Theories on Belkar's death

[Dr.Epic]

Originally Posted by karkus

Let's face it; the Oracle's predictions are lame and don't ever really count in Belkar's case.

S/He said something like "Belkar Bitterleaf will draw his last breath by the end of the year." so it could mean that he will draw a picture that he titles "His Last Breath," thus "drawing" his last breath.

Why would Belkar be drawing a picture in the first place?

[WoolenSocks]

Originally Posted by Kish

I doubt Belkar will kill Vaarsuvius.

However, I don't consider either "Rich wouldn't kill off Vaarsuvius as well as Belkar, Durkon, and temporarily-Roy" or, "Belkar doesn't want to kill Vaarsuvius anymore" (because Vaarsuvius is not a living creature who has ever interacted with Belkar, apparently) good arguments for why not.

Obviously it doesn't make it impossible, however unless Rich is going for a kill-em-all scenario a la Shakespeare, I can't see the story ending with over half the cast dead. Additionally, every time a character dies, it looses a bit of its impact. Roy's death was huge. Belkar's will be a little less so (especially because we are all expecting it) and so on down the line until we don't care anymore. It would be repetitive.

Also, I don't honestly think Belkar is interested in murdering V or any other members of the order at this point. However, I grant that intention is not relevant to the question of whether Belkar could have a hand in his death.

Anyway this is off-topic I suppose.

[Winter]

Originally Posted by WoolenSocks

Obviously it doesn't make it impossible, however unless Rich is going for a kill-em-all scenario a la Shakespeare, I can't see the story ending with over half the cast dead.

No, not over.

Roy, Elan and Vaarsuvius will survice, I think Durkon as well (he won't die twice).
Belkar will die (yes, he will not escape his fate) and I find it rather likely Vaarsuvius will also die (given how much bad Karma he has flowing around after "that stunt with the dragons*").

An alternate Vaarsuvius-fate would be if he loses all magic power (forever) as first-but-not-last-to-pay price to what he did, I see him surviving then.

* which, as we know by now, was not limited to dragons.

[ReaderAt2046]

In this comic, panel 3, the Oracle says that Belkar's prophecy has already been fulfilled. So the Oracle's death can't have been what fulfilled that prophecy, because it hadn't yet happened.

[Winter]

Originally Posted by ReaderAt2046

In this comic, panel 3, the Oracle says that Belkar's prophecy has already been fulfilled. So the Oracle's death can't have been what fulfilled that prophecy, because it hadn't yet happened.

The part with the "fulfillment" was a lie. I think what he said after he got stabbed made that rather clear.
Many posts already elaborated on that, feel free to read it up in this thread.

[Kish]

Originally Posted by WoolenSocks

Obviously it doesn't make it impossible, however unless Rich is going for a kill-em-all scenario a la Shakespeare, I can't see the story ending with over half the cast dead.

You realize that by moving from "with over half the cast having died at some point" to "with over half the cast dead," Roy no longer counts toward what you're saying, I hope.

Also, I don't honestly think Belkar is interested in murdering V or any other members of the order at this point.

This is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Belkar, related to the annoying perennial "Belkar's not evil" misunderstanding. Belkar wants to murder nearly everyone he ever interacts with. There is not the slightest indication in the story that Roy and Vaarsuvius have moved away from his hit list since he indicated (his first question to the Oracle) that that's where they were.

[Winter]

I also assume it has to do with an even more fundamental misunderstanding. People who try to find reasoning behind Belkar's actions and try to interpret "nice" traits (as in "he needs a reason to kill") into him have not understood what "evil" very fundamentally is.
As an extension, it becomes hard to understand Belkar at all (or Xykon for that matter. Or those same people try to find redeeming qualities in Redcloak, who has reasons and motives, but still is and stays evil).

I think a lot of the controversy we have here stems from the annoying fact "evil" is not understood to the full extend on how extremely bad "evil" actually is and what that means for a world in which "literal, pure evil" exists as a fundamental constant (and not just as moral value or judgment) of its universe.

Belkar does not need any reason to kill, steal, hurt or rape (the latter is just hidden from us to keep the story enjoyable), as he is just the same pure and utter evil Xykon is also made of.
Belkar is made up of pure, egoistic basic drives without any moral or empathic restriction. He eats, sleeps, ****s, kills. And that was it.

PS: This is also why Xykon is as deprived as he is: He works the same as Belkar, just cut the three things from that list the Lich cannot do due to undeath.

[ReaderAt2046]

Originally Posted by Winter

I also assume it has to do with an even more fundamental misunderstanding. People who try to find reasoning behind Belkar's actions and try to interpret "nice" traits (as in "he needs a reason to kill") into him have not understood what "evil" very fundamentally is.
As an extension, it becomes hard to understand Belkar at all (or Xykon for that matter. Or those same people try to find redeeming qualities in Redcloak, who has reasons and motives, but still is and stays evil).

I think a lot of the controversy we have here stems from the annoying fact "evil" is not understood to the full extend on how extremely bad "evil" actually is and what that means for a world in which "literal, pure evil" exists as a fundamental constant (and not just as moral value or judgment) of its universe.

Belkar does not need any reason to kill, steal, hurt or rape (the latter is just hidden from us to keep the story enjoyable), as he is just the same pure and utter evil Xykon is also made of.
Belkar is made up of pure, egoistic basic drives without any moral or empathic restriction. He eats, sleeps, ****s, kills. And that was it.

PS: This is also why Xykon is as deprived as he is: He works the same as Belkar, just cut the three things from that list the Lich cannot do due to undeath.

I may disagree with you here. No one, not even the very devil himself, does evil purely for the sake of evil. All evil is done in order to bring some benefit in itself good. People rape for the pleasure of sex, they steal to have things, they kill either because it brings them pleasure or because it helps them in some way.

Now, it is true that a truly evil person ignores the laws telling him what he may or may not do to get such pleasure, and if that's what you are saying then I agree with you.

[Winter]

I'm not saying evil is done for the sake of evil.

But we have a pure form of evil in D&D that goes beyond a moral concept. While some characters have motives and might have redeeming qualities there are some that don't.
Belkar and Xykon belong to those. They are not doing what they do out of the will to do evil but in the very end, it makes not much differences.
They do what they do for power, for pleasure, out of boredom - but they are so far on the scale that it makes no difference at all.

And I think here comes the misconception about Belkar into place. It seems to me not everyone is on the same page on how far into the "an actual concept of the universe" scale Belkar has moved.
Where is the difference if you do things "for evil" or because you "want to power to dominate everyone"? There is no practical difference at all.

Furthermore, the author of this webcomic here disagrees with you. Read his comments about Xykon at the start of SoD. We do not learn about why Xykon is how he is, we get told Xykon is simply evil (and a ****). Also, Xykon is very aware of this as his diaglogue at the end of the book shows (and he "lives" that because it is all he has left).
Belkar works the very same.

While you are correct in general and characters in story always should be more than "just evil", you are wrong in the specific cases for Belkar and Xykon.

[Fire Lord Pi]

I think Belkar will die begging a demon-possessed V for mercy.

His last words will be... "I'm sorry".

Maybe it's too much to hope for, but I would love to see Belkar die redeemed.

[Dr.Epic]

Originally Posted by Fire Lord Pi

I think Belkar will die begging a demon-possessed V for mercy.

His last words will be... "I'm sorry".

We're not taking about Bizarro Order of the Stick.

[Winter]

Originally Posted by Fire Lord Pi

Maybe it's too much to hope for, but I would love to see Belkar die redeemed.

Err... what? To find redemption, you need redeeming qualities. Miko did not have them, Xykon does not have them and Belkar also does not have them.

Just saying "I am sorry" on your deathbed (even being sorry) is not enough for a fully blown redemption.
Redemption has to come from the heart and at a price in life. You do not get it on your deathbed when all is over anyway.

In case of Belkar, we cannot even talk in the direction of redemption. Belkar will go to hell, possibly the Blood War and find his personal paradise there. He'd probably enjoy soem Walhalla-inspired setting as well - you know, eating, drinking, whoring, fighting.

[Mytallest]

Based on the parallels between the Order of the Stick, and the Order of the Scribble, I'm guessing Belkar goes out the same way as Kroagar. I'm guessing they'll seal the rifts, Belkar will get eaten, and each party member will get a gate; only they won't have as much animosity as the Scribble, since no one has any real love for Belkar.

[Chaotic Queen]

Wow, I thought this topic would have died a long time ago. I did not expect it to last this long!

[ReaderAt2046]

I still support my theory that the only death worthy of belkar is for him and the Snarl to destroy each other in single combat.

[Winter]

Originally Posted by Mytallest

Based on the parallels between the Order of the Stick, and the Order of the Scribble, I'm guessing Belkar goes out the same way as Kroagar. I'm guessing they'll seal the rifts, Belkar will get eaten, and each party member will get a gate

That "ending" will not happen because it is not an actual ending to the problem.

You cannot build up an Epic Battle For The Fate Of The World and then hit the reset button and say "It is all as it was as it started". Stories sometimes do that but it is always a bit lame.

Just fighting the evil back so it can come out again in the next generation/the next 100 years/when the stars align again is some sort of letdown.

I also think that guarding one seal of the universe is more a burden than anything else. So the characters would be morally shackled to a gate which is basically the same as being imprisoned.

I doubt we'll see this (and if this was planned, why show the inside of the Rift as planet?)

[Guunshtaff]

Originally Posted by Winter

Err... what? To find redemption, you need redeeming qualities. Miko did not have them, Xykon does not have them and Belkar also does not have them.

Just saying "I am sorry" on your deathbed (even being sorry) is not enough for a fully blown redemption.
Redemption has to come from the heart and at a price in life. You do not get it on your deathbed when all is over anyway.

In case of Belkar, we cannot even talk in the direction of redemption. Belkar will go to hell, possibly the Blood War and find his personal paradise there. He'd probably enjoy soem Walhalla-inspired setting as well - you know, eating, drinking, whoring, fighting.

I dunno, while Belkar has been doing the whole fake team mate thing pretty well, I think http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0807.html is solid evidence of genuine character growth. Now begging possessed V for mercy is not the behavior of a "Sexy Shoeless God of War," but killing in order to protect someone, even if it's just a cat, sounds decidedly like behavior that I can expect from Belkar AND classify as good aligned.

[Guunshtaff]

Additionally, while there's been much speculation on why Belkar will not be resurrected, I fear one beautiful solution is being over looked. One with canonical evidence to be thought of by Belkar himself:http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0410.html. Belkar likely won't be willing to return to a society that "never did anything for me." http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html

[Winter]

Originally Posted by Guunshtaff

I dunno, while Belkar has been doing the whole fake team mate thing pretty well, I think http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0807.html is solid evidence of genuine character growth.

Character growth is not a redeeming quality. Especially if that growth moves you from purely one-dimension to nearly one-dimension. And note there has nothing been touched so far that is required for a fully blown redemption.

[Guunshtaff]

Originally Posted by Winter

Character growth is not a redeeming quality. Especially if that growth moves you from purely one-dimension to nearly one-dimension. And note there has nothing been touched so far that is required for a fully blown redemption.

Of course. Feeding a cat a healing potion isn't penance for a lifetime of murder. I guess I just mean that the seeds are sown, if you will. These things don't happen overnight, but for the very first time ever, we've seen Belkar act with a fundamentally opposite motivation: selflessness. Releasing the tyrannosaurus profited Belkar nothing, and while the argument could be made that Belkar just thinks dinosaurs are cool or something, it was because he felt sympathy for another person, his "pet," and their relationship. That is, unquestionably, a first. I think it would be a poor and unlikely decision, narrative wise, to show this new side to Belkar at all, only for him to spurn it and die utterly without some small degree of compassion. In fact, to portray a Belkar who has atoned for every one of his many acts of evil within the remaining year would be terribly difficult and impractical, regardless of whether a redeemed Belkar is to a person's taste or not. Simply, I predict Belkar will die having more than one dimension, and one of those dimensions will be good.

Also, "Character growth is not a redeeming quality," is a very broad thing to say, as character growth can represent an astounding diversity of things, many of which are not redemption and many again that are.

[Zrak]

In an ideal world, Belkar and Red Cloak would switch parties. Belkar gets iced, becomes Xykon's death knight sidekick, and Red Cloak unites with OotS, if only on an enemy-of-my-enemy basis after he and Xykon have their increasingly-inevitable falling out.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I think Belkar coming back as some form of undead after dying is a distinct possibility!

Did the Oracle rule that out?

[Ron Miel]

It would have to be the non-breathing kind if he does.

[Kish]

Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb

I think Belkar coming back as some form of undead after dying is a distinct possibility!

Did the Oracle rule that out?

"Not long for the world."

Xykon is still in the world.

[Winter]

Originally Posted by Guunshtaff

Also, "Character growth is not a redeeming quality," is a very broad thing to say, as character growth can represent an astounding diversity of things, many of which are not redemption and many again that are.

No, in itself it is not.

But I think we differ on what we consider "redemption". I think it is a pretty big thing, you seem to consider it to be available in each corner store as soon as you ask nicely enough.

Belkar needs to do some very serious repenting and regretting that comes deep from his heart where he attempts to make up for his misdeeds. Just feeling a bit sympathy with someone else (and murdering people in the process) or caring for a cat is like a plus of +2 on a scale where you start at -4994 and need to go to 4500 to qualify for a redemption.

Yes, it is a blip - but we are talking about Belkar here. He will die the murderer that he is and yes, maybe it will be a sad thing, but no, he will not come even remotely close to redemption.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Originally Posted by Kish

"Not long for the world."

Xykon is still in the world.

Well... that bit wasn't really a prophecy. That was just him making small talk that they'd all forget anyway. No real reason for him to be precise with his wording at that point.

[Toy Killer]

I still see the Snarl, being a god devouring entity, eating the Sexy Shoeless God of War really fitting. further more, Belkar is not long for 'This' World. The snarl is shown to have another world inside of it.

I personally see a rousing 'why you suck' speech, a quintessential leap into the fray and casually back handed by V into the snarl.

[Winter]

Originally Posted by Toy Killer

I still see the Snarl, being a god devouring entity, eating the Sexy Shoeless God of War really fitting. further more, Belkar is not long for 'This' World. The snarl is shown to have another world inside of it.

I doubt this will happen. Yes, Belkar would "leave this world", but he also could still enjoy birthday cakes. Something the Oracle excluded.

[Grim Portent]

Originally Posted by Winter

I doubt this will happen. Yes, Belkar would "leave this world", but he also could still enjoy birthday cakes. Something the Oracle excluded.

Unless of course there aren't any bakers or confectioners on the world in the rifts.

[Yagerr]

I think he will die - but be brought back as an undead ... but for some reason still be in the order of the stick