Belkar's Alignment

[ref]

After a comment I made on another thread about Belkar being CN...



I'd like to point out that when I said that, the Giant responded:





What comic are you people reading? When has there ever been any confusion on the point? Seriously, folks, Belkar is EVIL. Accept it.



Well, I want to say this: I've been reading The Order of the Stick (recently TM), and I still can defend Belkar's neutrality. In fact, the only definite evidences for CE are The Giant's quotes. ;D

(PS: This should be nested quotes, but I don't know how to do that)

[Xiander]

I am sorry to brake it to you, but harvesting kidneys for fun and killing teammates for personal gain in't neutral in any meaning of the word.

[Sneak]

Yes, but Chaotic Neutral isn't Neutral. I can see where those CN people are coming from, but I personally think I have to go with The Giant. And besides, why would he have to hold up the sheet if he wasn't evil?

[The Giant]

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

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

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

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

Get over it, Belkar is Evil.

[Slibs]

Until I read Origins, I always just put it down to compensating for being a teeny little harmless woodland type creature. I mean he talked a "good" game, but never seemed to follow through on these things.

Well except the barbarian killing, but I chalked that up to thats what barbarians do. And he did tell Elan he only needed to "defeat" him for XP purposes.

As for the puppy, it depends what kind of puppy, if its a poodle it wouldn't change anything ;D

[Flak_Razorwill]

I feel now like I could have Belkar turn to the camera and say, "Hey folks, FYI, I'm Chaotic Evil," and then kill and eat a fluffy puppy, and you'd still come here and say, "Well, I think he's Neutral Good."

Get over it, Belkar is Evil.



*Gollum Voice*

Do it. Give in to your hatred. Make it a dalmatian.

But anyway, the big evidence for me was the blight immunity thing back in the way early strips.

[evileeyore]

I was willing to give Belkar the benefit of the doubt with the whole Unholy Blight thing. It could have been a good roll on his save. However consistent acts since then definitely tipped him into the unrepentent Evil category.

Even had Rich not come out and declared Belkar Evil, I'd believe it.

[Sylian]

He took extra damage from Smite Evil.

[chibibar]

remember that being Chaotic Evil doesn't mean that you have "no friend" Evil people usually have others around because of some alternative reasons..... like

1. need protection.
2. companionship (they do get bored being alone)
3. comedic value hehehe...

[Alfryd]

...commit a boatload of Evil acts without guilt or regret and no Good acts except those he is bullied into.
I do recall he was willing to rescue/heal Elan without notable coercion. Also, Owl's Wisdom seemed to shift his alignment all the way to Beatific. Then again, I suppose that was purely for humour. And even CE allows friends.
What a dilemma. I'm afraid you'll reveal V's gender next.

[BurntOfferings]

Why on earth do people waste their time with this?
I've never been in the "Belkar is not evil" camp, but I think I can answer this question: It's for the same reason people waste their time with any other trivial pursuit. It's fun!


I feel now like I could have Belkar turn to the camera and say, "Hey folks, FYI, I'm Chaotic Evil," and then kill and eat a fluffy puppy, and you'd still come here and say, "Well, I think he's Neutral Good."
But what if it's an eeeeeevil puppy? ;D

[Shiremaid]

Evil puppies are not cute and fluffy. They're like dragons, appearance reveals their true nature ;-)

I have been firmly in the Belkar is CE camp since I started reading this comic last year, but he's an adorable CE

[Grey Watcher]

Yeah, Belkar is pretty clearly Evil. Personally, I thought so when I read the Unholy Blight Comic (which, to me it seemed the thrust of the humor of that particular issue). And Belkar's passion for disemboweling, kidney harvesting, murder, mayhem, toying with Paladins, harvesting XP from teammates, and sexually harrassing his leader only serves as corroborating evidence. Now, Belkar does hang out with what appear to be three Good characters and two non-Evil ones for various reasons. Elan makes him laugh (#38 (http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=38), #102 (http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=102), #153 (http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=153)), V is too powerful to cheese off (#20 (http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=20), #127 (http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=127)), and, of course, he just likes the chance for attention (#42 (http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=42))

[Greebo]

For Belkar's reference:

Fluffy puppies are tasty and taste best after having marinated in garlic, basil, olive oil and cider vinegar for about 3 hours.

Deepfrying is even better.

Avoid poodles. They're high in LDL cholestorol.

[El Jaspero, the Pirate King]

I have been firmly in the Belkar is CE camp since I started reading this comic last year, but he's an adorable CE


That's the whole point of Belkar for me; alignment in D&D too often replaces roleplaying. Belkar is proof that an CE character can be more than a cardboard cut-out with "villain" written on it. A CE character can be witty, smart, even admirable. Maybe even someone you'd want in your party, if you can keep him properly motivated.

[Playelf]

I think it has a lot to do with maturity. 95% of players will read under the evil description : no regard for the sanctity of life (or whatever the wording is in their particular edition of D&D) and decide that means that they want to kill everything that moves.

While a sociopath is probably a good example of a CE character, it's not the only kind of person who 'can' be a chaotic evil. Anyone who is out for themselves and doesn't mind doing whatever it takes to make sure they come out on top is evil (and no, evil is not subjective in D&D, it is a rigidly defined concept nessercery to game mechanics, not a philosophical commentary) but that doesn't mean you can't be party-centric.

A party grants you:
Willing allies, who will fight, probably to the death, to defend you
A means by which to take on odds that would otherwise be impossible
A deterent for people who might want to do you harm
People to spend time with
A broad set of resources that were you not a party member, you would have to put considerable effort and likely money into obtaining
People who will invariably be able to back you up when some self-righteous paladin *cough*Miko*cough* decides that because you're evil, you're offensive to existance and must die, whether or not you've actualy done anything to hurt anyone or not.

Belkar's evil, he just sees the benefits of being in a party and since good allies are hard to find, is much happier killing their enemies, than people who could be dubiously called friends, and for whom he still has a good use

[Sylvius]

I wouldn't agree even that a sociopath is necessarily evil. He certainly isn't necessarily chaotic.

I think a Lawful Evil or Lawful Neutral sociopath would be a really interesting character.

[Draedan]

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

Get over it, Belkar is Evil.



I reject your reality and substitue it with my own.

;D

[Eriol]

I reject your reality and substitue it with my own.

;D
I doubt your name is Adam Savage.

Though if it was, that'd be cool...

[evileeyore]

I wouldn't agree even that a sociopath is necessarily evil. He certainly isn't necessarily chaotic.

I think a Lawful Evil or Lawful Neutral sociopath would be a really interesting character.
Sociopathy can take many slightly different forms, but most sociopaths do follow strict codes of behavior, they just happen to aberant. Many are highly OCD.

Being a socially-adjusted 'sociopath' I can agree to to the Lawful connotation and the Evil. Although in myself I fear the long arm of the law far too much to ever commit to any crimes.

However unless they follow a complex code or have a very strict set of behaviors, I'd make a sociopathic 'non-tyrant' villian Nuetral Evil and just play up the OCD and code adherence. Otherwise you will overly confuse your players.

[Playelf]

Well technicaly speaking, psychopaths kill according to a specific code (i.e. lawful) whereas sociopaths kill on a much less select basis (i.e. chaotic)

[evnafets]

I feel now like I could have Belkar turn to the camera and say, "Hey folks, FYI, I'm Chaotic Evil," and then kill and eat a fluffy puppy, and you'd still come here and say, "Well, I think he's Neutral Good."


Belkar would never get away with that.
Thog would come in to save the puppy from being slaughtered. I can see it now:

belkar not kill puppy!
thog like puppies - belkar is bad for try to kill puppy.

So there you have it.
Belkar is so evil that even Thog can tell.

The question is, would saving the puppy from Belkar make Thog of good alignment? ::) :o ;D

[Dark]

I think Thog is too dumb to really have an alignment. He's more like Neutral Henchman. He'll follow Nale's instructions because he doesn't know any better.

[evileeyore]

Well technicaly speaking, psychopaths kill according to a specific code (i.e. lawful) whereas sociopaths kill on a much less select basis (i.e. chaotic)
Ehhh... kinda. Actually the 'definitions' have changed again. They do so about every 10 years I've noticed..

Anyway a psychopath is someone that feels no empathy for other humans, or at least very little empathy. Often they have disassociative disorders that lead them to withdraw from society.

A sociopath is just a pyschopath that has committed a crime.

[Kish]

Belkar would never get away with that.
Thog would come in to save the puppy from being slaughtered. I can see it now:

belkar not kill puppy!
thog like puppies - belkar is bad for try to kill puppy.

So there you have it.
Belkar is so evil that even Thog can tell.

The question is, would saving the puppy from Belkar make Thog of good alignment? ::) :o ;D
Yeah! Then Thog could join the Order, and annoy Roy by constantly reminding him of the stereotypes that Roy hates, while Belkar could join the Linear Guild in Thog's place. :P

[Corvis]

Well technicaly speaking, psychopaths kill according to a specific code (i.e. lawful) whereas sociopaths kill on a much less select basis (i.e. chaotic)

Technically speaking, those words aren't in technical use.

[Nightmarenny]

Ehhh... kinda. Actually the 'definitions' have changed again. They do so about every 10 years I've noticed..

Anyway a psychopath is someone that feels no empathy for other humans, or at least very little empathy. Often they have disassociative disorders that lead them to withdraw from society.

A sociopath is just a pyschopath that has committed a crime.
That would make 90% of Children Psychopaths.

Its good to see the Belkars alinment question writin in a way that people can't find some stupid loop hole just so they don't have to be wrong.


I also have never seen why people would think that "have no regard for life" means the same as someone who kills everyone he meets.

[ref]

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

(...)

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

Get over it, Belkar is Evil.



Let's see: Harvesting kidneys... when was that?

Selling a woman into slavery is evil? it depends... Chaotic, sure. But if the woman herself is evil...

Slitting throats, eh? My theory is that Belkar's culture allows that and he can't understand not every culture is the same (there's one thing that Belkar says on Origin of PCs that might show there's a culture clash). Belkar has low WIS.

Kill an ally to level up? Munchkinism, not evilness. Belkar saw how all the other party members levelled up and tried to break the system, to find a loophole. First he killed a rat. This didn't work and tried to defeat a PC. When dissuaded, he proceeded to abuse the Roleplaying Bonus. Vaarsuvius told she was expecting to kill Belkar for scribing scrolls and noone said she was evil.

We should also learn not to believe everything Belkar says. He likes to play jokes, either verbal or practical. There have been several examples of this twisted humor sense.

Some more notes:

Unholy Blight can be because of a lousy damage roll.

Owl's Wisdom doesn't change alignment, and Belkar's thoughts when under that spell's effects clearly show a non-evil character.

Killing surrendering goblins is not evil (although definitely chaotic), if we take into account those goblins were working for Xykon.

There's a bonus story in Dungeon Crawlin Fools that also shows Belkar is not inherently evil.

OK, why do I waste time on this? someone already said so, because it's fun. And we the readers read this comic for fun :) Again, your quotes of Belkar being evil are the only things that can't be disproved.

Lead sheet COULD be true. Or, a legit defense to alignment detection spells. Casting alignment detection spells on someone is very rude.

Or, maybe, just maybe, Belkar thinks he's evil (I don't know if that's even possible...) again, low wisdom would cause Belkar to see only one definition of "defeat". (see Haley's and Belkar's exchange over the death of Trigak).

I'm just saying it's not explicitly shown in the comics.

btw, I'd appreciate you be a little more careful... I wasn't offended, but you did say my theory of Belkar being CN implies I don't understand the rules... thanks :)

[Nightmarenny]

Let's see: Harvesting kidneys... when was that?

Selling a woman into slavery is evil? it depends... Chaotic, sure. But if the woman herself is evil...

Slitting throats, eh? My theory is that Belkar's culture allows that and he can't understand not every culture is the same (there's one thing that Belkar says on Origin of PCs that might show there's a culture clash). Belkar has low WIS.

Kill an ally to level up? Munchkinism, not evilness. Belkar saw how all the other party members levelled up and tried to break the system, to find a loophole. First he killed a rat. This didn't work and tried to defeat a PC. When dissuaded, he proceeded to abuse the Roleplaying Bonus. Vaarsuvius told she was expecting to kill Belkar for scribing scrolls and noone said she was evil.

We should also learn not to believe everything Belkar says. He likes to play jokes, either verbal or practical. There have been several examples of this twisted humor sense.

Some more notes:

Unholy Blight can be because of a lousy damage roll.

Owl's Wisdom doesn't change alignment, and Belkar's thoughts when under that spell's effects clearly show a non-evil character.

Killing surrendering goblins is not evil (although definitely chaotic), if we take into account those goblins were working for Xykon.

There's a bonus story in Dungeon Crawlin Fools that also shows Belkar is not inherently evil.

OK, why do I waste time on this? someone already said so, because it's fun. And we the readers read this comic for fun :) Again, your quotes of Belkar being evil are the only things that can't be disproved.

Lead sheet COULD be true. Or, a legit defense to alignment detection spells. Casting alignment detection spells on someone is very rude.

Or, maybe, just maybe, Belkar thinks he's evil (I don't know if that's even possible...) again, low wisdom would cause Belkar to see only one definition of "defeat". (see Haley's and Belkar's exchange over the death of Trigak).

I'm just saying it's not explicitly shown in the comics.

btw, I'd appreciate you be a little more careful... I wasn't offended, but you did say my theory of Belkar being CN implies I don't understand the rules... thanks :)
Not to be rude but he didn't impy anything he told everyone who consided that a ligit theory that they didn't understand the rules or infact what make evil at all.

Slavery is infact evil. It is not at all chaotic if the Law allows it(which it probably did somewhere) and pretty much any everything he did was evil from start of comic to now. Even the good things he did were not really good per-say. Taking rescueing Elan as an example. He clearly stated why he was doing it. Elan is funny and gives Belkar enjoyment he did for selfish gain(killing bandits and getting more enjoyment out of Elan and maybe some Xp) and had shown already that he didn't care if Elan died(trying to kill him himself)

And to add to all of that he tried to hide his alinment from someone who would evisorate him should she find out his alinment.

I'm sorry if this comes off as rude but really that theory made no sense what so ever. :P

[Draedan]

Even the good things he did were not really good per-say. Taking rescueing Elan as an example. He clearly stated why he was doing it. Elan is funny and gives Belkar enjoyment he did for selfish gain(killing bandits and getting more enjoyment out of Elan and maybe some Xp) and had shown already that he didn't care if Elan died(trying to kill him himself)


If you think about it, EVERYTHING we do is selfish, even the stuff we do for others. We do things for others when it makes US feel good to do it. IE: you like it when others are happy with you or you defend someone you dont like because you feel it is the right thing to do and would feel bad if you didnt.

Do you have friends that make you laugh? Shame on you for being so selfish!



And to add to all of that he tried to hide his alinment from someone who would evisorate him should she find out his alinment.

If someone was going to kill me should they discover they dont like my alignment, I would try to hide it too!

And for the record, yes, Belkar is evil. I just like playing devils advocate ;D

[Nightmarenny]

If you think about it, EVERYTHING we do is selfish, even the stuff we do for others. We do things for others when it makes US feel good to do it. IE: you like it when others are happy with you or you defend someone you dont like because you feel it is the right thing to do and would feel bad if you didnt.

Do you have friends that make you laugh? Shame on you for being so selfish!

If someone was going to kill me should they discover they dont like my alignment, I would try to hide it too!

And for the record, yes, Belkar is evil. I just like playing devils advocate ;DNormaly yes but I have met a very few people who do things because it should be done. Though yes mostly your right.

No one can blame you for playing Devils advocate it really is fun
;D

Hm come to think of it my sentance about hiding his alinment should have been.

"And also he hide his alinment from someone who would evisorate him should he be evil".

[Draedan]

No one can blame you for playing Devils advocate it really is fun
;D
I have really confused people before. I will argue counter-points against them, only to end with "I never said that is I really think. I agree with you completely. I just wanted to see if you knew WHY you were right". Pissed my girlfriend off to no end, heheheh.

[Devils_Advocate]

Yeah, sheesh, what is it with some people? I make arguments because they're valid, not in service of some conclusion. If I knew ahead of time what conclusion I were going to reach, there wouldn't be much point in the discussion, would there? I make a counterargument to an argument I just presented, too, if I think there's a good one. I can easily hold up both sides of a debate, thus eliminating the need for other people entirely. ;D I find that internal dialogues really help me to explore many aspects of an issue. (Although if I don't actually agree with something, I'll usually preface it with "Well, one could say..." or some such. You might find that doing that could keep people from getting pissed off. You know, if you don't want them to be. ;))

(Seriously, arguing both sides of an issue might annoy some people, but going into a discussion with a closed mind is just dumb. If you do that, how can you expect any better of the other person?)

I'm agreed with Nightmarenny on motivation to virtue: Sometimes someone may do something just because they believe it is right, even if they think it will make them unhappy personally. Heck, look at Durkon: "Bein' a dwarf is about doin' yer duty, even if it makes ye miserable! ESPECIALLY if it makes ye miserable!" Of course, that dwarven attitude is rather inhuman, and it's probably true that we generally only want to do things we anticipate enjoying or deriving pleasure from somehow. But it's just a very strong correlation, not an inherent connection. It's even possible to want to do something that you don't think is right, don't expect to make you happy, and doesn't help anyone else. Trust me on this; I have obsessive-compulsive tendancies.

[Draedan]

I'm agreed with Nightmarenny on motivation to virtue: Sometimes someone may do something just because they believe it is right, even if they think it will make them unhappy personally. Heck, look at Durkon: "Bein' a dwarf is about doin' yer duty, even if it makes ye miserable! ESPECIALLY if it makes ye miserable!" Of course, that dwarven attitude is rather inhuman, and it's probably true that we generally only want to do things we anticipate enjoying or deriving pleasure from somehow. But it's just a very strong correlation, not an inherent connection.

It IS possible to derive masochistic pleasure from something, hence “ESPECIALLY if it makes ye miserable!" And just because we don’t gain actual pleasure from something doesn’t make it selfless. Most of the time it is choosing the lesser of two evils. “Doing your duty as a dwarf” makes Durkon LESS miserable than if he didn’t do his duty.

Just like my example of defending someone you dislike. You don’t defend them DESPITE not liking the idea; you defend them because you would feel even worse if you didn’t hold yourself to your own ideals.


It's even possible to want to do something that you don't think is right, don't expect to make you happy, and doesn't help anyone else. Trust me on this; I have obsessive-compulsive tendancies.

Then you of all people should understand what I’m saying. You don’t follow the obsessive-compulsive behavior because you gain enjoyment from it, but because you would feel even worse if you didn’t. This not withstanding the greater amount of pleasure you might receive in overcoming the compulsion.


Eh, I guess in the end I'm just saying that good and evil are incredibly abstract.

[ref]

I agree with Draedan (except that I still think that Belkar can be CN).

Also belkar wanted to defeat Elan for XP. We know what Belkar means by defeat, but Belkar never used the word kill; Roy used it to make him dismiss the idea. Again, the only party member explicitly expecting a kill is V.

And, hiding one's alignment is an unalienable right of every character in D&D. It's as if there was a "Detect Credit Card Number" spell in the real world. Would you try to block it if cast on you? And, would that make you evil?

[Lasombra]

it depends. people ask for our creditcard details all the time, if it was somone you didnt know, either rang you up, or walked up to you on the street and asked what it was, would you give it to them?

however its the same when using it to buy something online, you need to give the number out in order to get what you want, or to prove who you are...

However - belkar has soemthing to hide. he is inherently evil, and hes pretty random, even chaotic. he enjoys making people uncomfortable and preferrs destruction to reasoning something out carefully. if he dosnt like something, he just kills it, thats the chaotic evil way.

[LE4dGOLEM]

Belkar is Chaotic Evil. But only because he is both evil and chaotic. There is a diffference.

For example, a character I once played was chaotic in that they did fairly random things that didnt directly help the quest (such as learning weapons proficiency with a flintlock pistol, spending ten days learning it rather than, say, looking for the central hobgoblin/ghoblin/orc/greenskin camp), but was also good, in that he helped those in need without thought for his own safety (even though his wisdom and intelligence scores were fairly high).
This would mean that either his alignment was Chaotic Neutral, or Neutral Good. And as he was predominately (sp?) Chaotic , rather than neutral law-chaos and Good, rather than neutral good-evil, the End result was Chaotic Good, even though he displayed some characteristics that weren't always CG.
Belkar shows characteristics that are both mostly chaotic rather than neutral, and evil rather than neutral, so he is CE rather than CN or NE.


Plus the Giant (read, DM, as well as Belkar's Player) Said So. And that's the Truth of Mod.

[Unorthodox]

Read Unholy Blight's Spell description.

Also, Belkar admits he is Chaotic. (right before chasing the lawyer, remember?)

And, as was said before. The truth of the Mod.

[Electric_Monkey]

Out of interest, to those who say that Belkar's actions could be interpreted as non-evil, what would you say is an example of an action that would put himinto the evil alignment (not counting mechanical effects like detect evil, since they're effectively Rich saying that he's evil)

[Nightmarenny]

I agree with Draedan (except that I still think that Belkar can be CN).

Also belkar wanted to defeat Elan for XP. We know what Belkar means by defeat, but Belkar never used the word kill; Roy used it to make him dismiss the idea. Again, the only party member explicitly expecting a kill is V.

And, hiding one's alignment is an unalienable right of every character in D&D. It's as if there was a "Detect Credit Card Number" spell in the real world. Would you try to block it if cast on you? And, would that make you evil?
You gotta be kidding me. Their is NO way that Belkar could be CN. NONE!

[Brainded]

Belkar is Chaotic Evil. But only because he is both evil and chaotic. There is a diffference.

For example, a character I once played was chaotic in that they did fairly random things that didnt directly help the quest (such as learning weapons proficiency with a flintlock pistol, spending ten days learning it rather than, say, looking for the central hobgoblin/ghoblin/orc/greenskin camp), but was also good, in that he helped those in need without thought for his own safety (even though his wisdom and intelligence scores were fairly high).
This would mean that either his alignment was Chaotic Neutral, or Neutral Good. And as he was predominately (sp?) Chaotic , rather than neutral law-chaos and Good, rather than neutral good-evil, the End result was Chaotic Good, even though he displayed some characteristics that weren't always CG.
Belkar shows characteristics that are both mostly chaotic rather than neutral, and evil rather than neutral, so he is CE rather than CN or NE.


Plus the Giant (read, DM, as well as Belkar's Player) Said So. And that's the Truth of Mod.

FINALLY someone getting to the heart of the point. To really see the fact that Belkar is in fact Chaotic Evil requires an understanding of the distinction between MORAL and ETHICAL alignments. The old 1E books actually did a good job of laying this out. Unfortunately the 3E books only described the alignments a little and said that "players should not be chaotic or evil". Yeah, right.

Anyway, moral (Law v. Chaos) alignment and ethical (Good v. Evil) alignment are mutually independent. Simplified, moral alignment is basically the degree to which one follows the rules (or at least feels the necessity to do so). Whether one follows the rules (any rules - those of society, game rules, whatever) and how often determines this - not WHY one follows the rules. Drow society is a great example of real Chaotic alignment. Everything appears very strictly ordered on the surface, but after delving in you discover that laws and rules mean virtually nothing.

Ethical alignment is mostly the degree to which one pioritizes one's *self* in the world. Evil people tend to be greedy and selfish, but at it's root it's because they only look out for themselves. The only really important thing is their own success and survival. If that means relying on others to get what they want, then so be it. As was stated earlier, it behooves an evil character to have a party around them because of various benefits, including that they will defend likely to the death. Don't think for a minute though that an evil character would return the favor. They'll defend, maybe, but if things get life threatening they will try to save their own skin first. Good characters ally with a party or friends. Evil characters *use* a party or friends.

While they are independent, they can influence one another. A CE character would be happy to follow the law if it will result in personal gain. This is Belkar all the way.

Since true neutrality is so rare, it doesn't really warrant a discussion. But there are (as has been stated) two types: those who seek a balance by behaving at both extremes and "averaging out" to Neutral, and those who really fall right in the middle. I don't see Belkar fitting either of these, especially on ethical alignment.

Well, I think that pretty much fills up my bandwidth allotment for the year. Let the flaming commence. :)

[Draedan]

Anyway, moral (Law v. Chaos) alignment and ethical (Good v. Evil) alignment are mutually independent. Simplified, moral alignment is basically the degree to which one follows the rules (or at least feels the necessity to do so). Whether one follows the rules (any rules - those of society, game rules, whatever) and how often determines this - not WHY one follows the rules. Drow society is a great example of real Chaotic alignment. Everything appears very strictly ordered on the surface, but after delving in you discover that laws and rules mean virtually nothing.

I think Drow are actually LE. But in a society where the laws are really just polite suggestions, it isn’t all that hard to adhere to the law. The consensus for Drow is if no one sees you do it, than it isn’t illegal.



Ethical alignment is mostly the degree to which one pioritizes one's *self* in the world. Evil people tend to be greedy and selfish, but at it's root it's because they only look out for themselves. The only really important thing is their own success and survival. If that means relying on others to get what they want, then so be it. As was stated earlier, it behooves an evil character to have a party around them because of various benefits, including that they will defend likely to the death. Don't think for a minute though that an evil character would return the favor. They'll defend, maybe, but if things get life threatening they will try to save their own skin first. Good characters ally with a party or friends. Evil characters *use* a party or friends.

While they are independent, they can influence one another. A CE character would be happy to follow the law if it will result in personal gain. This is Belkar all the way.

The heart of good and evil is how certain actions are perceived by the local populace, be it a town or a country. In general, destructive acts are considered evil, seeing as how very few/no one benefits at the cost of a greater amount of people. Good acts are those that are deemed positive and aid others, such as helping put out a fire. Neutral acts are what falls in-between (no one is going to praise you for eating dinner). In this respect, good acts are deemed good simply by the selfishness of the local populace. Even those that aren’t affected by the “good” act feel better than if an evil (destructive) act had been committed. The battle between good and evil is a battle of maximizing positive acts and minimizing the negative, simply because the majority of people prefer positive acts. Evil is all about me. Good is all about us.

(I was going to say maximize pleasure and minimize pain, but its possible to derive pleasure from pain, so I changed the wording.)



Since true neutrality is so rare, it doesn't really warrant a discussion. But there are (as has been stated) two types: those who seek a balance by behaving at both extremes and "averaging out" to Neutral, and those who really fall right in the middle. I don't see Belkar fitting either of these, especially on ethical alignment.

Well, I think that pretty much fills up my bandwidth allotment for the year. Let the flaming commence. :)


I think the best way to perceive Belkar is “Chaotic with evil tendencies.” He does what he likes (if he can get away with it) when he likes. There is a pretty good chance that it will be evil, but because he is chaotic, it isn’t a sure bet.

I don’t think it is even possible to be Chaotic Evil as described in the PhB because Chaotic, by definition, would prevent them from doing evil all the time. I think what D&D designers had in mind is “True Evil”. Doing nothing but destructive acts in search of pleasure.

PS. Now that that is all said and done, I cant believe I’m getting into a debate over the morality of a two dimensional, fictional cartoon strip character.
:D

[Kish]

Unfortunately the 3E books only described the alignments a little and said that "players should not be chaotic or evil".

That they shouldn't be evil, never that they shouldn't be chaotic.

And the 1ed alignment descriptions were deranged.


Yeah, right.

Anyway, moral (Law v. Chaos) alignment and ethical (Good v. Evil)

You've got those backwards.

I agree with the rest of your post, though. Except for the part about True Neutral being rare.

[Dark_Stalion]

no one is going to praise you for eating dinner


Not nessesarily true. What if it was a particularly difficult dinner. I'm thinking along the lines of Aragorn eating the stew that Eowyn gives him in LOTR 2 (Ext ed). Surely he deserves praise for that (and an Emmy for his commic performance. OK, I went too far).

[Draedan]

Not nessesarily true. What if it was a particularly difficult dinner. I'm thinking along the lines of Aragorn eating the stew that Eowyn gives him in LOTR 2 (Ext ed). Surely he deserves praise for that (and an Emmy for his commic performance. OK, I went too far).
lol The stew must have had a CR10, atleast, hu?

[The Prince of Cats]

A CE character can be witty, smart, even admirable.
Dracula is evil (MM says all vampires are CE without fail) and acts it too, though many (in recent years) would consider him a romantic character. (Lord Ruthven, being one of Byron's, makes a better example but it less well-known)

Think about it; Dracula gets the girls, lives forever and only dies because some mad German gets people riled up to fight him. Not very much like Belkar but an obvious CE that some people (Anne Rice readers) would argue was simply 'misunderstood' or some twaddle...

[ref]

Read Unholy Blight's Spell description.

I have to. I just have to. Emphasis mine.


The spell deals 1d8 points of damage per two caster levels (maximum 5d8) to a good creature (or 1d6 per caster level, maximum 10d6, to a good outsider) and causes it to be sickened for 1d4 rounds. A successful Will save reduces damage to half and negates the sickened effect. The effects cannot be negated by remove disease or heal, but remove curse is effective.

The spell deals only half damage to creatures who are neither evil nor good, and they are not sickened. Such a creature can reduce the damage in half again (down to one-quarter) with a successful Will save.

could be 1HP, wouldn't even tickle Belkar.

(edit: removed accidental smiley)
(edit: the above edit was an accidental double post instead)

[vampeel]

Ok to conteract all his evilness you must give little Belkar this: he did try to kill a lawyer.
Come on that is for the greater good.

ps I am sorry if this came up earlier, I still think this is his only true act of goodness.

[Gwain]

the question that bothers me more is "why" did he start to think as a non evil character when he had cast on him owl wisdom?

looks like Belkar evilness is related to his poor wisdom :o


edit: i should learn to read the monthly topic first

[Nightmarenny]

the question that bothers me more is "why" did he start to think as a non evil character when he had cast on him owl wisdom?

looks like Belkar evilness is related to his poor wisdom :o


edit: i should learn to read the monthly topic first


Well yes ofcourse it is. Belkar is like a child in that he doesn't comprhend that others have fealing and worth. Alittle insight into the world and he sees the pain he caused.

[Alfryd]

On another note, did anyone notice that Owl's wisdom, apart from an alignment shift, also caused his outfit to change from dark green on green to green on white?

Halfing Rangers- Colour-coded for your convenience!

[Gwain]

Well yes ofcourse it is. Belkar is like a child in that he doesn't comprhend that others have fealing and worth.


oh well, he knows even now that others have feelings, why would have he taken "craft disturbing mental image" then? ;) :)

[Draedan]

oh well, he knows even now that others have feelings, why would have he taken "craft disturbing mental image" then? ;) :)
uh...he forgot?

[Corvis]

My Dearest Giant,

You, sir, are a liar and a cad. That you would insinuate that Belkar-- my favorite character, for he is just like me if I weren't so ineffectual and terrified of violence-- evil is unforgivable, and clearly motivated by your jealousy of my superior reasoning abilities. You may say that as the sole creator of Belkar and the man who determines his every word, thought and action, you somehow determine his every word, thought, and action.

To this I respond: Shut up.

As I and my colleagues have proven time and time again, Belkar is Chaotic Neutral at worst. I am personally of the belief that he is merely a misunderstood chaotic good. As you have clearly ignored my past arguments (possibly because I wrote them in my personal journal while sobbing quietly to myself), I will repeat them here:

1. Belkar is cool.
2. All the coolest characters are Chaotic Neutral, because that's like totally cool.
3. lol

Further, Belkar has not once (ONCE) snorted stolen cocaine off the exposed spine of a baby whose mother he just sacrificed to the Devil (who is also CN.) Such actions might, might prove that Belkar has some mild evil tendencies, providing that the baby itself was good-aligned (though not Lawful Good, as all Lawful Good characters are clearly evil.)

Hopefully my arguments shall help you to see reason. I'll be happy to clarify if anything went over your head.

Best of good wishes,
Corvis

P.S. hello
P.P.S. hello!

[pocketwatch]

I think that Belkar's shift to good when he had owl's wisdom was meant to show how wisdom enlightens people so they don't need to get their kicks out of harvesting kidneys. It was more for humor than alignment accuracy.
Belkar knows exactly how much pain he is causing - and enjoys it. Little kids may squish bugs just because, but it takes an adult to really enjoy hurting or disturbing sentient beings. :)

[Alfryd]

That was hilarious.

[Annalia]

As I and my colleagues have proven time and time again, Belkar is Chaotic Neutral at worst. I am personally of the belief that he is merely a misunderstood chaotic good. As you have clearly ignored my past arguments (possibly because I wrote them in my personal journal while sobbing quietly to myself), I will repeat them here:

1. Belkar is cool.
2. All the coolest characters are Chaotic Neutral, because that's like totally cool.
3. lol

Further, Belkar has not once (ONCE) snorted stolen cocaine off the exposed spine of a baby whose mother he just sacrificed to the Devil (who is also CN.) Such actions might, might prove that Belkar has some mild evil tendencies, providing that the baby itself was good-aligned (though not Lawful Good, as all Lawful Good characters are clearly evil.)

Hopefully my arguments shall help you to see reason. I'll be happy to clarify if anything went over your head.

Best of good wishes,
Corvis

P.S. hello
P.P.S. hello!

Surely you can make a better argument than that. You aren't really convincing me right now (although I agree that CN is the best alignement :))...
To me Belkar is evil. Not only for the numerous evil acts enumerated earlier but also, you should ask you this: If he was CN, why would he protect himself from Miko's detect evil? Privacy? She would only know he isn't evil and IMO this is not a big intrusion.

[Sylian]

If Belkar is Neutral, then what is evil?

[The Glyphstone]

This. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881610000)

[Sylian]

This. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881610000)
That's Vile Darkness, not the same.
If Belkar is Neutral, was Samantha good?
They did robb lawyers. ::)
Edit, it wasn't Sam that robbed lawyers, it was her dad.

I am now a dwarf in the playground! The next good title is titan...

[Corvis]

Surely you can make a better argument than that. You aren't really convincing me right now (although I agree that CN is the best alignement :))...
To me Belkar is evil. Not only for the numerous evil acts enumerated earlier but also, you should ask you this: If he was CN, why would he protect himself from Miko's detect evil? Privacy? She would only know he isn't evil and IMO this is not a big intrusion.

THIS MAKES ME VERY SAD.

WHO CAN TELL ME WHY?

[Annalia]

I didn't want to be mean. :-/ What I meant is that ''I want it to be that way cause to me it's the coolest way so IT IS THAT WAY'' is no real argument. Please take no offense.

[Nightmarenny]

I didn't want to be mean. :-/ What I meant is that ''I want it to be that way cause to me it's the coolest way so IT IS THAT WAY'' is no real argument. Please take no offense.
He was joking. You know that right?

[Annalia]

Well I wasn't sure... Didn't want to take any chance. That's settled then :D!

[Corvis]

Sigh. Once again, with feeling!

YOU SAID:

I didn't want to be mean. :-/ What I meant is that ''I want it to be that way cause to me it's the coolest way so IT IS THAT WAY'' is no real argument. Please take no offense.


What I meant is that ''I want it to be that way cause to me it's the coolest way so IT IS THAT WAY'' is no real argument.


is no real argument.


is no real argument.


is no real argument.


IS NO REAL ARGUMENT. IS NO REAL ARGUMENT. IS NO REAL ARGUMENT. IS NO REAL ARGUMENT.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I SAY:

Figured it out yet? (http://www.answers.com/parody&r=67)


EDIT: Dammit, Nightmarenny. Couldn't you have waited a half hour?

[Annalia]

Oh man... Now I look so dumb. :-[ Think I'll go hiding for a while... :-/

[Elurindel]

I was willing to give Belkar the benefit of the doubt with the whole Unholy Blight thing. It could have been a good roll on his save. However consistent acts since then definitely tipped him into the unrepentent Evil category.

Even had Rich not come out and declared Belkar Evil, I'd believe it.

Unholy Blight doesn't affect neutral characters either, but after being affected by Smite Evil, I'm fully convinced.

[Kish]

Unholy Blight doesn't affect neutral characters either

Yes, it does.

, but after being affected by Smite Evil, I'm fully convinced.
Good. :P

[evileeyore]

Yes, it does.
That a poor answer.

Elurindel:

Unholy Blight doesn't effect Evil characters, however Neutral and Good characters are affected as follows:

author=SRD 3.5

You call up unholy power to smite your enemies. The power takes the form of a cold, cloying miasma of greasy darkness.
[b]Only good and neutral (not evil) creatures are harmed by the spell.[b]
The spell deals 1d8 points of damage per two caster levels (maximum 5d8 ) to a good creature (or 1d6 per caster level, maximum 10d6, to a good outsider) and causes it to be sickened for 1d4 rounds. A successful Will save reduces damage to half and negates the sickened effect. The effects cannot be negated by remove disease or heal, but remove curse is effective.
[b]The spell deals only half damage to creatures who are neither evil nor good, and they are not sickened.[b] Such a creature can reduce the damage in half again (down to one-quarter) with a successful Will save.Thus a Neutral character that makes his save will take only 1/4 damage and not be sickended.

Thus had Belkar been Neutral and made his save he would have taken at most 10 damage. 10 damage is barely noticeable to an 8th or higher level Ranger. So at that time I argued it was possible Unholy Blight meant nothing either way.

Thankfully Smite Evil has laid all arguements to rest.

[Brainded]

That they shouldn't be evil, never that they shouldn't be chaotic.

And the 1ed alignment descriptions were deranged.
You've got those backwards.

I agree with the rest of your post, though. Except for the part about True Neutral being rare.

Kish,

Thanks for clarifying and correcting my post. I was offline all weekend so I couldn't thank you sooner. Most of the time when I have something profound (in my own opinion) to say it requires frequent correction afterwards. See my screen name for corroboration. Usually when I have something profane to say it comes out fine though....

[Elurindel]

That a poor answer.

Elurindel:

Unholy Blight doesn't effect Evil characters, however Neutral and Good characters are affected as follows:

author=SRD 3.5
Thus a Neutral character that makes his save will take only 1/4 damage and not be sickended.

Thus had Belkar been Neutral and made his save he would have taken at most 10 damage. 10 damage is barely noticeable to an 8th or higher level Ranger. So at that time I argued it was possible Unholy Blight meant nothing either way.

Thankfully Smite Evil has laid all arguements to rest.

I'm aware of the effects of Unholy Blight, I just didn't have the time at such an hour in the morning to go into the full details. I know that only good characters are rendered immobile by the spell, whilst Neutral and Evil characters suffer very little from it. the effect, therefore, was negligible in comparison to being stabbed by Belkar.

[evileeyore]

I know that only good characters are rendered immobile by the spell, whilst Neutral and Evil characters suffer very little from it.Actually sickened does not mean immobilized. It just gives a -2 modifier on a butt tonne of rolls (most of them).


the effect, therefore, was negligible in comparison to being stabbed by Belkar.This we can agree upon wholeheartedly.

[RaNDoM]

I'm definitely casting my vote for Lawful Evil. If he was CE, he wouldn't be able to function at all in a group of mostly good aligned characters. But the second letter in his abbrv. is definitely a capital E.

[Lilly]

The Fairy Modmother: As has been stated, there is no real arguement. There never should have been. It has been offically stated that Belkar is evil. And this thread is getting stupid, and the argument has been settled, so now it's locked.

[chijayhawker]

Alignments: On Good, Evil and Neutrality

Before the higher brain functioning in humans there was no morality and alignments. The nearest thing there was to an alignment was and still is: Neutrality. The natural world exists and thrives in the neutral concept.

The hungry fox eats the rabbit or the rabbit runs away from the hungry fox. Either side of the “or” is neither Good nor Evil, except from the perspective of the individual. To the hungry fox, it is “evil” that the rabbit has been designed for speed and dexterity, at least more dexterous than the fox. To the rabbit it is “evil” that the fox is trying to end the rabbit’s life. Each, the rabbit and the fox, thinks it is “good” that it either got-away or ate, respectively. So in reality there is no good or evil in the natural world – it is neutral.

Then humanity invented systems, primarily morality systems, of which then religions were built on, to justify their actions towards other humans and their environment. They could interpret their actions, but even in the world of humanity, the determination of “good” and “evil” is from the perspective of the one doing the judging.

The Nazis, IRA (Irish Republican Army), Native American Indians, Bath party, Crusades, and Iraqi-“Freedom fighters” groups were each viewed as either “good” or “evil”, depending on which side of the muzzle/blade/or bomb the judge was sitting. To some German people, the Nazis were going to help bring back German pride and status of the country in the world, and thus were “good” for the German people. To the rest of the world their actions were purely “evil” (which I personally agree with).

With human thinking, one could even contend that no wars, the elimination of death and pestilence is an “evil” act, since eventually, humanity would over-populate this world and exhaust its resources, and ultimately lead to the end of the human race, and possibly all life on this world.

Groups of people must agree on their moral compass and from that determine what actions fall on the side of either “good” or “evil”. Once the actions are defined as either good or evil, and the group of people all agree to those determinations can than one judge what is good or evil. However, if you have an individual (or another group) who does not agree to your determinations, does not inherently make these “outsiders” evil. It just means that their moral compass does not agree with yours. These differing groups are heavily focused on being the “one that is right” and making the others come into alignment with their compass. This is the basis for most of the strife we see in the real world today. Unfortunately or fortunately, there are a lot of moral compasses in existence, and if people could learn to tolerate other people’s morality, there would be less strife. Unfortunately, tolerance in humanity is a developing skill.


This is just my two cents worth of a diatribe. :smalltongue:

[tommygunn]

I'm definitely casting my vote for Lawful Evil. If he was CE, he wouldn't be able to function at all in a group of mostly good aligned characters. But the second letter in his abbrv. is definitely a capital E.

hes definatly not lawful, in one comic he even said he was chaotic (it was the one where the lawyer tried to get a restraining order on belkar for the horse windstriker. which after reading it belkar said he was chaotic and proceeded to trying to stab him)

[Oxymoron]

Ok, I do realize most of you are just trolling this thread for the heck of it, but I fear that some of you REALLY think Belkar is in fact CN.

Why? Because if Belkar is CE he is damned, but if he is CN he is forgiven. CN people are cracy right, so they don`t know what they are doing, and are therefore not guilty of any crime. I think some of you reason like that.

Example:

CE Belkar kills an entire village, he is therefore an evil psychopath and we cannot like him.

CN Belkar kills an entire village, he is therefore just chaotic and unpredictable and we still can like him. Afterall, he is still loyal to the OOTS which kinda balances it all right?

Sorry, but being CN dosen`t forgive Belkar for any heinous acts he does. And being evil dosen`t make Belkar incapable of being loyal or doing the occasional good act.

[Morty]

Look at the post dates, people... the last post here was in 2005.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Thread relocked. Please see the Rules of Posting re: Thread necromancy.