Is Belkar Non-Evil yet?

[RatElemental]

I'm pretty sure being snarky is not an evil act. If anything it'd be chaotic, which would still be something a deva would find distasteful.

[Quebbster]

The title of this thread gives family vacation flashbacks.

"Is Belkar Non-Evil yet?"
"No, the clasp still burns him."
...
"Is Belkar Non-Evil yet?"
"No, the clasp still burns him."
...
"Is Belkar Non-Evil yet?"
"No, the clasp still burns him."

[The Pilgrim]

The title of this thread gives family vacation flashbacks.

"Is Belkar Non-Evil yet?"
"No, the clasp still burns him."
...
"Is Belkar Non-Evil yet?"
"No, the clasp still burns him."
...
"Is Belkar Non-Evil yet?"
"No, the clasp still burns him."

[Worldsong]

I'm pretty sure being snarky is not an evil act. If anything it'd be chaotic, which would still be something a deva would find distasteful.

If snarkiness were to count as Evil then a great many people who willingly partake in altruistic activities are damned.

Also devas are massive killjoys.

[Rizzer]

I don't think anyone is saying that having empathy is inconsistent with being evil. Rather, the idea is that an empathetic character is less evil than a non-empathetic character, all else being equal. Rizzer only said that Belkar is being guided away from evil.

Exactly. Empathy towards the cat is the first step. The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.

Actually, choosing to "pretend" to to have character growth may for Belkar well be his first step #606. Lord Shojo's goodness is insidious and inexorable. By getting Belkar to pretend to be good, eventually Shojo gets Belkar to actually become good.

[MartytheBioGuy]

I think his conversation with Minrah about changing who you are, and how once you've changed, the new people you meet will only know you as your changed self, was an important step, too. A lot of recent Belkar strips have been thematically tied to change.

[Peelee]

Exactly. Empathy towards the cat is the first step. The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.

Actually, choosing to "pretend" to to have character growth may for Belkar well be his first step #606. Lord Shojo's goodness is insidious and inexorable. By getting Belkar to pretend to be good, eventually Shojo gets Belkar to actually become good.

That wasn't Shojo. That was Belkar's own subconscious. Further, he never told Belkar to pretend to be good. He told Belkar to stop being one-dimensional and acting in a way that would likely get him killed. This is coming off Haley abandoning him for killing the and the Oracle, after all.

Non-one-dimensional does not automatically mean Good. Caring about other people does not automatically mean Good. Being a team player does not automatically mean Good. Redcloak is very well-rounded, and is Evil. Malack cared about other people, and was Evil. The IFCC are team players, and are Evil.

[dancrilis]

That wasn't Shojo. That was Belkar's own subconscious.

Or you sure?
Panel 2 says that it was only probably Belkar's imagination, but Panel 3 implies he is speaking as a dead person.

Non-one-dimensional does not automatically mean Good.

And being one dimensional does not automatically mean non-good - but that might be a side issue.

[Peelee]

Or you sure?
Panel 2 says that it was only probably Belkar's imagination, but Panel 3 implies he is speaking as a dead person.

I disagree about panel 3 - that's just openly stating things Belkar's already surmised, even if he did not care to pay attention to them ("Shojo" isn't exactly making great revelations about hidden or subtle characteristics there).

The previous strip makes a better case for it not being entirely his subconscious, for the record, but I still doubt; Shojo barely knew Belkar at all, he almost certainly wouldn't have such keen introspection and pervasiveness to a notoriously hard-to-convince halfling that he met a couple of times at best.

And being one dimensional does not automatically mean non-good - but that might be a side issue.

I agree. I just find it... odd, let's say, that anytime Belkar manages to not openly murder someone in broad daylight, people rush in to ask if that means he's Good now. That's not setting the bar low, that's putting the bar in the Mariana Trench (or Stick world's equivalent).

[dancrilis]

The previous strip makes a better case for it not being entirely his subconscious, for the record, but I still doubt; Shojo barely knew Belkar at all, he almost certainly wouldn't have such keen introspection and pervasiveness to a notoriously hard-to-convince halfling that he met a couple of times at best.

I do admit I am partial to it being a piece of the magical curse that triggers when someone moves to remove it - as such it is a bit of Belkar's mind but interacting with a piece of magic based on Shojo.

I agree. I just find it... odd, let's say, that anytime Belkar manages to not openly murder someone in broad daylight, people rush in to ask if that means he's Good now. That's not setting the bar low, that's putting the bar in the Mariana Trench (or Stick world's equivalent).

Perhaps 'that's putting the bar in the lower planes'.

[Peelee]

I do admit I am partial to it being a piece of the magical curse that triggers when someone moves to remove it - as such it is a bit of Belkar's mind but interacting with a piece of magic based on Shojo.

I would agree, especially with the "evolve or die" phrase to fix it, but CoL mentioned that it was a standard phrase for Shojo when he used MoJ, so I don't think it would be tailored to Belkar. It also didn't kick in until Belkar was fairly close to death, who happened to have a cleric nearby who could reverse it, so that all seems way too convenient for a built-in feature and much more like his subconscious desperately trying to jump the battery, ya know?

Perhaps 'that's putting the bar in the lower planes'.

Dangit, I wish I'd thought of that. I'm stealing it for future use. Brilliant.

[Metastachydium]

It also didn't kick in until Belkar was fairly close to death.

As per the cleric of Loki (who has seen the thing before quite a couple of times) the curse is „[n]asty, but nonfatal” (v. strip no. 602).

[brian 333]

I agree with Pelee. Belkar is too evil for minor acts of self restraint to matter to his alignment.

I hope Belkar does achieve a measure of redemption before the end, but he won't get there with the halfling baby steps we're seeing so far.

[MartytheBioGuy]

I think Belkar is still pretty obviously evil, but we have seen him move through the course of the comic from "obviously, stupidly evil," to "pretending to the play the game, even as an evil person," to "actually cares about some things, but is still obviously evil," to "is actually experiencing some conflict about who he even is, but still acting on an evil charted course." That last one is key, because where he is allows for change, while where he's been has not. I'm also of the opinion that while restraint is obviously not a redemptive act, he doesn't necessarily have to go on a 100 page redemption sidequest where he makes up for every evil action he's ever done in order to be considered chaotic neutral. (And yes, I'm being hyperbolic regarding others' arguments. Sorry about that, it's more fun.)

[dancrilis]

I agree with Pelee. Belkar is too evil for minor acts of self restraint to matter to his alignment.

Can you show a minor act of restraint.

Belkar doesn't want to harm innocent people any more (arguable) - within DnD that is all you need for Neutral.

Effectively 'all that is required for the triumph of neutral is for good and evil people to do nothing'.

[Worldsong]

I think Belkar is still pretty obviously evil, but we have seen him move through the course of the comic from "obviously, stupidly evil," to "pretending to the play the game, even as an evil person," to "actually cares about some things, but is still obviously evil," to "is actually experiencing some conflict about who he even is, but still acting on an evil charted course." That last one is key, because where he is allows for change, while where he's been has not. I'm also of the opinion that while restraint is obviously not a redemptive act, he doesn't necessarily have to go on a 100 page redemption sidequest where he makes up for every evil action he's ever done in order to be considered chaotic neutral. (And yes, I'm being hyperbolic regarding others' arguments. Sorry about that, it's more fun.)

At least we're in agreement that to be Neutral on the vertical scale you don't have to repent for every Evil act you've performed. That's for people trying to become Good.

[RatElemental]

At least we're in agreement that to be Neutral on the vertical scale you don't have to repent for every Evil act you've performed. That's for people trying to become Good.

I'd argue that you become Good first and then because you are Good you go on a quest to right all your wrongs.

[Worldsong]

I'd argue that you become Good first and then because you are Good you go on a quest to right all your wrongs.

That boils down to a person's perspective of morality. Is morality your intentions, your actions or both. There's going to be people arguing in favour of any of those three or another option entirely.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

That boils down to a person's perspective of morality. Is morality your intentions, your actions or both. There's going to be people arguing in favour of any of those three or another option entirely.

In OotS, the Deva is quite clear that it is both, with the actions being examined, but the intention and, more importntly, how you try to get back on the wagon when you've fallen off of it, that counts.

And I'll repeat that I still don't see how Belkar is becoming less Evil. He's just a tiny bit less Chaotic, by virtue of trying to be a more reliable team member. Feeling bad about thieving is also a mark of less Chaotic impulses. While lack of remorse and continued enjoyment of murder and bloodshed when the party engages in such is clearly still quite Evil.

So yes, instead of corner-camping, he's inching toward more the middle of the CE box but, if anything, more along the bottom row than up the right hand side.

Grey Wolf

[MartytheBioGuy]

Oh pish tosh. Moral philosophy is actually really simple, and not at all controversial. That's why it's been very smooth sailing on answering this thread's basic question. [/S]
I'd say that whatever happens to Belkar, alignment-wise, it's bound to illuminate some part of the Giant's position on that argument.

[Worldsong]

In OotS, the Deva is quite clear that it is both, with the actions being examined, but the intention and, more importntly, how you try to get back on the wagon when you've fallen off of it, that counts.

And I'll repeat that I still don't see how Belkar is becoming less Evil. He's just a tiny bit less Chaotic, by virtue of trying to be a more reliable team member. Feeling bad about thieving is also a mark of less Chaotic impulses. While lack of remorse and continued enjoyment of murder and bloodshed when the party engages in such is clearly still quite Evil.

So yes, instead of corner-camping, he's inching toward more the middle of the CE box but, if anything, more along the bottom row than up the right hand side.

Grey Wolf

I don't really see how being a reliable team member equates to being less Chaotic. If his reliability was based on him lying less I could see it, but he's still perfectly fine with deception. His reliability is based on him being willing to act to the benefit of the party of his own volition, which to me is unrelated to either Lawful and Chaotic. It just means his objectives are now in alignment with the rest of the party and/or he's aware that rocking the boat is a bad idea.

And so far as the thieving goes, he's uncomfortable stealing from someone who's done nothing to him and who has been friendly and helpful. That also seems more to do with Good/Evil than Lawful/Chaotic, since Chaotic Good characters would (in general) avoid stealing from people who've done nothing to deserve such treatment.

[Peelee]

As per the cleric of Loki (who has seen the thing before quite a couple of times) the curse is „[n]asty, but nonfatal” (v. strip no. 602).

Sorry, I didn't mean by the curse, I meant by the group of armed hostile trying to break down the door to kill Belkar and CoL, who could absolutely be heard. Hence Belkar's subconscious kicking in, since he was otherwise entirely powerless.

Belkar doesn't want to harm innocent people any more (arguable) - within DnD that is all you need for Neutral.

A.) Vety arguable. In fact, I would argue it.
2.) Pretty sure in D&D that's all you need for Neutral so long as you haven't been a serial killer/slaver/sex trafficker for most of your life.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I don't really see how being a reliable team member equates to being less Chaotic.

Putting the needs of the group above your own is practically the definition of Lawful.

And so far as the thieving goes, he's uncomfortable stealing from someone who's done nothing to him and who has been friendly and helpful. That also seems more to do with Good/Evil than Lawful/Chaotic, since Chaotic Good characters would (in general) avoid stealing from people who've done nothing to deserve such treatment.

Tell that to Haley. In the same way as "putting the needs of the group above your own" is a canonical lawful behaviour, "not seeing anything wrong with stealing" is a stereotypical chaotic behaviour.

Grey Wolf

[Worldsong]

Putting the needs of the group above your own is practically the definition of Lawful.

Pretty much any definition of alignments I've come across has putting the needs of the group above your own as the definition of Good.

In fact I feel like I have to ask how you'd define Good if you use that definition of Lawful because I'm concerned you're conflating the two.

Tell that to Haley. In the same way as "putting the needs of the group above your own" is a canonical lawful behaviour, "not seeing anything wrong with stealing" is a stereotypical chaotic behaviour.

Grey Wolf

Funny enough I don't think we've seen many, if any, examples of Haley stealing valuables from good people. Being Chaotic means that you don't think stealing is innately wrong, it doesn't mean that you think stealing is never wrong. It just becomes circumstantial.

In fact thinking that whether something is good or bad is circumstantial is for me one of the more significant ways to define Chaotic.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

In fact I feel like I have to ask how you'd define Good if you use that definition of Lawful because I'm concerned you're conflating the two.

Good: Putting the needs of others above of your own. Even if they are not in your group. In fact, especially if they are not part of your group. And if necessary, going out of your way in doing so, even if it cost your resources.

Evil: Putting your needs above everyone else's, especially those most vulnerable to abuse. In fact, especially if they are easy prey. And if it comes to that, putting a higher value on resources than the lives of the people around you.

Lawful: What is good an evil is best determined by the group, not by the individual. The group knows, on aggregate, better than any one member, by proving multiple points of view.

Chaotic: Only I can be responsible for my own moral choices. What the group decides neither binds me nor controls me.

Grey Wolf

[Worldsong]

Good: Putting the needs of others above of your own. Even if they are not in your group. In fact, especially if they are not part of your group. And if necessary, going out of your way in doing so, even if it cost your resources.

Evil: Putting your needs above everyone else's, especially those most vulnerable to abuse. In fact, especially if they are easy prey. And if it comes to that, putting a higher value on resources than the lives of the people around you.

Lawful: What is good an evil is best determined by the group, not by the individual. The group knows, on aggregate, better than any one member, by proving multiple points of view.

Chaotic: Only I can be responsible for my own moral choices. What the group decides neither binds me nor controls me.

Grey Wolf

Okay so the definition of Lawful is less 'putting the needs of the group above the needs of the self' and more 'letting the group decide which needs have higher priority'. Which is similar but I do find the distinction important, since the first one implies selflessness and the second implies subjecting yourself to a higher authority. Might just be nitpicking on my side.

I can agree with the first part of the Chaotic definition but not with the second, because only an idiot would believe that the decisions made by the group they're part of (or just interacting with) can't influence their own actions, for better or for worse.

The easiest example being the Chaotic Good character who's helping save the world and works together with the rest of the party but who just as easily takes initiative. They know that on their own they're not going to be able to save the world, so their decision to cooperate isn't based on the belief that the group knows better than the individual but the awareness that combining their strength with other people yields better results.

What matters in that scenario is intention.

Personally I've always felt like the difference between Lawful and Chaotic also has some Absolutism vs Relativism involved. Reason being that a rogue knight is a loner who is still considered Lawful because they follow a rigid code of honour, which might come from some higher authority but which they might also have constructed for themselves.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Okay so the definition of Lawful is less 'putting the needs of the group above the needs of the self' and more 'letting the group decide which needs have higher priority'. Which is similar but I do find the distinction important, since the first one implies selflessness and the second implies subjecting yourself to a higher authority. Might just be nitpicking on my side.

Very generally, I consider the G-E axis to be about intentions, and the L-C about means/methods of execution. Subordinating your decision making to a group is therefore as Lawful as it gets, because it's not about what you are doing, but how you are deciding what to do.

I can agree with the first part of the Chaotic definition but not with the second, because only an idiot would believe that the decisions made by the group they're part of (or just interacting with) can't influence their own actions, for better or for worse.

It might help if I give you the exact quote that defines Chaotic Neutral for me?

I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

And also:

“Under what circumstances is it moral for a group to do that which is not moral for a member of that group to do alone?”
“Uh… that’s a trick question.”
“It is the key question, dear Wyoming. A radical question that strikes to the root of the whole dilemma of government. Anyone who answers honestly and abides by all consequences knows where he stands – and what he will die for.”

But seriously, Worldsong, I'm fine to agree to disagree. While I do think Belkar is moving further in the L-C axis than in the G-E one, I'll readily admit he is moving at least some in both.

Grey Wolf

[Worldsong]

Very generally, I consider the G-E axis to be about intentions, and the L-C about means/methods of execution. Subordinating your decision making to a group is therefore as Lawful as it gets, because it's not about what you are doing, but how you are deciding what to do.

That's actually very interesting. I've always treated the G-E and the L-C axes as being judged the same with the only real difference being what exactly you're judging.

But seriously, Worldsong, I'm fine to agree to disagree. While I do think Belkar is moving further in the L-C axis than in the G-E one, I'll readily admit he is moving at least some in both.

Grey Wolf

Yeah, that's fine. I do like discussing alignments because it's interesting to see what kind of thoughts people have on the subject, but I'm not out to keep going until either one of us is converted. I think I do have a better understanding of your approach now which is always nice to have.

Also, interesting quotes.

[Metastachydium]

Sorry, I didn't mean by the curse, I meant by the group of armed hostile trying to break down the door to kill Belkar and CoL, who could absolutely be heard. Hence Belkar's subconscious kicking in, since he was otherwise entirely powerless.

I see.

Evil: Putting your needs above everyone else's, especially those most vulnerable to abuse. In fact, especially if they are easy prey. And if it comes to that, putting a higher value on resources than the lives of the people around you.

Lawful: What is good an evil is best determined by the group, not by the individual. The group knows, on aggregate, better than any one member, by proving multiple points of view.

As for Evil: disagreed. Were the goblinoid cause Redcloak's one and only drive (I am aware this is not the case, since the whole deal is at least partially personal), and were he to put himself directly into harm's way as often as necessary to improve the standing of his species, ready to die for this goal without much of a chance to ever see the new status quo (this, incidentally, is pretty much the case: Redcloak expects Xykon to blast him into oblivion if he succeeds in performing the Ritual and the lich realizes he gets nothing out of it), leading an army against a mostly Good-aligned major population center and doing his best to ensure that as many of its citizens will be killed or enslaved as possible (heck, once the city is taken he races to the harbour to try and sink a ship full of refugees), because that would prevent them from reclaiming the city (which would not benefit his people) would still make him Evil even if he doesn't personally kill innocents or keep any slaves of his own. Selfless is not Good. Not necessarily, anyway.

As for Lawful: I always thought following a strict personal code makes one Lawful, even if the rest of society follows (or recommends the following of) different codes.

[hamishspence]

As for Lawful: I always thought following a strict personal code makes one Lawful, even if the rest of society follows (or recommends the following of) different codes.

The Giant on "personal code Lawfulness".

In my personal interpretation of Lawfulness in D&D, I believe that yes, it is possible to be Lawful using a personal code rather than the societal definitions of law and order. However, I believe that the burden of upholding that code has to be much stricter than that of the average person in order to actually qualify as Lawful. You must be willing to suffer personal detriment through adhesion to your code, without wavering, if you want to wear the Lawful hat.

Because almost everyone has a personal code of some sort; Robin Hood had a personal code, and he's the poster child for Chaotic Good. The reason his code doesn't rise to the level of Lawful is that he would be willing to bend it in a pinch. And since he's already bucking all the societal traditions of his civilization, there are no additional penalties or punishments for him breaking his own code. He's unlikely to beat himself up if he needs to violate his own principles for the Greater Good; he'll justify it to himself as doing what needed to be done, maybe sigh wistfully once, and then get on with his next adventure.

Conversely, a Lawful character who obeys society's traditions has a ready-made source of punishment should he break those standards. If such a character does stray, she can maintain her Lawfulness by submitting to the proper authorities for judgment. Turning yourself in effectively atones for the breaking of the code, undoing (or at least mitigating) the non-Lawful act.

A Lawful character who operates strictly by a personal code, on the other hand, is responsible for punishing herself in the event of a breach of that code. If she waves it off as doing what needed to be done, then she is not Lawful, she's Neutral at the least. If she does it enough, she may even become Chaotic. A truly Lawful character operating on a personal code will suffer through deeply unpleasant situations in order to uphold it, and will take steps to punish themselves if they don't (possibly going as far as to commit honorable suicide).

People think that using the "personal code" option makes life as a Lawful character easier. It shouldn't. It should be harder to maintain an entirely self-directed personal code than it is to subscribe to the code of an existing country or organization. This is one of the reasons that most Lawful characters follow an external code. It is not required, no, but it is much, much easier. Exceptions should be unusual and noteworthy. It should be an exceptional roleplaying challenge to take on the burden of holding yourself to a strict code even when there are no external penalties for failing.