How can anyone dislike Belkar?

[Moglorosh]

I truly and honestly do not understand the hate towards Belkar that seems to be brought up in every thread that mentions him. Am I a sociopath and just don't know it or do they just have no sense of humor? This is a serious question.

[Dr.Epic]

Personally I like him but the main argument is he's too one dimensional.

[Conuly]

Well, let's see...

He's a murdering, lying, thieving scumbag who enjoys tormenting others for the heck of it and sees nothing at all amiss with, say, killing random strangers for their candy bars. He has spent all the time we've known him with no attachments (except, recently, his cat - who only helps him commit more mayhem) - the closest he ever came to a "friend" was a slaver, whom he later killed over the aforementioned cat without even trying "Hey, that's actually my cat" first. He has been known to toy with the affections of others (and don't bother telling me whats-her-name from the Thieve's Guild is a dim bulb, we already know that but it hardly makes it RIGHT) and feels no remorse, ever, over his actions.

Yeah, I don't know why ANYbody doesn't love and adore him.

[Boogastreehouse]

Some people say it's 'cause he's too one-dimensional, but some people really seem to hate him because he's an evil little spud!

There are people on this forum who seem genuinely outraged by Belkar's existence, and even sound as if they take his evil actions personally.

I think it's a testament to his character that people care enough to rant about how despicable he is, and how they can't wait 'till he gets his ultimate comeuppance.

[Acero]

Well, lets just say I won't exactly be weeping when he bites the dust

[leper0messiah]

honestly I'm kinda surprised at it myself:smalleek:
Belkar has always seemed comedic to me, never evil. Sure he kills people randomly, but it's to the point that I find it funny and humorous, not sadistic.

I'd be a like more irked if the characters he killed had more backstory, to me there's a big diffrence between Belkar killing a gnome for his candy bar and him killing the gnome who's faced a divorce and has lost custody of his children and has since been wandering on the streets lonesome and hungry, and finally comes across a candy bar as his first snack in months, but before he consumes it Belkar kills him and takes the candy bar...

actually even that's a tad bit funny:smallbiggrin:

[Boogastreehouse]

I'd be a like more irked if the characters he killed had more backstory, to me there's a big diffrence between Belkar killing a gnome for his candy bar and him killing the gnome who's faced a divorce and has lost custody of his children and has since been wandering on the streets lonesome and hungry, and finally comes across a candy bar as his first snack in months, but before he consumes it Belkar kills him and takes the candy bar...

actually even that's a tad bit funny:smallbiggrin:

Oh, are you kidding? that WAY funnier!

[Dr.Epic]

Well, let's see...

He's a murdering, lying, thieving scumbag who enjoys tormenting others for the heck of it and sees nothing at all amiss with, say, killing random strangers for their candy bars. He has spent all the time we've known him with no attachments (except, recently, his cat - who only helps him commit more mayhem) - the closest he ever came to a "friend" was a slaver, whom he later killed over the aforementioned cat without even trying "Hey, that's actually my cat" first. He has been known to toy with the affections of others (and don't bother telling me whats-her-name from the Thieve's Guild is a dim bulb, we already know that but it hardly makes it RIGHT) and feels no remorse, ever, over his actions.

Yeah, I don't know why ANYbody doesn't love and adore him.

At least have those things can be applied to Xykon and people don't bash him as much.

[B. Dandelion]

Because it would be boring if absolutely everyone had exactly the same opinions? Belkar's not universally beloved -- that's something he has in common with pretty much every single member of the cast. He's more controversial than, say, Durkon, but I wouldn't call him the Scrappy, either.

[TheLaughingMan]

At least half of those things can be applied to Xykon, and people don't bash him as much for it.

Xykon is the villain!

[tcrudisi]

I like Belkar. He's not my favorite character but he certainly makes me laugh a lot -- and that's exactly what I hope for from a comic strip. To me, I find Roy and Durkon a lot more boring so I enjoy them quite a bit less.

[B. Dandelion]

At least have those things can be applied to Xykon and people don't bash him as much.

Turn that on its head and recall that people don't defend Xykon as much. You're seeing more arguments, not more hatred.

[Mystic Muse]

At least have those things can be applied to Xykon and people don't bash him as much.

It's kind of hard to bash a guy for doing something when it's in their job description.

[SadisticFishing]

He's a horrible, evil person and an awesome, hilarious character. Case closed.

[Boogastreehouse]

At least have those things can be applied to Xykon and people don't bash him as much.

Turn that on its head and recall that people don't defend Xykon as much. You're seeing more arguments, not more hatred.

Hmmm... I was thinking along the same lines as Dr. Epic (sans the misspellings), and was agreeing with his statement, but you do make an interesting point.

But if people did start to trash Xykon, shaking their pitchforks and torches in the air, I'll bet people would defend him too.

[Dr.Epic]

Xykon is the villain!

And? Belkar's a villain too. You want to make the argument Belkar is supposed to be a hero well I'll just make the argument why isn't Xykon supposed to be a hero? And if someone were to say because it's his role to do bad stuff and cause disorder for the heroes that's Belkar's job to. Honestly, there isn't anything separating him from Team Evil other than he adventures with the good guys so I don't understand all the Belkar bashing when the designated villains don't get so much criticism.

[Conuly]

At least have those things can be applied to Xykon and people don't bash him as much.

As a previous poster said, nobody posts talking about how funny Xykon is and how they don't know why people don't loooooooove him.

[Santiago]

As a reader, I love Belkar. If I was a medieval fantasy character, we'd probably fight all the time haha seeing as I'd probably be a neutral good warrior.

[Zevox]

Turn that on its head and recall that people don't defend Xykon as much. You're seeing more arguments, not more hatred.
Er, people don't defend Belkar either - at least not since the faction that used to argue he was chaotic neutral way back in the day was laid to rest - they just find him funny and like him for that. Exactly as is the case with Xykon.

Zevox

[Skaven]

I'm not fond of him, but he can make me laugh from time to time.

[Lurk-Sothoth]

Personally, I just don't think that Belkar is very funny. The fact that he's evil isn't an obstacle to my liking him, I like plenty of evil OOTS characters. "Like" as in, I find them compelling and/or entertaining, whether they are played-for-laughs sociopaths (Xykon and to a certain extent Tsukiko) or tragic villains (Redcloak.)

Post-Mr. Scruffy Belkar is as likable as he's been in the entire run of the comic, imho, and that's mostly because kitties make EVERYTHING better.

[Capt Spanner]

I find the way that:

a) This is how some people actually play most of their characters and;

b) He takes aforementioned psychopathy to reducto ad absurdium. It's brilliant.

[grassy]

Well, let's see...

He's a murdering, lying, thieving scumbag who enjoys tormenting others for the heck of it and sees nothing at all amiss with, say, killing random strangers for their candy bars. He has spent all the time we've known him with no attachments (except, recently, his cat - who only helps him commit more mayhem) - the closest he ever came to a "friend" was a slaver, whom he later killed over the aforementioned cat without even trying "Hey, that's actually my cat" first. He has been known to toy with the affections of others (and don't bother telling me whats-her-name from the Thieve's Guild is a dim bulb, we already know that but it hardly makes it RIGHT) and feels no remorse, ever, over his actions.

Yeah, I don't know why ANYbody doesn't love and adore him.
.... what's your point?

[Trazoi]

I'm fine with Belkar now he's mellowed out post vision quest, but prior to that he really got on my nerves. Belkar is probably still my least favourite member of the Order but he's a lot less grating now he's more of a team player.

The prime problem I had with pre-vision Belkar was that he stretched the credibility of the other characters. He was clearly Chaotic Evil and more a liability than an asset, and the other characters kept having to make increasingly more feeble excuses for why they kept him on the team. The whole vision dealie helped fixed that problem though, as post-vision Belkar doesn't provoke nearly as many issues.

The other problem I have (still remaining) is over-exposure to the "heroic sociopath" archetype in webcomics. There's a tendency, possibly taken from Bun-Bun from Sluggy Freelance, to have a short fuzzy character who likes to go stab-crazy with a knife. And while I find the majority of the cast of Sluggy Freelance engaging, I loathe Bun-Bun - and most of his expies in other comics are the same. So I've come to hate the whole archetype and can't help but want to see all its members get drop-kicked off a cliff.

That's just me though. I like a lot of Belkar's interactions, but I tend to find I like him for different reasons than the Belkar fans. They seem to list his best moments as when he kills a lot of goblins, whereas I like his psychological battles with Roy (and when she was around, Miko).

[sol-decentguy]

I can not honestly say I hate :belkar: but I don't necessarily like him either. For D&D players he represents jerks who play the game for the kills and the lolz, making the game un enjoyablefor all the other players. To others Belkars is the gritty comedian that is one of the main draws for people to keep reading this comic. I think people forget that even though the Belkster gets out of hand constantly, the Giant always in story puts him in his place ( the mark on his forehead , all the monumentous kills he's had while no one is looking, and even the V kiss )
As stated earlier I too will probably not cry when he bites the dust, I just want it to be meaningful story wise.

[brilliantlight]

Personally I like him but the main argument is he's too one dimensional.

That is my problem with him. He is as predictible as a Road Runner cartoon. The first few times you saw them when you were 5 they were funny but after that they were boring.

[Bacon Barbarian]

I truly and honestly do not understand the hate towards Belkar that seems to be brought up in every thread that mentions him. Am I a sociopath and just don't know it or do they just have no sense of humor? This is a serious question.

Some people have morals or something. I dont understand what they are ... But they do exist.

[B. Dandelion]

Er, people don't defend Belkar either - at least not since the faction that used to argue he was chaotic neutral way back in the day was laid to rest - they just find him funny and like him for that. Exactly as is the case with Xykon.

Zevox

Yet the title of the thread is not, "how can anyone not find Belkar funny?"

[Zevox]

Yet the title of the thread is not, "how can anyone not find Belkar funny?"
Yet the OP certainly indicated that the reason he likes Belkar is that he's funny (asking if those who don't just "have no sense of humor").

Zevox

[KenderWizard]

Belkar is probably my least favourite member of the Order, but mostly because I like the others so much, and Belkar doesn't ever have touching moments.

I can't really understand people vehemently hating him, but then I can't understand the people who tried to argue Chaotic Neutral past, say, the first 200 strips.


I'm fine with Belkar now he's mellowed out post vision quest, but prior to that he really got on my nerves. Belkar is probably still my least favourite member of the Order but he's a lot less grating now he's more of a team player.

The prime problem I had with pre-vision Belkar was that he stretched the credibility of the other characters. He was clearly Chaotic Evil and more a liability than an asset, and the other characters kept having to make increasingly more feeble excuses for why they kept him on the team. The whole vision dealie helped fixed that problem though, as post-vision Belkar doesn't provoke nearly as many issues.


I sometimes have trouble believing the rest of the Order still puts up with him too, but I suppose it's explained in that Roy feels responsible for him. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html)

Those players who just kill randomly are so annoying in real life, though. We briefly had one in our D&D game, I really like this guy outside of a roleplaying scenario, but he would just shoot NPCs indiscriminately before we could talk to them (he was a ranger too, actually, although he had actually put points into Survival!).

[Dr.Epic]

That is my problem with him. He is as predictible as a Road Runner cartoon. The first few times you saw them when you were 5 they were funny but after that they were boring.

Nothing wrong with the classics.

[Kish]

Yet the OP certainly indicated that the reason he likes Belkar is that he's funny (asking if those who don't just "have no sense of humor").
And does that strike you as a serious and legitimate question rather than a way of asserting that everyone who disagrees with him is wrong?

I don't hate Belkar...I don't find him particularly amusing, either, except when he's the butt of the joke. He will be dead and gone soon. I don't regret this on any level.

[Optimystik]

I like him slightly more now than I did pre-MoJ. Which is to say I won't be wearing sack cloth and ashes or anything when he dies, but neither will I be capering in the streets.

[Zevox]

And does that strike you as a serious and legitimate question rather than a way of asserting that everyone who disagrees with him is wrong?
No, I was just pointing out that the OP wasn't defending Belkar's evil either and appears, as I said in the post that the poster I quoted was replying to, to like Belkar because he's funny.


I can't really understand people vehemently hating him, but then I can't understand the people who tried to argue Chaotic Neutral past, say, the first 200 strips.
I can't understand how anyone could seriously think he wasn't evil past the first 100 strips or so. By the time Banjo was introduced it was pretty obvious, and it only got more obvious from there.

Zevox

[Bacon Barbarian]

Belkar is probably my least favourite member of the Order, but mostly because I like the others so much, and Belkar doesn't ever have touching moments.

People IRL arent touching. It's kind of sickening seeing the people in OOTS being Holier than Thou.


I can't really understand people vehemently hating him, but then I can't understand the people who tried to argue Chaotic Neutral past, say, the first 200 strips.

OK



I sometimes have trouble believing the rest of the Order still puts up with him too, but I suppose it's explained in that Roy feels responsible for him. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html)

Pfft. He's stronger than Roy. Thats the real reason they keep him around. Sure, he's messy, barbaric, and without tact, but he's effective.


Those players who just kill randomly are so annoying in real life, though. We briefly had one in our D&D game, I really like this guy outside of a roleplaying scenario, but he would just shoot NPCs indiscriminately before we could talk to them (he was a ranger too, actually, although he had actually put points into Survival!).

Dont let anyone be Evil if you dont like running it. Its simple.

And since he hasnt actually ever been scanned for Alignment, as all have failed, he could be Chaotic Good for all we know. A misguided Chaotic Good. But Chaotic Good

[brilliantlight]

Nothing wrong with the classics.

My problem with RR is not that it is one of the classics as I actually like Bugs Bunny but it is too predictible. If you've seen one you have seen them all, unlike BB.

[Kish]

And since he hasnt actually ever been scanned for Alignment, as all have failed, he could be Chaotic Good for all we know. A misguided Chaotic Good. But Chaotic Good
...

ALIGNMENT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOOD NIGHT!

[sihnfahl]

And since he hasnt actually ever been scanned for Alignment, as all have failed, he could be Chaotic Good for all we know. A misguided Chaotic Good. But Chaotic Good
Two words. Unholy Blight (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html).

[Trazoi]

I sometimes have trouble believing the rest of the Order still puts up with him too, but I suppose it's explained in that Roy feels responsible for him. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html)
Those rationalisations became a problem for me; in that particular strip it came across to me as Roy being far too arrogant about his own abilities (being better than Azure City in restraining Belkar, and that he can control an obviously Chaotic Evil team member when on a critically important mission). I know those kind of explanations were necessary to combine the conditions that the team stays together and the characters remain true to themselves, but for me they were pushing the boundaries in places like there and when they did the whole "Belkar is better than Miko" spiel.

And yes, maybe Roy had a point in that Belkar would have escaped during the battle and caused even more harm. But he didn't know that at the time (especially when he freed him on parole from Shogo the first time). And there's an argument that Miko might not have gone berserk if Roy had willingly left Belkar in Azure City custody instead of having him tag along.

[the_tick_rules]

Some people don't condone semi indiscriminant slaughter.

[Dr.Epic]

Some people don't condone semi indiscriminant slaughter.

What? I won't believe it!

[X2]

Because some people (*cough* me *cough*) think he's lacking in comedy compared to other murderous psychos. Like Black Mage or Riddick.

What do you mean "Riddick isn't supposed to funny"?

[Dr.Epic]

Because some people (*cough* me *cough*) think he's lacking in comedy compared to other murderous psychos. Like Black Mage or Riddick.

What do you mean "Riddick isn't supposed to funny"?

Lacking? The Sexy Shoeless God of War has comedy as a domain as well as slaughter.

[X2]

What causes some people ROFLing is groan inducing to someone else. I know someone who laughs hysterically at lolcats. Doesnt mean it's the funniest thing to happen to Planet Earth since Jerry Seinfeld. I don't think Belkar is funny. Now Vin Diesel putting on his badass voice. Now that's funny!

[Optimystik]

Those rationalisations became a problem for me; in that particular strip it came across to me as Roy being far too arrogant about his own abilities (being better than Azure City in restraining Belkar, and that he can control an obviously Chaotic Evil team member when on a critically important mission). I know those kind of explanations were necessary to combine the conditions that the team stays together and the characters remain true to themselves, but for me they were pushing the boundaries in places like there and when they did the whole "Belkar is better than Miko" spiel.

A running theme in this comic is that the PCs are arrogant, particularly when comparing their abilities to NPCs. Roy ignores the taxi wizard, V is easily riled by the turban-wizard, Belkar's "caution is for NPCs" remark, etc. So I don't see the problem in Roy's assessment of AC's (in)capabilities to incarcerate Belkar.

[BridgeCity]

I feel it just comes down to Belkar being boring. He can be funny sometimes, but I got tired of the concept of him quite early on, and his few moments of true humor are not enough to outweigh the tired feel. I agree with whoever said (can't remember who) that players in real life who play their characrer the way Belkar is are annoying to have around, and this just makes Belkar more annoying than funny for me.

[Harperfan7]

Belkar is my favorite character in Oots, next to Haley and Shojo.

I know rich uses all sorts of characters to bring in a wider audience, so maybe Belkar is just one of my kinds of characters, but dammit, he's hilarious and just awesome. If he weren't evil, he'd be my favorite character bar-none. Yeah he's evil, but when not killing innocents he does things that make me love him that the others characters won't do.

[tassaron]

I don't really find his violence that funny, but I like his fourth-wall breaking. It feels funnier to me than the other characters', because he's so one-dimensional that he has to outright state that he's only there to make punchlines. And the fact that the OOTS have very little reason to keep him around just makes it funnier to me. It's very absurd. :smallbiggrin:

He's definitely not my favourite but I still think he's funny and worth being in the story. I don't think the comic will lose anything when he's dead, though.

[jidasfire]

While I love Belkar (he often is, as he says, the last truly funny thing in the comic), I can see why some might not. Even I was pretty mad at him for killing the gnome, because I thought it was too far. But I guess what I don't get is the fact that so many people, who claim to and likely do love the comic, ignore the fact that Mr. Burlew really does seem to love the character (and if you don't see that you really aren't paying attention) and say he has no place in the story. As a rule, Order of the Stick is well-told enough that everyone has a narrative purpose, and I like the story enough to accept the characters for their individual roles. The only character I've ever really disliked was Celia, and even she fulfilled a unique function. Belkar's role is to make jokes the other characters aren't enough of jerks to make, and to create more conflict amongst the team. He's just useful enough to keep around and too dangerous to dismiss. The beset-upon Roy is all the more beset-upon because of Belkar.

Assuming he dies as predicted (which is perfectly possible but you never know), I will be saddened, because A. who's going to take care of Mr. Scruffy? and B. who's going to make all the dark, tasteless jokes I love so much?

[Ancalagon]

I truly and honestly do not understand the hate towards Belkar that seems to be brought up in every thread that mentions him.

A) I have not see this "everytime a thread is brought up".

B) "Hate" is a strong word. Please reserve it for things that really warrant or show "hate". Really, do not use one of the strongest possible emotions for things that are "dislike" at worst.

[BridgeCity]

A)
B) "Hate" is a strong word. Please reserve it for things that really warrant or show "hate". Really, do not use one of the strongest possible emotions for things that are "dislike" at worst.

Love is an equally strong word and you display no objection to it being used, so there was really no need to tell someone off for using the word hate.

[mjames]

...

ALIGNMENT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOOD NIGHT!

I have to say, I had no idea that the OOTS forums were more intense and argumentative than the Roleplaying Forums.

In response, it actually might make sense from a gameplay standpoint using a rule that I have encountered with some DMs of negative levels applied for acting out of alignment or for alignment change. It would balance out why he has killed so many more people then oh say Durkon, but isn't much higher in level.

In response to OP: some people (like myself) are more Neutral bordering on NE, and enjoy the lack of remorse in killing and inflicting pain... Most people are Lawful or Good and from my perspective speak/act more like Paladins. You make one joke about God or about babies and they condemn you as a heretic of some sort.

[Mystic Muse]

I have to say, I had no idea that the OOTS forums were more intense and argumentative than the Roleplaying Forums.


Well, considering we argued about the morality of an action Roy took for 2 threads I'm not surprised.

Also, she's right, alignment does not work that way.

[OskarderDrachen]

While I love Belkar (he often is, as he says, the last truly funny thing in the comic), I can see why some might not. Even I was pretty mad at him for killing the gnome, because I thought it was too far. But I guess what I don't get is the fact that so many people, who claim to and likely do love the comic, ignore the fact that Mr. Burlew really does seem to love the character (and if you don't see that you really aren't paying attention) and say he has no place in the story. As a rule, Order of the Stick is well-told enough that everyone has a narrative purpose, and I like the story enough to accept the characters for their individual roles. The only character I've ever really disliked was Celia, and even she fulfilled a unique function. Belkar's role is to make jokes the other characters aren't enough of jerks to make, and to create more conflict amongst the team. He's just useful enough to keep around and too dangerous to dismiss. The beset-upon Roy is all the more beset-upon because of Belkar.

Assuming he dies as predicted (which is perfectly possible but you never know), I will be saddened, because A. who's going to take care of Mr. Scruffy? and B. who's going to make all the dark, tasteless jokes I love so much?

This! (silly ten character rule)

[Ancalagon]

Love is an equally strong word and you display no objection to it being used, so there was really no need to tell someone off for using the word hate.

No. Because I think (feel) that "dislike character x" is further away from "hate" than "like character x" from "love". Also, what comes more, I think that using "love" in the wrong way is less misleading than hate.

You hate people who killed your daughter. You hate those guys who invaded your country. No one here "hates" Belkar. A lot of people probably "dislike" him.

But, please, do not inflate that passing remark I made there bigger than it is supposed to be, m'kay?

[Dust]

I find the way that:

a) This is how some people actually play most of their characters and;

b) He takes aforementioned psychopathy to reducto ad absurdium. It's brilliant.
This. This right here.

[Optimystik]

I have to say, I had no idea that the OOTS forums were more intense and argumentative than the Roleplaying Forums.

1) It's a meme, whereby Kish is parodying a Futurama character's (Morbo) comedic yelling at his co-worker.

2) You must not have been here long - I remember a time when "morally justified" was being considered by the mods as an addition to the board filter, and Miko threads roamed the earth.

[X2]

1) It's a meme, whereby Kish is parodying a Futurama character's (Morbo) comedic yelling at his co-worker.

2) You must not have been here long - I remember a time when "morally justified" was being considered by the mods as an addition to the board filter, and Miko threads roamed the earth.

This part scares me. Like a lot.

[Ancalagon]

This part scares me. Like a lot.

Fire, Holy Water, and Stakes took care of them - do not worry anymore.

[Kish]

Lacking? The Sexy Shoeless God of War has comedy as a domain as well as slaughter.
Yes, lacking. The fact that you find Belkar funny in no way prohibits other people here from disagreeing with you. Belkar's fans often seem so weirdly uncomprehending of the fact that it's actually possible to not like Belkar. (Well, the thread title is Exhibit A...but the post I'm currently responding to, which asserts that Belkar is hilarious as if it was a provable, objective fact, is Exhibit B.)

[Mauve Shirt]

I've never found Belkar's "I enjoy killing things! *stab!*" brand of humor particularly funny. Post-mark of justice Belkar is a little more entertaining, but he's still my least favorite character in the order. I don't loathe him or anything, but I don't find him as funny as Roy, or even Elan.
And many people find Roy and Elan annoying and not at all funny, but I wouldn't start a thread asking "How can you?" Different people like different things.

[Darcy]

He's just annoying a lot of the time. He has his moments when he's shrewd and witty, but when he's just being outright cruel and psychopathic (or just displaying a "rad 'tude") I get bored of him. I also feel like he's gotten away with too much for the rest of the party to put up with him. It's like it only takes the rest of the party six pages or so before they forget what an evil bastard he is. Like when he killed that gnome dude for his cart- it was never mentioned after that scene. It just feels like there's a general decrease in reality whenever Belkar gets up to his senseless murdering antics.

It's more than just his morals and random killings that rub me the wrong way, though... I just can't stand his attitude. Sometimes I just want to punt him.

I have to give him credit for one of the greatest lines in the whole series- "Funny, I always thought I'd be killed by a paladin." "DIE!"

[Killer Angel]

He's a horrible, evil person and an awesome, hilarious character. Case closed.

Pretty much this.
And, seriously, a one-dimensional psycopathic killer cannot be a great and funny character? Tell that to Keith Giffen's LOBO.

You can "hate" Belkar for those things, but from a narrative point of view, sometime those are not a fault.

[Darcy]

Lobo works better because his lifestyle and exploits actually match his attitude. Belkar is a violent sociopath... on a quest to save the world. Uhhhhh?

That's why new, improved Belkar works better- he's actually got some reason to stay with the group it seems, rather than just being there because the plot demands it.

[Nimrod's Son]

Belkar is a violent sociopath... on a quest to save the world. Uhhhhh?
"The world" is where Belkar does all his killing. Why wouldn't he want to save it? :smallwink:

[Darcy]

"The world" is where Belkar does all his killing. Why wouldn't he want to save it? :smallwink:

Belkar has not demonstrated the best long-term planning skills, ahaha. :smallbiggrin: I think working on that is part of the whole "play the game" thing he's working on now.

[Nilan8888]

It might help for a little perspective...

Firstly what we often run into in situations like this is someone saying "I like character X" when they don't mean "I like X"... they mean precisely "I like CHARACTER X".

There's a difference between liking a character and thier role in the story and liking the same sort of person if they existed in real life. Now, if someone TRULY admires the concept of Belkar off the page, at that point we truly have issues. But more often than not we have people trying to suggest that one implies the other.

You can totally like the character of Belkar in all his murderous glory. This is not in any way a reflection on anything outside of enjoyment of the comic. Likewise you can dislike Belkar because you don't find him funny because you don't find him witty or something.

You can dislike Belkar as a character too because you find him morally repugnant, I suppose... but the entire idea of how Belkar is portrayed is intended to make you like him DESPITE what he does, so all you're doing if that's your stance is missing out on some of the ride. The author is making a character likable to you despite what he does so if you don't find Belkar funny or cute BECAUSE he murders people, then I'd say you're missing out on the point, and anything to do with Belkar is something you're just better off skipping.

If the storyteller truly fails at its job at being funny for you, that's one thing. But if the story would be funny to you if only Belkar had struck someone in the face with a banana cream pie instead of a dagger, my suggestion would be: relax. Laughing at Belkar's sociopathy is not a reflection on anything except the story being told. If the author has a greater moral to impart in us laughing at Belkar's immorality, the fact that you never laughed at Belkar or found him funny doesn't mean you are worldly enough or astute enough not to need the moral. In fact who knows -- you might be the one who needs it the most.

It just means that you missed out.

[CrimsonAngel]

I don't care if he's evil, I don't know the people he killed. They aren't real, anyway.

Which is how I felt when I watched Watership Down.

[Darcy]

I just like him better when he's displaying a more incisive or witty side of himself. I hate the whole "straight-talkin' dude with a rad attitude" schtick he gets up to sometimes. I half expect him to pull out a skateboard and slam a Mountain Dew or something.

[Fiery Diamond]

To answer the thread title without reading the thread - very easily.

I mean, sure, I enjoy the humor provided when he's being kind of witty or just being silly, but his personality is extremely evil and he is pretty darn despicable. He is no less evil than Xykon. Xykon is a villain. Belkar is on the good guy team. Evil protagonists are not something of which I approve. In fact, I look forward to Belkar's death.

Belkar might make for an amusing villain on Team Evil or Linear Guild, but as a protagonist he is...horrific.

Example of "Belkar Humor" that makes me want to disembowel him: The killing of the gnome. Sorry folks, not amusing. Evil DIE DIE DIE villain behavior.

[DeltaEmil]

You can dislike Belkar as a character too because you find him morally repugnant, I suppose... but the entire idea of how Belkar is portrayed is intended to make you like him DESPITE what he does, so all you're doing if that's your stance is missing out on some of the ride. The author is making a character likable to you despite what he does so if you don't find Belkar funny or cute BECAUSE he murders people, then I'd say you're missing out on the point, and anything to do with Belkar is something you're just better off skipping.
So you think that Rich Burlew wants people to not dislike Belkar for being a cruel vindicative psychopath and annoyingly disruptive before the Mark of Justice?

[Fiery Diamond]

Well, now I've read the whole thread. And I have more to say!

1) Yes, there is a difference between "I like X" and "I like character X," and I strongly doubt that anyone would actually like Belkar if he existed IRL.

2) However, that does not prevent some people from saying, "If I would hate X IRL, I find it difficult to like character X," and this stance is in no way a bad or wrong stance.

3) There is a difference between heroes and villains. Psychopathic heroes are not loved by everyone. In fact, some people severely dislike the entire concept.

4) While some people can look at random slaughter in a story and go "Ha ha, that's funny!" there are others who look at random slaughter in a story and go "I despise that murdering bastard!" Both are perfectly valid ways of looking at things. Often, however, members of one group seem incapable of understanding how members of the other group can exist. Hence these kinds of arguments.

5) "It's just a story," "It's supposed to be funny," and other similar things are not perfect panaceas for the disgust stirred up by morally repugnant actions and behaviors. For some people, those things work fine. For others, that seems like a feeble excuse at best, and a justification for openly enjoying evil that they in reality see nothing wrong with at worst.

6) An open mind. Ever heard of it? Keep one. While I fall primarily into the "I despise morally repugnant things masquerading as humor" category, I recognize that people in the other category exist. Those in the other category should have the human decency to not act all surprised, confused, and/or self-righteous about the existence of people in my category.

[Darcy]

Belkar also makes the comic lopsided. So much of the "serious" side of the comic revolves around how it isn't OK to just indiscriminately kill members of evil races, while so much of the humour surrounding Belkar is the fact that he kills whoever he pleases with impunity. It's that "decrease in reality" I mentioned earlier.

[Kumo]

I find Belkar amusing because he genuinely does not understand why his actions are evil or wrong, beyond 'other people don't like it' which is a stupid reason not to do something.

[Kumo]

And yes, maybe Roy had a point in that Belkar would have escaped during the battle and caused even more harm. But he didn't know that at the time (especially when he freed him on parole from Shogo the first time). And there's an argument that Miko might not have gone berserk if Roy had willingly left Belkar in Azure City custody instead of having him tag along.

Miko killed Shojo because she thought he was conspiring with the order of the stick, which was a thought brought about by the fact he was talking with greenhilt, who she thought was working for Xykon, "to first decieve then destroy the sapphire guard". Belkar being there may have helped this conclusion but it did not make it.

[Nilan8888]

So you think that Rich Burlew wants people to not dislike Belkar for being a cruel vindicative psychopath and annoyingly disruptive before the Mark of Justice?

I am not, at this time (because I am as capable of forgetting as the next guy), about to speak for what Rich Berlew actually thinks. What I do think is that Rich Berlew likes Belkar for his role in the story and thinks he is funny, so why not the reader? If the joke works, it works.


To dislike Belkar as a cruel vindictive psychopath is to get ahead of ourselves in the story. To say "I would find that funny if it wasn't involving murder" is to pre-empt the moment when the storyteller will actually bring that to the surface later on. It seems to me Rich Berlew knows perfectly well what Belkar is. And just about everyone else knows what Belkar is too, including his fans.

So to not enjoy Belkar's humor on the grounds of morality and morality alone when Belkar kills something in a humorous context -- it just seems like a waste of time to me becuase you're missing out.

Yes, there are moments when a scene is intended to both amuse and horrify you. Those are not the majority of Belkar's moments, but they are there and by us writing off Belkar altogether before they even happen, we lose the effect of those moments. Becuase we already don't like the guy at all and are 'wise' enough not to be surprised, it falls flat. We weren't 'taken in' by Belkar and his antics, so it means little.

But then... isn't Rich trying to take you in, in the same manner? Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think he's writing Belkar for the people who consider themselves too wise and astute to be fooled by Belkar's charm. So if that's what the author's trying to do... why not let them and enjoy Belkar for what he is when he's funny, and enjoy hating him when it becomes time to do so?

[B. Dandelion]

Yet the OP certainly indicated that the reason he likes Belkar is that he's funny (asking if those who don't just "have no sense of humor").

Zevox

Which is provocative. Many of the the people who don't like him (which was the question asked) reply to this by asserting that his negative behavior far outweighs the humor value.

I think you're just interpreting my original use of the word "defend" in a far narrower range than it was intended. Acknowledging that he is evil-aligned doesn't mean you can't defend him -- even defend him as being not that evil or not as evil [as character X]. Look at what's going on in this very thread, that we're talking about. He's being defended as undeserving of the "bashing" he receives for being evil. Maybe I should say they "go on the offensive" on his behalf?

Discussion about Belkar attracts more arguments. I'm willing to bet if you were to comb posts praising Xykon, they would be less provocative and more clear, either explicitly or through context, that they aren't dismissing of his evil deeds -- and/or could understand how people wouldn't like him because of them. So I don't think that seeing Belkar "bashed" more often means that people actually find him a worse character than Xykon. They get that impression because he attracts more debate than Xykon.

[Darcy]

I think the reason it bugs people is that Belkar and his story are pretty peripheral to the plot of the story, but he's given the most leeway of the main characters. He "breaks" the story by getting away with things that most characters could not, for no other reason than his fellow adventurers seem inexplicably willing to repeatedly forgive and forget his many atrocities. He doesn't do anything to hide it or justify it, either- he just makes a snarky comment, and they shrug and get on with the adventure. Considering the way the comic tends to deconstruct this kind of unrealistic behaviour, it's weird.

I've argued with plenty of people about Tarquin, who I think is a cool character. I like him, as a character. However, I'm also looking forward to seeing him get his comeuppance, or at the very least seeing Elan see what a bad guy he really is and turn his back on him to some degree. I can't imagine Tarquin's just going to be our friendly neighbourhood cruel dictator for the rest of the strip.

[Kumo]

I think the reason it bugs people is that Belkar and his story are pretty peripheral to the plot of the story, but he's given the most leeway of the main characters. He "breaks" the story by getting away with things that most characters could not, for no other reason than his fellow adventurers seem inexplicably willing to repeatedly forgive and forget his many atrocities. He doesn't do anything to hide it or justify it, either- he just makes a snarky comment, and they shrug and get on with the adventure. Considering the way the comic tends to deconstruct this kind of unrealistic behaviour, it's weird.

I've argued with plenty of people about Tarquin, who I think is a cool character. I like him, as a character. However, I'm also looking forward to seeing him get his comeuppance, or at the very least seeing Elan see what a bad guy he really is and turn his back on him to some degree. I can't imagine Tarquin's just going to be our friendly neighbourhood cruel dictator for the rest of the strip.

Aside from the Oracle and the gnome these acts either went unnoticed by the order (such as with the barbarian's guild), helped them out in some way (such as the murder of the hobgoblin guard or the goblin unholy-blighting cleric) WERE realiated against in some way (such as his murder of the azurite guard) or were forgiven as payment for services rendered (such as trying to get him sentenced to -1 years in prison - though admittedly that one was both foiled and really REALLY hard for me to wrap my head around :smallconfused: )

Far as i can remember, anyway.

I think Tarquin's evil/ruthless side will come out either during or shortly after the festival, and that it will be bad enough for us to truly despise him when that occurs. But so far the only real evidence we've seen of his evilness is who he's working for, the flashback trial and that he's Nale's father, so there's not much of a reason to hate him. Yet.

[Niveus Candidus]

One of the odder phenomenon I have noticed on this forum is the preponderance of moralizing the actions of stick figures that parody a role-playing game and cliché. Perhaps I am off base with this interpretation? Someone kindly comment.

Right now, people are debating whether or not Belkar is a likable character because he is a bad person. I prefer to look at him from a literary sense. He's amusing and consistent. How much I want him as a neighbor does not enter into my thought process. I have no colorful stick figures next door, however, so mileage may vary.

[Darcy]

Because they're characters in a story that for the most part, deals heavily with morality and its context in role-playing games. Much of the story is about doing right, and how some things that are taken for granted as "right" in and RPG aren't, necessarily... then smack in the middle we have this guy who is treated like "one of the gang" even though everything that he does, everything that motivates him, is completely contrary to the rest of the group.

Durkon is on the opposite end of the scale- realistically, he is second only to Roy as the leader of the group. He's stable, reliable, and a powerful ally in battle. He is devoted to their cause every step of the way, but he's just sort of stuck in the back- both from the reader's perspective and also within the party- while the guy who ruins everything all the time is given plenty of face-time and is pardoned for every sin because he occasionally kills the right people.

There are things I like about Belkar, he does have good moments... but he disrupts the flow of the story and the sense of reality.

[Kumo]

Because they're characters in a story that for the most part, deals heavily with morality and its context in role-playing games. Much of the story is about doing right, and how some things that are taken for granted as "right" in and RPG aren't, necessarily... then smack in the middle we have this guy who is treated like "one of the gang" even though everything that he does, everything that motivates him, is completely contrary to the rest of the group.

Durkon is on the opposite end of the scale- realistically, he is second only to Roy as the leader of the group. He's stable, reliable, and a powerful ally in battle. He is devoted to their cause every step of the way, but he's just sort of stuck in the back- both from the reader's perspective and also within the party- while the guy who ruins everything all the time is given plenty of face-time and is pardoned for every sin because he occasionally kills the right people.

He IS often put at the front. If he weren't we'd have no reason to think he was second to Roy. Belkar is just more noticeable because his actions are both hilarious and horrifying, and because he's a melee warrior who pretty much HAS to go to the front of the party.

He's pardoned because he almost always kills the right people whenever the order is around - and because Roy has taken it on himself to try and control him. There're only two actions i can think of where he just plain got away with it - one is pushing V into an owlbear, which was in response to the explode-a-palooza all morning, and the other was the gnome.

... what? you expected me to justify the gnome?

As mentioned before, I like Belkar because he understands what he's doing is wrong but cannot fathom why.

[Fiery Diamond]

... what? you expected me to justify the gnome?

Actually, yes, I halfway expected that. To me, saying, "It's just a story," or "They're just stick figures," or "Let's look at it from a literary perspective" and then dismissing the killing of the gnome as not mattering because of those reasons is exactly the same as saying "Belkar was justified in killing the gnome." He was justified because he is only a stick figure. And, from my perspective, that makes no sense whatsoever.

But then, I take everything personally, whether it is a situation IRL that has no actual effect on me or a situation in a story.

[Kumo]

Actually, yes, I halfway expected that. To me, saying, "It's just a story," or "They're just stick figures," or "Let's look at it from a literary perspective" and then dismissing the killing of the gnome as not mattering because of those reasons is exactly the same as saying "Belkar was justified in killing the gnome." He was justified because he is only a stick figure. And, from my perspective, that makes no sense whatsoever.

But then, I take everything personally, whether it is a situation IRL that has no actual effect on me or a situation in a story.

No, i meant an IN WORLD excuse. Outside it was ok because Belkar and the gnome don't actually exist. Like when a movie star kills a man in a movie, the actor is justified because he didn't actually kill anyone.

[Daimbert]

I think the best comparisons here were between Belkar and Black Mage from 8-Bit Theater. I don't care all that much for Belkar, and like Black Mage a lot better, even though personality-wise they aren't that much different. So, why is that?

BM fits the role of the party and the story, since in 8-Bit Theater the whole point is about a group of people who shouldn't be heroes at all (possibly excepting Fighter) suddenly being heroes. And this is lampshaded repeatedly. However, in general you could see all of the members of the OotS as being true heroes ... except Belkar. Why is he still with the party? Why is he even with them? Why do they not take the opportunities they've had to ditch him? We know why the "Light Warriors" don't ditch BM, but we don't know why, say, when Belkar was imprisoned they didn't decide to leave him there and take, say, O-chul with them to go after Xykon, other than for some sort of odd "responsibility" claim that Roy made, which doesn't make all that much sense.

BM is also a bit smarter than Belkar, and thus you can do more with BM than with Belkar in terms of plots and actions. He can make plans and even lead a bit, and make rather complicated -- and sometimes successful -- plans to take things over. Belkar can't. BM, because of all of that, is harder to replace than Belkar is, and so we can see why he gets more leeway than we might expect. Belkar isn't that hard to replace, since all he does is stab things. BM stabs things, but his real skills AREN'T in stabbing things; the stabbity death is a joke about BM's inability to be efficient (or aim, actually).

BM also serves to help define Fighter's character, since the fact that Fighter thinks BM is a friend despite how BM treats him highlights Fighter's good naturedness, naivety, and stupidity.

But, most importantly, BM is clearly 8-Bit Theater's butt monkey. He gets hurt ... a lot. He gets hurt as a backlash against the evil he does. I've found it odd that with BM I often feel sorry for him because he's SO hard put upon; nothing really turns out right for him, and it turns out wrong in very painful ways. He deserves it, but even then you can wonder if it's gone too far. Belkar, on the other hand, gets NO real consequences for his actions. He isn't the butt monkey of the team. He gets no punishments, and very little bad things happen to him except as a result of inter-party fighting. So, when the Oracle screws him over, I cheer; finally, Belkar gets some comeuppance.

And that summarizes what other people have said: Belkar is in a party of good people, acts completely contrary to that, and no one is bothered by it, nor does he get any negative consequences (generally) from doing it. BM is the opposite: he's in an evil party and acts like he is, but can't get away with anything. Naturally, some people will be more sympathetic to an evil character that is punished for it and fits in with the party than with someone who is evil but who inexplicably doesn't fit in with the party and doesn't -- in general -- get punished for it.

Belkar can, in fact, be funny, and he might even be able to make jokes that another character couldn't. But to me, it seems that he's a one-note character (read the comments on how he was created in "Dungeon Crawlin' Fools" to see that this is not unintentional) who has started to wear a bit thin, and now only exists to create conflict in the party. I, personally, would have preferred that the story run out so that Miko was assigned to work under Roy to stop Xykon as her way of redeeming herself, since that would have added conflict to the party of a different sort -- differing ideas of good -- with the struggle for Miko to play a subservient role, but with an end result of her redeeming herself and learning humility. Belkar can't be redeemed that way -- in my opinion -- because it's too far from his character as established. The "Play the game" move is about as far as he could get, and I don't see it really making much difference so far, to tell you the truth.

Note that all of this, to address some of the previous comments, is all a literary analysis. If Rich is supposed to be trying to make me like a psychopathic character, I will say that for myself: he failed. I might like the character more if he did the more bizarre "pies in the faces" type of thing, just because that would be odd enough to be interesting. At any rate, making a hero not like a hero always creates the risk that people will react badly to it, and so you have to do it well to pull it off. Some people here seem to think that Rich has. Some people think he hasn't. And that, then, is how some people can -- and do -- dislike Belkar.

[Kumo]

To continue your eight bit theatre comparison, should we hate Fighter because he SHOULD be a hero?

Replacing Belkar would be simple but wouldn't make much sense. You could easily replace him with another knife-wielding maniac but then it would just seem like a Belkar clone rushed in and took his spot, which makes NO SENSE from a writing perspective.

EDIT: His 'play the game' episode is the only reason he's still with the party, if you recall.

[jidasfire]

One of the odder phenomenon I have noticed on this forum is the preponderance of moralizing the actions of stick figures that parody a role-playing game and cliché. Perhaps I am off base with this interpretation? Someone kindly comment.

Right now, people are debating whether or not Belkar is a likable character because he is a bad person. I prefer to look at him from a literary sense. He's amusing and consistent. How much I want him as a neighbor does not enter into my thought process. I have no colorful stick figures next door, however, so mileage may vary.

Brother, do they. I guess I could understand people taking it more personally or disliking Belkar more if the story were presenting him as anything other than what he is, which is a nasty little sociopath. But the author himself, through just about every other character, and even in his own words, has acknowledged that. If we were being told that we should acknowledge Belkar as somehow noble and right, I suspect I might dislike him a lot more, because that's where I feel like there's a disconnect between the author's opinion and the reality of their work. But here, there is no such disconnect. Mr. Burlew knows what Belkar is and makes no bones about it. He's good at writing from multiple points of view, many of them bad. Belkar's just happens to be that of an amoral hedonist with no concept that his actions are wrong. Hence, I appreciate him for that role, which he fills exceptionally well.

And for those who bring up the point that morality is a constant factor in the comic, Belkar is no less an example of that. If Miko was a posing of the question, "Can a paladin, an example of all that is right and good, be a villain?" why can't Belkar be asking if an irredeemable jerk and murderer be a hero? Granted, it's up for debate, but I don't mind that. Under Roy's watch, Belkar has committed far less evil than he would have otherwise. Perhaps for some people that's still not enough, but consider this. I've always thought of Roy's greatest challenge not to be Xykon, but turning the Order into a team of real heroes. He took the motliest crew of adventurers there is under his wing, and slowly but surely, most of them have improved a fair bit during that time. Belkar, well, not so much yet, but we're just a little over halfway to the end, right? Even if he can't be made to be good (and I find that extremely unlikely), he can at least be put to a good cause, and perhaps change somewhat. And then, if not, he can get a truly worthy death scene.

So, given all that, I find it foolish to dismiss the character. Even though I wouldn't want to be in the same room with him in real life, he's a character an author can do a lot with, and as such a good one.

[Daimbert]

To continue your eight bit theatre comparison, should we hate Fighter because he SHOULD be a hero?

No, we actually should like him BECAUSE out of all of them, he's the only one that actually SHOULD be doing what he's doing: saving the world. He fits, and is in fact the explanation for why they got involved in the first place: Fighter wanted to do it, Thief smelled advantage, and BM goes along with Fighter.


Replacing Belkar would be simple but wouldn't make much sense. You could easily replace him with another knife-wielding maniac but then it would just seem like a Belkar clone rushed in and took his spot, which makes NO SENSE from a writing perspective.

I wasn't suggesting replacing him with the same sort of character, but replacing his character itself with something that fit better.


EDIT: His 'play the game' episode is the only reason he's still with the party, if you recall.

Yeah, but I don't really see that as actually having a real impact in terms of story, as I said. I don't see Belkar as acting that much different than he did before.

[Dr.Epic]

Yes, lacking. The fact that you find Belkar funny in no way prohibits other people here from disagreeing with you. Belkar's fans often seem so weirdly uncomprehending of the fact that it's actually possible to not like Belkar. (Well, the thread title is Exhibit A...but the post I'm currently responding to, which asserts that Belkar is hilarious as if it was a provable, objective fact, is Exhibit B.)

Yeah I was making a joke. Look earlier in the thread and notice I did post saying how some people could not like him.

[Kumo]

No, we actually should like him BECAUSE out of all of them, he's the only one that actually SHOULD be doing what he's doing: saving the world. He fits, and is in fact the explanation for why they got involved in the first place: Fighter wanted to do it, Thief smelled advantage, and BM goes along with Fighter.No, the argument against Belkar is that his attitude is completely different and conflicting with the other chars. So is fighter's.

I like fighter, but that's the logic as i see it and frankly it makes no sense to me :smallconfused:


Yeah, but I don't really see that as actually having a real impact in terms of story, as I said. I don't see Belkar as acting that much different than he did before.

He didn't stab Durkon for letting him burn, or leave Haley and Celia to die :smalltongue: The latter DID have an impact on story and both are different from what he did before. He also tried (and failed, but still) to find what Roy was looking for without grumbling about it.

[Fiery Diamond]

The comparison of Belkar and Black Mage is...interesting, to say the least.

I cannot read 8 bit theater. Like, I have a horrible gut reaction when I try. This is primarily for one reason - Black Mage is way too evil for me to tolerate the existence of, even as a fictional character. As in, I wouldn't even be able to tolerate him as a villain, unless I saw a higher percentage of him being tortured to death than his actual antics, as seeing someone that evil being tortured is sort of therapeutic. Do evil unto evil feels good, even though I know it shouldn't.

Belkar is much less evil than Black Mage. If Belkar were as bad as Black Mage, I would stop reading OoTS, despite how much I love everything else.

[Kumo]

The comparison of Belkar and Black Mage is...interesting, to say the least.

I cannot read 8 bit theater. Like, I have a horrible gut reaction when I try. This is primarily for one reason - Black Mage is way too evil for me to tolerate the existence of, even as a fictional character. As in, I wouldn't even be able to tolerate him as a villain, unless I saw a higher percentage of him being tortured to death than his actual antics, as seeing someone that evil being tortured is sort of therapeutic. Do evil unto evil feels good, even though I know it shouldn't.

Belkar is much less evil than Black Mage. If Belkar were as bad as Black Mage, I would stop reading OoTS, despite how much I love everything else.

Black Mage DOES get tortured. A lot and often. :smallbiggrin:

EX: the time he threw up his guts. TWICE. in the space of an hour a few minutes. In two different directions.

[Nilan8888]

1) Yes, there is a difference between "I like X" and "I like character X," and I strongly doubt that anyone would actually like Belkar if he existed IRL.

That's a good doubt to have, certainly.



2) However, that does not prevent some people from saying, "If I would hate X IRL, I find it difficult to like character X," and this stance is in no way a bad or wrong stance.

It does not. And it is not a bad or wrong stance. My point is that perhaps they are missing out on something by being unable to emotionally distinguish RL from fiction, and stand outside of it. That doesn't make them better or worse people. It's just too bad in terms of enjoyment, I suppose. But someone's personal enjoyment of OOTS is none of our busines.




3) There is a difference between heroes and villains. Psychopathic heroes are not loved by everyone. In fact, some people severely dislike the entire concept.

And they're free to do so.




4) While some people can look at random slaughter in a story and go "Ha ha, that's funny!" there are others who look at random slaughter in a story and go "I despise that murdering bastard!" Both are perfectly valid ways of looking at things. Often, however, members of one group seem incapable of understanding how members of the other group can exist. Hence these kinds of arguments.

Agreed.




5) "It's just a story," "It's supposed to be funny," and other similar things are not perfect panaceas for the disgust stirred up by morally repugnant actions and behaviors. For some people, those things work fine. For others, that seems like a feeble excuse at best, and a justification for openly enjoying evil that they in reality see nothing wrong with at worst.

Also agreed, although with your wording of the latter case that leads me to think of it as an unfortunate case with the latter person just becuase of the strong language used. Becuase if it's that strong then the inability -- or unwillingess -- to distinguish morality within the work from morality in RL might be clouding judgment in general if that's an accurate discription of how they feel. Because they are inferring too much of the power of either the fiction itself or people's enjoyment of it.

There are some people that have this sort of fused enjoyment. But those people are EXTREMELY rare in the grand scheme, and usually emotionally disturbed regardless. It's a valid concern to be worried about those sorts of people, but what you seem to describe within that viewpoint is a much larger trend, which I don't think applies at all.




6) An open mind. Ever heard of it? Keep one. While I fall primarily into the "I despise morally repugnant things masquerading as humor" category, I recognize that people in the other category exist. Those in the other category should have the human decency to not act all surprised, confused, and/or self-righteous about the existence of people in my category.

Sure thing. Although one would think that the mere fact you describe it as precisely 'morally repugnant things masquerading as humor' and not as just 'disapproving bad behavior' or something more innocuous makes me think of this last point as slightly ironic.

[Drascin]

The problem with Belkar is that he tries for the evil humor... but he fails where Xykon succeeds, because Xykon is a massively evil bastard that we all want to see hanging - but he does his villain role well and we all love to hate the guy, and acknowledge he has a twisted style. Belkar is just... there, and evil, and there, and kills people for no particular reason. So we're left with an unfunny character that sometimes gets good punchlines, but not really any more than the average character - and who is also evil and unrelatable in pretty much every way, so he can't make up in pathos what he lacks in funniness or style.

Basically, there's a pretty good reason I tend to actually forget Belkar when I'm thinking about OotS in my mind. There's just nothing to make me care for him either way, and the only thing I'll probably miss when he bites it are the food jokes.

I think that explains pretty well why I mostly dislike Belkar. He's taking space from characters I actually care about :smalltongue:.

[Boogastreehouse]

I cannot read 8 bit theater. Like, I have a horrible gut reaction when I try. This is primarily for one reason - Black Mage is way too evil for me to tolerate the existence of, even as a fictional character.

Well if you cannot bear to acknowledge the existence of evil characters because their very nature is an uncontrollable trigger for you, then you are approaching fiction with a different set of tools than I.

It seems to me from reading this thread, that you and some of the other people who display the greatest aggression toward characters like Belkar are most different from me because you can't bear to let yourself identify with the character on any level.

I think that one of the reasons some people find characters like Belkar so appealing and/or amusing is because by following his exploits they can BE a reckless, selfish little consequence-free monster for a while. This is a very cathartic experience for some, as they can indulge in fantasies of misdeeds in a safe way. I can't throw a brick through someone's windshield on the freeway, but I fantasize about doing so often. This allows me to safely blow off some steam and relax, so I'm not tempted to bring along a gun when I'm driving in Los Angeles traffic.

It seems to me that you can't follow along and experience the story through Belkar's perspective because you can't allow yourself to stop wishing him dead and properly punished for his many crimes long enough to project yourself into his character.

Edit: Upon rereading this post I feel I should stress that I don't think that I'm necessarily "more right" than you. I think we just read these things differently.

[Kumo]

The problem with Belkar is that he tries for the evil humor... but he fails where Xykon succeeds, because Xykon is a massively evil bastard that we all want to see hanging - but he does his villain role well and we all love to hate the guy, and acknowledge he has a twisted style. Belkar is just... there, and evil, and there, and kills people for no particular reason. So we're left with an unfunny character that sometimes gets good punchlines, but not really any more than the average character - and who is also evil and unrelatable in pretty much every way, so he can't make up in pathos what he lacks in funniness or style.

Basically, there's a pretty good reason I tend to actually forget Belkar when I'm thinking about OotS in my mind. There's just nothing to make me care for him either way, and the only thing I'll probably miss when he bites it are the food jokes.

I think that explains pretty well why I mostly dislike Belkar. He's taking space from characters I actually care about :smalltongue:.

No but that last sentence did :smalltongue:

Belkar's jokes being funny or unfunny is purely a matter of taste. If you don't like them, then you don't. Personally, i like the jokes.

[mjames]

The problem with Belkar is that he tries for the evil humor... but he fails where Xykon succeeds, because Xykon is a massively evil bastard that we all want to see hanging - but he does his villain role well and we all love to hate the guy, and acknowledge he has a twisted style. Belkar is just... there, and evil, and there, and kills people for no particular reason.

I would say it's not that either one of them always succeeds or fails, they are different styles. Belkar is Chaotic Evil, where Xykon is (arguably) Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil. Just as a CG character has a different sense of humor than a LG character (Roy and Elan), two evil characters would as well.

[brilliantlight]

I am not, at this time (because I am as capable of forgetting as the next guy), about to speak for what Rich Berlew actually thinks. What I do think is that Rich Berlew likes Belkar for his role in the story and thinks he is funny, so why not the reader? If the joke works, it works.


To dislike Belkar as a cruel vindictive psychopath is to get ahead of ourselves in the story. To say "I would find that funny if it wasn't involving murder" is to pre-empt the moment when the storyteller will actually bring that to the surface later on. It seems to me Rich Berlew knows perfectly well what Belkar is. And just about everyone else knows what Belkar is too, including his fans.

So to not enjoy Belkar's humor on the grounds of morality and morality alone when Belkar kills something in a humorous context -- it just seems like a waste of time to me becuase you're missing out.

Yes, there are moments when a scene is intended to both amuse and horrify you. Those are not the majority of Belkar's moments, but they are there and by us writing off Belkar altogether before they even happen, we lose the effect of those moments. Becuase we already don't like the guy at all and are 'wise' enough not to be surprised, it falls flat. We weren't 'taken in' by Belkar and his antics, so it means little.

But then... isn't Rich trying to take you in, in the same manner? Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think he's writing Belkar for the people who consider themselves too wise and astute to be fooled by Belkar's charm. So if that's what the author's trying to do... why not let them and enjoy Belkar for what he is when he's funny, and enjoy hating him when it becomes time to do so?

Agreed, my problem with :belkar: isn't that he is evil (It is a comic strip, some people need to lighten up) but that he was BORING. He does the same thing over and over again. The new :belkar: is more interesting to me.

[Kish]

Xykon is (arguably) Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil.
:smalleek::smallfrown::smallmad::smallannoyed: You just broke my brain. I hope you're happy.

(Xykon is one of the two most Chaotic characters in the comic. And the other one is Elan, not Belkar.)

[Boogastreehouse]

I would say it's not that either one of them always succeeds or fails, they are different styles. Belkar is Chaotic Evil, where Xykon is (arguably) Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil. Just as a CG character has a different sense of humor than a LG character (Roy and Elan), two evil characters would as well.

Xykon is Chaotic Evil.

Edit: But I don't know what alignment that Ninja was

[Nilan8888]

Agreed, my problem with isn't that he is evil (It is a comic strip, some people need to lighten up) but that he was BORING. He does the same thing over and over again. The new is more interesting to me.

Right, boring or lame is a different matter entirely.

And I can only imagine the OOTS characters have suffered that danger at one time or another. This is a long story and as the main characters they can start to feel worn out when if you make the same jokes on strip 650 that you did on strip 55 (I picked those numbers at random, don't bother looking 'em up).

I know that's sort of been Durkon's problem for a long time now... since Hilgya left, more or less, and that was a LONG time ago.

[Kumo]

:smalleek::smallfrown::smallmad::smallannoyed: You just broke my brain. I hope you're happy.

(Xykon is one of the two most Chaotic characters in the comic. And the other one is Elan, not Belkar.)

You're wrong. he's not Chaotic at all.

He's Lawful Stupid :smalltongue:

Think about it. He isn't dumb but he revels in the way that most consider dumb: hitting the problem with magic until it breaks. He is so strictly adherent to the 'stupid' way that it's practically his code. He has never planned anything beyond 'be there before X'. In his case, of course, he doesn't do it because he doesn't NEED to, but the point is, he lawfully adheres to stupidity whenever possible. Thus, he is lawful stupid.

Seriously though. The debate shouldn't be between Lawful and Chaotic, but neutral and Chaotic. IF that.

[Drascin]

No but that last sentence did :smalltongue:

Belkar's jokes being funny or unfunny is purely a matter of taste. If you don't like them, then you don't. Personally, i like the jokes.

Yes, you do. But I was addressing the point of the OP - "how can anyone dislike Belkar?" Easy - because he's a character that's there solely and only for certain jokes, so if you don't find those jokes funny, what becomes pretty much impossible is to like Belkar.

[Kumo]

Yes, you do. But I was addressing the point of the OP - "how can anyone dislike Belkar?" Easy - because he's a character that's there solely and only for certain jokes, so if you don't find those jokes funny, what becomes pretty much impossible is to like Belkar.

Fair enough.

[Daimbert]

No, the argument against Belkar is that his attitude is completely different and conflicting with the other chars. So is fighter's.

I like fighter, but that's the logic as i see it and frankly it makes no sense to me :smallconfused:

I think you need to re-read my rather long post on this because:

1) You grabbed only one of my points ... and the least important one at that.

2) You're taking "fits" too shallowly for my argument. I asked a number of questions about Belkar that I can answer for both BM and Fighter that I don't think can be answered about Belkar without major contriving. You've boiled it down to "different and conflicting attitude" and that's not what I was on about at all.



He didn't stab Durkon for letting him burn, or leave Haley and Celia to die :smalltongue: The latter DID have an impact on story and both are different from what he did before. He also tried (and failed, but still) to find what Roy was looking for without grumbling about it.

For the first, he wouldn't have done it before either, if for no other reason than they would have stopped him from doing it (and he might be smart enough to realize that he does need a healer). The latter I'll concede, but that was the one that supposedly proved his new attitude, but something done immediately afterwards with no new examples is not a good way to introduce a new trait.

[teratorn]

To "like" a character you're supposed to feel same empathy towards that character. I don't see how that can happen with Belkar. Threads like this always frighten me.

[DeltaEmil]

To dislike Belkar as a cruel vindictive psychopath is to get ahead of ourselves in the story. To say "I would find that funny if it wasn't involving murder" is to pre-empt the moment when the storyteller will actually bring that to the surface later on. It seems to me Rich Berlew knows perfectly well what Belkar is. And just about everyone else knows what Belkar is too, including his fans.No, disliking Belkar for being a cruel vindicative psychopath is absolutely accepted by Rich Burlew. Rich Burlew was also annoyed that people were defending Belkar as being Chaotic Neutral.


So to not enjoy Belkar's humor on the grounds of morality and morality alone when Belkar kills something in a humorous context -- it just seems like a waste of time to me becuase you're missing out.I like Belkar for being funny. I dislike Belkar for being an obnoxius, vindicative and psychopathic villain. I dislike Roy's feeble justification why he shouldn't slit the throat of the little bugger.
Nobody is missing out on anything.

But then... isn't Rich trying to take you in, in the same manner? Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think he's writing Belkar for the people who consider themselves too wise and astute to be fooled by Belkar's charm. So if that's what the author's trying to do... why not let them and enjoy Belkar for what he is when he's funny, and enjoy hating him when it becomes time to do so?You are wrong. Rich Burlew writes character that should also be loathed and make you uneasy laughing about his jokes, if you still can, like Xykon, the dreaded lich lord.

There is nothing morally uptight. Belkar is evil (and he's proud of it), Xykon is evil (and he is even worse). Both are depicted as such, and people are free to dislike them and to not like jokes with them for these reasons.

Had Belkar sorceror abilities, he would have been a midget Xykon, with a little bit less common sense.

On the other hand, had Belkar more than 11 wisdom, he would have become a pacistic version of Durkon, who is the best lawful good character in the comic, who is also disliked by some for his not so developed passive personality and/or being a CoDzilla, showing the superiority of his class.

Final words: One should not assume anything serious about the others for why they have different opinion.

[Kumo]

To "like" a character you're supposed to feel same empathy towards that character. I don't see how that can happen with Belkar. Threads like this always frighten me.

You don't have to empathize to like something. In my case, i like Belkar because it is IMPOSSIBLE to truly feel empathy for him because of his twisted views of right and wrong.


I think you need to re-read my rather long post on this because:

1) You grabbed only one of my points ... and the least important one at that.

2) You're taking "fits" too shallowly for my argument. I asked a number of questions about Belkar that I can answer for both BM and Fighter that I don't think can be answered about Belkar without major contriving. You've boiled it down to "different and conflicting attitude" and that's not what I was on about at all.

Then i misunderstood your point and would like to question how BM and Belkar's personalities differ if not by how they mesh with the group, which is what i THOUGHT was the point: why BM is likeable to (you?) but Belkar is not.


For the first, he wouldn't have done it before either, if for no other reason than they would have stopped him from doing it (and he might be smart enough to realize that he does need a healer). The latter I'll concede, but that was the one that supposedly proved his new attitude, but something done immediately afterwards with no new examples is not a good way to introduce a new trait.

He definitely wouldn't have said 'stupid entirely justified comeuppance', which to me implies that that's the reason he didn't do it.

[Boogastreehouse]

To "like" a character you're supposed to feel same empathy towards that character. I don't see how that can happen with Belkar. Threads like this always frighten me.

Empathy doesn't mean you want to be that person, just that you can understand them enough to walk around in their shoes with them for a little while when the story brings them into focus. (I know Belkar doesn't wear shoes!)

I don't ever stab people and take their stuff, nor do I ever really want to be the kind of person who stabs someone and takes their stuff, but that doesn't mean that I don't occasionally entertain fantasies about being able to just go through life taking what I want. I think that everyone has thoughts like this.

I think that people who can accept that part of themselves can more readily empathize with Belkar, while those people who repress these sorts of thoughts, out of shame or what have you, are more likely to loath Belkar more than a fictional character should be loathed; they resent being reminded of their darker nature.

[teratorn]

You don't have to empathize to like something. In my case, i like Belkar because it is IMPOSSIBLE to truly feel empathy for him because of his twisted views of right and wrong.

Ok, you are using "to like" as meaning "to enjoy" and not as "to find likeable." If I take your definition I too "like" him as character, but in that sense I also "like" Xykon and Redcloak.

So, answering the OP, I enjoy Belkar's role in the strip, yet I dislike him, in the sense that I can't get any empathy whatsoever towards him. Rich did a good thing in not giving him a sad backstory.



I don't ever stab people and take their stuff, nor do I ever really want to be the kind of person who stabs someone and takes their stuff, but that doesn't mean that I don't occasionally entertain fantasies about being able to just go through life taking what I want. I think that everyone has thoughts like this.


Not everyone. I never entertained that kind of thoughts, but for some reason I always play the lawful good wizard, not the chaotic good thief.

[Orzel]

I like Belkar because I can get in his head. He's stronger than 99% of the everyone in the world and stronger than 75% of combatants. He kills because he rarely has a reason not to (since he only cares about a few people). Belkar lives and acts based on what pleases him. If hurting you solves a problem or is funny (to him), he's gonna hurt you unless the consequences bother him enough. But for 95% of his life, no one was able to kill him so why should he be nice if he doesn't have to.

Sure If I were a "high level" PC in a world of weaklings and I only cared about my fun, I might have many Belkar traits.

Belkar has a story role. He's a powerful guy in a world of squishies. The guy who will kill you if you are stopping his fun.

Belkar also has a role in the party. He's a rarely good killer. There aren't many people alive in the low-mid teens who are willing to join and can kill like him.


Who here has wanted to kill a annoying NPC who is blocking you or slowing you down? Belkar actually does it.

[KenderWizard]

People IRL arent touching. It's kind of sickening seeing the people in OOTS being Holier than Thou.

I disagree strongly with both statements. Part of the reason I like OOTS and why I think it's so popular is that so many of the characters, even seemingly inconsequential ones, are so human and recognisable, like Kazumi and Daigo. And a lot of what makes them so real is the way they can be so sweet, and get upset by things, and be loyal and kind to one another when the chips are down. Maybe part of the problem with Belkar is most people don't know anyone like that, who is so obviously out for nothing but himself: he can be a totally overblown comic villain, which is a lot of what makes him funny too.



And since he hasnt actually ever been scanned for Alignment, as all have failed, he could be Chaotic Good for all we know. A misguided Chaotic Good. But Chaotic Good


...

ALIGNMENT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOOD NIGHT!

And even if alignment did work that way, the Giant has been pretty clear on the issue. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6483)


What causes some people ROFLing is groan inducing to someone else. I know someone who laughs hysterically at lolcats. Doesnt mean it's the funniest thing to happen to Planet Earth since Jerry Seinfeld. I don't think Belkar is funny. Now Vin Diesel putting on his badass voice. Now that's funny!

I think this is a good point! People have very different senses of humour.

[Peanut Gallery]

I don't ever stab people and take their stuff, nor do I ever really want to be the kind of person who stabs someone and takes their stuff, but that doesn't mean that I don't occasionally entertain fantasies about being able to just go through life taking what I want. I think that everyone has thoughts like this.

I think that people who can accept that part of themselves can more readily empathize with Belkar, while those people who repress these sorts of thoughts, out of shame or what have you, are more likely to loath Belkar more than a fictional character should be loathed; they resent being reminded of their darker nature.

What evidence are you basing this "everyone" hypothesis on? Humans have extremely varying psychological stimuli, and what can be a guilty pleasure for one can be an extreme turn off for others. Even presumably common things like sex and food aren't something EVERYONE enjoys.

And speaking as someone who loathes Belkar, I can assure you I'm not repressing anything. I enjoy Xykon's character "guilt-free". I adore Redcloak. I am fond of Tarquin. Liking an evil character is not a problem for me. But as someone upthread stated, if you don't find Belkar funny (which to me, he isn't and I can't recall a point where he ever was) he really doesn't have much else going for him in terms of "likability".

[B. Dandelion]

Final words: One should not assume anything serious about the others for why they have different opinion.

This absolutely cannot be stressed enough.

[Boogastreehouse]

What evidence are you basing this "everyone" hypothesis on?

The one time that I forgot to say "some" or "many people"...

I think that many people have thoughts, daydreams or brief fantasies of doing evil things that they would not really ever do. Some people accept these sorts of thoughts as normal, and some people feel bad about them, as if such thoughts are something to be suppressed. They may even feel guilty for having such thoughts. I base this observation on a long lifetime of interacting with a wide range of people.

From that (not unreasonable) belief, I made the (not too outlandish) leap, and suggested that perhaps the reason that some people dislike Belkar is related to the level of comfort that they have with their own Imp of the Perverse.


Humans have extremely varying psychological stimuli, and what can be a guilty pleasure for one can be an extreme turn off for others..

That's why I used an example that applied to me (stabbing people and stealing their stuff). When I said everyone has thoughts like this, I didn't mean that thought in particular; but rather that many people may, on occasion, have some sort of evil thoughts of which they are not proud.


And speaking as someone who loathes Belkar, I can assure you I'm not repressing anything.

That's awesome. So my musings about the motivations of some people don't apply to you.

[brilliantlight]

Right, boring or lame is a different matter entirely.

And I can only imagine the OOTS characters have suffered that danger at one time or another. This is a long story and as the main characters they can start to feel worn out when if you make the same jokes on strip 650 that you did on strip 55 (I picked those numbers at random, don't bother looking 'em up).

I know that's sort of been Durkon's problem for a long time now... since Hilgya left, more or less, and that was a LONG time ago.

I think :durkon: is almost strictly a straight man. He isn't supposed to be funny, IMO.

[blunk]

B) "Hate" is a strong word. Please reserve it for things that really warrant or show "hate". Really, do not use one of the strongest possible emotions for things that are "dislike" at worst.I hate when people play Communication Cop, especially over such laughably small stakes. Hate. Hate hate hate hate hate hate hate.

[X2]

B) "Hate" is a strong word. Please reserve it for things that really warrant or show "hate". Really, do not use one of the strongest possible emotions for things that are "dislike" at worst.

...You're kidding right?

[Kranden]

Well, let's see...

He's a murdering, lying, thieving scumbag who enjoys tormenting others for the heck of it and sees nothing at all amiss with, say, killing random strangers for their candy bars. He has spent all the time we've known him with no attachments (except, recently, his cat - who only helps him commit more mayhem) - the closest he ever came to a "friend" was a slaver, whom he later killed over the aforementioned cat without even trying "Hey, that's actually my cat" first. He has been known to toy with the affections of others (and don't bother telling me whats-her-name from the Thieve's Guild is a dim bulb, we already know that but it hardly makes it RIGHT) and feels no remorse, ever, over his actions.



I know he kicks serious butt.

[Bongos]

Belkar is funny,, and can be amusing but he isn't really likeable.

[KenderWizard]

I think :durkon: is almost strictly a straight man. He isn't supposed to be funny, IMO.

He has his moments, like recently when he used his fourth sending scroll to assure Roy he had four sending scrolls so he could use the fourth to contact Hayley! But you're right, he's more straight than the others, there's fewer jokes further apart.

[kabbes]

I'd hate to read any kind of story written by some of you people. It would consist of a party of incredibly straight-laced, tedious goody-two-shoes, who would fight a few battles that they would win with ease, before going on to face down a villain with no redeeming features, whom they would also beat with ease.

Then as an epilogue there would be a moral message about the straightforward dichotomy between good and evil and how there really is such a thing as absolute morality, which oddly happens to also coincide exactly with a Christian Western moral framework.

Belkar is a cipher. He exists to provide two things: (1) comic relief (his primary function); and (2) a plot device to drive other characters onwards -- things happen around him, even when he is being his usual predictable self. He can only be judged against these criteria. And that judgement is only as a success or a failure, not some kind of moral assessment of his character. Decrying him because he lacks character points that he is, by definition, designed not to have is simply absurd.

[Nilan8888]

No, disliking Belkar for being a cruel vindicative psychopath is absolutely accepted by Rich Burlew. Rich Burlew was also annoyed that people were defending Belkar as being Chaotic Neutral.

I'm sorry, did I say Rich Berlew did NOT accept that people disliked Belkar as a cruel and vindictive psychopath? Where in anything I wrote did I say that? Even if I did, which I didn't, it wasn't in what you quoted. Also, what does people defending Belkar as Chaotic Neutral have anything to do with what I said? I would imagine an author would get annoyed with that if they felt they were strongly depicting a character as one thing and people were claiming he was something else.



I like Belkar for being funny. I dislike Belkar for being an obnoxius, vindicative and psychopathic villain. I dislike Roy's feeble justification why he shouldn't slit the throat of the little bugger.
Nobody is missing out on anything.

That's fine. I disagree. People are missing out.

Well somewhat -- disliking Belkar for being all those things while at the same time finding him funny isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about not finding him funny because you dislike him, which is something different. But I disagree about the justification of Roy.




You are wrong. Rich Burlew writes character that should also be loathed and make you uneasy laughing about his jokes, if you still can, like Xykon, the dreaded lich lord.

There is nothing morally uptight. Belkar is evil (and he's proud of it), Xykon is evil (and he is even worse). Both are depicted as such, and people are free to dislike them and to not like jokes with them for these reasons.

It seems like we're in some sort of fight here to say who is more free than the other person or something to like or not like Belkar.

But it seems strange to me that someone would not like a joke specifically because a character in the comic is evil. And if they were a good character by extension they WOULD find it funny. I'm sorry, I do find that morally uptight.

To be morally uptight objectively is not a bad thing first of all and something you're free to do, and secondly just becuse I think you're uptight doesn't mean you actually are. And it doesn't mean Rich Berlew thinks you are. It just means I think that. And I don't even necessarily think that of YOU in particular because I'm not completely clear if you fit what I'm talking about. I'm talking about someone who finds the same pun or point of humor funny or unfunny depending on the moral context. That may not describe you. But it is my opinion.

And as for being wrong... naaaah, you're wrong. :smalltongue:



Had Belkar sorceror abilities, he would have been a midget Xykon, with a little bit less common sense.

Not necessarily, but that's beside the point I think.


On the other hand, had Belkar more than 11 wisdom, he would have become a pacistic version of Durkon, who is the best lawful good character in the comic, who is also disliked by some for his not so developed passive personality and/or being a CoDzilla, showing the superiority of his class.

I think that comic was just the rule of funny at work. But again, sort of beside the point.



Final words: One should not assume anything serious about the others for why they have different opinion.

That's your opinion, that's not mine. That's about opinions just in general, and as a general rule I don't think that's true. Like, for instance, if someone were to off an opinion on politics, religion, etc., the sort of things that get one booted from this board. I think assumptions can be made given the context of someone's post. Although being a moderator, for instance, you have to check your assumptions at the door and deal with all posters equally.

And assumptions can be made on reactions from the comic as well. You probably shouldn't just assume someone is morally uptight if they say "I don't like Belkar" and that's not what I'm doing, although maybe it was closer to the stance of the OP (but you responded to me, not the OP). I'm saying I only think that's the case if that person is saying "I'd find Belkar funny if only he were a nice guy". Because that person's not really taking the humor itself at face value. And I'm free to have any notions I please about it. I might be wrong, and later posts might have me thinking differently. But I can make whatever assumptions I like about an opinion in someone's post. I'm allowed to do that. You think I shouldn't, and that's ok too. But I disagree.

[Skeppio]

I truly and honestly do not understand the hate towards Belkar that seems to be brought up in every thread that mentions him. Am I a sociopath and just don't know it or do they just have no sense of humor? This is a serious question.

Hooooooo boy.

Belkar is one of the worst fictional characters I have ever seen. Calling him one-dimensional is too generous. He has ZERO character beyond "Retarded Sociopath". Funnily enough, some of us actually like our characters to have, well, character! Belkar is boring, cliche, overdone, undeveloped and overall pathetic.

He torments and belittles the only group on the planet to actually give him a chance. He's attempted to or planned to kill his teammates more than once. He kills people for petty reasons, reasons the victim couldn't possibly know about, and more often no reason at all. The one time he had to face justice, he turned back to his vile self the moment it was lifted.

And yet despite this, he's still supposed to be painted as a hero. He gets away with it all (the Mark of Justice was nowhere near enough punishment). Xykon commits atrocities just as bad as Belkar, but he's expected to. He's the bloody main villain! Belkar is meant to be a hero. He acts as bad as the inhuman enemy of all life, but he's cheered on because he's the "hero".

And I bet the moment he dies, you Belkar fanboys will be grabbing your torches and pitchforks and demanding his return or spewing a few thousand theories, none of which will make even a tiny speck of sense. That's what you want. Belkar, Belkar, Belkar. It just makes me sick.

My question is: How can anyone like Belkar?

[Janmorel]

Yes, you do. But I was addressing the point of the OP - "how can anyone dislike Belkar?" Easy - because he's a character that's there solely and only for certain jokes, so if you don't find those jokes funny, what becomes pretty much impossible is to like Belkar.

Quoted for Truth, man.

AFAIC, Belkar is like a book of knock-knock jokes. Some of them may be funny the first time around, but after a while you want to throw the whole damn book out the window.

He's a one trick pony and some of us just don't think the trick is that exceptional, but if it happens to be your favorite trick ever then more power to you.

[Zen Monkey]

I just like him better when he's displaying a more incisive or witty side of himself. I hate the whole "straight-talkin' dude with a rad attitude" schtick he gets up to sometimes. I half expect him to pull out a skateboard and slam a Mountain Dew or something.

He's also the only character in the party that hasn't really developed since the beginning. He's the exact same character that he was in the very beginning. Everyone else has grown and learned and evolved. All he's done is discover that he needs to have a better cover for his random acts of violence, sometimes, and not even consistently. He's the immature gamer at the table, who engages in random pvp or the senseless attacking of plot npcs and generally makes it harder for everyone else to have fun and accomplish anything. While it is a realisitic presence in a D&D party, because many gaming groups have one, it isn't necessarily a welcome one.

[Darcy]

That's how I interpret his character when the comic gets a bit more "meta," and in those cases he's actually pretty funny! Like him taking Ranger just for dual-wielding, and not having ranks in survival. That was some good old inconsiderate, murder-fixated Belkar- but it was funnier because it had some depth to it.

Actually in one group I was playing in, the DM's boyfriend joined up... in every moment where we were around friendly PC's he would attempt the most obnoxious thing possible. He tried to extort money from some teenaged halfing girls. He wanted to rob the guy renting us a boat. He urinated on a little girl who was in the middle of giving us a side-quest. I like this guy most of the time, but in this case... rrrrgh. I tried explaining to him why this was obnoxious and ruining everyone's fun (remember- he joined our group after we had already started a campaign) and he eventually got it.

I think the other thing with Belkar is that his personality can't really be turned off. Even though it's only context-appropriate a small portion of the time, he wouldn't be who he is if he weren't like that all the time. I feel like part of the Mark of Justice thing was just taking a break from that. And that's what bugs me about him... to get any sort of dynamic out of him, you have to have something external or artificial to force it.

[brilliantlight]

Quoted for Truth, man.

AFAIC, Belkar is like a book of knock-knock jokes. Some of them may be funny the first time around, but after a while you want to throw the whole damn book out the window.

He's a one trick pony and some of us just don't think the trick is that exceptional, but if it happens to be your favorite trick ever then more power to you.

That's the way I see it. It is like Road Runner cartoons or the Three Stooges. If you've seen one you've seen them all!

[Darcy]

Someone mentioned 8-Bit Theater earlier, and I think it's an interesting contrast there. I like that comic, though I haven't read a ton of it, but the whole point how dysfunctional the group is and how ill-suited they are to be the Big Heroes Who Save The World. OotS is dysfunctional to a point, but there is also lots of growing, learning, sharing and caring. When it started off it didn't have the same gravity it did now, and while the rest of the characters were able to grow with it, Belkar, both in-character and as a character, has difficulty adapting.

[Kroy]

Disclaimer: I have only read the beginning I don't have time for 5 pages

I don't like Belkar. He does have the occasional funny strip, but in general he is just annoying. He has maybe 3 jokes, all variants of "I'm sooo evil/obnoxious. Since the comic got a plot it seems like he only is a roadblock. I honestly don't get why people found the SEXY SHOELESS GOD OF WAR so inspiring. I've heard dozens of people even seriously purpose he becomes a god after he dies.

That is why I dislike Belkar.

[Forealms]

I personally consider Belkar as a sort of villain, just of a different style than RC and Xykon. He has in several ways been "latched" to the party, and he is powerful enough that the party can't readily replace him.

Also, one thing that keeps him with the party instead of off on his own (or in direct contention with the party) is the fact that he likes Elan (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0153.html).

Note: Even though he says he should be the only person to get XP from Elan, I don't consider this comment made in the sincerest of fashions.

Belkar is not Good. In any sense. And I think a lot of people are hoping that he will kill somebody for a Good reason (I apologize for the cliche examples, but maybe because said somebody fought or killed helpless people. Or because somebody kidnapped someone else (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0212.html)), and this is just something he will not do. He is evil, period.*

He is naturally selfish, and that irks people for reasons I can understand, if I myself don't agree. Which is why, to wrap this up and keep it on-topic, some people dislike Belkar. And because people aren't all the same, others will hate Belkar for other reasons. Personally, I've always hated that he only wears green. It's gets boring at times.

Which is why I love this whole gladiator scene. :smallbiggrin:

EDIT: I'm going to add this because I just realized it seconds after posting (and editing the first time). Virtually nobody who says they hate Belkar for one reason is telling the truth. No one reason would cause such dislike, but a multitude of reasons (or even two) could do it.** If you'd like an example, Durkon gets almost no jokes ever, yet people do not hate him for that, even though there is one clear reason you could dislike him.

* Or maybe "He is evil comma period period"

** Erm. I dislike that he has exactly six hairs on his feet, because 7 is my favorite number.

[Darcy]

I think this thread has done a good job of answering the question. Aside from the fact that some people don't like reading about unheroic (or downright villainous and evil) protagonists, it's a matter of taste & our individual sense of humour. Each character has varying levels of appeal and comedy for different readers (hence my Durkon fanboy whining), but what makes Belkar different is that he's so up-front and attention-grabbing that if you don't find his antics consistently hilarious, you can't really just skip over it. He demands attention whether you like him or not. For people who find the appeal in the comic to be elsewhere, that can be grating after a while.

[Meg]

Belkar different is that he's so up-front and attention-grabbing that if you don't find his antics consistently hilarious, you can't really just skip over it. He demands attention whether you like him or not. For people who find the appeal in the comic to be elsewhere, that can be grating after a while.

The nail has been hit on the head. Belkar reminds me unpleasantly of several people I used to work with; people who routinely treated everyone else like crap and were offended when you called them on their actions.

I can totally understand why some people like Belkar, but because I don't find him amusing and he steals so much of the focus from more complex and interesting characters, I for one will be happy when he's gone.

[Kish]

EDIT: I'm going to add this because I just realized it seconds after posting (and editing the first time). Virtually nobody who says they hate Belkar for one reason is telling the truth. No one reason would cause such dislike, but a multitude of reasons (or even two) could do it.** If you'd like an example, Durkon gets almost no jokes ever, yet people do not hate him for that, even though there is one clear reason you could dislike him.

Not being one of the people you're referring to, I still think this is inappropriately presumptuous. Maybe the hypothetical person who says "I hate him because he's evil" does also hate Xykon, Redcloak, Samantha, Vaarsuvius, Nale, Thog and so on. Maybe the hypothetical person who says "I hate him because he's one-note" does also hate Durkon--certainly Durkon has his detractors. Certainly I see no reason to doubt that the people who say "I hate him because I find him aggravating rather than funny" mean exactly what they say.

And you appear to be asserting that all reasons to dislike/hate a character are created equal. They aren't.

[Forealms]

And you appear to be asserting that all reasons to dislike/hate a character are created equal. They aren't.

First and foremost, nice sig.

Having looked at what I said from an outside perspective, I think I've realized where my problem is. I was operating under the assumption that nobody can really dislike a character that is so vital to the story, and that everyone else would have the same thought process. As somebody (Darcy, I think) said, everyone has different thought processes and for that reason I should not have made such an assumption. I apologize.

[Kish]

First and foremost, nice sig.
Thanks. My tone was probably too harsh; that's a failing of mine.

Some people don't believe Belkar* is vital to the story (anymore? ever was? I've seen both). I...suspect he will die well before the end, and leave the story, and the Order will go on without him.

*Or Durkon; we get occasional "huh, since when is there a dwarf in the Order?" jokes.

[Bacon Barbarian]

You know what, just because I can, Im sticking with the fact Belkar's a misguided Chaotic Good. Sure, you can tell me that Alignment doesnt work that way, but youve never played with my DM's. And if Alignment doesnt work that way, how come the Paladin was Lawful Good? :smallwink:

I know she fell, but thats not my point

[Darcy]

I'm really excited to have both those conversations, again.

[Kish]

You know what, just because I can, Im sticking with the fact Belkar's a misguided Chaotic Good.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=559967&postcount=4

Sure, you can tell me that Alignment doesnt work that way

He's telling the truth! We can! I tested it! It is empirically proven!

, but youve never played with my DM's.

How are your DM's house rules relevant?

[Pilantis]

...

ALIGNMENT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOOD NIGHT!

SOMEONE IS TAKING THIS TOO SERIOUSLY! GOOD DAY!

It's true though. Oots is a work of fiction based on DND and it's rules, but Rich can twist them to suit his needs especially if he thinks it's funny. Sometimes people act as if Oots must follow rules and freak out if someone says something that doesn't perfectly conform.

[Darcy]

More importantly, if it's demonstrated in the comic that the universe does operate according to a particular rule in D&D, I don't think it makes sense for people to start making obscure and convoluted statements about why it doesn't or oughtn't. The dude who writes the comic knows.

[Bacon Barbarian]

How are your DM's house rules relevant?

Because, read this post.


SOMEONE IS TAKING THIS TOO SERIOUSLY! GOOD DAY!

It's true though. Oots is a work of fiction based on DND and it's rules, but Rich can twist them to suit his needs especially if he thinks it's funny. Sometimes people act as if Oots must follow rules and freak out if someone says something that doesn't perfectly conform.

[Kish]

...You're saying Rich is your DM?

[Zen Monkey]

Yep, Belkar is evil. It's a big part of why he doesn't have an origin story, because the author didn't want him to have a sympathetic excuse for his actions. Belkar got the sufficient amount of hugs growing up (or whatever damaged background excuse you'd prefer) but just turned out to be a jerk. Some jerks say funny things sometimes, but eventually people get tired of having them around. The fact that Belkar himself sees no problem with his actions does not make him any shade of good, but just shows how very skewed his own moral compass is. Believing yourself justified does not make it so, especially in a world with objective morality that is measured by spells and items.

[Nilan8888]

And yet despite this, he's still supposed to be painted as a hero. He gets away with it all (the Mark of Justice was nowhere near enough punishment). Xykon commits atrocities just as bad as Belkar, but he's expected to. He's the bloody main villain! Belkar is meant to be a hero. He acts as bad as the inhuman enemy of all life, but he's cheered on because he's the "hero".

And I bet the moment he dies, you Belkar fanboys will be grabbing your torches and pitchforks and demanding his return or spewing a few thousand theories, none of which will make even a tiny speck of sense. That's what you want. Belkar, Belkar, Belkar. It just makes me sick.

This is sort of what I was mentioning before.

Now first of all, if anyone is saying Belkar is anything but Chaotic Evil, they have to go back and read the comic. He literally says he's Chaotic at one point, and there's no way you can interpret his character any way but evil without breaking your own brain with confounded logic. At that point you're past just liking Belkar for what he is and into defending him because of it.

That said... the notion that people liking Belkar making someone sick? That's just, I find, rediculous. People liking Belkar has NO BEARING on anyone as a person, thier moral choices in life and/or common sense, or thier development as a person. Belkar is fictional. Just about all the people who are fans of the character understand exactly what he is and what he does regardless of alignment confusion. They're not about to go out and start trying to get Ted Bundy raised from the dead -- who was another charming psychopath, except in RL. What IMO has a lot more bearing in RL is people reacting to the reactions of people who like Belkar, or just read the comic in general.

Sure, if someone's pro-Belkar and they just won't be quiet about it, anyone has more than enough license to get annoyed by that. But it's not like Belkar's got the only claim on annoying fans (Miko, Girard, etc). However if you like a character and they're gone, the fact that the character was evil does not make that person difficient in missing thier presence. And it doesn't make anyone more astute or wise for saying "good riddance" becuase he was evil. Dollars to doughnuts the same two people could be on opposite sides of the fence in a real life situation with the Belkar-lover horrified over a murder and the Belkar-hater nonchlant about it. Life is actually topsy-turvey like that a lot of the time. Recognizing abhorrent behavior in a comic has no bearing on recognizing it in RL just as getting a laugh out of it has no bearing on not seeing it in RL. Opinions on fictional characters is NOT a proper measure of actual human empathy.

Myself, I find Belkar sort of hit and miss. But when he hits and I laugh whether or not it's becuase the act was evil, I'd rather do without the implication that I'm one of the amoral, unwashed masses for doing so.

As for the OP's original question, people can definately not like Belkar. Nothing says you can't.

[Boogastreehouse]

Funnily enough, some of us actually like our characters to have, well, character!

That's a reasonable assertion, but everything you list afterward:


He torments and belittles the only group on the planet to actually give him a chance. He's attempted to or planned to kill his teammates more than once. He kills people for petty reasons, reasons the victim couldn't possibly know about, and more often no reason at all. The one time he had to face justice, he turned back to his vile self the moment it was lifted.

And yet despite this, he's still supposed to be painted as a hero. He gets away with it all (the Mark of Justice was nowhere near enough punishment). Xykon commits atrocities just as bad as Belkar, but he's expected to. He's the bloody main villain! Belkar is meant to be a hero. He acts as bad as the inhuman enemy of all life, but he's cheered on because he's the "hero".

And I bet the moment he dies, you Belkar fanboys will be grabbing your torches and pitchforks and demanding his return or spewing a few thousand theories, none of which will make even a tiny speck of sense. That's what you want. Belkar, Belkar, Belkar. It just makes me sick.

...is a description of his character.

You initially state that Belkar has no character, but then your post goes on to describe what kind of person he is and all the terrible values he has. You explore all of the things about Belkar that cause you to have an emotional reaction, all the things that make him different from everyone else in the book, but those things are his character.

I'll agree that Belkar is a one-joke-character a lot of the time, but all the things you've listed are traits of his character, not traits of his lack of character. You really seem to be complaining about his evil, petty, selfish and unrepentant nature and how much you don't like him, but I think it's a success in writing to be able to evoke such a strong reaction to a character.

It's okay to not like Belkar's character, but to do so implies that he does, in fact, have character.

[Bacon Barbarian]

...You're saying Rich is your DM?

OK, not my DM's rules, but the DM's rules. The DM in this case being Rich

[Darcy]

OK, not my DM's rules, but the DM's rules. The DM in this case being Rich

... who has repeatedly stated that Belkar is CE.

So let's recap. You're speculating that Belkar is CG because, as the author and "DM" of OotS, he could hypothetically decide that Belkar is so, regardless of whatever he has actually said on the topic?

[Boogastreehouse]

OK, not my DM's rules, but the DM's rules. The DM in this case being Rich

But Rich maintains consistency with the game's alignment rules, showing us interesting examples of extreme alignments that all fit within the requirements of the established system.

Your position, on the other hand:


You know what, just because I can, Im sticking with the fact Belkar's a misguided Chaotic Good. Sure, you can tell me that Alignment doesnt work that way, but youve never played with my DM's.

...depends on redefining the alignments to suit the perspective of a "misguided" character. A character can think they're good all they want, but if they exhibit the characteristics described in the rules as "evil" (selfishness, cruelty, disregard for the rights and dignity of sentient beings, etc), they're going to register as "evil" when someone casts a "detect evil" spell on them.

There is a tangible, measurable, quantifiable energy in the D&D universe called "evil," and this energy, much like the Dark Side of the Force, doesn't care what your intentions are, or what alignment you think you are. If you're evil you're evil, and any house rule that makes the alignment system work differently is probably the result of someone missing the point.

[Bacon Barbarian]

...depends on redefining the alignments to suit the perspective of a "misguided" character. A character can think they're good all they want, but if they exhibit the characteristics described in the rules as "evil" (selfishness, cruelty, disregard for the rights and dignity of sentient beings, etc), they're going to register as "evil" when someone casts a "detect evil" spell on them.

There is a tangible, measurable, quantifiable energy in the D&D universe called "evil," and this energy, much like the Dark Side of the Force, doesn't care what your intentions are, or what alignment you think you are. If you're evil you're evil, and any house rule that makes the alignment system work differently is probably the result of someone missing the point.

Alignment as it is is unrealistic. Just have everybody be True Neutral. Let them do what they want.

[Boogastreehouse]

Alignment as it is is unrealistic. Just have everybody be True Neutral. Let them do what they want.

Um... okay, let's do that. Thanks for fixing everything for us.

[Bacon Barbarian]

Um... okay, let's do that. Thanks for fixing everything for us.

No problem. I wasnt trying to ... I was jus pointing it out. Yeesh

[Kish]

OK, not my DM's rules, but the DM's rules. The DM in this case being Rich
No one has said, "Rich couldn't have Belkar be an alignment other than Chaotic Evil if he wanted to."

Mysteriously, he doesn't seem to want to.

[Darcy]

Alignment as it is is unrealistic. Just have everybody be True Neutral. Let them do what they want.

The whole point of alignment is that it describes what a person wants to do and why. It's not a code that must be followed. It's a way of describing their choices, actions and intentions. for one person, "doing what they want" might mean spending much of their free time caring for orphans and sacrificing their own material wealth for these children's well-being. For someone else, it might be beating up cripples. Nobody is forcing them to do these things; these people are acting out their respective wishes.

They are being allowed to do what they want. The alignment system does not punish, it does not judge, it only describes.

[Gift Jeraff]

Stuff.
I have to say I agree with this.

When I first started reading OOTS, I hated Belkar because of Black Mage--my favorite 8-Bit Theater character.

In addition to what Daimbert said, I also felt we didn't need reassurance that Black Mage was evil--his signature spell causes a nuclear explosion and siphons love from the universe, and he got it by sacrificing orphans. While I don't feel that Belkar's evilness is an informed attribute, I feel the scale of it is. I mean, come on, what has Belkar actually done post-Origins that would actually qualify as half a "kilonazi"? Maybe a dozen Nazis, but 500 of 'em? Nah. (Yeah, yeah, it was just a gag, but still...) (The only thing I could think of would be the Dungeon of Dorukan because he enjoyed and reveled in the slaughter of hundreds of sentient beings.)

Now, one of the reasons this occurs is because Belkar isn't nearly as prominent as Black Mage. Black Mage was the main character and appeared in like 80~90% of the strips, so we saw his horrific evil 3 times a week. On the other hand, Belkar shares the 4th most prominent character spot with V (according to the number of character appearances thread, he's only appeared in 318/736 strips, and that includes stuff like Elan's illusion).

Another problem is that Belkar isn't as free to do whatever he wants. For one, as stated by Daimbert, this would make readers question why the OOTS keeps him around. Two, it's just not the style of the comic. 8-Bit Theater, on the other hand, operates purely on comedy so having a character just stab and nuke people and survive a continent being dropped on them is nothing out of the ordinary.

I'll admit that Belkar has grown on me and now I like him, but man did I hate him when I first started reading.

[KenderWizard]

Now first of all, if anyone is saying Belkar is anything but Chaotic Evil, they have to go back and read the comic. He literally says he's Chaotic at one point, and there's no way you can interpret his character any way but evil without breaking your own brain with confounded logic. At that point you're past just liking Belkar for what he is and into defending him because of it.


More than that, he himself actually says (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0610.html) he's Chaotic Evil in his Shojo dream!


Alignment as it is is unrealistic. Just have everybody be True Neutral. Let them do what they want.

As Darcy says, people do do what they want. Alignment isn't mystically conferred at birth and imposed thereafter. People's alignments change. If you've got a good DM, and you're down as Chaotic Good, but you always follow rules and orders, he'll talk to you, and your character's alignment will be changed to suit. A particular character can be Lawful Neutral and come back from a campaign to find their hometown destroyed and their family killed and become a Chaotic Good Robin Hood or a True Neutral Batman. D&D itself is pretty unrealistic in a lot of ways, and people don't conveniently fit in 9 boxes all the time, but most fit one of the alignments more than the others.

[Irbis]

He's a murdering, lying, thieving scumbag who enjoys tormenting others for the heck of it and sees nothing at all amiss with, say, killing random strangers for their candy bars.

And yet, the same people that hate him cheer at characters A) making genocides; B) murdering unarmed prisoners; C) killing defenseless victims in cold blood for money.

That is, certain two elves and a rogue. For "badassness", despite these act being far worse than anything Belkster ever did.

Oh, and they claim later these characters are good despite them not having even the slightest pretense to be even neutral.

The irony.

[The Pilgrim]

And yet, the same people that hate him cheer at characters A) making genocides; B) murdering unarmed prisoners; C) killing defenseless victims in cold blood for money.

That is, certain two elves and a rogue. For "badassness", despite these act being far worse than anything Belkster ever did.

Oh, and they claim later these characters are good despite them not having even the slightest pretense to be even neutral.

The irony.

I dislike Belkar, and I also look forwad to the day the hobgoblins of Gobbtopia inflict karmic death over a certain group of elves, or V gets some draconic payback.

Anyway, the worst about Belkar is not just his atrocities, but also the fact that he does it with no style. Xykon, the only character in the story who truly can match him in the senseless murdering and rotten soul field, at least does them with some grace.

[Boogastreehouse]

I actually hope that Belkar ends his days in the material world and then moves on to his eternal existence in the afterlife without suffering any karmic comeuppance whatsoever.

The fact that people keep bringing up the notion that Belkar ultimately deserves to suffer for his life of pointless wickedness and selfish misdeeds just reminds me that bad people do bad things to good people all the time and get away with it scott-free.

The fact that this happens in real-life ought to be reflected at least occasionally in fiction.

While Xycon has specifically expressed that "the fire below" must be avoided at all costs, suggesting that that is going to be his fate, Belkar has never expressed a fear of death or the afterlife, just a fear that he won't get in enough mayhem before he dies.

I'm waiting to see Xykon reduced to nothing but a skull, suffering for eternity in hell at the hands of a happy halfling who finally has a sentient commode.

[leper0messiah]

He's a horrible, evil person and an awesome, hilarious character. Case closed.
Leper supports this:smallbiggrin:

[calar]

I think its a bit of a "love to hate him" kinda thing. While you hate the acts he commits, it is funny to see how they effect others.

[Ancalagon]

[QUOTE=Boogastreehouse;8996680The fact that this happens in real-life ought to be reflected at least occasionally in fiction.[/QUOTE]

Good luck on this happening in D&D where the entire afterlife-setup is more advanced and developed than the entire main-universe of other fictionous works. Also good luck this happening in the main incarnation of "fantasy". I mean... does it - anywhere - get more "fantasy" than in/with D&D?

Even people who are no geeks, no ropleplayers, who are plain boring, normal bankers have heard about wizards in D&D.

And I disagree. D&D and OotS are typical fantasy stories. I think the bad guys should go to hell and the good guys to some good afterlife. This is D&D and a typical fantasy story after all.
It's just not the genre for a "Ohh... the world is so bad and evil, there is no justice, not in death, nowhere".

No, Belkar and Xykon will meet in the Abyss and scream together while they get roasted over the coals. I bet those two would get along very well with each other and would find each other to be a real source of cruel fun.

[toastywes]

I can't believe how people take Belkar's personality and actions personally. :smallconfused:

[Darcy]

I can't believe how people take Belkar's personality and actions personally. :smallconfused:

It's a bit weird. Funnily enough, seeing that some people don't like Belkarjust because he's an evil dude has caused me to examine my own feelings on him and realize what I actually like and dislike about him.

[hamishspence]

Given that it was the Dragon Magazine strips where I first saw Belkar, that might be why I did, at first, find him somewhat funny.

That said, him getting a comeuppance was funnier.

Belkar: "What are you gonna do, repossess my health?"
Church Agent: "Actually, yes. Plus interest, of course"
Belkar: "Arrrrgh!"
Church Agent: "Hold still! I need to assess a late fee!"

:smallbiggrin:

[Kumo]

I'm waiting to see Xykon reduced to nothing but a skull, suffering for eternity in hell at the hands of a happy halfling who finally has a sentient commode.

Belkar: :smallannoyed: Ah, crap. Oh well, let's get started with the eternal fiery torture.
Devil: :smallconfused: Uh... well, see, here's the thing... we examined your case and couldn't find anything in hell that would be torturous for you... in fact it probably would've been a bigger punishment to be trapped in the upper planes.
Belkar: :smallconfused: Uh... ok, so am i going to heaven.
Devil: Nope. But you do have a job.
Belkar: ... say what?
Devil: :smallsmile: my boss has decided to hire you. Welcome to Devilhood, Belkar Bitterleaf. He's your complimentary sentient to take dumps in.
Belkar: :smallamused:
Xykon: :smalleek: Oh damn

[sihnfahl]

Devil: Nope. But you do have a job.
The Lower Planes probably wouldn't work that way.

The way to get into a job, or get a higher position, is to take the position from the current holder. If you belong in the position, you win it. Otherwise, you're too weak to hold / deserve it.

[Omergideon]

Also agreed, although with your wording of the latter case that leads me to think of it as an unfortunate case with the latter person just becuase of the strong language used. Becuase if it's that strong then the inability -- or unwillingess -- to distinguish morality within the work from morality in RL might be clouding judgment in general if that's an accurate discription of how they feel. Because they are inferring too much of the power of either the fiction itself or people's enjoyment of it.

There are some people that have this sort of fused enjoyment. But those people are EXTREMELY rare in the grand scheme, and usually emotionally disturbed regardless. It's a valid concern to be worried about those sorts of people, but what you seem to describe within that viewpoint is a much larger trend, which I don't think applies at all.

I know that this comment is a few days old, but I felt like I wanted to respond to it. In short, I myself find it difficult (or even impossible) to be very much entertained by activities and actions I would consider morally reprehensible in real life. That is if I see an act performed in a work of fiction I cannot be entertained by it, no matter the context, and so an "evil" act presented as funny does not work for me. I wonder exactly how what you said applies to this situation? (genuinely curious here as I couldn't really get what you were saying)

As for the Belkar question itself, I divide my dislike of him into 2 categories, I dislike him as a person and as a character. Both are important to me and have caveats so bear with me.

I dislike Belkar as a person. By that I mean that I would not like a real person who was like Belkar. Why should be obvious, he is an evil little wretch. Why this is such a big deal to me is, as I said, I am not entertained by characters doing things I would find wrong in RL. It is the way I am and other people think differently I am sure. But this itself is not everything regarding a fictional character. I mean I have rarely liked a villain in this sense, but I appreciate their presence in the story. By contrast I dislike the presence of Belkar in this story (or at least did until his big change) and need to explain why.

Not only do I dislike the person of Belkar, I dislike the character of Belkar. To me he was largely a 1 dimensional character with exactly two jokes that got old really quickly (be mean, and be evil respectively). In my eyes he served no essential function in the story and acted in most respects as an artificial problem for the group. That is he created problems for everyone else whilst nominally being a protagonist for no reason than to cause problems. They did not flow from the narrative. But really it was the 1 dimensional aspect of his nature, coupled with a lack of likeability and relatability, that led me to dislike the character. By contrast again whilst I would dislike the person of Miko, I found that character to be nuanced, posessing a strong arc and having an interesting role as antagonist that meant I enjoyed the presence of the character in the comic.

This dislike of Belkar's character (and role in story) decreased with his having the mark of justice applied as it forced him into new situations. The vision quest as well addeed at least a second dimension to Belkar, refreshing the character and making his role in the story more palatable and narrative driven. I still won't be sad when he goes, and find almost every other character in the strip more entertaining or having a more important role in the narrative (or just more likeable as a person), but my dislike has decreased.

P.S there are characters I would like as people, but dislike as characters. For instance early Elan I found too one note to be a good character, but he is a very likeable person (if annoying at times). Early Elan's presence in the story irked me less than Belkar, but I still found his antics annoying at first. Thankfully his character grew as well and he has become far more useful to the story.

[The_Weirdo]

the taxi wizard

And not even the readers give NPCs much credit either. :smallbiggrin:

[Kumo]

The Lower Planes probably wouldn't work that way.

The way to get into a job, or get a higher position, is to take the position from the current holder. If you belong in the position, you win it. Otherwise, you're too weak to hold / deserve it.

Ok, first? It's a bloody joke. :smallannoyed: Take it like one

Second, Quarr got promoted so killing the guy above you isn't the only way to advance.

Third, becoming an employee is different from moving up in the ranking.

[Nilan8888]

I know that this comment is a few days old, but I felt like I wanted to respond to it. In short, I myself find it difficult (or even impossible) to be very much entertained by activities and actions I would consider morally reprehensible in real life. That is if I see an act performed in a work of fiction I cannot be entertained by it, no matter the context, and so an "evil" act presented as funny does not work for me. I wonder exactly how what you said applies to this situation? (genuinely curious here as I couldn't really get what you were saying)

There's two ways of operating what I am saying: first moving the context of humor from a good character to an evil charater, and second moving the context of the humor from a less evil situation to a more evil situation.

Let me provide examples:

1.

A: The reader in question sees a joke that could be spoken by any number of characters spoken by Elan or Haley. They laugh becuase they find that joke funny.

B: Back up in time previous to reading A. The same reader now reads the SAME joke in the SAME context but it is now spoken by Belkar instead of Elan, Haley or another 'good' character. The reader now upon this different first reading no longer finds the joke funny (or claims to). Becuase it was said by an evil character instead of a good one.

This is one situation of what I felt in my opinion was Moral Uptightness.


2.

A: The reader in question sees a joke that involves humor from say, a character being prevented from going somewhere becuase they are suddenly restrained from going somewhere. Say, a witty quote provided by a big brick wall dropped in front of thier path. The reader finds the sequence funny.

B: Back up in time previous to reading A. The same reader now reads what is the same overarching joke context with a twist on how harsh it is: now instead of a brick wall there is a blade barrier, and an angry golem announcing "Death To Humans" trapped along with the character -- similar to the RedCloack/Tsukiko sequnce in War And XPs. The general impeteus or 'punchline' is very, very similar if not the same: the character expects to be able to go somewhere where they are suddenly prevented, and the witty comments are either the same or just as good as the other. But now, because there is a threat of impending violence, the same reader now no longer finds the sequence funny.

This is the second situation of what I felt in my opinion was Moral Uptightness.

As I said before, in these comparisons the humor itself is not taken at face value, or at least not in the final reaction. It's being held first to the standard of 'was that moral? yes/no' before it is held to the standard of 'was that funny? yes/no'. Only after both are passed does the reader find the joke funnny.

I'm of the opinion only the second question matters.

[Optimystik]

And not even the readers give NPCs much credit either. :smallbiggrin:

I've had my share of "Lord Questington told us..." :smallwink:


Second, Quarr got promoted so killing the guy above you isn't the only way to advance.

It's worth mentioning, though, that what the IFCC is doing is very much not the way things usually work Down Below.

[sihnfahl]

Ok, first? It's a bloody joke. :smallannoyed: Take it like one
I did.


Second, Quarr got promoted so killing the guy above you isn't the only way to advance.
Okay, more serious, then. Qarr's LE. Belkar's CE. Different planes, different rules. And the IFCC isn't exactly playing by the usual rules, either.

[YB-Betacrow]

From a purely Good Vs. Evil standpoint, I don't like Belkar, but as a character, I love him. He's a good compliment to the rest of the party, he provides alot of comic relief, and for me, he's someone I like to hear.

When he was hit with the mark of justice, It was weird not seeing him kill things just for xp. Without Belkar the way he is, the Sexy, Shoeless God of War thing wouldn't have had the same impact as it did.

Belkar is a necessary evil, in my opinion.

[Boogastreehouse]

{Scrubbed}

[Omergideon]

As I said before, in these comparisons the humor itself is not taken at face value, or at least not in the final reaction. It's being held first to the standard of 'was that moral? yes/no' before it is held to the standard of 'was that funny? yes/no'. Only after both are passed does the reader find the joke funnny.

I'm of the opinion only the second question matters.

Thanks for clearing that up. I think I get it now, and so by your definition I think that I would be considered morally uptight in the second sense. However I think you need to understand in my case that the context of a situation is considered by many to be contributory to wether or not a joke is funny. In other words the whole situation must be looked at. For instance a joke about falling down a well seems to me less funny if the person was pushed down and didn't fall due to an accident. The net result is the same, person down well, but the situations are totally different. one is the result of malice, the other not and to try to divorce the joke from the context is something that makes no sense to me. In other words an evil action is never funny to me. The context of the possible humourous outcomes is that something evil happened and I simply just find myself unable to laugh at it. I can't laugh at rape jokes, abortion jokes or most other forms of so called "dead baby comedy". The situation is just so inherently unfunny that no joke, however witty, can make up for it.

To clarify, in case it isn't clear, I don't judge the humour of a joke first by moral standards, then funnyness. I look at the whole situation of the joke and sometimes the context renders an otherwise innocuos witticism funny. It simply is unfunny in that context. A joke about murder is just.....well in my opinion not funny. And since jokes depend on the context to derive the humour (often by dissonance with the environment) one cannot simply ignore it. The joke includes the situation inherently.

I agree with the first situation though, that a joke's humour is not really dependent on the person telling it. It's the situation that is more important.

[Kumo]

{Scrubbed}Why wouldn't i take a comment directed at me as if it were directed at me? :smallconfused:

I use the emoticons because i like them.

People push my buttons (usually intentionally) everywhere i go, so yes, i AM angry almost all the time. Why do you think i spend all my time on the internet? Because i like having my buttons pushed at four posts an hour?

No. Because Four posts an hour of annoyance is way better than fourty annoying sentences per minute.

" :smallannoyed: " has 'annoyed' in it's name for a reason. I use it to indicate that what was said annoyed me, not that i'm angry. If i get angry i start using differing fonts a lot.

In this case, what annoyed me is that he decided to point out a logical fallacy in a joke that most likely wouldn't happen whether or not his point was true.

[Optimystik]

{Scrubbed}

[Kumo]

{scrubbed}

[Ronan]

And here comes a Belkar fanboy rant :smallbiggrin:

Because he's an evil protagonist. Protagonists can't be evil. Evil must die by some holy crusade. Just as Miko did. She was evil. Evil people must suffer and die ^^

oops, she was actually LG... oh my... I guess people *do* make wrong calls when trying to do something right.

---Rant mode OFF---


Well seriously, Xykon's more of an murdering bastard than Belkar. Both got that bloody (literally) sense of humor. But Xykon's the villain, so it's ok for him to die.

Sorry if I was too drastic, but hey... I hated Miko, I hate Self Righteous people since my experience with some. But while she was alive I didn't say a thing.

Of Course I wouldn't like Belkar if he was real, but C'mon... he's a character in a *fantasy* comic book. People do relate to him in some way, But they often relate in a way as Not to be like him, unlike Roy, the leader everybody likes/would like to be. I don't wanna be like him, but hey... I'm always amused by such malicious thinking, even if I wouldn't do it myself :smallsmile:

Just to put out, I like the way the Giant uses the Grey areas between alignments. He would make a nice Greyguard class if he tried (a guy that stands for True Neutrality, unlike the one WotC did. I'd play it ^^).

Malack, if he's not lying about his neutrality, is another example

Long live the blood bathed, sexy, shoeless god of war :smallamused:

[Ronan]

And here comes a Belkar fanboy rant :smallbiggrin:

Because he's an evil protagonist. Protagonists can't be evil. Evil must die by some holy crusade. Just as Miko did. She was evil. Evil people must suffer and die ^^

oops, she was actually LG... oh my... I guess people *do* make wrong calls when trying to do something right.

---Rant mode OFF---


Well seriously, Xykon's more of an murdering bastard than Belkar. Both got that bloody (literally) sense of humor. But Xykon's the villain, so it's ok for him to die.

Sorry if I was too drastic, but hey... I hated Miko, I hate Self Righteous people since my experience with some. But while she was alive I didn't say a thing.

Of Course I wouldn't like Belkar if he was real, but C'mon... he's a character in a *fantasy* comic book. People do relate to him in some way, But they often relate in a way as Not to be like him, unlike Roy, the leader everybody likes/would like to be. I don't wanna be like him, but hey... I'm always amused by such malicious thinking, even if I wouldn't do it myself :smallsmile:

Just to put out, I like the way the Giant uses the Grey areas between alignments. He would make a nice Greyguard class if he tried (a guy that stands for True Neutrality, unlike the one WotC did. I'd play it ^^).

Malack, if he's not lying about his neutrality, is another example

Long live the blood bathed, sexy, shoeless god of war :smallamused:

[Kumo]

Long live the blood bathed, sexy, shoeless god of war :smallamused:

all of his less than 7 weeks. :smalltongue:

[Ronan]

all of his less than 7 weeks. :smalltongue:

Man, that was low :smalltongue:
But hey, ***** it. We're having fun

[Souhiro]

Belkar is just a great character, but like Dragonlance's Kenders, "It's only funny when it happens to others".

Many of the Belkar haters really longs for his death, because they know players that are like him. And you don't want to have a walking mass-murdering rampage with the party, killing the ancient oracle you need to continue your quest.

I had a Belkar-Like player in a campaign (A mega-evil halfling roge) that threated even the GM! Well, now we hate that player, but I personally enjoy to see Belkar wreaking havoc