A new Belkar today/now?

[D.One]

Tyr isn't CE is he? He is a god of war and justice in Norse mythology and based purely on his one line:
"I will see this world torn to shreds before I allow anyone to gain a strategic advantage over us" I'd pin him as LN/E.

Deities and Demigod's Tyr is LN, indeed, and accepts LN, LE and LG clerics. That said, Deities and Demigod's Thor is CG and accepts CG, CN and NG clerics, and Durkon isn't any of those. I opted to not infer Stickverse's Tyr's alignment.

I suggested Tyr only because of that line, the "torn to shreds" part seems very Belkarish, and because of the War stuff...

[D.One]

Sure, but I think this is one of those cases where D&D and real life are at odds with one another. D&D effectively equates sentience with moral awareness, but in real life humans probably acquire the former before the latter (if you're treating both concepts as binary), so unlike in D&D, there are going to be some young humans (and arguably some mentally disabled people, although that's a complicated subject I don't want to get into right now) who are sentient but lack the ability to distinguish between right and wrong.

I don't really think Int or Wis reflects this lack of ability to distinguish between right and wrong. In fact, recent editions of DnD treat animals and non-sentient beings not as Neutral, someone who balances Law and Chaos, Good and Evil, but as Unaligned, someone/something who's incapable of making moral or ethical choices.

As for children's mental ability scores, I believe they shouldn't be below 3, since the point is not lack of mental faculties (maybe a baby has WIS and CHA 1-2 on his/her earliest weeks, representing lack of self-conscience and awareness, but that evolves quickly). In fact, 3rd edition GURPS had a table for attribute's average's evolution for ages below 15 (for humans, but that could be fit for other races applying the atribute modifiers and appropriate life cycle). GURPS only have one mental attribute, IQ, but that table could be used as a basis. There, a child of 0-1 years have a IQ of 3, that grows to 4 at age 2, 6 at age 3, 7 at age 5, 8 at age 8-9, 9 at age 12-13, reaching the adult's average of 10 at 15 years.

To sum up, regardless of Belkar's early WIS gag, I believe a child's lack of the ability to distinguish between right and wrong is portrayed by an "Unaligned alignment", not by a low ability score.

[Peelee]

I don't really think Int or Wis reflects this lack of ability to distinguish between right and wrong. In fact, recent editions of DnD treat animals and non-sentient beings not as Neutral, someone who balances Law and Chaos, Good and Evil, but as Unaligned, someone/something who's incapable of making moral or ethical choices.

I might need you to explain this. You don't believe that Int below 3 does not have the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, and as support for this, you pull out recent D&D rules that say that creatures with Int below 3 cannot distinguish between right and wrong?

[D.One]

I might need you to explain this. You don't believe that Int below 3 does not have the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, and as support for this, you pull out recent D&D rules that say that creatures with Int below 3 cannot distinguish between right and wrong?

Sorry... It got a bit confusing. To sum up, I don't think small children cannot distinguish between right and wrong because their ability scores are low (and low below sentience), but because they haven't learned it yet. It's not a lack of capacity, but a lack of training, so to say. I'd count any very small children as Unaligned, considering them Unaligned Yet, even if they had mental abilities way above 3.

That said, I'm well aware that this distinction is mostly cosmetic and philosophical.

[Turin_19]

Quick question: how many times has Belkar saved Hinjo's life?

I can only remember one!

[wumpus]

Again: Malack had empathy towards his "children". RC has empathy towards goblins. That doesn't make them less Evil. Belkar expanding his group of people he'd rather not see dead to include someone other than himself is not particularly relevant to his Evil, which is predicated in murdering anyone in his way, or that look like at some point in the future might be in his way, and this does nto seem to have changed.

In short, when it comes to assigning positions in the Good-Evil axis, it is far more relevant how the individual treats strangers than how they treat their friends. Belkar is still willing to kill those he doesn't care about. It's just that there are a handful fewer of those in the world.

Grey Wolf

The difference is that Belkar doesn't see Durkon as a friend and doesn't want to help him out. He feels obligated to help him out of duty and hates that. This is quite possibly the first time we have ever seen a drive to morality out of Belkar (and I suspect the Giant has been careful to make this so).

And I would go further and saying this isn't a "first step". His present course is simply following along with the group. To actually count as a moral improvement he has to specifically go beyond this to aid Durkon: that would be a first step. This is merely the "temptation" of goodness. Plenty of good gods have been tempted, the important part is acting/not acting on it.

Does the stickverse have rules on "vileness" and requirements for evil godhood based on such? While such an act would only be the beginning of redemption (something Belkar clearly doesn't have enough time for), it might be enough to cause an anti-palidin to "rise". This might even be enough to prevent an official status of "sexy shoeless god of war" (working his way toward this on the NE plane of battle is my hope for Death's little helper). Fortunately, if this was true than I suspect that all the good gods would have fallen out of godhood when they attempted to make the greenskins "juicy little bags of xp".

[Jay R]

: ... but it probably still averages out somewhere south of Neutral.

[Leirus]

Again: Malack had empathy towards his "children". RC has empathy towards goblins. That doesn't make them less Evil. Belkar expanding his group of people he'd rather not see dead to include someone other than himself is not particularly relevant to his Evil, which is predicated in murdering anyone in his way, or that look like at some point in the future might be in his way, and this does nto seem to have changed.

In short, when it comes to assigning positions in the Good-Evil axis, it is far more relevant how the individual treats strangers than how they treat their friends. Belkar is still willing to kill those he doesn't care about. It's just that there are a handful fewer of those in the world.

Grey Wolf

He did not know that Gnome girl and felt bad about swindling her. I think Belkar is slowly growing a conscience, and I am enjoying the process.