OOTS #1182 - The Discussion Thread

[Rogar Demonblud]

Was that Haley talking to Celia, or was that V going on a rant versus Elan? Or was that V talking to Miko?

Vaasuvius to Miko just after the trial ended.

[Petrocorus]

Vaasuvius to Miko just after the trial ended.

Weird, i remember it as Roy saying this to Miko.

Here's the relevant comics.

[Dellis]

Was that Haley talking to Celia, or was that V going on a rant versus Elan? Or was that V talking to Miko? It sounds so familiar.

V talking to Miko.

That panel reached deep into my feelings.

It is still my all-time favourite. Maybe, the only contender is the one in which Roy runs away from Wrecan and the camera cuts him in half while focusing on Wrecan's smile as he sees him off.

[CrispyCriminal]

At first I thought he was talking about Minmax from Goblins, but than I remembered it was O-chul he was referring to. Blame it on Belkar's knack for 4th wall breaking references.

Either would fit the point of that comparison though.

[redzimmer]

Can we itemize every evil act Belkar has done since he triggered the Mark?

Anyone?

[Peelee]

Anyone?

Are you volunteering?

[The Pilgrim]

Can we itemize every evil act Belkar has done since he triggered the Mark?

- Stealing bread from the other inmates at Gladiator Camp
- Forcing a dominated prisoner to eat his cat's crap

Those are the two that just came to my mind. There may be others.

[Schroeswald]

The problem with doing that is it necessarily leads to having to deciding which acts count as Evil and which are Neutral (and a few could be Good), for example Belkar killing the slaver is one of his best actions but I can see an arguement for the cruelty and glee he goes about it making it Evil, or the fact that he was Evil and being punished for an attempted Evil act making it Neutral or Good depending on how much of his cruelty you’re willing to excuse (I’d itemize that as Neutral btw), but then you get to all the Thieves Guild people he killed, they were trying to attack and kill him, and very few, if any, were good, and he knew of this, but how much did he care? I don’t know where I would put those kills, we know there were plenty of non-Evil people in the Thieves Guild, including two people in the attack, and while neither of them were killed we can’t say Chuck was necessarily Evil. And then saving Gannji and Enor was probably not Evil but it did lead to quite a bit of collateral damage in human life so I’d understand someone placing it there (even if it was definitely part of Belkar’s path to developing a conscience).

[hroþila]

Belkar killed Buggy Lou to protect his cat - emphasis on "his". I'd count that as Neutral. On the other hand, he was in the middle of allowing some slavers to run away with their prisoners explicitly because it didn't affect him so he didn't care. You can count that as Neutral too under certain readings of the rules, but not under any readings that also allow you to categorize killing Lou as Good.

[ericgrau]

For a smart fighter, Roy is pretty dumb about using any special items or, heck, usually any special tactics besides "I hit it with my sword!" One time he used cross class skill ranks but, come on, there are feats (besides feats for hitting it with your sword), gear (besides gear that makes you hit harder), buffs from your party, etc., etc. It seems like this comic is saying his seeming incompetence is him trying to prove he can do it all with only his sword. When even the party spellcasters have no qualms with relying on him and relying on gear.

[Dion]

Also you get to name days of the week after yourself so EVERY week has a party day for you in it. No need to have birthday cake when you're having ME-day cake!!

Let’s examine this idea critically.

Would his day be named Belkarsday, or Bittersday?

Would Belkday be the eighth day of the week, or would he replace one of the existing seven?

Would people wear shoes on Bijterday?

[Schroeswald]

Belkar killed Buggy Lou to protect his cat - emphasis on "his". I'd count that as Neutral. On the other hand, he was in the middle of allowing some slavers to run away with their prisoners explicitly because it didn't affect him so he didn't care. You can count that as Neutral too under certain readings of the rules, but not under any readings that also allow you to categorize killing Lou as Good.

I said I categorized it as Neutral, but that I could definitely see that others could categorize it as something else, but my point overall is that many of Belkar's actions are hard to categorize, because he's been killing mostly Evil people and being helpful to the Order since the Mark of Justice was removed, and while many of the stuff he's done is Evil (see his stint in prison), plenty of it is Neutral and even a few things could be Good (his attempts to stop Greg I personally would categorize as jumping between the Good and Neutral line), and figuring out which ones is hard and would almost certainly lead to a morally justified discussion which we should stay well away from.

[factotum]

my point overall is that many of Belkar's actions are hard to categorize, because he's been killing mostly Evil people and being helpful to the Order since the Mark of Justice was removed

Killing Evil people is not intrinsically a Good act, though. Motive matters--if you kill an evil king because you intend to usurp his throne and rob his people, it most certainly isn't a good thing to be doing. As for helping the rest of the Order, how much of that is down to simple self-preservation? If the world is destroyed Belkar dies, and I'm sure he's fully aware of that.

[Listening Here]

Anyone?

There’s a few cases, but if the point is to discuss development may I offer the following?

• In 645 Belkar welcomes V to the ‘deep end of the alignment pool’. Belkar is smiling and winking indicating he thinks it is great V has gone evil. Not an evil act, but a good or neutral character wouldn’t be thrilled. Haley wasn’t until Belkar convinced her it was just a wardrobe change.
• In 685 Belkar kills Lou for saying he’s going to eat his cat. Sure, Lou’s a slaver and evil, but Belkar was willing to let Lou enslave the people until he threatened Mr. Scruffy.
• In 687 Belkar asks who the least popular person is because ‘it’s ok for me to kill them if everyone agrees to it’ demonstrating his joy of killing anyone without comprehending why he received the gift.
• In 736 he steals another gladiator’s bread.
• In 738 Belkar suggests to Enor how to prepare Roy’s heart for better dining. Roy yells at Belkar and Belkar replies he has two skill sets and Roy gets mad when he uses the other one. Sure, he doesn’t say murder but the implication is there.
• In 744-746 Belkar harasses, steals, and justifies his bad behavior.
• In 780-781 Belkar demonstrates both his attachment to Mr. Scruffy while also force feeding a guard another man’s intestines and pulling it out the other end as a response to a weak insult.
• In 784 Belkar saves Gannji and Enor. He’ll admit he did it because of Mr. Scruffy’s influence in 807 as he heals Mr. Scruffy with a healing potion.

I could go on, but I think I rather pivot to strip 1130 because if the question is when does Belkar start shifting from an unrepentant murderer to a more complex character Belkar sums it up in this strip after alluding to it in strips 1098 and 1115. Because Durkon saved Belkar and didn’t blame him when Durkon died Belkar felt anguish over being forced to think and acknowledge how Durkon’s selflessness impacted him.

Before that Belkar was only motivated to protect Mr. Scruffy but in 1150 he voices his ‘hard core introspection’ and as a sign of development sincerely apologizes to Durkon for an earlier prank. Durkon’s selflessness may have been the first time anyone did that for Belkar and I like to cite it as a shifting point because the Belkar of old could have justified blaming Durkon for dying by refusing to take Malack’s offers on how to avoid fighting each other. He didn’t though.

Forgive the long post, but while many get snagged on the D&D rules and possibilities within that framework I more enjoy the incredible character development. Belkar has very slowly changing first by showing empathy to Mr. Scruffy and then Bloodfeast and then to Durkon. I’m not willing to say it extends beyond one person or if we’ll see him continue this change but I’m enjoying the story greatly.

[Schroeswald]

Killing Evil people is not intrinsically a Good act, though. Motive matters--if you kill an evil king because you intend to usurp his throne and rob his people, it most certainly isn't a good thing to be doing. As for helping the rest of the Order, how much of that is down to simple self-preservation? If the world is destroyed Belkar dies, and I'm sure he's fully aware of that.

Of course, his motivations of liking to kill people and wanting himself to survive are clear, but those aren’t always his motivations when doing things, Buggy Lou was killed for trying to hurt Mr. Scruffy, Enor and Gannji were saved because they reminded him of Mr. Scruffy, he kept attacking Durkula because he’s bad and he’s pretending to be Durkon so he should die, all of those actions are non-evil in my book but (except for Durkula) I could see arguments for evilness. Trying to decide which murders are Evil because he thinks killing is fun and which murders are Neutral or better because he’s trying to help his friends, stop bad guys or whatever is hard and something that if anyone tried to count would almost certainly lead to arguments over how Evisceratus was good and so Belkar should be responsible for letting Mr. Scruffy kill him or how Buggy Lou’s death was so cruel and gleeful he should marked down as Evil for it, and I don’t want to get in those arguements.

[Svata]

There’s a few cases, but if the point is to discuss development may I offer the following?

• In 645 Belkar welcomes V to the ‘deep end of the alignment pool’. Belkar is smiling and winking indicating he thinks it is great V has gone evil. Not an evil act, but a good or neutral character wouldn’t be thrilled. Haley wasn’t until Belkar convinced her it was just a wardrobe change.
• In 685 Belkar kills Lou for saying he’s going to eat his cat. Sure, Lou’s a slaver and evil, but Belkar was willing to let Lou enslave the people until he threatened Mr. Scruffy.
• In 687 Belkar asks who the least popular person is because ‘it’s ok for me to kill them if everyone agrees to it’ demonstrating his joy of killing anyone without comprehending why he received the gift.
• In 736 he steals another gladiator’s bread.
• In 738 Belkar suggests to Enor how to prepare Roy’s heart for better dining. Roy yells at Belkar and Belkar replies he has two skill sets and Roy gets mad when he uses the other one. Sure, he doesn’t say murder but the implication is there.
• In 744-746 Belkar harasses, steals, and justifies his bad behavior.
• In 780-781 Belkar demonstrates both his attachment to Mr. Scruffy while also force feeding a guard another man’s intestines and pulling it out the other end as a response to a weak insult.
• In 784 Belkar saves Gannji and Enor. He’ll admit he did it because of Mr. Scruffy’s influence in 807 as he heals Mr. Scruffy with a healing potion.

I could go on, but I think I rather pivot to strip 1130 because if the question is when does Belkar start shifting from an unrepentant murderer to a more complex character Belkar sums it up in this strip after alluding to it in strips 1098 and 1115. Because Durkon saved Belkar and didn’t blame him when Durkon died Belkar felt anguish over being forced to think and acknowledge how Durkon’s selflessness impacted him.

Before that Belkar was only motivated to protect Mr. Scruffy but in 1150 he voices his ‘hard core introspection’ and as a sign of development sincerely apologizes to Durkon for an earlier prank. Durkon’s selflessness may have been the first time anyone did that for Belkar and I like to cite it as a shifting point because the Belkar of old could have justified blaming Durkon for dying by refusing to take Malack’s offers on how to avoid fighting each other. He didn’t though.

Forgive the long post, but while many get snagged on the D&D rules and possibilities within that framework I more enjoy the incredible character development. Belkar has very slowly changing first by showing empathy to Mr. Scruffy and then Bloodfeast and then to Durkon. I’m not willing to say it extends beyond one person or if we’ll see him continue this change but I’m enjoying the story greatly.

very few of those are evil acts.

• You yourself admit this one wasn't an evil act, and is, at most, an admission of being evil on the alignment chart
• This one is evil, yes
• Saying you enjoy something isn't an evil act, even if the thing you enjoy is evil.
• Theft is a chaotic act, not an evil one. If they were going to die from it, that's one thing. But they're not.
• Implying you're good at something is in no way the same as doing that thing
• Harassment is a **** move, but, uh... all he did in those strips was pick up a rock and argue with Roy.
• Affection for a cat is not evil, but yeah, the force feeding of someone's intestines counts.

[Schroeswald]

I don’t think Listening was simply trying to list evil acts (if so I’d say that most of those simply show that he is Evil, and several of the others are Neutral, but stealing people’s only source of food for yourself is Evil and I agree with her on that, even if it won’t kill them immediately), but simply explore Belkar’s character development, which is more interesting to her (and me too, listing exactly which actions are Evil and which are Neutral will lead to naught but pain, especially since you’ve just disagreed with what I though was one of his most clear cut Evil acts).

[Riftwolf]

Just a quick thought about Belkars death: what if he *chooses* to stay dead? Like Shojo, he could prefer whatever afterlife he ends up in to a world with complicated feelings and consequences. That way, the twist to the prophecy isn't 'Belkar weasels out of death by virtue of flesh golem/vampire/divine ascension/completely rewriting the story so far to turn the Oracle into a charlatan', but that it was his choice to die and stay dead.
As for reasons why, it could be he realises he can't redeem himself so submits to eternal punishment instead (though that is probably a bit too self-hating for Belkar, these are just bus-thoughts).
Any views?

[Schroeswald]

I’d guess if it goes the Belkar doesn’t want revived route that it might be he make it out of the Evil alignment, but fears that if he returns the mortal plane will corrupt him back to Evil so decides to stay in, I dunno Ysgard or Limbo?

[Listening Here]

I don’t think Listening was simply trying to list evil acts (if so I’d say that most of those simply show that he is Evil, and several of the others are Neutral, but stealing people’s only source of food for yourself is Evil and I agree with her on that, even if it won’t kill them immediately), but simply explore Belkar’s character development, which is more interesting to her (and me too, listing exactly which actions are Evil and which are Neutral will lead to naught but pain, especially since you’ve just disagreed with what I though was one of his most clear cut Evil acts).

Yup, I was more trying to note Belkar’s character development. It is a cleaner cut to show that he is still ‘playing a role’ after the Mark of Justice is removed until Durkon’s death. Belkar simply doesn’t care about people until one person not only saved him but didn’t blame him and guaranteed his survival. I mean, that is the foundation to why Belkar didn’t believe that the vampire was still Durkon because Durkon sacrificed himself for Belkar while the vampire had to be ordered not to drain every last drop leading to the people don’t change overnight comment.

As for if what acts are evil well...that is a murkier topic I’m not touching because it goes to the reader’s ethical view - in the academic sense of the word. I could see how someone who follows Egoism or even Deontology ethics could argue about Belkar’s actions and I could easily see how someone who follows Virtue ethics or some forms of Consequentialism (thinking of Situation Ethics specifically since Belkar isn’t about love or Intellectualism since Belkar also doesn’t promote knowledge) could argue about the same actions and no agreement obtained because each person is viewing Belkar through a different lens so to speak.

What I personally enjoy is that Belkar is now literary a round, dynamic character and it wasn’t immediate. In 605 Lord Shojo calls Belkar out for being “a figure without any depth”, “going exactly in one direction” which is the literary definition of a flat, static character. Over the course of 577 comics Belkar started showing depth and growth until we reached this point. It is great!

On another note I fully expect Belkar to die at the story’s climax and I’m going to bet he won’t come back not because The Order won’t raise him but either because his body gets destroyed in a way he can’t be Raised or because whatever afterlife he ends up in is just so nice for him he doesn’t respond to the spell. Pure speculation.

[Ironsmith]

Just a quick thought about Belkars death: what if he *chooses* to stay dead? Like Shojo, he could prefer whatever afterlife he ends up in to a world with complicated feelings and consequences. That way, the twist to the prophecy isn't 'Belkar weasels out of death by virtue of flesh golem/vampire/divine ascension/completely rewriting the story so far to turn the Oracle into a charlatan', but that it was his choice to die and stay dead.
As for reasons why, it could be he realises he can't redeem himself so submits to eternal punishment instead (though that is probably a bit too self-hating for Belkar, these are just bus-thoughts).
Any views?

Maybe he dies, gets to a better afterlife than he expected, and decides to stay dead rather than screw up his chance at paradise.

Or, on a darker tack, maybe he draws his last breath (-ever!) because he gets killed by the Snarl in a heroic sacrifice that saves everyone, similar to Kraggor. Since his soul is destroyed, he can't be resurrected even if he wants it.

[The Pilgrim]

The Mark of Justice just changed Belkar from Stupid Evil to Chaotic Evil, but otherwise his outlook remained the same. He was still a self-serving bastard who treated other people like **** and laughed at the pain of others. He cared about Mr Scruffy only because he viewed the cat as an extension of himself.

Thanks to the cat, Belkar slowly adquired the capacity to feel empathy towards others, albeit only when he felt directly identified with the other person. This capacity was first revealed when he felt empathy for the Bounty Hunters at the Arena, and felt compelled to save them, because he projected himself in the same situation of being forced to battle his own pet. That action was the first real breach of Belkar's former outlook. Old Belkar would have been unable to identify with the bounty hunters, and instead would have sit back and enjoyed watching two friends forced to kill each other.

The second and definitive breach on Belkar's former outlook was Durkon's death. After it, Belkar adquired the capacity to feel empathy towards other people without need of there being a direct identification with himself. A good example is his treatment of the gnome female shopkeeper as opposite to old Belkar's treatment of the female bard rogue. After Durkon's death, is when Belkar began to slowly laught less at the pain of others and began to slowly treat other people more as people.

...

As of Belkar choosing to remain in the Afterlife, I can see it as a consequence of Mr Scruffy actually dying in the same scene, and the halfling choosing to remain with his cat in the afterlife instead of returning to the material world.

[Peelee]

Maybe he dies, gets to a better afterlife than he expected, and decides to stay dead rather than screw up his chance at paradise.

"Better than expected" does not mean "not terrible." So far, I'd still peg him as "lulz." Maybe, at absolute best, if he radically changes," don't tell me what to do." But certainly not anywhere north of that, and even that would be one hell of a change. And while it's subject to change in Stickworld, the standard CN afterlife is still pretty much something you'd certainly want to avoid.

[The MunchKING]

"Better than expected" does not mean "not terrible." So far, I'd still peg him as "lulz." Maybe, at absolute best, if he radically changes," don't tell me what to do." But certainly not anywhere north of that, and even that would be one hell of a change. And while it's subject to change in Stickworld, the standard CN afterlife is still pretty much something you'd certainly want to avoid.

Wasn't that one "party your brains away, until you lose all identity"? At least in the general description the Giant gave for the planes turning you into alignment bricks...

[Emanick]

Wasn't that one "party your brains away, until you lose all identity"? At least in the general description the Giant gave for the planes turning you into alignment bricks...

I just looked up the quote (I’d link it, but I’m on my phone so that’d be a big bother) and the plane where you party until you can’t remember your own name is Valhalla. Limbo’s effect is to drive you mad.

Personally, I find the end result of all of the afterlives abhorrent - turning people into (ironically) soulless copies of one another seems about as Evil as anything I can imagine. But I’m not the author of this story, so what I think of the afterlife system isn’t really important.

[Schroeswald]

I just looked up the quote (I’d link it, but I’m on my phone so that’d be a big bother) and the plane where you party until you can’t remember your own name is Valhalla. Limbo’s effect is to drive you mad.

Personally, I find the end result of all of the afterlives abhorrent - turning people into (ironically) soulless copies of one another seems about as Evil as anything I can imagine. But I’m not the author of this story, so what I think of the afterlife system isn’t really important.

I'm pretty sure that's what it did in D&D to ensure that people would still fear death in a world with resurrection, it's not perfect and Rich agrees that's how to keep the stakes up.

[The MunchKING]

Huh, you're right. It IS Valhalla he says that about. Limbo just drives you crazy.

[Peelee]

Huh, you're right. It IS Valhalla he says that about. Limbo just drives you crazy.

Oh cool, I don't even need to hedge my bets on that. Limbo is definitely not a happy ending for Belkar. And dude ain't turning Good.

That said, I also got money on us never seeing his afterlife regardless.

[Ruck]

Oh cool, I don't even need to hedge my bets on that. Limbo is definitely not a happy ending for Belkar. And dude ain't turning Good.

That said, I also got money on us never seeing his afterlife regardless.

I still have a little action on "Belkar redeems himself with a sacrifice, and we see him pop into the Chaotic Neutral afterlife." (As much as I like the thought of himself and Mr. Scruffy being reunited with Shojo, I don't think he gets there.) After all, if one instance of negligence and abandonment would have been enough to bump Roy to True Neutral, one instance of heroic self-sacrifice to save the world might certainly bump Belkar out of CE.

[Schroeswald]

I still have a little action on "Belkar redeems himself with a sacrifice, and we see him pop into the Chaotic Neutral afterlife." (As much as I like the thought of himself and Mr. Scruffy being reunited with Shojo, I don't think he gets there.) After all, if one instance of negligence and abandonment would have been enough to bump Roy to True Neutral, one instance of heroic self-sacrifice to save the world might certainly bump Belkar out of CE.

Agreed, especially since he's been moving upwards fairly consistently in the past few (real world) weeks while Roy wasn't heading downwards in any consistent way.