Actions Dictate Alignment. . .

[Twilight Jack]

. . . not the other way around.

Shojo's MoJ fever-dream pep talk got me thinking; if Belkar "fakes" character growth and begins playing hero and otherwise acting in ways consistent with what is expected of "good" members of adventuring parties and society at large, at what point does the weight of his "good" actions begin to shift his alignment out of the evil column?

IMPORTANT NOTE: This is NOT the latest iteration of the "Is Belkar really evil?" threads that have been clogging up this board ever since fans became uncomfortable with the reality that their favorite character was in fact a psychotic low-life. This thread is a somewhat fanciful speculation on what happens when a character with truly evil intentions successfully pretends to be good for a long enough time. Since actions (not intentions) dictate a character's alignment for game mechanics purposes, at what point does a Smite Evil attack slide right off Belkar? When does the tipping point come at which he effortlessly takes up a holy dagger and puts it in a devil's eye?

In short, at what point does an evil character (with internal motivations completely consistent with that evilness) so successfully "play the game" that the overall weight of his actions causes him to register to the universe as good (keeping in mind once again that only actions, not intentions, function as determiners of alignment)?

[Querzis]

. . . not the other way around.

Shojo's MoJ fever-dream pep talk got me thinking; if Belkar "fakes" character growth and begins playing hero and otherwise acting in ways consistent with what is expected of "good" members of adventuring parties and society at large, at what point does the weight of his "good" actions begin to shift his alignment out of the evil column?

IMPORTANT NOTE: This is NOT the latest iteration of the "Is Belkar really evil?" threads that have been clogging up this board ever since fans became uncomfortable with the reality that their favorite character was in fact a psychotic low-life. This thread is a somewhat fanciful speculation on what happens when a character with truly evil intentions successfully pretends to be good for a long enough time. Since actions (not intentions) dictate a character's alignment for game mechanics purposes, at what point does a Smite Evil attack slide right off Belkar? When does the tipping point come at which he effortlessly takes up a holy dagger and puts it in a devil's eye?

In short, at what point does an evil character (with internal motivations completely consistent with that evilness) so successfully "play the game" that the overall weight of his actions causes him to register to the universe as good (keeping in mind once again that only actions, not intentions, function as determiners of alignment)?

I'm pretty damn sure thats what Shojo wanted and expected yeah. What did you expect from the greatest Chaotic Good mastermind?

Will it work? Maybe not. Maybe Belkar will simply get sneaky and do evil things without getting caught. We'll see.

[Flame of Anor]

Oh, that sneaky old Shojo. He is was totally awesome. And this idea of actions-dictate-alignment is a lot like something put forward by some ancient philosopher--Aristotle, I think. He said that if one was to be good, one should make conscious efforts to do good things, and with enough of that, it would become habitual and part of one's character.

[Ramien]

I don't think the point of Belkar's vision was to prod him into doing good. I think it was more to prod him into doing things more chaotic evil, and less chaotic stupid.

Mainly, I think he's going to stop threatening to betray the party at the drop of a hat, and thus showing that he's willing to 'play the game'.

[Twilight Jack]

Oh, that sneaky old Shojo. He is was totally awesome. And this idea of actions-dictate-alignment is a lot like something put forward by some ancient philosopher--Aristotle, I think. He said that if one was to be good, one should make conscious efforts to do good things, and with enough of that, it would become habitual and part of one's character.

And what makes me giggle is that I don't think Belkar is ever going to actually undergo any actual internal change or become honestly good in outlook. My speculation has more to do with how alignments are assessed in D&D.

My take is that Belkar's mechanical alignment is going to see a shift towards neutrality and eventual good, while his internal motivations remain as bloodsoaked and vicious as ever.

Potentially, this ties into Belkar's death speculations in the overwhelming irony of a Smite Good attack being the nail in his child-sized coffin.

[Twilight Jack]

I don't think the point of Belkar's vision was to prod him into doing good. I think it was more to prod him into doing things more chaotic evil, and less chaotic stupid.

Mainly, I think he's going to stop threatening to betray the party at the drop of a hat, and thus showing that he's willing to 'play the game'.

Except that his actions under such circumstances are much more likely to qualify as "good" actions, which begins to weigh upon his alignment after a time, despite his intentions. I'm not suggesting that Belkar will ever become good within his own heart. But if actions dictate alignment, then a point must come in D&D wherein the universe itself is fooled by the character's playing of the game.

I'm just waiting for the day when Belkar doesn't need a lead sheet around paladins, despite the fact that he's harbouring fantasies of murdering said paladins in their dreamless sleep.

[GKBeetle]

I disagree with your assumption that actions alone determine alignment. My thinking is that actions plus intentions equal alignment. If someone means to do good, but just sits around on their butt and does nothing, then they are neutral, not good. Another example would be Belkar. He may do good things, but if his intentions are purely selfish, then he cannot become good. At best, I could see him moving to neutral instead of being purely chaotic evil. In order for him to truly register as good, he needs to be doing good things because he truly wants to help people, not just because things are easier for him when he does good and doesn't do evil. That's my opinion.

P.S. Where does is say that actions dictate alignment in any D&D rulebook? I've never read that anywhere.

[raphfrk]

Surely motive also matters. When Roy was being interviewed after he died, they were saying motivation mattered, even if he didn't do everything perfectly.

Also, if it is purely actions, then how do you decide if specific killing is evil/neutral or good?

[chibibar]

I don't think action alone dictate alignment. Belkar is Chaotic Evil. He love to do Evil things. He hates the law.

I think Belkar will do what Belkar's want. If he has to pretend he is good to do what he wants, he is still evil. I mean since the beginning, Roy has taken Belkar and been doing good thing (aka trying to save the world) Belkar continue to do what he does best (kill things) without too much consequences (except the one that landed him the MoJ) but in general until the comic ends, Belkar will continue to kill even if the whole thing was for the greater good.

He is still evil inside and now realize that in order to continue to do he loves to do (stab and kill things) he would need to "earn" the respect of the society around him so he can do what he wants.

Now of course overtime, Belkar "might" change once it becomes a habit, but I am not sure the comic time will last years (I say 5 years of pretending might work hehehe)

but Shojo been doing it for decades and still Chaotic Good ;)

[Ramien]

Except that his actions under such circumstances are much more likely to qualify as "good" actions, which begins to weigh upon his alignment after a time, despite his intentions. I'm not suggesting that Belkar will ever become good within his own heart. But if actions dictate alignment, then a point must come in D&D wherein the universe itself is fooled by the character's playing of the game.

I'm just waiting for the day when Belkar doesn't need a lead sheet around paladins, despite the fact that he's harbouring fantasies of murdering said paladins in their dreamless sleep.

Not really... 'not being a complete and total jerkass' isn't a good or evil trait. 'Not killing your own teammates' is simple pragmatism.

If actions and only actions dictated alignment, then every villain in the game could be found out with a simple puppy dog test. Does he kick/abuse/kill/otherwise inconvenience the puppy? He's evil, gotta die!

*note: no puppies were harmed in presenting this example.

[hamishspence]

I know supplemental sourcebooks are regularly criticised, but here's a few points. (and Champions of Ruin is very generic for a Faerun book and Evil tropes in it can apply anywhere)

Savage Species- Evil guys can be really nice to friends, lovers, family, comrades- they compartmentalise. Just cos you're evil, doesn't mean you behave badly to everyone- you can behave badly to one group, nicely to everyone else, and be evil.

Book of Exalted Deeds- Selfish motivations can make normally Good acts into Neutral acts- hence the charitable and generous villain who does it all to Maintain His Cover is really doing Neutral acts, from his soul's point of view.

Also, it says Evil acts done for Unselfish or altruistic reasons are still evil- in 2nd ed classic depiction was burning the plague-village to save a continent.

Champions of Ruin- it is the regular, deliberate, systematic committing of evil acts that makes one evil- whether one believes oneself to be evil or not. I Am Not Evil and There Is No Evil were two of the tropes. So, if Belkar commits mix of Evil and Good deeds, but always regularly commits evil deeds on purpose, he is Evil, not Neutral.

these should be pretty relevant.

[Curris]

Except that his actions under such circumstances are much more likely to qualify as "good" actions, which begins to weigh upon his alignment after a time, despite his intentions. I'm not suggesting that Belkar will ever become good within his own heart. But if actions dictate alignment, then a point must come in D&D wherein the universe itself is fooled by the character's playing of the game.

I'm just waiting for the day when Belkar doesn't need a lead sheet around paladins, despite the fact that he's harbouring fantasies of murdering said paladins in their dreamless sleep.

Lead sheet? No. Amulet of NonDetection, to keep out those pesky mindreaders? Maybe a better investment. . . And if not, he's still retaining those lawyers. . .

[hamishspence]

To sum up, whenever the act would be Good, Intentions Decide alignment of act, whenever it is defined as evil, the act itself is important than intention, which is not enough to upgrade it as far as neutral.

Yes, its a biased standard, but the phrasing use in Fiendish codex 2 is appropiate- "The Good mortals do in life is outweighed by that taint of sin"

so, its easier to be evil than good. Yoda: "Quicker, easier, more seductive."
A common trope in much fiction, and I think appropiate for D&D universes.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

. . . not the other way around.

Shojo's MoJ fever-dream pep talk got me thinking; if Belkar "fakes" character growth and begins playing hero and otherwise acting in ways consistent with what is expected of "good" members of adventuring parties and society at large, at what point does the weight of his "good" actions begin to shift his alignment out of the evil column?

IMPORTANT NOTE: This is NOT the latest iteration of the "Is Belkar really evil?" threads that have been clogging up this board ever since fans became uncomfortable with the reality that their favorite character was in fact a psychotic low-life. This thread is a somewhat fanciful speculation on what happens when a character with truly evil intentions successfully pretends to be good for a long enough time. Since actions (not intentions) dictate a character's alignment for game mechanics purposes, at what point does a Smite Evil attack slide right off Belkar? When does the tipping point come at which he effortlessly takes up a holy dagger and puts it in a devil's eye?

In short, at what point does an evil character (with internal motivations completely consistent with that evilness) so successfully "play the game" that the overall weight of his actions causes him to register to the universe as good (keeping in mind once again that only actions, not intentions, function as determiners of alignment)?

It's a good point. Even from a literary point of view if evil Belkar only acts good but is evil at heart he looses his edge. Maybe death is better than eternal Spike-ification

[Samurai Jill]

. . . not the other way around.

Shojo's MoJ fever-dream pep talk got me thinking; if Belkar "fakes" character growth and begins playing hero and otherwise acting in ways consistent with what is expected of "good" members of adventuring parties and society at large, at what point does the weight of his "good" actions begin to shift his alignment out of the evil column?
Never.
Good acts do not count if done as purely incidental side-effects of entirely selfish motives. Belkar's done plenty of superficially 'Good' things already- he fought against Xykon's minions in both the throne room and for Azure City, and aided the resistance on several occasions. They don't count, because Belkar was solely interested in A. self-preservation, B. power-tripping, C. the terrible wails of anguish from his victims and/or D. fat loot. None of it counts, for reasons others have been happy to elaborate on.

I also guarantee that he will find plenty of 'sneaky new ways to raise hell'. There's no reason to worry about alignment shift just yet.

However. It is theoretically conceivable that Belkar might actually like playing the hero now and then. Thus raising the- very remote, but not nonexistent- possibility of *gasp* a genuinely altruist act at some point.
Just don't count on it.

[hamishspence]

I did say, by some books, intent can turn Good acts into Neutral ones, but never Evil acts into neutral ones.

but it also said good acts, even done for selfish reasons, can have a redeeming effect over time. If Belkar completely ceases to commit evil acts- he might change.

Hope not though. :smallbiggrin:

[RebelT]

Surely motive also matters. When Roy was being interviewed after he died, they were saying motivation mattered, even if he didn't do everything perfectly.




This. I have never played D&D, but in the context of this story, intentions seem to carry weight specifically because of Roy's interaction with the Bureaucratic Deva. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0487.html)



Of course, I suppose those rules could only apply to the Lawful Good? I will choose to think not, simply because in my opinion, intentions dictate as much or nearly as much as actions.

[hamishspence]

Intentions apply to anyone who's Good or Neutral. If the act is a normally Good one, anyway. Much less relavent if the act is one listed as Evil- then, intent doesn't apply, going by the various books.

If act is midway- killing- intent is important, but so is context: BoVD tries to cover this, not very well.

However, a blackguard would not, for example, "rise" for committing a Good act- even an unambiguously good act. In general, evil players don't face penalties for committing Good acts (except the evil paladin varients in Unearthed Arcana, and they are very much the exception)

[SinsI]

Belkar's alignment is dictated purely by his Wisdom score - that little Owl's Wisdom spell did wonders.
His "fake character growth" is him investing a point in it.

[Twilight Jack]

All awesome points, and ones that I myself had not failed to take into account. I am certainly not discounting the role of intention in actual morality, nor even D&D morality . . . as applied to NPCs, at least . . .

But if you'll all permit me to go a bit meta, the internal motivation of any PC character is an unknown quantity when it comes to the DM (or, in this case, the arbitrary universe which serves as the DM in the OotS world). Despite the lack of an actual DM or any actual players, the six party members in OotS are explicitly recognized as Player Characters, distinct from the cadres of Non-Player Characters which populate the rest of the world.

Thus, it is at least plausible that this same unknown quantity of motivation applies to them as it would to any PC in an actual game. As the universe (Read: DM) is not privy to the motivation, only that which may be observed can be taken into account when determining alignment. Think, therefore, of any PC's internal alignment as not unlike Schrodinger's Cat. Until outward actions are observed, that alignment could be anything. Our only clues are what is printed on the character sheet and the actions of the PC in question.

Under the strictures of this analogy, Roy's final judgement - in which internal motivations DID play a role in the final analysis of alignment - represents an opening of the box in which the cat is contained. "This is what your actions suggest about your alignment. What do your motivations bring to the table in terms of lenses through which we might interpret those actions?" But until Roy's death, that particular box must remain closed. So it is with Belkar. Until his death, we may only take into account observable phenomena.

Now then, the fever dream in which he decides to play the system is definitely an observable phenomenon from the DM's perspective. It will indeed therefore color the perception of any actions taken from this point forward. But then the question remains: is the shading provided by this singular event all-encompassing? If we are never again given a peek into Belkar's cranium, how long does he have to keep behaving as a "Good" character before that singular statement of intent begins to be called into question? How long before we begin to wonder, in the wake of heaps upon heaps of heroic actions by Belkar, if he might have really changed his tune? How long then before the universe (read: DM) begins to encounter that same uncertainty. In the wake of this singular statement of devious intent, Schrodinger's Cat has been placed in the box. Until that box is reopened (Belkar's true motivations are once again examined), we will be left to wonder to what degree any following acts of heroism are just that: acts.

At some point, a tipping point of certainty is reached. What then?

[King of Nowhere]

I think it all depends on how one define alignments.
Regardless of what the manuals say, many people have their personal idea of how the alignments should be decided, and I don't know well what the manuals say, so I won't spend more arging on that. Personally, under my way of defining alignments, the answer is never.
About other people's perception of him, it is certanly possible that other will believe he really is changed (Hinjo did on much weaker bases). If they get enough convinced, they could even refuse the response of a detect evil as somehow flawed. That could be intersting.

[Klev]

I just want to point that this situation has already happened! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0435.html)

By this comic we have a good idea of what the GM "see", and that is that he consider that a good act (saving Hinjo) with evil intentions (killing people later) is an evil act.

[Trizap]

Belkar's alignment is dictated purely by his Wisdom score - that little Owl's Wisdom spell did wonders.
His "fake character growth" is him investing a point in it.

turning chaotic neutral may be....2 or 3 points away, wouldn't you say?

[ZtM]

I just want to point that this situation has already happened! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0435.html)

By this comic we have a good idea of what the GM "see", and that is that he consider that a good act (saving Hinjo) with evil intentions (killing people later) is an evil act.

I would hardly call that an evil act. Neutral, probably. Although I'd think that one or two occasional good acts would certainly be countered out by Belkar's significantly more common evil ones.

Also, even though the "evil+good intentions=evil" rule is a solidly established part of D&D and therefore what should be applied to the world of OOtS, I've always thought it was a pretty stupid rule myself. It hampers plot possibilities by destroying moral grey area. IMO it would make much more sense for the situation with burning the village to be a neutral act, as long as it was done with good intentions.

[FantomFang]

That reminds me of the Greyguard, a D&D class from somewhere I can't seem to remember now that was Neutral, and was LITERALLY Evil + Good Intentions = Neutral. Part of their very philosophy would support thing like burning down an entire village (evil) to kill a single demon who was hiding out there (good intentions). And as I said before, they had to be neutral. Basically, overzealous to the max (miko?).

[Warren Dew]

I think you're barking up the wrong alignment axis here. I don't think Belkar's fevered dream was about how an evil person survives in a society of good; rather, it was about how a chaotic survives in a society of laws.

I doubt he'll change his act so much as to be mistaken for lawful. It's quite possible that he'd just change enough to be taken for chaotic leaning to neutral instead of extreme chaotic. Obviously that wouldn't ever result in an alignment change, since he'd still be in the chaotic range.

If he changed his act enough to be taken for neutral, I'd say he'd actually become neutral eventually - certainly by the time he'd spent as much time acting neutral as he has acting chaotic, and perhaps sooner. I think it would take more than a few strips, but it could conceivably happen before getting to Girard's gate.

Does intent matter? My interpretation of Roy'd judgement scene is that intent matters only as a tie breaker, and certainly not as much as actions. Even if Belkar's objective is to retain enough freedom to flout society's rules if he wants to, he isn't chaotic if he never actually flouts them.

[awibs]

Savage Species- Evil guys can be really nice to friends, lovers, family, comrades- they compartmentalise. Just cos you're evil, doesn't mean you behave badly to everyone- you can behave badly to one group, nicely to everyone else, and be evil.


I have to agree with this point. Is it doubted that Redcloak, or most goblins for that matter (besides the few random teenagers) plays for Team Evil? And yet he makes a many snide comments about how Paladins have no sense of home or family and make a hobby of efficiently slaughtering goblin women and children. Yet with the exception of Miko, we don't seem to have a major trend of paladins who fell for slaughtering "innocent" goblins. I think this significantly complicates the good/evil boundaries in the OOTS-verse - NOT necessarily in the strict d+d universe, but in the specific OOTS-verse which is 99% d+d, except where "funny trumps rules" or it otherwise suits Rich to change things. I also think what the Deva said to Roy about trying to be Good counting for a lot reinforces the idea that one's actions can be mixed and that faking it never counts. The Deva clearly knew what Roy (and Eugene, for that matter) were thinking, feeling and meaning behind their actions or lack therof, and took that into considerable account when passing judgement.

Therefore, I think one: A body doesn't have to be utterly, randomly cruel to everyone to be Evil, one, because of rulebook Hamisphence cited, and two, because Redcloak and all goblins in the OOTS-verse are portrayed and/or implied as having love, loyalty, and family values towards other goblins. It could be argued that one does have to be randomly cruel to be *Chaotic* evil and Belkar consistently faking decent actions towards his immediate company might make him less chaotic (Redcloak is certainly lawful.) And two: being "Good" is a more complicated and larger grey area in the OOTS-verse than one might think, since paladins are excused for burning villiages and slaughtering goblin children too young to make a conscious alignment choice, for the sole crime of being born on the wrong "team."

[Sethek]

Just as a sidenote:

Belkar is penalized by a low wisdom score - see the owl's wisdom incident for details.

Several times, his mental faculties are described as decidedly sub-standard. Roy calls him clever in his own brain-damaged way, V claims he only has a "proto-brain" and so on.

So far, all alignment theories circle around decisions. Consciously committing an evil act for it to be evil is a central idea. What now if due to some defect, a character simply is unable to differentiate between good and evil. What if he lacks a moral compass due to genetic damage, such as a Dissocial Personality Disorder?

This would mean that he did not have the actual chance to make a decision and is blissfully unaware that there could be one. I think his puzzlement as to how he could have thrown his life away with meaningless violence when he could have been healing upon receiving the wisdom boost lends quite some credibility to that interpretation.

Now - is a golem evil that has been sent on a horrid killing spree?
Is someone mentally dominated and forced to commit atrocities evil?

Most certainly no because in both cases there is no conscience and decision involved.

But, if that is true, then, a "brain-damaged" Belkar cannot be evil. A sickening wretch, a truly horrible abomination, yes. But evil? No.

I beg everyone's pardon if that has come up already in one of the mentioned "Is Belkar evil?"-threads. I have not read those, and the argument itself doesn't apply solely to Belkar but to the D&D alignment system as a whole.


€dit: To the poster above: Where does it say Paladins are allowed to slay infants or the elderly at whim? "Usually neutral evil" is not "always neutral evil", and slaying sentient beings both incapable of self-defense and not threatening anyone is an evil act. If I am GM, and a Paladin behaves in this way, it's time to kiss smite evil and friends goodbye - whether the act happened because of roleplay reasons (finally snaping, getting carried away and feeling guilty afterwards etc) or just pure munchkinism doesn't matter. Say hello to the neutral-fighter-world - or worse :P

In OOTS, I don't see ANY killing of infants simply because they were born with a green skin and fangs. In fact, the only times this is mentioned is when Redcloak gets all worked up again - and his views are a bit too twisted for me to him classifying as "credible source of information". MAYBE this has happened once, although RC most likely wouldn't know about the consequences for the killer. I can imagine if one witnesses such an incident, one is pretty disposed of attributing collateral damage from warfare to being premediated. Somehow, I've never ever gotten the impression of AC paladins going all Miko in a fanatical crusade to cleanse the world from anything goblinoid.

[Sethek]

I think you're barking up the wrong alignment axis here. I don't think Belkar's fevered dream was about how an evil person survives in a society of good; rather, it was about how a chaotic survives in a society of laws.

I am inclined to agree here.


I doubt he'll change his act so much as to be mistaken for lawful. It's quite possible that he'd just change enough to be taken for chaotic leaning to neutral instead of extreme chaotic. Obviously that wouldn't ever result in an alignment change, since he'd still be in the chaotic range.

If he changed his act enough to be taken for neutral, I'd say he'd actually become neutral eventually - certainly by the time he'd spent as much time acting neutral as he has acting chaotic, and perhaps sooner. I think it would take more than a few strips, but it could conceivably happen before getting to Girard's gate.

Actually, the way alignments are described in D&D, someone who carefully maintains a facade to hide his chaotic mindset and be able to fulfill his evil whims is, by definition, not chaotic evil anymore but neutral evil. There is no scheming chaotic evil in D&D - at least, I don't know any single sourcebook that would even lean that way. Chaotic evil, in general, doesn't invest that much mental effort when there are things to destroy.


Does intent matter? My interpretation of Roy'd judgement scene is that intent matters only as a tie breaker, and certainly not as much as actions. Even if Belkar's objective is to retain enough freedom to flout society's rules if he wants to, he isn't chaotic if he never actually flouts them.

Well, the law/chaos-axis is different from the good/evil one. Law/Chaos defines the structure of your thought processes in addition to actual behavior. Intent is far less pronounced here, because one's position on that axis is greatly influenced by both personality and background. For me, shifting position on that axis happens way more frequently and is usually less visible and permanent, because it happens rather subconsciously. For example, a paladin that develops a habit of rashly jumping into battle trusting in faith and luck, of not adhering to protocols for practical reasons, of breaking command chains and stuff might well be transgressing from lawful to neutral for me. But then, I wouldn't ever strip a PC paladin of his/her powers for doing just that, as long as it doesn't go too far - but then, I like to be at odds with the black&white-checkerboard-philosophy of D&D anyways :P

[awibs]

€dit: To the poster above: Where does it say Paladins are allowed to slay infants or the elderly at whim? "Usually neutral evil" is not "always neutral evil", and slaying sentient beings both incapable of self-defense and not threatening anyone is an evil act. If I am GM, and a Paladin behaves in this way, it's time to kiss smite evil and friends goodbye - whether the act happened because of roleplay reasons (finally snaping, getting carried away and feeling guilty afterwards etc) or just pure munchkinism doesn't matter. Say hello to the neutral-fighter-world - or worse :P

In OOTS, I don't see ANY killing of infants simply because they were born with a green skin and fangs. In fact, the only times this is mentioned is when Redcloak gets all worked up again - and his views are a bit too twisted for me to him classifying as "credible source of information". MAYBE this has happened once, although RC most likely wouldn't know about the consequences for the killer. I can imagine if one witnesses such an incident, one is pretty disposed of attributing collateral damage from warfare to being premediated. Somehow, I've never ever gotten the impression of AC paladins going all Miko in a fanatical crusade to cleanse the world from anything goblinoid.

If you are dismissing Redcloak as a source of information, I have no argument. If I may hint at spoilers here, however, it is stated rather explicitly in SoD that Redcloak's whole village and immediate family was wiped out by a Sapphire Guard crusade. Do you argue that this was either 1.) the only village ever wiped out by said crusade and this was the only crusade the Sapphire Guard ever went on and, thus not all paladins were involved, only one marching force, or 2.) all the paladins involved in similar crusades being stripped of their "Good" status would have been entirely not worth mentioning? Heck, even if this was the only such crusade I would've thought the dramatic effect which occurs when a paladin falls would've been worth mentioning for even just that one crusading batch.

[Alysar]

I don't think Belkar is going to start acting good. I think he is going to continue to be evil while staying inside 'the game.'

I think he's going to start going in for more interesting and imaginative evil, rather than just wanton random killing.

If his alignment does change, I don't see it changing to anything other than chaotic neutral (with a mean streak).

[Samurai Jill]

But if you'll all permit me to go a bit meta, the internal motivation of any PC character is an unknown quantity...
Normally, I would agree, and there are certain characters in the story for which I am more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt (Miko or Redcloak, for example.) Belkar, however, has always been perfectly frank about his motives- sex, loot, bragging rights, other people's agony- pursues them consistently, and with that in mind they account for his behaviour more-or-less perfectly. There's no big mystery here, no tell-tale discrepancies betoken internal conflict.
Belkar's a straightforward case of 2 parts Evil, one part Chaos (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0435.html).


If you are dismissing Redcloak as a source of information, I have no argument. If I may hint at spoilers here, however, it is stated rather explicitly in SoD that Redcloak's whole village and immediate family was wiped out by a Sapphire Guard crusade.
Although this is a book that has a lot of fine points- and I do mean a lot- when it comes to depicting allowable behaviour for Good-aligned characters... SoD fell out of the Crazy Tree and hit every branch on the way down.

[hamishspence]

hence, every time someone says "wasn't evil, even in D&D verse, because of offscreen events" I tend to dispute it.

"OOTS alignment (or Free Pass from 12 Gods) works slightly differently" much more plausible explanation.

and in intro, Rich seemed to phrase it as "Good people acting bad"
and in War and XPs he says it is one of worst things of Azure City and karma has bitten the 12 gods hard for this.

[Twilight Jack]

Normally, I would agree, and there are certain characters in the story for which I am more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt (Miko or Redcloak, for example.) Belkar, however, has always been perfectly frank about his motives- sex, loot, bragging rights, other people's agony- pursues them consistently, and with that in mind they account for his behaviour more-or-less perfectly. There's no big mystery here, no tell-tale discrepancies betoken internal conflict.
Belkar's a straightforward case of 2 parts Evil, one part Chaos (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0435.html).


Although this is a book that has a lot of fine points- and I do mean a lot- when it comes to depicting allowable behaviour for Good-aligned characters... SoD fell out of the Crazy Tree and hit every branch on the way down.


I certainly agree that Belkar has been an open book . . . up until now. Which is my point. His motivations will likely not be re-revisited for some time now. So the entire line of questioning may become valid. I'm just looking ahead to that possibility.

[Samurai Jill]

Well, if it happens, it happens. Best of luck with that.

[Dehumanizer]

Is no one here a Marvel Comics fan? :) Remember the original Thunderbolts? They were long-established villains pretending to be heroes in order to be trusted and eventually take over the world. However, more than half of them, over time, began to like being heroes, fighting overt villains, making a difference, doing the right thing, being thanked and appreciated by civilians, and so on.

Could such a thing happen to Belkar? I don't know, but...

[Samurai Jill]

Who says heroes can't take over the world? Remember the Justice Lords? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Lords)
...Incidentally, they had really kickass costumes.

[King of Nowhere]

So far, all alignment theories circle around decisions. Consciously committing an evil act for it to be evil is a central idea. What now if due to some defect, a character simply is unable to differentiate between good and evil. What if he lacks a moral compass due to genetic damage, such as a Dissocial Personality Disorder?

This would mean that he did not have the actual chance to make a decision and is blissfully unaware that there could be one. I think his puzzlement as to how he could have thrown his life away with meaningless violence when he could have been healing upon receiving the wisdom boost lends quite some credibility to that interpretation.

I agree with that point, and it seems that even the book tend to agree on some level: animals are considered neutral because they don't have enough brain to understand good and evil. In my opinion this could also be applied to Thog. Anyway, it surely isn't Belkar's case, since he knows exactly how evil his actions are.

[Samurai Jill]

I agree with that point, and it seems that even the book tend to agree on some level: animals are considered neutral because they don't have enough brain to understand good and evil. In my opinion this could also be applied to Thog. Anyway, it surely isn't Belkar's case, since he knows exactly how evil his actions are.
If Elan can manage to be CG, Thog can most certainly be Evil. He might be manageably redeemable.

[Roderick_BR]

When? When at some point Belkar notices that what he's been faking actually become natural to him. That's a classic type of character development too.
I remember a friend that played a LE fighter, that would often claim to the others how evil and mean he was, and would often try to torture enemies to remind himself that he is evil, because he was turning out "too good" by hanging with the group.
"Wait, I'm fighting off invading forces, killing orcs, and saving people? I'm becoming good! Quick, I need to find a goblin to cut off his toes!"

[Samurai Jill]

"Wait, I'm fighting off invading forces, killing orcs, and saving people? I'm becoming good! Quick, I need to find a goblin to cut off his toes!"
"It's nothing personal, you understand- I'm just in danger of contracting 'alignment cooties' here- you're Usually Evil, you'd understand."
"Yeah, sure, I mean it's tough keeping up appearances, and all... Say- can I get a regeneration afterwards?"
"Oh, yeah- my buddy Grumwald there's a cleric, I'm sure he'd be happy to- ...waaait. ...I mean no! No! No, you cannot have a regeneration spell!"


Sort of like the opposite of the 'paladin' from OtooPCs.