Is Belkar still evil?

[halfeye]

I was reading a thread here last night, and I noticed this:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0779.html

Last couple of panels, about the lead sheet. Is there an implication that Belkars alignment is changed?

I also love that the user still says "Stop oppressing my culture you ethnocentric bitch!".

[RMS Oceanic]

I was reading a thread here last night, and I noticed this:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0779.html

Last couple of panels, about the lead sheet. Is there an implication that Belkars alignment is changed?

I also love that the user still says "stop oppressing my culture you ethnocentric bitch".

I'm not seeing how that's evidence of his alignment: He enjoyed his battle with Miko and the lead sheet was part of that. He was just looking to re-live it, but the sheet is a missing part of that.

[Peelee]

I was reading a thread here last night, and I noticed this:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0779.html

Last couple of panels, about the lead sheet. Is there an implication that Belkars alignment is changed?

I also love that the user still says "stop oppressing my culture you ethnocentric bitch".

I don't see any indication his alignment changed. Even if there were verbal cues that it did, there would be no justification in his actions.

Still evil.

[happycrow]

Nah. He's lawful good now. Because, you know, he totally doesn't get it, but he is trying to figure out what they want from him*. And per the Lawful-Good-Fairy, that's what counts.

*Okay, I couldn't quite type that with a straight face, but one could make the argument, however weak a thread.

[DeliaP]

Nah. He's lawful good now. Because, you know, he totally doesn't get it, but he is trying to figure out what they want from him*. And per the Lawful-Good-Fairy, that's what counts.

*Okay, I couldn't quite type that with a straight face, but one could make the argument, however weak a thread.

Well, he's clearly still evil because he attacked the Lawful Good vampire. :smallbiggrin:

*runs away and hides*

[Reddish Mage]

We've had this conversation before. I think the consensus is that he is clearly less chaotic and less evil.

[Peelee]

We've had this conversation before. I think the consensus is that he is clearly less chaotic and less evil.

If I run through a parking lot to get to my car while there's a monsoon, I won't be as wet as if I jumped into the ocean. But I'll still be pretty friggin soaked.

That said, I don't think he is any less evil. Just more aware of how to not be all-up-in-yo-face about it. That's just my take on it.

[martianmister]

He is clearly Lawful Neutral killer Chaotic Evil ranger.

[RMS Oceanic]

If I run through a parking lot to get to my car while there's a monsoon, I won't be as wet as if I jumped into the ocean. But I'll still be pretty friggin soaked.

That said, I don't think he is any less evil. Just more aware of how to not be all-up-in-yo-face about it. That's just my take on it.

I'd say he's learning what Rich has espoused from many moons ago: Evil people are capable of forging lasting emotional bonds and friendships.

[Harbinger]

Belkar has been becoming less and less Evil over the course of the last two books, but he is still Evil, as evidenced by his torture of the kobold. It's possible that by the end of the story he will be Neutral or Good, but right now, not by a long shot.

[Ron Miel]

The Diva's graph shows that he became less evil under Roy's influence. What he learned from the Mark Of ustice takes him still further.

Probably still south of neutral, but getting better all the time.

[F.Harr]

I also love that the user still says "Stop oppressing my culture you ethnocentric bitch!".

It doesn't work without the magical evocation.

Yeah, I thought that was cool, too.


Well, he's clearly still evil because he attacked the Lawful Good vampire. :smallbiggrin:

*runs away and hides*

Quick, over here, in the foxhole!

[Amphiox]

Yes he is.

He has to actually commit an active, good act to redeem himself, and he hasn't done anything of the sort, yet.

Maybe he is on his way.

Or perhaps he will end up as Soon said of Miko:

"Perhaps, if you had more time...."

[NerdyKris]

He has to actually commit an active, good act to redeem himself, and he hasn't done anything of the sort, yet.

One act? No one act is going to redeem Belkar. He would need a whole lifetime of being a paragon of goodness to even begin to redeem his misdeeds. He makes the protagonist of Planescape Torment look downright saintly. (I'm kidding, that guy was pretty awful)

He can change his attitude. Start helping people. But I don't think anything is going to "redeem" him. Maybe make the others feel bad about him dying. But not to the point where he's going anywhere but the evil afterlife.


I was reading a thread here last night, and I noticed this:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0779.html

Last couple of panels, about the lead sheet. Is there an implication that Belkars alignment is changed?

I also love that the user still says "Stop oppressing my culture you ethnocentric bitch!".

I agree with everyone else. I don't understand how losing the lead sheet implies his alignment has changed. And Miko, who is long dead, was really the only one who cared. Ochul and the other paladins realized that a Belkar on a leash was better than a dead one. He's still very much evil, he's just trying to be a little less so.

[Synesthesy]

Roy is just trying to teach Belkar that evil act made versus even more evil people could lead to a greater good. If you can't live without stabbing someone, you have only two way:

-stab everyone for fun until the day someone stronger kills you
-stab the evil guys and defend the good guys

Belkar is still evil, but a different kind of evil from Xykon, Redcloak, Tarquin, Kubota, Durkula, etc

[littlebum2002]

If anything, I took his "hippy vision quest" to be a call to be less Chaotic, not less Evil. But maybe that's just me.



Also, I think the OP's point was that, assuming Belkar gave his lead sheet tot he Paladins, this would be considered a Good act, since it helped them hide from goblins.

[FlawedParadigm]

Let's start taking bets on how many strips until Belkar multiclasses to Paladin.

[CRtwenty]

Let's start taking bets on how many strips until Belkar multiclasses to Paladin.

The next strip after never... :smallwink:

[Math_Mage]

The evidence is clear that Belkar is significantly less Chaotic and less Evil than he was. But that strip is not part of the evidence.

[SincroFashad]

Per the Deva, Belkar's evilness was measured in kilonazis (kn).

So, while it's entirely possible that he is less evil then he used to be, he's still a *lot* evil. As an example, 1.8 kn is certainly less then 2.0 kn but there's still a huge amount of evil present. :)

-Sinc

[WindStruck]

To answer your question, let me give you a Belkaresque answer:

:belkar: Is Elan still a moron?

[Kingault]

To answer your question, let me give you a Belkaresque answer:

:belkar: Is Elan still a moron?

Well, Elan has been showing some sparks of brilliance recently...

[Rakoa]

Well, Elan has been showing some sparks of brilliance recently...

I think that's his point. Belkar is getting better, but he's definitely not there.

[David Argall]

From 910...
“I just don’t trust the idea of using a horrible bloodthirsty savage to fulfill our goals while - oh, I get it.” -Belkar. Neither Belkar nor the others in the party deem him other than fully evil.

[littlebum2002]

First point:
I have heard stories of this happening. I'm not sure if they are true, but it seems reasonable enough to at least be true in fiction, so here it goes:

There is a spy who has been tasked with his government's spy agency to infiltrate a terrorist group. He joins this group pretending to agree with their ideals, and spends lots of time trying to advance the ranks of this group to be in a position where he has access to information that will be useful to his agency.

However, after being a member of this group for a long time, and pretending to agree with them, something strange happens: he DOES start to agree with them. He starts to believe their rhetoric that his government is really "the bad guy" and the group is really "the good guy". So he abandons his government and goes rogue. (If he likes makeup, maybe he goes rouge as well).

So why can't this happen to bad guys as well? Belkar is PRETENDING to be True Neutral (or Chaotic Neutral). Maybe he spends so much time pretending that he forgets his attraction to his previous alignment and switches over for real.


Second point:
From what I understand, the following two are facts regarding alignment:
1) being neutral means committing a similar amount of Good and Evil acts (or using Evil acts to pursue Good goals, but that is irrelevant to my point)
2) that these acts are not cumulative.

In other words, if you are Lawful Good, spending your life doing Good deeds, and suddenly decide to become Evil, you don't have to do an entire lifetime of Evil acts just to average out at Neutral. Once you start committing solely evil acts, you are regarded as Evil. Or, once you start committing a similar amount of Good and Evil acts, you are regarded as Neutral.

Combining these two, I do believe Belkar will not end this strip as a Chaotic Evil character. I believe that, while pretending to have an alignment change, he will genuinely have a change of heart (even if he doesn't admit it). Since he is now performing Good acts as well as Evil acts, I believe there is a strong possibility he will at least be Chaotic Neutral by the end.

But, as I stated in an earlier post, I think his revelation to "play the game" was more of a change to Law than a change to Good. So I believe Belkar will be True Neutral by the end.

[DR27]

Belkar knows that he's getting better, and anytime that the others could have a chance to find out, he hides it for pride reasons. See after the Enor and Ganji fight (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0786.html), or his rant at Roy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0881.html), or denying that his illusion-dream was basically "good." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0890.html) Better enough to no longer Evil? That's hard to say, but he's not completely thoughtless and without morals like before. I'm not sure what "evil" actions he's taken lately, but hasn't made up for past misdeeds. Depending on your interpretation, that could mean that all the evil deeds that he has "amassed" make him evil, or the fact that he is no longer committing evil acts could mean that he is no longer so.

[Porthos]

I've seen a lot comments about redemption in both this thread and others when it comes to Belkar being not-evil.

I would point out what is perhaps a logical fallacy. It is certainly true that if Belkar would want to become a flavor of good he would have to seek redress, redeem, and anything else one thinks of to atone for his many many many horrible actions.

But a non-good flavor of neutral? That I'm not as certain about.

What sort of future life does Belkar need to live to 'move up to' CN? Or some other non-good flavor of neutral?

Seems to me too many of these discussions look at it from the good point of view (or even evil) and forget that there's a whole other set out there.

Not saying he doesn't have a huge hole to climb out of to get to 'just' neutral. But I'm wondering if getting on that path is the same one as it would be for redemption that Soon and others would go on about.

[Snails]

What sort of future life does Belkar need to live to 'move up to' CN? Or some other non-good flavor of neutral?

He would have to demonstrate a habit of mind that is approximately as interested in performing Good acts as Evil acts, proven by action.

At this point in his evolution, I can imagine him doing something genuinely Good spontaneously. Releasing the allosaur to help Ganji & Enor would be "nice" by some definition, but is still in a gray area because it is not so clear the motivation was about helping the prisoners, instead of just having fun.

But a one-off only makes him less evil. Less Evil is not quite Neutral.

[Porthos]

But a one-off only makes him less evil. Less Evil is not quite Neutral.

I completely understand that. I simply wanted to remind that I think very few people think he is headed to any flavor of Good anytime soon.

Or ever. :smallwink:

[The Pilgrim]

Belkar hit Humanity 10 a couple of strips ago, and now is in his way to Golconda... Because, you know, back then Durkula really vampirized him, he has only shown weakness since then because as a neonate his Blood Potency is very low.

[Morquard]

Second point:
From what I understand, the following two are facts regarding alignment:
1) being neutral means committing a similar amount of Good and Evil acts (or using Evil acts to pursue Good goals, but that is irrelevant to my point)
2) that these acts are not cumulative.

In other words, if you are Lawful Good, spending your life doing Good deeds, and suddenly decide to become Evil, you don't have to do an entire lifetime of Evil acts just to average out at Neutral. Once you start committing solely evil acts, you are regarded as Evil. Or, once you start committing a similar amount of Good and Evil acts, you are regarded as Neutral.

I don't really agree with your definition of Neutral, at least not as the sole definition, but that's not the point.

You make a good point with the LG character doing Evil things is then regarded as Evil.
A LG Paladin that is 60 years now and spend the last 45 doing LG stuff suddenly decides to burn down an orphanage with 20 kids inside?
Heck yeah he's evil now. Most people will probably say "but he was such a good guy, and now he's so evil".

However that's because the slide to evil is much easier than climbing up to be good. It takes relatively little to make you evil, but it requires a lot of effort to make you good (and remain that way).

So someone that spend years upon years massmurdering people, suddenly stops doing that and gives out free candy (ok silly example), will people say "But he was such an evil guy, and now he's so good" Or will they still see him as an evil monster?

Also evil acts often are far more severe than their good "counterparts". Say someone kills an innocent man. That's evil. Now what good deed would balance that out. Not kill the next innocent man he meets? Nope that's just neutral.
He'd have to throw himself into the line of fire to save an innocent man maybe to have that act count as good. There's a reason in stories about redemption it often ends with the death of the redeemed person.

[Gift Jeraff]

I would still consider him Chaotic Evil, but he has made progress. Then again, I would consider V Neutral Evil, but that's not his/her official alignment. It wouldn't surprise me much if Belkar was Neutral enough for Limbo.

[happycrow]

Something to note...

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html

Belkster's evil has gotten *dramatically* lower by 489, and that's *before* most of his personal growth. While unsavoriness undoubtedly remains (wearing your enemy for a hat is one of my favorites, ewww), and certainly his behavior in Azure City is non-good, we have "word of God" here that his evil actually has already been on a downward trend. And his uberdream was to cook fish while an old geezer he really likes plays with his favorite cat (who's been influencing his behavior). I mean, he's probably down to only fifteen or twenty Nazis by now!

[PeglegJim]

Maybe on his way to becoming some kind of retired mass murderer. He was a pretty terrible guy before the comic started, I think it's important to keep that in mind. He worked as a slaver, mass murdered his way through numerous human settlements, and made a monk cry about his class choice, so I'd say he has a long way to go before he can hit neutral. He's not even showing remorse or actively seeking redemption, so who's to say he won't to the same stuff next chance he gets. Also 'less evil' isn't really saying much for a guy like that.

[Death by DM]

As the Giant has stated, and is fairly obvious, Belkar is evil. How many examples can be given of his Evil acts? Killing that gnome, killing the Azure City prison guard, etc. Also, in that penultimate panel, it was implied he LOST his lead sheet, not that he gave it away. And for the Law-Chaos debate, look at Haley. She "plays the game", but she's Chaotic. This is the 3.5 description of Chaotic Evil:

"A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly disorganized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him. The demented sorcerer pursuing mad schemes of vengeance and havoc is chaotic evil. Chaotic evil is sometimes called 'demonic' because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil. Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also the order on which beauty and life depend."

Does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do?
Check.
Hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable?
Check.
Ruthless and brutal?
Check.
Haphazard plans?
Check. (Anyone remember the "set the tent on fire" incident?)

Seems pretty Chaotic Evil to me. (As if the Giant's statement that Belkar is Chaotic Evil isn't already enough)

[halfeye]

Also, I think the OP's point was that, assuming Belkar gave his lead sheet to the Paladins, this would be considered a Good act, since it helped them hide from goblins.
No, if he'd done that, he'd have known where it was.

I was thinking that it was given to him by some god (Nergal? Hel? Tiamat? a.n. other?) as a token of his alignment, and taken from him when his alignment changed. Thinking further, it was probably taken by Haley because the resistance needed it.

[DR27]

As the Giant has stated, and is fairly obvious, Belkar is evil. + RantBut can that change? The Giant wrote that in 2005. Belkar isn't like that anymore. He absolutely won't repent or go back and set things he did wrong right, but his behavior and outlook seem chaotic neutral now, a true individualist. Sure, he has his kobold weakness, but even Durkon has alcoholism. The question is, can a character change from CE to CN by virtue of how they are now, or does their baggage from their former ways always follow them? I know that personally, I would think the former - but most posters feel the later.

[Wymmerdann]

There would be no tragedy in Belkar's death were he not on a neutral trajectory (though of course still carrying way too much baggage to be classified as anything but chaotic evil).

[Wymmerdann]

There would be no tragedy in Belkar's death were he not on a neutral trajectory (though of course still carrying way too much baggage to be classified as anything but chaotic evil).

[Paseo H]

Belkar has moved from mid functioning sociopath to high functioning sociopath, as Shojo enjoined him to do.

[Nightmarenny]

Something to note...

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html

Belkster's evil has gotten *dramatically* lower by 489, and that's *before* most of his personal growth. While unsavoriness undoubtedly remains (wearing your enemy for a hat is one of my favorites, ewww), and certainly his behavior in Azure City is non-good, we have "word of God" here that his evil actually has already been on a downward trend. And his uberdream was to cook fish while an old geezer he really likes plays with his favorite cat (who's been influencing his behavior). I mean, he's probably down to only fifteen or twenty Nazis by now!
That seems like a misinterpretation of the comic.

The Deva never claims that Belkar has gotten less evil. Just that he has done less evil then he otherwise would have. He's still Belkar. He's just being corralled.

This is like saying that locking Belkar in a solitary prison that successfully held him for years would make him less evil because he couldn't kill or maim anybody.

[Solse]

First point:
I have heard stories of this happening. I'm not sure if they are true, but it seems reasonable enough to at least be true in fiction, so here it goes:

There is a spy who has been tasked with his government's spy agency to infiltrate a terrorist group. He joins this group pretending to agree with their ideals, and spends lots of time trying to advance the ranks of this group to be in a position where he has access to information that will be useful to his agency.

However, after being a member of this group for a long time, and pretending to agree with them, something strange happens: he DOES start to agree with them. He starts to believe their rhetoric that his government is really "the bad guy" and the group is really "the good guy". So he abandons his government and goes rogue. (If he likes makeup, maybe he goes rouge as well).

So why can't this happen to bad guys as well? Belkar is PRETENDING to be True Neutral (or Chaotic Neutral). Maybe he spends so much time pretending that he forgets his attraction to his previous alignment and switches over for real.


There's a trope for that! It's called "Becoming The Mask" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BecomingTheMask), and I'm pretty sure that Belkar is listed as an example (or a partial one).

But yeah, Belkar is becoming "better". He's not necessarily neutral, but almost sorta maybe kinda getting there. You saw his fantasy sequence. The dream wasn't Ultra Super Murder Stabfest 4000, it was cooking stuff for his cat. Now yes, I know that an evil person could have a pet that they love, but in the earlier strips, (even if Mr. Scruffy existed), Belkar would dream about killing people. It's change.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

No. If Belkar changes to good, this strip loses its main attraction.

[Chantelune]

Just because Belkar seems to be less evil does not mean he's no longer evil. I know alignement in D&D are often considered to be rather basic and straightforward, but still, there's a difference between "is evil though doing the occasional goodie thing more or less consciously" and "is neutral or good".

Unless I see some definite proof in comic (like a paladin using Smite Evil and Belkar commenting how it seems to not sting as much as he remember, or paladin using detect evil and Belkar not flashing despite lack of lead sheet) or word of Giant, I'll keep considering him as evil. :smalltongue:

[wolfdreams01]

Belkar is still evil, but he's starting to experience genuine moments of empathy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0807.html)for others - not just his friends, but even people who have crossed him. I'd say that definitely is starting to set him on a path towards some sort of redemption, even if he's not quite there yet.

[Burner28]

There would be no tragedy in Belkar's death were he not on a neutral trajectory (though of course still carrying way too much baggage to be classified as anything but chaotic evil).

Maybe not tragic, per say, but a lot of peope would still miss him as he is entertaining.

[Rogar Demonblud]

He didn't lose his lead sheet. Niu stole it. Because she took a level in Rogue.:smallwink:

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

I'm inclined to believe Belkar is on the road to neutrality. His remorse over Enor and Gannji, his loyalty to the OoTS, his love of Mr. Scruffy and his admission that the cat is influencing his behavior, Shojo becoming a role-model, his dream of a quiet life of cooking and good friends and his remorse over Durkon's death all point to a character drifting towards good. (With full admission that neutral comes first)

Since the curse was lifted, he has what? Stolen bread from prisoners and used an evil enemy as a cat box? A far cry from gnome murder, slave trading and blackmailing villages with the threat of destruction.

He's gotten better, and his reluctance to accept Durkula is even further along that path. I would not be surprised if an ultimate sacrifice for his loved ones was the fulfillment of his prophecy in the coming comics. Perhaps for the 10th anniversary?

[Porthos]

Since the curse was lifted, he has what? Stolen bread from prisoners and used an evil enemy as a cat box? A far cry from gnome murder, slave trading and blackmailing villages with the threat of destruction.

He tormented Durkon, played mind games with various people, and desecrated the corpse of a fallen enemy.

I wouldn't use Belkar pre-Arena fight as a good indictaor of a semi- kinda- sorta- squint-your-eyes-and-maybe better Belkar.

No, the arena fight is the dividing line. Not the I'm gonna mess with people for my amument stage beforehand.

[Coopenhagen21]

I would say Belkar is on a better path, as evidenced by the end of This strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0781.html), but is still south of neutral.

And just because we are seeing him go on a slightly less evil path doesn't mean he won't fall back towards his ways. Imagine if Mr. Scruffy is killed...

[Harbinger]

But can that change? The Giant wrote that in 2005. Belkar isn't like that anymore. He absolutely won't repent or go back and set things he did wrong right, but his behavior and outlook seem chaotic neutral now, a true individualist. Sure, he has his kobold weakness, but even Durkon has alcoholism. The question is, can a character change from CE to CN by virtue of how they are now, or does their baggage from their former ways always follow them? I know that personally, I would think the former - but most posters feel the later.

You're comparing a desire to murder sentient beings and mutilate their corpses with a desire to drink lots of beer? Seriously?

Belkar is certainly less Evil than he was, but he still kills people when he wants, and enjoys it. That is not something a Neutral character does. There's also the fact that he was affected by Durkon's Holy Word.

[Tock Zipporah]

We've had this conversation before. I think the consensus is that he is clearly less chaotic and less evil.

I do not concur. Case in point: Having a soft spot for Mr. Scruffy didn't stop Belkar from force feeding intestines to a guard. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0781.html)

[Kish]

There's also the fact that he was affected by Durkon's Holy Word.
Of course Belkar is still evil, but that's not evidence of it. Holy Word checks for nongood, not for evil; the Lawful Neutral Kilkil was deafened, blinded, and paralyzed by it, remember?

[davidbofinger]

Roy is just trying to teach Belkar that evil act made versus even more evil people could lead to a greater good.

Roy is taking advantage of it, but he isn't particularly trying to teach it to Belkar. In fact, it's more likely to work if Belkar doesn't understand he's been enlisted as an ally of good.


If you can't live without stabbing someone, you have only two way:

-stab everyone for fun until the day someone stronger kills you
-stab the evil guys and defend the good guys

Now you're making him sound like Dexter. Belkar isn't conflicted in that way.

[FlawedParadigm]

Suddenly I kind of want to see someone with a Paladin Belkar avatar.

[Coldwind]

Odd.

Durkon became a vampire, an evil creature, yet he is believed to be same old Durkon and people still trust him? Like nothing happened? Because he is "not evil any more than Belkar?" Really? Well, okay...

On the other hand, Belkar is having a major character improvement (to TN/CN alignment I believe) in the last hundreds of strips, yet he is still hated and everyone does not believe in his "non-evil" actions. Of course, he is still not trusted almost in every decision and his prophecied death is waited by audience in almost every strip.

I don't need to mention V and Familicide spell. S/he is still TN it seems after all s/he's done and also protected by Deus Ex Machina when in dangerous times.

Moral of the story: Prejudice is something hard to destroy. Once you got a low reputation, there is almost no other way to raise it. But if you got a high reputation and fallen down for "understandable reasons", you can earn it back by doing something audience wants.

[Kish]

Odd.

Durkon became a vampire, an evil creature, yet he is believed to be same old Durkon and people still trust him?
You realize you just posted, "Odd. Durkon is an EVIL RACE but people still trust him just because everything he's done since he was released from Malack's control has been aimed at helping the Order? But people judge Belkar even though he's been talking vaguely like he has a conscience since he last tortured someone 75 whole strips and less than an hour of comic time ago?"

I reject your moral and substitute my own. Mine is that people who want to like or dislike a particular character will act as though judging by actions, the only thing it actually makes sense to judge by, rather than by things like "He's a vampire!" or "She's a drow elf!" (http://www.douban.com/group/topic/9843697/) is a ridiculous concept.

[MtlGuy]

I think after his "I am a sexy shoeless god of war" epiphany in Blind Pete's basement Belkar has been given a push away from chaotic towards neutral. He's been told essentially that he should only try to get away with as much as he can without rocking the boat. To by all means cheat but continue to play the game and recognize it as such. He has been taught to recognize the structure that is society, to better exploit it in such a way that it minimizes the negative consequences to himself. There is 'order' and while he's not particularly beholden to it, he now recognizes it.

Given the above, I'd say he's still evil. However, after the battle with Malack, Belkar is shocked that Durkon died, for him no less, even despite all that Belkar is. His reply to Roy's freakout and acknowledgment that he's only good for harming others show's for the first time that he even recognizes who he is and the broad consequences of his choices. It could be the first step on the path to redemption. Or, at least a 'face push' before his prophecy is fulfilled.

[JCarter426]

I disagree. Haley and Elan are chaotic, but they've never had any trouble playing well with others. The archfiends are all different alignments. Nale is lawful evil, Sabine is chaotic evil.

[Ghost Nappa]

As of #860, Belkar is not on the side of Angels. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0860.html)

Hope that helps. :smalltongue:

[JCarter426]

He could still be neutral, though.

[Tock Zipporah]

He could still be neutral, though.

I'm inclined to respectfully disagree. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0835.html)

[JCarter426]

I just meant mechanically, in regard to Holy Word.

[asphias]

to be honest, i'm not sure if he's evil right now.

it's been a slow development, but it's been there:

his cat, really the only being he has really bonded with -http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0535.html and http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0622.html
leading him to find other ways then violence to make himself feel better in
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0807.html
and at the same time in that strip leading to empathy for other beings trough his cat.

at the same time, thanks to his hippy-quest, hes trying to be more of a teamplayer.
not killing crystal - http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0616.html
*trying*:smalltongue: to help roy - http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0676.html
finding out that helping out offers rewards - http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0687.html
and being a helpfull teammate again - http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0814.html

and he's slowly trying to understand who he can or can't kill - http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0780.html and http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0909.html

in the end though, none of these things stop him from being evil, just more of a teamplayer and learning about empathy. even his first deed which i might tend to classify as good - saving the bounty hunters - gets offset by using his enemy as a litterbox later on. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0835.html

however, the real change comes once durkon dies. seeing his teammate just straight up die in front of him, durkons last wish actually saving belkar, has gotten to him. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0880.html suddenly there is nothing funny about someone dying.

After this, belkar seems very self-concious about himself, mentioning that hurting people is the only thing he's good at
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0881.html ,
and realizing that he's considered to be a horrible bloodthirsty savage - http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0910.html

hell, even his dream suddenly wasn't about killing, but about his only other skillset - cooking: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0890.html

basically, once he's watched durkon die, i'm not completely sure if he's still evil. at least he hasn't done anything evil since surviving that fight.

does that mean he has redeemed himself? not at all. but i wouldn't be surprised if belkar kept his evil deeds to a minimum from now on, and act in a way that would fit someone neutral.

[hamishspence]

basically, once he's watched durkon die, i'm not completely sure if he's still evil. at least he hasn't done anything evil since surviving that fight.

does that mean he has redeemed himself? not at all. but i wouldn't be surprised if belkar kept his evil deeds to a minimum from now on, and act in a way that would fit someone neutral.
Going by the DMG- a DM is supposed to track a character's behaviour, more than their "attitude" - to determine their current alignment.

With the proviso that it's possible for a character to have a change of heart, repent their evil ways, resolve to do better, and become Neutral or even Good.

I don't think, at the moment, there's much evidence of actual repentance from Belkar, or a resolution to Not Be Evil.

Once there is- maybe he'll have an alignment change.

[137beth]

He could still be neutral, though.


I'm inclined to respectfully disagree. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0835.html)

Holy Word affects Neutral characters just the same as Evil ones.

[Obscure Blade]

I see him as moving towards CN or N. I doubt he'd ever end up Good, he just doesn't have that much benevolence in him.

I'm not at all sure that he needs to make up for all his evil deeds; that's a "karmic" based view of alignment, not a personality based one. If alignment is about what he is, then his personality just need to change enough and he'll qualify as CN even if he never does a thing to make up for his past evil.

[Tock Zipporah]

Holy Word affects Neutral characters just the same as Evil ones.

I'm not talking about Holy Word. I'm talking about Belkar willingly torturing a sentient creature for his own twisted amusement. Anyone who can claim Belkar's not EVIL is deluding themselves.

And as for "he hasn't done anything evil since he saw Durkon die"... That was what, a few hours ago? Going a few hours without an evil act doesn't make you any less evil.

[JCarter426]

Yeah, and Ghost Nappa and I were talking about Holy Word. For the record, I think it's entirely possible for Belkar to undergo a personality change and still remain chaotic evil.

But for the sake of argument, I'll counter that point. It is possible to commit truly Evil acts without being considered Evil, as Roy was accepted into the Lawful Good afterlife (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html).

[Tock Zipporah]

Yeah, and Ghost Nappa and I were talking about Holy Word. For the record, I think it's entirely possible for Belkar to undergo a personality change and still remain chaotic evil.

But for the sake of argument, I'll counter that point. It is possible to commit truly Evil acts without being considered Evil, as Roy was accepted into the Lawful Good afterlife (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html).

And nothing he did ever merited a blip on the Malev-o-meter. Belkar, on the other hand, is a homicidal maniac who torments people for fun. Thus, Belkar is Evil.

[halfeye]

Thus, Belkar is Evil.
Vaarsuvius too by that count.

[Tock Zipporah]

Vaarsuvius too by that count.

That's a whole different thread. People debate V's alignment almost as much as his gender.

[halfeye]

That's a whole different thread. People debate V's alignment almost as much as his gender.
Well yeah, but he is co-responsible for the abuse of the kobold in the comic you linked to, and it wasn't his familiar that was injured.

[JCarter426]

And nothing he did ever merited a blip on the Malev-o-meter.
The point is Roy has committed truly Evil acts. And he's not Evil... hell, he's Good. Belkar isn't (or wasn't... whatever) Evil because he committed Evil acts; it's the other way around. So you can't judge someone based on a singular act, or even a series of acts, necessarily... that gives you a general idea at best. There are other factors. Roy is Lawful Good because he's still trying to be Lawful Good, for example.

Belkar, on the other hand, is a homicidal maniac who torments people for fun. Thus, Belkar is Evil.
Well, aside from the fact that in this case the problem is he wasn't being homicidal, one could argue that this case, he wasn't doing it for fun; he was provoked, on account of what the kobold did to his pet. Clearly he has changed, in so much as his motivations have changed. Whether that means his alignment has changed is another matter. But as I said, I don't believe that character development demands alignment change myself.

[asphias]

And as for "he hasn't done anything evil since he saw Durkon die"... That was what, a few hours ago? Going a few hours without an evil act doesn't make you any less evil.

i know, and to be honest belkar hasn't been in the position to do any evil act since durkon died(except against teammates, but being a teamplayer is something he's been learning for some time)

however, i'm curious to see what's happening once he finally gets in a situation were doing evil would be easy or fun, and see if he's changed. i give it a decent chance of durkons death having made quite an impression on belkar, maybe enough to have changed him. though i wouldn't yet bet money on it, and i admit its not really any evidence yet. its just a feeling i have that he might've changed.

[Tock Zipporah]

The point is Roy has committed truly Evil acts. And he's not Evil... hell, he's Good. Belkar isn't (or wasn't... whatever) Evil because he committed Evil acts; it's the other way around. So you can't judge someone based on a singular act, or even a series of acts, necessarily... that gives you a general idea at best. There are other factors. Roy is Lawful Good because he's still trying to be Lawful Good, for example.

Well, aside from the fact that in this case the problem is he wasn't being homicidal, one could argue that this case, he wasn't doing it for fun; he was provoked, on account of what the kobold did to his pet. Clearly he has changed, in so much as his motivations have changed. Whether that means his alignment has changed is another matter. But as I said, I don't believe that character development demands alignment change myself.

Torturing someone for revenge is still evil.


i know, and to be honest belkar hasn't been in the position to do any evil act since durkon died(except against teammates, but being a teamplayer is something he's been learning for some time)

however, i'm curious to see what's happening once he finally gets in a situation were doing evil would be easy or fun, and see if he's changed. i give it a decent chance of durkons death having made quite an impression on belkar, maybe enough to have changed him. though i wouldn't yet bet money on it, and i admit its not really any evidence yet. its just a feeling i have that he might've changed.

If, when the opportunity comes, he shows different actions, I'll completely support the idea ofaalignment change. I can see the possibility he is heading in that direction. But I don't think he's there yet.

[Kish]

If you're arguing that you can't judge someone's alignment based on multiple actions no matter how extreme those actions are, I'd say you've gone wrong somewhere and should rethink your line of reasoning.

Or was Elan wrong when he decided, based on his father burning slaves alive, that his father was evil with the capital letters and everything?

[SavageWombat]

Torturing someone for revenge is still evil.



If it happened in the real world, it would be torture. In a humorous comic strip, it might be better classified as "Comedic Sociopathy" - as if Peter Griffin were doing it to someone on Family Guy.

[Porthos]

The point is Roy has committed truly Evil acts.

Let's not overstate things here:

Very few truly Evil acts. Nothing here even merits a blip on the Malev-o-meter. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html)

I think the second sentence is the more important of the two, personally. :smallwink:

[Kish]

In a meaningless gag-a-day comic strip, perhaps.

In this comic, I'm pretty sure the torture was torture, just as Vaarsuvius' quasi-genocide was quasi-genocide, not Comedic Something-Or-Other.

[JCarter426]

Torturing someone for revenge is still evil.
Perhaps, but it's still a single act... bah, whatever.

If you're arguing that you can't judge someone's alignment based on multiple actions no matter how extreme those actions are, I'd say you've gone wrong somewhere and should rethink your line of reasoning.

Or was Elan wrong when he decided, based on his father burning slaves alive, that his father was evil with the capital letters and everything?
If you're talking to me, note that I said "necessarily" and that I did not say "no matter how extreme those actions are". I only said there are other factors.

The deva mentioned a few truly Evil acts committed by Roy (not a lot, and not extreme, but still existent and plural) and listed at length several Chaotic acts, yet still accepted Roy as Lawful Good on the basis that it's a goal he consistently pursues, which has as much to do with what he does as what he is. Which is kind of the whole point of alignment.

Let's not overstate things here:

Very few truly Evil acts. Nothing here even merits a blip on the Malev-o-meter. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html)

I think the second sentence is the more important of the two, personally. :smallwink:
Yes, well, they're still Evil. And plural. Obviously Roy has a stronger case.

[Kish]

Perhaps, but it's still a single act... bah, whatever.

So? So was Tarquin burning the slaves alive. Are you saying Elan was wrong to look at that and say, "You're evil"?

[JCarter426]

No, because pretty much everyone other than Elan had figured it out by then. :smalltongue:

[Kish]

So...if that was the first thing we saw about Tarquin then Elan would have been wrong? Burning slaves alive is not enough to establish someone as evil, because "it's only one action"?

[JCarter426]

No, but it still gives you a pretty good idea. Look at Darth Vader. He did worse than that and he still got to be a Jedi ghost.

He still had to die, though. Redemption or not, you can't let a guy like that survive and live happily ever after. He has to die happily ever after.

[Kish]

...If by "no" you mean, "No, it wouldn't establish him as evil by itself," sorry, I think you're utterly wrong.

[JCarter426]

No, it would. But it wouldn't establish him as completely, irredeemably evil until the end of time.

I wouldn't equate tormenting someone who hurt your pet with setting some slaves who tried to escape for their freedom on fire either, though.

[Math_Mage]

No, it would. But it wouldn't establish him as completely, irredeemably evil until the end of time.
Did someone argue that Belkar was completely, irredeemably evil until the end of time? No. People have argued that Belkar is still Evil and hasn't yet committed to a higher alignment, let alone lived up to one. We've seen him become increasingly disillusioned with CE means and ends, but he still hasn't actually rejected either. That is the salient point.

[SavageWombat]

In a meaningless gag-a-day comic strip, perhaps.

In this comic, I'm pretty sure the torture was torture, just as Vaarsuvius' quasi-genocide was quasi-genocide, not Comedic Something-Or-Other.

Assuming that it was meant as comedy means we can move on with the characters as established.

Assuming that it was torture brings up the questions of why Roy and Durkon were ignoring/tolerating the behavior.

I don't think a non-Rich can be the ultimate interpreter of alignment in this strip.

[JCarter426]

Did someone argue that Belkar was completely, irredeemably evil until the end of time? No. People have argued that Belkar is still Evil and hasn't yet committed to a higher alignment, let alone lived up to one. We've seen him become increasingly disillusioned with CE means and ends, but he still hasn't actually rejected either. That is the salient point.
That's actually what I think, but that is not the argument I was responding to; all I was saying was you can't determine all that from the kobold incident alone. I'm inclined to think Belkar is still chaotic evil, but that's mostly based on the trippy Mark of Justice coma, not any of his actions before or since.

[Math_Mage]

That's actually what I think, but that is not the argument I was responding to; all I was saying was you can't determine all that from the kobold incident alone. I'm inclined to think Belkar is still chaotic evil, but that's mostly based on the trippy Mark of Justice coma, not any of his actions before or since.
*shrug* Almost everything Belkar has done since the coma has been relevant to his current alignment.

[JCarter426]

That was his moment of truth, though. And frankly I trust him more when he's talking to himself or Shojo's ghost or a hallucination than anything else.

[Tock Zipporah]

Did someone argue that Belkar was completely, irredeemably evil until the end of time? No. People have argued that Belkar is still Evil and hasn't yet committed to a higher alignment, let alone lived up to one. We've seen him become increasingly disillusioned with CE means and ends, but he still hasn't actually rejected either. That is the salient point.

This, exactly. Thank you for phrasing it in a way that gets across what I was trying to say.

[Math_Mage]

That was his moment of truth, though. And frankly I trust him more when he's talking to himself or Shojo's ghost or a hallucination than anything else.
He talks to himself stuff all the time, though. He talked himself into releasing the dinosaur. He talked to himself about having compassion for Enor and Gannji as proxies for himself and Mr. Scruffy. He talked to himself about feeling shock and horror at Durkon's death. He talked to himself about admitting that hurting people is the only thing he's good at. He talked himself into a shared fantasy with Mr. Scruffy that might as well have been from a Good or Neutral afterlife.

Besides, that wasn't Belkar's moment of truth; if anything, it was a profound moment of falsehood. That was the moment when he started tricking himself--into thinking that he could pretend to care about "their Society" without actually becoming invested in it. That is an extremely important aspect of his dream sequence with Shojo.

[Kish]

Assuming that it was meant as comedy means we can move on with the characters as established.

Assuming that it was torture brings up the questions of why Roy and Durkon were ignoring/tolerating the behavior.

Roy wasn't aware of it and stopped the "using him to disarm traps" as soon as he became aware that that was actually what the other Order members meant to do, and as for Durkon...I'm pretty sure his excessive passiveness is meant to be a character trait. The big problem with "just assume it was a meaningless joke and move on" is that it throws out the possibility of learning anything new about the characters, and if we applied it to everything vaguely humorous in the comic, we'd have a meaningless gag-a-day comic strip, where it was impossible to observe anything consistent in any of the characters' personalities.

I know, you didn't say apply it to every joke, just to this one. But why apply it to this one?


I don't think a non-Rich can be the ultimate interpreter of alignment in this strip.
If you had a quote from Rich saying, "It's just a joke, ignore it," that would be a good point. As it is, I'm not sure why you're saying it.

[Kuroshima]

We need to differentiate two things here:

current alignment
Destined afterlife

Belkar's current alignment seems to be drifting towards neutral, both on the law-chaos axis and the good-evil axis. He's still at the deep end of the alignment pool, but no longer at the deepest part of it. He's slowly paddling to the more shallow areas.

As for his afterlife, I say that he might have to do so much atonement for his deeds that his lifetime (should he die of natural causes) would not allow him to escape a CE afterlife. Of course, my views of this sort of thing are heavily influenced by Planescape Torment.

So, to the title question, yes, he's still evil. However, that might eventually change, if he somehow gets enough time to fully change (into probably CN or TN).

[Perseus]

I would still consider him Chaotic Evil, but he has made progress. Then again, I would consider V Neutral Evil, but that's not his/her official alignment. It wouldn't surprise me much if Belkar was Neutral enough for Limbo.

Probably already said but...

I think he might get a bit short if he was sent to limbo.

[Death by DM]

But can that change? The Giant wrote that in 2005. Belkar isn't like that anymore. He absolutely won't repent or go back and set things he did wrong right, but his behavior and outlook seem chaotic neutral now, a true individualist. Sure, he has his kobold weakness, but even Durkon has alcoholism. The question is, can a character change from CE to CN by virtue of how they are now, or does their baggage from their former ways always follow them? I know that personally, I would think the former - but most posters feel the later.

Alcoholism is hardly evil. Decapitating kobolds and/or using them as litterboxes for Mr. Scruffy? Is. He is still evil. One thing I forgot that is even more definite proof: the holy word. He had the same reaction as Nale. And Zz'dtri. I may have ranted a bunch of the stuff in my previous post, but that doesn't make it any less valid, so I say Belkar's Chaotic Evil. Also, until said otherwise, the Giant's point is the truth. If he comes along and says, "Belkar's now Chaotic Neutral!" then, well, Belkar's Chaotic Neutral. But as of now, he has stated that Belkar is Chaotic Evil.

[Kish]

One thing I forgot that is even more definite proof: the holy word. He had the same reaction as Nale.
While Belkar is certainly Chaotic Evil, that's not evidence at all. Holy Word doesn't check for evil; it checks for nongood. The person who was the worst damaged by it was the Lawful Neutral--but far lower-level than everyone else on the scene--Kilkil.

[JCarter426]

He talks to himself stuff all the time, though. He talked himself into releasing the dinosaur. He talked to himself about having compassion for Enor and Gannji as proxies for himself and Mr. Scruffy. He talked to himself about feeling shock and horror at Durkon's death. He talked to himself about admitting that hurting people is the only thing he's good at. He talked himself into a shared fantasy with Mr. Scruffy that might as well have been from a Good or Neutral afterlife.
I didn't mean talking to himself as in the odd offhand comment, I meant talking to what was most likely a manifestation of his subconscious.

Besides, that wasn't Belkar's moment of truth; if anything, it was a profound moment of falsehood. That was the moment when he started tricking himself--into thinking that he could pretend to care about "their Society" without actually becoming invested in it. That is an extremely important aspect of his dream sequence with Shojo.
I disagree, but that's not the point. His alignment was one of the things he clung to, that and Sexy Shoeless God of War, which I took as evidence that he doesn't want to change his alignment. Roy gets credit for wanting to be Lawful Good despite some of his actions, so the same should apply.

[DeadMG]

I'm not too impressed with the kobold's treatment as evidence of Evil on Belkar's part. Yes, it was an unpleasant thing to do to him, but not only was Belkar provoked, but honestly? The kobold's gonna get over it. There's no way the old Belkar would not have killed the kobold right away.

[Chantelune]

basically, once he's watched durkon die, i'm not completely sure if he's still evil. at least he hasn't done anything evil since surviving that fight.

does that mean he has redeemed himself? not at all. but i wouldn't be surprised if belkar kept his evil deeds to a minimum from now on, and act in a way that would fit someone neutral.

He didn't have much time and opportunity to do any evil since then, being weakend and in a rush before team evil or the LG get to them.

And of course he will, this is what he understood during his hippy quest : pretend to abide to the rules.

Every "goodish" things he did since then derive from that. He realized that if he kept acting like the selfish, bloodthirsty bastard he is, he will end up dead or worst. Even the OOTS showed him several times that his presence amongst them was merely tolerated and that he was overstaying his welcome. If he wants to "stay in the game", he have to at least pretend that he's a team player, mindful of his team-mates and pro-active when it comes to their objectives.

And being a team player is not something only good people do, or there would be no LG, no Team Evil, no three-headed empire over the desert, etc... And as long as he can convince the order and everybody else that he's no longer who he was before, he might be able to get away more easily with his surges of homicidal tendencies.

That he might end up becoming what he's pretending to be is a possibility, but it might be a long way before that and I doubt its yet there.

[SavageWombat]

I know, you didn't say apply it to every joke, just to this one. But why apply it to this one?


Because, maybe then people would stop arguing with the text over alignment nitpicks?

[Kish]

Because, maybe then people would stop arguing with the text over alignment nitpicks?
What are you even talking about now? "Arguing with the text over alignment nitpicks"? The Text doesn't say Belkar and Vaarsuvius didn't torture Yukyuk--for all that you apparently really want it to for some reason.

[luc258]

There is a lot of space between old Belkar and the chaotic neutral territory. Just because he is less evil does not make him neutral.

[SavageWombat]

What are you even talking about now? "Arguing with the text over alignment nitpicks"? The Text doesn't say Belkar and Vaarsuvius didn't torture Yukyuk--for all that you apparently really want it to for some reason.

Does the text use the word "torture"? What are YOU even talking about? I can't even build a coherent picture of what you believe from the posts that you make.

[Tock Zipporah]

I'm not too impressed with the kobold's treatment as evidence of Evil on Belkar's part. Yes, it was an unpleasant thing to do to him, but not only was Belkar provoked, but honestly? The kobold's gonna get over it. There's no way the old Belkar would not have killed the kobold right away.

"unpleasant"? They controlled a sentient creature's mind and forced it to open its mouth so a cat could urinate and defecate in it. "Provoked" has no relevance here. Forcing someone to endure such disgusting humiliation as an act of revenge is an Evil and depraved act. Or are you saying you'd consider that "Neutral" behavior? Because no, no way. Imagine someone doing that to you, and in front of witnesses no less, and tell me you'd "just get over it."

[Knight.Anon]

I think Belkar has been neutral since his fever dream. The Mark of Justice broke him. Granted, Belkar won't ever be good, but that's why Neutral is there. When was the last time he did a solid evil? The last one I can think of is when he killed the gnome trader.

For the PC races you have to do evil to be evil, so now that B. is preoccupied with pretending to be good he has tricked himself into being neutral. After Belkar is gone I hope we get to meet his family. I'm thinking they are halfling versions of paladins.

Belkar also has good traits too, he is very loyal to his friends, willing to stand with them when one good hit from death. He has repeatedly turned down offers to go dark(er) side. He's was very honest about Durkon's death as well, and had the most strongly "good" reaction to Durkula too. He'll fight for Mr. Scruffy which says volumes. If you compare the way he is now to evil characters like Thog, Tarquin, or Nale he's clearly in a different mold.

Time to hang up his black hat.

[androkguz]

"unpleasant"? They controlled a sentient creature's mind and forced it to open its mouth so a cat could urinate and defecate in it. "Provoked" has no relevance here. Forcing someone to endure such disgusting humiliation as an act of revenge is an Evil and depraved act. Or are you saying you'd consider that "Neutral" behavior? Because no, no way. Imagine someone doing that to you, and in front of witnesses no less, and tell me you'd "just get over it."

I would definitely consider an evil act that most neutral warrior types would do. As an easy example: Genji and Enor. The Giant himself has said they are both True neutral yet you just have to see their behaviour (Specially the lizardfolk's) before the arena and the way they were ready to really enjoy revenge killing Roy and Belkar even though they were hardly to blame for their current situation.

Being evil towards your enemies but never towards innocents is the trademark of a neutral hero.

By actions alone, Belkar post coma could be classified as a Neutral character.
"You are forgetting all the horror he has done before that, how can you say he is redeemed himself?"
There is a lot of difference between being non-evil and redeeming yourself. Redeeming is an action while being non-evil is a state of being. I am pretty sure that if a horrible person who has been doing evil her whole life suddenly had an epiphany and decided to do good her alignment might change very drastically but her capacity to enter the higher planes would not.

[Tock Zipporah]

I think Belkar has been neutral since his fever dream. The Mark of Justice broke him. Granted, Belkar won't ever be good, but that's why Neutral is there. When was the last time he did a solid evil? The last one I can think of is when he killed the gnome trader.

For the PC races you have to do evil to be evil, so now that B. is preoccupied with pretending to be good he has tricked himself into being neutral. After Belkar is gone I hope we get to meet his family. I'm thinking they are halfling versions of paladins.

Belkar also has good traits too, he is very loyal to his friends, willing to stand with them when one good hit from death. He has repeatedly turned down offers to go dark(er) side. He's was very honest about Durkon's death as well, and had the most strongly "good" reaction to Durkula too. He'll fight for Mr. Scruffy which says volumes. If you compare the way he is now to evil characters like Thog, Tarquin, or Nale he's clearly in a different mold.

Time to hang up his black hat.

I'm afraid I must once again disagree. Belkar has done quite a few evil things since the fever dream.

- He helped encourage a man to commit cold blooded murder for revenge (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0612.html) (Pete was no threat to them and he was helpless, so killing him is murder, not self-defense like fighting the rest of the Thieves' Guild).
- He was willing to let the slavers take innocent people away (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0685.html) (he said "What do I care?", and then the only reason he killed Buggy Lou was because he pissed Belkar off).
- He expressed delight at being allowed to kill people horribly (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0687.html), and then started looking for someone he could murder just because they're "unpopular."
- He was willing to sit by and watch while Roy got his butt kicked (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0730.html), and only joined the fight when it was intense enough to be fun for him (which doesn't exactly show "loyalty to his friends," as you implied he had).
- He stole bread from helpless prisoners. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0736.html)
- He threatened to cut off Elan's nipples (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0774.html) (and coming from Belkar, that's a legit threat).
- He fed a man's intestines to a guard (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0781.html) just because the guard made fun of him (if that doesn't say "evil psychopath," I don't know what does).
- He did this depraved act I've mentioned several times. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0835.html)
- He tried to kill Nale while he was helpless (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0862.html) (whereas we know the Good characters like Roy and Elan have frequently expressed a moral need to capture Nale instead of killing him because that's what the Good guy does (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0069.html)).

You could argue that some of these acts are just "mean" instead of "evil," but they're still signs that Belkar is a horrible little monster. About the only "good" thing he did was saving Ganjji and Enor.

Showing a soft spot for Mr. Scruffy and expressing a hint of regrets for his past actions does not make him Neutral. He's still evil, at least for now.


I would definitely consider an evil act that most neutral warrior types would do. As an easy example: Genji and Enor. The Giant himself has said they are both True neutral yet you just have to see their behaviour (Specially the lizardfolk's) before the arena and the way they were ready to really enjoy revenge killing Roy and Belkar even though they were hardly to blame for their current situation.

Being evil towards your enemies but never towards innocents is the trademark of a neutral hero.

By actions alone, Belkar post coma could be classified as a Neutral character.
"You are forgetting all the horror he has done before that, how can you say he is redeemed himself?"
There is a lot of difference between being non-evil and redeeming yourself. Redeeming is an action while being non-evil is a state of being. I am pretty sure that if a horrible person who has been doing evil her whole life suddenly had an epiphany and decided to do good her alignment might change very drastically but her capacity to enter the higher planes would not.

Ganjji and Enor have standards, and lines they don't cross. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0728.html) They're professional bounty hunters, not sociopathic murderers. Nothing they do in the course of the comic comes CLOSE to what Belkar does.

[LadyEowyn]

Belkar's still evil. He was still acting Evil in the desert arc (when he was fine with slaving and liked the idea of killing whoever was most unpopular) and in the Empire of Blood (when he stole prisoners' bread, got Roy stuck in the duel with Thog, and was generally selfish and bloodthirsty). He's been better since Durkon's death and vampirization, but that's only been a couple hours so we can't make any calls on whether he's seriously changed until we've got more of his actions to judge from - the main thing is just that he's been a lot more of a team player since then, which is in his own self-interest.

And even if he started behaving in a more Neutral manner, he'd still be Chaotic Evil because of everything else he's done over his whole life. Neutral means "a relative balance between good and evil acts", not "an evil person does a few non-evil things".

[veti]

I'm afraid I must once again disagree. Belkar has done quite a few evil things since the fever dream.

- He helped encourage a man to commit cold blooded murder for revenge (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0612.html) (Pete was no threat to them and he was helpless, so killing him is murder, not self-defense like fighting the rest of the Thieves' Guild).

"Revenge" is usually considered Neutral, alignment-wise. Many gods whose portfolio includes revenge are neutral (e.g. Hoar, Chamiee, Shevarash, Gelf Darkhearth). At least one (Horus) is officially Good.


- He was willing to let the slavers take innocent people away (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0685.html) (he said "What do I care?", and then the only reason he killed Buggy Lou was because he pissed Belkar off).

True.


- He expressed delight at being allowed to kill people horribly (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0687.html), and then started looking for someone he could murder just because they're "unpopular."

Saying something is not the same as doing it. He may have made the threat, and maybe he would have carried it through if he'd had the opportunity - but in the end, that's speculative. He didn't actually do anything bad at that point.


- He was willing to sit by and watch while Roy got his butt kicked (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0730.html), and only joined the fight when it was intense enough to be fun for him (which doesn't exactly show "loyalty to his friends," as you implied he had).

Roy was in no real danger there, and even Belkar refrained from "accidentally" killing anyone in the fight. I agree, the whole episode isn't to his moral credit, particularly when you consider his dialogue with Mr Scruffy - but the standard we're talking about here is "solidly evil things he's done", and it doesn't meet that.


- He stole bread from helpless prisoners. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0736.html)

True. (Edit: although we could quibble about the word "helpless". They outnumbered him, they were bigger than him, and they were every bit as well armed as him. And if they'd tried to stand up to him, it's entirely possible that Roy would have helped them, so arguably it's their own fault for being so passive.)


- He threatened to cut off Elan's nipples (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0774.html) (and coming from Belkar, that's a legit threat).

Again, words not deeds.


- He fed a man's intestines to a guard (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0781.html) just because the guard made fun of him (if that doesn't say "evil psychopath," I don't know what does).

Yep.


- He did this depraved act I've mentioned several times. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0835.html)

Revenge, again. The kobold did shoot Mr Scruffy. And V actively co-operates, even though she personally has less reason to look for revenge on that particular kobold.


- He tried to kill Nale while he was helpless (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0862.html) (whereas we know the Good characters like Roy and Elan have frequently expressed a moral need to capture Nale instead of killing him because that's what the Good guy does (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0069.html)).

The canonically-neutral Vaarsuvius previously argued (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0399.html) for doing exactly the same thing, and Haley (with Elan's acquiescence) rejected the idea purely on practical, not moral, grounds.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I think this whole thread is a clear exception to Betteridge's Law of Headlines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines). But overstating the case can't lead anywhere good.

[Knight.Anon]

Thanks for the excellent rebuttal Tock Zipporah. I still think B. is neutral though - mostly because he isn't hurting innocents unnecessarily. Neutrality may be balanced but its also an ugly alignment. Not helping innocents being enslaved is something Neutral. Good characters would be obligated to step in but Belkar isn't good. He's never going to be on the "Nice List".

Blind Pete's execution was justice, he betrayed his friend, and betrayed Belkar and his party - I would argue that it was a good act. It taught the priest how to be better at his job instead of being a disposable tool. Pete was helpless but not innocent. That is what an execution is - killing a helpless person that deserves it. The magically enslaved kobold was also treated neutrally, he was their enemy who tried to kill them. They were literally S***ty to him, but again Neutrality is ugly.

Belkar is also repulsed by evil now (very surprising). He hated it when the Blue DragOgre and lizard man were forced to fight each other. I also respect him for having the "proper" hatred of the undead. Durkula may be very like Durkon but he's a monster.

Belkar's fight with the slavers was interesting for a character on the transition from evil to neutrality. He didn't care about the slaves (Neutral) tried to fake fight the Slavers (Chaotic Evil) Became repulsed by the slavers and killed them when they made the blunder of trying to eat his cat (Neutral - Goodish).

Digression: I can't help but wonder if Belkar's fever dream was some kind of Divine Intervention. The Order is at the level where Gods start noticing them. I really hope the strip doesn't go in that direction though. But if the world and the Gods lives are at stake I can't she why they wouldn't. Especially since the Fiends are collaborating are aggressively messing with the board.

[David Argall]

"Revenge" is usually considered Neutral, alignment-wise.
"Revenge is a base motive."-most moral authorities.

[Tock Zipporah]

Thanks for the excellent rebuttal Tock Zipporah. I still think B. is neutral though - mostly because he isn't hurting innocents unnecessarily. Neutrality may be balanced but its also an ugly alignment. Not helping innocents being enslaved is something Neutral. Good characters would be obligated to step in but Belkar isn't good. He's never going to be on the "Nice List".

Blind Pete's execution was justice, he betrayed his friend, and betrayed Belkar and his party - I would argue that it was a good act. It taught the priest how to be better at his job instead of being a disposable tool. Pete was helpless but not innocent. That is what an execution is - killing a helpless person that deserves it. The magically enslaved kobold was also treated neutrally, he was their enemy who tried to kill them. They were literally S***ty to him, but again Neutrality is ugly.

Belkar is also repulsed by evil now (very surprising). He hated it when the Blue DragOgre and lizard man were forced to fight each other. I also respect him for having the "proper" hatred of the undead. Durkula may be very like Durkon but he's a monster.

Belkar's fight with the slavers was interesting for a character on the transition from evil to neutrality. He didn't care about the slaves (Neutral) tried to fake fight the Slavers (Chaotic Evil) Became repulsed by the slavers and killed them when they made the blunder of trying to eat his cat (Neutral - Goodish).

Digression: I can't help but wonder if Belkar's fever dream was some kind of Divine Intervention. The Order is at the level where Gods start noticing them. I really hope the strip doesn't go in that direction though. But if the world and the Gods lives are at stake I can't she why they wouldn't. Especially since the Fiends are collaborating are aggressively messing with the board.

I suppose you and I have an extremely different definition of the word "Neutral." What you call justice, I see as murder. And killing a sentient being because they were going to eat your cat? I'm pretty sure most people would get life in prison for murdering someone even if "But he hurt my cat" was their defense. And I don't see acts of pure vengeance as being neutral. Neutral could be staying out of it, or doing evil for a good cause, but willingly torturing and murdering sentient creatures just because they pissed you off isn't "Neutral," it's deranged and psychotic.

[Math_Mage]

I didn't mean talking to himself as in the odd offhand comment, I meant talking to what was most likely a manifestation of his subconscious.
If I saw a clear reason for differentiating one from the other where analyzing Belkar's alignment is concerned, I would not have combined them in the first place.


I disagree, but that's not the point. His alignment was one of the things he clung to, that and Sexy Shoeless God of War, which I took as evidence that he doesn't want to change his alignment. Roy gets credit for wanting to be Lawful Good despite some of his actions, so the same should apply.
This is meaningless without analyzing Belkar's actions and his attitude towards his alignment subsequent to the dream sequence. The alignment characters want to be is not always a good guide to the alignment they are. Miko also wants to be Lawful Good, and a paladin, in the only scene where she expresses a preference (her death scene); that doesn't make her either.

[Morthis]

True. (Edit: although we could quibble about the word "helpless". They outnumbered him, they were bigger than him, and they were every bit as well armed as him. And if they'd tried to stand up to him, it's entirely possible that Roy would have helped them, so arguably it's their own fault for being so passive.)

Um, in D&D terms being outnumbered by level 1 commoners at his level is like being outnumbered by ants, it's not gonna matter one bit. Either way this is a terrible argument. You may as well make the argument that murder is ok because you can stop it by killing them first.

Keep in mind that V, who has committed plenty of evil acts himself, does show times where he genuinely cares about helping people or doing the right thing. I don't think we've ever seen V be evil towards someone who was not an enemy of theirs. Belkar has shown no such restraint, if it lives it deserves to die. The only reason he doesn't act on it as much anymore is because he's decided to fake character growth and play by their rules a little more.

[halfeye]

I suppose you and I have an extremely different definition of the word "Neutral." What you call justice, I see as murder.
That's a debate about the death penalty, i.e. real world politics. We can't do that here I think.


And killing a sentient being because they were going to eat your cat? I'm pretty sure most people would get life in prison for murdering someone even if "But he hurt my cat" was their defense.
Sure, they would have to be threatening someone more important than an animal, but these guys were also doing that (and whether an animal should be considered a person is another potential real world argument we probably can't go into).


And I don't see acts of pure vengeance as being neutral. Neutral could be staying out of it, or doing evil for a good cause, but willingly torturing and murdering sentient creatures just because they pissed you off isn't "Neutral," it's deranged and psychotic.
There's "hot pursuit", and "in hot blood" which make a difference. Psychotic is doing things in cold blood as if they were in hot blood, maybe psychotics are psychotic because they don't feel/understand that difference.

I agree that the treatment of the kobold was well outside the Geneva Convention, but they don't have that in the OotS world, and it's under 200 years old here in the real world. The treatment of the kobold was probably rule of funny, but it's the sort of joke that's only funny from the winning side.

[JCarter426]

This is meaningless without analyzing Belkar's actions and his attitude towards his alignment subsequent to the dream sequence. The alignment characters want to be is not always a good guide to the alignment they are. Miko also wants to be Lawful Good, and a paladin, in the only scene where she expresses a preference (her death scene); that doesn't make her either.
First of all, I wasn't analyzing anything. Second, it clearly matters in some cases, such as Roy. And Miko is an entirely different case; as you said, the only time she stopped to think about her alignment was when she was already dying. She didn't want to be Lawful Good, she wanted to feel that her gods had a plan for her. Roy wants to be Lawful Good just because he thinks it's right, and he consistently pursues that. Miko didn't.

Now if I were to analyze Belkar's attitude subsequent to the dream, I could point out, for example, Belkar's justification for mistreating his fellow prisoners; while it did make a lot of sense on some level, it was still a very Chaotic Evil attitude. I don't think Belkar is deceiving himself at all. He's just applying himself more, so he's accepted as part of the system once again.

[Niknokitueu]

I personally think that Belkar is still Evil. Big 'E' evil.

He is, however, becoming the mask (as it were). He has had a considerable amount of character development, and left unaltered, would no doubt eventually become neutral, if not good.

But I am put in mind of an image of a caterpillar looking at Mount Everest and saying 'I am climbing that'.

Even if Belkar was to live to be several hundred years old, I do not think he would reach the transition point from Evil at his current pace.

I do, however, forsee him dying in a selfless act (a la Darth Vader) and us seeing the follow-up where his achon goes 'good try, but too little too late to redress your balance' before posting him to hell. Maybe even with a side comment along the lines of 'this isn't star wars, after all'.

Could Belkar reform enough to become good within his lifetime? Well, given he is to die soon, probably not.

All in all, IMO he is still Evil, and will die Evil. Just be a more interesting character than a 'psychotic murdering savage'.

Oh, and by the way, Belkar has done his very first officially Good act. Attacking a presumed LE creature* that he has very good reason to believe will attack the party, but doing so individually rather than as a part of a social whole, that sounds CG to me. Doing Good for Goods sake, and damn Laws and societies' conventions. Heck, I can see even NG and LG attacking Durkula unprovoked given what Durkula did to him just a short time ago...

Have Fun!
Niknokitueu
*I say presumed because I do not want another war. To me, looks like a duck etc. is good enough.

[wolfdreams01]

I personally think that Belkar is still Evil. Big 'E' evil.

He is, however, becoming the mask (as it were). He has had a considerable amount of character development, and left unaltered, would no doubt eventually become neutral, if not good.


I agree. They say that if you wear a mask for long enough, eventually the mask becomes your face, and I think that is what is happening to Belkar. He THINKS it is just an act, but it's starting to affect him internally as well - there are numerous examples of this being the case.

[Kish]

Oh, and by the way, Belkar has done his very first officially Good act. Attacking a presumed LE creature* that he has very good reason to believe will attack the party, but doing so individually rather than as a part of a social whole, that sounds CG to me. Doing Good for Goods sake, and damn Laws and societies' conventions. Heck, I can see even NG and LG attacking Durkula unprovoked given what Durkula did to him just a short time ago...
Your final sentence highlights the problem with this line of reasoning. Attacking someone who already attacked you is not an aligned act, except that it disqualifies you from Celia's brand of Lawful Good. Xykon has killed millions of evil-aligned creatures. Not one of those killings was a good act. Neither is it an "officially Good" act for Belkar to want to slaughter Vampire Durkon on sight.

Edited to add: You would actually have a much better case, were Belkar the one saying "We don't need to kill him; he's Durkon."

[Perseus]

Your final sentence highlights the problem with this line of reasoning. Attacking someone who already attacked you is not an aligned act, except that it disqualifies you from Celia's brand of Lawful Good. Xykon has killed millions of evil-aligned creatures. Not one of those killings was a good act. Neither is it an "officially Good" act for Belkar to want to slaughter Vampire Durkon on sight.

To me that scene was more Belkar's mask becoming his face. He threw himself at an enemy that he knew he couldn't beat when he was weakened.

A creature that actually scares him. One that has proven can take him out with a standard action.

So the good act isn't that he wanted to slaughter an evil creature but the jumping in harms way to take out a perceived threat so his allies may take it down.

But anyways, Belkar is no longer a sociopath or psychopath and can feel empathy. This doesn't make him good or neutral but he may finally go that direction if he wishes.

Oh and does anyone else find it scary that V and Belkar makes for really good friends? The kobold scenes really scare me cause belkar only has two modes... Hate and Lust.... :smalltongue:

[veti]

Um, in D&D terms being outnumbered by level 1 commoners at his level is like being outnumbered by ants, it's not gonna matter one bit. Either way this is a terrible argument. You may as well make the argument that murder is ok because you can stop it by killing them first.

In the first place, the assumption that all the other gladiators are level 1 is not supportible. They include Geoff and Iain, and it'd be more reasonable to assume there's a whole range of levels there.

In the second place, they had no way of knowing what level Belkar is. All they saw, at that point, was that the new halfling was a nasty little brute. He could have been level 1, for all they knew.

And in the third place, as I wrote first time, it's very likely Roy would have sided with them. True, they couldn't be sure of that, but only in the same way as they couldn't know Belkar's level.

Really, the only excuse they have is "comic effect" - of seeing so many humans "bullied" by one small halfling. And that means it's unreasonable to hold this scene against Belkar, because everything about it is staged.

[Morthis]

In the first place, the assumption that all the other gladiators are level 1 is not supportible. They include Geoff and Iain, and it'd be more reasonable to assume there's a whole range of levels there.

In the second place, they had no way of knowing what level Belkar is. All they saw, at that point, was that the new halfling was a nasty little brute. He could have been level 1, for all they knew.

And in the third place, as I wrote first time, it's very likely Roy would have sided with them. True, they couldn't be sure of that, but only in the same way as they couldn't know Belkar's level.

Really, the only excuse they have is "comic effect" - of seeing so many humans "bullied" by one small halfling. And that means it's unreasonable to hold this scene against Belkar, because everything about it is staged.

If I'm standing next to someone who might be capable of destroying me with a spoon while I'm wearing full armor and weapons, I'm pretty sure I'm not going to be naturally inclined to fight him just in case he happens to be low level. This isn't about being slightly outmatched, in D&D terms someone can be so far above you that you'll never stand even the slightest chance of winning no matter how much better equipped you are.

They had no reason to believe Roy would join them. In fact, they'd have every reason to believe the opposite, since those new guys came in together.

None of this addresses the ludicrous argument that they deserved it for not fighting back.

Lastly, we can most certainly hold it against him. While it may be part of a joke, these things are still kept in character. What if Roy was the halfling in the party, but otherwise had the same personality as he does now. Do you really think he'd be portrayed doing what Belkar does, just because he's little? I seriously doubt it, people would strongly object seeing Roy act like this because it completely goes against his personality. It doesn't for Belkar, which is exactly why he was used, why we're not surprised by it, and why the argument that we can't hold it against him doesn't fly for me.