When Belkar dies, what will become of his soul?

[hamishspence]

Which was before he started being helpful after the Mark of Justice went off, and before he started actually caring about other people after Durkon sacrificed himself. A lot has changed since that strip.

Actually, he's been "employee of the month" since the Mark got cured, as Haley points out. "Being a cooperative party member" was not, at the time, enough for Roy to be willing to do more than "run out the clock".

[hungrycrow]

Actually, he's been "employee of the month" since the Mark got cured, as Haley points out. "Being a cooperative party member" was not, at the time, enough for Roy to be willing to do more than "run out the clock".

Roy and Haley surmised that it was just a ruse, and at the time it was. After Durkon's death it stopped being a ruse, and Roy seems to have picked up on that.

[Peelee]

Which was before he started being helpful after the Mark of Justice went off, and before he started actually caring about other people after Durkon sacrificed himself. A lot has changed since that strip.

Have you ever heard the phrase, "too little, too late?" even ignoring that Haley directly tells Roy she thinks it's a sham, that was less than two months ago.

[LadyEowyn]

I don’t see Belkar ending up in any non-evil afterlife. A life spent murdering people for fun, followed by a couple weeks of trying to be genuinely cooperative and and asset to his team - but without any remorse or repentance for all the previous murder, slave-trading, and other forms of evil, much less any thought of atonement - is not remotely enough to make him non-evil.

I think him being destroyed by the Snarl is by far the most likely option.

[hamishspence]

even ignoring that Haley directly tells Roy she thinks it's a sham, that was less than two months ago.

And Roy still sees Belkar as making people's lives harder, and as a pretty wretched person, as of a couple of days or so ago:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1182.html

[dancrilis]

Have you ever heard the phrase, "too little, too late?" even ignoring that Haley directly tells Roy she thinks it's a sham, that was less than two months ago.

Roy knows that he 'got away' with hanging around with Belkar because it was down as an attempt to redeem an evil doer - and he knows that trying counts for a lot with the upper planes, as such now that he has reason to believe that Belkar might be on the path to redemption he might feel the need to help him get there - which Belkar will not be able to do if he was dead.

In panel 8 when Haley states that Belkar was being employee of the month he immediately queried if it was genuine.
In panel 20 and 22 he specifically included Belkar in an important decision as he wanted everyone on the same page.
In panel 6 he moved to save Belkar and in panel 11 and 12 trusted him to plan how to save them.
In panel 5 he implied that he didn't think that Belkar was 'still an untrustworthy jerk'.
We don't know how much of this conversation Roy remembers but he did acknowledge Belkar being helpful here (while also thinking that Belkar hadn't really changed).
Whether he remembers or not however he did note on panel 7 that Belkar was 'trying a thing' what 'a thing' is might be up in the air but 'being a better person' might be the answer.

None of this is in any way conclusive that Roy wouldn't just wash his hands of Belkar in a good riddance sort of way if the halfling dies, but as far back as panels 9 and 10 he did regard Belkar as one of his people and based on the Elan issue it is reasonable to think that the upper planes take a dim view of leaving one of your people behind, and if they take a dim view of that leaving one of your people to suffer in the Abyss likely wouldn't please them overly.

edit: spelling and grammer.

[hungrycrow]

here (while also thinking that Belkar hadn't really changed).
Whether he remembers of not however he did note on panel 7 that Belkar was 'trying a thing' what 'a thing' is might be up in the air but 'being a better person' might be the answer.

I think this is the important bit: Roy isn't reaffirming that he sees Belkar as an irredeemable monster; he actually thinks Belkar is redeemable and it's finally worthwhile to push him to be less of an anal fistula. And it ends up paying off in less than 10 strips.

Maybe it's not enough for him to front the diamonds for a Raise Dead, but I think it's enough for him to not veto the idea if Durkon, Elan, and Minrah suggest it.

[Exantius]

I agree with Peelee.

There is no good reason to bring back Belkar if they have accomplished their goal, but I can think of several reasons, even if he has been redeemed at the time of his death, to not do so:
1) he might backslide and resume murdering for fun and profit.
2) retirement would bore Bellar to years and he might start murdering out of frustration.
3) he would likely fall into the company of bad companions who seek to use him for their goals, and he'd murder them.

Okay, I can only think of one reason.

I disagree. Roy may be ruthless enough to not bring back his ally, but Durkon (i.e. the guy who can cast the spell) is all about honor and loyalty. If Belkar picks a bar fight or something like that after the quest and gets killed, then Durkon may think resurrecting him is a waste, but if Belkar dies while helping the Order fulfil its duty it would feel dishonorable not to bring him back. Doubly so if he believes Belkar is turning a new leaf and raising him could save him from an eternity in evil afterlife

My money is on Belkar dying in a manner that prevents resurrection. Either dying to Snarl or being disintegrated. That seems like the only way him not being raised would make sense

[ShadowSandbag]

Here's something I don't think has been brought up yet. What if Belkar dies and doesn't want to be resurrected? We know from Shojo that the Spiro has to be willing to return.

I don't have a good explanation for the moment as to why he wouldn't want to come back, buy did want to put that on the table.

[PontificatusRex]

It occurs to me that there is objective proof that the universe still considered Belkar "Evil" when his clasp got activated in the big fight against Durkula. So I suppose the question would be how much has he changed since then. His conversations with Minrah and Durkon indicate that he definitely is, but on the other hand it's been what, 3 or 4 days strip time since then? Not much time for gradual change that you don't even realize is happening.

Of course, he could still register as "Evil" to magic but be just on the tipping point.

[Exantius]

It occurs to me that there is objective proof that the universe still considered Belkar "Evil" when his clasp got activated in the big fight against Durkula. So I suppose the question would be how much has he changed since then. His conversations with Minrah and Durkon indicate that he definitely is, but on the other hand it's been what, 3 or 4 days strip time since then? Not much time for gradual change that you don't even realize is happening.

Of course, he could still register as "Evil" to magic but be just on the tipping point.

He's definitely still evil, that's for sure, but he might not be by the end of the story. If he commits an extraordinary act of selflessness, e.g. sacrifices his own life for the sake of his friends in a battle against Xycon, that would probably cause his alignment to shift. Of course that would make the shift irrelevant for the rest of the Order but it would change his afterlife destination

[KorvinStarmast]

My money is on Belkar dying in a manner that prevents resurrection. Either dying to Snarl or being disintegrated. That seems like the only way him not being raised would make sense

Happened to Nale.

[Ionathus]

Spoiler: Avatar: The Last Airbender

Show

Zuko spent two and a half seasons trying to either kill Aang or capture him so he could turn him over to, presumably, lifelong imprisonment. He had a change of heart in the span of about a week, and the gAang took all of one episode to accept him into their ranks. To the point that Katara heals him to save his life in the finale. Despite knowing him as "our main villain" for so long, the group quickly changes their perception of him with just a few good-faith deeds on his part.

My point being: fiction loves a good redemption arc, and it lends itself to big showy displays to justify them. Real-world logic of how you should treat somebody based on their long-term patterns of behavior doesn't really apply in the same way.

[Peelee]

I disagree. Roy may be ruthless enough to not bring back his ally

Ruthless? Belkar, even as the Order's ally, has murdered plenty of people. He used to sell people into slavery. I'm sorry, but I hardly think it's "ruthless" to say "this abjectly terrible person should be brought back to life because he helped us a few times". It would be ruthless to murder him. It would be ruthless to send him on a suicide mission. It would not be ruthless to simply not grant him a second life after he lost his first.

[brian 333]

I personally think The Snarl gets him and there is nothing left to resurrect, but assume he goes to the Abyss.

A whole infinity of planes filled with beings he can kill for fun, forever? Awww, man!

"Hi, I'm your personal demon, and I will flay you thrice daily for eternity."

"Glad to meet you. I'm Belkar and this is Mr.Stabby, my psionic knife."

"Ow! Hey, that hurts! My eye! My other eye! Hey! You're supposed to tremble in fear, not disembowel me!"

"Hey, Bellar, Durkon here. Would you like a raise? I mean, I've already spent the diamond, so..."

"Are you kidding? This place rocks!"

[Xihirli]

Spoiler: Avatar: The Last Airbender

Show

Zuko spent two and a half seasons trying to either kill Aang or capture him so he could turn him over to, presumably, lifelong imprisonment. He had a change of heart in the span of about a week, and the gAang took all of one episode to accept him into their ranks. To the point that Katara heals him to save his life in the finale. Despite knowing him as "our main villain" for so long, the group quickly changes their perception of him with just a few good-faith deeds on his part.

My point being: fiction loves a good redemption arc, and it lends itself to big showy displays to justify them. Real-world logic of how you should treat somebody based on their long-term patterns of behavior doesn't really apply in the same way.

Spoiler: ATLA

Show

True, but Zuko never killed any noncombatants, or traded slaves. By my recollection, he never killed anyone. There’s also a few extenuating circumstances to consider. Zuko was raised to be evil, and frankly saw being evil as a burden to bear even from the beginning. Belkar killed people for fun. Zuko’s worst act, that caused his uncle to despair and give up on him for a little while, was betraying his uncle to team up with Azula and go after the Avatar, the thing he’d been doing since the start anyway, in a scene that resulted in the deaths of ZERO people.

Also, it took one episode for them to determine "I don’t think he’s going to betray us, and we’re not going to find another volunteer to teach Aang firebending." It took a few more episodes for them to start letting him in.

[JonahFalcon]

He'll enjoy Pandesmos.

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Pandesmos

Maybe Durkon can get him into Jotunheim.

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Jotunheim

[dancrilis]

He used to sell people into slavery.

Do you have a source for this?

Belkar knows a guy who knows a guy (panel 3) he never claimed to have done it and chaotic good Haley considered it (panel 5).

Frankly Samantha might have been better off that way then she ended up in panel 9.

[hungrycrow]

Do you have a source for this?

Belkar knows a guy who knows a guy (panel 3) he never claimed to have done it and chaotic good Haley considered it (panel 5).

He was one of that guy's best suppliers.

[dancrilis]

He was one of that guy's best suppliers.

He was pals with one of Buggy Lou's best suppliers - I don't see any indication that Belkar himself was a supplier.

[hungrycrow]

He was pals with one of Buggy Lou's best suppliers - I don't see any indication that Belkar himself was a supplier.

My bad, i misread that panel.

[brian 333]

Why would a character like Belkar not have made a little coin on the side? Is it morally more repugnant than killing a guy for his candy bar?

There is only circumstantial evidence, and a suggestion by Belkar that he is willing, so we have no absolute proof, but knowing what we know about Belkar, where is the evidence he wouldn't or didn't engage in the slave trade?

[WanderingMist]

I think he's going to be unmade by The Snarl, and therefore his soul will be unmade too. Belkar will cease to exist and have no afterlife at just the point in his character development where he might have gotten that dream-afterlife he had in Girard's Pyramid.

No, we know the gods have trouble detecting the Snarl, so that would apply to Tiamat and the visions she sends her Oracle as well. so he shouldn't be able to know if Belkar is killed by the Snarl.

[Fyraltari]

No, we know the gods have trouble detecting the Snarl

Huh, source?

[Charity322]

No, we know the gods have trouble detecting the Snarl, so that would apply to Tiamat and the visions she sends her Oracle as well. so he shouldn't be able to know if Belkar is killed by the Snarl.

He never said that Belkar was or wasn't killed by the Snarl. He just said that he would die permanently.

[brian 333]

No, we know the gods have trouble detecting the Snarl, so that would apply to Tiamat and the visions she sends her Oracle as well. so he shouldn't be able to know if Belkar is killed by the Snarl.

Where is the source that says The Oracle's visions are 'from Tiamat'?

My reading is that Tiamat granted the power to see the future to The Oracle, not that she sees the future then shares what she sees. Tiamat is never cited as having the ability to see the future, but the cross-domain agreement allows her to grant powers to her worshippers in the same way that Hel granted Durkula the Control Weather spell. So far as we know, Tiamat cannot see the future at all, so her ability or inability to see The Snarl isn't relevant.

[hungrycrow]

Where is the source that says The Oracle's visions are 'from Tiamat'?

My reading is that Tiamat granted the power to see the future to The Oracle, not that she sees the future then shares what she sees. Tiamat is never cited as having the ability to see the future, but the cross-domain agreement allows her to grant powers to her worshippers in the same way that Hel granted Durkula the Control Weather spell. So far as we know, Tiamat cannot see the future at all, so her ability or inability to see The Snarl isn't relevant.

It is a bit odd that the Oracle predicted V getting the soul splice, but Tiamat seemed blindsided by the Familicide.

[Liquor Box]

Why would a character like Belkar not have made a little coin on the side? Is it morally more repugnant than killing a guy for his candy bar?

There is only circumstantial evidence, and a suggestion by Belkar that he is willing, so we have no absolute proof, but knowing what we know about Belkar, where is the evidence he wouldn't or didn't engage in the slave trade?

Between you and peelee, this is a circular argument. Peelee said him selling into slavery helps demonstrate that he's 'terrible' and you are saying that because he's terrible it's believable that he sells people into slavery. Either might be a reasonable inference if the premise were true but in both cases the premise is being justified partly by conclusion, which is circular.

The same thing was happening less obviously in the discussion of Serini. "I think Serini's good so I interpret her action X way, and because of X I think Serini is good".

[Peelee]

Between you and peelee, this is a circular argument. Peelee said him selling into slavery helps demonstrate that he's 'terrible' and you are saying that because he's terrible it's believable that he sells people into slavery. Either might be a reasonable inference if the premise were true but in both cases the premise is being justified partly by conclusion, which is circular.

The same thing was happening less obviously in the discussion of Serini. "I think Serini's good so I interpret her action X way, and because of X I think Serini is good".

Circular reasoning would require one person making both arguments, or each of us relying on the other argument. Neither is the case (or, at least, I am not relying on anyone else's arguments). It's more two separate people saying two separate things from the other side of things.

[Liquor Box]

Circular reasoning would require one person making both arguments, or each of us relying on the other argument. Neither is the case (or, at least, I am not relying on anyone else's arguments). It's more two separate people saying two separate things from the other side of things.

I don't think it requires it to be the same person at all. But I agree you need to rely on the other conclusion as being at least part of the reasoning for your premise.

You didn't tell us what your premise was for thinking Belkar used to sell people into slavery? Was it just a misremembering of what Dancrilis referred to?