Hinjo (Spoilers/Speculation)

[Pigboy]

I'm thinking that he has no city to defend now...He could join the OOTS's party. Especially if (I dread the thought) Roy does not come back. What do you guys think?

[jindra34]

WHen will the madness of these ideas stop???

[Lòkki Gallansbayne]

It's been speculated on before. I could see it happening temporarily, but I think what Hinjo mainly wants is to start rebuilding Azure City as soon as he can. Of course, there is the little matter of those pesky hobgoblins to deal with, but if Xykon doesn't call them off to send them against one of the other gates, they'll probably get bored and go back to their homeland once they're done looting and pillaging, so maybe he'll adventure with the Order while he waits for that to happen? Who knows.

[squidthingy]

WHen will the madness of these ideas stop???

I agree cursed infidels may banjulhu smite them where they stand (or sit)

btw pigboy, the gate/castle is destroyed not the city

[plainsfox]

If Hinjo follows the OOTS, he has one big problem. If Belkar isn't dealt with, then he's associating with evil and then his paladinhood is in trouble.

[RobbyPants]

If Hinjo follows the OOTS, he has one big problem. If Belkar isn't dealt with, then he's associating with evil and then his paladinhood is in trouble.
Yep. He'd better keep that lead sheet handy!

[Randalf]

I wouldn't mind seeing more of Hinjo. Just as Miko was the embodiment of the poorly-played Paladin, I'm guessing Rich meant Hinjo to represent the well-played Paladin, and I personally love the Paladin class.

That being said though, the Order already has two people fulfilling the role of the "straight man" (Durkon and Roy) and I'm not sure if Hinjo can really bring anything new to the party, character-wise.

[Randalf]

Double-post for the win!

[Rhyeira]

Well, he doesn't have any reasons for travelling with the OotS, and even if he had one (there's always a reason if you're looking for one really hard), there would still be more reasons against it - like him being the leader of his people, for example (unless those hundreds of civilians in the boats were all going to be killed first, which I find highly unlikely).

Apart from that... will people ever stop making new topics about things that have been discussed a hundred times before?

[Pigboy]

I agree cursed infidels may banjulhu smite them where they stand (or sit)

btw pigboy, the gate/castle is destroyed not the city

@Jindra34. Please post things that are relevent to the topic...it's really anoying when people don't say anything...

@squidthingy. I'm guessing that the debris/explosion destroyed much of the city. :smallbiggrin:

[Rhyeira]

You can see parts of the city burning in No. 460, even before the explosion which might have caused another good deal of damage.
However, we don't know yet if the city is going to be destroyed completely or just damaged.

[Girl Wonder]

If Hinjo follows the OOTS, he has one big problem. If Belkar isn't dealt with, then he's associating with evil and then his paladinhood is in trouble.

Well, at the risk of starting this discussion all over again, I am pretty certain Belkar is Chaotic Neutral ... the old-school Chaotic Neutral, not the new one that's all for freedom and balance, but the nice Second Edition version which was pretty much just 'Me, me, me, I live for me!'

Belkar isn't interested in advancing the cause of Evil, or of Good. Just of Belkar. He doesn't spread misery because he likes people to be miserable, it just happens that he finds assaulting people fun. That it makes them miserable is incidental.

That having been said, it is my opinion that Hinjo wouldn't have any more problem hanging around Belkar than Roy does ... um ... which doesn't really say a lot, but I don't think his Paladinhood would be in danger.

[Scarab83]

Well, at the risk of starting this discussion all over again, I am pretty certain Belkar is Chaotic Neutral ... the old-school Chaotic Neutral, not the new one that's all for freedom and balance, but the nice Second Edition version which was pretty much just 'Me, me, me, I live for me!'

Belkar isn't interested in advancing the cause of Evil, or of Good. Just of Belkar. He doesn't spread misery because he likes people to be miserable, it just happens that he finds assaulting people fun. That it makes them miserable is incidental.

That having been said, it is my opinion that Hinjo wouldn't have any more problem hanging around Belkar than Roy does ... um ... which doesn't really say a lot, but I don't think his Paladinhood would be in danger.

Rich has stated that Belkar is Chaotic Evil. However, I would have to say that he doesn't really act like C/E most of the time.

[Kreistor]

Most PC's can't act to the depths of CE, because it causes party tension leading to infighting. That does get old. So CE is okay, but not the deepest depraved CE.

Belkar thinks CE, but restrains himself when others shoot down his ideas. Alignment is not just acts, it's motives as well. Belkar, in saving Hinjo's life, did so for purely selfish reasons, making the act at best neutral, but not good. Saving someone just so you have leverage in order to forcibly ensalve them later is not a good act, for instance.

[elliott20]

If we know anything about the way Rich crafts his characters, it's that each character must serve a purpose within the narrative in some fashion. Each character must bring something to the table.

Hinjo was the foil to Miko's unbridled fury. He was calm, rational, and god forbid, pleasant. He was also written in to be the man who bears the weight of the crown and fill his uncle's shoes.

While cutting those strings would be easy enough for Rich, that also means that the OOTS is going to have ANOTHER conscience character and possible leader. (yeah, like he's gonna want to be led by Roy as opposed to lead himself)

He would detract too much from what is the OOTS.

For that very reason alone, I can see why he wouldn't join the OOTS.

But from a story stand point? Hinjo now has the heavy burden of re-constructing the city, and rebuilding the sapphire guard. (As well as explain to his subjects why he went into a war that all but decimated the city)

[Girl Wonder]

Rich has stated that Belkar is Chaotic Evil. However, I would have to say that he doesn't really act like C/E most of the time.

He has? I must have missed wherever that was. I am not doubting it, I am just surprised, because, as you said, he really doesn't act like it, generally. And his conscience is two devils (which in the old cartoon convention is usually a representation of selfishness and being self-serving, not outright evil) and a slaad (which I think is kinda like the poster monster for chaotic neutrality).

In any event, Belkar is all about Belkar, and if being Belkar happens to destroy a city OR save a boat full on nuns, I doubt it matters too much to him so long as it doesn't get in the way of his fun.

[Rhyeira]

Hinjo now has the heavy burden of re-constructing the city, and rebuilding the sapphire guard.

Yes to the first, but no to the second... with Soon's Gate destroyed, there's no sapphire left to guard.
(He could, however, rebuild the former Sapphire Guard as something like an Azure City Guard... there's always a need for some decent paladins.)

[Randalf]

He has? I must have missed wherever that was. I am not doubting it, I am just surprised, because, as you said, he really doesn't act like it, generally. And his conscience is two devils (which in the old cartoon convention is usually a representation of selfishness and being self-serving, not outright evil) and a slaad (which I think is kinda like the poster monster for chaotic neutrality).

In any event, Belkar is all about Belkar, and if being Belkar happens to destroy a city OR save a boat full on nuns, I doubt it matters too much to him so long as it doesn't get in the way of his fun.

That sounds to me like as pure a definition of Evil as you can get to. Maybe Belkar isen't working to advance the cause of Pure and Awesome EVIL, but I don't think he needs to. The simple fact that he gives no regard to anybody but himself and is willing to maim and murder other beings just on a whim almost makes him worse then a high and mighty cleric of evil because Belkar doesn't have any ideals guiding him, like Redcloak. The only times Belkar has ever committed even remotely good acts have been under duress...heck, the only reason he saved Hinjo was so that he could have the opportunity of killing more people in the future. If this was anything but a comedy, the little bastard would be a serial killer. :smallbiggrin:

[David Argall]

He has? I must have missed wherever that was.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html


I am not doubting it, I am just surprised, because, as you said, he really doesn't act like it, generally. And his conscience is two devils (which in the old cartoon convention is usually a representation of selfishness and being self-serving, not outright evil)
You seem to misunderstand the meaning of two devils as a conscience. It means he is so evil that his least evil thoughts are still a long way from good.


In any event, Belkar is all about Belkar, and if being Belkar happens to destroy a city OR save a boat full on nuns, I doubt it matters too much to him so long as it doesn't get in the way of his fun.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0435.html

He gets angry for being forced to do an act that might be good.

He is evil, evil, evil. No excuses, no hiding. Plain old evil.

[Girl Wonder]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html


You seem to misunderstand the meaning of two devils as a conscience. It means he is so evil that his least evil thoughts are still a long way from good.



http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0435.html

He gets angry for being forced to do an act that might be good.

He is evil, evil, evil. No excuses, no hiding. Plain old evil.

Hmmm. It seems to me the first is more just the set up for a joke from -very- early in the series rather than 'Rich has stated that Belkar is chaotic evil', which is what I was wondering about getting confirmation of. And my impression is that Belkar is more concerned with not being perceived as 'good' than in actually 'doing evil', since he seems to be very much concerned about preserving his image as a 'total badass' or somesuch. In any event, he is a fun character to watch (though not a favorite of mine), and until I see a positive citation to the contrary, I shall continue to imagine him as quintessentially amoral, rather than immoral. He's more interesting to me that way.

And... oops... this thread is ostensibly about Hinjo, so...

I wouldn't mind seeing Hinjo as a short-to-middle-term replacement for Roy if Roy gets to have a nifty side-adventure in the afterlife, but really, Roy to me is the closest thing the comic has to a 'main' character (he's on the site's banner, even) and he can't ever stay dead and have things seem right.

[Jefepato]

He has? I must have missed wherever that was. I am not doubting it, I am just surprised, because, as you said, he really doesn't act like it, generally.

*sigh*

Belkar is upset about committing a good act. His conscience only convinces him to do so by pointing out that it's a small price to pay for a lifetime of killing. If the rest of the comic hadn't already convinced you (and it really, really should have), that should do it.

[UltimaGabe]

Well, at the risk of starting this discussion all over again, I am pretty certain Belkar is Chaotic Neutral ... the old-school Chaotic Neutral, not the new one that's all for freedom and balance, but the nice Second Edition version which was pretty much just 'Me, me, me, I live for me!'

Far from it, I'm afraid. If you recall, Belkar has two three sides to his conscience- two devils, and a slaad. No angel to balance them out whatsoever. How could someone be at a 50/50 balance when the good/evil axis of his personality is 100% evil?

[Scarab83]

Hmmm. It seems to me the first is more just the set up for a joke from -very- early in the series rather than 'Rich has stated that Belkar is chaotic evil', which is what I was wondering about getting confirmation of. And my impression is that Belkar is more concerned with not being perceived as 'good' than in actually 'doing evil', since he seems to be very much concerned about preserving his image as a 'total badass' or somesuch. In any event, he is a fun character to watch (though not a favorite of mine), and until I see a positive citation to the contrary, I shall continue to imagine him as quintessentially amoral, rather than immoral. He's more interesting to me that way.

And... oops... this thread is ostensibly about Hinjo, so...

I wouldn't mind seeing Hinjo as a short-to-middle-term replacement for Roy if Roy gets to have a nifty side-adventure in the afterlife, but really, Roy to me is the closest thing the comic has to a 'main' character (he's on the site's banner, even) and he can't ever stay dead and have things seem right.

I'm trying to find Rich's comment about Belkar being C/E but I can't seem to find it anywhere. I swear I read it though..

Anyone know where a link to that is?

I still agree with you though, he's not nearly as evil as he could be.

[Girl Wonder]

Far from it, I'm afraid. If you recall, Belkar has two three sides to his conscience- two devils, and a slaad. No angel to balance them out whatsoever. How could someone be at a 50/50 balance when the good/evil axis of his personality is 100% evil?

Again, I do not think of the traditional devil/angel representation of a person's conscience as evil/good as much as selfish/selfless, which I suppose to some are the same thing.

As for him being upset for commiting a 'good' act, again, I think he's more concerned about his image than anything. Others can believe he is out-and-out evil if they want, but I just do not see it. Admittedly, this is because if Belkar were *big scary letters* EVIL, he would be -much- less funny to me. And I think he would have killed the rest of the OOTS in their sleep and robbed them blind the moment he didn't need to associate with them any more. I suppose you could argue that he's with them out of a sense of greed or opportunity, but he sure seems to have to deal with a lot of goody-goodiness for what has thus far been a perilous (and not exceptionally profitable) saga.

In the final analysis, for me...
Sociopathic, selfish, amoral and (BIG)Chaotic (small)Neutral = a funny foil to his good companions.
Fiendish, cruel, depraved and Chaotic Evil = not funny to me, so, without a solid statement to the contrary, he's CN in my book.

And... I really like Hinjo, even in threads when I end up talking about Belkar :P

[Nathander]

I adore Hinjo, but I honestly think that, at the moment, it would be out of character for him to travel with the OotS. He's the ruler of Azure City now, and I doubt he would forsake this duty in any way. I expect he's most likely going to stay and help rebuild the city and reform the Sapphire Guild (most likely into the Azure City Guard or something now). I expect, however, that he'll probably aide the OotS in some way, most likely by helping get Roy resurrected (at the very least, giving them the money and the resources to for it, since I believe the only AC cleric capable of resurrecting was killed by Redcloak).

That being said, I feel we will see Hinjo in action once more, probably near the end of the comic. I expect the final showdown against Xykon will be massive, much more so than the assault on AC, and many of the forces that the OotS have/will meet on their journey will aid them. This will most certainly, in my mind, include Hinjo and the reformed Sapphire Guard and army of Azure City, and (I believe) perhaps Durkon's tribe by the end.

[Scarab83]

I found the link.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=291756

[RecklessFable]

He is evil, evil, evil. No excuses, no hiding. Plain old evil.

Belkar is clearly good. Why do you folks live in denial?

His holiness, Belkar, the Redeemer, shall bring you your absolution. ...Most likely in a stabby sort of way, but redemption none-the-less.


As for Hinjo. Ever have PC die off and the player needs something to do while waiting for resurrection/a new PC to be introduced? Well there you go, Roy's player can run Hinjo for a few sessions.

[Girl Wonder]

I found the link.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=291756

Well, then ... it does not get any more definitive than that. *sigh* Belkar just got a little less funny to me, but there's still more than enough to laugh about in the comic. Or even tear up over (like on Monday... alas, I was always hoping for Miko to earn true redemption).

[teratorn]

Belkar is Hinjo's prisoner, he could go with the order. In fact either he goes with them for one year or Belkar stays in jail.

Belkar neutral? He never did anything we could consider good. Belkar is a monster who doesn't care for other beings. Even when he decided to save Elan it was because "Elan made him laugh", not for concern for Elan. He's evil to the bone.

[Pigboy]

Why are we talking about Belkar?! Ugh, anyway. Hinjo doesn't need to stay behind because of the gate. He might have to stay behind to maybe liberate the city. But he could say that he doesn't think AC can be liberated until Xykon is dead...er. For good. So that's what I think... :smallbiggrin:

[teratorn]

Why are we talking about Belkar?!

Because Hinjo is a paladin and Belkar is evil. Hinjo could never associate with OOTS unless someone kills Belkar. Or if the DM would consider he is just guarding his prisoner, not associating with him.

[UltimaGabe]

In the final analysis, for me...
Sociopathic, selfish, amoral and (BIG)Chaotic (small)Neutral = a funny foil to his good companions.
Fiendish, cruel, depraved and Chaotic Evil = not funny to me, so, without a solid statement to the contrary, he's CN in my book.

Wait a minute- what do you think the whole deal was with the lead sheet? Or when they all got Unholy Blight cast on them back in page 11 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html)? Personality and motives aside, those are two hard-mechanic instances where you really can't argue neutrality. (Specifically the Unholy Blight- if that's not a flat-out indication, I don't know what is. The spell affects good and neutral characters the same, and evil characters are completely unaffected. Everyone in the party is affected by it, but Belkar just stands there. I mean, come on.)

[Girl Wonder]

Wait a minute- what do you think the whole deal was with the lead sheet? Or when they all got Unholy Blight cast on them back in page 11 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html)? Personality and motives aside, those are two hard-mechanic instances where you really can't argue neutrality. (Specifically the Unholy Blight- if that's not a flat-out indication, I don't know what is. The spell affects good and neutral characters the same, and evil characters are completely unaffected. Everyone in the party is affected by it, but Belkar just stands there. I mean, come on.)

I got my confirmation several posts ago that Belkar has been stated definitively to be evil, so you need't argue the point any further. For my own personal preference, it's unfortunate, because that makes Belkar a lot less of a funny concept to me, but it does pretty much answer the question of whether Hinjo could associate with Belkar without heavy extenuating circumstances.

However, OOTS is a comic -based- on a game, it is not a comic -about- a game, so things like 'Hinjo can't associate with Belkar' and 'Unholy Blight only works THIS way' really don't apply if the creator doesn't want them to apply. OOTS draws fairly heavily on D&D rules for a lot of its jokes and references, but if it remained bound in lockstep with those rules, Mr. Burlew would end up being restricted in his storytelling to the detriment of the comic. For the most part, OOTS seems to draw on D&D rules for the sake of the gag and sometimes ignore them for the sake of the story, and I think that gives us the best end result possible.

So, if Hinjo were to somehow associate with the OOTS on a long-term basis, I think the 'he shouldn't be able to do that!' rules case would (and should) be ignored, and if Mr. Burlew wanted Belkar to be complete outside the strictures of the alignment system and thus not be affected by spells in ways others are, then that's fine too. But, he has stated clearly Belkar is evil, ah well.

Belkar's evil. Boooo! Hinjo can do what he wants. Yay! Order of the Stick is still funny. Yaaaaay!

[ZombieWomble]

For my own personal preference, it's unfortunate, because that makes Belkar a lot less of a funny concept to me

I'm intrigued as to how this works out, given that, according to your earlier posts, you had almost exactly read Belkar's motives, outlook on life, and so forth, and had merely attached the incorrect insubstantial label to it. Rich has put a lot of effort into poking fun at the alignment system as a straightjacket: Belkar's evil opposite from the first encounter with the linear guild and the closing arguments at the trial being two of the clearest examples, and Belkar, Xykon and Redcloak's actions during the battle serving as three really distinct examples of three very different outlooks which can still all technically fall under the remit of "evil" without being (exclusively) "Hey look, a creature. DIE!"

With regard to Hinjo: I don't think it would work, both from a writing point of view and a plot point of view. Killing a character off is a brave move. Killing a character off and replacing them with someone with an almost identical role, personality and so forth is a cop-out, and will probably only lead to problems later.
Similarly, from a plot point of view, there's a city and a paladin order which needs reclaiming and rebuilding. Even if Xykon does need stopped, there are others who can serve that purpose, Hinjo is clearly better suited to remain in Azure city.

[Kaziel]

I found the link.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=291756

Now for a more in depth answer from the Giant: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=559967#post559967

If you don't want to follow the link, I've quoted it here:
Then you don't understand the alignment rules at all. A person who commits Evil act after Evil act and no Good acts at all is Evil. Not "Neutral with Evil tendencies," there is no such thing as "tendencies" in the alignment rules. In order to be Neutral you need to either a.) commit no Good or Evil acts at all, or b.) commit a more-or-less equal number of Good and Evil acts. Not c.) commit a boatload of Evil acts without guilt or regret and no Good acts except those he is bullied into.

A partial list of Evil acts Belkar has performed or attempted to perform:
• Harvesting someone's kidneys who was no threat and had a Good alignment.
• Selling an attractive young woman into slavery
• Slitting the throats of helpless people
• Trying to kill an ally strictly to level up
• Killing three barbarians when he only needed to defeat (not kill) one of them
• Professing a desire to go back and kill his family and childhood friends in their sleep
• Throwing daggers at Roy just for fun

Plus countless acts of psychological abuse to his teammates for no reason other than his own amusement. And that doesn't count the 3 or 4 Evil acts from "On the Origin of PCs" that I don't want to list here.

Why on earth do people waste their time with this? I feel now like I could have Belkar turn to the camera and say, "Hey folks, FYI, I'm Chaotic Evil," and then kill and eat a fluffy puppy, and you'd still come here and say, "Well, I think he's Neutral Good."

Get over it, Belkar is Evil.

[Girl Wonder]

Now for a more in depth answer from the Giant: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=559967#post559967

If you don't want to follow the link, I've quoted it here:

Yes, yes, I surrender! (See above) But I can still be disappointed that Belkar is definitively 'Evil'

As for the earlier poster asking how I can get disappointed over a label when I'd already pretty clearly understood Belkar's outlook and motivation, I can only answer - 'I don't know, I just am.' I think it is because I like thinking of Belkar as somehow 'outside' the whole crazy alignment system, so I guess I'm more disappointed that his alignment has been nailed down at all (somehwhat) by Mr. Burlew, thus ending speculation, and I suppose I preferred where my speculations took me rather than where Mr. Burlew has stated things lie. I guess I have never really enjoyed the labels 'evil' and 'protagonist' being attached to the same character, but now Belkar wears both. That having been said, it's no big deal, really. Belkar being 20% less funny than he was to me is a minor thing when put next to how much I enjoy the comic overall.

And, on a side note, the fact that a Belkar discussion can take over a Hinjo thread and enjoy more life than talk about Hinjo just goes to show why Belkar (however dislikable) is a main character and Hinjo (however likable) is supporting cast.

I don't like him, he's vile, he's petty, and he's (alas!) evil, but I must admit Belkar's got 'it.' (to use Hollywood lingo for that elusive 'Star Power' quality)