Has there been a game mechanical effect that proves Belkar is evil?

[Sorator]

Originally Posted by Kish

You say "missing the point of the discussion topic." I say "observing the absence of point in the discussion topic."

Eh, I think there's a point in knowing/asking about admittedly random bits of information. I find it interesting that while we all know Belkar is evil, we haven't actually seen an in-game effect to prove it yet. *shrug*

Edit @ V: Who says he needs it?

[Winter]

Originally Posted by somethingrandom

Has there been a game mechanical effect that proves Belkar is evil?

Counter-question: Why do you need such a proof in the first place? See below.

... I believe based solely one the effect of spells and spell like ability's that have an effect based on alignment it is possible for Belkar to be neutral.

This is true.
But also completely meaningless as all other aspects from within the story (numerous actions in the story, comments by people "who know") and outside of the story (comment by the author) make it perfectly clear that Belkar is, indeed, evil.

Originally Posted by Sorator

Eh, I think there's a point in knowing/asking about admittedly random bits of information. I find it interesting that while we all know Belkar is evil, we haven't actually seen an in-game effect to prove it yet. *shrug*

We have. Apparently, the version of Unholy Blight actually affects good as well as neutral characters. Belkar is unaffected.
Vaarsuvius is confirmed neutral and as such the version of the spell has to be "homebrew". I prefer this "in comic" explanation to the out-of-comic explanation that Vaarsuvius' alignment was "undecided" or "good" back then. In-comic makes more sense.
All other characters are confirmed good.

We have in-comic evidence (up to 95% and more) and the question is pointless in the first place. I'm not seeing any issue here at all.

[hamishspence]

Unholy Blight actually does affect Neutral characters as well- just not as severely (half damage, no sickening effect).

[Winter]

Originally Posted by hamishspence

Unholy Blight actually does affect Neutral characters as well- just not as severely (half damage, no sickening effect).

I thought they could negate it. Was wrong. This makes it even better as we do have the (unnecessary) proof the OP wanted (for whatever reason).

[Kish]

To whatever screwed-up this-is-goofy extent it matters, I don't believe we have "game mechanical" proof that:

1) Roy is good*
2) Haley is good*
3) Elan is good*
4) Nale is evil**
5) Repeat 4 for every other member of the Linear Guild***

*Don't say "they weren't affected by the Holy Word," there's no indication they were within its range.
**Don't say, "They were affected by the Holy Word," it affects neutrals as well as evils.
***Don't say "Sabine was affected by the Holy Word," even if she's Lawful Good she's still made of solidified chaos and evil, and accordingly would be banished by it.

[Winter]

I know what you want to do and appreciate it, but to be nitpicking: we have Miko's detect Evil for Roy and Durkon.
And we have Roy being let into the LG afterlife, for which the gamemechanical prerequisite is to be LG.

Other than that, it really becomes slim in regard to game mechanical proof. Heck, from this point of view we do not even know that Xykon is actually evil!!!11

[Shale]

Xykon was affected by the paladins' (and paladin ghosts') Smite Evil. Ditto Redcloak.

[Throknor]

Originally Posted by Vinsfeld

Well, on the top of my head, I can say that he killed the oracle for no reason. And a gnome for no reason (when he and Haley and Celia left Azure City). He was friend with a slavery guy (buggy Lou) and almost let his get away with some slaves. He always suggests to slit any prisoner throat (except for Samantha, that he suggested to sell her to slavery).

These are good enough reasons for me.

For the record, there were reasons. The gnome 1) "He's one less gnome for the Resistance to fight" and 2) "He had a donkey, and we needed a donkey to pull the cart. Now we have a donkey, and he doesn't need anything anymore." #539

As for the Oracle, "He was a kobold! [Haley] told me it was OK to kill monsters!" #568

I didn't say they were good reasons. Killing randomly is Chaotic. Killing for selfish/delusional reasons is Evil.

And to belabor the point, he was more of an acquaintance of Buggy Lou and the Order isn't evil for being his acquaintances.

Okay, I'm rambling just to ramble. Part of me wants to ask if there are any game mechanical effects that prove the demon Qarr hanging with Z is the same Qarr that worked with Kubota. Sure, he said he was. But if I've learned anything from this thread it's that the characters don't know what's really going on.

[theNater]

Originally Posted by Winter

I know what you want to do and appreciate it, but to be nitpicking: we have Miko's detect Evil for Roy and Durkon.

Neutral characters and Good characters give the same reading under Detect Evil.

Originally Posted by Winter

And we have Roy being let into the LG afterlife, for which the gamemechanical prerequisite is to be LG.

An evil adventuring party got in; if the deva let him in for reasons of her own, no gamemechanical effect would stop him.

[Kish]

Originally Posted by Winter

I know what you want to do and appreciate it, but to be nitpicking: we have Miko's detect Evil for Roy and Durkon.

Originally Posted by theNater

Neutral characters and Good characters give the same reading under Detect Evil.

Yes, that. Same deal as Unholy Blight, actually; Roy's being affected by Unholy Blight and Roy's not being picked up on Detect Evil both indicate Roy is "Not Evil."

Casting Holy Word and/or not being affected by his own Holy Word might prove Durkon is good, I'm not sure offhand, but that's why I didn't mention him.

And we have Roy being let into the LG afterlife, for which the gamemechanical prerequisite is to be LG.

That's not game mechanics. That's "This character, who happened to be a deva in charge of judging the afterlife, judged that Roy was Lawful Good. After indicating that she could easily have judged him Neutral Good instead."

Other than that, it really becomes slim in regard to game mechanical proof. Heck, from this point of view we do not even know that Xykon is actually evil!!!11

As Shale mentioned, Soon did smite him. That's why I mentioned the Linear Guild as "not mechanically established," but not Xykon or Redcloak.

If this thread was pointing out, "There are actually very few game mechanical ways to prove, as opposed to merely narrow down, someone else's alignment in OotS/in D&D," it would be...well, still not really a terribly interesting observation, but an observation. But, for some reason, the OP only mentioned Belkar.

[Winter]

Originally Posted by Kish

That's not game mechanics. That's "This character, who happened to be a deva in charge of judging the afterlife, judged that Roy was Lawful Good. After indicating that she could easily have judged him Neutral Good instead."

That depends on how you see it. If it is "In regard to game mechanics, only LG characters can go into the LG afterlife", then it is game mechanical (on top or below the RP).
I see it that this scene was not about determining what Roy's alignment (in absolute terms) is but it was a key-scene that defined the alignment (and if this was an actual game, it could be the character changed his align in that scene). So the outcome of the scene determines the alignment, not the alignment the outcome of the scene.
RPGs (and stories) which rely heavy on characters rely heavily on "key scenes" in which characters either are confirmed to be what we thought they are or where it becomes apparent they do change (or have changed). This is usually called "character development". No matter how those scenes come out, the character is firmer than he was before (a classic for such a scene is "Falling to the Dark Side" or "Not Falling to the Dark Side").

As Shale mentioned, Soon did smite him. That's why I mentioned the Linear Guild as "not mechanically established," but not Xykon or Redcloak.

Good point.

If this thread was pointing out, "There are actually very few game mechanical ways to prove, as opposed to merely narrow down, someone else's alignment in OotS/in D&D," it would be...well, still not really a terribly interesting observation, but an observation. But, for some reason, the OP only mentioned Belkar.

I'm still not sure what this thread is supposed to be about or if it is even interesting.

[blueblade]

somebody mentioned it above, but seems to have gotten overlooked.

Miko's smite evil against Belkar?

[Winter]

Originally Posted by blueblade

Miko's smite evil against Belkar?

A mean person could now reply: She also smote Roy. So a Paladin smiting someone does not have to proof the target was evil. It might have died/suffered from the sword-damage alone.
A paladin smiting is not related to the actual alignment of the person smitten, just the results are (if they are explicitly shown/mentioned as a successful smite).

[Jay R]

If the fact of his being a psychopathic murderer doesn't convince you that he's evil, why would something as lame as a game mechanic do it?

[Niknokitueu]

As someone has already mentioned, when Roy died we got evidence in-game (as it were) that Belkar is evil. There is a whole paragraph bubble on how Roy has reduced how much Evil Belkar would have done in the world.

So we have:
Out-of-comic, Rich has said he is evil.
In-comic, an NPC (that has a vested interest in investigating Roy's good/evil balance) has said Belkar is evil.
In-comic, Belkar has referred to himself as evil. As in the alignment, which can be discussed in-comic.
In-comic, Belkar has committed several evil acts (killing a gnome, killing the Oracle to name just two).
In-comic, Belkar has prevented NPCs from finding out he is evil (admittedly, lawyers amongst the readers will spout lack of proof as not being proof of lack).

I am not sure just what the OP wanted here. Maybe an in-comic scene where someone successfully casts detect evil? Hasn't happened. Won't happen. Doesn't need to happen. Belkar is evil. Accept it.

Have Fun!
Niknokitueu

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Originally Posted by Winter

Counter-question: Why do you need such a proof in the first place? See below.

Because...why not? I mean, we are all geeks here. Part of being a geek is finding out random useless bits of trivia like "there has never been a RAW acknowledgement of Belkar's Evil alignment".

I see no problem with that. If you find it to be frivolous, you don't need to be posting in the thread. It has never been stated that there needs to be a proof by RAW, just the question "is there proof RAW?".

The question does not exist for a practical reason, it exists for the sheer sake of curiosity. Which, to my mind, is the best sort of question.

[theNater]

Originally Posted by Winter

That depends on how you see it. If it is "In regard to game mechanics, only LG characters can go into the LG afterlife", then it is game mechanical (on top or below the RP).

Of course, seeing it that way makes the evil adventuring party difficult to explain. Their presence suggests that there is no game mechanical effect requiring a LG alignment to go into the version of the LG afterlife shown in the comic.

[Friv]

Originally Posted by theNater

Of course, seeing it that way makes the evil adventuring party difficult to explain. Their presence suggests that there is no game mechanical effect requiring a LG alignment to go into the version of the LG afterlife shown in the comic.

Presumably their ability to Plane Shift directly there bypasses those restrictions.

[Sutremaine]

Re: V

The Unholy Blight strip was really early on in the strip, when there wasn't much plot and V was still the know-it-all who was added at the last minute to explain the edition switch. In a party with an incongruously Evil character, the rest of the party would have to be Good-aligned for the Evil character to be incongruous instead of just deeper in the alignment pool than everyone else.

Why even bother putting this much thought into early V? Because earlier V (from an in-universe point of view) was just as borderline Neutral / actually Neutral as V of the later strips, meaning she'd have to start out with an uncertain alignment befare meeting the party, become Good for at least that one strip, and then slowly develop into her more familiar ambiguously-aligned self.

You could say that she briefly dipped into Good after being exposed to Roy and Durkon and then went back to her usual self over the course of the strip, but I'd rather just handwave it away as the nature of the medium. V started as a one-note character and then developed, and while a one-note character she defaulted to Good in the one strip where mechanical alignment was used for a joke.

[Sorator]

Originally Posted by CarpeGuitarrem

Because...why not? I mean, we are all geeks here. Part of being a geek is finding out random useless bits of trivia like "there has never been a RAW acknowledgement of Belkar's Evil alignment".

I see no problem with that. If you find it to be frivolous, you don't need to be posting in the thread. It has never been stated that there needs to be a proof by RAW, just the question "is there proof RAW?".

The question does not exist for a practical reason, it exists for the sheer sake of curiosity. Which, to my mind, is the best sort of question.

I really cannot agree more. If you don't like the thread and think it's stupid, there really is no need to post saying such - if most everyone agrees, it'll die out on its own; if some disagree, they can have a rather nice discussion without anyone flaming about how stupid the thread is.

Back to the OP: Miko's Smite counts in my eyes, as it was pretty clearly effective.

[Kish]

Originally Posted by CarpeGuitarrem

Part of being a geek is finding out random useless bits of trivia like "there has never been a RAW acknowledgement of Belkar's Evil alignment".

As has been pointed out multiple times, yes, there actually is: Unholy Blight.

Making Belkar one of the few non-paladin characters in the strip who has one axis of his alignment "game-mechanically" proven.

[Winter]

Originally Posted by theNater

Of course, seeing it that way makes the evil adventuring party difficult to explain. Their presence suggests that there is no game mechanical effect requiring a LG alignment to go into the version of the LG afterlife shown in the comic.

They did not take the Way of the Deva.

I find it very unlikely the Deva (who rules by the book) would let a non-LG person enter through the gate.

[theNater]

Originally Posted by Friv

Presumably their ability to Plane Shift directly there bypasses those restrictions.

This is exactly the sort of situation Occam's Razor was designed for.

It is possible that the LG afterlife has some undiscussed and undemonstrated restriction which keeps out anyone who isn't LG, and that Plane Shift counters this in some manner not mentioned either in the comic or in the spell description. This is not contradicted by anything we know so far.

On the other hand, it is possible that the LG afterlife has no such restriction. This is also not contradicted by anything we know so far.

[theNater]

Originally Posted by Winter

They did not take the Way of the Deva.

I find it very unlikely the Deva (who rules by the book) would let a non-LG person enter through the gate.

It's only a game mechanical effect if the Deva is physically incapable of letting a non-LG person enter through the gate. If "very unlikely" is as far as it goes, then it is a character decision, not a game mechanical effect.

[Caractacus]

Originally Posted by theNater

It's only a game mechanical effect if the Deva is physically incapable of letting a non-LG person enter through the gate. If "very unlikely" is as far as it goes, then it is a character decision, not a game mechanical effect.

Well, this is a good point.

Your one about the evil adventuring party was not thought through though - else good-aligned adventurers would have a lot of trouble being allowed to Plane Shift into the Lower Planes for fun and frolics there...

[Tebryn]

Originally Posted by Winter

They did not take the Way of the Deva.

I find it very unlikely the Deva (who rules by the book) would let a non-LG person enter through the gate.

Except there is no Game Mechanic for that.

[Killer Angel]

Originally Posted by Jay R

If the fact of his being a psychopathic murderer doesn't convince you that he's evil, why would something as lame as a game mechanic do it?

The OP is already convinced about it, but only wants to find a mechanical evidence. The kind of things threads like "class and levels geekery thread" are based upon, but with even more restrictive premises.
Call it an "academic question", or a theoretical exercise.

[Xelbiuj]

Went over this but there's no evidence that he took even a quarter damage from unholy blight, so that.

[Jay R]

Originally Posted by Killer Angel

The OP is already convinced about it, but only wants to find a mechanical evidence. The kind of things threads like "class and levels geekery thread" are based upon, but with even more restrictive premises.
Call it an "academic question", or a theoretical exercise.

Oh, I understand that. I just disapprove of any theoretical exercise that rests on the unspoken assumption that the morality is defined by the rules of D&D.

If a psychopathic murderer is declared not to be evil by the rules of the game, then the game is simply wrong.

[ReaderAt2046]

Originally Posted by Jay R

If a psychopathic murderer is declared not to be evil by the rules of the game, then the game is simply wrong.

Noone thinks that any game mechanical effect has declared Belkar Not Evil, we're wondering whether there's been any game mechanical effect that does declare him evil. In other words, the options are:

1. Belkar can be shown to be evil through some feature in the game mechanics.

2. Belkar can be shown to be evil from his actions, but this can not be explicitly proven via game mechanics.