The Order of the Stick

I'm not saying it doesn't count. I'm saying it doesn't count for more than still doing the bad thing anyway.

besides, taking advantage of the meal is worth more than the money the meal costs.

Evil can't really be quantified by the money involved.

The original context of this discussion was theorizing on how Belkar might die so as to preclude resurrection. My argument was that Belkar doesn't need to die in any special way to prevent his resurrection, because nobody will want to resurrect him in the first place.

Belkar is Evil according to the metaphysical laws of the Stick universe, and just a plain damn rotten person by any standard. He is a sociopath with no moral compass or impulse control, and the class levels to do make him a serious threat to the average person. What little moral progress he has made has been minor, and does not make up for the far, far more numerous and extreme bad things he's done, and continues to do.

The Order keeps him around because his helpful/hindrance ratio errs just enough toward the former, and because they'd feel responsible for whoever he hurt without their supervision. Even in the best case scenario, that he dies by Heroic Sacrifice, there is basically no chance the Order is bringing him back. Letting Belkar run out his deathclock and then leaving him dead has been Roy's plan since he got back from the afterlife himself, and even a heroic sacrifice isn't likely to change his mind on that front.

The only reason the Order would want to bring Belkar back from the dead is if he died before the mission to save the world was done, but the time limit on beating Xykon before he does whatever he's going to do with the rift means that unless the Order has a cleric on hand and capable of casting the spell when Beklar dies, they aren't going to have time to get Belkar rezzed before the final battle, and they'll have no reason to want to after the final battle.

So the point is, Belkar doesn't need to die by Disintegrate/Gust of Wind combo, or get unmade by the Snarl, or any other special circumstance to stay dead. He'll stay dead because he's an awful person that no one will want to bring back after he dies.

And again, you really don't see how them just going "Fuck Belkar" might sort of ruin the tension of something that's been building up for years? I mean, I get it, but it seems to me that narrative reasons, if nothing else, will stop it from playing out that way.

Do you have some reason you disagree with that?

What tension? We've known that Belkar is going to die and stay dead for hundreds of pages now. The only "tension" left to it is exactly when it will happen and how it will impact the team's effectiveness in whatever battles are left.

I fully expect Elan to mourn him. Depending on the exact nature of his death, I expect the other members of the team to have a varying range of emotions regarding his passing. But letting him die and stay that way has been Roy's plan for ages, and nothing in his reasoning for that decision has changed, or is likely to change in the short period of time that Belkar has left; not even by heroic sacrifice.

Especially by heroic sacrifice, I'd say. Rezzing him would diminish the sacrifice (especially for Elan who's fond of such narrative tropes) and for others Belkar is unlikely to ever find a better death.

You're right, Wryte (ha), he did suggest the discount. I was misremembering.

@Elfive "He did feel a little guilty about it though. That probably counts for something"

Well, it doesn't really count for anything — he doesn't deserve credit for doing bad stuff but feeling bad about it — but it signifies something. Namely, that he's not "a sociopath with no moral compass" any more. He certainly used to be, but the fact that he's capable of feeling guilty for a fairly inconsequential bit of dishonesty just because the victim is a hard-working innocent is significant of a big change in outlook. But his actions still need to be judged on their own merits.

As many, many people have said, the rate of change Belkar is exhibiting is realistic given where he started, but it's not going to make him a fundamentally Good person in the next 3 weeks. It might be enough for him to make one really Good action, though — and then it should be pointed out how that really doesn't make up for everything else, but that it means something.

As for whether anyone in the Order would want to Rez him... I don't know. I expect Roy's had a very long time to think it over, though. If they had the cleric right there next to them, I suspect they'd probably pay the price, but it's probably not going to be made that easy for them, and I doubt they'd be willing to take any time out of their save-the-world itinerary for his sake.

Um, that tension? What you described is exactly why it's tense and why people jump on the bandwagon of "maybe this strip is when he's going to die" or "how will it happen" I'm not sure how you don't consider that tension. Just because we know it's going to happen doesn't mean it isn't tense.

I don't think we're working under the same train of thought. You seem to think that logic and what the characters have actually said until this point matters, when what's most dramatic and best for the story usually means logic isn't the top priority. Just saying, expecting things to be as simple and logic as you've laid out is a bit weird in a situation like this.

Oh, but I will say, there really wouldn't be a point to saying "last breath ever" as into clarify he's not going to be resurrect if no attempt was even going to be made by someone. Things like that are to assure the audience, it's more for us than the characters.

edited 15th Feb '16 5:22:14 AM by LSBK

At the moment, if Belkar dies, there's nobody available to rez him, since the Order will be traveling without a cleric. I assume that, for the purposes of the story, no cleric at the Godsmoot would spare the time to use the spell on a random adventurer.

No, it's effective bluffing. Nobody would ever pay full price for a defective item, especially one that occasionally causes physical harm to its user. Insisting on paying the full amount would be incredibly suspicious.

Belkar committed a partial-theft via deception to benefit the Order's cause. It's Chaotic but Neutral at worst; Haley's been guilty of much worse and she's a capital-G Good character.

There's nothing random about an adventurer whose ability to complete his mission is the very focus of the Godsmoot itself.

edited 15th Feb '16 8:10:34 AM by TobiasDrake

I'm being Doylist here. Since we know that Belkar will perma-die, no cleric at the Godmoot will resurrect him. Ergo, there will be a reason why they choose not to or are unable to, should he die here and now.

True. To me, the likely explanation for why they won't resurrect Belkar is that either the Godsmoot will end before Belkar's life does, or he'll die in the Dwarven Homelands and his remains will be rendered unrevivable.

If the Godsmoot ends in opposition to the apocalypse (and, from a Doylist perspective, the chance of it ending in favor of the abrupt end to the world is somewhere in the region of 0%), the clerics banking on the Order's success against Xykon will want them to be at 100% capacity. If the possibility exists to resurrect Durkon and Belkar, there's no way they would let that pass them by.

Belkar's an asshole, but a level 15 rogue isn't easy to come by. You can't just cast aside a sexy, shoeless god of war right before marching off to battle against an unreasonably powerful foe. So it seems certain to me that either Belkar will somehow be rendered impossible to revive, or his death just isn't going to happen before the Godsmoot plot resolves.

edited 15th Feb '16 8:40:49 AM by TobiasDrake

A pity he's not a rogue, then.

I'm not sure how you don't consider that tension. Just because we know it's going to happen doesn't mean it isn't tense.

It's tension that's unaffected by whether the Order chooses to rez him or not.

I don't think we're working under the same train of thought. You seem to think that logic and what the characters have actually said until this point matters, when what's most dramatic and best for the story usually means logic isn't the top priority. Just saying, expecting things to be as simple and logic as you've laid out is a bit weird in a situation like this.

Weirder than you apparently thinking that what characters say is irrelevant to understanding their decision-making? Or dismissing multiple cases of Roy and others acting on logic despite what their guts told them to do?

No, it's effective bluffing. Nobody would ever pay full price for a defective item, especially one that occasionally causes physical harm to its user. Insisting on paying the full amount would be incredibly suspicious.

It's an entire town of gnomes. I expect the shopkeepers are pretty used to eccentricity.

Belkar committed a partial-theft via deception to benefit the Order's cause. It's Chaotic but Neutral at worst;

Belkar deceived the shopkeeper to benefit himself. He needed the item to protect himself from Durkula so he could continue his attempts to murder him without being dominated, which, while it would have benefited the Order, he was mostly doing out of his personal feelings of guilt over Durkon's death and subsequent vampirization.

Haley's been guilty of much worse and she's a capital-G Good character.

A) That's a behavior Haley has grown out of. B) She has plenty of Good acts tipping her back toward that end of the moral spectrum. Belkar is just the opposite.

I assume that, for the purposes of the story, no cleric at the Godsmoot would spare the time to use the spell on a random adventurer.

Or none of them have it prepared, and the Order can't wait a day for one of them to order up a fresh batch of miracles with Durkula and/or Xykon about to end the world at any minute.

Are you seriously trying to classify Belkar's efforts to undermine the murderous vampire manipulating the Order from within as a selfish act?

Durkula should have been put down immediately. The only reason he wasn't is because Roy was blinded by denial and grief. When it comes to Durkula's treatment, Belkar is the only party in the right. That's the brutal irony of his character arc right now; he's the boy crying wolf, 100% correct about Durkula but too untrustworthy to be believed.

Xykon teleported straight to Kraagor's Gate. He's had ample time to set up his defenses. Not taking a day to prepare new spells and make sure everyone's in peak condition to challenge an Epic Lich at the height of his power would be suicidally foolish.

edited 15th Feb '16 9:03:27 AM by TobiasDrake

Are you seriously trying to classify Belkar's efforts to undermine the murderous vampire manipulating the Order from within as a selfish act?

In part, yes, because it's mainly motivated by guilt at failing to save Durkon from becoming Durkula.

Durkula should have been put down immediately. The only reason he wasn't is because Roy was blinded by denial and grief. When it comes to Durkula's treatment, Belkar is the only party in the right. That's the brutal irony of his character arc right now; he's the boy crying wolf, 100% correct about Durkula but too untrustworthy to be believed.

While all that is true, it doesn't change the fact that his desire to kill Durkula is at least as much due to a personal vendetta as it is out of concern for the good of the party, and certainly doesn't change the fact that Belkar could have gotten that magic item without scamming the shopkeeper out of thousands of gold.

Xykon teleported straight to Kraagor's Gate. He's had ample time to set up his defenses. Not taking a day to prepare new spells and make sure everyone's in peak condition to challenge an Epic Lich at the height of his power would be suicidally foolish.

Alternatively, Xykon teleported directly to Kraagor's Gate. He's had ample time to set up his ritual. Taking a day waiting to rez one warrior is suicidal when the world could end at literally any minute.

I don't think it's right to measure someone's alignment on a scale of good and evil actions is misleading. Maybe in a real game a DM can do no better, but otherwise the alignment should be based on your state of mind and it should drive your actions, not the other way around. So while you can occasionally commit evil acts and still remain Good if you commit enough good acts, if you do it deliberately then you are at best Neutral.

Also don't forget about the other axis of alignment. Ripping off the shopkeeper was a chaotic act (which is not surprising given that Belkar is Chaotic), but neither good nor evil in itself. His motivation was not only to get the magic item cheaper, but also to hide his Evil alignment, which may make his action slightly evil, but not solely because of cheating. I also wouldn't consider the motivation of getting the magic item itself, as he would have bought it even at full price.

Also don't forget about the other axis of alignment. Ripping off the shopkeeper was a chaotic act (which is not surprising given that Belkar is Chaotic), but neither good nor evil in itself.

Uh, yeah, it is. He suggested a massive discount for himself based on false pretenses. That's not just Chaotic, it's Chaotic Evil. It's not [i]that[/i] Evil in the grand scheme of things, but it's still Evil in strict accordance with the alignment system. He lied to get something he wanted in a manner that was harmful to the other party.

I think that falls under Chaotic Neutral, honestly. Ordinary selfishness is neutral, not evil.

edited 16th Feb '16 1:49:30 AM by Clarste

New strip.

Isn't this Miko's first appearance in, like, years?

That response seems like a Chekhov's Gun to me (BTW, I can't remember...what happened to the original response?)...
Also, @ "Friggin' rules."

Mit D ate it.

Did Roy hear Durkon's prophecy?

Source.

Seems like??

That's a gun on the mantelpiece lit with a spotlight, with one character saying "Hey, what do you keep that gun around for?" and the owner saying "Well, you never know when a gun will come in handy."

EDIT: Oh, unless you meant the original letter. Because yeah, that's been eaten.

edited 16th Feb '16 10:00:18 AM by johnnye