Belkar's "Fake" Character Development

[JoeSkull]

I was reading the "How does Blekar die" thread and someone posted something along the lines of "He dies heroically since his fake development becomes real". And that made me think, is he really faking or does he just think that he is faking. He had an revelation that he had to "play the game" and convince people that he was better. But since he is actually doing better is it really fake?? He realized what he was doing wasn't gonna work so he changed his behavior. He didn't fake changing his behavior. So doesn't that mean that he has developed, whether or not he wants to admit it??

Bottom line, he realized that he can't kill random people, and he stopped killing random people. Is that not character development whether he admits it or not??

[Agi Hammerthief]

this is ZEN, right?

[LuPuWei]

this is ZEN, right?

The Intergallactic Ninja? Hmmmmmm....

[Kish]

Well, let's see.

Has he stopped hurting people whenever he has a chance? No. He just tries to claim he's helping them when he does it. He described his motivation for "changing" as "the better to pee on them, heh."

Has he, in the eyes of his companions, gotten better? No. They all know he's faking because he's not doing it very well.

Does he actually care about someone else now? Yes. Mr. Scruffy. But that's not related to his fake character development.

[JoeSkull]

Well, let's see.

Has he stopped hurting people whenever he has a chance? No. He just tries to claim he's helping them when he does it. He described his motivation for "changing" as "the better to pee on them, heh."

Has he killed any random gnomes since?? I only recall him killing people who are attacking him. Plus he didnt kill anyone in the barfight, nor did he kill Crystal.

Has he, in the eyes of his companions, gotten better? No. They all know he's faking because he's not doing it very well.

char development happens slowly, no one is going believe he has changed until he really shows it. Plus no one has been looking.

Does he actually care about someone else now? Yes. Mr. Scruffy. But that's not related to his fake character development.

(dont have anything for this yet)

[derfenrirwolv]

Redemption= death.

Therefore Fake redemption= fake death.


This isn't as sudden as you'd think. Back in the battle for azure city the two competing devils on belkars shoulders had the same disagreement: how to strike a balance between doing all evil all the time and being JUST good enough that people wouldn't stop your evil permanently.

[JoeSkull]

This isn't as sudden as you'd think. Back in the battle for azure city the two competing devils on belkars shoulders had the same disagreement: how to strike a balance between doing all evil all the time and being JUST good enough that people wouldn't stop your evil permanently.

Then I suppose that is where his Development started(or at least close).

[Bongos]

His revelation wasn't that he had to play the game, it was that he had to pretend to play the game.

Anyone can see that there is no sincerity behind his supposed change of character.

[Morty]

The only change that occured in Belkar's behavior is that he's now smarter about being evil. There's no indication his worldview actually, honestly changed.

[Vemynal]

i think its kinda like puss and boots, after pretending for so long he would eventually change.

But i don't think he has that long and I do think that he will die because he's pretending to be noble or some such.

and as Roy said they won't raise him cuz they know he's pretending

I also have a theory about him being used by the IFCC, but its just a guess since nothing says he will.

[super dark33]

he doesnt only pretend to play the game,
he also cheats!

[JonestheSpy]

I'm actually of the "pretending enough causes actual change" camp. More a feeling than specific evidence.

[Rutskarn]

I gotta say, everything the Giant has done to characterize Belkar, on top of everything he's said on the forums, leads me to believe that Belkar is kinda evil.

Evil isn't, like, a habit you can fall out of if you don't practice it often enough, and pretending to be good if you're not won't fix you any more than pretending to be the president will make you one.

Maybe--maybe--somewhere in this universe, there is a character so close to redemption that faking a conscience will eventually cause him to rethink his perspective. Belkar is not that guy. It's just that he likes killing and torturing a little less than he likes being alive.

[Tydude]

Wow, this is my third day here and there's a whole thread about something I wrote in another thread. :smallbiggrin: Just for clarification, I don't think that Belkar is suddenly going to be good. He's still evil. But, how he sees the world has changed. As he said, now he gets presents instead of jail time for his actions. He may not be following the rules others layed out, but at least now he acknowledges they're there. Also, Belkar sacrificing himself isn't crazy. He already did it once. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0408.html)

[rewinn]

Wow, this is my third day here and there's a whole thread about something I wrote in another thread. :smallbiggrin: Just for clarification, I don't think that Belkar is suddenly going to be good. He's still evil. But, how he sees the world has changed. As he said, now he gets presents instead of jail time for his actions. He may not be following the rules others layed out, but at least now he acknowledges they're there. Also, Belkar sacrificing himself isn't crazy. He already did it once. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0408.html)
#727 does show an interesting side of Belkar.

Belkar may not be dedicated to Evil so much as to Chaos. I can't imagine him ever being less Chaotic than he is; he seems to positively delight in it. But he may decide that being less than completely self-centered (Evil) is not as much fun as thinking about other people now and then (starting with his cat and the rest of the Order at least).

This is all speculation of course but in the "real world" it sometimes happens so who knows about the stickverse?

[King of Nowhere]

Restraining from evil actions only to avoid punishment is as evil as doing said evil actions.
Doing good actions only to be rewarded/not be punished is no good at all.
That's not written on any book, but denying it makes no sense.

Now, about the "by pretending, he may slowly come to caring for real", it may happen with some random evildoer, and makes some sense. But I don't think Belkar has it in him.

[Skorj]

It's said "the habit makes the monk". I expect Belkar will change enough to reach chaotic neutral, before he dies.

My Belkar-death prediction is actually that he changes just enough that the rest of the OOTS is willing to bring him back when he dies, but because of his change he will choose a heroic death from which there is no coming back. But then, I like irony.

[hamishspence]

Restraining from evil actions only to avoid punishment is as evil as doing said evil actions.

Some people argue that "evil impulses" are common in most people, and fear of punishment plays at least some part in why people don't give in to these impulses.

A character who chooses not to do evil- for any reason, is still choosing not to do it.

It may be a sign the character still has an evil personality- however- not doing evil acts anymore, for whatever reason, is an improvement.

I don't think Belkar's reached that stage yet though. For example- doing what he did the the slaver may qualify as "desecrating a corpse".



Doing good actions only to be rewarded/not be punished is no good at all.
That's not written on any book, but denying it makes no sense.

BoED does state that "Good" acts which cost the character nothing- and that the character may actually profit by, qualify as Neutral.

So "Good acts done only for reward" probably also qualifies as "actually Neutral"

[Morquard]

Restraining from evil actions only to avoid punishment is as evil as doing said evil actions.

I disagree with that. Its neutral. Of course its not good, but its not evil. Maybe neutral with evil tendencies.

Sure there are different degrees of this. If you already have the gun to some guys head, told him he's about to die and then decide not to kill him after all because the cops come around the corner and would shoot you dead if you do it, then its still evil, not neutral.

But if for example you don't break into the electronic store at night to steal yourself one of those cool new 40" HDTVs because you fear the police might find you and you'd go to jail, but instead you keep siting on your couch and drink your beer, than thats more neutral than evil.

Just see what happens in cities when there's some sort of catastrophe. People plunder stores, beat up other people, rob, rape, murder etc.
The evil thoughts are there, and the people are capable of them, they just don't do it as long as they think they can't get away with it.
(of course not all people tunr into murderous rapists during a crisis, but there are those that do and they'd never do anything even remotely like it under normal circumstances - the plundering is alot more common though)

[Rutskarn]

But if for example you don't break into the electronic store at night to steal yourself one of those cool new 40" HDTVs because you fear the police might find you and you'd go to jail, but instead you keep siting on your couch and drink your beer, than thats more neutral than evil.

That's not true, but stealing a television isn't really "evil" either. It's not right, but it could still fall under neutral.

Think of it this way: there's a man who wants to do unspeakable, awful, horrible things to women or children. Doing so would cause him intense pleasure, and he is often consumed with the desire to commit these depraved acts. The only reason he does not do so is that there's some sort of chip in his head that will explode and kill him if he gives in.

This man is still evil. He still wants to do evil things, and his reasons for abstaining from doing so are decidedly selfish. He's not "neutral" just because he can't act on his impulses without harming himself.

[hamishspence]

If the chip was implanted at birth, and he's Lawful, and he's never done any evil acts- he might be like those creatures that are born with Evil alignment, then according to Fiendish Codex 2, he couldn't get in to Baator.

Because "It requires evil acts to incur the torments of Baator- thinking evil thoughts is not enough"

So a Blue Dragon, or some other Always Lawful Evil creature, given something at birth to prevent it from ever committing Evil access, would be denied entrance to Baator when it dies.

However, Belkar's Chaotic, and has done plenty of evil acts in the past, so it wouldn't apply.

[Rutskarn]

Well, yeah, but the afterlife isn't really relevant--that's loosely connected to alignment, at best. Besides, the implication there is that they had occasional evil impulses, whereas Belkar is evil, straight through to the core.

[Morquard]

Oh, I never wanted to imply that belkar is anything but evil, either now or before.

[hamishspence]

True. Though in Paladin Blues, in the commentary:

Belkar's not committed to Evil as a force in any particular way, he's simply completely amoral, doing whatever he wants when he wants it. It just so happens that in the alignment system, amoral = Evil.

[Prime32]

I'd like to think that as Belkar keeps pretending to be good, he'll slowly change without realising it, and start saying things like I Was Just Passing Through (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IWasJustPassingThrough). It would be ironic if the Order believed him and still considered him evil, resulting in them punishing him for a good deed.

Of course, this might never happen.

[hamishspence]

It usually takes quite a while for this to happen though- and Belkar doesn't have all that much time left.

[Rutskarn]

Oh, I never wanted to imply that belkar is anything but evil, either now or before.

Point stands--simply refraining from doing evil acts does not necessarily make one neutral, depending on the reason.

[Optimystik]

In short: simply by realizing that he needed to fake character growth, his character has actually grown. Make of it what you will.

[Silver Swift]

Think of it this way: there's a man who wants to do unspeakable, awful, horrible things to women or children. Doing so would cause him intense pleasure, and he is often consumed with the desire to commit these depraved acts. The only reason he does not do so is that there's some sort of chip in his head that will explode and kill him if he gives in.

This man is still evil. He still wants to do evil things, and his reasons for abstaining from doing so are decidedly selfish. He's not "neutral" just because he can't act on his impulses without harming himself.

This is going off topic a bit but would you argue that this man is still evil if instead of an exploding chip he had a strong sense of morality that made him realize doing those horrible things would be wrong and that is what prevents him from doing said horrible things? He still wants to do evil things but now he has an arguably less selfish reason to not act upon this desire.

The point I'm trying to make here is that positing evil thoughts or desires is somewhat problematic because it leads to people being evil without it being their fault.

[Rutskarn]

This is going off topic a bit but would you argue that this man is still evil if instead of an exploding chip he had a strong sense of morality that made him realize doing those horrible things would be wrong and that is what prevents him from doing said horrible things?

Nope--I think exercising moral restraint like that should upgrade him to neutral.

[JoeSkull]

In short: simply by realizing that he needed to fake character growth, his character has actually grown. Make of it what you will.

this is kinda what i was getting at. He knew he needed to change, so he changed. Is this not Character Development??

[Adeen]

Think of it this way: there's a man who wants to do unspeakable, awful, horrible things to women or children. Doing so would cause him intense pleasure, and he is often consumed with the desire to commit these depraved acts. The only reason he does not do so is that there's some sort of chip in his head that will explode and kill him if he gives in.

This man is still evil. He still wants to do evil things, and his reasons for abstaining from doing so are decidedly selfish. He's not "neutral" just because he can't act on his impulses without harming himself.

I completely disagree, I believe everyone should be judged by their actions not their thoughts. People can not decide the chemical makeup of their brain, it's impossible. Although through therapy and desire to change someone might be able to alter their desires a bit, but the original chemical blueprint is still there in their brain. How about this for example, a man is married, but he has sexual attraction to some celebrity, or even his next door neighbor. He performs no physical actions of affection or anything to any other woman but his wife, but because he still would like to, is he a cheater? Judging someone by what is ultimately out of their control (such as a desire/fetish to rape someone) because their brain is programmed that way is unfair. As long as they don't act on those desires, everything is fine in my opinion. Take a look into some psychology journals on criminal minds and why we have certain reform and rehabilitation programs that your tax dollars pay for.

Perhaps an example closer to home. I go on a blind date with someone, this person asks me "so what do you look for in a partner?" Well, I mention a few things like brains and personality, role playing games are a plus. One thing I can't mention is physical appearance. Let's face it, almost everyone can admit that they would prefer that the person they date is attractive, but you can't say that out loud without sounding like a shallow ***hole. So... is everyone a shallow ***hole? Or just the ones that say it out loud? Again, people should be judged on their actions, not their thoughts. If everyone was judged by their thoughts society wouldn't function.

Back on topic to Belkar, I believe he is improving slowly, but still probably classified as chaotic evil for now. If Roy wasn't around babysitting him, he probably wouldn't listen to authority the way he does with Roy. Just my opinion.

[Rutskarn]

I completely disagree, I believe everyone should be judged by their actions not their thoughts. People can not decide the chemical makeup of their brain, it's impossible. Although through therapy and desire to change someone might be able to alter their desires a bit, but the original chemical blueprint is still there in their brain.

But you see, their choices are also a function of their brain's chemical makeup. If their urge to kill is hardwired and beyond their control, so is their decision to ultimately go through with it. There's nothing else to judge people on.


Perhaps an example closer to home. I go on a blind date with someone, this person asks me "so what do you look for in a partner?" Well, I mention a few things like brains and personality, role playing games are a plus. One thing I can't mention is physical appearance. Let's face it, almost everyone can admit that they would prefer that the person they date is attractive, but you can't say that out loud without sounding like a shallow *******. So... is everyone a shallow *******? Or just the ones that say it out loud? Again, people should be judged on their actions, not their thoughts. If everyone was judged by their thoughts society wouldn't function.

Of course everyone has bad impulses, and you shouldn't necessarily be judged on them. What matters isn't necessarily that you restrain them, it's why.

If I want to kill people, but decide not to because I know it's wrong and I wouldn't be able to live with myself afterwards, that's not evil because I'm demonstrating empathy and remorse. If I want to kill people, but decide not to because I might get caught, that's evil because the only thing stopping me is my own selfish desire.

As for judging people; the thing is, "society" doesn't know everybody's desires and why they do or do not act on them. All we have to judge people on is their actions. Society could function if we could judge people on what they want, just as long as we also know why they do and don't act on those wants.

[fryplink]

Im thinking he had character growth, but not the growth he claims to have had. He's "claiming" a evil-to-good shift. I'd call what he did a CE to CN shift with no intent to continue upward. (he broke his deal with the slavers when the hurt mr.scruffy,[chaotic, no evil leanings])

If you only count his actions since hippie dream quest, he probably would hit a CN (no evil acts, protecting loved ones and team mates is neutral)

[Adeen]

But you see, their choices are also a function of their brain's chemical makeup. If their urge to kill is hardwired and beyond their control, so is their decision to ultimately go through with it. There's nothing else to judge people on.

Not necessarily. I have worked in group homes with mentally challenged individuals. One person I'm thinking of in particular was a multiple rapist. Until I stood in on a group therapy session where he had admitted all of his past victims, I would never have believed it. He was the sweetest kindest old man I had ever met. He was like a giant teddy bear and always wanted to help others and etc. Yet, his therapist had told me and the others who worked with him that he required 24/7 supervision. Although he can admit that what he did was wrong, it was determined that if he was alone with another potential victim, he would go through with it again. Didn't change the fact that he wanted to change, but couldn't. I pity those types of people.



As for judging people; the thing is, "society" doesn't know everybody's desires and why they do or do not act on them. All we have to judge people on is their actions. Society could function if we could judge people on what they want, just as long as we also know why they do and don't act on those wants.

I certainly agree that the "why" behind actions (and even laws) are important. But basically all that does is turn every single person into an individual case, which is good. If you're a thief who stole a $20 item it's better to have the judge sentence you alone rather than grouping all the thieves who stole much more than you together and making a sentence for everyone based on average. The judge attempts to determine why you did what you did. That's why they have a theft class to try and determine if your a kleptomaniac. Besides it's difficult to put someone into just three categories of evil, neutral, and good, there has got to be some sort of in between for most people, that's what the "why" is good for.

As for the rest of your argument, it's basically a restating of what you said earlier, and all I would do is restate what I said earlier. I think people should be judged on actions alone, some will agree, others will not, but there aren't many more facts to share. It's up for democracy (for my country at least) to decide. At least until Minority Report becomes a reality.

[Conuly]

I gotta say, everything the Giant has done to characterize Belkar, on top of everything he's said on the forums, leads me to believe that Belkar is kinda evil.

Evil isn't, like, a habit you can fall out of if you don't practice it often enough, and pretending to be good if you're not won't fix you any more than pretending to be the president will make you one.

Maybe--maybe--somewhere in this universe, there is a character so close to redemption that faking a conscience will eventually cause him to rethink his perspective. Belkar is not that guy. It's just that he likes killing and torturing a little less than he likes being alive.

Character development doesn't have to mean becoming less evil though, does it?

Caring about Mr. Scruffy instead of only himself? He's still eeeeevil, but it's a new development.

Thinking ahead so he doesn't get kicked out of the game? He's still reaaaaaally eeeeeeevil, but it's a new development.

[JoeSkull]

Character development doesn't have to mean becoming less evil though, does it?

Caring about Mr. Scruffy instead of only himself? He's still eeeeevil, but it's a new development.

Thinking ahead so he doesn't get kicked out of the game? He's still reaaaaaally eeeeeeevil, but it's a new development.

this, just cause he says he isn't developing doesn't mean he isn't.
Just cause he is the same alignment doesn't mean he hasn't developed.

[JonestheSpy]

Im thinking he had character growth, but not the growth he claims to have had. He's "claiming" a evil-to-good shift.

I don't think he's ever really claimed anything like that. It's more like trying to demonstrate that he's gone from unthinking, reflexively violent nutcase to 'team player', which, in fact, he mostly has been, even if he's doing it for 'insincere' reasons.

That said:


Character development doesn't have to mean becoming less evil though, does it?

Caring about Mr. Scruffy instead of only himself? He's still eeeeevil, but it's a new development.


I've seen some stuff about the psychology of serial killers and the like, and one of the traits many of them share is that they start out torturing and killing animals, and "work up" to people. Maybe it can work out in reverse for the Belkster - being able to feel any empathy and affection at all, even if just for his cat, ca open him up to empathy for others. Maybe. Not necessarily probably, but, y'know...

[Kish]

Character development doesn't have to mean becoming less evil though, does it?

Caring about Mr. Scruffy instead of only himself? He's still eeeeevil, but it's a new development.

Thinking ahead so he doesn't get kicked out of the game? He's still reaaaaaally eeeeeeevil, but it's a new development.
Rich's commentary in Don't Split the Party is that, while Belkar's fake character development is purely fake, he's undergoing unrelated real character development at the same time, in growing to care about Mr. Scruffy.

[Silver Swift]

But you see, their choices are also a function of their brain's chemical makeup. If their urge to kill is hardwired and beyond their control, so is their decision to ultimately go through with it. There's nothing else to judge people on.

If that is really the case then the whole morality issue becomes moot because then no one has any kind of morality (or at least not one they can have any influence on). Regardless of whether or not people have free will (I choose to believe they do), when discussing morality we have to assume they do or the whole discussion ends before it even begins.

From that perspective it may be a cheap shot to bring in the chemical makeup of peoples brains into play to argue that a persons desires are out of their control. But (at least intuitively) it still stands that you have much less control over your desires than over your actions, why else would people be tempted by things they don't want to do? If they had the same control over their desires as they have over their actions, couldn't they just choose to stop wanting to do those things?

That said, I do agree that the reason behind actions has some effect on the morality of those actions (saving a persons life because they owe you money is less benevolent than saving that same persons life because you believe it is wrong to let people die) but not to the extent that you are arguing. If a person would be willing to risk his life to save others but is never put into a position where he has to make that choice it doesn't 'count' as if he had actually risked his life to save others.

[Kolrin]

This has probably been said many times before but I think it is possible that Belkar's death is in the psychological sense in that the old 'Belkar' dies.

You can argue all you want, but regardless, I think it is a possibility.

[Kish]

This has probably been said many times before but I think it is possible that Belkar's death is in the psychological sense in that the old 'Belkar' dies.

You can argue all you want, but regardless, I think it is a possibility.
Bet 20 gold?

[Yuki Akuma]

If that is really the case then the whole morality issue becomes moot because then no one has any kind of morality

It is indeed true - in reality, where people are nothing more than the sum of their parts. Real people do not have true 'free will' - they can't decide to change how their brain works.

In D&D, people have souls. They have an overriding consciousness that has nothing to do with their body. This is why alignments work for D&D characters, but not real people.

[Silver Swift]

It is indeed true - in reality, where people are nothing more than the sum of their parts. Real people do not have true 'free will' - they can't decide to change how their brain works.

In D&D, people have souls. They have an overriding consciousness that has nothing to do with their body. This is why alignments work for D&D characters, but not real people.

You do realize that all real world morality (including every judicial system on the planet) is also based on the idea that humans can decide to "change how their brains work". Also, there are some reasonably persuasive philosophical arguments to be made in favour of humans being more than the sum of their (physical) parts. But as you say, in regards to the comic, this isn't relevant as D&D characters are clearly aware of having a soul.

This does raise an interesting question though: are D&D characters' desires part of their bodies or their soul? (I'd say soul as heaven would be a really boring place if people left their desires along with their bodies).

[Skorj]

It is indeed true - in reality, where people are nothing more than the sum of their parts. Real people do not have true 'free will' - they can't decide to change how their brain works.

In D&D, people have souls. They have an overriding consciousness that has nothing to do with their body. This is why alignments work for D&D characters, but not real people.

Some philosophers (myself included) believe that free will and determinism are compatible - you can have both. This always devolves into an argument over the definition of "free will" (exactly like alignment threads always devolve into arguments over the definition of "good"), but the short version of the compatible determinist argument is the you cannot have the illusion of free will any more that you can have the illusion of pain. You can have the illusion of free action (or of physical damage) but you cannot be wrong about free will, any more than you can be wrong about being in pain.

The upshot of that for me is that even if your brain chemistry made you do it, you're still evil. In the real world that's particularly true if you choose not to take the meds that fix your brain chemistry, and an evil act results.

Also, in RL, if we agree on some definition of good and evil, we can theoretically assign alignments based on likelyhood of actions - what's missing, really, is a Detect Alignment spell, not the categories themselves. Of course, mankind has yet to agree on a definition of "good", so it's a bit of a moot point.

As far a whether we have souls in RL:



Now troubles are many they're as, deep as a well
I can swear there ain't no heaven, but I pray there ain't no hell
Swear there ain't no heaven and I pray there ain't no hell
But I'll never know by living only my, dyin' will tell
Yes only my dyin' will tell

[Rutskarn]

If that is really the case then the whole morality issue becomes moot because then no one has any kind of morality (or at least not one they can have any influence on). Regardless of whether or not people have free will (I choose to believe they do), when discussing morality we have to assume they do or the whole discussion ends before it even begins.


One can be bound entirely by brain chemistry and still have free will. I mean, your decisions have to stem from something--assuming there is such a thing as causality, every single damn thing you do happens because of something else. How can it possibly be different? Choices don't exist in a vacuum. Even if I decide to do something "random"--like, for example, put jelly in my hair--I'm doing that because a.) I want to act randomly and b.) "jelly" and "hair" were two things that leapt readily to mind, because those are things I have frequently heard in the context of "random things."

Free will means you can make the choices you want to make, but you want to make those choices because of who you are. I don't really see a way around that definition.

[JonestheSpy]

I would also suggest checking out Robert Anton Wilson and others regarding techniques for changing your brain via conscious choices (and no, not necessarily by adding other chemicals into your system).

[Rutskarn]

I would also suggest checking out Robert Anton Wilson and others regarding techniques for changing your brain via conscious choices (and no, not necessarily by adding other chemicals into your system).

Yeah, but that's still working with your brain, which is chemicals and tissues.

[kerberos]

Rich's commentary in Don't Split the Party is that, while Belkar's fake character development is purely fake, he's undergoing unrelated real character development at the same time, in growing to care about Mr. Scruffy.

I'm actually going to disagree with Rich there (yes I'm disagreeing with the author). As someone else has said the very act of pretending to have character development constitutes real character development, not a movement away from CE, but a movement within CE. Before he just wasn't far-sighted enough to take the views of others into account, he did what he wanted when he wanted and damn the consequences. moving away from that is real change. Obviously his increasing concern for another sentiment being (Mr. Scruffy) constitutes additional and perhaps more profound change.

ETA: On an additional related note I think people are to hung up on the "is Belkar CE or CN" debate. If his "fake" character development was to result in an alignment change (which I don't think) it would be towards Neutral Evil rather than Chaotic neutral, taking consequences into consideration and paying at least token respect to the laws and ethics of society is a lawful trait, not a good one.

[Ancalagon]

I think giving Belkar some "Fake Character Development" is an awesome way to give him real "Character Development" without changing at all what Balkar actually is (and for what we like and enjoy him).

In all the smart things that has been done with OotS, this move is actually one of the smartest. It's subtle, effective, has more than just one layer... I think it's a quite brilliant move. I'm not sure Rich saw it from the very start and maybe the "Fake Character Development" has just been some sort of longer, elaborate joke that opens a broader spectrum of (in comic) jokes for the character... but the outcome is more complex and interesting than it would seem.

[joeaverage]

Funny that someone mentioned minority report since the OoTS world actually has that kind of prediction in the oracle and various other ways of divination. That also makes it doubtful that free will exists(can't remember if anything was said about that in the comic.)

Of course, that doesn't make it meaningless to call someone evil. Moral judgment is useful for someone without perfect knowledge of the universe to decide to trust someone or not. All the way up to "We don't trust you to live anywhere near us, you sick bastard. We just burned down your house, now leave."

[Darcy]

I completely disagree, I believe everyone should be judged by their actions not their thoughts. People can not decide the chemical makeup of their brain, it's impossible. Although through therapy and desire to change someone might be able to alter their desires a bit, but the original chemical blueprint is still there in their brain. How about this for example, a man is married, but he has sexual attraction to some celebrity, or even his next door neighbor. He performs no physical actions of affection or anything to any other woman but his wife, but because he still would like to, is he a cheater? Judging someone by what is ultimately out of their control (such as a desire/fetish to rape someone) because their brain is programmed that way is unfair. As long as they don't act on those desires, everything is fine in my opinion. Take a look into some psychology journals on criminal minds and why we have certain reform and rehabilitation programs that your tax dollars pay for.

Perhaps an example closer to home. I go on a blind date with someone, this person asks me "so what do you look for in a partner?" Well, I mention a few things like brains and personality, role playing games are a plus. One thing I can't mention is physical appearance. Let's face it, almost everyone can admit that they would prefer that the person they date is attractive, but you can't say that out loud without sounding like a shallow ***hole. So... is everyone a shallow ***hole? Or just the ones that say it out loud? Again, people should be judged on their actions, not their thoughts. If everyone was judged by their thoughts society wouldn't function.

Back on topic to Belkar, I believe he is improving slowly, but still probably classified as chaotic evil for now. If Roy wasn't around babysitting him, he probably wouldn't listen to authority the way he does with Roy. Just my opinion.

The man who desires his neighbour sexually but doesn't act on it may be making that choice because he understands that it's wrong to betray the trust of his monogamous partner whom he loves, or he may be doing so because he figures he'll get caught and doesn't want to have deal with the screaming, crying, divorce papers, etc. There is a difference between feeling the desire to do something you intellectually do not want to do, and wanting to do something but pragmatically choosing not to.

FWIW, someone who only chooses not to cheat because of fear of getting caught, in my opinion, is just as scummy as his friend who was able to hide his infidelity.

[brilliantlight]

To me it may well depend on WHAT EXACTLY happened in that scene. If it was the ghost of Shojo than it is probably fake but if it was a delusion it may well be Belkar was begining to change and needed a reason to justify it TO HIMSELF. In other words Belkar having been around the rest of the party long enough to have it rub off on him but yet having to justify to himself that he would no longer be "fighting against the world" (which is the most important thing in his psycological make up IMO. He has to be a nasty, murderous bastard because he is a little halfling and if he doesn't he will be pushed around by everyone.) and needed a reason for doing so.

[Dr.Epic]

It's a paradox: to fake character development Belkar had to have character development that he in turn faked.

[Shale]

Yeah, but they're along very different tracks. Belkar is pretending to be a good teammate who cares about his allies (albeit not very well or very hard) because he actually cares about himself and finally realized that he could get killed when his evil outweighs his usefulness to the team.

[Lord Bingo]

Actually Belkar's change is rather profound. Before Belkar did not give a flying f... He just did what he wanted without any regard of others. Now Belkar does give a flying f... and shows some consideration of how his actions may be perceived by others. Morality does not even enter into it, it never did.

In the end I think we all would want to be judged by our deeds rather than our urges.

[binyamin20]

Like Haley said: It's a ploy.

[Orzel]

To me, he rally didn't grow. Before he did whatever he wanted and used his combat skill and resourcefulness to get him out of jams he created. Remember Belkar probably in the top 20% of combatants in the world due to his high level.

All he realized is that there are forces that are stronger tan him and he will need to slow down and create buffers against those forces he will eventually cause to wish his destruction.

He's not attempting to be a team player. He's trying to change the OotS from a "potential Belkar hater" to "potential Belkar defender". A trick.

[rakkoon]

I just read two pages with fabulous debates about free will, levels of criminilaity, brain chemistry and such. All started by a CE halfling.
These are the kind of conversations I used to have in a pub with a friend.
Apparently you can also find them in a forum about comic book characters.
I'm moved. Carry on

[brilliantlight]

To me, he rally didn't grow. Before he did whatever he wanted and used his combat skill and resourcefulness to get him out of jams he created. Remember Belkar probably in the top 20% of combatants in the world due to his high level.

All he realized is that there are forces that are stronger tan him and he will need to slow down and create buffers against those forces he will eventually cause to wish his destruction.

He's not attempting to be a team player. He's trying to change the OotS from a "potential Belkar hater" to "potential Belkar defender". A trick.

Probably top 1% or less. Most people are first level commoners, maybe hitting 2nd or 3rd lvl if there are a lot of goblins around.

[SPoD]

Belkar's fake development is nothing but a smokescreen and a source of humor.

Belkar's real development is his growing affection for Mr. Scruffy. This, and this alone, will be responsible for any changes in his behavior.

[calar]

The whole idea is that Belkar is pretending to be a team player in order to allow him to commit evil acts without fear of punishment, thus not really creating development beyond him finding a different, safer strategy for causing chaos.

[JoeSkull]

The whole idea is that Belkar is pretending to be a team player in order to allow him to commit evil acts without fear of punishment, thus not really creating development beyond him finding a different, safer strategy for causing chaos.

He developed into someone who finds safer ways to do what he loves. :smallbiggrin:

[Wamba the Fool]

Can anyone point me to the comic where all of this "redemption" starts occuring, please? (A vision of the former ruler of Azure City IIR, right?) Thanks!

[Nimrod's Son]

Can anyone point me to the comic where all of this "redemption" starts occuring, please? (A vision of the former ruler of Azure City IIR, right?) Thanks!
Check it, yo. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0605.html) :smallsmile:

[snikrept]

I think some words by Calvin from Calvin & Hobbes are in order here:

I wish Santa would publish the guidelines he uses for determining a kid’s goodness. For example, how much does he weigh motives? Does he consider the kid's natural predisposition? I mean, if some sickeningly wholesome nerd likes being good, it’s easy for him to meet the standards! There's no challenge! Heck, anyone can be good if he wants to be! The true test of one’s mettle is being good when one has an innate inclination towards evil. I think one good act by me, even if it's just to get presents, should count as five good acts by some sweet-tempered kid motivated by the pureness of his heart, don’t you?

Clearly Calvin would think Belkar gets extra double special Good points for struggling against his nature, even if it is just to fool people and get what he wants.

[Wamba the Fool]

Check it, yo. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0605.html) :smallsmile:

Cheers, mate. :smallsmile:

[Sliver]

I gotta say, everything the Giant has done to characterize Belkar, on top of everything he's said on the forums, leads me to believe that Belkar is kinda evil.

Evil isn't, like, a habit you can fall out of if you don't practice it often enough, and pretending to be good if you're not won't fix you any more than pretending to be the president will make you one.

Maybe--maybe--somewhere in this universe, there is a character so close to redemption that faking a conscience will eventually cause him to rethink his perspective. Belkar is not that guy. It's just that he likes killing and torturing a little less than he likes being alive.

It worked in Lion King 2! :smallbiggrin:

[iDM]

I think some words by Calvin from Calvin & Hobbes are in order here:


Clearly Calvin would think Belkar gets extra double special Good points for struggling against his nature, even if it is just to fool people and get what he wants.

That's one of my favorite ones. Sorry, continuing.

I think that Belkar's vision of Shojo was probably brought on by Belkar's realization that he couldn't kill indiscriminately anymore-- not only because he's afraid of being locked up, but because he realizes he has to protect Mr. Scruffy. This is Belkar's true redemption; when he can sacrifice his own pleasure for another sentient being.

[Ancalagon]

It took Belkar 14 levels to get he can kill people as long as he kills the right ones... those that others want dead as well. And he'll even get rewards for it and will be considered a hero...

... if Belkar survives this story (he won't!) he'd become the most known hero of all places. The bane of all robbers and bandits, the first to volunteer (at an order of paladins!) to weed out all those nasty things and people in the wild that harass honest travellers and merchants. And he's not even too keen on taking all those rewards.

Belkar as shining (still CE and murdering) hero.

(This of course won't happen as he'll permanently die before the story is over. Don't fool yourself.)

[enigmatime]

Am I the only one didn't automatically think that when the Oracle said what he said in panel five (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0572.html) that he meant that Belkar was going to die and not come back as some kind of undead? As you can plainly see, the Oracle said last breath, he didn't say that Belkar is going to die. :belkar:

[Ancalagon]

Am I the only one didn't automatically think that when the Oracle said what he said in panel five (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0572.html) that he meant that Belkar was going to die and not come back as some kind of undead? As you can plainly see, the Oracle said last breath, he didn't say that Belkar is going to die. :belkar:

Please, not again.

The oracle also said "not long for this world" and "should savour the next birthday cake". We also know the ingame-time will run out soonish (Roy made the bet to wrap it up before the year is over) so Belkar's remaining two or four weeks correspond nicely with the in-comic end.

[Kish]

Am I the only one didn't automatically think that when the Oracle said what he said in panel five (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0572.html) that he meant that Belkar was going to die and not come back as some kind of undead?

Alas and alack, you are very much not.

Twenty gold says Belkar's a goner.

[enigmatime]

Please, not again.

The oracle also said "not long for this world" and "should savour the next birthday cake". We also know the ingame-time will run out soonish (Roy made the bet to wrap it up before the year is over) so Belkar's remaining two or four weeks correspond nicely with the in-comic end.

I did think of that and a counter argument. Not long for this world could mean that he's going to become some kind of undead for awhile but then be destroyed in whatever final battle the Giant has planned for the Order (and possibly everyone else). ALSO! Do undead even eat birthday cake? Shouldn't they eat deathday cake? Do undead even have to eat, for that matter?

[Morty]

I did think of that and a counter argument. Not long for this world could mean that he's going to become some kind of undead for awhile but then be destroyed in whatever final battle the Giant has planned for the Order (and possibly everyone else). ALSO! Do undead even eat birthday cake? Shouldn't they eat deathday cake? Do undead even have to eat, for that matter?

"Not long for this world" was used by the Oracle as a form of expressing the prophecy. He said that Belkar will take his last breath ever before the end of the year immediately after that. So no, Belkar becoming an undead and then getting destroyed is highly unlikely.

[enigmatime]

"Not long for this world" was used by the Oracle as a form of expressing the prophecy. He said that Belkar will take his last breath ever before the end of the year immediately after that. So no, Belkar becoming an undead and then getting destroyed is highly unlikely.

I'm pretty sure undead don't breath.

[The Succubus]

One can be bound entirely by brain chemistry and still have free will. I mean, your decisions have to stem from something--assuming there is such a thing as causality, every single damn thing you do happens because of something else. How can it possibly be different? Choices don't exist in a vacuum. Even if I decide to do something "random"--like, for example, put jelly in my hair--I'm doing that because a.) I want to act randomly and b.) "jelly" and "hair" were two things that leapt readily to mind, because those are things I have frequently heard in the context of "random things."

Free will means you can make the choices you want to make, but you want to make those choices because of who you are. I don't really see a way around that definition.

If someone wants to make a choice to change but is overruled by compulsions, is there ever any hope they can change? It seems almost cruel to damn someone to an eternity of torment because of something fundamental they were unable to change.

[brilliantlight]

It took Belkar 14 levels to get he can kill people as long as he kills the right ones... those that others want dead as well. And he'll even get rewards for it and will be considered a hero...

... if Belkar survives this story (he won't!) he'd become the most known hero of all places. The bane of all robbers and bandits, the first to volunteer (at an order of paladins!) to weed out all those nasty things and people in the wild that harass honest travellers and merchants. And he's not even too keen on taking all those rewards.

Belkar as shining (still CE and murdering) hero.

(This of course won't happen as he'll permanently die before the story is over. Don't fool yourself.)

I never thought of that but you could be quite right, if Belkar were to live long enough. Like you said he won't live long enough to pull it off.

[brilliantlight]

"Not long for this world" was used by the Oracle as a form of expressing the prophecy. He said that Belkar will take his last breath ever before the end of the year immediately after that. So no, Belkar becoming an undead and then getting destroyed is highly unlikely.

Although I think Belkar coming back as undead as rather unlikely it can't be ruled out. "Not long for this world" is merely a euphemism for death. If he does come back as undead it will be intelligent undead and most likely under the control of Redcloak. I could see Redcloak cast create greater undead on him and him coming back as a wraith or specter.

[Shale]

Can we have a single official "what's going to happen to Belkar?" thread where all posts like that can be moved, and then the rest of us never have to read them again? Please?

Please?

[137beth]

Of course his development is fake. He "learned" that if you solve a man's problems with violence, you help him for a day, but if you teach a man to solve his problems with violence, you help him start a lifetime of crime and prison, which isn't all that much help:smallsmile:

[Lecan]

Can we have a single official "what's going to happen to Belkar?" thread where all posts like that can be moved, and then the rest of us never have to read them again? Please?

Please?

I'll sign the petition :)

I mean, I like the character and I still like reading about other's thoughts on his character development and other stuff, but reading the same arguments about whether or not he will become an undead does get a bit old.

[JonestheSpy]

Of course his development is fake.

Actually, realizing that he has to take into account the consequences of his actions is real development, even if his actual morals haven't improved.

[Themrys]

Nope--I think exercising moral restraint like that should upgrade him to neutral.

You think, to fight a strong urge to do evil things because of the feeling that those evil things are wrong, only makes you neutral?

I think, it makes you good. Think about it: Only a person who is able to exercise moral restraint like that is truly, reliably good.

Most people don't hurt others because 1.) It would not make them feel better
and 2.) Empathy would make them feel bad

However, when food is scarce, taking it from others actually makes you feel better. If you take it from people you don't perceive as fellow human beings (and according to some theory, you can only perceive 300 people or so as members of your group) there is no empathy that could make you feel bad for it.

The only thing that's left in such a situation is the feeling that it is wrong to steal food from people who are starving in order to save your own life.

Therefore, if Belkar would suppress his urge to kill people, he would be unhappy all the time (probably), but he would be not only a neutral but a good person.

Maybe, if he was given enough time, he could develop in that direction, but with only a few weeks left...I don't think he will do something more redeeming than, at the most, unintentionally sacrifice his life to save Mr. Scruffy.

[Kish]

You think, to fight a strong urge to do evil things because of the feeling that those evil things are wrong, only makes you neutral?

I think, it makes you good. Think about it: Only a person who is able to exercise moral restraint like that is truly, reliably good.
There seems to be very little room for being neutral in that philosophy. Moreover, this inappropriately ties being Good-aligned to abstract reasoning.

[JoeSkull]

Can we have a single official "what's going to happen to Belkar?" thread where all posts like that can be moved, and then the rest of us never have to read them again? Please?

Please?

Yes, plz keep all death theories out of the thread.