Redcloak belkar redemption inconsistancy?

[Wizard_Lizard]

So. Uh. I've noticed that recently a lot of posts have been made about redcloak potentially redeeming himself... and uh. I realized that back when a few people were suggesting that belkar may redeem himself (Myself included)... um... that conclusion was... less than well recieved...
However!
Redcloak has done a lot of bad stuff. Like... killing a lot of people... including many of HIS OWN PEOPLE. And has had no real signs of remorse aside from the aforementioned killing of his own people. Belkar on the other hand HAS shown at least some level of character growth... look.. I'm not saying that Belkar WILL be redeemed. I'm just saying that he's far further up the track then redcloak is.

[Schroeswald]

I'd say that this perceived inconsistency is because the plot very likely needs Redcloak to move beyond his Sunk Cost Fallacy and a lot of his evil to work, while the plot doesn't need Belkar to be any alignment for it to work.

For the record, I do think Belkar will be redeemed, and that Redcloak is fairly likely to be at least somewhat redeemed, but that Belkar's redemption is much more likely because his arc is much more clearly pointing that direction than Redcloak's (and also I do think Jirix might be used as the priest of TDO for the fixing Snarl ritual, making it easier to get out of the plot).

[Emanick]

It's tough to compare the characters, because although they've both done some awful things, their character arcs and motivations are extremely different.

Redcloak is a big-picture, evil-for-a-good-cause guy: everything he does, he does for his god, for the wellbeing of goblinoids, or at worst, to justify the crimes he's committed over the years to himself. ("It'll all be worth it. You'll see.") Belkar, on the other hand, is a shortsighted, id-driven hedonist who kills and lusts just for the fun of it; he has far less empathy than Redcloak and has no real ideology.

They have both committed numerous serious crimes and depraved acts, and both need redemption, but the obstacles preventing them from redeeming themselves are very different. About the only thing they have in common is a sense of pride that is holding them back from acknowledging the full extent of their own failings.

That said, I agree that Belkar has made a lot more progress down the road towards redemption than Redcloak, and he does seem more likely to make it to Neutral in the end.

[understatement]

How evil does irredeemable have to be? On the scale of selfishness vs. the "greater goal," Redcloak is less selfish than Belkar, and his motives could almost be parallel to noble or admirable goals. Almost. What makes him Evil is a whole stew of factors, some inflicted, others very much on him to blame for, which makes it easier for him to justify it. In Redcloak's reasoning, a lot of his Evil can be shifted onto Xykon, or as sacrifices to his God's cause, or a necessary evil, and so it's easier to stay in that mindset.

Belkar? He's given a "blank slate" to work on from the Shojo fever-dream -- after all, he doesn't have to excuse or justify himself in any manner as long as he's under the mission of the Order. He gets a whole new direction in life instead. That's why he's also able to learn of personal empathy and compassion for his team members (specifically Durkon), even if it's slow progress. He doesn't have personal baggage. There's nothing "stopping" him from becoming Good, essentially. Belkar is not willing to change so much as he just does because of the surrounding cirumstances; in contrast, Redcloak's redemption path -- if it even exist -- wouldn't be shaped by circumstance. It would have to be a conscious choice, and at this point in the comic I honestly am not sure if he'll be able to do it, or if he'll have the chance to.

[Angrith]

My guess for why Redcloak's redemption is less contentious, is that he has some good points and redeeming qualities, which Belkar has lacked until recently (note I think Belkar will be redeemed, likely just before death). Recloak ostensibly serves a cause larger than himself, is respectably intelligent, and does care for those goblins beneath his command, at least since Azure city.

Belkar for most of the comic has been looking to kill things in particularly painful and gruesome ways. My mind goes back to the kobold head full of nachos, and "salsa, extra chunky." In short, many people just wanted to see him gone. Now that he's begun an upward trajectory, people are starting to accept his redemption as possible. But he had to display a few positive traits first, like buying the clasp from the gnome woman and turning down her date invitation. That was such a left-turn from his usual antics, that we had to take notice.

In short, Redcloak has good qualities, even if he is evil. Belkar until recently hasn't, so his potential redemption is less popular.

EDIT: grammar

[Jasdoif]

In my abstract estimation, Redcloak redemption theories are largely the work of a small but devoted group, who want Redcloak to return to who he was in Start of Darkness. Belkar's small but devoted group is more interested in subverting his prophesied death, as they are already happy with who he is.

[Wizard_Lizard]

I suppose those are all valid points. I still think that Belkar is more likely to be redeemed than redcloak.

[CriticalFailure]

I don’t know how you figure that Redcloak hasnt had any character development. Anyways, it seems like people think Belkar is a better candidate for redemption because none of the characters he killed for fun were significant, besides the Oracle whose death was mitigated in impact by his prompt raise.

[hungrycrow]

In my abstract estimation, Redcloak redemption theories are largely the work of a small but devoted group, who want Redcloak to return to who he was in Start of Darkness. Belkar's small but devoted group is more interested in subverting his prophesied death, as they are already happy with who he is.

I think many in the "belkar will be redeemed" crowd expect Belkar to die and be redeemed through a heroic sacrifice or some such.

Personally i think he will go for a heroic sacrifice, but it will be left ambiguous whether he is truly redeemed or not.

[mjasghar]

Re: that spoiler
Afaicr Rich has said they did fall
Meanwhile Redcloak has done stuff to innocents - it’s certain that many children were not evacuated from Azure city let alone how many were in the path of the army on the way there
He is Evil - just because he decides that Evil actions mainly are done against non goblinoids doesn’t make those actions not evil.

[Emanick]

Re: that spoiler
Afaicr Rich has said they did fall
Meanwhile Redcloak has done stuff to innocents - it’s certain that many children were not evacuated from Azure city let alone how many were in the path of the army on the way there
He is Evil - just because he decides that Evil actions mainly are done against non goblinoids doesn’t make those actions not evil.

You'll get no argument from me on Redcloak being Evil, but I don't think we know for certain that the hobgoblins slaughtered lots of Azurite children (even if, on balance, it's sadly probably likely). I would not be surprised if the Azurites prioritized evacuating children first, so a disproportionate number of children may have made it out of the city, and even if plenty of children did stay behind, the hobgoblins may not have had reason to kill them. They strike me less as sadists and more as pragmatic conquerors.

It's tough to know, because the narrative devotes basically zero attention to the fate of Azurite kids - children are largely invisible in both Azure City and the fleet of Azurite refugees. In one sense that's probably for the best; this is a comedy-drama, and scenes where children are massacred, enslaved, or desperately smuggled out of the city by parents and left to fend for themselves in the wilderness are neither what we want to read nor what Rich wants to write. It does strain credulity a little when you think about it, though. Why don't we see more children anywhere in Azurite society?

[Fincher]

In my abstract estimation, Redcloak redemption theories are largely the work of a small but devoted group, who want Redcloak to return to who he was in Start of Darkness. Belkar's small but devoted group is more interested in subverting his prophesied death, as they are already happy with who he is.

I can't speak for everyone else, but as one fan of Belkar's, I want him to be redeemed and to subvert his prophesied death. I just don't feel any need to go to bat for his redemption because it seems pretty clear that that's what Rich has been building toward for some time now. I might as well be arguing that Elan and Haley should be together at the end of the story or that Roy shouldn't die two strips before the final battle.

At the same time, while I don't care about Redcloak being redeemed, it's not something I feel the need to complain about if it happens. So I guess Redcloak doesn't have a lot of readers who actively resent him like Belkar did and possibly still does.

[hroþila]

I don't think people speak of Belkar's and Redcloak's redemptions in comparable terms. Many people expect Redcloak's redemption in narrative terms, comparable to (say) Darth Vader's - they don't expect him to become Good or Neutral per se, much less to have atoned for his wrongdoings. These same people would probably consider Belkar narratively redeemed especially if he died heroically, even though many would still consider him Evil.

[Fincher]

I don't think people speak of Belkar's and Redcloak's redemptions in comparable terms. Many people expect Redcloak's redemption in narrative terms, comparable to (say) Darth Vader's - they don't expect him to become Good or Neutral per se. These same people would probably consider Belkar narratively redeemed especially if he died heroically, even though many would still consider him Evil.

Well, see, I'm not so concerned with Belkar having a big heroic moment, or even a big "you are no longer evil" moment, although I could certainly appreciate either in and of itself. If the story ended with Belkar still alive and committed to righting wrongs or making up for his past, that would be more than fine for me.

If it were up to me, everything else aside, Redcloak would reject the opportunity to change sides and fail because of it. But it's a pretty minor thing to me in the grand scheme of things.

[mjasghar]

The problem I have with that redcloak redemption is that it’s often phrased in a way that suggests all he did was justified even if he gets some comeuppance

[Morty]

It's really kind of difficult to address the points in the OP, given that they refer to some unspecified people receiving the suggestion of Belkar's redemption poorly. How do you know the same people can believe in Redcloak's redemption but not Belkar's?

[denthor]

Redclaok is whiney evil for a cause (See Dr. Doom) if given the chance Readcloak would like Doom make a society where intelligence is valued and peace would reign. His method is what is in question harsh sentences, no love for fellow just do as please within these limits and war to bring others to the cause is justified.

The end justifies the means. It is all good in the end so who cares how you got there.

[dancrilis]

I kindof do want Redcloak redeemed - but I kindof want him to redeemed into this guy, this guy and this guy.
He used to just seem to have a lot more fun with stuff then he has now - sometimes he should just relax and enjoy.

As for Belkar I suspect he might already be neutral - or at least as neutral as Vaarsuvius (or Enor and Gannji), but neutral in the OOTS does not mean good (nor in any other DnD setting).

[understatement]

Also, plot timing. Belkar had to go through hundreds of strips to just get where he's at -- in time for the endgame, if I have to phrase it as such. Redcloak, for a villain, has become even Eviler. And unlike Star Wars, there are no emotionally-investing individuals or such around him.

I would've bought Redcloak's potential redemption arc if it was set up way long ago. In-comic wise, though, he hasn't shown any sign of redemption and it's probably not going to happen.

[hroþila]

Also, plot timing. Belkar had to go through hundreds of strips to just get where he's at -- in time for the endgame, if I have to phrase it as such. Redcloak, for a villain, has become even Eviler. And unlike Star Wars, there are no emotionally-investing individuals or such around him.

I would've bought Redcloak's potential redemption arc if it was set up way long ago. In-comic wise, though, he hasn't shown any sign of redemption and it's probably not going to happen.

This. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if redemption was "offered" to him, only for him to reject it, double down and ultimately die unredeemed.

[LadyEowyn]

I think “redemption” means different things for the two characters.

In Belkar’s case it means “cease to be evil”, and I won’t buy that he’s meaningfully on that path until he goes beyond “trying to genuinely be a better teammate” to “actually showing meaningful remorse for many years of wantonly murdering innocents”. Being an evil sadistic muderer for most of his life and then being a decent person for a month at the end of it (without grappling with prior actions) doesn’t add up to “not evil”, for me.

In Redcloak’s case it means “side with the protagonists” (and, concordantly, “recognize he was wrong about The Plan and about working with Xykon”). That doesn’t mean he’ll cease to be Evil. And I think it’s going to happen because the plot is pointing at it very strongly - the world cannot be saved long-term without the cooperation of either Redcloak or TDO, and since we’ve spent a lot of time with Redcloak and only know about TDO by description, the former would have more emotional impact. Rich’s stated principles also mean the story will end with Goblinoids gaining equality, which is Redcloak’s goal.

[Mandor]

I think “redemption” means different things for the two characters.

In Belkar’s case it means “cease to be evil”, and I won’t buy that he’s meaningfully on that path until he goes beyond “trying to genuinely be a better teammate” to “actually showing meaningful remorse for many years of wantonly murdering innocents”. Being an evil sadistic muderer for most of his life and then being a decent person for a month at the end of it (without grappling with prior actions) doesn’t add up to “not evil”, for me.

In Redcloak’s case it means “side with the protagonists” (and, concordantly, “recognize he was wrong about The Plan and about working with Xykon”). That doesn’t mean he’ll cease to be Evil. And I think it’s going to happen because the plot is pointing at it very strongly - the world cannot be saved long-term without the cooperation of either Redcloak or TDO, and since we’ve spent a lot of time with Redcloak and only know about TDO by description, the former would have more emotional impact. Rich’s stated principles also mean the story will end with Goblinoids gaining equality, which is Redcloak’s goal.

Exactly. And it should be noted, either or both or neither character could be "narritively" redeemed, by doing something good in their last moments.... without necessarily being redeemed according to the alignment system / it affecting their afterlife. The Giant may or may not choose to make that distinction, we'll all just have to wait and see what does or doesn't play out for each. But storywise, you could have A without B. Or B without A.

[Angrith]

Personally i think he will go for a heroic sacrifice, but it will be left ambiguous whether he is truly redeemed or not.

I'm not so sure that it will be ambiguous simply because the clasp of protection from evil is the perfect device for letting us know what happened. I really do think Rich included it at least partially for this reason.

[AutomatedTeller]

It's perfectly possible for Redcloak to work with the Order and still be evil. Belkar has done it for the entire time. I see no reason why Redcloak will be redeemed - heck, Xykon is against destroying the world.

Belkar may or may not be redeemed - redemption is a special thing, after all. It certainly looks like a redemption arc, though.

[RatElemental]

I kindof do want Redcloak redeemed - but I kindof want him to redeemed into this guy, this guy and this guy.
He used to just seem to have a lot more fun with stuff then he has now - sometimes he should just relax and enjoy.

As for Belkar I suspect he might already be neutral - or at least as neutral as Vaarsuvius (or Enor and Gannji), but neutral in the OOTS does not mean good (nor in any other DnD setting).

You want Redcloak to be 'redeemed' into his former even more racist deliberate minion sacrificing self?

[dancrilis]

You want Redcloak to be 'redeemed' into his former even more racist deliberate minion sacrificing self?

He is perhaps a more interesting character now - but he is not really as fun anymore, he need to relax and enjoy the evil ever now and again, that doesn't mean he needs to turn on the Hobgoblins etc but surely he can find some other way to let his hair down.

Even with him disliking hobgoblins he was still following the plan at the time, the Dark One wasn't stripping his powers - there is nothing wrong with him enjoying a few jokes and pranks.

And isn't being able to be yourself what internal redemption is all about, after all who cares how others view you providing you are happy in your own skin (and he doesn't really seem to be anymore).

[Emanick]

He is perhaps a more interesting character now - but he is not really as fun anymore, he need to relax and enjoy the evil ever now and again, that doesn't mean he needs to turn on the Hobgoblins etc but surely he can find some other way to let his hair down.

Even with him disliking hobgoblins he was still following the plan at the time, the Dark One wasn't stripping his powers - there is nothing wrong with him enjoying a few jokes and pranks.

And isn't being able to be yourself what internal redemption is all about, after all who cares how others view you providing you are happy in your own skin (and he doesn't really seem to be anymore).

I’m all for Redcloak rediscovering a sense of fun, but only if it doesn’t involve stuff like, y’know, murder.

[hungrycrow]

There's no time for jokes when Redcloak is so close to success. Maybe if he survives into the epilogue he'll be able to relax and enjoy retirement in Gobbotopia.

[RatElemental]

He is perhaps a more interesting character now - but he is not really as fun anymore, he need to relax and enjoy the evil ever now and again, that doesn't mean he needs to turn on the Hobgoblins etc but surely he can find some other way to let his hair down.

Even with him disliking hobgoblins he was still following the plan at the time, the Dark One wasn't stripping his powers - there is nothing wrong with him enjoying a few jokes and pranks.

And isn't being able to be yourself what internal redemption is all about, after all who cares how others view you providing you are happy in your own skin (and he doesn't really seem to be anymore).

You have an odd definition of redeem. Most people mean "became good" or at least "stopped being evil" when they say someone has been redeemed.