The Order of the Stick

The same fucking day can cover dozens or hundreds of strips, so.

Them just going "Eh, fuck Belkar" wouldn't be terribly dramatic or appropriate.

Letting Belkar's death clock run out and then leaving him dead has been Roy's plan ever since he came back to life.

Belkar is a capital-E-vil sociopath whose grasp of morality is limited to who he can and cannot kill without getting in more trouble than he can murder his way out of. Haley herself summed it up best after he killed the Oracle; he has been allowed to remain a member of the Order because his usefulness just outweighs what a liability he is. He is the epitome of a party member that you don't waste 10k GP bringing back. Even if he dies by Heroic Sacrifice, you're just going to say "well at least he did one good thing in the end," and refrain from saying anything too nasty about him at his funeral.

Yes, Belkar has been moving up on the morality spectrum over the last few books, but there are a few issues with that as far as resurrecting him goes.

A: Belkar's changes have been almost entirely off-screen to the rest of the Order. All the little things that have shown us his process of Becoming the Mask have been out of sight and earshot of anyone else from the Order.
B: The thing about Becoming the Mask as a path to reformation is that if people knew you were wearing the mask in the first place, they're only ever going to see the mask. Roy saw right through Belkar's feigned change of heart following the Mark of Justice vision quest from the beginning, and has been given no reason since to see it anymore genuinely that Belkar originally intended it to be.
C: Even if you accept that Belkar has genuinely changed, it's not by that much. He's still firmly Evil in alignment, given that the anti-Evil charm he swindled in Tinkertown shocked him so badly. Speaking of which, note that while turning down the free lunch the shopkeeper offered him is his most recent little moment of Becoming, it came in response to the fact that he'd just ripped that shopkeeper off for the equivalent of thousands of GP. Giving him credit for turning down what couldn't have been worth more than a fistful of GP is like giving credit to someone who robs a gas station because they didn't take the contents of the "Take a Penny Leave a Penny" tray. While it's possible that Belkar's reformation could continue if he were brought back, and that he might one day make it to Neutral or even Good, how long would it take? How many more innocent people might he hurt in the meantime? Given how susceptible he is to outside influence, how likely is he to backslide right back into his old ways in the future? You could argue that going to Hell and seeing the afterlife that awaits him could motivate him to continue reforming and shooting for a better afterlife, but it's just as likely that he'd come back thinking, "even after all that stupid development I'm still going to Hell?! Well then screw it! I'm living my life how I want while I've got it!" Bringing Belkar back on the chance that he could become a better person is a big, big gamble, and with as much crap as Belkar has put the Order through, even dying via Heroic Sacrifice isn't likely to make them take that sucker's bet.

The only way the Order would conceivably go to the trouble of bringing Belkar back is if he dies before the mission was over and there is a cleric standing right there offering to rez him. The Order is not going to bother bringing Belkar back after the mission is over, and they're not going to go out of their way to bring him back even if he dies before things are resolved because they won't have time even if they thought they still needed the muscle.

One of the consequences of being a complete selfish asshole is that you don't have to die in any special way to prevent your party from rezzing you.

You really didn't need that wall of text because I wasn't arguing that they would bring him back.

I was saying that them just shaking his death off and not caring wouldn't be a dramatically appropriate end to his arc, which has had him (very slowly) developing into a better, if not good person.

Them actually caring that he's dead and not being able to bring him back is better than them simply choosing not to do so when they have the power to. A point has been made that none of them think he's been genuinely developing even though we've seen that he has been. Not even acknowledging that would be weird if nothing else.

edited 13th Feb '16 10:22:44 AM by LSBK

I expect some sort of acknowledgement that, had he been able to live out a full, long life, Belkar probably would've eventually become Neutral, if not Good.

So you are basically expecting a Heel–Face Door-Slam on him? Well, it's either that or a full out Redemption Equals Death, but Rich is known to subvert our expectations, so who knows?

Maybe he'll get another magical wisdom boost just before dying.

There is no way that Belkar could become Good-aligned without no longer being Belkar. A move to Neutral might be possible with a lifetime of work, but that is a very short number in his case.

"Belkar is a capital-E-vil sociopath whose grasp of morality is limited to who he can and cannot kill without getting in more trouble than he can murder his way out of. "

But that "free lunch the shopkeeper offered him"... that was a date he turned down, right? And I know, claiming that "not screwing the person you just profited from lying to" is a Good act would be very much Wants a Prize for Basic Decency, but it does require a little more committal to moral behaviour than turning down free food.

edited 13th Feb '16 7:18:29 AM by johnnye

I don't see why it has to be one or the other.

It kinda has to be.

Heel–Face Door-Slam is when someone who might actually want to redeem themselves dies before they can even make the attempt.

Redemption Equals Death is when someone dies while redeeming themselves.

They are completely opposite of each other. You can't have both.

I'd just image a he'd get a moment like Miko's where he's told he won't be burning in hell (or the Abyss, whatever) but that he was still nowhere near going to any of the planes that passes for heaven.

In this set up I don't see why it either has to be "you burn in hell" or "you enjoy all of eternity in heaven".

Edit: And I was under the impression Redemption Equals Death literally referred to people committing acts they know they will die for in order to redeem themselves. I don't see Belkar ever trying something like that.

edited 13th Feb '16 10:34:39 AM by LSBK

Technically, it can be neither, but Belkar is on his way of redeeming himself and when he dies, he will probably fall into either of these tropes. It's not 100%, but, like, 99% (which means it won't happen).

Pretty much yeah. The difference between these tropes is that Heel–Face Door-Slam is like "Hey, I can be a good guy... Whoops, I'm dead." While Redemption Equals Death is "Maybe I can never be one of the good guys, but at least I can help them with a Heroic Sacrifice". The difference can sometimes be subtle.

You really didn't need that wall of text because I wasn't arguing that they would bring him back.

Eh, it kinda spiraled into a rant directed at a general sense of some posters here thinking Belkar deserves better when he dies.

I expect some sort of acknowledgement that, had he been able to live out a full, long life, Belkar probably would've eventually become Neutral, if not Good.

Again, his progress upward on the morality spectrum has been very, very slight. He's still firmly in Evil territory, and what movement he has made has been all but entirely unintentional. While it's possible he could make it to Neutral, and it's not impossible that he could go all the way to Good, it's a 50/50 chance at best.

But that "free lunch the shopkeeper offered him"... that was a date he turned down, right? And I know, claiming that "not screwing the person you just profited from lying to" is a Good act would be very much Wants a Prize for Basic Decency, but it does require a little more committal to moral behaviour than turning down free food.

Granted, but it's still small potatoes compared to the Evil act he just committed against the same person.

I'd just image a he'd get a moment like Miko's where he's told he won't be burning in hell (or the Abyss, whatever) but that he was still nowhere near going to any of the planes that passes for heaven.

Again, Belkar is capital-E-vil, and he has a lifetime of behavior rooted deeply in that alignment. Even dying via Heroic Sacrifice isn't likely to balance that slate. Belkar is almost certainly going to Hell no matter what he does in the short time between now and his impending death.

No one here has argued that he wasn't evil. But he has been changing, slowly, because that's how real change works, and if there is anything that can stop someone from going to hell, saving the world is probably it.

I'm not sure why you're so firm about this. No one has been arguing that Belkar deserves to, or will, be going to any good afterlife/paradise. No one has been arguing that he's good. You're arguing against a position no one here has expressed.

edited 13th Feb '16 1:22:39 PM by LSBK

Well....this is going to be a long arc for what should be just a few days.

Belkar's problem is that he would like to stop being evil, but without stopping doing evil deeds. He's come to enjoy helping people, but when faced with someone who actually deserves to suffer, e.g. Yukyuk, he goes full Vlad the Impaler's eviller twin at them.

"Granted, but it's still small potatoes compared to the Evil act he just committed against the same person."

Really? He told a lie necessary to maintaining his cover. Unintentionally, he was given a discount based on that lie, and he chose not to protest it. That's immoral, but it seems a stretch to call it "Evil". Taking further advantage of her really would be evil, and he baulked at the idea of doing that.

I'm not defending Belkar in a general sense here, just that that particular instance is the behaviour of a Lovable Rogue, not a Token Evil Teammate (overlooking the fact that it was lying about being Evil that got him into the whole mess, of course).

I think the "evil" act they're talking about is him conning her out of the cloak in the first place. Which obviously isn't good, but like you said, calling it capital E-Evil does seem like a stretch to me.

I mean, the situation came up because he was evil in the first place but, that specific action itself is hardly fire and brimstone worthy.

DnD morality has two axes, guys.

Making the offer allowed him to get a magic item that can protect him from the obvious threat in their midst, Durkula, without adding undue complications via outing himself as Evil.

It's certainly a Chaotic action, but not an Evil one. Neutral at worst. It helped the overall goal of saving the world while not being an unduly cruel or sadistic choice.

edited 14th Feb '16 11:19:01 AM by TobiasDrake

I don't like to presume what people mean or think, but I get the impression that Wryte is working under the logic that seeing as Belkar is evil, every action, regardless of why it was made, counts as evil or at the very best neutral. That is, Belkar is evil so he can't ever do anything good, and when he does something that's evil, he fully intended for it to be as evil as possible.

I get the impression that line of thinking is pretty common when discussing D&D, but this isn't D&D proper and the author has done a pretty good job showing that not to be the case.

That's assuming I'm right, maybe I just misinterpreted what they were saying.

Edit: Like with the whole Familicide thing, when the story was clearly portraying it to be an incredibly evil thing but a lot of people took it to be good because it wiped out a large portion an "always evil" race.

edited 14th Feb '16 11:23:24 AM by LSBK

~.~

Alignment is not a motivation. It is a consequence of choices made.

Yes, that was my point. A lot of people seem to think it is, though.

edited 14th Feb '16 11:30:15 AM by LSBK

This reminds me of a line, I forget exactly where it came from, but it went something like this:

"There are certain advantages to having a bad reputation. Since people already expect the worst of you, you can do whatever you like, with minimal repercussions. And if you feel like doing something noble, they get a pleasant surprise, so everybody wins."

Unintentionally, he was given a discount based on that lie, and he chose not to protest it.

Read the strip again. He suggested the discount.

I don't like to presume what people mean or think, but I get the impression that Wryte is working under the logic that seeing as Belkar is evil, every action, regardless of why it was made, counts as evil or at the very best neutral. That is, Belkar is evil so he can't ever do anything good, and when he does something that's evil, he fully intended for it to be as evil as possible.

Absolutely not. What I'm saying is that what Good acts he's committed as he becomes the mask have been small and few, and do not outweigh the vast history of Evil acts he has to his name. I brought up the example of the gnome and her magic item because it's particularly illustrative of the concept. Yes, it was an act of Good to turn down a dishonestly-earned reward, but it came on the heels of essentially stealing up to several hundred times the value of that reward from the same person offering it.

It's a step forward, but it comes right after two steps back, and some people seem to be ignoring, or at least downplaying, the latter.

Which obviously isn't good, but like you said, calling it capital E-Evil does seem like a stretch to me.

It's certainly a Chaotic action, but not an Evil one. Neutral at worst. It helped the overall goal of saving the world while not being an unduly cruel or sadistic choice.

I say capital-E-vil to mean the alignment of an action, not its evilness value.

Neutral would have been paying full price for it. The shopkeeper had already decided the item must be defective, he could have just said he'd take it anyway because he had another idea for it, or something.

Getting himself a discount of thousands on false pretenses is Evil, even if it only registers 0.16 kilonazis. It's not on the level of murdering babies or poisoning the water supply, but it's still a bad thing he did, and choosing not to accept a reward for doing it doesn't outweigh that.

edited 14th Feb '16 2:43:37 PM by Wryte

He did feel a little guilty about it though. That probably counts for something, especially for people of Belkar's assholishness.