Belkar's alignment

[orrion]

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.

False? It's quite apparent that if he could, Belkar would go around killing whatever the heck he could whenever the heck he wanted. Nothing's changed that. The Deva's description of Belkar when she was evaluating Roy is still pretty darned accurate.

[Nilehus]

To be fair, he might spare a few of the ones that are holding their pets. Maybe.

[evileeyore]

False? It's quite apparent that if he could, Belkar would go around killing whatever the heck he could whenever the heck he wanted. Nothing's changed that. The Deva's description of Belkar when she was evaluating Roy is still pretty darned accurate.

He can. He'd just be all retributed.

That's called choice. Belkar isn't in jail where his choices are curtailed severely. He's out and about, a halfling in the world.

He could walk away from the group and ignore Roy's silly rules, but then he be choosing to leave Roy's protection. He could stab people all day long, but then he'd be choosing to set off the parties threatened retribution. It's choice.

Belkar has choice, he's been choosing to reign in his primal impulses, and now he's choosing to pretend be a team player instead of a loose cannon Roy has to plan around.




Granted I'm ignoring all the times Belkar has been Dominated or Suggested and had choice removed from him. Do you see the difference?

[evileeyore]

To be fair, he might spare a few of the ones that are holding their pets. Maybe.

He'll certainly spare the sexy ones he thinks he can score with. History has proven him correct on that score.

[Keltest]

He can. He'd just be all retributed.

That's called choice. Belkar isn't in jail where his choices are curtailed severely. He's out and about, a halfling in the world.

He could walk away from the group and ignore Roy's silly rules, but then he be choosing to leave Roy's protection. He could stab people all day long, but then he'd be choosing to set off the parties threatened retribution. It's choice.

Belkar has choice, he's been choosing to reign in his primal impulses, and now he's choosing to pretend be a team player instead of a loose cannon Roy has to plan around.




Granted I'm ignoring all the times Belkar has been Dominated or Suggested and had choice removed from him. Do you see the difference?

Youre arguing semantics. Whether he "chooses" not to do something for fear of retribution or he is "forced" to do something through threat of retribution doesn't matter. Someone is causing him to take their preferred course of action by threatening him with negative consequences if he doesn't. Whether or not you believe that still allows for "choice" isn't particularly relevant to the point being made.

[Reddish Mage]

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.

I think the three times Belkar expresses confusion suggest a progression to the character. The first time, he clearly is expressing bewilderment over the ethics of killing and trying to process it in a non-moralistic fashion. The second time ????? (two alternative readings). With Durkula there is clearly something deeper going on as Belkar continuously is expressing non-Belkar-like sentiments.

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.

Tarquin and Malack are meant to contrast to Belkar, not to be comparables on the scale. Tarquin's every action screams evil, from how he runs his Empire to how he acquires his magic items, to how he throws his parties, to even how he takes his meals. At this point even the aid he offers Elan cannot but be corrupted, twisted, and made to suit his purposes. Malack is a bit more subtle but is ultimately reveals that his plans are even more twisted than Tarquin's with none other than death chambers.

Belkar is giving genuine aid to the Order, is doing so pretty much gratis, and has yet to do something that betrays his "pretend" reformation, by say winking and buddying up with Durkula (love your new color scheme!), which he would have done...oh wait he did!...one book ago.

Some see Belkar performing isolated acts, I see a clear progression arc, book-long!

[orrion]

He can. He'd just be all retributed.

That's called choice. Belkar isn't in jail where his choices are curtailed severely. He's out and about, a halfling in the world.

He could walk away from the group and ignore Roy's silly rules, but then he be choosing to leave Roy's protection. He could stab people all day long, but then he'd be choosing to set off the parties threatened retribution. It's choice.

Belkar has choice, he's been choosing to reign in his primal impulses, and now he's choosing to pretend be a team player instead of a loose cannon Roy has to plan around.

Keltest's reply to this is basically what I'm saying.

Youre arguing semantics. Whether he "chooses" not to do something for fear of retribution or he is "forced" to do something through threat of retribution doesn't matter. Someone is causing him to take their preferred course of action by threatening him with negative consequences if he doesn't. Whether or not you believe that still allows for "choice" isn't particularly relevant to the point being made.

----

Tarquin and Malack are meant to contrast to Belkar, not to be comparables on the scale. Tarquin's every action screams evil, from how he runs his Empire to how he acquires his magic items, to how he throws his parties, to even how he takes his meals. At this point even the aid he offers Elan cannot but be corrupted, twisted, and made to suit his purposes. Malack is a bit more subtle but is ultimately reveals that his plans are even more twisted than Tarquin's with none other than death chambers.

Belkar is giving genuine aid to the Order, is doing so pretty much gratis, and has yet to do something that betrays his "pretend" reformation, by say winking and buddying up with Durkula (love your new color scheme!), which he would have done...oh wait he did!...one book ago.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that Tarquin and Malack are meant to be contrasted to Belkar, other than the inevitable comparisons of "that guy is evil and so is that guy." Belkar's actions also scream "evil," he just happens to be indiscriminate about it whereas Tarquin and Malack have concrete plans and are working toward them.

And, again, there are instances of both Tarquin and Malack showing caring dispositions. I ask again - why is it that such things from them don't alter your interpretations, but such from Belkar means his alignment is changing?

We haven't been shown anything that says Belkar genuinely cares about the Order's greater goals, and I would need that sort of confirmation to apply a gratis label. Also, he's getting levels and such that he probably wouldn't be otherwise, which makes him all the more dangerous should he ever not be corralled by Roy.

Of course he isn't buddying up with Durkula. He's got a very personal vendetta there that trumps other considerations. If you'll recall, he welcomed V to the deep end of the alignment pool right off, and that was after his "reformation."

[Nilehus]

I'm out. Nothing is going to convince you that Belkar isn't quite ready for sainthood yet. Believe what you will; me, I need a bit more than "didn't kill a person that one time he could've."

[theNater]

I think the three times Belkar expresses confusion suggest a progression to the character. The first time, he clearly is expressing bewilderment over the ethics of killing and trying to process it in a non-moralistic fashion. The second time ????? (two alternative readings). With Durkula there is clearly something deeper going on as Belkar continuously is expressing non-Belkar-like sentiments.

How is "that thing hurt me, so I want to kill it" a non-Belkar-like sentiment? Because that's all that Belkar actually has right now. He hasn't seen what's going on inside Durkula's head any more than the rest of the Order has.

Tarquin's every action screams evil, from how he runs his Empire to how he acquires his magic items, to how he throws his parties, to even how he takes his meals.

How about how he spends a day with his long-lost son? How Evil is that?

Belkar is giving genuine aid to the Order, is doing so pretty much gratis...

Belkar gets protection, adventure, experience, a share of treasure, and opportunities to kill strange and interesting new things. Being associated with them is very much to his benefit.

...and has yet to do something that betrays his "pretend" reformation...

You mean, something like bullying? Or deliberately putting himself in a position where he can kill someone? Or torture?

...by say winking and buddying up with Durkula (love your new color scheme!), which he would have done...oh wait he did!...one book ago.

Evil isn't one big happy family. Tarquin and Nale opposed each other as vigorously as Belkar is opposing Durkula; that doesn't mean one or the other of them is non-Evil.

[evileeyore]

Youre arguing semantics.

Yes, but it's a big one. The difference between choice and no choice is drastic.*

Belkar makes his choices. The difference between now and when the comic started is that he's gotten a "larger picture" view. He's taking into account more than just the "immediate desire vs immediate punishment" angle and looking at "does my immediate desire have greater value than the long term reward of faking being a team player and reigning in my immediate desires?"


* Keep in mind this momentary tangent began because orrion claimed Belkar had no choice. My response was to remind him (and others) that Belkar has agency, don't strip it from him rhetorically.

Whether or not you believe that still allows for "choice" isn't particularly relevant to the point being made.

Then what's the point?

If Belkar has no choice, nothing he does is interesting, he loses all ability to grow and can safely be replaced with a two dimensional cut out.

If Belkar has choice, he has the capacity growth, no matter what direction that is in.

[Keltest]

Yes, but it's a big one. The difference between choice and no choice is drastic.*

Belkar makes his choices. The difference between now and when the comic started is that he's gotten a "larger picture" view. He's taking into account more than just the "immediate desire vs immediate punishment" angle and looking at "does my immediate desire have greater value than the long term reward of faking being a team player and reigning in my immediate desires?"


* Keep in mind this momentary tangent began because orrion claimed Belkar had no choice. My response was to remind him (and others) that Belkar has agency, don't strip it from him rhetorically.



Then what's the point?

If Belkar has no choice, nothing he does is interesting, he loses all ability to grow and can safely be replaced with a two dimensional cut out.

If Belkar has choice, he has the capacity growth, no matter what direction that is in.

The point is that Belkar's first inclination is to slaughter everything indiscriminately. His ability to conclude that that path isn't the most beneficial to him doesn't mean that it isn't the one that he wants to take. His better judgment, such as it is, simply overrides his desires. Hes acting for the greater Belkar, so to speak.

Edit: elaborating, his character has not changed just because the circumstances of his ability to act on it have. Elan is not less good for not trying to overthrow Tarquin, and Belkar is not less evil for not slaughtering indiscriminately, because they both WANT to do those things (well, not both of them do both those things, obviously), they just cant realistically act on it.

Heck, theres even an early comic where Belkar lampshades this, saying "I agree, and by that I mean there are more of you and you are using that to coerce me into obeying your moral code."

[Rodin]

I'd also note that working with the Order to stop Xykon is not, in and of itself, a Good act. He's helping to stop the end of the world, and in that he's fully in agreement with Xykon:

"I like the world. Some of my best evilness took place here."

In this, like most everything else, Belkar is acting in the interest of the greater Belkar.

[Peelee]

The point is that Belkar's first inclination is to slaughter everything indiscriminately.

False. I provide as proof of this the Belkar PDF. He was not a part of an adventuring group, and was not afraid of any possible repurcussions at the time. His slaughter was due to a logical* thought process that culminated in the climax of the story.

Belkar does not look at his moral compass and head south, as it appears you believe. Belkar completely lacks a moral compass. This explains why he is confused at times when he is allowed to kill people instead of punished for it. He literally does not understand morality, and does what he likes. Which, in his case, is incredibly evil.

*Belkar logic =/= good logic.

I tried my best to keep this distinctly away from touching morally justified territory. If I failed, I'll edit (or be edited) accordingly. I'd like this topic to not be locked.

[Keltest]

False. I provide as proof of this the Belkar PDF. He was not a part of an adventuring group, and was not afraid of any possible repurcussions at the time. His slaughter was due to a logical* thought process that culminated in the climax of the story.

Belkar does not look at his moral compass and head south, as it appears you believe. Belkar completely lacks a moral compass. This explains why he is confused at times when he is allowed to kill people instead of punished for it. He literally does not understand morality, and does what he likes. Which, in his case, is incredibly evil.

*Belkar logic =/= good logic.

I tried my best to keep this distinctly away from touching morally justified territory. If I failed, I'll edit (or be edited) accordingly. I'd like this topic to not be locked.

Up to this point I have not been aware of the existence of the "Belkar PDF." so I cant really comment on that.

[Peelee]

Up to this point I have not been aware of the existence of the "Belkar PDF." so I cant really comment on that.

Ahh. Sorry. Kickstarter bonus. I know it's not available to everyone, and I gambled that you'd read it. My bad.

[Keltest]

Ahh. Sorry. Kickstarter bonus. I know it's not available to everyone, and I gambled that you'd read it. My bad.

Bwahahah! now you must pay me all your monies!

oh wait, we weren't betting. Darn.

[evileeyore]

The point is that Belkar's first inclination is to slaughter everything indiscriminately

False.

Belkar's first inclination is to have fun. Does this (more often than not) include hurting others? Yes*. However he is equally in his element seducing women (Jenny**) and cooking.



* Because he enjoys the suffering of others.

** Note, he not only didn't kill Jenny, he avoided killing her and took actions that were more difficult (trip attack, sexy grappled, ranged attack whilst sexy grappling) because he choose to seduce rather than kill, when it would have been perfectly okay for him to kill her and he knew it.

There you go Peelee, an in comic example.

[Peelee]

False.

Belkar's first inclination is to have fun. Does this (more often than not) include hurting others? Yes*. However he is equally in his element seducing women (Jenny**) and cooking.



* Because he enjoys the suffering of others.

** Note, he not only didn't kill Jenny, he avoided killing her and took actions that were more difficult (trip attack, sexy grappled, ranged attack whilst sexy grappling) because he choose to seduce rather than kill, when it would have been perfectly okay for him to kill her and he knew it.

There you go Peelee, an in comic example.

Huzzah! Everything he said, with "moral compass blah blah" tacked on the end.

[Keltest]

False.

Belkar's first inclination is to have fun. Does this (more often than not) include hurting others? Yes*. However he is equally in his element seducing women (Jenny**) and cooking.



* Because he enjoys the suffering of others.

** Note, he not only didn't kill Jenny, he avoided killing her and took actions that were more difficult (trip attack, sexy grappled, ranged attack whilst sexy grappling) because he choose to seduce rather than kill, when it would have been perfectly okay for him to kill her and he knew it.

There you go Peelee, an in comic example.

Its still semantics. Whether or not hes explicitly doing it for the sake of slaughtering people or because he likes it, Belkar would rather be killing or otherwise violent far more often than not.

[evileeyore]

Its still semantics.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Whether or not hes explicitly doing it for the sake of slaughtering people or because he likes it, Belkar would rather be killing or otherwise violent far more often than not.

Then riddle me this Batman, why isn't Belkar doing what he wants to do?


But before you answer you need to know where I'm coming from: Action Theory (and several other branches of philosophy and psychology).

Action Theory argues (at it's simplest) that every action one takes is directed by their desires and beliefs.

"I am thirsty, I believe that cup contains water" is followed by taking the cup and drinking the water.


Therefore, so long as Belkar has agency he will always be doing what he wants. Now before you retort with "But he always wants to hurt so blah, blah, blah" realize this: Belkar also wants to not be retributed*.

Therefore he weighs the two wants: Immediate Gratification of Desires vs Possibility of Negative Retribution.

When Retribution wins out over Gratification we get non-stabby Belkar. When it's the opposite, we get Belkar murdering a Gnome or a Kobold because he misweighed the two**.

When he can't properly weigh them we get confused Belkar, unable to make a decision.***

And when Gratification wins out over possibility Retribution we get Belkar stuffing the intestines of human into another still living human.




* I'm deliberately using this improper term because Belkar has shown again and again that he doesn't understand enough to not only not know Right from Wong on an emotional level, but fails to grasp it on an Intellectual level (mostly because he doesn't pay attention enough for the latter and has no capacity for the former) as well. Thus the ,ore proper term of Punishment is actually not correct here.

** Again, Attention Deficit Belkar strikes!

*** This is on account of footnote number one. He has no emotional grounding to make a choice and hasn't paid enough attention to be able to make one intellectually. Counter-argument: He did understand his situation completely and was just being a pain in the ass because he could get away with it and rub the whole "situational ethics" nonsense in the party's face.

[Keltest]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.



Then riddle me this Batman, why isn't Belkar doing what he wants to do?


But before you answer you need to know where I'm coming from: Action Theory (and several other branches of philosophy and psychology).

Action Theory argues (at it's simplest) that every action one takes is directed by their desires and beliefs.

"I am thirsty, I believe that cup contains water" is followed by taking the cup and drinking the water.


Therefore, so long as Belkar has agency he will always be doing what he wants. Now before you retort with "But he always wants to hurt so blah, blah, blah" realize this: Belkar also wants to not be retributed*.

Therefore he weighs the two wants: Immediate Gratification of Desires vs Possibility of Negative Retribution.

When Retribution wins out over Gratification we get non-stabby Belkar. When it's the opposite, we get Belkar murdering a Gnome or a Kobold because he misweighed the two**.

When he can't properly weigh them we get confused Belkar, unable to make a decision.***

And when Gratification wins out over possibility Retribution we get Belkar stuffing the intestines of human into another still living human.




* I'm deliberately using this improper term because Belkar has shown again and again that he doesn't understand enough to not only not know Right from Wong on an emotional level, but fails to grasp it on an Intellectual level (mostly because he doesn't pay attention enough for the latter and has no capacity for the former) as well. Thus the ,ore proper term of Punishment is actually not correct here.

** Again, Attention Deficit Belkar strikes!

*** This is on account of footnote number one. He has no emotional grounding to make a choice and hasn't paid enough attention to be able to make one intellectually. Counter-argument: He did understand his situation completely and was just being a pain in the ass because he could get away with it and rub the whole "situational ethics" nonsense in the party's face.

Im not even sure what youre trying to argue for anymore. Yes, Belkar occasionally does non-violent things for various reasons. Hes not a completely 1-dimensional character. Does this have something to do with him being less evil than he started, or are we just arguing about 2 sides of the same position?

[evileeyore]

Im not even sure what youre trying to argue for anymore.

As I said a few posts back: My argument was specifically with orrion stating Belkar had no choice. He has choice (and I've kept on about that ever since).

(He often chooses Evil, and when he doesn't it isn't because he's suddenly Good - we agree completely on that).

...are we just arguing about 2 sides of the same position?

I'm only arguing about determinism vs agency. Probably Completely my fault for stepping into (what page 6?) of an alignment debate. I do try to avoid them as I think alignments are "stupid, poopy, doody-headed" nonsense.

But it's one of my ... buttons when people claim they "had no choice".

[orrion]

As I said a few posts back: My argument was specifically with orrion stating Belkar had no choice. He has choice (and I've kept on about that ever since).

(He often chooses Evil, and when he doesn't it isn't because he's suddenly Good - we agree completely on that).



I'm only arguing about determinism vs agency. Probably Completely my fault for stepping into (what page 6?) of an alignment debate. I do try to avoid them as I think alignments are "stupid, poopy, doody-headed" nonsense.

But it's one of my ... buttons when people claim they "had no choice".

I honestly don't care about that distinction. I'm not sure it's relevant, either, since what it all boils down to is the same thing:

Belkar will do as much evil as he can get away with. He may also choose to do non-Evil things without them having any direct impact on his alignment.

--

Also, I look back on your jail comment. In fact, Belkar is in jail. Remember, Roy said to the Deva "instead, the jail travels with him, with me as head warden."

[evileeyore]

I honestly don't care about that distinction.

I see.

Also, I look back on your jail comment. In fact, Belkar is in jail. Remember, Roy said to the Deva "instead, the jail travels with him, with me as head warden."

In fact, no he's not. While it makes for a witty/pithy comment, it is not all the same as being in a jail.




I will grant that to date, jail has actually had less of an impact on Belkar's kill quota than Roy has, but that is more due to "teh funneys" than the way in which jails truthfully function.

[Angelalex242]

Well...

Belkar's down to 62 Nazis of his original 3000. For that, Roy is certainly to be commended.

However, 62 Nazis are still explicitly evil by any other standards save Xykon, Redcloak, Tarquin, Malack, Durkula, and so on. Where Belkar is less evil then they because his Nazi count is now lower then theirs. Xykon's probably up in the 9 kilonazis level of evil or so. Cause, ya know, I could see Giant doing the famous DBZ joke. Hey, Deva, what does the evilometer say about Xykon's evil rating? "It's...OVER 9000!" "What 9000!?" *crushes Evilometer.*

So...in summation, 62 Nazis is certainly less then 3000 Nazis. However, 62 Nazis is still very evil.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Well...

Belkar's down to 62 Nazis of his original 3000. For that, Roy is certainly to be commended.

However, 62 Nazis are still explicitly evil by any other standards save Xykon, Redcloak, Tarquin, Malack, Durkula, and so on. Where Belkar is less evil then they because his Nazi count is now lower then theirs. Xykon's probably up in the 9 kilonazis level of evil or so. Cause, ya know, I could see Giant doing the famous DBZ joke. Hey, Deva, what does the evilometer say about Xykon's evil rating? "It's...OVER 9000!" "What 9000!?" *crushes Evilometer.*

So...in summation, 62 Nazis is certainly less then 3000 Nazis. However, 62 Nazis is still very evil.

The amount of nazis shown by the Deva seems to be a representation of how much Evil one has committed, based on her comment "what he would have done". Belkar has committed less Evil while with Roy, which is why his count has dropped. How Evil he is is not necessarily reflected by how many kilonazis he gets on the Deva's chart.

[Keltest]

The amount of nazis shown by the Deva seems to be a representation of how much Evil one has committed, based on her comment "what he would have done". Belkar has committed less Evil while with Roy, which is why his count has dropped. How Evil he is is not necessarily reflected by how many kilonazis he gets on the Deva's chart.

You know, for that matter, Angelalex, you bring this up a lot, and you ALWAYS get this response, which you seem to promptly ignore. What gives?

[Jaxzan Proditor]

You know, for that matter, Angelalex, you bring this up a lot, and you ALWAYS get this response, which you seem to promptly ignore. What gives?

Also, for that matter , why do you say 62 Nazis? Looking at the chart, I'd say he could be anywhere around 0.5 kn.

[orrion]

Well...

Belkar's down to 62 Nazis of his original 3000. For that, Roy is certainly to be commended.

However, 62 Nazis are still explicitly evil by any other standards save Xykon, Redcloak, Tarquin, Malack, Durkula, and so on. Where Belkar is less evil then they because his Nazi count is now lower then theirs. Xykon's probably up in the 9 kilonazis level of evil or so. Cause, ya know, I could see Giant doing the famous DBZ joke. Hey, Deva, what does the evilometer say about Xykon's evil rating? "It's...OVER 9000!" "What 9000!?" *crushes Evilometer.*

So...in summation, 62 Nazis is certainly less then 3000 Nazis. However, 62 Nazis is still very evil.

... How did you get 62?

That chart is irrelevant to the question at hand. Heck, you can't even use it to prove what you're asserting here because none of the other characters you mention have been judged.

[Jay R]

The clear result of this discussion is that everyone whose mind can be changed has been changed. We have all accomplished as much of our goal as is possible.