Does OotS (and DnD) Afterlife depend on actions or intentions?

[caltino]

If Belkar dies saving the world, but he is only in it to be stabbing things, will it reflect "well" upon him, meaning push him towards the "good" side of the spectrum??

I remember Roy's deva talking about trying to do the good thing- intentions mattered there. If the same happens to Belkar, his intentions were never really altruistic, so how will that reflect upon his many "good" actions, resulting in heroic outcomes for the benefit of the world?

[Kish]

There's no heroism in dying saving the world, because if the world is unsaved you die anyway.

[hroþila]

There's no heroism in dying saving the world, because if the world is unsaved you die anyway.

Yeah, but you could let someone else deal with it and hope for the best. For most people, that would maximize their chances of survival.

[ORione]

The dwarves are the only ones whose afterlife is based more on how they die than on how they live. Even if Belkar dies heroically, he wouldn't go to a Good afterlife.

[martianmister]

Both.

[wumpus]

It is up to the DM (in this case the Giant), but it is pretty clear that actions are the most important. The familicide being a prime example, although it isn't clear that V is being penalized for "only" killing of a significant percentage of black dragons in the world or even more heavily penalized for the [presumed] non-evil part dragons as well (which wasn't intentional).

While Belkar may be taking a nearly chaotic neutral attitude by now, he still has multiple kilonazis of evil deeds behind him and there's little chance of avoiding that fate. Xykon may insist that being destroyed by the snarl is one way to avoid "the big fire" and would be a better way to go, but I'm still holding out hope for Belkar finding himself on the Battlefield, ready to work his way up to "sexy shoeless god of war".

[Anymage]

One act isn't enough to shift alignment. It may lose class features in a particularly restrictive class (I'm so glad that paladin fall rules were removed in later editions of D&D), but it's a gradual thing.

If Belkar winds up crossing the line between CE and CN, that'll be due to the accumulated character growth. Just where that line is, and the moment it gets crossed, is as complicated as any other attempt to draw a clear bright line for any gradual change. But the specific act that pushes him over, as dramatically relevant as it will probably be, will only be a continuation of the general trend.

[Sylian]

From what I've gathered, in order to be Good, you need Good intentions. For Evil, intentions tend not to matter. He could probably be Neutral if he ends up doing enough Good actions though, even if he doesn't have Good intentions. "I don't really care about helping people, but I sometimes help people and I sometimes hurt people (slightly)" seems fairly Neutral, by D&D standards. Like Enor and Gannji, I suppose.

[Snails]

I suppose if Belkar converts to the worship of Thor and dies in bloodsoaked heroism, Thor might claim his soul. Maybe.

My personal view leans toward the intention side of things. Of course, intention without any action is weak soup.

Some thoughts...

I think we should careful about assuming one place is a "reward" and another is a "punishment". A soul goes to a place where they might be "perfected".

For example, a CE/CN soul like Belkar's sent to the Celestial Mountain would effectively stuck in a nowhere "limbo/purgatory" of a place. He simply lacks the kind of personal characteristics that would allow him to even begin the ascent. Would that be a kindness to Belkar? I am not sure.

Belkar might "improve", in a fashion, in the Abyss, where after 100,000 years of torture his astounding evil may become powerful enough to become a torturer or ascend to some form of demon.

One might notice that my personal view is probably incongruous with "the Bet". That is what it is.