Belkar's redemption is now complete

[Roland Itiative]

Belkar climbing the Godsmoot mountain (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1015.html) right after a fall that should have killed him is clearly meant to mirror Roy climbing in Celestia (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0493.html) right after suffering a similar fall. Belkar even mentions Roy's fall, bringing to the readers' minds the events past. Now, as the first link shows, the mountain Roy climbed was a trial for enlightenment. The higher the soul climbed, the more enlightened it became. Likewise, Belkar is reaching for the top of a holy (it's presiding a meeting of the gods, after all) mountain, so his trial must also be parallel to Roy's. As such, the only conclusion is that Belkar will have finished his transition from Chaotic Evil to Lawful Good when he reaches the top of the mountain.

This is not a serious theory.

[Coldwind]

Yeah, it sounds like a legit stretching for the Oracle I guess.

[Jasdoif]

Belkar climbing the Godsmoot mountain (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1015.html) right after a fall that should have killed him is clearly meant to mirror Roy climbing in Celestia (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0493.html) right after suffering a similar fall. Belkar even mentions Roy's fall, bringing to the readers' minds the events past. Now, as the first link shows, the mountain Roy climbed was a trial for enlightenment. The higher the soul climbed, the more enlightened it became. Likewise, Belkar is reaching for the top of a holy (it's presiding a meeting of the gods, after all) mountain, so his trial must also be parallel to Roy's. As such, the only conclusion is that Belkar will have finished his transition from Chaotic Evil to Lawful Good when he reaches the top of the mountain.But...wouldn't that mean that Belkar getting thrown off the very mountain he's climbing mean, in the extended analogy, that he rejected (or at least, was denied) the enlightenment at the top?

He probably forgot to tip the cherubim (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0491.html) or something.

[Rift_Wolf]

He's still somewhere southeast of True Neutral atm. Nothing he's said or done reflects a lawful or good stance. Going to fight a good Battle (fighting an evil Vampire) for bad reasons (to prove Roy was wrong and rub his nose in it) is sounding very... Chaotic Neutral to me. By which I mean it doesn't adhere to the alignment system very well and shouldn't be used in the context of discerning good from bad.

Also if it was symbolic, it would've taken Belkar a lot longer to climb.

[Domino Quartz]

He's still somewhere southeast of True Neutral atm. Nothing he's said or done reflects a lawful or good stance. Going to fight a good Battle (fighting an evil Vampire) for bad reasons (to prove Roy was wrong and rub his nose in it) is sounding very... Chaotic Neutral to me. By which I mean it doesn't adhere to the alignment system very well and shouldn't be used in the context of discerning good from bad.


That's the joke. (http://imgur.com/msWIa)

[KorvinStarmast]

He's still somewhere southeast of True Neutral atm. Nothing he's said or done reflects a lawful or good stance. Going to fight a good Battle (fighting an evil Vampire) for bad reasons (to prove Roy was wrong and rub his nose in it) is sounding very... Chaotic Neutral to me. Based on this one strip's monologue, I'd say he's hit Chaotic Neutral (It's All About Me and My Fun!) right in the sweet spot. Him going Lawful makes no sense. Him at some point arriving at Chaotic Good might, but that is a lot of plot and many strips in the future. Mr Scruffy has his work cut out for him.


Also if it was symbolic, it would've taken Belkar a lot longer to climb.
Heh, Everest would be a mere foothill.

[Lord Stoneheart]

Based on this one strip's monologue, I'd say he's hit Chaotic Neutral (It's All About Me and My Fun!) right in the sweet spot. Him going Lawful makes no sense. Him at some point arriving at Chaotic Good might, but that is a lot of plot and many strips in the future. Mr Scruffy has his work cut out for him.


Heh, Everest would be a mere foothill.

I don't see anything in this strip inconsistent with the Chaotic Evil attitude that Belkar has held for a while now. "It's All About Me and My Fun!" is completely consistent with Chaotic Evil. Especially when that person's idea of fun involves stabbings.

:belkar:"And then I'll just stab him in the heart. The vampire, not Roy. Though you know, options open."

(I know the stabbing of Lurky's not an evil act because Lurky is actively being destructive towards all life. And Belkar's probably not 100% serious about stabbing Roy at the moment. It's just that I don't see anything in this strip that suggests he's suddenly having a change of heart, and seeing his previous misdeeds as wrong and something that should be amended. Until he does that, I'm going to continue to view him as Chaotic Evil)

[Prowl]

I feel confident that Lawful is not in Belkar's future in this or any other reality.

[factotum]

Wow. I never knew that climbing a perfectly normal Earthly mountain was a way to atone for a lifetime of murdering people. The astronomers who work at the peak of Mauna Kea must be absolute saints by now!

[Seto]

I disagree with the conclusion (Belkar being redeemed). But I wholeheartedly agree with the analysis : Belkar's climb does mirror Roy's, and I'll add that this parallel is made even easier by the strip title "Climb every mountain" that hints to... Well, other mountains. And the other mountain we've seen is Mount Celestia.
However, following the parallel to its end and claiming Belkar'll be LG soon is dreadfully inconsistent with both characterization and serious treatment of moral issues, two of OotS' most prominent traits. Therefore, the parallel is more likely meant to suggest that Belkar has started some form of betterment (this is backed up by several hints we've had). I believe that the parallel will then be broken and turn out to have been tragic irony. I believe Belkar will never reach the top. Whether because he'll die here, or because the Mechane fortunately picks him up or something.
"Redemption is a very rare and special thing, after all. ...It is not for everyone."

[lenon3579]

Yeah, the allegory is the same. Even the title of the strip refers to a religious music about enlightenment.

But to say he is going to lawful good is too much. I would say chaotic neutral. And that's just a lot of improvement for him. Just one step more and he reaches the most enlightened of all alignments: True Neutral. Or, as I like to call it, Tao Neutral. :D

[Zwiebelchen]

Just one step more and he reaches the most enlightened of all alignments: True Neutral.
The world is grey. Or something. I don't know. I don't care either. Maybe a striped pattern? Or not. What you want. I was trying to give a statement about true neutral but I am too neutral to care. Could be this, could be the other. You know.


True Neutral is one of these funny alignments that no PC could ever have without playing constantly out of character. It's literally an alignment reserved for joke NPCs.

[lenon3579]

The world is grey. Or something. I don't know. I don't care either. Maybe a striped pattern? Or not. What you want. I was trying to give a statement about true neutral but I am too neutral to care. Could be this, could be the other. You know.


True Neutral is one of these funny alignments that no PC could ever have without playing constantly out of character. It's literally an alignment reserved for joke NPCs.

I used to say, when I was more attuned with all that mystic mumbo-jumbo (that I still love), that "the balance between white and black is not grey, but a chessboard". You know, not a homogeneous constancy, but shadings and fractals and opposites-inside-opposites and forever on.

Yeah, I really like true neutrality well played. Is maybe the most difficult of the D&D alignments to roleplay.

[Seto]

True Neutral is one of these funny alignments that no PC could ever have without playing constantly out of character. It's literally an alignment reserved for joke NPCs.

There's a whole handbook in my sig says otherwise.
No, seriously. True Neutral works totally fine as a PC if you're not playing a caricature. But let's get back to the topic at hand. Literary/symbolic analysis is sufficiently rare here that it should deserve our attention when it happens.

[factotum]

True Neutral is one of these funny alignments that no PC could ever have

Every First Edition druid who ever lived would disagree with you there. :smallwink:

[Nightcanon]

Going back to mountains, I'm surprised that there's been no mention of panel 9, strip 622 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0622.html), which seems to be as pertinent to Belkar's development as any allusion to Roy's time in the LG afterlife.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yeah, the allegory is the same. Even the title of the strip refers to a religious music about enlightenment. It refers to a Julie Andrews hit from the 1960's film Sound of Music, songs written by Rodgers and Hammerstein. To call that religious music is a stretch. The nuns singing it were Hollywood nuns, being used as something like a Greek Chorus.

Its relation to the strip and Belkar is obvious: that song is about change, the search for who you are and what your passion is, and the journey anyone takes to find happiness/contentment/self actualization. (Pick your trait based on what you bring to the journey that is life).

Belkar has been going through change since his vision with the old man. He's been more than just comic relief and two blades of gore and death. He's figuratively been climbing that life-mountain since he got over the puking spell and had the aha moment during the fight with the thieves' guild.

I will guess that Rich may be tossing a bit more character development at us for Belkar in the following strips (within the next 10-12) to reflect that ongoing journey. Will he stand at the top and pee on everyone (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0622.html), or will he have a change of heart and be less about "me-me-me" per the sandwichbeforesex example (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0622.html)? We'll see. Mr Scruffy's work is as yet incomplete.

EDIT: ah, nightcanon, I see you were thinking along the same lines. Two thumbs up, even if you ninja'd me. :)

[Zwiebelchen]

Every First Edition druid who ever lived would disagree with you there. :smallwink:
I'd rather say: every player who ever tried to roleplay a druid (consistently) as a PC in first edition would agree with me.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'd rather say: every player who ever tried to roleplay a druid (consistently) as a PC in first edition would agree with me.
Those of us who played it in OD&D very much disagree with you.
Those of us who played Druids in 1e will likely disagree with you, at least in part, given how clunky the nine box alignment game tool is ... and remains. It's very table dependent, how to get alignment not to be a mess.

True Neutral is one of these funny alignments that no PC could ever have without playing constantly out of character. It's literally an alignment reserved for joke NPCs.
Depending on how nuanced and intelligent the Player is, and how wise the DM is, it doesn't have to be that way ... but I've seen it happen that way.

Every First Edition druid who ever lived would disagree with you there. At least some of us would. :smallbiggrin: That said, True Neutral was a challenge to fold into role play, and it needed to be a table where role play mattered. Not all tables went to that length or effort.


Literary/symbolic analysis is sufficiently rare here that it should deserve our attention when it happens. Amen deacon.

[Oerlaf]

I just thought the prophecy of the oracle fulfilled. The Belkar of the past has died for now we see renewed halfling.

It reminds me of Star Wars when Obi-Wan told Luke that Darth Vader killed Luke's father.

[Zwiebelchen]

It reminds me of Star Wars when Obi-Wan told Luke that Darth Vader killed Luke's father.
It was bad writing back then. It would still be bad writing today. ;)

[Peelee]

Wow. I never knew that climbing a perfectly normal Earthly mountain was a way to atone for a lifetime of murdering people. The astronomers who work at the peak of Mauna Kea must be absolute saints by now!
I choose to believe that UK astronomers are notorious for being mass murderers.

It was bad writing back then. It would still be bad writing today. ;)
Wasn't bad writing. It was the whole story not being set yet. Vader wasn't Luke's father, Leia wasn't Luke's sister, etc. When those decisions were made, the previous movies got kind of.... awkward.

[Emanick]

I choose to believe that UK astronomers are notorious for being mass murderers.

Wasn't bad writing. It was the whole story not being set yet. Vader wasn't Luke's father, Leia wasn't Luke's sister, etc. When those decisions were made, the previous movies got kind of.... awkward.

UK astronomers? Isn't Mauna Kea in Hawaii? :smallconfused:

[Peelee]

UK astronomers? Isn't Mauna Kea in Hawaii? :smallconfused:

Yes, but factotum is england-based. I went with the idea that he would know more about local astronomers, and picked Mauna Kea because he needed an observatory on a mountain.

[Killer Angel]

It reminds me of Star Wars when Obi-Wan told Luke that Darth Vader killed Luke's father.

Wasn't it somehow true? :smalltongue:

[factotum]

Yes, but factotum is england-based. I went with the idea that he would know more about local astronomers, and picked Mauna Kea because he needed an observatory on a mountain.

I just couldn't remember the name of that mountain in Chile that has all the observatories on it. :smallsmile:

[Porthos]

Wasn't it somehow true? :smalltongue:

It was very true and was a masterful way of getting out of a corner that they had plotted themselves into, IMO.

...

It was helped by the serendipitous hesitation that Sir Alec Guinness gives in A New Hope just before delivering that line about Vader killing Anakin. But it still absolutely works if one looks at personalities.

Given the mystical nature of the Force and how the Jedi (both in movies and in supplemental material) view Fallen Jedi as different people, it can work very very well.

...

From a certain point of view. :smallamused:

[Jasdoif]

Wasn't it somehow true? :smalltongue:Well, aside from the obvious...Vader did send stormtroopers to Tatooine, where they did kill Luke's paternal figure (his uncle Owen).

[Peelee]

Well, aside from the obvious...Vader did send stormtroopers to Tatooine, where they did kill Luke's paternal figure (his uncle Owen).

Dude, spoilers!

[Zwiebelchen]

Wasn't bad writing. It was the whole story not being set yet. Vader wasn't Luke's father, Leia wasn't Luke's sister, etc. When those decisions were made, the previous movies got kind of.... awkward.
I chose to believe Luke was still hot for sister at the end of the third movie. ;)

Good! Let the awkwardness flow through you...

[Killer Angel]

It was very true and was a masterful way of getting out of a corner that they had plotted themselves into, IMO.


Well, aside from the obvious...Vader did send stormtroopers to Tatooine, where they did kill Luke's paternal figure (his uncle Owen).

So, it was double true!


But that said, I don't think that the prophecy of the oracle is now fulfilled... :smalltongue:

[Lord Stoneheart]

The world is grey. Or something. I don't know. I don't care either. Maybe a striped pattern? Or not. What you want. I was trying to give a statement about true neutral but I am too neutral to care. Could be this, could be the other. You know.


True Neutral is one of these funny alignments that no PC could ever have without playing constantly out of character. It's literally an alignment reserved for joke NPCs.

Isn't that latter statement only true if you do a ridiculous interpretation of True Neutral? (Like switch sides of a battle because "Balance must be maintained!" Or do good/evil/lawful/chaotic actions in alternating patterns? Or apathy to the point of doing nothing ever?) Otherwise there seems to be plenty of sane ways to play True Neutral. I mean there's True Neutral characters in this comic that are not just punchlines. (Namely, V).

Also despite a lot of people talking about redemption and Chaotic Neutral stuff, I'm still not seeing anything in this strip that is inconsistent with Belkar being Chaotic Evil. I mean when it comes to redemption I think Soon's speech has set the standard on what you need to do. And Belkar has done none of that.

[Zwiebelchen]

Isn't that latter statement only true if you do a ridiculous interpretation of True Neutral? (Like switch sides of a battle because "Balance must be maintained!" Or do good/evil/lawful/chaotic actions in alternating patterns? Or apathy to the point of doing nothing ever?)
The problem with true neutral is that they have hardly any reason to ever stick around with the heroes. Or get morally involved in any quest for that matter.
Unless they are mercenaries, in which they would more be chaotic neutral than true neutral.

The problem with true neutral for me is that most characters that I've seen that are "true neutral" actually play out as chaotic neutral.


I mean there's True Neutral characters in this comic that are not just punchlines. (Namely, V).
Is V really true neutral? V feels more like chaotic neutral to me, since most of V's actions tend towards the selfish side of reasoning, with the only exception that V feels like he/she owes Roy, hence why he is the only one who he/she accepts orders from without payment.

[littlebum2002]

The problem with true neutral is that they have hardly any reason to ever stick around with the heroes. Or get morally involved in any quest for that matter.
Unless they are mercenaries, in which they would more be chaotic neutral than true neutral.

The problem with true neutral for me is that most characters that I've seen that are "true neutral" actually play out as chaotic neutral.


Is V really true neutral? V feels more like chaotic neutral to me, since most of V's actions tend towards the selfish side of reasoning, with the only exception that V feels like he/she owes Roy, hence why he is the only one who he/she accepts orders from without payment.

V has been confirmed by Rich as True Neutral, and considering that you believe that V and most other True Neutral characters you have seen played are really played as Chaotic Neutral, I think you maybe should question whether you are confusing the two alignments. Because V sometimes tends toward Chaos, and sometimes tends toward Lawfulness, whichever suits V best at the time, and that's pretty much the definition of True Neutral.

[Lord Stoneheart]

The problem with true neutral is that they have hardly any reason to ever stick around with the heroes. Or get morally involved in any quest for that matter.
Unless they are mercenaries, in which they would more be chaotic neutral than true neutral.

The problem with true neutral for me is that most characters that I've seen that are "true neutral" actually play out as chaotic neutral.

It seems that you have a different interpretation of Chaotic Neutral than most people. What makes a mercenary particularly chaotic? I can see a mercenary being anywhere on the alignment spectrum. (Depending on what scruples they have, and how willingly they do good acts)



Is V really true neutral? V feels more like chaotic neutral to me, since most of V's actions tend towards the selfish side of reasoning, with the only exception that V feels like he/she owes Roy, hence why he is the only one who he/she accepts orders from without payment.

Selfish behavior doesn't mean chaotic. Selfless behavior is typically a hallmark of good. Selfish tends to be either Neutral or Evil depending on how much the behavior affects other people. V's main reason for sticking with the party in the beginning was to gain power. (As it's own end). V doesn't seem particularly bent on following the rules, or following a code like a lawful person would, but they don't seem particularly agitated by them like a chaotic person would. How you describe V seems to describe a person who's true neutral quite well actually. (Though I think V does get payment as being a party member means they are entitled to 1/6th of the party's treasure discovery).

Also The Giant has gone on record saying that he considers V to be true neutral. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?293540-No-love-for-Neutral-alignments-in-OOTS/page2&p=15667889#post15667889

[Peelee]

The problem with true neutral is that they have hardly any reason to ever stick around with the heroes. Or get morally involved in any quest for that matter.
Unless they are mercenaries, in which they would more be chaotic neutral than true neutral.

You seem to be confusing alignment with motivation. While often there is overlap, the two are not inseparable.

[Kish]

Also, Chaotic doesn't mean selfish.

Obviously no one is True Neutral if every possible personality trait has a non-neutral alignment, but that should be taken as a reason to check your premises, not to conclude "True Neutral: a joke alignment."

[Zwiebelchen]

Eh, fine. I guess the conclusion is then that I simply have a different outview of what constitutes "lawful" or "chaotic" behaviour.


You see, the problem with "chaotic" and "neutral" is that the meaning of these terms in Dungeons & Dragons is practically reversed to what they mean in real-life.

In reality, if a thing is scientifically described as chaotic, we mean that it is unpredictable. This by definition means that it can either follow a certain scientific rule or not. This is what makes it unpredictable in the first place.
However, chaotic in a definition described by you guys means that it works per se against a ruleset. In which chaos, again, gets predictable.

If we would define boolean comparators to alignment types in the D&D sense, it would be these:

lawful = lawful
neutral = lawful or not lawful
chaotic = not lawful (as in the inverse)

However, this is not what "chaotic" means in a literal sense.
The most unpredictable behaviour would by this definition be neutral and not chaotic, as you can predict a chaotic person would lie/cheat/whatever to achieve his goals. Only the neutral person is one who can not possibly be predicted.


Thus, for me, the alignments are practically inversed to what they truly are.
Neutral should be chaotic (by definition) and chaotic should be neutral:

lawful = lawful
neutral = not lawful (as in not following the rules)
chaotic = lawful or not lawful (as in being completely unpredictable)



So, to come back to "true neutral" alignment and why it simply doesn't work for a PC in the classical D&D definition:
True neutral would simply mean being indifferent to everything that happens and not having a clearly defined moral compass either. You don't follow the party for a greater goal. You per se defy rules aswell (by my definition; again, chaotic would mean "swinging" between following rules and not following rules). So what would be your motivation in the first place? And who would ever want to have you around? It just rarely works and mostly feels out of place in an adventuring campaign.


Btw, this problem also shows in Belkar. Belkar has been defined as chaotic evil. And in fact, that would actually go against the classical D&D definion of chaotic in the way that he clearly does follow rules from time to time (e.g. the rules defined by Roy as the party leader).
Thus, Belkar - in the classic sense - would qualify as neutral evil, not chaotic evil. Only if we apply my definition (as in: chaotic means unpredictable) Belkar would truly qualify as chaotic evil.

[lenon3579]

So, to come back to "true neutral" alignment and why it simply doesn't work for a PC in the classical D&D definition:
True neutral would simply mean being indifferent to everything that happens and not having a clearly defined moral compass either. You don't follow the party for a greater goal. You per se defy rules aswell (by my definition; again, chaotic would mean "swinging" between following rules and not following rules). So what would be your motivation in the first place? And who would ever want to have you around? It just rarely works and mostly feels out of place in an adventuring campaign.

I couldn't desagree more with you.

True Neutral is a proper moral set. And the druids are the most perfect examples of that, and that's why they originally were supposed to be always True Neutral.

The Universe, the Nature, the Life and all that are True Neutral. Things need to kill other things to survive. Death plays an all-important role in the process of the continuing of Life itself. Even plants nurture themselves from the nutrients from decaying corpses that came to the soil before them. You can imagine a Good character seeing all that and getting on with it? It's not even for "greater good", a sacrifice some Lawful Good people would make, but just "maintaining the system".

So, the whole "balance" thing that the druids are in is that: thinks kill, things die, there are systems that are important, that are individuals that are important. Let's do the better for the system without hindering too much the individual. Let's do the best for the individual without breaking too much the system. It's a pure ecological view.

:::

Moral definitions have nothing to do with scientific definitions. The Chaos vs Law of morals goes something that way:

Law = System > Individual
Chaos = Individual > System

And for Good and Evil:

Good = Others > Me
Evil = Me > Others

So:
Lawful Good => I serve the System for the benefit of Others.
Chaotic Good => I fight for the liberty of Other's Individual rights.
Lawful Evil => I use the System for my own benefit.
Chaotic Evil => All that matters is my own individuality. I. Me. Mine.
Lawful Neutral => All that matters is The System. It is right in its own terms.
Chaotic Neutral => All that matters is Individuality. Do what you Wilt, Shall be the Whole of the Law.
Neutral Good => Let's make Other persons feel better!
Neutral Evil => Hmmm, what profit is there for Me?

[Lord Stoneheart]

Eh, fine. I guess the conclusion is then that I simply have a different outview of what constitutes "lawful" or "chaotic" behaviour.


You see, the problem with "chaotic" and "neutral" is that the meaning of these terms in Dungeons & Dragons is practically reversed to what they mean in real-life.

In reality, if a thing is scientifically described as chaotic, we mean that it is unpredictable. This by definition means that it can either follow a certain scientific rule or not. This is what makes it unpredictable in the first place.
However, chaotic in a definition described by you guys means that it works per se against a ruleset. In which chaos, again, gets predictable.

If we would define boolean comparators to alignment types in the D&D sense, it would be these:

lawful = lawful
neutral = lawful or not lawful
chaotic = not lawful (as in the inverse)

However, this is not what "chaotic" means in a literal sense.
The most unpredictable behaviour would by this definition be neutral and not chaotic, as you can predict a chaotic person would lie/cheat/whatever to achieve his goals. Only the neutral person is one who can not possibly be predicted.


Thus, for me, the alignments are practically inversed to what they truly are.
Neutral should be chaotic (by definition) and chaotic should be neutral:

lawful = lawful
neutral = not lawful (as in not following the rules)
chaotic = lawful or not lawful (as in being completely unpredictable)



So, to come back to "true neutral" alignment and why it simply doesn't work for a PC in the classical D&D definition:
True neutral would simply mean being indifferent to everything that happens and not having a clearly defined moral compass either. You don't follow the party for a greater goal. You per se defy rules aswell (by my definition; again, chaotic would mean "swinging" between following rules and not following rules). So what would be your motivation in the first place? And who would ever want to have you around? It just rarely works and mostly feels out of place in an adventuring campaign.


Btw, this problem also shows in Belkar. Belkar has been defined as chaotic evil. And in fact, that would actually go against the classical D&D definion of chaotic in the way that he clearly does follow rules from time to time (e.g. the rules defined by Roy as the party leader).
Thus, Belkar - in the classic sense - would qualify as neutral evil, not chaotic evil. Only if we apply my definition (as in: chaotic means unpredictable) Belkar would truly qualify as chaotic evil.

Belkar isn't non-chaotic because he follows the rules sometimes. His reasoning for paying any attention to the rules has differed throughout the comic, but it's never been out of any sort of respect for the rules that a neutral or lawful person would have. He follows the rules that Roy puts down when he can't get away with breaking them. Before comic 606 the biggest thing forcing him to follow rules was external factors of force. (Either the Mark of Justice or Roy himself). Actually how the comic itself defines a philosophy of Chaos is outlined in comic 606, and it makes more sense to me for than yours when it comes to roleplaying (Which still didn't answer my question on why a mercenary has to be chaotic). http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html

In any case your view of alignment is incredibly restrictive, that doesn't match with either the 3.5 handbook I've read, or the view of alignment that the comic itself takes. If by definition one of the alignments is impossible to actually roleplay as, then maybe the definition of that alignment needs changing.

And if you insist that a character can only be True Neutral by roleplaying the Neutrals from Futurama ("If I die, tell my wife I said.... Hello.") and then insist that True Neutral is a joke alignment then yes you would be correct with the latter assertion. But you'll have to forgive us for not buying the first assertion. I mean at this point we're basically going:
"No True Neutral characters put sugar on their oatmeal!"
"But Druidy McSecondEditionDruidson puts sugar on her oatmeal!"
"Well then she's no True Neutral!"

[UrielAwakened]

Not yet it isn't.

His sacrifice is coming.

[littlebum2002]

I couldn't desagree more with you.

True Neutral is a proper moral set. And the druids are the most perfect examples of that, and that's why they originally were supposed to be always True Neutral.

The Universe, the Nature, the Life and all that are True Neutral. Things need to kill other things to survive. Death plays an all-important role in the process of the continuing of Life itself. Even plants nurture themselves from the nutrients from decaying corpses that came to the soil before them. You can imagine a Good character seeing all that and getting on with it? It's not even for "greater good", a sacrifice some Lawful Good people would make, but just "maintaining the system".

So, the whole "balance" thing that the druids are in is that: thinks kill, things die, there are systems that are important, that are individuals that are important. Let's do the better for the system without hindering too much the individual. Let's do the best for the individual without breaking too much the system. It's a pure ecological view.




In any case your view of alignment is incredibly restrictive, that doesn't match with either the 3.5 handbook I've read, or the view of alignment that the comic itself takes. If by definition one of the alignments is impossible to actually roleplay as, then maybe the definition of that alignment needs changing.

And if you insist that a character can only be True Neutral by roleplaying the Neutrals from Futurama ("If I die, tell my wife I said.... Hello.") and then insist that True Neutral is a joke alignment then yes you would be correct with the latter assertion. But you'll have to forgive us for not buying the first assertion. I mean at this point we're basically going:
"No True Neutral characters put sugar on their oatmeal!"
"But Druidy McSecondEditionDruidson puts sugar on her oatmeal!"
"Well then she's no True Neutral!"

If you think his view of True Neutral is wrong, then you obviously haven't read many 3.5 handbooks. There's a reason every non magical animal in there is True Neutral. It means you look out for yourself first and foremost (but without needlessly harming others) and that you're not beholden to a system of artificial laws (like a Lawful character would be), but that you're not overly concerned with rebelling against authority either.

[lenon3579]

I have one thing to point.

Chaotic Evil guys don't risk their own lifes to the benefit of others. That's pretty basic common sense, I doubt someone will argue that. Maybe Belkar wouldn't have how to predict that the Godsmoot would be so dangerous to him at first. But, certainly after being beaten down by an Almost-Epic-Cleric-Vampire-Turned-Wolf, being reduced to a few remaining hit points and weaponless Ol' Lil' Death's Helper certainly would "f*** off, I'm not going to kill myself just because that self-righteous dumb-lawful-ass cannot tell black from white. I'm out of this". And yet there he is, up the "ridiculous unnecessary mountain", against lots of vampires, weaponless, low on HP.

Oh, he is bantering, right. He is making some nasty punchlines, like "options open"... actually, only that one. But it's a banter, even V made some of them, nastier indeed, and he is still definitely not-evil. And I think noone here would think he is something near-serious about killing Roy, after all that last hundred-or-so strips.

Yes, I think he is really going north on the alignment chart. He actually cares about those people right now. And the fact that he climbed that mountain up into certain danger with no personal reward in sight is the big turnover. That's why the analogy with the former climbing from Roy. It's really a very perfect allegory for his development.

I wouldn't be surprised if his clasp won't damage him next time it's activated.

[Kish]

Btw, this problem also shows in Belkar. Belkar has been defined as chaotic evil. And in fact, that would actually go against the classical D&D definion of chaotic in the way that he clearly does follow rules from time to time (e.g. the rules defined by Roy as the party leader).
Thus, Belkar - in the classic sense - would qualify as neutral evil, not chaotic evil. Only if we apply my definition (as in: chaotic means unpredictable) Belkar would truly qualify as chaotic evil.
As far as I can tell, what you're saying is:

According to You Guys Classic, to be Chaotic, Belkar would need to go out of his way to break every rule and be unable to fit into any party because he would always avoid doing what the party leader wanted.
According to Zweibelchen, to be Chaotic, Belkar would need to be unpredictable.

But Belkar is, in fact, one of the most predictable members of the Order, as has been demonstrated multiple times when other members of the Order correctly assume he'll choose the most violent option. And if You Guys Classic was correct then Chaotic would be the alignment that can't be played except for joke characters--which tells me why you would say your True Neutral is unplayable except for joke characters, considering you also say that your "Neutral" is You Guys Classic's "Chaotic."

You have made an airtight case that in the alignment systems invented by yourself and You Guys Classic, at least one of the alignments is unplayable. I would suspect that nine are unplayable, actually. But that leads right back to where I began: You should check your premises, and if you have invented an alignment system (or two, since I don't believe anyone else here has actually said the things you attribute to You Guys Classic) which doesn't work you should throw that system out as a failure and revert to the alignment system in the D&D 3.5ed Player's Handbook, not brag about how nonfunctional your system is.

I have one thing to point.

Chaotic Evil guys don't risk their own lifes to the benefit of others. That's pretty basic common sense, I doubt someone will argue that.
Both in the general and in the specific, of course I will. Belkar would have risked his life for Mr. Scruffy hundreds of strips ago. This amounts to claiming that Chaotic Evil people are automata who follow a weird inverted version of Asimov's Laws of Robotics, not actual people.

Beyond that, the claim is immaterial because there's no way it makes any sense to read the situation that Belkar is acting solely for "the benefit of others." Maybe he understands that the world, a world he's in, is in danger, or maybe he wants revenge on the vampire, but it will cause me no surprise but mild annoyance if anyone claims that the main thing on Belkar's mind here is, "I have to protect Roy!" and/or "I have to protect all those priests who don't know they're in danger!"

[daremetoidareyo]

Belkar is prophesized to draw his last breath before the years end. So it seems likely that he'll become undead. Or straight up perma-die. The question is, under what circumstances will he be redeemed? If at all?

[Lord Stoneheart]

If you think his view of True Neutral is wrong, then you obviously haven't read many 3.5 handbooks. There's a reason every non magical animal in there is True Neutral. It means you look out for yourself first and foremost (but without needlessly harming others) and that you're not beholden to a system of artificial laws (like a Lawful character would be), but that you're not overly concerned with rebelling against authority either.

I'm slightly confused how his definition of True Neutral fits in with your definition of True Neutral. He's arguing that:
"True neutral would simply mean being indifferent to everything that happens and not having a clearly defined moral compass either. You don't follow the party for a greater goal"

I'm arguing that True Neutral doesn't necessarily mean you are indifferent to everything. I uh don't have access to any handbooks on me. But the d20srd says this:

"A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run."

Which seems to fit your definition just fine, but not Zweibelchen's definition.

[Scarlet Knight]

I just thought the prophecy of the oracle fulfilled. The Belkar of the past has died for now we see renewed halfling.

It reminds me of Star Wars when Obi-Wan told Luke that Darth Vader killed Luke's father.

"Your halfling... was seduced by the Lord Shojo. He ceased to be the Sexy Shoeless God of War and "became" a team player. When that happened, the evil Belkar who was your ranger was destroyed. So, what I told you was true... from a certain point of view. "

[lenon3579]

But the d20srd says this:

"A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.".

Yes, I'm one of those who commit themselves philosophically to neutrality.

But yes, the great majority of human beings in our world are True Neutral. They prefer to have good neighbours and rulers than nasty ones, they generally thinks that is a good idea to have rules, but will break some if it is for their best interest - or if they think that specific rule is wrong... mostly little things like downloading pirate mp3 and movies, or driving above the speed limit (who never?) or other things like that. They are not *good*, nor *evil*. They will help a friend in need, but look through a helpless poor on the street as if it wasn't there. They are capable of doing the most atrocious and the most enlightened, and maybe even one the day after the other, without paying it any heed. People in general are not fulfillers of the letter of the law, but also they are not law-breakers just-for-the-lose. Nor *lawful* nor *chaotic*. People, everyday people, the vast majority of humanity are like that, True Neutrals.

And man, I dare you to call them "indifferent" or without any "greater goal". They are all full of passion and even self-righteousness and morals. They just don't care about the extremities, but that don't mean at all that they don't care about any other thing.

The same to D&D characters. A True Neutral that isn't committed to the philosophical value of neutrality is only someone that don't care about the disputes between extremes in morality and ethics. But that don't mean that they won't be full of passion and goals and wanderlust. He will sometimes help people "because I liked him", or "because nobody deserves to have their children kidnapped by demons", but sometimes the link will not be strong enough to touch him. But he will always have some profit (and who don't?). He is not moved by strong moral principles... but that don't means that he is not moved at all. Heck, you don't need to roleplay a joke character to roleplay True Neutral... you just needs to roleplay a normal and sane person. [Because anyone that commits himself to any of the extremes is a little step away from sanity, right].

But, anyway, a perfectly normal and sane person that willingly throws himself on a dungeon full of monsters just to kill and loot may be the real joke there, you know.

[Seto]

Zwiebelchen : I add my voice to the chorus of those who disagree with you. Your vision of alignment would render fine character concepts practically unplayable.

Chaotic doesn't mean "systematically does the opposites of what the rules say". A Chaotic Neutral character breaks the rules when it suits them, but most don't go out of their way to break a rule just because it exists. They may follow rules, they just don't see the point. So no, they're not especially predictable.

Neutral characters see the point of most rules and consider themselves bound by them, but won't go out of their way to follow rules when it's pointless or especially inconvenient, and upholding the law is not especially high on their list of priorities.

Lawful characters think that clear rules are necessary and must be obeyed, even at cost to one's own interests. They will generally uphold them. They might break them, but only when there's a clear conflict between the law and something towards which they have a greater duty (Good for a Paladin, for example).

Individual characters may vary, because good characters are complex and sometimes go against what one might expect.

EDIT : Lenon, I really enjoyed your chessboard quote. Can I borrow it for my handbook ?

[Mightymosy]

Whether Belkar's redemption is near or not, I think Belkar is in deep sh*t right now.

All the stuff he mumbles while climbing up the mountain. The awesome jokes about Roy he is going to make.
How does he expect to deliver those after he spoiled them early?

I don't know what will happen, but the thing Belkar dreams of? Not gonna happen anymore now.

After all the time he spent with :elan: he really should know better.

[lenon3579]

EDIT : Lenon, I really enjoyed your chessboard quote. Can I borrow it for my handbook ?

Be my guest. :smallcool:

[Seto]

Thank you. It went to section 3, and you're in the acknowledgments.


All the stuff he mumbles while climbing up the mountain. The awesome jokes about Roy he is going to make.
How does he expect to deliver those after he spoiled them early?

Maybe he didn't make the Spot check to realize he's on-screen? :smallbiggrin:

[KorvinStarmast]

Belkar's redemption may or may not arrive before he breathes his last.

As to Chaotic Evil and cardboard characters: Chaotic Evil characters have feelings, and do care about some other people/places/things.

Por ejemplo, it is obvious that Belkar cares about Mr Scruffy. It is also obvious that even though they have a difficult relationship, Belkar cares about Roy. They've been doing this stuff together for long enough that Belkar would head to Splitsville if he had no feelings for Roy of any sort.

It is easily arguable that Chaotic Evil characters have little desire to end their own existence on other than their own terms. It therefore follows that a Chaotic Evil character will be a rational part of a team that is trying to stop the end of the world from coming.

This facet of Belkar has taken a while for Rich to flesh out. I am pretty sure he hadn't thought it that far through when the first ten strips were posted. It was fun enough to posit a Halfling Ranger who was CE, and of course the anti-Bilbo.

What he did have to try and present was the difficulty in matching a CE with a party of mixed and good alignment. The "I carry around a lead sheet" was a fun and funny way to explore some of the weird things that alignment does in this game. ("Too slow, sister (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0208.html)!" is still one of my favorite lines in the strip from first to last).

When he finally addressed a bit of character development for Belkar, the green line strips and the dawn of the sexy shoeless god of war, he also included Belkar's cynicism in the final product: he's gonna fake character growth (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html). (Easy to do for a hobbit, but enough with the short jokes ... )

But will it happen to him by him faking it long enough? That's not clear and is doubtless woven in to some of the stories numerous strips into the future.

[Lord]

"Your halfling... was seduced by the Lord Shojo. He ceased to be the Sexy Shoeless God of War and "became" a team player. When that happened, the evil Belkar who was your ranger was destroyed. So, what I told you was true... from a certain point of view. "

Thats not true! Thats impossible!

Seriously though, I think that Belkar will at the least hit chaotic neutral before the end. While Rich made a definite point that redemption was not for everyone, I think it would be interesting if Belkar achieved at least some kind of partial redemption. Sort of like Achilles at the end of the Illiad, filled with regret, but beyond the point where anything can be done to fix it.

[gken1]

Belkar's heart is in the right place!