Opinions on Belkar?

[LunarDrop]

I'm not sure what people think of our little psychotic ranger. I've seen some rave for his prophesized death while others, such as myself, are dreading it. Personally he's one of my favorite characters.
So the question is; what do you think of Belkar? Are you hoping he does die or hoping he evades such a fate?

[Kish]

Karma Houdinis are not fun or cool and his newfound empathy does not constitute atonement for any of his previous victims (even assuming he would take it as far as not murdering people who didn't somehow trip his empathy). It is highly unlikely that he'll get to the point where I regret his death even a little.

[Peelee]

What he said.

[RossN]

My feelings are mixed in that I find him an entertaining character (mostly; he can go too far) while also thinking he deserves to die.

I think his actions in this strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0539.html) here were so monstrous that no amount of 'redemption' can really erase them (incidentally this strip and the following one were not Haley's finest hour either but amoral apathy is still above sociopathy.)

[Ruck]

I like him. He's funny. And I enjoy seeing the version of him that's committed to the Order's quest.

[Seto]

Morally speaking, he's a complete, despicable psychopath that deserves to die, that's for sure - to the extent that anyone deserves to die. But I don't judge OotS' characters on their morality. I don't want him to die, because he's funny, adds something to OotS (namely, intraparty dynamics created by the presence of a bona fide *******), and watching him change, even slowly, is interesting. I'm attached to this character. For example, I especially enjoy the evolution of his relationship with Roy that's currently taking place.

[TheNecrocomicon]

I still think Belkar's going to end up being changed somehow that will equate to "taking his last breath ever" but not actual, final, permanent death. Undead, perhaps, or ascending/descending to another form of existence, or merging with or being taken over by some other being, etc. -- prophecies are tricky loophole-ridden things in this story, and out of all the statements being pronounced on Belkar, none have literally said "he will die and stay dead".

That said, I could easily be totally wrong, and the obvious option of death could indeed be what happens. I'd rather he live and hopefully redeem himself, but I can't say he hasn't earned his doom either.

[Peelee]

I still think Belkar's going to end up being changed somehow that will equate to "taking his last breath ever" but not actual, final, permanent death. Undead, perhaps, or ascending/descending to another form of existence, or merging with or being taken over by some other being, etc. -- prophecies are tricky loophole-ridden things in this story, and out of all the statements being pronounced on Belkar, none have literally said "he will die and stay dead".

"He is not long for this world," "should savor his next birthday cake," and "shouldn't fund his IRA" don't really leave much wiggle-room, though.

[nyjastul69]

He is my least favorite character. I look forward to his death.

[Rodin]

I'm in the "he's my favorite character, but hope he doesn't survive the story" camp. Keep him in until the end for the comedy and his character development, but ultimately I don't think he deserves a happy ending.

His character development has earned him something, so he gets upgraded from "killed off to show how serious the situation is" to "go out in a blaze of glory taking one or more major villains with him".

[StLordeth]

IMO the funniest character from the Order. I still think he should have had an unceremonious death when the pyramid exploded, and it showed his corpse while drifting over all the characters.

I expect him not to die until the last book though so no worries to Belkar lovers.

[BaronOfHell]

If I am not mistaken, unless the Giant changes his mind, Belkar won't escape his fate. It doesn't mean he won't continue to be in the story, this is D&D after all.

I think Belkar is a fantastic character. He'd badly fit in now with the way he was early in the story given how serious the story is now, but I don't think I'd find him particular enjoyable had he been like this in the early strips either.

[LunarDrop]

And this is why I thought it would be a good topic. I personally love the little bugger. (And, yes, I know he is an absolutely horrible person.) I particularly love the dynamic he brings to the good, especially his inter-personal relationships with Vaarsuvius and (as of recent strips) Durkon*.

[hroþila]

I don't care, as long as it makes for a good story.

[Aldarin]

Well, I have mixed feelings. On one hand, he's a lot like the necromancer that was Soul Spliced to V (ended lives with but a thought) but on the other hand, he's starting to grow on me. I'd say that from a story point of view, I'm kinda glad for his death, but from my actual point of view, I'll be sad when he dies.

[Mastikator]

He's like Dexter, I enjoy watching him but I also hope he dies horribly.

[Whelk]

I quite enjoy Belkar most of the time, except for his more monstrous acts (the charmed kobold litter box comes to mind). I find myself rooting for him more often than not, and I'm enjoying his arc, but I also hope to see him get his comeuppance. My ideal vision of his death (assuming it's not some loophole-y prophecy) is dying in some heroic fashion for a good cause, even if he isn't necessarily a good person or doing it out of sheer heroism. It's always nice to see those moments when even nasty, horrible people figure they might as well do something good.

[LuisDantas]

I just don't like Belkar. At all.

Despite some real character growth in the last few years, he has gone for way too long without much of a challenge to his rotten ways. It is distracting and disgusting.

I wll not and can not possibly miss him.

[Quartz]

An easy way to circumvent the prophecy would be for Belkar to change sex permanently. And the party does, in fact, have an item that will do that. For a ladies man like Belkar, that would be... interesting. :)

[veti]

I like Belkar. For some reason he attracts a lot of hatred, but whenever people go into their reasons for said hatred, it always seems (to me) to boil down to "I'm uncomfortable with evil PCs", which is a sentiment I can't begin to enter into.

Will he get a happy ending? No, because the Giant subscribes to the moralising rule of storytelling that says evil must be punished, no matter how vindictive and arbitrary. But I think he has enough affection and/or respect for Belkar to send him out with more style and meaning than Thog or Nale.

[Lotana]

I really dislike Belkar. I am sad that the Oracle's enchantment prevented Haley from doing what Roy should of done ages ago!

However, my issue with him is that I just don't find his murderous and verbally-abuse-other-party-members style of humour to be funny. And the purpose of his character in the strip seems to just be comic relief.

Beyond being funny, there is very little to his character. I mean you can replace him with any other evil aligned ranger. He is not relatable because we know so little about him. His motivations are immature and simplistic: Just killing for the sake of violence. His "character development" is: "Kill those that party wants to kill instead of indiscriminately". I suppose going from psychopath to sociopath could be called progress, but that is insignificant.

And it is not about being evil: I loved Malack and Tarquin! They had so much depth to them beyond the violence and vulgarity of Belkar. They were interesting, while Belkar is just so shallow! Even Thog (Another violence-focused, two-dimensional, simplistic brute) I rate higher purely because he appeared in the strips sporadically without becoming tiresome: Belkar you need to endure in virtually every strip.

However, being funny is enough for some people. This is why he is so polarizing: If you enjoy that style of humour, you will love him for bringing some fun to the strip. If you don't enjoy his humour, he is irritating.

[Dellis]

Belkar is a horrible, loathsome, supremely selfish creature who behaves contemptibly, laughs at the pains of others, has no manners whatsoever, and whose mental acuity would be compared unfavorably to that of a table.

And yet, I find I still prefer him to you.


That sums it up.

Belkar's growing, albeit slowly, and everyone deserves a second chance.

I expect that, when he dies, we'll all shed tears for him. Mark my words.

[martianmister]

0/10
would not revive

[Kish]

I like Belkar. For some reason he attracts a lot of hatred, but whenever people go into their reasons for said hatred, it always seems (to me) to boil down to "I'm uncomfortable with evil PCs", which is a sentiment I can't begin to enter into.

Will he get a happy ending? No, because the Giant subscribes to the moralising rule of storytelling that says evil must be punished, no matter how vindictive and arbitrary. But I think he has enough affection and/or respect for Belkar to send him out with more style and meaning than Thog or Nale.
Ah, veti. That's one well I wouldn't want to drink from, mission accomplished.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I like Belkar, because I think he is a funny and amusing character. That said, I also think he is certain to die in a manner most permanent and I don't think I'll exactly be mourning him when he does. And I certainly won't be mourning the end to the arguments about how he somehow will escape his prophecy.

[Jay R]

I expect Belkar to sacrifice himself for a goal he'd never had considered before - not merely stopping Xykon and saving the world, but something more personal - saving Vaarsuvius, or some such.

But I also expect it to be part of the final climax.

1. Belkar will die, as prophesized.
2. He will also be here for the entire story.

[Bulldog Psion]

I definitely like him most of the time, since he's about the funniest character in the comic, particularly interacting with the others.

Still, I doubt I'll be particularly upset when he bites it, either.

[Whelk]

His "character development" is: "Kill those that party wants to kill instead of indiscriminately". I suppose going from psychopath to sociopath could be called progress, but that is insignificant.

He seemed to have genuine guilt about Durkon dying to save him (and appeared to think that it was somehow wrong that Durkon died instead of himself), which seemed like improvement. He didn't take advantage of the gnome girl, he felt bad seeing Gannji and Enor forced to fight each other (seeing it like unto himself and Scruffy being forced to fight), he seems to be doing a lot to ensure Scruffy is happy instead of solely himself. I'd say he's making more progress than you're seeing. I'm not saying I think he's redeemed and absolved by any means, I'm just saying I believe there's some real character development happening, slowly but surely, and it's cool to see.

I still want to see him get his comeuppance, though. If he can manage something heroic or a selfless sacrifice or something in the process, all the better. I think he's particularly set on fixing (or at least helping fix) the Durkon situation, considering he's pretty much the reason it happened. Step 1 is, of course, "Kill the current abomination masquerading as Durkon" which he's been trying to do pretty much from the first opportunity, despite Roy trying to stop him at first.

[RossN]

I still want to see him get his comeuppance, though. If he can manage something heroic or a selfless sacrifice or something in the process, all the better.

Can he really be said to get his 'comeuppance' if he heroically sacrifices himself for the greater good? To me the two seem mutually exclusive, especially since I strongly supect any heroic sacrifice would be effectively a 'get out of the Chaotic Evil afterlife free card'.

A heroic sacrifice is not a punishment, it something heroic characters in fantasy are sometimes expected to do; if Roy died saving the universe that would be tragic and noble but I would not call it a comeuppance.

Personally I'd rather Belkar die a ignominious death, preferably at the hands of a kobold.

[Whelk]

Can he really be said to get his 'comeuppance' if he heroically sacrifices himself for the greater good? To me the two seem mutually exclusive, especially since I strongly supect any heroic sacrifice would be effectively a 'get out of the Chaotic Evil afterlife free card'.
I don't know, I would see a "heroic sacrifice death" as similar to a deathbed confession type of thing, and wouldn't expect it to work getting someone out of responsibility for their actions after a lifetime of blatant and gleeful evil. I don't know how D&D afterlife judgments typically go, though.


A heroic sacrifice is not a punishment, it something heroic characters in fantasy are sometimes expected to do;
The heroic sacrifice isn't the punishment, it's the opportunity presented by the comeuppance. If you're put into a situation where you're going to die (and are almost certainly going to an "evil afterlife"), I'd say that's up there on comeuppancy scale. If Belkar decides that, as long as he's going down, he may as well go down by doing something that's going to help his team (mostly Scruffy, probably), save Durkon, or something else he'd believably be willing to sacrifice for given his character , that'd just be a nice little storytelling/character development bonus. I don't expect him to be martyred as a saint, I just think it would be cool to see him die in a way that reflects some of his recent development. It sounds like you don't think he deserves to be able to even do that, though. Ouch.


Personally I'd rather Belkar die a ignominious death, preferably at the hands of a kobold.

Death by kobold would actually be pretty satisfying in this case.

[Peelee]

In a world where afterlives explicitly exist, i don't think any kind of death can necessarily preclude comeuppance. The Nine Hells et al still exist, Belkar will still probably hit one.

[Bulldog Psion]

In a world where afterlives explicitly exist, i don't think any kind of death can necessarily preclude comeuppance. The Nine Hells et al still exist, Belkar will still probably hit one.

Being unmade by the Snarl would preclude it.

[Kish]

That would, however, still qualify as "commupence," I think.

What might happen that arguably would not qualify as commupence (or only humorously), would be Belkar sacrificing himself to save Mr. Scruffy, and the last the rest of the Order hear of him being an outraged scream from the general direction of Limbo, "WHAT? I've been evil all my life!"

[Fincher]

He's my second favorite character, and I don't want him to die, and I don't expect him to.

[Ruck]

He's like Dexter, I enjoy watching him but I also hope he dies horribly.
At least this comic is written much better than Dexter was, especially in the Scott Buck years.


Will he get a happy ending? No, because the Giant subscribes to the moralising rule of storytelling that says evil must be punished, no matter how vindictive and arbitrary.
Not sure where on Earth you got this about him, or what about his storytelling is "vindictive and arbitrary" to use. Anyway, Belkar will die because the Oracle has prophesied it repeatedly, and the Giant's story is structured well enough, and plotted out well enough in advance, that he doesn't have to backtrack or come up with reasons not to do the things he's foreshadowed.


An easy way to circumvent the prophecy would be for Belkar to change sex permanently. And the party does, in fact, have an item that will do that. For a ladies man like Belkar, that would be... interesting. :)
How would that circumvent "Belkar will draw his last breath-- ever-- before the end of the year"?


I expect Belkar to sacrifice himself for a goal he'd never had considered before - not merely stopping Xykon and saving the world, but something more personal - saving Vaarsuvius, or some such.

But I also expect it to be part of the final climax.

1. Belkar will die, as prophesized.
2. He will also be here for the entire story.
O-Chul or Durkon would be my guess, since Belkar failed to save the former once and the latter saved him.

[Gift Jeraff]

He was the best ranger in the multiverse, and a cunning barbarian. And he was a good friend.

[ti'esar]

He was the best ranger in the multiverse, and a cunning barbarian. And he was a good friend.

This is an utterly random and off-the-wall reference, but I find it hilarious in spite (or perhaps because) of that.

[factotum]

I have no doubt Belkar is going to die, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the method of his death is far better than he actually deserves given his actions throughout his life.

[Fincher]

I don't want to speak in absolutes, but I'd say it's more likely that Roy or Vaarsuvius or Durkon will die than Belkar (I'm talking a real, permanent, go to the afterlife death here). Not that anyone has to die.

[Ruck]

I don't want to speak in absolutes, but I'd say it's more likely that Roy or Vaarsuvius or Durkon will die than Belkar (I'm talking a real, permanent, go to the afterlife death here). Not that anyone has to die.

What are you basing that on?

[Fincher]

What are you basing that on?

What happens is determined in Rich Burlew's head, so the actual likely outcome isn't based on what seems to be happening in the story, but what the author is likely to do. I can't read his mind, so I have to go by my experience with his writing and by general storytelling principles. It's like when Elan says that a one in a million chance is definitely going to happen.

Basically...if Rich decided to kill Belkar, if he decided to let us know well in advance that he was going to kill Belkar, and if he was going to deliver this news through a character who's known to say misleading things, then among those turns of phrase that typically refer to death, why wouldn't he have the prophet straight out say, "Belkar is going to die"? The most likely answer: because Belkar isn't going to die, and those turns of phrase are a set-up for whatever actually is going to happen.

[BaronOfHell]

It is very good reasoning, but if I'm not mistaken, the Giant went out of his way to comment that the prophecy will be fulfilled.

[Conradine]

to the extent that anyone deserves to die.

In my opinion, nobody deserves to die.
Death is wrong.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2l87Hx_4JY


That said...

it's obvious that when an individual is totally out of control, extremely dangerous and there's no other way to stop his ravaging ( like Belkar is ), putting down becomes legit.

[LunarDrop]

In my opinion, nobody deserves to die.
Death is wrong.

Wow, that got deep fast.

[Kish]

And contradictory nearly as fast. The euphemism ("putting down," seriously?) doesn't change the fact that it amounts to, "It's wrong to kill anyone. But obviously it's not wrong to kill him."

[Conradine]

"It's wrong to kill anyone. But obviously it's not wrong to kill him."


It's not what I wrote.
I wrote " and there's no other way to stop his ravaging ". Self-defense aim is not to kill, it's to avoid anyone get killed. If the aggressor get killed, that is not the original intent of the action. It's collateral damage.

That means if there's a way to stop someone before he kills other people without resorting to kill him, that would be the way. To execute him in cold blood would be wrong.

But Belkar is not simply an evil murderer, is an extremely powerful, near-impossible to stop or imprison murderer.
He was imprisoned in a high-security cell guarded by paladins, and he still managed to evade killing the guard in the maintime.
He killed even with a Seal of Justice on him, and did it out of trivial spite - not even under serious provocation or for material gain. That means he cannot refrain from violence even under dire fear of immediate repercussion, and even without any strong stimulus.

Basically, it's an overpowered rabid dog.
Yet, if sealing somewhere without killing him was possible ( mabye in an extradimensional prison ) that would be the thing to do.

[Kish]

I find your writing style somewhat confusing, but if I understand you correctly, you're saying that he doesn't deserve to die, as such, but killing him is still the right thing to do because it's the only way to stop him killing people. Is that correct?

(This isn't a mousetrap. If you say "yes," I'll say "Okay then, I get it." Promise.)

[Conradine]

Killing him is the right thing to do only if he is going to kill other people and only if there is no other means to stop him.

If he's alone in a demiplane, or if non-lethal magic powerful enough is avaiable, to kill him would be wrong.


Basically, I don't think at self defense as killing. "To kill" means to act with the objective of causing a death.
If you defend yourself or someone else, and as a result the aggressor dies, your intent was not to cause a death but to prevent one ( or many ). The death of the aggressor, in self defense, is an unwanted consequence.



but killing him is still the right thing to do because it's the only way to stop him killing people. Is that correct?


The problem here is not that Belkar deserves to die because he's evil. There are other characters that are evil as much as him.

The problem is that Belkar is both powerful and utterly fearless, so it's extremely difficult to prevent him from killing.

[Jay R]

Basically, I don't think at self defense as killing. "To kill" means to act with the objective of causing a death.
If you defend yourself or someone else, and as a result the aggressor dies, your intent was not to cause a death but to prevent one ( or many ). The death of the aggressor, in self defense, is an unwanted consequence.

People are entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own definitions. To kill is to end a life, whether intentionally or unintentionally.
Merriam Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kill): to cause the death of (a person, animal, or plant) : to end the life of (someone or something)
Cambridge English Dictionary (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/kill): to cause someone or something to die
Oxford English Dictionary (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/kill:): Cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing):

Intention is simply not a part of it in actual usage. A person can be killed by a car accident or a tornado.

I think the word you want is the legal term "murder".

Self defense is not murder. But if Person A is trying to murder person B, and B prevents it by ending A's life, then B killed A. It's not murder, but it is certainly killing.

[factotum]

Basically...if Rich decided to kill Belkar, if he decided to let us know well in advance that he was going to kill Belkar, and if he was going to deliver this news through a character who's known to say misleading things, then among those turns of phrase that typically refer to death, why wouldn't he have the prophet straight out say, "Belkar is going to die"?

Even if he had, you (or people like you) would be looking for a way to twist that into "Belkar's going to keep going somehow". And nothing the Oracle has predicted so far has been shown to be actively false.

[napoleon_in_rag]

I always thought that Belkar was a parody of a certain type of rpg player I come across from time to time.

In the real world, this player is a mild mannered, quiet, and moral person. He/she would never get in a fight, obeys all traffic laws, and doesn't get into trouble.

In an rpg, this player's character is always a psychotic murderer who collects ears to aid in tracking his xp. He/she will have no respect for the law, regularly visit whore houses, and will usually kill a npc commoner at the drop of a hat. The DM usually has to figure out a way to reign in the PC, like with a Geas or something, to stop the senseless violence from derailing the campaign.

So if Mr. Burlew designed Belkar to be a parody of similar players, he is doing a very good job.

[Peelee]

Basically...if Rich decided to kill Belkar, if he decided to let us know well in advance that he was going to kill Belkar, and if he was going to deliver this news through a character who's known to say misleading things, then among those turns of phrase that typically refer to death, why wouldn't he have the prophet straight out say, "Belkar is going to die"?

Oooooh! Oooooh! I know!

Because he's not a boring writer.

[Vinyadan]

Belkar gets killed often. In the illusion and in SSDT, where he (or his stand-in) dies more than once. It even seemed like it was a necessity for a good ending. Personally, I don't think the main comic will handle it like SSDT, because it was extremely dry.

What will happen with him? Well, redemption would be nice; it also doesn't seem very probable. I mean, he never did anything good, and resented the idea. And even his newfound empathy only seemed to work when someone pointed out at something - he doesn't autonomously put himself into someone else's shoes, unless it's for the chance of hurting him.

He was surprised at Durkon being killed, but he seems to believe in his own version of Karma. This could explain it, more than love or respect for the dwarf.

So there is a tiny straw for redemption, but he doesn't seem to be grasping much at it. There also is the fact that he doesn't like telling the truth and would rather hide his motivations. So we can expect surprises.

[Fincher]

Even if he had, you (or people like you) would be looking for a way to twist that into "Belkar's going to keep going somehow". And nothing the Oracle has predicted so far has been shown to be actively false.

If he had said Belkar was going to die along with a few of the "breathe his last breath" statements, I would take that as Burlew making it as clear as he can that Belkar is really going to die. And I'm not saying that the prophet is saying something false; I'm saying that it's probably not what it first seems to be, just as Durkon's prophecy wasn't what it first seemed to be.


Oooooh! Oooooh! I know!

Because he's not a boring writer.

I don't consider it good writing to suggest that there's more to the story than there seems to be when there actually isn't, because it makes the story seem smaller. Leaving the prophecy ambiguous enough that people go looking for other interpretations of the birthday cake / breath statements and then in the end revealing that he was really just going to die is "boring", and given the strength of the story beforehand, not what I'm inclined to expect will happen.

[Conradine]

People are entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own definitions. To kill is to end a life, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

You are right, the correct word was "to murder".
Sorry. I've not yet mastered english perfectly and mabye I never will.

[Peelee]

I don't consider it good writing to suggest that there's more to the story than there seems to be when there actually isn't, because it makes the story seem smaller. Leaving the prophecy ambiguous enough that people go looking for other interpretations of the birthday cake / breath statements and then in the end revealing that he was really just going to die is "boring", and given the strength of the story beforehand, not what I'm inclined to expect will happen.

I don't consider that good writing either. What you're doing, however, is taking several comments, all of which indicate death, and insisting that the opposite will happen. In essence, you are coming up with your own conclusion that is not supported by the writing, and then claiming it will be bad writing if you are wrong.

[Fincher]

I don't consider that good writing either. What you're doing, however, is taking several comments, all of which indicate death, and insisting that the opposite will happen. In essence, you are coming up with your own conclusion that is not supported by the writing, and then claiming it will be bad writing if you are wrong.

Being a capable writer, there's no reason to think Rich wouldn't know that having the prophet (who just prior to this prophecy had gotten into a debate over what it means to cause someone's death) speak in less than direct terms about Belkar's death would cause people to question whether he was actually going to die. Since he could theoretically and easily have made the prophecy more absolute, it stands to reason that either (1) Belkar is not going to die, or (2) Rich wanted the readers to suspect he wasn't really going to die even though he was going to die. Since I consider #2 inefficient storytelling, and since Rich's storytelling doesn't tend to be all that straightforward in the first place, I strongly lean toward #1. In fact, I think the chances of Belkar dying are lower than if there'd been no prophecy in the first place.

If I'm in the middle of a Disney animated film, and the badguys are currently winning, and I expect the goodguys to end up winning and living happily ever after because it's a Disney movie, that's coming up with my own conclusion that is not supported by the writing, so to speak. It's also the safe bet.

[Conradine]

Mabye Belkar will become an undead.

Or he'll get a ring of Apnea and never ever need to breath.

[Peelee]

Being a capable writer, there's no reason to think Rich wouldn't know that having the prophet (who just prior to this prophecy had gotten into a debate over what it means to cause someone's death) speak in less than direct terms about Belkar's death would cause people to question whether he was actually going to die. Since he could theoretically and easily have made the prophecy more absolute, it stands to reason that either (1) Belkar is not going to die, or (2) Rich wanted the readers to suspect he wasn't really going to die even though he was going to die. Since I consider #2 inefficient storytelling, and since Rich's storytelling doesn't tend to be all that straightforward in the first place, I strongly lean toward #1. In fact, I think the chances of Belkar dying are lower than if there'd been no prophecy in the first place.

If I understand you correctly, you are fundamentally misunderstanding the Oracle's arguments about what it means to cause someone's death. In retrospect, we can easily deconstruct it; Belkar asked if he would cause the death of any of a number of people. The Oracle said yes. We now know that the only person on the list that would be killed by Belkar (and thus fulfilling the prophecy) was the Oracle. Now, he tried to argue his way out of it, albeit unsuccessfully. However, the Oracle knew that no matter what, Belkar would kill him. He scheduled a resurrection for that time because he knew Belkar would kill him. There was no escaping it. The arguments against could have been the Oracle trying to not get killed, it could have been the ultimate reason Belkar decided to kill him, or a number of other things. In the end, though, it doesn't really matter; what matters is the Oracle, who was slated to die, died. The prophecy came true. All of the Oracle's prophecies that we have seen resolution to have come true. We have no reason to expect that his prophecies will ever be wrong, and every reason to expect that his prophecies will always be right.

Now, we have several prophetic commends regarding Belkar's fate. In order for Belkar to get out of it, he would have to satisfy the conditions of all soothsayings. In addition, the Oracle has shown far more disdain for Belkar that anyone else we have seen, and it is nonsensical that he would take such delight in Belkar's fate if it were to be the opposite of what he indicates.

If you are so intensely focused on why the Oracle did not speak in the most direct terms possible, consider that the only time he has done so was when he was asked a question so intensely specific that he was literally forced into being direct.

[ti'esar]

Even if he had, you (or people like you) would be looking for a way to twist that into "Belkar's going to keep going somehow". And nothing the Oracle has predicted so far has been shown to be actively false.

This. If you're already going to see the Oracle saying Belkar will die as setting up loopholes, then the Oracle saying "Belkar's going to die" in precisely those terms still won't seem definite.

[Fincher]

If I understand you correctly, you are fundamentally misunderstanding the Oracle's arguments about what it means to cause someone's death. In retrospect, we can easily deconstruct it; Belkar asked if he would cause the death of any of a number of people. The Oracle said yes. We now know that the only person on the list that would be killed by Belkar (and thus fulfilling the prophecy) was the Oracle. Now, he tried to argue his way out of it, albeit unsuccessfully. However, the Oracle knew that no matter what, Belkar would kill him. He scheduled a resurrection for that time because he knew Belkar would kill him. There was no escaping it. The arguments against could have been the Oracle trying to not get killed, it could have been the ultimate reason Belkar decided to kill him, or a number of other things. In the end, though, it doesn't really matter; what matters is the Oracle, who was slated to die, died. The prophecy came true. All of the Oracle's prophecies that we have seen resolution to have come true. We have no reason to expect that his prophecies will ever be wrong, and every reason to expect that his prophecies will always be right.

And yet the prophet was brought to life shortly afterward, so it was still misleading. Durkon's prophecy was misleading. The prophet is a slippery character.


Now, we have several prophetic commends regarding Belkar's fate. In order for Belkar to get out of it, he would have to satisfy the conditions of all soothsayings. In addition, the Oracle has shown far more disdain for Belkar that anyone else we have seen, and it is nonsensical that he would take such delight in Belkar's fate if it were to be the opposite of what he indicates.

"The halfling shouldn't bother funding his IRA"

"Well, I'm just thinking he should savor his next birthday cake. 'Nuff said."

"Your pal isn't long for this world"

"Belkar will draw his last breath - ever - before the end of the year"


The first three of these weren't in full-on prophecy mode, and you were just arguing that the prophet can say things that just plain aren't true when he's not doing his prophet thing, so arguably all three of those could be called into question on that basis alone. His prophecy for Haley wasn't literal; I'm pretty sure she never received a horse as a gift and proceeded to not look it in the mouth. I'm also guessing that Belkar won't be getting a birthday cake before the end of the comic, so again, he's sometimes speaking in expressions and generalities while other times speaking literally in ways that can mislead. This is the character Rich has presented, someone you can't trust as far as you can throw him.

So, to offer an example, say that Belkar changes to the point that he no longer identifies with his former gleeful murderer self. Therefore, "Belkar" draws his last breath. "Belkar" isn't long for this world. How is that not in keeping with the prophet we've seen?


If you are so intensely focused on why the Oracle did not speak in the most direct terms possible, consider that the only time he has done so was when he was asked a question so intensely specific that he was literally forced into being direct.

I'm not questioning why the Oracle wouldn't be direct; I'm arguing that Rich would have him be as direct as possible if he didn't want us to speculate on whether the prophecy means Belkar's death.

[Peelee]

And yet the prophet was brought to life shortly afterward, so it was still misleading. Durkon's prophecy was misleading. The prophet is a slippery character.
This is a world where that can be done. It wasn't misleading at all. You may not have expected it, but that's on you. It's no more misleading than if Belkar asked if he would make my car blow up, only for me to buy another one after it blew up. You're being incredibly disingenuous here.


The halfling shouldn't bother funding his IRA"

"Well, I'm just thinking he should savor his next birthday cake. 'Nuff said."

"Your pal isn't long for this world"

"Belkar will draw his last breath - ever - before the end of the year"


The first three of these weren't in full-on prophecy mode

I'ma stop you right there. The Oracle has a memory charm around the valley explicitly because he makes offhand prophecies. This is canon. The only thing we know about "official prophecy mode, " as you call it, is that it allows a given person to remember it. That's it. No indication is given that it is any more true than prophesies made at other times, and we are told directly that said "unofficial" prophecies have equal weight.

Throw then out if you want, but then you're homebrewing your own set of rules for the story, and I ain't gonna be a part of it.

[Fincher]

This is a world where that can be done. It wasn't misleading at all. You may not have expected it, but that's on you. It's no more misleading than if Belkar asked if he would make my car blow up, only for me to buy another one after it blew up. You're being incredibly disingenuous here.

Most of the characters that die in this world stay dead, including most of Belkar's victims. There are of course exceptions, but Belkar didn't want to know if he would hurt someone, he wanted to know if he would kill them, so the prophet getting x's over his eyes and being brought back five minutes later probably isn't exactly what he had in mind. Nor is it the first thing I would naturally think of if someone who sees the future tells him he'll kill somebody...unless it's someone I know can be tricky.


I'ma stop you right there. The Oracle has a memory charm around the valley explicitly because he makes offhand prophecies. This is canon. The only thing we know about "official prophecy mode, " as you call it, is that it allows a given person to remember it. That's it. No indication is given that it is any more true than prophesies made at other times, and we are told directly that said "unofficial" prophecies have equal weight.

Yes, the prophet can say things about the future that are true without making a big show of it, but it doesn't automatically follow that everything he says is true. You yourself dismissed his talk about Belkar causing Roy and Miko's deaths by suggesting he was bsing to save his own skin, so it doesn't follow from that that every word that comes out of his mouth is a prophecy that must be an infallible truth.

Regardless, it is the case that the prophet says things that are not literally true, even when he is explicitly prophesying. His words can be precise or metaphorical, specific or vague, helpful or useless. When you create a character that arcane and seemingly unconcerned about the Order's goals, and you want to firmly establish something as true by having him express it, you need to be especially blatant about it because everything he says will be scrutinized.

[hroþila]

It doesn't get any more straightforward than "Will I kill [...] you?" "Yes" *stabbity stab*. Was that what Belkar was thinking of? Maybe not. But then, his lack of foresight when asking the question is exactly why he didn't get an answer he found satisfactory.

As for Haley's prophecy, duh, it was an idiom and thus not literally true, but it wasn't misleading at all. It was obvious enough that Haley recognized the gift horse when it came, wasn't it? By contrast, all of the idioms used by the Oracle to refer to Belkar's prophecy have one clear meaning, especially when combined.

[Liquor Box]

This is a world where that can be done. It wasn't misleading at all. You may not have expected it, but that's on you. It's no more misleading than if Belkar asked if he would make my car blow up, only for me to buy another one after it blew up. You're being incredibly disingenuous here.



I'ma stop you right there. The Oracle has a memory charm around the valley explicitly because he makes offhand prophecies. This is canon. The only thing we know about "official prophecy mode, " as you call it, is that it allows a given person to remember it. That's it. No indication is given that it is any more true than prophesies made at other times, and we are told directly that said "unofficial" prophecies have equal weight.

Throw then out if you want, but then you're homebrewing your own set of rules for the story, and I ain't gonna be a part of it.

I agree with Finch, I don't think you can rely on the prophet's statements as meaning Belkar will die soon. The story made a point of demonstrating that the obvious interpretation of the prophecies wasn't necessarily the correct one - that's why Roy devised that complex question so the oracle couldn't be misleading as to where Xykon was heading.

It may simply mean that nobody bakes him a birthday cake most years, so he will only get one before he dies of old age.

[Peelee]

I'm not saying every word he says is literal truth, but if he makes an offhand prophecy for no reason whatsoever, that is literally why the memory charm exists, so logically, it is likely to be true.

Also, resurrection is indeed uncommon. But you would inshore the one character most likely to be resurrected would be one that can see the future. Funny how that works out so well, isn't it?

[Liquor Box]

Whether Belkar is moral or not has nothing to do with whether he is a great character. He is. He is the funniest, offers a different perspective than the rest of the order on most things, and allows them to do things they otherwise cannot. I sometimes look at the threads where people vote for their favourite of a selection of comics, and very frequently people place their vote becausde of something Belkar does.

I hope that karma recognises his great contribution to the order and to the story and gives him a good ending.


As for morality, I think people are exagerating the extent of his evil.

Belkar's evil must be judged in the context of the comic where good-aligned characters (confirmed by the heavens on roy's case) frequently kill, and will do things like dangling an oracle out a window to coerce a service from him beyond what had been bargained for.

In that context, the vast majority of kills by Belkar were in the same context in which the rest of the order killed - people recognised as enemies. He did kill the Oracle (after the oracle cheated him) and some nameless gnome, but that is far fewer arguably unjustified killings than have been made by Varsuvius (who is still considered neutral). Outside of those two incidents, it is difficult to think of much that would paint Belkar as at all immoral.

[Whelk]

Just fixing the thread title real quick.

[Liquor Box]

I'm not saying every word he says is literal truth, but if he makes an offhand prophecy for no reason whatsoever, that is literally why the memory charm exists, so logically, it is likely to be true.

Also, resurrection is indeed uncommon. But you would inshore the one character most likely to be resurrected would be one that can see the future. Funny how that works out so well, isn't it?

I don't think you can elevate his offhand comments to having higher standing than formal prophecies. I don't necessarily agree with Finch that they have less values than formal prophecies either though. I'm just saying the wording is inherently ambiguous, and other ambiguous things the oracle has said have had a non-obvious meaning.


Not sure what you are replying to with your last paragraph - but that might be the answer =- perhaps Belkar dies and is resurrected.

[Peelee]

I don't think you can elevate his offhand comments to having higher standing than formal prophecies.

Ok, stop. Define "formal prophecy." Because the Oracle never says this term. He says, "on the record," which means a recorded account of a proceeding. It has absolutely nothing to do with the the validity of the prophecy. Argue this all you want but i have hard canon backing my claim, and you have fan theory and nothing else backing yours.

"Official prophecy" just means prophecy that will pass through the memory charm. Arguing against this is arguing against the comic itself. Have fun with that.

Also, the resurrection bit was a reply to Fincher. Shoulda been more specific, but im on my phone at her moment

[Kish]

There are of course exceptions, but Belkar didn't want to know if he would hurt someone, he wanted to know if he would kill them, so the prophet getting x's over his eyes and being brought back five minutes later probably isn't exactly what he had in mind.
At this point, you're arguing that the Oracle not ignoring the actual question, guessing what question Belkar wanted the answer to, and answering that question instead, constitutes evidence of the Oracle being deceptive--even though the same strip demonstrated that he cannot actually do that (he pushed Roy to ask a question that would have gotten the answer "Soon's Gate" before reluctantly telling him "Girard's Gate"). Belkar was careless in phrasing his question and got a complete, comprehensive, and accurate answer which didn't describe events he would be pleased about; that's not evidence that "the Oracle is deceptive," it's evidence that "Belkar is kind of dumb." He didn't realize he couldn't just ask "Which one?" immediately and get an answer, remember?

[RossN]

In that context, the vast majority of kills by Belkar were in the same context in which the rest of the order killed - people recognised as enemies. He did kill the Oracle (after the oracle cheated him) and some nameless gnome, but that is far fewer arguably unjustified killings than have been made by Varsuvius (who is still considered neutral). Outside of those two incidents, it is difficult to think of much that would paint Belkar as at all immoral.

...?

This is the same character who mutilates corpses for fun and gloated about desecrating the remains to the grieving son of a man he killed. He's a funny character but even given the morality of the setting it's clear he's absolute scum.

(And 'some nameless gnome' did in fact have a name - Solt Lorkyurg.)

[Liquor Box]

Ok, stop. Define "formal prophecy." Because the Oracle never says this term. He says, "on the record," which means a recorded account of a proceeding. It has absolutely nothing to do with the the validity of the prophecy. Argue this all you want but i have hard canon backing my claim, and you have fan theory and nothing else backing yours.

"Official prophecy" just means prophecy that will pass through the memory charm. Arguing against this is arguing against the comic itself. Have fun with that.

Also, the resurrection bit was a reply to Fincher. Shoulda been more specific, but im on my phone at her moment

I'm not trying to draw a distinction really, I just used the words "formal prophecy" to represent the opposite of what you described as an "offhand prophecy".

All I am saying is that most prophetic statements by the oracle have resulted in something other than the most obvious interpretation of that prophecy. It is very likely that the same applies to Belkar's death

[Liquor Box]

...?

This is the same character who mutilates corpses for fun and gloated about desecrating the remains to the grieving son of a man he killed. He's a funny character but even given the morality of the setting it's clear he's absolute scum.

(And 'some nameless gnome' did in fact have a name - Solt Lorkyurg.)

BY desecrating the corpse, are you referring to the kobold he turned into a kitty litter? If so he has a non-evil accomplice in that desecration.

[Fincher]

At this point, you're arguing that the Oracle not ignoring the actual question, guessing what question Belkar wanted the answer to, and answering the question instead, constitutes evidence of the Oracle being deceptive--even though the same strip demonstrated that he cannot actually do that (he pushed Roy to ask a question that would have gotten the answer "Soon's Gate" before reluctantly telling him "Girard's Gate"). Belkar was careless in phrasing his question and got a complete, comprehensive, and accurate answer which didn't describe events he would be pleased about; that's not evidence that "the Oracle is deceptive," it's evidence that "Belkar is kind of dumb." He didn't realize he couldn't just ask "Which one?" immediately and get an answer, remember?

He had to answer the question provided, but he uses his own discretion with how much of an answer he gives. When Elan asked if there would be a happy ending, he said, "Yes - for you, at least." So he could have said, "Yes, but it won't be permanent," or, "Yes, but it might not be permanent" or "Yes, you'll stab me the next time I come back here after I try to argue that you killed Roy and Miko by doing things that indirectly led to their deaths" or any number of variations. His prophecies always have an element of truth to them, but he clearly has a lot of freedom in terms of how exactly he answers, and there's no consistent form.

"Posthumously" - Technically true, but gives the wrong impression

"When the gift horse comes calling, don't look it in the mouth" - A figure of speech, so not technically true, but giving the right impression while not telling as much as Haley wanted to know at the time, but ultimately helping her

"Yes" (to Belkar) - Technically true, sort of gives the wrong impression and sort of doesn't, providing as little information as possible

"In his throne room" - Technically true, not misleading at all, but not what they wanted to know or helpful to them

"Try gingko biloba" - Seems to be the best of them, no riddles or games, just a straight answer

The issue isn't whether the prophet cheated them or whether he's worth the effort. I mean, I wouldn't seek out his services given this track record, but whatever. What I'm getting at is that his prophecies can't always be taken at face value. If you take "Well, I'm just thinking he should savor his next birthday cake" to be a prophecy...if Belkar dies before the end of the comic, I'm guessing the Order isn't going to throw him a birthday party when they're racing to save the world, so it looks like the prophesied birthday cake will not come to pass.

Is that absolute proof that he won't die? No, because the prophet telling him to savor his birthday cake does not mean that there will be an actual birthday cake for him to savor. He isn't always literal. For Belkar to not die doesn't require all of those death prophecies to be literally true in a way that's consistent with him living. The "death" they suggest could be metaphorical, a reference to change. The death card in a tarot deck is about change, after all.

[Kish]

Vaarsuvius is not "considered neutral"--they're True Neutral, mechanically, factually. If for some weird-ass reason you consider the alignment system what determines your judgments you're obligated to condemn Belkar because he's Chaotic Evil; if you don't then "his deeds are no worse than the loathsome and despicable Vaarsuvius" oddly fails to be much of a defense for him.

Edited to respond to directly above post: Along with a whole lot of "I didn't anticipate this and that's the Oracle's fault somehow," I note an entirely unjustified assumption that Belkar didn't at some point consume a birthday cake off-panel. Rich is neither obligated to, nor inclined to, show everything that happens.

[veti]

But Belkar is not simply an evil murderer, is an extremely powerful, near-impossible to stop or imprison murderer.

Hard to imprison, certainly. "Near impossible" to stop? Hardly.

Last time this thread topic came up, I counted six arguably-innocent people Belkar has killed. (Three of them in one strip.) That's six in the entire span of the (online) comic. On a per-strip basis, that's a lot less than Miko.

I'd say that Roy has, demonstrably, stopped Belkar from murdering people. Ergo, he's not unstoppable.

[Kish]

I don't want to know what messed-up metric claims both that Belkar has killed only six "arguably innocent" people (and apparently no people who were actually innocent; I also don't want to know what you'd "argue" Solt Lorkyurg did), and that Miko killed more.

[Fincher]

Edited to respond to directly above post: Along with a whole lot of "I didn't anticipate this and that's the Oracle's fault somehow," I note an entirely unjustified assumption that Belkar didn't at some point consume a birthday cake off-panel. Rich is neither obligated to, nor inclined to, show everything that happens.

Okay, fair enough. Say he ate a birthday cake. Say he even has an IRA, even though it doesn't sound like something Belkar would do. Nothing about the prophet's inconsistent way of delivering his prophecies leads me to conclude that he wouldn't speak loosely about such things. In other words, him saying that Belkar should savor his cake doesn't make me certain that Belkar ate/will eat a cake. I'm not taking everything he says as gospel.

I mean, what would the basis for that conclusion? The prophet hasn't expressed a positive attitude toward the Order or their quest. He can't have dissatisfied customers for his Belkar prophecies because he wasn't paid for them, and all but one of them aren't even supposed to be remembered. While being paid, he's said a prophecy that's technically true but gives the recipient (Durkon) the wrong impression. While being paid, he's also said a prophecy that's technically untrue but gives the recipient (Haley) the right impression. He seems to just be messing around, really, or at least that's as good of an explanation as any. "This time I'll tell them Xykon's in his throne room. Maybe next time I'll give them a straight answer."

What standards of quality can we conclude from what we've seen of him? Well, he is a prophet. He says things that are true in some sense, and Belkar's prophecy is one of these things that are true in some sense. But I'm not going to say, "The prophet wouldn't keep making it sound like Belkar was going to die if he wasn't," because there's nothing to suggest he wouldn't do that very thing. He might do it just to mess with them.

[Dark Matter]

Belkar will go to (one of) the CE Hell(s). It's what he deserves, and probably what he wants.

It's possible he'll be happy there for some extremely odd definitions of "happy".

[Kish]

If you want to say the Oracle is lying, by all means, do. I think you'll be disappointed but I freely admit I can't prove it.

I just don't see the point of all the dancing around what you call the "official prophecy" (and you pointing out that Belkar presumably doesn't have an IRA and so that line can only have been what it looks like, a blatant "he's gonna die soon" implication, looks like an own goal to me). If the Oracle is a liar then there's no reason not to assume he's lying there too. If for some reason you think the green glowies mean he can't lie (though I don't know how you'd support that assumption either), just assume the Oracle used a minor image wand to make it look like he was in the glowies when he actually wasn't.

[Fincher]

I don't imagine the Oracle would call it lying (I don't want to get in a moral or semantic debate about that, myself), more like saying something figuratively, and if the person he's talking to takes it too literally or takes it at the most obvious meaning, well, that's not his problem. We don't really know what's going on in his head and why he does things the way he does, but I would take them with a generous helping of salt.

I don't know that there's any difference to his approach to the "official" prophesying and the offhand remarks. I think there's a difference in the breathing statement itself in that it sounds less banter-y than talking about Belkar's IRA and birthday cake, but it can still be figurative, as in the old Belkar breathes his last breath ever and is replaced by a new, changed Belkar. Which would be true...from a certain point of view.

[Liquor Box]

Vaarsuvius is not "considered neutral"--they're True Neutral, mechanically, factually. If for some weird-ass reason you consider the alignment system what determines your judgments you're obligated to condemn Belkar because he's Chaotic Evil; if you don't then "his deeds are no worse than the loathsome and despicable Vaarsuvius" oddly fails to be much of a defense for him.


Fair comment, mechanically he is chaotic evil and Varsuvius (I don't know who else you are referring to by "they're") in neutral and that's that (other than the possibility that either of their deeds changes their alignments).

But I do think my point is fair. Beyond being mechanically neutral, Varsuvius is not usually considered evil by most people on this site, or by the other members of the order (although they do not know of his familiacide spell).

Beyond Varsuvious though, some of the supposedly good members of the order (both in terms of mechanics, fandom consensus and for Roy the very heavens) have also engaged in similarly questionable activities. For example using the dominated Yukyuk (or whatever the kobold's name was) to scout for traps exposing him to danger, and putting him in a situation that ultimately led to his death. I don't recall the Kobold being established as evil.

My point is that, based on this actions, Belkar is only a matter of a couple of degrees south of the likes of Roy and Hayley in terms of morality, and probably better than Varsuvius. His evilness relative to the others is more of an informed trait, and the perception from those who don't like his attitude. As someone who does like his attitude, I have a different perspective of the morality of his actions.

[Ruck]

I don't imagine the Oracle would call it lying (I don't want to get in a moral or semantic debate about that, myself), more like saying something figuratively, and if the person he's talking to takes it too literally or takes it at the most obvious meaning, well, that's not his problem. We don't really know what's going on in his head and why he does things the way he does, but I would take them with a generous helping of salt.

I don't know that there's any difference to his approach to the "official" prophesying and the offhand remarks. I think there's a difference in the breathing statement itself in that it sounds less banter-y than talking about Belkar's IRA and birthday cake, but it can still be figurative, as in the old Belkar breathes his last breath ever and is replaced by a new, changed Belkar. Which would be true...from a certain point of view.

So you think the more likely scenario than "the Oracle is making a bunch of off-handed figurative references to Belkar's impending death" is "the Oracle is purposely saying a bunch of things that he knows could be interpreted as figurative references to Belkar's death, but means them all literally"?

[Liquor Box]

I don't want to know what messed-up metric claims both that Belkar has killed only six "arguably innocent" people (and apparently no people who were actually innocent; I also don't want to know what you'd "argue" Solt Lorkyurg did), and that Miko killed more.

That six were arguably innocent does not suggest that some of the six were not obviously innocent.

I would be interested to know who the six were. I can only remember the oracle (arguably innocent) and the gnome from when the escaped from Azure City (obviously innocent).

[Fincher]

So you think the more likely scenario than "the Oracle is making a bunch of off-handed figurative references to Belkar's impending death" is "the Oracle is purposely saying a bunch of things that he knows could be interpreted as figurative references to Belkar's death, but means them all literally"?

Not literally...well, okay, it could be literally. It could also be figuratively, but in a different way than it seems.

If the events of The Order of the Stick were really happening in a real world, and we were just witnessing them from the side, Belkar dying might be the most likely scenario. Not by any means the only possible scenario, since Durkon returning home posthumously seemed like how he interpreted until it wasn't like that, but at the same time not everything the prophet says is misleading.

However, these aren't real events, it's a story, and to the extent that I predict what will and won't happen in a story, I have to think in terms of what the author would most likely do. So what's more likely:

1. The author gave Belkar a prophecy that at first appears to be one thing but ends up being another like he gave Durkon a prophecy that at first appears to be one thing but ends up being another

or

2. The author decided that Belkar would die, had his death announced well in advance by an unreliable character, and didn't have the unreliable character be as direct about the death as he could have, causing readers to speculate about how Belkar might not actually die and ways in which the prophecy might be misleading, only for it to turn out that the most obvious interpretation was true and he dies

[Lombard]

I love Belkar and when he's outrageous and funny I think the product as a whole is more entertaining. I don't really think he needs an apologist, but I will say that I think that strip with the gnome and the cart was intended far more as a juxtaposition of Haley's position than many seem to have taken it.

To me Belkar represents something about the strip that I've always enjoyed, which is a cheerful self-awareness of its own medium. The thing with the kobold litterbox is exactly the sort of thing that would have happened in my old gaming sessions, which were always sprinkled with some over-the-top antics both to test the DM's patience and to make one another crack up. The sort of thing that only happens because we know it's not real, even though we do of course enjoy pretending it is real.

I like the strip having both a serious story-telling side and a side that captures the essence of the other part D&D fun. Sometimes the latter is embodied in a great battle scene, or more literally breaking the 4th wall, sometimes it's embodied in what I described in the paragraph above. At least for me it is. I feel kind of like Elan and Thog- oh, you beatific murderous nimrod Thog, how I loved thee- used to help that irreverance along but Thog's gone and Elan's changed since the romance and the Tarquin storyline.

Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but I think the strip has a lot of fans that were gained when things were a bit sillier, because it made them laugh a lot, and now keep hanging around to see where the story goes. I believe Belkar has a stronger following among that contingent. At times I would have ventured he was the strip's most popular character. He may have pissed some people off but he was nonetheless an essential part of the mix and from the meta perspective I think it would be a mistake to disregard that. For good or for ill, he's a big part of the strip's soul and a significant component of why the strip has the luxury to get more into the more serious storytelling side of things. Just my opinion but presuming that the strip's outgrown him reminds me of something somewhere in between when Apple thought they'd outgrown Jobs and Tropicana deciding for no good reason that they needed a label change... pick your own point on that scale lol.

[Ruck]

Not literally...well, okay, it could be literally. It could also be figuratively, but in a different way than it seems.

If the events of The Order of the Stick were really happening in a real world, and we were just witnessing them from the side, Belkar dying might be the most likely scenario. Not by any means the only possible scenario, since Durkon returning home posthumously seemed like how he interpreted until it wasn't like that, but at the same time not everything the prophet says is misleading.

However, these aren't real events, it's a story, and to the extent that I predict what will and won't happen in a story, I have to think in terms of what the author would most likely do. So what's more likely:

1. The author gave Belkar a prophecy that at first appears to be one thing but ends up being another like he gave Durkon a prophecy that at first appears to be one thing but ends up being another

or

2. The author decided that Belkar would die, had his death announced well in advance by an unreliable character, and didn't have the unreliable character be as direct about the death as he could have, causing readers to speculate about how Belkar might not actually die and ways in which the prophecy might be misleading, only for it to turn out that the most obvious interpretation was true and he dies
In the real world, we don't have prophets who are confirmed to see the future, so I'm not sure how we're even getting into that.

If you want to talk about what the author will do, though, let's have at it.

In your examples, why is 1 "the author gives Belkar a prophecy" and 2 "The author had his death announced well in advance by an unreliable character"? You're describing the exact same event two different ways to try to bolster your case.

Besides, a more accurate phrasing would be "The author had a character who is capable of seeing the future mention on no less than three separate occasions that Belkar would die by the end of the year."

Also, the Oracle isn't unreliable. His predictions come true. Durkon is dead. His soul being trapped inside his head by a vampire instead of in a Lawful Good afterlife doesn't change that. He is occasionally overly literal, but he's made both one literal and two figurative pronouncements that Belkar will die before the end of the year, so I don't see why that matters here.

Speaking of what the author would do: I have never found, when reading The Order of the Stick, that "What the author might most likely do" is answered by "the most convoluted option possible." If we're going with that kind of Doylist logic, though, I can easily say "The author won't have the same thing happen to Belkar's prophecy that happened to Durkon's, because he already did it with Durkon."

Another thing I expect the author to do is write characters with consistent traits and motivations. This leads to my other question: Why would the Oracle do this? Why would the Oracle go out of his way to claim Belkar would die-- to put the prophecy on the record-- if it wasn't true? I don't see any motivation for the Oracle to lie here.

[Peelee]

Not literally...well, okay, it could be literally. It could also be figuratively, but in a different way than it seems.

If the events of The Order of the Stick were really happening in a real world, and we were just witnessing them from the side, Belkar dying might be the most likely scenario. Not by any means the only possible scenario, since Durkon returning home posthumously seemed like how he interpreted until it wasn't like that, but at the same time not everything the prophet says is misleading.

However, these aren't real events, it's a story, and to the extent that I predict what will and won't happen in a story, I have to think in terms of what the author would most likely do. So what's more likely:

1. The author gave Belkar a prophecy that at first appears to be one thing but ends up being another like he gave Durkon a prophecy that at first appears to be one thing but ends up being another

or

2. The author decided that Belkar would die, had his death announced well in advance by an unreliable character, and didn't have the unreliable character be as direct about the death as he could have, causing readers to speculate about how Belkar might not actually die and ways in which the prophecy might be misleading, only for it to turn out that the most obvious interpretation was true and he dies

The second, once you change "unreliable" to "reliable." It's like a monkey's paw, man. What he says comes to pass. That there may be other, untold issues doesn't mean jack. Durkon is returning home posthumously. 100% true. Belkar will kill one of the people on his list. 100% true. Of the two gates given, Xykon will be at Girard's first. 100% true. What makes him unreliable, other than your own insistence that he is?

[Fincher]

In your examples, why is 1 "the author gives Belkar a prophecy" and 2 "The author had his death announced well in advance by an unreliable character"? You're describing the exact same event two different ways to try to bolster your case.

I'm not really seeing how my wording there bolsters my case. They're different circumstances. I didn't say the author announced his death in Scenario #1 because he wasn't announcing his death; he was presenting a prophecy that seemed to be doing that but wasn't.


He is occasionally overly literal, but he's made both one literal and two figurative pronouncements that Belkar will die before the end of the year, so I don't see why that matters here.

Because if he can be literal, and he can be figurative, and he can say things that give the listener the wrong impression, and he can say things that don't tell the listener what they actually want to know, there's no sense of any "rulebook", any particular standards you can go by as to what he might or might not do. Sure, he's never said something that seemed literal but was actually figurative, or that seemed figurative but was actually literal, or that seemed to be figurative in one sense but was figurative in another sense, but how do you conclude from the things he has done or his general behavior that he wouldn't do those things?


Speaking of what the author would do: I have never found, when reading The Order of the Stick, that "What the author might most likely do" is answered by "the most convoluted option possible."

What most convoluted option possible? The one theory I've proposed is that Belkar changes to the point that he can be seen as a different person, so that the old Belkar can be seen to have "breathed his last breath". That's not convoluted, it's...thematic. It also fits with the way Belkar has been evolving.


If we're going with that kind of Doylist logic, though, I can easily say "The author won't have the same thing happen to Belkar's prophecy that happened to Durkon's, because he already did it with Durkon."

Haley and Vaarsuvius both had prophecies that they didn't understand at the time but that made sense when the moment came.


Another thing I expect the author to do is write characters with consistent traits and motivations. This leads to my other question: Why would the Oracle do this? Why would the Oracle go out of his way to claim Belkar would die-- to put the prophecy on the record-- if it wasn't true? I don't see any motivation for the Oracle to lie here.

Why did the Oracle not tell Durkon he would be a vampire? Why did he choose to be specific about Elan getting a happy ending when Elan didn't ask that? Why did he let Roy have a free prophecy about Belkar, period? Can you tell me what the Oracle's motivations are beyond getting paid and ruining Belkar's day?

[Fincher]

The second, once you change "unreliable" to "reliable." It's like a monkey's paw, man. What he says comes to pass. That there may be other, untold issues doesn't mean jack. Durkon is returning home posthumously. 100% true. Belkar will kill one of the people on his list. 100% true. Of the two gates given, Xykon will be at Girard's first. 100% true. What makes him unreliable, other than your own insistence that he is?

I said in my last post that the prophet didn't say anything that was literal but seemed to be figurative, but he did the next "best" thing with the posthumous prophecy. If you take that prophecy 100% literally, then yes, all it says is that Durkon dies and then Durkon returns to his homeland. If you read it the way people normally talk, then it gives the impression that Durkon dies, and then his inanimate body is returned to his homeland, most likely for burial. The prophet was going out of his way to say it in a way that Durkon would not understand.

On the other hand, the only way the "looking a gift horse in the mouth" prophecy is true is if you read it the way people normally talk. If you take it literally...where is this horse? Haley was promised a horse, and a horse did not come. When you need some sort of color chart to know how to read any given prophecy he might make...I call that deceptive. I mean, Durkon could have died, been resurrected a minute later, and then returned to his homeland a thousand strips later, and technically speaking he would have returned home posthumously. Doesn't make it not bs.

When his methods are deceptive, there's no reason for me to assume that he'll draw the line at something that sounds literal but is actually figurative. He's never said anything about such a standard of conduct. It's like if someone says, "Thog kills people, but he wouldn't kill a child." I don't know that he wouldn't kill a child. Until he's presented with the opportunity and motive, and he says, "Thog not kill child," I'm going to go ahead and say he might.

[Mx56]

My point is that, based on this actions, Belkar is only a matter of a couple of degrees south of the likes of Roy and Hayley in terms of morality, and probably better than Varsuvius. His evilness relative to the others is more of an informed trait, and the perception from those who don't like his attitude. As someone who does like his attitude, I have a different perspective of the morality of his actions.
Belkar kills for no other reason than he feels like it (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0133.html) on multiple occasions and feels absolutely no no remorse. That's pretty evil. Good characters can and do commit evil acts in the story (and note that it usually comes back to bite them in some way, I wouldn't be surprised if the Yukyuk incident comes up again at some point) because they're not angels but it's usually not a pattern of behaviour and they often come to realise that they've done wrong and seek to either redress it or at least not do it again.

[veti]

That six were arguably innocent does not suggest that some of the six were not obviously innocent.

I would be interested to know who the six were. I can only remember the oracle (arguably innocent) and the gnome from when the escaped from Azure City (obviously innocent).

The others would be: the guard Belkar killed when he escaped from Azure City's prison, and Kuurkk, Lokar and Hak-Tonag (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0133.html).

[Ruck]

I wish we could bet on whether Belkar dies by the end of the series.

[ti'esar]

I wish we could bet on whether Belkar dies by the end of the series.

There used to be an OOTS prediction-betting thread, but it kind of died out when it was moved from this forum to Message Board Games.

I have to say, it's been interesting seeing some of the people in here saying that they find Belkar an essential part of the comic. He's certainly a well-established part of the ensemble - that's why, even though I'm 100 percent certain he will die, I suspect it won't be until the very end. But for a long time I found him a slightly discordant part of the comic. The whole token evil teammate thing is a frequent phenomenon in a lot of older comics, but I'm not sure it made as much sense with something like OOTS. At times it felt like the rest of the party continuing to travel with him was a little contrived. This is not to say that he's not funny, only that the humor felt a little off from everything else.

(I don't really feel this way anymore, incidentally).

[Legoshrimp]

There used to be an OOTS prediction-betting thread, but it kind of died out when it was moved from this forum to Message Board Games.

I have to say, it's been interesting seeing some of the people in here saying that they find Belkar an essential part of the comic. He's certainly a well-established part of the ensemble - that's why, even though I'm 100 percent certain he will die, I suspect it won't be until the very end. But for a long time I found him a slightly discordant part of the comic. The whole token evil teammate thing is a frequent phenomenon in a lot of older comics, but I'm not sure it made as much sense with something like OOTS. At times it felt like the rest of the party continuing to travel with him was a little contrived. This is not to say that he's not funny, only that the humor felt a little off from everything else.

(I don't really feel this way anymore, incidentally).

I think Rich said somewhere that since he is part of the order, even if he dies before the end, he will be followed. So we could potentially see his afterlife.

Belkar is a fun character, evil sure, but who cares? Also he is improving gradually. Maybe he got an upgrade to his wisdom at some point. I am not really sure if it counts as canon that if belkar was wiser he would realize the errors of his ways and try to be better, but it seems strongly implied by http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0058.html .

I think Belkar will die, possibly becoming some form of undead, but probably not.

Also I don't really see nearly directly copying star wars as good writing like you do.
He is still going to be the same person. He might have changed a lot, but he will still be Belkar. So the prophecy still applies to him. Also I think the entire purpose of how the "breathed his last breath before the end of year" is to say he will not get resurrected.

Also I am pretty sure it will end in some sort of redemption for him, because if not it seems like a waste to go through all of this character development. Then in the end say nope nothings changed.

[LunarDrop]

Just fixing the thread title real quick.

Haha, thank you.


Fair comment, mechanically he is chaotic evil and Varsuvius (I don't know who else you are referring to by "they're") in neutral and that's that (other than the possibility that either of their deeds changes their alignments).

The singular form they is used as a gender neutral pronoun

[snowblizz]

I have to say, it's been interesting seeing some of the people in here saying that they find Belkar an essential part of the comic. He's certainly a well-established part of the ensemble - that's why, even though I'm 100 percent certain he will die, I suspect it won't be until the very end.
That'd be my bet too. And I consider Belkar an essential part of this comic. All the original characters are IMNSHO.


But for a long time I found him a slightly discordant part of the comic. The whole token evil teammate thing is a frequent phenomenon in a lot of older comics, but I'm not sure it made as much sense with something like OOTS. At times it felt like the rest of the party continuing to travel with him was a little contrived.
The Giant more or less says the same in DStP commentary and that's why Belkar is pretending-to-yet-slightly-bettering-himself-despite-it-being-an-act.
Belkar as he is now is certainly a much more interesting character than Durkon. which is also why I'm interested in seeing where the Giant is taking that chracter too.

And to all of you "evil must pay" ppl out there. Pffft!

[LunarDrop]

Personally I like Belkar more for his interactions with the other party members, namely Vaarsuvius- something I haven't seen many people bring up.

Let's start with the most interesting; Vaarsuvius.
I needn't remind you all of the "Event" or the prank war, but if you remember those then watching Vaarsuvius interact with Belkar and knowing this information is interesting. I wonder if they still believe their Hate or Lust theory, especially since seeing Belkar develop. I may be biased because I love Vaarsuvius and Belkar together, but I've immensely enjoyed watching their relationship progress from simple hate to seeming friends. And before you say friends is a stretch take a look at their more recent interactions which include V saving Belkar's life, Belkar coming to V to vent, V carrying Belkar up to the ship, the two being buddy-buddy with the litterbox Koblod, I could go on.

Durkon, being the most obvious, is next.
We CLEARLY see some guilt on Belkar's part, much as he tries to deny it with anger, but his insistence that Durkon* was a fake was on point with him seeing his friend taken from him and replaced with a fake. Belkar wants to get Durkon resurrected, as evidenced when he commends Roy for taking a significant step towards doing so, and seeing him care about anyone on that level other than Mr. Scruffy is a sign that he is learning to be more "human" (yes I know he's a Halfling.)

I was going to go on with the rest of the party but I think my post is long enough already...

[KorvinStarmast]

Belkar
Preface:
Of all the 4th wall breaking lines, I think his are the best. Rich uses Belkar to say annoying and rude stuff. An outlet.
==============
In the beginning
1. Comic relief
2. A well done rebuke to some of the immature asshats we've all gamed with who are amoral murder hoboes. (The kill Elan for XP vignette being a shining example).
3. Belkar as truth teller. He cuts through a lot of BS scenes with smart alec remarks, some of which are on point, some of which are just outrageous and for shock effect.

About the retcon

4. Origin of the PC's, Belkar is in jail for killing 15 people in a bar. Sociopath / psychopath. This folds in to his habitual lack of empathy, related to the wisdom dump stat -> his inability to cast Ranger Spells. (Unless buffed by V).

Belkar with a bit more to him ... after a few hundred strips ...

5. Belkar the friend. Belkar has one friend. Mr Scruffy (and maybe his lizard/dinosaur). The rest are associates, though as above he seems to be making peace with V ... V's been through the homicidal maniac phase and maybe see Belkar in a different light now. Back to Belkar the Friend: "You and me to the bitter end" is what he says to Mr Scruffy. (Around the time of curse removal). That theme has sustained itself.

6. Belkar the unheeded Cassandra. The whole Durkon gets killed/vamped story arc (poignantly made with "is this a thing we aren't going?" when he attacks Durkon in the desert and Roy stops him.

Belkar has grown and fleshed out a bit. He's a far better character now than in the beginning. But even with all of his "development" he's fundamentally self-centered. A data point that just won't go away is his pointless (but characteristic) selfishness with the sandwiches at the thieves guild vis a vis Jenny in 622 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0622.html). I think Rich put that in there for a reason beyond comic set up for the solo adventure gag.

[Kish]

and the perception from those who don't like his attitude.
Entirely wrong. Belkar's attitude makes him annoying, it's the casual murder, torture, and so on that make him evil. I liked Malack's attitude; that mysteriously did not prevent me from recognizing him as horrifically evil (and, indeed, arguing that he was probably Lawful Evil for months of multiple people, some more stridently than others, asserting that he was obviously Lawful Neutral).

[Jay R]

You are right, the correct word was "to murder".
Sorry. I've not yet mastered english perfectly and mabye I never will.

Don't apologize. using a back-and forth conversation to correct misstatements and have each of us actually work out what we each believe is how the internet works at its best.

It's rare, but it's wonderful when it happens.

[veti]

I wonder if they still believe their Hate or Lust theory, especially since seeing Belkar develop. I may be biased because I love Vaarsuvius and Belkar together, but I've immensely enjoyed watching their relationship progress from simple hate to seeming friends.

The "hate or lust" theory always said more about Vaarsuvius than about Belkar. It was an example of how she consistently under-estimated - well, everyone else. She thought of Belkar as little more than a clockwork toy that could trivially be manipulated to a desired state of what-passes-for-"mind". This in itself is bad enough, but really it was just the reductio ad absurdum of how she viewed everyone.

I think she's learned more respect for her team-mates - and, to a lesser extent, everyone else - now. But that's V's character growth, not Belkar's.


I was going to go on with the rest of the party but I think my post is long enough already...

Not at all. Please, continue.

[LunarDrop]

Personally I like Belkar more for his interactions with the other party members, namely Vaarsuvius- something I haven't seen many people bring up.

Let's start with the most interesting; Vaarsuvius.
I needn't remind you all of the "Event" or the prank war, but if you remember those then watching Vaarsuvius interact with Belkar and knowing this information is interesting. I wonder if they still believe their Hate or Lust theory, especially since seeing Belkar develop. I may be biased because I love Vaarsuvius and Belkar together, but I've immensely enjoyed watching their relationship progress from simple hate to seeming friends. And before you say friends is a stretch take a look at their more recent interactions which include V saving Belkar's life, Belkar coming to V to vent, V carrying Belkar up to the ship, the two being buddy-buddy with the litterbox Koblod, I could go on.

Durkon, being the most obvious, is next.
We CLEARLY see some guilt on Belkar's part, much as he tries to deny it with anger, but his insistence that Durkon* was a fake was on point with him seeing his friend taken from him and replaced with a fake. Belkar wants to get Durkon resurrected, as evidenced when he commends Roy for taking a significant step towards doing so, and seeing him care about anyone on that level other than Mr. Scruffy is a sign that he is learning to be more "human" (yes I know he's a Halfling.)

I was going to go on with the rest of the party but I think my post is long enough already...

Continued...

While I'd like to go on with Belkar and Vaarsuvius, I wont subject you guys to that torture.

Roy:
I like seeing Roy try to restrain Belkar. It reminds me of that annoying middle schooler kid who you take under your wing so he wont bug others. (This is, of course, on a more serious scale than that, but still.) Belkar's teasing is also very enjoyable (remember when Roy took the hit for Elan in the battle for Azure City and Belkar teased him about it) but It's very interesting to see Roy starting to -in a weird sort of way- 'trust' Belkar. The first example we see of this is when he listens to Belkar when the pyramid was about to blow up (when Belkar has them hide in the coffin). But now he is forced to value Belkar's opinion- especially since being proved wrong about Durkon* when Belkar repeatedly tried to tell him something was up. Belkar doesn't seem to know how to handle this.

Elan:

It's actually really sweet to see Belkar being so friendly with someone. Think back to when Elan was taken by the bandits- Belkar stood up for him and went back to save him. Mind you this was very early in the comic- I doubt he would have gone back for anyone else at that particular point. I don't have much to say on this point because honestly I haven't paid as much attention to this relationship past their 'friendship' bred from humor. But if people are interested I would be fine with going back and inspecting it further.

Haley:
Not gonna lie, while this one is probably the most touched upon (except for Belkar and Vaarsuvius which I love) it's probably the one I paid the least attention to. Most of their relationship can be summated in their time in Don't Split The Party. Haley has rather poor leadership skills and Belkar needs a strong leader to keep him in check, hence why Roy is so imperative. Belkar constantly pushes Haley to her limit and she despises him for it. Eventually she goes as far as to kick him from the party, and it's only then Belkar seems to take her seriously- that she actually means it when she tells him to stop and that they aren't just idle threats.

[Alchemist_Fire]

I once gave Belkar a piece of my mind; he gave me a piece of his dagger :belkar:

[Liquor Box]

Belkar kills for no other reason than he feels like it (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0133.html) on multiple occasions and feels absolutely no no remorse. That's pretty evil. Good characters can and do commit evil acts in the story (and note that it usually comes back to bite them in some way, I wouldn't be surprised if the Yukyuk incident comes up again at some point) because they're not angels but it's usually not a pattern of behaviour and they often come to realise that they've done wrong and seek to either redress it or at least not do it again.

But has the same not happened to Belkar?

You will recall him chatting with the spirit of Lord Shinjo in a dream. At that point he decided that his previous pattern of behaviour had been unwise and that he would moderate his murderous ways somewhat. Since then (and that was about halfway through the story to date) he has not murdered anyone.

Since his reformation he has committed no acts of murder (unlike V, who has), so what basis is there to say he is evil?

[Liquor Box]

The others would be: the guard Belkar killed when he escaped from Azure City's prison, and Kuurkk, Lokar and Hak-Tonag (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0133.html).

Cheers

Not sure you can blame Belkar for killing the barbarians - he was pitted against them in combat to which they appeared to have consented and he didn't know it was not to the death. Although, I suppose nobody forced him to choose option D.

[Liquor Box]

Entirely wrong. Belkar's attitude makes him annoying, it's the casual murder, torture, and so on that make him evil. I liked Malack's attitude; that mysteriously did not prevent me from recognizing him as horrifically evil (and, indeed, arguing that he was probably Lawful Evil for months of multiple people, some more stridently than others, asserting that he was obviously Lawful Neutral).

It's his attitude that makes him so delightful :smallbiggrin:

Maybe you consider all murderers evil (so including V), in which case my comment doesn't apply to you. However, I do think some people simply dislike Belkar and therefore tend to look at all his actions through a slightly harsher lens than others who also murder and do things that would unacceptable in our world.

I was going to ask why you considered Malack evil - after all he does just kill enemies of his group (just like the order does), with the exception of Nale. But on checking the geekery thread I see that the giant has clarified that he is evil.

[Kish]

I promise, it didn't take Word of God for me to see that the monster who sat at the head of a brutal dystopia and dreamed of the day when he could dispense with even the minimal restraint imposed by his vile mortal companions and turn the continent into an abattoir was evil. I am, however, thinking that if you see no moral distinction between "death for public urination or missing access papers" and "I won't risk endangering goblin children," I wonder if "evil" even has a meaning to you that isn't "the author sed so."

[Liquor Box]

I promise, it didn't take Word of God for me to see that the monster who sat at the head of a brutal dystopia and dreamed of the day when he could dispense with even the minimal restraint imposed by his vile mortal companions and turn the continent into an abattoir was evil. I am, however, thinking that if you see no moral distinction between "death for public urination or missing access papers" and "I won't risk endangering goblin children," I wonder if "evil" even has a meaning to you that isn't "the author sed so."

I'm not sure what you are referring to in terms of goblin children.

So it was Malak's position in the dragon Empress's administration that leads you to believe that he is evil? He was of course not the ruler of that strict nation, Tarquin was (despite ostensibly answering to the fat dragon). I don't recall anything in the comic suggesting that Malak was a driving force behind the empire's brutality. Perhaps your objection is that Malak did not actively oppose Tarquin's overly strict laws. But then, neither did Kilkil (who was also part of the Vecotr Legion and also senior in the administration of the country) and Kilkil has been confirmed an neutral (because the author sed so).

[ti'esar]

I try not to get drawn into these things, but the comic's pretty straightforward about Malack's involvement in the Empire (including that he eats some of the people convicted by its joke of a judicial system) once Durkon stops putting his hands over his ears. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0871.html) And of course that's not even getting into the part where he planned to turn the entire continent into a vampiric feeding ground where 1000 people would be sacrificed a day. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0875.html) Malack was Evil to the point that people complained the Giant was unsubtly hammering it in (though I don't agree with that).

[Kish]

Indeed, the fact that some people continue to not realize that fact is an airtight counterargument to any suggestion that Rich sold it too hard.

[Liquor Box]

I try not to get drawn into these things, but the comic's pretty straightforward about Malack's involvement in the Empire (including that he eats some of the people convicted by its joke of a judicial system) once Durkon stops putting his hands over his ears. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0871.html) And of course that's not even getting into the part where he planned to turn the entire continent into a vampiric feeding ground where 1000 people would be sacrificed a day. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0875.html) Malack was Evil to the point that people complained the Giant was unsubtly hammering it in (though I don't agree with that).

Ok, I give in, I had forgotten all that discussion. Malak does seem quite evil.

[Peelee]

But has the same not happened to Belkar?

You will recall him chatting with the spirit of Lord Shinjo in a dream. At that point he decided that his previous pattern of behaviour had been unwise and that he would moderate his murderous ways somewhat. Since then (and that was about halfway through the story to date) he has not murdered anyone.

Since his reformation he has committed no acts of murder (unlike V, who has), so what basis is there to say he is evil?
When did Belkar realize what he was doing was wrong? He clearly realizes he is Evil, and seems to have no problem with that. When did he reform?

Also note that the dream sequence was also heavily influenced by Mr. Scruffy, and Belkar idolized Shojo for pulling a rather massive con on an entire legion of Paladins. He bonded over the Chaotic aspects, not the Good, in a way. None of this points to Belkar in any way saying, "wow, maybe I shouldn't have killed Solt Lorkyug."

abattoir
Ooohh, good word.

[Liquor Box]

When did Belkar realize what he was doing was wrong? He clearly realizes he is Evil, and seems to have no problem with that. When did he reform?

Also note that the dream sequence was also heavily influenced by Mr. Scruffy, and Belkar idolized Shojo for pulling a rather massive con on an entire legion of Paladins. He bonded over the Chaotic aspects, not the Good, in a way. None of this points to Belkar in any way saying, "wow, maybe I shouldn't have killed Solt Lorkyug."

Ooohh, good word.

He reformed in this strip:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html

Prior to that strip he refused to play by everyone else's rules (those rules including frowning upon the murder of innocents), and afterward he decided to conform with those rules to some degree.

He doesn't mention Lorkyug by name, but it is clearly implied that refraining from murdering innocents is one of those social norms that Belkar has decided to comply with. This is supported by the fact that he killed 6 arguable innocents in the first half of the comic to date, and none in the second half.

I assume that you are critical of his reasoning - that he has decided to refrain from killing innocents so he will be better accepted rather then out of horror at the immorality of killing. But that is not to judge him by his actions, but by his thoughts. This seems a bit harsh when he is doing so well and controlling his murderous thoughts. He is cheating (by his own admission) but so does the 'good' Hayley, or even Roy. It is also a can of worms when it was heavily implied in an early strip that Belkar's violent inclinations were simply as a result of a lack of wisdom, when his wisdom was magically raised he became pacifist.

At the end of the day, he is certainly not a good person - even in the context of the comic where even the good characters do things that would be seen as reprehensible in the real world. But I still struggle to see a clear line dividing him from the likes of Varsuvius (other than the mechanical alignment system).


Anyway, that is an aside to the thread. Whether he is good or evil is pretty irrelevant to whether we should like him. Either way he is a great character - he is funny and winds up the likes of V. If we refused to like him because he was evil then we wouldn't like Tony Soprano, Avon Barksdale, Claire Underwood or Walter White either.

[factotum]

He reformed in this strip:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html

Prior to that strip he refused to play by everyone else's rules (those rules including frowning upon the murder of innocents), and afterward he decided to conform with those rules to some degree.

You missed the critical part of that strip, which is the bit at the end where Belkar says "I have to *pretend* to have character growth!". He had no intention of reforming in any way, he was just going to be sneakier about it in order to fit in with society's rules. The fight with the slavers in the desert reinforced that--he was just pretending to fight the boss and really didn't care how many innocent people they took, and only got serious about it when they were going to kill and eat Mr. Scruffy. Him having learned to love one creature in the universe has not changed Belkar's essential nature--evil people can love, have friends and attachments, and act accordingly; there was even a gaming article on this website once upon a time where Rich talks about having created two evil characters who worked together simply because they were friends, which confused the heck out of the party who were playing in that scenario because they kept expecting the two evil guys to betray each other, and they never did.

(Or that bit about the two evil friends may have been in the intro to one of the print books, I forget now!).

[Liquor Box]

You missed the critical part of that strip, which is the bit at the end where Belkar says "I have to *pretend* to have character growth!". He had no intention of reforming in any way, he was just going to be sneakier about it in order to fit in with society's rules.

I didn't interpret it that way. I interpreted that he was going to pretend to have character growth by complying with the arbitrary rules (only killing enemies of the party). the pretense was that he had grown to accept the arbitrary (his word) rules, when in fact he was only pretending to accept them.

Even if I misinterpreted him and that was not what he meant, it is what happened. Belkar hasn't murdered any innocents since, and has arguably not done anything evil either.

We are maybe at cross purposes, I am talking about evil actions. You are perhaps talking about evil thoughts?


The fight with the slavers in the desert reinforced that--he was just pretending to fight the boss and really didn't care how many innocent people they took, and only got serious about it when they were going to kill and eat Mr. Scruffy. Him having learned to love one creature in the universe has not changed Belkar's essential nature--evil people can love, have friends and attachments, and act accordingly; there was even a gaming article on this website once upon a time where Rich talks about having created two evil characters who worked together simply because they were friends, which confused the heck out of the party who were playing in that scenario because they kept expecting the two evil guys to betray each other, and they never did.

(Or that bit about the two evil friends may have been in the intro to one of the print books, I forget now!).

Belkar had no duty to risk his life to rescue the slaves by attacking his friend. His actions in that strip were neither good (helping the slaves would have been good) nor evil (assisting the slavers would have been evil).


I haven't suggested anywhere that Belkar's fondness for the cat means he's not evil. Although I do think every time he shows kindness to the cat (or anyone else) that is a small act of good that can be balanced against any evil he commits (non since the Lord Shojo dream sequence????).

[5a Violista]

I had a slightly different perspective of that scene. From what I saw, he only pretended to have character growth in that moment (in Greysky city and immediately after). However, he then later unintentionally had actual character growth afterwards (see: his experience with the illusions in the desert temple and his later regret when Durkon becomes a vampire and the gnome shopkeeper).

So, he intended to pretend to have character growth, but ended up having character growth anyway. This unintentional change of heart is actually the one thing I like most about Belkar. I mean, he's still obviously evil but he is slowly changing in spite of himself.

Regarding the prophecy, I think he will die, and it will finally be when karma catches up with him. However, I also think it would be fitting for him to die in a "redemption is death" sort of scene, where he sacrifices himself to save someone (like Durkon, or Roy, or one of his animals, or...).

[hroþila]

That's what the Giant said in the commentary: Belkar's fake character growth happens at the same time as the (mostly unrelated) real character growth he undergoes due to his relationship with Mr. Scruffy, and which basically means he learns empathy is a thing.

[Ruck]

It's something that's not talked about much, but I think Belkar is having some real character growth and some strong, conflicted feelings about Durkon / Greg, as well.

I mean, we never see him verbalize those feelings, because he's not that type of character, and because it would be silly to write a panel of him saying "Gosh, Durkon saved my life, and despite my general disregard for other people, I now have this strange feeling like I owe him for that and need to set him free from this evil vampire!"

But I think he is having those feelings. I think it's really F'ed up his worldview that, after the party has just thought of him for so long as a killing machine without any redeeming qualities, that not only did another party member sacrifice himself to save Belkar's life, it was the party member he probably has the least in common with / would be least likely to be friends with otherwise. I think that's created a certain sense of obligation to Durkon and to the team that Belkar didn't have before, and I'm really interested to see how that plays out in the confrontation with Greg.

[snowblizz]

It's something that's not talked about much, but I think Belkar is having some real character growth and some strong, conflicted feelings about Durkon / Greg, as well.
You don't say? Actually it tends to come up in every discussion about Evil Belkar that he is actualyl now reformed, in various guises.


I mean, we never see him verbalize those feelings, because he's not that type of character, and because it would be silly to write a panel of him saying "Gosh, Durkon saved my life, and despite my general disregard for other people, I now have this strange feeling like I owe him for that and need to set him free from this evil vampire!"

But I think he is having those feelings. I think it's really F'ed up his worldview that, after the party has just thought of him for so long as a killing machine without any redeeming qualities, that not only did another party member sacrifice himself to save Belkar's life, it was the party member he probably has the least in common with / would be least likely to be friends with otherwise. I think that's created a certain sense of obligation to Durkon and to the team that Belkar didn't have before, and I'm really interested to see how that plays out in the confrontation with Greg. I'd say he does. In 880 explaining how Durkon got straight up murdered for trying to help him and afterwards attacking the vampire and trying to get the others to do so too on the airship.
Seeing Durkon take a bullet for him is something of a major growth point for Belkar. Last panel of 881 always hits me critically in the feels.

Also that last bit you write is close to what the Giant writes in the commentaries.

[UrielAwakened]

I've always had a severe problem with this forum's dislike of Belkar.

Belkar is such a critically important character narratively that without him the story would suffer greatly.

I can't imagine him actually being entirely out of the story until the story is done. He's too important.

I don't know. It's like this forum is too goody-goody for its own good, and it can't appreciate an evil character because of it.

[LinkBoy]

I've always had a severe problem with this forum's dislike of Belkar.

Belkar is such a critically important character narratively that without him the story would suffer greatly.

I can't imagine him actually being entirely out of the story until the story is done. He's too important.

I don't know. It's like this forum is too goody-goody for its own good, and it can't appreciate an evil character because of it.

Ugh, those goody-goody forumites, disliking murderers. They oughta loosen up and appreciate a good manslaughter every once in a while.

[Ruck]

Ugh, those goody-goody forumites, disliking murderers. They oughta loosen up and appreciate a good manslaughter every once in a while.
This is funny because it seems to be exactly the attitude UrielAwakened is criticizing-- it comes across as very holier-than-thou and like you think the kind of characters you enjoy in fiction define your own character, i.e. "This character would be a bad guy in real life, so disliking him makes me a good person."

I won't try to convince anyone who doesn't like Belkar that they should, but I really don't like the idea that we're only supposed to enjoy the morally good characters in the fiction we consume. To me that flattens storytelling into black-and-white children's tales, free of complexity or nuance.


You don't say? Actually it tends to come up in every discussion about Evil Belkar that he is actualyl now reformed, in various guises.
Yeah, I would say at least 90% of the talk about Belkar's "character growth" has to do with the events of DSTP and Mr. Scruffy. I didn't collect the data and run an analysis, though.


I'd say he does. In 880 explaining how Durkon got straight up murdered for trying to help him and afterwards attacking the vampire and trying to get the others to do so too on the airship.
Seeing Durkon take a bullet for him is something of a major growth point for Belkar. Last panel of 881 always hits me critically in the feels.

Also that last bit you write is close to what the Giant writes in the commentaries.
Well, what I mean is that I don't think Belkar is the type of character who would just exposit about his feelings randomly. Like, telling the party what happened to Durkon is very different than telling them "This is really messing me up and I need to talk to someone about my PTSD."

Last point doesn't surprise me; I probably internalized it when I read the BRITF book and forgot about it. But it's also really obvious to me on the page, in how Belkar acts.

[Kish]

I note an irony here--whatever your opinion of LinkBoy's tone, your accusation of being "holier-than-though" is directed not at the person who casually announced their offense that "the forum" felt a way toward Belkar that they didn't like, but at a sarcastic response to the person who casually announced their offense that "the forum" felt a way toward Belkar that they didn't like.

[Ruck]

I note an irony here--whatever your opinion of LinkBoy's tone, your accusation of being "holier-than-though" is directed not at the person who casually announced their offense that "the forum" felt a way toward Belkar that they didn't like, but at a sarcastic response to the person who casually announced their offense that "the forum" felt a way toward Belkar that they didn't like.
Well, that's not really ironic, because I think resorting to sarcasm is often a technique people use to demonstrate they think they're superior to the person they're talking to.

[Kish]

Let me be more blunt.

Whatever your personal opinion of sarcasm, you are yelling at the person who did not attempt to police other people's opinions to defend the person who did. If you don't think that's ironic, then we disagree.

[Ruck]

Easy there, cowboy. I'm not "yelling at" anyone. Now you're just projecting.

[Kish]

Sure, whatever you say.

[Ruck]

Sure, whatever you say.

Speaking of using sarcasm to signal that one thinks he is superior.

[Liquor Box]

Let me be more blunt.

Whatever your personal opinion of sarcasm, you are yelling at the person who did not attempt to police other people's opinions to defend the person who did. If you don't think that's ironic, then we disagree.

What's ironic is that you are being judgmental of the person (Ruck) who you perceived as being judgment of another person (Linkboy) who was being judgmental of the opinion of a third person (Uriel).

What's more ironic, is that i have now added to that chain. :smallsmile:

[Liquor Box]

Ugh, those goody-goody forumites, disliking murderers. They oughta loosen up and appreciate a good manslaughter every once in a while.

Most people will agree that murder is something to be disapproved of.

But feeling a moral duty to hate a fictional character for committing fictional murders might be seen as goody-goody.

As I mentioned ont he last page, certainly it is common for people to like murdering protagonists, like Tony Soprano, Walter White, the Underwoods and Avon Barksdale.

[UrielAwakened]

Ruck basically nailed my thoughts.

Belkar embodies the number one rule of writing, "Show, don't tell." Which is infinitely more important in a webcomic, now that i think about it.

His character growth is real, not imagined, and he has come a long way. He isn't redeemed, but he really never needs to be either. And just because he hasn't monologued sullenly about how Durkon's death has affected him doesn't make it any less important to his character arc.

Also the holier-than-thou thing? That's everywhere here.

That's everywhere in our hobby.

[factotum]

I won't try to convince anyone who doesn't like Belkar that they should, but I really don't like the idea that we're only supposed to enjoy the morally good characters in the fiction we consume. To me that flattens storytelling into black-and-white children's tales, free of complexity or nuance.


Can't speak for anyone else, but it's a good thing I'm not doing that? I actually like Vaarsuvius as a character, precisely because he is far more nuanced than Belkar--he has done horrendously evil things (Familicide) and knows it too, but he doesn't revel in it the way Belkar does. Heck, if Belkar had somehow performed the Familicide and then found he'd killed hundreds of innocents across the Western Continent doing it, I think we would have got a "Hell yes I am *AWESOME*!" from him rather than V's horrified reaction.

On the other hand, Durkon is definitely one of the most morally good characters in the story, yet he's simultaneously the least interesting--it took his body being taken over by an evil spirit to actually make him start to come alive (in a manner of speaking).

[Rodin]

Can't speak for anyone else, but it's a good thing I'm not doing that? I actually like Vaarsuvius as a character, precisely because he is far more nuanced than Belkar--he has done horrendously evil things (Familicide) and knows it too, but he doesn't revel in it the way Belkar does. Heck, if Belkar had somehow performed the Familicide and then found he'd killed hundreds of innocents across the Western Continent doing it, I think we would have got a "Hell yes I am *AWESOME*!" from him rather than V's horrified reaction.

On the other hand, Durkon is definitely one of the most morally good characters in the story, yet he's simultaneously the least interesting--it took his body being taken over by an evil spirit to actually make him start to come alive (in a manner of speaking).

Can I be on both sides of this one?

I love Belkar because he is one of the funniest characters in the comic, and definitely the funniest of the "good" guys. I find Xykon even funnier, but he doesn't get as much screen-time as the Belkster because he's off villaining and the story is, ultimately, about the Order.

However, from a character standpoint Vaarsuvius is by far the most interesting, precisely for the reasons you gave. I'm really interested in V's journey, and can't wait to find out where it leads.

Two different types of enjoyment, and if asked to pick just one I would be hard pressed.

[Ruck]

Can't speak for anyone else, but it's a good thing I'm not doing that? I actually like Vaarsuvius as a character, precisely because he is far more nuanced than Belkar--he has done horrendously evil things (Familicide) and knows it too, but he doesn't revel in it the way Belkar does. Heck, if Belkar had somehow performed the Familicide and then found he'd killed hundreds of innocents across the Western Continent doing it, I think we would have got a "Hell yes I am *AWESOME*!" from him rather than V's horrified reaction.

On the other hand, Durkon is definitely one of the most morally good characters in the story, yet he's simultaneously the least interesting--it took his body being taken over by an evil spirit to actually make him start to come alive (in a manner of speaking).

Well, I should hope it goes without saying that not everyone who dislikes Belkar does so because they think people are only supposed to enjoy morally good characters. But it's been a topic that's been on my mind recently, especially since I've seen a troubling trend in criticism (particularly TV criticism) the last few years, where critics seem to think it's no longer acceptable to display morally ambiguous characters-- or characters who engage in flat-out evil things-- without making it clear to the audience that those things are bad and these people are bad for doing them. And I think if you're making work for an adult audience, you ought to give them enough credit to let them figure it out for themselves. (And, of course, there are all kinds of action movies and thrillers that are fun because we get to see characters doing things we'd never do in real life because of the consequences. To say nothing of video games.)

But when people say things like "Oh, we're such bad people for not liking murderers!" sarcastically, the implication is that A)It's "wrong" to enjoy watching or reading about fictional murderers, and B)The people who do like Belkar are bad people for doing so. In the end, he is just a fictional character-- you can enjoy his antics in the comic strip without condoning them in real life.

I wouldn't go around calling people goody-goodys for not liking him, to be sure. That's kind of my point on the whole-- I don't think you can draw conclusions about a person's character based on the fictional characters that person likes. (Sometimes you can draw conclusions about what a person thinks of themself based on whom they identify with, but that's a whole other discussion.)

On the subject of Belkar himself, I think he's more interesting than you give him credit for, but I think I've already covered why. I don't think I'd call him my "favorite", but his reaction to Durkon's sacrifice and single-mindedness about stopping Greg are the character development and relationship (Belkar-Durkon, that is) I'm most interested in in the story right now.

[UrielAwakened]

Can't speak for anyone else, but it's a good thing I'm not doing that? I actually like Vaarsuvius as a character, precisely because he is far more nuanced than Belkar--he has done horrendously evil things (Familicide) and knows it too, but he doesn't revel in it the way Belkar does. Heck, if Belkar had somehow performed the Familicide and then found he'd killed hundreds of innocents across the Western Continent doing it, I think we would have got a "Hell yes I am *AWESOME*!" from him rather than V's horrified reaction.

On the other hand, Durkon is definitely one of the most morally good characters in the story, yet he's simultaneously the least interesting--it took his body being taken over by an evil spirit to actually make him start to come alive (in a manner of speaking).

Yeah I mean Belkar is definitely not the most interesting character.

My point is the contrast he provides makes him one of, if not the most important.

Durkon is boring for precisely the reason you stated, but that's largely the lack of backstory he's gotten.

Belkar has no backstory because the backstory doesn't matter. We don't know why he's evil because that would redeem him in some way, and he's not supposed to be redeemed by his history as a character. Same with Xykon.

[xyz]

Belkar is a great character. He is my favorite because he's the character I can understand the most. While I probably would want to kick the **** out him, I can completely understand and agree with his viewpoints. He's living his life the way he is to LIVE. He dont give af about how other people feel, he does what he wants and if it just happens to be the right thing to do then wew, bonus.

That, and he brings out all the lil nerds who got bullied when they were kids so now they're spankin themselves over the idea of him dying and staying permanently dead. Git gud turbonerds.

[Peelee]

I've always had a severe problem with this forum's dislike of Belkar.

Belkar is such a critically important character narratively that without him the story would suffer greatly.

I can't imagine him actually being entirely out of the story until the story is done. He's too important.

I don't know. It's like this forum is too goody-goody for its own good, and it can't appreciate an evil character because of it.
By your logic, Redcloak should be one of the most hated characters on the forum.

It's possible for people to hate a person for their personality, is what I'm saying here.

That, and he brings out all the lil nerds who got bullied when they were kids so now they're spankin themselves over the idea of him dying and staying permanently dead. Git gud turbonerds.

I don't think you know how a world with known afterlives exists. If Belkar remains evil, he could live a long, long life, and still get his comeuppance. The worse he is, the worse his endgame will be. That's how it works.

The people who are saying he will die and remain dead are the ones who are interpreting the strip in a certain way. That's it. Maybe your next semester of Beginner's Psych will help your profiling.

[xyz]

By your logic, Redcloak should be one of the most hated characters on the forum.

It's possible for people to hate a person for their personality, is what I'm saying here.


I don't think you know how a world with known afterlives exists. If Belkar remains evil, he could live a long, long life, and still get his comeuppance. The worse he is, the worse his endgame will be. That's how it works.

The people who are saying he will die and remain dead are the ones who are interpreting the strip in a certain way. That's it. Maybe your next semester of Beginner's Psych will help your profiling.

>2016
>believing in afterlives

also u mad kiddo? mad that your dad can't afford to send you to beginners psychics class so you have to project onto others? :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbi ggrin:

even though we both know ur just upset cuz u got bullied like the beta babby you are.

[Takver]

I have a question about Belkar. I've noticed that he's sometimes called upon to give pointed and accurate speeches, to characters who are much better people than he is generally, about their shortcomings. (One (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0467.html), Two (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0881.html).) Why do you think those speeches are given by Belkar? What makes him so effective at them?

[Peelee]

>2016
>believing in afterlives

also u mad kiddo? mad that your dad can't afford to send you to beginners psychics class so you have to project onto others? :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbi ggrin:

....ok, you do realize that Dungeons and Dragons has verifiable afterlives, which also exist in-comic, yes?

Also, "psych" is short for "psychology," not "psychics."

[xyz]

....ok, you do realize that Dungeons and Dragons has verifiable afterlives, which also exist in-comic, yes?

Not at my table they don't.


Also, "psych" is short for "psychology," not "psychics."

It was reverse psychology to trick you into lowering your guard. You fell for it. How's that for first grade psychology?

[Jasdoif]

I have a question about Belkar. I've noticed that he's sometimes called upon to give pointed and accurate speeches, to characters who are much better people than he is generally, about their shortcomings. (One (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0467.html), Two (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0881.html).) Why do you think those speeches are given by Belkar? What makes him so effective at them?Pointing out other people's faults tends to prompt defensive reactions, and most people would prefer to avoid the risk of confrontation that entails. Belkar doesn't let that bother him, presumably because he doesn't have much concern about the emotional state of other people.

[Peelee]

Not at my table they don't.
This is called a house rule. And has no connection to the comic, where we have seen that afterlives exist. At this point, I'm not even sure what your point it anymore.

[Takver]

Pointing out other people's faults tends to prompt defensive reactions, and most people would prefer to avoid the risk of confrontation that entails. Belkar doesn't let that bother him, presumably because he doesn't have much concern about the emotional state of other people.

Great observation. I think that's definitely a piece of it.

I was thinking more about this, because it's just so odd to me that Belkar, who has a Wisdom penalty, can be so clear-sighted sometimes. His arguments with Roy about whether or not the vampire is really Durkon is another example of him understanding something that better, wiser characters don't.

I think one of the common threads here is "ugly truths." Hinjo doesn't want to face that the battle is lost and there's nothing he can do about it. Roy doesn't want to believe that Durkon is dead, and when he does believe it, he gives in to despair. Later, neither he nor any other member of the party want to believe that Vampire Durkon isn't really Durkon.

Belkar is able to look at those things unflinchingly when Good characters don't want to. Maybe it's a lack of investment in things like fairness and justice.

[aurilee]

Two cents:

Personally, Belkar's my favourite character. He's funny, snarky and reminds me of one of the first characters I ever rolled (I tend to play chaotic and/or evil characters for fun). The whole concept of a psychotic, homicidal halfling is comedy gold.

Yes, he's evil but he's also entertaining and he has his more loveable moments (ie, interactions with Mr. Scruffy and Shojo, everything with Durkon once the vampire arc started). You don't have to agree with a character's morality to like them as a character.

I mean, Lex Luthor is also a great character, especially in his "mega-rich businessman" incarnation, but that doesn't mean I think he's a fantastic human being that should be emulated.

EDIT:
Quote for truth:


Belkar is able to look at those things unflinchingly when Good characters don't want to. Maybe it's a lack of investment in things like fairness and justice.

[xyz]

These people get it. Belkar is a rather unique character and it's going to be a sad day when it comes time for him to get the axe.

Belkar-haters just have no style or taste and are afraid to let their hair down and put the top back on their dad's convertible and push that speed to 70 down the highway, listening to the wind whip around them while alternative rock blasts from the old cassette player.

[KorvinStarmast]

What makes him so effective at them?

Isn't that why you losers keep me around? Hurting people is the only thing I'm good at. That strip was a great set up for that line. Belkar as "truth teller" has been a role since early in OoTS (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0069.html) stories.

[Seto]

That strip was a great set up for that line. Belkar as "truth teller" has been a role since early in OoTS (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0069.html) stories.

... I don't get how that's an example. Could you explain ?
Anyway, here's another good one. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0530.html)

[Liquor Box]

... I don't get how that's an example. Could you explain ?
Anyway, here's another good one. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0530.html)

He tells the truth that it's kinky that Hayley invested so many skill points in "use ropes".

[Seto]

He tells the truth that it's kinky that Hayley invested so many skill points in "use ropes".

I don't know... I mean, it very well could be true for all we know, but the fact that Belkar interprets it that way immediately tells a lot more about him and where his mind's at than it tells a deep uncomfortable truth about Haley.

[veti]

I think this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0013.html) is the earliest instance of Belkist Truthtelling.

[Kish]

I note a trend here: The more negative and cynical one is toward the other protagonists of the comic, the more "truthful" Belkar looks, as examples of "Belkar being evil/an ass" become examples of "Belkar tells it like it is."

[veti]

I note a trend here: The more negative and cynical one is toward the other protagonists of the comic, the more "truthful" Belkar looks, as examples of "Belkar being evil/an ass" become examples of "Belkar tells it like it is."

Or to put it another way: "what other people call 'trying to understand or sympathising with Belkar', I call 'being negative and cynical'."

Not to say you're "wrong". But "negative and cynical" is a pretty subjective, as well as judgmental, description to pin on someone. It's an observation that says more about you than about the thing observed. If you want to call me "negative and cynical", that's OK - you're entitled to express your opinion, just as long as I'm entitled to laugh at it.

[Kish]

Try to keep track of what you're asserting, at least, veti. You just claimed that what Belkar said in strip #13 was truth-telling. He said two things there (unless questions count, and I would hope that even the most unquestioning Belkar fanboy on this board would acknowledge that questions don't qualify as truth-telling): an assertion about the Order's motives (that it was random racist slaughter), and that Haley's "treasure" idea intrigues him and he'd like to learn more (which could, at a stretch, be being truthful about being greedy, but if you look at it that way he's way behind Haley herself in that area).

If calling either of those truth-telling shows "trying to understand and sympathize with Belkar," I can only guess that you posted the wrong link. Want to try again?

[Takver]

I don't know about that. I'm focusing on three examples of Belkar pointing out where Good characters are falling short. I think in each case, he is getting at something true. Hinjo really is being overly stubborn about leaving Azure City, Roy really was wrong to despair and consider giving up, and Roy, Haley, and Elan really were deluding themselves about the vampire. That doesn't make them less Good and it doesn't make them bad characters. In fact, their motives for these mistakes are all very sympathetic and made me feel for the characters.

My question is why Belkar is the character who gets to point these things out. He's harsh, and he's an *******, and yes, obviously he's still Evil and a jerk. But there's something going on here. In each case, he sees something that the other characters don't. His conviction about the vampire is particularly impressive, and so are his accurate summaries of how each member of the Order fell apart during Roy's death. And as I said, he has a very low Wisdom score. So why does he have these moments of clear-sightedness? What's going on there?

[Kish]

Sorry, Takver, didn't mean to sound critical of your point--just of that of the people who started dragging in early examples of Belkar being randomly crude, petty, vicious and sociopathic and labeling them "truth-telling."

[Takver]

Oh, OK. I agree that #13 is not a good example, and neither is #69 I don't think. #530 is pretty close, though.

Do *you* have any input on why Belkar gets to give these speeches sometimes?

[Kish]

Okay. First, I disagree with your Hinjo example. Belkar "convinced" Hinjo of what Haley had already convinced him of, adding a lot of insults; Haley had been as blunt and straightforward as was necessary, Belkar only added being hateful.

The dungeon example was probably, in part, to show Belkar is changing, "Hurting people is the only skill that matters and I'm better at it than anyone, so I'm awesome," his early attitude, has become "Hurting people is the only thing I'm good at, and whether I'll ever admit it or not this makes me feel like crap."

The Greg thing, I think as good an explanation as is forthcoming is here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0957.html). Whether in the third panel or the seventh.

[Takver]

Haha, yeah, that's fair. I was giving him some credit for Hinjo because he started to say it before getting interrupted, then went ahead and said it anyway after it was beyond redundant. But that might be too generous.

I think what you're saying is part of it, but his speech to Roy isn't purely hurtful. One of the main points is that the party needs Roy. Another main point is that the world needs Roy. It's expressed harshly, but the underlying point is not a harmful one (though it may be a burdensome one), and the effect of the speech is positive. I agree that he's feeling awful about himself (especially after Durkon gave his life for Belkar and forgave him for not being able to fight) and I agree that he won't admit it. In fact, I think he's being a bit too harsh on himself in that panel.

What is Greg?

[Kish]

Greg is the vampire formerly known as the High Priest of Hel.

[Liquor Box]

Try to keep track of what you're asserting, at least, veti. You just claimed that what Belkar said in strip #13 was truth-telling. He said two things there (unless questions count, and I would hope that even the most unquestioning Belkar fanboy on this board would acknowledge that questions don't qualify as truth-telling): an assertion about the Order's motives (that it was random racist slaughter), and that Haley's "treasure" idea intrigues him and he'd like to learn more (which could, at a stretch, be being truthful about being greedy, but if you look at it that way he's way behind Haley herself in that area).

If calling either of those truth-telling shows "trying to understand and sympathize with Belkar," I can only guess that you posted the wrong link. Want to try again?

First a question can clearly be truth-telling if that question suggests a truth. And I am the furthest thing from a Belkar fanboy.

Comic 13 is an excellent example of truth-telling - there are two example of it.

Very early on there was not story for the Order of the Stick. The comic was just a medium to make DnD jokes and the setting was just a generic dungeon.

So the first comment by Belkar "We have a goal" was hinting that he had thought there was no goal - something that had been the case until that strip. he was truth-telling about the lack of plot until that point.

The second comment by Belkar about simply killing things with green skin and fangs was truth-telling both about what the order had been doing* and the fact that killing evil races is usually seen as justified in DnD and high fantasy in general. Belkar was truth-telling that tendancy as well as lampshading the parallels between it and racism.

* See strips 10 and 11 for evidence of the order killing helpless green skinned monsters when those monsters were not an imminent threat and there had been no prior indication that they were evil.

[zinycor]

I don't care, as long as it makes for a good story.

While I agree with this, belkar is one of my favorite characters, but on the other hand... i love an Anti-hero so I may be biased.

EDIT:

I see belkar in a similar way that I view Deadpool. Yeah, he's a juvenile character, but it's a different character, and that's why me and many more people love them. They kill without remorse, be it good, neutral or evil people. Constantly break the fourth wall (Granted that on Oots, many more characters do so than on marvel's comics), cursesand hates on their enemies without a problem, make mostly badass, funny and/or memorable one-liners, are quite easy to make fun off, and are complete *******s.

In the particular case of Belkar, given that this started as a DnD parody, we all know that we have seen or played a character like this, who views others as EXP, goes along with the adventure because "Why not?" doesn't have a fully realized backstory and so on. And that's fine, because we can relate to that, That is a character that I believe every DnD player knows, you may have loved that character or (most probably) hated him, he makes great comedy because of that.

Lately he has shown character development, not in order to redeem him (far from it) but in order to flesh him out. Right now we see Belkar as a spiteful character, who values his party, but would not say it if he had to, but in the end he cares. That's why he hates Greg so much. He has his cat, and lizard, which he cares for. And all that, while staying true to who he is, a sociopath who is there mostly for comedic relief.

In the end I love Belkar, and when he dies, I hope it would be amazing, glorious, gory, brutal and somehow kinda sweet.

[Seto]

was truth-telling about the lack of plot until that point [...] Belkar was truth-telling that tendancy

Okay, what we mean by "truth-telling" in this discussion's context is not "everytime Belkar doesn't lie", or even "everytime he makes a point". These things happen all the time, and lampshades are hung by every character. What we mean is "when Belkar calls out other, morally better characters on things they are messing up or failing to see because of their own character traits, and Belkar is right and insightful." Whether he is right because of his own character traits (doesn't care about hurting people's feelings), or despite them (low Wisdom), is the question.

My own input: Belkar is a hedonistic and pessimistic person (largely due to his Evilness). He's fine with violence, he doesn't want to make the world a better place. He doesn't have many dreams or hopes to hold on to beyond his own momentary satisfaction, at least not those Good dreams that the other characters have.
That's why he has no problem coping with harsh truths. They don't conflict with his vision and hopes about what the world is or should be.

[KorvinStarmast]

He tells the truth that it's kinky that Hayley invested so many skill points in "use ropes".
No, that was Belkar in Smart Alec mode. My ref was to the panel before that, where he tells Roy that his planned and his planning sucked.(In re taking captives "for future reference, tell us that before the battle.). It might have been a reach, and that might also be Belkar as smart alec, it just seemed to me to be a change in tone from being comic relief to telling the party leader the uncomfortable truth. All before that was Belkar as comic relief.

I like Seto's example a lot, but it's at about strip 530 and I think Belkar's role in that regard had developed sooner. But 530 is a very good example, so props to Seto for making the point better than I did.

[Kish]

Considering Belkar is the only one who did kill rather than capture or drive off his evil mirror, I'm pretty sure that statement said things about Belkar rather than Roy: 1) that he, and only he, considered Don't Kill an extraordinary stipulation, and 2) that his reaction to being reminded that most people didn't share his worldview was, always and only, to wonder what was wrong with them, never if perhaps he was the one in the wrong.

[KorvinStarmast]

Considering Belkar is the only one who did kill rather than capture or drive off his evil mirror, I'm pretty sure that statement said things about Belkar rather than Roy: 1) that he, and only he, considered Don't Kill an extraordinary stipulation, and 2) that his reaction to being reminded that most people didn't share his worldview was, always and only, to wonder what was wrong with them, never if perhaps he was the one in the wrong.Roy already knows that Belkar is homicidal to a fault. If Roy's such a high Int fighter, his main conceit, he is smart enough to specify "capture not kill" to his little homicidal hobbit. Note Belkar's use of the term _genius_. Of all the epithets Belkar could use in that retort to Roy's complaint, the sarcastic crack at Roy's high intelligence was part of me seeing that as more than just the standard smart alec Belkar. (Seto's example is still better).

[Takver]

Okay, what we mean by "truth-telling" in this discussion's context is not "everytime Belkar doesn't lie", or even "everytime he makes a point". These things happen all the time, and lampshades are hung by every character. What we mean is "when Belkar calls out other, morally better characters on things they are messing up or failing to see because of their own character traits, and Belkar is right and insightful." Whether he is right because of his own character traits (doesn't care about hurting people's feelings), or despite them (low Wisdom), is the question.

Very well-put, thank you.


My own input: Belkar is a hedonistic and pessimistic person (largely due to his Evilness). He's fine with violence, he doesn't want to make the world a better place. He doesn't have many dreams or hopes to hold on to beyond his own momentary satisfaction, at least not those Good dreams that the other characters have.
That's why he has no problem coping with harsh truths. They don't conflict with his vision and hopes about what the world is or should be.

I do think this is part of it. You know, by and large, we like to think the best of the people we care about and we may tend to ignore their flaws. But Belkar doesn't really care about other people (at least, he never used to), so he isn't inclined to overlook their flaws at all.

I wonder if he cares about Durkon? Some of the stuff he says to the vampire makes me think he might.

[Kish]

This is not an example of Belkar demonstrating a remarkable insight (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0213.html). Perhaps it has nothing to do with the subject at all.

I think he cares about Durkon now, but even though the Protection from Evil still hurts him, I wonder if any trace of the Belkar who casually murdered Solt Lorkyurg for no reason will show up again before he dies; if the overall comic had started at the beginning of what is, as it actually stands, Book 6, I'd be wondering when the nasty-talking halfling is going to actually earn that evil alignment, and thinking that he cares about each of the other Order members.

[Ruck]

I think he cares about Durkon now, but even though the Protection from Evil still hurts him, I wonder if any trace of the Belkar who casually murdered Solt Lorkyurg for no reason will show up again before he dies; if the overall comic had started at the beginning of what is, as it actually stands, Book 6, I'd be wondering when the nasty-talking halfling is going to actually earn that evil alignment, and thinking that he cares about each of the other Order members.

It wasn't no reason. He had a donkey, and they needed something to pull their cart! :smalltongue:

Seriously, though, I think that's a pretty interesting observation on Belkar and perhaps a good way to demonstrate that he has indeed undergone character development.


No, that was Belkar in Smart Alec mode. My ref was to the panel before that, where he tells Roy that his planned and his planning sucked.(In re taking captives "for future reference, tell us that before the battle.). It might have been a reach, and that might also be Belkar as smart alec, it just seemed to me to be a change in tone from being comic relief to telling the party leader the uncomfortable truth. All before that was Belkar as comic relief.

I like Seto's example a lot, but it's at about strip 530 and I think Belkar's role in that regard had developed sooner. But 530 is a very good example, so props to Seto for making the point better than I did.

Probably the earliest example is Belkar rightly chastising Roy for not bringing a weapon on a side quest (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0146.html), but I think he did that as much to dig at Roy as anything. (And I like Belkar.)

[Liquor Box]

Okay, what we mean by "truth-telling" in this discussion's context is not "everytime Belkar doesn't lie", or even "everytime he makes a point". These things happen all the time, and lampshades are hung by every character. What we mean is "when Belkar calls out other, morally better characters on things they are messing up or failing to see because of their own character traits, and Belkar is right and insightful." Whether he is right because of his own character traits (doesn't care about hurting people's feelings), or despite them (low Wisdom), is the question.

My own input: Belkar is a hedonistic and pessimistic person (largely due to his Evilness). He's fine with violence, he doesn't want to make the world a better place. He doesn't have many dreams or hopes to hold on to beyond his own momentary satisfaction, at least not those Good dreams that the other characters have.
That's why he has no problem coping with harsh truths. They don't conflict with his vision and hopes about what the world is or should be.

Yeah, I get that it is not evey time that Belkar says something that was true.

But that is what happened in that comic. Belkar made a point about the faults of the moraly "better" characters, by sarcastically saying that he thought the entire point of the adventure to date was to kill the pointy toothed races. I interpreted it as being commentary on the hypocrisy of being able to freely kill goblins and the like but not being able to kill other humans. Of course much later he agrees to "play by the rules" meaning he may only kill the enemies of the party (generally being races with pointy teeth).

[Liquor Box]

Considering Belkar is the only one who did kill rather than capture or drive off his evil mirror, I'm pretty sure that statement said things about Belkar rather than Roy: 1) that he, and only he, considered Don't Kill an extraordinary stipulation, and 2) that his reaction to being reminded that most people didn't share his worldview was, always and only, to wonder what was wrong with them, never if perhaps he was the one in the wrong.

So your opinion is that the rest of the order was too morally just to use deadly force against the linear guild despite the linear guild being obviously evil, obviously enemies of the order, and attcking the order at that moment? This is despite the order having used deadly force against numerous enemies in far less justifiable circumstances previously.

I don't think that's the case. The only member of the order who was depicted as deliberately sparing his opposite was Elan, and the comic made him look a fool for doing it. Thog was only captured after Elan used a spell distracting him (for expediency, not so that he didn't have to kill him) and the other three all escaped by circumstance.

Belkar was right. Evey other time the order engaged enemies the objective was to kill. Roy had even coup de graced incapacitated enemies previously. If Roy wanted to depart from that norm he needed to tell the others in advance.

[factotum]

But that is what happened in that comic. Belkar made a point about the faults of the moraly "better" characters, by sarcastically saying that he thought the entire point of the adventure to date was to kill the pointy toothed races.

But the critical point there is that this was *not* the entire point of the adventure as far as the other members of the party were concerned--they had an actual objective in exploring Dorukan's dungeon, and unless the goblins were going to just let them walk by unopposed, killing them wasn't optional. Belkar didn't care in the slightest about that, he was perfectly happy just killing the pointy-toothed guys and taking their stuff. In point of fact, we later see Belkar (in strip #115) happily killing goblins *who have already surrendered* simply because he wants the XP, so saying he's got some sort of moral high ground for what he says there is a bit shaky.

[veti]

But the critical point there is that this was *not* the entire point of the adventure as far as the other members of the party were concerned-

It was, up until that moment. What I see in that strip is the retconning of a "respectable" motivation for adventuring onto a hitherto-motiveless dungeon crawl.

Incidentally, I think it's telling that at this point apparently that motivation is to "make the countryside safe again". Which suggests that at this stage the story still hasn't been fully worked out, and is retconned further in later revelations.

[Kish]

The argument Liquor Box is advancing now amounts to: Belkar tells the truth and the rest of the Order doesn't, as long as you start from the position that the truth is whatever Belkar says and another Order member who claims it's anything different is definitionally being shown up and humiliated by Belkar.

Edited, as veti posted while I was posting: I think what veti is saying is that Belkar's role in the "Ploy, Ahoy!" strip, where he's the one who didn't get the memo about there being a plot now so that Elan (with treasure! backup from Haley) can exposit it to him and, by so doing, exposit it to the audience, is "truth-telling" in a way that Elan's exposition role, or Haley's greed, isn't. Which is still a huge stretch to make Belkar cooler than he's actually presented, and still sacrifices actual interesting character details on the altar of glorifying Belkar*--Belkar's role there would be better described as "audience for exposition" than "truth-teller"--but at least makes more sense than Liquor Box's insistence that four people glaring in response to Belkar's assertion shows four people who *Nicholson voice* CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH**.

*By which I mean that it's interesting to consider what it says about Elan and Roy that Elan said "we will strike down Xykon*** and make the countryside safe again."
**I wonder how great the overlap is between people who think Belkar is super cool, and people who think the character who said that is super cool. My thought would be "very high," but I'm definitely not either and I wouldn't want to poison the well.
***Or "the Xykon," in the typoed online version, but that's just a typo. This is here only because someone would jump on it if it wasn't.

[Seto]

But that is what happened in that comic. Belkar made a point about the faults of the moraly "better" characters, by sarcastically saying that he thought the entire point of the adventure to date was to kill the pointy toothed races. (emphasis mine)

I'm pretty sure there's nothing sarcastic about Belkar's line. He's completely genuine here, and doesn't see a problem with it. That's the reason the next panel (death stares and "what?") exists - if he was being sarcastic, this panel would be uncalled for.
You may see it as a point being made against the Order's apparent behavior, as a denunciation of classic murderhobo behavior (which it almost certainly is), or even as self-criticism, but in any case the point being made by Belkar is made unwittingly, on a metatextual level rather than in-character.

[Mightymosy]

This is what makes OotS so hard to argue about: The early comics were made with another focus in mind. They were made as loosely connected one-gag-a-day-strips that parodied D&D and roleplaying games in general.

As such, comics like Plot Ahoy can be interpretated differently.

For example, when I started reading OotS, I was unsure for a very long time whether Belkar was really chaotic evil.

Why? Because a lot of what happened in the comic was very silly, and this way couldn't be evaluated under serious conditions.
So what if Belkar killed goblins who surrendered? A couple panels before that, Redcloak was shown preparing a welcome buffet for the heroes.
So why should I take anything seriously? It is a joke comic.
I fully expected that there might someday be a strip where Belkar is actually revealed to be Lawful Good, with some funny explanation that parodies the alignment-system of D&D to show how strange it can be.

But that didn't happen. The comic moved forward to a more serious plot, a plot that will likely - how was that worded? - try to teach us, the audience, something about ourselves.

I imagine that it must be difficult for the author to have the early strips hanging at his feet. He did start the comic with those, and appearantly doesn't want to retcon them. But some things he might have decided differently when the scope of the story had been clear from the beginning. So he has to steer the story slowly in the direction he wishes it to be, without sorely forcing disconnects with what's established in the early strips.
(Take the strip where Roy kills the sleeping Goblins as an example).

At least that's how I imagine things are.

[KorvinStarmast]

The argument Liquor Box is advancing now amounts to: Belkar tells the truth and the rest of the Order doesn't, as long as you start from the position that the truth is whatever Belkar says and another Order member who claims it's anything different is definitionally being shown up and humiliated by Belkar. .
No. Where it started was with Belkar's role becoming that of "truth teller" which is a literary device. (Sort of like a prophet, in terms of the one who'll speak the uncomfortable truth that others won't.) That doesn't make the other characters incapable of that, and indeed a variety of episodes there is either an epiphany or a "cut through the BS" moment ... Belkar isn't the only one who gets to shine in that spotlight. It just seems to me that he does it far more frequently due to how that character has progressed. (A favorite of mine is where Belkar is the butt of that joke, as when Haley (after the stealing of the mule and the tossing of the chocolate bar observes to Belkar "you don't think I'd keep you around if I didn't need all the help I can get?")

The other issue that's been raised is the retconny nature of the OoTS. As I noted, he began as both comic relief and as a rebuke to the murderhobo/amoral twits many of us have had to put with at a given table. At some point, it might be best to stop trying to pick the fly crap out of the pepper.

[Kish]

"No."? So sure of that, are you? Bear in mind that you are apparently taking it on yourself to speak for someone who claimed that saying Haley's ranks in Use Rope were "kinky" had something to do with Belkar's role as truth-teller.

You and I may or may not disagree on how much of the time Belkar is supposed to be "acting as the person who says the truths other people can't," how much of the time he's saying what the character Belkar would say without regard for whether it's true or not, and indeed how much of the time Rich would agree with what Belkar said. (I cosign what Seto just said about the strip #13 lines, and add that the "death stares" from everyone but Vaarsuvius should indeed be taken as an early authorial criticism--of the morals of Belkar and Vaarsuvius, not of the glarers/starers.) Beyond that, all the members of the Order are occasionally Rich's mouthpiece but usually speak only for themselves, and there has never been a shortage of people on this board prepared to argue that every asserted opinion a member of the Order declares should be treated as a statement of fact directly from Rich. But I'm certain that Liquor Box has argued for classifying many statements as "truth-telling" that no one else (except possibly veti) has supported regarding that way in this thread. (The night is young.)

[Liquor Box]

"No."? So sure of that, are you? Bear in mind that you are apparently taking it on yourself to speak for someone who claimed that saying Haley's ranks in Use Rope were "kinky" had something to do with Belkar's role as truth-teller.

You and I may or may not disagree on how much of the time Belkar is supposed to be "acting as the person who says the truths other people can't," how much of the time he's saying what the character Belkar would say without regard for whether it's true or not, and indeed how much of the time Rich would agree with what Belkar said. (I cosign what Seto just said about the strip #13 lines, and add that the "death stares" from everyone but Vaarsuvius should indeed be taken as an early authorial criticism--of the morals of Belkar and Vaarsuvius, not of the glarers/starers.) Beyond that, all the members of the Order are occasionally Rich's mouthpiece but usually speak only for themselves, and there has never been a shortage of people on this board prepared to argue that every stated opinion a member of the Order states should be treated as a statement of fact directly from Rich. But I'm certain that Liquor Box has argued for classifying many statements as "truth-telling" that no one else (except possibly veti) has supported regarding that way in this thread. (The night is young.)

Vito and KorvinStarmast's comments reflect my own opinion, though they may have stated it better than I did.

I take "truth teller" in this context to mean that Belkar is stating an uncomfortable truth, whether that be about the other characters or more generally. That is what I think Belkar did when he pointed out that (until that point) the party had been merely trawling through a dungeion and killing anything that looked different - that was the point of the joke. I don't think Blekar was objecting to this fact (he participated and was happy to do so) but I do think that hypocrisy of the party being free to kill some, but expresing horror at killing others became a recurring theme for Belkar later.

I was joking when I said that the truth-telling in strip 69 was about Hayley being kinky (that is probably a very comfortable truth given what occured on the back of the purple worm) - it seemed to me to be obvious that the poster had been referring to Belkar pointing out that Roy should have told the party to capture the Linear Guild before they had already been killed.

[Liquor Box]

(emphasis mine)

I'm pretty sure there's nothing sarcastic about Belkar's line. He's completely genuine here, and doesn't see a problem with it. That's the reason the next panel (death stares and "what?") exists - if he was being sarcastic, this panel would be uncalled for.
You may see it as a point being made against the Order's apparent behavior, as a denunciation of classic murderhobo behavior (which it almost certainly is), or even as self-criticism, but in any case the point being made by Belkar is made unwittingly, on a metatextual level rather than in-character.

Yes, fair enough. It was not sarcastic. It was an umcomfortable (to the rest of the order, but not to Belkar himself) observation as to the behaviour in which the party had been engaging to that point.

[Fincher]

According to the story, they were trying to stop Xykon all along. Belkar was telling a truth about D&D in general, and if you treat this as is if it were an actual D&D campaign being played, Belkar's player might have been telling a truth about what the players had been doing up to that point, but it wasn't ultimately a truth about Roy, Haley, Elan, and Durkon's motivations.

[Liquor Box]

According to the story, they were trying to stop Xykon all along. Belkar was telling a truth about D&D in general, and if you treat this as is if it were an actual D&D campaign being played, Belkar's player might have been telling a truth about what the players had been doing up to that point, but it wasn't ultimately a truth about Roy, Haley, Elan, and Durkon's motivations.

Yeah, his comment kicked in at the same point as the Order was retrospectively given a mission. At the time of the earlier comics (where the order killed goblins just because they were there) Belkar's comment would have been spot on, but at the time he made the comment the Order by then had been given a mission and retrospectively a motivation/justification for their killing, so at that point iwas just a truth about the genre in general.

[hroþila]

Within the story, the only thing that Plot Ahoy tells us is that Belkar is so self-absorbed and cares so little for the plot stuff that he doesn't even listen; he only cares for the chance to kill sentient things. Which is a trait he's demonstrated many times, and as recently as Two Paths (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0896.html).

So yes, Plot Ahoy says a lot about Belkar and nothing about the rest of the Order.

[martianmister]

I take "truth teller" in this context to mean that Belkar is stating an uncomfortable truth, whether that be about the other characters or more generally. That is what I think Belkar did when he pointed out that (until that point) the party had been merely trawling through a dungeion and killing anything that looked different - that was the point of the joke. I don't think Blekar was objecting to this fact (he participated and was happy to do so) but I do think that hypocrisy of the party being free to kill some, but expresing horror at killing others became a recurring theme for Belkar later.

It's not really an uncomfortable truth because the order didn't kill anything "that looked different". :smallannoyed:

[IndigoFenix]

I'm expecting Belkar to achieve redemption at some point, for a few reasons, mostly narrative ones.

For a while I was expecting Belkar to cheat the prophecy by becoming undead, but I think that possibility has been nipped in the bud by teasing it for a moment and then snatching it away by applying it to Durkon instead (while at the same time screwing around with Durkon's 'posthumously' prophecy). For another character to get the 'cheat prophecy by becoming undead' treatment would just be repetitive, so I'm thinking Belkar's death will actually be final.

So the question is, how can Belkar get a fulfilling character arc? He's been changing for the better, but he still has to answer for his atrocities, narratively speaking. Redemption equals death probably applies here.

He's not reformed yet, but if he pretends to be good for too long, he may suffer from a case of Becoming the Mask.

I think he'll ultimately die from some major act of self-sacrifice, and it'll be awesome. Maybe going down holding off an army single-handedly.

[Lombard]

If Belkar weren't controversial, he'd be disappointed.

[An Enemy Spy]

Th Order wasn't just mindlessly killing goblins because they looked different from them. They were battling the evil minions of the evil lich Xykon. Just because this fact wasn't stated in the first panel of the first page doesn't mean it was retconned in later, unless you think Rich is so incapable of planning ahead that anytime a new detail is revealed, it's because it just popped into his head instead of being thought of beforehand.

[snowblizz]

unless you think Rich is so incapable of planning ahead that anytime a new detail is revealed, it's because it just popped into his head instead of being thought of beforehand.
Sadly it seems this is exactly how many read the comic. It's the weirdest thing, ppl throw out deus ex machina left and right like the comic wasn't planned months when not years ahead in time.

Now back to reading WoT! It's keeping me sane(ish) while waiting for more comic. :P

[An Enemy Spy]

Sadly it seems this is exactly how many read the comic. It's the weirdest thing, ppl throw out deus ex machina left and right like the comic wasn't planned months when not years ahead in time.

Now back to reading WoT! It's keeping me sane(ish) while waiting for more comic. :P

I'll get it up tonight. I'm at work right now.

[Liquor Box]

It's not really an uncomfortable truth because the order didn't kill anything "that looked different". :smallannoyed:

I don't know if you are taking issue with the specific words i used or the concept. But, until that point in the comic the Order had killed every single creature that had appeared in the comic (in any context) other than themselves. Granted it was still early in the comic. An example is them killing the goblins (who had already been incapacitated) in comic 11.

[Liquor Box]

Th Order wasn't just mindlessly killing goblins because they looked different from them. They were battling the evil minions of the evil lich Xykon. Just because this fact wasn't stated in the first panel of the first page doesn't mean it was retconned in later, unless you think Rich is so incapable of planning ahead that anytime a new detail is revealed, it's because it just popped into his head instead of being thought of beforehand.

I can't reference it, but I have seen others on here say that the Giant has confirmed exactly this. Apparently he has confirmed that he wrote the first few comics with the intention that the characters would be just wandering around a dungeon without a purpose, with each comic containing a DnD joke. It was only later that he retroactively superimposed a plot onto what they had been doing.

[Ruck]

Th Order wasn't just mindlessly killing goblins because they looked different from them. They were battling the evil minions of the evil lich Xykon. Just because this fact wasn't stated in the first panel of the first page doesn't mean it was retconned in later, unless you think Rich is so incapable of planning ahead that anytime a new detail is revealed, it's because it just popped into his head instead of being thought of beforehand.

Whoa, whoa. First off, "If you think this happened this one time, you MUST think it happened in every similar situation" is not a valid argument.

Second, Rich is on record as saying the strip was initially supposed to be a gag a day and then the plot didn't come later, so thinking strip #13 retcons strips #1-12 is hardly the same thing as thinking "anytime a new detail is revealed, it's because it just popped into his head instead of being thought of beforehand."

[snowblizz]

Whoa, whoa. First off, "If you think this happened this one time, you MUST think it happened in every similar situation" is not a valid argument.

Second, Rich is on record as saying the strip was initially supposed to be a gag a day and then the plot didn't come later, so thinking strip #13 retcons strips #1-12 is hardly the same thing as thinking "anytime a new detail is revealed, it's because it just popped into his head instead of being thought of beforehand."

The Giant changed the major "business strategy" of the comic even before posting up the first comic. This is mentioned in the BRitF commentary. Strip #3 when Durkon turns undead instead of Turns Undead was removed because it did not fit the plans of "not-random-joke-comic". In other words #13 does not retcon anything, the only retconning was done before the comic was ever put online, making it a really odd case of retconning by any standard IMNSHO.

[hroþila]

Even when there wasn't any narrative continuity, I seriously doubt "The protagonists kill people because they're racist" was ever on the table. I imagine the Giant assumed they had a good reason to be in that dungeon, even if he hadn't explored it yet.

[Mightymosy]

Even when there wasn't any narrative continuity, I seriously doubt "The protagonists kill people because they're racist" was ever on the table. I imagine the Giant assumed they had a good reason to be in that dungeon, even if he hadn't explored it yet.

To be fair, when you start reading the comic at #1 (as I did), it is reasonable to believe that is foremost a 1-gag-a-day-strip with a loose plot in the background to tie things together. In that perspective, I also read #13 as being mostly a parody about typical roleplaying behavior ("hack & slay" anyone?).
I mean, the plot is so cliche and silly, that one can easily consider it a joke mostly.

Sure, when you proceed with the comic, the plot becomes more and more important, but if you read it without any author commentary, I think it is very reasonable to get the impression that the early strips were mostly 1-of-gags that were given an underlying storyline later.

[Chammalia]

Hm, I like him - most of the time at least. He adds some extra fun to the comic :smalltongue: However, I am kind of puzzled on whether or not I think he deserves to die; right now I believe he is on the path to become a more 'good-aligned' character. But I guess we'll have to see :smallconfused:

[Cracklord]

So the question is, how can Belkar get a fulfilling character arc? He's been changing for the better, but he still has to answer for his atrocities, narratively speaking. Redemption equals death probably applies here.

To be honest, I just want him gone. I don't need the satisfaction of his long, drawn-out death anymore, I just want him to stop taking up valuable panel space, the Order not to mention him, and that's all.

If that means letting him retire on a huge pile of gold, booze, and prostitutes, ascend to archdemon status or die gloriously, fine. If that means he dies ignominiously and is then forgotten, so much the better, but one way or another just get him out of here.

[Liquor Box]

To be honest, I just want him gone. I don't need the satisfaction of his long, drawn-out death anymore, I just want him to stop taking up valuable panel space, the Order not to mention him, and that's all.

If that means letting him retire on a huge pile of gold, booze, and prostitutes, ascend to archdemon status or die gloriously, fine. If that means he dies ignominiously and is then forgotten, so much the better, but one way or another just get him out of here.

Haha. I have the same dilemma in reverse.

I want him to stay because he is perhaps the funniest and most interesting character. But at the same time I would be very satisfied if was able to retire on a huge pile of gold to drink and whore his days away.

The best case scenario is that he survives to the end of the comic and then retires in that way.

[factotum]

The best case scenario is that he survives to the end of the comic and then retires in that way.

He's still going to die sometime in the next few weeks, so his "retirement" isn't going to last long... :smallamused:

[Liquor Box]

He's still going to die sometime in the next few weeks, so his "retirement" isn't going to last long... :smallamused:

See pages 2 to 4 of this thread for a debate about whether Belkar is going to be permanently dead anytime soon.

If he is to die, I will settle for him going to the good afterlife on the basis that the good he did in leading the Order to save the world (including all the good dietiies) outbalances the minor evils he committed previously. I think Belkar could have a lot of fun in the version of the afterlife we saw through Roy's eyes. Wouldn't it be funny if Roy later died and returned to theafterlife to find that Belkar had been sleeping with (the young version of) his mother. :smallamused:

[Peelee]

See pages 2 to 4 of this thread for a debate about whether Belkar is going to be permanently dead anytime soon.

If he is to die, I will settle for him going to the good afterlife on the basis that the good he did in leading the Order to save the world (including all the good dietiies) outbalances the minor evils he committed previously. I think Belkar could have a lot of fun in the version of the afterlife we saw through Roy's eyes. Wouldn't it be funny if Roy later died and returned to theafterlife to find that Belkar had been sleeping with (the young version of) his mother. :smallamused:

So in your mind, Belkar will not only qualify for a good afterlife, but a LAWFUL good afterlife? The same one that Roy nearly didn't make because of a single egregious lapse in judgement?

I now understand when people ask if they're reading the same comic

[factotum]

I will settle for him going to the good afterlife on the basis that the good he did in leading the Order to save the world (including all the good dietiies) outbalances the minor evils he committed previously.

Minor evils? He murdered fifteen people in a bar fight, then did the same for the police guard when a fortuitous accident let him out of his cell. Later on, he was entirely willing to stand by and let someone kill Hinjo until he realised that might mean he could never kill anyone in a village, town or city again, and he killed an innocent gnome for no good reason other than he wanted his candy bar.

Even after his faux "development" started he was perfectly willing for slavers to kidnap most of the people he was travelling with in the desert, and was, in fact, pretty pally with them--until they threatened Mr. Scruffy, at which point, rather than explaining that was *his* cat and he'd rather it was left uneaten thankyouverymuch, he just killed them. Oh, and let's not forget that as recently as strip #996 he was clearly debilitated and hurt by the Protection from Evil clasp, and you have to be flat-out Evil for that to happen. There is no way that Belkar is going to somehow switch to being Good in the last month or so of his life, no matter how much you wish it were so.

[Valynie]

While I aggree that Belkar becoming Good is not in the cards , he might qualify for CN at the end of the story
There is no doubt for me he is chaotic , he is a creature of impulse . one of the only medium plan he made in his life was plotting Miko's fall and it had a major flaw . The other (trying to act as a good people) is not really a plan for me
In the latest stories , we see him having good moments more and more and growing dissatisfied with his previous actions . that might qualify him for a CN afterlife if he he lives long enough . We have Durkon to thank for this as his sacrifice had a deep influence on Belkar

[Ruck]

While I aggree that Belkar becoming Good is not in the cards , he might qualify for CN at the end of the story
I've often thought this a possibility. If, say, Belkar's final act is some kind of Heroic Sacrifice, especially one necessary to save the world, that could be a single event Good enough to move him to CN.

[Liquor Box]

So in your mind, Belkar will not only qualify for a good afterlife, but a LAWFUL good afterlife? The same one that Roy nearly didn't make because of a single egregious lapse in judgement?

I now understand when people ask if they're reading the same comic

Yeah, I forgot about the law chaos axis. I'm not sure I can justify that.

Even making the good afterlife is a bit of a stretch but not entirely impossible (if he ends the comic doing a great good) and I think it would be a nice ending for him.

I don't know much about the mythology, but the chaotic good afterlife might be better than the lawful good one. All the goodness, but with less rules.

[Liquor Box]

Minor evils? He murdered fifteen people in a bar fight, then did the same for the police guard when a fortuitous accident let him out of his cell. Later on, he was entirely willing to stand by and let someone kill Hinjo until he realised that might mean he could never kill anyone in a village, town or city again, and he killed an innocent gnome for no good reason other than he wanted his candy bar.

Even after his faux "development" started he was perfectly willing for slavers to kidnap most of the people he was travelling with in the desert, and was, in fact, pretty pally with them--until they threatened Mr. Scruffy, at which point, rather than explaining that was *his* cat and he'd rather it was left uneaten thankyouverymuch, he just killed them. Oh, and let's not forget that as recently as strip #996 he was clearly debilitated and hurt by the Protection from Evil clasp, and you have to be flat-out Evil for that to happen. There is no way that Belkar is going to somehow switch to being Good in the last month or so of his life, no matter how much you wish it were so.

I agree he is evil now (or at least still was in gnome town - it may have even been his niceness to the gnome girl that tipped him over the edge), but i think he may well be nearing neutrality. I don't agree with you that he acted evilly with the slavers or Hinjo though. He did not cause their plight so was under no duty to rescue them. I guess that his motivation (which was not to rescue the slaves) mitigate the goodness he did by eventually rescuing them though.

But the point is that his evils (even at his worst) pale in comparison to the potential good he may do - saving the world (millions or billions of people). If he has a heavy hand in a good ending to this comic that will outweigh killing a hundred or even a thousand people. Whether it is enough to boost him up to good (probably not) or neutral (probably) I can't be sure.

But it would be great if he did get a good ending to thank him for being such a great character over the years.

[Noruas]

Two cents:

Personally, Belkar's my favourite character. He's funny, snarky and reminds me of one of the first characters I ever rolled (I tend to play chaotic and/or evil characters for fun). The whole concept of a psychotic, homicidal halfling is comedy gold.

Yes, he's evil but he's also entertaining and he has his more loveable moments (ie, interactions with Mr. Scruffy and Shojo, everything with Durkon once the vampire arc started). You don't have to agree with a character's morality to like them as a character.

I mean, Lex Luthor is also a great character, especially in his "mega-rich businessman" incarnation, but that doesn't mean I think he's a fantastic human being that should be emulated.

EDIT:
Quote for truth:

This.

Plus, how anyone can take alignments of cartoon characters in a series about an RPG seriously is beyond me.

[Peelee]

Plus, how anyone can take alignments of cartoon characters in a series about an RPG seriously is beyond me.

I, too, don't understand why fans get invested in a media that they enjoy.

[factotum]

I, too, don't understand why fans get invested in a media that they enjoy.

Dammit, I think my sarcasm detector exploded again...you know how hard these things are to replace? :smallsmile:

[Peelee]

Dammit, I think my sarcasm detector exploded again...you know how hard these things are to replace? :smallsmile:

http://i.imgur.com/15cEwVQ.jpg

Regardless, send me the bill.

[martianmister]

Honestly, if he don't put into CE afterlife after everything he done, I would feel cheated. A life-time full of evil acts can't be brushed aside in few months.