Belkar's alignment

[ChristianSt]

So, it sounds like you agree that Belkar let out the dino in an attempt to help the bounty hunters. Meaning that, whether his belief was reasonable or not, he believed that letting the dino out would help them.

We could try to guess why Belkar thought that, if you'd like, but it doesn't really seem relevant to an alignment discussion.

Sure, Belkar might wanted to help them. But that doesn't tell us whether it was a Good, Evil or Neutral act.

For example a friend of mine might complain that he might get fired because his company has trouble and needs to reduce personal soon. Killing my friends co-workers might help him to stay in his job, but it is certainly not a Good thing to do.

Even if Belkar is sure that this succeeds, there is imo far too much collateral damage involved to classify his plan as Good.

[Rodin]

The term "collateral damage" seems to be the sticking point where we disagree. I consider the T-Rex chomping the guards to be no different than Thanh and the rest of the Resistance attacking the Hobgoblin prison guards, who most certainly would have preferred being at the barbecue instead of being stuck on guard duty. You don't have your paladin Fall because the evil dictator's bodyguard had a wife and kids. The morality of taking the guards down is irrelevant to considering the morality of the greater goal.

Since we aren't likely to change our positions on this, I'm just gonna leave it at that.

[multilis]

Current alignment: SL (Sexy shoeLess)

As far as that less important evil stuff:

Belkar was "faking growth", but then the growth faked him so he now faking the faking because the growth has become real.

Driven by his love for Mr. Scruffy, V and Miko, Belkar is climbing out of evil. His dilemma is which afterlife... does he want to be with V or Miko? His heart is torn. Foolish boy, he has yet to embrace the love of Snarl and polygamy... why choose between V and Miko when you can have both? Fortunately Mr. Scruffy will show him the way.

The old alignment of good or evil, chaotic or lawful will become irrelevant. The new alignment system will be much simpler, you are either with Snarl or against him.

You too can grow with Belkar. Leave behind the petty violence and ambition of so called gods like Thor and Hel, join the new world of love rather than XP. Become a brother or sister in the Holey Brotherhood. You too can make a difference. You advance through love rather than XP. All the benefits including heath care and dental plan. Marry as many mates as you want at same time!

[Gandalf]

I have seen multiple statements along the lines of "He wants to do evil things, and that makes him evil."

Wrong.

That line of reasoning would put every humaniod in existance on about the same level as a balor or pit fiend.

Humaniods do not control their wants (those are mostly innate), they control whether they act on them. Any paladin will have wanted to break the palidin code over a thousand times a year (I figure five times a day), but they won't have done it, so they are still paladins.

[theNater]

Sure, Belkar might wanted to help them. But that doesn't tell us whether it was a Good, Evil or Neutral act.

Correct.

For example a friend of mine might complain that he might get fired because his company has trouble and needs to reduce personal soon. Killing my friends co-workers might help him to stay in his job, but it is certainly not a Good thing to do.

Correct. Killing innocents is Evil, and helping a friend is Neutral. So it's Evil.

Even if Belkar is sure that this succeeds, there is imo far too much collateral damage involved to classify his plan as Good.

Given that he's motivated out of empathy and the collateral damage seems to be restricted to the guards, I don't think a reasonable argument can be made to classify the plan as Evil.

I personally think the plan is Neutral, due to the fact that Belkar is not acting out of a fundamental respect for life and that the guards are, at the very least, enemy soldiers.

I think an argument can be made that it's Good, if you play up the sacrifice angle(Belkar can't help Roy now, and Roy staying safe is to Belkar's advantage) and you believe the guards are all nasty people(and we've seen indications before and since that they aren't very nice).

[Old RuneQuester]

Coming in late and skimming through this thread very quickly, I interpreted Belkar's releasing the dinosaur completely differently then everyone else.

I thought Belkar was releasing Bloodfeast because he didn't [want] the best friends to have to kill each other to see who would survive. Bloodfeast changed the battle to no longer be between the best friends being made to try to battle each other.

I always interpreted that whether they lived or died in a battle with the guards and/or dinosaur, Belkar didn't care. But they no longer had to battle each other.

[Edited for some grammer]

[Nilehus]

I have seen multiple statements along the lines of "He wants to do evil things, and that makes him evil."

Wrong.

That line of reasoning would put every humaniod in existance on about the same level as a balor or pit fiend.

Humaniods do not control their wants (those are mostly innate), they control whether they act on them. Any paladin will have wanted to break the palidin code over a thousand times a year (I figure five times a day), but they won't have done it, so they are still paladins.

Gonna have to disagree. There is a huge difference between, say, Superman refusing to kill Lex Luthor in Justice League Unlimited and Belkar not being allowed to kill whoever he wants.

Belkar's Evil tendencies are being kept in check by not wanting to get brutally gang stabbed by the rest of the Order. Superman, Paladins, and other Good types keep their Evil desires in check because they strive to be morally better.

Roy's interview talks about that. Roy tries to be LG because he wants to be LG, which even though he's not perfect, tips him into the LG afterlife. If there had been someone forcing Roy to act LG on pain of death, I highly doubt the Deva would have let him through.

[orrion]

The term "collateral damage" seems to be the sticking point where we disagree. I consider the T-Rex chomping the guards to be no different than Thanh and the rest of the Resistance attacking the Hobgoblin prison guards, who most certainly would have preferred being at the barbecue instead of being stuck on guard duty. You don't have your paladin Fall because the evil dictator's bodyguard had a wife and kids. The morality of taking the guards down is irrelevant to considering the morality of the greater goal.

That is, again, a dangerous line of thinking. The greater goal for the OOTS is to save the world from Xykon (or the Snarl, whatever, not important). Under your argument, it's perfectly acceptable to commit atrocities along the way as long as the greater goal gets accomplished. Who cares if they kill half the world doing it, for example. They saved the other half, right?

Coming in late and skimming through this thread very quickly, I interpreted Belkar's releasing the dinosaur completely differently then everyone else.

I thought Belkar was releasing Bloodfeast because he didn't [want] the best friends to have to kill each other to see who would survive. Bloodfeast changed the battle to no longer be between the best friends being made to try to battle each other.

I always interpreted that whether they lived or died in a battle with the guards and/or dinosaur, Belkar didn't care. But they no longer had to battle each other.

[Edited for some grammer]

Given that Tarquin was about to fill them full of arrows, they wouldn't have had to battle each other anyway.

I have seen multiple statements along the lines of "He wants to do evil things, and that makes him evil."

Wrong.

That line of reasoning would put every humaniod in existance on about the same level as a balor or pit fiend.

Humaniods do not control their wants (those are mostly innate), they control whether they act on them. Any paladin will have wanted to break the palidin code over a thousand times a year (I figure five times a day), but they won't have done it, so they are still paladins.

Ok but, again, the only thing actively stopping Belkar has been fear of retribution. He's not controlling whether he acts on his wants. If it were up to him, he'd be acting on them all the time.

[theNater]

That is, again, a dangerous line of thinking. The greater goal for the OOTS is to save the world from Xykon (or the Snarl, whatever, not important). Under your argument, it's perfectly acceptable to commit atrocities along the way as long as the greater goal gets accomplished. Who cares if they kill half the world doing it, for example. They saved the other half, right?

Tarquin's guards and the hobgoblin soldiers are not randomly selected individuals. Killing them is not the same as killing randomly selected individuals.

If half of the world banded into a single army intent on destroying the entire world, then killing that half of the world to save the rest would be entirely reasonable.

[Rodin]

Tarquin's guards and the hobgoblin soldiers are not randomly selected individuals. Killing them is not the same as killing randomly selected individuals.

If half of the world banded into a single army intent on destroying the entire world, then killing that half of the world to save the rest would be entirely reasonable.

Precisely. To narrow it further, if a Paladin were to charge into the arena, declare that the prisoners should be freed, and slaughter their way through the guards...would that be Evil, or even Neutral? I think not. So why is Belkar doing the same thing via more Chaotic means Evil?

I don't get where the sympathy for the guards who are in the middle of committing an evil act comes from.

[warrl]

If not immediately murdering someone is Neutral to you, then we have differing interpretations of Neutral.

Evil people can care for others. Tarquin cared for Elan, Malack cared for Durkon, Nale cared for Sabine. Saying that being nice to your pet is Neutral is setting the bar incredibly low.

It is Neutral. However it's also very lightweight in terms of determining a character's alignment.

Same for refraining from killing someone. Most mass murderers have, over the course of their lives, refrained from killing thousands of people; it's the exceptions to that pattern of behavior that draws attention. Most modern saints have also refrained from killing thousands of people, and that fact rarely gets mentioned.

Belkar had fun terrorizing the other prisoners and stealing their bread. They're the closest thing to innocents he's had direct contact with recently that hasn't already been discussed. And I do not buy his speech about upholding society, for some reason.

It was just a typo, Belkar should have said he was holding up society.

They were certain to die from the dino, even if the dino had to eat everyone else before he ate them.

Unless they regained the ability to fly out of the arena, which was an unforseeable event. Unless you wish to claim that Belkar released the dinosaur with the intent that it slightly damage of of the wing guards, allowing a spear to smash through the rest.

Actually... Gannji and Enor were about to be killed by the guards. Releasing the dino, at worst, would get them immediately killed by the dino, which is not detectably better for them but also not detectably worse. On the other hand, it would more likely at least buy them some time... with nobody paying attention to them... and with an assortment of stray sharp things and long poles they might put to productive use. Such as breaking the wing-bindings so they could escape.

So releasing the dinosaur was being good *to them*. (Whether it was good overall is a more complex question. The guards' widows would probably mostly say no.)

[Nilehus]

It is Neutral. However it's also very lightweight in terms of determining a character's alignment.

Same for refraining from killing someone. Most mass murderers have, over the course of their lives, refrained from killing thousands of people; it's the exceptions to that pattern of behavior that draws attention. Most modern saints have also refrained from killing thousands of people, and that fact rarely gets mentioned.

Sorry, my emphasis should've been on the "immediately". Earlier in the thread, it was being argued that since Belkar asked if he could kill this guy without getting in trouble, that was Neutral. Belkar would've done it too, happily. Mr Scruffy just beat him to the punch. If you believe that it was Neutral, though, more power to you. I can see how people would interpret it as such, since Belkar didn't move fast enough.

It was just a typo, Belkar should have said he was holding up society.

You just made my day. Thank you so much. Made posting in this thread all worthwhile.

My daughter is looking at me like I'm nuts. Being judged by a 2 year old...

[Reddish Mage]

Sorry, my emphasis should've been on the "immediately". Earlier in the thread, it was being argued that since Belkar asked if he could kill this guy without getting in trouble, that was Neutral. Belkar would've done it too, happily. Mr Scruffy just beat him to the punch. If you believe that it was Neutral, though, more power to you. I can see how people would interpret it as such, since Belkar didn't move fast enough

I don't recall anyone arguing that "Belkar asking if he could kill a guy is neutral" (although, I'll agree, questions about whether killing will get you in trouble does not count as an evil action). Your still on this kick of trying to make something of a scene in which Belkar doesn't actually do anything! Its quite clear from these posts you have a particular interpretation of that scene, which requires you to read into it what Belkar is actually thinking and stating things as "would have," as in "Belkar still would have done it" and "he would have enjoyed it."

If I agree that the action Belkar would have taken in your interpretation of the scene was evil (to bloodthirstily murder a guy the very next round just because Belkar likes to do that sort of thing), can you put to rest this notion that somehow the very strip itself is a confirmation that Belkar is Chaotic Evil?

[orrion]

I don't recall anyone arguing that "Belkar asking if he could kill a guy is neutral" (although, I'll agree, questions about whether killing will get you in trouble does not count as an evil action).

I don't think self-preservation has much to do with alignment.

[Keltest]

I don't think self-preservation has much to do with alignment.

Belkar was quite visibly not even breaking a sweat. Hes a ranger in the teens levels, versus a level 1 commoner. He could almost literally fumble, trip into the guy, and accidentally kill him. If Belkar was going to kill the guy, it would be because he wanted to, not because he was afraid of getting killed if he didn't.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Belkar was quite visibly not even breaking a sweat. Hes a ranger in the teens levels, versus a level 1 commoner. He could almost literally fumble, trip into the guy, and accidentally kill him. If Belkar was going to kill the guy, it would be because he wanted to, not because he was afraid of getting killed if he didn't.

He feared retribution from the rest of the Order, which is why he held off. He was afraid of getting killed if he did kill him.

[Nilehus]

I'm only talking about it because others are replying. I'm not just randomly bringing it up out of the blue. If it's a thread in the conversation that doesn't interest you, then just ignore it.

[Emanick]

He feared retribution from the rest of the Order, which is why he held off. He was afraid of getting killed if he did kill him.

I don't think he was anywhere close to assuming that the Order would literally kill him for killing the other gladiator. He was probably just trying to avoid getting yelled at, or lectured, or the like.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I don't think he was anywhere close to assuming that the Order would literally kill him for killing the other gladiator. He was probably just trying to avoid getting yelled at, or lectured, or the like.

Okay, that makes sense. The point is that it was not the commoner he feared.

[orrion]

Belkar was quite visibly not even breaking a sweat. Hes a ranger in the teens levels, versus a level 1 commoner. He could almost literally fumble, trip into the guy, and accidentally kill him. If Belkar was going to kill the guy, it would be because he wanted to, not because he was afraid of getting killed if he didn't.

I'm not sure how you arrived at the interpretation that I thought Belkar feared the level 1 commoner.

He's questioning whether there will be retribution if he kills the commoner.

I don't find it indicative of any alignment to make sure you won't be harmed by an action you take (in this case, the action is killing the level 1 commoner).

[Reddish Mage]

I'm not sure how you arrived at the interpretation that I thought Belkar feared the level 1 commoner.

He's questioning whether there will be retribution if he kills the commoner.

I don't find it indicative of any alignment to make sure you won't be harmed by an action you take (in this case, the action is killing the level 1 commoner).

I would note the indication that is supposed to be present is that Belkar is that delaying, though you can read Belkar as genuinely confused about whether he would get punished by the guards (aka he's too myopic to get that whole "gladiator" thing).

The argument for Belkar delaying matters out of a genuine moral sentiment is that we see Belkar having moral sentiments later in the pyramid, as well as earlier having empathy for his cat. Focusing narrowly on one strip denies a whole book that shows Belkar as a growing, no longer one-dimension character. That Belkar is growing is undeniable and anyone who says that this growth is not in a good direction is not reading the comic, but taking their own take on alignment and reading it into the comic.

[Nilehus]

You'll have to show me where Belkar shows empathy for the commoner. Because all I can remember from that time is him terrorizing them, stealing their food... Belkar showed some empathy with the lizardfolk and the half-dragon because they reminded him of him and Scruffy. Belkar had no such connection with the commoner.

If you do have any evidence at all of Belkar empathizing with the commoner, please show me. Otherwise I'll stick with the idea that his helping Enor and Gannji (spelling?) Was supposed to be his first moment of actually wanting to help another sentient being with no thought of reward.

[Reddish Mage]

You'll have to show me where Belkar shows empathy for the commoner. Because all I can remember from that time is him terrorizing them, stealing their food... Belkar showed some empathy with the lizardfolk and the half-dragon because they reminded him of him and Scruffy. Belkar had no such connection with the commoner.

If you do have any evidence at all of Belkar empathizing with the commoner, please show me. Otherwise I'll stick with the idea that his helping Enor and Gannji (spelling?) Was supposed to be his first moment of actually wanting to help another sentient being with no thought of reward.

I said "focusing on one strip denies a whole book of..." And you try to read what I say next as being about that strip?

[Nilehus]

That was to the first paragraph, where you specifically say that he was obviously just delaying.

Belkar is developing. I am not arguing that! He's actually got a little bit of depth now. But for the moment? He's still a thoroughly evil halfling. One good act does not change years of killing. Sign of things to come, sure. But he's just started the race, he's not near the finish line yet.

[Reddish Mage]

That was to the first paragraph, where you specifically say that he was obviously just delaying.

Belkar is developing. I am not arguing that! He's actually got a little bit of depth now. But for the moment? He's still a thoroughly evil halfling. One good act does not change years of killing. Sign of things to come, sure. But he's just started the race, he's not near the finish line yet.

We see not one but multiple good acts and changes to the character personality. To me, "neutral" better predicts Belkar's actions going forward and better explains the totality of what goes on in book 5, and I see no reason to dwell on his actions prior to book 5. Around a gaming table a DM might say "I want to see more than that" but I do not. There is no weight of sin to alignment as described in the DMG, no need to outweigh it (afterlife rules are a bit different). One can change alignment just by indicating and actually acting the part. The language of the DMG allows this, it is literally most concerned with players changing alignment for the sake of new magical baubles.

Anyway this character Growth is the reason to interpret the one strip as Belkar delaying to kill. If the strip means to show that Belkar has genuine confusion over the purpose of gladiatorial matches and actual fear of being punished by NPC guards or Tarquin, there doesn't seem to be much of a point to it.

[Peelee]

We see not one but multiple good acts

Can you elaborate more on this? I fundamentally disagree with you, in that I see Belkar's change (and his own impetus to change) as a more 3D character growth, without losing his evilness. He's being less of an annoying jerk and more of a subtle jerk. I'm intrigued as to the multiple good acts, though.

[orrion]

I would note the indication that is supposed to be present is that Belkar is that delaying, though you can read Belkar as genuinely confused about whether he would get punished by the guards (aka he's too myopic to get that whole "gladiator" thing).

Right, but he's only delaying out of self-preservation. He's not delaying because he cares about the commoner or anything like that.

The argument for Belkar delaying matters out of a genuine moral sentiment is that we see Belkar having moral sentiments later in the pyramid, as well as earlier having empathy for his cat. Focusing narrowly on one strip denies a whole book that shows Belkar as a growing, no longer one-dimension character. That Belkar is growing is undeniable and anyone who says that this growth is not in a good direction is not reading the comic, but taking their own take on alignment and reading it into the comic.

That's ironic, since what you're doing in that scene is reading something into it that isn't there.

I think what someone quoted earlier from Rich applies here - (paraphrase) Evil characters are capable of caring and such. That Belkar shows such caring doesn't mean he's no longer Evil, or even moving toward Good.

As for reading not reading the comic.. are you sure you have been? Redcloak undoubtedly cared for his family and mentor. He's still Evil. Sabine and Nale cared for each other. They're still Evil. How do you reconcile these things with your view that Belkar is somehow moving toward good every time he displays something similar?

[theNater]

If the strip means to show that Belkar has genuine confusion over the purpose of gladiatorial matches and actual fear of being punished by NPC guards or Tarquin, there doesn't seem to be much of a point to it.

What if the strip is meant to show that Belkar is trying to fake a morality he doesn't actually believe in or understand? Note that he's expressed confusion over when lethal violence is appropriate at least two other times in book 5, once after the slavers and once when Durkula joined the party.

[Nilehus]

What if the strip is meant to show that Belkar is trying to fake a morality he doesn't actually believe in or understand? Note that he's expressed confusion over when lethal violence is appropriate at least two other times in book 5, once after the slavers and once when Durkula joined the party.

That. Belkar had one pretty Good moment in this last book, and it was a well executed one. It showed that he's moving away from Xykon or Snidely Whiplash style villainy to an actual believable character. He still is Evil, but he is slowly moving beyond "Evil evil evil, mwahaha."

A character can be friendly, care for a few others, be a team player, and still be very Evil. Case in point, Tarquin and Malack. That was a pretty big point this book.

[evileeyore]

Ok but, again, the only thing actively stopping Belkar has been fear of retribution. He's not controlling whether he acts on his wants. If it were up to him, he'd be acting on them all the time.

False.

Belkar is controlling his actions. He is making the choice to do what will bring the least retribution, that is an act of control.

What he wasn't controlling were his circumstances. Which has actually changed now that he's willing to "play the game", he is changing the way some people perceive him thus trying to alter what he can and can't get away with, also reducing the likelihood of negative retributions.