The OotS Thread III

[Irbis]

I'm going to argue with you there. On some level the order are friends. Belkar is an evil little shit, but Roy doesn't hate him, he feels responsible for him and what he does. Roys happy ending isn't a dead Gelkar, it's a reformed Belkar.

So, that's why Roy and Haley callously discuss how he won't be a problem anymore in a few weeks and treat his somewhat believable turning of a new leaf by instantly dismissing it as worthless? I don't know, Roy was pretty close to killing helpless Belkar 3 strips ago, I really don't see it.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Tarqin and Malaq aren't going to hit the trap at the same time as the linear guild. Tarquin 'allowed' Nale to go after the order because he wants to weaken the order further and thinks it will get Nale killed by the son he actually likes. He's probably right. Malaq is staying out because he knows what Tarquins up to and is keeping his final promise to Durkon, and if I recall he's keeping Durkon out as well, but allowing him to send a summoned minion to help.

Tarquin and the kobold stayed back, Malack and Durkon are with Nale - technically. But, I fully expect Malack intends to keep Durkon back, and is going to be less than enthusiastic about fighting personally.

I'm sure you're right about Tarquin; I do notice that the only actual ally of his he sent along is the vampire, who if "killed" will just turn into mist.

[Lord of the Abyss]

And 890 is up!
Spoiler

So the runes still glowing was a clue! I like how Belkar and Mr Scruffy had the same shared dream.

[Kuja]

Oh man I love that song of freedom gag. Also d'awww.

[FaxModem1]

Awww. That is a very cute dream Belkar and Mr. Scruffy have.

[Irbis]

And in retrospect makes Roy's and Haley's happiness about Belkar's death and utter dismissal of his change that much sadder. You know, this is the way I'd play lawful neutral (Roy) and chaotic borderline neutral/evil (Haley) characters, I'd certainly would not call them good

But then again, to me a few token good actions are just a sign of being neutral, after all, even neutrals would prefer a good society. In fact, the only OotS member without sheet full of black stains to me is Elan, maybe.

[Grumman]

Belkar's a convicted murderer. Not being psychic and consequentially not being able to recognise that his fake character growth has turned into real character growth isn't a character flaw.

[Simon_Jester]

And in retrospect makes Roy's and Haley's happiness about Belkar's death and utter dismissal of his change that much sadder. You know, this is the way I'd play lawful neutral (Roy) and chaotic borderline neutral/evil (Haley) characters, I'd certainly would not call them good

But then again, to me a few token good actions are just a sign of being neutral, after all, even neutrals would prefer a good society. In fact, the only OotS member without sheet full of black stains to me is Elan, maybe.

Personally, I think that a neutral character would also perform evil acts of magnitude comparable to their good acts. Roy and Haley don't, unless you count any kind of attacking or harming people at all as evil.

The main thing I think we'd disagree about is the attitude toward redemption. Roy has been present for countless evil acts by Belkar, and knows that for a long time, Belkar was approximately as evil as several hundred Nazis even with Roy present; see the graph in strip #489. It's no surprise that Roy no longer trusts Belkar or believes in Belkar's ability to redeem himself. And that when Belkar comes telling some kind of bizarre story about Roy's best friend having died, Roy's rage gets misdirected- we know one of his character defects is anger management.

[Crazedwraith]

And in retrospect makes Roy's and Haley's happiness about Belkar's death and utter dismissal of his change that much sadder. You know, this is the way I'd play lawful neutral (Roy) and chaotic borderline neutral/evil (Haley) characters, I'd certainly would not call them good

I think you're running up against a rigidity in the D&D system that OotS itself points out and tries to rebel against. Think about Cecilia's closing remarks in the OotS trial. Or when Roy enters heaven.

He's not actually perfectly good of thought or deed. What matters is that he tries to do the right thing for the right reasons.

[Starglider]

You know, this is the way I'd play lawful neutral (Roy) and chaotic borderline neutral/evil (Haley) characters, I'd certainly would not call them good But then again, to me a few token good actions are just a sign of being neutral, after all, even neutrals would prefer a good society. In fact, the only OotS member without sheet full of black stains to me is Elan, maybe.

Roy constantly risks his life to save individuals, cities and the whole world for little or no reward. Haley is not as selfless but still ultimately puts others ahead of herself when lives are on the line. The fact that they have a blindspot about Belkar is entirely understandable and realistic; real people have all kinds of quirks and inconsistencies in their behavior, particularly where personal relationships are concerned. I can think of plenty of kind and selfless individuals who still had irrational dislike or even outright hatred for specific people and organisations.

[Ahriman238]

Question, has their been any evidence whatsoever that Belkar's faked/real character growth involves remorse for past crimes, or empathy for his fellow man (or applicable sapient being) in the here and now? If so, I haven't seen it. He still hurts and kills for fun, including teammates, and so far his "redemption" seems to consist of a single moment taking pity on the lizardfolk.

If these elements aren't present, I'll quote the Belkster himself on Karma "You've gotta pay the interest before you can touch the principle, kid."

[Gaidin]

So? I don't really predict that kind of development from Belkar, but that doesn't mean there won't be legitimate development from him. He's the kind of person who'd move on to a legitimately better life, but skip half the twelve steps because he's not that interested in the onlookers' opinions of him and the ones he has to make amends to are dead anyway(to him).

[Ahriman238]

So? I don't really predict that kind of development from Belkar, but that doesn't mean there won't be legitimate development from him. He's the kind of person who'd move on to a legitimately better life, but skip half the twelve steps because he's not that interested in the onlookers' opinions of him and the ones he has to make amends to are dead anyway(to him).

I don't disagree on any particular point, there's plenty of room for growth without destroying the lovable comedic sociopath Belkar is. I just don't get why people think Haley and Roy are so horrible for not mourning Belkar when the illusion made them think he'd died, or hanging around long after the funeral. Belkar is still objectively a horrible person, and if anything I see Roy being relieved he didn't have to do the dirty deed himself.

For that matter, I didn't see the Order in Belkar's happy little world.

[Napoleon the Clown]

As far as Roy and Haley are concerned, Belkar's an evil little shit. Calling it an evil act to not be overly concerned with his death is like calling it an evil act to not be overly concerned with a pit fiend meeting its end. Belkar is less extreme than that but he's still a horrible person. Would you mourn for someone that you know to have personally killed innocent people for fun and has plans to continue doing so in the future?

Haley's closer to the neutral end of things than Roy is but she's still good. She may be greedy and won't put herself in as much danger as Roy does himself without some compensation but she still goes out of her way to help people. She could have just given up on the Order's mission after the Azure City situation but she didn't. She knows she lives in a world that has heroes and villains. She could have easily just decided "Some other hero will step up to the plate and stop Xykon. My part is done."

[Kuja]

You know, this is the way I'd play lawful neutral (Roy) and chaotic borderline neutral/evil (Haley) characters, I'd certainly would not call them good But then again, to me a few token good actions are just a sign of being neutral, after all, even neutrals would prefer a good society. In fact, the only OotS member without sheet full of black stains to me is Elan, maybe.

Roy constantly risks his life to save individuals, cities and the whole world for little or no reward. Haley is not as selfless but still ultimately puts others ahead of herself when lives are on the line. The fact that they have a blindspot about Belkar is entirely understandable and realistic; real people have all kinds of quirks and inconsistencies in their behavior, particularly where personal relationships are concerned. I can think of plenty of kind and selfless individuals who still had irrational dislike or even outright hatred for specific people and organisations.

There's a trap that many people that play D&D fall into, and Irbis' post is a perfect example. It actually led to several heated arguments between me and a DM that fell into the same trap, namely: you do not have to be a perfect paragon of goodness in order to play a good alignment.

Rich even touched on this during Roy's heaven interview. Some D&D players and worse, some DMs take D&D's aligment chart to be utterly rigid, that a single act can and will change this, and it doesn't even have to be an act of significance. Your paladin shot back at some mouthy guy that's been annoying you? That's not very nice, you lose your LG alignment. This kind of thing has lead to the "paladin trap" wherein your paladin has a choice of either saving the captive or killing the bad guy, there's not enough time to do both. Either way your paladin falls because NOT saving the captive or NOT killing the bad guy is an evil act. This is insanity. This is purebred fucking insanity. It leads to angry players, trainwreck games, and terrible, terrible DMing.

I could quote the player's guide on the matter, but I don't feel like looking up the alignment descriptions, so here's the cliff's notes:

"Good" means that by default your character will seek to help others.
"Neutral" means that your character is indifferent - he may or may not, depending on circumstance
"Evil" means that by default your character will seek to harm others.

Now, before anyone else points it out, I will- an evil character does not necessarily have to revel in being evil. But being evil means that, faced with a situation they will naturally put forth cruel or destructive plans in order to solve it. Some characters - and players - will endlessly try to justify their evil acts as "for the greater good" and this is where the hand of the DM is necessary to [CAREFULLY] determine which side of the Neutral/Evil line they fall on.

A LG cleric doesn't suddenly get bumped to N because he smacked his horse to get it walking. A paladin doesn't fall because his patience failed and he told a mouthy party member to shut up for a minute. Roy himself told his dad that if it weren't for the world being at stake, he could take his blood oath and shove it - but he continued the quest anyway because it's the good thing to do. The fact that he's not an infinite font of goodness and honor but does have a short temper and a lack of empathy for Belkar doesn't make him fail at lawful good.

[Terralthra]

I think the thing about evil that you have slightly off from how I define it is that evil characters will not necessarily deliberately seek to harm others, but will not prioritize not harming others at a cost to themselves.

[Kuja]

That was rather what I was trying to say with my elaboration about evil alignments, but I didn't really word it well enough.

[Tiriol]

Does Belkar's illusion indicate any real change in his alignment, though? Being evil doesn't mean that one goes around killing all the time and it also doesn't mean that one wouldn't have loved ones and friends. And at least in OotS even evil outsiders have shown capability for caring and loyalty.

[Grumman]

Does Belkar's illusion indicate any real change in his alignment, though? Being evil doesn't mean that one goes around killing all the time and it also doesn't mean that one wouldn't have loved ones and friends. And at least in OotS even evil outsiders have shown capability for caring and loyalty.

I agree - evil is what you do at your worst. A racist might act like an upstanding citizen towards 90% of the population, but they're still evil if they mistreat the other 10%.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Does Belkar's illusion indicate any real change in his alignment, though? Being evil doesn't mean that one goes around killing all the time and it also doesn't mean that one wouldn't have loved ones and friends. And at least in OotS even evil outsiders have shown capability for caring and loyalty.

Belkar is still quite probably interested in harming and killing others for fun. All that the dream indicates is that there are other things he would rather do. The dream doesn't say if he has lost the desire to be actively malicious or not anymore, just that part of his desires is to just chill out and cook. His priorities may have changed some but from what we've seen between now and his "fake character development" he still enjoys spreading suffering. Even Chaotic Evil is capable of being subtle about it.

[The Yosemite Bear]

besides we all know that he sliced up those raw fishies for fluffy while they were very much alive and aware....

[Crazedwraith]

891 is Up.


And a chance for Elan to shine I think.

[LadyTevar]

"It's not even realistic!"
Yeah, roll that Attempt to Disbelieve....

[Simon_Jester]

891 is Up.

And a chance for Elan to shine I think.

This whole thing with the illusion is a chance for that- he's basically saved the whole team's asses.

Left to themselves, the others would enjoy their "happy ending" so much they might never come out. But since Elan's goals are less... engrossing, they give him more time to think about the meta-reality or meta-unrealism of the situation. It's easier to concentrate during a wedding than during a fight to free Azure City, in other words.

[Ahriman238]

It'd suck if they opened that door and found Xykon and Redcloak actually on the other side.

Morale or not, only V. getting his/her act together and regrouping is going to save the order now. Also, they've been there for several hours, so where's the Linear Guild and summoned mininons?