Why does everyone want Belkar dead?

[Mike62]

He's one of the primary, if not the most primary, sources of humour in the comic. Check out all the posts on favourite lines, most of them come from Belkar, in fact, he has his own threads for favourite moments and lines. No one posts a favourite Vaarsuvius or Durkon line thread.
So what if he is a psychopath? Its just a COMIC, people. Its meant to laugh at. If I wanted droning social and political commentary, I'd dig up old Doonesbury comcis.

Live on, Sexy Shoeless God of War.

[King of Nowhere]

Just because he dies, it doesn't mean that we are not having fun with him anymore. There is still the afterlife, you know. In fact, I'm kinda eager to see how he will do in the lower planes...

And regarding favourite lines, I think "Now can we please resume saving the world?" qualifies

[JoseB]

It is not that "everyone" wants Belkar dead... It is that his dead is a given. Belkar will die at some point of the comic. It is foretold. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0572.html)

[Woof]

Some people just don't think "funny" and "psychopath" go together, not even in a comic strip. /shrug

[Querzis]

Because he kill people left and right in a good party? Its not that I specifically have something against Belkar, he would make a good antagonist...but only as an antagonist. Before they could force Belkar to follow them and not kill everyone because Roy was there but now? Haley was right to kick him out of the party and I was really annoyed at how he always managed to escape his rightfull punishment until now so lets just say I was really happy when the Oracle activated his curse and when Haley decided not to heal him.

I dont have anything against a guy like Belkar as an antagonist (see Xykon). But as a protagonist hes just making everyone else look bad and right now, if they heal him, he'll probably backstab them (or at least, it would be really out of character if he doesnt). Belkar will die anyway, the Oracle said so.

By the way, I never found him especially funny and lots of people dont either. You can like him if you want, he can be your favorite character too but you just have to go see the favorite character thread to realize that V, Roy or Redcloak are all much more popular then him even without one-liners.

And by the way, the «its only a comic» part annoy me. If you cant really get involved in a story then you're kinda missing most of the entertainement as far as I'm concerned.

[Shatteredtower]

Just because he dies, it doesn't mean that we are not having fun with him anymore.

Are we? While I've enjoyed watching him suffer in the past, such instances never cut into his capacity for tossing off the killer quips before. Without that, his entertainment value has been considerably been diminished, even when he was doing delirium humour.

In effect, he's a different character, and not a very entertaining one right now. Elan isn't the same character we saw at the beginning, but that's because he's grown. Belkar hasn't. He isn't really designed to do so anyway --trying it just cuts off the supply of golden eggs.

[Sinewmire]

Well, he can either die, get better, or stay the same.

Getting better so soon from a major plot point (that they only even knew was affecting him in 602) would be pretty lame story telling.

Staying the same is what we're seeing now.

Dying would be interesting, because we'd see the reactions of the Stickers (remembering their reactions when they thought he'd been fatally hanged by Sam... V's "Truly, he was the best of us" line and that kind of stuff), although
of course, and I'd miss him if he died; Belkar gets the best lines, especially his one-liners.

Everyone I know who reads OoTS loves Belkar. Just because he's got less in th forums about him doesn't mean he's less popular - what's to talk about? No murky hidden secrets or plot significance for Belkar. Just good clean evil fun, and besides, anyone who has played DnD knows his type.

Why do people WANT him to die? because it's All Part Of The Plan, as The Joker puts it.


You know what I've noticed, nobody panics when things go according to plan. Even if the plan is horrifying. If tomorrow I tell the press that, like a BELKAR will get shot, or a truckload of BELKAR will be blown up, nobody panics. But when I say that one little old ROY will die, well then everyone loses their minds!"

Deliberate misquote.

[Sylphy]

Belkar represents that one player in every D&D paper dice campaign that just makes a evil character out of spite when the rest of the party is good....ish. On top of being evil they usually lack skill points that their class would normally have (ie: spot) so the rest of the party has to make up for the fact that they have a ranger/rogue/half drow half fiend cleric of Tyr who is worthless other than stabbing things. They are usually experience and treasure whores too.
So...maybe all those people who want him dead are DMs who are subconciously putting faces of 'that' player on belkars little stick drawn body. Haha! :smallbiggrin:

[HamsterOfTheGod]

He's one of the primary, if not the most primary, sources of humour in the comic. Check out all the posts on favourite lines, most of them come from Belkar, in fact, he has his own threads for favourite moments and lines. No one posts a favourite Vaarsuvius or Durkon line thread.
So what if he is a psychopath? Its just a COMIC, people. Its meant to laugh at. If I wanted droning social and political commentary, I'd dig up old Doonesbury comcis.

Live on, Sexy Shoeless God of War.

I love Belkar as a character. He does have some of the funiest lines.

But he kinda has to die to -- at least once. He's just done too much to be innocently let go. You can call it comic karma.

It's sort of like the Jean Grey/Phoenix thing.

PS. V has to get a comeuppance too.

[Shatteredtower]

He's just done too much to be innocently let go. You can call it comic karma.

Don't. Karma doesn't deserve to be so badly bastardized.

Also, I disagree with your premise. The example you give below:


It's sort of like the Jean Grey/Phoenix thing.

--was one of the worst moments of Marvel executive meddling. Chris Claremont had a far more terrible fate in mind for Jean, just but dreadfully cruel. It had the potential to be thought-provoking on several levels (the traumatic potential of sealing away telepathy, the morality of condemning a criminal to a lifetime of torture, and the strain of living with someone who's successful practiced genocide) for the equivalent of forcing the queen to dance herself to death in red-hot iron shoes.

Belkar is in no more in need of death than Punch of Punch and Judy -- and any puppeteer who tried to force justice upon him was rightly pelted out of town by his audience. He's the id, getting away with our worst impulses because the only real consequence of his actions is our entertainment. Part of that entertainment value comes in the fact that, like Archie Bunker, he gets smacked down all the time, but never learns his lesson ...well, not until Archie Bunker's Place neutered the character out of a misplaced fear that his fans saw him as a role model.

Let's be clear: Belkar is nobody's role model. Up until V revolted, the halfling had been the Odd Man Out, the character that keeps the core group from becoming the Big Happy Family that most writers would tell you are as boring to write as read.

In terms of amusement, he tended to bring out the best in Roy, V, and Haley, though it's hard to see how V's ever going to be played for laughs after what we've seen. With the wizard's departure and the ranger's neutering, though, it's hard to see how the Giant's going to avoid the Happy Family of Dullsville with the remaining cast.

[Nidhögg]

It is not that "everyone" wants Belkar dead... It is that his dead is a given. Belkar will die at some point of the comic. It is foretold. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0572.html)

Well, we know that Belkar will die within an in-comic year. It doesn't actually have to happen within the length of the comic. Provided that the entire story is resolved within an in-comic year, of course. :smallwink:

[Mr. Scaly]

I think a better question would be "why is heroic sociopathy funny at all?" Belkar, Black Mage, Richard...why do they make us laugh? The answer...because they take refuge in audacity. Because they cross the line twice. Because Evil is Cool. Lately though Belkar just hasn't been funny in his fits of murder. The gnome was probably the last straw.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

--was one of the worst moments of Marvel executive meddling.


Who said it wasn't.



Chris Claremont had a far more terrible fate in mind for Jean, just but dreadfully cruel. It had the potential to be thought-provoking on several levels (the traumatic potential of sealing away telepathy, the morality of condemning a criminal to a lifetime of torture, and the strain of living with someone who's successful practiced genocide) for the equivalent of forcing the queen to dance herself to death in red-hot iron shoes.

Yet you seem to agree that it would have been better to give Jean Gray a fate worse than death?



Belkar is in no more in need of death than Punch of Punch and Judy -- and any puppeteer who tried to force justice upon him was rightly pelted out of town by his audience.

That's the debate isn't it. The problem with your example is that Punch and Judy is strictly comedy. OotS isn't. It's striving at high drama with characters acting to "save the world" and facing "alignment" questions. The problem is, in my view, that Belkar's done some really bad things in-comic wise. Haley was already ready to leave him after he triggered the curse. He was reprieved by circumstance and the necessity of the story. But this leaves a lingering question of comic justice -- if there is such a thing and I think there is. And this was the point of my example, not that I particularly liked the storyline of Jean Grey.

If Belkar does not get "just" punishment at some point then it only undermines every other "alignment" issue in the comic. While at the same time we can laugh about Belkar's kiloNazi scale rating, we realize that Belkar is indeed evil. If funny and enjoyable were a good enough excuse for evil, then Xykon should be the first to be saved, not Belkar.



He's the id, getting away with our worst impulses because the only real consequence of his actions is our entertainment. Part of that entertainment value comes in the fact that, like Archie Bunker, he gets smacked down all the time, but never learns his lesson ...well, not until Archie Bunker's Place neutered the character out of a misplaced fear that his fans saw him as a role model.

He's already gotten his Archie Bunker smackdowns, for ex when V pulled the Explosive Runes pranks on him. But Belkar is more evil than Archie Bunker -- as measured by kiloNazis. And the "smackdown" that Haley was ready to put on Belkar for his latest crime was leaving Belkar behind to face whatever fate awaited him. Yet that was cancelled. As was the memories of why it was cancelled but not for the readers and the author. And it is that same unconscious you cite that urges a final accounting for Belkar. Plus there's the whole prophecy thing - kind of ironic isn't it?



Let's be clear: Belkar is nobody's role model. Up until V revolted, the halfling had been the Odd Man Out, the character that keeps the core group from becoming the Big Happy Family that most writers would tell you are as boring to write as read.

Belkar was the psychopath barely held in check. Belkar was the character Roy was saving by saving the world from him. Belkar is not Wolverine. Belkar is Sabretooth.



In terms of amusement, he tended to bring out the best in Roy, V, and Haley, though it's hard to see how V's ever going to be played for laughs after what we've seen.

Again I have to disagree. We are already seeing him played for laughs when he has his Charlie Brown Red Haired Girl moment in this last page (602).



With the wizard's departure and the ranger's neutering, though, it's hard to see how the Giant's going to avoid the Happy Family of Dullsville with the remaining cast.
First of all Happy Family is not dullsville. See the end of any Star Wars or Star Trek movie.

Second of all, there does not need to be any happy ending here. In fact, the prophecies omenously foretell an unhappy ending for at least some of the cast at the final end of the story arc.

[nleseul]

Well, we know that Belkar will die within an in-comic year. It doesn't actually have to happen within the length of the comic. Provided that the entire story is resolved within an in-comic year, of course. :smallwink:

You know, we really don't know that at all. What we know is that "Belkar will draw his last breath—ever—before the end of the year." And that could just mean that Belkar is going to find an iridescent spindle ioun stone somewhere this year and keep wearing it until his actual death some indefinite period later. (We do also know that Belkar "shouldn't bother funding his IRA," but that's vague enough and long term enough that it still leaves him plenty of time to live.)

Or maybe I'm just too suspicious of accepting prophecy at face value.

[Nidhögg]

You know, we really don't know that at all. What we know is that "Belkar will draw his last breath—ever—before the end of the year." And that could just mean that Belkar is going to find an iridescent spindle ioun stone somewhere this year and keep wearing it until his actual death some indefinite period later. (We do also know that Belkar "shouldn't bother funding his IRA," but that's vague enough and long term enough that it still leaves him plenty of time to live.)

Or maybe I'm just too suspicious of accepting prophecy at face value.

You are, of course, absolutely correct. The oracle didn't say that Belkar was going to die at all. :smalleek:
Curses upon all cryptic oracles! :smallmad:

[Tundar]

Everyone?

Count me out please.

I bet he's far more funny alive than dead. I get flashbacks to The Exorcist with all the vomiting :smallbiggrin:

[HamsterOfTheGod]

You know, we really don't know that at all. What we know is that "Belkar will draw his last breath—ever—before the end of the year."

The Oracle says Belkar is not long for this world. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0572.html)

The Oracle is not being cryptic but euphemistic -- though apparently he only opts to be the latter at times.

[Yoyoyo]

I think a better question would be "why is heroic sociopathy funny at all?" Belkar, Black Mage, Richard...why do they make us laugh? The answer...because they take refuge in audacity. Because they cross the line twice. Because Evil is Cool. Lately though Belkar just hasn't been funny in his fits of murder. The gnome was probably the last straw.

You know, I was all set to disagree with you, but I changed my mind. Belkar is one of my favorites (good lines, soft spot for the evil guy who gets tricked into doing good, e.g., http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0435.html), but killing the gnome was out of character for him, so to speak. Torturing kobolds and Miko is one thing, but the gnome truly was an innocent and killing him was a "hard" evil act, unlike the softer ones that we have seen previously from Belkar, like with the Oracle. That said, "No digestion without representation" is pretty funny.

[hamishspence]

Origin gives us a hint as to what Belkar was like before he joined the party. It wasn't pretty.

[The Tygre]

Everyone?

Count me out please.

I bet he's far more funny alive than dead. I get flashbacks to The Exorcist with all the vomiting :smallbiggrin:

Here here!

And those people who want Belkar dead? They're stiffs. Stop listening to them.

[Milanius]

In terms of inner moral compass and empathy Belkar is somewhere near Alex DeLarge. There was a comic of him recently when he killed a passer-by for absolutely no reason other than needing a chocolate bar and cart. Several hundred panels ago, he was a fun, homicidal and useful tool for OOTS. Now he's just homicidal and useless. I say, let him die already, he'd be better off tormenting demons.



And those people who want Belkar dead? They're stiffs. Stop listening to them.Indeed stop listening to them, since they don't care in the first place.

[Issabella]

Simply reminds me too much of disruptive players I have had in my game who are only interested in hack and slash and nothing else. So Belk's getting his punishment is a joy for me.

[ghost_warlock]

I like Belkar a lot, actually. Still, I do kind of want him to die if for no other reason than to see The Giant's personal take on this trope (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LikeABadassOutOfHell) as it applies to the Belkster. :smallbiggrin:

[Kish]

From the opening post in this thread, it looks like you're under the impression that there's a significant--indeed, near-total--overlap between "readers who find Belkar hilarious" and "readers who want Belkar dead," and that those groups furthermore comprise nearly all the readers of the comic.

I hope you aren't. It's not a very logical argument. There are people who find him hilarious, and people who want him dead and gone, and likely very little overlap between the two groups. Nor does either group, or both together, comprise the entirity of the comic's readership.

[B.I.T.T.]

Well I personally don't want to see Belkar die, nor am I going to be broken up by his eventual death. As long as it's part of a good storyline I don't care what happens.

That's me.

The reason other people who do want to see him die, obviously, feel that way because lately he's been a touch more rabid then he used to be.

p.s. Hey I just noticed, I'm not a Pixie in the Playground anymore. Cool beans!

[Linkavitch]

Three words: 1 Absolutely, 2 No, 3 Idea.

Seriously, though. Why?

[eyeofsaulot]

I love Belkar, but he doesn't seem the type who would particularly enjoy old age. Dying young in a blaze of glorious mass murder seems like how he'd want to go out, so that's what I wish for him.

[Mike62]

People who want Belkar dead and have been posting as such here are missing the point.
ITS A COMIC.
Its meant to be funny. Its meant as a reason to laugh. It is NOT heroic fantasy, the Giant even said as much, thats why its stick figures. Its not high social commentary or deep alignment issues. Its comedy. Its the comic strip of D&D. Jokes about missing spot checks. Jokes about leveling up because your lifetime foe leveled up. Jokes about a psychopathic halfling, the last type of character you would expect to be a psychopath.
Yes, there is now a story. But its not a heroic story. Its a comic quest to stop a lich who is better at stopping himself than the Order could ever be.
Would I want to meet a real Belkar in a back alley? Of course not. Would a real Belkar doing those things be funny? Of course not. But thats the whole point. HE IS NOT REAL. He is a running gag.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

People who want Belkar dead and have been posting as such here are missing the point.
ITS A COMIC.

Jeez. So it's comic. So it's a movie. So it's a TV show. It's a novel. It's a play. It's not real. So what?

If "ITS A COMIC" answers everything, why are you shouting like you are mad at real people who want a fictional character to die in a fictional world?

I am going to go on a limb here and say that you are emotionally involved despite your I'm-hipper-than-you-emo-types attitude. Oh sure, you try to hide behind, "He's one of the primary, if not the most primary, sources of humour in the comic," as if your desire for continued enjoyment of Belkar's brand of dark humor and malice was a purely intellectual exercise on your part. I'm sorry but that doesn't wash.

And if you wonder where I am coming from let me tell you, I know well and good that the comic is a comic. Like many I think Belkar is extremely funny and I enjoy when he does something "bad". Like many I also see that he has to get some sort of "just" punishment for his "badness" not because I'm not aware that he is a comic strip character but because I am aware of the comic strip he is in. OotS has, only recently, spent a large portion of strips on the very topic at hand: good, evil, redemption and punishment. The sense of "justice" I feel is not a real world sense of justice but an OotS world sense of justice. If I was reading a different comic or novel I may feel different -- it depends on the setting.

And I think that actually there is a significant, though smaller to be sure, portion of readers who feel what as I feel, they enjoy Belkar but they want to see him get his due. Some of those have posted in this thread above. How, you might ask, can one hold such obviously contradictary positions? I think I can speak for them when I say "Because ITS A COMIC!"

[Kish]

People who want Belkar dead and have been posting as such here are missing the point.
Do you realize you can't convince anyone of anything by repeated assertion?

[Warren Dew]

Let's be clear: Belkar is nobody's role model.

I think you're mistaken about a lot of the old Belkar fans - you know, the ones who argued that he was "actually" chaotic good, or something like that. Granted, there aren't a lot of those still hanging around the forums.


There are people who find him hilarious, and people who want him dead and gone, and likely very little overlap between the two groups.

I'll admit to being one of the ones in both those groups. I guess that means the original question was aimed at people like me. My answer, in addition to the points others have mentioned, is that I bet Belkar can be just as funny dying as he was alive.

I'll admit to some curiousity about how the people who don't find Belkar funny view him.

And if there really are people who find him boring but want him to stay around, I'm really curious about why they would want that.

[JaxGaret]

Lately though Belkar just hasn't been funny in his fits of murder. The gnome was probably the last straw.

I beg to differ. I thought that was hilarious.

[Lowkey]

I think a better question would be "why is heroic sociopathy funny at all?" Belkar, Black Mage, Richard...why do they make us laugh? The answer...because they take refuge in audacity. Because they cross the line twice. Because Evil is Cool. Lately though Belkar just hasn't been funny in his fits of murder. The gnome was probably the last straw.
You do realize that the "good heroes" that you don't lump in there all fully qualify as sociopaths if not psychopaths as well, right? This "it is ok if you say you are good" stuff only applies within the arbitrary D&D world and medical diagnoses are well and in the clear of that.

[Shatteredtower]

Yet you seem to agree that it would have been better to give Jean Gray a fate worse than death?

In artistic terms, yes. The decision to kill her off was based on the idea that justice had to be served. It tells the reader what must happen -- what's "right". The alternative scenario is not so cut and dry. It leaves the reader with a bunch of questions to think about, which was one of the strengths of <i>Babylon 5</i>, in which right and wrong weren't always so cut and dried. (When Kosh declared, "You are not ready for immortality," there was truth to the statement, but what right -- or obligation -- did he have to make that decision for humanity? Was Franklin wrong to save a boy by means that violated his parents beliefs? The series didn't tell you.)


The problem with your example is that Punch and Judy is strictly comedy. OotS isn't.

Yes, it is. It is more than that, but it is still as much "strictly comedy" as Punch and Judy.


The problem is, in my view, that Belkar's done some really bad things in-comic wise.

And it's enough to know that, in his universe, he'll eventually get his. I don't need to see it, because it's written into the system.


If Belkar does not get "just" punishment at some point then it only undermines every other "alignment" issue in the comic.

He's already received just punishment: he's triggered the curse by killing someone who'd specifically prepared to ensure it would happen, that it would be nothing more than a petty inconvenience to the murdered party, and that Belkar would suffer for no reason he could recall.

Poetic as it gets. The aftermath of helplessness has generally been tedious to read, however.


If funny and enjoyable were a good enough excuse for evil, then Xykon should be the first to be saved, not Belkar.

Funny you should mention that. Xykon's been saved twice -- three times, if you count the bonus strips in No Cure for the Paladin Blues.


And the "smackdown" that Haley was ready to put on Belkar for his latest crime was leaving Belkar behind to face whatever fate awaited him. Yet that was cancelled.

That one's pretty trivial compared to the real smackdown.


As was the memories of why it was cancelled but not for the readers and the author.

Or the Oracle, who hit Belkar where it hurt on so many levels.


And it is that same unconscious you cite that urges a final accounting for Belkar. Plus there's the whole prophecy thing - kind of ironic isn't it?

What irony? Irony would have the curse result in Haley's death.


Belkar is not Wolverine.

That's a relief.


First of all Happy Family is not dullsville. See the end of any Star Wars or Star Trek movie.

If you watch the entire film, you quickly find why the "Happy Family" moment is best held until the very end. The Get-Along Gang of Return of the Jedi were fairly boring to watch in comparison to the squabbling and competition displayed by the same crew in the previous two films.


Second of all, there does not need to be any happy ending here.

Hey, Belkar's already written off. No need to tie some trite, heavy handed message to it.


Now he's just homicidal and useless.

The only reason he's useless is because of the curse, which pretty much killed most of the fun in him as well.


I say, let him die already, he'd be better off tormenting demons.

If he's capable of tormenting demons, he's capable of tormenting mortals. He'd also still be capable of drawing breath, since outsiders (including petitioners) continue to breathe -- and the Oracle was pretty clear on that drawing of the last breath thing.


I love Belkar, but he doesn't seem the type who would particularly enjoy old age. Dying young in a blaze of glorious mass murder seems like how he'd want to go out, so that's what I wish for him.

Yeah, that sounds about right for him.


I think you're mistaken about a lot of the old Belkar fans - you know, the ones who argued that he was "actually" chaotic good, or something like that. Granted, there aren't a lot of those still hanging around the forums.

Hmm. I'm reluctant to agree with this, but must concede the possibility. I'd rather that wasn't the case, but am too biased to accurately judge how likely it is.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

Yes, it is. It is more than that, but it is still as much "strictly comedy" as Punch and Judy.

We'll have to disagree here. I think OotS is striving and achieving high art. (Not that I don't like Punch and Judy. I am actually a big fan. Problem is here in the US most parents are PC so I can't show Punch and Judy to my nephews...or Three Stooges, Bugs Bunny, etc.)



And it's enough to know that, in his universe, he'll eventually get his. I don't need to see it, because it's written into the system.

It does not matter to me so much that may -- or may not -- experience something bad in his fictional afterlife. I want to see Belkar's comeuppance at some point...but not to soon. And I expect when he gets his it will be both funny and poigniant.

And just to be crystal clear here. I don't want Belkar to simply disappear from the comic. I expect that Belkar dying will be at least as dramatic as Roy or Miko dying if not more. Even Therkla and Kubota's deaths had dramatic impact. They weren't just plot points. I think pulling it all the pieces together, Belkar's death, the fulfillment of the Oracle's prophecies, the story arc and various themes of the comic, into one successful whole is a pretty big challenge. But I'm sure Rich is up to the task.



He's already received just punishment: he's triggered the curse by killing someone who'd specifically prepared to ensure it would happen, that it would be nothing more than a petty inconvenience to the murdered party, and that Belkar would suffer for no reason he could recall.

The Oracle got revenge but there still the other stuff that Belkar's done like killing the gnome. We may disagree here. I feel he hasn't been punished enough.



Funny you should mention that. Xykon's been saved twice -- three times, if you count the bonus strips in No Cure for the Paladin Blues.

That because Comedy trumps Drama which trumps Probability, Law, Chaos, Good and Evil.



What irony? Irony would have the curse result in Haley's death.

I don't follow you here. The irony I was referring to is that the Belkster will die before the end of the in-comic year according to the Oracle. That is, that the Oracle himself, after triggering the Mark, says that Belkar is in for even more suffering.



If you watch the entire film, you quickly find why the "Happy Family" moment is best held until the very end. The Get-Along Gang of Return of the Jedi were fairly boring to watch in comparison to the squabbling and competition displayed by the same crew in the previous two films.

Exactly. And isn't that what Rich is doing here?



Hey, Belkar's already written off. No need to tie some trite, heavy handed message to it.

Dramatic justice is trite and heavy handed compared to what? Comedy? It's not the dramatic justice -- or comedy -- that is trite and heavy-handed but the various implementations in badly written stories. So far Rich has shown himself to be anything but trite and heavy handed with concepts such as good, evil, justice and redemption. I don't expect him to be trite and heavy-handed in the future, however the story turns out.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Because:
It has been foretold. Nothing is more annoying than waiting for somthing that will happen. The punch is gone, the shock is gone, we are now waiting for the payoff.
Humorous or not he is a colossal jerk and as such many feel he dissevered punishment.
It opens up the possibility that [insert favorite tangentially related 2nd circle character here] will join the party (note, this is not something I expect but it is something I expect a lot of people to expect.)
Bad TV and similar media that only paint in foreshadowing an episode or two in advance has ruined the media palate of some of the individuals, they expect the prophecy to come true immediately, rather like how some Doctor Who fans won't shut up about River Song turning up again in the next series of Doctor Who no matter how moronic that would be.

[Mr. Scaly]

You do realize that the "good heroes" that you don't lump in there all fully qualify as sociopaths if not psychopaths as well, right? This "it is ok if you say you are good" stuff only applies within the arbitrary D&D world and medical diagnoses are well and in the clear of that.

What 'good' heroes are you talking about? My point is that for some reason people just find psychotic lunatics funny until they take it too far, and that Belkar has taken it too far. Heck, the typical 'good' DnD hero isn't as funny because they're taken semi-seriously.

[Weiser_Cain]

Because he's worse than the main villains.

[fangthane]

Some things...
1. Evildmmk3: You'll have to refresh my memory as to just exactly when Belkar separated punishment into its component parts. Unless you meant 'deserved' but you went a long way to disseveration. :smallbiggrin:
2. The way I see it, we have not just one prophecy for Belkar but two (arguably three), and they're not necessarily as unequivocal as the kobold makes them appear. Remember, the oracle doesn't play it straight with the rubes - or at least if he does, we've never seen it.
3. I'm reminded of a rather good quote from a rather bad movie. Death should be a release, not a punishment.

Who's to say that Belkar's death is a bad thing, from his perspective? I can think of a lot of ways he could avoid drawing another breath - ever - after dying, and have even more freedom to do what he wants than he has now. Probably the simplest would be to go vampire, but as I say there are several potentially attractive options. Depending on the Oracle's specificity, reincarnation may be an option too (as opposed to resurrection)

Even if we're talking about a Big Sleep for real (and no come-backsies), he could pull a Gollum and inadvertently wind up sacrificing himself to protect the world from the Snarl, discovering himself in a universe of chaos wherein he and others are perpetually slain and reborn, but all existing outside of normal time. Those are what I came up with given 5 minutes of spare time, and I'm sure Rich has a considerable wealth of options beyond these.

Edit - Oh yeah, and put me in the camp that finds Belkar usually funny (including some of his magic fairy comments, even) and who won't mind when the end comes, as long as it suits the story.

[Ronan]

I'll just put my individual opinion, as always:

Belkar is Evil. Rich had to write this in this very forum. Because we are used to black-in-white settings. With evil guys like him with the GOOD guys it brings some complexity to the mix. I'm now ignoring that he is my favorite character, but this complexity adds texture to OoTS.

Even Roy is considered almost neutral in his sarcastic rants. Belkar tells jokes for a living. Sure... evil, gory and mean jokes. but who never laughed like "MWAHAHAHAHAAA"(evil laugh). Just because it feels nice and funny? Your soul doesn't become tainted by doing this

Agree with me? Thanks
Don't? That's ok. Just try to see things my way. Still don't?
Thanks for trying :smallwink:

[Belkarsbadside1]

Belkar is an awesome comedic relief. And once again I also agree with Its just a comic. Yes it is also a story, but I don't get so attached to a story that I can't appreciate a good laugh at another person's (or gnomes) expense.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Some things...
1. Evildmmk3: You'll have to refresh my memory as to just exactly when Belkar separated punishment into its component parts. Unless you meant 'deserved' but you went a long way to disseveration. :smallbiggrin:
Deserved. Damn word blindness!

[Lord Seth]

Black Mage DOES seem to get a lot more abuse than Belkar...though then again I'd consider Black Mage to be more evil than Belkar.

[RPGuru1331]

Black Mage DOES seem to get a lot more abuse than Belkar...though then again I'd consider Black Mage to be more evil than Belkar.

He's not more evil in intent, just more capable of carrying out that intent due to the HAdoken and whatnot. And really; Its' the world of 8BT. Killing Blackmage would alleviate his suffering.

I think people want Belkar dead because of repeated Karma Houdini-ing, and nothing more. This is probably helping a /bit/ (The illness I mean) but..

[Mr.Bookworm]

I actually want Belkar dead, simply because he's gotten old.

He's a one-dimensional character that has worn out his two jokes a long time ago. He has zero room for growth as a person and a character, like Elan. Durkon, for example, is one-dimensional, arguably, but he actually has room for character development and the ability to actually be interesting.

While all Belkar can do is kill things and hope to get a chuckle.

I think the strip could be far better served by having him dead, as it would focus humor on other characters, and other jokes beyond "kill stuff in a semi-funny manner".

[Lowkey]

What 'good' heroes are you talking about? My point is that for some reason people just find psychotic lunatics funny until they take it too far, and that Belkar has taken it too far. Heck, the typical 'good' DnD hero isn't as funny because they're taken semi-seriously.Um, all of them? Let's review the criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder), which would cover your claim of psychopathy/sociopathy.



*Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
*Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
*Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
*Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
*Reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
*Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
*Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.

Every last one of them displays those traits. Roy, Miko, Haley, Elan, V, Durkon, Hinjo, etc. I can up for multiple violations for multiple traits on that list for them. In fact, about the only characters we can't nail for some kind of sociopathy are the ones who glibly appear in the background and don't provide any info. Oddly enough, depending on which criteria you use to judge psychopathy, Belkar is "better" then the "good" guys because he is only a sociopath instead of both. The fact that he embraces his antisocial actions means that under our diagnostic criteria he lacks the strong deceitfulness that is part of being a psychopath.

If you want to start judging Belkar by modern standards to claim he is worse, you need to apply that to all of them.

[Lord_Butters_I]

Huh, apparently I have Antisocial Personality Disorder.

[Lokasenna]

Don't you need to have several of those for an extended period of time? Besides, this is OotS-world, not our world. Some morals, stereotypes, and rules of physics may not be the same as in our world.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

Let's review the criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder), which would cover your claim of psychopathy/sociopathy.

Let's not. The DSM is a tool for professionals in the field to help them make diagnosese of real people in a real world. I am not a professional in any psychological field. Maybe you are. But I would assume the making a diagnosis takes make than checking things off on a list. Even if you are a professional, what would be the point of going over the definition since these are fictional people in a heroic story?



Every last one of them displays those traits. Roy, Miko, Haley, Elan, V, Durkon, Hinjo, etc.

So these different characters all have the same disorder? And Roy has APD? The same "disorder" that Belkar has? Roy, the same character who is trying to save the world, has APD? The guy who is trying to complete his father's oath has APD? Roy, who is trying to stop Belkar from doing more evil, has APD? Roy, who was judged by the divine powers in OotS to be not just Good -- which he obviously was according to the story's divine judges -- but Lawful Good, has APD?

You may be applying the APD definition correctly but, in the process, all it is shows is that the APD definition cannot differentiate between characters in a heroic story and so is useless for literary purposes.

There is no meaningful distinction made by lumping Roy and Belkar and for that matter Xykon together using the APD definition as you are using it. Roy and Belkar and Xykon can be lumped together by a number of other terms. For example, they are each exceptions from some "norm" in the OotS universe. Another way to put it is that they are the main characters of a heroic story and so by definition are doing things which background characters or "no-name NPCs" don't do -- actions which are also not normally done by readers of the story. But this is a dramatic grouping not a psychological one.



Belkar is "better" then the "good" guys because he is only a sociopath instead of both. The fact that he embraces his antisocial actions means that under our diagnostic criteria he lacks the strong deceitfulness that is part of being a psychopath.

If you want to start judging Belkar by modern standards to claim he is worse, you need to apply that to all of them.
Again, I'm not the expert here. But it would seem to me that whatever set of tools you want to use, they should judge someone who commits Belkar's acts and has his motives as more depraved than someone who commits Roy's acts with Roy's motives. That is the person who "embraces his antisocial actions" is actually "worse" in that he or she has no remorse whatsoever -- which is the case with Belkar.

For example, forensic psychologist Michael Stone has a scale of evil, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_Evil. And forensic psychologist Michael Welner has a depravity scale, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Welner#The_Depravity_Scale. Typically these would place real people who have similarities with Belkar high on their charts.

[Warren Dew]

Um, all of them? Let's review the criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder), which would cover your claim of psychopathy/sociopathy....

Every last one of them displays those traits. Roy, Miko, Haley, Elan, V, Durkon, Hinjo, etc.

Other than Belkar, I don't think any of those exhibits all seven of the traits on your list. By my count:

Roy - #1 and maybe #4
Miko - #7 and maybe #4
Haley - #1, #2, #4
Elan - #3, #6, maybe #4
Vaarsuvius - #1, #2, #4, maybe #7
Durkon - none of them
Hinjo - maybe #5

Most look pretty clean to me.

However, it's not even clear to me whether Mr. Scaly was talking about sociopathy or psychosis. I think Belkar is the only one who comes anywhere near qualifying as psychotic.

[Garuk One Ear]

I like Belkar. He's a good guy who goes about doing the wrong thing because he doesn't think before he acts. Much like many people in this world:smallbiggrin:. Good intentions-- but wrong way to go about them because you A) don't think before acting or B) see things from only one side or one way to solve, much like Belkar and his killing of the oracle, etc..

However, I do think the massive killing sprees he goes on are rather entertaining and part of his character more than anything else.

[Obscurity]

Good intentions?

Dude. He's CHAOTIC EVIL.

[Weiser_Cain]

Let's see, I qualify for 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

I like Belkar. He's a good guy who goes about doing the wrong thing because he doesn't think before he acts.

You may like him. I like him too but

The final answer on Belkar's alignment
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6483

from OotS author Rich Burlew. His post is the fourth one down from the top.

[evileeyore]

He's one of the primary, if not the most primary, sources of humour in the comic. Check out all the posts on favourite lines, most of them come from Belkar, in fact, he has his own threads for favourite moments and lines. No one posts a favourite Vaarsuvius or Durkon line thread.
So what if he is a psychopath? Its just a COMIC, people. Its meant to laugh at. If I wanted droning social and political commentary, I'd dig up old Doonesbury comcis.

Live on, Sexy Shoeless God of War.

Because I know people who play characters the way Belkar acts.

Though he has his funny moments, they are coupled with far more useless, annoying antics that have actually caused more problems for the Order int eh long run. And not "haha" problems, but "uhoh" problems.

So... kill the useless berk and be done with 'im.

[evileeyore]

I think you're mistaken about a lot of the old Belkar fans - you know, the ones who argued that he was "actually" chaotic good, or something like that. Granted, there aren't a lot of those still hanging around the forums.

The serious arguement was that Belkar was possibly Chaotic Neutral. No one ever seriously argued he was CG unles they were brain dead.

I know, I was one of them actually arguing with Rich about his own character until he came right out and said "No, Belkar is CE". Then I shut up about it.

[Garuk One Ear]

You may like him. I like him too but

The final answer on Belkar's alignment
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6483

from OotS author Rich Burlew. His post is the fourth one down from the top.

Huh,well my point there is null then:smalltongue:

So I guess Belkar is no more than what readers and English people think of as the "Foil".

The character that is most nearly opposite of the main character, but somehow is still with the darn guy:smallbiggrin:

[hamishspence]

The one thing I'm not fond of on there is B "Commit a roughly equal number of good and evil acts"

Since there is a long-standing tradition in D&D that 1 sufficiently bad evil act can outweigh a whole lifetime of good acts. Exemplified in 2nd ed by paladin who burns village to stop plague, and immediately drops to Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil.

[Talya]

I don't want Belkar dead. Belkar's awesome fun.

Nothin' wrong with bein' evil.

[mandarinka]

Heh, let's hope he dies in a good, saucy, mean, wickedly funny way! It's comedy after all, so I'll allow myself to feel staisfaction about it, which is something I would be ashamed of IRL.

As for the good is lame and evil is cool mentality, I assume it's just a matter of overcoming pubescence, even if some people manage to fail at it :)

[Talya]

As for the good is lame and evil is cool mentality, I assume it's just a matter of overcoming pubescence, even if some people manage to fail at it :)

Good and Evil both have equal potential for coolness or lameness. It's all in the delivery. Anyone who doesn't appreciate the occasional magnificent bastard has unsophisticated tastes.

[Lowkey]

Don't you need to have several of those for an extended period of time? Besides, this is OotS-world, not our world. Some morals, stereotypes, and rules of physics may not be the same as in our world.
Except that the direct comparison was made to our modern world for Belkar. Thanks for playing.


Let's not. The DSM is a tool for professionals in the field to help them make diagnosese of real people in a real world. I am not a professional in any psychological field. Maybe you are. But I would assume the making a diagnosis takes make than checking things off on a list. Even if you are a professional, what would be the point of going over the definition since these are fictional people in a heroic story?
So we use modern diagnoses to slam characters that are disliked, but don't apply them across the board? Sloppy thinking at best.



So these different characters all have the same disorder? And Roy has APD? The same "disorder" that Belkar has? Roy, the same character who is trying to save the world, has APD? The guy who is trying to complete his father's oath has APD? Roy, who is trying to stop Belkar from doing more evil, has APD? Roy, who was judged by the divine powers in OotS to be not just Good -- which he obviously was according to the story's divine judges -- but Lawful Good, has APD? Yes.


You may be applying the APD definition correctly but, in the process, all it is shows is that the APD definition cannot differentiate between characters in a heroic story and so is useless for literary purposes.Too bad the argument was put forth to slam Belkar as being deserving of what is coming to him then, hrm?


There is no meaningful distinction made by lumping Roy and Belkar and for that matter Xykon together using the APD definition as you are using it. Roy and Belkar and Xykon can be lumped together by a number of other terms. For example, they are each exceptions from some "norm" in the OotS universe. Another way to put it is that they are the main characters of a heroic story and so by definition are doing things which background characters or "no-name NPCs" don't do -- actions which are also not normally done by readers of the story. But this is a dramatic grouping not a psychological one.That's a whole lot of words to say "The universal standard isn't really universal because it doesn't let me justify my opinion!"



Again, I'm not the expert here. But it would seem to me that whatever set of tools you want to use, they should judge someone who commits Belkar's acts and has his motives as more depraved than someone who commits Roy's acts with Roy's motives. That is the person who "embraces his antisocial actions" is actually "worse" in that he or she has no remorse whatsoever -- which is the case with Belkar. Roy also doesn't show any remorse when he kills. Neither do the paladins. In fact, characters brag about killing other beings here. Sorry, but when you invoke real world diagnostic criteria to single out why one character is worse then the others it needs to be applied across the board for the comparison to be valid.


For example, forensic psychologist Michael Stone has a scale of evil, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_Evil. And forensic psychologist Michael Welner has a depravity scale, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Welner#The_Depravity_Scale. Typically these would place real people who have similarities with Belkar high on their charts.I included the caveat that it wasonly under certain definitions.


Other than Belkar, I don't think any of those exhibits all seven of the traits on your list. By my count:

Roy - #1 and maybe #4
Miko - #7 and maybe #4
Haley - #1, #2, #4
Elan - #3, #6, maybe #4
Vaarsuvius - #1, #2, #4, maybe #7
Durkon - none of them
Hinjo - maybe #5

Most look pretty clean to me.

However, it's not even clear to me whether Mr. Scaly was talking about sociopathy or psychosis. I think Belkar is the only one who comes anywhere near qualifying as psychotic.
I think you should reread the archives. The only one Roy *might* be clear of is 6, depending on how he manages his part of the treasure, though the fact he runs around killing and stealing to make ends meet could rule that one out as well.
Miko is only clear on 2 and 6
Haley is guilty on all counts
Elan might be clear of 6, see the Roy comments
V is clear on 2
Durkon is clear on 2,3,5 and maybe 6
Hinjo is clear on 2, maybe 6 depending on how you view the fleet situation.

Seriously, this is adventure party and we routinely see them fight and kill enemies, and you are going to try and brush off 4, claiming they don't do it? ! is actions that will get you arrested, you don't think breaking in somewhere, killing the inhabitants, and taking their stuff is grounds for arrest? Pull the other one, it has bells on it. This is just intellectually dishonest.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

Originally Posted by HamsterOfTheGod
Let's not. The DSM is a tool for professionals in the field to help them make diagnosese of real people in a real world. I am not a professional in any psychological field. Maybe you are. But I would assume the making a diagnosis takes make than checking things off on a list. Even if you are a professional, what would be the point of going over the definition since these are fictional people in a heroic story?


So we use modern diagnoses to slam characters that are disliked, but don't apply them across the board? Sloppy thinking at best.

No I just meant let's not use sophisticated psychological techniques meant to diagnose real world mental illness to analyze fictional characters. That is that the terms psychopath, sociopath, crazy, and nutcase don't just have the definitions given by the DSM. They also have common use definitions. Those are sufficient for literary characters. DSM is overkill at best and at worst an inappropriate tool.






So these different characters all have the same disorder? And Roy has APD? The same "disorder" that Belkar has? Roy, the same character who is trying to save the world, has APD? The guy who is trying to complete his father's oath has APD? Roy, who is trying to stop Belkar from doing more evil, has APD? Roy, who was judged by the divine powers in OotS to be not just Good -- which he obviously was according to the story's divine judges -- but Lawful Good, has APD?

Yes.

I'm glad you don't agree with the divine judges in the world of OotS.





You may be applying the APD definition correctly but, in the process, all it is shows is that the APD definition cannot differentiate between characters in a heroic story and so is useless for literary purposes.

Too bad the argument was put forth to slam Belkar as being deserving of what is coming to him then, hrm?

Regardless of what the purpose of your argument was, the point of your argument was moot since by your argument you could not differentiate meaningfully between characters. Rather than proving there was no difference, you simply proved your usage of the term APD could not differentiate meaningfully between any of the stories main characters. If APD cannot differentiate between Roy and Xykon then surely it is useless for trying to see if there is a difference between Roy and Belkar.

Otherwise your argument would imply that Xykon does not deserver any punishment either. Now that can be your opinion but you have to realize very few are going to share your opinion.





There is no meaningful distinction made by lumping Roy and Belkar and for that matter Xykon together using the APD definition as you are using it. Roy and Belkar and Xykon can be lumped together by a number of other terms. For example, they are each exceptions from some "norm" in the OotS universe. Another way to put it is that they are the main characters of a heroic story and so by definition are doing things which background characters or "no-name NPCs" don't do -- actions which are also not normally done by readers of the story. But this is a dramatic grouping not a psychological one.

That's a whole lot of words to say "The universal standard isn't really universal because it doesn't let me justify my opinion!"

No. That's a lot of words to explain that a universal standard that cannot be used to make meaningful distinctions is meaningless. Obviously, I'm not going to convince you different. But I do have to say you are not arguing in any way for your position. Simple negation and repetition do not form an argument.






Again, I'm not the expert here. But it would seem to me that whatever set of tools you want to use, they should judge someone who commits Belkar's acts and has his motives as more depraved than someone who commits Roy's acts with Roy's motives. That is the person who "embraces his antisocial actions" is actually "worse" in that he or she has no remorse whatsoever -- which is the case with Belkar.

Roy also doesn't show any remorse when he kills. Neither do the paladins. In fact, characters brag about killing other beings here. Sorry, but when you invoke real world diagnostic criteria to single out why one character is worse then the others it needs to be applied across the board for the comparison to be valid.

This is D&D. You do not need to show remorse for killing dragons whose scales are not all shiny and metallic. You think that that doesn't square with real world morals? Well I think it doesn's square with real world reality. But it is a given in an epic fantasy world. Unless you want the dragons to be sentient citizens protected under a bill of rights in the OotS-verse instead of monsters that heroes kill. The former is possible in some fictional universe but the latter is the case in OotS. If you don't accept the heroic fantasy convention of OotS then do you even like the comic?

Sure you can have an opinion that Belkar does not deserved to be punished or to be punished more than he has been punished already. Many people have this opinion. But I don't think it's a good argument for that position to say that Roy is as "antisocial" as Belkar.

[Surfing HalfOrc]

Well, to get away from the deeply philosophical and back to the more mundane...

Belkar is losing his love probably because he isn't "funny/cool" any more, he's just become a bit of an a**hole. (Funny that Rich gets to use that word, but Forumites don't...)

Up until he killed Solt Lorkyurg, his killings could be justified in one form or another... Sure the killing of the guard was a bit over the top, but guarding does entail risks. Killing enemies who surrendered? The OOTS isn't a military force with access to POW camps, they are a private enterprise. Freeing an enemy can lead to other enemies once your act of kindness has run away. (See Saving Private Ryan) As for trying to kill Elan, I see that more as a person just scaring a friend for amusement than a serious attack on a party member.

I think that Rich plans on Belkar dying by the end of this book (Maybe... Could be Vaarsuvius as well), but doesn't want Belkar to be excessivly mourned by the readers. Turning Belkar from crazy/cool to a richard (yeah, you can't say that word either, even if you are simply naming the current Vice-President) is one way of ensuring that once Belkar is gone there won't be a huge crowd clamoring for his return.

[teratorn]

Turning Belkar from crazy/cool to a richard (yeah, you can't say that word either, even if you are simply naming the current Vice-President) is one way of ensuring that once Belkar is gone there won't be a huge crowd clamoring for his return.

I had to try that one... you can't say let's say **** Tracy?

Just to post something on topic. My problem with Belkar is that for a long time his presence took partly away my suspension of disbelief because I can't separate a party in DnD from the way I would roleplay it. It was hard to "believe" the way the other characters accepted him. Yet Roy's explanation when releasing him from jail made me rethink that. But Belkar is gaining a lot of levels, he could reach epic levels by the end of this saga. By then he'd be an evil non-stop killing machine.

On the other hand a redeeming death would not fit the Belkster. I'm very curious to see how he goes away.

EDIT: wow you can't.

[Lowkey]

No I just meant let's not use sophisticated psychological techniques meant to diagnose real world mental illness to analyze fictional characters. That is that the terms psychopath, sociopath, crazy, and nutcase don't just have the definitions given by the DSM. They also have common use definitions. Those are sufficient for literary characters. DSM is overkill at best and at worst an inappropriate tool.So, when the definition proves you wrong, redefine the word?




I'm glad you don't agree with the divine judges in the world of OotS.Nice one-liner. Actually care to explain how Roy's actions don't match up with the list, or are you just going to cover your ears and scream "I'm right" at the top of your lungs?



Regardless of what the purpose of your argument was, the point of your argument was moot since by your argument you could not differentiate meaningfully between characters.
"you disagree with me, which automatically invalidates your argument". Yeah, no. Try refuting the actual points. Show how they guys you like aren't sociopaths.


Rather than proving there was no difference, you simply proved your usage of the term APD could not differentiate meaningfully between any of the stories main characters. If APD cannot differentiate between Roy and Xykon then surely it is useless for trying to see if there is a difference between Roy and Belkar.Or it means that they are all amoral killers. Which, hey, they are!


Otherwise your argument would imply that Xykon does not deserver any punishment either. Now that can be your opinion but you have to realize very few are going to share your opinion.Thanks for assigning an opinion to me. I never said anything about punishment at all.



No. That's a lot of words to explain that a universal standard that cannot be used to make meaningful distinctions is meaningless. Obviously, I'm not going to convince you different. But I do have to say you are not arguing in any way for your position. Simple negation and repetition do not form an argument.LOL! I'm not arguing because you have yet to put forth anything that addresses my argument! You keep throwing out Golden Mean fallacies and strawmen and going through some amazing mental acrobatics rather then address my points. Now we have you moving the goal posts to say that the entire analysis is invalid rather then address the point that your good guys violate the same standards that Belkar does. Put forth a logical argument and I will gladly address it in kind. But so far you have provided nothing but lazy thinking, fallacies, and sophilism.




This is D&D. You do not need to show remorse for killing dragons whose scales are not all shiny and metallic. You think that that doesn't square with real world morals? Well I think it doesn's square with real world reality. But it is a given in an epic fantasy world. Unless you want the dragons to be sentient citizens protected under a bill of rights in the OotS-verse instead of monsters that heroes kill. The former is possible in some fictional universe but the latter is the case in OotS. If you don't accept the heroic fantasy convention of OotS then do you even like the comic?Nice attempt at invoking cultural relativity after discarding it earlier when it was useful. Picking and choosing examples that help you, rather then evaluating all the evidence, is sloppy thinking. More to the point, even if you want to take cultural relativity and run with it, you still fail. Celia (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0537.html) explains in comic how the actions of adventurers are deviant to the rest of society, and points out the problem (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0539.html) with your argument.


Sure you can have an opinion that Belkar does not deserved to be punished or to be punished more than he has been punished already. Many people have this opinion. But I don't think it's a good argument for that position to say that Roy is as "antisocial" as Belkar.If you don't like the argument, how about you actually take the time to refute it?
*Explain how adventurers do actually conform to legal norms. (When we've had both a lawyer and a cop call them out on it)
*Explain how lies and "bluff checks" are not repeatedly used.
*Show how impulsive actions are rare. (as opposed to getting you killed when the undead dragon gets blown up).
*Show how the adventurers don't constantly get into fights. (no, really, show that one. Warren thinks it doesn't happen.)
*Demonstrate that their actions do in fact show safety for self and others (when plan A is "get resurrected").
*Discuss how "raiding dungeons" is a steady line of work, allowing hem to meet financial obligations (when a recurring theme has been "we need money!").
*Point out when they ever show remorse for their actions. (Instead of bragging)

You complain about my argument? Well I've put it forth. How about actually countering it rather then declaring it invalid out of hand?

[Kish]

Why not?


If you don't like the argument, how about you actually take the time to refute it?
*Explain how adventurers do actually conform to legal norms. (When we've had both a lawyer and a cop call them out on it)

Celia didn't say what adventurers did was illegal. When nearly everyone in a tavern is an adventurer, I'm having a hard time seeing the argument that they don't conform to legal norms.

Whether non-adventurers like them is another question.


*Discuss how "raiding dungeons" is a steady line of work, allowing hem to meet financial obligations (when a recurring theme has been "we need money!").

A recurring theme has been that Haley needs money to ransom her father--and is just plain greedy. There's also a bonus strip in War and XPs where Roy and Belkar have an argument which revolves around the fact that they're very rich.

[Warren Dew]

Seriously, this is adventure party and we routinely see them fight and kill enemies, and you are going to try and brush off 4, claiming they don't do it?

Durkon and Hinjo are the only ones I definitely cleared of #4, though some of the other cases are "maybes".

If you are going to use the tool, use it correctly. "Assault" takes on its legal meaning here, or something like it. It does not mean just any fighting, it means unjustified attacks.

A policeman using physical force to arrest a criminal is not an "assault" by this definition, nor is a soldier following orders. Likewise, neither is Hinjo attacking a threat to his city, nor Durkon using Thor's might to help defend that city.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

So, when the definition proves you wrong, redefine the word?

No. APD is a fine definition for professional psychologists dealing with real people. You want to use APD for fictional characters in a heroic story. That is you want to use a real world standard against a fictional story to judge the story in its terms. That is you want to say that in the story, Belkar is no different than Roy according to the way you use APD. In fact according to the way you use APD, there is no difference between Roy and Xykon. Yet you insist APD is useful in analyzing this fictional story where a villian with superhuman powers, who identifies himself as evil, is seeking to control the world through a means which could destroy this fictional world altogether. And in this world, a hero, Roy, is seeking to stop him. Roy himself is nearly superhuman -- if his actions could be translated to the real world. And in this world, the divine powers have judged Roy to be good -- Lawful Good in fact -- and Xykon to be evil. Yet by the way you use of APD, Roy and Xykon would be equivalent in terms of antisocial behavior. I do not care if you are right in the way you use APD. I am not the expert on APD. I am not a licensed psychologist. Perhaps you are. Perhaps a licensed real world psychologist would be willing to "diagnose" Roy as having APD. Fine. How does that help us understand the difference between Roy and Xykon? If the APD definition -- as you apply it -- does not help us differentiate between the moral and psychological qualities of Roy and Xykon, then I feel it is of no use in this literary setting.

Notice that there are many definitions which lump Roy and Xykon together in this setting and are still useful. For example, "high level character" or "main character" lump Xykon and Roy together and are useful from telling Roy from other characters.

It seems to me that you want to use your definition of APD with respect to the setting simply because you think it proves your point that Belkar does not deserve fictional justice in this fictional world. Maybe I'm wrong. But if that is the case, then we have to agree to disagree.



Nice one-liner. Actually care to explain how Roy's actions don't match up with the list, or are you just going to cover your ears and scream "I'm right" at the top of your lungs?

"you disagree with me, which automatically invalidates your argument". Yeah, no. Try refuting the actual points. Show how they guys you like aren't sociopaths.

I'm not screaming. I have given you the point -- you can use APD as you see fit in OotS. I don't want to debate the definition of APD or to psychologically diagnose a fictional character because
1) I'm not an expert in psychology. But maybe you are.
2) I don't know if fictional characters can be diagnosed by an expert given the nature of fictional stories -- that is fictional characters don't have a "real" psychology

I'm arguing that, conceding your point, your own judgement of APD on the various characters fails to make any significant differences between the main characters. Rather than proving that there is no difference, it seems to me that the application of APD -- as you use it is not useful. You can find no difference between the social behavior of Roy and Xykon and Belkar. I see a world of difference. We have to agree to disagree.



Or it means that they are all amoral killers. Which, hey, they are!

Look here we have to agree to disagree. I just don't see any other way.

I think Roy is hero trying to save his world.

You think he is an amoral killer.

I don't see how we could be more different. I don't see how we can resolve our difference. I do hope that you enjoy the comic on some level.



Thanks for assigning an opinion to me. I never said anything about punishment at all.

Yet above you use the term "amoral killers". By definition, connotation and tone, I would have to assume that you mean that they deserve some sort of fictional punishment in their fictional world.

Or perhaps you do not feel that "amoral killers" in OotS deserve any punishment. Again I could not disagree more and we have to agree to disagree. Again, I hope that you enjoy the comic with the perspective you have on it.



Nice attempt at invoking cultural relativity after discarding it earlier when it was useful. Picking and choosing examples that help you, rather then evaluating all the evidence, is sloppy thinking. More to the point, even if you want to take cultural relativity and run with it, you still fail. Celia (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0537.html) explains in comic how the actions of adventurers are deviant to the rest of society, and points out the problem (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0539.html) with your argument.

I have no idea where cultural relativity came in to the argument.



*Explain how adventurers do actually conform to legal norms. (When we've had both a lawyer and a cop call them out on it)

In a D&D world, adventurers conform to an accepted norm in society -- adventurer. OotS lampshades this and uses it as plot device too many times to mention.

That Roy and OotS have skirted the law on occasion -- most notably because of Belkar -- is part of their conflicted nature. Again I think of OotS as heroes -- Robin Hoods as it were. You want to think of them as criminals. Fine. We have to agree to disagree.



*Explain how lies and "bluff checks" are not repeatedly used.

To what ends? Unless you are a Kantian, lying is not necessarily evil. Roy's overall actions -- including his lies for Belkar -- were judged by the divine powers of the OotS verse as good. That's how I see Roy, as a good person, as moral person, as a person concerned for others. Again, you want to see Roy and other members of OotS as an inveterate liars. Fine. We have to agree to disagree.



*Show how impulsive actions are rare. (as opposed to getting you killed when the undead dragon gets blown up).

I don't see Roy as impulsive. You do. Let's agree to disagree.



*Show how the adventurers don't constantly get into fights. (no, really, show that one. Warren thinks it doesn't happen.)

With evil characters. I want OotS to constantly fight evil characters. I see that as a good thing. I want my fictional heroes to be heroic all the time. Maybe you don't want that. Again, we have to agree to disagree.



*Demonstrate that their actions do in fact show safety for self and others (when plan A is "get resurrected").

Again. I see Roy as hero trying to save the world. I don't see him is reckless but heroic. You say Roy has reckless disregard for his safety and others. Again we have to agree to disagree.


*Discuss how "raiding dungeons" is a steady line of work, allowing hem to meet financial obligations (when a recurring theme has been "we need money!").

I thought that was a parody of D&D. You think it shows criminal intent on the part of Roy. We have to agree to disagree.



*Point out when they ever show remorse for their actions. (Instead of bragging)

It seems to me that Roy has shown remorse often, especially when he was being judged in the afterlife. He does not show remorse in killing evil creatures. You seem to want Roy to have remorse for killing evil creatures. Perhaps you think it would be better if he did not kill evil creatures. Or perhaps you see Roy as a homicidal maniac on a rampage through the OotS-verse. Again we have to agree to disagree.

[hamishspence]

Don't know about main strip, but In Origin of Pcs, we see Roy's views on killing- in self defence, for some greater good, but not simply because its more convenient than talking. And he manages to work it so the Orcs go free, and don't cause trouble for the town.

The bandit camp- evil character, Roy figures that, having stripped them of followers, the bandit leaders will have more issues with each other than anyone else. So, he doesn't kill the Evil bandit girl.

In general, when he can, Roy is, for an adventurer, remerkably forbearing toward evil adversaries.

[Kiero]

He's one of the primary, if not the most primary, sources of humour in the comic.

Pop culture references and D&D inside-jokes aside, I'd say Roy playing the "straight man" to all the other characters is the primary source of humour.

[Querzis]

Oh come on guys stop arguing with Lowkey. «Everyone in the Order as well as Hinjo are amoral killers with APD». The simple premise of his posts is already ridiculous but his arguments are just plain hilarious. This guy cant be serious and, even if he is, dont lose your time arguing with a guy like that. Just read his post and you'll realize that his definition of ADP would basically make any soldiers in the entire world amoral killer with ADP. Its just really not worth arguing against. Hell, I'm surprised the mods didnt close down this thread already with everything he said.

And by the way Surfing HalfOrc, yes, its really ridiculous how you cant say ***holes even if its used in the comic or say **** Tracy even if it was a name and a nickname a long time before it became vulgar.

[Ridureyu]

I really hope that Belkar's death is so horrible that nobody likes it. That would be ironic and hilarious.


Example: If Belkar "sees the light," dedicates his life to goodness, blah blah, and then is killed by the Snarl, thus removing him from existence. Slowly and painfully, and only dies because he's saving orphans. Or puppies. Or orphan puppies.

[Faceist]

Lots of people seem to feel the need to transpose their real life morality onto the characters in the comic strip, which seems to me patently silly. The whole fun of characters like Belkar (or Jayne Cobb, or Rorschach, or basically any antiheroic archetype) is the counter-cultural pleasure we derive from seeing them doing things we could never condone in reality. If anything, it's healthy and stress relieving to chuckle at a fictional sociopath every now and then, which is why I'll personally be upset if (well, "when") Belkar finally gets offed.

[Weiser_Cain]

I have a hard time detaching my morality from all things not purely logical.

[kpenguin]

Lots of people seem to feel the need to transpose their real life morality onto the characters in the comic strip, which seems to me patently silly. The whole fun of characters like Belkar (or Jayne Cobb, or Rorschach, or basically any antiheroic archetype) is the counter-cultural pleasure we derive from seeing them doing things we could never condone in reality. If anything, it's healthy and stress relieving to chuckle at a fictional sociopath every now and then, which is why I'll personally be upset if (well, "when") Belkar finally gets offed.

Jayne and Rorschach are both well-developed, well-rounded characters that have redeeming qualities. Belkar... isn't. His exists solely for humor purposes, to the point where any character development would destroy his character.

[Weiser_Cain]

I hate Rorschach, I just think the 'world' would be better off without Belkar.

[Kiero]

Example: If Belkar "sees the light," dedicates his life to goodness, blah blah, and then is killed by the Snarl, thus removing him from existence. Slowly and painfully, and only dies because he's saving orphans. Or puppies. Or orphan puppies.

He did that once already, when his Wisdom was boosted.

[Roc Ness]

Before I read OOTS, I played a sort of cross between an RPG and a "choose your own story" (Incedently, ROC NESS is a funny L'il creature, like a seriously watered down quirky belkar with a taste for apple pies, I created for the game. The name just kinda stuck)

Anyhow when it was someone's turn to set the story but their out of ideas, they just say "there's an innocent looking town in the valley" and everyone stares, then goes "YEAHHHHH!!! LOOTING!!!" when the point of the story was to slay monsters and be a hero blah blah blah

I'm quite sure my friends aren't the only ones who experience those moments and enjoy them.

And if you do then why hate Belkar?

[Koshiro]

Lots of people seem to feel the need to transpose their real life morality onto the characters in the comic strip, which seems to me patently silly.
QFT.


The whole fun of characters like Belkar (or Jayne Cobb, or Rorschach, or basically any antiheroic archetype) is the counter-cultural pleasure we derive from seeing them doing things we could never condone in reality.
Yep. Also, especially in Belkar's case, the hilarity resulting from default "good" morality of the others clashing with unashamed chaotic evilness. Here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0211.html)is a prime example.

[Surfing HalfOrc]

I had to try that one... you can't say let's say **** Tracy?

Just to post something on topic. My problem with Belkar is that for a long time his presence took partly away my suspension of disbelief because I can't separate a party in DnD from the way I would roleplay it. It was hard to "believe" the way the other characters accepted him. Yet Roy's explanation when releasing him from jail made me rethink that. But Belkar is gaining a lot of levels, he could reach epic levels by the end of this saga. By then he'd be an evil non-stop killing machine.

On the other hand a redeeming death would not fit the Belkster. I'm very curious to see how he goes away.

EDIT: wow you can't.

To me, Belkar is "that kid." He's the little brother (junior high) of one of the members of your group, who likes to play, and sees D&D as an opportunity to be whoever he wants to be, but he wants to be crazy/cool/violent! So he shows up to the game wearing a tshirt all covered in skulls, rolls up someone who sounds semi-cool (to him), and looks for a class that allows himself to stab the enemy (blood! heh-heh! blood, blood!) multiple times.

But since big brother is there, he keeps things more or less under control, since he needs a ride to the game.

Unfortunatly for the group, big brother has to go to college for a few months, so to write himself out of the plot he has his character do something over-the-top dangerous, and gets splattered.

So, now little brother rides his skateboard to the game, is bored with all the "character development," and begins his downward spiral... Crazy/cool has turned into a richardhead, (:smallwink:), the rest of the group begins to get annoyed with him, and the end is coming soon.

Yeah, I know there are no actual players, but there are "types of players." Anyone who plays long enough will run into several of the archtypes: deep-imersion role-players, min-maxers, just here to have fun playing a game, and goofballs. Elan and Belkar are polar opposites of the goofball types, which is why I think the two got along well enough when they're together.

[teratorn]

Yep, Belkar would fit into "that kid."



And by the way Surfing HalfOrc, yes, its really ridiculous how you cant say ***holes even if its used in the comic

Well, now I have to try the British version. Can we say ********s?

Edit: No we can't. Although this one one makes sense.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

For those who think that it is wrong to hate Belkar because essentially OotS is just a comic/comedy/RPG, did you feel sad at this moment http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0443.html

Or maybe you felt sad at this one http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0445.html

If you did feel sad, why? OotS is just a comic/comedy/RPG.

If you did not feel sad, then perhaps you can't understand that some people are emotionally involved in OotS as a dramatic story in the same way they may be involved emotionally in a serious novel or movie or TV show.

If you do become emotionally involved, as people often do, when reading or watching fiction, then you may understand how some people may "hate" Belkar.

[Shatteredtower]

If you did not feel sad, then perhaps you can't understand that some people are emotionally involved in OotS as a dramatic story in the same way they may be involved emotionally in a serious novel or movie or TV show.

Ah. They're behaving irrationally, then. Got it.

Neither of those strips made me sad. The first left me surprised and pleased that the Giant would kill off his main character, while the best part of the second one was the last line -- delivered by Belkar, incidentally -- in a strip that's played entirely for laughs. The thought of taking Elan's rewrite of Danny Boy at all seriously is laughable. Sure, it shows Elan doing what he should do best and expressing how much he looks up to Roy, but the lyrics are his typical derivative silliness, leading up to a superb punchline.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

Ah. They're behaving irrationally, then. Got it.

Neither of those strips made me sad. The first left me surprised and pleased that the Giant would kill off his main character, while the best part of the second one was the last line -- delivered by Belkar, incidentally -- in a strip that's played entirely for laughs. The thought of taking Elan's rewrite of Danny Boy at all seriously is laughable. Sure, it shows Elan doing what he should do best and expressing how much he looks up to Roy, but the lyrics are his typical derivative silliness, leading up to a superb punchline.

Yes those who cry are behaving irrationally. But so are those who laugh. There is no reason to laugh at incongruity.

Spoc neither cries nor laughs.

[Shatteredtower]

Yes those who cry are behaving irrationally. But so are those who laugh. There is no reason to laugh at incongruity.

Point. Nevertheless, there's a world of difference between laughing at a joke or crying over a sad story than there is in actually becoming so emotionally invested as to love or hate characters.


Spoc neither cries nor laughs.

He laughed several times in the original series, at least once without the influence of some time travel/mind-altering substance explanation. He also laughed in the first motion picture.

Not that he offered the best expression of a purely rationalist viewpoint the rest of the time either...

[HamsterOfTheGod]

Point. Nevertheless, there's a world of difference between laughing at a joke or crying over a sad story than there is in actually becoming so emotionally invested as to love or hate characters.

There is a world of difference between loving or hating
- fictional characters
- the taste of beer
- a family member

[FatJose]

Oh don't lump Rorschach in with Belkar >.> There's nothing to compare there.
One is a masked vigilante with a strict hard conservative moral code that makes no exceptions and a deeply fleshed out character. Belkar is a guy who continuously kills for "the laughs" and has no real back story to rationally explain it. He's just a gag and gags always end up overstaying their welcome at some point.

[Koshiro]

For those who think that it is wrong to hate Belkar because essentially OotS is just a comic/comedy/RPG, did you feel sad at this moment http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0443.html
Not really.


Or maybe you felt sad at this one http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0445.html
Neither here.


If you do become emotionally involved, as people often do, when reading or watching fiction, then you may understand how some people may "hate" Belkar.
I actually do become emotionally involved with books, movies, etc. on occasion. But OotS is not that kind of fiction for me.

[Lokasenna]

I actually do become emotionally involved with books, movies, etc. on occasion. But OotS is not that kind of fiction for me.

But you can understand that, for other people, OotS is that type of fiction and so they can be affected to the point where they can hate Belkar.

[Weiser_Cain]

I didn't want Roy to die but it's been pretty ok as far as he's concerned. Of course he still need to save reality and to do that he needs to come back.

[nybbler]

I think you should reread the archives. The only one Roy *might* be clear of is 6, depending on how he manages his part of the treasure, though the fact he runs around killing and stealing to make ends meet could rule that one out as well.
Miko is only clear on 2 and 6
Haley is guilty on all counts
Elan might be clear of 6, see the Roy comments
V is clear on 2
Durkon is clear on 2,3,5 and maybe 6
Hinjo is clear on 2, maybe 6 depending on how you view the fleet situation.


Using the DSM as a checklist is a great way to end up with the mental health version of medical student syndrome, where you see yourself (or others) as having every disease in the book. But it's a fun game anyway, so

Roy:
1) No. Roy conforms to social norms quite well, though not perfectly. We have word of god (or at least diva) on that; he's accepted into the _Lawful_ Good afterlife.

2) Roy lies (everybody lies), but no, he does not make a habit of deceitfulness.

3) Roy is impulsive on occasion (and it gets him killed) but not to the point of being diagnostically relevant

4) Roy is irritable, but it ends up as sarcasm, not physical fights. His physical fights are for other reasons.

5) Reckless disregard for the safety of others. No, just no.

6) Consistent irresponsibility: again no, just no.

7) Lack of remorse: Nope, when he's done wrong, he's shown remorse.


Miko (pre-liege-killing)
1) No. Paladin, so this the word of 12 gods
2) No. (Paladin again)
3) Yes. Miko jumps to hasty conclusions about the Order, for instance, and it's implied this is typical for her
4) Probably yes.
5) No evidence
6) No. (Paladin)
7) Yes.

So Miko barely qualifies according to the checklist. Miko during and after killing Shojo probably fits another, overriding diagnosis (maybe bipolar with psychotic features)

Haley
1) Yes, but with the qualification that she belongs to a subculture where this is normal.
2) Yes
3) No
4) No. Again, D&D encounters aren't the kind of fight this criterion is referring to.
5) No
6) No. Haley isn't 100% responsible, but she's not consistently irresponsible.
7) No.

So even our rogue doesn't qualify.

Elan: The idea of Elan having antisocial personality disorder is ridiculous on the face of it. But, anyway
1) Yes.
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) No
5) No
6) Yes
7) No
So he qualifies, which just goes to show the danger of using the DSM as a checklist.

V (pre-split)
1) No
2) No
3) No
4) Yes, particularly her fighting with Belkar
5) No
6) No
7) Yes -- V never admits wrong.
Post party split, add on 1), 6), and maybe 5) -- and in this case V qualifying isn't unreasonable.

Durkon -- no on all counts.

Hinjo
1) No (paladin)
2) No (paladin)
3) No. His plans may not be very good, but he is planning.
4) No.
5) No.
6) No. Again, he may be failing in his objectives, but this isn't because he's irresponsible
7) No.

And then there's Belkar -- yes on all counts. Same for Xykon.

And, for good measure, a few more villains.
Nale:
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) No (Nale makes elaborate plans; that's one of his defining characteristics)
4) No
5) Yes; Nale is not above using other members of the Guild as cannon fodder
6) No evidence.
7) Yes

Kubota
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) No
4) No
5) Yes (others only!)
6) No
7) Yes

[Euron]

I wish everyone would stop treating this comic as if it were a soap opera. Miko, what are the 4 words, why hate Belkar, is Haley pregnant!? Why has Belkar been kept around so long?

Let's use some rational thought here, folks. If Belkar wasn't part of the Order, they would not have survived two encounters in the Dungeon. Probably. Can't prove otherwise, really.

If Belkar wasn't part of the Order, Miko (probably) would not have struck down her liege. The whole "Roy is in league with Xykon" dealio is far more believable with that wreaking ball in tow.

If Shojo did not die, Azure City would have survived the battle intact. Why? He would have, like always, kept the nobles together, and fought it out with his entire army intact. Xykon would have been slaughtered.

Let's think about that fact for a moment. Why is this a good thing? Well, the Azure City gate would have been intact -- another possible threat to the cosmos themselves. With AC destroyed, the paladins are also dead and scattered -- far too busy to rebuild, rather than be a distraction/ in the way of the Order. Ignoring Miko, when she implausibly broke out of her cell, Xykon would have been permanently toast if things had followed their natural progression. Belkar +1.

Personally, I think this comic has been planned out from Day 1 (or more like, as soon as Rich decided what exactly Xykon was there for and what it did, around panel 40). Belkar has served his purpose, and will continue to do so until he doesn't see fit; myself, I believe that while everyone else is harping for intervention of the Gods, they are already steering things into a situation where the Gates problem will be resolved permanently without endangering themselves or the planet.

Next, specifically about Belkar, it's not that people want him dead. It's the fact that he's on a Good team (excluding V, and we're not going to debate that here), with a Lawful Good leader, and yet he's allowed to get away from Chaotic Evil tendancies. This was bound to happen, folks, ever since the bandit arc.

I'm not talking about Good v Evil here, folks, it's about control. And Belkar cannot be controlled 24/7, especially now; they have no collar to put him on if they take the MOJ off, even if the MOJ itself is more of a death vice. He's great, a damn wreaking ball if you ask me, but you need control, which Haley lacks.

[Weiser_Cain]

So......... you hate drama?

[Euron]

I hate drama for the sake of drama, yes. Anyone who wants drama for itself, Young and the Restless is on at 5, or As the World turns right before that, I believe.

Was LOTR devoid of drama? Is Song of Ice and Fire? No.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

I hate drama for the sake of drama, yes. Anyone who wants drama for itself, Young and the Restless is on at 5, or As the World turns right before that, I believe.

Was LOTR devoid of drama? Is Song of Ice and Fire? No.

And the "dumb jock" picks on both the "emo" who watches Y&R and the "geek" who reads OotS and plays D&D. Can't we all get along?

[Euron]

And the "dumb jock" picks on both the "emo" who watches Y&R and the "geek" who reads OotS and plays D&D. Can't we all get along?

I'm sorry, did you call me a dumb jock? That really is funny :P.

[Weiser_Cain]

I hate drama for the sake of drama, yes. Anyone who wants drama for itself, Young and the Restless is on at 5, or As the World turns right before that, I believe.

Was LOTR devoid of drama? Is Song of Ice and Fire? No.

Maybe you need to go read Naruto, oh wait no...

[HamsterOfTheGod]

I'm sorry, did you call me a dumb jock? That really is funny :P.

No. In the one line scenario I gave above, you and those in the forum who "hate drama" would qualify for the "geek" label. While those who like drama would qualify for "emo" status. In the scenario, both call each other names, "geek" and "emo" while being looked down upon by yet another negative stereotype labeled "dumb jock".

The above was meant as an ironic commentary on the whole history of the thread and your post in particular. Nothing personal. I don't know you.

How the scenario was relevant to your post was that you said, "I hate drama for the sake of drama, yes. Anyone who wants drama for itself, Young and the Restless is on at 5, or As the World turns right before that, I believe."

I may be wrong but that seemed to me like a negative view of soaps and soap watchers and an expressed desire for OotS not to be in the same class as "soaps". I myself am not a watcher of soaps. Nor do I know why people watch them. But I guess soap watchers could be labeled "emos".

I do read OotS and I do play D&D. One must admit that reading OotS and playing D&D are "geek".

If you read the earlier posts in the thread, you will see that there is this debate between the "geek" side -- OotS should be strictly comedy -- and the "emo" side -- OotS is dramatic. Yet I can't help but wonder what an outsider -- that is someone outside the forum -- would make of this heated debate over a relatively obscure webcomic. In my one-line scenario, I made the outsider a "dumb jock" but any other label would have sufficed "grease monkey", "techie nerd", etc.

The further irony is that I, personally, have been labeled and/or self-identified as "geek", "emo" and "dumb jock".

[Shatteredtower]

If you read the earlier posts in the thread, you will see that there is this debate between the "geek" side -- OotS should be strictly comedy -- and the "emo" side -- OotS is dramatic.

Funny -- I'd have said it was more a debate on whether or not drama should come at the expense of killing the comedy in what is clearly a comedic series with a dramatic plot. :smallamused:

[HamsterOfTheGod]

Funny -- I'd have said it was more a debate on whether or not drama should come at the expense of killing the comedy in what is clearly a comedic series with a dramatic plot. :smallamused:

Regardless these are...
The best stick actors in the world, either for tragedy,
comedy, history, pastoral, pastoral-comical,
historical-pastoral, tragical-historical, tragical-
comical-historical-pastoral, scene individable, or
poem unlimited: Xykon cannot be too heavy, nor
Elan too light...

[Koshiro]

But you can understand that, for other people, OotS is that type of fiction and so they can be affected to the point where they can hate Belkar.
Not really.
I can accept that it is. But understand? No, sorry.

Note that even in more emotionally engaging media, a "Belkar"-type character would not provoke dislike of any great intensity in me. A rampage-happy, sarcastic, but not especially perfidious killer is okay (as a fictional character) for me.

Condescending "good guy" types can get on my nerves, and refined, truly sadistic villains (think se7en) I can come to loath, but not comparably one-dimensional characters such as Belkar.