Ok, I finally hate belkar SPOLIER

[ABB]

Up till now belkar hasn't done anything I couldn't let pass, and I even liked him for the way he cared for mr. scruffy, being a cat person myself.

But when he murdered the completely innocent peddler just to steal his mule, that's it.

AFAIC, Belkar can get skewered on a gobllins halberd and would have it coming.

[Charles Phipps]

Up till now belkar hasn't done anything I couldn't let pass, and I even liked him for the way he cared for mr. scruffy, being a cat person myself.

But when he murdered the completely innocent peddler just to steal his mule, that's it.

AFAIC, Belkar can get skewered on a gobllins halberd and would have it coming.

I'm glad someone finally illustrated, again, Belkar's a mass murderer.

Why do I say again?

Because it's been stated and shown repeatedly.

[Cybren]

Really, this is the worst thing he's done?

[kpenguin]

As a character, I like Belkar.

Had he been real, however, I would want him on death row.

[BisectedBrioche]

TBH I didn't really find this particular act of comic psychopathy that funny. :smallfrown:

[Charles Phipps]

TBH I didn't really find this particular act of comic psychopathy that funny. :smallfrown:

Uhhh I think that's the point.

It's the period where we realize Belkar is a bad guy.

You know, a monster.

Also, I find the idea people believe that Roy is going to come back and "tame" Belkar to be foolish. This could have equally happened on his Watch,

[ZeroNumerous]

I found it funny. "We needed a mule, he had a mule. Now we have a donkey and this guy doesn't need anything anymore." :smallbiggrin:

[Pie Guy]

In reality, I'd kill him myself.

But he's an enjoyable character, and this comic has 539 entries, and, no offense to anyone, a few are not going to be funny.

If you liked it, fine.
If you didn't, fine.

Just try not to impose your view on other people.

[PerpetualGM]

Bah, I've hated Belkar for quite some time now. I honestly don't understand what people see in him. He's that player that no one really likes. You know, the one that causes more trouble than he's worth by killing the serving wench when she won't "put out" or gets the party ran out of town when he insults the locals. He's untrustworthy and much more of a liability than an asset.

[The Extinguisher]

Really, the worst thing he's done?
So wanton slaughter, corpse desicration, and wanting to defecate in a sentient creatures head do not top random killing of a single gnome for actual semi-valid reasons.

I personally loved the comic and found it hilarious. Ah well, at least he won't be wearing leather pants anymore.

[Flickerdart]

Hey now. Belkar is a valuable character archetype that makes the party interesting. Without him, it would be a bunch of _______ Good idiots prancing around with Hailey as the "worst" PC. He's what makes the Order more than just a cookie-cutter adventuring party.

[PirateMonk]

Up till now belkar hasn't done anything I couldn't let pass, and I even liked him for the way he cared for mr. scruffy, being a cat person myself.

But when he murdered the completely innocent peddler just to steal his mule, that's it.

AFAIC, Belkar can get skewered on a gobllins halberd and would have it coming.

And you can't bring yourself to like an obviously evil character why, exactly?

[Zeitgeist]

I have to agree with the OP.

Sure, he's done some nasty things, but he killed a named NPC, who was quite friendly, and trying to give them directions. Heck, he was the kind of guy who would have been kind enough to give them some food for the trip.

And I doubt Belkar killed him for the mule. I bet he didn't even think about the mule until after he killed him, he just wanted to kill something.

So, in my opinion, this is one of his most evil deeds.

[Spiky]

Just try not to impose your view on other people.

You do realize that this is a discussion forum, right? Telling people not to discuss something is inane.

[Quorothorn]

I have exactly one thing that I absolutely must get out at this point:

WHY THE HELL IS THIS COMIC SURPRISING SOME PEOPLE?

[Raging_Pacifist]

How is it that killing the gnome is what made you dislike Belkar? I love him but he's done worse things.
1. He only stopped the assination attempt on Hinjo because it didn't benefit him. 2. He cut off a kobolds head and used it as a nacho bowl. 3. He killed an AC guard and used his blood to paint a taunting mural, and it goes on. Besides, he is an adventurer and in DnD you can really kill anybody unless your in a city where you can be arrested for it. Also, he actuall had a reason to do it.

[Porthos]

He's done far worse things in On the Origins of PCs you know. :smallwink:

[Querzis]

1. He only stopped the assination attempt on Hinjo because it didn't benefit him. 2. He cut off a kobolds head and used it as a nacho bowl. 3. He killed an AC guard and used his blood to paint a taunting mural, and it goes on. Besides, he is an adventurer and in DnD you can really kill anybody unless your in a city where you can be arrested for it. Also, he actuall had a reason to do it.

He probably though about the mule after and I dont see how its supposed to be a good reason anyway. This comic didnt surprise me at all, I always knew this would have happened a long time ago if it wasnt for Roy but you gotta admit its really the most evil things we saw him do in the comic. Your three example are all him killing warriors that were trying to kill him or, in the guard case, would have tried to kill him if Belkar had tried to excape without taking care of him first. They werent some friendly defenseless travelers. I'm sure he did worse before joining the Order though. Origins of the PC is pretty clear about that.

Anyway, as a character he is funny. The killing of the gnome wasnt actually funny but most of the lines related to his death were. But in the real world I would kill him after seeing him do that because hes back to what he was before Roy became his permanent jailer, a bigger threat for everyone then any monster he might kill. Which is why Haley should strangle him, I wont be able to call her good or even 'goodish' if she let that pass. Its not like they cant resurect Belkar after resurecting Roy anyway, with his jailer he can be a good killing machine against force of evils.

[Chronos]

Really, this is the worst thing he's done?Probably not. But it is the worst thing we've seen him do. Most of his killings have been of evil creatures (or at least, creatures on the side of evil). The one exception prior to this was the prison guard, but even there, the guard was at least a clear enemy of Belkar's, and was armed. This guy was neither.

[Quorothorn]

He probably though about the mule after and I dont see how its supposed to be a good reason anyway. This comic didnt surprise me at all, I always knew this would have happened a long time ago if it wasnt for Roy but you gotta admit its really the most evil things we saw him do in the comic. Your three example are all him killing warriors that were trying to kill him or, in the guard case, would have tried to kill him if Belkar had tried to excape without taking care of him first. They werent some friendly defenseless travelers. I'm sure he did worse before joining the Order though. Origins of the PC is pretty clear about that.

Anyway, as a character he is funny. The killing of the gnome wasnt actually funny but most of the lines related to his death were. But in the real world I would kill him after seeing him do that because hes back to what he was before Roy became his permanent jailer, a bigger threat for everyone then any monster he might kill. Which is why Haley should strangle him, I wont be able to call her good or even 'goodish' if she let that pass. Its not like they cant resurect Belkar after resurecting Roy anyway, with his jailer he can be a good killing machine against force of evils.

How interested would Belkar be in working with the Order if Haley had killed him, d'you think? The moment he got rezzed he'd probably stab her to death.

[skywalker]

Probably not. But it is the worst thing we've seen him do. Most of his killings have been of evil creatures (or at least, creatures on the side of evil). The one exception prior to this was the prison guard, but even there, the guard was at least a clear enemy of Belkar's, and was armed. This guy was neither.

Chronos has it right on.

This comic actually made me a little sick. Which isn't a complaint. But I've always thought with what I've seen of Belkar(I haven't read any of the books), he was kinda fun. I wouldn't like to hang out with him, but he was fun. Now I feel sick.

[tenguro]

I love the Belkster, although everybody has their own opinions and that's what it really comes down to. Though in real life I would probly not get along with Belkar, like everybody else is saying.

[kirbsys]

Its funny the way Pulp Fiction manages to be funny. If you can't find humour in violence and the characters unrealistic reactions to it, then it won't be funny to you, if you can, it will.

[kirbsys]

He's done far worse things in On the Origins of PCs you know. :smallwink:

Like what? I mean I know he Killed abunch of people in a bar fight that was suppossed to be a fist-fight, but really they started a bar room brawl with a psychopathic halfling, and the guard has the same reasoning as the AC guard.

[Paragon Badger]

I liked the randomness of it. As if Belkar used killing as an ice-breaker when a conversation turned stale.

Plus, it clearly shows Belkar has no respect for Haley. Not in the way he did for Roy, at least. Would he have pulled this stunt infront of Roy or Durkon?

They would have handed his ass to him.

[Jayngfet]

honestly, if memory serves this is no surprise considering the fact that he's measured in kilonazis, both with and without roy, and where is roy besides rotting in the cart?


am I the only one who expected this murder the second the gnome was introduced?

[Oberon]

Belkar is so often thwarted in his attempts to do truly evil acts. I think this comic is a reminder that he truly is a terrible, terrible person. Possibly more evil than any of the villains. I didn't expect the gnome murder, but I thought it was entirely in character for Belkar. I was actually a little relieved. My thought process reading this comic "oh no, here comes yet another named NPC to fill out the ranks of the broken Order... no wait.... oh he's dead. Wow. Belkar's really bad."

So yeah I don't think its such a heartbreaking comic, it just clarifies how little Belkar cares about other beings. I still can't imagine Belkar murdering any member of the order though.

[factotum]

Those who have read On the Origin of PCs already know that Belkar has done worse:


When a brawl started in a tavern (usual sort of drunken fist-fight one might expect) Belkar gets out his daggers and starts stabbing. He even killed some of the barmaids!


Now THAT was pure, senseless killing for no good reason. Every time Belkar kills someone in the strip there's usually a justification for it, however weak; there was no justification whatsoever for the off-panel slaughter in OtOoPCs.

Having said that, even when Belkar kills people in the strip for a good reason, he usually takes it too far; for instance, when he kills the guard in Azure City, clearing the route for his escape, he takes the time to mutilate the corpse and paint messages on the wall with the guard's blood, purely in order to draw Miko into a one-on-one confrontation with him. He doesn't even think of trying to rescue the others!

[Orzel]

C'mon it's just a gnome merchant. I can count how many dead gnomes and merchants I've seen.

Belkar is unwise and will kill for any reason, good or stupid that reason may be. Option 1 is always "Kill" and 2 is usually "Humiliate and/or Annoy".

[ABB]

Really, the worst thing he's done?
So wanton slaughter, corpse desicration, and wanting to defecate in a sentient creatures head do not top random killing of a single gnome for actual semi-valid reasons.

I personally loved the comic and found it hilarious. Ah well, at least he won't be wearing leather pants anymore.

His wanton slaughter consisted of enemies who were armed and would have killed him given the chance. The onlyperson he killed who wasn't in some way a threat to him was the guy who was going to kill hinjo.

The 3 barbarians he killed, well he was told he had to fight them and no one said it WASN'T to the death...

But this was cold blooded murder of an innocent person who was no threat and in fact had helped his group. That's where even I draw the line.

Then again, Belkar's never killed anyone while they were asleep, like roy.

[ABB]

Hmm, you think having belkar do something this heinous is rich's way of getting the audience ready for belkar's departure, as forteold by the oracle?

Maybe one of the first things roy will do upon being raised will be to off the belkster...

[Lunaya]

Or maybe the MoJ turns out to be fatal?

[The Vanishing Hitchhiker]

Heh. "Spolier". Sounds French.

Anyway, this strip is just a way of confirming that yes, Belkar is evil - evil enough to be brought up during Roy's celestial assessment. Still funny though; that's what black comedy's for.

[Holammer]

Heh. "Spolier". Sounds French.

Anyway, this strip is just a way of confirming that yes, Belkar is evil - evil enough to be brought up during Roy's celestial assessment. Still funny though; that's what black comedy's for.

In fact, it seems to be just that:
spolier Verb, transitive (a) to despoil

Online dictionaries ftw. Most European languages got so much in common it's pure ignorance thinking something else. Watch "The adventure of English" if you can get your hands on it.

Off topic delivered by Holammer, oh yah!

[kukn]

Belkar is evil, he is the kind of evil that would heartily kill all of his own fans here. But seeing as there isn't a danger of him killing any real person, the point is moot.

The fact that Belkar really is evil and chaotic, makes him a brilliant character. Brilliant in the sense of strong, colourful, a shining jewel, however dark. He's original and he makes the party more than just a group of do-gooders.

Belkar doesn't have any lines to cross. That's what makes him interesting (also his subsequent black humour and egoism).

[Felixaar]

I don't really like Belkar, but I can put up with him in the strip for the occasional comic relief. Were I an oots character, I'd have cleaved 'is 'ead from 'is shoulders a few plot arcs ago.

[Kedami]

am I the only one who expected this murder the second the gnome was introduced?

Nope, in fact I expected it to be quicker than it was.

Belkar is one of the characters I enjoy reading about because, like other people have said, he doesn't fit with the party. This kind of thing should be expected at all times, people.

[Deatheater]

Whatever one may think of Belkar(frankly I despise him--he stopped being funny ages ago) there comes the time when the "he's serves a character niche/creates interesting tension" bit runs it's course. Beyond that, if the arc of the story continues trying to pretend nothing happened, the story goes from drama into melodrama, and cheap melodrama at that.

Why do we get caught up in these stories in the first place? No, they are not JUST stories, at least not the good ones; they communicates psychological truths through their characters, whether it's a hobbit yearning for adventure and finding more than he bargained for, a day in the life of Martian colonist, or a story told with a collection of stick figures, as long as the CHARACTERS are real--that is they act, feel and talk like a real person like them would in a given situation--the story thrives and we care.

Once they fail to be true to themselves the story starts to suffer. And I don't mean the occasional out of character thing that is the mark of realism--I mean something that the character would find NON NEGOTIABLE to live with themselves. If the story fails to reflect that, not only is the reader's trust lost but the suspension of disbelief starts to crumble.

So we come to a cross roads: will Belkar be dealt with as a real Haley and Celia would deal with him?

True they are in a pickle, and have very little back up. But as has been pointed out, good people do not let others murder a completely defenseless person who was not threatening them in any way.

It may be reasonable to put up with him until the job is done--if there is a means of teaching him to stay in line. Frankly, beating him up would probably do the trick.

For some odd reason this doesn't happen as much as it should re: Belkar. All I can figure is that Rich doesn't like the idea of his good characters resorting to physical abuse. But force is the only way to deal with him. And if anything is worth a beating, it's murdering a perfectly harmless gnome. (This is not a defenseless child here)

No, this wouldn't keep him from murdering at all, just murdering while they're watching and that would serve until "it's over"--because they would make it their business to watch him all the time. Sociopaths respond very well to superior force, assuming they know they are watched.

Afterwards, he should be evicted from the party. The "Roy & co. must babysit him to save the world from Belkar" is a rubbish argument. By that argument no one should ever cut loose a dangerous person out of their life "because at least this way I can be a good influence". Please. Sociopaths make it their business to find loop holes. However, just kicking him to the curb would not be responsible either.

Long term suggestions:

- wish or equivalent magic to make him NOT a sociopath. No, he wouldn't be funny anymore, but he's come to the end of his "funny" anyway. This would not mean he would be automatically a good person ; he'd just have a sense of empathy. What he does with it--become good, commit suicide--well, that's up to him. This solution would fulfill most of the objections a Roy might have to killing him or just setting him loose: his conscience will keep him from being an amoral killing machine, and Roy will not feel he has betrayed a comrade. Fact, from his perspective Roy's helped him...

- Belkar's reward if they win is prison for life. Yep thats a reward, because otherwise it the death penalty for--how many counts of murder?

-If Belkar dies in battle DON"T raise him. This should be obvious. Let it be the gods problem.

For the short term, beat the sh*t out of him, whilst loudly explaining why and make it very clear if he EVER tries to murder an innocent bystander, they will kill him if that's what they need to do to stop him. And then do it. When Roy comes back he'll have to get over it--you can't save everyone.

Alternately, if for some reason Haley just can't work herself to doing anything decisive, it should bother her-- A LOT. Good or mostly good people cannot ignore something like this without becoming depressed and/or neurotic.

Celia, won't put up with it at all. Why is Belkar even there? Because we're worried he'll die if he's too far from Roy? Screw Belkar. From any reasonable standpoint his life is his own problem now. And hey if he does die being too far from Roy, problem solved. If Roy or anyone else really feels like raising him later, at least Belkar won't be rubbishing up current plans. As a a corpse he'll be quite managable.

Some people will say, "good characters couldn't just let him die". Oh yes they could, when the choice is give him another chance to murder or not. That's MURDER, not kill for survival. Good characters also care a lot about anyone thinking they are traveling with murderers--and it is only a matter of time before this catches up to them and they find themselves on trial as accessories after the fact

I'm really not trying to tell Rich how to write. I write myself, and I know that would piss me off. But I also know it is MY responsibility as a writer to keep suspension of disbelief suspended. Its Rich's right to take his story where he wants to take it. I just may not be able to follow.

The fact is Belkar's act has been wearing thin for some time. I feel as a reader I've been asked to swallow a lot Re: Belkar in the interests of continuing my investment in the story. Frankly I don't trust this will be resolved is a way that is emotionally satisfying, true to the characters and makes the investment worth while. Why? Because history shows there will be some brief outrage then things will go back to the way they were--"yeah that's just our Belkar, the party sociopath". (Even in games there comes a time of reckoning with that type of party member, and it's usually not pretty.)

What's frustrating is this is not true for almost any other aspect/ character of these stories. Rich has done brilliantly with character development else where: Miko's Shakespearian fall, Roy cutting off Dad emotionally as a bad job, Elan developing from a buffoon to someone actually useful. Yeah it's a comic and it's meant to be funny, but the bits that count always had serious consequences.

Except with Belkar.

So there's me and my rant. I guess we'll see how it goes from here. Regardless of how it goes, thank you, Rich, for bringing these stories to life. The gaming world is richer for your work.

[snoopy13a]

Belkar killing the gnome is entirely within his character. However, I simply cannot see Haley and Celia tolerating this. They should probably kill him or tie him up and bring him to justice.

[Gravedjinn]

Hmmmmm.....

Me personaly, I am a fan of belkar and his wanton violence.
but given my experience in RPG and the real world history as well.
People exspecially Merchants DO NOT travel alone.
While on the outside this may look like a heartless killing. Why hasn't anyone ask why this merch is alone on the road in a war zone.
Now three months isnt much time for news to travel to another major city given there are no phones or emails ect ect ect.
However If i remeber correctly , it has been stated the the area was populated by hobgoblins or something. Now those creatures are notorious for raiding carvans of merchants and killing everyone one and takeing the lewtz.
Now you supreme I hate the Belkster people. Can anyone tell me why there was a lone merchant traveling down a road that was in an area that was known for haveing gobos and hobgobos?. All i see here my self is belkar simply speeding up a process that was currently in progress.<I.E. the death of the merchant>

[Silver2195]

Hmmmmm.....

Me personaly, I am a fan of belkar and his wanton violence.
but given my experience in RPG and the real world history as well.
People exspecially Merchants DO NOT travel alone.
While on the outside this may look like a heartless killing. Why hasn't anyone ask why this merch is alone on the road in a war zone.
Now three months isnt much time for news to travel to another major city given there are no phones or emails ect ect ect.
However If i remeber correctly , it has been stated the the area was populated by hobgoblins or something. Now those creatures are notorious for raiding carvans of merchants and killing everyone one and takeing the lewtz.
Now you supreme I hate the Belkster people. Can anyone tell me why there was a lone merchant traveling down a road that was in an area that was known for haveing gobos and hobgobos?. All i see here my self is belkar simply speeding up a process that was currently in progress.<I.E. the death of the merchant>

But he didn't know about the hobbos...

[Duaneyo1]

1. I don’t think Haley can do much about Belkar as she cannot take him in a straight up fight. Celia has no reason to tolerate is behavior. If Celia is really a sylph, she dominates Belkar ( who has a 5% chance to save ) and turns hin into Mr. Rogers till they resurrect Roy.



2. When it comes to quick comedy Belkar and Xykon are Rich's go to characters. Simply have one of them do or say the most amoral or offensive thing and someone will find it funny. As a note, I find Xykon having an evilgasm and Belkar wanting to take a crap in a talking skull, freaking hilarious. As furter note, if this comic was a Hollywood movie it would be rated R. So, people are going to do some rotten things. Rich doesn’t want us to like them , he wants us to think they are funny.

[Gravedjinn]

But he didn't know about the hobbos...

If a Merchant doesnt know abotu the danger of a trade route then again it will be inherently assumed he/she is going to Die. the only question that will remain at that point is not if the merch dies but when.....

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Ok, listen folks, Belkar is funny BECAUSE he's that player you always manage to get in your games.

He is a parody. A satirical representation of that hated cliche. Think of him in that way as the entire comic is devoted to just that. It pokes fun at RPG's.

Don't get so immersed in the story that you forget it is also a comic.

I mean, do you know how many folks have been murdered in the Dilbert strip? No, because it's a gag to make a point or illustrate the irony.

Of course you'd want to take out Belkar in real life, but that's not exactly the point now is it?

[Dr. Cthulwho]

For my part I think the way Belkar is written in a very skillful manner.

He's an evil little blighter. Yet he is bad in a way that still manages to be humerous, if in a dark way. I expected some gnome humor, not quite the way it turned out, and while I felt bad for the gnome and Belkar's actions (well, as far as a story goes) I still managed to find his warped justifications funny. And the hat. So you can like him and hope he gets his come uppance in due time at the same time. Its a good blend.


Ok, listen folks, Belkar is funny BECAUSE he's that player you always manage to get in your games.

He is a parody. A satirical representation of that hated cliche. Think of him in that way as the entire comic is devoted to just that. It pokes fun at RPG's.

Don't get so immersed in the story that you forget it is also a comic.

I mean, do you know how many folks have been murdered in the Dilbert strip? No, because it's a gag to make a point or illustrate the irony.

Of course you'd want to take out Belkar in real life, but that's not exactly the point now is it?

Well said.

[LtNOWIS]

2. As furter note, if this comic was a Hollywood movie it would be rated R. So, people are going to do some rotten things.

MPAA ratings have very little to do with the morality of the characters in a movie.



Ok, listen folks, Belkar is funny BECAUSE he's that player you always manage to get in your games.

He is a parody. A satirical representation of that hated cliche. Think of him in that way as the entire comic is devoted to just that. It pokes fun at RPG's.


It's not *just* a gaming parody. The comic has a much deeper story than that, with some truly moving plots, character arcs, etc. Since the party members are supposed to have a measure of genuine, believable characterization, it is important that they react realistically to Belkar's actions.

[FujinAkari]

Somewhat off topic... but why is this topic spoilered?

[Spiky]

Somewhat off topic... but why is this topic spoilered?

It's not. It's SPOLIERED. Not sure what that means.



Also not sure that this comic would be rated R by the MPAA. Would depend on the graphic-ness of the slaughter if it was adapted as a live-action flick or cartoon, or whatever. As shown in the stick-figure comic, it would only be PG-13. And mainly the 13 would be for the sexual innuendo and Nale's one horrific massacre scene.

[Swashbuckler]

I loved this comic for the sole reason that Belkar killed a gnome. :smallamused:

*ducks and runs for cover*

[Quorothorn]

Belkar is so often thwarted in his attempts to do truly evil acts. I think this comic is a reminder that he truly is a terrible, terrible person. Possibly more evil than any of the villains. I didn't expect the gnome murder, but I thought it was entirely in character for Belkar. I was actually a little relieved. My thought process reading this comic "oh no, here comes yet another named NPC to fill out the ranks of the broken Order... no wait.... oh he's dead. Wow. Belkar's really bad."

So yeah I don't think its such a heartbreaking comic, it just clarifies how little Belkar cares about other beings. I still can't imagine Belkar murdering any member of the order though. (Emphasis added.)

Meh, Xykon and Belkar are about equally evil I'd say.

[Winterwind]

If a Merchant doesnt know abotu the danger of a trade route then again it will be inherently assumed he/she is going to Die. the only question that will remain at that point is not if the merch dies but when.....This does not lessen the evil in Belkar's deed though. Besides, now that the merchant had learnt about the hobbos he could have evaded them and survived after all.

I always dispised Belkar himself, but I like him as literary character - he is consistent, and he always gets hit by the karmic club (and I would be very, very disappointed if this would not happen again for his latest deed). I am honestly surprised about people expressing their dislike for Belkar now, though - I mean, he is evil! What did you expect?! Being evil does not mean one gets a cool outfit, behaves slightly jerkish, kills off a few characters nobody likes anyway and is voiced by James Earl Jones - being evil means precisely that one commits despicable, horrible deeds, seeding suffering and sorrow all around.

[Kedami]

I mean, he is evil! What did you expect?!

I agree with this. It's a little surprising to see how many people dislike Belkar.

[Querzis]

How interested would Belkar be in working with the Order if Haley had killed him, d'you think? The moment he got rezzed he'd probably stab her to death.

So what? Belkar already tried to kill Elan and V too and it didnt worked for the same reason it wont work when Roy is rez, they can beat Belkar together and Belkar doesnt want to try that. Belkar wanted to kill Roy and/or V for a while now, he'll just want to kill Haley too I really dont see how that will change anything.

And since he wont even know if he still got the MoJ, I would say hes going to be pretty interested in working with the Order. Seriously, I woudnt be surprised if Belkar is just going to be impressed by Haley for killing him instead of pissed off.

[Spiky]

I agree with this. It's a little surprising to see how many people dislike Belkar.

I would say Belkar has been THE favorite OOTS character up until today. So I am actually happy to see some change of heart due to this comic. Let me explain.

This society is too interested in violence. I'm referring mainly to the USA since I'm familiar with it here, but it pretty clearly extends to all of the "1st world" countries. Our entertainment is really horrific these days, filled with murders, rapes, all sorts of nastiness. And Belkar has been a favorite character even though he is clearly vile, thus proving this point. Even the comic itself demonstrated his evil potential with the little chart some time back, yet readers still made him the favorite, esp revelling in his sexy, shoeless god of war scene.

I am heartened to see some actually have drawn the line somewhere and realized that violence is not that great. (duh!)

Don't get me wrong, I am an avid reader of this comic and watch many shows that have some pretty nasty stuff in them. I'm not claiming to be outside of the problem. But some of the happy responses here (before today) about Belkar's previous heinous acts make me a little sick. So I think it's great to see a line drawn.

I almost wonder if the Giant has been trying to outdo himself on Belkar's nastiness, perhaps in response to his own reduction of the character's evil with the MoJ. I think he did the same thing for awhile with Xykon and his mindless wasting of resources. (hobgoblins) If correct, I'd say Rich has reached Everest's pinnacle.

[Jayngfet]

(Emphasis added.)

Meh, Xykon and Belkar are about equally evil I'd say.

exactly, want to see Belkar with a spellcaster class, look at the lich.

[Kedami]

Edit: Darn, I got posted before... This is what they called "ninja'd", right?

I can see your point. People here in britain are quite violent as well. Just today I saw the front of a newspaper and the headline was something along the lines of "Anti-Crime Campaigner Violently Attacked In Own Home" and a few days ago there was an article about a girl who died because she was attacked by a gang of idiots who were apparently drunk and underage.

I think that real violence is wrong, obviously, but characters like Belkar are still great in my opinion. I'd never even hit someone lightly in jest, but that doesn't mean that I need to take Belkar seriously.

In conclusion and almost completely unrelated to my previous paragraph: Evil is as evil does, and he's done a lot.

[Jayngfet]

If a Merchant doesnt know abotu the danger of a trade route then again it will be inherently assumed he/she is going to Die. the only question that will remain at that point is not if the merch dies but when.....

ahem, he was just told about them, in front of belkar.

[Gravedjinn]

ahem, he was just told about them, in front of belkar.

Ahem...... he should have know before he began his trek. That is the implication of the statement. read your history please..... no trader / carvan would dare go out in cart and buggy times without hireing armed escorts be it only one or a team of merc's to defend the group.
If that was not the case many men of the past would have not made a liveing doing it.

Winterwind: I am not tring in anyway to lessen the evil act in and of itself.I am more picking at the situation that it was created in.I acctually agree with you in that this is one of his more deplorable acts.

Like i said though.... I love the belksters mass murder and mayhem....I was the guy cheering when the game "dungeon keeper" came out for PC and i got to play th bad guy for once :D

[Hidalgo]

Up till now belkar hasn't done anything I couldn't let pass, and I even liked him for the way he cared for mr. scruffy, being a cat person myself.

But when he murdered the completely innocent peddler just to steal his mule, that's it.

AFAIC, Belkar can get skewered on a gobllins halberd and would have it coming.

Damn this is Belkar, that's what he does, kill people, even if they are innocent peddler. You can't blame him for just being himself...

[Hidalgo]

Up till now belkar hasn't done anything I couldn't let pass, and I even liked him for the way he cared for mr. scruffy, being a cat person myself.

But when he murdered the completely innocent peddler just to steal his mule, that's it.

AFAIC, Belkar can get skewered on a gobllins halberd and would have it coming.

Damn this is Belkar, that's what he does, kill people, even if they are innocent peddler. You can't blame him for just being himself...
He makes everything so funny in the comic, even if it's killing.

[Corrupted One]

The merchant said it himself. " I suppose that's what I get for getting all my information from Fox news." Think about it. Had he chose a more reliable news source ( assuming this source knew of Azure City's shift in power) he might have hired armed guards, took more safety precautions, or not even have come at all. Any of these precautions could have saved his life. This is really Fox New's fault. :smallsmile: Mammilian quadrapeds simply are not the trustworthy news sources they once were. CNN ( Condor National News) is much more reliable. :smalltongue:

[CasESenSITItiVE]

but at least now there won't be anyone else left claiming belkar isn't evil or something

[Protagonist]

I haven't bothered to read through the whole thread, but, I love Belkar.

Obviously, a real-life person with his personality would be terrifying, but in fiction? He's just so much fun!

Evil in the real world is bad. Evil when carried out by one fictional character on another or others, though, is cathartic, gripping, and, in Belkar's case(and many others), highly entertaining.

[Paragon Badger]

What Vorpal Tribble said.

And...

Belkar only remains in the story because the characters need him for one reason or another. (Or he needs them.)

No one in the comic has ever acted out-of-character in regards to Belkar.

Roy - Feels obligated to keep Belkar in line... which he has done, to some extent. Roy's misguided and knaive here- he just can't bring himself to murder Belkar, which is probably what needs to be done.

Durkon - Durkon seems to be the type to keep himself 'conveinently ignorant'. Essentially, Durkon agrees with Roy's philosophy out of sheer trust in his human friend's judgement.

Vaarsuivius - Would kill Belkar if he feared no reprisal from the Order (mainly Roy) more out of personal spite than any moral reason.

Haley(Pre-Breakup) & Elan - Ignorant of his true nature, via Roy's latently absent influence.

Miko - Didn't know the true extent of his evil for awhile, but went on a smiting frenzy when she did.

Haley(post break-up) & Celia- Can't keep him in line. Can't stop him either.

[skywalker]

I would say Belkar has been THE favorite OOTS character up until today. So I am actually happy to see some change of heart due to this comic. Let me explain.
I always enjoyed Belkar because I have a thing for two-weapon fighting.



This society is too interested in violence. I'm referring mainly to the USA since I'm familiar with it here, but it pretty clearly extends to all of the "1st world" countries. Our entertainment is really horrific these days, filled with murders, rapes, all sorts of nastiness. And Belkar has been a favorite character even though he is clearly vile, thus proving this point. Even the comic itself demonstrated his evil potential with the little chart some time back, yet readers still made him the favorite, esp revelling in his sexy, shoeless god of war scene.
But those were evil hobgoblins.



I almost wonder if the Giant has been trying to outdo himself on Belkar's nastiness, perhaps in response to his own reduction of the character's evil with the MoJ. I think he did the same thing for awhile with Xykon and his mindless wasting of resources. (hobgoblins) If correct, I'd say Rich has reached Everest's pinnacle.
Completely agreed.

As for the people who say that bar fights are fist fights, you clearly get your understanding of bar fights from TV and movies. If you actually start a fight in a bar, you should expect to be knifed, and, in today's world, being shot is a very pertinent risk. Seriously, bar fights are some of the most lethal fights there are.

The greatest "bar fighter" I knew lived by the principle: "Knife them before they knife you."

[monty]

but at least now there won't be anyone else left claiming belkar isn't evil or something

Good one. People realizing Belkar is evil? That's funny.

[doliest]

After this comic, Belkar has become my FAVORITE character.
Seriously before this, V, elan, & Xykon have been in his way, but this comic was just to funny NOT to elivate the belkester to the top.

I'm not going to try to force people to change their opinions, but seriously what is so bad about what belkar did? He killed a merchant.....yeah see I'm not seeing the offensiveness of this, they needed a donkey, they didn't have a donkey, now they do. Not to mention belkar does evil, HE IS EVIL, seriously people don't get mad at the belkster for doind what he does.

[Tredrick]

Belkar needed an undeniably evil act to make clear his alignment. He was beginning to look like the guy who thinks he's evil and cool but is not. A lot of his recent evil actions were marginal at best, as has been covered previously in this thread.

Now I would like to see some truly good acts from V, who I am thinking is not good but neutral.

[Querzis]

Now I would like to see some truly good acts from V, who I am thinking is not good but neutral.

Of course V is neutral, why would you think otherwise? I even actually saw people arguing he is evil but thats just dumb.

The real question is hes neutral what? I think hes TN but I saw lots of people do good argument for LN or CN.

[David Argall]

V is CG.
She is an elf. Default alignment is CG.
He suffers the same as the other goods in #11.
In 53, she seems to be the first to offer himself as pure of heart.

[Forealms]

To the OP, I disagree. In a logical sense, his reasoning was sound. It was also way more than likely that the gnome would have died anyway at the gate to Azure City. The hobgoblins said to Celia that she was "evil enough to pass". Do you think the gnome would have been? He probably, at the very least, had all of his supplies taken, if not captured/killed. Also, the mule would have gone to waste.

So, overall, Belkar was showing more mercy than the hobgoblins would have. I'm not condoning the action, he still killed him.



Those who have read On the Origin of PCs already know that Belkar has done worse:


When a brawl started in a tavern (usual sort of drunken fist-fight one might expect) Belkar gets out his daggers and starts stabbing. He even killed some of the barmaids!


Now THAT was pure, senseless killing for no good reason.

Technically, one of them DID throw a cleric at him.

[Lupy]

Belkar is a horrible loathsome creature (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0285.html)

Rich hates people who don't understand the BELKAR IS CHAOTIC EVIL
he is a physcopathic-kilonazi-serial killer. And ya know what? Without him the Order will never kill Xykon. They need his cruelty to get there!

I think Celia will kick his butt. Haley wont, but Celia will, I'm guessing Haley is CN with good tendencies, and V is TN.

[Paragon Badger]

V is CG.
She is an elf. Default alignment is CG.
He suffers the same as the other goods in #11.
In 53, she seems to be the first to offer himself as pure of heart.

...Character development? Vaarsuvius has made some questionable decisions since then. Plus, he has only ever leaned towards good.

Also, that strip is more representative of his/her 'straight to the point' methodology. :smalltongue:

And if we know anything about Varsuvius... it's that he/she has an ego. Pride is what makes angels fall. :P

[Spiky]

Pride is what makes angels fall. :P

Not in D&D. You have to DO something.

[feltex]

Not in D&D. You have to DO something.

Along those lines, would anyone care to enumerate, in bullet points if possible, Belkar's evil deeds (prior to Solt). And by deeds, I don't mean or thoughts or words, I mean actions done with evil intent.

[ABB]

It's not. It's SPOLIERED. Not sure what that means.


It means I had a frakking neck injury years ago that left me with frakking occasional stiffness, numbness and tingling in my fingers, especially if I've been sitting a while, which can make it frakking hard to type just right sometimes.

[archon_huskie]

Now there is something clearly wrong with this comic. Belkar is acting completely out of character. His alignment has been established over the course of the comic many times. As a Lawful Good character he should not be killing random NPCs.

I fully expect the Gawds to issue an alignment penalty against him.

[ChaoticEvilGuy]

YOU DARE MOCK, THE SEXY SHOELESS GOD OF WAR MERE MORTAL!:furious:

[RealMad]

The statement, "I finally hate Belkar" says one thing to me and that is the people who are complaining want to like Belkar.

Thing is, I think people fell in with the idea that Belkar was some tough-acting "good guy in disguise". I think The Giant made it clear from the beginning that he was not that.

So here we are, faced with a witty, humorous, decisive and ultimately valuable character who has no morals or conscience.

Personally, I like the fact that Giant is pushing the envelope with regard to Belkar. Would be too cliche if Belkar acted like the "Tough Good Guy" but at the same time, not interesting either if he was a pure psychopath (i.e. "Haha, I love carving out intestines and using them like balls of string!").

So now, if you like Belkar you:

a) Laugh at his jokes but remain uncomfortable with his Chaotic Evil nature
b) Rationalize either "It's just a comic" or "He's CE, he's supposed to do that!"
c) are Evil-aligned yourself

To me, Giant's engineering of an underlying internal conflict for good-aligned readers who like Belkar is a brilliant device.

[LtNOWIS]

Along those lines, would anyone care to enumerate, in bullet points if possible, Belkar's evil deeds (prior to Solt). And by deeds, I don't mean or thoughts or words, I mean actions done with evil intent.

Well, thoughts and words are not nothing. Threatening to sell an attractive girl into slavery, having two devils as his conscience, is all legitimate evidence. He has been acknowledged as evil by Rich, and pretty much everyone else. But anyways, the list:


(In Order of the PCs) Killing a lot of tavern-goers for fun. (Highlight to read)
Also, Killing the guard when he broke out of jail.
Desecrating a Kobold's corpse (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0069.html). Not necessarily evil, but contrary to mainstream non-evil values.
Killing goblins who had surrendered (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0115.html). They are an evil race, but it's still bad form.
Trying to kill a teammate for XP (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0124.html). It's a pretty lighthearted moment, but it was cited by Rich as an example of Belkar's evil.
Killing 3 barbarians when he didn't need to (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0133.html). It was a legitimate fight, so it might not be evil. Take it or leave it.
Trying to kill a lawyer (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0230.html). Non-evil people don't kill people for issuing restraining orders.
Killing a guard. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0261.html) and desecrating his corpse (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0265.html). Most people would agree that being arrested for something a crime you technically didn't commit does not give you the right to kill innocent guards. He's still not (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0295.html) off the hook for that.
Trying to get a paladin to fall out of spite (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0286.html). Paladins are by definition the forces of good, so trying to undermine their organization is arguably evil. (Doing that may have ended up dooming Azure City by depriving them of their best warrior, but that's besides the point.)
Desecrating another kobold corpse (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0358.html). Like I said, not necessarily evil.


That's all I can think of at the moment.

[Paragon Badger]

Along those lines, would anyone care to enumerate, in bullet points if possible, Belkar's evil deeds (prior to Solt). And by deeds, I don't mean or thoughts or words, I mean actions done with evil intent.

From the Giant himself. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=559967&postcount=4)

[Kish]

but at least now there won't be anyone else left claiming belkar isn't evil or something



Techincally, someone who delights in slaughter could be called Neutral rather than evil, because they're just slaughtering people to further their own means (i.e. fun with killing). They probably kill good and evil alike.
It appears that not everyone agrees with your analysis.

[Nevar K'calb]

All right, having pretty much read over most of the posts on this thread, I thought I'd throw in my two "copper pieces" now.

First, about the statement that this is a Web Comic parody of D&D, and then the counter-argument that the story is sometimes deep and very enthralling, which gives it a whole new level of depth, and cancels out the former statement. I cannot completely disagree with the latter statement, for personally the Strips where you really find out the true reason for Haley's greed obsession, or when Roy gets to play with his little brother again who died at an early age really hit me in a tender spot. They gave me pause, and my respect for this Comic's story grew considerably due to those arcs, amongst the many others I haven't referenced. However, despite how good the story may be, it is STILL A COMIC. In essence, a good story makes a funny Comic better, it doesn't make it NOT a Comic.

So, while the reader shouldn't forget the true depth of the story, they also cannot forget that they are reading a parody, a Web Comic designed to originally make you laugh at the flaws and confusion found in a game we all love and enjoy. I think The Giant does a wonderful job balancing BOTH aspects -- Comedy and Depth.

Honestly, Belkar killing this gnome didn't surprise me all too much, and I found it amusing. Do I think this one joke at the expense of a named NPC's life will bring the utter ruin to the Order? No. I'm not going to take this one incident that seriously, nor am I having a crisis of faith in The Giant's writing capabilities.

And, also, not to derail the whole thread, but I love hearing people say "Evil Hobgoblin" and "Good Gnome Merchant". Both are stereotypes, the kind constantly made into jokes within this Comic. That's not to say that those Gate Guards weren't evil, or the nice Gnome wasn't good, it's just to bring about the basis of my point. Has anyone but me really read Redcloak's dialogue sometimes, especially when he's fighting the Paladins? Just to loosely reference a few, every time one of the "Good Guys" makes their cliche offhand threats or comments on how "Evil" Redcloak is, he always retorts with something like, "Consider this repayment for the hundreds of goblin villages you burned," or, "This is for killing my mentor, who last wore this cloak!"

Lets look at it this way. Remove Redcloak's Race for a second, and recount what we know about him. His mentor was murdered, and countless numbers of his people were killed, and their villages burned. If we didn't know he was a Goblin, I wonder how many of you would be sympathetic with his cause? Sometimes people are driven evil, they're not naturally born that way.

So, my point... yes, I really did have one... is this. You call foul on Belkar killing this Gnome, yet ignore the countless Goblins he's killed? I know, most don't think in those terms, and others will just laugh at the mere idea of it. But, I thought it was an interesting angle to the conversation.

But, really... Hobgoblins all have to be Evil... I mean, they don't LOOK like us, don't ACT like us, and WORSHIP a different GOD! I mean, if that ain't evil, I don't know what is! /end sarcasm

Now, there's realism for ya.

P.S. I guess I kinda contradicted my first statement with my second by taking that whole issue too seriously myself, but sometimes comedy is a tool to criticize society without being proverbially hanged for it. Some people will laugh, and some people will take in the greater meaning. Though, I think I did decently by maintaining the "balance" of my post. :smallwink:

P.P.S. And for those of you who haven't read The Giant's article on Villian Creation, you really owe it to yourselves to do so, it's good, and might open your minds a bit.

[skywalker]

It means I had a frakking neck injury years ago that left me with frakking occasional stiffness, numbness and tingling in my fingers, especially if I've been sitting a while, which can make it frakking hard to type just right sometimes.

Dude(or dudette, dunno, no gender in your user infobox).

There's an edit button right there. You can use it to edit the title too. No reason to get all bent out of shape about it.

As far as Vaarsuvius goes, I tend to think of her as neutral, no specific lawful or chaotic tendencies, although I will admit I am only a n00b when it comes to alignment lawyering.

[Querzis]

*gives an internet and a cookie to Nevar K'calb*

Thread over, someone won.

But by the way, many people are actually sympathetic with Redcloak cause, including me. I just dont agree with his methods. I would really like it if we eventually saw a good or neutral aligned monster who has the same cause as Redcloak but doesnt kill lots of people just because the gods favour their race. I mean its not the humans fault if the gods are bastard.

[Child Conscript]

In reality, I'd kill him myself.

But he's an enjoyable character, and this comic has 539 entries, and, no offense to anyone, a few are not going to be funny.

If you liked it, fine.
If you didn't, fine.

Just try not to impose your view on other people.

Totally agree, i can take expressing yourself but i HATE it when people force their ideas on other people, if you don't like these words of wisdom take it up with the Giant he'll be sure to have a few choice words just for you

[quiet1mi]

i find it funny that a dead gnome merchant was the straw that broke the camel's back... I mean if anything he is preforming a mercy killing... Belkar kills gnome instantly bam! -10 hp... the hobgoblins are more likely going to capture the poor merchant, torture him and raise him from the dead to serve as an undead slave from now to eternity

[Nowell]

Am I the only one who finds it funny that this has turned into 3 pages of people arguing about the moral standpoint of a comic character? I mean..who hasn't played (or wanted to play) the character in a campaign that just does what he wants, regardless of the rules? I mean..c'mon we've all offed our fair share of random npc's for one reason or another. Why is everyone getting bent out of shape over the actions of a character in a web comic (granted, I read it as if it were the bible, but still). It's all in good fun. Just simmer down :)

[Alex Warlorn]

Belkar killed several innocent people before he was reined in by the Order of the Stick....

What now?

What now?

All that time of not being able to kill... of being with team mates who were willing to die for him... and he wasn't able to learn a thing.

[Winterwind]

So, my point... yes, I really did have one... is this. You call foul on Belkar killing this Gnome, yet ignore the countless Goblins he's killed? I know, most don't think in those terms, and others will just laugh at the mere idea of it. But, I thought it was an interesting angle to the conversation.Actually, no, I don't ignore the Goblins. I was actually rather disgusted by how casually Haley, who is supposedly Good, was talking about killing other sentients. In this case, she had a good reason for wanting them dead (aggressive invasors who killed many innocents themselves), but I found the utter lack of respect for their life - or deaths - to be quite repulsive.


Am I the only one who finds it funny that this has turned into 3 pages of people arguing about the moral standpoint of a comic character? I mean..who hasn't played (or wanted to play) the character in a campaign that just does what he wants, regardless of the rules?I haven't.


I mean..c'mon we've all offed our fair share of random npc's for one reason or another. I have characters I played through many, many adventures who never killed a single sentient being (and not for lack of opposition of that kind, either), and would be shocked at the thought of doing so. None of my characters take death so lightly as to not be very wary to whom they hand it out.

I do not intend to say this is a better, more roleplay-y or moral way to play, but please do not assume everyone goes into combat so lightly as seems to be common in some groups.

[Kish]

I would really like it if we eventually saw a good or neutral aligned monster who has the same cause as Redcloak but doesnt kill lots of people just because the gods favour their race.
SoD spoiler.

Redcloak's brother?

[olthar]

The merchant said it himself. " I suppose that's what I get for getting all my information from Fox news." Think about it. Had he chose a more reliable news source ( assuming this source knew of Azure City's shift in power) he might have hired armed guards, took more safety precautions, or not even have come at all. Any of these precautions could have saved his life. This is really Fox New's fault. Mammilian quadrapeds simply are not the trustworthy news sources they once were. CNN ( Condor National News) is much more reliable.
I think everyone is missing one important point...

the gnome watches fox news and is evil.

therefore Belkar was committing a good act by killing him, he was probably going to give whatever was in his cart to the goblins anyway.

I'd count this as
belkar
evil: too many to count
good: 1

its the road to redemption, one fox news watcher at a time

[feltex]

Thanks Lt and Badger. So often we Belkar trying to do something "evil" but not quite succeeding. So, looking at these lists:

From the Giant:

• 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
I don't remember these. Did Belkar actually commit these crimes, or did he attempt to commit them? Links?

• Trying to kill an ally strictly to level up
I don't do 3.5, but isn't there moral difference between trying to "kill' and trying to "defeat"

• Killing three barbarians when he only needed to defeat (not kill) one of them
He killed them in armed combat, debatable.

• Professing a desire to go back and kill his family and childhood friends in their sleep
Words, just words.

• Throwing daggers at Roy just for fun
Just fun and games. No one lost an eye.


From Lt:

• Desecrating a Kobold's corpse
Fashion challenged and gross, but not evil

• Killing goblins who had surrendered.
Debatable.

[I]• Trying to kill a lawyer
Lawyer jokes aside, it's not certain Belkar was trying to kill him, anyway he didn't.

• Killing a guard. and desecrating his corpse.
Debatable. While trying to escape, his armed and armored captor dies?

• Trying to get a paladin to fall out of spite.
Hmmm. Without wanting to get into an ethical digression, I would say no.

• Desecrating another kobold corpse.
As above, no.

What I'm trying to do with this, is decide for myself where Belkars alignment is.

Bad acts IMHO so far:

• Organ selling
• Engaging in slavery
• Throat slitting of the helpless
• Killing barbarians
• Killing his captor
• Killing Solt

The first three I don't remember, so I take them on faith, but would appreciate some links. Also, I welcome other examples of Belkar's evilness. Of the last three, only Solt (based on what we know now) seems irrefutably evil.

[Forealms]

• Harvesting someone's kidneys who was no threat and had a Good alignment. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0101.html)
• Selling an attractive young woman into slavery (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0171.html)
• Slitting the throats of helpless people (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0072.html)

• Trying to kill an ally strictly to level up (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0124.html)
I don't do 3.5, but isn't there moral difference between trying to "kill' and trying to "defeat"

• Killing three barbarians when he only needed to defeat (not kill) one of them (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0133.html)
He killed them in armed combat, debatable.

• Professing a desire to go back and kill his family and childhood friends in their sleep (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0125.html)
Words, just words.

• Throwing daggers at Roy just for fun (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0085.html)
Just fun and games. No one lost an eye.


From Lt:

• Desecrating a Kobold's corpse (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0063.html)
Fashion challenged and gross, but not evil

• Killing goblins who had surrendered. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0115.html)
Debatable.

• Trying to kill a lawyer (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0230.html)
Lawyer jokes aside, it's not certain Belkar was trying to kill him, anyway he didn't.

• Killing a guard. and desecrating his corpse. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0265.html)
Debatable. While trying to escape, his armed and armored captor dies?

• Trying to get a paladin to fall out of spite. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0286.html)
Hmmm. Without wanting to get into an ethical digression, I would say no.

• Desecrating another kobold corpse. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0358.html)
As above, no.

I'm linking them all due to boredom. And it's a handy reference.

[feltex]

Thanks forealms.

So those first three acts were never carried out.

That leaves Belkar with three bad deeds so far:
Killing Barbarians, killing his captors, and killing Solt.
Any more? I don't know if its is appropriate to discuss anything from the Origin of PC's, was there something there too?

[Orzel]

Solt death is Roy's fault

Why

Roy had a MoJ that kept Belkar from his greatest joy: Killing living beings.

By dying and getting Belkar stuck in a city, he kept B from his happiness.

Now Belkar had weeks of Murder Backup and killed the first breathing non-ally. Which he did.

But 1 hobbo aint jack to Belkar. He hasn't hear death screams in weeks. Poor Solt walked in the wrong time.

Answer me this:

If someone put a curse on you that banned you from using the internet* within a city limit then someone else took you to a cabin in the wood with a notebook and a broadband connection* after weeks of no internet... WHAT WOULD YOU DO.

(*Substitute the internet with your favorite thing ... drinking, pie, sexy ladies... if the internet means little to you)

Shame on you Roy!

[factotum]

Thanks forealms.

So those first three acts were never carried out.

That leaves Belkar with three bad deeds so far:
Killing Barbarians, killing his captors, and killing Solt.
Any more? I don't know if its is appropriate to discuss anything from the Origin of PC's, was there something there too?

I find it odd that you think acts which Belkar said he'd do somehow don't count to his being evil. Wanting to kill helpless prisoners is an evil desire, and even if he was not able to carry it out, it doesn't affect that. Similarly, just because the dagger he threw at Roy didn't actually kill him doesn't stop the act itself being evil--or do you believe torture isn't evil because the person it's inflicted on never actually dies? The guard, well, you COULD make a case for Belkar being justified in killing him, but how you can justify him carving up the corpse in order to paint a message in blood on the walls is beyond me.

As for On the Origin of PCs, there are a couple of good ones:


Belkar is in prison when we first see him, and the conversation he has with the guard indicates that he's there because he started killing people when a normal bar-room brawl (e.g. fist fight) broke out in the tavern he was drinking in. Belkar considers he should be given credit for at least leaving the bartender and most of the barmaids alive.

Secondly, after he escapes from said prison, instead of just leaving town immediately he goes back inside specifically to kill the guard who was talking to him earlier. There is absolutely no justification for this; he does not need to kill the guard in order to escape, as he did with the one in Azure City.

[Jetrauben]

Solt death is Roy's fault

Why

Roy had a MoJ that kept Belkar from his greatest joy: Killing living beings.

By dying and getting Belkar stuck in a city, he kept B from his happiness.

Now Belkar had weeks of Murder Backup and killed the first breathing non-ally. Which he did.

But 1 hobbo aint jack to Belkar. He hasn't hear death screams in weeks. Poor Solt walked in the wrong time.

Answer me this:

If someone put a curse on you that banned you from using the internet* within a city limit then someone else took you to a cabin in the wood with a notebook and a broadband connection* after weeks of no internet... WHAT WOULD YOU DO.

(*Substitute the internet with your favorite thing ... drinking, pie, sexy ladies... if the internet means little to you)

Shame on you Roy!

Yes.

Because murder and internet access is entirely on the same level!

Personally, I agree with previous posters. Let the sick little bastard burn. Belkar is the flattest character in the party, only occasionally funny, and generally quite irritating. His toleration is beginning to wear VERY thin, and this has been commented upon in-comic, for crying out loud!

You can be a source of humor and black comedy without being a completely uncontrollable murder-machine.

[Winterwind]

What just occurs to me is that Rich probably did this strip with more than just the intent of making a joke on expense of unfortunate Solt - he has probably a narrative reason for this as well. Now, it might be to change the attitudes between Celia, Haley and Belkar, but I just had another idea...

We know Roy promised Belkar to activate the Mark of Justice if he ever got out of line. Well, he just did. Also, Roy is in need of a way to communicate with Haley and Celia - he attempted to, and they did not even notice.

Well. What about showing them that he is, indeed, watching what they do, and hereby maybe encouraging them to find a way to communicate with him themselves, by making Belkar explode? :smallamused:

[Orzel]

Yes.

Because murder and internet access is entirely on the same level!


I know people who might kill if you took away their internet access.

Belkar's got an addiction.
He needs his murderhol.
Don't kick the addict.

[feltex]

I will try to be more clear. I am just trying to compile a list of Belkar's successful evil deeds. And if I may put a further criteria, deeds that occured "on camera". Success/failure is pretty black and white, what gets tricky is the line between neutrality and evil. I am not trying to define that line, just trying to get list of things that are unquestionably way over the line.

The killing of Solt has created a lot of discussion. This latest strip seems to be a departure from the depictions of Belkar to date, in that we now see Belkar actually killing a seemingly innocent, unarmed and un-threatening civilian. I am just trying to get handle on how much of a departure this depiction is.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

I will try to be more clear. I am just trying to compile a list of Belkar's successful evil deeds. And if I may put a further criteria, deeds that occured "on camera". Success/failure is pretty black and white, what gets tricky is the line between neutrality and evil. I am not trying to define that line, just trying to get list of things that are unquestionably way over the line.

The killing of Solt has created a lot of discussion. This latest strip seems to be a departure from the depictions of Belkar to date, in that we now see Belkar actually killing a seemingly innocent, unarmed and un-threatening civilian. I am just trying to get handle on how much of a departure this depiction is.Belkar's not an idiot. Until now, most of his in-panel time has been spent in the presence of 2 lawful good characters who will kill him to protect innocents, or with a MoJ on his arm. He's been forced to restrict his activities to protect himself, even to the point of performing a quasi-good act. Now that the restrictions are gone, we can see him in all of his stabbity glory. Everything he threatened, he would have done if he could get it past Roy. He even tries to persuade Haley to let him sell the girl, which goes far beyond "threatening". Neutral is selfish, evil is sadist. This is just the first irrefutable evidence we've been shown that people can't find some way to justify. "Draco in Leather Pants" is unfortunately common here. Belkar is not departing from character, he's in-character for the first time.

[feltex]

Belkar is not departing from character, he's in-character for the first time.

Please not that I am trying to avoid yet another discussion of Belkar's character alignment. I am trying to stick to the facts, or rather what we as readers see (and don't have to infer) first hand in the strip. Perhaps I should have started a new thread: Has the Giant ever depicted Belkar in this way before? Please give specific examples.

[Alex Warlorn]

Once read a story on-line I won't get into, but it basically said, "It would be like punishing the scropion for being poisonous or the shark for being hungry. But even a shark can be trained!" Belkar has all the emotional endearments to others of an animal. It's time to start treating the control of him like one.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Please not that I am trying to avoid yet another discussion of Belkar's character alignment. I am trying to stick to the facts, or rather what we as readers see (and don't have to infer) first hand in the strip. Perhaps I should have started a new thread: Has the Giant ever depicted Belkar in this way before? Please give specific examples.Support (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html) for the idea that Belkar has been restricted from his usual evilness by the presence of Roy.

[Om]

The killing of Solt has created a lot of discussion. This latest strip seems to be a departure from the depictions of Belkar to date, in that we now see Belkar actually killing a seemingly innocent, unarmed and un-threatening civilian. I am just trying to get handle on how much of a departure this depiction is.Frankly I suspect that this latest blatant crime is, aside from genuine narrative purposes, intended to silence those fans who continue to insist that Belkar is really not all that bad.

As for a departure from norm, in the above links you have two examples where Belkar set out to slit the throats of captive prisoners only to be restrained by other members of the party. The difference this time is that this restraint is lacking


Belkar's not an idiotNo, he is. This strip proves it (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0520.html)

[busterswd]

After reading through this thread, the level of astonishment at the gnome's death somewhat surprises me.

I for one just read the comic and took it like this:

Celia represents real world ethics, killing is never condonable. Admirable but unrealistic in the context of D&D.
Haley represents D&D ethics, killing evil things is ok in the context of a fantasy adventure based around combat.
Belkar represents his typical role as a homicidal sociopath who commits evil acts for either amusement or boredom.

I don't know where to start, really. How can anyone defend murdering a guard then drawing a mural to taunt Miko IN HIS ENTRAILS as something that is not evil? Regardless of whether you're fighting with someone or not there's a certain level of decency that Belkar has pretty much failed to exhibit.

Belkar likes killing and does it for pleasure, and the fact that he's been picking evil targets over good/neutral ones or civilians is more a matter of a coincedence of the enemies his party is facing than anything else. The gnome dying was not really a shock to me at all.

[Kelson]

I honestly don't see how this is a departure from the norm. The beings running the good aligned planes considered kicking out Roy for associating with him and people think that THIS comic was necessary to prove he was evil? After reading The Giant's description of Miko in the introduction to No Cure For The Paladin Blues, I came to the (attmitedly unproven) belief that she was a counterpart to Belkar. That is to say, Belkar is The Giant's view of how a CE character shouldn't be played. I find his recent actions to be in keeping with that perspective. He was and remains a two-dimensional sociopathic killer. A Fatalite in a game of D&D.

[Kelson]

I honestly don't see how this is a departure from the norm. The beings running the good aligned planes considered kicking out Roy for associating with him and people think that THIS comic was necessary to prove he was evil? After reading The Giant's description of Miko in the introduction to No Cure For The Paladin Blues, I came to the (attmitedly unproven) belief that she was a counterpart to Belkar. That is to say, Belkar is The Giant's view of how a CE character shouldn't be played. I find his recent actions to be in keeping with that perspective. He was and remains a two-dimensional sociopathic killer. A Fatalite in a game of D&D.

[turkishproverb]

After reading through this thread, the level of astonishment at the gnome's death somewhat surprises me.

I for one just read the comic and took it like this:

Celia represents real world ethics, killing is never condonable. Admirable but unrealistic in the context of D&D.
Haley represents D&D ethics, killing evil things is ok in the context of a fantasy adventure based around combat.
Belkar represents his typical role as a homicidal sociopath who commits evil acts for either amusement or boredom.

I don't know where to start, really. How can anyone defend murdering a guard then drawing a mural to taunt Miko IN HIS ENTRAILS as something that is not evil? Regardless of whether you're fighting with someone or not there's a certain level of decency that Belkar has pretty much failed to exhibit.

Belkar likes killing and does it for pleasure, and the fact that he's been picking evil targets over good/neutral ones or civilians is more a matter of a coincedence of the enemies his party is facing than anything else. The gnome dying was not really a shock to me at all.

That assumes pacifism is the "correct" real world ethics.

More accurate would be to say Celia represents the more pacifistic, unrealistic point of view, or perhaps a normal persons.

Haley's represents the battle hardened vets poitn of view, less moral concerns when its a potential enemy

Belkar is the psychopath.

[Syraider]

this is cool xD

[Ceaon]

Up till now belkar hasn't done anything I couldn't let pass, (...)


(...) The 3 barbarians he killed, well he was told he had to fight them and no one said it WASN'T to the death... (...)

Killing people just because you weren't told you shouldn't is a very evil act in my eyes. That's why I can see the humor of 'Belkar unchecked' in the most recent comic.

It seems Haley is experiencing the same as some of the forum visitors.
"Oh my Gods - Belkar is evil!"

[Runa]

I would say Belkar has been THE favorite OOTS character up until today. So I am actually happy to see some change of heart due to this comic. Let me explain.

This society is too interested in violence. I'm referring mainly to the USA since I'm familiar with it here, but it pretty clearly extends to all of the "1st world" countries. Our entertainment is really horrific these days, filled with murders, rapes, all sorts of nastiness. And Belkar has been a favorite character even though he is clearly vile, thus proving this point. Even the comic itself demonstrated his evil potential with the little chart some time back, yet readers still made him the favorite, esp revelling in his sexy, shoeless god of war scene.


"This" society?

Dude, have you read much mythology?

Epic of Gilgamesh: Gilgamesh and Enkidu kill a giant (that is doing nothing more than guarding the forest like he's supposed to) just because they're bored. They're also friends in the first place because Enkidu was supposed to "bring him in line". Didn't work. They brawled in the streets for a whole week. Neither beat the other, so they ended up best buds. And then went giant-killing. They also are stupid enough to piss off Ishtar, and when the gods send the Bull of Heaven to teach them a lesson, they kill that, too.

Hercules: Kills his own wife and children at one point, simply because (if I recall correctly) Hera was PO'd that he even existed.

Hera and Zeus: she does horrible things to some of Zeus' feminine conquests, including turning Io into a cow and setting horseflies on her for eternity. Did I mention that many of said conquests were rape victims? Heck, sometimes the other gods helped Zeus kidnap and rape these women, as was the case with the rape of Europa. Oh, by the way, the reason Hera takes things out on the mortal women is she's not powerful enough to take it out on him - he strings her up very painfully at one point just to prove this. Did I mention she's his sister? Soap operas have nothing on Greek myth...

Roman myth: the foundation myth for Rome includes fratricide between twins literally raised by a she-wolf. Oh, and not to mention the legendary story of how the early Roman men solved their little "we don't have any women" problem... by kidnapping and raping another group's women.

Ah, who could forget the Odyssey and Iliad? Ten years of warfare because a couple of goddesses got angry at Paris for not thinking they were as pretty as Aphrodite. As a result, one pretty girl gets kidnapped and the whole Mediterranian starts assaulting Troy. And even after countless atrocities on both sides, the Trojan Horse ensures an entire city that had nothing to do with the original kidnapping, is really and truly slaughtered, raped and pillaged. Oh, and even after Odysseus gets home, the first thing he does is join up with his young son and kill all of his wife's new suitors in a complete bloodbath. This is after he's stabbed the Cyclops in the eye, and many other narrow escapes that involved him killing things. He's the only member of his crew that makes it back alive. All the others die horribly violent or gruesome deaths.

And going somewhat less far back, to something still used as a religious text for over 2,000 years, we have some lovely tales from the Torah (Old Testament), which are pretty... well suffice it to say that people who haven't read it in detail are often quite surprised at the level of rape and violence. The New Testament I'm not as familiar with, sadly (I'll read it someday, but I never seem to get around to it...) but even I know Jesus went out in a pretty nasty way, rez or no rez, OUCH.

And then there's Robin Hood, and goodness, just look at Red Riding Hood, with the Big Bad Wolf eating people alive, then getting cut open (and in some variants, then having his stomach sewn together with rocks and tossed into the river to drown), or the Billy Goats Gruff, or the Three Little Pigs having their houses consistently assaulted, or the Three Blind Mice with their tails cut off by that farmer's wife with a carving knife, or the way Hansel and Gretel escaped from the witch (by stuffing her in her own oven to be burned alive) not to mention Sleeping Beauty wasn't exactly kissed in the original version of the story... instead she woke up because she was, ahem, giving birth. You can probably fill in the blanks as to what her Prince Charming actually did to her...

I take it I need not go on, right? :smalltongue: Violence has been a part of our nature, and thus our stories, since probably longer than any history could possibly record. It's actually refreshing nowadays to see depictions of violence being of concern to parents in some cultures. But you should always remember that stories will often be gruesome today, simply because they often were yesterday. The only difference is the gruesome ones are no longer aimed at children so much. :smallamused:

-Runa

[Brickwall]

Perhaps he would have seemed less evil if he had been singing silly songs while doing it? http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0383.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0385.html

[busterswd]

That assumes pacifism is the "correct" real world ethics.

More accurate would be to say Celia represents the more pacifistic, unrealistic point of view, or perhaps a normal persons.

Haley's represents the battle hardened vets poitn of view, less moral concerns when its a potential enemy

Belkar is the psychopath.


Alright, let me rephrase that:

Killing should never be the first consideration or an easily accepted outcome in real world ethics. Pacifism is unrealistic, sure, but at the same time Haley's view isn't exactly in touch with reality either.

[chrono]

Up till now belkar hasn't done anything I couldn't let pass, and I even liked him for the way he cared for mr. scruffy, being a cat person myself.

But when he murdered the completely innocent peddler just to steal his mule, that's it.

AFAIC, Belkar can get skewered on a gobllins halberd and would have it coming.

Correction. He murdered a completely innocent peddler for the fun of it. The mule, the candy and the pointy hat were all side benefits.

What actually surprised me here was that Belkar realizes Haley sees him as a horrid little bastard. I was halfway expecting an answer like "Horrid little bastard? But am I not jolly?"

I'm pretty sure that a lot of the people who hate Belkar have never really played DnD much and can't see the fun/irony in the character. Hell, almost all the people I've played with made a character like him at one point.

Going through a mental checklist of what I've seen in actual games, I'd get something like this:
Slitting the throats of tied orcs? Check.
Killing bystanders for pocket money? Check.
Killing anybody who disagrees with you? Check.
Killing anybody who objects because you killed the person from the last check item? Check.

I halfway understand people who hate Miko (which personally I think wasn't ever made to be likable), but Belkar was totally meant to have a fan club. In fact, I can think of at least 3 comics which would not be half as fun to me without their unique homicidal maniac (namely Belkar, Richard, Black Mage).

(Disclaimer: mentioning Miko does not have to start a flame war. The fleeting reference was needed because there aren't many other characters in the OOTS that people hate).

[Alex Warlorn]

Perhaps because it's not a variation from the norm that people are upset.
Belkar has proven that on TOP of having no morals and no being able to comprehend them, he's unable to learn NOT to kill, after having gone cold turkey for months wasn't enough for him to learn there's a time and place for his warpped fun and games, and that time is not any time and that place is not anyplace.

While some of the characters have remains stationary, Belkar is just plain frozen.

They need his fighting skills? Baleful Polymoph him into a badger and use some control animal spells to keep him in line.

[Jube]

They need his fighting skills? Baleful Polymoph him into a badger and use some control animal spells to keep him in line.

And who should be casting this spell exactly?

[pendell]

After reading through this thread, the level of astonishment at the gnome's death somewhat surprises me.

I for one just read the comic and took it like this:

Celia represents real world ethics, killing is never condonable. Admirable but unrealistic in the context of D&D.
Haley represents D&D ethics, killing evil things is ok in the context of a fantasy adventure based around combat.
Belkar represents his typical role as a homicidal sociopath who commits evil acts for either amusement or boredom.



I'm going to disagree.


Celia represents peacetime ethics and morals, where killing is something that Just Isn't Done.

Haley represents wartime morals, where killing is a necessary evil and sometimes must be done. Think Legolas and Gimli at Helm's Deep having an orc-slaying competitions (which Gimli won, 42 to 41), but who otherwise are reasonably peaceful people (although Gimli nearly kills Eomer for mouthing off about the Lady Galadriel).

Belkar represents all too many D&D groups, where all NPCs are simply walking XP fodder and treasure containers. If you read KODT, Belkar would fit in just fine with the Untouchable Trio, who as a rule maintain an LG alignment, despite killing just about everyone they come across. Primarily because their GM is a wuss.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Surfing HalfOrc]

I'm thinking this is the beginning of the end for Belkar, and Rich doesn't want the Belkster shuffling off this mortal coil with people still thinking he was "just misunderstood."

Lets face it, we ALL have evil thoughts now and again. People we just don't like who we wish were dead, be they relatives, political figures, employers or employees, or co-workers. It's how we vent those thoughts that determine our own alignments... I had a boss several years back whom I UTTERLY DETESTED!!! But since he was a LT(O-3), and I was an E-6, I couldn't exactly do anything to him... BUT! Stone Cold Steve Austin and Mr. McMahon were employee/employer, and I vicariously beat the living hell out of my jerk of a boss by watching Stone Cold and Mr. McMahon's feud. :smallbiggrin:

Belkar has threatened to do a lot of evil things, but until today has never done anything to anyone who couldn't (to a lesser or greater degree) defend themselves.

The kidney harvest? Never happened. Evil thought, not evil ACTION.
Samantha sold to Slavery? Never happened. See above.
Slitting throats? Again never happened, and Vaarsuvius was in favor of that strategy for a moment after the fight with Nale, Sabine and Thog.

Killing a rat just for experience points? The rat was a pest, as in "pestilence/disease spreading vermin," not someone's pet hamster. None of us get XP (that we know of) for killing mice, rats, mosquitoes, etc, but we often do, especially if we live where these pests are common.

The barbarian fight? Look at it from the other point of view... What if it HAD been a duel to the death, and Belkar had pulled his punches? Belkar would be dead. If you saw Conan the Barbarian, you know the barbarian pit fights in that movie were to the death, not to first blood or knockout or three rounds/point system.

Killing Elan? Never happened, just a threat to keep things lively. Besides, it's been shown that Vaarsuvius was only partially correct, and Belkar has three basic emotions, Lust, Hate and Amused. Elan falls under Amused, so Belkar won't kill him, unless the killing proves to be more amusing than Elan's normal state.

As for the rest, the prison guard, Yik-Yik and Yok-Yok were armed and prepared for a fight to the death, as was Miko. And the guard knew he was guarding a known dangerous prisoner, and should have taken more precautions.



This now brings us to Solk's death... The first death Belkar caused that can't be justified in any way, shape, or form. For those that read Start of Darkness, you know Xykon really is Evil, with a capital E, while Redcloak is lower case e evil. Belkar now has made the jump from evil to Evil. And as much as I liked evil Belkar, I can't say the same for Evil Belkar.

So when the Oracle's prophesy catches up with Belkar, don't expect me to send any flowers. :smallannoyed:

[Alex Warlorn]

And who should be casting this spell exactly?


Mage in the next town they come across, Belkar can't kill the entire town all at once.

[Shalewind]

I'm pretty sure that a lot of the people who hate Belkar have never really played DnD much and can't see the fun/irony in the character. Hell, almost all the people I've played with made a character like him at one point.

Depends on your DnD group. I can see your point and totally agree. I have played in an environment where vicious little bastards like Belkar are players.

I don’t play those types of games anymore. The games I play and run now focus on the epic and heroic, not looting and treasure (which is what I prefer). This is a personal choice, not a slam to the game style. Each to their own.

Belkar’s character is an extreme and clearly meant as a sterotype of “that player”. Some DM’s tolerate it, others don’t. But remember, Belkar’s got a multipurpose use in OOTS, he’s a source of comic inspiration (dark or otherwise) and has been for a long time. Some people hate him, others love him. I might add the same could be said of every other character.


In fact, I can think of at least 3 comics which would not be half as fun to me without their unique homicidal maniac (namely Belkar, Richard, Black Mage).

Let’s be fair… A lot more of the characters in 8-Bit are evil. :smallwink:

[chibibar]

This just proves that Belkar is CE. (like there was a doubt). It is all about what makes Belkar's life easier.

[Eric]

Along those lines, would anyone care to enumerate, in bullet points if possible, Belkar's evil deeds (prior to Solt). And by deeds, I don't mean or thoughts or words, I mean actions done with evil intent.

He *enjoys* killing.

CN kills but gains no enjoyment from it.

Heck, when he's not allowed to kill living creatures, he's going ape because he can't kill.

That isn't neutral.

[Eric]

Thanks forealms.

So those first three acts were never carried out.

That leaves Belkar with three bad deeds so far:
Killing Barbarians, killing his captors, and killing Solt.
Any more? I don't know if its is appropriate to discuss anything from the Origin of PC's, was there something there too?

Sigh.

"Do as thou wilt is the whole of the law" is what you want to see as "Neutral". Is the person who wrote that considered evil or not?

What about the nazi genocide? They were just killing subhumans in order to remove the taint they produced that caused the worlds' problems.

Kiddie Fiddlers merely want to enjoy intercourse.

Three examples showing that "doing what you want whether it hurts others or not" IS NOT NEUTRAL.

[David Argall]

You are having problems with Belkar being evil now? Despite tons of proof all thru the comic? Now I grant it can be painful to have the facts shoved into your face too hard, but this is no change in the facts. Belkar was a slime and still is. And he is still funny and very useful to the story.

[Jube]

I'm thinking this is the beginning of the end for Belkar, and Rich doesn't want the Belkster shuffling off this mortal coil with people still thinking he was "just misunderstood."

Lets face it, we ALL have evil thoughts now and again. People we just don't like who we wish were dead, be they relatives, political figures, employers or employees, or co-workers. It's how we vent those thoughts that determine our own alignments... I had a boss several years back whom I UTTERLY DETESTED!!! But since he was a LT(O-3), and I was an E-6, I couldn't exactly do anything to him... BUT! Stone Cold Steve Austin and Mr. McMahon were employee/employer, and I vicariously beat the living hell out of my jerk of a boss by watching Stone Cold and Mr. McMahon's feud. :smallbiggrin:

Having evil thoughts is one thing, but showing a clear and obvious love for killing is another.

Bloodlust is all well and good, but Belkar's clearly shown a want to kill anyone for either no reason or just for the sake of love of killing.

Hinjo for example. Wanted to kill him 'cause he had a cooler Dog. There were other reasons but something as small and silly as that was the one that drove him over. Then hell, he lamented the fact he had to not kill the Leader of their Defense as he was killing someone else.

Then the Hobgoblins? There's been no-one shown to have as much of a joy of killing as Belkar. Not even close.

See Hayley kill 20 of them? She was proud of herself and managed a glib comment but she wasn't really excited or anything.
See Belkar put in a position where he can kill at will a large number of Hobgoblins. He's practically frothing at the mouth in joy.

Hell what'd he say about his Birthday? Something about celebrating with a lot of dead Humans. He loves to kill. He loves to kill more than ANYONE in the Comic. He's so obviously and clearly Evil it's mind bogglingly awesome.



Belkar has threatened to do a lot of evil things, but until today has never done anything to anyone who couldn't (to a lesser or greater degree) defend themselves.

That's not a fair statement. Anyone can (to a greater or lesser degree) defend themselves. The Gnome could (to a lesser or greater degree) defend himself, a lv1 Character can still fight back. But like with the guards, the townspeople and the bar people he killed it was meaningless.



As for the rest, the prison guard, Yik-Yik and Yok-Yok were armed and prepared for a fight to the death, as was Miko. And the guard knew he was guarding a known dangerous prisoner, and should have taken more precautions.

And the Gnome knew the roads would be dangerous, he should have been prepared for Bandits. Doesn't make killing him any more justifiable.

And more importantly:


In the Origin of the PCs where he was in jail and got out. He had no reason to kill the guard when he was out, the Guard HAD BEEN NICE TO HIM. Ridiculously so. The Guard was a very sympathetic character.

Belkar could easily have avoided him but he didn't He killed him.
Slowly.
And loved every second of it.




This now brings us to Solk's death... The first death Belkar caused that can't be justified in any way, shape, or form. For those that read Start of Darkness, you know Xykon really is Evil, with a capital E, while Redcloak is lower case e evil. Belkar now has made the jump from evil to Evil. And as much as I liked evil Belkar, I can't say the same for Evil Belkar.

So when the Oracle's prophesy catches up with Belkar, don't expect me to send any flowers. :smallannoyed:

Belkar's been shown as Evil with a capital E for a long time now. Anyone who's been writing off the fact he constantly talks about killing or how much he wants to kill or how sad he is that he's not currently killing... Well, lets just say I wasn't suprised at all with the Gnome killing.

I found it perfectly in character and rather amusing <.<

As for the rest everyone goes down sooner or later, I think if Belkar bites it covered in the blood of his enemies(Or friends <.<) and holding the still beating heart of his last Victim he'll be happy enough.

[Jube]

Mage in the next town they come across, Belkar can't kill the entire town all at once.

They'll just stumble upon a Mage powerfull enough to cast a spell like that on Belkar?

Seems more likely they'd end up with a dead Mage. And lose all this combat prowess in the meantime.

[Alex Warlorn]

They'll just stumble upon a Mage powerfull enough to cast a spell like that on Belkar?

Seems more likely they'd end up with a dead Mage. And lose all this combat prowess in the meantime.

I believe the "None Existent Dungeon Master" will place a solution to put a proper collar around Belkar's neck if he threatens to derail the campaign too badly with his random murder.

[Kane]

One... Everyone who's so upset with his killing wants to kill him themselves. :smallconfused:

Two...OF COURSE HE'S EVIL! Why on Earth do you think he held up the lead sheet to block Miko's detect alignment?

I admit, this killing is particularly random, wanton, and horrible. Were this not a comic, I'd hate him, and feel very sorry for the poor Gnome. Still do feel sorry for him, but the only hurt I'm feeling is because I have a kitten clawing my foot. (No, it's not Mr. Scruffy.)

Quite frankly, anyone who can't enjoy a Belkar being an evil ******* ought to go play a good match of Unreal Tournament against some friends. Yes, he's evil, yes, particularly evil in this instance, but it still ought to be something you can laugh about, not because it's okay, but because that was the intent, and no harm was intended.


Finally... about a few people who mentioned Karmic Retribution by the Great GM in the Sky,.... Remember that Mark of Justice thingy? Could be he's just triggered it. Who knows?

PS: Anyone who can enjoy some decent arbitrary violence, This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcbazH6aE2g) is funny, and better yet, to the tune of something from a Disney movie. (The little mermaid, I've heard.)

[Lunaya]

One... Everyone who's so upset with his killing wants to kill him themselves. :smallconfused:

Two...OF COURSE HE'S EVIL! Why on Earth do you think he held up the lead sheet to block Miko's detect alignment?

I admit, this killing is particularly random, wanton, and horrible. Were this not a comic, I'd hate him, and feel very sorry for the poor Gnome. Still do feel sorry for him, but the only hurt I'm feeling is because I have a kitten clawing my foot. (No, it's not Mr. Scruffy.)

Quite frankly, anyone who can't enjoy a Belkar being an evil ******* ought to go play a good match of Unreal Tournament against some friends. Yes, he's evil, yes, particularly evil in this instance, but it still ought to be something you can laugh about, not because it's okay, but because that was the intent, and no harm was intended.


Finally... about a few people who mentioned Karmic Retribution by the Great GM in the Sky,.... Remember that Mark of Justice thingy? Could be he's just triggered it. Who knows?

PS: Anyone who can enjoy some decent arbitrary violence, This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcbazH6aE2g) is funny, and better yet, to the tune of something from a Disney movie. (The little mermaid, I've heard.)
Yes! Thank you on all points!

Belkar is an evil, maniacal little @%#$ and I love him anyway. Yes, he killed an innocent, but guess what? It's not real! The whole reason I read webcomics and other fantasy literature is to enjoy the fantasy world. I don't let real-life concerns prevent me from enjoying the comic.

[inthesto]

Just reading through this topic really makes me wonder: Out of the percentage of people who "hate" Belkar's character, how many of them are D&D (or any tabletop RPG, I suppose) players?

I've been playing the game for only two and a half years now, but it's flatteningly obvious that Belkar is a parody (or perhaps an accurate representation) of "that guy" we've all gamed with in the past. You know, the guy who:

1. Is unoptimized to the point of actually hindering everyone else. Give me a break - a small TWF ranger who dumps a stat which therefore dumps an entire class feature? Multiclassing into barbarian which does roughly squat for anything? Have we ever seen Belkar do anything particularly impressive, really? All I can think of is finishing off a retreating chimera and killing a boatload of way-under-CR humanoids.

2. Doesn't know jack about the rules. Burlew constantly points this out by Belkar's ignorance to the fact that he gets an animal companion (which has only recently been remedied with a housecat). He also doesn't realize what the hell tracking is (much less that it's a ranger class feature), and doesn't grasp spell components. The other characters reminding him how things work just makes it obvious that he's the new player at the table.

3. Uses the fantasy world to vent real-world frustrations. Now, whether this annoys or amuses the other players at the table is really up to the mood of the game, but we've all had to deal with the player who's constantly asking if he can just stab some random guy or steal from random people, intentionally ignorant of the consequences.

What I'm getting at here is that everyone who talks about how they'd lock up Belkar or how he's an awful awful person is completely forgetting an entire dimension of the comic. Yes, it's a wonderful plot woven together masterfully, but at the same time it's parodying and lampshading a lot of things D&D players are trained to take for granted. In fact, the past three or four strips have been entirely about the fact that to anyone with a modern sense of morality, the difference between Belkar and Haley is minute.

People just seem to be forgetting that - despite the fact that a giant chunk of the jokes in OotS depend on it - there's an implied meta-narrative where there's a group of actual people living in our world, sitting around a table with pencils, paper, and dice all out.

[Avilan the Grey]

1. Is unoptimized to the point of actually hindering everyone else. Give me a break - a small TWF ranger who dumps a stat which therefore dumps an entire class feature? Multiclassing into barbarian which does roughly squat for anything? Have we ever seen Belkar do anything particularly impressive, really? All I can think of is finishing off a retreating chimera and killing a boatload of way-under-CR humanoids.

Funny, I totally disagree with this, and this is why:

Belkar is played by the guy who has only played CRPGs. He (Belkar) is not in any way suboptimized for say Neverwinter Nights 2. I love that game, and I love playing Rangers in it, and I always dump WIS and CHA (although maybe not all the way down to minimum), because in a D&D CRPG the ability for Rangers to cast spells is utterly pointless. It's much better to put those points in DEX and STR, and maybe CON if you have some left over.
And we have not seen an on-screen level up for a long time. Hopefully Belkar took at least 2 levels in Barbarian, to get uncanny dodge. (Another skill (well Feat, really) that is really good in NWN2 since you are in combat all the time). For all we know he might have decided to level only in Barb from now on?

Add to this the fact that he was a 3.0E Ranger from the start and that the choice of daggers was a very logical one for a hafling ranger at the time. It is his "non existant GM" that didn't let him change them for short swords when they upgraded to 3.5E; that is not Belkar's fault.

...Oh and I think we have seen the Belkster do a lot of impressive things. Retreating? The Chimera wasn't retreating, AFAIR. He held his own against a pissed off Paladin / Monk. Etc etc.

[Khanderas]

I was not suprised.
Frankly I was more suprised to see that the latest thing he did would cause anyone to realise what a psycho Belkar is. Because he is noted in the afterlife as an almost unprecidented evil (the chart with kilonazis, remember?) and you dont get kind of notoriety from just stomping on ants or goblinoids / undead (killing those is a good act accoring to the Gods in OOTS).

Belkar is EVIL, you should know that by now :smallwink:

[Level20Commoner]

Just reading through this topic really makes me wonder: Out of the percentage of people who "hate" Belkar's character, how many of them are D&D (or any tabletop RPG, I suppose) players?

I've been playing the game for only two and a half years now, but it's flatteningly obvious that Belkar is a parody (or perhaps an accurate representation) of "that guy" we've all gamed with in the past. You know, the guy who:

1. Is unoptimized to the point of actually hindering everyone else. Give me a break - a small TWF ranger who dumps a stat which therefore dumps an entire class feature? Multiclassing into barbarian which does roughly squat for anything? Have we ever seen Belkar do anything particularly impressive, really? All I can think of is finishing off a retreating chimera and killing a boatload of way-under-CR humanoids.

2. Doesn't know jack about the rules. Burlew constantly points this out by Belkar's ignorance to the fact that he gets an animal companion (which has only recently been remedied with a housecat). He also doesn't realize what the hell tracking is (much less that it's a ranger class feature), and doesn't grasp spell components. The other characters reminding him how things work just makes it obvious that he's the new player at the table.

3. Uses the fantasy world to vent real-world frustrations. Now, whether this annoys or amuses the other players at the table is really up to the mood of the game, but we've all had to deal with the player who's constantly asking if he can just stab some random guy or steal from random people, intentionally ignorant of the consequences.

What I'm getting at here is that everyone who talks about how they'd lock up Belkar or how he's an awful awful person is completely forgetting an entire dimension of the comic. Yes, it's a wonderful plot woven together masterfully, but at the same time it's parodying and lampshading a lot of things D&D players are trained to take for granted. In fact, the past three or four strips have been entirely about the fact that to anyone with a modern sense of morality, the difference between Belkar and Haley is minute.

People just seem to be forgetting that - despite the fact that a giant chunk of the jokes in OotS depend on it - there's an implied meta-narrative where there's a group of actual people living in our world, sitting around a table with pencils, paper, and dice all out.

Insightful, and brief, an excellent post good sir.

One thing I would like to add to the discussion that I feel has not been touched on enough is the ethical linkages between intent and action. Many posters have claimed that while Belkar has constantly expressed an interest in, or perhaps a desire to, inflict serious damage on people, pets, and (occasionally) property, he has ultimately failed to either act on or fully complete his stated desires, and should therefore not be considered to be an evil person. What I feel these posters have missed in their analysis is the presence of a consistent pattern of behavior which any logical mind could conclude is a powder keg of violence and death ready to explode at any moment (and that moment is now).
While it is certainly true that actions carry far more weight than thoughts or even words, one should not dismiss their implications so lightly. While there are persons who lie at every given opportunity and often for no conceivable convenience or gain (the so-called pathological liars), I think this kind of trait in a character would be difficult to realistically write and impossible for a reader to tolerate for very long and I therefore discard it as a possible justification/motive. With the absurd removed, I would suggest that it is plain that Belkar, if he were a real person and not merely the marionette of an unsophisticated gamer is utterly incorrigible and sadistically depraved.

[Laurentio]

But when he murdered the completely innocent peddler just to steal his mule, that's it.

Correction. He murdered a completely innocent peddler for the fun of it. The mule, the candy and the pointy hat were all side benefits.
Correction. He murdered a etc etc just to piss Haley, the actual authority. Note the sequence:
First panel: Belkar is making fun on the hob's dead, and he is quite cheerful.
following panel: Haley argument that the hob killing is not bad. Belkar became slightly upsetted, and kill a total stranger at the first occasion (but AFTER he gave all information they need)
You know the little brat that will break your most precious oriental vase because he searches the negative attention (as opposite to "no attention")?
Haley killed the gnome on a missed "Reverse psychology" check. Not that she hasn't some rank in it... (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0129.html)

Blame red-head!

Laurentio

[Eric]

But by the way, many people are actually sympathetic with Redcloak cause, including me. I just dont agree with his methods.

Nah, Redcloak lost it for me in SoD. In the web comics he's somewhat sympathetic because he's willing to risk himself more than others (in absolute contrast to Xykon). But maybe it's his conscience pricking him.


When Xykon explains what Evil with a capital E is all about and calls RC the Bitch while he's the Butch was spot on. He'd killed his brother just so that he wouldn't have to admit that teaming up with Xykon was a mistake.

Spot on Butch.

[Eric]

I will try to be more clear. I am just trying to compile a list of Belkar's successful evil deeds.

So Until Xykon met up with Redcloak, Xykon was Good? After all, it was obvious from the Start of Darkness that he'd been spectacularly unsuccessful in his Evil Schemes.

Or is it intent to do evil that defines it?

[LongVin]

Jeez. He just killed a gnome, it's not like he killed an important creature. Everyone kills gnomes, it's just the thing to do. They are the unloved player race, that's why they are no longer a starting race in 4E. People would much rather slaughter them.

[DuckAndCower]

I usually don't go anywhere near the forums, and when I do, I normally just lurk. This comic, coupled with some of the responses in this thread, bothered me so much, though, that I felt compelled to register and post.

First, the "it's just a parody" or "it's just a comic" posts are completely irrelevant. Either you view Burlew's work as literature, in which case the actions of its characters can affect you emotionally, or you don't, in which case basically any discussion will elicit a response of "who cares, it's just a webcomic," in which case I don't understand why you're posting in the first place.

There is also the puzzling view that, since Belkar is "evil", it should not bother anyone when he commits a heinous, sickening act like the murder of the traveling salesman. I honestly cannot begin to understand the logic behind this line of reasoning.

I've really disliked Belkar for some time now (I believe it began with him wearing the kobold's head and using it as a nacho tray). What really, really bothers me, though, is that all these so-called "good" characters put up with, and even facilitate, Belkar's sociopathic atrocities. By doing so, I don't see how a single one of these people can be considered "good" at all, and I'd be tempted to classify them as evil. This is especially true of Haley, who acts annoyed that someone would even be bothered by the murder. Throwing away Belkar's candy bar as punishment? Really? I can possibly see Celia not doing anything about it, what with her pacifist leanings, but I'm having a hard time understanding why Haley doesn't do anything about the little bastard. Nevermind the guilt- how could you sleep at night knowing that little monster is only a few feet away from your defenseless body?

In any case, I really can't see the other so-called good party members putting up with Belkar for another second. I really hope they bring this issue to some resolution after they are reunited.

As for Belkar as a parody of a certain type of D&D player, I think OotS stopped being a straight D&D parody quite some time ago, and I think Burlew has even said something along those lines in the past. His value to the comic as entertainment seems to have worn out, as now his random acts of violence, through years of repetition, have ceased to be comical to all but the most bloodthirsty of readers, and instead are just disturbing.

[Jube]

I believe the "None Existent Dungeon Master" will place a solution to put a proper collar around Belkar's neck if he threatens to derail the campaign too badly with his random murder.

You mean something like a Mark Of Justice?

Something that'll mean Belkar can only do this kind'a stuff when Roy's not around? something ridiculously unlikely to be removed (As much as that makes me sad, I'd like to see poor Belkar catch a break D=)?

[Shalewind]

First, the "it's just a parody" or "it's just a comic" posts are completely irrelevant. Either you view Burlew's work as literature, in which case the actions of its characters can affect you emotionally, or you don't, in which case basically any discussion will elicit a response of "who cares, it's just a webcomic," in which case I don't understand why you're posting in the first place.

I agree 100%. But this doesn’t mean certain meta-story elements can’t remain purely for the sake of gags or gotchas.

That being said, I didn’t find the gnome’s murder particularly funny. It was the first wake up call to his evil alignment in a while. But if you truly stand by Mr. Burlew and his work, then have faith that his plan for Belkar with play out in due time and will add no little amount of literary value to the plotline.


What really, really bothers me, though, is that all these so-called "good" characters put up with, and even facilitate, Belkar's sociopathic atrocities. By doing so, I don't see how a single one of these people can be considered "good" at all, and I'd be tempted to classify them as evil. This is especially true of Haley, who acts annoyed that someone would even be bothered by the murder. Throwing away Belkar's candy bar as punishment? Really? I can possibly see Celia not doing anything about it, what with her pacifist leanings, but I'm having a hard time understanding why Haley doesn't do anything about the little bastard. Nevermind the guilt- how could you sleep at night knowing that little monster is only a few feet away from your defenseless body?

Here I disagree. Haley knows the stakes and they are at war. Haley hates Belkar, yet she is very worried that she won’t survive to save the world unless she takes him with her. I think it is to Mr. Burlew’s great credit that he explores such tough concepts in his parody. I know viewpoints on good and evil, action and intent, right and wrong, are all mainstays of my own games. Haley is a good character (in both senses) and must make tough choices in a world that is very much NOT black and white alignment.

[Quorothorn]

Mage in the next town they come across, Belkar can't kill the entire town all at once.

Why exactly do you assume that there's someone who can cast Baleful Polymorph "in the next town they come across"? Also, why would you assume that such a mage would be available to cast said spell easily and immediately? Why do so many people assume that you can just toss off spells to solve any and all problems? Well, I know why, but it's still...an annoying assumption.

Also, the save-type vs Baleful Polymorph (for the initial shape-change itself that is) is FORT, which means Belkar can just resist it (he has at least a +11 base FORT save, after all), then one-stab-kill the idiot who cast it on him.

[DuckAndCower]

Here I disagree. Haley knows the stakes and they are at war. Haley hates Belkar, yet she is very worried that she won’t survive to save the world unless she takes him with her. I think it is to Mr. Burlew’s great credit that he explores such tough concepts in his parody. I know viewpoints on good and evil, action and intent, right and wrong, are all mainstays of my own games. Haley is a good character (in both senses) and must make tough choices in a world that is very much NOT black and white alignment.

I see your point. I guess here I'm just disagreeing with Haley's judgment in that I don't think any benefits Belkar brings to her little group outweigh his the danger he poses to his companions (he has come very close to turning on them a number of times, and very well may do so in the future). However, I do see how having a character make such a potentially unwise (and controversial) decision makes the writing far more interesting, and OotS's fallible characters help set it above many webcomics. I guess I really just hate Belkar enough that my judgement is compromised.

Also, I think it's interesting that this world (essentially, D&D) is "very much NOT black and white alignment". My least favorite aspect of D&D is its rigid, unrealistic alignment system, so I guess I really do like that the comic is toying with that concept and pushing it to its limit.

Anyway, thanks for the input. I still want Belkar to suffer terribly, but at least now I'll try not to let my dislike of this one character overshadow the rest of the comic. I'll try to trust Burlew to navigate this one as skillfully as he has other such troublesome areas.

[Jube]

I don't think any benefits Belkar brings to her little group outweigh his the danger he poses to his companions (he has come very close to turning on them a number of times, and very well may do so in the future).

Soon as Roy's back Belkars danger and freedom to kill are both heavily restricted. With a MoJ command Belkar can't even begin to really turn on his comrades.

He's very manageable.

[Alex Warlorn]

Also, I think it's interesting that this world (essentially, D&D) is "very much NOT black and white alignment". My least favorite aspect of D&D is its rigid, unrealistic alignment system, so I guess I really do like that the comic is toying with that concept and pushing it to its limit.



This is FANTASY! Black and white morality is what makes it FANTASY.

[Lycanthromancer]

Belkar, by all rights, shouldn't want Roy back. He can do whatever he pleases, because it's obvious that Haley doesn't have the keyword to the mark of justice, and he can do things that he otherwise wouldn't.

Roy (and the MoJ when he's inside city limits) is the only thing keeping him from going monkey-poo on any- and everybody he comes across.

So, expect the double-cross to come when they're getting Roy resurrected.

...Because it IS coming. And soon.

Dun dun DUNNNNNN.

[Jetrauben]

This is FANTASY! Black and white morality is what makes it FANTASY.

Absolutely and blatantly untrue. What makes fantasy fantasy is a fantastical and often supernatural-rich environment. In most cases black-and-white morality is unrealistic in a fashion that does not contribute to quality and indeed often diminishes it.

Also: the problem with people saying "well, when roy gets back Belkar will be unable to kill freely again!" is simple: that doesn't punish him in any meaningful way. Belkar deserves far worse than simply having his favorite pastime taken from him- that kind of punishment is merited by talking back to one's parents when young or other such minor transgressions.

Belkar is a sociopathic mass murderer of good men, women, and possibly children. Furthermore, as this example just proved, any rationalization of it as "we're pointing him in Evil's direction" or "we're controlling him" is completely absurd. Belkar is not under control and possibly never will be. In fact, he actively continues to long for wreaking genuine havoc on as wide a scale and upon as many innocents as possible. The time has long since come and gone, then come and gone again for any sort of redemption- you don't risk the welfare of good people for one sick freak's blackened soul when he's showing no signs of interest in it.

Where is the justice here? Sure, the OoTS aren't paladins, but they are Good characters, and this means more than just personally being decent folks. It means you actively will take actions to improve the world around you, as much as you're able. You can talk all about the Greater Good until your face turns blue, and in many situations it's correct. But Belkar is no longer serving the Greater Good- if he ever did- and is actively proving to be a threat to everyone around him. The party has a moral obligation to bring him to justice- not just stop him from killing any more, but punish him, severely, for what evils he has already committed.

Obviously, right now Haley can't do that, or is unwilling to risk her own safety to attempt it. I don't think too much worse of her for that, but her jaded attitude to Belkar's sick nature is beginning to become worrisome. At best, I hope she is concealing her real feelings from Belkar so that she can begin to formulate a plan against him.

The "Aww, isn't he an adorable/awesome psychopath!" gag got old a long time ago. It's time to bring Belkar's fate to him.

[Jube]

Belkar is a sociopathic mass murderer of good men, women, and possibly children. F

And of Evil Men, Evil Women and Evil Children. Is it only bad to kill good guys?



Furthermore, as this example just proved, any rationalization of it as "we're pointing him in Evil's direction" or "we're controlling him" is completely absurd. Belkar is not under control and possibly never will be. In fact, he actively continues to long for wreaking genuine havoc on as wide a scale and upon as many innocents as possible. The time has long since come and gone, then come and gone again for any sort of redemption- you don't risk the welfare of good people for one sick freak's blackened soul when he's showing no signs of interest in it.

What about risking the welfare of people for the sake of endangering them less?

Put him in Jail? He escapes and is free to kill at will.
Keep him in the party under Roys control? He does some evil but very little compared to what he would do solo.
Kill him? When? Just come back and kill him randomly? Killing a comrade without provocation is hardly the motive of a Good person.



Where is the justice here? Sure, the OoTS aren't paladins, but they are Good characters, and this means more than just personally being decent folks. It means you actively will take actions to improve the world around you, as much as you're able. You can talk all about the Greater Good until your face turns blue, and in many situations it's correct. But Belkar is no longer serving the Greater Good- if he ever did- and is actively proving to be a threat to everyone around him. The party has a moral obligation to bring him to justice- not just stop him from killing any more, but punish him, severely, for what evils he has already committed.

Why do the party have a Moral Obligation to punish him?

They're doing good work just by keeping him in their party, by controlling him. As the agents of the heavens said he'd be commiting far far more evils if he wasn't under Roys command.

So, they're not judges, they're not jury, they're not executioners. They're not even being hired to keep him under control. They're simply taking on a potential burden and trying to harness it to their own ends.

Where does the Moral Obligation to "punish" evil become part of being good? Isn't it just as amoral to kill an Evil person as to kill a good person?



The "Aww, isn't he an adorable/awesome psychopath!" gag got old a long time ago. It's time to bring Belkar's fate to him.

I disagree. I found the Gnome killing comic hillarious. I was literally laughing out loud when I finished it, one'a his best works so far /shrug.

But then that's just as subjective as your statement.

[cheesecake]

I have always enjoyed Belkar as a character. He does crazy things, he doesn't think before he acts, and kills anything/one he can. Reminds me of that newer D&D player that you have at your table.

I personally think of Belkar as my favorite character. I've always like 2WF and Rangers. So that makes me happy! And I always play my characters on the Evil Side. Not mindless killing evil, but I have nothing against killing someone to get what I need. I guess a controled evil if you will.

DM: As you walk down the mountain trail leaving the city you see a lone gnome merchant coming towards you.
Stupid: You said Lone right? Whats his AC
DM: What why?
Stupid: I just tried to stab him
DM: *sigh* He is dead....

[Paragon Badger]

Who wants to bet Belkar, AND ONLY BELKAR, saves all of existence... perhaps (unwittingly) sacrificially?

I do.

That'll shut you all up. :smallamused:

[Lunaya]

Actually, I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility. One way or another, I think that we're being set up to see some future character development from Belkar.

[Alfryd]

....you don't risk the welfare of good people for one sick freak's blackened soul when he's showing no signs of interest in it.
Quite so.

Put him in Jail? He escapes and is free to kill at will.
Gee... so I presume Nale, Sabine, and Thog should all be added to the Order's retinue then- y'know, for the sake of the greater good. No?

Then I assume they were promptly executed, in order to safeguard the innocents they would doubtless butcher left to their own devices? No?

Keep him in the party under Roys control? He does some evil but very little compared to what he would do solo.
Trigger the Mark of Juuuustice...

Kill him? When? Just come back and kill him randomly? Killing a comrade without provocation is hardly the motive of a Good person.
There is such a thing as greater or lesser Evil- and frankly, I am by no stretch convinced killing Belkar could possibly be considered morally wrong, however you might want go about it.

They're doing good work just by keeping him in their party, by controlling him. As the agents of the heavens said he'd be commiting far far more evils if he wasn't under Roys command.
THEY'RE NOT CONTROLLING HIM! And he's committing far more Evil acts than he would do if he were dead. Celia, at least, has an excuse here- she's genuinely pacifist- but the Order lop off heads left right and centre without particular regard for fair warning or 'honourable' conduct all as part of their quest to rid the world of a terrible evil. Overlooking the atrocities of an evil that, while operating on a limited scale for now, is in it's own small way just as terrible, is nothing short of gross hypocrisy on their behalf.

Where does the Moral Obligation to "punish" evil become part of being good? Isn't it just as amoral to kill an Evil person as to kill a good person?
The issue isn't really 'punishment'- there is approximately zero chance that Belkar's behaviour is correctable in that sense- but the prevention of further pointless deaths at Belkar's hands -not to mention serving the party's own best interests. "I'm willing to accept the possibility of needless deaths in my vicinity as part of fulfilling my plan for the Greater Good(tm)" is logic appropriate to Redcloak, not Roy Greenhilt and Co.

[Niesra]

(first, i wanna say that belkar is one of my favorite characters and that he contributes a lot to the story and the humour)
Now...it's OBVIOUS that NOBODY would like a murdering psycopath. In that sense, this threat may be long overdue. I mean...in almost any scenario Belkar's character isn't plausible. In a real-life like situation, you couldn't tag along with him cause he'd kill you. BUT, this is (or at least i think it is) a PARODY about a FICTIONAL WORLD. I know this doesn't justify Belkar's actions, but it makes him plausible as a character and "likable/bearable" because his character contributes with the humour as the exact oposite of the jolly quiet halfling.
Of course, if you start analyzing him seriously or with real-life logistics, the best place for him is the afterlife, a cell from which he can't break out of or under the effects of the mark of justice. But i think the comic (and the story) wouln't be half as enjoyable if the characters weren't the way they are, and hadn't acted the way they have (including Belkar). Also, if you consider that killing is always evil, then EVERYONE in the order (and many others in the comic) are evil. The difference is they had a valid reason to do so. Like kill or be killed, or like NOT taking pleassure in the kill(though V showed pleassure, i think..., in unleashing his/her magic upon a chimera early in the comic) But in the first part of the comic (in dorukan's dungeon) they killed a lot of goblins without HAVING TO kill them just to earn some more XP. Sure, they were a potencial threat, but still, it should be considered evil. (i mean, many goblins there HAD families, or at least kids, and i think they were even showed as regular employees once) Again, this is all part of the PARODY, so...
Finally, i'd like to say: i understand those comments of people about belkar NEVER being a "good" character (though i think the story would't be as fun if he weren't around); but, honestly, his actions were totally in keeping with his character, and i don't understand why it wansn't such a big deal when he, say, killed a hogoblin who was just doing his job the strip before this one. Of course the hogoblin was the enemy, of course they're in times of war (or post'war) but that shouldn't justify it. If it were the other way around (like when Xycon killed whe guards in the watchtower to get in) it'd be evil and stuff. I think people are being too quick to pass judgement based on what LOOKS evil and what doesn't. My point is, you CAN'T take everyone's actions that seriously if you haven't considered the scenario. In that sense, i actually like Belkar in this comic and story, and i think the story is better with him in it.

[LtNOWIS]

Killing a comrade without provocation is hardly the motive of a Good person.

Executing a murderer for their crimes is not inconsistent with Good.



Why do the party have a Moral Obligation to punish him?

Because he's a member of the party. Like the deva said, he committed evil acts while working under Roy, on Roy's personal mission. Currently, Haley is the team leader in Roy's absence, and by continuing to keep him around, she tacitly supports his evil acts.



Where does the Moral Obligation to "punish" evil become part of being good? Isn't it just as amoral to kill an Evil person as to kill a good person?

No, it really isn't.

Lawful Good is all about punishing evildoers, in part because it prevents or deters them from further evil acts in the future. Killing Belkar wouldn't merely be justice for a dead gnome, who arguably doesn't need it. It would save the lives of the people he's going to kill in the future.

That said, I can see cutting a whole lot of slack for him when you're against an evil lich who's out to destroy the world. Killing all those hobgoblins also gets him points.

[Talya]

Up till now belkar hasn't done anything I couldn't let pass, and I even liked him for the way he cared for mr. scruffy, being a cat person myself.

But when he murdered the completely innocent peddler just to steal his mule, that's it.

AFAIC, Belkar can get skewered on a gobllins halberd and would have it coming.

I like Belkar more the more dastardly-bastardly he gets.

Not that I wouldn't applaud the little monster getting flattened, either, but damn he's funny.

[Jube]

Gee... so I presume Nale, Sabine, and Thog should all be added to the Order's retinue then- y'know, for the sake of the greater good. No?

Then I assume they were promptly executed, in order to safeguard the innocents they would doubtless butcher left to their own devices? No?

And look what happens?

The Linear Guild's murdered more people than anyone else in the strip (Unless you count Xykon + Goblins). Obviously it wouldn't be possible to put them all under Roy's control so the options come down to Jail and killing.

And as you so rightly point out Jail doesn't do squat.

The difference is rather than a whole team they can put Belkar (more or less) under Roys control.

So, yes. They should be put under Roy or someone strong's supervision. No that wouldn't be possible. Yes it's working for Belkar. Other than that I don't really see how bringing up the Linear Guild changes anything?



Trigger the Mark of Juuuustice...

Exactly. If Belkar follows Roy his evilness is more or less under control. He can't do anything too bad or Roy'll set off the Mark of Justice. If Roy was alive he (most likely) wouldn't have even killed that one single Gnome everyone seems to be so worried about.



There is such a thing as greater or lesser Evil- and frankly, I am by no stretch convinced killing Belkar could possibly be considered morally wrong, however you might want go about it.

Yeah? You see no problem with killing someone in Cold Blood because they're "Evil"? That's one hell of a "Good" character motivation.

Say the party all goes back to what it was, everyone's happily walking by and so on. Then Roy just turns around and lops off Belkars head, everyone'd throw a fit. Regardless of whether or not Belkar's evil a "Good" person doesn't betray their comrade's like that.

Especially not a Lawfull Good person.



THEY'RE NOT CONTROLLING HIM! And he's committing far more Evil acts than he would do if he were dead. Celia, at least, has an excuse here- she's genuinely pacifist- but the Order lop off heads left right and centre without particular regard for fair warning or 'honourable' conduct all as part of their quest to rid the world of a terrible evil. Overlooking the atrocities of an evil that, while operating on a limited scale for now, is in it's own small way just as terrible, is nothing short of gross hypocrisy on their behalf.

Yeah? And he's doing a lot more Good acts than if he was dead too. Y'know the whole helping the OoTS save the world shtick? Being one'a their most powerfull fighters and so on?

Count how many truely evil acts Belkar did while under Roys control. Killing the guard is probably the worst and that's a bit iff'y because he knew Roy was no-where near. They're not controlling him RIGHT NOW because Hayley refuses to control him and well, couldn't even if she wanted to. When Roy's back and in control Belkar will be like before, Mostly Harmless.

As Roy says regardless of anything else he's a member of the OoTS. He's their comrade. You don't just kill your comrade's, not without a very good reason (And no "He's evil!" is not a good reason).



The issue isn't really 'punishment'- there is approximately zero chance that Belkar's behaviour is correctable in that sense- but the prevention of further pointless deaths at Belkar's hands -not to mention serving the party's own best interests. "I'm willing to accept the possibility of needless deaths in my vicinity as part of fulfilling my plan for the Greater Good(tm)" is logic appropriate to Redcloak, not Roy Greenhilt and Co.

Okay. And how many needless deaths has Belkar commited in Roys vicinity? Exactly.

Oh and getting rid of one'a your most powerful allies when your group is scattered and needing all they can get to fight the Biggest Bad... Don't really see how that's in their best interests.

[David Argall]

Gee... so I presume Nale, Sabine, and Thog should all be added to the Order's retinue then- y'know, for the sake of the greater good. No?
Thog is a possibility, but we have a discussion of the point in 399. They question their ability to guard Nale and Sabine, and fear that killing them will probably be ineffective as well.
They don't consider the idea of some Mark of Justices, but both Nale and Sabine have the ability to find someone who will remove the mark. That might be chancy, but they certainly have a serious chance of getting free again.

We might note a difference between Nale and Belkar here. Belkar is "forgiving". Not really forgiving, but being chaotic, he just tends to forget the past. So when the party says he can't kill Elan for XP, he grumbles about not being allowed to have any fun. If we told Nale the same order, he would create some elaborate plan to achieve that goal anyway. It's easy to overstate, but essentially we can give Belkar weapons and expect him to behave as long as he thinks we are watching. We can't do that with Nale. He will convince himself he can convince us to "look over there", while he stabs Elan or whoever else he is mad at. So Nale is a lot harder to control.



Then I assume they were promptly executed, in order to safeguard the innocents they would doubtless butcher left to their own devices? No?
This argument seems to argue against killing Belkar.


Trigger the Mark of Juuuustice...
The pragmatics are against it now, and once the party gets to Cliffport, it won't be necessary.


I am by no stretch convinced killing Belkar could possibly be considered morally wrong, however you might want go about it.
Well, there are ways to kill Belkar that are evil, but objections to his demise have to be based on practical reasons, not moral.


And he's committing far more Evil acts than he would do if he were dead.
We want to consider the sum total of evil. In the opinion of the party, Belkar is preventing more evil than he is causing. And that opinion is not unreasonable.


the Order lop off heads left right and centre without particular regard for fair warning or 'honourable' conduct all as part of their quest to rid the world of a terrible evil. Overlooking the atrocities of an evil that, while operating on a limited scale for now, is in it's own small way just as terrible, is nothing short of gross hypocrisy on their behalf.
The party is on the casual side in dispatching its foes, but on the obvious cases, the party has little choice. There is no place to put the prisoners that won't lead to them rapidly becoming dangerous again. Nor does there seem to be much danger they are killing the innocent.


"I'm willing to accept the possibility of needless deaths in my vicinity as part of fulfilling my plan for the Greater Good(tm)" is logic appropriate to Redcloak, not Roy Greenhilt and Co.
There are some major difference here. Redcloak is betting on a dream. We thus know there is a major chance he is wrong, and quite possibly to a major degree. [Ops. Destroyed the world.] Roy is trying to preserve the existing world, which means we are on much better grounds in estimating costs and benefits.