OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread

[Rogar Demonblud]

Are there Genasi in 3.5e? Those are a crossbreed between human and an elemental ... 5e has them as part of the elemental evil campaign, but I can't find them in the 3.5 SRD.

That's because they're product identity, and thus not included in the SRD. IMS, genasi started in Planescape in AD&D2E and got adapted to 3.x in a Dragon article.

[The MunchKING]

Vampires don't get +8 HD, or +anything HD. ECL is not hit dice and has nothing to do with turning.

While that is certainly true, they do get +4 Turn Resistance over their normal HD.

[KorvinStarmast]

That's because they're product identity, and thus not included in the SRD. IMS, genasi started in Planescape in AD&D2E and got adapted to 3.x in a Dragon article.

Ah, thanks Rogar.

[a1chemi]

Given her attitude towards acting honorably, nothing the Order does or does not do will stop her from practically volunteering to become Hel's chewtoy when her end finally comes. But hey, that's her choice and that's what freedom is all about.

More concerning to me is if she'll neglect to teach Kudzu what happens to dwarven souls if they die without honor.

GW

You're taking an awfully specific Durkon-centric view of honor. We've seen that not all dwarves share his strict view in the subject.

Nothing in her current course of action would be reasonably considered dishonorable anyway. If she dies fighting vampires and protecting her child, even if that wasn't the most effective way to achieving either aim, it would certainly be an honorable death.

It's not gonna come to that though, cuz that baby might as well have a million hit points and a God's spell resistance.

[Stabbey]

It's not gonna come to that though, cuz that baby might as well have a million hit points and a God's spell resistance.

This. Roy objected to her taking the baby, she said it was none of his business. Roy pointed out that taking the baby was dangerous - and it is - but I am pretty confident that the baby won't be killed or even targeted unless for the sake of maximum drama (which to be fair, is not unlikely).

So I find the discussion on whether or not it's dangerous to be pretty irrelevant.

[are]

I just had a few more thoughts about how this interaction with Hilgya might play out from a story perspective. I think there are several puzzle pieces that have been raised in dialogue that are just itching to all fit together:

When a new vampire spirit springs into existence, the first memories it absorbs are the lowest, darkest moments of the host's life.

My mum taught me tha' I should always take feelings like that, and bury them inna deep dark part o' my soul and nev'r ev'r talk about 'em again.

I shouldn't be so surprised that a man so deeply unscrupulous would embrace such a descent into unnatural depravity.

Seems to me like:

1. Hilgya wants to believe that Durkon is an awful, malicious monster.
2. Durkula will do nothing to disabuse her of that notion; in fact, he's likely to bring up the memories of Durkon and Hilgya's time together to try and needle her.
3. She'll get to beat up on the personification of her worst beliefs about Durkon until he's dead.
4. This is a chance to exorcise all of those personal demons, and gives her a chance to verbally unburden herself while Durkon can do nothing but helplessly watch.
5. Durkon is chastened, learns something about his treatment of her from her perspective, and, upon resurrection, is able to apologize in and take responsibility in a way that's cathartic to both of them.

Or maybe that's hoping too much.

[8BitNinja]

Are paladins allowed to have a sense of humor?

Contrary to popular belief, they can.

From the Holy Code of Chivalry Article 12, Paragraph 7, Clause 13b clearly states:

A Paladin, being a being blest by the most holy gods with high charisma scores, mayest possess a sense of humor. Paladins art permitted to speakest in jest. Moreover, he mayest also, in a gesture of being nay a stick in the mud and finding humor in the jest of a companion, mayest partake in laughter. For laughter both pleaseth the gods and mortals.

We had to memorize the entire code just to become a squire. It was a pain.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

You're taking an awfully specific Durkon-centric view of honor. We've seen that not all dwarves share his strict view in the subject.

No. We have seen one dwarf, Hilgya, who doesn't want to act honorably, but that doesn't mean she doesn't share the strict view - just that she rejects it. Beyond that I am taking the author's description of dwarven honor.

Nothing in her current course of action would be reasonably considered dishonorable anyway.

Irrelevant, since I am not talking about her current actions with regard to honor, but her general outlook and general life philosophy. Just like most dwarves attempt to live with honor so when they do die they hopefully do so in the middle of acting honorably, Hilgya's "reject dwarven honor ways" means she has a very high probability of dying at a time when she is not acting honorably, and thus end in Hel's clutches.

If she dies fighting vampires and protecting her child, even if that wasn't the most effective way to achieving either aim, it would certainly be an honorable death.

Maybe, but as Rich said "[A] dwarf can live their life like a selfish coward and hope to wiggle out in the end". Hilgya is actively rejecting honorable conduct except when it happens to match her own selfish goals. Most of the time, she is NOT acting honorably, and therefore chances are she'll die while NOT acting honorably.

It's not gonna come to that though, cuz that baby might as well have a million hit points and a God's spell resistance.

Why don't you tell that to the hundreds of babies V killed. Where they too under this magical protection you are so sure defends Kudzu? Also, does Hilgya know this?

And even if he is protected right now, how is this in any way an answer to my original points?
1) She is a terrible mother for taking her baby into combat for no reason other than to satisfy her desire for revenge. This is independent of dwarven culture. Taking any individual incapable of defending themselves or giving consent into a battle is a terrible thing to do.
2) If they both survive, and she doesn't teach him dwarven honor, she is risking him ending in Hel.

This. Roy objected to her taking the baby, she said it was none of his business. Roy pointed out that taking the baby was dangerous - and it is - but I am pretty confident that the baby won't be killed or even targeted unless for the sake of maximum drama (which to be fair, is not unlikely).

Yes, and all the black dragon babies are fine, I'm sure. Including those we saw blasted while still in their eggs. Oh wait, no. There is no magical story protection for babies in this story.

So I find the discussion on whether or not it's dangerous to be pretty irrelevant.

Then don't participate. But I find the argument "nothing is gonna happen to the baby because this is a story" a really weak counter-argument to the claim "a parent taking a baby in to combat when they could walk away from the combat is a terrible parent". In fact, it is not a counter argument at all.

This isn't a prediction about what is about to happen. This is a moral judgement on a character, and the moral judgement remains whether or not something bad happens in the future.

Grey Wolf

[are]

Then don't participate. But I find the argument "nothing is gonna happen to the baby because this is a story" a really weak counter-argument to the claim "a parent taking a baby in to combat when they could walk away from the combat is a terrible parent". In fact, it is not a counter argument at all.

This isn't a prediction about what is about to happen. This is a moral judgement on a character, and the moral judgement remains whether or not something bad happens in the future.

Perhaps I'm misreading what was said above, but it doesn't seem like any of those points directly contradicts your claim that Hilgya is a terrible mother for bringing her child into a battle. Stabbey and alchem1 seem to be speculating about what will happen in the near future, but I don't read that as a rejection of the idea that it is bad parenting to subject your infant to flame strikes.

Her poor judgement seems pretty clearly imputed in the text, and it's well justified. Hilgya is the type to hold personal freedom sacred and exaggerate the extent of her oppression by others, leading to a warped value system which places the safety of her child somewhere around the middle to bottom of her list of priorities. Not sure how anyone could argue that that isn't the case.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Perhaps I'm misreading what was said above, but it doesn't seem like any of those points directly contradicts your claim that Hilgya is a terrible mother for bringing her child into a battle.[...] Not sure how anyone could argue that that isn't the case.

Heck if I know, but they quoted my post and addressed me directly, so one must assume they feel they are addressing my argument. As to how they are arguing, it seems to reduce to "I don't think the author is going to kill the baby, therefore nothing Hilgya is doing is really putting him in danger".

GW

[Dr.Zero]

Some point about dwarven and Hylgia's honour.

1. Living "honorably" matters? Apparently not so much. According to Hel's plan what really does matter is why you die: the reason or the way.
   Do you need in-universe proofs? Here we go.
   Now, if living "honorably" granted to the dwarfs to avoid Hel if they died without fighting, the whole plan that Hel has thought would be moot.
   "Ah, now all the souls of the dwarfs will be mine!"
   "Well, no, they lived honorably. So we can say they died with their honor intact. And you're a moron."
   
   But Hel clearly doesn't think that it works this way, so either she is really a moron or you can live as much as "honorably" as you like, but if the direct cause of your death is not in itself honorably, you're screwed.
   (And, btw, this is well known from the start, since else there would not be a need for who lived honorably their whole lives to pick a fight with a conifer and to die in the middle of the more idiotic battle possible)
   Thus, so much for the "living your whole life with honor to be safe"-theory. I can't see a validation of that theory in-universe, even if it comes from the author himself.
   
   At least if with "honor" we accept the durkonesque "obey to the tradition".
   If with "honor" we go instead with "always fight and never give up, so you'll probably die in the middle of a battle or of something heroic" then sure, it works. But it has nothing to do with the tradition. So nothing to do with what Hylgia does.
   On the contrary, being her an adventurer, she has way better chances of dying during a fight respect to the dwarf commoners.
2. Here we go with the a point regarding strictly Hylgia. It might be me, but I still cannot find anything dishonorable in giving the finger to people who wants to coerce you in marriage.
3. Now about dwarven society, lawful, chaotic, evil and good: I pointed it out already, but Thor has the "normal deal" regarding the dwarfs, according to Hel's flashback. The prominent role that he has in dwarven society (as long as we give for granted that he has a prominent role respect to, say, Odin and Loki) is something he worked for, through his church, not something which comes from the bet. But dwarfs can very well be chaotic or evil and die with honor, going then to the plane matching their alignment.
   So, even there, "dying with honor" is not "dying doing something lawful good" and even less "dying doing something lawful good after being lawful good your whole life", because else there is no reason for Durkon to confirm Malack's statement about dwarfs going to plane matching their alignment: he would have said something on the line of: "No, who dies with honor goes with Thor, everyone else with Hel."
4. So, all in all, whatever she has done, she has not a bit more of a chance to end up as "Hel's chewtoy" than Durkon. Or, if you prefer to read it the other way around, all the respect Durkon has for tradition doesn't grant him any advantage about avoiding Hel: what saved him, was that he died during a fight.

[Fyraltari]

Living "honorably" matters? Apparently not so much. According to Hel's plan what really does matter is why you die: the reason or the way.
Do you need in-universe proofs? Here we go.
Now, if living "honorably" granted to the dwarfs to avoid Hel if they died without fighting, the whole plan that Hel has thought would be moot.
"Ah, now all the souls of the dwarfs will be mine!"
"Well, no, they lived honorably. So we can say they died with their honor intact. And you're a moron."

But Hel clearly doesn't think that it works this way, so either she is really a moron or you can live as much as "honorably" as you like, but if the direct cause of your death is not in itself honorably, you're screwed.
(And, btw, this is well known from the start, since else there would not be a need for who lived honorably their whole lives to pick a fight with a conifer and to die in the middle of the more idiotic battle possible)
Thus, so much for the "living your whole life with honor to be safe"-theory. I can't see a validation of that theory in-universe, even if it comes from the author himself.

"Living with honor" is basically like looking right and left before crossing the street, most of the time there is no need to do it since there was no danger but if you do it when there is then you are glad to have done it (and if you didn't do it the one time you needed to, then you won't live to regret it).
Basically, you can die at any moment be it from surprise monster attack, a cave-in or good old fashioned heart failure, so the more you act honorably all the time, the more likely you are to die with honor.

Hel's plan works because even with that logic there isn't so much you can do honorably during your daily life. If the world ends, how many dwarves will be cleaning up the dishes, playing go fish or getting hammered vs how many will be rescuing orphans from burning buildings?

[Mad Humanist]

Heck if I know, but they quoted my post and addressed me directly, so one must assume they feel they are addressing my argument. As to how they are arguing, it seems to reduce to "I don't think the author is going to kill the baby, therefore nothing Hilgya is doing is really putting him in danger".

GW

The baby has a name. Isn't that a high-level abjuration spell in this universe?

[Dr.Zero]

"Living with honor" is basically like looking right and left before crossing the street, most of the time there is no need to do it since there was no danger but if you do it when there is then you are glad to have done it (and if you didn't do it the one time you needed to, then you won't live to regret it).
Basically, you can die at any moment be it from surprise monster attack, a cave-in or good old fashioned heart failure, so the more you act honorably all the time, the more likely you are to die with honor.

Hel's plan works because even with that logic there isn't so much you can do honorably during your daily life. If the world ends, how many dwarves will be cleaning up the dishes, playing go fish or getting hammered vs how many will be rescuing orphans from burning buildings?

Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly, but this is exactly my point to prove that "following traditions" has nothing to do with the "dying honorably" the dwarfs must respect to avoid Hel.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly, but this is exactly my point to prove that "following traditions" has nothing to do with the "dying honorably" the dwarfs must respect to avoid Hel.

What you call "traditions" are honorable conducts. A dwarf that is "following traditions" is behaving honorably, because they are common honorable actions that dwarves have performed so consistently over so long a time they have become traditions. To take Fyraltari's example, it's "tradition" to look both sides before crossing the road. So they have everything to do with avoiding Hel, because by constantly acting honorably, when they die, they are more likely than not acting honorably.

Or to extend Rich's own explanation, a dwarven politician that gets assassinated for his views does die honorably if he wasn't corrupt or dealing under the table, or doing any other dishonorable thing.

Grey Wolf

[Dr.Zero]

What you call "traditions" are honorable conducts. A dwarf that is "following traditions" is behaving honorably, because they are common honorable actions that dwarves have performed so consistently over so long a time they have become traditions. To take Fyraltari's example, it's "tradition" to look both sides before crossing the road. So they have everything to do with avoiding Hel, because by constantly acting honorably, when they die, they are more likely than not acting honorably.

Or to extend Rich's own explanation, a dwarven politician that gets assassinated for his views does die honorably if he wasn't corrupt or dealing under the table, or doing any other dishonorable thing.

Grey Wolf

Excuse me if I'm blunt, but this is a great mess of entangled definitions, which in a discussion is like casting "obscuring mist".
Which is what I was trying to untie with that long post above.

So, let's try again, trying to be shorter.

Traditions are by definition long established customs. If following long established customs was enough, Hel would be screwed (at least by all Thor's followers, proably even by Odin's).

Then, between these long established customs, there are some, like dying fighting (with a tree, for example), which avoid to go to Hel. Is it a subclass of a dwarven tradition? Sure. Is it because it is a tradition that the dwarfs avoid to go to Hel? No.

Therefore, following traditions in itself is not what saves the dwarfs.

If Durkon's mom, who presumably has followed traditions for her whole life, dies because the world is destroyed or because she gets a sudden and very fast developing chicken flu from some infected poultry she cooks, and has no time to pick a fight with a tree, she goes to Hel. Full stop.
Again, if this was not the way things worked, Hel's plan would not work for the whole dwarven population.

So, again, following dwarven traditions, in itself, has no merit.

Finally, again, if acting evil or chaotic was in itself something impeding an honorable death, then there would be no sense in Durkon confirming that only dwarfs who die with honor go to the plane matching their alignment (which, mind you, is not synonymous to go to the heavens, so being lawful good might have an appeal in itself, for the final reward).
If the "die with honor" had worked only for lawful goods, I full expect that Durkon would have corrected Malack even on that point.

All of this is based on in-universe lore.

Calling "acting in a not honorable way" an act like giving the finger to traditions and ignoring a (coerced) marriage is a durkonesque point of view which is related to him being Lawful, but has no relation with the souls going to Hel or not. So talking about "living honorably" from a lawful point of view and mixing it with the "dying with honor" which saves dwarfs from Hel makes only a great mess.

If then, when Rich wrote his commentary, which I have no will to analyze, he had not completely laid out the rules of his own universe, honestly this doesn't matter.

(If instead, by chance, the commentary has been written after all the Hel's plan and whatever, because he was appalled by the fact that the rules of this universe avoid Hel to ruthless adult Klingons's warriors, while they condemn peaceful Vulcans' children who die of sickness without having the time or the strength to pick a fight with a tree, this again doesn't matter, as long as this is not translated in in-universe lore).

[KorvinStarmast]

Are paladins allowed to have a sense of humor?

Not sure about in 3.x (in OoTSland, Lien and O'Chul have each their own sense of humor). In 5e the Order of the Ancients Paladin most certainly comes off as a hail fellow/hail lady well met. Sense of humor and a joie de vivre are part of the package.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Excuse me if I'm blunt, but this is a great mess of entangled definitions, which in a discussion is like casting "obscuring mist".
Which is what I was trying to untie with that long post above.<snip>

No. You are wrong. Dwarven traditions are born of the necessities of avoiding Hel. Everything about their daily lives is built around acting honorably all the time to avoid ending in Hel. This is what the author has said they are.

You redefining "traditions" to mean something else is irrelevant, because that is not what traditions mean to a dwarf. You are the one redefining terms to suit your opinion.

If then, when Rich wrote his commentary, which I have no will to analyze, he had not completely laid out the rules of his own universe, honestly this doesn't matter.

It does matter. And it furthermore it matters even more that you seem to have no ability to read a post I've linked at least three times in the last week, but have the time to make up your own definition of dwarven culture as if it changed anything.

You are not the writer. If in your story about dwarves you too have a system where dying dishonorably leads to torture, and you want to define it like you have, bully for you. But that description does not fit the story we are actually discussing. Dwarves can die outside battle, while behaving honorably, and avoid Hel. They can die of exposure while delivering critical supplies and not go to Hel. They can be assassinated for their political views and not go to Hel. They can die of an infection, and avoid Hel because they contracted it from saving an orphanage. They can be dragged off a mountain while trying to save another dwarf and avoid Hel. Your entire premise, that "only death in battle counts" is in a word, wrong.

Rich has said that acting honorably all the time is how dwarves avoid going to Hel. That is the short of it. Durkon wanting to act honorably all the time is not a quirk of Durkon, no matter how many times you unilaterally declare it to be so. It is a reality for all dwarves, and Hilgya is the one throwing caution to the wind, and attempting to drag Durkon with her.

Grey Wolf

[Rogar Demonblud]

I think Dr Zero's point is that the tradition of living honorably so as to avoid Hel doesn't work if the divine plan to end the world means every dwarf immediately goes to Hel. Presumably, most of them are following the honor traditions, but they still go to Hel.

I think the divine plan is actually short circuiting the die with honor thing, possibly because being smote by the gods is considered dishonorable. Rich will explain if it's important to the story.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I think Dr Zero's point is that the tradition of living honorably so as to avoid Hel doesn't work if the divine plan to end the world means every dwarf immediately goes to Hel. Presumably, most of them are following the honor traditions, but they still go to Hel.

I do not believe that is his point at all.

I think the divine plan is actually short circuiting the die with honor thing, possibly because being smote by the gods is considered dishonorable. Rich will explain if it's important to the story.

He has. Being smote by the gods is dishonorable because it is not a consequence of the dwarves' actions. If you die while acting honorably because of said action (saving someone, or delivering supplies, or because you are advocating for better mining conditions or lower taxes or whatever), you died as a consequence of acting honorably.

But if you are in the middle of all that and die because the gods are scared of facing the Snarl, then your actions were honorable, but unrelated to your death, and thus don't count.

GW

[Kish]

I think Grey Wolf's point is that you cannot separate out "their culture dictates they live by an honor code" from "nearly all die with honor." That if dwarves in general adopted the attitude that they don't have to care about traditions and can do what they like as long as they sacrifice themselves nobly when they're at the point of death, then in an amazing coincidence which no one could predict, the state of the dwarven afterlife would suddenly change to the "nearly all go to Hel" framework that Hel expected when she made the bet with Thor. Because someone who lived his entire life by "I have an inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness" will not walk out into a blizzard joke/bragging that he would die to save his companion before she died to save him, even if he's spent decades telling himself that he will.

I think probably Rich will treat the parting scene as putting Durkon more in the wrong than having reasoned all that through, though. He (Rich, not Durkon) did explicitly say at the time that he tried to give both of them an understandable perspective.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I think Grey Wolf's point is that you cannot separate out "their culture dictates they live by an honor code" from "nearly all die with honor." That if dwarves in general adopted the attitude that they don't have to care about traditions and can do what they like as long as they sacrifice themselves nobly when they're at the point of death, then in an amazing coincidence which no one could predict, the state of the dwarven afterlife would suddenly change to the "nearly all go to Hel" framework that Hel expected when she made the bet with Thor. Because someone who lived his entire life by "I have an inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness" will not walk out into a blizzard joke/bragging that he would die to save his companion before she died to save him, even if he's spent decades telling himself that he will.

I am Grey Wolf, and I approve of this message.

Also, I have to say, that an important thing to consider is that Rich approached this from the other way round. He has a dwarf acting in a manner consistent with "all dwarves are the same" trope. He decided, probably after strip #100, when he sat down to actually craft a plot, that he needed a reason why an entire culture would behave in a honorable way at all times. And rather than just make it "because that's how dwarves are always depicted", he decided that it was because behaving otherwise endangered their afterlives. Which is an interesting twist to the usual "because that's how dwarves are".

Everything else flows from that - a post-hoc justification for why dwarves are the way the are not just in OotS but in pretty much every other fantasy story that has dwarves in it.

Grey Wolf

[Jasdoif]

I think Grey Wolf's point is that you cannot separate out "their culture dictates they live by an honor code" from "nearly all die with honor."

This part sounds really familiar...oh right.

....no, because the proper solution is actually, "Live a life of honor and service to your fellow dwarf so that whenever you happen to die, you'll be in the middle of acting honorably." Yes, a dwarf can live their life like a selfish coward and hope to wiggle out in the end, but most dwarves don't do that. In fact, many dwarves probably live their lives as they wish and let the chips fall where they may with regard to their death, trusting their gods will give them the opportunity to act honorably when the moment is upon them. Many dwarves probably resign themselves to their fate in Hel anyway, because they would view "gaming the system" as cheating.

Dwarves live for hundreds of years. During that lifespan, there will be at least some moments where they have the choice to either act boldly and (possibly) die with honor, or act cautiously and live. Their knowledge of their afterlife will therefore encourage the majority of dwarves to pick the former, and if they find themselves having picked the latter too many times an end up old and dying, well, then there are causes they can pledge themselves to for that last hurrah. That doesn't mean they walk into an orc camp unarmed and get cut down, it means they keep fighting orcs past the point when they should retreat.

Basically, everyone's talking about the few dwarves who don't act like dwarves their entire life and somehow manage to get to be old and infirm. They're outliers at best.

(I realize this one's been linked to already, but I didn't see it directly included...possibly because accurately quoting from a closed thread is a bit of a hassle, what with manually putting in the post id and formatting tags)

[Grey_Wolf_c]

This part sounds really familiar...oh right.(I realize this one's been linked to already, but I didn't see it directly included...possibly because accurately quoting from a closed thread is a bit of a hassle, what with manually putting in the post id and formatting tags)

I've actually quoted (i.e. not just linked) the first paragraph at least a couple of times, but heck if I can remember in which threads right now. It might not have been this one. As you and Kish surmised, it does form the core of my position.

GW

[brian 333]

Honorable? Dishonorable? Those are just words. Words to which the speaker attaches his own definition.

Durkon could die and go to Hel because he believes his death dishonorable. I doubt Hilgya shares his disability.

You see, Hilgya believes she is acting in the proper fashion for a dwarven priestess of Loki. She doesn't suffer dishonor because she doesn't accept the validity of Durkon's honor code.

The Giant has made it clear that belief matters. Hilgya doesn't believe she is constrained by dwarven honor, and Loki agrees. Although The L-man does enjoy a good joke, he's not about to give up his clerics and lay worshippers to his daughter for the act of defying Thor.

[unbeliever536]

Honorable? Dishonorable? Those are just words. Words to which the speaker attaches his own definition.

Durkon could die and go to Hel because he believes his death dishonorable. I doubt Hilgya shares his disability.

You see, Hilgya believes she is acting in the proper fashion for a dwarven priestess of Loki. She doesn't suffer dishonor because she doesn't accept the validity of Durkon's honor code.

The Giant has made it clear that belief matters. Hilgya doesn't believe she is constrained by dwarven honor, and Loki agrees. Although The L-man does enjoy a good joke, he's not about to give up his clerics and lay worshippers to his daughter for the act of defying Thor.

In a world where there is an external metaphysical adjudication that tells you whether you are Good or Evil and said concepts are manifest forces acting on the universe, I find it highly unlikely that the honor-adjudication for dwarves has anything to do with the dwarf's personal beliefs about what constitutes honorable conduct.

Note also that Hilgya is the only dwarven cleric of Loki that we've seen in the entire run of the comic, despite two other encounters with his church.

Hilgya doesn't believe she is constrained by dwarven honor, and there is no evidence that this will have any effect on the disposition of her soul after her death.

[hamishspence]

That's because they're product identity, and thus not included in the SRD. IMS, genasi started in Planescape in AD&D2E and got adapted to 3.x in a Dragon article.

They were in the 3.0 books Monsters of Faerun and (quite a bit later) Races of Faerun, at least.

[a1chemi]

No. You are wrong. Dwarven traditions are born of the necessities of avoiding Hel. Everything about their daily lives is built around acting honorably all the time to avoid ending in Hel. This is what the author has said they are.

You redefining "traditions" to mean something else is irrelevant, because that is not what traditions mean to a dwarf. You are the one redefining terms to suit your opinion.


It does matter. And it furthermore it matters even more that you seem to have no ability to read a post I've linked at least three times in the last week, but have the time to make up your own definition of dwarven culture as if it changed anything.

You are not the writer. If in your story about dwarves you too have a system where dying dishonorably leads to torture, and you want to define it like you have, bully for you. But that description does not fit the story we are actually discussing. Dwarves can die outside battle, while behaving honorably, and avoid Hel. They can die of exposure while delivering critical supplies and not go to Hel. They can be assassinated for their political views and not go to Hel. They can die of an infection, and avoid Hel because they contracted it from saving an orphanage. They can be dragged off a mountain while trying to save another dwarf and avoid Hel. Your entire premise, that "only death in battle counts" is in a word, wrong.

Rich has said that acting honorably all the time is how dwarves avoid going to Hel. That is the short of it. Durkon wanting to act honorably all the time is not a quirk of Durkon, no matter how many times you unilaterally declare it to be so. It is a reality for all dwarves, and Hilgya is the one throwing caution to the wind, and attempting to drag Durkon with her.

Grey Wolf

No you are wrong!

But seriously, your argument is not logical. Yes we know that dwarven tradition is build on being honorable. That does NOT mean that ignoring tradition makes you dishonorable. You are trying to extend the cause of the dwarven tradition to the result.

Rich's specific example of a "selfish coward" doesn't even apply to Hilgya. She is certainly not a coward. Being selfish or selfless has nothing to do with honor by itself. A selfish coward is simply an easy example of a person who would act dishonorably because they would cheat to get their way rather than stand up for themselves.

[Fyraltari]

Honorable? Dishonorable? Those are just words. Words to which the speaker attaches his own definition.

Durkon could die and go to Hel because he believes his death dishonorable. I doubt Hilgya shares his disability.

You see, Hilgya believes she is acting in the proper fashion for a dwarven priestess of Loki. She doesn't suffer dishonor because she doesn't accept the validity of Durkon's honor code.

The Giant has made it clear that belief matters. Hilgya doesn't believe she is constrained by dwarven honor, and Loki agrees. Although The L-man does enjoy a good joke, he's not about to give up his clerics and lay worshippers to his daughter for the act of defying Thor.

Not quite.

Pretty much this. A human can worship Thor if he wants, certainly, but he is much more popular among the dwarves. Hel is specifically the goddess of the dishonored dead, which requires a system of honor/dishonor that really only applies to the dwarves and those humans that choose to believe in such things. If Haley died of disease, she wouldn't go to Hel because she wouldn't believe that she had been dishonored.

What a human blieves is important, what a dwarf does is not. That's what default dominion means.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

But seriously, your argument is not logical. Yes we know that dwarven tradition is build on being honorable. That does NOT mean that ignoring tradition makes you dishonorable. You are trying to extend the cause of the dwarven tradition to the result.

The Dwarven Honor Tradition was created with the exclusive purpose to save dwarves from Hel, and by all accounts it has been extremely successful. From this premise it follows that anything dwarven tradition calls for is honorable, and everything honorable has become a dwarven tradition. I fail to see why you feel that this is not a logical conclusion from the facts.

Being selfish or selfless has nothing to do with honor by itself.

In OotS it does, as per Rich's words. Selfish people do not take up chances to act with honor out of self-preservation. From this it stands that self-preservation is not honorable. It might not be dishonorable, but hard luck for the dwarves, "neutral honor" actions aren't good enough. They have to be honorable - and that means sacrificing yourself for others, the very definition of selflessness.

Grey Wolf