Belkar's Backstory

[Mister Non PC]

It has occurred to me that while each of the other members of The Order have had extensive pages devoted to their backstories, families, personal histories, etc., Belkar has no known family, relationships, friends; or any background really.

Do you suppose there is a narrative reason for this? The Giant doesn't seem to do stuff like this for no reason, but I can't figure it out.

Plenty of minor and major characters have existed in a vacuum, so to speak, but Belkar is one of the main protagonists as well as a title character. What made him like he is? Who are his people? What is his motivation?

Why has the Giant omitted all this?

[Peelee]

It has occurred to me that while each of the other members of The Order have had extensive pages devoted to their backstories, families, personal histories, etc., Belkar has no known family, relationships, friends; or any background really.

Do you suppose there is a narrative reason for this? The Giant doesn't seem to do stuff like this for no reason, but I can't figure it out.

Plenty of minor and major characters have existed in a vacuum, so to speak, but Belkar is one of the main protagonists as well as a title character. What made him like he is? Who are his people? What is his motivation?

Why has the Giant omitted all this?

So that you don't feel sympathy for him, is the basic gist of it. The Giant HAS commented on this. If I'm not mistaken, it should be archived in The Phantasm's Index of the Giant's Comments thread.

[Tock Zipporah]

Belkar got some backstory development in the kickstarter bonus PDF.

[GreyHound]

In On the Origin of PC's, the Giant talks about it in the intro. He felt it would detract from the humor we get from Belkar’s psychotic nature if he had a sad backstory.

Although I think that some kind of backstory, with his family or early life, would be interesting(and funny). It just has no narrative purpose.

Edit: ninja'd

[Tom Lehmann]

Belkar has no known family, relationships, friends; or any background really. Do you suppose there is a narrative reason for this? [...] Why has the Giant omitted all this?

In addition to the "create no sympathy for Belkar; as he then just becomes sad, not funny" reason that others have mentioned, the Giant also said (in the OOPCs intro) that he deliberately did not flesh out some PC backstories to reflect the difference between players who create very detailed backstories for 1st level characters and those who have just one-line backstories for their 15th level characters.

This is a deliberate artistic decision that emphasizes how the OOTS-verse runs on the laws of gaming/gaming satire, in addition to magic, physics, and narrative conventions.

[theangelJean]

I also thought he'd said something about this in the forums, but I can't find it in the Index. He might have mentioned it somewhere in the first Kickstarter discussion thread (after it was revealed that someone had asked for a story of Belkar before he joined the Order; this story has now been written but deliberately does not give Belkar any "reason" for his personality). However in an interview with Geekademia (http://podcasts.non-productive.com/index.php?id=542) (transcribed here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12094927&postcount=2)) he says a very similar thing about Xykon:



You should look at Xykon and say "He's a horrible monster." He can still crack a funny joke, but you shouldn't be sympathetic to him, and if you are, I don't know if I necessarily I want to know about it, because that's a little scary.

And that was one of the problems with SoD, "here's the story of Xykon," but I'm not going to make him even slightly sympathetic, if anything, you're going to think worse of him by the time you're done with this. So, I think I have an affection for writing the villains, because of that ability to sort of make your jaw drop, you know, heroes can't really do that without. . . you know it's going to be. . . no one's gonna gasp when they do something specially heroic or kind. And I really don't want my heroes to be dark, with the exception of Belkar, but that's another story.

(It's a very long transcript, but this section can be found in part 3.)

As others have pointed out, he says something similar about Belkar in the introduction to On the Order of PCs.

[Demolator]

I thought it was fairly obvious one could infer that Belkar was actually the ruler of the plane of ranch dressing but was exiled and morphed by the Gods into halfling form, which made him resent everyone and turned him into the chaotic evil halfling we know and love.

[Giggling Ghast]

Belkar's lack of backstory in Origin of PCs was also those reference to those players who don't write lengthy summaries of their character's past. "This is Bob the fighter. He owns a sword. He wants to get rich."

[137beth]

I always thought he was an Oracle of Tiamat before becoming an adventurer. That's why he thought the Oracle would be a halfling.

[littlebum2002]

The Kickstarter PDF supposedly tells the epic story of how Belkar got his cloak.



But think about the kind of player who would have a character like Belkar. One who interprets "Chaotic evil" as "Kill everything I see, including people who will help me on my mission, and randomly attack my teammates just for fun."
Ignoring the fact that it's incredibly surprising the DM hasn't found a way to kill him off yet, I seriously doubt that this is the type of player to come up with an elaborate backstory. I'm surprised his name isn't "Fighty Stabsalot".

[Kish]

There are no players and there is no DM.

If you're surprised by something either of those people is not doing...the answer is that they're not doing it because they do not exist.

[AKA_Bait]

There are no players and there is no DM.

If you're surprised by something either of those people is not doing...the answer is that they're not doing it because they do not exist.

That being the case, isn't an MoJ just the thing you'd like to slap on Belkar as a DM as a heavy handed hint to his hypothetical player?

[Roland Itiative]

I thought it was fairly obvious one could infer that Belkar was actually the ruler of the plane of ranch dressing but was exiled and morphed by the Gods into halfling form, which made him resent everyone and turned him into the chaotic evil halfling we know and love.

Not just the ruler, but their god. Of war. And sexy shoelessness.

[Kish]

That being the case, isn't an MoJ just the thing you'd like to slap on Belkar as a DM as a heavy handed hint to his hypothetical player?
No, because, as a DM, if I had a problem with how Belkar's hypothetical player was playing him, I'd deal with it OOC. If I thought the way he had played Belkar to date was likely to become a problem, but I didn't have a problem with the player, I'd share my concerns with her/him. I certainly wouldn't cripple the character to "send a heavy-handed hint to the player". One of the rules of avoiding really toxic D&D environments is, never deal with an OOC problem IC.

Belkar got the Mark of Justice because of how Roy reacted to Belkar, not some crap about "Roy's player" and "Belkar's player" and "the DM."

[Synesthesy]

The funny thing is that every villain is made to not make peolpe feel sympathy for them, except Tarquin. This is a thing that make me always think about.

[Roland Itiative]

There is nothing in Tarquin's backstory that makes the reader have any sympathy for him. He's just affably evil, most of the time. Xykon also acts that way every once in a while, too (like when he tried to spare Roy in Azure City). Tarquin is an interesting villain character, and for this people like him. But actually feeling sympathy for the (fictional) human being? That's, on my opinion, misguided.

[Kish]

Yeeahhhh...

If you want to pick one villain who is deliberately written to be sympathetic, I'd suggest that "R" is a better beginning for sympathetic villain names than "T." And, furthermore, "edcloak" is a better end for sympathetic villain named than, "arquin."

[Demolator]

The funny thing is that every villain is made to not make peolpe feel sympathy for them, except Tarquin. This is a thing that make me always think about.

How is Tarquin a sympathetic villain?

[Yoyoyo]

Yeeahhhh...

If you want to pick one villain who is deliberately written to be sympathetic, I'd suggest that "R" is a better beginning for sympathetic villain names than "T." And, furthermore, "edcloak" is a better end for sympathetic villain named than, "arquin."

What Kish said. In fact, Redcloak is so sympathetic that I find myself rooting for him to some degree. Unfortunately, his primary goal of helping all goblin kind is tied up in destroying the world and defeating our protagonists, which makes rooting for him a false hope and foolish act. But I do feel for him and his struggle for his people. You can also add MITD, or does he not even reach villain status with his recent acts that helped the Order?

Xykon and Tarquin are charismatic, like most good villains, but a long way from sympathetic figures.

[wingnutx]

Tarquin isn't sympathetic, just very entertaining.

He's got panache.

[theangelJean]

Belkar's lack of backstory in Origin of PCs was also those reference to those players who don't write lengthy summaries of their character's past. "This is Bob the fighter. He owns a sword. He wants to get rich."


But think about the kind of player who would have a character like Belkar. One who interprets "Chaotic evil" as "Kill everything I see, including people who will help me on my mission, and randomly attack my teammates just for fun."
Ignoring the fact that it's incredibly surprising the DM hasn't found a way to kill him off yet, I seriously doubt that this is the type of player to come up with an elaborate backstory. I'm surprised his name isn't "Fighty Stabsalot".


There are no players and there is no DM.

If you're surprised by something either of those people is not doing...the answer is that they're not doing it because they do not exist.

Sure, in the context of the main story of the OotS, there are no players and there is no DM. (I thought The Giant had said this explicitly in the forums somewhere, but I can't find it in the Index or the FAQ.)

However, in the Introduction to OtOoPCs, Rich himself explicitly uses the example of player personalities in gaming groups, in explaining that some characters have detailed backstories and some don't. He calls this the "roleplaying answer" to the question in the OP, to go along with the "writing answer" which is the effect it would have on the story.

So we're not making this up completely :) Or at least, we're not the only ones thinking along these lines!

[littlebum2002]

Right. It doesn't have players or a DM, but it's written as though it has players and a DM. I still interpret Belkar's hippie vision quest as a heavy- handed hint from the DM.
"Play the game right or your character's toast"

[Kish]

And I still think you're depriving yourself of the ability to appreciate a great deal of the comic by treating internal motivations as meta-motivations instead, but, no skin off my nose.

[coineineagh]

I was going to write a long post about how Belkar's persona in story might be damaged if there were any concrete backstory (half-truths about sadistic aunts/uncles aside) about family and why he is what he is. But it seems other posters explained it better than I could. Either the story would put Belkar's evil nature into a victim role (actions in past by others made him this way), or it would just be a watered-down repeat of Xykon's backstory, emphasizing how he's an innately evil creep.

Actually, I like how Belkar's backstory remains a bit of a mystery. You'll meet bad people in real life too, and you don't get to know their backstories either. Belkar as a character isn't tied up by backstory, and anything can happen. We've seen some change in his character already.

[angry_bear]

The funny thing is that every villain is made to not make peolpe feel sympathy for them, except Tarquin. This is a thing that make me always think about.

See, I get how someone can make the mistake of viewing Tarquin as a sympathetic villain... The first part of him talking about Nale, how he actually seems to care about Elan and his party members; but the thing is, all of that is a fake out. He wasn't torn up about Nale being evil, he was torn up about Nale because he thought he was incompetent. He cares about Elan because he sees him as the guy to finish his narrative (Or if you want to get technical, his life). I honestly see Tarquin as a worse villain than Xykon in a lot of ways. At least Xykon has no delusions about what he is, or what he's doing. Tarquin viewing things as a narrative is kind of terrifying to me...

As far as Belkar goes, he has no need for a back story. Pretty much for all the reasons already listed by everyone else.

[sr123]

And what would Belkar's backstory be? As far as anyone is concerned (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html), he has never developed as a person or character -- his background would look a lot like that of Xykon.

Of course, same ol' Belkar up to his wacky evil antics can make for fun reading, but if you want insight into who he is as a person, you'll likely not get it from anything other than some internal/divine spiritual advisor (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0605.html) (same link as above).

[Newwby]

Belkar already has a 'backstory' :wink:. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0125.html)

[Tock Zipporah]

Yeeahhhh...

If you want to pick one villain who is deliberately written to be sympathetic, I'd suggest that "R" is a better beginning for sympathetic villain names than "T." And, furthermore, "edcloak" is a better end for sympathetic villain named than, "arquin."

Hmm, and here I was ready to argue that Tedcloak was a very sympathetic villain while Rarquin was a lousy bum...