Talk:Belkar Bitterleaf

Skills

Someone forgot "Conjuring Disturbing Mental Images"! Added :) --81.1.114.237 (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you look below it is mentioned in the "Personality, Abilities and Traits" section. And it is "craft disturbing mental images", not "conjure" (check the comic) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobTheMad (talk • contribs) 02:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tailkinker's rewrite

Pretty good rewrite, Tailkinker Sensemaker 11:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better than it was before, certainly. It could still use a little cleanup -- some of the sentences run really long.

Hehehe, bad habit of mine, I'm afraid. Can get a bit rambling. --Tailkinker 18:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Immoral or Amoral

Been having a think about this, prompted by somebody altering Belkar's attribute information from "amoral" to "immoral". Not that I necessarily disagree with the change, as I'm not overly sure of the correct definitions. My read of the two definitions is that somebody who's immoral recognises the existence of a moral code, but consciously chooses to act against it, whereas an amoral person genuinely doesn't understand why a particular act is wrong - they have no concept of a moral code. It seems to me that Belkar fits the latter description better than the former; there are certainly occasions when he seems utterly baffled when somebody objects to his actions. Anyone out there better versed on the topic who could produce a more definitive answer? --Tailkinker 18:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you'd list either of those two terms under "abilities" either way. There's little point in worrying about the distinction between amorality and immorality, when we already know how Belkar fits into the only moral system that matters in his world.

Good point there. What with the metagaming, he does know his world's moral system and acts against it. Heh. --Kizor 10:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can argue for both things as well as for him following very derformed sense of moral. Sometimes he seems to deliberately subvert ethics or even actively work against good and for evil. The discussion between his shoulder devils strongly suggest he understands ethics and deliberately works for evil. To sacrifice immediate satisfaction for the greater evil is arguable a form of moral -albeit a horrid one to most people. At other times he doesn't seem to care about ethics and yet at others, he seems to not understand them. The running joke that someone says: "you cannot kill people" and his answer "no matter how many times I hear that, it will never make sense to me" seems to indicate that he just doesn't understand it. My opinion in this matter is that the author has just used these things for comedy, not bothering to be consistent on thsi issue. -Sensemaker

Belkar's List Of Potential Kills

"Belkar will eventually cause the death of at least one of the following: Miko Miyazaki, her horse Windstriker, Vaarsuvius, Roy or the Oracle himself"

Actually, Belkar said "Miko's stupid horse" without specifically identifying it; given how prophecies in fiction sometimes turn on such literal points of wording, that could be significant. --Smbrinich 01:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

broken sentence

Although his Chaotic Evil alignment was once in dispute, it has since been confirmed by the creator of the strip both through explicit statement and through various events in the comic itself that Belkar off his savagery, surprisingly sophisticated mental torture, setting things aflame, and copious, Belkar seems to be a counterstereotype to the traditional Tolkien-inspired RPG halfling...

It is me or after later editions that sentence is incomplete? ---- Fernando Estel · (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why he is considered mental will? While a sociopath, I not sure if should classified like that.

Excessive detail

Similar problem as with Roy's page -- we don't really need a blow-by-blow of every event Belkar played a major role in. And if Roy's death must be mentioned (I don't think it's necessary), we're going to need spoiler tags. Jefepato 03:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't think speculations on Belkar's character level and stats belong in the article either. Aside from being, well, speculations, they're meaningless to anyone not intimately familiar with both the comic and DnD 3.5. I'm going to do some slicing and dicing (on this article and Roy's) in a couple of days if I don't see any objections. Gitman00 (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I heard that there are no spoiler tags on wikipedia.... Epass (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]