OOTS #1098 - The Discussion Thread

[Grey_Wolf_c]

So... are you saying that Miko's alignment didn't change either?

No. I am also not saying the opposite. I am saying that Miko was conceived as "a Good antagonist".

GW

[Keltest]

When your argument relies on marking something the character says against your hypothesis as false, you have a weak argument.

I suppose you believe that Belkar actually dislikes gnomish food as well then too.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I suppose you believe that Belkar actually dislikes gnomish food as well then too.

No, because both Belkar and the strip title told me otherwise. There is no indication (beyond that established by your own preconception) that Belkar was similarly downplaying his actual feelings when he considered stabbing Roy.

Grey Wolf

[alwaysbebatman]

There's no indication that he's joking? Because the only "indication" needed is "knowing what jokes sound like."

Miko was conceived as a Paladin set up for a fall. By both her character flaws and her situation.

Belkar is conceived as an evil protagonists: he already IS that. But what is he developing into? All foreshadowing seems to point towards evil character who ends up having a change of heart, likely sacrificing himself for his friends and/or the world.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

There's no indication that he's joking? Because the only "indication" needed is "knowing what jokes sound like."

I fail to see why it being a joke requires him to not actually mean what he says. It's funny because he is perfectly willing to take "stabbing Roy" as an option on how to take out his frustrations.

Belkar is conceived as an evil protagonists: he already IS that. But what is he developing into? All foreshadowing seems to point towards evil character who ends up having a change of heart, likely sacrificing himself for his friends and/or the world.

There is a difference between being an Evil protagonist and being a heroic Evil character. Therefore, "[a]ll foreshadowing" does not point towards a change of heart.

GW

[alwaysbebatman]

I fail to see why it being a joke requires him to not actually mean what he says. It's funny because he is perfectly willing to take "stabbing Roy" as an option on how to take out his frustrations.



There is a difference between being an Evil protagonist and being a heroic Evil character. Therefore, "[a]ll foreshadowing" does not point towards a change of heart.

GW

Okay.... Tell me about that. What does a "heroic evil" character do, exactly? What makes them "heroic," but still evil?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Okay.... Tell me about that. What does a "heroic evil" character do, exactly? What makes them "heroic," but still evil?

Why, so we can engage on a useless discussion of how you define Good? No, thanks.

I'm guessing you are about to argue that saving the world is inherently Good and something only a Good person would do. That is not true. But it is also something I have no desire to discuss, especially with someone who in the current topic stands in the "the only way this story can possibly go is the one I like" camp.

Grey Wolf

[Kish]

There's no indication that he's joking? Because the only "indication" needed is "knowing what jokes sound like."

Excuse me? Setting aside the obnoxiousness of "you're wrong because I say so."

Do you think Haley or Durkon or Elan would have said the same "options open" line after saying they were going to stab the vampire, not Roy?

If yes, I'll be putting you on ignore as having demonstrated willingness to assert the absurd rather than admit you're wrong. If no:

Why exactly would Belkar say that line and not any of the other three people I mentioned? Does it have anything to do with their alignments?

[Kardwill]

Climbing the mountain to the godsmoot, all alone, nobody around to have false bravado for. Still contemplates stabbing Roy in the heart.

I put that in the tough talk department. There was one person to have false bravado for : himself. I saw this line as a way to keep his self image as "remorseless tough guy", just as he continually deny his newfound epathy. But otherwise, since Durkon's death, in action, he's been... Well, not "exemplar citizen", but very un-belkar-y. The most dubious stuff he did (lie to get the amulet for a discount, infiltrate the godsmoot) has been things that Haley would have done if she saw a good reason to. And Belkar DID have good reason, since they were related to fighting back the creature that took over his friend.
He wasn't even particularly cruel or bloodthirsty (well, no more than your average dungeon crawler, anyway) during the combat against the giants, which would have been the perfect occasion to show his darker side without blowing his cover.

Sure, it's only been 2 weeks, but oldschool Belkar would have found an occasion to murder someone on the Mechane or in Gnometown and make a punchline about it. He didn't.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

He wasn't even particularly cruel or bloodthirsty (well, no more than your average dungeon crawler, anyway) during the combat against the giants

Is this (sixth & eleventh panels) the face that is "no more cruel or bloodthirsty" than your average dungeon crawler?

GW

[Kish]

"Average dungeon crawler" is a term that requires definition. i.e., is the "average dungeon crawler" a "hobo serial killer" (to use a term someone used to argue for there being no possibility of actual morality in a D&D-based comic a while ago), or someone more like Roy? If it's the former, why does it matter how well or badly Belkar compares to this creature?

[alwaysbebatman]

Excuse me? Setting aside the obnoxiousness of "you're wrong because I say so."

Do you think Haley or Durkon or Elan would have said the same "options open" line after saying they were going to stab the vampire, not Roy?

If yes, I'll be putting you on ignore as having demonstrated willingness to assert the absurd rather than admit you're wrong. If no:

Why exactly would Belkar say that line and not any of the other three people I mentioned? Does it have anything to do with their alignments?

No, Haley, Durkon, and Elan wouldn't say that: how would that be funny? Yes, because of their alignment. Alignment wasn't the issue. The issue was that:

There is no indication (beyond that established by your own preconception) that Belkar was similarly downplaying his actual feelings when he considered stabbing Roy.

Grey Wolf

The fact that he was clearly making a joke is an indication that he was not actually considering stabbing Roy. That's all it is and all that I claimed.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The fact that he was clearly making a joke is an indication that he was not actually considering stabbing Roy. That's all it is and all that I claimed.

And what you claimed is not convincing. Your position requires him to be lying. But there is no reason to think he was, unless you assume your conclusion. The joke still works if you assume that he is being perfectly truthful. It is therefore not an indication that he wasn't considering it.

GW

[alwaysbebatman]

Why, so we can engage on a useless discussion of how you define Good? No, thanks.

I'm guessing you are about to argue that saving the world is inherently Good and something only a Good person would do. That is not true. But it is also something I have no desire to discuss, especially with someone who in the current topic stands in the "the only way this story can possibly go is the one I like" camp.

Grey Wolf

Really, why would you put words in someone's mouth like that? Especially ones that are the exact opposite of my well established views: that balancing evil deeds with good deeds is irrelevant to redemption. Do you have me confused with someone else?

But you are right that this debate is fruitless. You've decided that whatever Belkar does is making him an "evil hero" whatever that is. Since it isn't defined, whatever Belkar does can retroactively be defined as what you meant by "evil hero."

You say that I've decided where the story is going, and I won't be satisfied with anything else. Belkar is being set up for a major moral choice soon-ish--that's clearly foreshadowed. He's also prophecied to die soon, so there's a good chance those are related. But maybe not.

The character development he's experienced sets Belkar up for it to even be possible to be torn by a major moral choice. (Because before he wouldn't have considered any other options besides whatever gave him lols in the moment.)

But that doesn't mean he'll make the right choice when the moment comes, or that it'd be a bad story if he doesn't. Just an even sadder one.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Really, why would you put words in someone's mouth like that? [...] You've decided that whatever Belkar does is making him an "evil hero"

And now we have reached peak hypocrisy, and I'm done talking to you.

Rich may be planning to make him Neutral by the time of his death, but he could also be planning to show off his writing chops by pulling a reverse Miko: showing a heroic Evil character. The second seems far more plausible to me.

Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

[Goblin_Priest]

Definitive proof of that should be he being able to cast 1st level ranger spells...

"Belkar acting like a Ranger! We're doomed!"

He might be able to cast them, but doesn't.

How low as it to begin with, anyways? A +4 was enough to allow him to cast, but if you put all your points into wis, that takes doing it every time until lvl 16. This doesn't consider the potential that the +4 might have been barely enough and cast at a point where he had already put +1 wis by that time, doesn't consider the potential that even if that spell was cast before lvl 4, the first point(s) didn't go towards wis, and without knowledge of what level he is supposed to be at now.

For the joke about stabbing Roy everyone's talking about... link please?

[georgie_leech]

For the joke about stabbing Roy everyone's talking about... link please?

As per your request. Personally, I'm on the side of "didn't mean it seriously per se but casual murder is still very much a Belkar thing;" when your evil is measured in Kilo-nazis, mere Heca-nazis are still plenty evil

[alwaysbebatman]

And now we have reached peak hypocrisy, and I'm done talking to you.



Grey Wolf

Oh, you don't like it, either? (Having words put in your mouth...)

[Peelee]

Sure, it's only been 2 weeks, but oldschool Belkar would have found an occasion to murder someone on the Mechane or in Gnometown and make a punchline about it. He didn't.

And would have had his was kicked off the ship, if not the whole Order's collective asses. This isn't less, evil, this isn't even less chaotic. This is less stupid. And can be perfectly attributed to character growth. Playing The game, as Dream Shojo put it.

[alwaysbebatman]

And would have had his was kicked off the ship, if not the whole Order's collective asses. This isn't less, evil, this isn't even less chaotic. This is less stupid. And can be perfectly attributed to character growth. Playing The game, as Dream Shojo put it.

Oh, agreed. Simply refraining from lulz-murder isn't evidence in favor of there being more to Belkar's recent changes than "playing the game."

(It's not evidence against it either, though...)

[D.One]

He might be able to cast them, but doesn't.

How low as it to begin with, anyways? A +4 was enough to allow him to cast, but if you put all your points into wis, that takes doing it every time until lvl 16. This doesn't consider the potential that the +4 might have been barely enough and cast at a point where he had already put +1 wis by that time, doesn't consider the potential that even if that spell was cast before lvl 4, the first point(s) didn't go towards wis, and without knowledge of what level he is supposed to be at now.

I can't recall exactly where, but I remember being said that they started the strip as 8th level characters. By the time of the Owl's Wisdow gag, they all had gone up one level, which means he was at 9th level at that time, so two atribute increases were already gone.

At the time, he couldn't cast Ranger spells, which means a WIS no higher than 10. We know that Belkar has had a WIS penalty for a long time, which means that, at that time, his WIS was no higher than 9.

A +4 in WIS made him able to cast Cure Serious Wounds, which is Ranger 3rd level, which means he would need a WIS 13 to do it, so the most likely conclusion is that he had WIS 9 at the time.

Since our best estimate until now about his level puts him on 15th level, he would have had the opotunity to raise WIS by only one point till now, maybe two, if you consider him at a 16th level not yet demonstrated (on the other hand, if he casts a 1st level ranger Spell, that would be proof he in fact did go 16th level and put the two points in WIS to get it to 11).

[KorvinStarmast]

Why would Belkar become less Evil? He's becoming more sophisticated, which makes him far, far more dangerous in the grand scheme of things, but he's still a rotten bastard at heart. Now, he's just a rotten bastard that cares about a cat, and occasionally thinks a bit about other things as well.

Belkar is a sexy, shoeless, god of war. Perhaps after death, he will become a literal god of war.

This makes sense. Rich's commentaries on redemption being something special requires true remorse. Not seeing Belkar doing a lot of true remorse. We'll see.

Or, someone could just give him a headband of inspired wisdom. Since, you know, the effect Owl's Wisdom had on him that once. ;)

That magic item would need to be a gift, as I don't think he'll be buying it.

a growing need for a better Will save, is it at all possible that Belkar might bring himself up to the Owl's Wisdom point of his own volition? And if that's the direction Rich is going with this... goddamn that is forethought.

I think, given their level, an ioun stone or head band is more likely.

"He felt a bit bad about cheating someone... whilst still taking advantage of her, just not getting a free lunch (and possibly some nookie) out of it" is not Neutral action. Him passing up lunch/nookie was the opposite of his usual/previous character, which is selfish and carnally motivated. (See OoTPCs in re his hunger for whores).
{snip}
Rich may be planning to make him Neutral by the time of his death, but he could also be planning to show off his writing chops by pulling a reverse Miko: showing a heroic Evil character. The second seems far more plausible to me.

Yeah, that would be great, and I hope that's where Rich is going with this.

Belkar can be less Evil while still being very Evil.

Yep.

Okay.... Tell me about that. What does a "heroic evil" character do, exactly? What makes them "heroic," but still evil?

Elric of Melnibone can probably tell you about that. (Good series if you have not read them).

[Hamste]

That leads me to an interesting question. Belkar who has a boosted wisdom becomes peaceful and appears at least neutral from the very short time we saw him as he regretted whay he had done. What would have happened at judgement of Belkar had worn a periapt of wisdom since then? Assuming his personality turns back when he died and lost the item would he still would have went to the chaotic evil after life or would he go to a different after life despite that him becoming good was due to an item?

It is a pointless question as it was a one off joke and there is essentially 0 chance we would see it in the strip but it has me curious.

[D.One]

That leads me to an interesting question. Belkar who has a boosted wisdom becomes peaceful and appears at least neutral from the very short time we saw him as he regretted whay he had done. What would have happened at judgement of Belkar had worn a periapt of wisdom since then? Assuming his personality turns back when he died and lost the item would he still would have went to the chaotic evil after life or would he go to a different after life despite that him becoming good was due to an item?

I believe...

It is a pointless question as it was a one off joke and there is essentially 0 chance we would see it in the strip but it has me curious.

... you self-answered.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Yeah, that would be great, and I hope that's where Rich is going with this.

There is also the fact that we already have another Evil OotS member trying to become Neutral: V. They've got the "regret your way out of the deep end of the alignment pool" plot covered. Not sure what would be gained by doubling up on that plot - any exploration of the topic can be done with V as well as it can be done with Belkar, short of showing why Belkar is as Evil as he is, which we already know isn't going to happen.

It is therefore more interesting to do something else with the character. And yes, the choices are not limited to "heroic Evil" or "regret-fueled alignment change", but whatever Rich comes up with, I really don't think he is planning to do the latter with Belkar.

Grey Wolf

[Hamste]

I believe...



... you self-answered.

Just because it is a pointless question, doesn't mean it shouldn't be thought about.

[Jasdoif]

That leads me to an interesting question. Belkar who has a boosted wisdom becomes peaceful and appears at least neutral from the very short time we saw him as he regretted whay he had done. What would have happened at judgement of Belkar had worn a periapt of wisdom since then? Assuming his personality turns back when he died and lost the item would he still would have went to the chaotic evil after life or would he go to a different after life despite that him becoming good was due to an item?

Why would Belkar have worn a periapt of wisdom?

No, seriously. Given that the number of paladins who fell for killing paladins while under an insanity effect was apparently zero, I'm going to guess that actions taken solely due to the influential of a magical effect are at the very least discounted.

So whether or not baseline Belkar chose to have this done could be a significant factor in...the possibility of finding out how a particular afterlife evaluates "recent converts".

[alwaysbebatman]

The Periapt of Wisdom isn't comparable to the Insanity rune, because it only upped an ability score, something a character can do for themself at level up. And also, an insane character can't choose not to do things that would be considered evil if they knew what they were doing. A wise character CAN choose to still be evil.

So why didn't Belkar?

I can see two possibilities:

1. Belkar is amoral, and his evil is primarily a result of his lack of perceptiveness.
2. Or it was just a gag, and a wiser Belkar would still be evil.

My view falls halfway in between. It was a gag and Belkar wouldn't actually instantly change if he really got a permanent wisdom boost, but lack of perception is a big part of what stands in his way, and a permanent WIS boost may very well be involved in wherever Belkar's storyline is headed.

[D.One]

Adding another element to my previous rationale, there's the fact that we have evidence of Belkar being 12th level on #249.

Since by #475 he still had that WIS penalty, that means his third atribute point didn't go for WIS...

[Jasdoif]

The Periapt of Wisdom isn't comparable to the Insanity rune, because it only upped an ability score, something a character can do for themself at level up.

It's entirely comparable, because Belkar under the effect of owl's wisdom behaved completely differently than he did before the effect started or after the effect ended. Which is pretty weird for an enhancement bonus to an ability score to do, but still what happened (and I'm reasonably certain Hamste was asking with the hypothetical that it wasn't a one-shot gag).

If Belkar started and continued wearing a periapt of wisdom while under the influence of a behavior change of that magnitude, or if such an item was forced onto him and its effects are why he didn't remove it afterwards....Would it really be a decision made of his own volition? Would an afterlife arbiter think it was?