When Belkar dies, what will become of his soul?

[Charity322]

Unlike Belkar who actually tried helping Lou &co. get away with their captured slaves – until the poor bugs made it personal. (Speaking of Belkar and slaves, by the way, while Haley humiliating herself was certainly an acceptable outcome for him, I'm pretty sure he was at least mostly serious about putting the "slaves" they captured during their "daring slaving raid" back in Gobbotopia City to good use.)

That was rather confusing how he overreacted there. All he needed to say was, 'hey, that's my cat' and they would have given Mr Scruffy back to him.

So far, the only thing I see in comic that supports the opposite is that it has not been shown. On that basis, Belkar's last bathroom break was in Dungeon Crawlin' Fools.

He tried to have another one later, but V put a fire trap on the toilet lid. XD


Overall, I'm not sure how this conversation got into proving or disproving that Belkar would or did sell people into slavery. There's plenty of other stuff he did that proves him to be evil (or at least to have been evil), so it's kind of irrelevant to where he might end up in the afterlife.

[brian 333]

The circular part was combining Peelee's comment with yours. It would be circular to say "He's evil so probably a slaver, and him being a slaver helps show he's evil".

It seemed to me that the reason people might have been (and are continuing) to take Belar's comment about selling Samantha into slavery as a serious intention on his part, but writing off Hayley's similar sentiment as her 'getting distracted' because Hayley is good and Belkar as evil. If that was the case, then using Belkar's comment to support a conclusion that he is evil would be circular, but peelee has said he was not relying on Belkar being evil to distinguish him from Hayley in the scene - he just misremembered it.

Your logic taken alone is not circular. It's not good logic though - the mere fact that he's a bad person is not evidence that he's done that particular bad thing. For him being evil to show that he's probably a slaver, you'd have to show that most evil people engage in slavery.

I have said that we do not have proof that Belkar participated in slave trading.
I have also said there is evidence to indicate it is probable that he did.
I conclude that since there is no evidence that he did not, it is probable that he did.
That is not circular logic. That is not bad logic. That is logic. One weighs the available information and judges what can be reasonably concluded from it.

When new evidence appears, I am prepared to adjust my conclusion to conform with the new information. I am not prepared to ignore previously presented information.

If there is exonerating information of which I am unaware, now would be a good time to present it.

[Peelee]

Ah. So Belkar is evil, so we can assume his idle thoughts were indicating evil (withholding the benefit of any doubt). And because we've concluded that his idle thoughts indicate evil, we use that as a premise to conclude he is still evil. I thought we'd get here eventually.

If you did not make faulty assumptions then you would not arrive here. I did not say we can conclude anything based on that. I said it gives insight into the character. In this case, we have a person who has killed many people and is thinking about killing another. I am not as inclined as you are to chalk it up to normal thoughts that normal people have. I am not concluding anything based on this. If you make conclusions on such flimsy ideas, that's your own problem. Don't assign blame to me for your thought process.

It seems like you're still trying to justify your earlier claim of circular reasoning that you arrived at with no evidence and seemingly faulty assumptions (ie assuming someone else and I were basing arguments off each other, despite never quoting each other, referencing each other, and each of our arguments standing on their own without the other's whatsoever). You then claimed that you were incorrect because I misrembered a scene (I do not know how you arrived at the conclusion that this meant it was not circular, but I am glad you got to the destination regardless of the road). You are now trying to go back to that claim by making yet further faulty assumptions. Perhaps it might be better to wait until there is actual circular reasoning before trying to make such claims again?

I don;t see much difference between Roy having the urge to "beat the crop" out of Elan, and Belkar making a passing comment about stabbing Roy.

Ah. Perhaps I can clarify. Killing someone and not killing someone are two different, distinct concepts. Does this help? If not, I may not be able to form any effective responses past this point.

That was rather confusing how he overreacted there. All he needed to say was, 'hey, that's my cat' and they would have given Mr Scruffy back to him.

Not really confusing. He's a serial killer who murders people over trivialities.

[Fyraltari]

I have said that we do not have proof that Belkar participated in slave trading.
I have also said there is evidence to indicate it is probable that he did.
I conclude that since there is no evidence that he did not, it is probable that he did.
That is not circular logic. That is not bad logic. That is logic. One weighs the available information and judges what can be reasonably concluded from it.

When new evidence appears, I am prepared to adjust my conclusion to conform with the new information. I am not prepared to ignore previously presented information.

If there is exonerating information of which I am unaware, now would be a good time to present it.

I would say that the fact that Belkar "knows a guy who knows a guy" who buys slave, hints that he's never sold slaves himself otherwise he'd have simply known a guy (there's of course the possibility that Belkar's former customers are no longer in business, which moght be for kife and face realted reasons, knowing him).

Of course as his various comments toward slavery indicate this would be more for lack of opportunity than lack of inclination.

[Liquor Box]

If you did not make faulty assumptions then you would not arrive here. I did not say we can conclude anything based on that. I said it gives insight into the character. In this case, we have a person who has killed many people and is thinking about killing another. I am not as inclined as you are to chalk it up to normal thoughts that normal people have. I am not concluding anything based on this. If you make conclusions on such flimsy ideas, that's your own problem. Don't assign blame to me for your thought process.

So when you said it gives insight into what sort of person Belkar is, did you mean an evil person (in his present state at the time)? I

That's certainly how it read to me in the context, but I'm interest in what else you might say it meant. If not that, what sort of person did you mean

It seems like you're still trying to justify your earlier claim of circular reasoning that you arrived at with no evidence and seemingly faulty assumptions (ie assuming someone else and I were basing arguments off each other, despite never quoting each other, referencing each other, and each of our arguments standing on their own without the other's whatsoever). You then claimed that you were incorrect because I misrembered a scene (I do not know how you arrived at the conclusion that this meant it was not circular, but I am glad you got to the destination regardless of the road). You are now trying to go back to that claim by making yet further faulty assumptions. Perhaps it might be better to wait until there is actual circular reasoning before trying to make such claims again?

Not at all, I accepted it on face value when you said you simply misremembered the exchange between Belkar and Hayley around Samantha. And I said so more than once.

But your intuition is right that i think you have used circular logic this time round. But, as noted, I will be interested to hear what sort of person your Belkar's thoughts showed he was, if not evil.

Ah. Perhaps I can clarify. Killing someone and not killing someone are two different, distinct concepts. Does this help? If not, I may not be able to form any effective responses past this point.

That is a helpful observation. But what has it got to do with this conversation? Neither Belkar nor Roy mentioned killing their ally. Roy wanted to beat Elan, Belkar wanted to stab roy - both would hurt, neither is likely to kill them.

I have said that we do not have proof that Belkar participated in slave trading.
I have also said there is evidence to indicate it is probable that he did.
I conclude that since there is no evidence that he did not, it is probable that he did.
That is not circular logic. That is not bad logic. That is logic. One weighs the available information and judges what can be reasonably concluded from it.

When new evidence appears, I am prepared to adjust my conclusion to conform with the new information. I am not prepared to ignore previously presented information.

If there is exonerating information of which I am unaware, now would be a good time to present it.

I don't agree that evidence of a very general proclivity to do bad things, is evidence that he has actually done a particular bad thing.

I think there is exonerating evidence. I think that if he had actual experience selling people to slavery he would have mentioned it when discussing Samantha with Hayley. Instead he only referred to knowing someone who knows someone. To me that is an odd thing to say if he had been involved in the slaving himself.

Well yes, because they're characters with completely different histories. First of all, it was Belkar trying to convince Haley, not the other way around, so that already says something. Belkar is the one who was pals with a slaver, Belkar is the one who was shown to not give a damn about people being captured to be sold into slavery, he's the one who wanted to use liberated Azurite slaves as his own slaves, while Haley is the one who is shown fighting to liberate slaves on at least three separate occasions, but who's also shown to have a weakness for money. So no, it wasn't just "because Haley is good and Belkar is evil", and it's completely fair to take that conversation seriously and as further indication that Belkar is evil and totally fine with slavery, without applying the same to Haley.

So it is only part of the reason? Fair enough.

[Ionathus]

That was rather confusing how he overreacted there. All he needed to say was, 'hey, that's my cat' and they would have given Mr Scruffy back to him.

I imagine even the concept of them eating Mr. Scruffy tripped off his berserk button. He's not (until recently) been one for "impulse control."

[brian 333]

So when you said it gives insight into what sort of person Belkar is, did you mean an evil person (in his present state at the time)? I

That's certainly how it read to me in the context, but I'm interest in what else you might say it meant. If not that, what sort of person did you mean



Not at all, I accepted it on face value when you said you simply misremembered the exchange between Belkar and Hayley around Samantha. And I said so more than once.

But your intuition is right that i think you have used circular logic this time round. But, as noted, I will be interested to hear what sort of person your Belkar's thoughts showed he was, if not evil.



That is a helpful observation. But what has it got to do with this conversation? Neither Belkar nor Roy mentioned killing their ally. Roy wanted to beat Elan, Belkar wanted to stab roy - both would hurt, neither is likely to kill them.



I don't agree that evidence of a very general proclivity to do bad things, is evidence that he has actually done a particular bad thing.

I think there is exonerating evidence. I think that if he had actual experience selling people to slavery he would have mentioned it when discussing Samantha with Hayley. Instead he only referred to knowing someone who knows someone. To me that is an odd thing to say if he had been involved in the slaving himself.



So it is only part of the reason? Fair enough.

1. He expressed intent to sell a character.

2. "I know a guy who knows a guy," demonstrates association with others who do, in fact, sell characters.

These two facts compliment one another. Whether he literally thought enslaving Samantha was a good idea or not, he still has admitted to guilt by association.

If a teacher steps into a high school restroom filled with smoke, she is justified in concluding that all of the girls there at the time were either smoking, or aiding and abetting the act. Likewise, Belkar's admission that he knows a slaver and is willing to sell a character into slavery indicates that, at the very least, been complicit in the slave trade, even if his role was after the fact.

It is not proof as would be required in a modern court. It is circumstantial at best. But he stated intent and assured us he has the means.

Why would a criminal admit to crimes under any circumstances? Belkar's lack of a confession is no more surprising than Tony Soprano not confessing to murder. Jails are full of people who can tell you all about how crimes they didn't commit were accomplished. But, hey, if you have stolen merchandise, I know a guy who knows a guy.

[Xihirli]

Also "new Belkar:" casually dismissing the lives of the dwarves killed by the vampires, and expressing a lack of understanding at why someone WOULD value their lives.

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1100.html

[Ionathus]

Also "new Belkar:" casually dismissing the lives of the dwarves killed by the vampires, and expressing a lack of understanding at why someone WOULD value their lives.

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1100.html

Good gods, they can teach you how to detect Evil, but not sarcasm?

[Liquor Box]

1. He expressed intent to sell a character.

2. "I know a guy who knows a guy," demonstrates association with others who do, in fact, sell characters.

These two facts compliment one another. Whether he literally thought enslaving Samantha was a good idea or not, he still has admitted to guilt by association.

If a teacher steps into a high school restroom filled with smoke, she is justified in concluding that all of the girls there at the time were either smoking, or aiding and abetting the act. Likewise, Belkar's admission that he knows a slaver and is willing to sell a character into slavery indicates that, at the very least, been complicit in the slave trade, even if his role was after the fact.

It is not proof as would be required in a modern court. It is circumstantial at best. But he stated intent and assured us he has the means.

Are you saying that he's the sort of person who would consider selling someone to slavery, or that he has probably actually done so? Because his exchange with Hayley does suggest the first, it's just the second that is completely unsupported.

Why would a criminal admit to crimes under any circumstances? Belkar's lack of a confession is no more surprising than Tony Soprano not confessing to murder. Jails are full of people who can tell you all about how crimes they didn't commit were accomplished. But, hey, if you have stolen merchandise, I know a guy who knows a guy.

Tony frequently did admit to crimes in conversation with his own crew. Belkar frequently has admitted to crimes to the Order.

[brian 333]

Are you saying that he's the sort of person who would consider selling someone to slavery, or that he has probably actually done so? Because his exchange with Hayley does suggest the first, it's just the second that is completely unsupported.


Tony frequently did admit to crimes in conversation with his own crew. Belkar frequently has admitted to crimes to the Order.

Actually, the assertion that he has not committed acts that resulted in enslavement, or aided and abetted such acts, is not supported. I have given quite significant support for the idea that it is likely that he has.

The claim that he was never shown in comic to have done so is valid if I made the claim that it is certain he has been involved in the slave trade as other than a victim. I have made no such claim.

My claim is that it is likely, based on what we have seen in comic, that he has.

I have seen no evidence that he has not. There are no instances of his having opposed the institution of slavery. There are no instances of him denouncing it on principle. In fact, the only evidence we have indicates willingness on his part to take part in it, so long as the enslaved person is not Belkar Bitterleaf.

'It has not been shown in comic, therefore it did not happen' is a logical fallacy. We have not seen Roy eat since Azure City New Year. I'm willing to bet he's had a meal in the last 24 hours. Since it has not been shown in comic, it cannot be proved, but it can reasonably be asserted as likely. In fact, it is so likely, the previously mentioned assertion cannot be taken seriously. To make it one would be required to present in comic material to support the assertion.

I don't claim Belkar has been active in the slave trade because he is Evil. I have never tried to link the two. Xykon is Evil, and so far as I know never engaged in the slave trade until the hobgoblins he lead to Azure City began taking slaves. Even then, he was not interested in enslaving anyone. (Torturing, yes. Killing, yes. Turning corpses into zombies, yes.)

So, instead of repeating that I am wrong, show me evidence that he, contrary to multiple statements that support his having been actively involved in the slave trade, is in fact either neutral to or opposed to the enslavement of anyone not named Belkar Bitterleaf.

[Xihirli]

Good gods, they can teach you how to detect Evil, but not sarcasm?

Oh, I can detect the sarcasm, but it doesn't really hurt my case since the joke Belkar is telling is "someone values the lives of their peers. Isn't that FUNNY and RIDICULOUS?"

[Mic_128]

That was rather confusing how he overreacted there. All he needed to say was, 'hey, that's my cat' and they would have given Mr Scruffy back to him.

Imagine it was someone's child instead. The parent that cares about the kid aren't going to ignore the fact they were willing to eat a child, just because they gave the kid back.

Oh, I can detect the sarcasm, but it doesn't really hurt my case since the joke Belkar is telling is "someone values the lives of their peers. Isn't that FUNNY and RIDICULOUS?"

You're really forcing that interpretation there.

[Xihirli]

What’s the joke then?
When one person reacts appropriately to a slaughter and you sarcastically suggest "oh, you must not like littering."
So where’s the joke here? That isn’t at the expense of general empathy for others?

[RatElemental]

What’s the joke then?
When one person reacts appropriately to a slaughter and you sarcastically suggest "oh, you must not like littering."
So where’s the joke here? That isn’t at the expense of general empathy for others?

I think the term for it is "Gallows Humor."

Actually, the assertion that he has not committed acts that resulted in enslavement, or aided and abetted such acts, is not supported. I have given quite significant support for the idea that it is likely that he has.

The claim that he was never shown in comic to have done so is valid if I made the claim that it is certain he has been involved in the slave trade as other than a victim. I have made no such claim.

My claim is that it is likely, based on what we have seen in comic, that he has.

I have seen no evidence that he has not. There are no instances of his having opposed the institution of slavery. There are no instances of him denouncing it on principle. In fact, the only evidence we have indicates willingness on his part to take part in it, so long as the enslaved person is not Belkar Bitterleaf.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Belkar is not the sort of person who would sell someone into slavery, it's just that all of the comments we have from him about it suggest he has not actually done so. As has been pointed out Belkar wouldn't "know a guy who knows a guy" if he did that, he would be that guy. If a comic came out that had a flashback to the time Belkar totally sold some people into slavery I wouldn't be surprised, just slightly confused over the wording of earlier comics.

[KorvinStarmast]

Actually, it's not a fallacy to ask someone to support an assertion he made. It's asking someone to support an assertion he made.

And I actually did show how I concluded that it is more likely that Belkar participated than not. So far, the only thing I see in comic that supports the opposite is that it has not been shown. On that basis, Belkar's last bathroom break was in Dungeon Crawlin' Fools.

I imagine even the concept of them eating Mr. Scruffy tripped off his berserk button. He's not (until recently) been one for "impulse control."

Also "new Belkar:" casually dismissing the lives of the dwarves killed by the vampires, and expressing a lack of understanding at why someone WOULD value their lives.
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1100.html

Not how I read that bit of dialogue.

I think the term for it is "Gallows Humor."

Beat me to it. *golf clap*

[gatemansgc]

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.

my thought too. he's gonna try to stab the snarl.

[KorvinStarmast]

It is my idea that Belkar and redemption have a long way to go to meet up. I use as a point of reference Soon(ghost) telling Miko what is necessary for redemption, and that redemption is a special thing.

Belkar has to (1) admit he's wrong and (2) do something to try and atone for his wrongdoing. How far he has to go is reasonably well illustrated by Durkon's dry response to Belkar's "ultimate extreme apology".

V has already done both (1) and (2) but is still a long, long way from redemption (if V's atonement / redemption is even possible).

[Peelee]

my thought too. he's gonna try to stab the snarl.

Belkar's dumb, but not nearly that dumb.

[Malloon]

Guys, this is going in circles. In fact, in the many, many times this topic has been brought up, it's always gone in circles. Two (or more) sides not being able to convince each other. Again and again.

When parties in a discussion are in fact listening to the other sides' arguments, but not managing to convince each other, it's usually because of some deeper-lying, unstated disagreement or miscommunication. Instead of going into heated debate over the nitty-gritty details of one of the many arguments in the discussion (which I know us nerds love to do; and let's face it, which is unlikely to sway your opponents even if you manage to sway them over this detail), it's more productive to try and find the disagreement or the miscommunication; in the case of the former, you can either continue arguing, just now with a better chance of accomplishing something, or you can acknowledge that it's something that will probably remain a disagreement, because it's related to personal preferences or something; in the case of the latter, what usually happens is that the parties learn that they actually agree, they just communicated it differently or placed emphasis on different points.

ASSUMING THIS IS TRUE:

I think the main point of contention here is that people are predicting the future of the story based on different principles: Watsonian vs. Doylist https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.p...nVersusDoylist

1. The Watsonian (or in-story; intradiegetic) crowd are arguing what's most likely based on the established rules of the story and the setting, neatly supplemented by the lore and rules of the roleplaying game, D&D 3.5e, in which the story is nominally set in. What's more, even the people who aren't predicting the future of the strip based on this method are arguing using this method, most likely since it's easier to find facts and dispute them based on what we can gleam from the facts established in the story, by Word of God, etc.
   
   The Watsonian crowd is arguing, quite convincingly, that by the rules established in the story, Belkar is likely not going to manage to pull off an alignment-change to Chaotic Good, and as such will likely wind up in the Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil afterlife, if he isn't deleted by the Snarl.
   ...
   
2. (Part of) the Doylist crowd (or out-of-story; extradiegetic) on the other hand is saying "Boo! We're invested in Belkar's character arc of becoming a better person, gods-damn-it! If it all ends up being for naught, Belkar still officially, by the metaphysics of the story's universe, being evil (or neutral) by the end of the story, then that would be really unsatisfying. I don't think the Giant would write something that unsatisfying, so that either won't happen, or there will be a twist that makes it satisfying - it's just that the Oracle [going Watsonian again here] pretty much kneecapped all the possible twists."
   
   Of course, the crowd is not saying that; the fact it's not saying that is the very problem I'm trying to uncover here. But it is the reason it thinks Belkar can't die Chaotic Evil at least (or at the very least, that's the reason I think he won't). It's instead trying to find a way in which Belkar might be able to become Chaotic Good - or at least Chaotic Neutral or Evil in a way that feels like a satisfying conclusion to his arc.
   
   And now to highlight the epicentre of the disagreement: The most stringent of the Watsonian crowd doesn't seem to care about Belkar's arc, for whatever reason. But some others, who are arguing hard with Watsonian methods, do seem to care and actually seem to be motivated by Doylist sentiments from the other side: They see Belkar as irredeemable under the current conditions (a few days before his death) and would find it a detriment if Belkar "manages" a redemption arc, since "he doesn't deserve it, considering what he's done."

[All quotes are paraphrasing and my interpretations of the positions people in this thread (and the wider discussion on this topic) hold]

I hope I've analysed the discussion to a useful degree - if not, I hope I've at least opened the discussion to arguments from a Doylist perspective in addition to those from a Watsonian one.

[hroþila]

I don't think the Giant would write something that unsatisfying

I'm always amused/put off by this line of reasoning because it essentially means "I am not a talented enough writer to think of a way to make this satisfying". Also "The Giant necessarily agrees with me about what good writing is".

[Malloon]

I'm always amused/put off by this line of reasoning because it essentially means "I am not a talented enough writer to think of a way to make this satisfying". Also "The Giant necessarily agrees with me about what good writing is".

My faith in the Giant's skill as an author allowing for unforeseen and satisfying plot twists (faith that has been rewarded multiple times) is indeed why I generally don't put too much stock in my or other people's predictions. (Though I do feel proud about having predicted/put metaphorical stock in other people's predictions of how the tunnels in Kraagor's Tomb worked and that Sereni was the new character this book.)

Thing is, this is a prediction thread, and "I don't see how this could be different" is true of, well, every prediction. There's always the possibility that we're wrong - what's interesting is having other people having ideas and arguments on how they could be wrong. The former point you made is true of pretty much everybody here, and the latter is indeed an assumption - but one that's paid off in every OotS book so far, so I'll keep making it for now.

As long as we don't take our discussions too seriously, it should be fine.

Do you have an idea on how to make Belkar's character arc end satisfyingly while still keeping him in Chaotic Evil or Neutral, thus ending the tension between these two positions and the reason for this thread existing?

[PontificatusRex]

Do you have an idea on how to make Belkar's character arc end satisfyingly while still keeping him in Chaotic Evil or Neutral, thus ending the tension between these two positions and the reason for this thread existing?

Well, as I mentioned earlier I think it completely makes sense and would personally find it satisfying if we see Belkar ending up in Limbo. I think he would enjoy the Hell out of it (vague afterlife pun intended). No rules AT ALL, whatever he can get away with goes, avoiding the slaad would make it enough of a challenge to not be boring, and I can imagine him helping out the occasional planar traveler or githzerai monestary just to have someone to talk to and impress with his badassedness.

[hroþila]

Do you have an idea on how to make Belkar's character arc end satisfyingly while still keeping him in Chaotic Evil or Neutral, thus ending the tension between these two positions and the reason for this thread existing?

That's the other thing - the argument rests on the assumption that you, The Giant and everyone else agree on what a satisfying end to the arc would be. Personally, I don't need Belkar to be fully redeemed at all (much less to become Good) to enjoy his arc, and some people would find such a thing a disservice to the story and a very unsatisfying end to Belkar's character arc. It's just so inherently subjective.

Because, see, whatever Belkar's final alignment is, that doesn't mean it was all for naught, as you put it. Because Belkar's development so far, even if it doesn't go any further, already serves a narrative purpose, it's already had plot significance and it will probably impact the plot even more significantly before the end. The idea can be that you can always improve yourself even if you think you're a terrible person and there's a very long road ahead of you, and that idea is not helped any by cutting the road artificially short, and when the things the character has done are horrible enough it can also feel cheap and silly for the author to explicitly draw the line and say whether the character did enough to make up for their previous crimes (which is why no answer to the question of whether V is or can be redeemed is probably forthcoming). Also, it's possible for a 'problematic' character to be sorta redeemed from a narrative point of view without that implying they're going to heaven to play the harp with some angels and what not. It usually involves the character dying, it leaves the survivors (as well as readers/watchers) wondering how they should assess that character at all because they were bad but still sacrificed themselves to do the good thing, and that's very much the point and completely intentional. It's just reductive to suggest good storytelling requires complete ethical redemption of the kind we're talking about here.

[dancrilis]

Belkar's dumb, but not nearly that dumb.

Well Kaargor seems to have held the Snarl back with an axe, perhaps it will turn out that the Snarl is weak to psionics and so Belkar can destroy it with a single stab - thereby disentangling it allowing the gods to reclaim there strands, and leaving the green strands to empower Belkar, Roy, Vaarsuvius, Haley, Elan, Durkon, Redcloak, Xykon and the Monster in the Darkness to form a new pantheon ... and the adventures can continue forever.

Possibly a low probabality scenario.

[Malloon]

Well, as I mentioned earlier I think it completely makes sense and would personally find it satisfying if we see Belkar ending up in Limbo. I think he would enjoy the Hell out of it (vague afterlife pun intended). No rules AT ALL, whatever he can get away with goes, avoiding the slaad would make it enough of a challenge to not be boring, and I can imagine him helping out the occasional planar traveler or githzerai monestary just to have someone to talk to and impress with his badassedness.

I can see that happening - perhaps he also continues his arc while in Limbo, helping out those travellers and monks. We know characters can shift alignment after death - see Roy's dad - and it might say something about the advantages of trying to be a better person even without the reward of a decent afterlife.

That's the other thing - the argument rests on the assumption that you, The Giant and everyone else agree on what a satisfying end to the arc would be.

Yes and no. It rests on the premise that there is an agreement on what constitutes a satisfying end to the arc, but that premise needn't be an assumption - there are ways of arguing (arguments from literary criticism, statements by the Giant and analysation of the Giant's previous work) why certain endings are more likely to be seen as satisfying by the Giant than others. Just like with Watsonian arguments that argue what is more likely to happen given the rules in the story's world.

Personally, I don't need Belkar to be fully redeemed at all (much less to become Good) to enjoy his arc, and some people would find such a thing a disservice to the story and a very unsatisfying end to Belkar's character arc. It's just so inherently subjective.

Subjective, yes, but not random. There are different preference-groups in consumers of media, which can be further reduced by eliminating the groups that wouldn't enjoy Order of the Stick as is exists now. I mentioned the groups you mentioned in my initial comment. In any case, like I said in the first half of my initial comment, I do think that the main point of contention is here - in this fundamental disagreement about what each of us would consider a satisfying ending. We're (probably) not going to be able to convince each other to change our stances on what each of us would find satisfying. We could try and convince each other what the Giant would most likely find satisfying, but since this would entail trying to convince each other to predict that this part of the story would end in a way that we're (likely) going to find unsatisfying, I doubt there will be much enthusiasm on either side to listen to the other's arguments.

Because, see, whatever Belkar's final alignment is, that doesn't mean it was all for naught, as you put it. Because Belkar's development so far, even if it doesn't go any further, already serves a narrative purpose, it's already had plot significance and it will probably impact the plot even more significantly before the end. The idea can be that you can always improve yourself even if you think you're a terrible person and there's a very long road ahead of you, and that idea is not helped any by cutting the road artificially short, and when the things the character has done are horrible enough it can also feel cheap and silly for the author to explicitly draw the line and say whether the character did enough to make up for their previous crimes (which is why no answer to the question of whether V is or can be redeemed is probably forthcoming). Also, it's possible for a 'problematic' character to be sorta redeemed from a narrative point of view without that implying they're going to heaven to play the harp with some angels and what not. It usually involves the character dying, it leaves the survivors (as well as readers/watchers) wondering how they should assess that character at all because they were bad but still sacrificed themselves to do the good thing, and that's very much the point and completely intentional.

This is you trying to convince me that/explain why for you an ending without an alignment change would/could be satisfying. I could go through each of the points and explain why they do or don't resonate with me, my problems with them, etc., but I don't feel like being pulled into the nitty-gritty details of this argument. Suffice it to say that I believe that you could find such an ending satisfying, I think I probably wouldn't - not without a decent twist, at least. We'll have to agree to disagree, because this is very much based on personal preference.

It's just reductive to suggest good storytelling requires complete ethical redemption of the kind we're talking about here.

It is, which is why I'm not saying that. It's just that in this particular case the things that have been set up for Belkar's arc (the planting) and the rather strict limits that have been set on where it can go (the payoff) seem to make the only satisfying conclusion to Belkar's arc an ethical redemption. To me and a few other people.

But, like I said, the Giant has written excellent plot twists I didn't see coming and found immensely satisfying before, so I wouldn't put too much stock in this prediction. In fact, my intuition is telling me a plot twist is coming - I'd bet 100 quatloos on it-; I just can't predict what kind.

[Peelee]

We know characters can shift alignment after death

We actually know the exact opposite, based on what the author has said.

see Roy's dad

He seems exactly like how he was in life.

[Ionathus]

That's the other thing - the argument rests on the assumption that you, The Giant and everyone else agree on what a satisfying end to the arc would be. Personally, I don't need Belkar to be fully redeemed at all (much less to become Good) to enjoy his arc, and some people would find such a thing a disservice to the story and a very unsatisfying end to Belkar's character arc. It's just so inherently subjective.

Because, see, whatever Belkar's final alignment is, that doesn't mean it was all for naught, as you put it. Because Belkar's development so far, even if it doesn't go any further, already serves a narrative purpose, it's already had plot significance and it will probably impact the plot even more significantly before the end. The idea can be that you can always improve yourself even if you think you're a terrible person and there's a very long road ahead of you, and that idea is not helped any by cutting the road artificially short, and when the things the character has done are horrible enough it can also feel cheap and silly for the author to explicitly draw the line and say whether the character did enough to make up for their previous crimes (which is why no answer to the question of whether V is or can be redeemed is probably forthcoming). Also, it's possible for a 'problematic' character to be sorta redeemed from a narrative point of view without that implying they're going to heaven to play the harp with some angels and what not. It usually involves the character dying, it leaves the survivors (as well as readers/watchers) wondering how they should assess that character at all because they were bad but still sacrificed themselves to do the good thing, and that's very much the point and completely intentional. It's just reductive to suggest good storytelling requires complete ethical redemption of the kind we're talking about here.

Interesting take, I appreciate you sharing it. I agree that a character doesn't have to go full-good to improve themselves, or can even die with a bit of character development but not a complete alignment flip.

I'm reminded of one of my favorite fictional sacrifices in recent years:

Spoiler: She-Ra season 5

Show

When Shadow Weaver sacrifices herself to save Adora and Catra, it's a very...selfish sacrifice. She doesn't really acknowledge her mistakes or abuse as their parent figure, nor does she even apologize for her behavior; she basically says I've always cared about you and now I'm gonna prove it, once and for all -- in fact, her last words to them are a very smug "you're welcome." She basically tries to mic drop them and prove they're indebted to her, without ever having to do the work of self-reflection, making amends, and reconciliation. It's character development certainly, but it ain't exactly a redemption.

[Malloon]

We actually know the exact opposite, based on what the author has said.

Oh, really, where...

...oh wait, I think I phrased that completely wrong. My bad. I meant to say that characters can still change as people (for better or worse) after death. You're right that the metaphysical alignment can't shift - despite everything, Roy's dad would still get into the Lawful Good afterlife when and if the Blood Oath is fulfilled.

Edit: And apparently I can't read.

He seems exactly like how he was in life.

I'm not going to argue here, don't have the energy. I thought he changed, for the worse.

[Fyraltari]

Oh, really, where...

There:

"Spiritual enlightenment" in this case means giving up attachments to the world and accepting that you are no longer part of it. If anything, it is essentially unlearning things; becoming less of an individual with a unique perspective and more of a pure embodiment of alignment. Horace is a little further on that path than Sarah because he's not still engaging in things like random hook-ups, because he understands that nothing matters anymore when you're dead. It is not some sort of eternal learning experience; it's letting go of everything you learned because you don't need it anymore. That is the only change available to dead souls.
[...]
Because I am saying that is specifically what the afterlife does. It makes you into a cookie-cutter clone of everyone of the same alignment. It may take centuries to do so, but all the people at the top of the mountain? Completely indistinguishable from one another. Arguably, that is the purpose of the D&D afterlife—to turn flawed mortal souls into perfect alignment-batteries, through various methodologies. In the Nine Hells, they torture you until you forget everything else. In Celestia, you meditate until you renounce all worldly concerns. In Valhalla, you party until you can't remember your own name. In Limbo, the chaos drives you mad. In Mechanus, you sit in grey cubicle stamping paperwork until you are bored into oblivion. And so on and so forth.

So should Belkar manage to become less evil enough to land in Limbo, he would indeed continue to change there. Until he reach the exact middle point between absolute good and ultimate evil while perfecting chaos.