Belkar's alignment

[zinycor]

has belkar alignment changed from Chaotic Evil to Neutral evil? it does seem like that to me given how he cares about his animal companions, and his explanation given in strip #745. Makes sense to me :)

[Keltest]

Keep in mind, Evil people are able to care about others besides themselves. Belkar still delights in the torture of sentient beings, and for the most part will not go out of his way to spare them from harm unless he sees a near-immediate benefit for doing so.

[Angelalex242]

Is he moving towards NE or CN? I think he values chaos more then evil, myself, but that's just me.

That is, if Belkar died right now, is he headed for the Abyss, Carceri, or Pandemonium?

My current bet is Pandemonium, but your mileage may vary.

[Peelee]

has belkar alignment changed from Chaotic Evil to Neutral evil? it does seem like that to me given how he cares about his animal companions, and his explanation given in strip #745. Makes sense to me :)

Judging by the wry smiley you tagged the topic with, and the line, "makes sense to me :)" I'm inclined to guess that you don't actually believe this.


Is he moving towards NE or CN? I think he values chaos more then evil, myself, but that's just me.

That is, if Belkar died right now, is he headed for the Abyss, Carceri, or Pandemonium?

My current bet is Pandemonium, but your mileage may vary.

Abyss all the way.

[A.A.King]

Yeah Belkar is still and always will be CE. He is very protective of Mr Scruffy, sure, but his overreactions when protecting Mr Scruffy still point to one thing and one thing only: CE.

You could try to argue that he is turning NE because he is becoming more obedient. That is, it seems like he will no longer say "screw you roy" when stabbing a person after Roy said not to stab said person. However that would require that you subscribe to the school of though that CE requires one to be the ultimate embodiment of chaos and that you can never do the reasonable thing over the preferred thing. I don't agree with that so I say: Belkar still very much CE

[cybishop]

If Belkar changes alignment at all, I'd say he's likely to stay Chaotic and move from Chaotic Evil to Chaotic Neutral. He's still a wise-ass and bad at teamwork, but is starting to care about other people more. That seems more Good, but no more Lawful.

I did say "if," though. Being nice to their own pets is used to show that bad people aren't completely one-dimensionally evil, but it doesn't show that they aren't bad people. He feels bad about what happened to Durkon and is the most suspicious of Durkula, but what happened to Durkon happened right in front of him. Durkon even let it happen to protect Belkar - not exactly, but that's close enough to give a character a raging fit of angst if that character was actually good. In Belkar's case, it just makes him want to stab someone new. He seems to be developing a little self-awareness, judging by his "hurting people is what I'm good at" line, but plenty of evil people are self-aware. Hell, Xykon himself, for example. The character growth Belkar has made in the form of sort of, kind of caring about animal companions and Durkon is nowhere near enough to make up for his attitude towards everything and everyone else all the rest of the time.

If Belkar's average evil output was halved over the previous story arc, he'd still be around a quarter of a kilo-Nazi.

[zinycor]

Judging by the wry smiley you tagged the topic with, and the line, "makes sense to me :)" I'm inclined to guess that you don't actually believe this.



Abyss all the way.

it maks sense to me, it's just that i wanted to try the wry smiley (new in the forum) and it does make sense to me. Having said that, i say that t makes sense to me rather than i believe because it's just a guess.

[Angelalex242]

Well, yes. My argument for Pandemonium is based on Roy's continued influence reducing Belkar's Kilonazis enough to where Pandemonium becomes a valid alternative to the Abyss. The deva does confirm that Roy's basic plan of reducing Belkar's evil is generally working.

[Peelee]

it maks sense to me, it's just that i wanted to try the wry smiley (new in the forum) and it does make sense to me. Having said that, i say that t makes sense to me rather than i believe because it's just a guess.

Then I apologize. Lack of tone and inflection makes things easier to misunderstand on the internet than in person.

I don't believe Belkar has changed alignment. His big revelation boiled down to how to be Chaotic Evil without being obnoxious to the point that everyone wants to leave him out to dry. Prior to this, everyone had abandoned him or wanted his head on a stake except the Order, and as soon as he killed the Oracle, Haley booted him. Granted, she forgot due to the memory enchantment, but as soon as she found out his sickness was the Mark of Justice she refused to have him treated. He was on the road to breaking his last bonds with the only people who would accept him; the Mark of Justice made him see that, and see how to change it. He never changed his alignment, just the way he played it.

At least, that's my take on it.

[hamishspence]

Haley thinks Mr Scruffy's having some good influence on Belkar - but also that it still averages out south of Neutral:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0781.html

[Angelalex242]

There's still the matter of Roy's influence suppressing, or even outright reducing his kilonazis to something more reasonable.

[Keltest]

There's still the matter of Roy's influence suppressing, or even outright reducing his kilonazis to something more reasonable.

That is the evil that Belkar would have done, not the evil that he *wants* to do.

[Angelalex242]

Sure, but if Roy's influence is successfully blunting Belkar's evil, he just might make it into Pandemonium because his evil is somewhat suppressed. Mind, Pandemonium is still a lower plane and not at all a fun place to be, but it's theoretically better then the Abyss.

In the standard cosmology of the Dungeons & Dragons fantasy role-playing game, Pandemonium (or, the Windswept Depths of Pandemonium) is the Outer plane where Chaotic Evil and Chaotic Neutral petitioners are sent after death. Pandemonium is a large, complex cavern that never ends. Compounding this problem, howling winds drive most of its residents mad. There are few creatures that are native to this plane; those individuals who do live there usually have no choice in the matter. It is one of a number of alignment-based Outer Planes that form part of the standard Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) cosmology, used in the Planescape, Greyhawk and some editions of the Forgotten Realms campaign settings.

In the Planescape campaign setting, Pandemonium houses the headquarters for the Bleak Cabal faction.

Each of the four layers of Pandemonium is successively deeper within the caverns.

The gnoll deity Gorellik wanders throughout Pandemonium.
Norebo's realm is in Pandemonium.[3]

Pandesmos[edit]

Pandesmos is the largest and (relatively) most hospitable of the layers. The headwaters for the Styx are found here.

Pandesmos is the location of a number of godly realms, including Loki and Auril's realm of Winter's Delight, Talos' realm of Towers of Ruin, and Ho Masubi's realm of Uchi-bi.

Cocytus[edit]

Cocytus is also known as the "layer of lamentation", for this is where the winds are the strongest.

Cocytus is the location of a number of godly realms, including the god Erythnul's realm of the Fields of Malice, the bugbear deity Hruggek's realm of Hruggekolohk, Cyric's realm of the Shattered Castle.

Phlegethon[edit]

Phelgethon is the location of a number of godly realms, including the Queen of Air and Darkness's realm of the Unseelie Court, Zeboim's realm of The Maelstrom, and the derro deity Diirinka's realm of Hidden Betrayal.

Agathion[edit]

Agathion is the deepest area of Pandemonium and is generally sealed off from the rest of the plane. Where Pandesmos has wide-open caverns, Agathion has narrow caves that eventually dwindle to pocket spaces within the infinite rock. It is said that deities use these sealed off areas, which are nearly impossible to get to, to store indestructible artifacts or deity-level monsters that could not be killed. Entry to these pocket areas is notoriously hard; each space only has one portal in and out, while some areas are so ancient that their portal could have been destroyed eons past.

[Keltest]

Sure, but if Roy's influence is successfully blunting Belkar's evil, he just might make it into Pandemonium because his evil is somewhat suppressed. Mind, Pandemonium is still a lower plane and not at all a fun place to be, but it's theoretically better then the Abyss.

Your afterlife is not determined by what you have and have not managed to do. They don't "punish" you for failure.

[Angelalex242]

Well I dunno then.

Pandemonium is the plane of Madness. It's technically a good place for the Joker, Kefka, and other such beings.

Carceri, on the other hand, is a prison.

This is opposed to being a 'Mane', which a petitioner like Belkar would become if he did make it to the Abyss.

[Keltest]

Well I dunno then.

Pandemonium is the plane of Madness. It's technically a good place for the Joker, Kefka, and other such beings.

Carceri, on the other hand, is a prison.

This is opposed to being a 'Mane', which a petitioner like Belkar would become if he did make it to the Abyss.

Evil people do not have a happy afterlife. Which is no surprise, when youre in a plane where 99% of the beings are exactly like you, only perhaps more so.

[Loxagn]

Evil people do not have a happy afterlife. Which is no surprise, when youre in a plane where 99% of the beings are exactly like you, only perhaps more so.

I'm not so sure about that. Perhaps if the pantheon was only Good Gods, that would be the case, but it's not. Hel and Loki exist, for instance. In the world of D&D, Evil people get sent to the Evil afterlife, where they get Evil rewards from Evil deities. I'd argue that it's perfectly possible for an Evil person to have a perfectly happy afterlife, so long as they made the right people happy. Now, I'd also imagine that the Evil afterlives are significantly less tolerant of failure and weakness. But hey, a successful villain? Their eternal reward is surfing orphanback down mountains of cocaine for all eternity. Preferably enjoying a good maniacal laugh while doing so.

[Keltest]

I'm not so sure about that. Perhaps if the pantheon was only Good Gods, that would be the case, but it's not. Hel and Loki exist, for instance. In the world of D&D, Evil people get sent to the Evil afterlife, where they get Evil rewards from Evil deities. I'd argue that it's perfectly possible for an Evil person to have a perfectly happy afterlife, so long as they made the right people happy. Now, I'd also imagine that the Evil afterlives are significantly less tolerant of failure and weakness. But hey, a successful villain? Their eternal reward is surfing orphanback down mountains of cocaine for all eternity. Preferably enjoying a good maniacal laugh while doing so.

The thing about evil afterlives is that you have to work for your happiness. Unlike in the good afterlives, where its basically handed out with gift baskets for the sake of it, the evil afterlives make you take it from someone else, because nobody wants to go out of their way to give it to you without seeing returns. The thing is that the evil people basically start at the bottom of the totem pole when they die. There really isn't anyone they can beat up for lunch money yet. They need to get lucky and find someone who trips on a bug and dies in front of them or something.

[Terrador]

I could see a plausible case for Belkar making it into a CN afterlife if and only if he doesn't do any more murdering before his death. Even then, serious contributions to saving the world, an Atonement spell or five, high-profile Good acts on a more personal scale... he'd probably need most or all of the above.

I'm unsure on the meta here. Which would be more thematically appropriate--"Everyone gets a second chance", or "There are consequences to your actions"? I'm thinking the latter, but I dunno, and I bet it'll be handled better than I can currently imagine it. Think Watterson's Noodle Incident, but in reverse.

[Kish]

Chaotic Evil is not more evil than Neutral Evil.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I don't think that Belkar's alignment has changed. To specifically address the OP's first post, I don't think empathy for others is non-chaotic.

[Angelalex242]

If he successfully makes it to CN through Roy's hard work, I suppose, then he ends up in Limbo, where he, as a Halfling, wins every game of Limbo down there. :smalltongue:

But anyway, the idea is, the Deva said Roy's influence was working on him, and if it does so, then he may be pulled away from the Abyss after all, depending on Roy's success with that.

[zinycor]

what would be an example of a Neutral evil character and how is it different from belkar?

I know tsukiko is neutral evil and i don't really see how belkar and tsukiko are really different in their evil.

i think the fact that belkar is trying to hide his evilness is a characteristic of a neutral evil character... not that he is less evil or anything...

of course it seems more plausible that he continues to be as chaotic as always

[Keltest]

If he successfully makes it to CN through Roy's hard work, I suppose, then he ends up in Limbo, where he, as a Halfling, wins every game of Limbo down there. :smalltongue:

But anyway, the idea is, the Deva said Roy's influence was working on him, and if it does so, then he may be pulled away from the Abyss after all, depending on Roy's success with that.

I think youre misunderstanding that scene. That is Roy's influence on Belkar's ACTIONS, not his character. Without Roy, Belkar would have done many more terrible things than he currently does, but with Roy's influence, Belkar's destructive inclinations are forced into more constructive outlets.

[Angelalex242]

The Deva also puts it under 'trying to redeem an evil character' to remove the stain of his actions, even if she's not entirely comfortable with Roy taking that responsibility on himself.

And Roy is having a slow, but steady effect on his character through his actions. If he keeps aiming Belkar at evil foes, the stain of evil weakens on him. Hence, less kilonazis.

[Keltest]

The Deva also puts it under 'trying to redeem an evil character' to remove the stain of his actions, even if she's not entirely comfortable with Roy taking that responsibility on himself.

And Roy is having a slow, but steady effect on his character through his actions. If he keeps aiming Belkar at evil foes, the stain of evil weakens on him. Hence, less kilonazis.

correlation does not equal causation, in this case. Belkar may or may not be becoming less evil, but his actions are definitely being less evil because Roy isn't letting him do evil things as often.

[Angelalex242]

Is it not the case that actions speak louder then words?

Might not the Demon of the Abyss (Equivalent to Roy's Deva) say, "Evil contained isn't evil at all, particularly when you're Chaotic." Might not the demon say, then, that he should've been more willing to fly in the face of Roy, more willing to murder and maim innocents every time he got the chance?

[Peelee]

Is it not the case that actions speak louder then words?

Might not the Demon of the Abyss (Equivalent to Roy's Deva) say, "Evil contained isn't evil at all, particularly when you're Chaotic." Might not the demon say, then, that he should've been more willing to fly in the face of Roy, more willing to murder and maim innocents every time he got the chance?


Celestia is desirable to get in. They need a screening process. I'm pretty sure the Abyss will just take 'em on

[Keltest]

Celestia is desirable to get in. They need a screening process. I'm pretty sure the Abyss will just take 'em on

At the very least, the Deva expressed the idea that the afterlives will not prevent you from getting in for failure to live up to your alignment ideal, so long as you gave it a reasonable effort.

[Angelalex242]

But IS Belkar currently giving it a reasonable shot, or is Roy successfully gimping his evil enough that the demon equivalent of the Deva won't buy it?

[Keltest]

But IS Belkar currently giving it a reasonable shot, or is Roy successfully gimping his evil enough that the demon equivalent of the Deva won't buy it?

I think hes being plenty malevolent given the threat of Roy and the rest of the order hanging over his shoulder. He unleashed a dinosaur on some guards, partially or the dinosaurs sake, but partially for the lulz. He had no interest in helping his team because it was boring. He turned a Kobold into a litterbox for his cat. While it was still alive.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

But IS Belkar currently giving it a reasonable shot, or is Roy successfully gimping his evil enough that the demon equivalent of the Deva won't buy it?

I think for the most part, Belkar tries to be as CE as possible, but is sometimes reigned in or redirected by Roy and others.

[TurtlesAWD]

As far as intent goes, I think unlike Roy who makes a conscious to try to follow his alignment (which mostly comes down to trying to follow the law/his responsibilities and trying to do the right thing), Belkar for a long time didn't show the introspection required to make those kinds of judgments on his own actions. This is fitting for a chaotic character, and it's his unthinking murderous impulses that make him evil. Ever since his hippie vision quest and because of the influence of Mister Scruffy, he has shown a greater understanding of himself and why he does what he does. I think the biggest thing keeping him from chaotic neutral will be any sense of repentance or guilt since "gee I really wish I hadn't stabbed all those people" is mostly the kind of thing I can only see Belkar saying sarcastically. For V, who has been responsible for a spell that has killed indiscriminately at least on the same scale as Belkar if not more, what keeps V neutral is their desire to atone for the unforeseen consequences of that spell.

I wouldn't personally rule out character growth (or "pretend" character growth) in a neutral direction for the Belkster, especially depending on how the vampire Durkon plot plays out, and it may be that his actions in saving the world from the Snarl combined with the Order's influence could bump him to a chaotic neutral alignment. Or maybe he'll have himself an apotheosis and become a literal sexy shoeless god of war instead of just a metaphorical one.

[Angelalex242]

Well, it's also worth remembering that Belkar's worst impulses are part of his low int and wis scores.

The one time he had owl's wisdom cast on him, he'd decided to never again kill a living thing.

As such...would Belkar even BE chaotic evil if somebody stuck a periapt of wisdom +6 on him, thus unleashing his ranger spells?

[Domino Quartz]

Well, it's also worth remembering that Belkar's worst impulses are part of his low int and wis scores.

The one time he had owl's wisdom cast on him, he'd decided to never again kill a living thing.

As such...would Belkar even BE chaotic evil if somebody stuck a periapt of wisdom +6 on him, thus unleashing his ranger spells?

I'm pretty sure that was just a one-time joke. Also, it happened within the first 100 strips, so I don't think it's good evidence to base an argument on.

[Angelalex242]

There's no evidence to counteract it at this time, so it must be considered that his chaotic evil nature is at least largely in part to his low mental stats.

[TurtlesAWD]

I think it's a little too strong to say there's no evidence for that. There's basically two things to look at for evidence:

a) Is there a connection between having a high bonus in int/wisdom and being good, or a penalty in int/wisdom and being evil?

b) Is there reason to believe that a change in ability score causes a change in alignment?

I would have to say no to both of these, for a multitude of reasons. We have plenty of smart or wise characters who are still evil. I am unsure of Malak's or Redcloak's exact stats, but they're both clerics so I suspect their wisdom is on the higher end. Likewise, dumb characters such as Elan are still very much good.

Essentially what is being assumed is that someone's personality (and thus alignment) begins and ends with their stat distribution. I believe that's very much not the case. A smart character who gets smarter will simply have more cunning ways to further their already evil goals. Think of it this way, when Roy got the belt of giant strength for saving the people in the desert from the settlers, did it change him fundamentally? Or does the extra strength simply reinforce/bolster what already exists?

Also consider the ramifications of a world in which an increase in wisdom is all it requires to turn an evildoer good. What would be the point of prisons? Just hand out periapts of wisdom and you have immediate criminal rehabilitation. No, I think it's more likely that ability scores are simply a piece of the personality puzzle for any given character and that the scene with Belkar having such an immediate change of heart was done primarily for laughs.

[Angelalex242]

I'm not saying it's that way for EVERY low int/wis character.

It has just been observed it's that way for Belkar in particular. Belkar with full access to his ranger spells is apparently very different then the sexy shoeless god of war we observe otherwise.

[A.A.King]

I'm not saying it's that way for EVERY low int/wis character.

It has just been observed it's that way for Belkar in particular. Belkar with full access to his ranger spells is apparently very different then the sexy shoeless god of war we observe otherwise.

It's true that in one very early page we see a Belkar who is less evil because his wisdom increased by 4 points. However, I think it's fairly save to say that that particular occasion was nothing more then a joke and said absolutely nothing about Belkar. I believe the general rule is that you shouldn't take the things from the first 100 pages too serious unless they have been repeated afterwards I'm pretty sure there are more gags like this which seem to say something about the character but contradict most we know about the comic.

[Nilehus]

Nonsense! I'm still waiting for Haley to bust her third arm out at a crucial point.

That being said, there's a lot from the first 100 strips that cannot be true or are extremely OOC based on later books. V's banned schools, MitD's more callous personality, Eugene actually giving half a care about Roy, and worst of all, Durkon actually having fun. I file the Belkar Wisdom joke under that category.

[Angelalex242]

Well, nobody's ever cast Owl's Wisdom on Belkar since, so we don't know if the effect is repeatable.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I think it was just a one time joke that shouldn't be taken too seriously.

[137beth]

Belkar is still Evil, as seen here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0909.html) and stated here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0910.html).

As for law vs chaos...I don't think he is moving on that axis at all, I think any alignment change he might possibly get in the future would be to CN, not NE.

[GideonWells]

Belkar is still Evil, as seen here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0909.html) and stated here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0910.html).

As for law vs chaos...I don't think he is moving on that axis at all, I think any alignment change he might possibly get in the future would be to CN, not NE.

I think Belkar is changing his alignment. Belkar is evil, but this chart (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html) shows Roy and the OotS already took a chunk out of Belkar's Evil.

I'm not certain Belkar is going to cross over to neutral, but it looks like he is heading there. Shojo is an expert manipulator. His whole mark of justice indicates he is aware of faking it til you make it. Spirit guiding Belkar is just the mark of justice in a different form. The mark was a stick. Belkar just found loop holes around it and didn't really change. It finally bit him when someone out loop holed Belkar's loop holes.

The "fake development" is the same "fake it til you make it" plot but in carrot form. Belkar resisted reform because he resented it. Now that he's "faking" character growth he's opened up his mind to thinking along those paths. He's caring for Scruffy. He's showing concern for Durkon and realizing now (at some level) his actions have consequences. Enough so that he lied about his dream/illusion (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0890.html).

Under Shojo/Scruffy's influence by his actions with the HPOH I think you are wrong about chaos vs lawful. That the lack of wisdom seems to be Belkar's problem combined with the recent guilt leads me to believe Belkar is chaotic evil because he doesn't/didn't have the wisdom to understand how his actions affected others.

Now he is beginning to. Given enough time I think Belkar will shift to Neutral/Neutral. However, he's still thoroughly chaotic due to his impulsiveness. I don't know if he is still evil or not, but considering how often we see Roy treat Belkar as irredeemably evil (even ignoring the warning about V due to his assumptions about Belkar) I think we'll see an alignment switch here before story's end. Maybe at the cost of Roy's lawful alignment.

[factotum]

I think Belkar is changing his alignment. Belkar is evil, but this chart (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html) shows Roy and the OotS already took a chunk out of Belkar's Evil.

That's not because they changed Belkar's fundamental nature in any way, though, it's because they kept him on a tight leash and prevented him expressing it, in the same way keeping a dog on a lead prevents it running after the neighbour's cat when you see it--the dog will still *try*, but you prevent him going ahead.

[cybishop]

I think Belkar is changing his alignment.

If all you're saying is that Belkar is becoming less evil, then sure, I'd agree with that. Less evil than he started out is still very evil, though. I disagree with you about him changing alignment. I would find it very surprising if he changed enough to officially become Neutral before the end of the story and/or his death.


Belkar is evil, but this chart (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html) shows Roy and the OotS already took a chunk out of Belkar's Evil.

That chart shows him hovering a little below 1 kilo-Nazi. Let's be generous and say around the halfway mark. That happened the day of Roy's death. Since then, we know Belkar stayed fairly evil while in Azure City. (Maybe even got worse, but let's be generous and assume he didn't.) Let's say the "I need to fake character development" epiphany counts as halving his evil. Let's also say that the cat taught him enough empathy to halve his evil again, and seeing Durkon sacrifice himself to save Belkar halved it yet again. (To be clear, I don't believe most of that, in particular I wouldn't say faking character development counts, but again, I'm trying to be generous.)

That leaves Belkar as evil as 62.5 Nazis. That's still pretty evil.

I don't really understand the rest of what you're saying. Belkar's becoming less evil, OK, but you seem to think he's becoming less chaotic? Where's the evidence of that? And why would Shojo have made Belkar more lawful when Shojo himself was chaotic? And why in the world would any of that impact Roy's alignment? The deva who interviewed Roy when he was dead made it pretty clear that intent counts for a lot, and Roy's intent is to mitigate Belkar's harm. Whether he's right about how much harm Belkar would do is beside the point.

[Angelalex242]

Fine thing to tell the forces of light.

"Yeah, we got him down to 62 and a half Nazis! We're redeeming this guy slowly but surely."

"...How many did he start at?"

"Over a three thousand."

"...well, I guess that's an improvement?"

"Guess how many Nazis he'd be without us?"

"...How many?"

"OVER 9000!"

What 9000? *Crushes scouter*

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I think that Belkar is going through actual development and possibly becoming more empathetic to other people. I don't think that development translates to anything in his alignment, except perhaps that he is becoming less Evil. I think, if he changes at all it will most likely be to CN.

[BannedInSchool]

But if you could build a Belkar-bot following simple rules to replicate his impulses, is that not Lawful? :smalltongue: :smallbiggrin:

[MagicalMeat]

Maybe I'm alone, but I get the feeling that Belkar, given enough time (his death prophesy could easily f-this up), will become Chaotic Neutral with strong Evil leaning. I really don't think Belkar is going to move on the Law/Chaos axis.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Maybe I'm alone, but I get the feeling that Belkar, given enough time (his death prophesy could easily f-this up), will become Chaotic Neutral with strong Evil leaning. I really don't think Belkar is going to move on the Law/Chaos axis.
It seems that many people on this thread, myself included, agree with your last statement.

[Synar]

The thing about evil afterlives is that you have to work for your happiness. Unlike in the good afterlives, where its basically handed out with gift baskets for the sake of it, the evil afterlives make you take it from someone else, because nobody wants to go out of their way to give it to you without seeing returns. The thing is that the evil people basically start at the bottom of the totem pole when they die. There really isn't anyone they can beat up for lunch money yet. They need to get lucky and find someone who trips on a bug and dies in front of them or something.

I find it funny how people speak of such creations as if they actually existed and were fully determined and not dependent of the source/setting/dm/author. I mean, sure, in your evil afterlife, and maybe in most official ones (even if I'm unsure of that), what you describe may be the case; but saying "Actually, that is how evil afterlifes work, because it is" is hardly a counter argument to answer to someone arguing that evil deities should reward their succesful minions.

[Keltest]

I find it funny how people speak of such creations as if they actually existed and were fully determined and not dependent of the source/setting/dm/author. I mean, sure, in your evil afterlife, and maybe in most official ones (even if I'm unsure of that), what you describe may be the case; but saying "Actually, that is how evil afterlifes work, because it is" is hardly a counter argument to answer to someone arguing that evil deities should reward their succesful minions.

Word of Giant is that he just uses the "generic" afterlives described in the books. He applies artistic license when approaching things like how theyre perceived by the characters, but he doesn't change the fundamentals.

Some evil afterlives definitely reward faithful and successful evil minions, but for the most part its a merit based system. And quite frankly, what else would you expect from a dimension of pure evil?

[Angelalex242]

Well, many people expect evil afterlives to be places of odious and eternal torture for anyone who ends up in one, just punishment for their life of ill deeds.

Anyways, at 62 Nazis out of his original 3000, that's still a reduction of 2938 Nazis. Not bad, Belkar. Not bad. His evil is now 2% of what it was when it started, more or less.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Anyways, at 62 Nazis out of his original 3000, that's still a reduction of 2938 Nazis. Not bad, Belkar. Not bad. His evil is now 2% of what it was when it started, more or less.

More like "Not bad, Roy." He is the one restraining and diverting Belkar, after all.

[Angelalex242]

Granted. And it's a HUGE gold star on Roy's permanent record if he can successfully get Belkar into Limbo, at least. In fact, it's an amazing feat devas should be lining up to high 5 him for when next he dies.

[lolthfollower]

has belkar alignment changed from Chaotic Evil to Neutral evil? it does seem like that to me given how he cares about his animal companions, and his explanation given in strip #745. Makes sense to me :)

Yeah, Belkar does seem different. Less mindless slaughter than there used to be, more care about other people. Belkar at the begining would have just stabbed Durkon when e thought he was not Durkon instea of acusing him. Belkar may be neutral evil now, but I think Rich just intends to make him a person instead of 2 knives with legs and an attitude.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Yeah, Belkar does seem different. Less mindless slaughter than there used to be, more care about other people. Belkar at the begining would have just stabbed Durkon when e thought he was not Durkon instea of acusing him. Belkar may be neutral evil now, but I think Rich just intends to make him a person instead of 2 knives with legs and an attitude.

Belkar did stab him. He only switched to making accusations when he saw that Roy still trusted Durkon and that his attacks weren't doing much.

[Glodart]

Honestly, I think Belkar is just as bad as Xykon, if not worse. He is shown enjoying the deaths of others much more often. Xykon, as an undead, does not have access to physical pleasures, Belkar does, but he still prefers killing above all else. The only reason they don't try to kill him is because he is less powerful, so also less dangerous.
Also, showing compassion once is not enough to warrant an alignment change

[Reddish Mage]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say I think Belkar is now neutral and the rest just don't appreciate how much he's changed.

I think this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0910.html) is a good example of how much he's changed. He isn't being hypocritical, he literally doesn't see bloodthirsty killing machines as being laudable anymore (which previously he did). He is inarguably showing empathy for other beings and acting more as a team player, and the evil acts he has been accused of in book five are of the thought I think are arguable or excusable.

[zinycor]

i think this strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0745.html) shows how he now isn't that chaotic but very evil xD

[Domino Quartz]

I think Belkar is still Chaotic Evil; he's just become less stupidly Chaotic* and less stupidly Evil** about it since he had that hippie-vision-quest-thing with Lord Shojo.

* Extreme example: "Why the hell did you just do that?!" "Because I'm Chaotic! I'm supposed to do random crap all the time for no reason!"
** Extreme example: "Why the hell did you just randomly murder a teammate?!?!" "Because I'm Eeeeevil, and that's the Evil thing to do!"

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I think Belkar is still Chaotic Evil; he's just become less stupidly Chaotic* and less stupidly Evil** about it since he had that hippie-vision-quest-thing with Lord Shojo.

I agree with this. I think he may not be quite as Evil as before, but Evil enough. While he does seem to be gaining empathy for things, that's a result of him being less "stupid" and not of him being less Evil.

[theNater]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say I think Belkar is now neutral and the rest just don't appreciate how much he's changed.
It's an act. Belkar says as much (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0687.html). Don't be taken in.

I think this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0910.html) is a good example of how much he's changed. He isn't being hypocritical, he literally doesn't see bloodthirsty killing machines as being laudable anymore (which previously he did).
Belkar doesn't see the team cleric being replaced with a bloodthirsty killing machine as advantageous. Check his reaction the last time the party lost Durkon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0075.html). If Durkula is all about the murdering, the Belkster can't get his heal on.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

It's an act. Belkar says as much (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0687.html). Don't be taken in.

Actually, Word of Giant says that he has had real development along with his fake development.

[Nilehus]

Something along the lines of how he was progressing from a cartoony sociopath to a slightly higher functioning sociopath, correct?

I toss my chips in with "Still Chaotic Evil as they come, but not being so stupid about it as to endanger himself anymore."

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Something along the lines of how he was progressing from a cartoony sociopath to a slightly higher functioning sociopath, correct?

No, more along the lines of how he connects to Mr. Scruffy, which is unconsciously reforming him.

[theNater]

Actually, Word of Giant says that he has had real development along with his fake development.

No, more along the lines of how he connects to Mr. Scruffy, which is unconsciously reforming him.
Character growth is not the same as reformation, and the only relevant comment of the Giant's I can find with a quick visit to the index is about Belkar's character growth leading him to care for Bloodfeast (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?315582-OOTS-932-The-Discussion-Thread/page7&p=16465886#post16465886). And since Evil people can care for other people while remaining Evil, I'm going to assume that they can also care for animals while remaining Evil.

I'm gonna need a lot clearer quote if I'm going to believe that Belkar is anywhere near the Neutral alignment.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Character growth is not the same as reformation, and the only relevant comment of the Giant's I can find with a quick visit to the index is about Belkar's character growth leading him to care for Bloodfeast (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?315582-OOTS-932-The-Discussion-Thread/page7&p=16465886#post16465886). And since Evil people can care for other people while remaining Evil, I'm going to assume that they can also care for animals while remaining Evil.

I'm gonna need a lot clearer quote if I'm going to believe that Belkar is anywhere near the Neutral alignment.

I was just correcting your statement that it was an act.

[Darth Paul]

Character growth is not the same as reformation... And since Evil people can care for other people while remaining Evil, I'm going to assume that they can also care for animals while remaining Evil.

This.

The Belkster (aka Death's Little Helper) remains Chaotic and remains Evil. He may have added a point to INT, or at least started using the Intelligence that he has, so as not to get himself ejected from the only group that will tolerate his presence- he is "faking character developement" as noted by many above. He also has experienced real character developement in the form of an attachment to Mr. Scruffy, leading to a most unusual act of empathy for Gannji and his partner. This doen not mean he is becoming less Evil; it just means that, like in real life, an evil person can feel all the same emotions as a good person does from time to time. Notice how confused Belkar was by it, though, and how annoyed he was at actually feeling empathy for someone who was not Belkar. A similar example is the way Malack felt a genuine friendship for Durkon, without being in any tiny way less evil.

There's my 2 cp worth on the issue.

[Angelalex242]

I dunno. Belkar's down to 62 Nazis from his original 3000 Nazis thanks to Roy's influence. He's at the very least improving.

Then again, it must be remembered that 62 Nazis is still pretty darn evil.

Though I suddenly wonder how Xykon and Redcloak rate on the Kilonazis scale of judgment.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I dunno. Belkar's down to 62 Nazis from his original 3000 Nazis thanks to Roy's influence. He's at the very least improving.

That's how much Evil he performs, not how Evil he is.

[137beth]

He is no longer 'Chaotic Stupid" or 'Stupid Evil'.
He is still Chaotic Evil. He has just gone from Xykon-Evil DCF-Elan-Chaotic to Redcloak-Evil Haley-Chaotic.

[theNater]

I was just correcting your statement that it was an act.
The appearance of being non-Evil is an act.

The care for Mr. Scruffy and Bloodfeast is real character growth, but does not make Belkar non-Evil.

[orrion]

He's still Chaotic Evil.

Most of what I'm reading here, even if true, would apply to the Good vs. Evil axis rather than the Law vs. Chaos axis.

He'd have to show some respect for authority or choose to abide by societies' laws - or at least show the capability to manipulate the laws to his own ends. Or he has to show some other form of movement away from his focus on complete destruction and violence.

[Emanick]

This.

The Belkster (aka Death's Little Helper) remains Chaotic and remains Evil. He may have added a point to INT, or at least started using the Intelligence that he has, so as not to get himself ejected from the only group that will tolerate his presence- he is "faking character developement" as noted by many above. He also has experienced real character developement in the form of an attachment to Mr. Scruffy, leading to a most unusual act of empathy for Gannji and his partner. This doen not mean he is becoming less Evil; it just means that, like in real life, an evil person can feel all the same emotions as a good person does from time to time. Notice how confused Belkar was by it, though, and how annoyed he was at actually feeling empathy for someone who was not Belkar. A similar example is the way Malack felt a genuine friendship for Durkon, without being in any tiny way less evil.

There's my 2 cp worth on the issue.

I'd actually argue that the fact that Belkar is now showing some degree of empathy does make him less Evil, and that Malack's ability to form genuine friendships says a similar thing about him.

It's just that neither thing is anywhere close to enough to cover over the overwhelming amount of Evil both characters have been responsible for. "Less evil" does not necessarily mean "not Evil," and in Belkar's case they are definitely separate things.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

The appearance of being non-Evil is an act.

The care for Mr. Scruffy and Bloodfeast is real character growth, but does not make Belkar non-Evil.

I'm sorry, I misread your statement and though that you were saying all the change in Belkar is an act. Of course, now my reply is that the appearance of being non-Evil is not an act, but is in fact non-existent.

[theNater]

I'm sorry, I misread your statement and though that you were saying all the change in Belkar is an act. Of course, now my reply is that the appearance of being non-Evil is not an act, but is in fact non-existent.
As the quote below shows, some people have actually been fooled by the act. You may not find the act convincing(I certainly don't), but claiming that it's not presenting at least some appearance of non-Evilness is willful blindness.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say I think Belkar is now neutral and the rest just don't appreciate how much he's changed.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

As the quote below shows, some people have actually been fooled by the act. You may not find the act convincing(I certainly don't), but claiming that it's not presenting at least some appearance of non-Evilness is willful blindness.

I'd say that people are seeing something that is not there, going beyond Belkar's act. As far as I can tell, he hasn't even pretended to be Neutral.

[Kish]

Until Rich said, "What comic have you been reading? Where has there ever been any doubt that Belkar is evil?" there was a sizable faction of people who insisted Belkar was Neutral.
When he said that, the faction was replaced by...a sizable faction who insist Belkar used to be evil, but is now Neutral, as shown by X. X can be pretty much anything; this (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Degausser/media/NWN2_SS_090510_124603.jpg.html) is 3.75 years old, and was based on the premise that as soon as Belkar woke up from his coma he was Chaotic Neutral rather than Evil.

If Rich posts, "No, Belkar is still Chaotic Evil," the Chaotic Neutral faction will probably stop making that argument. Until the next strip comes out.

("But...but Belkar isn't in this strip!"
"Exactly! He didn't do anything evil!")

[Jay R]

Friends, Ootsers, playgrounders, lend me your ears.
I come to bury Belkar, not to praise him.
The Chaotic Evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interrèd with their bones.
So let it be with Belkar. The noble Giant
Hath told you Belkar was Chaotic Evil.
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Belkar answered it.
Here, under leave of the Giant and the rest—
For the Giant is an honorable man;
So are they all, all honorable men—
Come I to speak in Belkar’s funeral.
He was a jokester, hilarious and fun to see.
But the Giant says he was Chaotic Evil,
And the Giant is an honorable man.
He hath brought many goblins to their deaths
Whose loot did the party’s coffers fill.
Did this in Belkar seem Chaotic Evil?
When that Mr. Scruffy hath cried, Belkar hath wept.
Chaotic Evil should be made of sterner stuff.
Yet the Giant says he was Chaotic Evil,
And the Giant is an honorable man.
You all did see that in the Greysky fight
Crystal presented him a kill to steal,
Which he did then refuse. Was this Chaotic Evil?
Yet the Giant says he was Chaotic Evil,
And, sure, he is an honorable man.
I speak not to disprove what the Giant hath spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause.
What cause withholds you then to mourn for him?
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. Bear with me.
My heart is in the prophecy there with Belkar,
And I must pause till it come back to me.

[theNater]

I'd say that people are seeing something that is not there, going beyond Belkar's act. As far as I can tell, he hasn't even pretended to be Neutral.
Belkar pretends to valiantly defend innocents from slavers. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0685.html)

Belkar attempts to argue in favor of the dignity of sentient beings. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0689.html)

Belkar tries to claim he makes sacrifices for others(specifically, the Order). (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0698.html)

Belkar pretends to fight crime and attempt to rehabilitate criminals. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0745.html)

Belkar refrains from instantly killing a dude to confirm that it's okay to do so. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0780.html)

Belkar goes to help the Order against the Linear Guild "'Cause [he's] a good team member". (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0798.html)

Man, this is taking longer than I thought. If the mood strikes, I'll hunt for more examples of Belkar pretending to be a good guy later.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Belkar pretends to valiantly defend innocents from slavers. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0685.html)

Belkar attempts to argue in favor of the dignity of sentient beings. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0689.html)

Belkar tries to claim he makes sacrifices for others(specifically, the Order). (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0698.html)

Belkar pretends to fight crime and attempt to rehabilitate criminals. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0745.html)

Belkar refrains from instantly killing a dude to confirm that it's okay to do so. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0780.html)

Belkar goes to help the Order against the Linear Guild "'Cause [he's] a good team member". (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0798.html)

Man, this is taking longer than I thought. If the mood strikes, I'll hunt for more examples of Belkar pretending to be a good guy later.

See, in all of those, I don't see him being Neutral, just less Chaotic Stupid and Stupid Evil. Your "good guy" is just a little more restrained or focused.

[Nilehus]

"So I did exactly what I always do -- murder people horribly -- but because I killed the people everyone else wanted me to kill, I get presents instead of prison time?"

He's pretty honest about why he's acting better. Not because he feels a deep moral compulsion, but because otherwise he'll get brutally killed. A good teammate =/= a Good teammate.

The presents are just a perk.

[theNater]

See, in all of those, I don't see him being Neutral, just less Chaotic Stupid and Stupid Evil. Your "good guy" is just a little more restrained or focused.
For characters who spend a lot of time around Good characters, not Stupid Evil bears a noticeable resemblance to not Evil. It isn't, but it appears like it.

"So I did exactly what I always do -- murder people horribly -- but because I killed the people everyone else wanted me to kill, I get presents instead of prison time?"

He's pretty honest about why he's acting better. Not because he feels a deep moral compulsion, but because otherwise he'll get brutally killed. A good teammate =/= a Good teammate.
Exactly. The point I'm trying to make is that while he is acting better(which Jaxzan Proditor seems to be trying to deny), he's not actually being a better person(which Reddish Mage seems to believe).

[Jaxzan Proditor]

For characters who spend a lot of time around Good characters, not Stupid Evil bears a noticeable resemblance to not Evil. It isn't, but it appears like it.
Cool. That doesn't mean he is acting in that way. Again, see "seeing something that is not there"


Exactly. The point I'm trying to make is that while he is acting better(which Jaxzan Proditor seems to be trying to deny), he's not actually being a better person(which Reddish Mage seems to believe).
No, I'm saying he isn't acting Neutral, nor is he actually Neutral. However, he has had real development alongside his fake development.

[theNater]

Cool. That doesn't mean he is acting in that way. Again, see "seeing something that is not there"
He is acting like a Neutral person would act, but doing it for Evil reasons. A person could very well act the same way for different reasons and be Neutral.

However, he has had real development alongside his fake development.
Why do you keep bringing this up? Who is claiming differently?

[MLMII]

You see, I disagree that he's acting like "a neutral person does", in my opinion he's acting like a normal Chaotic Evil person would as opposed to being both Chaotic/Stupid and Evil/Stupid at once.

[Millennium]

You see, I disagree that he's acting like "a neutral person does", in my opinion he's acting like a normal Chaotic Evil person would as opposed to being both Chaotic/Stupid and Evil/Stupid at once.
So his player is getting better at roleplaying, then?

[Nilehus]

You see, I disagree that he's acting like "a neutral person does", in my opinion he's acting like a normal Chaotic Evil person would as opposed to being both Chaotic/Stupid and Evil/Stupid at once.

This. You could say he's acting more Neutral in the same sense as 99 is closer to 0 than 100 is.

His behavior has improved, but he's still Chaotic Evil to the bone.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

He is acting like a Neutral person would act, but doing it for Evil reasons. A person could very well act the same way for different reasons and be Neutral.
I think we are starting to run into the problem that there are multiple ways to interpret the alignments. I, and most of the people on this board, interpret his actions as Chaotic Evil, whereas you apparently see them as Neutral.


Why do you keep bringing this up? Who is claiming differently?
I was clarifying my position, since you misunderstood it.

[Reddish Mage]

I think we are starting to run into the problem that there are multiple ways to interpret the alignments. I, and most of the people on this board, interpret his actions as Chaotic Evil, whereas you apparently see them as Neutral.


I was clarifying my position, since you misunderstood it.

You're interpreting the very same actions as "Chaotic Evil" actions? Actions like refraining to kill someone? Or caring for another creature?

You may interpret Belkar-lately, the character, as Chaotic Evil, but if you are interpreting the very actions leading people to question his alignment as universally "Chaotic Evil" actions, I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of "Chaotic" and "Evil" as applied to actions, rather than persons.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

You're interpreting the very same actions as "Chaotic Evil" actions? Actions like refraining to kill someone? Or caring for another creature?

You may interpret Belkar-lately, the character, as Chaotic Evil, but if you are interpreting the very actions leading people to question his alignment as universally "Chaotic Evil" actions, I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of "Chaotic" and "Evil" as applied to actions, rather than persons.

Actions that could be done by a Chaotic Evil person.

[Nilehus]

If not immediately murdering someone is Neutral to you, then we have differing interpretations of Neutral.

Evil people can care for others. Tarquin cared for Elan, Malack cared for Durkon, Nale cared for Sabine. Saying that being nice to your pet is Neutral is setting the bar incredibly low.

[Kish]

Based on the consistency with which people have argued that Belkar isn't, can't be, mustn't be evil ever since the comic started, I would say that the primary actions leading people to speculate that Belkar is currently Neutral are "existing" and "being a protagonist."

Those are, indeed, neutral actions--in that they have nothing to say about a character's alignment, not in that they indicate the character is neutral.

[Reddish Mage]

If not immediately murdering someone is Neutral to you, then we have differing interpretations of Neutral.

Evil people can care for others. Tarquin cared for Elan, Malack cared for Durkon, Nale cared for Sabine. Saying that being nice to your pet is Neutral is setting the bar incredibly low.


In what reference is this comment too? I made a comment on evilness applied to specific actions as given by theNater. Not (immediately) murdering someone is a non-evil non-action, I suppose. The implication that Belkar would have murdered someone given the opportunity is certainly reading more than the particular action given in the comic. As for caring for others being "evil" again, my comment above was about specific actions that can be referenced and given an alignment. Malack making Macebook friends with Durkon isn't an evil action, nor is Tarquin taking a little time with Elan (sure Malack also vamps Durkon, and Tarquin also attempts to murder Elan out of caring for them but that's a different story).

You can argue about person being evil but it is fallacious to argue that the actions of the characters must therefore always be evil as well. Perhaps Tarquin gets up from a Phoenix down bed, to brush his teeth with unicorn powdered toothpaste, but not every villain is that cartoonish.


Based on the consistency with which people have argued that Belkar isn't, can't be, mustn't be evil ever since the comic started, I would say that the primary actions leading people to speculate that Belkar is currently Neutral are "existing" and "being a protagonist."

Those are, indeed, neutral actions--in that they have nothing to say about a character's alignment, not in that they indicate the character is neutral.

Personally, I never argued that Belkar was not evil until fairly recently and lumping me and theNater (neither of which have been around long enough to argue the subject in the early years) in with these other people who are probably mostly long gone from these forums is ad hominem, logically fallacious, and simply insulting. Please restrict your attacks to the actual content.


[EDIT: Its important to note that even theNater insists Belkar is chaotic evil, and I thought even you agreed that Belkar underwent character growth away from the chaotic evil extremes]

[Nilehus]

My apologies. My phone doesn't like this forum much, so quoting posts crashes my browser sometimes. So I try to avoid it when possible.


You're interpreting the very same actions as "Chaotic Evil" actions? Actions like refraining to kill someone? Or caring for another creature?

You may interpret Belkar-lately, the character, as Chaotic Evil, but if you are interpreting the very actions leading people to question his alignment as universally "Chaotic Evil" actions, I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of "Chaotic" and "Evil" as applied to actions, rather than persons.

The acts referenced in this post. theNater was referring to the scene in the arena, when Belkar didn't immediately gut the gladiator.

He still wanted to, and was asking as a sort of "Okay, so I'm not going to get dogpiled if I kill him, right?" Not as "Is it morally okay to kill him?"

That's him acting smarter. Not morally better. If he had pondered the ethics of being forced to kill another sentient for someone's entertainment, I might believe it. But no, he just asks to make sure that the guards aren't going to get angry.

[Reddish Mage]

The acts referenced in this post. theNater was referring to the scene in the arena, when Belkar didn't immediately gut the gladiator.

He still wanted to, and was asking as a sort of "Okay, so I'm not going to get dogpiled if I kill him, right?" Not as "Is it morally okay to kill him?"

That's him acting smarter. Not morally better. If he had pondered the ethics of being forced to kill another sentient for someone's entertainment, I might believe it. But no, he just asks to make sure that the guards aren't going to get angry.

Ok, you seem to have a deeper point, so I'd like to forget the clear mistake in attempting to label the non-action of not-killing a non-threat with something other than neutral.

The right question is not whether Belkar's action here is evil, but what Belkar's motivations were and what it says about the character. Ultimately, regardless of whether this particular not-killing of someone could be evil, we are concerned with whether Belkar has evil motives, so that we can determine whether we can properly say that he still has an evil character.

What I read out of this situation is that Belkar, somewhere deep in his heart, is making excuses not to kill someone because deep down, Belkar has begun to understand gratuitous killing of non-threatening sentient beings is wrong (a 1st level commoner is not a threat to Belkar). Belkar may not have the wisdom score, intellect, or personality to reason using ethical language, but, then neither did Huck Finn. What we see here (and as a pattern in many other scenes) is an indication that Belkar has developed a personality that no-longer is desirous of performing evil acts, and now contains a sense of caring for others, a dedication to teamwork, and a respect for life. What I read as the take away from the scene is that the old Belkar would not have been so worried about whether its ok to kill the innocent, but the new Belkar is reluctant to do so.

I believe Scruffy came to Belkar's rescue (from Scruffy's feline perspective) because that allowed the scene to move forward without anyone committing evil. Roy sees it at "south of neutral" because he doesn't recognize Belkar's character growth.

I might take things to the "extreme" of alignment change, but there's plenty of evidence that there's plenty of Belkar character growth, both within the comic, and in the author's comment (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?315582-OOTS-932-The-Discussion-Thread/page7&p=16465886#post16465886). My reading may not be yours but I think its a perfectly reasonable take on the totality of the significant Belkar scenes of the last book.

[Nilehus]

Agreed. Agree to disagree on Belkar's actions and the morality of such. After all, this is an interesting thread. I don't want it to get locked and scrubbed. :smallsmile:

Good discussion, though. For what it's worth, I would not be surprised if Belkar's morality got a lot more three I dimensional in this next arc. I don't believe he'll progress beyond "Me, my pets, and those who've died for me", but I suppose we'll see. :smalltongue:

[Reddish Mage]

New Questions:

A character being evil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm) means that the character has no qualms about harming or killing innocents. Does everyone agree this still describes Belkar?

A character being chaotic means (among other things) that they resent being told what to do and keep their promises if they feel like it. Does this also still describe Belkar?

[hamishspence]

A case could fairly be made that Belkar is still willing to "kill for sport" even if it's not normally "the innocent".

Throw in his willingness to torture (to all intents and purposes) those he sees as having wronged him or those he cares about:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0835.html

[Jaxzan Proditor]

New Questions:

A character being evil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm) means that the character has no qualms about harming or killing innocents. Does everyone agree this still describes Belkar?
I'd say yes, since what seems to hold him back is the threat of others punishing him, not any moral qualms.


A character being chaotic means (among other things) that they resent being told what to do and keep their promises if they feel like it. Does this also still describe Belkar?

I'd say that Belkar resents being told what to do, so yes.

[orrion]

The right question is not whether Belkar's action here is evil, but what Belkar's motivations were and what it says about the character. Ultimately, regardless of whether this particular not-killing of someone could be evil, we are concerned with whether Belkar has evil motives, so that we can determine whether we can properly say that he still has an evil character.

What I read out of this situation is that Belkar, somewhere deep in his heart, is making excuses not to kill someone because deep down, Belkar has begun to understand gratuitous killing of non-threatening sentient beings is wrong (a 1st level commoner is not a threat to Belkar). Belkar may not have the wisdom score, intellect, or personality to reason using ethical language, but, then neither did Huck Finn. What we see here (and as a pattern in many other scenes) is an indication that Belkar has developed a personality that no-longer is desirous of performing evil acts, and now contains a sense of caring for others, a dedication to teamwork, and a respect for life. What I read as the take away from the scene is that the old Belkar would not have been so worried about whether its ok to kill the innocent, but the new Belkar is reluctant to do so.

The only reason Belkar doesn't kill the gladiator right off is fear of repercussions. Should there be any repercussions, he's in no position to avoid them or evade them as he has done in the past. Nor is he in a position to, as he was in Azure City when he killed the guard, bait Miko into losing her Paladin powers. Which he said would have been "hilarious."

Also, what evidence is there that the commoner was innocent? We're never made privy to the circumstances that landed him in jail.



I believe Scruffy came to Belkar's rescue (from Scruffy's feline perspective) because that allowed the scene to move forward without anyone committing evil. Roy sees it at "south of neutral" because he doesn't recognize Belkar's character growth.

It's actually Haley and not Roy who describes the combination as still averaging out somewhere south of Neutral. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0781.html) Then to refute this, there is Haley and Roy's conversation after Roy is raised. Haley points out that Belkar has been acting like the Employee of the Month. Roy asks her if she thinks the change is sincere, and she says no, it's a trick. Given what Haley went through in her character growth, she is perhaps in the best position to recognize and comment on the same in other members of the party. That she sees it as an act right away is rather telling.

Besides, if the scene with the gladiator is somehow indicative of Belkar starting to rationalize not killing, how exactly do you explain him releasing a giant freaking dinosaur into the middle of the Arena? The only possible reason to do that is for the dinosaur to go on a rampage - as evidenced in #922 when he tells the dino to stay quiet for a few more moments and then "it'll be all-you-can-eat at the Guard Buffet." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0922.html) That is hardly indicative of a respect for life.



New Questions:

A character being evil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm) means that the character has no qualms about harming or killing innocents. Does everyone agree this still describes Belkar?

A character being chaotic means (among other things) that they resent being told what to do and keep their promises if they feel like it. Does this also still describe Belkar?

Yes, to both.

[Nilehus]

Belkar had fun terrorizing the other prisoners and stealing their bread. They're the closest thing to innocents he's had direct contact with recently that hasn't already been discussed. And I do not buy his speech about upholding society, for some reason.

[Kish]

I take issue with the premise. As far as I can tell, "A character being evil means that the character has no qualms about harming or killing innocents" comes from nothing more than inverting one of the statements about a neutral character. As such, it's no more valid than taking the statement, "All chickens have feathers" and declaring, "A creature who is not a chicken must not have feathers." Lots of evil characters prefer not to harm or kill innocents if they don't have what they consider to be strong reasons to do so; Redcloak, for example. The fact that Belkar has always acted as though killing any random person is automatically preferable to not killing that person indicates Belkar shares a particularly brutal and callous form of evil with Xykon; it's not a minimum standard to be evil.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I think the idea of qualms comes from this sentence in the Good vs. Evil section:

Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
However, since it doesn't say that all Evil creatures act in this fashion, it doesn't necessarily have to apply to Belkar.

[theNater]

You see, I disagree that he's acting like "a neutral person does", in my opinion he's acting like a normal Chaotic Evil person would as opposed to being both Chaotic/Stupid and Evil/Stupid at once.
A normal Chaotic Evil person who spends a lot of time hanging out with mostly Good people will usually behave like a Neutral person. They do this out of fear of punishment, while a Neutral person tends to be more motivated by their own morality, but the actions are largely the same.

Actions that could be done by a Chaotic Evil person.
Are you suggesting that there are actions a Chaotic Evil person can't do? If so, could you give an example?

If not immediately murdering someone is Neutral to you, then we have differing interpretations of Neutral.

Evil people can care for others. Tarquin cared for Elan, Malack cared for Durkon, Nale cared for Sabine. Saying that being nice to your pet is Neutral is setting the bar incredibly low.
Being nice to your pet is Neutral behavior. That does not mean anyone who is nice to a pet is a Neutral person.

Most of the things done by most people, even Good or Evil people, are Neutral. To be Good or Evil, a person has to either regularly perform Good or Evil acts, or do what they do because of Good or Evil motivations. Belkar is Evil because he's doing Neutral things for Evil reasons(and Evil things on those relatively rare occasions when he believes he can get away with it).

New Questions:

A character being evil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm) means that the character has no qualms about harming or killing innocents. Does everyone agree this still describes Belkar?

A character being chaotic means (among other things) that they resent being told what to do and keep their promises if they feel like it. Does this also still describe Belkar?
Yes and yes.

[Nilehus]

Eh, to me, basic everyday actions don't have an alignment. Kissing my wife isn't a Good, Evil, or Neutral act, it's just roleplaying xp. :smalltongue:

[theNater]

Eh, to me, basic everyday actions don't have an alignment. Kissing my wife isn't a Good, Evil, or Neutral act, it's just roleplaying xp. :smalltongue:
Main point: Do we agree that Belkar has done a large number of actions on the western continent which are either non-Evil actions or actions made Evil due to his motivations, rather than being Evil in and of themselves?

Side point: My understanding of Neutrality in D&D is that it is not a force in the way that Good and Evil are, but rather the absence of either of those. An animal is Neutral not because it's doing a lot of Neutral things, but because it isn't Good or Evil, for example.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Are you suggesting that there are actions a Chaotic Evil person can't do? If so, could you give an example?

Actions that someone would do and be labeled as Chaotic Evil, then.

[hamishspence]

Are you suggesting that there are actions a Chaotic Evil person can't do? If so, could you give an example?

"genuinely forgive someone who has wronged them" is given in Champions of Valor as the sort of thing that Evil characters wouldn't do.

"unhesitatingly risk their life for a complete stranger" is something I think might also qualify - unless the character is ludicrously cruel to their perceived enemies to counterbalance this degree of altruism.

[Angelalex242]

The key thing to remember isn't Nale's honest love for Sabine.

It's Sabine's honest love for HIM that's really telling. If a Chaotic Evil Outsider is capable of genuine love (granted, with a murderer who happily sacrifices innocents to her, but still...) then it stands to reason affection is not a reasonable way of telling if somebody's gotten out of the deep end of the alignment pool.

"You're both sick!" "Ah, but our relationship is healthy!" (And it IS healthy! Well, as healthy as two murderers who kill people to live happily together can be, anyway!)

[Kish]

I wouldn't actually go that far. Remember when Nale nearly killed Haley, knowing Sabine wanted to be the one to kill her?

[Jay R]

It's worth remembering that a single act is usually not enough to change one's alignment. Even if Belkar has committed some Good or Neutral acts, there's still a judgment call about how much he has to do it for the alignment to change, and that's the DM's call.

If Belkar were playing in my game, I would say that he has established, back in Greysky, that he wants to pretend to have character growth (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html) to hide his murderous tendencies, and in the desert that he's learned he gets presents if he kills the people everybody wanted him to kill (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0687.html).

Now he is using that knowledge as part of a carefully laid plan to allow him to continue to be evil safely. Note that he's trying to convince everyone else to want Durkon killed.

I don't think he's less evil; I think he's more calculating. If I were his DM, I'd be more likely to change his alignment to Neutral Evil than to Chaotic Neutral.

But it remains a judgment call, on which reasonable people can reasonably disagree.

[theNater]

Actions that someone would do and be labeled as Chaotic Evil, then.
Are you labeling the person as Chaotic Evil, or the actions as Chaotic Evil?

"genuinely forgive someone who has wronged them" is given in Champions of Valor as the sort of thing that Evil characters wouldn't do.
I'd buy that they usually wouldn't, but we've seen Malack forgive Tarquin (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0854.html). I'm pretty confident that was genuine, and I'm absolutely convinced that Malack is Evil.

I wouldn't actually go that far. Remember when Nale nearly killed Haley, knowing Sabine wanted to be the one to kill her?
A relationship doesn't have to be completely devoid of problems to be healthy.

[hamishspence]

I'd buy that they usually wouldn't, but we've seen Malack forgive Tarquin (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0854.html). I'm pretty confident that was genuine, and I'm absolutely convinced that Malack is Evil.

True. And "forgiving" is listed as a valid Villain Trait in Exemplars of Evil - albeit an odd one.

[Angelalex242]

I believe Nale said he was going to take her to their sacrifice room over a bottle of wine and let Sabine do it after all. Nale is Lawful Evil, after all. If he promised to let Sabine kill her, he probably meant it.

Anyways, the point is, affection and even love doesn't make you good.

[Rodin]

Besides, if the scene with the gladiator is somehow indicative of Belkar starting to rationalize not killing, how exactly do you explain him releasing a giant freaking dinosaur into the middle of the Arena? The only possible reason to do that is for the dinosaur to go on a rampage - as evidenced in #922 when he tells the dino to stay quiet for a few more moments and then "it'll be all-you-can-eat at the Guard Buffet." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0922.html) That is hardly indicative of a respect for life.



Just wanted to point out that Belkar explicitly released the dinosaur because he felt bad for Enor and Ganji.

Here. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0786.html) And here. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0807.html)

It was pretty clearly a Good act.

That said, it's a drop in the ocean that is the kilonazis of Evil making up Belkar. He's still Chaotic Evil, just not quite as much as he was before.

[Angelalex242]

It was Kilonazis. By our best math, we think he's down to about 62 Nazis.

Yes, ONLY 62 Nazis. But hey, it's a drop from 3000 Nazis :P

[Peelee]

Just wanted to point out that Belkar explicitly released the dinosaur because he felt bad for Enor and Ganji.

Here. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0786.html) And here. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0807.html)

It was pretty clearly a Good act.

That said, it's a drop in the ocean that is the kilonazis of Evil making up Belkar. He's still Chaotic Evil, just not quite as much as he was before.

It was pretty clearly an act of Belkar caring about people. It was not in any way necessarily a Good act.

The Giant has explicitly stated that evil characters can love, good characters can hate (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/XbsQgS9YYu9g3HZBAGE.html). He ran at least one campaign where the villains, and I quote, "trusted each other implicitly despite having every logical reason to not trust one another at all."

Belkar's caring for people other than himself is development, in that it fleshes him out more as a character. It makes him less flat, not less evil. He's more complex, not more Lawful or Neutral.

There's more than one way to play Chaotic Evil. Belkar hasn't stopped that, he's stopped being so damn annoying about it.

[orrion]

Just wanted to point out that Belkar explicitly released the dinosaur because he felt bad for Enor and Ganji.

Here. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0786.html) And here. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0807.html)

It was pretty clearly a Good act.

That said, it's a drop in the ocean that is the kilonazis of Evil making up Belkar. He's still Chaotic Evil, just not quite as much as he was before.

And how would Belkar have known the dino wouldn't just decide to chomp on the bounty hunters? In fact, the dino tried to do just that. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0785.html) Belkar also couldn't have known that Enor's wing bands would get damaged in the trampling, which is what enabled their escape in the first place.

The dino episode could have just as easily ended with Enor and Gannji eaten by the dino, or just as trapped because they didn't really have a way to get out of the Arena.

I'm also a little leery of considering a plan to slaughter a bunch of the guards as something Good.

[theNater]

I believe Nale said he was going to take her to their sacrifice room over a bottle of wine and let Sabine do it after all.
That was a lie, made up on the spot to mollify Sabine. He was absolutely planning on killing Haley himself.

And how would Belkar have known the dino wouldn't just decide to chomp on the bounty hunters?
They had a better chance of surviving a dinosaur rampage than concentrated crossbow fire.

[orrion]

They had a better chance of surviving a dinosaur rampage than concentrated crossbow fire.

You're stuck on the idea that the rampaging dinosaur would somehow have enabled their escape. There's no reason for Belkar (or us) to assume that.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Are you labeling the person as Chaotic Evil, or the actions as Chaotic Evil?
The person, because that's what we are examining here, not their actions.

[theNater]

The person, because that's what we are examining here, not their actions.
So I think we're agreed, then, that Belkar is a Chaotic Evil person who is largely doing Neutral actions for Evil reasons. Yes?

You're stuck on the idea that the rampaging dinosaur would somehow have enabled their escape. There's no reason for Belkar (or us) to assume that.
They don't have to escape(although, again, they have a better chance of doing that with a dino rampage than without), they just have to survive. The crossbow volley is intended to end the "duel"; the appearance of the dino ends it just as well. There is a some chance that Tarquin will just throw Gannji and Enor back into the slave pit after subduing the dino.

It's not much of a plan, but it's better than nothing.

[Peelee]

So I think we're agreed, then, that Belkar is a Chaotic Evil person who is largely doing Neutral actions for Evil reasons. Yes?

They don't have to escape(although, again, they have a better chance of doing that with a dino rampage than without), they just have to survive. The crossbow volley is intended to end the "duel"; the appearance of the dino ends it just as well. There is a some chance that Tarquin will just throw Gannji and Enor back into the slave pit after subduing the dino.

It's not much of a plan, but it's better than nothing.

Except the bounty hunters have the same chance of dying from the dino as they do from the soldiers. That they got incredibly lucky and were able to escape is a lucky happenstance. The allosaur could easily have gone for Ennor and Gannji first, instead of the soldiers. Belkar wanted them to not have to kill each other. There's no reason to believe he cared if they died from other causes, such as being eaten by a dinosaur.

[orrion]

They don't have to escape(although, again, they have a better chance of doing that with a dino rampage than without), they just have to survive. The crossbow volley is intended to end the "duel"; the appearance of the dino ends it just as well. There is a some chance that Tarquin will just throw Gannji and Enor back into the slave pit after subduing the dino.

It's not much of a plan, but it's better than nothing.

Yes, they do have to escape. Otherwise we're left with 2 possible scenarios:

1) Enor and Gannji died from the dinosaur rampage.

2) Status quo - Enor and Gannji would be back to fighting each other, or facing death from crossbows after the Allosaur is corralled.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

So I think we're agreed, then, that Belkar is a Chaotic Evil person who is largely doing Neutral actions for Evil reasons. Yes?

Sure. I will still stand by my original point that this doesn't make him less Evil or pretending to do so.

[theNater]

Except the bounty hunters have the same chance of dying from the dino as they do from the soldiers.
Except that they were certain to die from the soldiers(even if the soldiers had to take multiple volleys), and they didn't die from the dino, so it can't have been certain.

There's no reason to believe he cared if they died from other causes, such as being eaten by a dinosaur.
:belkar:: Aren't you going to hassle me to admit to Roy that I did it to save their lives?

Yes, they do have to escape. Otherwise we're left with 2 possible scenarios:

1) Enor and Gannji died from the dinosaur rampage.

2) Status quo - Enor and Gannji would be back to fighting each other, or facing death from crossbows after the Allosaur is corralled.
3) Tarquin quits wasting time with these boring losers, in whose demise nobody is invested, and moves on to the main event of Roy vs. Thog.

[Peelee]

Except that they were certain to die from the soldiers(even if the soldiers had to take multiple volleys), and they didn't die from the dino, so it can't have been certain.

They were certain to die from the dino, even if the dino had to eat everyone else before he ate them.

Unless they regained the ability to fly out of the arena, which was an unforseeable event. Unless you wish to claim that Belkar released the dinosaur with the intent that it slightly damage of of the wing guards, allowing a spear to smash through the rest.

[theNater]

They were certain to die from the dino, even if the dino had to eat everyone else before he ate them.
Allosaurus is smaller than T-Rex (http://dinosaurs.findthebest.com/compare/13-283/Allosaurus-vs-Tyrannosaurus-Rex), and T-Rex needs to eat about half a person a day (https://what-if.xkcd.com/78/). Even if we say he can massively binge and eat a dozen people, he will run out of appetite before he runs out of targets.

[Kish]

The callback to Belkar seeing himself and Mr. Scruffy in the place of Gannji and Enor seems to spell out pretty clearly that Belkar was, indeed, attempting to help Gannji and Enor.

The danger to Gannji and Enor posed by the plan he chose to help them just indicates that Belkar's first experience with empathy did nothing to make his Wisdom less catastrophic.

[Peelee]

Allosaurus is smaller than T-Rex (http://dinosaurs.findthebest.com/compare/13-283/Allosaurus-vs-Tyrannosaurus-Rex), and T-Rex needs to eat about half a person a day (https://what-if.xkcd.com/78/). Even if we say he can massively binge and eat a dozen people, he will run out of appetite before he runs out of targets.

Dude, it's A.) a D&D based B.) Webcomic. The allosaur can eat everyone in the arena if he wishes. If you want to go all scientific, you have to remove the arms and legs from the potential caloric count, as well as adjust for the sizes of the craniums, as well as hunger at the time, and the potential taste preference from the allosaur (if half dragons are tastier than humans, sorry, that one still dies first). If you want to to the pseudo-scientific route, then come back when you have all those calculations done.

Releasing the allosaur was no less dangerous than having them be shot, especially since you used circular logic to arrive at that conclusion at the first place:
and they didn't die from the dino, so it can't have been certain.
By that logic, we have no idea if they would have definitely died from the crossbows, as they never actually got shot with them. All Belkar knew was that he was stopping the bounty hunters from killing each other. There was no guarantee whatsoever that the very first thing it did wouldn't be to just straight up eat them itself.


The callback to Belkar seeing himself and Mr. Scruffy in the place of Gannji and Enor seems to spell out pretty clearly that Belkar was, indeed, attempting to help Gannji and Enor.

The danger to Gannji and Enor posed by the plan he chose to help them just indicates that Belkar's first experience with empathy did nothing to make his Wisdom less catastrophic.

That, however, is a well-formed, logical argument. I'll accept that.

[theNater]

Releasing the allosaur was no less dangerous than having them be shot...
Well, if you want to go D&D logic, we can assume that an allosaur uses stats similar to a T-rex, which gets one attack per round for 3d6+13 damage(avg. 24). It can swallow up to two medium sized creatures(and I think Enor is large, making him safe from that), and swallowed creatures take 2d8+16 damage(avg. 25) damage per round. On the other hand, Tarquin has at least 18 guards in the arena with crossbows, and each crossbow bolt does 1d8 damage(or more, if they are magical or the user has certain helpful feats). 18d8 averages to 81 damage per round. If 18 guards are shooting at one person, and half of them miss, that person would be better off inside the dinosaur.

If you want to go comic logic, then of course the crossbows would have been fatal. For starters, Tarquin helpfully informs the audience of that fact (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0783.html). And the point of the event is to show Belkar saving them, so of course they'd die without his intervention and will live with it.

[orrion]

Allosaurus is smaller than T-Rex (http://dinosaurs.findthebest.com/compare/13-283/Allosaurus-vs-Tyrannosaurus-Rex), and T-Rex needs to eat about half a person a day (https://what-if.xkcd.com/78/). Even if we say he can massively binge and eat a dozen people, he will run out of appetite before he runs out of targets.

.................................................. .................................................. ...................

Do you honestly think Rich gives half a crap about that stuff?

[Peelee]

Well, if you want to go D&D logic, we can assume that an allosaur uses stats similar to a T-rex, which gets one attack per round for 3d6+13 damage(avg. 24). It can swallow up to two medium sized creatures(and I think Enor is large, making him safe from that), and swallowed creatures take 2d8+16 damage(avg. 25) damage per round. On the other hand, Tarquin has at least 18 guards in the arena with crossbows, and each crossbow bolt does 1d8 damage(or more, if they are magical or the user has certain helpful feats). 18d8 averages to 81 damage per round. If 18 guards are shooting at one person, and half of them miss, that person would be better off inside the dinosaur.

Unless it swallows them and not their weapons, in which case its death either way. One just takes longer. Assuming the rules are strictly adhered to.

If you want to go comic logic, then of course the crossbows would have been fatal. For starters, Tarquin helpfully informs the audience of that fact (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0783.html). And the point of the event is to show Belkar saving them, so of course they'd die without his intervention and will live with it.

Whose to say they woudln't duck, the crossbow bolts hit the wing guards, which break, and then they escape? You were the one who wanted circular logic to say, "Well, it happened this way, so obviously it wasn't certain doom." By the logic you yourself used, until the crossbow bolts actually hit and kill them, no, it's not certain.

And Tarquin saying something doesn't make it so. Unless characters can't be wrong in the comic.

[theNater]

Do you honestly think Rich gives half a crap about that stuff?
What part of The Giant's writing style or behavior makes you believe that, in your words:

The dino episode could have just as easily ended with Enor and Gannji eaten by the dino, or just as trapped because they didn't really have a way to get out of the Arena.
I mean, he already knew how it was going to end while he was writing it, right?

Unless it swallows them and not their weapons, in which case its death either way.
So the dinosaur is certain death under specific conditions, while the crossbowmen are certain death without adding special conditions. That makes the dinosaur safer.

Whose to say they woudln't duck, the crossbow bolts hit the wing guards, which break, and then they escape?
The Giant. That could be an interesting story, but it clearly isn't this one.

And Tarquin saying something doesn't make it so. Unless characters can't be wrong in the comic.
Tarquin could plausibly know, and has no apparent reason to lie. Under those conditions, the appropriate thing to do is assume he's correct, barring evidence to the contrary.

[Peelee]

I mean, he already knew how it was going to end while he was writing it, right?
That the story's conclusion is all plotted out doesn't mean you can make calls that require circular logic. That you insist you can means any further debate with you will never end, since you can effectively justify anything you want via bad reasoning. This will thus be my last post.

So the dinosaur is certain death under specific conditions, while the crossbowmen are certain death without adding special conditions. That makes the dinosaur safer.
The dinosaur's release ultimately let them escape solely because it hit them in very specific conditions. More specific than "they get eaten without their weapons." I fail to see your point.

The Giant. That could be an interesting story, but it clearly isn't this one.
Just as Belkar being not Chaotic Evil could be an interesting story, but it clearly isn't this one.

[theNater]

That the story's conclusion is all plotted out doesn't mean you can make calls that require circular logic.
It does mean I can appeal to narrative intent. The point of the scene is to show us that Belkar saved the bounty hunters. If they aren't in danger before and/or aren't safe after, the scene doesn't do what it is supposed to.

The dinosaur's release ultimately let them escape solely because it hit them in very specific conditions. More specific than "they get eaten without their weapons." I fail to see your point.
My point is that the dinosaur is less dangerous than the crossbowmen. Maybe not much less dangerous, but it turned out to be enough.

Just as Belkar being not Chaotic Evil could be an interesting story, but it clearly isn't this one.
Why would you bring that up? I've never claimed Belkar was anything other than Chaotic Evil.

[Peelee]

Why would you bring that up? I've never claimed Belkar was anything other than Chaotic Evil.

......so, breaking my promise here so I can apologize. I was arguing against those claiming Belkar was changing alignment. You contested a point in that debate (though not through a direct quote from me), and I inadvertently picked you up as one of them. Whole argument was based upon that "fact," and it just kind of grew from there. Soooooooo.......yeah. Sorry 'bout that.

[theNater]

......so, breaking my promise here so I can apologize. I was arguing against those claiming Belkar was changing alignment. You contested a point in that debate (though not through a direct quote from me), and I inadvertently picked you up as one of them. Whole argument was based upon that "fact," and it just kind of grew from there. Soooooooo.......yeah. Sorry 'bout that.
That explains a lot. No worries.:smallsmile:

I think it's important to remember that just as a Good or Neutral character can make the occasional misstep without becoming Evil, an Evil character can perform the occasional kindness without becoming Neutral or Good. Alignment is very much a long-term, wide-angle view of a character, and that kind of smooths away the little eccentricities.

[orrion]

It does mean I can appeal to narrative intent. The point of the scene is to show us that Belkar saved the bounty hunters. If they aren't in danger before and/or aren't safe after, the scene doesn't do what it is supposed to.

Sure, but what you can't do is infer the character knew the outcome of his action because the writer did.

And, conversely, the narrative intent was to show Belkar had a thought for someone aside from himself. Thus, the narrative intent is met whether or not they are saved because the point is to show the action taken and not necessarily a successful action.

[Rodin]

The reason I linked the two strips I did is because both of them show intent.

In the first one, Belkar doesn't want the fact that he did something nice to get back to Roy, and explicitly states that he did it to save Enor and Gannji. The second strip shows the reason for that: He saw a parallel between himself and Mr. Scruffy, felt sorry for them, and acted on that.

The fine minutiae of whether a T-Rex or Allosaurus could or could not be reasonably expected to save them is frankly irrelevant. Belkar took the best option available to him for a specific, Good purpose (saving people he has every reason to hate, and will gain no personal benefits from saving), and as it happened it worked. If it didn't work, so what? It was still a Good act.

Again I re-iterate: I'm not arguing Belkar isn't Chaotic Evil. Just that this one action had a higher purpose than "dino rampage". The rampage was, as Tarquin puts it, bonus action.

Edit:

Also on killing the guards not being Good: They are prison guards of an Evil empire working for a gladiator arena where slaves and prisoners are forced to fight.

Killing them is no more Evil than Roy became Evil by chopping down the guards that attacked him in the crater, who were only doing so to protect their families from Tarquin. I realize that this comic subverts expectations about "bad guys", but you have to draw the line somewhere otherwise the entire Order winds up Evil.

[orrion]

The reason I linked the two strips I did is because both of them show intent.

In the first one, Belkar doesn't want the fact that he did something nice to get back to Roy, and explicitly states that he did it to save Enor and Gannji. The second strip shows the reason for that: He saw a parallel between himself and Mr. Scruffy, felt sorry for them, and acted on that.

The fine minutiae of whether a T-Rex or Allosaurus could or could not be reasonably expected to save them is frankly irrelevant. Belkar took the best option available to him for a specific, Good purpose (saving people he has every reason to hate, and will gain no personal benefits from saving), and as it happened it worked. If it didn't work, so what? It was still a Good act.

Again I re-iterate: I'm not arguing Belkar isn't Chaotic Evil. Just that this one action had a higher purpose than "dino rampage". The rampage was, as Tarquin puts it, bonus action.

Edit:

Also on killing the guards not being Good: They are prison guards of an Evil empire working for a gladiator arena where slaves and prisoners are forced to fight.

Killing them is no more Evil than Roy became Evil by chopping down the guards that attacked him in the crater, who were only doing so to protect their families from Tarquin. I realize that this comic subverts expectations about "bad guys", but you have to draw the line somewhere otherwise the entire Order winds up Evil.

I see it as very dangerous to label that a "Good" act. By that logic, wasn't everything Tarquin tried to do for Elan Good, since he was trying to help him become capable of overthrowing an Evil empire?

[Rodin]

I see it as very dangerous to label that a "Good" act. By that logic, wasn't everything Tarquin tried to do for Elan Good, since he was trying to help him become capable of overthrowing an Evil empire?

No, because Tarquin never had good intentions.

Belkar saved Gannji and Enor purely for their sake. If Roy had unleashed the dinosaur, or even just gone out into the arena and beaten up the guards himself, there is no question that it would be a Good act.

Tarquin never had Elan's interest at heart. He wanted to be overthrown for a purely selfish reason - to become a legend that inspires other evil dictators to follow in his footsteps.

Edit:

To clarify a bit further: It's arguable that Ian unleashing the dinosaur wasn't a Good act. He didn't give two hoots about Enor and Gannji, he just wanted to see the carnage and get revenge on the guards. His involvement was more probably Neutral. Again, intent matters.

[orrion]

No, because Tarquin never had good intentions.

Belkar saved Gannji and Enor purely for their sake. If Roy had unleashed the dinosaur, or even just gone out into the arena and beaten up the guards himself, there is no question that it would be a Good act.

Tarquin never had Elan's interest at heart. He wanted to be overthrown for a purely selfish reason - to become a legend that inspires other evil dictators to follow in his footsteps.

Edit:

To clarify a bit further: It's arguable that Ian unleashing the dinosaur wasn't a Good act. He didn't give two hoots about Enor and Gannji, he just wanted to see the carnage and get revenge on the guards. His involvement was more probably Neutral. Again, intent matters.

And, what, you think carnage played zero role in Belkar deciding to release the dinosaur? Come on.

I'd argue Roy wouldn't have released the dinosaur precisely because the guards would die, and there's no way to determine the guards' individual roles. From what happens later, we know that Tarquin probably conscripted some of them based on threats, and so they're probably not all Evil. Roy wouldn't know that, but he's more likely to consider such a thing (as evidenced by his refusal to fight the champion before he had independent corroboration that the champion was actually Evil).

Tarquin had good intentions as far as he was concerned. So did Belkar - he wanted to help Gannji and Enor. But you can't call what they did Good acts just based on their intentions.

[Rodin]

What, you think Roy wouldn't have carved his way through the guards if he suddenly felt he had to get out of the arena? Like he was about to do just before Thog showed up, or like he was about to do right before he saw Z and decided he needed to distract Tarquin?

How is death by T-Rex any different from death by Roy?

[Angelalex242]

It isn't, really, except that Roy only killed in self defense and can discriminate who and what he kills. The dinosaur, on the other hand, will eat anything that looks appetizing, not necessarily just the bad guys.

[orrion]

What, you think Roy wouldn't have carved his way through the guards if he suddenly felt he had to get out of the arena? Like he was about to do just before Thog showed up, or like he was about to do right before he saw Z and decided he needed to distract Tarquin?

How is death by T-Rex any different from death by Roy?

Roy thought the champion was an innocent they forced into being a gladiator before it was revealed to be Thog, and protecting and preserving the innocent trumps considerations about the guards. As does preserving his own life. It's likely Roy would avoid killing if he could help it, as well, and any killing he did do would be in self-defense. If you don't see a difference between that and the dinosaur rampage, I'm not sure there's much left to talk about.

[theNater]

Sure, but what you can't do is infer the character knew the outcome of his action because the writer did.

And, conversely, the narrative intent was to show Belkar had a thought for someone aside from himself. Thus, the narrative intent is met whether or not they are saved because the point is to show the action taken and not necessarily a successful action.
So, it sounds like you agree that Belkar let out the dino in an attempt to help the bounty hunters. Meaning that, whether his belief was reasonable or not, he believed that letting the dino out would help them.

We could try to guess why Belkar thought that, if you'd like, but it doesn't really seem relevant to an alignment discussion.

[ChristianSt]

So, it sounds like you agree that Belkar let out the dino in an attempt to help the bounty hunters. Meaning that, whether his belief was reasonable or not, he believed that letting the dino out would help them.

We could try to guess why Belkar thought that, if you'd like, but it doesn't really seem relevant to an alignment discussion.

Sure, Belkar might wanted to help them. But that doesn't tell us whether it was a Good, Evil or Neutral act.

For example a friend of mine might complain that he might get fired because his company has trouble and needs to reduce personal soon. Killing my friends co-workers might help him to stay in his job, but it is certainly not a Good thing to do.

Even if Belkar is sure that this succeeds, there is imo far too much collateral damage involved to classify his plan as Good.

[Rodin]

The term "collateral damage" seems to be the sticking point where we disagree. I consider the T-Rex chomping the guards to be no different than Thanh and the rest of the Resistance attacking the Hobgoblin prison guards, who most certainly would have preferred being at the barbecue instead of being stuck on guard duty. You don't have your paladin Fall because the evil dictator's bodyguard had a wife and kids. The morality of taking the guards down is irrelevant to considering the morality of the greater goal.

Since we aren't likely to change our positions on this, I'm just gonna leave it at that.

[multilis]

Current alignment: SL (Sexy shoeLess)

As far as that less important evil stuff:

Belkar was "faking growth", but then the growth faked him so he now faking the faking because the growth has become real.

Driven by his love for Mr. Scruffy, V and Miko, Belkar is climbing out of evil. His dilemma is which afterlife... does he want to be with V or Miko? His heart is torn. Foolish boy, he has yet to embrace the love of Snarl and polygamy... why choose between V and Miko when you can have both? Fortunately Mr. Scruffy will show him the way.

The old alignment of good or evil, chaotic or lawful will become irrelevant. The new alignment system will be much simpler, you are either with Snarl or against him.

You too can grow with Belkar. Leave behind the petty violence and ambition of so called gods like Thor and Hel, join the new world of love rather than XP. Become a brother or sister in the Holey Brotherhood. You too can make a difference. You advance through love rather than XP. All the benefits including heath care and dental plan. Marry as many mates as you want at same time!

[Gandalf]

I have seen multiple statements along the lines of "He wants to do evil things, and that makes him evil."

Wrong.

That line of reasoning would put every humaniod in existance on about the same level as a balor or pit fiend.

Humaniods do not control their wants (those are mostly innate), they control whether they act on them. Any paladin will have wanted to break the palidin code over a thousand times a year (I figure five times a day), but they won't have done it, so they are still paladins.

[theNater]

Sure, Belkar might wanted to help them. But that doesn't tell us whether it was a Good, Evil or Neutral act.
Correct.

For example a friend of mine might complain that he might get fired because his company has trouble and needs to reduce personal soon. Killing my friends co-workers might help him to stay in his job, but it is certainly not a Good thing to do.
Correct. Killing innocents is Evil, and helping a friend is Neutral. So it's Evil.

Even if Belkar is sure that this succeeds, there is imo far too much collateral damage involved to classify his plan as Good.
Given that he's motivated out of empathy and the collateral damage seems to be restricted to the guards, I don't think a reasonable argument can be made to classify the plan as Evil.

I personally think the plan is Neutral, due to the fact that Belkar is not acting out of a fundamental respect for life and that the guards are, at the very least, enemy soldiers.

I think an argument can be made that it's Good, if you play up the sacrifice angle(Belkar can't help Roy now (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0786.html), and Roy staying safe is to Belkar's advantage) and you believe the guards are all nasty people(and we've seen indications before (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0782.html) and since (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0791.html) that they aren't very nice).

[Old RuneQuester]

Coming in late and skimming through this thread very quickly, I interpreted Belkar's releasing the dinosaur completely differently then everyone else.

I thought Belkar was releasing Bloodfeast because he didn't [want] the best friends to have to kill each other to see who would survive. Bloodfeast changed the battle to no longer be between the best friends being made to try to battle each other.

I always interpreted that whether they lived or died in a battle with the guards and/or dinosaur, Belkar didn't care. But they no longer had to battle each other.

[Edited for some grammer]

[Nilehus]

I have seen multiple statements along the lines of "He wants to do evil things, and that makes him evil."

Wrong.

That line of reasoning would put every humaniod in existance on about the same level as a balor or pit fiend.

Humaniods do not control their wants (those are mostly innate), they control whether they act on them. Any paladin will have wanted to break the palidin code over a thousand times a year (I figure five times a day), but they won't have done it, so they are still paladins.

Gonna have to disagree. There is a huge difference between, say, Superman refusing to kill Lex Luthor in Justice League Unlimited and Belkar not being allowed to kill whoever he wants.

Belkar's Evil tendencies are being kept in check by not wanting to get brutally gang stabbed by the rest of the Order. Superman, Paladins, and other Good types keep their Evil desires in check because they strive to be morally better.

Roy's interview talks about that. Roy tries to be LG because he wants to be LG, which even though he's not perfect, tips him into the LG afterlife. If there had been someone forcing Roy to act LG on pain of death, I highly doubt the Deva would have let him through.

[orrion]

The term "collateral damage" seems to be the sticking point where we disagree. I consider the T-Rex chomping the guards to be no different than Thanh and the rest of the Resistance attacking the Hobgoblin prison guards, who most certainly would have preferred being at the barbecue instead of being stuck on guard duty. You don't have your paladin Fall because the evil dictator's bodyguard had a wife and kids. The morality of taking the guards down is irrelevant to considering the morality of the greater goal.

That is, again, a dangerous line of thinking. The greater goal for the OOTS is to save the world from Xykon (or the Snarl, whatever, not important). Under your argument, it's perfectly acceptable to commit atrocities along the way as long as the greater goal gets accomplished. Who cares if they kill half the world doing it, for example. They saved the other half, right?


Coming in late and skimming through this thread very quickly, I interpreted Belkar's releasing the dinosaur completely differently then everyone else.

I thought Belkar was releasing Bloodfeast because he didn't [want] the best friends to have to kill each other to see who would survive. Bloodfeast changed the battle to no longer be between the best friends being made to try to battle each other.

I always interpreted that whether they lived or died in a battle with the guards and/or dinosaur, Belkar didn't care. But they no longer had to battle each other.

[Edited for some grammer]

Given that Tarquin was about to fill them full of arrows, they wouldn't have had to battle each other anyway.


I have seen multiple statements along the lines of "He wants to do evil things, and that makes him evil."

Wrong.

That line of reasoning would put every humaniod in existance on about the same level as a balor or pit fiend.

Humaniods do not control their wants (those are mostly innate), they control whether they act on them. Any paladin will have wanted to break the palidin code over a thousand times a year (I figure five times a day), but they won't have done it, so they are still paladins.

Ok but, again, the only thing actively stopping Belkar has been fear of retribution. He's not controlling whether he acts on his wants. If it were up to him, he'd be acting on them all the time.

[theNater]

That is, again, a dangerous line of thinking. The greater goal for the OOTS is to save the world from Xykon (or the Snarl, whatever, not important). Under your argument, it's perfectly acceptable to commit atrocities along the way as long as the greater goal gets accomplished. Who cares if they kill half the world doing it, for example. They saved the other half, right?
Tarquin's guards and the hobgoblin soldiers are not randomly selected individuals. Killing them is not the same as killing randomly selected individuals.

If half of the world banded into a single army intent on destroying the entire world, then killing that half of the world to save the rest would be entirely reasonable.

[Rodin]

Tarquin's guards and the hobgoblin soldiers are not randomly selected individuals. Killing them is not the same as killing randomly selected individuals.

If half of the world banded into a single army intent on destroying the entire world, then killing that half of the world to save the rest would be entirely reasonable.

Precisely. To narrow it further, if a Paladin were to charge into the arena, declare that the prisoners should be freed, and slaughter their way through the guards...would that be Evil, or even Neutral? I think not. So why is Belkar doing the same thing via more Chaotic means Evil?

I don't get where the sympathy for the guards who are in the middle of committing an evil act comes from.

[warrl]

If not immediately murdering someone is Neutral to you, then we have differing interpretations of Neutral.

Evil people can care for others. Tarquin cared for Elan, Malack cared for Durkon, Nale cared for Sabine. Saying that being nice to your pet is Neutral is setting the bar incredibly low.

It is Neutral. However it's also very lightweight in terms of determining a character's alignment.

Same for refraining from killing someone. Most mass murderers have, over the course of their lives, refrained from killing thousands of people; it's the exceptions to that pattern of behavior that draws attention. Most modern saints have also refrained from killing thousands of people, and that fact rarely gets mentioned.


Belkar had fun terrorizing the other prisoners and stealing their bread. They're the closest thing to innocents he's had direct contact with recently that hasn't already been discussed. And I do not buy his speech about upholding society, for some reason.

It was just a typo, Belkar should have said he was holding up society. :smallwink:


They were certain to die from the dino, even if the dino had to eat everyone else before he ate them.

Unless they regained the ability to fly out of the arena, which was an unforseeable event. Unless you wish to claim that Belkar released the dinosaur with the intent that it slightly damage of of the wing guards, allowing a spear to smash through the rest.

Actually... Gannji and Enor were about to be killed by the guards. Releasing the dino, at worst, would get them immediately killed by the dino, which is not detectably better for them but also not detectably worse. On the other hand, it would more likely at least buy them some time... with nobody paying attention to them... and with an assortment of stray sharp things and long poles they might put to productive use. Such as breaking the wing-bindings so they could escape.

So releasing the dinosaur was being good *to them*. (Whether it was good overall is a more complex question. The guards' widows would probably mostly say no.)

[Nilehus]

It is Neutral. However it's also very lightweight in terms of determining a character's alignment.

Same for refraining from killing someone. Most mass murderers have, over the course of their lives, refrained from killing thousands of people; it's the exceptions to that pattern of behavior that draws attention. Most modern saints have also refrained from killing thousands of people, and that fact rarely gets mentioned.

Sorry, my emphasis should've been on the "immediately". Earlier in the thread, it was being argued that since Belkar asked if he could kill this guy without getting in trouble, that was Neutral. Belkar would've done it too, happily. Mr Scruffy just beat him to the punch. :smalltongue: If you believe that it was Neutral, though, more power to you. I can see how people would interpret it as such, since Belkar didn't move fast enough.


It was just a typo, Belkar should have said he was holding up society. :smallwink:

You just made my day. Thank you so much. Made posting in this thread all worthwhile.

My daughter is looking at me like I'm nuts. Being judged by a 2 year old...

[Reddish Mage]

Sorry, my emphasis should've been on the "immediately". Earlier in the thread, it was being argued that since Belkar asked if he could kill this guy without getting in trouble, that was Neutral. Belkar would've done it too, happily. Mr Scruffy just beat him to the punch. :smalltongue: If you believe that it was Neutral, though, more power to you. I can see how people would interpret it as such, since Belkar didn't move fast enough

I don't recall anyone arguing that "Belkar asking if he could kill a guy is neutral" (although, I'll agree, questions about whether killing will get you in trouble does not count as an evil action). Your still on this kick of trying to make something of a scene in which Belkar doesn't actually do anything! Its quite clear from these posts you have a particular interpretation of that scene, which requires you to read into it what Belkar is actually thinking and stating things as "would have," as in "Belkar still would have done it" and "he would have enjoyed it."

If I agree that the action Belkar would have taken in your interpretation of the scene was evil (to bloodthirstily murder a guy the very next round just because Belkar likes to do that sort of thing), can you put to rest this notion that somehow the very strip itself is a confirmation that Belkar is Chaotic Evil?

[orrion]

I don't recall anyone arguing that "Belkar asking if he could kill a guy is neutral" (although, I'll agree, questions about whether killing will get you in trouble does not count as an evil action).

I don't think self-preservation has much to do with alignment.

[Keltest]

I don't think self-preservation has much to do with alignment.

Belkar was quite visibly not even breaking a sweat. Hes a ranger in the teens levels, versus a level 1 commoner. He could almost literally fumble, trip into the guy, and accidentally kill him. If Belkar was going to kill the guy, it would be because he wanted to, not because he was afraid of getting killed if he didn't.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Belkar was quite visibly not even breaking a sweat. Hes a ranger in the teens levels, versus a level 1 commoner. He could almost literally fumble, trip into the guy, and accidentally kill him. If Belkar was going to kill the guy, it would be because he wanted to, not because he was afraid of getting killed if he didn't.

He feared retribution from the rest of the Order, which is why he held off. He was afraid of getting killed if he did kill him.

[Nilehus]

I'm only talking about it because others are replying. I'm not just randomly bringing it up out of the blue. If it's a thread in the conversation that doesn't interest you, then just ignore it.

[Emanick]

He feared retribution from the rest of the Order, which is why he held off. He was afraid of getting killed if he did kill him.

I don't think he was anywhere close to assuming that the Order would literally kill him for killing the other gladiator. He was probably just trying to avoid getting yelled at, or lectured, or the like.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I don't think he was anywhere close to assuming that the Order would literally kill him for killing the other gladiator. He was probably just trying to avoid getting yelled at, or lectured, or the like.

Okay, that makes sense. The point is that it was not the commoner he feared.

[orrion]

Belkar was quite visibly not even breaking a sweat. Hes a ranger in the teens levels, versus a level 1 commoner. He could almost literally fumble, trip into the guy, and accidentally kill him. If Belkar was going to kill the guy, it would be because he wanted to, not because he was afraid of getting killed if he didn't.

I'm not sure how you arrived at the interpretation that I thought Belkar feared the level 1 commoner.

He's questioning whether there will be retribution if he kills the commoner.

I don't find it indicative of any alignment to make sure you won't be harmed by an action you take (in this case, the action is killing the level 1 commoner).

[Reddish Mage]

I'm not sure how you arrived at the interpretation that I thought Belkar feared the level 1 commoner.

He's questioning whether there will be retribution if he kills the commoner.

I don't find it indicative of any alignment to make sure you won't be harmed by an action you take (in this case, the action is killing the level 1 commoner).

I would note the indication that is supposed to be present is that Belkar is that delaying, though you can read Belkar as genuinely confused about whether he would get punished by the guards (aka he's too myopic to get that whole "gladiator" thing).

The argument for Belkar delaying matters out of a genuine moral sentiment is that we see Belkar having moral sentiments later in the pyramid, as well as earlier having empathy for his cat. Focusing narrowly on one strip denies a whole book that shows Belkar as a growing, no longer one-dimension character. That Belkar is growing is undeniable and anyone who says that this growth is not in a good direction is not reading the comic, but taking their own take on alignment and reading it into the comic.

[Nilehus]

You'll have to show me where Belkar shows empathy for the commoner. Because all I can remember from that time is him terrorizing them, stealing their food... Belkar showed some empathy with the lizardfolk and the half-dragon because they reminded him of him and Scruffy. Belkar had no such connection with the commoner.

If you do have any evidence at all of Belkar empathizing with the commoner, please show me. Otherwise I'll stick with the idea that his helping Enor and Gannji (spelling?) Was supposed to be his first moment of actually wanting to help another sentient being with no thought of reward.

[Reddish Mage]

You'll have to show me where Belkar shows empathy for the commoner. Because all I can remember from that time is him terrorizing them, stealing their food... Belkar showed some empathy with the lizardfolk and the half-dragon because they reminded him of him and Scruffy. Belkar had no such connection with the commoner.

If you do have any evidence at all of Belkar empathizing with the commoner, please show me. Otherwise I'll stick with the idea that his helping Enor and Gannji (spelling?) Was supposed to be his first moment of actually wanting to help another sentient being with no thought of reward.

I said "focusing on one strip denies a whole book of..." And you try to read what I say next as being about that strip?

[Nilehus]

That was to the first paragraph, where you specifically say that he was obviously just delaying.

Belkar is developing. I am not arguing that! He's actually got a little bit of depth now. But for the moment? He's still a thoroughly evil halfling. One good act does not change years of killing. Sign of things to come, sure. But he's just started the race, he's not near the finish line yet.

[Reddish Mage]

That was to the first paragraph, where you specifically say that he was obviously just delaying.

Belkar is developing. I am not arguing that! He's actually got a little bit of depth now. But for the moment? He's still a thoroughly evil halfling. One good act does not change years of killing. Sign of things to come, sure. But he's just started the race, he's not near the finish line yet.

We see not one but multiple good acts and changes to the character personality. To me, "neutral" better predicts Belkar's actions going forward and better explains the totality of what goes on in book 5, and I see no reason to dwell on his actions prior to book 5. Around a gaming table a DM might say "I want to see more than that" but I do not. There is no weight of sin to alignment as described in the DMG, no need to outweigh it (afterlife rules are a bit different). One can change alignment just by indicating and actually acting the part. The language of the DMG allows this, it is literally most concerned with players changing alignment for the sake of new magical baubles.

Anyway this character Growth is the reason to interpret the one strip as Belkar delaying to kill. If the strip means to show that Belkar has genuine confusion over the purpose of gladiatorial matches and actual fear of being punished by NPC guards or Tarquin, there doesn't seem to be much of a point to it.

[Peelee]

We see not one but multiple good acts

Can you elaborate more on this? I fundamentally disagree with you, in that I see Belkar's change (and his own impetus to change) as a more 3D character growth, without losing his evilness. He's being less of an annoying jerk and more of a subtle jerk. I'm intrigued as to the multiple good acts, though.

[orrion]

I would note the indication that is supposed to be present is that Belkar is that delaying, though you can read Belkar as genuinely confused about whether he would get punished by the guards (aka he's too myopic to get that whole "gladiator" thing).

Right, but he's only delaying out of self-preservation. He's not delaying because he cares about the commoner or anything like that.



The argument for Belkar delaying matters out of a genuine moral sentiment is that we see Belkar having moral sentiments later in the pyramid, as well as earlier having empathy for his cat. Focusing narrowly on one strip denies a whole book that shows Belkar as a growing, no longer one-dimension character. That Belkar is growing is undeniable and anyone who says that this growth is not in a good direction is not reading the comic, but taking their own take on alignment and reading it into the comic.

That's ironic, since what you're doing in that scene is reading something into it that isn't there.

I think what someone quoted earlier from Rich applies here - (paraphrase) Evil characters are capable of caring and such. That Belkar shows such caring doesn't mean he's no longer Evil, or even moving toward Good.

As for reading not reading the comic.. are you sure you have been? Redcloak undoubtedly cared for his family and mentor. He's still Evil. Sabine and Nale cared for each other. They're still Evil. How do you reconcile these things with your view that Belkar is somehow moving toward good every time he displays something similar?

[theNater]

If the strip means to show that Belkar has genuine confusion over the purpose of gladiatorial matches and actual fear of being punished by NPC guards or Tarquin, there doesn't seem to be much of a point to it.
What if the strip is meant to show that Belkar is trying to fake a morality he doesn't actually believe in or understand? Note that he's expressed confusion over when lethal violence is appropriate at least two other times in book 5, once after the slavers (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0687.html) and once when Durkula joined the party (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0909.html).

[Nilehus]

What if the strip is meant to show that Belkar is trying to fake a morality he doesn't actually believe in or understand? Note that he's expressed confusion over when lethal violence is appropriate at least two other times in book 5, once after the slavers (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0687.html) and once when Durkula joined the party (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0909.html).

That. Belkar had one pretty Good moment in this last book, and it was a well executed one. It showed that he's moving away from Xykon or Snidely Whiplash style villainy to an actual believable character. He still is Evil, but he is slowly moving beyond "Evil evil evil, mwahaha."

A character can be friendly, care for a few others, be a team player, and still be very Evil. Case in point, Tarquin and Malack. That was a pretty big point this book.

[evileeyore]

Ok but, again, the only thing actively stopping Belkar has been fear of retribution. He's not controlling whether he acts on his wants. If it were up to him, he'd be acting on them all the time.
False.

Belkar is controlling his actions. He is making the choice to do what will bring the least retribution, that is an act of control.

What he wasn't controlling were his circumstances. Which has actually changed now that he's willing to "play the game", he is changing the way some people perceive him thus trying to alter what he can and can't get away with, also reducing the likelihood of negative retributions.

[orrion]

False.

Belkar is controlling his actions. He is making the choice to do what will bring the least retribution, that is an act of control.

What he wasn't controlling were his circumstances. Which has actually changed now that he's willing to "play the game", he is changing the way some people perceive him thus trying to alter what he can and can't get away with, also reducing the likelihood of negative retributions.

False? It's quite apparent that if he could, Belkar would go around killing whatever the heck he could whenever the heck he wanted. Nothing's changed that. The Deva's description of Belkar when she was evaluating Roy is still pretty darned accurate.

[Nilehus]

To be fair, he might spare a few of the ones that are holding their pets. Maybe.

[evileeyore]

False? It's quite apparent that if he could, Belkar would go around killing whatever the heck he could whenever the heck he wanted. Nothing's changed that. The Deva's description of Belkar when she was evaluating Roy is still pretty darned accurate.
He can. He'd just be all retributed.

That's called choice. Belkar isn't in jail where his choices are curtailed severely. He's out and about, a halfling in the world.

He could walk away from the group and ignore Roy's silly rules, but then he be choosing to leave Roy's protection. He could stab people all day long, but then he'd be choosing to set off the parties threatened retribution. It's choice.

Belkar has choice, he's been choosing to reign in his primal impulses, and now he's choosing to pretend be a team player instead of a loose cannon Roy has to plan around.




Granted I'm ignoring all the times Belkar has been Dominated or Suggested and had choice removed from him. Do you see the difference?

[evileeyore]

To be fair, he might spare a few of the ones that are holding their pets. Maybe.
He'll certainly spare the sexy ones he thinks he can score with. History has proven him correct on that score. :smallwink:

[Keltest]

He can. He'd just be all retributed.

That's called choice. Belkar isn't in jail where his choices are curtailed severely. He's out and about, a halfling in the world.

He could walk away from the group and ignore Roy's silly rules, but then he be choosing to leave Roy's protection. He could stab people all day long, but then he'd be choosing to set off the parties threatened retribution. It's choice.

Belkar has choice, he's been choosing to reign in his primal impulses, and now he's choosing to pretend be a team player instead of a loose cannon Roy has to plan around.




Granted I'm ignoring all the times Belkar has been Dominated or Suggested and had choice removed from him. Do you see the difference?


Youre arguing semantics. Whether he "chooses" not to do something for fear of retribution or he is "forced" to do something through threat of retribution doesn't matter. Someone is causing him to take their preferred course of action by threatening him with negative consequences if he doesn't. Whether or not you believe that still allows for "choice" isn't particularly relevant to the point being made.

[Reddish Mage]

What if the strip is meant to show that Belkar is trying to fake a morality he doesn't actually believe in or understand? Note that he's expressed confusion over when lethal violence is appropriate at least two other times in book 5, once after the slavers (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0687.html) and once when Durkula joined the party (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0909.html).

I think the three times Belkar expresses confusion suggest a progression to the character. The first time, he clearly is expressing bewilderment over the ethics of killing and trying to process it in a non-moralistic fashion. The second time ????? (two alternative readings). With Durkula there is clearly something deeper going on as Belkar continuously is expressing non-Belkar-like sentiments.


That. Belkar had one pretty Good moment in this last book, and it was a well executed one. It showed that he's moving away from Xykon or Snidely Whiplash style villainy to an actual believable character. He still is Evil, but he is slowly moving beyond "Evil evil evil, mwahaha."

A character can be friendly, care for a few others, be a team player, and still be very Evil. Case in point, Tarquin and Malack. That was a pretty big point this book.

Tarquin and Malack are meant to contrast to Belkar, not to be comparables on the scale. Tarquin's every action screams evil, from how he runs his Empire to how he acquires his magic items, to how he throws his parties, to even how he takes his meals. At this point even the aid he offers Elan cannot but be corrupted, twisted, and made to suit his purposes. Malack is a bit more subtle but is ultimately reveals that his plans are even more twisted than Tarquin's with none other than death chambers.

Belkar is giving genuine aid to the Order, is doing so pretty much gratis, and has yet to do something that betrays his "pretend" reformation, by say winking and buddying up with Durkula (love your new color scheme!), which he would have done...oh wait he did!...one book ago.

Some see Belkar performing isolated acts, I see a clear progression arc, book-long!

[orrion]

He can. He'd just be all retributed.

That's called choice. Belkar isn't in jail where his choices are curtailed severely. He's out and about, a halfling in the world.

He could walk away from the group and ignore Roy's silly rules, but then he be choosing to leave Roy's protection. He could stab people all day long, but then he'd be choosing to set off the parties threatened retribution. It's choice.

Belkar has choice, he's been choosing to reign in his primal impulses, and now he's choosing to pretend be a team player instead of a loose cannon Roy has to plan around.


Keltest's reply to this is basically what I'm saying.


Youre arguing semantics. Whether he "chooses" not to do something for fear of retribution or he is "forced" to do something through threat of retribution doesn't matter. Someone is causing him to take their preferred course of action by threatening him with negative consequences if he doesn't. Whether or not you believe that still allows for "choice" isn't particularly relevant to the point being made.

----




Tarquin and Malack are meant to contrast to Belkar, not to be comparables on the scale. Tarquin's every action screams evil, from how he runs his Empire to how he acquires his magic items, to how he throws his parties, to even how he takes his meals. At this point even the aid he offers Elan cannot but be corrupted, twisted, and made to suit his purposes. Malack is a bit more subtle but is ultimately reveals that his plans are even more twisted than Tarquin's with none other than death chambers.

Belkar is giving genuine aid to the Order, is doing so pretty much gratis, and has yet to do something that betrays his "pretend" reformation, by say winking and buddying up with Durkula (love your new color scheme!), which he would have done...oh wait he did!...one book ago.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that Tarquin and Malack are meant to be contrasted to Belkar, other than the inevitable comparisons of "that guy is evil and so is that guy." Belkar's actions also scream "evil," he just happens to be indiscriminate about it whereas Tarquin and Malack have concrete plans and are working toward them.

And, again, there are instances of both Tarquin and Malack showing caring dispositions. I ask again - why is it that such things from them don't alter your interpretations, but such from Belkar means his alignment is changing?

We haven't been shown anything that says Belkar genuinely cares about the Order's greater goals, and I would need that sort of confirmation to apply a gratis label. Also, he's getting levels and such that he probably wouldn't be otherwise, which makes him all the more dangerous should he ever not be corralled by Roy.

Of course he isn't buddying up with Durkula. He's got a very personal vendetta there that trumps other considerations. If you'll recall, he welcomed V to the deep end of the alignment pool right off, and that was after his "reformation."

[Nilehus]

I'm out. Nothing is going to convince you that Belkar isn't quite ready for sainthood yet. Believe what you will; me, I need a bit more than "didn't kill a person that one time he could've."

[theNater]

I think the three times Belkar expresses confusion suggest a progression to the character. The first time, he clearly is expressing bewilderment over the ethics of killing and trying to process it in a non-moralistic fashion. The second time ????? (two alternative readings). With Durkula there is clearly something deeper going on as Belkar continuously is expressing non-Belkar-like sentiments.
How is "that thing hurt me, so I want to kill it" a non-Belkar-like sentiment? Because that's all that Belkar actually has right now. He hasn't seen what's going on inside Durkula's head any more than the rest of the Order has.

Tarquin's every action screams evil, from how he runs his Empire to how he acquires his magic items, to how he throws his parties, to even how he takes his meals.
How about how he spends a day with his long-lost son (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0750.html)? How Evil is that?

Belkar is giving genuine aid to the Order, is doing so pretty much gratis...
Belkar gets protection, adventure, experience, a share of treasure, and opportunities to kill strange and interesting new things. Being associated with them is very much to his benefit.

...and has yet to do something that betrays his "pretend" reformation...
You mean, something like bullying (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0745.html)? Or deliberately putting himself in a position where he can kill someone (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0748.html)? Or torture (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0835.html)?

...by say winking and buddying up with Durkula (love your new color scheme!), which he would have done...oh wait he did!...one book ago.
Evil isn't one big happy family. Tarquin and Nale opposed each other as vigorously as Belkar is opposing Durkula; that doesn't mean one or the other of them is non-Evil.

[evileeyore]

Youre arguing semantics.
Yes, but it's a big one. The difference between choice and no choice is drastic.*

Belkar makes his choices. The difference between now and when the comic started is that he's gotten a "larger picture" view. He's taking into account more than just the "immediate desire vs immediate punishment" angle and looking at "does my immediate desire have greater value than the long term reward of faking being a team player and reigning in my immediate desires?"


* Keep in mind this momentary tangent began because orrion claimed Belkar had no choice. My response was to remind him (and others) that Belkar has agency, don't strip it from him rhetorically.



Whether or not you believe that still allows for "choice" isn't particularly relevant to the point being made.
Then what's the point?

If Belkar has no choice, nothing he does is interesting, he loses all ability to grow and can safely be replaced with a two dimensional cut out.

If Belkar has choice, he has the capacity growth, no matter what direction that is in.

[Keltest]

Yes, but it's a big one. The difference between choice and no choice is drastic.*

Belkar makes his choices. The difference between now and when the comic started is that he's gotten a "larger picture" view. He's taking into account more than just the "immediate desire vs immediate punishment" angle and looking at "does my immediate desire have greater value than the long term reward of faking being a team player and reigning in my immediate desires?"


* Keep in mind this momentary tangent began because orrion claimed Belkar had no choice. My response was to remind him (and others) that Belkar has agency, don't strip it from him rhetorically.



Then what's the point?

If Belkar has no choice, nothing he does is interesting, he loses all ability to grow and can safely be replaced with a two dimensional cut out.

If Belkar has choice, he has the capacity growth, no matter what direction that is in.

The point is that Belkar's first inclination is to slaughter everything indiscriminately. His ability to conclude that that path isn't the most beneficial to him doesn't mean that it isn't the one that he wants to take. His better judgment, such as it is, simply overrides his desires. Hes acting for the greater Belkar, so to speak.

Edit: elaborating, his character has not changed just because the circumstances of his ability to act on it have. Elan is not less good for not trying to overthrow Tarquin, and Belkar is not less evil for not slaughtering indiscriminately, because they both WANT to do those things (well, not both of them do both those things, obviously), they just cant realistically act on it.

Heck, theres even an early comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0125.html) where Belkar lampshades this, saying "I agree, and by that I mean there are more of you and you are using that to coerce me into obeying your moral code."

[Rodin]

I'd also note that working with the Order to stop Xykon is not, in and of itself, a Good act. He's helping to stop the end of the world, and in that he's fully in agreement with Xykon:

"I like the world. Some of my best evilness took place here."

In this, like most everything else, Belkar is acting in the interest of the greater Belkar.

[Peelee]

The point is that Belkar's first inclination is to slaughter everything indiscriminately.

False. I provide as proof of this the Belkar PDF. He was not a part of an adventuring group, and was not afraid of any possible repurcussions at the time. His slaughter was due to a logical* thought process that culminated in the climax of the story.

Belkar does not look at his moral compass and head south, as it appears you believe. Belkar completely lacks a moral compass. This explains why he is confused at times when he is allowed to kill people instead of punished for it. He literally does not understand morality, and does what he likes. Which, in his case, is incredibly evil.

*Belkar logic =/= good logic.

I tried my best to keep this distinctly away from touching morally justified territory. If I failed, I'll edit (or be edited) accordingly. I'd like this topic to not be locked.

[Keltest]

False. I provide as proof of this the Belkar PDF. He was not a part of an adventuring group, and was not afraid of any possible repurcussions at the time. His slaughter was due to a logical* thought process that culminated in the climax of the story.

Belkar does not look at his moral compass and head south, as it appears you believe. Belkar completely lacks a moral compass. This explains why he is confused at times when he is allowed to kill people instead of punished for it. He literally does not understand morality, and does what he likes. Which, in his case, is incredibly evil.

*Belkar logic =/= good logic.

I tried my best to keep this distinctly away from touching morally justified territory. If I failed, I'll edit (or be edited) accordingly. I'd like this topic to not be locked.

Up to this point I have not been aware of the existence of the "Belkar PDF." so I cant really comment on that.

[Peelee]

Up to this point I have not been aware of the existence of the "Belkar PDF." so I cant really comment on that.

Ahh. Sorry. Kickstarter bonus. I know it's not available to everyone, and I gambled that you'd read it. My bad.

[Keltest]

Ahh. Sorry. Kickstarter bonus. I know it's not available to everyone, and I gambled that you'd read it. My bad.

Bwahahah! now you must pay me all your monies!

oh wait, we weren't betting. Darn.

[evileeyore]

The point is that Belkar's first inclination is to slaughter everything indiscriminately
False.

Belkar's first inclination is to have fun. Does this (more often than not) include hurting others? Yes*. However he is equally in his element seducing women (Jenny (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0611.html)**) and cooking.



* Because he enjoys the suffering of others.

** Note, he not only didn't kill Jenny, he avoided killing her and took actions that were more difficult (trip attack, sexy grappled, ranged attack whilst sexy grappling) because he choose to seduce rather than kill, when it would have been perfectly okay for him to kill her and he knew it.

There you go Peelee, an in comic example.

[Peelee]

False.

Belkar's first inclination is to have fun. Does this (more often than not) include hurting others? Yes*. However he is equally in his element seducing women (Jenny (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0611.html)**) and cooking.



* Because he enjoys the suffering of others.

** Note, he not only didn't kill Jenny, he avoided killing her and took actions that were more difficult (trip attack, sexy grappled, ranged attack whilst sexy grappling) because he choose to seduce rather than kill, when it would have been perfectly okay for him to kill her and he knew it.

There you go Peelee, an in comic example.

Huzzah! Everything he said, with "moral compass blah blah" tacked on the end.

[Keltest]

False.

Belkar's first inclination is to have fun. Does this (more often than not) include hurting others? Yes*. However he is equally in his element seducing women (Jenny (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0611.html)**) and cooking.



* Because he enjoys the suffering of others.

** Note, he not only didn't kill Jenny, he avoided killing her and took actions that were more difficult (trip attack, sexy grappled, ranged attack whilst sexy grappling) because he choose to seduce rather than kill, when it would have been perfectly okay for him to kill her and he knew it.

There you go Peelee, an in comic example.

Its still semantics. Whether or not hes explicitly doing it for the sake of slaughtering people or because he likes it, Belkar would rather be killing or otherwise violent far more often than not.

[evileeyore]

Its still semantics.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.



Whether or not hes explicitly doing it for the sake of slaughtering people or because he likes it, Belkar would rather be killing or otherwise violent far more often than not.
Then riddle me this Batman, why isn't Belkar doing what he wants to do?


But before you answer you need to know where I'm coming from: Action Theory (and several other branches of philosophy and psychology).

Action Theory argues (at it's simplest) that every action one takes is directed by their desires and beliefs.

"I am thirsty, I believe that cup contains water" is followed by taking the cup and drinking the water.


Therefore, so long as Belkar has agency he will always be doing what he wants. Now before you retort with "But he always wants to hurt so blah, blah, blah" realize this: Belkar also wants to not be retributed*.

Therefore he weighs the two wants: Immediate Gratification of Desires vs Possibility of Negative Retribution.

When Retribution wins out over Gratification we get non-stabby Belkar. When it's the opposite, we get Belkar murdering a Gnome (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0539.html) or a Kobold (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0567.html) because he misweighed the two**.

When he can't properly weigh them we get confused Belkar (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0780.html), unable to make a decision.***

And when Gratification wins out over possibility Retribution we get Belkar stuffing the intestines of human into another still living human (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0781.html).




* I'm deliberately using this improper term because Belkar has shown again and again that he doesn't understand enough to not only not know Right from Wong on an emotional level, but fails to grasp it on an Intellectual level (mostly because he doesn't pay attention enough for the latter and has no capacity for the former) as well. Thus the ,ore proper term of Punishment is actually not correct here.

** Again, Attention Deficit Belkar strikes!

*** This is on account of footnote number one. He has no emotional grounding to make a choice and hasn't paid enough attention to be able to make one intellectually. Counter-argument: He did understand his situation completely and was just being a pain in the ass because he could get away with it and rub the whole "situational ethics" nonsense in the party's face.

[Keltest]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.



Then riddle me this Batman, why isn't Belkar doing what he wants to do?


But before you answer you need to know where I'm coming from: Action Theory (and several other branches of philosophy and psychology).

Action Theory argues (at it's simplest) that every action one takes is directed by their desires and beliefs.

"I am thirsty, I believe that cup contains water" is followed by taking the cup and drinking the water.


Therefore, so long as Belkar has agency he will always be doing what he wants. Now before you retort with "But he always wants to hurt so blah, blah, blah" realize this: Belkar also wants to not be retributed*.

Therefore he weighs the two wants: Immediate Gratification of Desires vs Possibility of Negative Retribution.

When Retribution wins out over Gratification we get non-stabby Belkar. When it's the opposite, we get Belkar murdering a Gnome (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0539.html) or a Kobold (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0567.html) because he misweighed the two**.

When he can't properly weigh them we get confused Belkar (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0780.html), unable to make a decision.***

And when Gratification wins out over possibility Retribution we get Belkar stuffing the intestines of human into another still living human (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0781.html).




* I'm deliberately using this improper term because Belkar has shown again and again that he doesn't understand enough to not only not know Right from Wong on an emotional level, but fails to grasp it on an Intellectual level (mostly because he doesn't pay attention enough for the latter and has no capacity for the former) as well. Thus the ,ore proper term of Punishment is actually not correct here.

** Again, Attention Deficit Belkar strikes!

*** This is on account of footnote number one. He has no emotional grounding to make a choice and hasn't paid enough attention to be able to make one intellectually. Counter-argument: He did understand his situation completely and was just being a pain in the ass because he could get away with it and rub the whole "situational ethics" nonsense in the party's face.


Im not even sure what youre trying to argue for anymore. Yes, Belkar occasionally does non-violent things for various reasons. Hes not a completely 1-dimensional character. Does this have something to do with him being less evil than he started, or are we just arguing about 2 sides of the same position?

[evileeyore]

Im not even sure what youre trying to argue for anymore.
As I said a few posts back: My argument was specifically with orrion stating Belkar had no choice. He has choice (and I've kept on about that ever since).

(He often chooses Evil, and when he doesn't it isn't because he's suddenly Good - we agree completely on that).



...are we just arguing about 2 sides of the same position?
I'm only arguing about determinism vs agency. Probably Completely my fault for stepping into (what page 6?) of an alignment debate. I do try to avoid them as I think alignments are "stupid, poopy, doody-headed" nonsense.

But it's one of my ... buttons when people claim they "had no choice".

[orrion]

As I said a few posts back: My argument was specifically with orrion stating Belkar had no choice. He has choice (and I've kept on about that ever since).

(He often chooses Evil, and when he doesn't it isn't because he's suddenly Good - we agree completely on that).



I'm only arguing about determinism vs agency. Probably Completely my fault for stepping into (what page 6?) of an alignment debate. I do try to avoid them as I think alignments are "stupid, poopy, doody-headed" nonsense.

But it's one of my ... buttons when people claim they "had no choice".

I honestly don't care about that distinction. I'm not sure it's relevant, either, since what it all boils down to is the same thing:

Belkar will do as much evil as he can get away with. He may also choose to do non-Evil things without them having any direct impact on his alignment.

--

Also, I look back on your jail comment. In fact, Belkar is in jail. Remember, Roy said to the Deva "instead, the jail travels with him, with me as head warden."

[evileeyore]

I honestly don't care about that distinction.
I see.



Also, I look back on your jail comment. In fact, Belkar is in jail. Remember, Roy said to the Deva "instead, the jail travels with him, with me as head warden."
In fact, no he's not. While it makes for a witty/pithy comment, it is not all the same as being in a jail.




I will grant that to date, jail has actually had less of an impact on Belkar's kill quota than Roy has, but that is more due to "teh funneys" than the way in which jails truthfully function.

[Angelalex242]

Well...

Belkar's down to 62 Nazis of his original 3000. For that, Roy is certainly to be commended.

However, 62 Nazis are still explicitly evil by any other standards save Xykon, Redcloak, Tarquin, Malack, Durkula, and so on. Where Belkar is less evil then they because his Nazi count is now lower then theirs. Xykon's probably up in the 9 kilonazis level of evil or so. Cause, ya know, I could see Giant doing the famous DBZ joke. Hey, Deva, what does the evilometer say about Xykon's evil rating? "It's...OVER 9000!" "What 9000!?" *crushes Evilometer.*

So...in summation, 62 Nazis is certainly less then 3000 Nazis. However, 62 Nazis is still very evil.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Well...

Belkar's down to 62 Nazis of his original 3000. For that, Roy is certainly to be commended.

However, 62 Nazis are still explicitly evil by any other standards save Xykon, Redcloak, Tarquin, Malack, Durkula, and so on. Where Belkar is less evil then they because his Nazi count is now lower then theirs. Xykon's probably up in the 9 kilonazis level of evil or so. Cause, ya know, I could see Giant doing the famous DBZ joke. Hey, Deva, what does the evilometer say about Xykon's evil rating? "It's...OVER 9000!" "What 9000!?" *crushes Evilometer.*

So...in summation, 62 Nazis is certainly less then 3000 Nazis. However, 62 Nazis is still very evil.

The amount of nazis shown by the Deva seems to be a representation of how much Evil one has committed, based on her comment "what he would have done". Belkar has committed less Evil while with Roy, which is why his count has dropped. How Evil he is is not necessarily reflected by how many kilonazis he gets on the Deva's chart.

[Keltest]

The amount of nazis shown by the Deva seems to be a representation of how much Evil one has committed, based on her comment "what he would have done". Belkar has committed less Evil while with Roy, which is why his count has dropped. How Evil he is is not necessarily reflected by how many kilonazis he gets on the Deva's chart.

You know, for that matter, Angelalex, you bring this up a lot, and you ALWAYS get this response, which you seem to promptly ignore. What gives?

[Jaxzan Proditor]

You know, for that matter, Angelalex, you bring this up a lot, and you ALWAYS get this response, which you seem to promptly ignore. What gives?

Also, for that matter , why do you say 62 Nazis? Looking at the chart, I'd say he could be anywhere around 0.5 kn.

[orrion]

Well...

Belkar's down to 62 Nazis of his original 3000. For that, Roy is certainly to be commended.

However, 62 Nazis are still explicitly evil by any other standards save Xykon, Redcloak, Tarquin, Malack, Durkula, and so on. Where Belkar is less evil then they because his Nazi count is now lower then theirs. Xykon's probably up in the 9 kilonazis level of evil or so. Cause, ya know, I could see Giant doing the famous DBZ joke. Hey, Deva, what does the evilometer say about Xykon's evil rating? "It's...OVER 9000!" "What 9000!?" *crushes Evilometer.*

So...in summation, 62 Nazis is certainly less then 3000 Nazis. However, 62 Nazis is still very evil.

... How did you get 62?

That chart is irrelevant to the question at hand. Heck, you can't even use it to prove what you're asserting here because none of the other characters you mention have been judged.

[Jay R]

The clear result of this discussion is that everyone whose mind can be changed has been changed. We have all accomplished as much of our goal as is possible.

[Angelalex242]

It was 500 Nazis at the time of Roy's death. Then it was halved again, 250, again, 125, and again, 62.5, which I rounded down to 62. This is the continuing influence of Roy on Belkar's behavior up to present day.

Indeed, it may have been halved again by now, which would take it down to 31 Nazis.

To my way of thinking, Belkar ends up in Limbo (CN) if Roy can successfully get him down to 1 Nazi, and then halve that one Nazi one last time. That is 'mission accomplished' if Roy's goal is to save him from the Abyss.

You are not obligated to agree with me, of course. This is not a board with thought police, after all. But it's how I see it.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

It was 500 Nazis at the time of Roy's death. Then it was halved again, 250, again, 125, and again, 62.5, which I rounded down to 62. This is the continuing influence of Roy on Belkar's behavior up to present day.

Indeed, it may have been halved again by now, which would take it down to 31 Nazis.

To my way of thinking, Belkar ends up in Limbo (CN) if Roy can successfully get him down to 1 Nazi, and then halve that one Nazi one last time. That is 'mission accomplished' if Roy's goal is to save him from the Abyss.

You are not obligated to agree with me, of course. This is not a board with thought police, after all. But it's how I see it.

I don't see where you are getting all those halves. Or, for that matter, why you think Belkar's observed Evil actions relates to his actual alignment.

[Angelalex242]

A good character who never does good isn't good, he's neutral.
An evil character who never does evil likewise isn't evil, he's neutral.

Belkar doesn't have to be good, or even nice, to get out of evil. He just has to stop being actively evil.

Good and Evil are proactive things. Only Neutral supports inaction.

[Kish]

Your argument hinges on an unstated premise I find insupportable: That every character, over time, will naturally "drift" toward the midpoint.

Belkar has a lot to make up for to be other than evil. If the Order rescued Dorukan and Lirian from the gem Xykon stuck their souls in without also resurrecting them, they would not go to the Neutral afterlife because their years without doing any good deeds have caused them to become Neutral.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

A good character who never does good isn't good, he's neutral.
An evil character who never does evil likewise isn't evil, he's neutral.

Belkar doesn't have to be good, or even nice, to get out of evil. He just has to stop being actively evil.

Good and Evil are proactive things. Only Neutral supports inaction.

Belkar wishes to do more Evil than what Roy allows him to do. His intent matters greatly in his alignment, not just what he does. I would say that his growing empathy toward others will go a lot further in influencing his alignment than what he is being allowed to do. Also, you appear to be claiming that if Belkar sat around doing nothing, this would remove the stain of his past deeds enough that he would go to the Neutral afterlife instead.

[Angelalex242]

Oh, I didn't say that was true of dead characters. Once you're dead, your alignment's locked in.

But while you still live...the greatest evil is when good men do nothing. And the greatest good fortune for the world is lazy evildoers.

Being good, or evil, lawful, or chaotic is something you have to work at, every day. A character that stops taking a stand is inevitably pulled towards TN...the sinkhole of those who do nothing.

Thus, a good character must not become weary of doing good, nor can an evil character stop doing evil. A lawful character must uphold the law, or at least his self discipline in the case of monks, at least in his own life, day by day, where a chaotic character must uphold his right to do what he wants.

Thus, True Neutral...except in the case of Druids...is really D&D's code for 'lazy people.'

Indeed, the true purpose of Outlands is for Lazy People to head for the city of alignment they thought they were in life, and try to earn entrance posthumously.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Oh, I didn't say that was true of dead characters. Once you're dead, your alignment's locked in.

But while you still live...the greatest evil is when good men do nothing. And the greatest good fortune for the world is lazy evildoers.

Being good, or evil, lawful, or chaotic is something you have to work at, every day. A character that stops taking a stand is inevitably pulled towards TN...the sinkhole of those who do nothing.

Thus, a good character must not become weary of doing good, nor can an evil character stop doing evil. A lawful character must uphold the law, or at least his self discipline in the case of monks, at least in his own life, day by day, where a chaotic character must uphold his right to do what he wants.

Thus, True Neutral...except in the case of Druids...is really D&D's code for 'lazy people.'

Neutral can also be an alignment that people commit to, choosing to uphold it over the extremes of Good and Evil, of Law and Chaos. While for some it is not choosing a side, for others it is a careful decision. Some Neutral characters must be careful to uphold their neutrality, or else slip into an extreme.

[evileeyore]

The clear result of this discussion is that everyone whose mind can be changed has been changed. We have all accomplished as much of our goal as is possible.
Only if everyone understands the difference between choice (agency) and no choice (determinism), otherwise there are still minds to improve.

[orrion]

A good character who never does good isn't good, he's neutral.
An evil character who never does evil likewise isn't evil, he's neutral.

Belkar doesn't have to be good, or even nice, to get out of evil. He just has to stop being actively evil.

Good and Evil are proactive things. Only Neutral supports inaction.

No, he has to CHOOSE to stop being evil, not be prevented from being evil.

A murderer you imprison for life doesn't become Neutral just because his 8x10 cell prevents him from murdering again.

I also think you're misunderstanding the Neutral alignment. Neutral doesn't mean inaction. Neutral still makes choices and takes actions - it's just that the character doesn't necessarily care whether those choices and actions are good or evil.


Only if everyone understands the difference between choice (agency) and no choice (determinism), otherwise there are still minds to improve.

Again, that's irrelevant here. I understand it just fine. I just don't think it changes anything with regard to this discussion.

[Kish]

Oh, I didn't say that was true of dead characters.

Not the point. (I wouldn't agree even it it was the point, but it's not.) It's not true of anyone. If Xykon had locked Dorukan and Lirian, still alive, in a cell, they would still emerge from that cell still as Good as they went in--unless, of course, something in their minds changed in the meantime. There is no automatic drifting toward Neutral.

Indeed, the true purpose of Outlands is for Lazy People to head for the city of alignment they thought they were in life, and try to earn entrance posthumously.
You're confusing your house rules and interpretations with OotS again.

[evileeyore]

Again, that's irrelevant here. I understand it just fine. I just don't think it changes anything with regard to this discussion.
Irrelevant? You just argued with someone about choice and yet you insist that Belkar making choices is irrelevant?

:smallwink: We are definitely arguing the same points.

[hamishspence]

You're confusing your house rules and interpretations with OotS again.

While it's not the only purpose for the Outlands - the Gate Towns at least (in Manual of the Planes) shift to the relevant planes once the people in them are strongly aligned enough and there's enough of them.

A new Gate Town begins to grow in the place of a shifted one.

However - there's more to the Outlands than those - some TN deities have their domains there.

[theNater]

A good character who never does good isn't good, he's neutral.
An evil character who never does evil likewise isn't evil, he's neutral.

Belkar doesn't have to be good, or even nice, to get out of evil. He just has to stop being actively evil.

Good and Evil are proactive things. Only Neutral supports inaction.
Belkar is still killing and/or attempting to kill sentient beings for fun and profit on a fairly regular basis, so I'm not sure why you think he hasn't done any Evil.

And even if he hadn't, that doesn't answer how you've decided his Evil level has halved precisely 3 times since Roy's death.

[factotum]

Belkar is still killing and/or attempting to kill sentient beings for fun and profit on a fairly regular basis, so I'm not sure why you think he hasn't done any Evil.

In particular, he murdered Solt Lorkyurg for no reason other than he wanted the confectionery the guy was eating, and murdered the Oracle just because he was slightly annoyed with his evasive answers. He killed the leader of the slave-drivers, true, but not to save the innocent humans--he only killed him because he threatened Mr. Scruffy; without that, he'd have happily seen him on his way with his human cargo. We also have absolutely no idea what he was up to between Roy's death and us rejoining the action some three months and change later. Given all that, to state categorically that Belkar's actual kilonazi output has reduced in any way, much less halved three times, is somewhat baffling...

[YoshiBoy13]

Stop oppressing his culture, you ethnocentric :smalltongue:!

[Reddish Mage]

Indeed, the true purpose of Outlands is for Lazy People to head for the city of alignment they thought they were in life, and try to earn entrance posthumously.

I thought the some gatetowns were pretty awful (the ones bordering evil gates), and people lived there mostly because they had to. Most people just can't travel the outlands at will and sur...what happens if you die on an outerplane?

[Keltest]

I thought the some gatetowns were pretty awful (the ones bordering evil gates), and people lived there mostly because they had to. Most people just can't travel the outlands at will and sur...what happens if you die on an outerplane?

Um.... Id imagine that depends on the DM. If I had to hazard a guess, you are utterly vanquished, forever (assuming you are a spirit. Otherwise it might depend on the plane, but I think you just die for most of them). Your essence is assimilated into the plane your spirit belongs to, and is eventually used to create creatures of that plane.

[dancrilis]

It is entirely possible that Belkar will end up being Lawful Good.

Here is the events that lead to this:
Belkar is instrumental in freeing Durkon from being a vampire and bringing him back.
Belkar hears a bit about the lawful good afterlife (somehow - perhaps Durkon with a bit on knowledge religion after his experience). i.e Free sex and challenging monsters to kill.
Durkon offers Belkar Atonement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm) for his misdeeds - which Belkar accepts.

Bang instant LG heaven - no need to have a lengthy interview all crimes wiped clean, the angels can only sit by and complain about people gaming the system.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

It is entirely possible that Belkar will end up being Lawful Good.

Here is the events that lead to this:
Belkar is instrumental in freeing Durkon from being a vampire and bringing him back.
Belkar hears a bit about the lawful good afterlife (somehow - perhaps Durkon with a bit on knowledge religion after his experience). i.e Free sex and challenging monsters to kill.
Durkon offers Belkar Atonement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm) for his misdeeds - which Belkar accepts.

Bang instant LG heaven - no need to have a lengthy interview all crimes wiped clean, the angels can only sit by and complain about people gaming the system.

Faster way: Helm of Opposite Alignemnt.

[Peelee]

It is entirely possible that Belkar will end up being Lawful Good.

Here is the events that lead to this:
Belkar is instrumental in freeing Durkon from being a vampire and bringing him back.
Belkar hears a bit about the lawful good afterlife (somehow - perhaps Durkon with a bit on knowledge religion after his experience). i.e Free sex and challenging monsters to kill.
Durkon offers Belkar Atonement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm) for his misdeeds - which Belkar accepts.

Bang instant LG heaven - no need to have a lengthy interview all crimes wiped clean, the angels can only sit by and complain about people gaming the system.

The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds.

So yeah, I'm gonna say that plan wouldn't work.

[dancrilis]

Faster way: Helm of Opposite Alignemnt.

A magic item likely wouldn't be considered legitimate (he would lose it on entry to heaven anyway).

However atonement by it's very nature is legitimate.

Now Belkar must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right his misdeeds - however his misdeeds and his true repentance are likely up to Thor (as the acting deity) and he might feel he owes Durkon one.

Belkars would repent that he is not getting heaven.
Repent: feel regret
And he would be desirous of setting right this misdeed.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

A magic item likely wouldn't be considered legitimate (he would lose it on entry to heaven anyway).

However atonement by it's very nature is legitimate.

Now Belkar must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right his misdeeds - however his misdeeds and his true repentance are likely up to Thor (as the acting deity) and he might feel he owes Durkon one.

Belkars would repent that he is not getting heaven.
Repent: feel regret
And he would be desirous of setting right this misdeed.
I was just talking about the whole making him LG. Getting him into heaven is harder, and having Thor decide that Belkar has atoned probably won't cut it for the Divas. Isn't there a spell from BoED that turns Evil people Good?

[Keltest]

I was just talking about the whole making him LG. Getting him into heaven is harder, and having Thor decide that Belkar has atoned probably won't cut it for the Divas. Isn't there a spell from BoED that turns Evil people Good?

you might be thinking of the item Phylactery of Faithfulness, which basically magically compels the bearer to make "good" choices. Atonement as a spell allows a cleric to convert a willing subject to their own alignment.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

you might be thinking of the item Phylactery of Faithfulness, which basically magically compels the bearer to make "good" choices. Atonement as a spell allows a cleric to convert a willing subject to their own alignment.

I remembered the spell I was thinking of. Sanctify the Wicked, cast by Durkon, would eventually make Belkar LG. It's out of his grasp currently (1. Durkon is dead 2. It's a 9th level spell) but it would work.

[dancrilis]

you might be thinking of the item Phylactery of Faithfulness, which basically magically compels the bearer to make "good" choices. Atonement as a spell allows a cleric to convert a willing subject to their own alignment.

I believe that they are refering to the spell Mindrape (http://dndtools.eu/spells/book-of-vile-darkness--37/mindrape--165/) ... no wait ... I am sorry wrong book Sanctify the Wicked (http://dndtools.eu/spells/book-of-exalted-deeds--52/sanctify-the-wicked--93/).

Because when the good guys do it its all right.

But I think Atonement is a better fit.

[Keltest]

I believe that they are refering to the spell Mindrape (http://dndtools.eu/spells/book-of-vile-darkness--37/mindrape--165/) ... no wait ... I am sorry wrong book Sanctify the Wicked (http://dndtools.eu/spells/book-of-exalted-deeds--52/sanctify-the-wicked--93/).

Because when the good guys do it its all right.

But I think Atonement is a better fit.

The spell effect implies that the only thing forced is the introspection (which, over a year's length of time, is almost certainly going to happen anyway) and the soul turns good on its own. Sure its based on a belief that souls default to "good" and want to be that way on some level, but hey. Morality as a whole is too complex to adequately simulate in a game (not to mention people aren't likely to be objective about it when writing the rules) so I have no problems with them making that assumption.

[Kish]

I am, shall we say, skeptical that Rich would want to have one of his heroes cast Sanctify the Wicked on anyone, least of all on another of the comic's protagonists.

[Keltest]

I am, shall we say, skeptical that Rich would want to have one of his heroes cast Sanctify the Wicked on anyone, least of all on another of the comic's protagonists.

Yeah, among other reasons its right up there with True Resurrection in the "killer of stories" category.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I am, shall we say, skeptical that Rich would want to have one of his heroes cast Sanctify the Wicked on anyone, least of all on another of the comic's protagonists.

So am I. But, in a discussion about how Belkar might become Lawful Good, I'm automatically assuming I don't need to care about authorial intent.

[Peelee]

A magic item likely wouldn't be considered legitimate (he would lose it on entry to heaven anyway).

However atonement by it's very nature is legitimate.

Now Belkar must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right his misdeeds - however his misdeeds and his true repentance are likely up to Thor (as the acting deity) and he might feel he owes Durkon one.

Belkars would repent that he is not getting heaven.
Repent: feel regret
And he would be desirous of setting right this misdeed.

Yeah, that sends more like bad fanfic-level writing. I'd full-on stop reading the comic if that happened, because screw consequences, lets let everyone do anything with no backlash because reasons, and also they're all named Mary Sue.

[dancrilis]

The spell effect implies that the only thing forced is the introspection (which, over a year's length of time, is almost certainly going to happen anyway) and the soul turns good on its own. Sure its based on a belief that souls default to "good" and want to be that way on some level, but hey. Morality as a whole is too complex to adequately simulate in a game (not to mention people aren't likely to be objective about it when writing the rules) so I have no problems with them making that assumption.

I would almost except that except for the year bit.
364 days: still evil and hates you.
364.5 days: still evil and hates you.
364.75 days: still evil and hates you.
365 days: Good now (discounting the .25 for a leap year).

That is not a natural process of considering your life and choices.


Yeah, that sends more like bad fanfic-level writing. I'd full-on stop reading the comic if that happened, because screw consequences, lets let everyone do anything with no backlash because reasons, and also they're all named Mary Sue.
I don't know I can see the funny side - and he would be LG after the spell.
I have my suspicions that this will not happen - but hey if the joke fits.

[Keltest]

I would almost except that except for the year bit.
364 days: still evil and hates you.
364.5 days: still evil and hates you.
364.75 days: still evil and hates you.
365 days: Good now (discounting the .25 for a leap year).

That is not a natural process of considering your life and choices.

I guess its just DM's choice, as the language of the spell does not say "if the gem is broken before a year is up" but instead "if the gem is broken before the soul finds penance." which implies that it could conceivably take less than a year to me.

[Peelee]

I would almost except that except for the year bit.
364 days: still evil and hates you.
364.5 days: still evil and hates you.
364.75 days: still evil and hates you.
365 days: Good now (discounting the .25 for a leap year).

That is not a natural process of considering your life and choices.


I don't know I can see the funny side - and he would be LG after the spell.
I have my suspicions that this will not happen - but hey if the joke fits.

Jokes shouldn't break the story. The Giant clearly cares about characterization over cheap humor. Especially since one if the messages he's going for is "Evil isn't cool, guys," I can't imagine this happening unless a Belkar fanboy hijacks the site and uploads his own version of the strip.

[dancrilis]

Jokes shouldn't break the story. The Giant clearly cares about characterization over cheap humor. Especially since one if the messages he's going for is "Evil isn't cool, guys," I can't imagine this happening unless a Belkar fanboy hijacks the site and uploads his own version of the strip.

Again I would doubt it would occur.

However my initial version was not so much a this happens as a one page joke.

But more a protracted period of character development from Belkar where he saves Durkon from a possibility of eternal enslavement - and might begin to consider some things along the way about how he might have been better.
Not anywhere enough to redeem him or make him a remorseful character crying about his misdeeds - but enough slivers of light that he might be conceivable redeemed.
And than being offered that redemption on a platter by his friend Durkon (the very person he saved).

Essentially his saving Durkon becomes his atonement quest.

The joke would be the Divas as Belkar walks in without bother (the diva holding a whole load of paperwork that they had carted in to discuss).

[Peelee]

Again I would doubt it would occur.

However my initial version was not so much a this happens as a one page joke.

But more a protracted period of character development from Belkar where he saves Durkon from a possibility of eternal enslavement - and might begin to consider some things along the way about how he might have been better.
Not anywhere enough to redeem him or make him a remorseful character crying about his misdeeds - but enough slivers of light that he might be conceivable redeemed.
And than being offered that redemption on a platter by his friend Durkon (the very person he saved).

Essentially his saving Durkon becomes his atonement quest.

The joke would be the Divas as Belkar walks in without bother (the diva holding a whole load of paperwork that they had carted in to discuss).

Ok, but the joke then requires Belkar to be instantly killed, or else he can keep being Belkar and reopen the judicial process, which he would then fail

[Angelalex242]

If Rich did a story with Belkar becoming Lawful Good, it'd involve a Helm of Opposite Alignment. Then, when Belkar's goodness stopped being funny, the effect would be undone.

[Koo Rehtorb]

The spell effect implies that the only thing forced is the introspection (which, over a year's length of time, is almost certainly going to happen anyway) and the soul turns good on its own.
Nope.

After one year, the trapped creature's soul adopts the alignment of the spell's caster (lawful good, chaotic good, or neutral good).
If it was entirely introspection then the creature would tend towards L N or C based on their own beliefs, not on the caster's.

[Nilehus]

I just like to pretend that things that violently change a person's alignment don't exist.

It's a violation of the character, in every sense of the word. I understand the place they could have in a story, but I don't like grimdark stories.

Belkar might reach CN before he dies. Maybe. Right now, though, he's still cruising CE. Durkon may be the instrument of his alignment change, but as Belkar himself said, it's not something that happens overnight.

That would be very cool to read, though.

[Paseo H]

I still say that:

1. His 'vision quest' with Shojo wasn't telling him to become good, it was telling him to become a high functioning sociopath instead of a lower functioning one.

2. It hasn't nearly been long enough to affect a real change to his alignment, even if he was capable.

[...]

Sure, but if Roy's influence is successfully blunting Belkar's evil, he just might make it into Pandemonium because his evil is somewhat suppressed. Mind, Pandemonium is still a lower plane and not at all a fun place to be, but it's theoretically better then the Abyss.
-snip-


Actually, in MotP, which is where I get my planar info from, Pandemonium isn't evil-aligned, only chaos-aligned. Sure, it has evil tendencies, but I wouldn't say it was more Infernal than Ysgard is Celestial. Putting that fact in, Belkar will most likely go there, no matter what letter is on the end of his alignment abbreviation.