Quote Originally Posted by Warren Dew View Post
To the contrary: an army with a policy of always accepting surrenders and then always backstabbing the prisoner would be perfectly lawful - lawful evil is still lawful.
PH, p. 104 "Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word..." So no, our LE army could not promise treatment A and then provide something inferior without endangering their alignment.

Talking about "consistent policy" is generally a sign of trying to fiddle with the rules. The player "consistently" does what they feel like doing.

Quote Originally Posted by Warren Dew View Post
In any particular case, betraying a trust is evil, not chaotic.
also PH, P. 104 "Chaotic characters ... do what they promise if they feel like it."
By contrast, the good-evil section has no reference about either being more or less trustworthy. So betraying a trust is clearly chaotic. It is only evil to the extent one can show damage [And a CG would feel no hesitation about warning somebody of an evil plot even tho he promised not to tell anyone. The fact he damaged the plotter is more than balanced by the benefit to the intended victim.]

Quote Originally Posted by Warren Dew View Post
I'm not sure why you mention Vaarsuvius and Roy; neither of them appears in the second panel of 285, and they are irrelevant to my argument.
They are in panels 4 & 7, among other places. And they present reasons to doubt killing Belkar would have been an evil deed.


Quote Originally Posted by Warren Dew View Post
getting Miko to fall is a major goal of Belkar's, and he seems to know the rules on it pretty well, so the fact that he wants her to kill him in that panel indicates that it will cause her to fall.
But we find in 286 that Belkar's understanding of the situation was majorly flawed, not to mention that Belkar has very limited brainpower in any case. Thus we can't accept that his reasoning is correct. If anything, we are to assume the reverse.

Quote Originally Posted by Warren Dew View Post
There is no indication elsewhere in the comic that Belkar is wrong about what would cause Miko to fall,
But that is what V and Roy provide. Roy in particular. He is in perfect position to tell Miko she is doing something evil. Instead he denies there is a good or evil aspect to the situation. We also have Durkon who also fails to call Miko's plan evil.

Quote Originally Posted by Warren Dew View Post
and he's frequently right about the rules. His only error is about whether he would have been resurrected afterwards, and that has no bearing on whether killing him would have been an evil act.
And you don't think an error that would have gotten him killed permanently doesn't bring his logic into major question? Not even when someone who called him an idiot now wants to call that a compliment?
Nor do we have any reason to deem Belkar especially knowledgable about what constitutes good and evil. He needs only a casual understanding that good folk generally don't slaughter prisoners to get a misunderstanding that this is a grave sin.