How would Belkar redeem himself? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

veti

2013-05-27, 03:44 PM

I don't really think Belkar has the time to actually change his alignment. Even if he turns 180º and starts acting good, without evil second intentions, I don't think he can build enough "karma" for an alignment change, rather than just acting "out-of-character". Not exactly how the alignment system works, but it certainly could be how they're judged in a more "realistic" manner.

Well, there's the thing. We really don't know how alignment changes work in this world - we don't even know if Miko changed alignment. It's entirely possible that just the change of heart - by itself, without being followed up by any action at all - is enough to make the change. After all, alignment is about how you think and act now, not how you acted in the past.

The only reason there's a "karma" system for DMs to track alignment is because DMs can't actually see inside players' heads and know their true intentions - but that doesn't apply in this case.

However, there's still no sign that it's likely to happen in Belkar's case. I can see him being thrown into Pandaemonium (where he'll probably be Mr Scruffy's pet), rather than the Abyss, but that's as far as he's ever likely to get towards CG.

Reddish Mage

2013-05-27, 03:49 PM

Hmm... this seems the odder explanation for appearing with Shojo and Mr. Scruffy to me, but there you have it.

It's not the afterlife. It's Shojo's quarters, as previously seen in one of the bonus strips in War and XPs.

Belkar's dream was entirely separate from that of the rest of the Order, and he never died in his. Instead, he saw whatever improbable string of events would be required to justify Shojo's resurrection so that Mr. Scruffy could get tummy rubs, because that's what Mr. Scruffy wanted.

The question remains. What would Belkar have to do? Also why wouldn't it be possible?

Assuming that for an alignment-change you need something cataclysmic on the order of Miko's alignment change, but why COULN'T Belkar do something on that order?

I would imagine that sacrificing himself unselfishly for the fate of the world, the party and a basket of kitties is in the realm of possibility. That would rank up there with Miko's actions, indeed it would be better, as Belkar would be purposely taking up the tenants of a new alignment.

But is it also possible that being tortured and remorseful, like V, is enough (the demons estimated a 50/50 chance of ending up with the Elf's soul, which suggests that V isn't there yet, and/or has a good shot at redeeming his/herself). Being evil, at least in the PHB, suggests more than having bloody hands or a soul full of sin or deserving of punishment, it suggests someone who actively desires or at least has (not had) no reservations about the hurting or oppression of others.

On the other hand we have seen the angels measure Roy's deeds throughout the story, but those deeds all evidenced the person he died as and the angel didn't bring up anything from before the story began.

archaeo

2013-05-27, 03:56 PM

Reddish Mage

2013-05-27, 03:59 PM

What exactly is the Giant trying to accomplish if it isn't redeeming Belkar?

The difficulty in answering that last question makes me think that redemption is likely (and also that the Giant is going to stay silent about his intentions).

factotum

2013-05-27, 04:13 PM

What exactly is the Giant trying to accomplish if it isn't redeeming Belkar?

He's showing Belkar having some character growth. Said growth does not mean Belkar is not still a horrid little swine who would rather sheath his daggers in living flesh than a scabbard, though--don't forget, the Giant has made the point (repeatedly) that Evil people can still care for others.

orrion

2013-05-27, 04:19 PM

Why is everyone so sure that Belkar won't redeem himself? Does the Giant opine on this in one of the books or something?

I mean, no matter how you want to slice it, Belkar's been on a "redemptive" arc since the Mark of Justice went off. In fact, his dream with Shojo reminds me a lot of the psychological studies that discuss how forcing oneself to smile actually improves one's mood. Shojo convinces Belkar to pretend to be good, and in doing so, Belkar has actually become kind of good; the only people he's brutalized lately have been evil or in the service of evil, and numerous episodes from the Girard's Gate arc show him expressing remorse or the next closest thing. I'm not exactly sure how Belkar will be ultimately redeemed, although one imagines it will be done in a way that causes the rest of the Order (especially Roy) to reconsider their disdain.

What exactly is the Giant trying to accomplish if it isn't redeeming Belkar?

He's trying to accomplish exactly what's happening - debate about the system and its implications.

He's also making people more attached to Belkar, which is part of what a good author does. They make people interested in their characters and what happens to them.

That said, I don't think redemption is likely. In order for there to be any possibility of an alignment change, Belkar would have to do some Good because he wants to do it, not because he's being coerced or faking it or whatever. We've seen nothing in the larger scheme that indicates Belkar's frame of mind has changed. The last chance he had in the larger world - when he was imprisoned with Roy - he still acted like an evil little sociopath.

EmperorSarda

2013-05-27, 04:19 PM

Why is everyone so sure that Belkar won't redeem himself? Does the Giant opine on this in one of the books or something?
Cause Belkar hasn't demonstrated anything about feeling sorry for anything he has done. He doesn't get why people are thrown in prison, he taunts people for fun. His behavior has only changed in that he is a team player now. Belkar won't redeem himself because he hasn't recognized that he has done anything wrong, or that there is a need to change.

What exactly is the Giant trying to accomplish if it isn't redeeming Belkar?

My guess? Make Belkar's death all that more tragic.

veti

2013-05-27, 04:24 PM

The difficulty in answering that last question makes me think that redemption is likely (and also that the Giant is going to stay silent about his intentions).

That's a very thin prop on which to stand that theory.

Be honest: how many of the various plot twists in this story did you see coming? Did you foresee how Therkla was going to die? Or Durkon? Nale's trap for Elan? How the Darth Vaarsuvius arc would end? Miko killing Shojo?

Me, I was surprised by all those, and more. I have a lousy record of reading the Giant's intentions. And that's fine by me, I think it makes the story more fun if I can't second-guess it. But it does mean that I'm not about to accept any theory whose strongest evidence is "this is all I can think of".

Reddish Mage

2013-05-27, 04:25 PM

Cause Belkar hasn't demonstrated anything about feeling sorry for anything he has done. He doesn't get why people are thrown in prison, he taunts people for fun. His behavior has only changed in that he is a team player now. Belkar won't redeem himself because he hasn't recognized that he has done anything wrong, or that there is a need to change.

My guess? Make Belkar's death all that more tragic.

Does that mean that Belkar simply needs to demonstrate he genuinely feels sorry for what he has done?

EmperorSarda

2013-05-27, 04:28 PM

Does that mean that Belkar simply needs to demonstrate he genuinely feels sorry for what he has done?

I think that would be a first step towards redeeming himself, if he so choose to do so.

archaeo

2013-05-27, 04:48 PM

He's trying to accomplish exactly what's happening - debate about the system and its implications.

He's also making people more attached to Belkar, which is part of what a good author does. They make people interested in their characters and what happens to them.

That said, I don't think redemption is likely. In order for there to be any possibility of an alignment change, Belkar would have to do some Good because he wants to do it, not because he's being coerced or faking it or whatever. We've seen nothing in the larger scheme that indicates Belkar's frame of mind has changed. The last chance he had in the larger world - when he was imprisoned with Roy - he still acted like an evil little sociopath.

I think "alignment change" is the bugbear that regularly derails this conversation. I have no idea whether or not the story is headed in a direction where Belkar actually "redeems" himself in the sense of changing to a Good alignment, but I'll agree that it seems unlikely. The Giant has a long history of getting readers to sympathize with evil characters; Redcloak is a monster, but a significant portion of the forum population is 100% behind his mission of goblin equality.

What I'm saying is that regardless of Belkar's final alignment, all of his character growth over the last few hundred strips doesn't make much sense if the Giant's planning on having him die as a major villain or something. It makes perfect sense if he's setting Belkar up to "redeem" himself in some fashion to the readers. EmperorSarda had it right above, inasmuch as making "Belkar's death all that more tragic" requires a redemptive act that will allow the audience to view him with sympathy in the end.

...Be honest: how many of the various plot twists in this story did you see coming? Did you foresee how Therkla was going to die? Or Durkon? Nale's trap for Elan? How the Darth Vaarsuvius arc would end? Miko killing Shojo?

Me, I was surprised by all those, and more. I have a lousy record of reading the Giant's intentions. And that's fine by me, I think it makes the story more fun if I can't second-guess it. But it does mean that I'm not about to accept any theory whose strongest evidence is "this is all I can think of".

I totally share your awful record of predicting the Giant...when it comes to the intricacies of the plot. But we're not dealing, necessarily, with plot intricacies here. For example, no, I absolutely did not see the Darth V arc ending that way. But I could've told you from that first strip that it would not end well. If you had asked me about Therkla at the beginning of that arc, I never would've predicted "killed by her boss in a screw-with-the-hero gambit," but I think I could've pointed out that she wasn't long for this world (getting in the middle of a story's main couple is never a great move for a tertiary character) and would probably end up siding with Elan and "redeeming" herself in the end in some fashion.

I have absolutely no idea what the Giant plans for Belkar in the next few hundred strips. But it seems pretty likely that he's developing the character in a way that sets him up to redeem himself to the party and to the readers, at least.

Amphiox

2013-05-27, 06:29 PM

Tock Zipporah

2013-05-27, 07:19 PM

Technically, Belkar could be redeemed with an Atonement spell.

From the SRD:

This spell removes the burden of evil acts or misdeeds from the subject. The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds. If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you. However, in the case of a creature atoning for deliberate misdeeds and acts of a knowing and willful nature, you must intercede with your deity (requiring you to expend 500 XP) in order to expunge the subject’s burden. Many casters first assign a subject of this sort a quest (see geas/quest) or similar penance to determine whether the creature is truly contrite before casting the atonement spell on its behalf.

By this method, all Belkar would need to do is be "truly repentant" and want the change in the depths of his heart. The spell would even allow his alignment to be changed, if he so chose, to represent his new "redeemed" nature.

Of course, having a spellcaster come in an just cast an Atonement spell on Belkar wouldn't be really good storytelling. It would be far more satisfying for him to earn his redemption through his actions (though the Atonement spell also allows for this, by the caster sending the recipient on a quest first to earn their redemption).

This is all assuming he even wants to be redeemed. Just because he has a soft spot for Mr. Scruffy, that doesn't mean he necessarily wants to stop with the killing and pillaging and whores. For all we know, in his illusion with Shojo and Mr. Scruffy, he might have just come home from a long day of committing horrible acts against other sentient creatures, and he wanted to relax and use his "second skill set" (Profession: Gourmet Chef) for the evening.

EmperorSarda

2013-05-27, 09:12 PM

This is all assuming he even wants to be redeemed.

Which there is no indication of at all.

Reddish Mage

2013-05-27, 10:34 PM

Whenever the question of redemption comes up, one must also ask:

Redeemed to whom?

Himself?

The other members of the Order?

The greater society of the Stickverse?

The entities in charge of the chaotic neutral/evil/good afterlives?

We in the audience?

Because if you think about it, the requirements for each are different.

I assumed redemption = alignment change away from evil, no more, no less. I don't think entities get to decide your alignment in D&D metaphysics. Roy's Deva in heaven seemed to indicate otherwise but I'd rather not complicate things with the wrinkle of whether entities decide your alignment and/or where you end up. In D&D an alignment change by a PC typically requires some difficult work, but this is the story.

Prinygod

2013-05-27, 11:11 PM

EmperorSarda

2013-05-27, 11:23 PM

I never understood why people think becoming evil requires stabbing a few innocent people, (or rather gaining the capacity to do so). But becoming neutral or good from evil requires actively rejecting their "evil ways" making up for past "wrongs", or some how filling up some karma meter. Its not as if the good aligned have to go up to a demon and apologize for donating to charity for the switch, yet Belkar has to go on an appology tour? Not even for good but the neutral alignment?

Because that is trope. It is easy to slip from good, because it requires so little. Murder, mayhem. Maybe even selling your soul.

Redeeming yourself is much harder. Especially for someone as unrepentant as Belkar.

Look at V. If redemption were easy, then V wouldn't be so torn about where his/her soul might land. If killing a few innocents (or loads of innocents by accident, such as in V's case) wasn't a way to change alignment, to fall, then the Directors wouldn't have put getting V's soul at 50/50.

If Roy hadn't gone back for Elan, then he wouldn't be Lawful Good, he'd be True Neutral (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html).

It is always hard to go to the side of good because the dark side, evil, is so tantalizing. If it was easy to become good, then Darth Vader turning back to the Light Side would not be as good a tale as it is.

Oakianus

2013-05-28, 02:53 AM

V made a deal with archfiends and murdered at least scores of innocents for no other reason than a member of their family having threatened V's family, among a few other horrors during the Darth V arc. Yet there's nothing resembling a hint that V's alignment is now Evil, even though V started off in the Neutral category.

I think the Giant has been pretty clear on this, both in the tone of the comic and in the "Word of God" comments that he's dropped here in the forums. Alignment is about trying. It's about who you want to be and what you strive to become, as was directly stated by a Deva whose entire existence consists of knowng the eternal rules of this sort of thing, while checking whether or not Roy gets into Heaven, or at least that's true of Lawful Good.

V is not actively trying to be Evil. V doesn't care much about Good or Evil, but has enough of a conscience to feel guilty when coming face to face with the thought that e killed a whole bunch of innocents. Belkar, on the other hand, hasn't shown any sort of capacity to stop wanting to be Evil. He's shown more depth as a character and as a person, sure. He actually gives a **** about his cat and is starting to have a glimmer of care for his friends as well. He's capable of more than simply the 'violence/lust' dichotomy that V accused him of way back in the beginning.

But he was also tormenting prisoners with a rock using the flimsiest of justifications back in the arena, which was what, a week ago, in-comic? Maybe two? He's more than willing to kill in order to get what he wants. He hasn't expressed any form of remorse for any of the countless sentient creatures that he has gleefully sent packing from this mortal coil, in fact. All he's done is shown that he cares about his kitty cat and been a little pouty about the fact that he's good for more than hurting people.

In the case of both V and Belkar, if you don't want to change your alignment and you head off in the same general alignment direction that you've always gone despite a few variations, then your alignment's going to stay the same. It's just as true for one as the other. Belkar is merely a richer Evil character than before, becoming more like Redcloak than the single line he was. Redcloak is capable of petting puppies and loving his family, but he's also willing to torture a paladin to the brink of death to learn what he wants to know. I don't think that's any less true of Belkar. If anything, he'd probably be more likely to do so with less justification.

veti

2013-05-28, 05:27 AM

Because that is trope. It is easy to slip from good, because it requires so little. Murder, mayhem. Maybe even selling your soul.

Redeeming yourself is much harder. Especially for someone as unrepentant as Belkar.

The reason why that's the - cliche, would be a more accurate word than 'trope' - is because our culture is based on a certain type of morality, which I'll skirt around and refrain from naming because real-world religion is a forbidden topic, but which has very strong views about the relation between Good and Evil - where basically, Evil is no more or less than the absence of Good.

In a D&D world, where Good and Evil are nominally equal and opposite forces, two equally valid ways of looking at the world (and where Neutral is also a valid option) - the theological basis of this logic simply falls apart. There is no reason, in such a world, why it should be any easier to become Evil than Good.

Look at V. If redemption were easy, then V wouldn't be so torn about where his/her soul might land. If killing a few innocents (or loads of innocents by accident, such as in V's case) wasn't a way to change alignment, to fall, then the Directors wouldn't have put getting V's soul at 50/50.

Is V is torn about where her soul might land? She's wracked with guilt about her action, but has she ever actually drawn a connection between that and the question of which Outer Plane she'll end up on after death? I don't recall it.

And the directors' 50/50 estimate is telling. If the karma-meter measure is in operation, then V would have to spend several lifetimes doing charitable works 24/7 to make up for "that stunt with the dragons" - yet there's still only a 50/50 chance she won't manage it?

To me, what that suggests is that the soul's destination isn't based on some sort of calculus of how much good or evil you did. It's more about how you see yourself. The 50/50 chance is an estimate of the likelihood of V being so wracked by guilt that she thinks "screw it, if I'm damned I might as well enjoy myself" and going completely Belkar.

It is always hard to go to the side of good because the dark side, evil, is so tantalizing. If it was easy to become good, then Darth Vader turning back to the Light Side would not be as good a tale as it is.

I think you misunderstand. The reason why it's hard to become good is not because some arbitrary authority has set the bar higher than for becoming evil. It's simply because it's hard to change your habits. In particular, once you've lost a set of ideals, it's very hard to regain them. If you've rejected a belief because you saw how hollow and meaningless it was, it takes an enormous effort to push that insight aside.

Redcloak is capable of petting puppies and loving his family, but he's also willing to torture a paladin to the brink of death to learn what he wants to know. I don't think that's any less true of Belkar. If anything, he'd probably be more likely to do so with less justification.

I don't disagree with anything you say, but this is a pet peeve of mine...

It wasn't wrong to torture O-Chul because he's a paladin. It was wrong to torture him because it's wrong to torture people. It is just as evil to torture an assassin, or Tsukiko, as it is to torture a paladin.

So yeah, we've seen Belkar (and V) torture someone for a very flimsy reason indeed.

oppyu

2013-05-28, 06:24 AM

Hypothetically, to redeem himself, Belkar would have to spend a long time renouncing his evil past and doing good. A looooooooong time. Like, forever. And no, him sacrificing himself to destroy the Snarl (or at least stop the Snarl from unmaking creation) would NOT redeem him in the slightest.

Example 1: Spike, in season 2 of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, was a bloodthirsty mass-murdering vampire who's attempted to kill the title character on numerous occasions. However, when he learned that his boss/vampire grandpa/romantic rival (it's complicated) was trying to unmake creation, he helped Buffy save the world. He did not become less evil, he was just trying to preserve his supply of walking blood bags.

Example 2: Darth Vader, at the end of Star Wars, sacrifices himself to kill the Emperor and save his son. However, this was after years as the chief henchmen of an evil empire willing to commit genocide against a fully populated planet to make a point, murdering a lot of people including all the little Jedi kids in Episode 3. He did not become Good, or even Neutral as a result; he remained a horribly evil mass-murderer who was willing to kill a dude who was trying to kill his son (and had just been trying to get the son to kill his father).

So yeah, Belkar would definitely need to survive the events of OOTS and have a dramatic character change (or an epic spell that applied Owl's Wisdom permanently) to become anything close to Neutral.

factotum

2013-05-28, 06:33 AM

V is not actively trying to be Evil. V doesn't care much about Good or Evil, but has enough of a conscience to feel guilty when coming face to face with the thought that e killed a whole bunch of innocents.

I'd have to disagree here. There are plenty of people we'd class as Evil, and who would have an Evil alignment in D&D, who never considered themselves as evil or actively tried to do evil. In relation to Belkar, he didn't wake up one morning and say, "You know what? I'm going to be Evil now, for the lulz." He simply enjoys killing people and sees no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to do so--THAT's why he's evil, not some note on a character sheet or because he's specifically trying to be that way.

Don't get me wrong, you do get the occasional evil character who knows they're evil and play on that for all they're worth--Xykon being the prime example here--but they're not all like that by any means.

Kish

2013-05-28, 08:08 AM

I'd have to disagree here. There are plenty of people we'd class as Evil, and who would have an Evil alignment in D&D, who never considered themselves as evil or actively tried to do evil. In relation to Belkar, he didn't wake up one morning and say, "You know what? I'm going to be Evil now, for the lulz." He simply enjoys killing people and sees no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to do so--THAT's why he's evil, not some note on a character sheet or because he's specifically trying to be that way.

Don't get me wrong, you do get the occasional evil character who knows they're evil and play on that for all they're worth--Xykon being the prime example here--but they're not all like that by any means.
In a work that had a fourth wall, I'd actually find Xykon far less believable than Belkar, Nale, and Tarquin.

But, no fourth wall. So Belkar knows he's Chaotic Evil, but doesn't really care. Nale knows he's Lawful Evil and it shapes his behavior somewhat. Tarquin knows he's Lawful Evil, though he claims to be above it. And Xykon knows he's Chaotic Evil and revels in it.

jidasfire

2013-05-28, 09:52 AM

The idea of redemption could mean a lot of things. If we're talking about the idea of a character trying to amend their evil ways, it's clear enough that Vaarsuvius is trying to do that. Her/his guilt is overpowering, and there is a conscious effort to change. That's a pretty clear story of fall and redemption, and I am moderately optimistic s/he'll achieve it in the long run.

Belkar, though, he's a funny one. Something is happening to him, of that we can be sure. Despite generally being criticized, by his own author even, as one-dimensional, his love for his cat and his decision to hide his villainy cleverly seem to have put him on a road even he didn't quite understand. If that had been all there was, I don't think it would have been enough to qualify as a path to true redemption. But now we have this latest bit, in which he was forced to watch as Durkon, someone he personally mocked and tormented at every opportunity, died willingly to save his life. What does this mean for him? I can't say for sure. I don't believe Belkar is the type given to self-doubt or flagellation in the way Vaarsuvius is, so I doubt he'll ever be sobbing in the corner over his past. If he changes, it will be on his own terms, and he'll just do it, regardless if anyone ever believes him, which, except maybe Elan, no one probably will until it's too late.

Personal guess, based on nothing concrete, is that the two redemption stories within the Order will intertwine. In the end, V will be ready to pay the ultimate price for his/her sins in some way, and Belkar, being the only person who figured out from the start that s/he went bad, will take the hit instead. V, after all, has a chance to be better, while Belkar will claim he's still a bad guy through and through.

EmperorSarda

2013-05-28, 10:33 AM

Yet there's nothing resembling a hint that V's alignment is now Evil, even though V started off in the Neutral category.
V's alignment may not have changed, but he still committed a horrifically evil act (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0640.html). An act where those who have the most authority (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0664.html) say they have a 50/50 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0668.html) chance of getting V's soul.

Alignment is about trying. It's about who you want to be and what you strive to become, as was directly stated by a Deva whose entire existence consists of knowng the eternal rules of this sort of thing, while checking whether or not Roy gets into Heaven, or at least that's true of Lawful Good.
That same Deva also noted no major evil acts in Roy's life as well. Yes, V is trying to be neutral, to not be evil. But he committed a major evil act where the fate of his soul is questioned. It is going to take some serious redemptive work to work past this.

V is not actively trying to be Evil. V doesn't care much about Good or Evil, but has enough of a conscience to feel guilty when coming face to face with the thought that e killed a whole bunch of innocents.
Which is why V has a chance at redemption.

There is no reason, in such a world, why it should be any easier to become Evil than Good.
Tolkien once said (And I'm paraphrasing because I cannot find the quote) that it does no good to tell a story where we cannot understand the motivations of a character. That's why stories of appliances and animals all have human like emotions and motivations. Because there is nothing to get out of a story if we don't comprehend where the central character is coming from, if they have some utter alien motivation. Thus why morality comes to play in so many stories. Why is why, even in such a world where Good and Evil are equal and opposite forces, that trying to be good is harder than evil. Otherwise, why have demons trying to barter for your soul?

Is V is torn about where her soul might land? She's wracked with guilt about her action, but has she ever actually drawn a connection between that and the question of which Outer Plane she'll end up on after death? I don't recall it.
Here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0843.html), and here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0857.html), and here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0866.html) actually.

To me, what that suggests is that the soul's destination isn't based on some sort of calculus of how much good or evil you did. It's more about how you see yourself. The 50/50 chance is an estimate of the likelihood of V being so wracked by guilt that she thinks "screw it, if I'm damned I might as well enjoy myself" and going completely Belkar.

If it is all about perception, then why did the Deva looking over Roy's case look for any Evil acts (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html)? If it is all about perception of the evil or good you do, then why would a Deva approach Roy about V's dramatic turn to evil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0664.html) when V had yet to consider the ramifications of Familicide? It's not just about perception. It's what you do, why you do it, and your attitude. It's why Roy donning the Belt of Gender Changing helped even out (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html) leaving Elan to be taken by bandits.

ITarquin knows he's Lawful Evil, though he claims to be above it.
Well, yes and no. It's more he doesn't see it as his guiding principle, he doesn't see himself as locked into one particular classification.

Belkar, though, he's a funny one. Something is happening to him, of that we can be sure. Despite generally being criticized, by his own author even, as one-dimensional, his love for his cat and his decision to hide his villainy cleverly seem to have put him on a road even he didn't quite understand. If that had been all there was, I don't think it would have been enough to qualify as a path to true redemption.

I agree. I don't think it is true redemption. Belkar is to die soon. The Giant is making it so Belkar isn't purely one dimensional. He's making it so we care more when Belkar dies. That Belkar's death will be tragic.

davidbofinger

2013-05-28, 10:44 AM

The only reason there's a "karma" system for DMs to track alignment is because DMs can't actually see inside players' heads and know their true intentions - but that doesn't apply in this case.

Maybe it does apply. The celestials guarding the gate of lawful good heaven couldn't see inside Roy's head, and had to rely on his actions to determine his alignment. From what we know the default assumption is that all alignment determination works that way. May not be true - perhaps the alignment detected by a Detect Evil spell is determined quite differently by a process much more responsive to changes of heart - but Ockham's razor is still the way to bet.

Can Belkar make the shift from CE to CN? It isn't very long, but as Hayley explained to V when they first met, adventuring makes this happen faster. But from a dramatic point of view, why would the Giant do this? I don't think it will be plot relevant (Team Evil targeting Belkar with a spell against evil and being surprised it doesn't work? Yeah, whatever) and from a character point of view it would be a real risk of ending a popular character in a distasteful way, for doubtful gains. So probably not.

DarioD

2013-05-28, 11:56 AM

Example 2: Darth Vader, at the end of Star Wars, sacrifices himself to kill the Emperor and save his son. However, this was after years as the chief henchmen of an evil empire willing to commit genocide against a fully populated planet to make a point, murdering a lot of people including all the little Jedi kids in Episode 3. He did not become Good, or even Neutral as a result; he remained a horribly evil mass-murderer who was willing to kill a dude who was trying to kill his son (and had just been trying to get the son to kill his father).

I would argue that Darth Vader's appearance together with Joda and Obi-Wan - as well as their reaction to him - strongly suggests that he has in fact redeemed himself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S2auEHR4rg

D.

Reddish Mage

2013-05-28, 12:53 PM

The reason why that's the - cliche, would be a more accurate word than 'trope' - is because our culture is based on a certain type of morality...where basically, Evil is no more or less than the absence of Good.

In a D&D world, where Good and Evil are nominally equal and opposite forces, two equally valid ways of looking at the world (and where Neutral is also a valid option) - the theological basis of this logic simply falls apart. There is no reason, in such a world, why it should be any easier to become Evil than Good.

I disagree, I think that D&D is also based on the idea of an asymmetric view of what it takes to be good and evil, whether or not they are equal and opposing forces. Neutrality, can be a philosophical view of balance, but according to the SRD and PHB more often its just an absence of a "commitment to make sacrifices on behalf of others."

Similarly, Law and Choas is structured so that the Neutral have the "normal respect for authority" and is "honest."

It's simply the case that, in any cultures understanding of the concept, being good is being good is the face of adversity and must be done generally and without serious actions otherwise to keep the adjective. Someone who kills innocents viciously a couple of times a lifetime (assume a lack of redemption or remorse or anything) but is normally honest and kind is not a "good person." Though, the idea of such an individual is also difficult to comprehend.

Evil can be an occasional activity and the appellation still applies.

Kish

2013-05-28, 01:44 PM

Good and Evil are nominally [...] two equally valid ways of looking at the world
Stop the bus, I want off.

Amphiox

2013-05-28, 04:00 PM

There are three in comic details that might pertain to this question.

Firstly, the IFCC gave it 50/50 that they would end up with V's soul after Familicide. This tells us that a single evil act, even as heinous as Familicide was, is not enough to guarantee an alignment shift from neutral to evil. It only raises the possibility.

Secondly, Ghost Soon told Miko that redemption is not an easy thing and not for everyone, and it requires the individual to recognize what it was they did wrong and desire to rectify it.

Thirdly, the deva told Roy that after he abandoned Elan to an uncertain fate, if he had not regretted his act and gone back to save Elan, she would have dumped him into the "True Neutral" bin "right then and there". This despite the rest of Roy's life of good deeds with no seriously evil actions.

So from that we can see that in the stickverse, a single act plus its immediate follow-up is in fact enough to change alignment one grade.

Thus it appears that we have a pattern/sequence for alignment shifting:

1. Act contrary to alignment.
2. Reflection upon that act and recognition of what that act has entailed.
3. Follow-up action directly inspired by the reflection in step 2.

So, Roy committed an evil act from pique and omission (step 1), he quickly regrets that act (step 2), and immediately acts to rectify it (step 3). As a result he suffers no alignment change as a consequence.

V has committed an evil act whose consequences are far worse than he originally intended, though his original intent was still evil (step 1), he has come to deeply regret that act (step 2), and he has not yet performed any attempt to rectify it. So he has steps 1-2, but not yet 3, and as a result his soul hangs in the balance. Which way he goes depends on whether or not he succeeds in step 3.

So for a character to fall "down" the alignment ladder, it would seem that a single evil act, unregretted and unrectified, is enough, but an evil act if regretted and rectified will avert that fall.

Flip that around, then would could speculate that for a character to "redeem" up the alignment ladder, a single good act done for the right reason and with the right consequences may be enough, regardless of a lifetime of prior evil.

The question remains as to the magnitude of the good or evil acts in question. In Roy's case, the act of abandoning one faithful friend to an uncertain fate (not even definitively bad, just uncertain) is enough to override an entire lifetime of good deeds, it would seem that the opposite would also be true - the good deed that redeems an evil-doer need not be of such magnitude that it completely makes up for all the evil previously done. But said good deed would still have to be significant in its goodness, just as abandoning Elan was significant in its evilness for Roy. Just being nice to Mr. Scruffy probably won't cut it for Belkar.

I think the idea of balancing the karmic scales completely should not be necessary for alignment shifts, because again, in the stickverse, alignment is about intent and effort. If an evil person truly regrets his evil, and then demonstrates that regret by performing a significant good act, then he will be redeemed, at least from the point of view of alignment. Complete atonement in the sense of karmic balancing may not be required.

However, after the redemption, after gaining the good alignment, the newly good character will certainly feel the need to continue to atone, because, as it were, feeling the need/compulsion to fully atone is part of the definition of being good. If he didn't feel such need, he cannot be said to be good. And if he makes an effort to continue to atone, even if he fails in the end to achieve karmic balance, he may well get a pass into a good afterlife.

In the case of Belkar, he is only just starting to get a vague sense that being evil might be sucking for him. He is only just starting to feel a good impulse here or there. He has not yet realized what it was about his past actions that make them evil nor recognized that it is a wrong he regrets and wishes to change. He has certainly not performed any good deed of significance to demonstrate a desire for change or redemption.

So he really hasn't even begun. He's at step 0.5 still.

EmperorSarda

2013-05-28, 04:16 PM

Secondly, Ghost Soon told Miko that redemption is not an easy thing and not for everyone, and it requires the individual to recognize what it was they did wrong and desire to rectify it.

The only problem with this is that it never is told if Miko changed alignments. The Atonement is because for Paladins, one single evil act causes them to fall.

Kish

2013-05-28, 04:21 PM

So from that we can see that in the stickverse, a single act plus its immediate follow-up is in fact enough to change alignment one grade.
...Ugh. I really do not understand the appeal of taking a number of highly emotionally charged, morally significant actions and words, and boiling them down to a bloodless statement of X Therefore Y mechanics.

We know that the Familicide was an atrocity that might damn a previously True Neutral character with a long life and presumably no comparable atrocities ahead of him/her. We know that if Roy had stuck to his decision to abandon Elan, the deva would have considered him True Neutral. And we know that redemption requires genuine remorse and efforts to make amends. That is what we know. We do not, most definitely not, know that "one act and its immediate follow-up=alignment shift of one grade, not more or less."

Amphiox

2013-05-28, 04:26 PM

...Ugh. I really do not understand the appeal of taking a number of highly emotionally charged, morally significant actions and words, and boiling them down to a bloodless statement of X Therefore Y mechanics.

We know that the Familicide was an atrocity that might damn a previously True Neutral character with a long life and presumably no comparable atrocities ahead of him/her. We know that if Roy had stuck to his decision to abandon Elan, the deva would have considered him True Neutral. And we know that redemption requires genuine remorse and efforts to make amends. That is what we know. We do not, most definitely not, know that "one act and its immediate follow-up=alignment shift of one grade, not more or less."

You may note that I never said "not more or less" at all.

But it is clearly enough to do it, because THAT IS WHAT THE TEXT DIRECTLY TELLS US, EXPLICITLY.

Amphiox

2013-05-28, 04:27 PM

The only problem with this is that it never is told if Miko changed alignments. The Atonement is because for Paladins, one single evil act causes them to fall.

You can chop the part about Soon and Miko right out of it, and my argument still stands on the two examples of the IFCC and the Deva judging Roy.

Kish

2013-05-28, 04:37 PM

But it is clearly enough to do it, because THAT IS WHAT THE TEXT DIRECTLY TELLS US, EXPLICITLY.
No amount of capital letters will make your statement a reasonable paraphrase of what the text directly tells us. Not even if "try to figure out what mechanically can mean alignment change" was a good response to the strip where Vaarsuvius commits Familicide, where the deva judges Roy, or where Miko dies.

veti

2013-05-28, 04:37 PM

Tolkien once said (And I'm paraphrasing because I cannot find the quote) that it does no good to tell a story where we cannot understand the motivations of a character. That's why stories of appliances and animals all have human like emotions and motivations. Because there is nothing to get out of a story if we don't comprehend where the central character is coming from, if they have some utter alien motivation. Thus why morality comes to play in so many stories. Why is why, even in such a world where Good and Evil are equal and opposite forces, that trying to be good is harder than evil. Otherwise, why have demons trying to barter for your soul?

Tolkien's thinking, and writing, were strongly coloured by his own religious beliefs (and when he wrote, he took it for granted that his readership would also be well grounded in those beliefs). D&D goes out of its way to reject that belief structure.

Trying to be good is harder than trying to be evil in our everyday morality - because Evil is defined as not-Good, so simple inattentiveness, or momentary anger, is all it takes. But if Evil is an independent force with its own positive agenda, then these things are not Evil - merely neutral.

Here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0843.html), and here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0857.html), and here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0866.html) actually.

OK, let's look at those strips. In reverse order:
866: "By my actions, my arrogance, and my ignorance, I am thrice-damned!"

This is ambiguous. 'Damned' in this context doesn't necessarily mean "condemned to $LOWER_PLANE" - read literally the concept "thrice-damned" makes no sense, you can only be damned once. So I take it V is speaking rhetorically, with her usual love of drama, and "damned" is merely shorthand for "guilty of a horrible crime."

Blackwing, you'll note, takes her more literally and reminds her of the soul-selling episode, at which V breaks down even further. Why? If you're "thrice-damned" anyway, what difference does it make to have sold your soul as well? My answer: because she wasn't even thinking about other-worldly punishment, until Blackwing reminded her.

857: There's no mention at all here of what might happen after her death.

843: "The few paltry moments that the trio of fiends shall hold my soul will be but a preview of the eternity that -"

This is the closest she gets to talking about the afterlife, and even this is inconclusive. Maybe the sentence would have finished " - I will be tormented by the knowledge of my own irredeemable guilt", or some similar formula.

If it is all about perception, then why did the Deva looking over Roy's case look for any Evil acts (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html)?

Two reasons. First, she's drawing Roy's attention to his own behaviour. She wants Roy to examine himself; this works because Roy hasn't had any particular 'change of heart' moment, so his long-term behaviour is entirely relevant to his instincts and nature right now. Second, the Deva is Lawful, and lawful people have certain expectations (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0492.html).

If it is all about perception of the evil or good you do, then why would a Deva approach Roy about V's dramatic turn to evil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0664.html) when V had yet to consider the ramifications of Familicide?

Because a bit of elementary foresight suggests that sooner or later, V would draw that connection.

snoopy13a

2013-05-28, 04:42 PM

We can't be sure, because we aren't fully aware of the moral system within the Order of the Stick universe.

Reddish Mage

2013-05-28, 05:13 PM

Thus it appears that we have a pattern/sequence for alignment shifting:

1. Act contrary to alignment.
2. Reflection upon that act and recognition of what that act has entailed.
3. Follow-up action directly inspired by the reflection in step 2.

So, Roy committed an evil act from pique and omission (step 1), he quickly regrets that act (step 2), and immediately acts to rectify it (step 3). As a result he suffers no alignment change as a consequence.

V has committed an evil act whose consequences are far worse than he originally intended, though his original intent was still evil (step 1), he has come to deeply regret that act (step 2), and he has not yet performed any attempt to rectify it. So he has steps 1-2, but not yet 3, and as a result his soul hangs in the balance. Which way he goes depends on whether or not he succeeds in step 3.

So for a character to fall "down" the alignment ladder, it would seem that a single evil act, unregretted and unrectified, is enough, but an evil act if regretted and rectified will avert that fall.

These steps for preventing an alignment change caused by action contrary to alignment are very well extrapolated from Roy's case as described by Roy's Deva. However, I'm not sure about V and what consequences have to do with alignment change. Intentions traditionally matter most and V's intentions to strike a bargain with the IFCC was certainly evil enough; not to mention V's vengeance and reckless use of magic was also far from pure.

Should V die regretting hir actions, I don't think we have enough to say that V's soul goes one place or another (when the IFCC placed odds, V had yet to regret V's actions or understand the consequences). The implication of this analysis is that V is currently Evil-aligned, while it seems from V's actions that V's alignment is at best in imminent danger of a shift to evil.

Soon's description to Miko in Not for Everyone is illustrative of a similar process (given out of order) 1. acknowledge you did wrong 2. seek forgiveness and 3. atone for the misdeeds. This is illustrative even if Miko is going to LG afterlife as a non-Paladin, since the subject is atonement, however the implications of Soon's comments "we are fading to the Celestial Realm" and "we will usher you to your destination as well," is a strong implication indeed.

EmperorSarda

2013-05-28, 05:38 PM

You can chop the part about Soon and Miko right out of it, and my argument still stands on the two examples of the IFCC and the Deva judging Roy.

Yeah, I generally agree with your statement. Just that the part of Soon and Miko didn't fit.

Tolkien's thinking, and writing, were strongly coloured by his own religious beliefs (and when he wrote, he took it for granted that his readership would also be well grounded in those beliefs). D&D goes out of its way to reject that belief structure.

The belief structure of there is only good and evil, yes. But not the belief structure of needing redemption to atone for evil, for reform; and that evil can be easy to slip into.

This is ambiguous. 'Damned' in this context doesn't necessarily mean "condemned to $LOWER_PLANE" - read literally the concept "thrice-damned" makes no sense, you can only be damned once. So I take it V is speaking rhetorically, with her usual love of drama, and "damned" is merely shorthand for "guilty of a horrible crime."

While V has been one to be verbose and talkative, V hasn't been a lover of drama. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0584.html) V could be speaking about just feeling guilty, but when damnation has a much more literal sense in their world, it could very well be a pronouncement of guilt and thinking that she is literally damned, using rhetoric to state how guilty s/he is.

857: There's no mention at all here of what might happen after her death.
Nothing but V saying the weigh of his/her deeds pressing upon her soul. If V wasn't concerned about her soul, then why feel guilty?

843: "The few paltry moments that the trio of fiends shall hold my soul will be but a preview of the eternity that -"

This is the closest she gets to talking about the afterlife, and even this is inconclusive. Maybe the sentence would have finished " - I will be tormented by the knowledge of my own irredeemable guilt", or some similar formula.
Or maybe it means that the 42 minutes V thinks her soul will be tortured by the directors will be a small preview of the eternity that awaits him. Just like V said.

If V isn't concerned about where her soul will end up, why talk about it with Qarr (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0884.html)? All this shows is that V is questioning where his/her soul will go, what the horrible genocide s/he committed will be like.

Two reasons. First, she's drawing Roy's attention to his own behaviour. She wants Roy to examine himself; this works because Roy hasn't had any particular 'change of heart' moment, so his long-term behaviour is entirely relevant to his instincts and nature right now.
Except what was it that the Deva said (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html), that if Roy had not gone after Elan than whether Elan lived or died, The Deva would have denied Roy entrance to Arcadia and sent him to the True Neutral plane?

Because a bit of elementary foresight suggests that sooner or later, V would draw that connection.
It's only "elementary foresight" because we know what the Directors know, when they stated that V had a 50/50 chance. We had no way of knowing that humans were killed with the familicide, nor could we anticipate V's reaction without that knowledge ourselves.

Cause if it is all about perception then Tarquin is Lawful Good because he thinks that what he is doing is the best thing for the continent, in trying to save lives and unite the continent. Because he doesn't perceive himself as evil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0760.html).

oppyu

2013-05-28, 10:04 PM

I would argue that Darth Vader's appearance together with Joda and Obi-Wan - as well as their reaction to him - strongly suggests that he has in fact redeemed himself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S2auEHR4rg

D.
My response to that is that George Lucas and I have vastly different beliefs regarding redemption and Star Wars is tremendously overrated -_-.

orrion

2013-05-29, 12:52 AM

What I'm saying is that regardless of Belkar's final alignment, all of his character growth over the last few hundred strips doesn't make much sense if the Giant's planning on having him die as a major villain or something. It makes perfect sense if he's setting Belkar up to "redeem" himself in some fashion to the readers. EmperorSarda had it right above, inasmuch as making "Belkar's death all that more tragic" requires a redemptive act that will allow the audience to view him with sympathy in the end.

What character growth, exactly?

Except for liking his kitty, his general attitude has undergone absolutely no changes. He still kills whoever he can whenever he can.

Kish

2013-05-29, 11:33 AM

Michaeler

2013-05-29, 11:52 AM

Belkar's character growth is that now he looks for excuses for acts of violence, which he didn't previously need.

Killing the gnome merchant for no reason whatsoever (or was it the chocolate bar?), killing the Oracle and running after surrendering enemies cutting their legs off and yelling "run, my little chunks of xp!" are old-Belkar. New-Belkar usually kills people for threatening the party or his cat.

This doesn't make him non-evil, but it does make him less-evil. The question of how much less is an exercise for the reader.

Reddish Mage

2013-05-29, 12:10 PM

hamishspence

2013-05-29, 12:28 PM

OK, let's look at those strips. In reverse order:
866: "By my actions, my arrogance, and my ignorance, I am thrice-damned!"

This is ambiguous. 'Damned' in this context doesn't necessarily mean "condemned to $LOWER_PLANE" - read literally the concept "thrice-damned" makes no sense, you can only be damned once. So I take it V is speaking rhetorically, with her usual love of drama, and "damned" is merely shorthand for "guilty of a horrible crime."
...
843: "The few paltry moments that the trio of fiends shall hold my soul will be but a preview of the eternity that -"

This is the closest she gets to talking about the afterlife, and even this is inconclusive. Maybe the sentence would have finished " - I will be tormented by the knowledge of my own irredeemable guilt", or some similar formula.

There is, however, another strip, in which V, in argument with Qaar, makes it clear that V is aware of the possibility that V's soul will be doomed to the lower planes if V does not repent:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0884.html

F.Harr

2013-05-29, 01:10 PM

"How would Belkar redeem himself?"

I think the more interesting question is "Why would Belkar redeem himself?", so far Mr. Scruffy's hiso nly possible motivation for self-improvement. the vision trip doesn't count, that was advise on how to not get your own party-members to murder you.

EmperorSarda

2013-05-29, 01:18 PM

All these comments about Belkar's actions lately lead to another question. If all we knew of Belkar was his actions since his mark of justice was erased, would we still peg him as Chaotic Evil?

Yes. Take the Slavers (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0685.html), Belkar didn't care who they took, and then went on a violent rampage over his cat. Still chaotic evil.

Kish

2013-05-29, 01:28 PM

All these comments about Belkar's actions lately lead to another question. If all we knew of Belkar was his actions since his mark of justice was erased, would we still peg him as Chaotic Evil?
Actions like expressing total disinterest in slavers getting stopped until they try to hurt his cat, and torturing a helpless prisoner (if there was a possibility of justification for such, Belkar would have it; unfortunately for him, there isn't)? I sure would. But then, I'd also classify the officially True Neutral bounty hunters as Unambiguously Something Evil, Vaarsuvius as Neutral Evil with aspirations to be something better rather than as "never changed from True Neutral," Girard as Chaotic Evil unless we get a huge turnaround...featuring someone Chaotic Evil inheriting leadership of the family when he died...in which case I'd consider upgrading him to Chaotic Neutral, and Shojo would never get within spitting distance of Good if I was the one handing out alignment labels, so clearly I'm not a good source for official OotS alignments.

Michaeler

2013-05-29, 02:55 PM

Yes. Take the Slavers (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0685.html), Belkar didn't care who they took, and then went on a violent rampage over his cat. Still chaotic evil.

Chaotic Neutral I'd have said. He sat out until it affected him.

Non-good, certainly.

(Although as to how he treated the Kobold, to me that tips him back into Evil)

rodneyAnonymous

2013-05-29, 02:59 PM

Sitting out of your party's fight against slavery until it affects you personally seems Evil to me, not Neutral.

EmperorSarda

2013-05-29, 03:01 PM

Chaotic Neutral I'd have said. He sat out until it affected him.

Chaotic Neutral would more likely say, "Hey, that's my cat, not some snack." Given how Buggy Lou was friendly with Belkar, he would have given him the cat. I say it is an example of Belkar being evil because his reaction to them talking about Mr. Scruffy is to slaughter them and pee in the leader's neck.

I'm not sure how that is neutral at all.

Michaeler

2013-05-29, 03:04 PM

I will grant you that the peeing was evil.

New Belkar is closer to the border between Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Evil, but I think he's still on the Evil side.

Or to put it another way, he's still evil, but he's less consistent about it.

orrion

2013-05-29, 09:00 PM

Except for the fact that Belkar now cares for another living creature? Apparently more than he cares about himself?

Except for that, absolutely nothing.

In other news, except for providing light and heat, and keeping the planet Earth from sailing off into an endless void, the sun doesn't do all that much.

Nale cares about Sabine, so Nale isn't evil anymore?

Tarquin cares for both his sons, so he isn't evil anymore?

Come on.

Belkar's character growth is that now he looks for excuses for acts of violence, which he didn't previously need.

Killing the gnome merchant for no reason whatsoever (or was it the chocolate bar?), killing the Oracle and running after surrendering enemies cutting their legs off and yelling "run, my little chunks of xp!" are old-Belkar. New-Belkar usually kills people for threatening the party or his cat.

This doesn't make him non-evil, but it does make him less-evil. The question of how much less is an exercise for the reader.

Belkar didn't know about the chocolate bar til after the gnome was dead, and he said he killed the gnome for his donkey.

He killed Eviseratus because why again? Remember that Roy wasn't willing to fight at all until he had independent confirmation that the person he was fighting was really evil.

What do you mean "New-Belkar usually kills people for threatening the party or his cat"? Since the episodes you've listed there hasn't been anyone else to kill that don't meet those criteria - except the prisoners, one of whom he DID kill (or rather, would have killed if the kitty hadn't). Probably the only reason he didn't kill anyone else there was because Roy was in close proximity.

So it's rather useless to point out what "New-Belkar" does or doesn't do since we haven't seen him in a situation other than that.

Chaotic Neutral I'd have said. He sat out until it affected him.

Non-good, certainly.

(Although as to how he treated the Kobold, to me that tips him back into Evil)

From Wikipedia on Chaotic Neutral:

"Chaotic Neutral characters are free spirited and do not enjoy the suffering of others."

Pretty tough for you to condone slavery while not enjoying the suffering of others.

Also, Belkar very much still enjoys the suffering of others - from his killing of Lou to making everyone miserable in the prison.

Obscure Blade

2013-05-29, 10:11 PM

What character growth, exactly?

Except for liking his kitty, his general attitude has undergone absolutely no changes."Hurting people is the only thing I'm good at." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0881.html)

That's the sort of thing Belkar would originally have said with a smirk. Not a look of dissatisfaction. He seems to be having not so much of a crisis of conscience, but at dissatisfaction over being one-dimensional and never trusted.

Personally I don't see him showing the kind of guilt or compassion I'd expect from someone trending towards a conversion to Good however. If he's "redeemed" I suspect Chaotic Neutral rather than Chaotic Good to be his destination.

Now I've this image of him in the afterlife cooking up gourmet meals for slaadi...

veti

2013-05-30, 12:29 AM

Nale cares about Sabine, so Nale isn't evil anymore?

Tarquin cares for both his sons, so he isn't evil anymore?

Come on.

I'm not Kish, but I very much doubt if Kish said, or implied, that Belkar had stopped being evil.

<fx: looks back up thread>

And I think I'd be right to doubt that.

(I also still don't buy that Tarquin 'cares for' his sons, either, except in a proprietorial sense as potentially valuable assets. But let's not go through that derailment now.)

He killed Eviseratus because why again?

Belkar killed Evisceratus? Have I missed some rewriting?

Also, Belkar very much still enjoys the suffering of others - from his killing of Lou to making everyone miserable in the prison.

(How exactly does peeing down Lou's neck after cutting his head off increased his "suffering"?)

Belkar is evil, OK? And always has been? No argument. But he's also changed. There is no conflict between these statements. You seem to be trying to argue that because the first is true, the second can't be.

oppyu

2013-05-30, 03:10 AM

Belkar killed Evisceratus? Have I missed some rewriting?

Well, he didn't kill Evisceratus, but I don't think anyone would question that he was going to kill Evisceratus. He was just checking to make sure he could kill this dude while still maintaining his fake character development, then the cat ran in and stole his kill.

But yes, I agree. Belkar's changed, but he's still a Chaotic Evil little bastard.

Math_Mage

2013-05-30, 05:08 AM

What character growth, exactly?

Except for liking his kitty, his general attitude has undergone absolutely no changes. He still kills whoever he can whenever he can.

Belkar has undergone at least three major shifts over the course of the comic.

First, Belkar's trip with Shojo's ghost convinced him that he needed to at least pretend to be a team player. This is a shift on the Law-Chaos axis more than on the Good-Evil axis; the result is that Belkar recognizes the necessity of dealing with the authority of his team enough to pretend to play along with the team's goals. He's a bit less Chaotic than before, a bit more constrained by the rules, even if he's only pretending. The incident with Evisceratus is a good example of this. Even though there's little doubt Belkar would have eventually done the deed, since when does Belkar ask permission to do anything?

Second, Mr. Scruffy is the first genuine relationship Belkar has ever had. The experience of caring for and feeling empathy with another being has indubitably changed Belkar. Making Mr. Scruffy happy makes Belkar happy, as we see in his fantasy. Old Belkar's happiness was almost entirely dependent on others' suffering. This empathy has even been extrapolated to others, in a limited way--the duel between Enor and Gannji exemplifies this.

Third, Durkon's death has had a powerful impact on Belkar, whose full effects remain to be seen. When Belkar regains motor control, his immediate impulse is to warn the others--this is the first time Belkar has genuinely thought of his team first. He gets under Roy's skin so effectively in 881 because he genuinely understands what Roy is fighting for, unlike when he made his misguided declaration in 869. And he expresses a harsh negative view of himself, in complete contrast to his former self-esteem.

All of the above has been development of the faltering, one-step-forward-three-steps-back type. Belkar may have restrained himself with Evisceratus, but he completely dismissed Roy's order to help with Linear Guild Round 3. He may have helped save Enor and Gannji, but he tortured Kilkil with glee. For all he's called himself a horrid bastard and acknowledged that he isn't good for anything but killing, he hasn't acknowledged that he's morally in the wrong. And as we all know, his time is running out.

But what I previously saw as paddling around in the deep end of the alignment pool, I now see as inexorable strokes out of the deep end. The great tragedy of the prophecy is that were it not for his predicted demise, his eventual redemption would be, not just possible, but an extremely likely continuation of his character arc. Tragedy, after all, is nothing more or less than potential lost.

Kish

2013-05-30, 07:05 AM

Nale cares about Sabine, so Nale isn't evil anymore?

Tarquin cares for both his sons, so he isn't evil anymore?
As veti pointed out, you're blurring the middle between "no character growth" and "not evil anymore." Your claim wasn't "Belkar is still evil." Your claim was that he had had no character growth.

The fact that I think comparing Nale's attitude toward Sabine, much less Tarquin's attitude toward his sons, to Belkar's attitude toward Mr. Scruffy is like comparing one of those really horrible margarines ("I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Love!") to butter just makes your claim even worse.

Reddish Mage

2013-05-30, 09:02 AM

Actions like expressing total disinterest in slavers getting stopped until they try to hurt his cat, and torturing a helpless prisoner (if there was a possibility of justification for such, Belkar would have it; unfortunately for him, there isn't)? I sure would. But then, I'd also classify the officially True Neutral bounty hunters as Unambiguously Something Evil, Vaarsuvius as Neutral Evil with aspirations to be something better rather than as "never changed from True Neutral," Girard as Chaotic Evil unless we get a huge turnaround...featuring someone Chaotic Evil inheriting leadership of the family when he died...in which case I'd consider upgrading him to Chaotic Neutral, and Shojo would never get within spitting distance of Good if I was the one handing out alignment labels, so clearly I'm not a good source for official OotS alignments.

I'm surprised, Shojo!? He played a very dangerous game as leader of Azure city to keep the peace. Moreover the guy was willing, and in fact actually did, sacrifice his power, position, his very life, for the protection of the gates!

Kish

2013-05-30, 09:11 AM

I'm surprised, Shojo!? He played a very dangerous game as leader of Azure city to keep the peace. Moreover the guy was willing, and in fact actually did, sacrifice his power, position, his very life, for the protection of the gates!
This is off the thread's topic, but I suppose, since you started the thread, I have no reason not to go off topic if you want to.

No and no. He played a dangerous game because he chose to use deception to support his rule (no, he did not have to. Other people have been able to rule without faking senility, somehow), resulting in years of his nephew praying to the Twelve Gods to cure a nonexistent mental illness and an utterly evil lord nearly murdering said nephew as soon as Shojo's house of cards inevitably fell apart. He treated everyone like chess pieces. He sacrificed his power, position, and life to his own inability to keep breathing after he'd been chopped with a katana; two minutes before the katana hit him, he was still trying to lie his way out of his nephew having caught him in his lies--and he chose to remain dead thereafter, instead of accepting resurrection and trying to find a way to help defend the gates without being a puppetmaster. If he could have lied his way out of the situation and gone right on treating everyone else as chess pieces, he would have. He sacrificed absolutely nothing for anyone else, down to and including not sacrificing his comfortable afterlife for either defending the gates or trying to reconcile with a nephew who was not going to accept "lying is the appropriate response to every problem."

--And the last thing he said before Miko katanad him was a quote from Pol Pot.

EmperorSarda

2013-05-30, 09:57 AM

This is off the thread's topic, but I suppose, since you started the thread, I have no reason not to go off topic if you want to.

No and no. He played a dangerous game because he chose to use deception to support his rule
Only among the Nobles, playing them off each other. He was a legitimate ruler before that, and the paladins would have followed him whether he was insane or not.

resulting in years of his nephew praying to the Twelve Gods to cure a nonexistent mental illness
If this is Shojo's only sin, then he is hardly evil.

and an utterly evil lord nearly murdering said nephew as soon as Shojo's house of cards inevitably fell apart.
Which isn't Shojo's fault. Kubota would have done so whether Shojo feigned insanity or not.

He treated everyone like chess pieces. He sacrificed his power, position, and life to his own inability to keep breathing after he'd been chopped with a katana; two minutes before the katana hit him, he was still trying to lie his way out of his nephew having caught him in his lies--and he chose to remain dead thereafter, instead of accepting resurrection and trying to find a way to help defend the gates without being a puppetmaster.

--And the last thing he said before Miko katanad him was a quote from Pol Pot.

The most evil thing that can be said of Shojo that we have seen was having the Order arrested and given a false trial. Nothing else seems to indicate he has done worse.

factotum

2013-05-30, 10:56 AM

The most evil thing that can be said of Shojo that we have seen was having the Order arrested and given a false trial. Nothing else seems to indicate he has done worse.

I'd say that was more down the Chaos side of things anyway--doing what needs to happen to get the job done regardless of petty things like laws is very Chaotic. Being self-centred enough to assume your marks won't be a bit annoyed when they find out is very Chaotic, too!

Reddish Mage

2013-05-30, 11:11 AM

This is off the thread's topic, but I suppose, since you started the thread, I have no reason not to go off topic if you want to.

No and no. He played a dangerous game because he chose to use deception to support his rule (no, he did not have to. Other people have been able to rule without faking senility, somehow), resulting in years of his nephew praying to the Twelve Gods to cure a nonexistent mental illness and an utterly evil lord nearly murdering said nephew as soon as Shojo's house of cards inevitably fell apart. He treated everyone like chess pieces. He sacrificed his power, position, and life to his own inability to keep breathing after he'd been chopped with a katana; two minutes before the katana hit him, he was still trying to lie his way out of his nephew having caught him in his lies--and he chose to remain dead thereafter, instead of accepting resurrection and trying to find a way to help defend the gates without being a puppetmaster. If he could have lied his way out of the situation and gone right on treating everyone else as chess pieces, he would have. He sacrificed absolutely nothing for anyone else, down to and including not sacrificing his comfortable afterlife for either defending the gates or trying to reconcile with a nephew who was not going to accept "lying is the appropriate response to every problem."

--And the last thing he said before Miko katanad him was a quote from Pol Pot.

The standards by which we use actions to label someone "Good" "Neutral" or "Evil" may have something to do with how hard we see redemption. I imagine those that put an "Evil" label on the sum of Belkar's actions in the current story arc would require that Belkar go a whole lot further to be redeemed.

Your comments on Shojo and a number of other characters (V and the neutral mercs) are interesting since you realize your standards of good are so much stricter than the Giant's, suggesting that the Giant's judgements of Belkar lately would likely be upwards on the alignment scale. That might also mean the story's standards of redemption might be more lenient.

I find Shojo especially surprising since he was doing everything out of good motive, the other's you judge evil were surprising too. Belkar, lately, is more controversial. But I wonder if other's who judge the Belkar-lately evil will also judge V evil, after all V did torture Y(which vowel again?)ky(same)k and the mercs.

Do we have to establish that Belkar's actions of late are worst then the mercs and V's?

Belkar has undergone at least three major shifts over the course of the comic.

First, Belkar's trip with Shojo's ghost convinced him that he needed to at least pretend to be a team player. This is a shift on the Law-Chaos axis more than on the Good-Evil axis; the result is that Belkar recognizes the necessity of dealing with the authority of his team enough to pretend to play along with the team's goals. He's a bit less Chaotic than before, a bit more constrained by the rules, even if he's only pretending. The incident with Evisceratus is a good example of this. Even though there's little doubt Belkar would have eventually done the deed, since when does Belkar ask permission to do anything?

Second, Mr. Scruffy is the first genuine relationship Belkar has ever had. The experience of caring for and feeling empathy with another being has indubitably changed Belkar. Making Mr. Scruffy happy makes Belkar happy, as we see in his fantasy. Old Belkar's happiness was almost entirely dependent on others' suffering. This empathy has even been extrapolated to others, in a limited way--the duel between Enor and Gannji exemplifies this.

Third, Durkon's death has had a powerful impact on Belkar, whose full effects remain to be seen. When Belkar regains motor control, his immediate impulse is to warn the others--this is the first time Belkar has genuinely thought of his team first. He gets under Roy's skin so effectively in 881 because he genuinely understands what Roy is fighting for, unlike when he made his misguided declaration in 869. And he expresses a harsh negative view of himself, in complete contrast to his former self-esteem.

All of the above has been development of the faltering, one-step-forward-three-steps-back type. Belkar may have restrained himself with Evisceratus, but he completely dismissed Roy's order to help with Linear Guild Round 3. He may have helped save Enor and Gannji, but he tortured Kilkil with glee. For all he's called himself a horrid bastard and acknowledged that he isn't good for anything but killing, he hasn't acknowledged that he's morally in the wrong. And as we all know, his time is running out.

But what I previously saw as paddling around in the deep end of the alignment pool, I now see as inexorable strokes out of the deep end. The great tragedy of the prophecy is that were it not for his predicted demise, his eventual redemption would be, not just possible, but an extremely likely continuation of his character arc. Tragedy, after all, is nothing more or less than potential lost.

I think its clear as day that these are highly significant character developments with Belkar, and they all point to locating Belkar further up the y-axis of the alignment grid (also probably a bit more to the lawful end, but that probably doesn't make him neutral as we have two other teamplayers that are chaotic).

Tev

2013-05-30, 11:55 AM

As has already been pointed out, pre-Durkula Belkar has very different views on morale than he has now. Not much time has passed, but pretty much everything we've seen from Belkar since that event is showing how much he dislikes his previous way of living.

So I don't get how can people still claim he is the same Evil character.

Whether he will have enough time/opportunities to actually change his alignment is different question. I'd say that Kraagor-style sacrifice might push him to at least Neutral . . . but my guess is that ultimately tragedy of his death will be in how he can't even try (because of no time & levels drained) to atone for his evil life and dies shortly after rest of the Order realizes he might be actually seeking forgiveness.

David Argall

2013-05-30, 12:56 PM

The only verified alignment change that sent someone to another afterlife was Miko's (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0464.html), where Soon strongly implies that Miko is going someplace else. From that conversation it appears to be Lawful Neutral, since Soon acknowledges Miko dies executing her duty. Yet Miko sets up a very high bar indeed for an alignment change while the dream suggests Belkar is already there.

Everything about the Miko-Soon conversation [starting with the very fact it happened in a friendly manner] denies, or at least casts doubt on whether Miko changed alignment as opposed to merely not being a paladin. A number of people do reason that since Miko was not likable, she must have been evil, but this is clearly wrong. And the closer we put Miko to LG, the less we have to "explain" about the conversation. [For example, Soon is very much a stick-up-the-ass type, and when he says her horse will visit her when he can, he is not hiding any footnote about the horse can't. The more frequent the visits, the more his comments are reasonable.]

hamishspence

2013-05-30, 01:10 PM

We do have the line about how Miko:

"pushed and pushed at the boundaries of what it meant to be Lawful Good and a paladin, until finally she broke through"

from War & XPs.

We also find out in Roy's Afterlife Review that despite the fact that the Deva "has little doubt that Roy is a Good man" (since he regularly risks his life against the forces of Evil without expecting compensation, and he has done nothing to register a "blip" on the Malev-O-Meter)- that had he not gone back to rescue Elan, he'd have been sent to the True Neutral Afterlife.

And Miko's killing of Shojo, and failing to repent it, or acknowledge that she was wrong (Soon mentions this)- does seem to be on a bigger scale than Roy abandoning Elan.

Going back to the Belkar issue- to start redeeming himself- he'd have to acknowledge that his past acts were, in fact, wrong- and resolve to atone for them.

rodneyAnonymous

2013-05-30, 02:06 PM

The only verified alignment change that sent someone to another afterlife was Miko's, where Soon strongly implies that Miko is going someplace else. (emphasis added... "verified" is inconsistent with "implies")

Absolutely not. "Miko died a Lawful Good fallen paladin" is the simplest explanation of the characters' and author's comments, and the events in the strip. Even if it is possible to interpret what Soon said as meaning Miko wasn't LG (which is true, I guess, but weird), that is by no means verification of alignment change.

Reddish Mage

2013-05-30, 02:44 PM

Absolutely not. "Miko died a Lawful Good fallen paladin" is the simplest explanation of the characters' and author's comments, and the events in the strip. Even if it is possible to interpret what Soon said as meaning Miko wasn't LG (which is true, I guess, but weird), that is by no means verification of alignment change.

By verification I mean the comic evidenced the change in alignment. Also I note Miko's alignment change is not necessary for her non-redemption to be informative. The redemptive process should be at least as easy for an alignment change.

Soon's description to Miko in Not for Everyone is illustrative of a similar process (given out of order) 1. acknowledge you did wrong 2. seek forgiveness and 3. atone for the misdeeds. This is illustrative even if Miko is going to LG afterlife as a non-Paladin, since the subject is atonement, however the implications of Soon's comments "we are fading to the Celestial Realm" and "we will usher you to your destination as well," is a strong implication indeed.

EmperorSarda

2013-05-30, 02:49 PM

By verification I mean the comic evidenced the change in alignment. Also I note Miko's alignment change is not necessary for her non-redemption to be informative. The redemptive process should be at least as easy for an alignment change.

Miko would explicitly need Atonement to become a Paladin again, because of the evil act she committed. Falling from being a paladin and a change in alignment are not always the same thing.

rodneyAnonymous

2013-05-30, 02:58 PM

...however the implications of Soon's comments "we are fading to the Celestial Realm" and "we will usher you to your destination as well," is a strong implication indeed.

No not really. If I am driving to Seattle, see a hitchhiker with a sign that says "Seattle or bust", I might tell him I'll take him to his destination as well. The destination that Soon will usher Miko to could easily be a different place on the same plane.

Burner28

2013-05-30, 03:54 PM

Going back to the Belkar issue- to start redeeming himself- he'd have to acknowledge that his past acts were, in fact, wrong- and resolve to atone for them.

Didn't the Giant have a quote about the likelihood of Belkar being redeemd in one of his books?

orrion

2013-05-30, 06:13 PM

As veti pointed out, you're blurring the middle between "no character growth" and "not evil anymore." Your claim wasn't "Belkar is still evil." Your claim was that he had had no character growth.

The fact that I think comparing Nale's attitude toward Sabine, much less Tarquin's attitude toward his sons, to Belkar's attitude toward Mr. Scruffy is like comparing one of those really horrible margarines ("I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Love!") to butter just makes your claim even worse.

No, my contention was that he had no character growth toward NOT being evil.

Kish

2013-05-30, 07:02 PM

No, my contention was that he had no character growth toward NOT being evil.
...It's still on the page. You said, "What character growth, exactly?" and proceeded to claim Belkar's attitude hadn't changed at all, "except for liking his kitty."

And we could go around the whole exchange we just had yet again, but let's not and say we did, eh?

Reddish Mage

2013-05-30, 08:12 PM

Miko would explicitly need Atonement to become a Paladin again, because of the evil act she committed. Falling from being a paladin and a change in alignment are not always the same thing.

That makes my point. It is, if anything, harder to be redeemed as a paladin then to change alignment. Miko has to go through several steps and then seek to atone to be redeemed. Would accept that Alignment can be changed more or with equal ease?

EmperorSarda

2013-05-30, 08:44 PM

That makes my point. It is, if anything, harder to be redeemed as a paladin then to change alignment. Miko has to go through several steps and then seek to atone to be redeemed. Would accept that Alignment can be changed more or with equal ease?

I think falling as a Paladin is easier, but you have to hold yourself to a higher standard. It's not just being Lawful Good, it is how you associate with others too. Changing alignment is more a way of questioning yourself, how you behave, how you view the world. Which I think is tougher.

Take V for example; all the fire traps and stuff he did to prank Belkar were harmless enough at first, but also showed V's callousness. Even when V almost blew Miko up with Explosive Runes, it shows a tendency to blast first. Which, as seen with the mage who brought V the divorce papers, is still something that V is struggling to work on. Perhaps V is evil, and is working to get back to neutral, or perhaps V is simply correcting his behavior so he doesn't have an evil alignment. Both readings are possible with the Directors thinking they have a 50% shot at V's soul and with the Deva saying that V has only taken a dramatic turn towards Evil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0664.html).

I'm partial to the Familicide turning V towards the Evil end of the spectrum, and hasn't quite switched alignments. It certainly was an evil deed, one that V most certainly will have to atone for. But I don't think is a deal breaker in being neutral. Well... not immediately. If V hadn't felt remorse and was apathetic about his discovery that he slaughtered the Draketooth clan, that would be entirely different.

So... I think I answered your question, it's harder to change alignment. It's as the Deva said to Roy, it is his trying to be Lawful Good, of continually trying to fix his record and do the right thing (in a lawful good perspective) that is what has kept him at lawful good despite his mistakes.

Eulalios

2013-05-30, 09:04 PM

It's simply the case that, in any cultures understanding of the concept, being good is being good is the face of adversity and must be done generally and without serious actions otherwise to keep the adjective. Someone who kills innocents viciously a couple of times a lifetime (assume a lack of redemption or remorse or anything) but is normally honest and kind is not a "good person." Though, the idea of such an individual is also difficult to comprehend.
Not really that hard - if you've had any friends who served as SPECFOR, who placed a landmine, or who launched a cluster-type bomb or missile.

Evil can be an occasional activity and the appellation still applies.
A shocking indictment of the "core values" espoused by pretty much every First World military.

:smallconfused:So here's my question - the thread runs on about V's genuine (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0595.html)(?) remorse and lack of atonement, and Belkar's fake(?) remorse and fake(?) change of behavior; has any otherwise kind and honest character committed a couple truly heinous acts, then gone on being honest and kind? Haley comes to mind as generally kind, except for that time (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0603.html) when she cut down -all*- of the childhood friends who stood in her way out of Brainy Pete's house, rationalizing her actions as she went. But I'm trying to think of kind and honest.

*Belkar actually spared one (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0611.html). Wait, two (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0616.html). .. and a half (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0612.html)?

hamishspence

2013-05-31, 01:22 AM

Didn't the Giant have a quote about the likelihood of Belkar being redeemd in one of his books?

Yup- DStP- when talking about his mostly fake character development, being simultaneous with real character development:

"I'm not talking about him becoming the better person he's pretending to be (fat chance of that)- I'm talking about Mr Scruffy"

Obscure Blade

2013-05-31, 02:26 AM

:smallconfused:So here's my question - the thread runs on about V's genuine (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0595.html)(?) remorse and lack of atonement, and Belkar's fake(?) remorse and fake(?) change of behavior; has any otherwise kind and honest character committed a couple truly heinous acts, then gone on being honest and kind?Well in Start of Darkness there's

The paladins systematically massacring goblins down to the children.

factotum

2013-05-31, 02:37 AM

Well in Start of Darkness there's

The paladins systematically massacring goblins down to the children.

Which, as the Giant has explained, doesn't mean anything:

It is entirely possible those Paladins fell for their actions in that village--we just didn't see it happen on-panel because it wasn't relevant to the story.

Math_Mage

2013-05-31, 04:42 AM

No, my contention was that he had no character growth toward NOT being evil.
First, no, that wasn't your contention, and second, yes, he did, as I explained at the top of the page.

Absolutely not. "Miko died a Lawful Good fallen paladin" is the simplest explanation of the characters' and author's comments, and the events in the strip. Even if it is possible to interpret what Soon said as meaning Miko wasn't LG (which is true, I guess, but weird), that is by no means verification of alignment change.
The simplest explanation is that Miko murdering her liege lord and surrogate father out of arrogance and paranoia didn't lead to an alignment change? Pull the other one.

EmperorSarda

2013-05-31, 09:22 AM

The simplest explanation is that Miko murdering her liege lord and surrogate father out of arrogance and paranoia didn't lead to an alignment change? Pull the other one.

If Roy were a Paladin he would have fallen several times, because he has veered off into chaos to fulfill lawful good duties. Despite all that, he is still lawful good. Miko's big mistake was big enough to make her fall as a paladin, but it is not known if she changed alignments.

We know Miko's horse can visit her whenever able. As the horse is still alive and occasionally visits Arcadia, Windstriker could visit then. Any other plan would require somehow communicating to a caster to cast plane shift for the Horse to visit Miko. The simpler explanation is Miko not having changed alignments and Windstriker visiting on his own initiative whenever possible.

hamishspence

2013-05-31, 09:27 AM

We know Miko's horse can visit her whenever able. As the horse is still alive and occasionally visits Arcadia, Windstriker could visit then. Any other plan would require somehow communicating to a caster to cast plane shift for the Horse to visit Miko. The simpler explanation is Miko not having changed alignments and Windstriker visiting on his own initiative whenever possible.

Arcadia is the plane for those who are Lawful Good (leaning toward LN) and Lawful Neutral (leaning toward LG)- it's the plane next-door to Celestia.

Given that the Twelve Gods include at least one Evil-leaning member (Rat) it's possible that they don't all live in Celestia- that some might live on the other planes.

Which raises the possibility that servants of the pantheon as a whole, can travel between the various domains of the pantheon.

Which would therefore allow Windstriker to visit souls of worshippers of the Twelve, that are in planes beside Celestia.

EmperorSarda

2013-05-31, 09:53 AM

Which raises the possibility that servants of the pantheon as a whole, can travel between the various domains of the pantheon.

Which would therefore allow Windstriker to visit souls of worshippers of the Twelve, that are in planes beside Celestia.

That is an interesting theory, and would be very interesting if true.

hamishspence

2013-05-31, 11:01 AM

Interestingly, there are 12 (out of 7) Outer Planes that are not Mildly Evil Aligned or Strongly Evil aligned. Perhaps one for each of the Twelve?

rodneyAnonymous

2013-05-31, 11:54 AM

The simplest explanation is that Miko murdering her liege lord and surrogate father out of arrogance and paranoia didn't lead to an alignment change? Pull the other one.

Yes. As far as I know, DMs rarely enforce an alignment change from a single action unless changing alignment was part of the character's intention. That would be unusual IMO.

hamishspence

2013-05-31, 12:09 PM

As The Giant put it in 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 on the boundaries of what it meant to be Lawful Good and a paladin, until one day, she broke through.

Kish

2013-05-31, 12:21 PM

Yes. As far as I know, DMs rarely enforce an alignment change from a single action unless changing alignment was part of the character's intention. That would be unusual IMO.
...It's not a game and Miko wasn't a PC. DMs have their NPCs change alignment without the NPC wanting to all the time; writers have their characters undergo mental shifts the characters might prefer not to even more often.

rodneyAnonymous

2013-05-31, 12:25 PM

It is my opinion that Miko remained Lawful Good. I don't think the opinion that she changed alignment is irrational, though. On the other hand, being certain of either probably is; we don't know for sure.

sam79

2013-05-31, 12:28 PM

It is my opinion that Miko remained Lawful Good. I don't think the opinion that she changed alignment is irrational, though. On the other, being certain of either probably is; we don't know for sure.

Agreed, though I interpreted the scene where Miko talks to Soon as suggesting that her afterlife would be in the LG realm, even though she fell (way) short of retaining her paladinhood. It's not a lock, though.

David Argall

2013-05-31, 12:47 PM

By verification I mean the comic evidenced the change in alignment. Also I note Miko's alignment change is not necessary for her non-redemption to be informative. The redemptive process should be at least as easy for an alignment change.

Quote:
the implications of Soon's comments "we are fading to the Celestial Realm" and "we will usher you to your destination as well," is a strong implication indeed.

The "we" here refers to the dead paladins, and does not refer to Miko no matter what her alignment.
In addition, the ushering argues for Miko still being LG, and the closer we put her to the paladin's form of lawful good, the more reasonable the statement is.
We can start with the term "usher". It is a fairly neutral term, but one is still jarred by something like "the cop ushered the criminal to his cell." It simply reads easier if we assume they are ushering Miko to where she wants to go.
But more basic, why are they ushering her? They have a "duty" to head to LG heaven, They have no known duty to go elsewhere for any reason at all. As in our hitchhiker example, we might give the guy a ride if we are going to Seattle anyway, but every mile that is out of our way is a reason not to. For Miko, that would fit well with them dropping her off for judging at the front door after which they go to the express line, but why would they stray out of LG territory? Again, the easiest way to read this is that Miko was headed for LG.