The Beginning of Repent?

[Ozfer]

Could Belkar be feeling... A smidgen of guilt over his ways? Is he on his way to the path of good? And if so, could his prophecized death be his report as Good-Belkar? (This is a stretch I know) Discuss.

[KillianHawkeye]

:belkar: "Hurting people is the only thing I'm good at."

Yeah, not so much on the road to redemption.

[Terrador]

I interpreted it to mean that Belkar isn't so much guilty about hurting people, but beginning to want to be something more than a killing machine.

Not that he won't remain a sexy shoeless god of war until the day he dies, but my gut says he wants to be that and maybe a little bit more.

[Nolant Marlevy]

Were this anyone else, on any other scene, I'd say with confidence that this is the character admitting that he's an *******, and that this isn't something he's proud of, but it's something that has to be done - to say the truth, even when it hurts.

This being Belkar, I'm not so sure, but I like to think it is this kind of scene.

[Vinsfeld]

That reminded me when Belkar set the dinosaur loose on the arena and he didn't want Roy to know that it had been him. And now this. It seems that Belkar is going through a lot of character development, but he prefers to keep it to himself for some reason. Which actually almost got him killed by Roy, when he told about Durkon.

[scurv]

Belkor Might be Evil. and a bit of a class clown. But he does have some reserve.
I do not know if he will repent, But I think he has progressed from a mindless killing machine to someone who is coming into self-awareness. Although to be fair,regardless of where we think his alignment is going. I do believe by and large we agree that Belkors alignment is now in question Or soon to be in question at this rate.

[Lvl45DM!]

Nah he's just grumpy and tired.

[KillianHawkeye]

Belkor Might be Evil. and a bit of a class clown. But he does have some reserve.
I do not know if he will repent, But I think he has progressed from a mindless killing machine to someone who is coming into self-awareness. Although to be fair,regardless of where we think his alignment is going. I do believe by and large we agree that Belkors alignment is now in question Or soon to be in question at this rate.

Whoever this mysterious "Belkor" guy is, he sounds a lot like Belkar. Except that Belkar is most definitely Evil.

[SowZ]

Belkor Might be Evil. and a bit of a class clown. But he does have some reserve.
I do not know if he will repent, But I think he has progressed from a mindless killing machine to someone who is coming into self-awareness. Although to be fair,regardless of where we think his alignment is going. I do believe by and large we agree that Belkors alignment is now in question Or soon to be in question at this rate.

Belkars evil through his life is measured in Kilonazis. Also, remember Soon Kim who said the road to redemption is difficult and not for everyone. The amount of penance Belkar would have to do to change alignment would be... a lot. But at the bare minimum, it would require a deep desire to change and open repentance. He is certainly not repenting for his actions.

[Stormlock]

Well it's not like he's striving for Lawful Good Paladinhood. The standard Soon was holding Miko to is higher than that Roy needed to get into his cushy afterlife. Chaotic Neutral isn't THAT far a jump. Miko probably had to go from CN to LG. She was way off the deep end. Murdering your unarmed liege lord while he begs for mercy with other people willing to arrest him isn't exactly an act of neutrality. Let alone becoming violent when offered atonement.

That said, I don't necessarily think Belkar wants to change his alignment at all. He might be heading towards the border of CN, but I doubt he'd get even there without a concerted effort. At best he's going to be Thog/Therkla evil instead of Xykon/Tarquin evil.

Belkar has done a LOT of distinctly non-evil acts, especially since his hippie vision quest. But I think when push comes to shove, he's always going to be willing to commit heinously evil acts when he can get away with them and doesn't feel guilty about it. He's loyal to the party and feels some sympathy for other people (like Enor), but he's also likely still willing to chop off a merchant's head and turn it into doorstop if he thinks he's getting scammed. I doubt he'll ever feel bad about what he did to the oracle for example, and would happily do it again. Bastard deserved it for tricking him as far as he's concerned.

[NerdyKris]

One can seek repentance without actually achieving it.

Belkar can still try to be a good person from this point on without ever being forgiven or changing his alignment. He's clearly realizing that there are other living beings he cares about. He cares for Mr. Scruffy, and he just expressed remorse at Durkon sacrificing himself for him. He is changing his views on life.


Whether that makes up for years of murder and other evil acts is up to the reader's own moral views, but the idea that he can never redeem himself doesn't nullify the fact that he's making a change. In a far less serious analogy, one doesn't give up on proper nutrition just because they can't lose weight. Losing weight would be nice, but eating nothing but candy for the rest of your life will make for a short and miserable life. You might as well make the remainder of it pleasant with proper nutrition.

[Roland Itiative]

:belkar: "Hurting people is the only thing I'm good at."

Yeah, not so much on the road to redemption.

Now, if he had said that with the grin he has on the emoticon, which he would totally do one arc ago, I'd agree with you. But his facial expression when saying that does imply a tone of regret. He knows he is only good at hurting people, but he doesn't seem as proud of that fact as he was before, and might even be starting to hate it.

Now, I don't think Belkar will change to a Good alignment, ever. He may have a heroic death, doing for once what is right, but his alignment will probably stay Evil, his final act will probably just be a "breach" on his alignment (like all the non-Lawful things Roy did, without changing his alignment). He's definitely building character, though. He's ceasing to be a evil-for-the-sake-of-evil guy, and becoming a more nuanced character, who can understand empathy. Less like Xykon and more like Tarquin or Redcloak.

In fact, speaking of Redcloak, Belkar's development right now is not much different in tone from the one Redcloak had during the siege of Azure City, regarding his use of hobgoblins as mere cannon fodder. Rdecloak ceased to treat the hobos like mere pawns, and started actually helping them build a nation, but he didn't turn any less evil for that.

[Ellye]

Belkar has done a LOT of distinctly non-evil acts, especially since his hippie vision quest. But I think when push comes to shove, he's always going to be willing to commit heinously evil acts when he can get away with them and doesn't feel guilty about it. He's loyal to the party and feels some sympathy for other people (like Enor), but he's also likely still willing to chop off a merchant's head and turn it into doorstop if he thinks he's getting scammed. I doubt he'll ever feel bad about what he did to the oracle for example, and would happily do it again. Bastard deserved it for tricking him as far as he's concerned.This is pretty much exactly what I wanted to post.

Belkar is still Evil, but he's growing more empathetic. He has pretty much always shown some decent bit of loyalty to his party and at least basic levels of empathy towards them, but now he's starting to really care about them.
And Evil characters can still care about their friends. They're evil, but they're still humans (well, halflings).

[Hubert]

When was the last purely evil action of Belkar? By "purely evil", I mean akin to killing an innocent without any provocation.

The last thing I remember was the abuse of the dominated kobold (e.g. in comic 835 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0835.html)). Even though its clearly an evil action, this is motivated by the kobold being (1) an enemy of the team and (2) the one who hurt Mr Scruffy.

[asphias]

When was the last purely evil action of Belkar? By "purely evil", I mean akin to killing an innocent without any provocation.

The last thing I remember was the abuse of the dominated kobold (e.g. in comic 835 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0835.html)). Even though its clearly an evil action, this is motivated by the kobold being (1) an enemy of the team and (2) the one who hurt Mr Scruffy.

and yet it is also the last time we see belkar in a position to do something evil to a non party member, and not even 50 strips ago.

unless you count trying to kill nale without making sure elan is ok with it. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0862.html
"ELAN IS IT COOL IF I KILL YOUR BROTHER WHAT CAN'T HEAR YOUR ANSWER SORRY!"

with the development he is going trough, yes, we can all see that he's moving in a positive direction. i quite doubt he'll come even close to becoming neutral. it's just that he starts to realize that other people have feelings too. would this mean that he might not steal bread from prisoners anymore? doubtful, but maybe. would he stop killing random gnomes because they might carry a chocolate bar? also a possibility.

but would it mean that he wouldn't repeat his chase scene with Miko(or an equivalent lawfull good character who gets on belkars nerves the way miko did), should he get the opportunity? i doubt it.

even an empathetic Belkar who plays as a team-player will still be evil. he might not dish out random murder on people he doesn't know, but he will certainly do evil acts on those he dislikes. i really doubt he'll go beyond that.

[Kish]

When was the last purely evil action of Belkar? By "purely evil", I mean akin to killing an innocent without any provocation.

The last thing I remember was the abuse of the dominated kobold (e.g. in comic 835 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0835.html)). Even though its clearly an evil action, this is motivated by the kobold being (1) an enemy of the team and (2) the one who hurt Mr Scruffy.
You know. Maybe you think sadistic torture is something that can, under certain circumstances, be justified. If you do, okay; we disagree utterly, but people have been known to disagree with me.

But don't downplay what Belkar did, eh? Call it what it was: Sadistic torture, not merely "abuse."

[Hubert]

You know. Maybe you think sadistic torture is something that can, under certain circumstances, be justified. If you do, okay; we disagree utterly, but people have been known to disagree with me.

But don't downplay what Belkar did, eh? Call it what it was: Sadistic torture, not merely "abuse."

I do not approve of torture. I never said that what belkar (and V) did in comic 835 was not evil. But IMHO, torturing the kobold was less "evil for the sake of evil" than e.g. killing a random innocent as Belkar did in the past. We may disagree of course.

Regarding my choice of word: I am not a native English speaker, even if I am quite fluent. It did not occur to me that the word "abuse" was too weak for the actions described in comic 835. Sorry if this bothered you.

[Chantelune]

Belkar might realize that there's more to life than just killing and hurting people, doesn't mean he want to stop being evil. I think he enjoys too much being evil to really stop, but that doesn't prevent him to be a team player. Main difference is what he stated in 881 : if they fail or give up, he can live with it, unlike the rest of the party.

[Silverionmox]

and yet it is also the last time we see belkar in a position to do something evil to a non party member, and not even 50 strips ago.

unless you count trying to kill nale without making sure elan is ok with it. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0862.html
"ELAN IS IT COOL IF I KILL YOUR BROTHER WHAT CAN'T HEAR YOUR ANSWER SORRY!"

with the development he is going trough, yes, we can all see that he's moving in a positive direction. i quite doubt he'll come even close to becoming neutral. it's just that he starts to realize that other people have feelings too. would this mean that he might not steal bread from prisoners anymore? doubtful, but maybe. would he stop killing random gnomes because they might carry a chocolate bar? also a possibility.

but would it mean that he wouldn't repeat his chase scene with Miko(or an equivalent lawfull good character who gets on belkars nerves the way miko did), should he get the opportunity? i doubt it.

even an empathetic Belkar who plays as a team-player will still be evil. he might not dish out random murder on people he doesn't know, but he will certainly do evil acts on those he dislikes. i really doubt he'll go beyond that.

IMO choosing to avoid conflict and confrontation, be willing to restrain your urges for the sake of getting along with others, is a significant step towards Neutral. Not Good, but Neutral. For Chaotic Evil, the choice is limited between my way, the highway, or the hard way. But accomodation? Never, unless forced, in which case it really is "the hard way".

[The_Tentacle]

Belkar will never reach Good. But neutral is within his grasp, and I think that his actions of late have to have been pushing ever more towards neutral. After all, serious repentance for every "sin" is usually thought of as for people going from evil to good, and this is not what Belkar is doing.

Also, Therkla is neutral. Not sure if she's CN or TN though.

[hamishspence]

Belkar will never reach Good. But neutral is within his grasp, and I think that his actions of late have to have been pushing ever more towards neutral. After all, serious repentance for every "sin" is usually thought of as for people going from evil to good, and this is not what Belkar is doing.

The DMG example (not of atonement- but of repentance at least) is of going from Evil to Neutral with Good tendencies.

[SowZ]

I do not approve of torture. I never said that what belkar (and V) did in comic 835 was not evil. But IMHO, torturing the kobold was less "evil for the sake of evil" than e.g. killing a random innocent as Belkar did in the past. We may disagree of course.

Regarding my choice of word: I am not a native English speaker, even if I am quite fluent. It did not occur to me that the word "abuse" was too weak for the actions described in comic 835. Sorry if this bothered you.

Dude, Belkar killed people like a day and a half ago. It has been much longer in Real Time. But in comic time?

In no other context would someone say, "That serial killed hasn't killed anyone for 60 hours or so. Must be turning over a new leaf."

[Zmeoaice]

When was the last purely evil action of Belkar? By "purely evil", I mean akin to killing an innocent without any provocation.

The last thing I remember was the abuse of the dominated kobold (e.g. in comic 835 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0835.html)). Even though its clearly an evil action, this is motivated by the kobold being (1) an enemy of the team and (2) the one who hurt Mr Scruffy.

Arguably V was even more evil in that scene.

[LordofDragons24]

Just noticing something that Belkar says at the end-

"Hurting people is the only thing I'm good at".

Doesn't this stand at odds to his prior attitude towards people?

Notice he says [I]hurting[I] people, not killing people. Belkar of all people prizes his ability to deliver sharp, stabby mutilating death to others on a whim. Yet he chooses the word 'hurting' over any other.

It seems to me (and I don't know if it's just me) that not only is he feeling no small amount of guilt over Durkon's death, but that maybe he's got some insight into how his actions affect the rest of the party around him. He is, I think, developing Empathy in some small capacity. He gets that Roy could never run away from a good cause over Durkon's body, and that Roy needs to be told the harsh things to act according to his role as team leader.

Belkar's comment of hurting people implies an understanding that his actions can cause pain to others. It started with having to put up with teammates. Then it became Mr. Scruffy he cared for.

Thus- the change in words reflects a change in attitude- and perhaps alignment too?

If he keeps up this way, dies a heroic death (say, trying to save durkon or the rest of the party)- who knows? He has potential for CN, but maybe might just scrape himself an entryway into CG afterlife- and Belkar up there smoking cigars rolled from poorly-worded legal documents with Shojo would be a nice finish for his character.

Jus' saying.

[Incom]

I once had a theory that both Belkar and Miko would end up in the TN afterlife and hilarity would ensue.

[scurv]

Miko, All things Considered I think was farther into the evil alignment then most people give her credit for. She was draconian lawful. But I saw no actions of hers that i would define as good. And she had no idea how far down she was sliding, even when she soul searched and meditated on the topic. And her actions were consistently driven by rage. And one can make the argument that her loyalty was an affection of romance of the idea of being loyal to her lord rather then true loyalty to her lord. (Who she killed)

Belkar though. He is gaining self awareness, He seems to be less then happy with what he is. He is showing traits of empathy And I think that cat is making some very good empathy checks to influence his behavior. But as strange as This will sound He is not quite the same man he was before. But for good deeds, keep in mind what the groups mission is, Belkar might very well end up committing an act of self sacrifice for the benefit of the world. Keep in mind he has shown loyalty to his party from the beginning of this comic And quite often people forget how much that can count for.

[SowZ]

Miko, All things Considered I think was farther into the evil alignment then most people give her credit for. She was draconian lawful. But I saw no actions of hers that i would define as good. And she had no idea how far down she was sliding, even when she soul searched and meditated on the topic. And her actions were consistently driven by rage. And one can make the argument that her loyalty was an affection of romance of the idea of being loyal to her lord rather then true loyalty to her lord. (Who she killed)

Belkar though. He is gaining self awareness, He seems to be less then happy with what he is. He is showing traits of empathy And I think that cat is making some very good empathy checks to influence his behavior. But as strange as This will sound He is not quite the same man he was before. But for good deeds, keep in mind what the groups mission is, Belkar might very well end up committing an act of self sacrifice for the benefit of the world. Keep in mind he has shown loyalty to his party from the beginning of this comic And quite often people forget how much that can count for.

Her willingness to help the dirt farmers was good.

[KillianHawkeye]

I would say that the fact that Miko didn't fall until she executed Shojo says a lot about her alignment up to that point. A paladin has to maintain a Lawful Good alignment. The fact that she fell from grace when she did means that technically, none of her previous acts were in the least bit Evil. Murdering her liege was the line that she crossed. Up until that point, we know that she was still Lawful Good.

Personally, I don't think that a single act, even one so brash as murder during the heat of the moment, is enough to change one's alignment. Especially considering that Miko thought she was doing the right thing. Instantaneous alignment change requires a choice. A person must reach that tipping point and decide to jump headlong to the other side (like Anakin after killing Mace Windu in Revenge of the Sith). It's my opinion that despite the Evil act that caused her to fall, Miko died still believing in the ways of Lawfulness and Goodness.

In other words, her stubbornness virtually guarantees that her personality would not be changed by something as little as losing her paladin powers.

[hamishspence]

Personally, I don't think that a single act, even one so brash as murder during the heat of the moment, is enough to change one's alignment. Especially considering that Miko thought she was doing the right thing. Instantaneous alignment change requires a choice. A person must reach that tipping point and decide to jump headlong to the other side (like Anakin after killing Mace Windu in Revenge of the Sith). It's my opinion that despite the Evil act that caused her to fall, Miko died still believing in the ways of Lawfulness and Goodness.

Sure, but to quote War & XPs:

This was not simply one sudden switch from being a Good Guy to being a Bad Guy; this was the culmination of years of behavior. Being a little too quick to pull out the katana ... being a little too suspicious of everyone's motives ... being a little too willing to find the technicalities in her alignment rather than living up to the spirit of it. She pushed and pushed at the boundaries of what it meant to be Lawful Good and a paladin, until one day, she broke through.

[KillianHawkeye]

Well, yeah, I agree that she was clearly walking the technicality of her alignment pretty closely.

That doesn't change the fact that she didn't cross the line until that moment, nor does it change my opinion that it wouldn't have had a big impact on her overall alignment.

But since this thread is supposed to be about Belkar, not Miko, I'll echo my previous opinion about sudden alignment changes and repeat that Belkar is unlikely to become Good because he does not choose to make that leap to the other side. The recent comic might be showing that he is becoming more aware of himself, but he is still not showing any real signs of rebelling against his previous persona. In the best case, from all that I can tell he seems to have accepted that his role is only in hurting others.

That is not even one iota of redemption.

[hamishspence]

But since this thread is supposed to be about Belkar, not Miko, I'll echo my previous opinion about sudden alignment changes and repeat that Belkar is unlikely to become Good because he does not choose to make that leap to the other side. The recent comic might be showing that he is becoming more aware of himself, but he is still not showing any real signs of rebelling against his previous persona. In the best case, from all that I can tell he seems to have accepted that his role is only in hurting others.

That is not even one iota of redemption.

I'd go so far as to say he's unlikely to become Neutral until he comprehends that what he's done in the past, was wrong.

[scurv]

Her willingness to help the dirt farmer showed no self sacrifice of merit. And could of just as easily been her doing her duty.

But when she was assigned the task of capturing the order, her demeanor was one of vengeance and righteous fury. Later belkar had set her up almost (Keep in mind what a paladins ideal wisdom score) to perform cold blooded murder in an act of rage,

When Soon showed that he was doing the time honored if not quite honorable acts of lying to get what he wanted. And considering the nature of the local politics acts such as intrigue and misdirection become needed to keep the local minor royalty from doing things like becoming involved. She then decided that her Lords life was forfeit in an act of vengeance and righteous fury, Before taking a moment to listen and reflect

Later on when it came time for her to reflect she reached a conclusion that best fit her emotional state and desires to enact vengeance. What I still find as telling is that she opted to attack the gate, Rather then remove the with out a doubt true evil.

I do not think she was sitting Firmly in the area of lawful good I think at one point she was defined as lawful good and somehow managed to keep performing enough when she had others who were protecting her alignment from her own actions by offering her guidance and easy to accomplish tasks that would yeild the needed good acts to offset her natural personalty traits.

Something to keep in mind about alignment changes. A change in perspective and a few well placed consistent and focused actions (As such as above) Can undo a lifetimes work. Belkar is on said path as well in his own way although most likely if he was to become some form of good it would most likely involve self sacrifice

<edit> Mechanics of alignment change is partly the topic as well, And miko does provide a good contrast.
She also thought she was doing the right thing when she killed her lord. Self delusion is only so much insulation from the merits of ones own actions

[hamishspence]

Her willingness to help the dirt farmer showed no self sacrifice of merit. And could of just as easily been her doing her duty.

That's a big part of the credo of heroic Goodness "Putting myself at risk to help strangers in need, is my duty."

[scurv]

Yes and it was acts such as that, That kept her alignment just inside of Lawful Good. Just as it is with belkar that his random killings, And killings that for quite a while has been focused on evil creatures by and large that has kept his alignment in the Chaotic Evil side.

[KillianHawkeye]

What I still find as telling is that she opted to attack the gate, Rather then remove the with out a doubt true evil.

Well that one I chalk up to her not really paying attention to what else was going on in the room. She basically took one look at what was going on, decided what she was going to do, and went about doing it regardless of the fact that Soon Kim was actually about to win the fight against Xykon and Redcloak.


I do not think she was sitting Firmly in the area of lawful good I think at one point she was defined as lawful good and somehow managed to keep performing enough when she had others who were protecting her alignment from her own actions by offering her guidance and easy to accomplish tasks that would yeild the needed good acts to offset her natural personalty traits.

Something to keep in mind about alignment changes. A change in perspective and a few well placed consistent and focused actions (As such as above) Can undo a lifetimes work.

Well I am going to have to disagree with you here. We all know that Miko was basically the personification of "Lawful Good done wrong," but that still means that she has to be Lawful Good. The worst kind of Lawful Good, I freely admit, but Lawful Good nonetheless. And I still hold that she stubbornly refused to change her perspective. Even in the face of losing her holy powers, she maintained her belief that she was the Judge Dredd of Lawful Goodness. Whether or not she had help or guidance is irrelevant. She made a lot of mistakes, sure, but I believe she maintained her alignment (if nothing else) all the way to the end.

[hamishspence]

And I still hold that she stubbornly refused to change her perspective. Even in the face of losing her holy powers, she maintained her belief that she was the Judge Dredd of Lawful Goodness.

A person can be one alignment and believe themselves to be another.

Going back to Belkar- he's done plenty of Evil things since his "epiphany"- such as to the gladiators. But in that case it was more "hurting and oppressing" than "killing". At least, outside the arena.

[scurv]

Alignments are a X AND Y operation
So to be Lawful Good you need to be Lawful And Good

I think Miko got the max points you could get for self delusion in regards to alignment and law. But as it has been noted many of the best villains view them self as the saviors of the world.

She thought many things that have been hashed and rehashed. But it got to the point were her actions no longer could be overlooked because of how she saw them. At a point one has to consider the bottom line of how is her delusion affection her ability to serve the people.

Now contrast to belks This man is growing. He is beginning to see the world with clearer eyes. He is beginning to show hints of reflecting on his life and all the while he still has shown the traits of loyalty to his party.

I think he is off to a good start in char development and I look foward to see if he makes it, and at what cost. Or if he fails to be able to repent and atone.

Keep in mind it is diffrent to repent for ones actions then to atone for them.

[hamishspence]

Indeed. Some repentance, and ceasing to do Evil deeds- would be a sign he is no longer Evil. Active efforts at atonement- would be a sign he's Good, or rapidly on the way to becoming so.

[Stormlock]

I'd just like to note that the length of someone's history as a given alignment doesn't really matter. Ochul has been lawful good for decades, probably longer than Belkar has been alive. He'd still change alignment just as quickly as Miko if he decided to murder Hinjo in a fit of rage. Likewise, Belkar could change more quickly than some people give him credit for, if he really were inclined to do so. He doesn't need to be forgiven for everything he's done to become a force for good. He just needs to actually change how he currently thinks and acts.

[SowZ]

I would say that the fact that Miko didn't fall until she executed Shojo says a lot about her alignment up to that point. A paladin has to maintain a Lawful Good alignment. The fact that she fell from grace when she did means that technically, none of her previous acts were in the least bit Evil. Murdering her liege was the line that she crossed. Up until that point, we know that she was still Lawful Good.


Not really true. While Miko could not willingly commit an evil act, that doesn't mean her actions couldn't be in the least bit evil. Her actions were, at least in the least bit, evil. Also, there is clearly some flexibility in that code. As in, it isn't so much whether your actions are good or evil but whether your god, who gives you your power, views your actions as evil.

SoD
Rich has basically said, though I don't recall what words he used, that the massacre of the goblins of Redcloaks village was wrong. But that one act wasn't enough to cause the Paladins who did it to fall, even if some of them may have fallen.

[Alex Warlorn]

:belkar: "Hurting people is the only thing I'm good at."

Yeah, not so much on the road to redemption.

I think the way he says it however that just feels tragic somehow. He's he loves what he does, yes, but you almost get this sense of him being resigned to that fate.

[Zmeoaice]

I'd go so far as to say he's unlikely to become Neutral until he comprehends that what he's done in the past, was wrong.

He does know what he did was wrong. That's why he did them :smallbiggrin:

[silveralen]

Honestly, if you really want to think about it in terms of alignment, he seems to be moving away from chaotic more than evil. He will still be a complete bastard, but he won't do it arbitrarily or for kicks.

After all, he killed a gnome for a candy bar and a cart before, but simply bullied the prisoner's for the bread. He more or less ignored the kobold, not even encouraging scruffy to savage him, until after he found out he'd harmed scruffy. He is still doing evil things, but he has a reason when he does so. He is being less "aribtarily violent" and more "out for himself".

He also has a greater respect for authority, at least Roy's as we saw in the last strip, and is developing a sense of loyalty to the party. Those are typically lawful traits, and while I certainly wouldn't say he is lawful, I would say he is moving towards NE rather than CE.

Plus, if we are talking extreme alignment changes, I think having a LE belkar who learns the value of loyalty and even a measure of honor is more believable than any non evil alignment, and it's the closest to redemption I think he'd ever want.

[SowZ]

Honestly, if you really want to think about it in terms of alignment, he seems to be moving away from chaotic more than evil. He will still be a complete bastard, but he won't do it arbitrarily or for kicks.

After all, he killed a gnome for a candy bar and a cart before, but simply bullied the prisoner's for the bread. He more or less ignored the kobold, not even encouraging scruffy to savage him, until after he found out he'd harmed scruffy. He is still doing evil things, but he has a reason when he does so. He is being less "aribtarily violent" and more "out for himself".

He also has a greater respect for authority, at least Roy's as we saw in the last strip, and is developing a sense of loyalty to the party. Those are typically lawful traits, and while I certainly wouldn't say he is lawful, I would say he is moving towards NE rather than CE.

Plus, if we are talking extreme alignment changes, I think having a LE belkar who learns the value of loyalty and even a measure of honor is more believable than any non evil alignment, and it's the closest to redemption I think he'd ever want.

It isn't really closer to redemption, though. LE isn't any better than CE. If anything, LE does the most damage. I could see NE maybe causing less pain than CE or LE, but that may not be true and it still isn't any less evil any more than LG is more good than CG.

[veti]

Is he becoming Good? No chance. He'll still commit evil with the same cheeky grin as ever. And I see no indication that he's inclined to feel the least bit bad about it.

But he does feel bad about what happened to Durkon. He liked Durkon. And, he's being driven to acknowledge more openly, he likes the rest of the Order, too, and he wants to help them succeed. He genuinely wants to be useful. What he doesn't want is to be loved.

Which is why he just gave Roy exactly the pep talk he needed. Belkar has always enjoyed needling Roy (for a whole bunch of reasons, but basically we can call it "personality clash" and be close enough), but it's always been harmless banter - he's never (deliberately) impeded the Order in its mission. He's always been a decent team player, despite the alignment difference.

Belkar is part of the Giant's ongoing thesis - that D&D isn't about "good vs. evil". Just as a good character (Miko) can be a deadly enemy, so an evil character (Belkar) can be an invaluable teammate.

I think what we're seeing now is: during the leadup to his death, the positive contribution he makes is being more overtly highlighted, so that when he does die, there'll be a lot less people thinking "he was a liability anyway" (which was never true IMO).

I can also see a tragicomic moment in store, after Belkar's death, when Roy (or possibly one of the others) realises that they've got to stick with the quest because they owe it to Belkar, in just the same way as Belkar just argued Roy owed it to Durkon. They could end up saving the world in his name. How's that for irony?

[silveralen]

It isn't really closer to redemption, though. LE isn't any better than CE. If anything, LE does the most damage. I could see NE maybe causing less pain than CE or LE, but that may not be true and it still isn't any less evil any more than LG is more good than CG.

From what perspective? He won't decide to betray his companions on a whim, kill them for fun or because they annoyed him. He can be expected to exhibit loyalty and think of what is in the best interest of the group as well as himself. He will still be evil, but it will be controlled evil, more or less what Roy has been trying to do with Belkar this whole time.

An old but good example is from Dark Sun. A group is running out of water, and must decide how to divide the remaining share.


Lawful Evil-A character of this alignment will insist that available water be evenly distributed among the ablebodied of the group, but won’t offer any to those who seem too far gone. He will accept plans that call for unequal distribution of water for the good of the group, especially if that means more water for him.

compared to


Chaotic Evil- A chaotic evil character will freely lie, cheat, or even kill to get all the water he can. He will constantly suggest plans calling for unequal water distribution that grant him additional water immediately.

Personally I think most people agree that yes, you do want a LE over a CE on your side. It really does come down to loyalty. Funnily enough, from a pure alignment standpoint, a Lawful Evil character is far more likely to act in the best interests of the group than a Chaotic Neutral.

[SowZ]

From what perspective? He won't decide to betray his companions on a whim, kill them for fun or because they annoyed him. He can be expected to exhibit loyalty and think of what is in the best interest of the group as well as himself. He will still be evil, but it will be controlled evil, more or less what Roy has been trying to do with Belkar this whole time.

An old but good example is from Dark Sun. A group is running out of water, and must decide how to divide the remaining share.



compared to



Personally I think most people agree that yes, you do want a LE over a CE on your side. It really does come down to loyalty. Funnily enough, from a pure alignment standpoint, a Lawful Evil character is far more likely to act in the best interests of the group than a Chaotic Neutral.

Oh, sure, practicality wise LE is better than CE. My point, however, was that becoming NE or LE isn't a path to redemption at all. Because LE or NE isn't less Evil than CE, even if it is usually less stupid. And shoot, you can be a loyal Chaotic Evil character who even has principles and hates it when people, say, hurt kids. (Take Marv from Sin City.) So CE can still be team players and deep, sympathetic characters.

[scurv]

Personal opinion here, But I do not think he could be a neutral anything. He is a creature of passion and neutral has to much apathy in it.

[rodneyAnonymous]

He'd still change alignment just as quickly as Miko if he decided to murder Hinjo in a fit of rage.

That act didn't change her alignment.


Personal opinion here, But I do not think he could be a neutral anything. He is a creature of passion and neutral has to much apathy in it.

Neutral doesn't necessarily mean apathetic. A neutral character could passionately strive for balance, for example.

[scurv]

Do you see belkar on a path of balance? Time and time again belkar has shown himself to commit fully to the action at hand. I could see him walking that path for a time if he was mentored But I think of he goes on his own he will commit fully to the other end of the spectrum. Moderation seems to not be a personalty trait of his.

<edit>
An act that defocks a paladin tends to be viewed as alignment changing by some...

[hamishspence]

A character trying hard to be Good, but failing badly, could be Neutral rather than Evil, despite not being "committed to Neutrality" or "apathetic".

[scurv]

Something That is if i recall taking into account in insanity defenses. Is that after one accepts that the person in insane, As in they were not capable of acting in a rational matter due to passions, chemical unbalance, or mental defect. So Keep that in mind when considering Miko and the latitude she is given in maintaining her alignment as long as she did.

Although to define our terms, How do you fail to be good? committing good and evil acts tends to take willful effort. And when evaluating them one takes in both the persons intention and the net-sum results of their actions.

Belkar up till his felines intervention (The true power of azure city) killed solely for pleasure, Afterwards he did so only when needed. And quite less often.
But to keep in mind the moral rules that apply in this universe.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0464.html

Belkar is on his first steps to acknowledge that he might of been wrong by being resigned to his path that he has chosen. And if you consider his talk to roy in this as tough love. He might actualy be begining to commit good acts. And if you keep in mind the mission and its implications of its failure That one act although small has very large ramifications.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0881.html

[veti]

<edit>
An act that defocks a paladin tends to be viewed as alignment changing by some...

Of course there is any amount of individual interpretation to be done here, but...

By the rules, a single intentional evil act is enough to 'defrock' a paladin. But in general, it takes more than one such act to actually change one's alignment. So it follows that paladins can, and probably most often do, 'fall' without changing alignment.

Note the SRD says: A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct... (emphasis added).

[rodneyAnonymous]

Do you see belkar on a path of balance?

No it was an example of non-apathetic neutral. Alignment can be interpreted in many different ways.


An act that defrocks a paladin tends to be viewed as alignment changing by some...

Those "some" are simply mistaken. Paladins fall when their alignment changes or they commit an evil act.

[stsasser]

"He just walked in there and saved my life and got straight up murdered for it."

Has Belkar ever before witnessed an act of selflessness and not afterward thought, 'sucker'?