Only the good ...

[Ron Miel]

"Only tha good die fer good, they say"

Foreshadowing? It has been foretold that Belkar shall soon draw his last breath ever, i.e. die for good, and not be rezzed. Does this mean that he shall become good before he dies?

[suszterpatt]

Drawing his last breath ever does not necessarily mean he'll die for good. Undead don't breathe either, correct?


Though the thought of a sentient undead Belkar is just too terrible for me to contemplate any further.

[Moogleking]

Drawing his last breath ever does not necessarily mean he'll die for good. Undead don't breathe either, correct?


Though the thought of a sentient undead Belkar is just too terrible for me to contemplate any further.

They exist in this world, so they don't count. He'd have to stop breathing, aging, existing in this world and have bank accounts.

[Ron Miel]

Oh come on, guys, we've had the "does Belkar become undead" debate over and over. No more, please. This is a different topic. Does Belkar become good?

[Ancalagon]

Drawing his last breath ever does not necessarily mean he'll die for good.

He will. Gone. Totally. Forever and permanently.

"Not long for this world" does not mean "his spirit will still be in an undead body on this world". It means his spirit will leave this world.

Belkar does not have friends who would resurrect him. So if he dies, he will be away. Go to the Abyss. Maybe he'll have fun there are torturer or will get roasted over the coals, we do not know. But he won't be hanging around on this (or any other) world anymore. Dead. As the parrot.

[sihnfahl]

Does Belkar become good?
:roy: I wouldn't count on that.


Dead. As the parrot.
He's not dead!

Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords!

[Bongos]

They say there's a heaven for those who will wait
Some say it's better but I say it ain't
I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints
the sinners are much more fun...

you know that only the good die young
thats what I said
I tell ya
only the good die young.

~Billy Joel

[Ancalagon]

He's not dead!

No one claimed that. But he will be. "Will" as in "it will rain within the next year" or "tomorrow, the sun will come up again".

[Kareasint]

No one claimed that. But he will be. "Will" as in "it will rain within the next year" or "tomorrow, the sun will come up again".

Sihnfahl was quoting Monty Python's Dead Parrot skit IIRC.

[Volthawk]

No one claimed that. But he will be. "Will" as in "it will rain within the next year" or "tomorrow, the sun will come up again".

Er, I think he was talking about the parrot.

[teratorn]

Oh come on, guys, we've had the "does Belkar become undead" debate over and over. No more, please. This is a different topic. Does Belkar become good?

He was good for a short time. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0058.html)

[Dr.Epic]

"Only tha good die fer good, they say"

Foreshadowing? It has been foretold that Belkar shall soon draw his last breath ever, i.e. die for good, and not be rezzed. Does this mean that he shall become good before he dies?

Roy came back and after Durkon he's the purest member of the Order.

[LuPuWei]

:roy: I wouldn't count on that.


He's not dead!

Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords!

Pinin' for the Fjords?? Look, me lad, when I got home I found out the only reason he even had his blades in his hands were because they'd been nailed there! :smallmad:

[Gift Jeraff]

Roy came back and after Durkon he's the purest member of the Order.
Whuh? I'd tie Durkon and Elan in terms of purity.

But yeah, that line confused me since the last book was all about bringing the hero back from the dead. Could be foreshadowing that Durkon's death is permanent (or he thinks/hopes that).

OR DOES DURKON SECRETLY THINK ROY IS EVIL?!

[Dr.Epic]

OR DOES DURKON SECRETLY THINK ROY IS EVIL?!

Only if Good=Stupid.

[LuPuWei]

MAybe it just means that only the Good have an afterlife pleasant enough to warrant not coming back at all. And they have less incentive to come back as malignant souls and wreak havoc...

[Dr.Epic]

MAybe it just means that only the Good have an afterlife pleasant enough to warrant not coming back at all. And they have less incentive to come back as malignant souls and wreak havoc...

Or that evil people always find ways to become undead: liches, death knights, about 2 dozen other intelligent undead I can't think of right now.

[Ancalagon]

Sihnfahl was quoting Monty Python's Dead Parrot skit IIRC.

Yes, I was stupid. The correct answer would have been: "Yes, he is! He is an ex-parrot". Or so.

[TriForce]

"Only tha good die fer good, they say"

Foreshadowing? It has been foretold that Belkar shall soon draw his last breath ever, i.e. die for good, and not be rezzed. Does this mean that he shall become good before he dies?

Lets be honest now, can YOU even imagine belkar dieing for good? dont get me wrong, i think hes a awesome character, and i hate to see him go, but hes evil to the bone, right up the same lvl as xykon and redcloak

[hamishspence]

There is The Giant's comment in Paladin Blues "Belkar isn't committed to Evil as a force in any way- he's amoral. It just happens that in D&D, Amoral = Evil"

So, he might fall a little short of Xykon and Nale.

[MoleMage]

Funny, I read it as 'Only the good die for [the sake of] good.'

[Moff Chumley]

Funny, I read it as 'Only the good die for [the sake of] good.'

...but Durkon's smarter than that, right? :smallconfused:

[Bongos]

Roy came back and after Durkon he's the purest member of the Order.

Nah, I'd give that status to Elan actually.

[MoleMage]

...but Durkon's smarter than that, right? :smallconfused:

Smarter than to die for the sake of good or smarter than to mean what I said? Cause I think it makes more sense what I said. The good and evil can both die permanently, of old age, and for that matter, the neutral or non-heroic die permanently too (especially non-heroic, a farmer mauled by a housecat isn't going to have the resources for a Raise Dead). But only the truly good people will go out and give their lives for the sake of good.

[Hurrashane]

Here's my thought.

Belkar will die. Then someone will cast reincarnation on him. Cause you can say that "Belkar" is the halfling body that his soul resides in, therefore if he is reincarnated into a new body "Belkar" is no longer alive, and drew his last breath etc, etc..

[Dr.Gunsforhands]

The saying has a number of meanings built-in. That's what makes it interesting.

For instance: a good dwarf always ensures that his affairs are in order, so that when he dies, they don't have to go back and sort out something he left behind. It's done for good.

"All good things come to an end."

When a problem arises, even when it is dealt with, one must remain vigilant lest it rise again.

(This is fun! ...but then, what does fun have to do with being a dwarf?)
(Answer: EVERYTHING)
Good people die for good causes. A dwarven sinner who works up the courage to die honorably for a good cause is redeemed.

When someone dies, one is more inclined to miss them and remember them favorably. Even if they were total jerks when you knew them, the fact of their death takes the edge off a bit.

When a dead person has left a huge mess for you to clean up, one may be inclined to hold it against them, even if they were saints in other respects.

Undeath is for jerks. (Meaning: don't cling to a life that you know to be unsustainable.) (Also, Dwarves just freaking hate the undead.)

[Ancalagon]

There is The Giant's comment in Paladin Blues "Belkar isn't committed to Evil as a force in any way- he's amoral. It just happens that in D&D, Amoral = Evil"

So, he might fall a little short of Xykon and Nale.

To be honest... where's the freaking difference? I think The Giant makes a mistake if he makes a difference here. "A sufficiently high degree of amorality is indistunguishable from evil". That is true in D&D as in RL.

There is no difference between "So amoral that it is considered fun to stab people" and "evil". None. Neither in RL nor in D&D, in RL you just have the feature that there is no character sheet where it says you are evil.

Belkar is as comitted to evil as Xykon. Both do what they want to do and like it that way without thinking what pain and suffering they cause. In fact, they do think about it and like it.
Belkar likes things to suffer and to feel pain, as does Xykon.

The difference between Xykon and Belkar is that Xykon is more aware what he does. In regard to "evil" they are the very same league and the very same mindset. The difference only lies in power, which comes from Xykon being a caster and having ten levels more.
Belkar can be bullied into "not being evil for a moment". Xykon is so powerful that it cannot be done anymore.
Imagine Belkar with 10 more levels and being undead and tell me again there's any difference between him and Xykon. Yes, Belkar is THAT evil.

In the end, Xykon is also not dedicated to "advancing evil for evil's sake". If he would not enjoy it for himself, he would not do it (too boring) and rather burn down a city for fun.

Exluding Mr. Scruffy for now (for several reasons).

[factotum]

The difference between Xykon and Belkar is that Xykon is more aware what he does. In regard to "evil" they are the very same league and the very same mindset. The difference only lies in power, which comes from Xykon being a caster and having ten levels more.


Sorry, I think they DO have different mindsets. If Belkar *were* at Xykon's power level, I don't think he'd be going around trying to rule the world--I don't think he'd even necessarily kill more people than he does now, because he seems to like personally delivering the killing blow. All that would change is that the number of people he would be ABLE to kill would increase by some tiny proportion.

[Ancalagon]

Xykon only goes around to rule the world because he has nothing else to do. The difference is that Belkar can still satisfy himself with hookers, booze, and food.

We know that Xykon has a lot of interest in his trouser titan, but for obvious reasons that does not work anymore. Substitute "booze" for "coffee" (see SoD) and we are basically at Belkar.

What do you think Belkar will do if "what he enjoys most" wasn't possible to him anymore? Note that Xykon, while alive, was a powerful jerk but he did have some sort of humaity left, just as you point out Belkar does have. Strip that and how different would they be?

Belkar would get reduced to violence and see others suffer. He would have nothing left and what better was is to increase the dosis than to try to rule others. As many as possible?

There might be differences between the two but it is not in how evil they are and they are only minor to begin with.

Imagine many lines by Xykon as that he likes to "Murder and run", that's really something Belkar could like as well (after he stabbed a few more people on the run). Anyway, the point is that Belkar is just as Evil as Xykon. I think it's moot to somehow justify it or try to argue Belkar's evil was somehow less evil than Xykon's due to some... I do not know... I'm really not convinced.

[Nilan8888]

Sorry, I think they DO have different mindsets. If Belkar *were* at Xykon's power level, I don't think he'd be going around trying to rule the world--I don't think he'd even necessarily kill more people than he does now, because he seems to like personally delivering the killing blow. All that would change is that the number of people he would be ABLE to kill would increase by some tiny proportion.

I SORT of agree. Frankly there IS a difference in RL between IMmorality an Amorality. If there wasn't a difference, we wouldn't have two different words for the distinction. That distinction may not mean anything before the eyes of the law, but it means something in terms of differences between characters.

The difference, of course, is that an IMmoral person very much "gets" that what they're doing is wrong. And they just don't care about that. I think that describes Xykon rather well. He's evil and he thinks evil is the best way to go. I think Xykon at times "plays" at being a Belkar-type guy and feigns a certain amount of simplicity -- most of it is not feigned, but a certain amount is -- but at all times he knows what he does hurts people, and there's a large part of him that enjoys hurting people... whether or not he actually finds it funny (although he does find it funny, too).

Belkar doesn't really "get" that what he's doing is wrong. Oh, he understands that people think he and what he does is evil. He understands that there's some classification of him out there as "evil" but he doesn't really get what that is or what everyone's problem is. He just gets that he does what amuses him and is honestly just not comprehending why he's hated for what he does.

The lesson Shojo gives Belkar is something that would be... not lost on Xykon, but ignored. Xykon's response to the "extended metaphor" of people killing him would be to gain more and more power until it doesn't matter what people think. But he wouldn't need the lecture to begin with since he's quite aware of why he's at odds with society and what the ramifactions are.

Belkar sort of needed that lecture. Although it can certainly be argued that it is no excuse for his behavior, I think it's a little more clear that all he knows is that he is in conflict with society, but he doesn't know why. And so on a fundamental level he doesn't understand why people would be angered with him enough to retaliate and kill him. And, strangely enough, he seems a lot more interested in the quirks of perspective that lecture has given him that Xykon just wouldn't be interested in at all.

Belkar, strangely enough... were he in a different time and place, might be interested in getting a sociology degree.

Does that make either one any more or less evil in the final summation? Probably not. But it makes them different characters.



What do you think Belkar will do if "what he enjoys most" wasn't possible to him anymore? Note that Xykon, while alive, was a powerful jerk but he did have some sort of humaity left, just as you point out Belkar does have. Strip that and how different would they be?

I think there'd be a fair bit of difference, actually. Belkar, I think, is more interested in why society ticks... or at least he is now. He's genuinely fascinated and entertained by what he percieves as hypocracy in society. And he also has very little notion of what distinguishes "my team" from "your team". He doesn't have much issues in helping people weaker than him... if he's told to do it. If he's cooerced into doing a good act, Belkar's not going to use any oppertunity to turn that on its head.

For instance, you can tell Belkar to go rescue a Dirt Farmer and in return he'll get something. And then Belkar will just walk away to enjoy his prize. You couldn't trust Xykon like that -- he'd try constanty to destroy the entire deal and take everything just because he can. It wouldn't occur to Belkar to keep trying to do that.

[Optimystik]

Belkar is as comitted to evil as Xykon.

At one point you may have been right. But I definitely don't think that is the case anymore.

And in morality, both scale and intent matter - Xykon has Belkar outclassed on both counts.

[Ancalagon]

At one point you may have been right. But I definitely don't think that is the case anymore.

Why that? Because he now cares about a cat?

Our murder-hungry pschopath now is a murder hungry psychopath who only feels compassion towards an animal. So he's not an evil, mentally broken murderer but an evil, mentally broken murderer with a cat-fetish. Big difference.

But seriously: Just that he cares about Mr. Scruffy makes no difference at all for the rest of the world and thus his "general level of evilness". Instead of an evil-score of "1000", just like Xykon, he now only has "995" (the -5 reflects the "a bit more redeemable comment from Rich in Don't Split the Party).
Even with his fake character development he still is as evil as before, no change here. The change is that he is more dangerous now as he won't burn out (get killed) as quickly as before. Instead of starting a murderous rampage and getting killed he will now pay attention he does not get cought. Awesome improvement for the world in general - not. And no difference in "evilness" or the "will to slaughter".

[Optimystik]

Why that? Because he now cares about a cat?

No, because he now has restraint. Whatever selfish reasons underlie that restraint, it's still more than Xykon possesses. Also, y'know, not being a negative-energy powered antithesis of life.

I'm not sure where the cat tangent came from - I wasn't even going to suggest that. :smallconfused:

[Scarlet Knight]

Pinin' for the Fjords?? Look, me lad, when I got home I found out the only reason he even had his blades in his hands were because they'd been nailed there! :smallmad:

Well, o'course they was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed those,he would have attacked those gladiators, bent 'em apart with his bare hands, and VOOM! :smallsmile:

[Ancalagon]

No, because he now has restraint. Whatever selfish reasons underlie that restraint, it's still more than Xykon possesses. Also, y'know, not being a negative-energy powered antithesis of life.

That's not where his evil comes from. He is that due to his evil. We learn in SoD he pretty much knows what he is going to become before he became it. He makes fun about it. That he is a bit surprised how much it de-humanises him is a bit different matter.

The point is: What lead to Xykon becoming what he is not different from Belkar. But come on, even the Celestials call Belkar "Death's Little Helper". Even the literal forces of the cosmos remove any doubt Belkar is "Slaughter Incarneted". And you try to tell me that's not "near the upper limit of evil"? We do not argue about 1000 evil or 500 evil vs. Belkar and Xykon but like 990 to 1000 or if you want to rate Xykon's "Antithesis of Life" higher, 900 to 1000.

They are the same game, they are the same league. If one is at #1 and the other at #3 makes, besides the colour of the trophy given out, not much difference.

Or, to put it differently: I think that if we agree Xykon is the current #1 of the World's Most Evil (Post-)Mortals we probably can also agree Belkar belongs in the Top 10. Or am I wrong and you think Belkar is just some third-stringer in regard to evil.

[Optimystik]

That's not where his evil comes from. He is that due to his evil. We learn in SoD he pretty much knows what he is going to become before he became it. He makes fun about it. That he is a bit surprised how much it de-humanises him is a bit different matter.

I'm aware of that (and, in fact, own SoD.) In D&D, however, being a lich does increase your objective level of evil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectevil.htm) vs. just being humanoid. That already gives him an edge over Belkar. Plus there is Xykon's own take on the subject, delivered to Redcloak in the same book - evil is a measure of how far you are willing to debase yourself before you start feeling bad.

Since you bring up Mr. Scruffy, I do feel he is relevant. Is Xykon capable of feeling for any creature what Belkar feels for that cat? I'm in no way suggesting that Belkar's affection does not still make him evil - but it does make him less evil than Xykon. Even if the difference is only a handful of "kilonazis," (for the sake of argument; I personally believe the difference is more pronounced,) it is nonetheless there.


The point is: What lead to Xykon becoming what he is not different from Belkar.

Considering that we have no idea what led Belkar to becoming what he is, AND that we are unlikely to ever get such a backstory from the Giant as that would detract from his outlandish behavior, I cannot fathom what you are basing this assertion on.


They are the same game, they are the same league. If one is at #1 and the other at #3 makes, besides the colour of the trophy given out, not much difference.

Considering that heaven not only has a numerical scale for it, but uses Belkar's position on that scale as a metric for judging other people, I'd say that the numbers do matter.


Or, to put it differently: I think that if we agree Xykon is the current #1 of the World's Most Evil (Post-)Mortals we probably can also agree Belkar belongs in the Top 10. Or am I wrong and you think Belkar is just some third-stringer in regard to evil.

You are waffling here. With one breath you proclaim Belkar to be Xykon's equal, the next you are ranking Xykon ahead. Which is it? It cannot be both.

[Nilan8888]

Or, to put it differently: I think that if we agree Xykon is the current #1 of the World's Most Evil (Post-)Mortals we probably can also agree Belkar belongs in the Top 10. Or am I wrong and you think Belkar is just some third-stringer in regard to evil.

I err on the side of "huge world-ness" and so would say Xykon is in the top 10 and Belkar is maybe a sort of 3rd stringer.

But part of this is because Xykon is guilty of premeditated evil... that is, Xykon sets out to be evil.

Belkar is only incidentally evil. Sure, his is guilty of premediated acts that are evil -- but he doesn't set out to be evil BECAUSE it is evil. He doesn't set out to hurt or maim people for the virtue or vice of hurting or maiming. He does it because he thinks its funny or it gets him something else he wants. So it's different in that regard.

If Xykon saw you walking down the street, he might kill you. Just becuase. Not because he would find it funny or not he'd do it just... to do it. It doesn't have to amuse him, although it probably would. He might do it UNLESS you amused him, in fact.

Belkar makes no such inherent demands. If Belkar saw you walking down the street, he'd need to think it was funny before bothering to kill you. If you stopped and waved at him he'd stop, shrug, and wave back. Belkar's about being amused: if evil things did not amuse him, he probably wouldn't do them.

That doesn't mean one is evil and the other is not, or that either one would not end up in the Abyss. But if you're talking in terms of a character comparison I think it's significant.

[Zevox]

Belkar doesn't really "get" that what he's doing is wrong. Oh, he understands that people think he and what he does is evil. He understands that there's some classification of him out there as "evil" but he doesn't really get what that is or what everyone's problem is. He just gets that he does what amuses him and is honestly just not comprehending why he's hated for what he does.
Precisely. Belkar does not have any personal views on good and evil - he knows others do, but since he lacks any such mindset himself, he can't understand what they're talking about when they call him or his actions "wrong" or "evil." Just remember some of his lines from On the Origin of PCs, for instance:

:belkar: This is ridiculous. If you humans want people to stop killing so many of you in your towns, you should put up some kind of sign. Like, "Thank you for not killing more than five of us."
Prison Guard: We don't want you to kill ANY of us.
:belkar: Well now you're just being unreasonable.

:belkar: Just tell me who I have to kill to get on the team.
:roy: I'm not going to tell you who to kill to get on the team!
:belkar: Oh, is this like a test? OK, I'll start stabbing people in here, you tell me if I'm Hot or Cold.
:roy: I don't want you to kill ANYONE!
:belkar: You know, no matter how many times people tell me that, it never starts making sense.

Xykon, meanwhile, is another matter altogether. In Start of Darkness he explicitly sets out to become an evil overlord type, starting with his attempt to rise through the ranks of an existing evil overlord's forces. As he leaves that place after being rejected for the second-in-command position, he outright says "Well, now. I'm young, evil, and brimming with dark magic. What shall be my first evil scheme? How can I best bring the world to its knees?" That is not something you'd ever hear Belkar say, and not because he can't do magic.

Zevox

[SmaugTheYounger]

Actually, it's all quite simple:
Xykon is epic, Belkar is petty. Both evil to the bone, but the dimensions differ.

So no, I don't think Belkar belongs to the Top 10. He is just to small and mean for that.

And there is this one thing (I just can't remember the specific strip), that he "fears to die alone and unloved". Very very deep down he knows what he does is wrong. So there might be a chance of redemption, however small it is.

Xykon, and many others, are way beyond that.

[Zevox]

And there is this one thing (I just can't remember the specific strip), that he "fears to die alone and unloved". Very very deep down he knows what he does is wrong.
No, that's just the result of a spell designed to inflict depression on the target. It's magic screwing with his head, not his actual thoughts or feelings.

Zevox

[Boogastreehouse]

Actually, it's all quite simple:
Xykon is epic, Belkar is petty. Both evil to the bone, but the dimensions differ.

I actually like to think of it like this: Belkar could easily be like Xykon, if Belkar had a bigger budget and would just learn to apply himself.

[LuPuWei]

No, that's just the result of a spell designed to inflict depression on the target. It's magic screwing with his head, not his actual thoughts or feelings.

Zevox

I'm pretty dure the spell could only work to amplify anxieties the reciever already has- that's usually how these things work...

[Souhiro]

Weeeeelll...

The ENTIRE Sacred Order of the Stick may fall onto the rift, and fall into the new world. And continue their adventures there. And at least Belkar may stay there (In Rift's World) So Yeah...

[Ancalagon]

I'm aware of that (and, in fact, own SoD.) In D&D, however, being a lich does increase your objective level of evil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectevil.htm) vs. just being humanoid.

Evil is a thing of the mind, not the body. Especially in this case where the "mind" decided to rape all that is meant to be and transform the body into some sort of abomination.
Nice you can support you claim with rules, but I still think evil is more a thing of the mind. So I congratulate you on that find, but decide I am not convinced. As if Redcloak would suddenly go more evil just because he makes himself undead.

That already gives him an edge over Belkar.

Good. I can live with a mere edge. As Xykon probably is more evil (knowing what you do is more evil than not really knowing what you do) that does not change the quality of things.

Plus there is Xykon's own take on the subject, delivered to Redcloak in the same book - evil is a measure of how far you are willing to debase yourself before you start feeling bad.

Yes, agreed. But how far would Belkar be willing to debase himself? We have not seen that, we only saw that the acts he commited were as evil as those Xykon comitted. A lot of the things Belkar says and thinks and does would cause moisture to condense in his skull.
But even if Belkar would not debase himself as much as Xykon did: Xykon says it is ALSO a measure. Not the only one, in some cases it might not even be as relevant as in his and Redcloaks case. But in general I agree to your find but as we have no idea what Belkar would do... it's not saying as much as you hoped it would.

Since you bring up Mr. Scruffy, I do feel he is relevant. Is Xykon capable of feeling for any creature what Belkar feels for that cat? I'm in no way suggesting that Belkar's affection does not still make him evil - but it does make him less evil than Xykon. Even if the difference is only a handful of "kilonazis," (for the sake of argument; I personally believe the difference is more pronounced,) it is nonetheless there.

Yes, we have to see what comes from that. It makes Belkar a bit less evil than before and it surely is relevant. As it makes things needlessly complicated, I left Mr. Scruffy out. But Mr. Scruffy does not change "Belkar vs. the World" at all so the practical impact on being less evil on the world is very slim, so the "evil we see" (acted and of the mind) stays around the same level.


Considering that we have no idea what led Belkar to becoming what he is, AND that we are unlikely to ever get such a backstory from the Giant as that would detract from his outlandish behavior, I cannot fathom what you are basing this assertion on.

Where Belkar comes from does not matter. Evil is what you do and what you think and why you do it. Do you kill someone because it's funny? I do not care if your father was a drinker.
Do you kill someone because you cannot keep your rage under control, not because your mind is chemically imbalanced but because you do not want to? I do not care if your sister kept hiding your teddy.
Do you drink a lot so you can lose control to beat people to pulp? I do not care.
All those things are evil. Maybe they are psycologically explainable by the character's past, but what difference to the observed evil does it make?
And even apart from all that: We have to judge Belkar and Xykon by what we see in the comic and nothing else I do.


Considering that heaven not only has a numerical scale for it, but uses Belkar's position on that scale as a metric for judging other people, I'd say that the numbers do matter.

Belkar's on the same chart as an offspring of Cruella de Ville and Sauron and the projection goes even WAY beyond that. Come again and tell me Belkar is not "horrifically evil" (which is the level where I put Xykon as well).
But really, you try to convince me Belkar was not "totally, horrificially, super-duper evil"?



You are waffling here. With one breath you proclaim Belkar to be Xykon's equal, the next you are ranking Xykon ahead. Which is it? It cannot be both.

I said, at least once before, probably several times, it's about the same level of evil. If one is #2 and the other #6 makes not difference at all when seen from outside.
Take the formula 1. Everyone who drives there, no matter if they finish #1 or #15 is a so much better driver than everyone else who usually drives cars. Who has better chances to land on #1 than on #10 is more determined by the car they drive, not by personal skill anymore. What matters in regard to their personal skill is that they are in the same league.

It is the same with Belkar and Xykon. Xykon might be 1% or 5% more evil than Belkar, but my point is they are so close together that the above distinction is a one of nitpickers (and here we arrive it the core of this discussion: you like to nitpick things to the digit after the dot (Belkar's Evil Score 965.3, Xykon's Evil Score 993.2, therefore Xykon's Evil > Belkar's Evil) while I care more about the Quality where everyone with an Evil Score above 950 is in the "Leage of Extraordinary Evil Gentlemen". Every sub-rating in that is, to me, as pointless as taking the (by someone made up) schematics of the Enterprise E and the Voyager and try to argue out which ship is the better one).

[Boogastreehouse]

Evil is a thing of the mind, not the body. Especially in this case where the "mind" decided to rape all that is meant to be and transform the body into some sort of abomination.
Nice you can support you claim with rules, but I still think evil is more a thing of the mind. So I congratulate you on that find, but decide I am not convinced. As if Redcloak would suddenly go more evil just because he makes himself undead.

But EVIL in the D&D worlds is a force that can be detected and measured; it doesn't just exist in the mind.

Negative energy has a physical effect on the world around it; it drains the life force (levels) of living beings that come into contact with it, and it rejuvenates (heals) undead.

One becomes an undead creature by creating a link to the negative energy plane, fueling your dead body with evil energy to keep it going.

And you're right, Redcloak wouldn't go "more evil" because evil clerics already have the same kind of connection to the negative energy plane that undead do. An evil cleric registers way more kilo-nazis than an evil fighter of the same level.

[hamishspence]

It's possible that Detect Evil isn't very reliable when it comes to "how evil" somebody is- doesn't an evil cleric who is only just evil, radiate far more evil than an utterly malevolent fighter?

In fact, if you go by the Detect Evil description, a Neutral cleric of an Evil deity will massively radiate evil:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm

but (by the description) an Evil cleric of a non-evil deity, won't radiate nearly as much evil:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm

Something for smite-happy paladins to remember. You can be a LN cleric of a LE god, and radiate massive evil.

[Zevox]

I'm pretty dure the spell could only work to amplify anxieties the reciever already has- that's usually how these things work...
That's not what the spell description says. It just says it "causes great sadness" in the targets. And it is a mind-affecting spell. There's no basis for assuming it amplifies existing anxieties - especially considering then it wouldn't work on someone without existing anxieties that could cause despair or sadness.

Zevox

[The_Weirdo]

בלקר סתם ימות,הוא לא יהפוך לטוב

בלקר סתם ימות,הוא לא יהפוך לטוב?
םב והם תימלפו יהקר ת,רוא לואב שך לא ל טלואכ זם אני אויבר

[Ancalagon]

בלקר סתם ימות,הוא לא יהפוך לטוב

Repost in english please or it never happend.

[super dark33]

i said: belkar will die, not turn to good

[Rin_Hunter]

On Topic Edit: I do not think that Belkar will turn good before he dies, but he's certainly more Chaotic Neutral since he started "playing the game" than Chaotic Evil, even if his actual alignment hasn't changed.

My prediction is this:
Belkar and Durkon will die during a fight at Girard's Gate and both will be made undead. Belkar will more than likely be made a sentient undead by Tsukiko as that's her thing (probably during the battle) and hilarity shall ensure.

The Oracle's prophecy about Belkar makes this possible as he said "Belkar will draw his last breath - ever - before the end of the year."

When the Oracle said that Belkar wasn't long for this world he was not making a show of his prophecy power, so it is up for debate about whether it was literal or not. If we take it literally then it's likely that Belkar will fall through the Rift when Girard's Gate is destroyed.

Why Durkon will become undead is obvious, in my opinion, but I'll explain why I said it anyway: Durkon will be made mindless by Xykon or Redcloak and will accompany them on the way to Kragor's Gate, passing through his home to complete his own prophecy.

I just feel that this is the most likely route for the story to take, but the Giant has surprised us once and again. Angry Black Dragon, anyone?

[LuPuWei]

That's not what the spell description says. It just says it "causes great sadness" in the targets. And it is a mind-affecting spell. There's no basis for assuming it amplifies existing anxieties - especially considering then it wouldn't work on someone without existing anxieties that could cause despair or sadness.

Zevox

How exactly would a "cause sadness" spell work without amplifying anxieties? Does it temporarily make people care about things that they have no recollection of afterwards? Like a temporary brainwashing spell? Or does it act like a mindcontrol spell, making them act like they are sad about something, when the true effect is just to neutralize them?

I don't see any issue with a "cause sadness" spell that doesn't work on people who don't have anxieties- those people are very hard to find, and like any creature with a spell resistance, if you find one: tough luck.

[Zevox]

How exactly would a "cause sadness" spell work without amplifying anxieties? Does it temporarily make people care about things that they have no recollection of afterwards? Like a temporary brainwashing spell? Or does it act like a mindcontrol spell, making them act like they are sad about something, when the true effect is just to neutralize them?
It's magic, of the enchantment school, and a mind-affecting effect. Yes, it can temporarily inflict emotions the target simply would not otherwise have. That's the entire point of the spell.

And actually, it doesn't neutralize the target at all, it just imposes a penalty on things like attack rolls, saves, and skills.


I don't see any issue with a "cause sadness" spell that doesn't work on people who don't have anxieties- those people are very hard to find, and like any creature with a spell resistance, if you find one: tough luck.
But my point was that there is no indication that the spell works that way. The spell simply works on anyone who fails their saving throw and isn't immune to mind-affecting effects.

Zevox

[Boogastreehouse]

How exactly would a "cause sadness" spell work without amplifying anxieties? Does it temporarily make people care about things that they have no recollection of afterwards? Like a temporary brainwashing spell? Or does it act like a mindcontrol spell, making them act like they are sad about something, when the true effect is just to neutralize them?

I don't see any issue with a "cause sadness" spell that doesn't work on people who don't have anxieties- those people are very hard to find, and like any creature with a spell resistance, if you find one: tough luck.


It's magic, of the enchantment school, and a mind-affecting effect. Yes, it can temporarily inflict emotions the target simply would not otherwise have. That's the entire point of the spell.

And actually, it doesn't neutralize the target at all, it just imposes a penalty on things like attack rolls, saves, and skills.


But my point was that there is no indication that the spell works that way. The spell simply works on anyone who fails their saving throw and isn't immune to mind-affecting effects.

Zevox

Think of it as hormonal. It makes you suffer from the effects of depression even though there's nothing to actually feel sad about.

[derfenrirwolv]

[QUOTE=Zevox;9007822]Precisely. Belkar does not have any personal views on good and evil - he knows others do, but since he lacks any such mindset himself, he can't understand what they're talking about when they call him or his actions "wrong" or "evil." Just remember some of his lines from On the Origin of PCs, for instance:

he knows he's being delibrately evil. At the battle of azure city he wanted to keep hinjo alive to get the mark off so he could kill more people, but was actually UPSET at being made to perform a good deed because it coincided with his longterm goals.