and see it as massive foreshadowing.

I think the Mr. Scruffy connection is much easier to swallow than an attachment to any human or demi-human character. It's also on a different level than the kobold head thing or the desire for a war dog, both of which are inherently selfish motives. Jumping to the defence of a helpless creature of very limited value to him isn't selfish; it's Belkar actually undertaking a moderately good act, likely without him even recognizing that that is what he's doing.

If Belkar achieves 'redemption' to any degree whatsoever, it will probably be unconsciously and without him having any desire for it. But if you start acting in a good-aligned way, it doesn't matter how Chaotic Evil you'd like to be; you're still doing something good.

What's the Kurt Vonnegut line from Mother Night? "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."

[lio45]

:belkar: "Yes, but who really cares about your inner turmoil crap anyway? People tune in to watch me stab things."

(#568.)

I'll miss him.

[Forbiddenwar]

Should Belkar die?
Yes. For it furthur validates the oracle. If Belkar doesn't die, completely and on schedule, every statement the oracle has made will be called into question. On another thread, someone stated that in fiction Oracles tend to be completely right ("Girl in Buffy", Oracle in SGA)(reflecting a fixed future) or right until they are wrong (What's his name in SG1)(reflecting a mutable future). So, I have to admit, I think belkar should die, because I want the oracle to be the former type.

Should, upon Belkar's death, the comic continue without ever mentioning him again?
This is a tough one. I think it greatly depends on how rich handles his death. How someone dies can make a satisfying end to a character. If he dies in this manner, then Yes, the comic can continue without him. However, if it is unsatisfying, then No.

[Cracklord]

If I may, however, I would like to maintain that at no point did I strawman you. In your original response you told me to "grow up," you told me that I did not appreciate "intelligent" humor ("go read a less intelligent comic"), and essentially that I was being childish. I never claimed that you made an argument about Star Wars either - that wasn't strawmanning, that was me making an analogy. Now I'm thick skinned and don't take offense to any of this. You are entitled to your opinion. But I just don't want you to think I was twisting your words, when I wasn't.

Its best not to discuss this further though between you and me. It is just a comic strip character after all. The characters of Sabine and Nale irritate me, for example, while others like them. I just wanted to make some sort of argument about why Belkar should be in the strip until the end; I never expected everyone to agree with me.

Well, if you did, there would be little point in raising the point, would there?

I submit that I am a jerk and if I did stray into the realm of personal attacks that weren't directed at Belkar then I apologize. I don't mean any of them.

However, you were putting words in my mouth and creatively misinterpreting me.

[Asta Kask]

Belkar is evil in his very essence and being?

Yes. Oh yes.

[LuisDantas]

What's important is that by all appearances you and the Giant appear to be at odds on this issue.

If you say so. It puzzles me a bit that you think so, however. After all, the Giant did write the foreshadowing that Belkar will die.



Belkar is a limited character and there isn't much more to do with him, so the Giant is going to off him; on that point, it seems to be reasonably clear to all except those who are grasping at straws.

But does that mean the best course is to, say, just kill him in some random battle so he can be thrown out as quickly as possible? To give him a quick, utterly anti-climactic end without build-up or drama or anything because we thinks he's mean and doesn't have any depth and don't want him to give him an appropriately epic send-off? C'mon, now. That would much more pointless than the alternative I mentioned, and frankly just plain sloppy storytelling.

That is also not what happened. Although random deaths are not altogether deprived of dramatic value. "Anyone can die" is a fairly good trope. Have you read early Gantz, or watched that pivotal episode of Highlander?


He's been a regularly recurring character from strip one. The building attachment to Mr. Scruffy thing has been referenced for a long time. The latest strip is the most obvious, but I think we'll soon all be looking back on the line near the end of this strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0622.html):


...and see it as massive foreshadowing.

Well, I do see it as massive foreshadowing... that Belkar has no place in the strip anymore, for what it is worth.


I think the Mr. Scruffy connection is much easier to swallow than an attachment to any human or demi-human character. It's also on a different level than the kobold head thing or the desire for a war dog, both of which are inherently selfish motives. Jumping to the defence of a helpless creature of very limited value to him isn't selfish; it's Belkar actually undertaking a moderately good act, likely without him even recognizing that that is what he's doing.

However, it is also basically he fulfilling his own need for company without making concessions for those pesky sentients. I am not sure it even counts as a good act. Come to think of it, Belkar would be frightening close to a complete monster without Mr. Scruffy at this point, but that is faint praise at best.


If Belkar achieves 'redemption' to any degree whatsoever, it will probably be unconsciously and without him having any desire for it.

Then it is not redemption at all.


But if you start acting in a good-aligned way, it doesn't matter how Chaotic Evil you'd like to be; you're still doing something good.

DEFINITELY different strokes. Good is a matter of choice, sorry. Although arguably Evil isn't always.


What's the Kurt Vonnegut line from Mother Night? "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."

I may pretend to be a millionaire, but I don't think that will work out all that well.

[Adeptus]

No, the fact that his only redeeming feature is his attitude toward Mr. Scruffy--and that's one--is what means he doesn't have redeeming features (plural). :smalltongue:

Seriously, I get that people look at things like him begging Haley not to leave his vomiting self by the side of the road and say, "See! He cares about Haley and/or his membership by the Order!" But that doesn't make that a logical conclusion there, with his self-interest so blatant. "Belkar cares about anyone but himself and Mr. Scruffy" is the new "Belkar is really Chaotic Neutral."

You misunderstood me. The fact that I wouldn't be buddies with a killer like Belkar in real life, doesn't in any way mean that he is not a great comic book character, or that he should be killed.

I find it a bit weird that people want him dead, and feel his "existence" in the comic to be somehow offencive (it's what it sounds like).

Belkar is a great character, and maybe the finest creation of Rich in OotS.


/addition

Belkar is an important part of the OotS dynamic. If he dies, he's quite likely to remain with OotS as a ghost or something like that.

[Kish]

I'm sorry, I don't want or intend to misrepresent anything you say. You mentioned that you would be happy to discover that V would be dying within the next seven weeks as well. I find it unlikely that the rest of the story will last seven weeks... I assume it will last much longer than that.

Rich might finish the story within seven in-comic weeks, but you're probably right. Within seven weeks is when Belkar's prophecy will come true, though.


Let me ask you this: if Belkar dies without redemption of any degree or kind, then what was the point of his existence in the story in the first place?

You ask me that, when you stated that he is "comedy gold" in the first post in this thread? Rich goes into details of why he included each of the characters in the Order in the notes for OtOoPCs, but really. Belkar is there to make a certain proportion of the audience laugh.


Even I have said I'm ok with him dying close to the end. I just don't want it to be anytime soon. You say "don't particularly want." What does that mean? Do you want him to die soon or later? What is your preference?

Being neither one of the people who finds Belkar particularly amusing (like you), nor one of the people who is actively bothered by his appearance in every strip he's in (like Cracklord), I genuinely don't care, as long as he dies before the end. He could die in the next strip to go up, or he could die in the very last strip on the website, and I'd be happy.


Sure.
[...]

I said "meaningful moral difference" and emphasized that things things based on pure self-interest wouldn't do. For some reason, you gave a list of things based on pure self-interest anyway, concluding with...


To bring things back to the original topic - if you are going to argue that Belkar should die simply based on the fact that he is evil you need to be willing to argue that Haley and V should die too.
I'm sorry, this is just plain absurd. There is no moral equivalancy between Haley and Belkar. You don't consider Belkar's evil a reason why he should die. Okay. I disagree. Disagreeing that it's a reason he should die is one thing, acting like it's not there by insisting that anyone who thinks he should die should also want Chaotic Good-ish party members to die is quite another.

[SoC175]

His rejection of Tsukiko's offer to join Team Evil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0520.html) is a perfect example. He could have tossed the Cat in any number of faces, but he happens to chose to toss it in the face of the person offering him a chance to fulfil his every selfish and evil desire? Why didn't he just toss it into Haley's face? I know he plays it off as an entirely capricious and chaotic act, and I think he even tells himself that it was just random impulse - but seriously now, random chaotic behavior can only keep landing on 'stay loyal to the order' for so long before one wonders how random the behavior really is.

He didn't toss it into Haley's fave becasue he feared that would let him be forever stuck with the mark of justice, a purely selfish reason

I genuinely don't care, as long as he dies before the end.
While I would love to see Belkar do a Karma Houdini (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KarmaHoudini), I have no illusion that he will get one

[ThePhantasm]

I said "meaningful moral difference" and emphasized that things things based on pure self-interest wouldn't do. For some reason, you gave a list of things based on pure self-interest anyway, concluding with...

Who in OOTS doesn't do things out of self-interest? There is self-interest even in saving the world. The point is that Belkar is fighting on the good side, and Xykon is not.


I'm sorry, this is just plain absurd. There is no moral equivalancy between Haley and Belkar.

Sure there is. They have both done evil things. This is a point I have illustrated already. I'm defining evil here as action, not by what characters would be defined to be in a vacuum.


You don't consider Belkar's evil a reason why he should die. Okay. I disagree. Disagreeing that it's a reason he should die is one thing, acting like it's not there by insisting that anyone who thinks he should die should also want Chaotic Good-ish party members to die is quite another.

I think Belkar deserves to die. That's not the same as saying he should die within the story.

Haley deserves to die. So does V. They have both done evil things (at least V has shown some remorse and repentance). That doesn't mean I want them to die. I don't. I want them to overcome their own evil and fight for greater good.

I asked you this question:


Belkar is evil in his very essence and being? In other words, if Belkar was in a vacuum, never committing any act whatsoever, he would still deserve death because his very existence is evil? Or is he evil defined by his actions?

I don't think you answered it. Some others in the thread answered it but I don't think you did.

[Kish]

Sure there is.

*shrug* Then we are done here.


I don't think you answered it.

You're right, I didn't. Because I don't understand what you're getting at, or why it matters. As far as I can tell, you're trying, without contesting Belkar being evil because we have Word of God on that subject, to make the fact that he is irrelevant. I'm not going to follow you to somewhere where claiming moral equivalancy between Haley and Belkar makes sense.

[Teddy]

Not a chance. You start as a dretch or a lemure. If you are lucky. Making you what other demons call 'ammunition.' The abyss is the quintessential pyramid scheme. In theory, everyone can get to the top, but there are only so many places, and so many people trying. Even Orchus started out as a Dretch, and he was evil on a level that Belkar couldn't even understand, or even Xykon couldn't understand, and powerful on a far higher level then both of them. A different order of being.

He will then be put in one of the countless wars taking place on the abyss. If he's lucky. If he's not, he will be given a permanent position as a demons punching bag, where he will suffer horrendously. They will humiliate you, debase you, and perform atrocities on you as a way to relieve monotony. Including but not limited to conventional torture, rape, and eating your memories, destroying your identity. Not out of spite or malice, but as a way to alleviate boredom.

If he is sent to the warfront, he will either be fighting evils in the blood war, which will mean being whipped by armies that believe Geneva to be a meaningless collection of syllables, who hate you, and who win the vast majority of the wars, or to fight another Demonlord, which is even worse. Chances are it will be the latter.

Most of these wars will lead to you dying in horrific ways, or being taken prisoner and either dying in even more horrific, drawn out ways or being re educated, tortured, and forced to fight for your captors.

After a few thousand years he has a chance of becoming a higher level demon. Except the thing about the Abyss is: There is always someone bigger. And even if he somehow becomes a demon lord, he'll find that they don't enjoy themselves either. They spend every moment shoring up their defenses knowing if they are perceived as weak they'll be crushed, and all their indulgences have lost their flavor, every second is fearing to lose your power, and your existence is totally meaningless and purposeless. And if you try to leave, you will be killed by Celestials or taken by demons and kept alive. And given to Belial, who is basically a perverted psychopath, who uses rape and torture as a means of establishing dominance to force people to act a certain way, crushes their individualism, and eventually makes them long for the pain because it is the only thing that gives meaning to them anymore. And he has had millennia to perfect his technique, and he's not the worst thing around.

So I'd love to see Belkar's adventures in the abyss, but I'd rather see him rotting on the side of a road, alone and forgotten. It would be even better if Mr Scruffy stuck with him and ate his liver, but that's just me.

Now, I need to take a break.

Now, I don't think Rich will have his Abyss work that way, because that wouldn't make Belkar an especially funny character at all...

[Dark Faun]

Isn't saying there is a moral equivalency between Belkar and Haley because they both did evil things the same thing as saying there is a moral equivalency between Hinjo and Belkar because they both did good things? Isn't this kind of logic... faulty? :smallconfused:

[bluewind95]

The thing is... it's not that Belkar has done evil things at all. It's the fact that evil things are almost all he does. There really is no equivalency between Belkar and V and Haley. V and Haley perform many more non-evil actions.

[Kaytara]

The thing is... it's not that Belkar has done evil things at all. It's the fact that evil things are almost all he does. There really is no equivalency between Belkar and V and Haley. V and Haley perform many more non-evil actions.

I think this is pretty much it, for the "Is evil defined by actions or by nature?" discussion.

To me, alignment is a statement of one's tendency and willingness to commit evil deeds, rather than just a track record.

Whether someone has committed evil deeds is irrelevant - partially because everyone has done so. How much and under what circumstances is the crux of the matter. Someone who does evil in the heat of passion or while otherwise affected is treated differently to someone who honestly sees it as an acceptable way to handle things.

[Cracklord]

Now, I don't think Rich will have his Abyss work that way, because that wouldn't make Belkar an especially funny character at all...

Belkar not funny? Oh shock and horror.

[Kaytara]

Belkar not funny? Oh shock and horror.

Keep the whole "no accounting for taste" thing in mind, though. :D

[ThePhantasm]

Isn't saying there is a moral equivalency between Belkar and Haley because they both did evil things the same thing as saying there is a moral equivalency between Hinjo and Belkar because they both did good things? Isn't this kind of logic... faulty? :smallconfused:

There isn't a moral equivalency in their personality and motivations, perhaps, but in some of their actions there is. Isn't a good deed a good deed no matter who does it? And isn't a bad deed a bad deed no matter who does it?

I'm not arguing that Belkar isn't evil. He IS. I'm not arguing that Haley isn't Chaotic Good-ish. SHE IS. But people have been making the arguments that Belkar should die in the end based off of what he has done. I'm arguing that Haley has done some bad things too.

So by this formula that people seem to have

Bad Deed + No Repentence = Death or Punishment

Haley would have to die / be punished too.

I'm not saying Haley is an EVIL CHARACTER I'm not saying that. I'm saying Haley has done EVIL THINGS. And if you are saying that Belkar must die because he has done evil things, on that reason alone, you must be willing to say that HALEY ALSO must die. AND V.

[Freshmeat]

There isn't a moral equivalency in their personality and motivations, perhaps, but in some of their actions there is. Isn't a good deed a good deed no matter who does it? And isn't a bad deed a bad deed no matter who does it?

Not if the people involved are doing the same good deed for entirely different reasons.

Edit: to clarify - one should never discuss morality by viewing actions in a vacuum

[Kish]

I'm not arguing that Belkar isn't evil. He IS. I'm not arguing that Haley isn't Chaotic Good-ish. SHE IS. But people have been making the arguments that Belkar should die in the end based off of what he has done. I'm arguing that Haley has done some bad things too.
By all means. Quote anyone who's said, "Belkar should die because he's done more than zero evil deeds."

See, this is why I didn't answer your question about whether Belkar would be evil in a vacuum--you're trying to arm-wrestle me into saying what the strawman you're beating on would say. Belkar should die because he's evil, completely evil, possessing only one redeeming characteristic. Haley shouldn't necessarily die because...she's not evil.

[ThePhantasm]

Not if the people involved are doing the same good deed for entirely different reasons.

I'm not arguing that Belkar is good. I'm not.


By all means. Quote anyone who's said, "Belkar should die because he's done more than zero evil deeds."

All the folks who have listed the evil deeds that he has done? Look through the tread; quite a few folks.


See, this is why I didn't answer your question about whether Belkar would be evil in a vacuum--you're trying to arm-wrestle me into saying what the strawman you're beating on would say.

I'm not strong-arming you into anything. I'm not beating on a straw-man either. I just wanted the question answered. You don't want to answer it because you see where this argument is going.

All I'm saying is that, if someone does something evil and deserves punishment because of it, that rule should apply to everyone without discrimination, regardless of their supposed nature: Chaotic-Goodish, Evil, Neutral, what have you. I don't think I'm strawmanning anyone, I'm just arguing for consistency here. I wish people would not make this claim that I'm strawmanning - I've looked back over our posts and I'm NOT EVEN PUTTING WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH I'm just asking questions and making analogies. That's not strawmanning by any definition.


Belkar should die because he's evil, completely evil, possessing only one redeeming characteristic. Haley shouldn't necessarily die because...she's not evil.

Wait.... what is his one redeeming characteristic again?

I never said Haley was evil. I said Haley has done evil things. Everyone seems to keep missing this important distinction.

[Freshmeat]

I'm not arguing that Belkar is good. I'm not.

I never said you were.


All I'm saying is that, if someone does something evil and deserves punishment because of it, that rule should apply to everyone without discrimination, regardless of their supposed nature: Chaotic-Goodish, Evil, Neutral, what have you.

Isn't that pretty much what people are doing right now? Taking a good look at the actions of Haley, V and Belkar and judging accordingly? Some people may disagree about the punishment of Haley and V, but it should come as no surprise that people feel Belkar is the worst of the lot and should die for what he's done.

If you want to look at this on a case-by-case basis, Belkar is still one of the worst offenders, since he kills people with so much relish and cruelty for such trivial reasons while fully realizing that what he's doing is wrong that he really deserves a worse fate than those who have done similar deeds. And even if you isolate his crimes and look at them separately, one still needs to take into account precedents and other circumstances. Haley may have murdered Crystal, but she's by no means a bloodthirsty killer and one can assume such behaviour is not common for her. That makes her crime a lot less worse than Belkar, who will continue to kill everyone that bothers him until he's dead. Just letting him go with, for example, a minor sentence or a slap on the wrist simply won't do. It might seem 'fair' to apply strict rules to two people who have committed similar crimes, but unless you take all other information into account, you're just passing judgement with a very narrow point of view.

And if we're allowed to bring some comic terms into this, one can even add that Crystal will probably be raised anyway, her having class levels and all. Again, more circumstantial factors.
The tons of mooks that Belkar has killed, some of them even in the middle of nowhere? Gone forever.

[Kish]

All the folks who have listed the evil deeds that he has done?

You made a specific claim that people said Belkar should die because "he did evil deeds."

No one has said that. People have said that he should die because he's evil, because he's not interesting, because the story has outgrown him, because the Oracle should not be shown to be wrong. People have said he should not die because he's the funniest part of the story, because the Oracle should be shown to be wrong. Luis said he should die for the specific act of killing Solt (notably, a particular evil act very late in Belkar's career, past thousands of other specific evil deeds); feel free to argue that killing Solt the way Belkar did is morally equivalent to killing Crystal the way Haley did if you want. No one has said "Belkar should die because he has ever done any generic evil deeds," or anything that can reasonably be paraphrased that way.Therefore, it is a strawman.


I'm not strong-arming you into anything. I'm not beating on a straw-man either. I just wanted the question answered. You don't want to answer it because you see where this argument is going.

I have a fairly good guess. My guess goes something like this: I say, "His actions." You twist that into "every character who's done any arguably evil actions should die," despite the fact that no one has said that, and refute it by saying Haley shouldn't die, in a classic demonstration of the strawman fallacy. Or I say, "His nature," and...okay I don't actually have a guess for what your reply to that would be. But the truth is that I couldn't answer the question if I wanted to. Belkar isn't in a vacuum. He's in the story. And he is evil. And you don't deny that, even though you somehow claim there's a moral equivalancy between him and Haley anyway, and therefore some manner of inconsistency in wishing Belkar dead (because he's evil) but not Haley (because she...is Chaotic Good-ish?).


Wait.... what is his one redeeming characteristic again?

He cares about Mr. Scruffy. Genuinely cares, as he has shown no sign of caring about any other creature in the entire comic.


I never said Haley was evil. I said Haley has done evil things. Everyone seems to keep missing this important distinction.
Probably because it's the important distinction between "obvious parallel with Belkar" and, "huh? Relevance?"

Originally Posted By: Kish
Might want to check that attribution.

[Freshmeat]

Might want to check that attribution.

Oops. My bad.

(fixed now)

[ThePhantasm]

Kish, I've never been responding to the argument that Belkar should die because he isn't funny etc. In my correspondence with you I've responded to the argument that he should die because he is evil. All of the other arguments come from that anyway. Most people who don't find Belkar funny don't find him funny because of his evilness.

It seems also that you are, for the most part, ambivalent as to the timing of Belkar's death. We aren't in total disagreement in the first place. I've been trying to show that I'm not strawmanning anyone - if you look at your question example, that's not strawmanning. If you give one answer, I might argue one way, true. I might not.

This is what strawmanning is:

You: "I like grey horses."
Me: "Kish said that all horses are grey. This is wrong."

I have not yet twisted your argument in any manner similar to this. All I have been doing is stating my opinion about why Belkar could have a redemption arc. Asking a question isn't strawmanning at all.

What I think we have here is not so much strawmanning but a misunderstanding (on both sides) about our views.

[Kish]

I have not yet twisted your argument in any manner similar to this.

Mine, specifically? Maybe not. Because you continue to ignore my requests that you put a name to the person who supposedly said that Belkar should die because he's committed any evil deeds. So I don't know if the person you're defeating by saying, "If any character who's committed evil deeds should die, then Haley should die," is supposed to be me, or Luis, or any of the other posters in this thread, and I probably never will know. The only way to claim a moral equivalancy between Haley and Belkar is to make killing Crystal equivalent to all Belkar's casual murders put together, and you're the only one who's suggested anything like that.

[lio45]

Belkar isn't in a vacuum. He's in the story. And he is evil.

Even if he were in a vacuum, he'd still be evil. That's the simple, unequivocal, and totally unrealistic way alignment works.

Belkar is a character obeying the laws of D&D roleplaying. That makes all the difference... he's been "guilty" of being evil even before he ever did anything.

And comic #228, last panel (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0228.html), as well as comic #207 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0207.html), show that apparently, in the OotS universe, merely "being evil" is reason enough to get killed.

It follows that one could argue that Haley and V are good/neutral and should live, while Belkar is evil and should die. No need to look at actions. Alignment's enough.

[ThePhantasm]

Why I am not Strawmanning Anyone: A summary of this entire thread

Belkar being evil as the reason he should die, with his evil acts given as examples, has been the spine of the counterargument throughout the whole thread. Here is your proof, and HERE ARE THE ARGUMENTS I HAVE BEEN RESPONDING AGAINST. Some are arguments in my favor who have interpreted the opposition in the same way I have interpreted them.


He should die because...

He's freaking evil.


Belkar should totally die. The sooner and the most humiliating, the best.

He has left redemption behind a long time ago, at about the time he killed the goblin in the way to the Oracle perhaps.


Personally, I don't get why so many people hate Belkar and want him to die. I appreciate him fully as a character. Why so much hate? He's evil and deserves to die? Well, at least this aspect is well written. He's a great inspiration for an evil PC. But he doesn't deserve to die just because he's "evil".


This is not remotely the same thing as being evil, and it is not any sort of crime, certainly not something that deserves death.


I'll agree with most of the posters here, Belkar has to die. He has hurt so many people and broken so many rules, that there has to be some kind of retribution, redemption be damned.


Are we talking about whether Belkar should die, or whether he deserves to die? Because I think people have been mixing the two up.


Good point: Belkar clearly deserves to die (you could argue that Haley and V do too for that matter!). That doesn't mean he should be killed off before the comic's end... he is an interesting and funny character.


See, now, there's a difference between "have done evil things" and "are evil."

ABOVE is your original statement. My question, which you say is an attempt to strawman you, was first asked in response to that statement, for clarification:


So Belkar is inherently evil? Are characters defined by action or by nature?


Define "inherently" in context.


"Anything that demonstrates a meaningful moral difference between Belkar and Xykon" will do.

(Note, "Moral." Xykon being a lot more powerful and effective than Belkar doesn't count, and neither does anything based on Belkar's self-interest. Being able to laugh and act like friends with someone and then kill the same person brutally a few seconds later is a similarity.)

Note that the above bolded "difference" is an action, further increasing my curiosity as to the answer to my question. Also, you note that Xykon and Belkar are similar in their actions. So I pointed out that Haley's gleeful attack on Crystal was a Belkaresque action as well.

You were trying to get ME to say that Belkar should die for the same reason Xykon should die. I turned that around and said ok, if that is the case, I think Haley should die for the same reason Belkar should die. You surprised me with "you are strawmanning!" That was never my intent, I was just following this line of argument to see where it went.


Belkar is evil in his very essence and being? In other words, if Belkar was in a vacuum, never committing any act whatsoever, he would still deserve death because his very existence is evil? Or is he evil defined by his actions?


Actions, of course.

...

In my opinion, Belkar and V deserve to die, and probably will.
I don't think V is evil and that he just made a really bad call at a time when he was emotionally unstable. It's also commendable that he at least recognizes that he did something incredibly rash, stupid and entirely disproportional, but he certainly deserves to get his comeuppance for wiping out a fourth of an entire species.

I don't consider Haley evil, but it's more of a slippery slope here. She did kill someone in cold blood over an entirely personal slight, however. Still, her crime(s) are not to the magnitude of either Belkar or V and I believe Haley can still make amends and change her life for the better, although she does deserve some kind of punishment.


Cracklord's argument about why he hates Belkar:


Still, if that doesn't do it for you, how about murder, racism, torture; both physical and intellectual, slavery...

And here is a post in response to Kish:


You misunderstood me. The fact that I wouldn't be buddies with a killer like Belkar in real life, doesn't in any way mean that he is not a great comic book character, or that he should be killed.



Need I go on?

I took my time to go back through the thread and cut and paste these quotes just for you.

In other words, this HAS been the direction the argument has been going in, other people have interpreted the arguments in the way that I have interpreted them, and I have simply been trying to civilly follow the flow of the discussion, despite repeated accusations from you (Kish) and Cracklord that I have been strawmanning. I have even been courteous enough to say that if I have been strawmanning, it was unintentional. I've tried to explain to no avail why I thought I wasn't strawmanning.

Now can we get back to talking about why we like / dislike Belkar?:smallsmile:

[Shale]

Belkar's a vile, evil, destructive, murderous individual, but as long as he remains safely fictional, I enjoy laughing at his exploits and would like to see them continue. On the other hand, I'd also like to see the Giant follow through on the prophecy instead of introducing a weaselly loophole. So on balance I do think Belkar should snuff it, but as late as possible in the comic's run.

[AxeD]

Couldn't Belkar find redemption in the form of Durkon casting the Atonement spell on him? There's a use of the spell which might be useful:

Redemption or Temptation: You may cast this spell upon a creature of an opposing alignment in order to offer it a chance to change its alignment to match yours. The prospective subject must be present for the entire casting process. Upon completion of the spell, the subject freely chooses whether it retains its original alignment or acquiesces to your offer and changes to your alignment. No duress, compulsion, or magical influence can force the subject to take advantage of the opportunity offered if it is unwilling to abandon its old alignment. This use of the spell does not work on outsiders or any creature incapable of changing its alignment naturally.

So, lets see:

Durkon is LG, and Belkar is CE. Opposing alignments: Check!

Subject freely chooses whether to retain its original alignment: Unlikely, I guess that in most cases, Belkar would rather die than go LG - but, under desparate circumstances (or if he realised that it would be the ultimate revenge against Miko, and every good creature he ever killed, for him to go to the LG afterlife, rather than the evil afterlife he deserves) he may give his consent to change his alignment. So, Subject's free choice: Check!

The other details don't really apply.

I guess that Durkon wouldn't (willingly) cast the spell on Belkar, but I guess he could be replaced with any LG cleric able to cast 5th level spells.

I'm not sure what kind of attonement quest would be given to Belkar. Assuming that the cleric needs to "intercede with your deity (requiring you to expend 500 XP) in order to expunge the subject’s burden", I'm guessing that Thor (or whatever god is being consulted), would assign an attonement quest that is as challenging as Belkar has been evil/chaotic. So, considering that Belkar is probably one of the most evil creatures in existance (bar, Xykon, maybe), he'd probably have an impossible quest to carry out. Like, take down an army of Tarraques single-handedly (well, not alone, he'd still have Mr.Scruffy :smallwink:)

I guess, the point I'm trying to make is, depending on how the wording of the spell description is interpreted, Belkar may be able to find redemption.

[Yora]

4. IF Belkar is to die, it needs to be at the end of the series. Don't kill him off anytime soon, please. He is one of the more enduring aspects of the comic series to me personally.
I think he even HAS to die, but only at the very end. He's been calling for it from the beginning, and I rather see him go down in bloody glory than to ride into the sunset.
But it really has to be at the very end, as I don't see why anyone would bother about Roy hunting a Lich, if it's without Belkars awsome asskicking.

[Cracklord]

Belkar has no shot at redemption. Miko didn't, while actually trying to e a good person. Belkar is actively trying to be a bad one (and in the end coming on with a sort of wussy attempt that is more sad then bad).
If you say anything different, you are most likely deluding yourselves.
A single good deed does not excuse a lifetime of wickedness. In any way.
No matter how he dies, he will still go to hell, and he will still suffer.
As well he should.

[ThePhantasm]

Cracklord, I think we mean redemption in a story-plot-arc sense, not in an ethical metaphysical sense. No one is making the excuse that he doesn't deserve punishment. We are saying he could still do something really good and, in the eyes of the story, redeeming.

[spargel]

The first reason is already enough.

The idea that someone deserves to die is laughable when that person can become a saint just by casting a single spell on him (Owl's Wisdom).

[Cracklord]

Then if so, why has he made no attempt to do so? If redemption is so easy, why hasn't he gone for it?
I mean, if anything, that's another nail in his coffin.

[ThePhantasm]

Cracklord, the answer to that is easy: he doesn't want to be redeemed.

At least, not yet.

[Cracklord]

Cracklord, the answer to that is easy: he doesn't want to be redeemed.

At least, not yet.

Exactly! He is happy evil. Well, at least, will be happy until he finds out exactly what the Abyss is like. At which point I'm sure he'd be very happy for redemption. :smallbiggrin:

[ThePhantasm]

Exactly! He is happy evil. Well, at least, will be happy until he finds out exactly what the Abyss is like. At which point I'm sure he'd be very happy for redemption. :smallbiggrin:

Of course, I admit, that is the most likely scenario.:smallwink: I'd still like to see him change his mind before death though and if he MUST die, die heroically. I just think it'd be a great way to end his character.:smallsmile:

[spargel]

Of course, I admit, that is the most likely scenario. I'd still like to see him change his mind before death though and if he MUST die, die heroically. I just think it'd be a great way to end his character.

That would be completely out of character for him.

[ThePhantasm]

That would be completely out of character for him.

And your point is..... ?

[Falchion]

I've been waiting for this thread to show up!

Personally, I have a very definite opinion on the subject. Belkar DOES deserve to die, in a year. This is not because he is evil.

It's because he's evil AND annoying.

You have to pick one. Evil and bada$$, or good and annoying, or good and bada$$, but NOT evil and annoying. Also, I think the OOTS could use a new character. Miko was a very interesting character for a stint, and I had actually hoped she would turn out ok. So when Belkar dies (hopefully), Rich needs to throw in a new character. Something brand new and interesting (perhaps a genasi or warforged).

[Cracklord]

Of course, I admit, that is the most likely scenario.:smallwink: I'd still like to see him change his mind before death though and if he MUST die, die heroically. I just think it'd be a great way to end his character.:smallsmile:

Well, I suppose I can always write hate fic where he gets captured by Belial and put through agony. Actually...

[spargel]

And your point is..... ?

Uh, most writers don't want their characters to act out of character?

[Falchion]

Even though I favor Belkar's death, I think whatever Rich does will be the best for the comic. If he wants to keep Belkar as a below-par character, ok. If he wants to get Belkar to redeem himself, sure. If he decides to kill him off, that's cool. This is a comedy, for the most part.

[ThePhantasm]

Uh, most writers don't want their characters to act out of character?

Well, he is on the good guy team. He has been under the influence of heroic characters. He has one redeeming feature at least that often isn't disputed: his love for the cat. So in some sense, he is a hero. I don't see him dying by turning on the order.

Take the recent comic's title, "On Friendship." Notice the double meaning. In some sense, Belkar has become friends with the order - and he definately considers the cat to be his friend. Belkar isn't under Xykon's influence, he is under Roy's.

Yes, characters are supposed to act out of character. But you can only pretend to be good for so long before you must make a permanent choice. I think Rich is going somewhere with this.

So yes, characters act out of character. But characters evolve, and there are small inklings of hints that, though unlikely, Belkar could end up in the end making a heroic choice. I'm not saying it is likely, I'm saying it would be great to see it happen.

But that's not my main point, my main point is Belkar should be kept alive in the story for a long, long time, and no matter what, shouldn't die until the story's end.

[Holyhatred]

Well, he is on the good guy team. He has been under the influence of heroic characters. He has one redeeming feature at least that often isn't disputed: his love for the cat. So in some sense, he is a hero. I don't see him dying by turning on the order.

Take the recent comic's title, "On Friendship." Notice the double meaning. In some sense, Belkar has become friends with the order - and he definately considers the cat to be his friend. Belkar isn't under Xykon's influence, he is under Roy's.

Yes, characters are supposed to act out of character. But you can only pretend to be good for so long before you must make a permanent choice. I think Rich is going somewhere with this.

So yes, characters act out of character. But characters evolve, and there are small inklings of hints that, though unlikely, Belkar could end up in the end making a heroic choice. I'm not saying it is likely, I'm saying it would be great to see it happen.

But that's not my main point, my main point is Belkar should be kept alive in the story for a long, long time, and no matter what, shouldn't die until the story's end.

You actually believe belkar will die? please. Belkar is gonna die as a joke. He might even see miko afterwards. But then he will get raised a few seconds afterwards.

[Herald Alberich]

You actually believe belkar will die? please. Belkar is gonna die as a joke. He might even see miko afterwards. But then he will get raised a few seconds afterwards.

That would be a horrible resolution to an event that's been building since the first visit to the Oracle. It would piss off a majority of the fans and destroy the Oracle's credibility.

And anyway, the Giant is a better writer than that.

[Kish]

You actually believe belkar will die? please. Belkar is gonna die as a joke. He might even see miko afterwards. But then he will get raised a few seconds afterwards.
You did read the word ever, didn't you?

[Cracklord]

Well, he is on the good guy team. He has been under the influence of heroic characters. He has one redeeming feature at least that often isn't disputed: his love for the cat. So in some sense, he is a hero. I don't see him dying by turning on the order.

Take the recent comic's title, "On Friendship." Notice the double meaning. In some sense, Belkar has become friends with the order - and he definately considers the cat to be his friend. Belkar isn't under Xykon's influence, he is under Roy's.

Yes, characters are supposed to act out of character. But you can only pretend to be good for so long before you must make a permanent choice. I think Rich is going somewhere with this.

So yes, characters act out of character. But characters evolve, and there are small inklings of hints that, though unlikely, Belkar could end up in the end making a heroic choice. I'm not saying it is likely, I'm saying it would be great to see it happen.

But that's not my main point, my main point is Belkar should be kept alive in the story for a long, long time, and no matter what, shouldn't die until the story's end.

Sorry, but I have to step in here. Belkar is on Roy's team, but that does not mean they are working towards the same purpose.

Take, for example, Redcloak and Xykon. Xykon wants to kill an arbitrarily high number of people and be proclaimed supreme overlord of the world.
Redcloak wants to use the Snarl to force the gods to change the world for equality between all races, allowing a better life for Goblins.

Redcloak's goal is arguably noble (worth fighting for, worth dying for, worth going to hell for), while Xykons is totally selfish. The two goals are mutually exclusive, and sooner or later will be forced to a parting of the ways as a consequence.

Evil is not a monolithic force. Just because two people are evil does not mean they are automatically friends, just like two people can be lawful good and hate each other (Miko and pretty much anyone who doesn't want to 'smite evil' with her).

So Belkar's choice of sides is in no way conclusive to his alignment or actual personality (also, Roy said himself that Belkar would do fine under Xykons rule).

In addition, chaotic evil is ultimately selfish, as are Belkars so called friendships (I see them more as a parasitic, resigned toleration, but each to his own). His 'friendships' are for selfish reasons. As I have said, his lack of ability to think or plan makes him ultimately purposeless. He has adopted the adventuring party, because he might as well, their is no real reason to leave, and he values existence as much as anyone else.
Does he value them as people? No.
Does he have some small, possibly subconscious attachment to them? Yes.
He saved Haley in that scene that never happened, and he saved Elan from the bandits even before he pretended to have character development. Even in 'on friendship,' he saved Mr Scruffy, though I personally feel the relationship the comic title refers to is Belkar and the unlamented slaver. But that does not equate to being good. Evil people often form relationships, they are just self-centered relationships based on self-gratification. Which is what Belkars so called 'friendships' are.

Also, in support of my child with ADD theory, see This (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0042.html). It is a desperate cry for attention, and he needs other people to see it. Otherwise it is all meaningless. Plus, as a wise elf said in Keychain of Creation, 'if we weren't in the comic, we wouldn't exist.'

So should Belkar stay alive? God no. He is still exactly the same character he has always been, and the comic no longer has room for him.

Consider Rorschach from Watchmen. Ultimately, he died, due to his refusal to compromise. As such, there was no way to make him accept what happened at the end, and no chance of changing him, so he had to die. Even though he is probably the fan favorite in the text.

Same to Belkar. The story is not about servicing the fans with one Belkar scene after another, it's a story the Giant tells because enjoys writing, and it's about a band of motley, ragtag bunch of heroes with amusingly conflicting personalities, who, in saving the world, learn the true meaning of friendship. The DnD jokes are second to the plot.
Where does Belkars chaotic evil jokes, emotional maturity of a sociopathic four year old with ADD and inability to relate or feel empathy, or understand other people have an intrinsic right to live? They don't. So either he has to change, or die.
And all evidence points to death.

QED

[factotum]

You did read the word ever, didn't you?

Not to mention the minor detail of who's going to spend 5000gp in order to raise Belkar? Certainly not Roy or the rest of the Order, who see him as a millstone around their necks most of the time...

[ThePhantasm]

Where does Belkars chaotic evil jokes, emotional maturity of a sociopathic four year old with ADD and inability to relate or feel empathy, or understand other people have an intrinsic right to live? They don't. So either he has to change, or die.


I don't want him to live because I somehow think that chaotic evil jokesters with the emotional maturity of sociopathic 4 year olds with ADD and the inability to feel emphathy or understand others deserves to live. I want him to live because he is a well written and funny character.

Its funny how this discussion always returns to a moral argument. My argument first and foremost is that Belkar is funny and that the OOTS just isn't the same without him. He spices things up by throwing in a totally, radically different viewpoint and sense of humor.

I don't enjoy his sense of humor because it is evil either. My other favorite character in the order is Elan, the bright happy do-gooder. I enjoy Belkar's sense of humor because it is well written, dark, witty, and funny.

My point about Belkar being "one of the heroes" is that despite his motivations, immaturity, sociopathic tendencies, etc. he is one of the protagonists, not the villain. Also, he is directly under the influence of good characters, and their good may be beginning to rub off on him.

[Cracklord]

My point about Belkar being "one of the heroes" is that despite his motivations, immaturity, sociopathic tendencies, etc. he is one of the protagonists, not the villain. Also, he is directly under the influence of good characters, and their good may be beginning to rub off on him.

And my point is he is holding the comic back from the direction the Giant is writing it, and must either kick the bucket or halt all progress for the sake of a few jokes.

I do not find him an especially well written character. I find he fulfills his intended purpose, making him a successful character, but as he has no complexity, depth or style (for want of a better word), he's not particularly engaging.
As to witty, well well have to agree to disagree there. I've laughed at him once, when his plan was to let Miko kill him (and that scene earned the spiky haired paladin a special place in my heart).

Yes he is under the influence of the good characters. But this does not make him good. As I pointed out with my previous example, characters can work together with radically different goals, motivations and personalities. The MITD is under the influence of Team Evil, does that make it anantagonist? He is a protagonist, but not the protagonist. The story can continue without him. After all, he does little for the plot.

I was not claiming you enjoyed his humor because he is evil, I was pointing out that that seems to be the extent of characterization. And as such, his jokes are all extensions of that. i.e, look at me! I'm evil!
I have not brought up morality. I was pointing out his shallow character depths.

[Zeful]

WRONG. O-Chul is 2-dimensional by design. He is meant to be the good bad*** and nothing else.

Both O-chul and Belkar are caricatures. O-Chul is the self-sacrificing, noble, chivalrous Knight, and Belkar is the psychotic hedonist. The difference between the two is that O-Chul is, to most societies, a role model, while Belkar is a failing of the same.

[Skeppio]

No no no no no NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!

He has a shot at redemption
No he doesn't. You may as well be calling Xykon Lawful Good and claiming that Buggy Lou will rise from the dead to befriend the Snarl for all the logic destruction in this one statement. Belkar is pure chaos and evil. The only reason he hasn't torn the rest of the group apart is 1) They could best him and 2) He is FAKING goodness. Belkar is a monster and deserves to die. Rich himself has said that Belkar is nothing but evil! Why is it so hard to understand this?

[ThePhantasm]

And my point is he is holding the comic back from the direction the Giant is writing it, and must either kick the bucket or halt all progress for the sake of a few jokes.

But even Roy just halted the progress for a joke. Elan does this all the time as well. In fact, Elan is more immature than Belkar. Should Elan die too?


I do not find him an especially well written character. I find he fulfills his intended purpose, making him a successful character, but as he has no complexity, depth or style (for want of a better word), he's not particularly engaging.

You can't have a good painting without black paint, nor a contrast with the light without the darkness. Belkar provides this to the team. He provides important character interaction. Elan and Durkon have no depth either (Elan does have style though).


Yes he is under the influence of the good characters. But this does not make him good.

Of course not. It makes him able to be influenced toward good. He is in an environment where he can become good, whereas other evil characters are not.


As I pointed out with my previous example, characters can work together with radically different goals, motivations and personalities. The MITD is under the influence of Team Evil, does that make it anantagonist? He is a protagonist, but not the protagonist. The story can continue without him. After all, he does little for the plot.

In what he has been shown so far, aside from accidentally rescuing O-Chul, MITD has been an antagonist.

[Fragenstein]

You can't have a good painting without black paint, nor a contrast with the light without the darkness. Belkar provides this to the team. He provides important character interaction. Elan and Durkon have no depth either (Elan does have style though).

Personally, I like that Belkar seems to state that even in a world with alignment restrictions, not everything is black and white. Here is a completely amoral douchebag who seems to both satisfy his depraved lustings and advance the cause of good.

He seems to get gobsmacked from time to time after stepping too far over the line, so I can see a bit of justice at work, but yet is still allowed to slaughter and main as long as it's at least mildly entertaining.

Just my opinion -- I think he's one of the more interesting characters in the strip. Sure he has only one position on his dial (malevolence), and his reactions are fairly predictable, but I still enjoy seeing the depths of imagination Rich can show in exactly how Belkar gets his evil on.

I like him. Kill him, sure, but death would be a poor excuse to write him out of the strip entirely.

[Cracklord]

But even Roy just halted the progress for a joke. Elan does this all the time as well. In fact, Elan is more immature than Belkar. Should Elan die too?

that's not what I said and you know it. Elan has developed from a walking dumb blond stereotype into a fairly responsible individual, and can even be somewhat reliable. He now has emotional maturity he did not have at the beginning of the strip, though he is still fairly ditzy.
Roy has evolved, coming to accept his responsobility because it's right, not because he has daddy issues.
Belkar...stabs things.


You can't have a good painting without black paint, nor a contrast with the light without the darkness. Belkar provides this to the team. He provides important character interaction. Elan and Durkon have no depth either (Elan does have style though).

Durkon does have depth, it just manifests itself in odd ways. He hasn't shown much emotional development because he is already emotionally mature. He can out think Haley at her own game, but for the most part remains in the background. That does not mean he is a simple character, it just means he lets the other characters dominate.
Actually, this really annoys me, as Durkon is pretty consistently my favorite character.


Of course not. It makes him able to be influenced toward good. He is in an environment where he can become good, whereas other evil characters are not.

But he hasn't been. That's why he is going to die. Six hundred strips and all he's done is adopt a stray cat. He hasn't gone after redemption, he hasn't sen the error in his ways, he hasn't started looking at the world from the other side of the fence.
What you say is hypothetically possible.

In what he has been shown so far, aside from accidentally rescuing O-Chul, MITD has been an antagonist.[/QUOTE]

Rescuing O-Chul and V (a protagonist). As such he's done more for their cause then against it. However, OK. Would you say he has been particularly influenced by Xykon or Redcloak into accepting their world view, or would you say he goes along because he can't function independently and has no goals of his own?


Personally, I like that Belkar seems to state that even in a world with alignment restrictions, not everything is black and white. Here is a completely amoral douchebag who seems to both satisfy his depraved lustings and advance the cause of good.

He seems to get gobsmacked from time to time after stepping too far over the line, so I can see a bit of justice at work, but yet is still allowed to slaughter and main as long as it's at least mildly entertaining.

Just my opinion -- I think he's one of the more interesting characters in the strip. Sure he has only one position on his dial (malevolence), and his reactions are fairly predictable, but I still enjoy seeing the depths of imagination Rich can show in exactly how Belkar gets his evil on.

I like him. Kill him, sure, but death would be a poor excuse to write him out of the strip entirely.

Don't see him as interesting. To me, he's one dimensional.

[spargel]

Evil people often form relationships, they are just self-centered relationships based on self-gratification.

Uh, no, that's mostly just in cliched fantasy and fiction.

[hamishspence]

Even in D&D, there are books strongly suggesting that an evil person can have normal relationships with others- loving parent, spouse, sibling, offspring- faithful friend, loyal subject.

Savage Species brings this up. The Giant also mentions it in the Gaming section of the site.

In D&D, evil can be far more complex than just "selfish, sadistic sociopath"

[Cracklord]

Uh, no, that's mostly just in cliched fantasy and fiction.

OK, fine. Nitpick. But remember, cliche's become cliche's for a reason.

Belkars 'relationships' are just self-centered interactions based on self-gratification and his own selfish nature. Better?

[Big Hungry Joe]

Conditioning Belkar's survival on his "redemption" is unduly patronizing. Evil characters do not exist solely to engage in some sort of Darth Vader-esque redemption in order for the Good characters to feel better about themselves. They have their own goals and desires, and a multi-faceted one may well have what Belkar has -- friendships and obligations that temper simple, mindless evil. There's an early strip where Belkar earns a storytelling XP bonus for a tale about how he wishes he could return to his village and kill everyone as payback; it's likely a joke but the larger point is we may not know much about why he is evil in the first place. He may well have had life experiences and learned lessons about the dark side of humanity/humanoidity that escaped more fortunate -- and coincidentally "good" -- characters, in much the same way that in real life some of the most "good" people you'll meet are the ones who had everything handed to them on a silver platter. Redcloak is another example - he watched paladins slaughter nearly his entire tribe seemingly at random, and yet he's considered one of the bad guys. It's safe to say that event colored his future beyond acquiring the cloak itself -- he dedicated the first catapult firings against Azure City to his mom.

A real life parallel can often be found on MMORPGs or the older MUDs/MOOs. There are often twinks/PC killers who seemingly exist solely to jump other players, steal loot, and generally mess up the playground. However, while their victims certainly want them dead, often as not they got that way because they themselves were picked on when they were weak characters, or don't have tempering relationships with other players. Nobody befriended them or helped them with anything, and so they feel no obligation to or sympathy for anyone else. I've befriended folks who were generally perceived as "evil" players who nonetheless had noble qualities and made great allies as long as you could keep their passions and violent tendencies directed elsewhere. And when faced with a pompous, inflexible, holier-than-thou scrub of the Miko variety, there is nobody you want more on your team than a guy who can hit 'em low and then help bury the body later. It's amazing how many powerful "good" characters on MMORPGs owe their ascendancy to being friends with a few others who enjoy getting their hands dirty.

In short, while the Giant obviously will do what he sees fit with Belkar, Belkar hardly deserves to die as an abstract matter just because "he's evil and can't be redeemed." Personally, I find his independence and personal initiative highly entertaining and quite refreshing. Due to that independence, Belkar is far more likely to take a distasteful but necessary path than most of the other characters (with the possibly exception, recently, of V). For example, the elaborate fight sequence where he KOs Miko with the lead sheet and then waits around for her to wake back up just to fulfill his larger plan of causing her fall from grace shows that there is a lot more going on under Belkar's hood than some simple Chaotic Evil. He could have killed her on the spot, but what he really wanted was to bring her down. As it turned out, that was the right instinct -- and while many of the other characters disliked her, only Belkar took it to the proper level. He's far more multi-dimensional than he first appears, and I hope he's around for a long time to come.

[Kish]

In short, while the Giant obviously will do what he sees fit with Belkar, Belkar hardly deserves to die as an abstract matter just because "he's evil and can't be redeemed."

This is a matter of opinion. If you add the word "freaking," before "evil," then I disagree. (A tavern bully doesn't deserve to die as an abstract matter, even if he can't be stopped from getting drunk and picking fights; someone who murders for recreation and has trouble with the idea that other people deserve to exist does.) We are very unlikely to ever learn about Belkar's past, from what Rich has said, and comparing Belkar to a player-killer in an MMORPG is one of the nastiest things anyone has yet said about him. Free-for-all-PvP MMORPGs tend to do badly compared to ones with limited or nonexistent PvP, for some obscure reason. I can't say how many people in Ultima Online only reached maximum levels because of befriending player-killers, nor is this at all relevant; I can flat promise you that no one in EverQuest 2 or a normal or RP server in World of Warcraft ever has. "I don't pay my subscription fee to be a nanny to strange teenagers" is an entirely morally correct position to take when confronted by other players who choose to act immaturely.

Evil characters exist for a number of purposes (among them, to go through Darth Vaderish redemptions and to die). "To win audience support to the same extent and in the same way as good characters" isn't one of them. There are reasons why successful authors don't flip coins to determine whether the hero or the villain of a novel will wind up achieving their goals.


Personally, I find his independence and personal initiative highly entertaining and quite refreshing. Due to that independence, Belkar is far more likely to take a distasteful but necessary path than most of the other characters (with the possibly exception, recently, of V). For example, the elaborate fight sequence where he KOs Miko with the lead sheet and then waits around for her to wake back up just to fulfill his larger plan of causing her fall from grace shows that there is a lot more going on under Belkar's hood than some simple Chaotic Evil. He could have killed her on the spot, but what he really wanted was to bring her down. As it turned out, that was the right instinct --

I am trying and failing to figure out how anyone could say an alive, fallen Miko is superior to both alternatives.

...Except for Xykon and those on his side, of course.

[jidasfire]

I wouldn't try to argue that Belkar isn't a selfish jerk or a murderous bastard, he is most certainly those things, but to say he's a completely one-note, soulless, static character may be a bit hasty. The fact is, he has grown in recent times. He's no more decent a person than he ever was, but he is craftier and more subtle, which makes him more dangerous, and more the person he would probably want to be. Still, if you like your characters to have moments of depth and pathos, I think Belkar has about as much as he's capable of in this strip:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0622.html

In truth, it shows that the number of living things Belkar truly values has doubled from one to two, which, while not exactly a large improvement, does make him a slightly more believable variety of evil. Personally, I don't ever want Belkar to be good or come close, but luckily, redemption is not the only form of character development out there.

[Porthos]

Without getting into the specifics of Belkar, I would just like to point out that Rich has already commented on his opinion about the idea of Evil People Having True Friends.

http://www.giantitp.com/articles/XbsQgS9YYu9g3HZBAGE.html

As has been pointed out extensively on this board, this really is a Must Read (as is the Villains Workshop (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/rTKEivnsYuZrh94H1Sn.html)) for anyone who wants to see what Rich thinks about when it comes to the nature of evil and how it might play in his comic. At least when it comes to friendship.

Now this doesn't mean that all evil people are capable of forming deep friendships. Far from it. But it's also true that not all good people are capable of forming deep friendships. As was demonstrated by Miko Miyazakai.

====

When it comes to Belkar proper, it's fairly hard to see him forming a "real" relationship with someone. Impossible? Well, there are very few impossible things in this world. But it'd take a lot of set up for it to happen. :smallwink:

[Fragenstein]

...to say he's a completely one-note, soulless, static character may be a bit hasty. The fact is, he has grown in recent times.

Well, sure. The fact that he's willing to risk his own life to safeguard Mr. Scruffy is proof of that. But he's still pretty shallow however you cut it. To suggest anything else seems to open up a long-winded, pointless debate that gets in the way of anything else the original poster had to say.

'Just wanted my opinion to come across as -- no matter how hollow Belkar is, even if it's as a personality as thinly conceived as the Blaker haters claim, I still like seeing him in the strip.

So kill him, fine, but also allow that to be the chance to show the diametrically opposing after life that Roy ran into the ground for so long..

[Cracklord]

Conditioning Belkar's survival on his "redemption" is unduly patronizing.

Allow me to elaborate. Belkar, as he is, is in the way of the story, as his existence prevents the party from growing closer together (which is what the story is really about). Either he must change, or die, for the story to move on. The most often used technique would be redemption.


Evil characters do not exist solely to engage in some sort of Darth Vader-esque redemption in order for the Good characters to feel better about themselves. They have their own goals and desires, and a multi-faceted one may well have what Belkar has -- friendships and obligations that temper simple, mindless evil.

OoTS world is a fantasy pastiche and a mess of stereotypes, more then a constant world. Evil is to be redeemed, or fought. it is a story, not a setting. Belkar does not have his own goals, reams and desires beyond stab things. His friendships and obligations are enforced by the fact that he has no choice. He has, in the past, tried to kill Elan, tortured V (though V is better at the game then him, so not such a good idea), and what obligations are you talking about? The only real relationship he has is with Mr Scruffy, and only as long as the cat does exactly what he wants it to.


There's an early strip where Belkar earns a storytelling XP bonus for a tale about how he wishes he could return to his village and kill everyone as payback; it's likely a joke but the larger point is we may not know much about why he is evil in the first place. He may well have had life experiences and learned lessons about the dark side of humanity/humanoidity that escaped more fortunate -- and coincidentally "good" -- characters, in much the same way that in real life some of the most "good" people you'll meet are the ones who had everything handed to them on a silver platter.

And your point is?
It's OK I try to kill people who have done nothing but show me kindness because my daddy never really loved me?
So what Has he tried to change the world so such a thing never happens to again? No. He's stabbed things, with the grin of a psychopath who is getting his fix. Who cares if he has a sob backstory? I sure as hell don't.

Redcloak is a different case because he is actively trying to fix things, and lost his integrity long ago. He is evil now, pure and simple. He just has motives.


Redcloak is another example - he watched paladins slaughter nearly his entire tribe seemingly at random, and yet he's considered one of the bad guys. It's safe to say that event colored his future beyond acquiring the cloak itself -- he dedicated the first catapult firings against Azure City to his mom.

And he's watched Xykon kill goblins, the people he proports to love by the handful and never stepped in to do anything. He's a coward. Whatever he tells himself, he's a coward. And because he won't, he's nothing more then an arrogant 'specieist' with messiah delusions. But he's an engaging character because of this.
Belkar stabs things.


A real life parallel can often be found on MMORPGs or the older MUDs/MOOs. There are often twinks/PC killers who seemingly exist solely to jump other players, steal loot, and generally mess up the playground. However, while their victims certainly want them dead, often as not they got that way because they themselves were picked on when they were weak characters, or don't have tempering relationships with other players. Nobody befriended them or helped them with anything, and so they feel no obligation to or sympathy for anyone else. I've befriended folks who were generally perceived as "evil" players who nonetheless had noble qualities and made great allies as long as you could keep their passions and violent tendencies directed elsewhere.

You know, comparing him to a MMORPG character is far more venomous and condescending then anything I could ever have done. Thank you.


In short, while the Giant obviously will do what he sees fit with Belkar, Belkar hardly deserves to die as an abstract matter just because "he's evil and can't be redeemed."

Really? Because to me that looks like a textbook definition of deserves to die.


For example, the elaborate fight sequence where he KOs Miko with the lead sheet and then waits around for her to wake back up just to fulfill his larger plan of causing her fall from grace shows that there is a lot more going on under Belkar's hood than some simple Chaotic Evil.

Seems pretty evil to me. And it's definately chaotic. If unescesay elaborate and truly a whole new definition of stupid.


He could have killed her on the spot, but what he really wanted was to bring her down.

So making other people suffer in intellectual ways for your own enjoyment isn't evil now? Besides, last time I checked, killing an escaped prisoner who has done his best to kill you and has already killed someone else for no reason at all is pretty well OK under any definition of the law. And killing a known murderer so he can never kill again is described as good in any DnD supplement ever.
Now that is the point he should have died.
It would have been hilarious.


As it turned out, that was the right instinct -- and while many of the other characters disliked her, only Belkar took it to the proper level. He's far more multi-dimensional than he first appears, and I hope he's around for a long time to come.

Don't agree with you there.


In truth, it shows that the number of living things Belkar truly values has doubled from one to two, which, while not exactly a large improvement, does make him a slightly more believable variety of evil. Personally, I don't ever want Belkar to be good or come close, but luckily, redemption is not the only form of character development out there.

He does like Mr Scruffy, but only as long as the cat does exactly what he says. When it doesn't, he will most likely kill it in a fit of pique. He might feel sad after. Maybe even for as long as five minutes.

[spargel]

He has, in the past, tried to kill Elan, tortured V (though V is better at the game then him, so not such a good idea), and what obligations are you talking about?

You use the word "torture" so loosely...

By the way, V started it by purposely trying to make Belkar despise him.

[ThePhantasm]

Roy has evolved, coming to accept his responsobility because it's right, not because he has daddy issues.
Belkar...stabs things.

No, Belkar used to stab things. Now he cares for a cat, is pretending to be good (and may end up becoming good in the process), and has been under the care of good people for some time now. Every character has evolved.


But he hasn't been. That's why he is going to die. Six hundred strips and all he's done is adopt a stray cat.

Shall we forget about how he saved Haley and Celia's life? How he also seems at points to care for V? How he has somehow remained loyal to the Order for all this time despite the fact that he should have turned on them long ago? Shall we merely credit all this to Roy's good leadership? Surely not.

[Tyndmyr]

I find it weird how everyone assumes evil characters should die.

The comic would suck if everyone involved were good and happy.

[spargel]

Out of curiosity, do you want Belkar to turn good because you think it would be best for his character, or do you just want him to turn good so he has a good excuse not to die?

[Cracklord]

No, Belkar used to stab things. Now he cares for a cat, is pretending to be good (and may end up becoming good in the process), and has been under the care of good people for some time now. Every character has evolved.

I give you... this strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0153.html). So no, he hasn't changed He always justified performing semi-good deeds, all you have imagined in the way of change is imaginary.


Shall we forget about how he saved Haley and Celia's life? How he also seems at points to care for V? How he has somehow remained loyal to the Order for all this time despite the fact that he should have turned on them long ago? Shall we merely credit all this to Roy's good leadership? Surely not.

No, I credit that to the fact that Belkar remains with them because he has no purpose without them. He doesn't stand by doing nothing during fights either. But he would not hesitate to kill them himself on a whim.


I find it weird how everyone assumes evil characters should die.

The comic would suck if everyone involved were good and happy.

Being strawmanned again. I am not arguing he should die because he is evil, I am arguing he is boring, and the comic would improve immeasurably with his absence.
However, this idea that it is possible for him to be redeemed is so wrong I have to argue against it.

[ZeLinator]

At this point, I think those that are fans of Belkar are going to have to accept our differences with those that are vehemently opposed to him being in the comic any longer.

Reminds me of other entrenched flame wars where no amount of rhetoric from either side will change anyone's views. The haters of Belkar deride the stubbornness of the Belkar-death-loopholers, but in my opinion, their tenacity is about equal. Not that it's a bad thing, but I think that at this point in the discussion, we need to stop trying to convince each other either way and just let our well-informed and logic based opinions be. Trying to sway people from their emotional responses to characters is a dead end.

TL;DR Some us hate Belkar, some of us like him. Let us all let that be.

[ThePhantasm]

I give you... this strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0153.html). So no, he hasn't changed He always justified performing semi-good deeds, all you have imagined in the way of change is imaginary.

I'm sorry. You must have linked to the wrong strip, because I fail to see your point. Making a dark-humored joke isn't the same as carrying out the act. For that matter, even Roy has joked about killing Elan.


No, I credit that to the fact that Belkar remains with them because he has no purpose without them. He doesn't stand by doing nothing during fights either. But he would not hesitate to kill them himself on a whim.

You are saying Belkar does have a purpose beyond just stabbing and killing? Huh. BEcause that is exactly what I've been saying all along. Belkar could stab and kill all he wants without the party. Very interesting character observation here. And yes, he has hesitated to kill them himself, because he has not done so. He has had plenty of opportunities.


Being strawmanned again.

:smallannoyed:

[Cracklord]

I'm sorry. You must have linked to the wrong strip, because I fail to see your point. Making a dark-humored joke isn't the same as carrying out the act. For that matter, even Roy has joked about killing Elan.

Read the strip again. Even back then, he is willing to go out on a limb to save Elan, as long as it doesn't conflict with anything he wants to do. So... he hasn't changed in the slightest in that he's willing to help his team mates.
No character development at all.


You are saying Belkar does have a purpose beyond just stabbing and killing? Huh. BEcause that is exactly what I've been saying all along. Belkar could stab and kill all he wants without the party. Very interesting character observation here. And yes, he has hesitated to kill them himself, because he has not done so. He has had plenty of opportunities.

Right. Perhaps we are not so different after all. I suppose when it comes down to it, it doesn't matter whether you hate a character or you love him, as long as you realize what it is that evokes these emotions in you.

All jokes aside, Belkar, ultimately, needs other people to recognize him. It's all just a little kid desperately trying for attention.

[Lvl45DM!]

Everyone has a shot at redemption, always
not everyone can reach it but EVERYONE has a chance, from castro to hitler to Bin laden to those guys who abuse children
its a part of having free will you cna always change your ways and try to make up for your crimes

Will Belkar? no he most likely wont cos hes a sociopathic murderer...and he LIKES it that way...so he most likely wont but he DOES care about how others see him and he does want their love and affection though he wants to brutally murder people more
But someone in this strip needs to be redeemed and though i vote for RC (a goblin redeeming himself is just such a subversion of all D+D that it needs to happen) there is definitly potential for belkar to go out in a blaze of glory that makes up for his crimes...but first he needs to show remorse...doubtful

so either way...him dying and him living both have potential to achieve great storytelling

[hamishspence]

when it comes to redemption, in fiction, it is rare to find a character who has done so much evil they "can't be redeemed"

David Gemmell novels in particular have characters who would make Belkar, Nale, and Xykon all look like pikers, still go on to achieve some kind of redemption.

Sometimes in the moment of death. In one case, it was after some time in "hell" before the character finally achieved redemption.

the problem is, it is very hard to imagine a good way for Belkar to reach this kind of point.

[Fragenstein]

Yeah, but I agree with the DM there, Hami. I don't want to see Belkar redeem himself. I don't want to see him admit that he made a mistake. He's evil. He does evil things. He thinks evil thoughts. He pours evil milk on his Frosted Evil Flakes. That's his thing, baby.

I like the way he treats everyone in the world as if they were a fictional creation put there for his own amusement. Shoot, I've seen players running GOOD characters like that, it's refreshing to see that attitude in someone born to the role.

I don't want remorse or reticence. I don't want Belkar to wake up to the harm he's been causing others, because I think he already knows about it and likes it that way.

So kill him, and then follow him to Chaotic Evil Hell or whichever realm they're referencing these days. Give us Roy's afterlife arc from Belkar's point of view. Maybe even bring him back as an undead agent of Team Evil, only to have him betray his masters and ruin all of their plans in the end... not because he wants to help the good guys, but because he doesn't put up with people telling him what to do.

But that's just my opinion. I like Belkar. Others don't, and that's cool too.

[hamishspence]

I agree with most of this- the Giant did suggest in Paladin Blues that if and when Belkar dies, there will be afterlife strips for him.

There was also a comment about "even if he actually left the Order, the strip will still follow his doings"

Though I don't know if this is intended to be foreshadowing.

[Itous]

why Belkar should live.....


HE'S BELKAR!



Nuff Said.........

[Tyndmyr]

So kill him, and then follow him to Chaotic Evil Hell or whichever realm they're referencing these days. Give us Roy's afterlife arc from Belkar's point of view.

I would *love* to see this...belkar time in the afterlife would likely be hilarious.

Bonus points if his association with the forces of good keeps him from getting the evil rating he likely feels he deserves.

[Fragenstein]

Bonus points if his association with the forces of good keeps him from getting the evil rating he likely feels he deserves.

Oh now that is GENIUS!

"Sorry Mister Bitterleaf, but you failed to corrupt Roy Greenhilt... convert Durkon Thundershield... Kill Elan or steal from Haley Starshine. We just feel you're not trying hard enough for anything over an entry-level, infernal position."

Double bonus points if Mama Bitterleaf is there to rag on him for it.

[jidasfire]

He does like Mr Scruffy, but only as long as the cat does exactly what he says. When it doesn't, he will most likely kill it in a fit of pique. He might feel sad after. Maybe even for as long as five minutes.

No, I think you're missing the point there. He actually values Mr. Scruffy as much as he values himself. Again, I don't say this makes him somehow redeemable, but his love for Mr. Scruffy is real, and not one that hangs the threat of violence overhead. Obviously you don't like the character and that's fine, but what you're saying isn't at all supported by anything in the story and really it's contradicted.

[ThePhantasm]

Read the strip again. Even back then, he is willing to go out on a limb to save Elan, as long as it doesn't conflict with anything he wants to do.

But why isn't he just ambivalent? Why doesn't he just walk off in the other direction, or sit on a stump? I think he likes Elan, rather than just going because he has nothing better to do. My point is that somewhere deep down he does care about the Order. That's why he can't leave or turn against them.

[TriForce]

Belkar's a vile, evil, destructive, murderous individual, but as long as he remains safely fictional, I enjoy laughing at his exploits and would like to see them continue. On the other hand, I'd also like to see the Giant follow through on the prophecy instead of introducing a weaselly loophole. So on balance I do think Belkar should snuff it, but as late as possible in the comic's run.

This i consider a sane responce in a topic full of madness :P

people said belkar should die becouse he is evil. now assuming they mean that he should die becouse of evil actions, we could probably safely say the entire OOTS should die with the exeption of elan and durkon.

now, if they mean evil nature and tendency's instead of action, then they should realize a fair part of the (real)world population is evil, possibly some of their dearest friends. most dont act upon it becouse of cultural standards and criminal persecution, but they are evil nonetheless.

also, people argued that he should die becouse he reminds them too much of people they knew (and possibly made their earlyer years hell) to them i have 2 things to say: first of all, this is a comic, get over it and learn the difference between a fictional charecter and your past. and second of all, if you really tought he deserved to die becouse of that, why didnt you kill those bullies? im sure any judge would agree that its for the better right?

anyone who considers any of the above as a reason belkar shoulkd die is almost insulting the giant imho, blkar does not have a mind of his own, anything he does and says is something the giant wants him to do or say, and im pretty sure its all for good reason.

so regardless of he lives or dies, take a bit of distance from it, id love to see him live but wont rage when he dies, could you all please accept that he is alive in the comic and call it a day? :P

[Kish]

This i consider a sane responce in a topic full of madness :P

people said belkar should die becouse he is evil. now assuming they mean that he should die becouse of evil actions, we could probably safely say the entire OOTS should die with the exeption of elan and durkon.

Nope. It should be obvious at a glance that no other member of the Order (except perhaps Vaarsuvius, very recently) has a portfolio of evil actions comparable to Belkar's, nor does Belkar have a portfolio of good actions comparable to any other member of the Order's. This blithe everyone-knows-this assertion of something so bizarre makes me wonder if you're really interested in engaging with anyone else, or just lecturing.


now, if they mean evil nature and tendency's instead of action, then they should realize a fair part of the (real)world population is evil, possibly some of their dearest friends. most dont act upon it becouse of cultural standards and criminal persecution, but they are evil nonetheless.

I can't even address this, it's supported by nothing but your assertion. Very few people know or have known anyone like Belkar. Fewer of those who have are still alive.


also, people argued that he should die becouse he reminds them too much of people they knew (and possibly made their earlyer years hell)

And someone argued that he shouldn't die because he's like an MMORPG griefer and MMORPG griefers shouldn't die. Oddly, that person you seem to feel no need to say anything to.


so regardless of he lives or dies, take a bit of distance from it, id love to see him live but wont rage when he dies, could you all please accept that he is alive in the comic and call it a day? :P
This topic was started because someone didn't want to accept that Belkar is going to die. You're trying to present yourself as an objective judge, but what you've said is as partisan as the most partisan people who have posted in this thread.

[Mystic Muse]

I'll miss a lot of his jokes. A lot of the time I thought he was hilarious but if the Giant is going to kill him we just have to accept that.


Belkar is going to die and there's nothing you can do about it.

@holy hatred. He is going to die and he will not come back. no not even then.

[Asta Kask]

But why isn't he just ambivalent? Why doesn't he just walk off in the other direction, or sit on a stump? I think he likes Elan, rather than just going because he has nothing better to do. My point is that somewhere deep down he does care about the Order. That's why he can't leave or turn against them.

Really. Because my impression is that he likes Elan because Elan makes Roy angry...

[TriForce]

kish, i really like you but you should stop stalking me, i posted 4 post in this forum and all 4 of em have been opposed by you, im not impartial, as i pointed out already, im just tired of the belkar hate, and im giving my reasons for why the logic of many people is simply not very realistic, i got the feeling people simply miss someone to hate ( miko, celia anyone?) and decided belkar made a easy target to hate ( OH NO HE IS EVIL! KILLKILLKILL) so im telling them they are wrong :smallsmile:

so give me a break here and actually agree with me for a change? just to suprise me :smallwink:

[Kish]

kish, i really like you but you should stop stalking me, i posted 4 post in this forum and all 4 of em have been opposed by you, im not impartial, as i pointed out already, im just tired of the belkar hate, and im giving my reasons for why the logic of many people is simply not very realistic, i got the feeling people simply miss someone to hate ( miko, celia anyone?) and decided belkar made a easy target to hate ( OH NO HE IS EVIL! KILLKILLKILL) so im telling them they are wrong :smallsmile:

so give me a break here and actually agree with me for a change? just to suprise me :smallwink:
As someone I know once said, I can't agree with you because I don't agree with you. Sorry. :smalltongue: Pretty sure the Miko and Celia haters still hate Miko and Celia. Also, pretty sure the overlap between the groups of "Belkar haters" and "Celia haters" is much lower than the overlap between the groups of "Belkar lovers" and "Celia haters," and adding "Miko haters" to the requirement drops the number to near zero. (Hating three randomly chosen characters from the comic? Not too unlikely. Hating Miko, Celia, and Belkar? Much less likely.)

P. S. You've posted way more than four posts in this forum. And Belkar does make almost as easy a target as any character in the comic.

[Cracklord]

But why isn't he just ambivalent? Why doesn't he just walk off in the other direction, or sit on a stump? I think he likes Elan, rather than just going because he has nothing better to do. My point is that somewhere deep down he does care about the Order. That's why he can't leave or turn against them.

I have never claimed he would. I have claimed he is a two bit thug, without style or dreams of is own, who hangs with the order because they are the only shred of meaning he has.
He helped save him, but that was likely as much motivated by the chance to kill sapient beings. Same could be said to his later so called rescues.

Prove he genuinely loves Mr Scruffy with reservations. Based on every other relationship he's had, this is the selfish kind. Give me one scene that proves me wrong.


This i consider a sane responce in a topic full of madness :P

people said belkar should die becouse he is evil. now assuming they mean that he should die becouse of evil actions, we could probably safely say the entire OOTS should die with the exeption of elan and durkon.

now, if they mean evil nature and tendency's instead of action, then they should realize a fair part of the (real)world population is evil, possibly some of their dearest friends. most dont act upon it becouse of cultural standards and criminal persecution, but they are evil nonetheless.

also, people argued that he should die becouse he reminds them too much of people they knew (and possibly made their earlyer years hell) to them i have 2 things to say: first of all, this is a comic, get over it and learn the difference between a fictional charecter and your past. and second of all, if you really tought he deserved to die becouse of that, why didnt you kill those bullies? im sure any judge would agree that its for the better right?

anyone who considers any of the above as a reason belkar shoulkd die is almost insulting the giant imho, blkar does not have a mind of his own, anything he does and says is something the giant wants him to do or say, and im pretty sure its all for good reason.

so regardless of he lives or dies, take a bit of distance from it, id love to see him live but wont rage when he dies, could you all please accept that he is alive in the comic and call it a day? :P

That's crazy talk.

Look, Belkar is evil, but so are many of my favorite characters. I hate him because he is a one dimensional child with ADD, with no chance of redemption, whose continued existence has all but stagnated the plot.

The fact that he is evil has really nothing to do with it. If he was a pacifist handled in exactly the same way I'd still hate him, I'd just have a harder time expressing it.

[LtKillroy]

My two theories: Belkar dies in the final battle and says something funny, and dies. Comic over.

~Or~

Big fight scene in which Belkar is not present at first. Comes in to save the day. Kills his way through hordes of enemies, saves the group, maybe killing a recurring villain. Dies saving them, says something funny (Tells Roy "I've always hated you" or something to that extent). Everyone is a mixture of sad and relieved. Then we get a hilarious sequence of Belkar in the Chaotic Evil afterlife (ye olde fire and brimstone with a pig-tailed red guy who carries a pitchfork). More funny one-liners. He stays there for awhile and either: gets resurrected, hitches a ride back with Sabine, or kills whoever he needs to kill to come back to live. Comic continues.

Any other scenario would kill the comic for many, many people (including me). To paraphrase death's lil' helper, he's the last funny thing in this comic.

[TriForce]

That's crazy talk.

Look, Belkar is evil, but so are many of my favorite characters. I hate him because he is a one dimensional child with ADD, with no chance of redemption, whose continued existence has all but stagnated the plot.

The fact that he is evil has really nothing to do with it. If he was a pacifist handled in exactly the same way I'd still hate him, I'd just have a harder time expressing it.

well, i never did mention your name in my post did i? dont assume i was talking to or about you, im big enough a ******* to refer to people by name if need be :)

but now your busy making your point, i disagree with you, you say he is one dimensional, but id like to know why you think that way. granted, we have no idea why he is still following the order, exept that they lead him to nice fights, but that doesnt mean there is no other reason. and some other oots members lack dept too, durkon for example, he has a better defined past, but perhaps even less ambition then belkar, when they havent learned o the gate yet, his general attitude was "ye i have nothing better to do" haley at start was just your avarage greedy rogue, until we saw that letter about her dad. V was just your avarage grumpy blaster mage, until the ABD showed up, etc

and as i said in my origional post, its not belkar that stagnates anything, if you want to blame someone, blame the giant for not advancing the plot. i myself prefer the jokes over the story anytime, especially after that dark episode with V, im really in no hurry of seeing any more gates for now

[ThePhantasm]

This topic was started because someone didn't want to accept that Belkar is going to die.

Ooh this is so exciting! STRAW MAN! (yay) Because I've said repeatedly throughout this thread that Belkar is going to die, and that this is inevitable. I've never suggested that Belkar will cheat death, and no, I did not start this thread because I am not able to "accept" it. I started this thread because I don't want it, at least not until the END of the comic story.


well, i never did mention your name in my post did i? dont assume i was talking to or about you, im big enough a ******* to refer to people by name if need be :)

I think Cracklord is just trying to follow the argument; he's responding to your post, not assuming you were addressing him.


I have never claimed he would. I have claimed he is a two bit thug, without style or dreams of is own, who hangs with the order because they are the only shred of meaning he has.
He helped save him, but that was likely as much motivated by the chance to kill sapient beings. Same could be said to his later so called rescues.

For the sake of the argument, I'll grant that, but Haley seems to only act out of a concern for money, and V has only been acting out of a lust for gaining more and more arcane power. Just because their motivations seem more complex makes them different?

Granted, Haley wants to save her father, and V.... I'm not sure what V wants the power for. I think (s)he'd say to save the world, but I really doubt it based on her past evil actions.

The point is that all members of the Order were originally driven by selfish motivations. Roy wanted to fulfill his father's Oath. Haley wanted gold. V wanted power. Elan wanted... uh.... Durkon was banished from his homeland and had nothing better to do. Belkar is evil, so of course he wants to stab things. Yet now he also cares for someone, just as the rest of the Order have been doing all along (Haley for her father, and Elan; Roy for his father (to some degree); Durkon for his homeland, etc.). Belkar cares for the cat. Maybe he is behind the curve on the road from selfishness to selfless heroism, but no matter how subtle the progress is, I think he has definately made some progress.

He isn't a complex character, but not all characters have to be, and there are many other non-complex characters in the strip. Xykon, for one. Elan, for another. Thog. O-Chul.

[Cracklord]

The point is that all members of the Order were originally driven by selfish motivations. Roy wanted to fulfill his father's Oath. Haley wanted gold. V wanted power. Elan wanted... uh.... Durkon was banished from his homeland and had nothing better to do. Belkar is evil, so of course he wants to stab things. Yet now he also cares for someone, just as the rest of the Order have been doing all along (Haley for her father, and Elan; Roy for his father (to some degree); Durkon for his homeland, etc.). Belkar cares for the cat. Maybe he is behind the curve on the road from selfishness to selfless heroism, but no matter how subtle the progress is, I think he has definately made some progress.

He isn't a complex character, but not all characters have to be, and there are many other non-complex characters in the strip. Xykon, for one. Elan, for another. Thog. O-Chul.

Selfish motivations don't come into it. Motivations do. Haley has been acting out of concern for her father since early on, and her obsession with money has generally taken second fiddle to other things.
But each of these characters want something. They have a goal. Belkar does not. Hence, he is more simple. Even Durkon wants to get home.
Belkar...wants to stab things.

Xykon is simplistic, but he has a goal, and if you thing he doesn't have layers then you have not read Start of Darkness.

O-Chul is simple, but there is more to him then an unstoppable force. Admittedly he's a walking Paladin stereotype of the perfect knight, but there is a difference. We re not forced to see O-Chul in 90% of the strips. His toughness and wisdom is not consistently thrown in our faces. So it's harder to be annoyed by him.

Thog is actually essentially like Belkar, except for oe, important difference. Thog is actually funny, in a fairly non-subjective way.

And Elan has developed into a character quite different from the one he was originally.

Belkar is simplistic. Arguably some of these other characters are more so, but they compound this by being actually funny.

[spargel]

The point is that all members of the Order were originally driven by selfish motivations. Roy wanted to fulfill his father's Oath. Haley wanted gold. V wanted power. Elan wanted... uh.... Durkon was banished from his homeland and had nothing better to do. Belkar is evil, so of course he wants to stab things. Yet now he also cares for someone, just as the rest of the Order have been doing all along (Haley for her father, and Elan; Roy for his father (to some degree); Durkon for his homeland, etc.).


Haley's been trying to collect gold for her father from the start, and I think V's reason for wanting power is supposed to be "I want to prove myself."



Belkar cares for the cat. Maybe he is behind the curve on the road from selfishness to selfless heroism, but no matter how subtle the progress is, I think he has definately made some progress.

Selfishness isn't a simple trait. People are selfish to things they do not care about. Belkar simply cares more for certain things than for most people.



But each of these characters want something. They have a goal. Belkar does not. Hence, he is more simple. Even Durkon wants to get home.
Belkar...wants to stab things.


Stabbing things counts as a goal. But if he's really that simplistic, then why did he almost let those bug-warriors escape? It wouldn't have led him to any more stabbing in the long run.


Thog is actually essentially like Belkar, except for oe, important difference. Thog is actually funny, in a fairly non-subjective way.

Belkar is simplistic. Arguably some of these other characters are more so, but they compound this by being actually funny.

So the main problem you have with Belkar is that you don't find him funny?

[Kish]

Ooh this is so exciting! STRAW MAN! (yay) Because I've said repeatedly throughout this thread that Belkar is going to die, and that this is inevitable. I've never suggested that Belkar will cheat death, and no, I did not start this thread because I am not able to "accept" it. I started this thread because I don't want it, at least not until the END of the comic story.

Quote Pair #1:

Note: This is not a thread about theories about why Belkar will or will not live. This is a thread about why Belkar should / should not live. I argue that he should live.
[...]
4. IF Belkar is to die, it needs to be at the end of the series.



This topic was started because someone didn't want to accept that Belkar is going to die.
Quote Pair #2:

He should die because...

He's freaking evil.
[...]
In summary, Belkar should die because he's thoroughly evil, such that the story can't have a truly happy ending while he lives.

There isn't a moral equivalency in their personality and motivations, perhaps, but in some of their actions there is. Isn't a good deed a good deed no matter who does it? And isn't a bad deed a bad deed no matter who does it?

I'm not arguing that Belkar isn't evil. He IS. I'm not arguing that Haley isn't Chaotic Good-ish. SHE IS. But people have been making the arguments that Belkar should die in the end based off of what he has done. I'm arguing that Haley has done some bad things too.

So by this formula that people seem to have

Bad Deed + No Repentence = Death or Punishment

Haley would have to die / be punished too.

I'm not saying Haley is an EVIL CHARACTER I'm not saying that. I'm saying Haley has done EVIL THINGS. And if you are saying that Belkar must die because he has done evil things, on that reason alone, you must be willing to say that HALEY ALSO must die. AND V.
Anyone reading this thread can judge whether the first quote pair has a strawman, the second quote pair does, both, or neither. There's still no one in this thread who has said that Belkar should die because he ever did any evil deeds...

[ThePhantasm]

Um... Kish, even in my quote I said that it isn't about whether he will / will not live. I ACCEPT THAT HE WILL DIE. I'm just saying I don't want him too. So.... yeah, I don't think your little example there does anything but prove my point.

And yes, there are people who have said he should die because he has done evil deeds, but I've already posted those quotes and I don't need to again. And no, there is no straw man in the second pair. If you cannot address "because he is evil" by discussing his evil acts without being accused of strawmanning, then the rules of this debate are ridiculous and unfollowable.

[Cracklord]

So the main problem you have with Belkar is that you don't find him funny?

Well, I understand that he is ultimately a gag character, totally simplistic, and I don't find him funny. So my problem is a.) I don't find him engaging or interesting, b.) His supposedly awesome scenes are less then awesome because they only work if everyone else fails utterly (I mean, in dnd terms, not only does he always roll twenties, but everyone else always rolls ones), c.) he's not funny.

Moral dissonance is more or less irrelevant to me.

[spargel]

Well, I understand that he is ultimately a gag character, totally simplistic, and I don't find him funny. So my problem is a.) I don't find him engaging or interesting, b.) His supposedly awesome scenes are less then awesome because they only work if everyone else fails utterly (I mean, in dnd terms, not only does he always roll twenties, but everyone else always rolls ones), c.) he's not funny.

Moral dissonance is more or less irrelevant to me.

You're making the assumption that everyone else also thinks Belkar isn't funny.

How valid is that assumption?

[Cracklord]

You're making the assumption that everyone else also thinks Belkar isn't funny.

How valid is that assumption?

No, no, no. That is not how a debate works. You state your opinion, and someone else disagrees, states their opinion, and then the debate goes on. I don't find him funny, so the defense rests.
If you do find him funny, then say as such.
I mean, plenty of people clearly do find him funny (:smallconfused:), so that would be an illogical conclusion.

Furthermore, I am not speaking for everyone, I am standing as myself. I stand for no cause but my own. I don't really care what everyone thinks, but in a way I crave attention for my point of view so express it where relevant.

Still, I stand by what I said.
He's not funny.

[spargel]

No, no, no. That is not how a debate works. You state your opinion, and someone else disagrees, states their opinion, and then the debate goes on. I don't find him funny, so the defense rests.
If you do find him funny, then say as such.
I mean, plenty of people clearly do find him funny (:smallconfused:), so that would be an illogical conclusion.

Furthermore, I am not speaking for everyone, I am standing as myself. I stand for no cause but my own. I don't really care what everyone thinks, but in a way I crave attention for my point of view so express it where relevant.

Still, I stand by what I said.
He's not funny.

It's subjective, so I don't see how you could come to an illogical conclusion with this.

The argument isn't really going to get anywhere if your main point is "He's not funny so he should die" and most people disagree with you. You could argue about why you think he's not funny.

[Cracklord]

I have. For six pages. This statement does not negate all previous statements.

[spargel]

No, I don't think you've been doing that.

[Skeppio]

No, I don't think you've been doing that.

What you think and what is correct are two seperate things. Read the last six pages again, Cracklord's posts in particular.

[Killer Angel]

The last comic is an example of why Belkar should live.

Seriously, it's all a problem of what you find funny... I find boring the jokes about Durkon and the plant.

And please, stop this nonsense about "character's evolution". For what matter, the hypothetic guy who's playing Belkar, is at least putting more effort in role playing the fake "goodness", than the hypothetic guy who's playing Durkon.
Yes, Durkon... Do we wanna talk about his "character's evolution"? THe last i remember, was this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0084.html). Then nothing for 600 comics...

[thelveres]

Sexy shoeless god of war all the way!

If he does die in the end, I vote for spin-off featuring belkar's adventures in hell, and if i had to pick between that and oots, I would definetely go for that!

[Kish]

For what matter, the hypothetic guy who's playing Belkar, is at least putting more effort in role playing the fake "goodness", than the hypothetic guy who's playing Durkon.
They have no players.

[Lvl45DM!]

Can i just say this is a fairly lame topic...the answers come down to "belkars funny and i wanna see where his character goes" and "hes one dimensional and not funny/hes evil and makes me angry"

[Killer Angel]

They have no players.

..and that's precisely the reason I used the word "hypothetic"... :smallconfused:

My point stands: a lot of peoples talk about the character's evolution which Belkar's lacking, and imo it's not the point, given the fact that there is at least another pc who's having even less "evolution" than Belkar.

[spargel]

What you think and what is correct are two seperate things. Read the last six pages again, Cracklord's posts in particular.

I just did. Mind pointing out at least one part where he tries to argue why Belkar isn't funny on each of the last six pages?

[ThePhantasm]

Can i just say this is a fairly lame topic...

I think your comment is fairly lame, which is why I'm not replying to it. :smalltongue:

On another note:

Ok, I'd like to point out a few things. I'm not saying anyone has said these things, so hold off on the strawmen comments.... the following are observations about Belkar.

1. Belkar has made character progress.

Take Roy, for example. He is still the same ol' intelligent leader fighter hero. He hasn't essentially changed for the whole comic. Sure, he has been in and out of relationship with his father, he fell in love with Celia, etc. But by essence he has not changed.

Well, by that definition, Belkar has made character progress also. He is pretending to reform. He likes the cat. The only character who seems to have had a major change in essence/personality is V, because of her whole redemption arc.

2. Belkar has done evil things.

So have V and Haley. Haley killed Crystal with cold emotionlessness and glee. V destroyed a quarter of a race, including creatures who had never wronged her, in vengeance. V, at least, seems to feel some remorse (though this seems to be for losing her family, not for killing the dragons). Haley does not.

Justice isn't based off of discriminatory alignment observations, it is based upon acts. See 489 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html) and 490 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html) as proof of this in the OOTS world. Note also in 489 that the amount of Belkar's evil acts has been dropping since he has been traveling with Roy.:smalltongue: Is this simply because of Roy's restraining arm? Partially, I think, but also because Belkar feels some loyalty to the order and subtly, subconsciously, the order's goodness is rubbing off on him. And Roy's role in all this is put down by the diva as "an attempt to redeem an evildoer." :smallamused:

This places Belkar in counterdistinction to someone like Xykon, who has no good influence upon him and is evil. Belkar is on the goodguy team. He is a protagonist, a main character who is a goodguy. At worst, he is a sort of anti-hero, but he is amongst the heroes nonetheless.

This does not mean that it is likely that Belkar will be redeemed. It does mean that it is not impossible, and if it occurred in the story, I would be pleased and not disappointed. What a way to go out with a bang: a heroic death of redemption! Wishful thinking perhaps, but not impossibility. :smallsmile:

3. Belkar is immature.

So is Elan. No examples need to be offered here, I think. :smallwink:

4. Belkar is a main character.

At 394 in-comic appearances, Belkar has played a role in all sorts of comic storylines. He can't be brushed aside as unimportant, or as impeding plot progress. He's been in the story every step of the way.



Now, I'd like to do a character analysis of Belkar to see if he is really as shallow as we might think.

Let's look at Belkar's dream in 606 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html) and 610 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0610.html).

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i294/trytoguess/Shojo.png: ... in hopes that it will change how you live your life.

Shojo sees in Belkar a bit of himself. Shojo was a scheming dictator, whose "lies" and whose "dictatorship" was used for good to protect the gate. Shojo bent the rules and committed evil to do a greater good. This is the classic dilemma of the anti-hero. Sure, Belkar is a bloodthirsty killer, but as Shojo points out, they aren't all that different.... the "preconception" that "others" have about Belkar's role in life is that he is good-for-nothing, evil, murderous, and a criminal. That seems to be his role. But his real role is to kick evil's ass. Perhaps Scruffy is attracted to characters who use cunning to play the game and defeat the enemy.

Now Belkar, as Shojo points out, isn't interested in the whole fight to save the world. He just wants to "sit on the couch." Belkar is concerned with his own self-enjoyment. Shojo suggests that he cheats: be a crooked player.

Now, as Shojo points out, this will make him "a pain in the ass." But it won't make the characters want to kill him. If Belkar refuses to play at all, the other characters will begin questioning their own lives. Here is where this gets fun.

In the latest comic, 687 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0687.html), Belkar not only casts doubt on Roy (uh, well.... its more complicated than that...) but he points out the silliness of the societal rules on killing. Belkar thinks (per 606) that their moral code is "arbitrary."

Belkar has given us a bit of background to show why he thinks this. In comic 125, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0125.html) back when he was still quite murderous toward the order, he told how the other halflings never let him join in on their halfling games. He was never included in society, so he has rebelled against society. One could say he is selfish because he has never had someone who ever showed him selfless love.

He has begun to see this sort of love exhibited in the order, however, and has begun to show love toward his cat, Scruffy. It is interesting that, because Scruffy loved Belkar, he feels a fierce devotion to the cat. Belkar doesn't simply want "attention," like some little 2-year-old. He wants acceptance and love.

My theory is that Belkar has come to love the order. Oh, he won't admit it. :smallwink:He still cracks jokes about everyone and plays mean tricks on them. But the ambiguity starts to rise: does he hate them, and is only pretending to like them, or.... does he like them, and is really pretending to hate them? I think it is starting to be the latter, though even Belkar does not realize this yet.

Granted, only a short period of time has passed since Belkar's dream. If you think about it, Belkar and co. meet up with V shortly thereafter and then return to the order etc. So this new "character development" hasn't had time to work all its wonders out yet. But a lot can happen in 7 weeks...:smallsmile:

I think Belkar is a far more complex character than most realize, and certainly not as 2-dimensional as Durkon. Frankly, I like Belkar and I do think that he should not die until the end, redemption or not, because he adds a lot to the strip.

[ZeLinator]

Cue the unconditional hate.

At this point, especially with the latest strip, I'm gonna trust the Giant on this. The strip seems to reference this debate (kind of), makes a reference to Belkar being the most annoying character, and gives Belkar a reason to not be randomly and wantonly killed (as some would desire) for at least until we find out what's in the bawks.

I agree with everything Phantasm said.

[Lvl45DM!]

[QUOTE=ThePhantasm;7191425]I think your comment is fairly lame, which is why I'm not replying to it. :smalltongue:

But..you just replied to it...by saying youre not replying! contradictions...paradoxes! MIND OVERWHELMED!
*explodes*


yeah ok i retract my statement about the the lame...

And phantasm i wholeheartedly agree with your statement about him being a pain in the ass. he shakes things up and makes people question their morals, which usually just makes them believe their morals more strongly, miko being a case in point.
By having this sociopath intelligently question their structure of belief they are forced to defend themselves which makes them more powerfully good than they were before

[ThePhantasm]

But..you just replied to it...by saying youre not replying!

Yeah, just as you posted in a thread that you said was lame! :smallsmile: That was the point of my joke. :smallbiggrin: Thanks for taking it in good humor. :smallcool:

[veti]

Just to be clear, because I know this is a hot topic and it'll be easy to write this thread off as just another advocacy post. I'm not saying Belkar should live. I'm not saying he's not an unpleasant little psycho, and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. I'm not saying I'd like to meet him or go drinking with him, in this or any other life.

But I don't get the outright hate for him on this board. Surely we know that an unpleasant person can fill a necessary role?

When the Norse gods were building Valhalla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sva%C3%B0ilfari), they relied on the contractor not being able to complete the job in time to claim his outrageous payment. But he surprised them all with his efficiency. Only Loki was able to disrupt the building process and prevent the builder from carrying off the goddess Freyja. The gods got their hall built in record time, and they didn't have to pay for it - thanks to Loki.

When Thor's hammer Mjolnir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Erymskvi%C3%B0a) was stolen, he turned for help - not to his all-wise father Odin, or to his beautiful wife Sif, but to his arch-nemesis Loki. Only Loki has the cunning and resource to find out what had happened and how to retrieve it.

My point is: every party needs its psycho. In a bog-standard D&D party, that role is played by the main meat shield, who will happily charge in and start carving up adversaries without waiting for negotiations to break down or even for Detect Alignment to be cast. In the OOTSverse, most alumni of Bash University wouldn't think twice about that. But Roy is too thoughtful; he prides himself on not attacking unnecessarily. That's a luxury he can afford, now, only because Belkar is fulfilling that role for him.

Let's look back over the Belkster's record. First, his contributions in combat:
Strip 11 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html): the whole party is at the mercy of an enemy caster after one 4th-level spell. Belkar single-handedly saves them all.
Strip 21 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0021.html): the chimera is about to escape. Haley seems actually in favour of letting it go, so that it can threaten the party again at some later, perhaps more crucial, time. Belkar puts a stop to that nonsense.
First Linear Guild encounter (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0063.html): Belkar kills his opposite number, without undue drama or soul-searching, thus simplifying the Order's job and weakening the LG when it (inevitably) escapes from custody. It's partly thanks to him that we don't see the LG again for almost 200 strips.
Strip 107 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0107.html) (first encounter with Xykon): Roy, who is clearly still not very good at this "leadership" idea, tells Belkar to stay back and protect the casters. Belkar instead spots an enemy caster and makes a beeline for him. Given what happened in Strip 11, I'd say "Good call".
Strip 166 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0166.html): the Tetherball Special. With anyone other than Belkar, we'd have felt bad about treating him like this. If Belkar had been a jolly, lovable little halfling like Lirian, Elan might have hesitated to do what he did, and then who knows how that battle might have gone? But with Belkar, not only do we not feel bad about using him as a weapon, we also know that he won't hold it against us.
Strip 348 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0348.html) (2nd Linear Guild encounter): Belkar is diverted from his role (thanks partly to Elan's inability to resist a running gag). However, despite being hobbled by the Mark of Justice, he still - by sheer resource and ruthlessness - manages to handle his adversary, with finality, without diverting any other resources from the rest of the party. In that regard he does better than Roy (who captures Sabine only to let her escape), Haley and Vaarsuvius (whose major contributions are to distract the druid for a couple of rounds), or Elan (who puts up even less of a fight). Only Durkon performs better.
Strip 435 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0435.html) & seq (Battle of Azure City): saves Hinjo from an assassin, kills hobgoblins by the score (at least), turns the Skull of Fire & Flame.
Strip 520 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0520.html): rescues Haley from Tsukiko, who has her beaten fair and square.
Strip 538 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0538.html): playing a zombie, convinces the hobgoblin patrol to let them pass.
Strip 611-616 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0611.html): saves Haley (again).
Strip 685 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0685.html): single-handedly kills the leader of the slavers.

Note that in several of these cases, Belkar's nature plays an important part in determining the outcome. If he were anything other than the nasty little git that he is, he or others would have acted differently. But each time, the outcome for the party was improved because of Belkar's actions.

Then there's his (arguably) even more valuable contributions to party cohesion:
Strip 127 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0127.html)Strip 127: Belkar's interjection helps to make Vaarsuvius realise how badly she's hurt Elan's feelings.
Strip 161 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0161.html): "Can we focus less on Elan's bagging of the hot sorceress chick and more on escaping before said chick has us executed?"
Strip 171 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0171.html): Provides a moral counterpoint, helping Haley and Roy to define their own ethical limits.
Strip 202 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0202.html): Belkar's (automatic) animosity to the Paladin immediately points out why she will never be on their team: becasue she would never - can never - unbend enough to put aside little things like alignment differences, to achieve a larger goal.
Strip 250 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0250.html): Roy cites Belkar's harrassment as instrumental in making him a better person.
Strip 285 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0285.html): Belkar proves the value of loyalty - for everyone else. It's loyalty, not alignment,that's the defining characteristic of party membership. "Belkar is a horrible, loathesome, supremely selfish creature who behaves contemptibly, laughs at the pain of others, has no manners whatsoever, and whose mental acuity would be compared unfavorably to that of a table. And yet I find I still prefer him to you."
Strip 335 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0335.html): Vaarsuvius confides in Durkon - the first time they have shown any sign of bonding on a personal level - about her "experiment" with Belkar.
Strip 475-477 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0475.html): improvises stew for MitD, thus allowing Haley to retrieve Roy's body. Ruthlessly sacrifices O-Chul to secure getaway. Argue about the morality if you will, but it works. Without Belkar, Haley would have had a far more difficult time recovering Roy.
Strip 596 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0596.html): when Elan wants to persuade V that what she just did was wrong, he has an instant point of reference.
Strip 602 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0602.html): Belkar unwittingly persuades Haley and Celia to co-operate.
Strip 682 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0682.html): puts a stop to Durkon's idiocy, to get on with the story.

Speculation - hell, no. I'm not touching that. The Giant is too good a storyteller for me to second-guess him. But I do feel confident to say that if he dies before the quest is much older, the party will miss him. Badly. It will put great strains on their relationships and teamwork. It will put great strains on V's newfound restraint, and on Roy's preference for playing the quixotic hero rather than the thoughtless hack-machine. It will seriously reduce the effectiveness of the Order as a fighting unit, by a factor of considerably more than one-sixth.

[Fragenstein]

I still say that killing Belkar is a damn poor excuse for writing him out of the strip.

[Kish]

My point is: every party needs its psycho.

Unwarranted generalization. Yes, Belkar's evil has always been a part of the Order of the Stick. This party has its psycho. I find it hard to believe that you play D&D and have never been in a group that didn't have one, though (unless it's always you), and even harder to believe that you read fantasy and have never run into any writing in which no member of the party was a psycho.

(I hope no one responds to this by arguing that the least ethical character of a party is automatically the party psycho, even if that character comes nowhere near being comparable to Belkar's level of evil.)

In a bog-standard D&D party,

In a bog-standard D&D party, all party members are good or neutral. If all act evil, it works as long as everyone wants the same thing out of the campaign. If one acts evil and the others actually act good or neutral, it is nearly certain to create stress, either in-character stress around the evil party member, or out-of-character stress around the "why let roleplaying get in the way of increasing my avatar's power?" character. If the Order actually had players, unless they're all either extremely advanced roleplayers or very good friends (or both), the game would have fallen apart multiple times by now.


Let's look back over the Belkster's record.

*reads* Uh...you're kidding, right?

[Ted The Bug]

I completely agree with you-the reason I love Belkar is how nasty he is. He can do the terrible thing that Rich can't get any other member to do because it would involve a long diversion from the storyline about soul-searching. Because Belkar is so shallow, evil, and cruel, he can get the unpleasant thing done quickly, and move the plot along.
Also, /agree with Fragenstein. Death isn't always death in OotS. Afterlives can always be interesting.

[Catch]

But he's got no reason to live. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NvgLkuEtkA)

[veti]

In a bog-standard D&D party, all party members are good or neutral. If all act evil, it works as long as everyone wants the same thing out of the campaign. If one acts evil and the others actually act good or neutral, it is nearly certain to create stress, either in-character stress around the evil party member, or out-of-character stress around the "why let roleplaying get in the way of increasing my avatar's power?" character. If the Order actually had players, unless they're all either extremely advanced roleplayers or very good friends (or both), the game would have fallen apart multiple times by now.

Nonsense. Sure there's stress - it's called "creative tension". I've been the only Good character in an Evil party - that was lots of fun. (By the end of the campaign, I'd converted them.) I've been a neutral character turning evil, and vice versa. So long as the party is willing to be a bit flexible in pursuit of whatever joint aims it has, it's good to have a certain amount of conflict. A party isn't like a military unit.


*reads* Uh...you're kidding, right?

Well, I'm kidding if I think I'm going to change the Belkar-haters' minds. Some people are impervious to persuasion.

But if the question is "Is the party going to be greatly weakened by losing Belkar, both in strength and cohesion?", then - no, I'm not kidding. Not even slightly. Feel free to debate if you'd like.

[Kish]

Well, I'm kidding if I think I'm going to change the Belkar-haters' minds. Some people are impervious to persuasion.
You're certainly not going to convince anyone of anything with this "every party needs a psycho" and "Belkar was right to leave Vaarsuvius to get paralyzed by ghasts even though he said himself it was something only a brain-dead moron would do"--stuff.

[Cracklord]

I'm sorry, I can't bring myself to comment on this.

IF I do, I'll get aggressive.

In fact, screw it, just the introduction needs a comment.



When the Norse gods were building Valhalla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sva%C3%B0ilfari), they relied on the contractor not being able to complete the job in time to claim his outrageous payment. But he surprised them all with his efficiency. Only Loki was able to disrupt the building process and prevent the builder from carrying off the goddess Freyja. The gods got their hall built in record time, and they didn't have to pay for it - thanks to Loki.

When Thor's hammer Mjolnir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Erymskvi%C3%B0a) was stolen, he turned for help - not to his all-wise father Odin, or to his beautiful wife Sif, but to his arch-nemesis Loki. Only Loki has the cunning and resource to find out what had happened and how to retrieve it.

My point is: every party needs its psycho. In a bog-standard D&D party, that role is played by the main meat shield, who will happily charge in and start carving up adversaries without waiting for negotiations to break down or even for Detect Alignment to be cast. In the OOTSverse, most alumni of Bash University wouldn't think twice about that. But Roy is too thoughtful; he prides himself on not attacking unnecessarily. That's a luxury he can afford, now, only because Belkar is fulfilling that role for him.


Really?
The problem with bringing up ancient legends is there's lots of versions. The second one alone, I've read two. Both point to a ransom demand from Thrym, demanding The sun and moon for his own, and Fieya for his bride (so not exactly keeping it secret).

Furthermore, in the first version Thor disguised himself as Freya (the giants didn't notice), the other version Odin did, and in addition found them using his seat, which makes him omniscient. Neither version even mentioned Loki.

In addition, Loki got his lips stitched together by some dwarves for trying to cheat them, and wound up in a particularly nasty torture while he awaits for Ragnorak, after betraying them and killing Baldar for a prank, them refusing to shed a tear to bring him back. Not really part of the group, ay?

And finally, the Norse gods were all pretty morally dodgy, particularly Odin, who was fundamentally a manipulative, cheating, conniving backstabbing bastard. The Nordic people lived hard lives, and had hard gods.

However, lets look at the premier work of Fantasy, Lord of The Rings. No token evil team mate. Boromir comes closest, and he was a very honorable and righteous man, certainly not 'the gut who can get stuff done'.

How about the series I'm reading right now? The sword of Truth. Guess what? No token evil team mate. Though Richard will go to some lengths.

I just finished a song of Ice and fire, which isn't really a very good example, but I could sit here all day pulling books out that don't have one. And most of them would be excellent examples of literature. That was a gross generalization with no basis on fact.

Furthermore, yes, Belkar has had some impact on the plot, but each time he's had an influence it always feels like contrivances to justify his inclusion. With the amount of time he has the spotlight, it's not a very convincing list.

[Allan Surgite]

As much as I dislike allowing the fanbase to taint my point of view; I can't wait for the psycho to die, despite having been on the fence for the greatest amount of time - only the sheer amount of "BELKAR WILL NOT DIE D<" comments, which despite being completely unable to change events, they insist will act as an elixir of life to the diminutive cretin.

...amusingly, a few years later, you'll be able to google "Belkar Lives" and get 82,700 results.

[Berserk Monk]

He is the least serious character and that almost always transfers into comedy.

[slayerx]

Note that in several of these cases, Belkar's nature plays an important part in determining the outcome. If he were anything other than the nasty little git that he is, he or others would have acted differently. But each time, the outcome for the party was improved because of Belkar's actions.


Yes... and now let's look at how much damage he caused...
For instance, killing the oracle which resulted in severely delaying Roy's resurrection, not to mention making him sick and rendering him useless when Haley needed all the help she can get... Hell, a more sensible team mate would not have committed a crime that got a MoJ on themselves in the first place (the MoJ being something that greatly limited his abilities)
And it's funny you bring up Miko...
He was the biggest reason why she was convinced the order was evil... And she caused a heel of a lot of grief because of that... If not for Belkar, Many of those problems caused by Miko may have never existed... hell Shojo might still be alive!
Probably could keep going, but i really don't want to shift back through 700 pages

Really when it comes down to it, a more sane ranger would have been able to do just about as much as Belkar has, without being a liability. Not to mention have the ability to actually track...

[Athaniar]

I believe that the humor that Belkar brings to the comic is necessary for it to succeed. The Giant won't write him out. He'll die, perhaps, but not be written out.

[Cracklord]

Yes... and now let's look at how much damage he caused...
For instance, killing the oracle which resulted in severely delaying Roy's resurrection, not to mention making him sick and rendering him useless when Haley needed all the help she can get... Hell, a more sensible team mate would not have committed a crime that got a MoJ on themselves in the first place (the MoJ being something that greatly limited his abilities)
And it's funny you bring up Miko...
He was the biggest reason why she was convinced the order was evil... And she caused a heel of a lot of grief because of that... If not for Belkar, Many of those problems caused by Miko may have never existed... hell Shojo might still be alive!
Probably could keep going, but i really don't want to shift back through 700 pages


And Soon would have killed Xykon and Redcloak.

Belkar is the Jar Jar Binks of OoTS.

[Cestrian]

But he's got no reason to live. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NvgLkuEtkA)

Heh. Best answer I've seen yet.

[Dienekes]

And Soon would have killed Xykon and Redcloak.

Belkar is the Jar Jar Binks of OoTS.

Except, you know, funny. (before anyone says it, yes it's debatable)

I'm gonna miss the little bugger. Hell, he's why I actually kept along in the comic enough to like it for its other merits.

And him toying with Miko, one of my favorite moments in the comic.

[Johnny Blade]

Well, I'm not actually in favor of killing off Belkar, but I do have to note that a lot of the points in the first post reference a type of humor that has become less prevalent and character development that the comic has probably moved past (if it hasn't, a lot of the last 200 pages were wasted).


And as for Belkar contributing to fights: Big deal. :smalltongue:

[ThePhantasm]

Ok, I'd like to point out a few things. I'm not saying anyone has said these things, so hold off on the strawmen comments.... the following are observations about Belkar.

1. Belkar has made character progress.

Take Roy, for example. He is still the same ol' intelligent leader fighter hero. He hasn't essentially changed for the whole comic. Sure, he has been in and out of relationship with his father, he fell in love with Celia, etc. But by essence he has not changed.

Well, by that definition, Belkar has made character progress also. He is pretending to reform. He likes the cat. The only character who seems to have had a major change in essence/personality is V, because of her whole redemption arc.

2. Belkar has done evil things.

So have V and Haley. Haley killed Crystal with cold emotionlessness and glee. V destroyed a quarter of a race, including creatures who had never wronged her, in vengeance. V, at least, seems to feel some remorse (though this seems to be for losing her family, not for killing the dragons). Haley does not.

Justice isn't based off of discriminatory alignment observations, it is based upon acts. See 489 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html) and 490 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html) as proof of this in the OOTS world. Note also in 489 that the amount of Belkar's evil acts has been dropping since he has been traveling with Roy.:smalltongue: Is this simply because of Roy's restraining arm? Partially, I think, but also because Belkar feels some loyalty to the order and subtly, subconsciously, the order's goodness is rubbing off on him. And Roy's role in all this is put down by the diva as "an attempt to redeem an evildoer." :smallamused:

This places Belkar in counterdistinction to someone like Xykon, who has no good influence upon him and is evil. Belkar is on the goodguy team. He is a protagonist, a main character who is a goodguy. At worst, he is a sort of anti-hero, but he is amongst the heroes nonetheless.

This does not mean that it is likely that Belkar will be redeemed. It does mean that it is not impossible, and if it occurred in the story, I would be pleased and not disappointed. What a way to go out with a bang: a heroic death of redemption! Wishful thinking perhaps, but not impossibility. :smallsmile:

3. Belkar is immature.

So is Elan. No examples need to be offered here, I think. :smallwink:

4. Belkar is a main character.

At 394 in-comic appearances, Belkar has played a role in all sorts of comic storylines. He can't be brushed aside as unimportant, or as impeding plot progress. He's been in the story every step of the way.



Now, I'd like to do a character analysis of Belkar to see if he is really as shallow as we might think.

Let's look at Belkar's dream in 606 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html) and 610 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0610.html).

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i294/trytoguess/Shojo.png: ... in hopes that it will change how you live your life.

Shojo sees in Belkar a bit of himself. Shojo was a scheming dictator, whose "lies" and whose "dictatorship" was used for good to protect the gate. Shojo bent the rules and committed evil to do a greater good. This is the classic dilemma of the anti-hero. Sure, Belkar is a bloodthirsty killer, but as Shojo points out, they aren't all that different.... the "preconception" that "others" have about Belkar's role in life is that he is good-for-nothing, evil, murderous, and a criminal. That seems to be his role. But his real role is to kick evil's ass. Perhaps Scruffy is attracted to characters who use cunning to play the game and defeat the enemy.

Now Belkar, as Shojo points out, isn't interested in the whole fight to save the world. He just wants to "sit on the couch." Belkar is concerned with his own self-enjoyment. Shojo suggests that he cheats: be a crooked player.

Now, as Shojo points out, this will make him "a pain in the ass." But it won't make the characters want to kill him. If Belkar refuses to play at all, the other characters will begin questioning their own lives. Here is where this gets fun.

In the latest comic, 687 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0687.html), Belkar not only casts doubt on Roy (uh, well.... its more complicated than that...) but he points out the silliness of the societal rules on killing. Belkar thinks (per 606) that their moral code is "arbitrary."

Belkar has given us a bit of background to show why he thinks this. In comic 125, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0125.html) back when he was still quite murderous toward the order, he told how the other halflings never let him join in on their halfling games. He was never included in society, so he has rebelled against society. One could say he is selfish because he has never had someone who ever showed him selfless love.

He has begun to see this sort of love exhibited in the order, however, and has begun to show love toward his cat, Scruffy. It is interesting that, because Scruffy loved Belkar, he feels a fierce devotion to the cat. Belkar doesn't simply want "attention," like some little 2-year-old. He wants acceptance and love.

My theory is that Belkar has come to love the order. Oh, he won't admit it. :smallwink:He still cracks jokes about everyone and plays mean tricks on them. But the ambiguity starts to rise: does he hate them, and is only pretending to like them, or.... does he like them, and is really pretending to hate them? I think it is starting to be the latter, though even Belkar does not realize this yet.

Granted, only a short period of time has passed since Belkar's dream. If you think about it, Belkar and co. meet up with V shortly thereafter and then return to the order etc. So this new "character development" hasn't had time to work all its wonders out yet. But a lot can happen in 7 weeks...:smallsmile:

I think Belkar is a far more complex character than most realize, and certainly not as 2-dimensional as Durkon. Frankly, I like Belkar and I do think that he should not die until the end, redemption or not, because he adds a lot to the strip.

[Mystic Muse]

you want power? get those two guys in "on the origin of PCs"you know. the ones who storm the gates of hell for FUN

[veti]

The problem with bringing up ancient legends is there's lots of versions.

True. That's the nature of mythology. The entire purpose of the story is to be retold, in different words, to illustrate different points, depending on the agenda of the individual storyteller.

The versions I cited are popular ones, though. My point being, there's a reason why Loki is considered one of the Aesir and tolerated for as long as he is, even though they know his nature. Without that, he would never have had an opportunity to betray Baldur.


And finally, the Norse gods were all pretty morally dodgy, particularly Odin, who was fundamentally a manipulative, cheating, conniving backstabbing bastard. The Nordic people lived hard lives, and had hard gods.

True, dat. But what I infer from it is not that the Norse gods were particularly dodgy, but that the whole of "morality" was seen quite differently in those days. For one thing, the idea that gods are supposed to be somehow "moral" is a mindset we've acquired from Christianity - it has no place in a polytheistic world. (Which explains a lot about the Sapphire Guard.)

The OOTS live in a world that is, in many ways, much more like the ancient Norse one than our modern one. Violence is a routine fact of life; laws are enforced erratically at best; there are large areas of land that is considered to be "unoccupied" - which is to say, we (the party, and by extension the readers) don't even bother to find out whether any government-like institutions might consider it belongs to them. (See the whole "middle of Nowhere" skit.)


However, lets look at the premier work of Fantasy, Lord of The Rings. No token evil team mate. Boromir comes closest, and he was a very honorable and righteous man, certainly not 'the gut who can get stuff done'.

Boromir is an archetypal Paladin (who also demonstrates the weakness of relying on a class description and a LG alignment to make sure a character is always going to be reliable. He is absolutely loyal to his cause - and it's that loyalty that causes him to betray the Fellowship.) The unthinking hack-machines in that team are the double-act of Legolas and Gimli, both of whom will kill Orcs with positive pleasure and for no better reason than that they want to out-score each other. The only reason we don't see them as the psychos they are is because Orcs aren't portrayed as sentient beings, capable of having any sort of moral value of their own.


Furthermore, yes, Belkar has had some impact on the plot, but each time he's had an influence it always feels like contrivances to justify his inclusion. With the amount of time he has the spotlight, it's not a very convincing list.

Okay. If you're not convinced, you're not. To me, Belkar's positive actions make perfect sense with his character. The Giant even goes to lengths to describe Belkar's thought processes - e.g. when he saves Hinjo, and Haley. The only time I've found it contrived is the most recent instance, and really "killing the lead bug" is the most trivial of his contributions anyway.

[Aldrakan]

However, lets look at the premier work of Fantasy, Lord of The Rings. No token evil team mate. Boromir comes closest, and he was a very honorable and righteous man, certainly not 'the gut who can get stuff done'.

How about the series I'm reading right now? The sword of Truth. Guess what? No token evil team mate. Though Richard will go to some lengths.

I just finished a song of Ice and fire, which isn't really a very good example, but I could sit here all day pulling books out that don't have one. And most of them would be excellent examples of literature. That was a gross generalization with no basis on fact.


The Sword of Truth doesn't have a token evil teammate because they're all self-righteous imperialistic murdering hypocrites who only manage to be better than their enemies by dint of their enemies being cartoonishly evil in ways that would make Xykon consider them over the top. Alternately, the Mord-Sith.
And ASoIaF is of course full of them. Several of the lords keep one or two hanging around precisely for the reasons we've been talking about.

That said, no, you don't have to have one. But it is a useful role in a lot of worlds. You don't need one if the world doesn't sometimes make doing something horrible the best choice. And its superfluous if your heroes are willing to compromise their morals enough that there'd be little for the Token Evil Teammate to do.
But the OotS world isn't black and white and does require difficult choices, while most of the characters want to retain their alignments. Belkar has a role here, and would in many worlds.
That said, I wouldn't consider him indispensable. It just changes either what happens or what happens when these scenarios arrive. Specific, I know.

Edit: Thinking about it, Gollum might be one.

[spargel]

OOTS is mostly a comedy while other fantasy works are usually serious. Why compare them?

[Cestrian]

The Sword of Truth doesn't have a token evil teammate because they're all self-righteous imperialistic murdering hypocrites who only manage to be better than their enemies by dint of their enemies being cartoonishly evil in ways that would make Xykon consider them over the top. Alternately, the Mord-Sith.
And ASoIaF is of course full of them. Several of the lords keep one or two hanging around precisely for the reasons we've been talking about.

That said, no, you don't have to have one. But it is a useful role in a lot of worlds. You don't need one if the world doesn't sometimes make doing something horrible the best choice. And its superfluous if your heroes are willing to compromise their morals enough that there'd be little for the Token Evil Teammate to do.
But the OotS world isn't black and white and does require difficult choices, while most of the characters want to retain their alignments. Belkar has a role here, and would in many worlds.
That said, I wouldn't consider him indispensable. It just changes either what happens or what happens when these scenarios arrive. Specific, I know.

Edit: Thinking about it, Gollum might be one.

Personally I hate the trope of having the Evil sidekick who does the morally dodgy things so that the hero can keep their hands clean. If the would forces the good guys to do something horrible for the greater good than the gutsy honest story telling choice is to make the most honorable hero have that choice not the lunatic who wouldn't bat an eye over the cost.

To me evil sidekicks work far better when their lack of morals actually cause the heroes problems rather than when they're used as a cop out solution to avoid your main character having to get their hands dirty. Fortunately, I don't think that is how Belkar's being used. Instead, he's, depending on the situation, either an unreliable loose canon or a useful soldier who happens to have different underlying motives to his leaders. His actual evil moments are far more likely to hinder the party then help them. And I like that about him.

If I thought Belkar was being used in the role that people in this thread are suggesting he is, I would like him a lot less.

To switch universes, he's more Wesley than Giles.

[veti]

Ok, I'd like to point out a few things. I'm not saying anyone has said these things, so hold off on the strawmen comments.... the following are observations about Belkar.

... snip lots of thoughtful points.

Thank you, Phantasm. That's exactly the kind of serious debate I've been missing on this subject. I suspect Belkar "loving" the Order may be a little overstated, but I guess it depends on one's definitions...

Edit: you mention that

Haley killed Crystal with cold emotionlessness and glee.

It's worth noting, I think, that it's Belkar's earlier refusal to kill Crystal that puts Haley in the position to do that. Her "reversal" of character is directly caused by his. Because he refuses to commit (that particular) evil act, Haley has to. It's just like Belkar's way of dealing with the priest of Loki and Formerly Blind Pete... to make another character commit murder is even more satisfying than doing it oneself.

And Haley does it, and she seems to take pleasure in it. She does, however, seem ashamed when confessing it to Elan.

Maybe Belkar's holding back is a way of making a point. Haley was quite unreasonably nasty to Belkar after he saved her life in Azure City - a point that he rubs in when he saves her life for the second time, from Crystal and Bozzok. Maybe refusing to croak Crystal when he had the chance is his way of telling Haley "You need me!"

[Mugen Nightgale]

Well you sure put a lot of work in it and for that I congrat you. But you see, Belkar is a plot/comedy tool. He got his use but once he is done with it there is no reason to keep him around. Evil with no purpose is not really funny or entertaining. Is just sad and lame.

[waterpenguin43]

Meh, Belkar lovers.

[Cestrian]

Haley was quite unreasonably nasty to Belkar after he saved her life in Azure City - a point that he rubs in when he saves her life for the second time, from Crystal and Bozzok.

Huh? What exactly are you referring to here?

The only thing I can think of is this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0521.html). But Haley's really nice to him then. Saying how proud she is of him and everything.

Anyway the argument that Belkar can't die because he fills a useful role in the party only works if you assume that the comic is going to run for a long time after Belkars' death. I'm not convinced it will.

[Sewblon]

Belkar is my favorite character, but I trust Mr. Burlew and I doubt that he will get written out of the strip even if he dies. I don't know why I love Belkar, but I think it is that I empathize with characters who don't fit in with their respective group, especially if by all accounts they shouldn't be sympathetic, and he doesn't care about anything beyond his own whims, which is refreshing since most of the other major characters have a mission or some other agenda.

[multilis]

Lets try to stay on topic people, this thread is a very serious thread about why Belkar should *live*.

I believe Belkar should both live and die, his last noble redeming sacrifice should be to give his body to Miko's spirit using a fantastic homebrew reincarnation trick, and as a result of his sacrifice, he will become LG and multiclass into a paladin just as his spirit leaves his body.

As result, Belkar will pal out with Miko's horse in the celestial realm which will be used to pass love leters between them as soon as Miko can redeem herself using Belkar's body.

Of course we'll then have plot complications as Roy becomes jealous and debates usage of belt of gender change to become female to win the love of the now male Miko as he grows bored of his current celestial girl.

With this wonderful plot twist, OOTS will be a *leader* of progressive stories rather than a follower and will satisfy fans who both want Belkar to live and to die.

[waterpenguin43]

My thoughts on should he survive are: NO!!!!
He should probably die at Girard's gate or later, and after he dies we should get some strips with him in the Abyss. But he should NOT live.

[veti]

Huh? What exactly are you referring to here?

This (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0602.html) strip, where Haley sanctimoniously forgets that Belkar has saved her life at least once, arguably several times.

[Porthos]

This (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0602.html) strip, where Haley sanctimoniously forgets that Belkar has saved her life at least once, arguably several times.

Waitwaitwaitwhat. :smalleek: :smallconfused:

Haley acted "sanctimoniously" (your words, not mine) when she found out that he had set off the frigging Mark of Justice. What was she supposed to do, throw a party in Belkar's honor?

Consdiering the circumstances, I'd say she acted in a rather restrained manner.

EDIT::::

BTW, without going into whether or not I enjoy reading Belkar's antics (coz that's irrelevant for the point I'm about to make), I think it is more than fair to say that Belkar lost any right to play on sympathy from Haley after Belkar snuffed out the life of a gnome in cold blood (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0539.html).

Belkar should count his lucky stars that Haley didn't say "initiative" the second that Belkar attacked the gnome (or rather "Sneak Attack", since that's more her style :smalltongue:). After that little stunt of his, Belkar can't ask for leniency when it comes to the calls from the Party Leader. Or rather, he can ask, but he won't get it.

So, no, Haley was more than justified in what she did. It was all about teaching Belkar a lesson (that actions have consequences). And, in a round about way, he learned a lesson. Just not the one Haley was wanting him to learn. :smallwink:

[Spiky]

My point is: every party needs its psycho.


Unwarranted generalization. Yes, Belkar's evil has always been a part of the Order of the Stick. This party has its psycho. I find it hard to believe that you play D&D and have never been in a group that didn't have one, though (unless it's always you), and even harder to believe that you read fantasy and have never run into any writing in which no member of the party was a psycho.

(I hope no one responds to this by arguing that the least ethical character of a party is automatically the party psycho, even if that character comes nowhere near being comparable to Belkar's level of evil.)


Weird. I read that as a metaphor pointing to real life. But y'all took it in a strict D&D direction.

[Sewblon]

In summary, Belkar should die because he's thoroughly evil, such that the story can't have a truly happy ending while he lives.


I really don't understand that. Isn't giving every character their comeuppance unrealistic and lazy writing? And wasn't the point of the Miko/trial arc that some things about characters are more important than their alignment? The story doesn't necessarily need a happy ending, a bitter/sweet ending would be just as satisfying to me.

[Cracklord]

But the OotS world isn't black and white and does require difficult choices, while most of the characters want to retain their alignments. Belkar has a role here, and would in many worlds.
That said, I wouldn't consider him indispensable. It just changes either what happens or what happens when these scenarios arrive. Specific, I know.


What?

No, it is black and white. Alignment is written into the fundamental laws of the universe. How much more black and white can you get?


I really don't understand that. Isn't giving every character their comeuppance unrealistic and lazy writing? And wasn't the point of the Miko/trial arc that some things about characters are more important than their alignment? The story doesn't necessarily need a happy ending, a bitter/sweet ending would be just as satisfying to me.

No, it is the fundamental thing that distinguishes fiction from reality.


That said, yes and no. Just because someone is good doesn't mean he should pair up with the appropriate character from the opposite gender and live a long and happy life, and just because someone is evil doesn't mean they should die or escape in a hot air balloon, but in the end they should get what they deserve.
No one likes a Kharmic Houdini.

Oh, and Belkar is his alignment, i.e, one-dimensional, so not really relevant.

[Fragenstein]

But the OotS world isn't black and white and does require difficult choices, while most of the characters want to retain their alignments. Belkar has a role here, and would in many worlds.

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/7691/jackbelkar.jpg

Jack Belkar is on the case!

[Kish]

And wasn't the point of the Miko/trial arc that some things about characters are more important than their alignment?
Roy said that. These three (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0133.html) might somehow find something to disagree with in his moral analysis. As might all the other innocent people Belkar's killed. For my part, the impression I got was, quite frankly, that at that moment what Roy considered more important than Belkar's alignment was "I'm not gonna do with Miko Miyazaki wants!"

[Gullara]

Long live the sexy shoeless god of war! :smallbiggrin:

Hell yes!!!
I know there are a lot of Belkar haters out there that will and probably already have posted here, and I'd just like to say to you all, leave him be. Just cause he's evil doesn't make him "bad". He is just as important as any of the other PCs, and the fact that he is evil adds some colour to the party. I know that he is going to die, and its more than likely before the end of the comic. I hope that he will still be included in the comic in some way, but if not I for one will mourn his passing.

[Cracklord]

Hell yes!!!
I know there are a lot of Belkar haters out there that will and probably already have posted here, and I'd just like to say to you all, leave him be. Just cause he's evil doesn't make him "bad". He is just as important as any of the other PCs, and the fact that he is evil adds some colour to the party. I know that he is going to die, and its more than likely before the end of the comic. I hope that he will still be included in the comic in some way, but if not I for one will mourn his passing.

Do yourself a favor and read the arguments.

It's not that he's evil, it's that he's frankly a boring character due to his lack of development, and he's not funny that he's only got one joke. He is, as his own subconscious most eloquently pointed out, a totally one dimensional character.

[Raging Gene Ray]

For my part, the impression I got was, quite frankly, that at that moment what Roy considered more important than Belkar's alignment was "I'm not gonna do with Miko Miyazaki wants!"

I thought the whole point was that Roy considered Belkar's status as a teammate and usefulness as a tool more important than his alignment. And that he still harbored some spite towards Miko and felt like getting a few verbal jabs in on her.

Oh, and Belkar should die so he can meet the IFCC and we can all have a nice Belkar/Belial arc as per Cracklord's quite frankly disturbing (even if it is happening to Belkar) fic.

:sabine: Ooh! Ooh! Can I join in, boss?

[Kish]

Regardless. People assume various characters are being used as Rich's mouthpiece fairly often when I'm pretty sure "X character is saying this because X character would say this"; one of the mods who played D&D with Rich even said, a long time ago, that Rich is very good about what a character says always being what the character says, not what the DM says.

Rich Burlew has authority over his comic; Roy Greenhilt does not. I reserve the right to disagree with Roy on any subject.

[Cracklord]

Oh, and Belkar should die so he can meet the IFCC and we can all have a nice Belkar/Belial arc as per Cracklord's quite frankly disturbing (even if it is happening to Belkar) fic.

:sabine: Ooh! Ooh! Can I join in, boss?

Always nice to meet a fan. That's a good fic. Maybe I'll post the rest on fanfiction.

Unfortunately, it has no chance to happen. Belkar is chaotic.

[Raging Gene Ray]

Rich Burlew has authority over his comic; Roy Greenhilt does not. I reserve the right to disagree with Roy on any subject.

True, but Roy Greenhilt the character never said "I'm defending Belkar because I think you're a bitch, Miko." He said something to the effect of "I'm defending Belkar because he's a teammate, hasn't done anything to us, and I believe in loyalty. Also, on an unrelated note, I think you're a bitch, Miko."



Unfortunately, it has no chance to happen. Belkar is chaotic.

Hey, you found a nice way around that. And I'm sure there's a lot of perverted demon lords ready to stick all sorts of confusingly painful and objectionably pleasurable tortures to Belkar's spiritual body.

[pseudodragon]

Note: This is not a thread about theories about why Belkar will or will not live. This is a thread about why Belkar should / should not live. I argue that he should live.

When I first discovered the strip, Belkar was what kept me reading. The concept of a hobbit who was evil was different and frankly, hilarious. Here is my list of reasons why I like Belkar and why he should live.

1. He is comedy gold. He is genuinely funny. I like him a lot and laugh almost all the time when he is featured in a strip. Some of his coarser jokes (such as the one with the bard girl in a towel) are not to my liking, but in general he is the most upbeat and funny of the characters. While other characters angst with their arcs and plot stresses, Belkar remains the one character who remains, for the most part, consistently happy and carefree. Plus, I think the Giant has a special place in his heart for Belkar, and enjoys Belkar's humor as well.

2. He is bad***. Forget Chuck Norris and O-Chul. Who can forget "I am a sexy shoeless god of war?" I have never cheered so much for a strip as I did when Haley and Celia were about to be killed by the thieves guild, all hope was lost, and Belkar showed up to save the day. Its like watching Sylar on Heroes - he enjoys being evil, yes, but when you point him in the right direction, say against evil, the audience can't help but cheer him on. He is a character that people love to hate. At least, I do.

3. He has a shot at redemption. Yeah, I know redemption isn't for everyone, as the strip points out. But Belkar has shown some softer moments, even though they are still motivated somewhat by selfishness. Scenes I have found interesting are those in which he takes the scroll of Owl's Wisdom and becomes good, and when Haley kicks him out of the order and he begs for her not to leave him. That isn't the Belkar response we expect - we see that Belkar wants to be with the order of the stick.

True, his redemption could come through his death. This leads me to my last point:

4. IF Belkar is to die, it needs to be at the end of the series. Don't kill him off anytime soon, please. He is one of the more enduring aspects of the comic series to me personally.

In other words,

it isn't the Order of the Stick without Belkar!

I will respond to each of these in turn:

1. So is Elan, who-newsflash!-won't die.

2. I'll gladly forget O-chul. :smalltongue:

3. Even with said shot, he'll likely miss or ignore it. And maybe he dies FOR that shot at redemption!

4. Well, can't disagree. But he's gonna die in, like, 7 in-comic weeks. Given reasonably swift transportation to the gates, the comic could end around then.

[veti]

Waitwaitwaitwhat. :smalleek: :smallconfused:

Haley acted "sanctimoniously" (your words, not mine) when she found out that he had set off the frigging Mark of Justice. What was she supposed to do, throw a party in Belkar's honor?

No need for a party. All she had to do was keep her mouth shut for one round. She could have spent those six seconds reflecting that if it weren't for Belkar, she'd have been a wight in Azure City at that moment.


I think it is more than fair to say that Belkar lost any right to play on sympathy from Haley after Belkar snuffed out the life of a gnome in cold blood (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0539.html).

Oh yeah, like Haley's never committed crimes. Or associated - willingly, at that - with murderers. Or (since then) killed a defenceless opponent.

Haley knew nothing about Solt Lurkyurg. Maybe he was an innocent gnomish merchant, or a notorious drug-runner, or maybe he was an up-and-coming necromancer on his way to beg a place as Xykon's apprentice. If he'd had green or orange skin and pointy teeth, would murdering him have been justified then, given exactly the same dialogue? Would you kill your teammate - the only person in the world who had been reliably and consistently by your side for over a year, the only person who could even begin to kick ass to the extent you needed to keep you out of trouble - over a complete stranger?

I should stop now. I'm starting to identify with Belkar, and that scares me.

[Porthos]

No need for a party. All she had to do was keep her mouth shut for one round. She could have spent those six seconds reflecting that if it weren't for Belkar, she'd have been a wight in Azure City at that moment.

So how many murders does Belkar get away with scotfree?

Two?

Ten?

Fifty?

At what point can a reasonable person say, "You know what, it's cool that you saved my life and all.... But I think we need to establish that this Murdering Random People thing that you got going on might need to be curtailed."

Haley didn't slit Belkar's throat. Haley didn't jump and down and say that Belkar should burn in hell. Haley decided that Belkar should be taught a lesson that actions have consequences. And the only reason why she did that is because she couldn't control the little so-and-so.

Maybe that reflects badly on Haley's capabilities as a leader. You want to make that argument, go right ahead. But to suggest that it's sanctimonious that someone might actually want someone else to be slightly punished for doing something wrong...

Well, you and I have a difference of opinion of the word "sanctimonious".


Haley knew nothing about Solt Lurkyurg. Maybe he was an innocent gnomish merchant, or a notorious drug-runner, or maybe he was an up-and-coming necromancer on his way to beg a place as Xykon's apprentice.

Oh spare me the hypotheticals. You're talking boop and you know it. People don't have the right to murder people that they pass on the street in cold blood just so they can steal their stuff.

You know it. I know it. And everyone who plays DnD knows it.


If he'd had green or orange skin and pointy teeth, would murdering him have been justified then, given exactly the same dialogue?

Sigh. Nice attempt at setting up a racist speciesist strawman. But the fact that they at war with the "green or orange skin and pointy teeth" guys changes matters. And, again, you know this. Now it might not change things completely. And I know that there are some people on this board who would say that they couldn't attack said person right away.

But when one is in a war, bad things happen.

But you know what? Belkar and Haley weren't at war with the gnomish people. So spare me that hypothetical as well. :smallsigh:


I should stop now. I'm starting to identify with Belkar, and that scares me.

Yeah. Maybe should look back at your arguments you made just a bit and reflect. :smalltongue:

Also, again, I have made zero comments about whether or not I enjoy reading Belkar's antics. And I ain't going to mention them in this thread, either.

But the point remains that Haley saying, more or less, "You screwed up, so pay the piper - at least for a short while" are hardly the actions of someone who is acting "sanctimoniously".

PS: While Belkar has saved Haley's life, Haley has also saved Belkar's life on numerous occasions. Both off screen and on. So let's not use that card too quickly, eh?

[Kish]

True, but Roy Greenhilt the character never said "I'm defending Belkar because I think you're a bitch, Miko." He said something to the effect of "I'm defending Belkar because he's a teammate, hasn't done anything to us, and I believe in loyalty. Also, on an unrelated note, I think you're a bitch, Miko."
I didn't say that Roy said he was defending Belkar because he thought Miko was a bitch.

I do, however, feel obligated to comment that your paraphrase makes Roy sound much worse than he actually sounded. "He's a teammate, he hasn't done anything to us regardless of what he's done to others, and I believe in loyalty"--aside from the inaccuracy of the second clause, if he'd actually said that, my reaction would have been, "Roy is now Lawful Evil."

[Aldrakan]

Haley knew nothing about Solt Lurkyurg. Maybe he was an innocent gnomish merchant, or a notorious drug-runner, or maybe he was an up-and-coming necromancer on his way to beg a place as Xykon's apprentice. If he'd had green or orange skin and pointy teeth, would murdering him have been justified then, given exactly the same dialogue? Would you kill your teammate - the only person in the world who had been reliably and consistently by your side for over a year, the only person who could even begin to kick ass to the extent you needed to keep you out of trouble - over a complete stranger?


I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to stop associating with someone who goes around murdering random people to steal their stuff. Stronger action depends on the circumstances.
Whether he might have been evil isn't the point. If you're going to kill someone, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that you have good reason, not them to provide incontrovertible truth they're not a threat.

Giving someone slack because they theoretically might have done the right thing in the face of all available evidence is.... I'll go with counter intuitive, in lieu of stronger language.

[Dienekes]

No, it is the fundamental thing that distinguishes fiction from reality.


If that's your definition you should really read more fiction, or watch I'm not going to exclude any media.

[Raging Gene Ray]

I didn't say that Roy said he was defending Belkar because he thought Miko was a bitch.

No...you said that it was wanting to be contrary to Miko more than loyalty or anything like that. Maybe I'm oversimplifying this quote:


For my part, the impression I got was, quite frankly, that at that moment what Roy considered more important than Belkar's alignment was "I'm not gonna do with Miko Miyazaki wants!"


I do, however, feel obligated to comment that your paraphrase makes Roy sound much worse than he actually sounded. "He's a teammate, he hasn't done anything to us regardless of what he's done to others,

I'll admit that paraphrasing does simplify things...but Roy never said that stuff in bold and neither did I in the paraphrasing.


if he'd actually said that, my reaction would have been, "Roy is now Lawful Evil."

Take what he actually said, add in the fact that Miko had been nearly killed by Belkar and it was a guard in her city (one of her teammates) that had been eviscerated, and you probably would get that reaction too...just like Miko.

[veti]

Sigh. Nice attempt at setting up a racist speciesist strawman. But the fact that they at war with the "green or orange skin and pointy teeth" guys changes matters.

Hold on just a doggone minute there.

"They" are at war with the goblinoids. But who is "they"?

If you argue - as you must, heck, as you just did - that sides are race-based, then how do you get to automatically assume that Belkar's loyalties "should be" the same as Haley's? He's a halfling. To him, there is no 'us' involved - just different shades of 'them'.

To cap it all, he's just been told off for killing a hobgoblin on the way out.

Imagine a complete role reversal in the sides. Imagine Azure City starts out as a peaceful, prosperous settlement of hobgoblins, who are overrun and enslaved by an army of humans led by the self-styled "paladins". For a while Haley, because of her innate sense of justice, sides with the hobgoblin resistance against the humans - but they don't trust her, she falls out with them and leaves the city...

From Belkar's point of view, that scenario is no different from the one that has actually happened. The chief difference between the two sides is that one of them has sent a deranged paladin after him, imprisoned him for no cause at all, inflicted the Mark of Justice as retaliation for his impudence in daring to escape said unjust imprisonment... (EDIT: oh, and railroaded his trial for killing a guard while making that perfectly-justified escape, to ensure that he would be punished despite both Roy's assurance and his own best efforts to help in their war) - while the other merely tries to kill him on sight.

Is it any wonder his perspective of 'sides' is a little different from Haley's?


But the point remains that Haley saying, more or less, "You screwed up, so pay the piper - at least for a short while" are hardly the actions of someone who is acting "sanctimoniously".

Okay, let's call it "hypocritically" then. Happy?


PS: While Belkar has saved Haley's life, Haley has also saved Belkar's life on numerous occasions. Both off screen and on. So let's not use that card too quickly, eh?

Well, she's fought monsters who were threatening them both. But name two occasions when she's wilfully put herself in danger to help him, personally, out of it.

[ThePhantasm]

I'd like to read Kish and Cracklord's responses to my long argument on page 7 of this thread. Its easy to keep responding with the same old "he's two-dimensional, immature," etc. but I'd like to hear what you think. Thanks.

[Cestrian]

Hold on just a doggone minute there.

"They" are at war with the goblinoids. But who is "they"?

If you argue - as you must, heck, as you just did - that sides are race-based, then how do you get to automatically assume that Belkar's loyalties "should be" the same as Haley's? He's a halfling. To him, there is no 'us' involved - just different shades of 'them'.

To cap it all, he's just been told off for killing a hobgoblin on the way out.

Imagine a complete role reversal in the sides. Imagine Azure City starts out as a peaceful, prosperous settlement of hobgoblins, who are overrun and enslaved by an army of humans led by the self-styled "paladins". For a while Haley, because of her innate sense of justice, sides with the hobgoblin resistance against the humans - but they don't trust her, she falls out with them and leaves the city...

From Belkar's point of view, that scenario is no different from the one that has actually happened. The chief difference between the two sides is that one of them has sent a deranged paladin after him, imprisoned him for no cause at all, inflicted the Mark of Justice as retaliation for his impudence in daring to escape said unjust imprisonment... while the other merely tries to kill him on sight.

Is it any wonder his perspective of 'sides' is a little different from Haley's?

His perspective doesn't matter. Even if he did think that the gnome was an active enemy that doesn't matter because he wasn't.

And you can argue all you like that Belkar has no reason to be loyal to Azure City (though, reason or not, he was actually incredibly loyal to them) but the gnome had no connection to Azure City and no history of any warlike action.

Killing an armed soldier (which Haley, as far as we know, didn't have a problem with whether that soldier was from Azure City and holding them prisoner or the Hobgoblins and trying to kill them) is not the same as killing two unarmed civilians for no reason.

I find the idea that Haley should go out of her way to save him, even while knowing that he's killed innocents and will continue to do so, just because she owes him a favor repulsive. I like Belkar as a character as much as anyone but if Haley's meant to be a half way decent person then she can't just shrug off cold blooded murder because Belkar's always been nice to her.

[Porthos]

Okay, let's call it "hypocritically" then. Happy?

Nope. But I suspect you knew I'd say that. :smallsmile:

As for the rest... No, sorry, not today. I had my fill of those silly type of arguments in the innumerable "morally justified"/alignment/Twelve Gods/Miko threads.


Well, she's fought monsters who were threatening them both. But name two occasions when she's willfully put herself in danger to help him, personally, out of it.

Two, eh? Here's two:

Haley went back and saved Belkar from a bunch of hobgoblins that were going to attack him when they were going to get Roy's body. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0469.html) In many ways is the mirror of the Haley/Wright situation.

Secondly, and much more famously, Haley steps in personally with the rest of the Order to save Belkar's butt (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0285.html) when Miko was about to strike him down.

Heck, it's actually three times if you seperate out the Skullsy Smashing with Rescuing Belkar from the Hobgoblins That Were Going to Attack Him.

=====

So, again, Haley wasn't acting hypocritically, sanctimoniously, ungratefully, or any other word you want to supply.

The simple fact of the matter is that Haley was sick and tired of not being able to keep Belkar under control. All the strips from #520 on show Haley loosing more and more control of the situation. Until, ultimately, Belkar commits two murders within a very short time.

Haley had, quite frankly, enough.

So it is perfectly understandable that she decided to punish Belkar in what little way she could. Belkar won't listen to reason, won't follow orders, and Haley wasn't willing to use force against him. Since she couldn't control him, she figured that maybe, just maybe, he would act a little bit more responsibly if he realized that his actions had consequences.

Now one can argue that Haley made a tactical mistake in not allowing Belkar to be healed then and there. Belkar would have been very useful in the early stages of the fight after all.

But morally?

Sorry, but if you are really going to say that Haley did Belkar wrong in that case. Well, I can't see it. Not. At. All.

[Sewblon]

If that's your definition you should really read more fiction, or watch I'm not going to exclude any media. What Dienekes said. The genre of tragedy is devouted to bad things happening to good people without whoever is at fault necessarily being any worse off in the end. In most crime stories and contemporary westerns good things happen to cold-blooded murderers. So claiming that Karma is a necessary component of fiction is just dumb.

[waterpenguin43]

Seriously, Rich will most certainly NOT let us down with Belkar's death. He's probably going to get some shots of him in the afterlife, too. And frankly, him being dead will be much funnier to watch. I can just picture him going through each individual layer of Baator, before Asmodeus deems him Chaotic.
Layer #1: Bel approves of his will to battle but is disgusted by his lack of strategy and single-handedly hurls him down to Dis
Layer #2: Dispater sees him as a threat to the law of Dis and casts him down to Minauros.
Layer #3: Mammon is disgusted by his lack of political comprehension and lets him wander around the bogs and painful storms before sinking into Phlegetos.
Layer #4: In the painful fire, Belkar screams in pain as Belial and Fierna reject hm. Not before Fierna has a little fun though:smallamused:.
Layer #5: Levistus kicks his ass down from Stygia to Malbolge instantly, jealous of that little twit NOT being stuck in an iceberg.
Layer #6: Glasya has her little bit of fun before hurling him down to Maladomini.
Layer #7: Seeing how rude hhe is to him about his form, the spitting mad Lord of Lies shoves him into the icy cold of Cania.
Layer #8: Mephistopheles deems him an un-intelligent brute and hands him to Asmodeus.
Layer #9: Asmodeus deems him chaotic and puts him in the Abyss to suffer for eternity.

Again, I think Belkar will die. I'm arguing that he shouldn't.

An evil character's existence at the end of the story would not negate a happy ending.

Redemption is just as valid an option as death.

I rarely find Durkon or Haley to be funny. Roy is funny every now and then. Elan is pretty consistently funny, and so is Belkar. I think it would be a grave mistake to remove either Elan or Belkar from the strip. Again, the reason is that all the other characters tend to be angsty and more dry humored, while Elan and Belkar are usually upbeat and funny. Its good to have both types of humor present in the story.
What about V, V is funny, in his/her own way, and that plus the rest of the party (particuliary Elan) is quite enough humor without Belkar's vulgar humor.

[Cracklord]

Seriously, Rich will most certainly NOT let us down with Belkar's death. He's probably going to get some shots of him in the afterlife, too. And frankly, him being dead will be much funnier to watch. I can just picture him going through each individual layer of Baator, before Asmodeus deems him Chaotic.
Layer #1: Bel approves of his will to battle but is disgusted by his lack of strategy and single-handedly hurls him down to Dis
Layer #2: Dispater sees him as a threat to the law of Dis and casts him down to Minauros.
Layer #3: Mammon is disgusted by his lack of political comprehension and lets him wander around the bogs and painful storms before sinking into Phlegetos.
Layer #4: In the painful fire, Belkar screams in pain as Belial and Fierna reject hm. Not before Fierna has a little fun though:smallamused:.
Layer #5: Levistus kicks his ass down from Stygia to Malbolge instantly, jealous of that little twit NOT being stuck in an iceberg.
Layer #6: Glasya has her little bit of fun before hurling him down to Maladomini.
Layer #7: Seeing how rude hhe is to him about his form, the spitting mad Lord of Lies shoves him into the icy cold of Cania.
Layer #8: Mephistopheles deems him an un-intelligent brute and hands him to Asmodeus.
Layer #9: Asmodeus deems him chaotic and puts him in the Abyss to suffer for eternity.

Have you checked out my story on the crack pairings thread? Belial and Belkar.
Ah, the joys of a psychotic fallen angel with a thing for causing pain and control. Pity the forum rules won't let me finish it.

OK, as to why I hate Belkar. I find him a shallow character, ie a character whose sole purpose and defining trait is to act in one particular way. I don't see any complexity, I don't see any interest. He is shallow in that there is no depth to him, his thoughts all follow the train of 'how can this benefit me,' mostly in the short term.
He's not funny. This (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0295.html) strip sums it up best. He could be replaced by a robot who says one of four appropriate comments on cue, and no one would no the difference.
I don't read Order of the Stick for the humor, or the plot. I read it for the fascinating insight into interactions between the characters.
And Belkar isn't a character.

Incidentally, according to the supplements, Belkar would end up with Grazz't. But if we put him through the Nine Hells:
Layer #1: Bel smacks him around a bit, as Belkar has no loyalty or complexity of thinking. And say what you like about Bel, but he thinks big. He is totally useless as a soldier. Chances are he is used to forge a weapon, conscripted and killed, or sent on.
Layer #2: Dispater does what he does with all his souls, sets him to work on a pointless, never ending task. For instance, chaingangs roam around laying paving stones, while two streets behind them another gang follows, removing paving stones. No chance for advancement there. Maybe Dis sends him on to Mammon out of spite.
Layer #3: Mammon takes everything he owns, including the shirt off his back, puts it in one of his vaults that contain piles of gold the size f the material plane, and lets him on, seeing the poor as beneath his notice.
Layer #4: Belial burns and rapes him. That's pretty much what he does to everyone, Fierna included. And In the end, Belkar will relish his touch because it's better then the emptiness he feels the rest of the time. Ha ha.
Layer #5: Levistus eats his memories. That's what he does. That is, in fact, why he lived in the River Styx (while he still had a choice). Belkar, empty shell that he is, goes on.
Layer #6: Lilath is mean. But assuming the Hag Countess isn't overly interested, she'd let him pass. (He doesn't have children.)
Layer #7: The Lord of Lies wouldn't see any point in Belkar. He's about as far from perfection as you can get, and Belial found fault with the authority herself.
Layer #8: Mephistopheles take his soul, boredly, doesn't see any use in it, angsts about meaningless for a while, is heartened to know how much he has achieved next to Belkar, and hands him on.
Layer #9: Asmodeus eats him. He's an overgod, who is repairing his broken body from his fall, that's what he uses souls for.
Of course, Belkar is pretty one dimensional, so it wouldn't contribute much.

[Sewblon]

I don't read Order of the Stick for the humor, or the plot.

I pity you.

[ThePhantasm]

OK, as to why I hate Belkar. I find him a shallow character, ie a character whose sole purpose and defining trait is to act in one particular way. I don't see any complexity, I don't see any interest. He is shallow in that there is no depth to him, his thoughts all follow the train of 'how can this benefit me,' mostly in the short term.

I refuted this on page 7, and neither you nor Kish have yet responded to that. Do you mind? I'd like to hear your thoughts and counterarguments.