-
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Themrys
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Michaeler
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Themrys
And the assumption that Hilgya hates little Kudzu is utterly idiotic. Why would she be carrying around a child she hates?
I really don't see how you expect anyone to be able to answer that question without derailing the thread into discussing actual child abuse.
If you don't want to talk about child abuse, then you shouldn't have brought up such a ridiculous idea, because it is clearly utterly nonsensical and you know it. If you can only defend your speculations by talking about things you don't want to talk about then you should not have brought it up, plain and simple.
Oh boy. You do realize that both real life and fiction are ripe with cases of child abuse where the parent still carry the child around? And that any discussion about a mother hating her baby will necessarily involve discussing child abuse by its very nature and that might not be allowed uder forum rules or be completely off-topic since no-one even speculated that Hilgya had harmed her son even once yet? There are just people commenting on the fact that bringing a toddler into battle might not be the safest route.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Themrys
Trying to pretend that I am the unreasonable one here will not help you, it is plain for all to see that all those nonsensical attempts to revile Hilgya are motivated by deepseated misogyny.
Hey could you teach me the art of divining someone's motivations and intentions from three lines of text without knowing any thing about their origins, political, religious and social beliefs or personnal history? That looks useful as far as superpowers go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Themrys
Edit: And it shows how very misogynist many people here are that you are so very, very keen and willing to jump to assumptions of child abuse when a high-level cleric in a D&D based comic says that her child is safest if staying with her, but happily, willingly, and passionately deny that forcing a woman into marriage means to want her raped, and that telling a woman to return to a forced marriage is telling her to get raped again and again, and again.
So are we going to go there every single comic featuring Hilgya now.
*Sighs*
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Themrys
You apply real world logics when it suits you (i.e. when a high level cleric wants to keep her child with her rather than leaving it among strangers) but ferociously deny them when they would make your beloved Durkon look bad.
My knowledge of english idioms is failing me, what was it again that the pot called the kettle?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Themrys
You willingly, happily believe that Hilgya, a woman who FAILED to murder ONE husband she was FORCED to marry, would mistreat her child, when Tarquin, a multiple murderer of wives he himself had chosen, is at the very least implied to not have mistreated his son (beyond raising him to be evil).
Oh, yeah, what a loving father.
Add to that the fact that Nale was tutored by Malack who believes that everyone should be someone else's slave and as result had wanted to kill him since he was 9, and you don't get a pretty childhood picture
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Themrys
Your misogyny is showing.
You keep insisting that Hilgya is blameless for sleeping unprotected with a virgin without telling him she was legally married and not telling him that the intercourse resulted in birth.
Does that mean that your mysandry is showing?
-
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Yeah, what the hell? Someone, not even argued that Tarquin wasn't a hideously emotionally abusive father, but simply asserted that it was "at the very least implied" that he wasn't?
I don't know what comic you're reading, Themrys.
-
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fyraltari
My knowledge of english idioms is failing me, what was it again that the pot called the kettle?
Noir. :smallcool:
-
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KorvinStarmast
Are you referring to Minrah, Roy, or Durkon?
Without pretending to be speaking for Kish, "Yes".
GW
-
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KorvinStarmast
I guess she'd fit in at the GiTP forum, would she not? :smallbiggrin:
Wasn't directly referring to the forums, but now you mention it there seems to be a lot of 'demon/saint' arguing going on. I find it interesting that Hilgya, who so far has been shown to have legit reasons to be angry at Durkon and has shown certain amounts of protectiveness and care to her child, is totally evil because of one bitter exchange, while Tarquin, a deluded, tunnel-vision psychopath wearing black and red armour while secretly ruling a proxy tyranny, is considered nuanced.
-
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Riftwolf
Wasn't directly referring to the forums, but now you mention it there seems to be a lot of 'demon/saint' arguing going on. I find it interesting that Hilgya, who so far has been shown to have legit reasons to be angry at Durkon and has shown certain amounts of protectiveness and care to her child, is totally evil because of one bitter exchange, while Tarquin, a deluded, tunnel-vision psychopath wearing black and red armour while secretly ruling a proxy tyranny, is considered nuanced.
I don't think anyone's arguing that Hilgya is "totally evil". Some people think the evidence points towards her being Chaotic Evil, but that doesn't mean everything she does is Evil or stems from Evilness. The reaction is not against people who claim Hilgya isn't Evil (many people have theorized she might be Neutral without eliciting a strong response), but against people who try to portray her as completely or almost completely innocent and, well, sane.
-
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hroşila
but against people who try to portray her as completely or almost completely innocent and, well, sane.
I don't see her as other than sane. I am in the camp who lean more toward "chaotic" than 'evil' insofar as assigning any D&D alignment tags.
-
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
heh, she makes an convincing argument.
-
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KorvinStarmast
I don't see her as other than sane. I am in the camp who lean more toward "chaotic" than 'evil' insofar as assigning any D&D alignment tags.
Okay, replace "sane" with "assessing the situation objectively".
-
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hroşila
Okay, replace "sane" with "assessing the situation objectively".
Name one character in this comic that consistently does that :smalltongue:
-
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
georgie_leech
Name one character in this comic that consistently does that :smalltongue:
Okay, replace "assessing the situation objectively" with "assessing the situation even remotely objectively".
I CAN DO THIS ALL DAY
-
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
If kudzu does die it's only a -2 to con, 5,000 gp and a raise dead to bring him back. He'll be less hardy for life, but at least he'll live.
Not even a wish spell can reverse the con loss. Alternatively a true resurrection spell can prevent the con loss, but it requires a 17th level cleric. I think OotS is about level 16 now.
I noticed the alignment debates. Well, at least we all know she's chaotic from the whole opposites arc and related dialogue. Have fun with the other axis.
-
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SlashDash
Why do people keep saying she could have found a wizard to cast sending and contact him?
Isn't that a clerical spell?
Durkon had it (Elan contacting Julio)
The Cleric of Loki had it (Contacting Durkon when the party was split
V had it and tried to cast it to talk to Haley when the party was split but was foiled by Cloister.
-
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KorvinStarmast
I don't see her as other than sane. I am in the camp who lean more toward "chaotic" than 'evil' insofar as assigning any D&D alignment tags.
From all these years we have known by now that Durkon is more Lawful than good (roy is more good than lawful, so even if both are LG we see the differences)
Hilgya could perfectly be Chaotic Evil, but its more Chaotic than evil (while dungeon of dorukan belkar is more evil than chaotic). She is also shown as a Bad mother (by risking the life of the baby by bringing it with her, even if a possibility was offered).
Which is a bit of fresh air for once, from all those books the giant as almost always shown "mothers" as good and "Fathers" as bad, even if it wasn't done of purpose the trend wasn't looking good. (we know that the father figures portrayal on a story is usually to bring conflict with the protagonists.)
The portrayal of Hylgia so far meets all my expectations and I'm quite happy with the character as it has been shown, and want to see more of her in Durkon's arc. Especially waiting if she will throw back at durkon the words he used to part with her (Dwarves are about doing their duty. Even if it makes you miserable, especially in that case.)
Edit: Also the situation with the endangered baby will be more taxing personally for Roy, since we all knew how he feels about those things.
-
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fyraltari
Mind you, I know that this is going to restart the debate on Tarquin, but the first link, with Nale reacting with a: "What?" when Tarquin says he must defer to Malack's revenge, shows that Nale expects protection from Tarquin.
The same Tarquin that Nale tried to overthrow.
And usually people don't expect too much protection from other people who don't care for them and who they tried to mess up with.
Thus, all in all, I tend to think that Tarquin has helped/cared for Nale, in the past, as much as the trope "Emperor Ming the Merciless and his offspring" required.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
georgie_leech
Name one character in this comic that consistently does that :smalltongue:
*Delivers a package*
Sir, this is the internet you won.
-
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Honestly, I don't judge characters based on arbitrary social progress requisites or based off of group collective.
And this character is NUTS at the best of it. Even if a good argument could be made that the baby is safer with her (And there is one), going into danger instead of away from it, is no good argument.
-
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
aaaaawwwww :)
little baby tries turn undead :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:
so cute!!
I'll try to train it to my little five-months-boy!
-
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vendanna
Edit: Also the situation with the endangered baby will be more taxing personally for Roy, since we all knew how he feels about those things.
ooh, yeah, the Eric connection. Good call. :smallcool:
-
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
schmunzel
what exactly does Kudzu mean that Im not aware of?
It doesnt strike me as a very dwarvish sounding name.
I would have expected that as a name for an Orc.
sch
Yeah.... fun fact, in Tolkein, the name for the Dwarven language is Khuzdul. I'm not sure it would be better if that was intentional or not! :smallbiggrin:
-
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Themrys
Delusional? She states facts.
He did, in fact, cast her aside after he had his fun, and left her to raise the child he had impregnated her with alone.
That's what he did, and you cannot argue it away, much as you'd like to.
Her judgement of him is therefore totally justified. Remember that this is everything she knows about him, that he is the sort of man who would have unprotected sex with a woman and then tell her to go back to her husband, knowing full well that the baby won't have the husband's skin colour, even.
The chances of a single instance of unprotected intercourse resulting in a pregnancy, assuming two healthy humans of the appropriate configurations, is at most around 3% (down to near 0% at certain times). Can't say what the chance is for dwarves, but they're traditionally less fertile than humans. You could say that Durkon should have known there was a small chance he would end up a father and taken appropriate steps, but you can't say that he "knew full well" anything about a baby that was less likely than a natural 20.
-
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hroşila
I don't think anyone's arguing that Hilgya is "totally evil". Some people think the evidence points towards her being Chaotic Evil, but that doesn't mean everything she does is Evil or stems from Evilness. The reaction is not against people who claim Hilgya isn't Evil (many people have theorized she might be Neutral without eliciting a strong response), but against people who try to portray her as completely or almost completely innocent and, well, sane.
Personally, I'm wondering how much of her attitude with regards to Durkon is directly about Durkon, versus how much Ivan (and potential post-Durkons) are grouped together with Durkon in her mind.
-
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Yes, Hilgya's bitter. And not very accurate in her recollections of Durkon. But it appears she's satisfied to kill his undead form.
Even Belkar realizes she's out to lunch on her assessment of Durkon.
-
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kish
She starts off with legitimate reasons to be upset but instead of sitting down and figuring out what those reasons to be upset are and who it makes sense to blame, she decides the person in closest proximity is gratuitously evil and stops thinking about it.
Good catch. That's what's been consistent about her in her two appearances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vendanna
She is also shown as a Bad mother.
I'm not sure I'd go that far yet. The possibility is certainly there, but she could just be overprotective and only trust herself with her kid. I also think that taking the baby in battle is not a good decision but her argument of him being more safe with her isn't unreasonable. Maybe it's just a single instance of a bad decision instead of indifference. But I see what you mean.
I wonder if we'll finally get a bad mother in the comic or if both Durkon and Hilgya will face their flaws in this arc.
-
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vendanna
She is also shown as a Bad mother (by risking the life of the baby by bringing it with her, even if a possibility was offered).
Nonsense. Hilgya is a high level cleric, the class known mostly for powerful party-wide buffs, especially healing and protective spells. Keeping little Kudzu by her side is far safer than letting strangers take him.
Especialy when you have a low opinion of the opposing faith of said strangers. In her place I wouldn't put above said strangers to never give him back using a pretext like "the interest of the baby".
-
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cazero
Nonsense. Hilgya is a high level cleric, the class known mostly for powerful party-wide buffs, especially healing and protective spells. Keeping little Kudzu by her side is far safer than letting strangers take him.
You know what is even safer? NOT going into battle with Kudzu. She is voluntarily choosing to go hunt vampires with a baby strapped to her front. I don't care how much she can protect the kid, she could choose NOT to walk towards battle.
I gave her a pass in the previous comic because she had no way of knowing she was about to face vampires while walking from a dwarven town to the town's Temple of Thor. But now she does know, and she still chooses to take her child into battle. Like everything else she says and does in the page, it reflects very poorly on her decision making and train of thought.
Grey Wolf
-
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Themrys
You willingly, happily believe that Hilgya, a woman who FAILED to murder ONE husband she was FORCED to marry, would mistreat her child, when Tarquin, a multiple murderer of wives he himself had chosen, is at the very least implied to not have mistreated his son (beyond raising him to be evil).
Where exactly is it implied that Tarquin didn't mistreat Nale? Is it the part where Tarquin straight up stabs him to death with a knife? Is it where we see Tarquin's treatment of Elan including things like stabbing him to hurt Roy while commenting that he'll live? What about Tarquin putting a bounty on Nale's head that included paying out when dead?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Riftwolf
Wasn't directly referring to the forums, but now you mention it there seems to be a lot of 'demon/saint' arguing going on. I find it interesting that Hilgya, who so far has been shown to have legit reasons to be angry at Durkon and has shown certain amounts of protectiveness and care to her child, is totally evil because of one bitter exchange, while Tarquin, a deluded, tunnel-vision psychopath wearing black and red armour while secretly ruling a proxy tyranny, is considered nuanced.
Agreed. Hilgya is a deeply irrational person who makes bad decisions, which is entirely unexpected given that her involvement thus far has been as a member of the Linear Guild - where fitting that description seems to be a key prerequisite for membership, with Nale being somewhere between an exemplar of and the platonic form for those traits. We've seen no indication of malice towards her baby, and we have seen her fiercely (if not wisely) protective of little Kudzu.
Tarquin meanwhile is easily one of the single most vile people depicted in the comic, right up there with Malack and Xykon.
-
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Knaight
which is entirely unexpected
I'm guessing this was meant to be "isn't entirely unexpected" or possibly "is entirely to be expected"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Knaight
Nale being somewhere between an exemplar of and the platonic form for those traits.
I love this phrasing. I may have to steal it for future paraphrasing.
GW
-
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
With warmest regards, grey wolf, and in response to this:
Quote:
You know what is even safer? NOT going into battle with Kudzu. She is voluntarily choosing to go hunt vampires with a baby strapped to her front. I don't care how much she can protect the kid, she could choose NOT to walk towards battle.
I will argue Narrative imperative. (We have previously covered the issue of She Has Magic which RL mothers do not have)
Back to Narrative Imperative.
It strikes me that this baby, Kudzu, is a necessary part of the encounter with Durkula since Durkon will see through Durkula's eyes this fruit of his loins. His son.
Some time back Durkon indicated that he'd be resisting Durkula, and I think that this will provide improved motive/spark to his internal resistance in whatever form that comes.
I admit that I am making a prediction, and many of us have erred when predicting where Rich will go with the story. But that's my prediction.
-
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KorvinStarmast
With warmest regards, grey wolf, and in response to this:
I will argue Narrative imperative. (We have previously covered the issue of She Has Magic which RL mothers do not have)
She ain't Tarquin or Elan, though, so absent any further evidence in that direction, I doubt she is making the decision to put her baby in harm's way because it makes for a better story.
Yes, I could agree in principle that the story requires her to take Kudzu* into battle for there to be a happy ending for Elan, but I think it still reflects poorly on her decision making. I.e. I do not think it excuses her decision.
Grey Wolf
*btw, I'm not sold on Kudzu being male, baby beard notwithstanding
-
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grey_Wolf_c
She ain't Tarquin or Elan, though, so absent any further evidence in that direction, I doubt she is making the decision to put her baby in harm's way because it makes for a better story.
Two separate points.
(1) She takes her baby to work each day, and because she's a cleric, she can protect the baby in a way RL mothers can't. I am not of the party to find her taking baby to work vile, since I am sure Rich will not kill the baby.
(2) I thus brought up Narrative Imperative solely to think through what the story will do, under the author's hand, and not what this character will do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grey_Wolf_c
Yes, I could agree in principle that the story requires her to take Kudzu (btw, I'm not sold on Kudzu being male) into battle for there to be a happy ending for Elan, but I think it still reflects poorly on her decision making. I.e. I do not think it excuses her decision.
(1) Indeed, might be a female baby, the beard is why I refer to Kudzu as he.
(2) I don't think her decision is a poor one because
(a) Magic protection (
Sanctuary, if nothing else, if it can be cast "only on the baby" rather than on an area ... not all up on 3.5 in that regard)
(b) My trust in Rich to not have baby killing as part of the meeting with Durkon.