PDA

View Full Version : Belkar hate



zinycor
2020-03-07, 08:14 AM
I have seen plenty of Belkar hate, specially on the previous comic entry. And I just don't get it. Everyone loves overly aggresive anti-heroes, and Belkar is one of the best. He is funny, small, badass, has amazing and unique character development, amazing comedic timing, main source of badass one-liners, doesn't stand above other main characters in the power curve. What's not to like?

Hell, last comic, 1193, just name dropping him was a punch line!!!! That's the sign of an amazing character.

Fyraltari
2020-03-07, 08:19 AM
And I just don't get it. Everyone loves overly aggresive anti-heroes

In the 90's maybe, people are mostly bored of them now.

But really Belkar is a great character that I love to see in action. But that doesn't mean he is a good person by far. I wouldn't want to have to deal with a person like that all in real life.

Is that what you call "Belkar hate"? Because I haven't seen anyone complain about Belkar as a character on this forum nobody is saying that they wish he'd go away, or saying they can't stand his presence on-panel.

CriticalFailure
2020-03-07, 11:33 AM
What is this Belkar hate you speak of lol

Peelee
2020-03-07, 11:37 AM
I have seen plenty of Belkar hate.... Everyone loves overly aggressive anti-heroes

The first statement would imply that the second statement is not correct, I would venture.

factotum
2020-03-07, 12:30 PM
Belkar has his place, and that place is pushing up daisies. :smallbiggrin:

Seriously, I don't hate him being in the comic, but I don't like him as a character, because he's not a very nice person. I don't think he even brings anything particularly unique in terms of what he offers the party, because we already have a warrior/meat shield in the shape of Roy!

Grey_Wolf_c
2020-03-07, 05:19 PM
I have seen plenty of Belkar hate, specially on the previous comic entry

I'm going to guess you are referring to this comment:

Belkar a mass-murderer who has only recently grasped the concept that other beings matter (and that’s basically limited to his cat) and is incapable of acknowledging his own sentiment of gratitude.

If so, that's not Belkar hate, that's an accurate description of the character. And your response (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24375994&postcount=102) to this, "Belkar is a sexy shoeless god of war" does not contradict it one bit. Indeed, one would expect most gods of war to be mass-murderers with severe issues with seeing other people as people and not as objects to be stabbed for entertainment.

If not, please indicate what you think constitutes "Belkar hate".

Grey Wolf

mjasghar
2020-03-08, 07:18 AM
The problem is perhaps that many of us are older and so we have seen where edgelord fanservice ends up
Too many people rave about nasty people doing nasty things for good causes and then somehow make out they can then be nice to their own group
It ends up being it’s okay to do X to this group because they don’t count
Just look at the people who fetishise the chaos legions in Warhammer or look at the tv series 24 about how extreme that path can end up

Fyraltari
2020-03-08, 07:22 AM
The problem is perhaps that many of us are older and so we have seen where edgelord fanservice ends up
Too many people rave about nasty people doing nasty things for good causes and then somehow make out they can then be nice to their own group
It ends up being it’s okay to do X to this group because they don’t count
Perhaps.

Just look at the people who fetishise the chaos legions in Warhammer
Or the loyalist legions.
There are no good guys in Warhammer.

zinycor
2020-03-08, 01:07 PM
It is more related to comments like this
Some of the others reasons are:


Nu-huh
Ewwww!
No. Just... no.
But why?
Gross.
Nope, nope, nope, nopitty-nope.
Belial's burning ballsack, no!


Which I don't get...

Fyraltari
2020-03-08, 01:09 PM
It is more related to comments like this

Which I don't get...

Belkar is not boyfriend material at all. As expalined by the other post.

Schroeswald
2020-03-08, 01:15 PM
Belkar is not boyfriend material at all. As expalined by the other post.

Belkar is a very funny and interesting character who has developed from a less interesting but more funny character, but he shouldn't be dating anyone.

Precure
2020-03-08, 01:37 PM
Honestly, I don't even care enough about him to hate him anymore. He's just a boring character now, an evil murderer that no longer allowed to murder anybody because of an unearned redemption plot.

LadyEowyn
2020-03-08, 02:15 PM
Redemption is, by definition, unearned. And I’m not convinced Belkar is going to get it.

What we’re seeing from him is reform. Unlike V, he’s not showing any interest in atonement or accountability for his previous harm done to innocents (which is a major reason I’d say he’s still Evil), but he is showing a sincere desire to change his future actions. Durkon got him to accept that he wants to be different than he was, and now Minrah is encouraging him that he can be different.

It’s slow progress, but there’s been genuine moral change since Durkon’s death.

Given that the Order still need to talk Redcloak around, I’m feeling like V’s and Belkar’s arcs and realizations will both end up being relevant - especially the message that your past actions don’t have to define your present or future choices (the antithesis of the sunk cost fallacy).

Aquillion
2020-03-08, 03:08 PM
Redemption is, by definition, unearned.Wait what? No! Redemption is by definition earned. Someone who is "redeemed" without earning it hasn't been redeemed at all, they've just gotten lucky or had other people give them a pass.

I would say that the single most important attribute for a character to be redeemed is a willingness to change and make amends. Someone who doesn't have that can't be genuinely redeemed, ever. You can't just... magically redeem someone by casting an Atonement spell at them, or by declaring that everything they did wrong no longer matters. They have to want it and work for it and, yes, earn it.

pearl jam
2020-03-08, 03:59 PM
It depends on where you get your definition from.

Fyraltari
2020-03-08, 04:14 PM
Honestly, I don't even care enough about him to hate him anymore. He's just a boring character now, an evil murderer that no longer allowed to murder anybody because of an unearned redemption plot.

I’m unclear on how you expect a character to earn a redemption plot. Isn’t that plot all about earning a redemption in the first place?

Verappo
2020-03-08, 04:17 PM
I think that the comic is attempting a very specific approach to redemption. More than something you gain, it's what you do day by day. One can disagree with the point, but it's a pretty consistent theme throughout the story. Think Roy getting into heaven because he tries, or his speech to Vaarsuvius when the Familicide stuff is revealed (or even Durkon's "you are who you are on all of your days" speech). Roy outright says that he doesn't feel equipped to talk about philosophical implications, only technical stuff and the rest as it comes.

Likewise, I think that the question of Belkar's redemption will largely be left unanswered. The important point for the story is that he's trying to do better, that we get to see this character start to change, even if he doesn't succeed, or if he can succeed at all. It's much more compelling to think that he may have a chance, were it not for timing, and a nice parallel to Miko's failed redemption ("perhaps if you had more time.. But then again, Perhaps not.")

This is also why I'm surprised at the question in the thread since it seems to me like Belkar's character has only got more interesting since his Mark of Justice induced epiphany. I never really engaged with his comic relief role in the first couple books, but this is someting I can chew on.

woweedd
2020-03-08, 04:53 PM
I personally find Blekar pretty fun, and even remarlably nuanced this book. That said I get how some people find his role as "comically-evil teammate" increasingly out-of-place as the comic's storyline got more serious. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if Rich agreed: I imagine there's a reason why, after Miko got involved and the plot actually became something more then a vehicle for comedy: Belkar's ability to actually DO evil gets neutered drastically by the Mark of Justice and, after its gone, he decides to star at least acting like something other then a massive liability.

Ortho
2020-03-08, 05:01 PM
It depends on where you get your definition from.


I think that the comic is attempting a very specific approach to redemption. More than something you gain, it's what you do day by day.

I'm kinda astounded that no one's brought up the comic's definition of redemption (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0464.html) yet. As for whether Belkar's on track to meet the criteria? Well, maybe. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1151.html)

I can understand why people hated Belkar - that's kinda the whole point of his early character, that we could boo and jeer at him and not feel guilty about it. I guess now that he's developing into a three-dimensional character, people are starting to dislike that they can't dislike him anymore?

BisectedBrioche
2020-03-08, 05:09 PM
I’m unclear on how you expect a character to earn a redemption plot. Isn’t that plot all about earning a redemption in the first place?

In universe from that character's perspective, maybe. But obviously the external narrative has to set them up for one (basically it's the story that earns the plot, not the character themselves).

Personally, I'd say the setup for Belkar's is pretty good.

Verappo
2020-03-08, 05:26 PM
I'm kinda astounded that no one's brought up the comic's definition of redemption (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0464.html) yet. As for whether Belkar's on track to meet the criteria? Well, maybe. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1151.html)


Oh definitely! I focused on the corollary about redemption needing time because that's something that we know Belkar lacks right now, but by all accounts he is trying to be better, or better team player at least.

I guess it's my obsession with the musical Hadestown that makes me see the worth in a story where the same arc about search of redemption is repeated over and over, even when the happy ending isn't in place, making you wish it could go different the next time. That's what makes me think that Belkar will die before the answer of whether he has "achieved" redemption or not becomes apparent

Fyraltari
2020-03-08, 05:27 PM
In universe from that character's perspective, maybe. But obviously the external narrative has to set them up for one (basically it's the story that earns the plot, not the character themselves).

Personally, I'd say the setup for Belkar's is pretty good.
I have trouble figuring out where you would draw the line between the redemption plot and the set up for the redemption plot. Where you say Belkar's begins and why?

dude123nice
2020-03-08, 06:14 PM
Wait what? No! Redemption is by definition earned. Someone who is "redeemed" without earning it hasn't been redeemed at all, they've just gotten lucky or had other people give them a pass.

I would say that the single most important attribute for a character to be redeemed is a willingness to change and make amends. Someone who doesn't have that can't be genuinely redeemed, ever. You can't just... magically redeem someone by casting an Atonement spell at them, or by declaring that everything they did wrong no longer matters. They have to want it and work for it and, yes, earn it.

I disagree here. The fact that you are doing good now does not erase the bad you did before. The only people who can forgive you are the ones you've wronged. And they have no obligation to do so, no matter how much good you are doing. Hence, you can not 'earn' it. You can be forgiven only if they are willing to, no matter their reasoning.

Precure
2020-03-08, 06:40 PM
I’m unclear on how you expect a character to earn a redemption plot. Isn’t that plot all about earning a redemption in the first place?

For starters, by feeling bad about the people he killed. Not something like "lol, I'm only pretending to be redeemed...except not!"

Keltest
2020-03-08, 06:41 PM
I disagree here. The fact that you are doing good now does not erase the bad you did before. The only people who can forgive you are the ones you've wronged. And they have no obligation to do so, no matter how much good you are doing. Hence, you can not 'earn' it. You can be forgiven only if they are willing to, no matter their reasoning.

Redemption and forgiveness aren't the same thing though. One does not need to be forgiven to be redeemed, nor vice versa.

Fyraltari
2020-03-08, 06:50 PM
For starters, by feeling bad about the people he killed. Not something like "lol, I'm only pretending to be redeemed...except not!"
Isn't that the cart before the ox? One needs to learn to care for other people before regretting having hurt other people, no?

Redemption and forgiveness aren't the same thing though. One does not need to be forgiven to be redeemed, nor vice versa.
Except that in a universe where good and evil are measurable and the afterlife objectively real, redemption amounts to the universe foergiving your crimes does it not?

dude123nice
2020-03-08, 06:51 PM
Redemption and forgiveness aren't the same thing though. One does not need to be forgiven to be redeemed, nor vice versa.

IMHO, calling someone 'redeemed' if they haven't been forgiven by the ppl they've wronged means that you're, basically, spitting on those people and on all the bad things they've endured at the hands of the so called 'redeemed' person. Because you're dismissing their opinions and suffering as being unimportant compared to some sort of cosmic scale that judges people and their actions.

Keltest
2020-03-08, 06:54 PM
IMHO, calling someone 'redeemed' if they haven't been forgiven by the ppl they've wronged means that you're, basically, spitting on those people and on all the bad things they've endured at the hands of the so called 'redeemed' person. Because you're dismissing their opinions and suffering as being unimportant compared to some sort of cosmic scale that judges people and their actions.

Doesn't that mean redemption from any act that results in death is impossible then? Or any situation that leaves one or more victims in a state such that they are literally prevented from being able to forgive the person?

dude123nice
2020-03-08, 07:01 PM
Doesn't that mean redemption from any act that results in death is impossible then? Or any situation that leaves one or more victims in a state such that they are literally prevented from being able to forgive the person?

In DnD there's no way to bring someone's soul in such a state, except by destroying it utterly. And I'd say that maliciously causing the destruction of a soul kinda qualifies as an unforgivable action.

And as for IRL, then the answer is yes, ofc! If I, for example, was ever killed or rendered a vegetable by someone, at least if they did it maliciously or through callousness, then I honestly hope that my loved ones would never, one day, give the BS "I think that, wherever he is, he forgives you" speech, no matter what that person would do to 'atone'. Because I never would!

BisectedBrioche
2020-03-08, 08:15 PM
I have trouble figuring out where you would draw the line between the redemption plot and the set up for the redemption plot. Where you say Belkar's begins and why?

I think a good comparison would be the new God of War.

Long story short, it starts with the premise that Kratos has made peace with everything he did in the original trilogy, and travelled to Scandanavia (or the mythological version) and started a new family. He doesn't try to repent for all the bad he's done, as much as accept what's done is done, and try and do better in the present.

There's a point where (to cut a long story short) he needs to go and recover the Blades of Chaos he used in the original game (both narratively and mechanically opposite to the ice based axe he's been using after inheriting it from his wife) to save his son. There's a whole sequence where he's taunted by memories from the past as he goes to collect them, and settles on "I'm still a monster, but I'm not your [Athena, who manipulated him into some of his many crimes] monster!".

Effectively the entire arc was him coming to terms with the fact that while he's trying to do better, he's still the same person who carried out atrocities; the difference is the circumstances and his own perspective. At the end of the game he basically confesses his past to his son and tells him to do better than he did.

And I'll add onto that the overall moral of The Good Place:

Long story short, the first season has the premise that the protagonist Elanor Shelstrope is in The Good Place...but shouldn't be thanks to an error. She recruits her designated soul mate Chidi, a Professor of Moral Philosophy into helping her become a better person in the hope of being able to stay before they find out (he agrees because he's a fundamentally good person). The other two main characters are Tahani, a socialite who got in for her good works and a Tibetan monk (who it turns out was actually a petty crook from Florida, named Jason, who also got sent there by mistake).

At the end of Season 1 it turns out they're all in The Bad Place, and it was a simulation to torment the four main cast members in a new and interesting way (they get psychologically tormented, the demons get to LARP as humans and angels instead of the drudgery of dismembering them and racking them over coals). It's explained that the protagonists all ended up in hell because they hurt other people (Elanor was clearly portrayed as absurdly selfish from the get go; Jason was obviously a petty crook; Chidi's moralising and indecision made everyone around him miserable and Tahani was only motivated by wanting to one up her sister rather than actually doing good).

Season 2 begins with the simulation being reset, but Micheal, the demon in charge, realising they keep working it out. He also noticed they become fundamentally better every time. After sitting in on Chidi's classes (and being introduced to the concept of mortality), he turns to the side of good (coming to believe the fact they became better people means they shouldn't be in The Bad Place), and resolves to get them into The Good Place (and hoping he can himself defect).

Season 3 involves them being sent back to Earth so that they can try and improve their score and get in, but ends with the revelation that nobody's got into TGP for nearly half a millennium. The world's become so complicated, nobody can meet those standards. So they decide to recreate the experiment with four new humans to make sure it wasn't a fluke.

I haven't seen season 4 yet, but it's basically building up to a moral along the lines of "doing the right thing is easier when there's less to worry about, and even a millennia old demon can become a better person in the right circumstances", while acknowledging that there's no helping some people (a millennia old angelic being concedes she would have a hard time being good on Earth; Jason's father's sincerely too foolish to understand his own failings).

I think Belkar's is similar. There's no way in hell he's redeeming himself in a cosmic sense for spending most of his life up until this point murdering and maiming people. But it can be acknowledged that:


He didn't just pop into the world as a murderous psychopath (until we get some exposition saying he was born with an evil banana in place of his cortex and runs only on bad vibes, or somesuch we can assume he's meant to operate like a real life human(oid)), and might have been a better person in other circumstances (we can assume, anyway, since we don't know much about what he was doing beyond "being a jerk to monks" and "maybe wants to murder his hometown in their sleep -- if that wasn't a lie for XP").
Someone he respected (Lord Shojo) has given him a moral framework of sorts (even if it just boils down to "being nice to people makes them nice back, which is a better way to live"). This is framed as "faking character development" and could come across as rather cynical, but it's fundamentally the same thing a selfish person has to learn to be a bit nicer ("yes, that's how people tick, and getting along with them works better than assuming they'll always screw you over").
Along with this, Roy's been keeping him from doing anything worse in the mean time and vouching for him, which has basically given him the opportunity to do better (rather than stay in the same loop of solving problems with murder and needing to murder his way out of a new problem).
The latest comic has shown that he now understands the value of being known as a better person (we got hints of this back when some strangers rewarded him for saving them from slavery). Rather than...y'know, a murderous psychopath.
From this we can conclude he's on course to understand how to play nice with other people sincerely. Thus redeeming himself on a personal level (much in the same way as Kratos), even if he can't do more than accept what he did in the past was wrong.

GrayGriffin
2020-03-08, 11:51 PM
:


I haven't seen season 4 yet, but it's basically building up to a moral along the lines of "doing the right thing is easier when there's less to worry about, and even a millennia old demon can become a better person in the right circumstances", while acknowledging that there's no helping some people (a millennia old angelic being concedes she would have a hard time being good on Earth; Jason's father's sincerely too foolish to understand his own failings).
Funnily enough, the finale basically goes beyond what you say about there being "no helping some people." The protagonists eventually restructure the afterlife so that it's allowing people to grow and be better to get themselves a spot in the real Good Place. In the finale, we see almost everyone from Earth, including Jason's aforementioned dad, joining the protagonists in the real Good Place. The only guy who hasn't gotten in yet is Brent, a misogynistic, racist, entitled white man, but even he's still getting a chance to try.

EDIT: Also, your bit about the new God of War game seems to also encompass what other people have said about not wanting "edgy anti-heroes" anymore. The best parts in that game are where Kratos is struggling to express affection but we can see he's trying to connect and not just be an angry rage monster all the time.

CriticalFailure
2020-03-09, 12:11 AM
I mean that makes more sense. People can't actually change their past, they can only change the future. So redemption is pretty subjective really.

Precure
2020-03-09, 04:29 AM
Isn't that the cart before the ox? One needs to learn to care for other people before regretting having hurt other people, no?

Not sure how's that related to what I wrote, or Belkar at all. Unless pretending to be redeemed just magically gives you the ability to care for other people.

Schroeswald
2020-03-09, 05:20 AM
I don’t really think that the faking character growth is apart of Belkar’s redemption arc, it’s a way to limit the damage he does while still making him useful to the team (also gets different jokes out of him), his redemption doesn’t start until a whole book later, and it wasn’t caused by him faking character growth, it was caused by Durkon sacrificing his life for him, and that’s why he set out on this path, because he realized that someone cared about his life enough to die for him, and that was an idea that never occurred to him before.

hroþila
2020-03-09, 05:28 AM
Not sure how's that related to what I wrote, or Belkar at all. Unless pretending to be redeemed just magically gives you the ability to care for other people.
But the thing is, Belkar's gradual development has covered that. At first he pretended to be a good teammate for reasons of self-preservation, but he didn't care for other people (see for example the scene after rescuing the slaves from Buggy Lou). At the same time, he developed a smidgen of empathy due to his bond with Mr Scruffy, but for a good while this didn't truly extend to other people yet (his empathy towards Gannji and Enor was, should we say, a sign of empathy in transition). Then Durkon saved his life. At that point, Belkar developed true empathy for other people (see the gnome woman), he resented being treated as nothing but a psychopath, but crucially, he rejected his character development because it clashed with his self-image as, well, a psychopath. But he couldn't stop it. At that point, it was not about pretending anymore. Belkar only got seemingly comfortable with his development very, very recently, thanks to his conversations with Durkon and Minrah.

We'll see where he takes it from here because so far none of these developments had been incompatible with Evil, and in fact most Evil characters were always capable of everything Belkar has learned in the last ~500 strips, but for the first time he seems to want to not be Evil. True redemption is hard and, among other things, it requires acknowledgment of and penance for previous wrongdoings. This is the area where Belkar is less developed, but there has been some timid signs of progress on that front with his apology to Durkon. It's all happening very gradually and I think it all makes a lot of sense, so in my opinion the word "magically" is seriously unwarranted here.

Precure
2020-03-09, 05:31 AM
I also hated how the plot gave us a "he was right about vampire Durkon" pretext, even though no, he was just prejudiced and lucky.

mjasghar
2020-03-09, 07:02 AM
Or that he recognised someone pretending to be good as he had done that himself

Precure
2020-03-09, 07:10 AM
Or that he recognised someone pretending to be good as he had done that himself

Vampire Durkon wasn't pretending to be good.

Fyraltari
2020-03-09, 07:19 AM
Not sure how's that related to what I wrote, or Belkar at all. Unless pretending to be redeemed just magically gives you the ability to care for other people.
But it (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodFeelsGood) does (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BecomingTheMask).

Being compassionate and kind is a virtuous cycle of positive reinforcement : acting well makes one have a better opinion of themselves and so more prone to acting well (the opposite is also true as self-loathing is vindictive towards destructive bahaviour), there’s nothing magical about it.
Faking being a good teammate was but the first step in becoming a good one.
Hrothila sid a great job explaining that and so did Durkon with his speech on the seductive power of Good.

I also hated how the plot gave us a "he was right about vampire Durkon" pretext, even though no, he was just prejudiced and lucky.
He wasn’t prejudiced he himself says he doesn’t mind ‘the fang and the powers’ what he doesn’t buy is that Durkon would go from sacrificing himself to save Belkar to drinking all of Belkar’s blood unless stopped in an instant. And he’s completely right about that.

BisectedBrioche
2020-03-09, 07:21 AM
Technically he was evil but pretending to be the evil version of someone who was good remaining on the side of good.

Belkar, as someone evil pretending to be good because he's on the side of good probably picked up on what that looks like.

KorvinStarmast
2020-03-09, 07:58 AM
Belkar is not boyfriend material at all.

A certain bard/rogue named Jenny in Greysky City begs to differ with you.
(http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0611.html)
(But if I am Roy, as I noted in a different thread, I am not gonna approve of my sister dating Belkar).


Honestly, I don't even care enough about him to hate him anymore. He's just a boring character now, an evil murderer that no longer allowed to murder anybody because of an unearned redemption plot. Rich has been trying to fix that problem since this strip, or slightly before (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html).


I think Belkar's is similar. There's no way in hell he's redeeming himself in a cosmic sense for spending most of his life up until this point murdering and maiming people. I agree on the basis that Rich has said, in comic, that redemption begins with admitting that you were wrong ... and I don't see Belkar doing that any more than Miko did.

zinycor
2020-03-09, 07:59 AM
Vampire Durkon wasn't pretending to be good.

What? He absolutely was.

Grey Watcher
2020-03-09, 08:06 AM
What? He absolutely was.

Sort of. In response to being asked if he was Evil, his answer was "No more'n Belkar, I'd wager." So he wasn't denying being of Evil alignment, but he was still pretending that his goal was to further the good guys' cause. And he let Roy assume that "on your side" and "Good" were functionally synonymous.

Peat
2020-03-09, 08:40 AM
I agree on the basis that Rich has said, in comic, that redemption begins with admitting that you were wrong ... and I don't see Belkar doing that any more than Miko did.

He pretty much just said in the last comic that he's been an active obstacle to progress and hasn't tried his best. If that's not admitting you were wrong, I don't know what is.

Also admitting he paid no attention to the plot and needs to catch up, that he is the anal fistula of the quest... that's just within the last 20 strips or so. It mightn't be that much compared to what he's done, but it's definitely regular admissions that he was in the wrong as we've seen, Belkar becoming a better person has been steps down the garden path (I think hroþila's post did an excellent job of covering that).

KorvinStarmast
2020-03-09, 08:58 AM
If that's not admitting you were wrong, I don't know what is. He has in no way admitted that his murder for the LULZ approach to life is/was wrong. So I guess we are seeing this a bit differently.

Grey_Wolf_c
2020-03-09, 12:52 PM
A certain bard/rogue named Jenny in Greysky City begs to differ with you.
(http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0611.html)

"A good kisser" is not a measure of how good a boyfriend is. They are barely a one-night stand couple, and even by those very loose standards, he displays fairly toxic actions soon thereafter (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0622.html).

Grey Wolf

Aquillion
2020-03-09, 01:20 PM
I also hated how the plot gave us a "he was right about vampire Durkon" pretext, even though no, he was just prejudiced and lucky.There's more to it than that. It wasn't just, like... anti-vampire prejudice or something.

1. He actually saw Durkon's death and transformation. This gave him a deeper understanding of the impact of what had happened than the others, who only saw Durkon after being "freed." Yes, this is an emotional rather than logical reason, but it still matters in the sense that Roy was more willing to brush things off, whereas Belkar, who had seen what happened, would naturally tend to assume it had more impact. (And the others were prejudiced too, in the sense that their desperation to believe that everything was all right with their friend made them refuse to look too closely.)

2. He genuinely cared about Durkon's sacrifice. That's why he was so offended by the idea that an evil imposter was taking his place.

3. Evil!Durkon's act was not perfect. Look at Belkar's expression here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0948.html) - yes, Durkon might have said that, but Evil!Durkon was overplaying his role overall, and Belkar was paying enough attention to notice.

4. Evil!Durkon's behavior towards Belkar was bluntly, unequivocally out of line with how real!Durkon behaved. Go back and look at this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0957.html) page. That is not how Durkon would react, even before the bit at the end, and Belkar (who just saw the real Durkon cheerfully sacrifice his life for him) understood that now. The real Durkon wouldn't react to an obviously-upset and hurting Belkar with logical quibbling, let alone throwing him off the ship.

Precure
2020-03-09, 01:30 PM
According to Rich Burlew's recent answer, the vampire spirit wasn't even controlling Durkon's body while it drinked Belkar's blood.

Fyraltari
2020-03-09, 01:37 PM
"A good kisser" is not a measure of how good a boyfriend is. They are barely a one-night stand couple, and even by those very loose standards, he displays fairly toxic actions soon thereafter (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0622.html).

Grey Wolf
Taking the words out of my mouth... fingers.

According to Rich Burlew's recent answer, the vampire spirit wasn't even controlling Durkon's body while it drinked Belkar's blood.
So what? Belkar’s reasonning was completely sound nonetheless.

KorvinStarmast
2020-03-09, 02:09 PM
"A good kisser" is not a measure of how good a boyfriend is. They are barely a one-night stand couple, and even by those very loose standards, he displays fairly toxic actions soon thereafter (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0622.html).

Grey Wolf I have mentioned with some frequency how much I dislike how he treated her.
Belkar being a complete cad (most family-friendly term I can find) does not seem to have influenced her attraction to him. I have a suspicion that Rich was making a quick nod to that thing we have all seen IRL
The "he treats her like garbage yet she still falls for him" thing.
It happens. :smallfrown:

Grey_Wolf_c
2020-03-09, 02:11 PM
Taking the words out of my mouth... fingers.

So what? Belkar’s reasonning was completely sound nonetheless.

To clarify this a bit more: the point here is not "Greg is Evil", it is that Belkar figured out "That is not Durkon". Durkon, no matter what his personal biological needs, would not do that to Belkar. Therefore, whatever it was that was drinking Belkar's blood, couldn't be Durkon, and Greg pretending otherwise was a clear red flag to Belkar, because Durkon would at least have apologised, and Greg did not.


I have mentioned with some frequency how much I dislike how he treated her.
Belkar being a complete cad (most family-friendly term I can find) does not seem to have influenced her attraction to him. I have a suspicion that Rich was making a quick nod to that thing we have all seen IRL
The "he treats her like garbage yet she still falls for him" thing.
It happens. :smallfrown:

So you agree, then, that he is not boyfriend material?

Grey Wolf

Peelee
2020-03-09, 02:13 PM
I have mentioned with some frequency how much I dislike how he treated her.
Belkar being a complete cad (most family-friendly term I can find) does not seem to have influenced her attraction to him. I have a suspicion that Rich was making a quick nod to that thing we have all seen IRL
The "he treats her like garbage yet she still falls for him" thing.
It happens. :smallfrown:

None of which implies that Belkar makes good boyfriend material.

At the very least, in those situations in media or IRL, nobody is rooting for the person being treated like garbage to hook up with the person treating them like garbage. At least, that I know of.

Lord Torath
2020-03-09, 03:04 PM
A certain bard/rogue named Jenny in Greysky City begs to differ with you.
(http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0611.html)I'd argue that Jenny thought he was good hook-up material, rather than good boyfriend material.

Has anyone read Cast in Shadow (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9542.Cast_in_Shadow), by Michelle Sagara (https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/7031278.Michelle_Sagara)? The main character is a young police woman who grew up "on the wrong side of the tracks river", a lawless region ruled by crime lords. She lived there until she was 13, when she fled into another crime-lord's area where she lived for six months serving him, before crossing the river and attempting to assassinate one of the city's police chiefs. She failed, and joined the police force as a mascot for 5-6 years before being allowed to become an actual member of the force (rank: private). On several occasions she remarks that there is no justice, and she herself is part of the reason for it. She's done things she really can't be forgiven for (or tried for, as they occurred beyond the reach of the rule of law), and she can never make things up to those she hurt. But she still takes her job seriously, because she can try to bring justice to others, even if that justice will be incomplete.

hroþila
2020-03-09, 05:03 PM
I actually agree that Belkar's position regarding Durkon was just as unfounded, emotional and irrational as Roy's, even if it turned out to be correct. I just don't think it matters much from Roy's point of view.

LadyEowyn
2020-03-09, 05:09 PM
But the thing is, Belkar's gradual development has covered that. At first he pretended to be a good teammate for reasons of self-preservation, but he didn't care for other people (see for example the scene after rescuing the slaves from Buggy Lou). At the same time, he developed a smidgen of empathy due to his bond with Mr Scruffy, but for a good while this didn't truly extend to other people yet (his empathy towards Gannji and Enor was, should we say, a sign of empathy in transition). Then Durkon saved his life. At that point, Belkar developed true empathy for other people (see the gnome woman), he resented being treated as nothing but a psychopath, but crucially, he rejected his character development because it clashed with his self-image as, well, a psychopath. But he couldn't stop it. At that point, it was not about pretending anymore. Belkar only got seemingly comfortable with his development very, very recently, thanks to his conversations with Durkon and Minrah.

We'll see where he takes it from here because so far none of these developments had been incompatible with Evil, and in fact most Evil characters were always capable of everything Belkar has learned in the last ~500 strips, but for the first time he seems to want to not be Evil. True redemption is hard and, among other things, it requires acknowledgment of and penance for previous wrongdoings. This is the area where Belkar is less developed, but there has been some timid signs of progress on that front with his apology to Durkon. It's all happening very gradually and I think it all makes a lot of sense, so in my opinion the word "magically" is seriously unwarranted here.
Thos is a great breakdown of Belkar’s character development and I agree with it.

Aquillion
2020-03-09, 08:54 PM
But the thing is, Belkar's gradual development has covered that. At first he pretended to be a good teammate for reasons of self-preservation, but he didn't care for other people (see for example the scene after rescuing the slaves from Buggy Lou). At the same time, he developed a smidgen of empathy due to his bond with Mr Scruffy, but for a good while this didn't truly extend to other people yet (his empathy towards Gannji and Enor was, should we say, a sign of empathy in transition). Then Durkon saved his life. At that point, Belkar developed true empathy for other people (see the gnome woman), he resented being treated as nothing but a psychopath, but crucially, he rejected his character development because it clashed with his self-image as, well, a psychopath. But he couldn't stop it. At that point, it was not about pretending anymore. Belkar only got seemingly comfortable with his development very, very recently, thanks to his conversations with Durkon and Minrah.


“We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.”

― Kurt Vonnegut, Mother Night
My reading is that Shojo played him, basically, by tricking him into pretending to be good while knowing that playing the role long enough could eventually change him.

Peelee
2020-03-09, 09:33 PM
My reading is that Shojo played him, basically, by tricking him into pretending to be good while knowing that playing the role long enough could eventually change him.

Dream-Shojo didn't tell Belkar to pretend to be good. Dream-Shojo told Belkar to be less one-dimensionally oppositional to everyone.

Dream-Shojo I call him, because that wasn't actually Shojo.

Keltest
2020-03-09, 10:06 PM
To clarify this a bit more: the point here is not "Greg is Evil", it is that Belkar figured out "That is not Durkon". Durkon, no matter what his personal biological needs, would not do that to Belkar. Therefore, whatever it was that was drinking Belkar's blood, couldn't be Durkon, and Greg pretending otherwise was a clear red flag to Belkar, because Durkon would at least have apologised, and Greg did not.

I think you may need to go re-read that scene. Greg agreed that Belkar's anger with having his blood sucked was justified, then clarified that he was "not himself" which is completely truthful weather youre looking at Greg or Durkon saying it. Belkar was certainly right not to take it at face value, but had Greg worked harder to maintain his cover, he wouldn't have had any actual proof or evidence.

Grey_Wolf_c
2020-03-09, 10:48 PM
I think you may need to go re-read that scene. Greg agreed that Belkar's anger with having his blood sucked was justified, then clarified that he was "not himself" which is completely truthful weather youre looking at Greg or Durkon saying it. Belkar was certainly right not to take it at face value, but had Greg worked harder to maintain his cover, he wouldn't have had any actual proof or evidence.

1) I have re-read the scene, and like last time 6 hours ago, it continues to conspicuously lack an apology. An excuse*, sure. An apology, no.
2) Belkar doesn't need or want evidence. He knows it is not Durkon because unlike Roy, he is not letting himself be blinded by hope that his best friend is not gone, and without the blinders, Greg is clearly not Durkon. And since he is Chaotic, Belkar doesn't need to prove this before some hypothetical court of law with "actual proof or evidence". He knows his gut, just as Roy eventually knows it too.

Grey Wolf

* and a weak-sauce one, at that. After all, as Belkar points out, the order was not to drink, but to stop. Durkon would never drink Belkar to death.

Seward
2020-03-10, 02:22 AM
A certain bard/rogue named Jenny in Greysky City begs to differ with you.
(http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0611.html)

Yeah, but Belkar didn't think so. She was basically whore that didn't cost money to him. He valued her less than a sandwich.

But Jenny got a decent one-night-stand out of it. Also she lived, unlike just about everybody else in her peer group (Bozzak didn't raise any of the kills). So better than most interactions of that period's Belkar.

Keltest
2020-03-10, 07:18 AM
1) I have re-read the scene, and like last time 6 hours ago, it continues to conspicuously lack an apology. An excuse*, sure. An apology, no.
2) Belkar doesn't need or want evidence. He knows it is not Durkon because unlike Roy, he is not letting himself be blinded by hope that his best friend is not gone, and without the blinders, Greg is clearly not Durkon. And since he is Chaotic, Belkar doesn't need to prove this before some hypothetical court of law with "actual proof or evidence". He knows his gut, just as Roy eventually knows it too.

Grey Wolf

* and a weak-sauce one, at that. After all, as Belkar points out, the order was not to drink, but to stop. Durkon would never drink Belkar to death.

That's not exactly a glowing endorsement here. Roy was following his gut too. It just so happened that between the two of them, their predisposed reactions happened to cover both of the binary choices, so one of them was going to be wrong. And since the thrall's personality was neither Durkon nor Greg, as per the recent Q&A, Belkar's conclusions are both correct and irrelevant. They already knew that Durkon wasn't acting like himself while under Malack's control.

Grey_Wolf_c
2020-03-10, 07:22 AM
That's not exactly a glowing endorsement here. Roy was following his gut too.
Roy talks about denial (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1010.html), not gut feeling.


And since the thrall's personality was neither Durkon nor Greg, as per the recent Q&A, Belkar's conclusions are both correct and irrelevant. They already knew that Durkon wasn't acting like himself while under Malack's control.

He only acts like a child under compulsion from Malack. Compulsion that Malack had to establish when Greg almost drinks Belkar to death.

And I repeat, for the third and last time: no apology.

Grey Wolf

Keltest
2020-03-10, 07:41 AM
I think you may need to go re-read that scene. Roy talks about denial (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1010.html), not gut feeling.



He only acts like a child under compulsion from Malack. Compulsion that Malack had to establish when Greg almost drinks Belkar to death.

And I repeat, for the third and last time: no apology.

Grey Wolf

Roy was in denial because his gut instinct was that he wanted Durkon back and this was close enough. Theyre both going with their gut, theyre both taking their instinctive first reaction absent any other evidence, they just phrase it differently. And I don't understand why the apology would matter in the slightest. Durkon was polite, but not unfailingly so, and indeed actively disliked Belkar, having literally no good memories of him. "Durkon but evil" as Greg was pretending to be would certainly not be terribly bothered by the idea of Belkar almost getting killed. Heck, Roy is LG, and he isn't bothered by the idea that Belkar almost got killed either.

hroþila
2020-03-10, 08:00 AM
I'm not sure I agree that Roy went with his gut feeling. Personally, I think Roy ignored his gut feeling to an extent because he really wanted Durkon to be Durkon, and that things he did like checking on Durkon while he prayed for spells or taking Belkar to the Godsmoot were his way of assuaging his gut feeling that perhaps that wasn't how things were. It is a very fine and not very relevant distinction, though. I do agree that Durkon's explanation about the blood-drinking incident made perfect sense and should have satisfied Belkar if the latter was thinking rationally. After all, Belkar doesn't know how vampirism works, and even now we don't know that Malack had to tell his thrall not to drink all of Belkar's blood because that's what any thrall would do without explicit instructions to the contrary or because Vamp Durkon's personality showed through the cracks of Malack's mind control.

Grey_Wolf_c
2020-03-10, 08:36 AM
<Self-edit>
This is going nowhere.

Grey Wolf

D.One
2020-03-10, 09:34 AM
It is more related to comments like this

Which I don't get...

As far as I understood, the said hate is basically "not shipping him with a joyfull positive character that has only in common with him height (ish, halflings are smaller) and multiclassing". If that's so, them I hate him. Hel, I hate almost every character, because I rarely enbark in any shipping boat that sails on this forum (and I must say, some of them are pretty trippy).

But no, I don't think I hate any character of the story, and when I hate any, given Rich's great writing ability, it's because the character is fullfilling its role of drawing hatred toward him/her.

Jasdoif
2020-03-10, 12:09 PM
I'm not sure I agree that Roy went with his gut feeling.Which gut, though? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0990.html)

KorvinStarmast
2020-03-10, 12:12 PM
So you agree, then, that he is not boyfriend material?

Grey WolfNot for my sister, no. (And my read on Roy is also "not for my sister, no." )
Jenny is free to have her own tastes in that regard (and given how little we have seen of her, it may have been a momentary attraction rather than a "we need to start dating" thing)


None of which implies that Belkar makes good boyfriend material. Given that Jenny is the one who showed an attraction to him ... not seeing your point. Being a good or bad boyfriend is very much a matter of taste. I don't see it as a matter of absolutes.


He valued her less than a sandwich.
Which is part of my negative reaction to him for that part of the story. Super Jerk Belkar was very much in action, as I saw it.
Roy talks about denial (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1010.html), not gut feeling. Hmm, I need to find the strip where he and Vaarsuvius are talking and V mentions that Roy 'is of two guts" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0990.html) ... By 1110, though, yeah, he rather chews himself out for being in denial.

Ruck
2020-03-10, 01:04 PM
I also hated how the plot gave us a "he was right about vampire Durkon" pretext, even though no, he was just prejudiced and lucky.


I actually agree that Belkar's position regarding Durkon was just as unfounded, emotional and irrational as Roy's, even if it turned out to be correct. I just don't think it matters much from Roy's point of view.

He saw how Durkula acted immediately after vampirization. He wasn't "prejudiced and lucky" or "just as unfounded, emotional and irrational as Roy"; he drew an accurate conclusion from observable evidence.

Peat
2020-03-10, 01:55 PM
I'm not sure I agree that Roy went with his gut feeling. Personally, I think Roy ignored his gut feeling to an extent because he really wanted Durkon to be Durkon, and that things he did like checking on Durkon while he prayed for spells or taking Belkar to the Godsmoot were his way of assuaging his gut feeling that perhaps that wasn't how things were. It is a very fine and not very relevant distinction, though. I do agree that Durkon's explanation about the blood-drinking incident made perfect sense and should have satisfied Belkar if the latter was thinking rationally. After all, Belkar doesn't know how vampirism works, and even now we don't know that Malack had to tell his thrall not to drink all of Belkar's blood because that's what any thrall would do without explicit instructions to the contrary or because Vamp Durkon's personality showed through the cracks of Malack's mind control.

If Belkar doesn't know how vampires work, why would he accept Durkon's explanation if perfectly calm? It's not like he has any way to know if he's telling the truth and rationally, I don't see why he'd accept that Durkon definitely is.

Probably the most rational response of any of the party is V's - neither judging nor trusting - and I don't see why Belkar's response should be any different if rational (if anything, completely calm Belkar probably still has a higher level of paranoia than V). At which point, if the rational thing is not to trust Durkon, does the explanation still satisfy?

understatement
2020-03-10, 01:57 PM
Lol, that's why Belkar's kicking it before any "redemption arc" gets tied up. Premature death means -- at least for those alive -- he can't be held responsible for all the previous baggage.

Quizatzhaderac
2020-03-10, 02:02 PM
Roy was explicitly of two guts (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0990.html) on the matter of Greg. We can say completely contradictory things starting with "Roy's gut says__" and they'd be true. Guts don't need to be consistent or rational. In fact, a perfectly healthy gut can be full of crap.

hroþila
2020-03-10, 02:27 PM
Which gut, though? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0990.html)
Well I cannot be expected to remember every scene if Ookoodook doesn't give me my book :smalltongue:

He saw how Durkula acted immediately after vampirization. He wasn't "prejudiced and lucky" or "just as unfounded, emotional and irrational as Roy"; he drew an accurate conclusion from observable evidence.
He saw a thrall.

KorvinStarmast
2020-03-10, 02:48 PM
In fact, a perfectly healthy gut can be full of crap. Or full of yogurt. My wife has been on a yogurt binge of late, which I don't mind since I like yogurt, but she keeps changing brands becuase "oh, no, this is better pro biotic ... "
I like to pick a brand, and stick with it. Simplifies my grocery shopping.
I guess that when it comes to yogurt, my wife and I are of two guts on the matter. :smalltongue:

Ruck
2020-03-10, 04:53 PM
He saw a thrall.

What's your point?

D.One
2020-03-10, 05:12 PM
He saw a thrall.

So did us all.

(Please, keep rhyming)

Peelee
2020-03-10, 05:19 PM
So did us all.

(Please, keep rhyming)

I'd try, but I have terrible timing.

Keltest
2020-03-10, 05:36 PM
What's your point?

That the thrall personality and greg are explicitly (as of the Q&A) different, so deciding that Greg is not the same entity as Durkon based on the thrall's actions is arbitrary and not logically founded, even if the conclusion happens to be correct.

Jasdoif
2020-03-10, 06:11 PM
That the thrall personality and greg are explicitly (as of the Q&A) different, so deciding that Greg is not the same entity as Durkon based on the thrall's actions is arbitrary and not logically founded, even if the conclusion happens to be correct.It's kind of funny, really: If HPoH had said that, I'd agree. Since HPoH instead claimed thralldom was more like a lack of free will (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0908.html) and magical compulsion (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0957.html), the latter of which Belkar has reason to believe (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0383.html) wouldn't explain what "Durkon" did....It seems reasonable to expect that HPoH lying about being Durkon, could mean HPoH isn't Durkon.

Keltest
2020-03-10, 06:17 PM
It's kind of funny, really: If HPoH had said that, I'd agree. Since HPoH instead claimed thralldom was more like a lack of free will (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0908.html) and magical compulsion (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0957.html), the latter of which Belkar has reason to believe (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0383.html) wouldn't explain what "Durkon" did....It seems reasonable to expect that HPoH lying about being Durkon, could mean HPoH isn't Durkon.

Ive read this two or three times, and while I think I understand what youre saying here, im being seriously thrown by the tautology in the last sentence. Yes, Somebody lying about being Durkon is a very good reason to suspect they aren't Durkon… but the point is that we think Belkar's assumption that Greg wasn't Durkon was an arbitrary conclusion he reached without any actual evidence.

Jasdoif
2020-03-10, 06:38 PM
Ive read this two or three times, and while I think I understand what youre saying here, im being seriously thrown by the tautology in the last sentence. Yes, Somebody lying about being Durkon is a very good reason to suspect they aren't Durkon… but the point is that we think Belkar's assumption that Greg wasn't Durkon was an arbitrary conclusion he reached without any actual evidence.It's true; Belkar's initial assumption that HPoH wasn't Durkon led him to push HPoH on not being Durkon, which resulted in (more?) reasons to believe his initial assumption was correct. Much like how an investigation might go. Belkar's emotional spur-of-the-moment assessment became more and more rational as time went on.

I'm sure changing his mind would've been more easily demonstrated (and more dramatic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1009.html))...But is it really fair to keep calling it "not logically founded" after finding a logical foundation, simply because the conclusion hadn't changed as a result?

Keltest
2020-03-10, 06:53 PM
It's true; Belkar's initial assumption that HPoH wasn't Durkon led him to push HPoH on not being Durkon, which resulted in (more?) reasons to believe his initial assumption was correct. Much like how an investigation might go. Belkar's emotional spur-of-the-moment assessment became more and more rational as time went on.

I'm sure changing his mind would've been more easily demonstrated (and more dramatic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1009.html))...But is it really fair to keep calling it "not logically founded" after finding a logical foundation, simply because the conclusion hadn't changed as a result?

For the purposes of whether it is good writing/character development? Yes, i'd say its fair. At least a few people were arguing that Belkar showed character growth by recognizing the goodness inherent to Durkon, and its absence in Greg, and that was how he knew Greg wasn't Durkon. But none of his cited examples were actually Greg.

Jasdoif
2020-03-10, 08:34 PM
For the purposes of whether it is good writing/character development? Yes, i'd say its fair. At least a few people were arguing that Belkar showed character growth by recognizing the goodness inherent to Durkon, and its absence in Greg, and that was how he knew Greg wasn't Durkon. But none of his cited examples were actually Greg.They weren't Durkon, though; and HPoH was the one claiming they (and he) were. I imagine HPoH made that claim because if he told Roy and friends that thrall-Durkon was a different person, they might (rightly) wonder if non-thrall-Durkon could be a different person as well....

More generally, the scene occupies an odd spot: it shows development in Belkar that happened at the end of the previous book (and didn't find its way into the story then, likely due to pace/time concerns). It reveals the extent to which Belkar cares about Durkon forgiving him (enough to be frustrated by HPoH's claims to be Durkon), and brings Belkar's specific perspective forward into the then-current book.

Harbinger
2020-03-11, 08:16 AM
I think Belkar as a character is the most glaring example of a somewhat painful shift the comic made around halfway through the second book; that is, from being primarily parody with some dramatic elements to being an actual serious fantasy story with significant comedic elements.

Belkar is a deliberately flat and one-dimensional character, because his purpose was originally to parody the kind of characters a lot of D&D players make - a cartoonishly evil murderhobo who thinks itÂ’s funny to kill. That kind of character works in a story where you arenÂ’t supposed to be particularly invested in anything that happens to any of the characters, but it becomes very awkward in a story with a flesh out world and characters and a plot thatÂ’s more than an excuse for jokes.

IMO the character growth Belkar is going through is as much about making him into an actual character as it is about making him a better person. As someone pointed out, basic empathy is something almost every other evil character in the comic is capable of - people who are significantly more evil than Belkar, like Tarquin and Malack, demonstrate more empathy in their introductions than heÂ’s shown until very recently.

This is literally demonstrated in the dream sequence with Shojo, which almost reads to be like Rich himself coming out and telling Belkar heÂ’s a boring character and needs to be fleshed out if having him in the party is going to be in any way believable.

So I think Belkar is pretty clearly still an evil person, and his path away from that has just started in the last 30 or so strips. HeÂ’s demonstrated a desire to change, an interest in doing good (or at least non-evil), and an ability to interact with other people as something more than objects. I think in the next book I think weÂ’ll be seeing Belkar come to terms with what he was in the past, and maybe even trying to make amends for it, and I think both Minrah and Durkon will be a significant part of that. I also think there will be some kind of convergence of his and VaarsuviusÂ’ arcs, because they both involve a desire for redemption, although of very different types narratively speaking.

But above all, I think the fact that Belkar actually seems relatively congruous with the rest of the cast now is a testament to RichÂ’s skill as a writer, and his substantial improvement since the beginning of the comicÂ’s run.

GrayGriffin
2020-03-11, 09:25 AM
Given that Jenny is the one who showed an attraction to him ... not seeing your point. Being a good or bad boyfriend is very much a matter of taste. I don't see it as a matter of absolutes.

I'm sorry, but someone who literally wants nothing but sex and refuses to even do the basic courtesy of buying you a sandwich too is absolutely, undeniably a bad boyfriend.

Keltest
2020-03-11, 10:20 AM
They weren't Durkon, though; and HPoH was the one claiming they (and he) were. I imagine HPoH made that claim because if he told Roy and friends that thrall-Durkon was a different person, they might (rightly) wonder if non-thrall-Durkon could be a different person as well....

More generally, the scene occupies an odd spot: it shows development in Belkar that happened at the end of the previous book (and didn't find its way into the story then, likely due to pace/time concerns). It reveals the extent to which Belkar cares about Durkon forgiving him (enough to be frustrated by HPoH's claims to be Durkon), and brings Belkar's specific perspective forward into the then-current book.

But... he did! He straight up told Belkar that he wasn't himself while enthralled.

Jasdoif
2020-03-11, 10:26 AM
But... he did! He straight up told Belkar that he wasn't himself while enthralled.I blame idioms for this one (https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/be+oneself).

Mox
2020-03-11, 04:24 PM
But... he did! He straight up told Belkar that he wasn't himself while enthralled.

Doesn't he say Malack ordered him (and use "me") on the same strip ?

Peelee
2020-03-11, 04:53 PM
Doesn't he say Malack ordered him (and use "me") on the same strip ?

Malack ordered him not to drink all of it! - Belkar

Ruck
2020-03-11, 07:07 PM
That the thrall personality and greg are explicitly (as of the Q&A) different, so deciding that Greg is not the same entity as Durkon based on the thrall's actions is arbitrary and not logically founded, even if the conclusion happens to be correct.

I don't think your B follows from your A.

Rrmcklin
2020-03-11, 08:56 PM
Honestly, I don't even care enough about him to hate him anymore. He's just a boring character now, an evil murderer that no longer allowed to murder anybody because of an unearned redemption plot.

No one "earns" becoming a better person. It can happen for a variety of reasons, and in this case the most important one is "the writer wanted to write his story that way". You can debate whether he's doing a good job writing it, but I'm at a lose for how a character could "earn" an arc like this in the first place.

Redemption, the act of becoming better, and forgiveness, those you've hurt letting go and (maybe) accepting the new you are not the same thing. Although, you also can't "earn" forgiveness either. Becoming a better person by no means obliges anyone you've hurt to forgive what you've done in the past to hurt them.

Aquillion
2020-03-11, 08:59 PM
That the thrall personality and greg are explicitly (as of the Q&A) different, so deciding that Greg is not the same entity as Durkon based on the thrall's actions is arbitrary and not logically founded, even if the conclusion happens to be correct.I don't think anyone is disagreeing that Belkar's actions were based at least partially on emotion and gut instinct.

I would argue that Evil!Durkon's behavior when confronted was fairly out-of-character and that that served to confirm Belkar's initial emotional impulse, but that Belkar's poor communication and lack of trust with the rest of the party prevented him from articulating this - that is, the party just brushed it off as "everyone hates Belkar", but Belkar himself, having seen Durkon sacrifice his life for him and knowing the difference between the previous slapstick and this, would recognize on some level that Durkon's actions (ie. responding to the accusations with logical arguments that mostly dismissed rather than trying to sooth Belkar's concerns, followed by throwing him off the ship) were jarringly out of character. He might have had trouble putting it into words, but at that point it was more than just a gut instinct.

More importantly, though, the point is that everyone else's actions were based on gut instinct too (ie. nobody knew for sure how vampires worked.) Except debatably V, but that was obviously flawed in its own way; the rational thing to do would have been to send someone to quiz clerics about how vampires work without Durkon present.

I also somewhat disagree with the idea that the thrall being different makes their actions meaningless. The important thing from Belkar's perspective is that the thrall's actions underscore that vampirism is a big deal and not something that can just be brushed off.

Also, Evil!Durkon doesn't even mention this idea of vampire spawns being mindless separate entities (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0957.html). Nobody in the comic had any reason to suspect it. Belkar can't read Rich's comments and doesn't know how canon vampirism works (which I feel taints the perception of some viewers), so to him, Durkon's behavior is plenty reason not to trust him, and that's not an illogical stance given what he knows - certainly it's a reason to be skeptical of Roy's willingness to dismiss vampirism as not a big deal.

In fact, at the point where he would logically have made the argument you did, he instead goes for "jump overboard." Again, this comes down to the more serious problem that Evil!Durkon response to Belkar's accusations is logical quibbling rather than trying to soothe an obviously distressed friend, ie. he presents the bare minimum of arguments to answer Belkar's points, followed by tossing him off the ship. And that is a much more serious issue.

KorvinStarmast
2020-03-11, 09:06 PM
I'm sorry, but someone who literally wants nothing but sex and refuses to even do the basic courtesy of buying you a sandwich too is absolutely, undeniably a bad boyfriend. Thank you for sharing your criteria. I think you missed the bit where I pointed out how I do not care for how Belkar treated her. In fact, I have in a variety of threads expressed my distaste for how Belkar responded to her welcoming attitude. (The sandwich episode)

But let's reset this conversation to zero for a minute.
I am an actual person, with a sister, who would not want someone like Belkar, to date my sister. In that way my attitude likely reflects Roy's In World distaste for the idea of Belkar being a dating partner for his sister.

You are an actual person.

Jenny is a person in a story.

In World, for whatever reasons, however mysterious or inexplicable they may be, Jenny sees it differently than you (or I) do.

I find it troubling that any number of those responding to the point I made, somewhat in jest, seem to be unable to separate real life from a comic.

Yours is not the first such response in this discussion, so please do not feel that this answer is all directed to your post. It is not. It is a repository for all of the responses that have blurred the line between RL and the In Fiction thing that a character did. My initial one liner was based on an In World context.

Lvl45DM!
2020-03-11, 09:30 PM
I'd argue that Jenny thought he was good hook-up material, rather than good boyfriend material.

Has anyone read Cast in Shadow (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9542.Cast_in_Shadow), by Michelle Sagara (https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/7031278.Michelle_Sagara)? The main character is a young police woman who grew up "on the wrong side of the tracks river", a lawless region ruled by crime lords. She lived there until she was 13, when she fled into another crime-lord's area where she lived for six months serving him, before crossing the river and attempting to assassinate one of the city's police chiefs. She failed, and joined the police force as a mascot for 5-6 years before being allowed to become an actual member of the force (rank: private). On several occasions she remarks that there is no justice, and she herself is part of the reason for it. She's done things she really can't be forgiven for (or tried for, as they occurred beyond the reach of the rule of law), and she can never make things up to those she hurt. But she still takes her job seriously, because she can try to bring justice to others, even if that justice will be incomplete.

Sounds like Angel.

200 years of murder rape and torture can never be atoned for. But you keep atoning anyway.

GrayGriffin
2020-03-11, 11:04 PM
Thank you for sharing your criteria. I think you missed the bit where I pointed out how I do not care for how Belkar treated her. In fact, I have in a variety of threads expressed my distaste for how Belkar responded to her welcoming attitude. (The sandwich episode)

But let's reset this conversation to zero for a minute.
I am an actual person, with a sister, who would not want someone like Belkar, to date my sister. In that way my attitude likely reflects Roy's In World distaste for the idea of Belkar being a dating partner for his sister.

You are an actual person.

Jenny is a person in a story.

In World, for whatever reasons, however mysterious or inexplicable they may be, Jenny sees it differently than you (or I) do.

I find it troubling that any number of those responding to the point I made, somewhat in jest, seem to be unable to separate real life from a comic.

Yours is not the first such response in this discussion, so please do not feel that this answer is all directed to your post. It is not. It is a repository for all of the responses that have blurred the line between RL and the In Fiction thing that a character did. My initial one liner was based on an In World context.

I have no clue what "it's fiction" has to do with anything here. Someone who kills someone is a murderer. In fiction, a fictional person killing another fictional person is also called a murderer, in the context of the fiction. In the same way, there are signs beyond "a matter of taste" that make someone a bad boyfriend, whether it's in or out of fiction. Like seriously, "woman is attracted to guy who's obviously bad for her" is such a common fictional plot that it's really ridiculous to say that being a good or bad boyfriend is just "a matter of taste."

factotum
2020-03-12, 02:18 AM
Like seriously, "woman is attracted to guy who's obviously bad for her" is such a common fictional plot that it's really ridiculous to say that being a good or bad boyfriend is just "a matter of taste."

It's also a fairly regular event in real life--how often do you read news reports about people marrying murderers who are in prison, or who keep going back to someone who regularly abuses them?

Cazero
2020-03-12, 02:31 AM
In World, for whatever reasons, however mysterious or inexplicable they may be, Jenny sees it differently than you (or I) do.
Mysterious? Inexplicable? I don't think so.
She's a member of the Thieves guild of Greysky City. She only knows terrible people and stands alongside the worst of them. Her standards for "boyfriend material" must be pretty dang low. Like good kisser, or something in the bed. That's what boyfriends are for, right? The sexing only, because companionship doesn't exist?

Fyraltari
2020-03-12, 02:54 AM
Thank you for sharing your criteria. I think you missed the bit where I pointed out how I do not care for how Belkar treated her. In fact, I have in a variety of threads expressed my distaste for how Belkar responded to her welcoming attitude. (The sandwich episode)

But let's reset this conversation to zero for a minute.
I am an actual person, with a sister, who would not want someone like Belkar, to date my sister. In that way my attitude likely reflects Roy's In World distaste for the idea of Belkar being a dating partner for his sister.

You are an actual person.

Jenny is a person in a story.

In World, for whatever reasons, however mysterious or inexplicable they may be, Jenny sees it differently than you (or I) do.

I find it troubling that any number of those responding to the point I made, somewhat in jest, seem to be unable to separate real life from a comic.

Yours is not the first such response in this discussion, so please do not feel that this answer is all directed to your post. It is not. It is a repository for all of the responses that have blurred the line between RL and the In Fiction thing that a character did. My initial one liner was based on an In World context.
Several things here.

First, if you agree that Belkar’s treatment of his partner is deplorable what exactly is your point of contention with those of us saying he isn’t fit to have any?

Second, what does Roy have to do with any of this? Roy never discussed the possibility of anybody dating Belkar. Roy being Julia’s older brother doesn’t give him any authority on who she dates.

(In fact nobody in-comic discussed anything like that but apparently Julia mentionning Belkar’s name is enough to get people to wonder wether she’ll fall for him. What that says about this forum I’m not sure but it ain’t exactly pretty.*)

Third, you seem pretty certain that Jenny did not mind Belkar’s lack of care (to the point of forgetting her name almost instantly) even though they have known each other less than a day and we don’t know what her opinion of him is since then.

Fourth, of course we all know that Belkar, Jenny and all the others aren’t real, but we judge fictional characters as if they were because a) that’s how empathy works and b) how could we possibly be invested in the story if we considered that nothing done in it mattered because it doesn’t happen to a real person?

*This isn’t directed at you in particular.

Mox
2020-03-12, 04:47 AM
Malack ordered him not to drink all of it! - Belkar


Sorry I wasn't clear :
The argument "he said he wasn't the thrall" doesn't seem to hold (at least for me), because on the same strip, he says the order that Malack gave (to the thrall) waq given to him. ('He ordered me')

Peelee
2020-03-12, 09:49 AM
It's also a fairly regular event in real life--how often do you read news reports about people marrying murderers who are in prison, or who keep going back to someone who regularly abuses them?

Someone winning the lottery is a fairly regular event in real life, but I wouldn't call it common.:smallamused:

Sorry I wasn't clear :
The argument "he said he wasn't the thrall" doesn't seem to hold (at least for me), because on the same strip, he says the order that Malack gave (to the thrall) waq given to him. ('He ordered me')

Ahhh, I getcha now.

KorvinStarmast
2020-03-12, 12:51 PM
First, if you agree that Belkar’s treatment of his partner is deplorable what exactly is your point of contention with those of us saying he isn’t fit to have any? I will repeat myself again, it seems, by necessity: some of the posters, in response to my one liner about Jenny (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24391608&postcount=41), seem to be unable to differentiate betwen real life (we who post here) and a fictional character in the comic - Jenny - who seems to find Belkar eligible for her interest. Most (likely all) of us think he behaved to her in a bad manner. You ( a real person) made an absolutist statement. An in world character takes an opposing position. It isn't any more complicated than that.

I later explained why I think Rich may have dropped that in there - sometimes, people we know are attracted to jerks - but it may not have been that complicated. He may have dropped that in there simply to remind the audience that Belkar fills the role of "Jerk, Personified" in that part of the comic/story.
(Tarqin later fulfills the role of "Jerk, personified, but at a much larger scale" handsomely)

Ruck
2020-03-12, 12:55 PM
There is in fact no indicator that Jenny considers Belkar "good boyfriend material."

KorvinStarmast
2020-03-12, 12:59 PM
I am sorry: for Cazero: (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24396081&postcount=97)
The environment in Greysky City may be a factor: your thoughts on that are a reasonable inferences. We don't get much "Jenny character development" so we can only guess at that.
There is in fact no indicator that Jenny considers Belkar "good boyfriend material." I have already addressed that elsewhere. I think that Greywolf mentioned that she might have just wanted a roll in the hay and nothing more. Possibly true. Yet even after Belkar does that ill mannered sandwich thing, she's smiling at him ande indicating a desire for more.

Note: she is not required to use someone elses's careless and ill defined terms "good boy friend material" to indicate her attraction to and interest in Belkar. (however ill advised) This attraction was demonstrated on screen in the cited comic, even though the cad did not offer her a sandwich. (Nor otherwise behave in a gentlemanly fashion)
Since you want to split hairs here: the post to which I responded offered no definition of "good boyfriend material" and as such it was a throwaway (rather like my initial reply)

The attempt here at hair splitting is not accepted as valid.

I smell glue, the horse is long dead.

Fyraltari
2020-03-12, 01:05 PM
I will repeat myself again, it seems, by necessity: some of the posters, in response to my one liner about Jenny (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24391608&postcount=41), seem to be unable to differentiate betwen real life (we who post here) and a fictional character in the comic - Jenny - who seems to find Belkar eligible for her interest. Most (likely all) of us think he behaved to her in a bad manner. You ( a real person) made an absolutist statement. An in world character takes an opposing position. It isn't any more complicated than that.
If that’s your issue, I assure you that no one here is under the delusion that the stick figures are real. And that you could think so from the posts in this thread is utterly bizarre.


I later explained why I think Rich may have dropped that in there - sometimes, people we know are attracted to jerks - but it may not have been that complicated. He may have dropped that in there simply to remind the audience that Belkar fills the role of "Jerk, Personified" in that part of the comic/story.
(Tarqin later fulfills the role of "Jerk, personified, but at a much larger scale" handsomely)
Nobody put that in question.

GrayGriffin
2020-03-13, 12:40 AM
I will repeat myself again, it seems, by necessity: some of the posters, in response to my one liner about Jenny (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24391608&postcount=41), seem to be unable to differentiate betwen real life (we who post here) and a fictional character in the comic - Jenny - who seems to find Belkar eligible for her interest. Most (likely all) of us think he behaved to her in a bad manner. You ( a real person) made an absolutist statement. An in world character takes an opposing position. It isn't any more complicated than that.

I later explained why I think Rich may have dropped that in there - sometimes, people we know are attracted to jerks - but it may not have been that complicated. He may have dropped that in there simply to remind the audience that Belkar fills the role of "Jerk, Personified" in that part of the comic/story.
(Tarqin later fulfills the role of "Jerk, personified, but at a much larger scale" handsomely)

Dude, all we're saying is that this fictional character is, in the story, not good boyfriend material. Heck, in your second paragraph you're happy to call him "jerk, personified." Isn't whether or not someone is a jerk just as much of a matter of taste as whether or not they're good boyfriend material?

CriticalFailure
2020-03-13, 12:48 AM
this is the longest conversation i've ever read about whether a serial killer would make a good boyfriend

Quizatzhaderac
2020-03-13, 09:56 AM
Unimportant point: While Belkar handled the sandwich thing in the worst possible manner, remember that he hadn't been able to properly keep a meal down for...
assume OotS world is the same size as earth; compare the world view from 639 to the southern continent map showing Sunken valley and Greysky; divide by overland travel speed for Haley...
80 days. He really did need that second sandwich much more then Jenny. Rich probably didn't do an exact time calculation, and the mark of justice probably allows you to digest something, but Belkar had clearly gone past "hangry" to "legitimate medical concern".

factotum
2020-03-13, 10:47 AM
I think the scene as shown was clearly some time *after* Belkar had recovered from the Mark, and given the...ahem...activity he'd been involved doing, I'm pretty sure he was adequately well fed at that point.

Peelee
2020-03-13, 11:14 AM
this is the longest conversation i've ever read about whether a serial killer would make a good boyfriend

Can I sig this?

hroþila
2020-03-13, 11:41 AM
Next on the OotS forum: Does Haley like money?

Jasdoif
2020-03-13, 11:47 AM
Next on the OotS forum: Does Haley like money?Money in the abstract, or only as coinage?

Cazero
2020-03-13, 11:51 AM
Money in the abstract, or only as coinage?
By coinage, do you mean real, solid metallic coins, or the fake pretend coinage made of paper?

hroþila
2020-03-13, 11:53 AM
I had underestimated you guys, I'm impressed.

Jasdoif
2020-03-13, 12:05 PM
By coinage, do you mean real, solid metallic coins, or the fake pretend coinage made of paper?Hmm...I suppose she didn't say (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1029.html) specifically (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1028.html), but she did (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0698.html) say she valued the shininess of gold pieces.

Quizatzhaderac
2020-03-13, 12:44 PM
Money in the abstract, or only as coinage?She definitely loves the coinage more. The physical presence of the money is a constant reminder of the security and freedom it provides, as well as the successes that led to it.


On a related note, what happened to the black dragon's hoard?

It gold combustible in OotS world?
Did Haley remember it was there but was physically dragged off by Miko before she could retrieve it? f so will she go back for it at some point.
Did the owner of the inn find it? And if they abandoned the rubble is it still there?
Did it turn into a gold elemental because something, something magic?

Kantaki
2020-03-13, 01:20 PM
On a related note, what happened to the black dragon's hoard?

Considering the size of that boom the gold probably rained down all over the general area.
So, I guess there might've been a small gold rush.

Quebbster
2020-03-13, 01:56 PM
Considering the size of that boom the gold probably rained down all over the general area.
So, I guess there might've been a small gold rush.
I guess that's where the gold adventurers find after defeating random encounters come from... Various explosions.

Peelee
2020-03-13, 02:05 PM
I guess that's where the gold adventurers find after defeating random encounters come from... Various explosions.

.....headcanon'd.

Emanick
2020-03-13, 02:30 PM
I think the scene as shown was clearly some time *after* Belkar had recovered from the Mark, and given the...ahem...activity he'd been involved doing, I'm pretty sure he was adequately well fed at that point.

Given that Belkar had been specifically craving a sandwich for ages, and that the sandwiches had just arrived, I think the implication is that he was specifically waiting for those sandwiches to eat. Belkar probably has a very high Constitution score, and he didn't seem too fatigued while fighting, so I'm guessing he wasn't in any immediate physical danger... but I do feel a bit more forgiving of him for the specific sin of eating both sandwiches after being reminded of how ravenous and underfed he likely was.

Of course, on Belkar's list of sins, "not sharing his sandwiches with his hookup" probably ranks as like #1,107,255 in significance, so that's not saying a lot.

Aquillion
2020-03-13, 03:46 PM
The scene was obviously just a gag to let readers know that Belkar was still a jerk and hadn't become a great person just because of his vision quest. I think people are overthinking it.

Also "good boyfriend" is a subjective judgment based on what people's desires and expectations are, but yeah, Belkar is a petty, selfish murderer so I can't imagine very many people would consider him a great catch... although it's also true that he's changed a bit over time, with some of his more recent scenes implying a degree of ability to care (not just this one but, maybe more importantly, his rejection of the gnome saleslady earlier, which implied he felt guilty for cheating her and would feel even more guilty in that context.)

D.One
2020-03-13, 04:00 PM
All this discussion about Belkar mating habits, only because lots of people can't see two characters in the same frame without saying

"WOW! LET'S SHIP'EM!" :smalltongue::smalltongue::smalltongue:

Emanick
2020-03-13, 04:10 PM
All this discussion about Belkar mating habits, only because lots of people can't see two characters in the same frame without saying

"WOW! LET'S SHIP'EM!" :smalltongue::smalltongue::smalltongue:

This is especially bizarre because nobody actually shipped Belkar and Julia, IIRC. People were just talking about the various intricacies of what was or was not a valid reason to date him.

What I take away from this is that people on this forum (me included) will happily dissect anything, no matter how disgusting. Even a leprous half-fiend half-orc undead frog, probably.

Fyraltari
2020-03-13, 04:20 PM
All this discussion about Belkar mating habits, only because lots of people can't see two characters in the same frame without saying

"WOW! LET'S SHIP'EM!" :smalltongue::smalltongue::smalltongue:
Nope, not even that is needed. A female character saying she doesn’t know a male one is all it takes.

This is especially bizarre because nobody actually shipped Belkar and Julia, IIRC. People were just talking about the various intricacies of what was or was not a valid reason to date him.

You recall incorrectly.


I was thinking Julia may fall for the Sexy Shoeless God of War

Peelee
2020-03-13, 04:26 PM
Nope, not even that is needed. A female character saying she doesn’t know a male one is all it takes.


I remain unconvinced the female character even needs to say anything.

KorvinStarmast
2020-03-13, 04:33 PM
The scene was obviously just a gag to let readers know that Belkar was still a jerk and hadn't become a great person just because of his vision quest. I think people are overthinking it. The italicized part is a characteristic of OoTS forum discussions. :smallsmile: That and Star Wars and quataloos. Edit: I just noticed D. One's observation about 'shipping ... yeah, that too.

Schroeswald
2020-03-13, 05:41 PM
I remain unconvinced the female character even needs to say anything.

I believe Laurin's facial expression meaning she wants sex or something with Tarquin proved that.

KorvinStarmast
2020-03-13, 08:45 PM
I believe Laurin's facial expression meaning she wants sex or something with Tarquin proved that.1. Which strip? 2. *scratching my head* (was this when a favor was being called in?)

CriticalFailure
2020-03-13, 09:04 PM
Can I sig this?

Sure no problem!

Schroeswald
2020-03-13, 09:57 PM
1. Which strip? 2. *scratching my head* (was this when a favor was being called in?)

It was the favor thing, yeah, whenever its pointed out how ridiculous the "Laurin's favor is something something sex marriage Tarquin?" theory was I see someone saying it was her facial expression that made them think it, I don't understand it, but we are nonsense,

Emanick
2020-03-14, 04:15 AM
You recall incorrectly.



Thanks for the reminder. I hope no one else joined in that particular sentiment.

KorvinStarmast
2020-03-14, 07:02 AM
It was the favor thing, yeah, whenever its pointed out how ridiculous the "Laurin's favor is something something sex marriage Tarquin?" theory was I see someone saying it was her facial expression that made them think it, I don't understand it, but we are nonsense,Never even crossed my mind. :smallconfused: OK, thanks for explaining that, and we'll leave it at "nonsense" ...

Quebbster
2020-03-14, 07:32 AM
I believe Laurin's facial expression meaning she wants sex or something with Tarquin proved that.

Particularly that she would need to use a favor for it. She would probably only need to ask politely. Or impolitely.

hroþila
2020-03-14, 08:23 AM
Particularly that she would need to use a favor for it. She would probably only need to ask politely. Or impolitely.
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Tarquin was only interested in younger women.

Quebbster
2020-03-14, 01:51 PM
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Tarquin was only interested in younger women.
Good point. There could also be some sort of rule about inter-Legion relations not being allowed to keep operations going smoothly.

MoonCat
2020-03-23, 01:28 PM
As I recall, at the time there was at least one proponent of the theory that Laurin's favor was going to be something involving Julio becoming her sex slave, based solely on the comment about having had a poster of him.

Actually, I think that was what led to the Giant stating that he'd deliberately tried to make Laurin as unsexualized as possible as a female character? I imagine that was in exasperated tones.

Schroeswald
2020-03-23, 02:06 PM
As I recall, at the time there was at least one proponent of the theory that Laurin's favor was going to be something involving Julio becoming her sex slave, based solely on the comment about having had a poster of him.

Actually, I think that was what led to the Giant stating that he'd deliberately tried to make Laurin as unsexualized as possible as a female character? I imagine that was in exasperated tones.

I believe that was in result to something about Haley's possible Favored Enemy (Airborne Tramp) playing a role, despite the fact that Laurin had never flown, and was completely unsexualized.