Alignments of the stick

[SowZ]

His alignment modifications, based on gladiatorial episodes:
Neutral: Played a bully with criminals.
Evil act, but for Good reasons ("Anything that makes the prison experience more miserable should serve to reduce crime")

Good: Had second thoughts on "Hey, am I really allowed to kill that guy?"
Good: Sent a dinosaur to save two helpless partners

Overall, his behaviour in the Arena brought him closer to Good than to Evil.

I'd say his arena experience brought him closer to good, sure, because his treatment of the prisoners was par for the course but he treaded new ground there. Anyway, a serial killer who likes to torture his victims doing one good action does not an alignment shift make.

Further, having second thoughts on killing a person isn't a good action any more than deciding not to kill your neighbors pet rotwiler for no reason. It isn't good not to kill someone, it just isn't evil. The definition of neutral. And no, every action an evil character makes isn't evil. In fact, the vast majority of actions anyone makes are neutral. Eating soup? Neutral. Putting on pants? Neutral. Not killing the guy who brings you your soup and pants? Neutral.

[Mike Havran]

Neutral: Played a bully with criminals.

He didn't bully criminals, but people who were thrown to jail in a LE tyranny. Except for Thog (and of course Belkar), none of the people whom we have seen in jail was a proven bad guy.

Good: Had second thoughts on "Hey, am I really allowed to kill that guy?"

What kind of a Good deed is it when he wanted to make certain he won't be punished for killing him? That is a proof of his low Wisdom, but nothing else. You forgot to mention that he killed a guard shortly after that in an extremely gross and abominable manner, without any "Good" second thoughts. Just because said guard made fun of him. What a jolly fellow, that Belkar.

Good: Sent a dinosaur to save two helpless partners

That is rather bold statement, because it implies Belkar expected Gannji and Enor to escape (or at least to survive). That is, I believe, beyond his planning abilities. Also, he couldn't possibly know that they are going to be executed with crossbows when he was setting it up.

I interpret the scene that Belkar did not want to watch E&G duel, because it reminded him too much of him and his cat. He just wanted to interrupt it in any fashion and did not really care whether the bounty hunters survive. So he massacred the guards around the dinosaur while Ian picked the lock. It was a selfish act, again.

[Winter]

Neutral: Played a bully with criminals.
Evil act, but for Good reasons ("Anything that makes the prison experience more miserable should serve to reduce crime")

What sort of freaked up stance is that? Making people feel miserable is not ok. Where did you get the idea it was ok to "do evil to people in jail"? It's not, if it does anything, it breaks them further.
Just because you stole something and sit a day in police custody it is not ok for the guy next to you to punch you. You have the same rights as anyone else.

[M.A.D]

His alignment modifications, based on gladiatorial episodes:
Neutral: Played a bully with criminals.
Evil act, but for Good reasons ("Anything that makes the prison experience more miserable should serve to reduce crime")

lol, no. That was Evil act for personal amusement reasons, which is still Evil ("I was stealing from the nutrient-rich and giving to the amusement-poor" - strip #779) The bit about reducing crime is just his excuse. He doesn't actually care.

Good: Had second thoughts on "Hey, am I really allowed to kill that guy?"
Good: Sent a dinosaur to save two helpless partners
Overall, his behaviour in the Arena brought him closer to Good than to Evil.

As stated by others above, the first one wasn't a Good acts either. It is merely due to his low Wisdom. The other one is also Neutral at best. He did send out the dinosaur out of sympathy in seeing the relationship between those two guys mirrors his own with the cat, but in the process, he did murder a handful of guards, and the subsequent action also led to the death of more people.

[SinsI]

He didn't bully criminals, but people who were thrown to jail in a LE tyranny. Except for Thog (and of course Belkar), none of the people whom we have seen in jail was a proven bad guy.

He is scaring criminals OUTSIDE the prison, it doesn't really matter how guilty the ones inside are.

You forgot to mention that he killed a guard shortly after that in an extremely gross and abominable manner, without any "Good" second thoughts. Just because said guard made fun of him. What a jolly fellow, that Belkar.

Did he really? He force-fed him Eviscerstus's intestines, we don't know if he killed him afterward. And the guard is Evil and poses a danger to him, so it is not Evil to kill him. If being subjected to such an act by Belkar causes him to second think his occupation, is it not a Good thing?

Further, having second thoughts on killing a person isn't a good action any more than deciding not to kill your neighbors pet rotwiler for no reason. It isn't good not to kill someone, it just isn't evil. The definition of neutral. And no, every action an evil character makes isn't evil. In fact, the vast majority of actions anyone makes are neutral. Eating soup? Neutral. Putting on pants? Neutral. Not killing the guy who brings you your soup and pants? Neutral.

Not killing/having second thoughts on killing the guy that is trying to kill you is unambiguously a Good act.

[Mike Havran]

He is scaring criminals OUTSIDE the prison, it doesn't really matter how guilty the ones inside are.

In the Empire of Blood, every minor "crime", which results in a Gladitorial Arena sentence, means the prisoner will be there until he dies in the arena. Do you really think Belkar's bread stealing will scare people more than the already established fact they will eventually die in the facility? And how many people OUTSIDE will actually ever learn about what Belkar does there?

Did he really? He force-fed him Eviscerstus's intestines, we don't know if he killed him afterward. And the guard is Evil and poses a danger to him, so it is not Evil to kill him. If being subjected to such an act by Belkar causes him to second think his occupation, is it not a Good thing?

Yes he did, really. Ian mentioned he "pulled it out the other end". I'll leave the mental image of it and the question whether anybody could survive such treatment up to you - however if nothing else, it serves as a shining example that Belkar (still) is, despite all his "second thoughts", a miserable sadistic monster.

Not killing/having second thoughts on killing the guy that is trying to kill you is unambiguously a Good act.

It is not when your motivation is not the care for the other but, for example, that you have other intentions with the guy, or you're afraid of how YOU will be treated after you kill him. Especially if the other doesn't possess any considerable threat to you, despite his tries. According to your definition, Xykon would do a Good act here since he didn't kill the guy who was trying to kill him.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I interpret the scene that Belkar did not want to watch E&G duel, because it reminded him too much of him and his cat. He just wanted to interrupt it in any fashion and did not really care whether the bounty hunters survive. So he massacred the guards around the dinosaur while Ian picked the lock. It was a selfish act, again.

I think you're being just a bit harsh on that one. I think that was Belkar displaying the first twinge of caring about someone other than himself, ever.

He saw the two and he could actually relate to it; and thus, empathise with them, just a little.

[Kish]

Yes. Belkar experienced a tiny twinge of empathy for, quite possibly, the first time in his life.

That doesn't, of course, mean he's suddenly not evil.

[SowZ]

Not killing/having second thoughts on killing the guy that is trying to kill you is unambiguously a Good act.

The lack of doing an evil act is not a good act, it is a neutral one. Otherwise, Xykon is mother teresa. He does good acts all the time. He didn't send the entire western continent into the 9 hells! That is an unambiguously Good act. He didn't choose to take all the survivors of Azure City and put them on symbols of pain!

Refraining from an action isn't even an action. Not doing something is just that, not doing something. That is why it is neutral. Good implies some improvement of the world or else some bravery or sacrifice or kind deed. Not murdering someone doesn't improve the world and doesn't take sacrifice or bravery in almost every circumstance. Everything is left exactly the same as status quote. Would you say it is good karma when Durkon says 'how do you do' to a street vendor without ripping his head off? What's it tell you that you have to stretch a 'good' act as simply the absence of wanton murder? There is not a single character in the entire history of the OOTS world if they good good karma for every possible evil they didn't commit.

[FujinAkari]

The lack of doing an evil act is not a good act, it is a neutral one. Otherwise, Xykon is mother teresa. He does good acts all the time. He didn't send the entire western continent into the 9 hells! That is an unambiguously Good act. He didn't choose to take all the survivors of Azure City and put them on symbols of pain!

Your entire argument predicates upon the assumption that killing in self-defense is an evil act. It isn't.

And yes, being reluctant to kill, even in self-defense, is literally in the definition of Good. Good characters have a respect for life.

A better argument would be to point out that Belkar was, in no way, defending himself. Or that Belkar's decision not to kill had absolutely nothing to do with a desire to avoid taking a life.

[lio45]

And yes, being reluctant to kill, even in self-defense, is literally in the definition of Good.

It all depends on why you're reluctant to kill. As Mike pointed out, Xykon was reluctant to kill O-Chul even in self-defense (...because Xykon wanted to win his bet, and that required O-Chul to be alive), but that doesn't make Xykon non-Evil, let alone "literally the definition of Good".

[FujinAkari]

It all depends on why you're reluctant to kill. As Mike pointed out, Xykon was reluctant to kill O-Chul even in self-defense (...because Xykon wanted to win his bet, and that required O-Chul to be alive), but that doesn't make Xykon non-Evil, let alone "literally the definition of Good".

Hrmm... didn't I expressedly say this in my post? Yes. Yes I did.

A better argument would be to point out Belkar's decision not to kill had absolutely nothing to do with a desire to avoid taking a life.

I also did not say 'literally the definition of good' I said 'literally in the definition of good.' As in, when the SRD defines good, it literally states that Good characters have a respect for life.

[theNater]

Neutral: Played a bully with criminals.
Evil act, but for Good reasons ("Anything that makes the prison experience more miserable should serve to reduce crime")

This needs a whole post to itself.

First, let's talk about reasons. As some other posters have pointed out, Belkar's stated reasons are not his actual reasons. Belkar is only saying what he is in hopes that it will make Roy less likely to stop him. You will note that Roy does not fall for it.

Even if we do decide to fall for it, reducing crime is a Lawful goal, not a Good one. It can be tricky for modern people to recognize the difference, because most modern laws are Good or Neutral, but laws can be Evil. Recall, for example, that slavery is legal in the Empire of Blood. It is therefore highly likely that rescuing slaves is a criminal act. However, I think that we can all agree that rescuing slaves is a Good act. So discouraging people from breaking that law is discouraging Goodness.

And, of course, there's the fact that Belkar's in a maximum security ward for lifers. Nobody's supposed to ever get out, and I'm fairly sure they don't get visitors. Even if the conditions being terrible was worse than being locked up until you die in the arena, how are people outside the prison supposed to find out about it?

So that wraps up "reasons". Now let's talk about the whole "criminals" angle.

Belkar has good reason to believe there are innocents in the mix. We know for a fact there are at least some people in that prison who did not commit the crimes for which they were convicted. Belkar is not "playing the bully with criminals", he's bullying a random group of strangers. But even if they were criminals it wouldn't be a significant mitigation, because criminals are still people. And if there's one thing I'd like anyone to take away from this post, it is the following:

There are things which are Evil when done to anyone, under any circumstances. Starvation, bullying, torture; anything which is actively disrespectful to life or destructive to the dignity of sentient beings is Evil. Period.

[theNater]

Good: Had second thoughts on "Hey, am I really allowed to kill that guy?"

You missed a step. "Hey! Scheduling dudes! Look at me! Over here!".

Belkar wanted to be put in the arena. He went to some trouble, and disregarded orders from Roy, in order to get himslef a chance to kill a random stranger.

His second thoughts were based on not wanting to undergo punishment; he even says as much(in the same strip, even). It's a little like an assassin having second thoughts about whether to carry through when he realizes how alert the target's guards are. This is not morality.

Good: Sent a dinosaur to save two helpless partners

Yes! This is a good act! And note how Belkar acts like he's ashamed of it.

Belkar self-identifies as evil. When he does things that contradict his self-image, he tries to hide them. The fact that he doesn't try to hide his other actions from Roy tells us he doesn't consider them Good.

Did he really? He force-fed him Eviscerstus's intestines, we don't know if he killed him afterward. And the guard is Evil and poses a danger to him, so it is not Evil to kill him. If being subjected to such an act by Belkar causes him to second think his occupation, is it not a Good thing?

The guard is not threatening or attacking Belkar in any way. And no, torturing the guard is not a Good thing, whether Belkar killed him afterward or not.

[lio45]

Hrmm... didn't I expressedly say this in my post? Yes. Yes I did.

Sure, but still, I'm wondering why you took issue with SowZ's post, since you seem to agree with our point. (Which, in a nutshell, is that the SinsI quote at the bottom of this post is wrong, because "not killing the guy who's trying to kill you" -- as Xykon did when he used just the right level of force to win his bet against the paladin actively trying to Smite/kill him -- is not enough by itself to be "unambiguously a Good act".

Choosing deliberately to go with Ray of Frost instead of picking among a ton of possible higher-level lethal spells isn't "unambiguously a Good act". I know I'm talking to SinsI more than you here, but still... not sure why you thought SowZ's argument "predicated upon the assumption that killing in self-defense is an evil act" -- he never said that, I agree with him, and you apparently also agree with us.

Not killing/having second thoughts on killing the guy that is trying to kill you is unambiguously a Good act.

Edited to add: Thanks to theNater for summing it up really nicely re: Belkar's (Evil) bullying of a random prisoner. All of these factors were already crystal clear to me (and certainly to most of us as well) and should've gone without saying, but it nonetheless apparently required being said.

[SinsI]

You missed a step. "Hey! Scheduling dudes! Look at me! Over here!".

Belkar wanted to be put in the arena. He went to some trouble, and disregarded orders from Roy, in order to get himslef a chance to kill a random stranger.

He is dissatisfied with being put in Arena. Of course he wants to have some fun to take his mind off it - and it doesn't really matter that it is at the expense of other prisoners, guards and Roy.

His second thoughts were based on not wanting to undergo punishment; he even says as much(in the same strip, even). It's a little like an assassin having second thoughts about whether to carry through when he realizes how alert the target's guards are. This is not morality.

Belkar self-identifies as evil. When he does things that contradict his self-image, he tries to hide them. The fact that he doesn't try to hide his other actions from Roy tells us he doesn't consider them Good.

Belkar thinks that he is CE, and says things that CE would say, that much is clear. But he acts CN, and is thus CN. It's just that his Wisdom score is really low, and it is the first for him...

The guard is not threatening or attacking Belkar in any way. And no, torturing the guard is not a Good thing, whether Belkar killed him afterward or not.

How is somebody that is standing with a weapon and is making you obey his every order not threatening?

[theNater]

He is dissatisfied with being put in Arena. Of course he wants to have some fun to take his mind off it - and it doesn't really matter that it is at the expense of other prisoners, guards and Roy.

Having fun without caring who it hurts is Evil, not Neutral. Neutral fun is fun that doesn't hurt anyone.

Belkar thinks that he is CE, and says things that CE would say, that much is clear. But he acts CN, and is thus CN. It's just that his Wisdom score is really low, and it is the first for him...

No, he's still acting CE(with the exception of the dinosaur release). He's just a little cleverer about avoiding punishment than he used to be.

Also, I'm not sure what you're saying is a first for Belkar. Could you clarify?

How is somebody that is standing with a weapon and is making you obey his every order not threatening?

The guard's sword is sheathed, and he hasn't given Belkar an order since well before the fight. Unless you wish to claim that every prisoner who kills a guard has a built-in self-defense justification, you're going to need some stricter standards than that.

[Burner28]

He is dissatisfied with being put in Arena. Of course he wants to have some fun to take his mind off it - and it doesn't really matter that it is at the expense of other prisoners, guards and Roy.

Exactly. And that is Evil. Doing something at the expense of others is disrespecting life.

Belkar thinks that he is CE, and says things that CE would say, that much is clear. But he acts CN, and is thus CN. It's just that his Wisdom score is really low, and it is the first for him...

So all the sadistic killing he has done over the series doesn't count?

[FujinAkari]

Sure, but still, I'm wondering why you took issue with SowZ's post, since you seem to agree with our point.

Because I wasn't keeping up with the conversation but saw someone compare self-defense to evil acts and had to note that the comparison was flawed.

Just because I disagree with a post doesn't mean I disagree with a position, it means I disagree with the specific segment which I am quoting :P

[dps]

On reading strip #780, I never felt that Belkar was hesitant or had second thoughts about killing his opponent. I thought that he was just being a smart-ass about it. On re-reading it, that's still my opinion.

If there's any doubt that Belkar is just pretending to be less chaotic and less EVIL than in the past, the 7th panel of strip #786 should dispell them. OTOH, the next panel makes it clear that he did release the dinosaur to save Enor and Ganji, so yeah, for probably the first time in his life, Belkar did something out of a good motivation.

FWIW, I don't see any evidence that the guard he fed the intestines to was killed. It's funnier if he wasn't, so I'd say he wasn't. That point doesn't make any difference as far as Belkar's alignment is concerned.

[SowZ]

Your entire argument predicates upon the assumption that killing in self-defense is an evil act. It isn't.

And yes, being reluctant to kill, even in self-defense, is literally in the definition of Good. Good characters have a respect for life.

A better argument would be to point out that Belkar was, in no way, defending himself. Or that Belkar's decision not to kill had absolutely nothing to do with a desire to avoid taking a life.

My argument said nothing of the sort. Where did I mention killing in self defense? My argument is pretty self explanatory, I thought. The lack of doing an evil act is not a good act. That is it. Walking past a street vendor and not stabbing him is not a good act. It just isn't an evil act. Respect for life is shown via living your life in such a way as your respect life. Not, you know, letting some of the people you interact with or see throughout your day live. The fact that I don't kill an attendent at a store is not an evidence that I respect life.

[The Pilgrim]

His alignment modifications, based on gladiatorial episodes:
Neutral: Played a bully with criminals.

Evil. (Abusing weaker people)

Evil act, but for Good reasons ("Anything that makes the prison experience more miserable should serve to reduce crime")

Lawful Evil. (Twisting laws to justify your evil acts).

Good: Had second thoughts on "Hey, am I really allowed to kill that guy?"

Lawful Evil. ("I want to kill him, but I don't want to lose face").

Good: Sent a dinosaur to save two helpless partners

Neutral. If it had been a Good-natured act, he wound't have needed to feel such a strong sympathetic bond to help them - to the point of mentally placing himself and his cat in their places in order to be able to feel anything.

Overall, his behaviour in the Arena brought him closer to Good than to Evil.

Was, at most, the first step in his entire known life towards Neutral. The first step meaning he's still very rooted in Evil.

[Carry2]

If Goblins all register Evil, than the alignment system means nothing at all and is only a little based on your actions, since it means the gods arbitrarily assign your alignment so right and wrong/morality correspond even less than they already do with Good and Evil alignments. (Though I suppose this would explain why Miko was 'Good.') Miko was probably Good because she was loyal, dedicated to her cause/improving the world, and self-sacrificing. I, personally, would still call her Lawful Neutral with those things in mind. But I can see where she could be called Jerky-Good.

Miko was a good girl, at least initially, because she went out of her way to defend innocents threatened by ogre marauders, offered to heal Roy when injured, conducted a calm evacuation of the inn, went inside the burning building to look for survivors and managed to rescue a local monarch, paid the full bill of the OOTS' extravagant lodging expenses, and refrained from lethal force during their second altercation (when she knew they were mostly non-evil.) Her record beyond that is much patchier, but not uniformly bad either.

One, very minor, momentary good urge.

Ehhh... I'm not even entirely certain it counts as strictly good, so much as 'less than maximally evil'. 'Rogue Allosaur' is not the most collateral-free or reliable distraction one could come up with, and it did involve killing a bunch of guards in the process. (And given recent discussion about goblin alignment, it seems unfair to assume they all had it coming.)

But yeah, I'm willing to say that Belkar today might be getting a D--, rather than an F, on his alignment report.

[FujinAkari]

My argument said nothing of the sort. Where did I mention killing in self defense?

Ummm... I already quoted it once...

Not killing/having second thoughts on killing the guy that is trying to kill you is unambiguously a Good act.

The lack of doing an evil act is not a good act, it is a neutral one.

He said that being reluctant to kill, even in self defense, was an unambiguously Good act. You countered that the lack of evil actions was not good. Thus, you were claiming that killing, even in self-defense, was an evil act.

This isn't even me cherry-picking, this is a direct quote. That was explicitly the part of his argument which you chose to counter.

[SowZ]

Ummm... I already quoted it once...



He said that being reluctant to kill, even in self defense, was an unambiguously Good act. You countered that the lack of evil actions was not good. Thus, you were claiming that killing, even in self-defense, was an evil act.

This isn't even me cherry-picking, this is a direct quote. That was explicitly the part of his argument which you chose to counter.

I suppose I was trying to argue that saying considering not killing someone isn't good, it is what almost anyone would do in any given situtation. And, even if you consider not to kill someone and then don't kill them, it is neutral. The point I tried to make was simply that not doing something/considering to not do something is neutral. I was trying to speak more in general terms and in Belkar's case the considering not killing this guy was still neutral. It was just a thought process. However, you are right, I did end up implying it is evil to kill in self defense. Which I don't believe. At any rate, that still isn't the crux of my argument. The crux is that most things we do or don't do are neutral.

[hamishspence]

You're right. Replace 'Lizardfolk' with Blue Half-Dragon. In fact, by the template block, Half-Blue Dragons should be 'always' Lawful-Evil, though other sources indicate this may not be the case.

The sample half-black dragon half-human in the 3.5 MM has "Often Chaotic Evil" in its statblock- which may suggest that "Often X alignment" is the default for half-dragons.

[SowZ]

The sample half-black dragon half-human in the 3.5 MM has "Often Chaotic Evil" in its statblock- which may suggest that "Often X alignment" is the default for half-dragons.

Yeah, hence the other sources indicate other things. The actual template itself, under alignment, says, "Same as parent dragon." which would be an always alignment.

[FujinAkari]

However, you are right, I did end up implying it is evil to kill in self defense. Which I don't believe. At any rate, that still isn't the crux of my argument. The crux is that most things we do or don't do are neutral.

I do agree with your overall argument, but when I clicked on this thread I saw that post and responded to the unstated implication within :)

Once I posted, I decided to look up and see what the -actual- argument was and editted my post to (theoretically) make it clear that I was not actually arguing for SensI's position and clarified the argument it seemed like you were trying to make :)

[hamishspence]

Yeah, hence the other sources indicate other things. The actual template itself, under alignment, says, "Same as parent dragon." which would be an always alignment.

I'd probably go with adding "but the frequency is reduced to "Often" if it's higher"- to make it conform to the sample.

[theNater]

So all the sadistic killing he has done over the series doesn't count?

In fairness, SinsI's claim is that Belkar has been acting Chaotic Neutral "since the removal of Mark of Justice", which as far as I can recall leaves only one or two sadistic killings to explain away. And SinsI has proven quite willing to explain away a lot of Belkar's nasty behavior.