Belkar's Alignment

[Corvis]

Surely you can make a better argument than that. You aren't really convincing me right now (although I agree that CN is the best alignement :))...
To me Belkar is evil. Not only for the numerous evil acts enumerated earlier but also, you should ask you this: If he was CN, why would he protect himself from Miko's detect evil? Privacy? She would only know he isn't evil and IMO this is not a big intrusion.

THIS MAKES ME VERY SAD.

WHO CAN TELL ME WHY?

[Annalia]

I didn't want to be mean. :-/ What I meant is that ''I want it to be that way cause to me it's the coolest way so IT IS THAT WAY'' is no real argument. Please take no offense.

[Nightmarenny]

I didn't want to be mean. :-/ What I meant is that ''I want it to be that way cause to me it's the coolest way so IT IS THAT WAY'' is no real argument. Please take no offense.

He was joking. You know that right?

[Annalia]

Well I wasn't sure... Didn't want to take any chance. That's settled then :D!

[Corvis]

Sigh. Once again, with feeling!

YOU SAID:

I didn't want to be mean. :-/ What I meant is that ''I want it to be that way cause to me it's the coolest way so IT IS THAT WAY'' is no real argument. Please take no offense.


What I meant is that ''I want it to be that way cause to me it's the coolest way so IT IS THAT WAY'' is no real argument.


is no real argument.


is no real argument.


is no real argument.


[glow=red,2,300][shadow=red,left,300][move]IS NO REAL ARGUMENT. IS NO REAL ARGUMENT. IS NO REAL ARGUMENT. IS NO REAL ARGUMENT.[/move][/shadow][/glow]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I SAY:

Figured it out yet?


EDIT: Dammit, Nightmarenny. Couldn't you have waited a half hour?

[Annalia]

Oh man... Now I look so dumb. :-[ Think I'll go hiding for a while... :-/

[Elurindel]

I was willing to give Belkar the benefit of the doubt with the whole Unholy Blight thing. It could have been a good roll on his save. However consistent acts since then definitely tipped him into the unrepentent Evil category.

Even had Rich not come out and declared Belkar Evil, I'd believe it.

Unholy Blight doesn't affect neutral characters either, but after being affected by Smite Evil, I'm fully convinced.

[Kish]

Unholy Blight doesn't affect neutral characters either

Yes, it does.

, but after being affected by Smite Evil, I'm fully convinced.

Good. :P

[evileeyore]

Yes, it does.

That a poor answer.

Elurindel:

Unholy Blight doesn't effect Evil characters, however Neutral and Good characters are affected as follows:

author=SRD 3.5

You call up unholy power to smite your enemies. The power takes the form of a cold, cloying miasma of greasy darkness.
[b]Only good and neutral (not evil) creatures are harmed by the spell.[b]
The spell deals 1d8 points of damage per two caster levels (maximum 5d8 ) to a good creature (or 1d6 per caster level, maximum 10d6, to a good outsider) and causes it to be sickened for 1d4 rounds. A successful Will save reduces damage to half and negates the sickened effect. The effects cannot be negated by remove disease or heal, but remove curse is effective.
[b]The spell deals only half damage to creatures who are neither evil nor good, and they are not sickened.[b] Such a creature can reduce the damage in half again (down to one-quarter) with a successful Will save.

Thus a Neutral character that makes his save will take only 1/4 damage and not be sickended.

Thus had Belkar been Neutral and made his save he would have taken at most 10 damage. 10 damage is barely noticeable to an 8th or higher level Ranger. So at that time I argued it was possible Unholy Blight meant nothing either way.

Thankfully Smite Evil has laid all arguements to rest.

[Brainded]

That they shouldn't be evil, never that they shouldn't be chaotic.

And the 1ed alignment descriptions were deranged.
You've got those backwards.

I agree with the rest of your post, though. Except for the part about True Neutral being rare.

Kish,

Thanks for clarifying and correcting my post. I was offline all weekend so I couldn't thank you sooner. Most of the time when I have something profound (in my own opinion) to say it requires frequent correction afterwards. See my screen name for corroboration. Usually when I have something profane to say it comes out fine though....

[Elurindel]

That a poor answer.

Elurindel:

Unholy Blight doesn't effect Evil characters, however Neutral and Good characters are affected as follows:

author=SRD 3.5
Thus a Neutral character that makes his save will take only 1/4 damage and not be sickended.

Thus had Belkar been Neutral and made his save he would have taken at most 10 damage. 10 damage is barely noticeable to an 8th or higher level Ranger. So at that time I argued it was possible Unholy Blight meant nothing either way.

Thankfully Smite Evil has laid all arguements to rest.

I'm aware of the effects of Unholy Blight, I just didn't have the time at such an hour in the morning to go into the full details. I know that only good characters are rendered immobile by the spell, whilst Neutral and Evil characters suffer very little from it. the effect, therefore, was negligible in comparison to being stabbed by Belkar.

[evileeyore]

I know that only good characters are rendered immobile by the spell, whilst Neutral and Evil characters suffer very little from it.

Actually sickened does not mean immobilized. It just gives a -2 modifier on a butt tonne of rolls (most of them).

the effect, therefore, was negligible in comparison to being stabbed by Belkar.

This we can agree upon wholeheartedly.

[RaNDoM]

I'm definitely casting my vote for Lawful Evil. If he was CE, he wouldn't be able to function at all in a group of mostly good aligned characters. But the second letter in his abbrv. is definitely a capital E.

[Lilly]

The Fairy Modmother: As has been stated, there is no real arguement. There never should have been. It has been offically stated that Belkar is evil. And this thread is getting stupid, and the argument has been settled, so now it's locked.

[chijayhawker]

Alignments: On Good, Evil and Neutrality

Before the higher brain functioning in humans there was no morality and alignments. The nearest thing there was to an alignment was and still is: Neutrality. The natural world exists and thrives in the neutral concept.

The hungry fox eats the rabbit or the rabbit runs away from the hungry fox. Either side of the “or” is neither Good nor Evil, except from the perspective of the individual. To the hungry fox, it is “evil” that the rabbit has been designed for speed and dexterity, at least more dexterous than the fox. To the rabbit it is “evil” that the fox is trying to end the rabbit’s life. Each, the rabbit and the fox, thinks it is “good” that it either got-away or ate, respectively. So in reality there is no good or evil in the natural world – it is neutral.

Then humanity invented systems, primarily morality systems, of which then religions were built on, to justify their actions towards other humans and their environment. They could interpret their actions, but even in the world of humanity, the determination of “good” and “evil” is from the perspective of the one doing the judging.

The Nazis, IRA (Irish Republican Army), Native American Indians, Bath party, Crusades, and Iraqi-“Freedom fighters” groups were each viewed as either “good” or “evil”, depending on which side of the muzzle/blade/or bomb the judge was sitting. To some German people, the Nazis were going to help bring back German pride and status of the country in the world, and thus were “good” for the German people. To the rest of the world their actions were purely “evil” (which I personally agree with).

With human thinking, one could even contend that no wars, the elimination of death and pestilence is an “evil” act, since eventually, humanity would over-populate this world and exhaust its resources, and ultimately lead to the end of the human race, and possibly all life on this world.

Groups of people must agree on their moral compass and from that determine what actions fall on the side of either “good” or “evil”. Once the actions are defined as either good or evil, and the group of people all agree to those determinations can than one judge what is good or evil. However, if you have an individual (or another group) who does not agree to your determinations, does not inherently make these “outsiders” evil. It just means that their moral compass does not agree with yours. These differing groups are heavily focused on being the “one that is right” and making the others come into alignment with their compass. This is the basis for most of the strife we see in the real world today. Unfortunately or fortunately, there are a lot of moral compasses in existence, and if people could learn to tolerate other people’s morality, there would be less strife. Unfortunately, tolerance in humanity is a developing skill.


This is just my two cents worth of a diatribe.

[tommygunn]

I'm definitely casting my vote for Lawful Evil. If he was CE, he wouldn't be able to function at all in a group of mostly good aligned characters. But the second letter in his abbrv. is definitely a capital E.

hes definatly not lawful, in one comic he even said he was chaotic (it was the one where the lawyer tried to get a restraining order on belkar for the horse windstriker. which after reading it belkar said he was chaotic and proceeded to trying to stab him)

[Oxymoron]

Ok, I do realize most of you are just trolling this thread for the heck of it, but I fear that some of you REALLY think Belkar is in fact CN.

Why? Because if Belkar is CE he is damned, but if he is CN he is forgiven. CN people are cracy right, so they don`t know what they are doing, and are therefore not guilty of any crime. I think some of you reason like that.

Example:

CE Belkar kills an entire village, he is therefore an evil psychopath and we cannot like him.

CN Belkar kills an entire village, he is therefore just chaotic and unpredictable and we still can like him. Afterall, he is still loyal to the OOTS which kinda balances it all right?

Sorry, but being CN dosen`t forgive Belkar for any heinous acts he does. And being evil dosen`t make Belkar incapable of being loyal or doing the occasional good act.

[Morty]

Look at the post dates, people... the last post here was in 2005.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Thread relocked. Please see the Rules of Posting re: Thread necromancy.