Belkar hate

[zinycor]

I have seen plenty of Belkar hate, specially on the previous comic entry. And I just don't get it. Everyone loves overly aggresive anti-heroes, and Belkar is one of the best. He is funny, small, badass, has amazing and unique character development, amazing comedic timing, main source of badass one-liners, doesn't stand above other main characters in the power curve. What's not to like?

Hell, last comic, 1193, just name dropping him was a punch line!!!! That's the sign of an amazing character.

[Fyraltari]

And I just don't get it. Everyone loves overly aggresive anti-heroes

In the 90's maybe, people are mostly bored of them now.

But really Belkar is a great character that I love to see in action. But that doesn't mean he is a good person by far. I wouldn't want to have to deal with a person like that all in real life.

Is that what you call "Belkar hate"? Because I haven't seen anyone complain about Belkar as a character on this forum nobody is saying that they wish he'd go away, or saying they can't stand his presence on-panel.

[CriticalFailure]

What is this Belkar hate you speak of lol

[Peelee]

I have seen plenty of Belkar hate.... Everyone loves overly aggressive anti-heroes

The first statement would imply that the second statement is not correct, I would venture.

[factotum]

Belkar has his place, and that place is pushing up daisies.

Seriously, I don't hate him being in the comic, but I don't like him as a character, because he's not a very nice person. I don't think he even brings anything particularly unique in terms of what he offers the party, because we already have a warrior/meat shield in the shape of Roy!

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I have seen plenty of Belkar hate, specially on the previous comic entry

I'm going to guess you are referring to this comment:

Belkar a mass-murderer who has only recently grasped the concept that other beings matter (and that’s basically limited to his cat) and is incapable of acknowledging his own sentiment of gratitude.

If so, that's not Belkar hate, that's an accurate description of the character. And your response to this, "Belkar is a sexy shoeless god of war" does not contradict it one bit. Indeed, one would expect most gods of war to be mass-murderers with severe issues with seeing other people as people and not as objects to be stabbed for entertainment.

If not, please indicate what you think constitutes "Belkar hate".

Grey Wolf

[mjasghar]

The problem is perhaps that many of us are older and so we have seen where edgelord fanservice ends up
Too many people rave about nasty people doing nasty things for good causes and then somehow make out they can then be nice to their own group
It ends up being it’s okay to do X to this group because they don’t count
Just look at the people who fetishise the chaos legions in Warhammer or look at the tv series 24 about how extreme that path can end up

[Fyraltari]

The problem is perhaps that many of us are older and so we have seen where edgelord fanservice ends up
Too many people rave about nasty people doing nasty things for good causes and then somehow make out they can then be nice to their own group
It ends up being it’s okay to do X to this group because they don’t count

Perhaps.

Just look at the people who fetishise the chaos legions in Warhammer

Or the loyalist legions.
_{There are no good guys in Warhammer.}

[zinycor]

It is more related to comments like this

Some of the others reasons are:

• Nu-huh
• Ewwww!
• No. Just... no.
• But why?
• Gross.
• Nope, nope, nope, nopitty-nope.
• Belial's burning ballsack, no!

Which I don't get...

[Fyraltari]

It is more related to comments like this

Which I don't get...

Belkar is not boyfriend material at all. As expalined by the other post.

[Schroeswald]

Belkar is not boyfriend material at all. As expalined by the other post.

Belkar is a very funny and interesting character who has developed from a less interesting but more funny character, but he shouldn't be dating anyone.

[Precure]

Honestly, I don't even care enough about him to hate him anymore. He's just a boring character now, an evil murderer that no longer allowed to murder anybody because of an unearned redemption plot.

[LadyEowyn]

Redemption is, by definition, unearned. And I’m not convinced Belkar is going to get it.

What we’re seeing from him is reform. Unlike V, he’s not showing any interest in atonement or accountability for his previous harm done to innocents (which is a major reason I’d say he’s still Evil), but he is showing a sincere desire to change his future actions. Durkon got him to accept that he wants to be different than he was, and now Minrah is encouraging him that he can be different.

It’s slow progress, but there’s been genuine moral change since Durkon’s death.

Given that the Order still need to talk Redcloak around, I’m feeling like V’s and Belkar’s arcs and realizations will both end up being relevant - especially the message that your past actions don’t have to define your present or future choices (the antithesis of the sunk cost fallacy).

[Aquillion]

Redemption is, by definition, unearned.

Wait what? No! Redemption is by definition earned. Someone who is "redeemed" without earning it hasn't been redeemed at all, they've just gotten lucky or had other people give them a pass.

I would say that the single most important attribute for a character to be redeemed is a willingness to change and make amends. Someone who doesn't have that can't be genuinely redeemed, ever. You can't just... magically redeem someone by casting an Atonement spell at them, or by declaring that everything they did wrong no longer matters. They have to want it and work for it and, yes, earn it.

[pearl jam]

It depends on where you get your definition from.

[Fyraltari]

Honestly, I don't even care enough about him to hate him anymore. He's just a boring character now, an evil murderer that no longer allowed to murder anybody because of an unearned redemption plot.

I’m unclear on how you expect a character to earn a redemption plot. Isn’t that plot all about earning a redemption in the first place?

[Verappo]

I think that the comic is attempting a very specific approach to redemption. More than something you gain, it's what you do day by day. One can disagree with the point, but it's a pretty consistent theme throughout the story. Think Roy getting into heaven because he tries, or his speech to Vaarsuvius when the Familicide stuff is revealed (or even Durkon's "you are who you are on all of your days" speech). Roy outright says that he doesn't feel equipped to talk about philosophical implications, only technical stuff and the rest as it comes.

Likewise, I think that the question of Belkar's redemption will largely be left unanswered. The important point for the story is that he's trying to do better, that we get to see this character start to change, even if he doesn't succeed, or if he can succeed at all. It's much more compelling to think that he may have a chance, were it not for timing, and a nice parallel to Miko's failed redemption ("perhaps if you had more time.. But then again, Perhaps not.")

This is also why I'm surprised at the question in the thread since it seems to me like Belkar's character has only got more interesting since his Mark of Justice induced epiphany. I never really engaged with his comic relief role in the first couple books, but this is someting I can chew on.

[woweedd]

I personally find Blekar pretty fun, and even remarlably nuanced this book. That said I get how some people find his role as "comically-evil teammate" increasingly out-of-place as the comic's storyline got more serious. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if Rich agreed: I imagine there's a reason why, after Miko got involved and the plot actually became something more then a vehicle for comedy: Belkar's ability to actually DO evil gets neutered drastically by the Mark of Justice and, after its gone, he decides to star at least acting like something other then a massive liability.

[Ortho]

It depends on where you get your definition from.

I think that the comic is attempting a very specific approach to redemption. More than something you gain, it's what you do day by day.

I'm kinda astounded that no one's brought up the comic's definition of redemption yet. As for whether Belkar's on track to meet the criteria? Well, maybe.

I can understand why people hated Belkar - that's kinda the whole point of his early character, that we could boo and jeer at him and not feel guilty about it. I guess now that he's developing into a three-dimensional character, people are starting to dislike that they can't dislike him anymore?

[BisectedBrioche]

I’m unclear on how you expect a character to earn a redemption plot. Isn’t that plot all about earning a redemption in the first place?

In universe from that character's perspective, maybe. But obviously the external narrative has to set them up for one (basically it's the story that earns the plot, not the character themselves).

Personally, I'd say the setup for Belkar's is pretty good.

[Verappo]

I'm kinda astounded that no one's brought up the comic's definition of redemption yet. As for whether Belkar's on track to meet the criteria? Well, maybe.

Oh definitely! I focused on the corollary about redemption needing time because that's something that we know Belkar lacks right now, but by all accounts he is trying to be better, or better team player at least.

I guess it's my obsession with the musical Hadestown that makes me see the worth in a story where the same arc about search of redemption is repeated over and over, even when the happy ending isn't in place, making you wish it could go different the next time. That's what makes me think that Belkar will die before the answer of whether he has "achieved" redemption or not becomes apparent

[Fyraltari]

In universe from that character's perspective, maybe. But obviously the external narrative has to set them up for one (basically it's the story that earns the plot, not the character themselves).

Personally, I'd say the setup for Belkar's is pretty good.

I have trouble figuring out where you would draw the line between the redemption plot and the set up for the redemption plot. Where you say Belkar's begins and why?

[dude123nice]

Wait what? No! Redemption is by definition earned. Someone who is "redeemed" without earning it hasn't been redeemed at all, they've just gotten lucky or had other people give them a pass.

I would say that the single most important attribute for a character to be redeemed is a willingness to change and make amends. Someone who doesn't have that can't be genuinely redeemed, ever. You can't just... magically redeem someone by casting an Atonement spell at them, or by declaring that everything they did wrong no longer matters. They have to want it and work for it and, yes, earn it.

I disagree here. The fact that you are doing good now does not erase the bad you did before. The only people who can forgive you are the ones you've wronged. And they have no obligation to do so, no matter how much good you are doing. Hence, you can not 'earn' it. You can be forgiven only if they are willing to, no matter their reasoning.

[Precure]

I’m unclear on how you expect a character to earn a redemption plot. Isn’t that plot all about earning a redemption in the first place?

For starters, by feeling bad about the people he killed. Not something like "lol, I'm only pretending to be redeemed...except not!"

[Keltest]

I disagree here. The fact that you are doing good now does not erase the bad you did before. The only people who can forgive you are the ones you've wronged. And they have no obligation to do so, no matter how much good you are doing. Hence, you can not 'earn' it. You can be forgiven only if they are willing to, no matter their reasoning.

Redemption and forgiveness aren't the same thing though. One does not need to be forgiven to be redeemed, nor vice versa.

[Fyraltari]

For starters, by feeling bad about the people he killed. Not something like "lol, I'm only pretending to be redeemed...except not!"

Isn't that the cart before the ox? One needs to learn to care for other people before regretting having hurt other people, no?

Redemption and forgiveness aren't the same thing though. One does not need to be forgiven to be redeemed, nor vice versa.

Except that in a universe where good and evil are measurable and the afterlife objectively real, redemption amounts to the universe foergiving your crimes does it not?

[dude123nice]

Redemption and forgiveness aren't the same thing though. One does not need to be forgiven to be redeemed, nor vice versa.

IMHO, calling someone 'redeemed' if they haven't been forgiven by the ppl they've wronged means that you're, basically, spitting on those people and on all the bad things they've endured at the hands of the so called 'redeemed' person. Because you're dismissing their opinions and suffering as being unimportant compared to some sort of cosmic scale that judges people and their actions.

[Keltest]

IMHO, calling someone 'redeemed' if they haven't been forgiven by the ppl they've wronged means that you're, basically, spitting on those people and on all the bad things they've endured at the hands of the so called 'redeemed' person. Because you're dismissing their opinions and suffering as being unimportant compared to some sort of cosmic scale that judges people and their actions.

Doesn't that mean redemption from any act that results in death is impossible then? Or any situation that leaves one or more victims in a state such that they are literally prevented from being able to forgive the person?

[dude123nice]

Doesn't that mean redemption from any act that results in death is impossible then? Or any situation that leaves one or more victims in a state such that they are literally prevented from being able to forgive the person?

In DnD there's no way to bring someone's soul in such a state, except by destroying it utterly. And I'd say that maliciously causing the destruction of a soul kinda qualifies as an unforgivable action.

And as for IRL, then the answer is yes, ofc! If I, for example, was ever killed or rendered a vegetable by someone, at least if they did it maliciously or through callousness, then I honestly hope that my loved ones would never, one day, give the BS "I think that, wherever he is, he forgives you" speech, no matter what that person would do to 'atone'. Because I never would!

[BisectedBrioche]

I have trouble figuring out where you would draw the line between the redemption plot and the set up for the redemption plot. Where you say Belkar's begins and why?

I think a good comparison would be the new God of War.

Long story short, it starts with the premise that Kratos has made peace with everything he did in the original trilogy, and travelled to Scandanavia (or the mythological version) and started a new family. He doesn't try to repent for all the bad he's done, as much as accept what's done is done, and try and do better in the present.

Spoiler: Spoilers for the PS4 God of War within

Show

There's a point where (to cut a long story short) he needs to go and recover the Blades of Chaos he used in the original game (both narratively and mechanically opposite to the ice based axe he's been using after inheriting it from his wife) to save his son. There's a whole sequence where he's taunted by memories from the past as he goes to collect them, and settles on "I'm still a monster, but I'm not your [Athena, who manipulated him into some of his many crimes] monster!".

Effectively the entire arc was him coming to terms with the fact that while he's trying to do better, he's still the same person who carried out atrocities; the difference is the circumstances and his own perspective. At the end of the game he basically confesses his past to his son and tells him to do better than he did.

And I'll add onto that the overall moral of The Good Place:

Spoiler: Spoilers for TGP up to season 3

Show

Long story short, the first season has the premise that the protagonist Elanor Shelstrope is in The Good Place...but shouldn't be thanks to an error. She recruits her designated soul mate Chidi, a Professor of Moral Philosophy into helping her become a better person in the hope of being able to stay before they find out (he agrees because he's a fundamentally good person). The other two main characters are Tahani, a socialite who got in for her good works and a Tibetan monk (who it turns out was actually a petty crook from Florida, named Jason, who also got sent there by mistake).

At the end of Season 1 it turns out they're all in The Bad Place, and it was a simulation to torment the four main cast members in a new and interesting way (they get psychologically tormented, the demons get to LARP as humans and angels instead of the drudgery of dismembering them and racking them over coals). It's explained that the protagonists all ended up in hell because they hurt other people (Elanor was clearly portrayed as absurdly selfish from the get go; Jason was obviously a petty crook; Chidi's moralising and indecision made everyone around him miserable and Tahani was only motivated by wanting to one up her sister rather than actually doing good).

Season 2 begins with the simulation being reset, but Micheal, the demon in charge, realising they keep working it out. He also noticed they become fundamentally better every time. After sitting in on Chidi's classes (and being introduced to the concept of mortality), he turns to the side of good (coming to believe the fact they became better people means they shouldn't be in The Bad Place), and resolves to get them into The Good Place (and hoping he can himself defect).

Season 3 involves them being sent back to Earth so that they can try and improve their score and get in, but ends with the revelation that nobody's got into TGP for nearly half a millennium. The world's become so complicated, nobody can meet those standards. So they decide to recreate the experiment with four new humans to make sure it wasn't a fluke.

I haven't seen season 4 yet, but it's basically building up to a moral along the lines of "doing the right thing is easier when there's less to worry about, and even a millennia old demon can become a better person in the right circumstances", while acknowledging that there's no helping some people (a millennia old angelic being concedes she would have a hard time being good on Earth; Jason's father's sincerely too foolish to understand his own failings).

I think Belkar's is similar. There's no way in hell he's redeeming himself in a cosmic sense for spending most of his life up until this point murdering and maiming people. But it can be acknowledged that:

• He didn't just pop into the world as a murderous psychopath (until we get some exposition saying he was born with an evil banana in place of his cortex and runs only on bad vibes, or somesuch we can assume he's meant to operate like a real life human(oid)), and might have been a better person in other circumstances (we can assume, anyway, since we don't know much about what he was doing beyond "being a jerk to monks" and "maybe wants to murder his hometown in their sleep -- if that wasn't a lie for XP").
• Someone he respected (Lord Shojo) has given him a moral framework of sorts (even if it just boils down to "being nice to people makes them nice back, which is a better way to live"). This is framed as "faking character development" and could come across as rather cynical, but it's fundamentally the same thing a selfish person has to learn to be a bit nicer ("yes, that's how people tick, and getting along with them works better than assuming they'll always screw you over").
• Along with this, Roy's been keeping him from doing anything worse in the mean time and vouching for him, which has basically given him the opportunity to do better (rather than stay in the same loop of solving problems with murder and needing to murder his way out of a new problem).
• The latest comic has shown that he now understands the value of being known as a better person (we got hints of this back when some strangers rewarded him for saving them from slavery). Rather than...y'know, a murderous psychopath.
• From this we can conclude he's on course to understand how to play nice with other people sincerely. Thus redeeming himself on a personal level (much in the same way as Kratos), even if he can't do more than accept what he did in the past was wrong.