Belkar's Alignment

[Nightmarenny]

If you think about it, EVERYTHING we do is selfish, even the stuff we do for others. We do things for others when it makes US feel good to do it. IE: you like it when others are happy with you or you defend someone you dont like because you feel it is the right thing to do and would feel bad if you didnt.

Do you have friends that make you laugh? Shame on you for being so selfish!

If someone was going to kill me should they discover they dont like my alignment, I would try to hide it too!

And for the record, yes, Belkar is evil. I just like playing devils advocate ;D

Normaly yes but I have met a very few people who do things because it should be done. Though yes mostly your right.

No one can blame you for playing Devils advocate it really is fun
;D

Hm come to think of it my sentance about hiding his alinment should have been.

"And also he hide his alinment from someone who would evisorate him should he be evil".

[Draedan]

No one can blame you for playing Devils advocate it really is fun
;D

I have really confused people before. I will argue counter-points against them, only to end with "I never said that is I really think. I agree with you completely. I just wanted to see if you knew WHY you were right". Pissed my girlfriend off to no end, heheheh.

[Devils_Advocate]

Yeah, sheesh, what is it with some people? I make arguments because they're valid, not in service of some conclusion. If I knew ahead of time what conclusion I were going to reach, there wouldn't be much point in the discussion, would there? I make a counterargument to an argument I just presented, too, if I think there's a good one. I can easily hold up both sides of a debate, thus eliminating the need for other people entirely. ;D I find that internal dialogues really help me to explore many aspects of an issue. (Although if I don't actually agree with something, I'll usually preface it with "Well, one could say..." or some such. You might find that doing that could keep people from getting pissed off. You know, if you don't want them to be. ;))

(Seriously, arguing both sides of an issue might annoy some people, but going into a discussion with a closed mind is just dumb. If you do that, how can you expect any better of the other person?)

I'm agreed with Nightmarenny on motivation to virtue: Sometimes someone may do something just because they believe it is right, even if they think it will make them unhappy personally. Heck, look at Durkon: "Bein' a dwarf is about doin' yer duty, even if it makes ye miserable! ESPECIALLY if it makes ye miserable!" Of course, that dwarven attitude is rather inhuman, and it's probably true that we generally only want to do things we anticipate enjoying or deriving pleasure from somehow. But it's just a very strong correlation, not an inherent connection. It's even possible to want to do something that you don't think is right, don't expect to make you happy, and doesn't help anyone else. Trust me on this; I have obsessive-compulsive tendancies.

[Draedan]

I'm agreed with Nightmarenny on motivation to virtue: Sometimes someone may do something just because they believe it is right, even if they think it will make them unhappy personally. Heck, look at Durkon: "Bein' a dwarf is about doin' yer duty, even if it makes ye miserable! ESPECIALLY if it makes ye miserable!" Of course, that dwarven attitude is rather inhuman, and it's probably true that we generally only want to do things we anticipate enjoying or deriving pleasure from somehow. But it's just a very strong correlation, not an inherent connection.

It IS possible to derive masochistic pleasure from something, hence “ESPECIALLY if it makes ye miserable!" And just because we don’t gain actual pleasure from something doesn’t make it selfless. Most of the time it is choosing the lesser of two evils. “Doing your duty as a dwarf” makes Durkon LESS miserable than if he didn’t do his duty.

Just like my example of defending someone you dislike. You don’t defend them DESPITE not liking the idea; you defend them because you would feel even worse if you didn’t hold yourself to your own ideals.

It's even possible to want to do something that you don't think is right, don't expect to make you happy, and doesn't help anyone else. Trust me on this; I have obsessive-compulsive tendancies.

Then you of all people should understand what I’m saying. You don’t follow the obsessive-compulsive behavior because you gain enjoyment from it, but because you would feel even worse if you didn’t. This not withstanding the greater amount of pleasure you might receive in overcoming the compulsion.


Eh, I guess in the end I'm just saying that good and evil are incredibly abstract.

[ref]

I agree with Draedan (except that I still think that Belkar can be CN).

Also belkar wanted to defeat Elan for XP. We know what Belkar means by defeat, but Belkar never used the word kill; Roy used it to make him dismiss the idea. Again, the only party member explicitly expecting a kill is V.

And, hiding one's alignment is an unalienable right of every character in D&D. It's as if there was a "Detect Credit Card Number" spell in the real world. Would you try to block it if cast on you? And, would that make you evil?

[Lasombra]

it depends. people ask for our creditcard details all the time, if it was somone you didnt know, either rang you up, or walked up to you on the street and asked what it was, would you give it to them?

however its the same when using it to buy something online, you need to give the number out in order to get what you want, or to prove who you are...

However - belkar has soemthing to hide. he is inherently evil, and hes pretty random, even chaotic. he enjoys making people uncomfortable and preferrs destruction to reasoning something out carefully. if he dosnt like something, he just kills it, thats the chaotic evil way.

[LE4dGOLEM]

Belkar is Chaotic Evil. But only because he is both evil and chaotic. There is a diffference.

For example, a character I once played was chaotic in that they did fairly random things that didnt directly help the quest (such as learning weapons proficiency with a flintlock pistol, spending ten days learning it rather than, say, looking for the central hobgoblin/ghoblin/orc/greenskin camp), but was also good, in that he helped those in need without thought for his own safety (even though his wisdom and intelligence scores were fairly high).
This would mean that either his alignment was Chaotic Neutral, or Neutral Good. And as he was predominately (sp?) Chaotic , rather than neutral law-chaos and Good, rather than neutral good-evil, the End result was Chaotic Good, even though he displayed some characteristics that weren't always CG.
Belkar shows characteristics that are both mostly chaotic rather than neutral, and evil rather than neutral, so he is CE rather than CN or NE.


Plus the Giant (read, DM, as well as Belkar's Player) Said So. And that's the Truth of Mod.

[Unorthodox]

Read Unholy Blight's Spell description.

Also, Belkar admits he is Chaotic. (right before chasing the lawyer, remember?)

And, as was said before. The truth of the Mod.

[Electric_Monkey]

Out of interest, to those who say that Belkar's actions could be interpreted as non-evil, what would you say is an example of an action that would put himinto the evil alignment (not counting mechanical effects like detect evil, since they're effectively Rich saying that he's evil)

[Nightmarenny]

I agree with Draedan (except that I still think that Belkar can be CN).

Also belkar wanted to defeat Elan for XP. We know what Belkar means by defeat, but Belkar never used the word kill; Roy used it to make him dismiss the idea. Again, the only party member explicitly expecting a kill is V.

And, hiding one's alignment is an unalienable right of every character in D&D. It's as if there was a "Detect Credit Card Number" spell in the real world. Would you try to block it if cast on you? And, would that make you evil?

You gotta be kidding me. Their is NO way that Belkar could be CN. NONE!

[Brainded]

Belkar is Chaotic Evil. But only because he is both evil and chaotic. There is a diffference.

For example, a character I once played was chaotic in that they did fairly random things that didnt directly help the quest (such as learning weapons proficiency with a flintlock pistol, spending ten days learning it rather than, say, looking for the central hobgoblin/ghoblin/orc/greenskin camp), but was also good, in that he helped those in need without thought for his own safety (even though his wisdom and intelligence scores were fairly high).
This would mean that either his alignment was Chaotic Neutral, or Neutral Good. And as he was predominately (sp?) Chaotic , rather than neutral law-chaos and Good, rather than neutral good-evil, the End result was Chaotic Good, even though he displayed some characteristics that weren't always CG.
Belkar shows characteristics that are both mostly chaotic rather than neutral, and evil rather than neutral, so he is CE rather than CN or NE.


Plus the Giant (read, DM, as well as Belkar's Player) Said So. And that's the Truth of Mod.

FINALLY someone getting to the heart of the point. To really see the fact that Belkar is in fact Chaotic Evil requires an understanding of the distinction between MORAL and ETHICAL alignments. The old 1E books actually did a good job of laying this out. Unfortunately the 3E books only described the alignments a little and said that "players should not be chaotic or evil". Yeah, right.

Anyway, moral (Law v. Chaos) alignment and ethical (Good v. Evil) alignment are mutually independent. Simplified, moral alignment is basically the degree to which one follows the rules (or at least feels the necessity to do so). Whether one follows the rules (any rules - those of society, game rules, whatever) and how often determines this - not WHY one follows the rules. Drow society is a great example of real Chaotic alignment. Everything appears very strictly ordered on the surface, but after delving in you discover that laws and rules mean virtually nothing.

Ethical alignment is mostly the degree to which one pioritizes one's *self* in the world. Evil people tend to be greedy and selfish, but at it's root it's because they only look out for themselves. The only really important thing is their own success and survival. If that means relying on others to get what they want, then so be it. As was stated earlier, it behooves an evil character to have a party around them because of various benefits, including that they will defend likely to the death. Don't think for a minute though that an evil character would return the favor. They'll defend, maybe, but if things get life threatening they will try to save their own skin first. Good characters ally with a party or friends. Evil characters *use* a party or friends.

While they are independent, they can influence one another. A CE character would be happy to follow the law if it will result in personal gain. This is Belkar all the way.

Since true neutrality is so rare, it doesn't really warrant a discussion. But there are (as has been stated) two types: those who seek a balance by behaving at both extremes and "averaging out" to Neutral, and those who really fall right in the middle. I don't see Belkar fitting either of these, especially on ethical alignment.

Well, I think that pretty much fills up my bandwidth allotment for the year. Let the flaming commence. :)

[Draedan]

Anyway, moral (Law v. Chaos) alignment and ethical (Good v. Evil) alignment are mutually independent. Simplified, moral alignment is basically the degree to which one follows the rules (or at least feels the necessity to do so). Whether one follows the rules (any rules - those of society, game rules, whatever) and how often determines this - not WHY one follows the rules. Drow society is a great example of real Chaotic alignment. Everything appears very strictly ordered on the surface, but after delving in you discover that laws and rules mean virtually nothing.

I think Drow are actually LE. But in a society where the laws are really just polite suggestions, it isn’t all that hard to adhere to the law. The consensus for Drow is if no one sees you do it, than it isn’t illegal.

Ethical alignment is mostly the degree to which one pioritizes one's *self* in the world. Evil people tend to be greedy and selfish, but at it's root it's because they only look out for themselves. The only really important thing is their own success and survival. If that means relying on others to get what they want, then so be it. As was stated earlier, it behooves an evil character to have a party around them because of various benefits, including that they will defend likely to the death. Don't think for a minute though that an evil character would return the favor. They'll defend, maybe, but if things get life threatening they will try to save their own skin first. Good characters ally with a party or friends. Evil characters *use* a party or friends.

While they are independent, they can influence one another. A CE character would be happy to follow the law if it will result in personal gain. This is Belkar all the way.

The heart of good and evil is how certain actions are perceived by the local populace, be it a town or a country. In general, destructive acts are considered evil, seeing as how very few/no one benefits at the cost of a greater amount of people. Good acts are those that are deemed positive and aid others, such as helping put out a fire. Neutral acts are what falls in-between (no one is going to praise you for eating dinner). In this respect, good acts are deemed good simply by the selfishness of the local populace. Even those that aren’t affected by the “good” act feel better than if an evil (destructive) act had been committed. The battle between good and evil is a battle of maximizing positive acts and minimizing the negative, simply because the majority of people prefer positive acts. Evil is all about me. Good is all about us.

(I was going to say maximize pleasure and minimize pain, but its possible to derive pleasure from pain, so I changed the wording.)

Since true neutrality is so rare, it doesn't really warrant a discussion. But there are (as has been stated) two types: those who seek a balance by behaving at both extremes and "averaging out" to Neutral, and those who really fall right in the middle. I don't see Belkar fitting either of these, especially on ethical alignment.

Well, I think that pretty much fills up my bandwidth allotment for the year. Let the flaming commence. :)

I think the best way to perceive Belkar is “Chaotic with evil tendencies.” He does what he likes (if he can get away with it) when he likes. There is a pretty good chance that it will be evil, but because he is chaotic, it isn’t a sure bet.

I don’t think it is even possible to be Chaotic Evil as described in the PhB because Chaotic, by definition, would prevent them from doing evil all the time. I think what D&D designers had in mind is “True Evil”. Doing nothing but destructive acts in search of pleasure.

PS. Now that that is all said and done, I cant believe I’m getting into a debate over the morality of a two dimensional, fictional cartoon strip character.
:D

[Kish]

Unfortunately the 3E books only described the alignments a little and said that "players should not be chaotic or evil".

That they shouldn't be evil, never that they shouldn't be chaotic.

And the 1ed alignment descriptions were deranged.

Yeah, right.

Anyway, moral (Law v. Chaos) alignment and ethical (Good v. Evil)

You've got those backwards.

I agree with the rest of your post, though. Except for the part about True Neutral being rare.

[Dark_Stalion]

no one is going to praise you for eating dinner

Not nessesarily true. What if it was a particularly difficult dinner. I'm thinking along the lines of Aragorn eating the stew that Eowyn gives him in LOTR 2 (Ext ed). Surely he deserves praise for that (and an Emmy for his commic performance. OK, I went too far).

[Draedan]

Not nessesarily true. What if it was a particularly difficult dinner. I'm thinking along the lines of Aragorn eating the stew that Eowyn gives him in LOTR 2 (Ext ed). Surely he deserves praise for that (and an Emmy for his commic performance. OK, I went too far).

lol The stew must have had a CR10, atleast, hu?

[The Prince of Cats]

A CE character can be witty, smart, even admirable.

Dracula is evil (MM says all vampires are CE without fail) and acts it too, though many (in recent years) would consider him a romantic character. (Lord Ruthven, being one of Byron's, makes a better example but it less well-known)

Think about it; Dracula gets the girls, lives forever and only dies because some mad German gets people riled up to fight him. Not very much like Belkar but an obvious CE that some people (Anne Rice readers) would argue was simply 'misunderstood' or some twaddle...

[ref]

Read Unholy Blight's Spell description.

I have to. I just have to. Emphasis mine.

The spell deals 1d8 points of damage per two caster levels (maximum 5d8) to a good creature (or 1d6 per caster level, maximum 10d6, to a good outsider) and causes it to be sickened for 1d4 rounds. A successful Will save reduces damage to half and negates the sickened effect. The effects cannot be negated by remove disease or heal, but remove curse is effective.

The spell deals only half damage to creatures who are neither evil nor good, and they are not sickened. Such a creature can reduce the damage in half again (down to one-quarter) with a successful Will save.

could be 1HP, wouldn't even tickle Belkar.

(edit: removed accidental smiley)
(edit: the above edit was an accidental double post instead)

[vampeel]

Ok to conteract all his evilness you must give little Belkar this: he did try to kill a lawyer.
Come on that is for the greater good.

ps I am sorry if this came up earlier, I still think this is his only true act of goodness.

[Gwain]

the question that bothers me more is "why" did he start to think as a non evil character when he had cast on him owl wisdom?

looks like Belkar evilness is related to his poor wisdom :o


edit: i should learn to read the monthly topic first

[Nightmarenny]

the question that bothers me more is "why" did he start to think as a non evil character when he had cast on him owl wisdom?

looks like Belkar evilness is related to his poor wisdom :o


edit: i should learn to read the monthly topic first

Well yes ofcourse it is. Belkar is like a child in that he doesn't comprhend that others have fealing and worth. Alittle insight into the world and he sees the pain he caused.

[Alfryd]

On another note, did anyone notice that Owl's wisdom, apart from an alignment shift, also caused his outfit to change from dark green on green to green on white?

Halfing Rangers- Colour-coded for your convenience!

[Gwain]

Well yes ofcourse it is. Belkar is like a child in that he doesn't comprhend that others have fealing and worth.

oh well, he knows even now that others have feelings, why would have he taken "craft disturbing mental image" then? ;) :)

[Draedan]

oh well, he knows even now that others have feelings, why would have he taken "craft disturbing mental image" then? ;) :)

uh...he forgot?

[Corvis]

My Dearest Giant,

You, sir, are a liar and a cad. That you would insinuate that Belkar-- my favorite character, for he is just like me if I weren't so ineffectual and terrified of violence-- evil is unforgivable, and clearly motivated by your jealousy of my superior reasoning abilities. You may say that as the sole creator of Belkar and the man who determines his every word, thought and action, you somehow determine his every word, thought, and action.

To this I respond: Shut up.

As I and my colleagues have proven time and time again, Belkar is Chaotic Neutral at worst. I am personally of the belief that he is merely a misunderstood chaotic good. As you have clearly ignored my past arguments (possibly because I wrote them in my personal journal while sobbing quietly to myself), I will repeat them here:

1. Belkar is cool.
2. All the coolest characters are Chaotic Neutral, because that's like totally cool.
3. lol

Further, Belkar has not once (ONCE) snorted stolen cocaine off the exposed spine of a baby whose mother he just sacrificed to the Devil (who is also CN.) Such actions might, might prove that Belkar has some mild evil tendencies, providing that the baby itself was good-aligned (though not Lawful Good, as all Lawful Good characters are clearly evil.)

Hopefully my arguments shall help you to see reason. I'll be happy to clarify if anything went over your head.

Best of good wishes,
Corvis

P.S. hello
P.P.S. hello!

[pocketwatch]

I think that Belkar's shift to good when he had owl's wisdom was meant to show how wisdom enlightens people so they don't need to get their kicks out of harvesting kidneys. It was more for humor than alignment accuracy.
Belkar knows exactly how much pain he is causing - and enjoys it. Little kids may squish bugs just because, but it takes an adult to really enjoy hurting or disturbing sentient beings. :)

[Alfryd]

That was hilarious.

[Annalia]

As I and my colleagues have proven time and time again, Belkar is Chaotic Neutral at worst. I am personally of the belief that he is merely a misunderstood chaotic good. As you have clearly ignored my past arguments (possibly because I wrote them in my personal journal while sobbing quietly to myself), I will repeat them here:

1. Belkar is cool.
2. All the coolest characters are Chaotic Neutral, because that's like totally cool.
3. lol

Further, Belkar has not once (ONCE) snorted stolen cocaine off the exposed spine of a baby whose mother he just sacrificed to the Devil (who is also CN.) Such actions might, might prove that Belkar has some mild evil tendencies, providing that the baby itself was good-aligned (though not Lawful Good, as all Lawful Good characters are clearly evil.)

Hopefully my arguments shall help you to see reason. I'll be happy to clarify if anything went over your head.

Best of good wishes,
Corvis

P.S. hello
P.P.S. hello!

Surely you can make a better argument than that. You aren't really convincing me right now (although I agree that CN is the best alignement :))...
To me Belkar is evil. Not only for the numerous evil acts enumerated earlier but also, you should ask you this: If he was CN, why would he protect himself from Miko's detect evil? Privacy? She would only know he isn't evil and IMO this is not a big intrusion.

[Sylian]

If Belkar is Neutral, then what is evil?

[The Glyphstone]

This.

[Sylian]

This.

That's Vile Darkness, not the same.
If Belkar is Neutral, was Samantha good?
They did robb lawyers. ::)
Edit, it wasn't Sam that robbed lawyers, it was her dad.

I am now a dwarf in the playground! The next good title is titan...