OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread

[Kish]

I am skeptical that being carried up to a vampire, as a helpless baby, counts as "honorable" in some way that having the vampire come to you instead does not.

Unless the implication is that Kudzu will automatically go to the same place his mother goes (Rich indicated something of that nature for other afterlives) and so the important thing is that Hilgya herself not shy away from combat.

[Kantaki]

I am skeptical that being carried up to a vampire, as a helpless baby, counts as "honorable" in some way that having the vampire come to you instead does not.

Unless the implication is that Kudzu will automatically go to the same place his mother goes (Rich indicated something of that nature for other afterlives) and so the important thing is that Hilgya herself not shy away from combat.

I'm pretty sure if he manages to whack the leech a few times

No, wait. That sounds vaguely wrong.

Anyway, if Kudzu manages that, with a toy or something, then Thor most likely can argue something up to save him from Auntie Hel.

[Fyraltari]

I'm pretty sure if he manages to whack the leech a few times

No, wait. That sounds vaguely wrong.

Anyway, if Kudzu manages that, with a toy or something, then Thor most likely can argue something up to save him from Auntie Hel.

Unless the vampire feels thirsty and then it's a moot point anyway.

[jokem]

Alignment changes don't occur at the drop of a hat, and theres no evidence that she isn't evil now besides her turning undead instead of rebuking it. Since she still wants to murder a guy for an imagined slight, id say shes still evil.

What I am stuck on is the Lawful aspect of this. A Lawful person would expect someone to live up to their family obligations, a Chaotic person would not be surprised if someone followed their whims. So Hilgya being driven to slay the father of her child for running out on her is not very Chaotic to me.
But then, the few times Loki has appeared in OOTS has not been marked by Chaotic or Evil actions to my way of thinking.

Does anyone else see what I see?

[The MunchKING]

What I am stuck on is the Lawful aspect of this. A Lawful person would expect someone to live up to their family obligations, a Chaotic person would not be surprised if someone followed their whims. So Hilgya being driven to slay the father of her child for running out on her is not very Chaotic to me.
But then, the few times Loki has appeared in OOTS has not been marked by Chaotic or Evil actions to my way of thinking.

Does anyone else see what I see?

I think it's less family obligations as a wider category and more "He ran out on ME!" that so enraged her. So while Chaotic enough to assume he's following his own path for leaving her, she's still selfishly assuming it's all about her, rather than just not knowing about it.

[The_Weirdo]

Alignment changes don't occur at the drop of a hat, and theres no evidence that she isn't evil now besides her turning undead instead of rebuking it. Since she still wants to murder a guy for an imagined slight, id say shes still evil.

You have claimed in the past that Hilgya walked out on Ivan out of fear of commitment.

Now you call walking out on parental obligations (which she seemingly has good reason to assume Durkon did, as Sending is a Cleric spell and she's been obsessing about him, so it stands to reason she used it) an imagined slight.

Would you care to explain the discrepancy?

[The_Weirdo]

I think it's less family obligations as a wider category and more "He ran out on ME!" that so enraged her. So while Chaotic enough to assume he's following his own path for leaving her, she's still selfishly assuming it's all about her, rather than just not knowing about it.

Chaotics don't fail to take personal responsibility; rather, they are VERY specific about what constitutes personal responsibility.

[Bob_McSurly]

You have claimed in the past that Hilgya walked out on Ivan out of fear of commitment.

Now you call walking out on parental obligations (which she seemingly has good reason to assume Durkon did, as Sending is a Cleric spell and she's been obsessing about him, so it stands to reason she used it) an imagined slight.

Would you care to explain the discrepancy?

Obviously I can't speak for Keltest, but I'm pretty sure a lot of us would say that he didn't walk out on parental obligations, because we have no evidence that he knew that Hilgya was pregant. And given that Durkon has consistently been characterized as being very Lawful, everything we know about him would suggest that if he had been contacted by Hilgya (and thus knew that she was pregnant), he would have gone to her immediately.

I guess you're free to assume that Hilgya contacted him, and he knew he was a father, and he didn't care because he is actually a total jerk, but I don't think that fits with the characterization that Rich has given Durkon so far.

[Riftwolf]

I guess you're free to assume that Hilgya contacted him, and he knew he was a father, and he didn't care because he is actually a total jerk, but I don't think that fits with the characterization that Rich has given Durkon so far.

If this twist is happening, it should've been signposted. I prefer the 'Hilgya didn't call because she didn't think there was reason to' line of thinking; it fits with her current level of bitterness. But then, I'm reverse-nostrodamus on these boards, so who knows.

[Keltest]

Obviously I can't speak for Keltest, but I'm pretty sure a lot of us would say that he didn't walk out on parental obligations, because we have no evidence that he knew that Hilgya was pregant. And given that Durkon has consistently been characterized as being very Lawful, everything we know about him would suggest that if he had been contacted by Hilgya (and thus knew that she was pregnant), he would have gone to her immediately.

I guess you're free to assume that Hilgya contacted him, and he knew he was a father, and he didn't care because he is actually a total jerk, but I don't think that fits with the characterization that Rich has given Durkon so far.

Yeah, this.

[jokem]

I think it's less family obligations as a wider category and more "He ran out on ME!" that so enraged her. So while Chaotic enough to assume he's following his own path for leaving her, she's still selfishly assuming it's all about her, rather than just not knowing about it.

Even so, I would expect a Chaotic type would at best (or worst) have mixed feelings about it, rather than going on a 'Crusade'. To me, her actions parallel what would be considered justifiable behavior in typical Dwarven Society, but not those of a Dwarven outcast.

[jokem]

Chaotics don't fail to take personal responsibility; rather, they are VERY specific about what constitutes personal responsibility.

Right, Chaotic Good types serve the good - Caring for the weak, such as their own child.
Chaotic Evil types look out for themselves, the weak, including their own child are there as long as it serves the interests of the parent.
Chaotic Neutrals are somewhere in between.

I don't see where any of that explains Hilgya's actions.

[The_Weirdo]

I guess you're free to assume that Hilgya contacted him, and he knew he was a father, and he didn't care because he is actually a total jerk, but I don't think that fits with the characterization that Rich has given Durkon so far.

No, no, my bad, I didn't clarify: maybe the Sendings were stopped for some reason. Divine interference, for one.

Even so, I would expect a Chaotic type would at best (or worst) have mixed feelings about it, rather than going on a 'Crusade'. To me, her actions parallel what would be considered justifiable behavior in typical Dwarven Society, but not those of a Dwarven outcast.

Well... Maybe it's the hypocrisy? He DID tell her to return to an (as far as he knew and as far as Hilgya felt) abusive husband that was thrust upon her (that part is an absolute FACT, Ivan could be a saint, but he WAS thrust upon her) by societal norms.

Even Evil people can have valid reasons for being pissed off at someone, especially someone that waxed lyrical about obligation and then - to their understanding - ran off on them.

[Kish]

I think assuming Hilgya either did or did not try to Send to Durkon is tantamount to making up evidence for Hilgya's goodness or badness, particularly if that assumption overtly hinges on "this is what a reasonable person would do so of course Hilgya did it" or "this is what a frothingly irrational person would do so of course Hilgya did it." The comic doesn't state either way.

[Fyraltari]

Right, Chaotic Good types serve the good - Caring for the weak, such as their own child.
Chaotic Evil types look out for themselves, the weak, including their own child are there as long as it serves the interests of the parent.
Chaotic Neutrals are somewhere in between.

I don't see where any of that explains Hilgya's actions.

I don't think holding a grudge is a factor on the Law-Chaos axis I would put that as a part of her Evil character.

[The_Weirdo]

Right, Chaotic Good types serve the good - Caring for the weak, such as their own child.
Chaotic Evil types look out for themselves, the weak, including their own child are there as long as it serves the interests of the parent.
Chaotic Neutrals are somewhere in between.

I don't see where any of that explains Hilgya's actions.

It could go like this:

1- When she went out to Thor's church, she didn't know there were vampires.
2- Now she does, but she's also been informed that these vampires need fighting and the world's at stake (no pun intended); her god also hates the undead and she also holds a grudge (however unfounded) against their leader: she needs to go fight the vampires now, she WANTS to go fight the vampires now and her god asks that she fights vampires when the chance presents itself. Would she still take a shot at Durkon if the world weren't at stake? Probably, but the "if" didn't happen there.
3- She then chooses not to leave Kudzu there for, presumably, two reasons, one valid and one not so: the valid one is if Kudzu faces a vampire that manages to enter Thor's church, it won't be a fight; it'll be a meal and Kudzu's soul will, thus, be forfeit. The non-valid one - which, to be fair, seems to be her main issue - is that she doesn't trust the church of Thor. Granted, the stated reason is the invalid one, but that's neither a here, nor a there.
4- That decision is backed up by the fact that she very much is a high-level Cleric and that Kudzu may, well, actually be safer with her than in the temple, which might well qualify as a third reason and may well be a valid one.

I think assuming Hilgya either did or did not try to Send to Durkon is tantamount to making up evidence for Hilgya's goodness or badness, particularly if that assumption overtly hinges on "this is what a reasonable person would do so of course Hilgya did it" or "this is what a frothingly irrational person would do so of course Hilgya did it." The comic doesn't state either way.

Well, I'm not assuming, but if she's obsessed about Durkon to the point of praying to meet him, wouldn't it stand to reason?

I don't think holding a grudge is a factor on the Law-Chaos axis I would put that as a part of her Evil character.

Good people can hold grudges, too. Revenge may be an "Evil" motivation, but it's pretty weak Evil for several reasons, one of them being that people have some degree of pride and dignity that, when offended, will likely make them lash out at the one who harmed them and the other being that it works as a deterrent for further aggression - and on that matter it's more a Neutral motivation than anything else.

[Keltest]

No, no, my bad, I didn't clarify: maybe the Sendings were stopped for some reason. Divine interference, for one.

As much as it would be perfectly in character for Loki to do that, I'm pretty sure there are rules against the gods so overtly interfering with things outside their domain like that.

[The_Weirdo]

As much as it would be perfectly in character for Loki to do that, I'm pretty sure there are rules against the gods so overtly interfering with things outside their domain like that.

If anyone can find a loophole...

[Keltest]

If anyone can find a loophole...

Let me put it to you this way: Knowing what we do of Hilgya, do you think its more likely that Loki decided to actively block all attempts at communication with Durkon just to mess with her over the course of something like a year and a half, or that she wasn't actually all that interested in just contacting Durkon?

[The_Weirdo]

Let me put it to you this way: Knowing what we do of Hilgya, do you think its more likely that Loki decided to actively block all attempts at communication with Durkon just to mess with her over the course of something like a year and a half, or that she wasn't actually all that interested in just contacting Durkon?

Not (just) to mess with her; remember Odin is his father and so might well have told Loki to do it or otherwise informed him of some reasons why he should.

As for the "knowing Hilgya" part, even assuming her to be irrational and blinded by hatred, would she really miss the opportunity to say twenty-five choice words to (or at...) Durkon for leaving her and so on?

[Keltest]

Not (just) to mess with her; remember Odin is his father and so might well have told Loki to do it or otherwise informed him of some reasons why he should.

As for the "knowing Hilgya" part, even assuming her to be irrational and blinded by hatred, would she really miss the opportunity to say twenty-five choice words to (or at...) Durkon for leaving her and so on?

Probably? That's "leaving angry messages on your Ex's unused answering machine" level of impotent fury. Hilgya is considerably more capable of trying to enact her vengeance than that.

[jokem]

I don't think holding a grudge is a factor on the Law-Chaos axis I would put that as a part of her Evil character.

I don't agree. A grudge, to me, comes from someone not living up to another's expectations. I don't see how that fits into the Chaotic world view.

[Fyraltari]

Good people can hold grudges, too.

That's the "Hitler ate sugar, MLK Jr cheated on his wife" fallacy, you don't judge actions by the people who commits them, you judge people by their actions. Good people sometimes hold grudges because they are faillible and that is a moral failing of them.

Revenge may be an "Evil" motivation, but it's pretty weak Evil for several reasons, one of them being that people have some degree of pride and dignity that, when offended, will likely make them lash out at the one who harmed them and the other being that it works as a deterrent for further aggression - and on that matter it's more a Neutral motivation than anything else.

Impressive. Every word in that sentence... was wrong.
Revenge is an Evil motivation because it is purely destructive, it only bgets more and more suffering be it physical mental or spiritual (if you believe in that sort of thing). A habit of taking revenge never deter agression, itsimply delays it until the potential enemy feel safe about it. It even creates more enemies, of all things. Revenge is a perversion of justice and the worse cause anyone could have for anything.
Good people forgive easily, even sometimes undeservedly.
Neutral people forgive once they feel they have been properly compensated.
Evil people never forgive and seek to inflict ever-increasing harm.

Of course this is not an absolute by far, good people have their flaws and evil people have their redeeming qualities (or at least they do when the author knows what he is doing such as here), but when the most prominent trait of a character is a thirst for revenge I class them in the evil bin until new data is acquired.

Not (just) to mess with her; remember Odin is his father and so might well have told Loki to do it or otherwise informed him of some reasons why he should.

Nitpick : Do we know how Loki relates to Odin in OOTS? I know Hel calls Thor "uncle" but Durkon and Nale both have called aunt and uncle people they have no blood relation to. Is that stated in a manual somewhere?

As for the "knowing Hilgya" part, even assuming her to be irrational and blinded by hatred, would she really miss the opportunity to say twenty-five choice words to (or at...) Durkon for leaving her and so on?

Why not? Why give up the advantage of surprise for a gloat you can do later? Especially since you can always Speak with Dead as much as you want provided you have a corpse.

[jokem]

It could go like this:

1- When she went out to Thor's church, she didn't know there were vampires.
2- Now she does, but she's also been informed that these vampires need fighting and the world's at stake (no pun intended); her god also hates the undead and she also holds a grudge (however unfounded) against their leader: she needs to go fight the vampires now, she WANTS to go fight the vampires now and her god asks that she fights vampires when the chance presents itself. Would she still take a shot at Durkon if the world weren't at stake? Probably, but the "if" didn't happen there.
3- She then chooses not to leave Kudzu there for, presumably, two reasons, one valid and one not so: the valid one is if Kudzu faces a vampire that manages to enter Thor's church, it won't be a fight; it'll be a meal and Kudzu's soul will, thus, be forfeit. The non-valid one - which, to be fair, seems to be her main issue - is that she doesn't trust the church of Thor. Granted, the stated reason is the invalid one, but that's neither a here, nor a there.
4- That decision is backed up by the fact that she very much is a high-level Cleric and that Kudzu may, well, actually be safer with her than in the temple, which might well qualify as a third reason and may well be a valid one.

<snip>

1) OK, not sure why this is relevant.
2) Loki does not want the world destroyed and is using one of his followers (Hilgya) to facilitate this. Not sure what your point is yet. The grudge vs Durkon is not explained yet.
3) Full agreement here. I see nothing to contradict anything I have said yet.
4) Her decision to take the baby with her may not be sound, but how is this out of alignment with what I have said.

My whole point was her grudge was based upon Lawful concepts, not whether she was to take Kudzu into combat. An argument could be made that leaving Kudzu to fend for himself or in the custody of people she did not trust would be the Chaotic Evil thing to do, but maybe not.

[The_Weirdo]

Neutral people forgive once they feel they have been properly compensated.

Okay, let's go with that.

Hilgya was stuck in a marriage she didn't like. She was then pretty much forced into self-exile for at least a (long) while. Then, the father of her baby, who waxed lyrical about obligation and so on, as far as she's concerned, left her holding the bag.

Even if we are to paint her as Chaotic Evil, with few if any redeeming qualities, those are things that shouldn't be done against anyone - and bear in mind that there is NO indication whatsoever that she did anything at all to deserve that sort of treatment prior to receiving it, if not by Durkon (about whom she almost certainly is wrong), then at the very least by her clan and by Dwarven society.

From all parties involved, what would the proper compensation be?

1) OK, not sure why this is relevant.
2) Loki does not want the world destroyed and is using one of his followers (Hilgya) to facilitate this. Not sure what your point is yet. The grudge vs Durkon is not explained yet.
3) Full agreement here. I see nothing to contradict anything I have said yet.
4) Her decision to take the baby with her may not be sound, but how is this out of alignment with what I have said.

My whole point was her grudge was based upon Lawful concepts, not whether she was to take Kudzu into combat. An argument could be made that leaving Kudzu to fend for himself or in the custody of people she did not trust would be the Chaotic Evil thing to do, but maybe not.

Oh, never mind, then, I thought you were delving into "what alignment does taking her kid to combat make her".

[Fyraltari]

I don't agree. A grudge, to me, comes from someone not living up to another's expectations. I don't see how that fits into the Chaotic world view.

Not necessarily, a grudge come from any action you think is harmful to you. That can be from someone failing you or from something completely different. If someone steals my sandwich I won't be pissed because he failed my expectations of common decency, I will be pissed because that was MY sandwich, goddammit!
I'll wait until she gets a deep and meaningful with Durkonbefore trying to pinpoint if she is more angry at him for his perceived hypocrisy, his words or his accidental failings as a parent and therefore how chaotic of her that was. Though I maintain that holding grudge for over a year is Evil behaviour before anything else whatever the source of the grudge.

Okay, let's go with that.

Hilgya was stuck in a marriage she didn't like. She was then pretty much forced into self-exile for at least a (long) while. Then, the father of her baby, who waxed lyrical about obligation and so on, as far as she's concerned, left her holding the bag.

Even if we are to paint her as Chaotic Evil, with few if any redeeming qualities, those are things that shouldn't be done against anyone - and bear in mind that there is NO indication whatsoever that she did anything at all to deserve that sort of treatment prior to receiving it, if not by Durkon (about whom she almost certainly is wrong), then at the very least by her clan and by Dwarven society.

From all parties involved, what would the proper compensation be?

Let me precise my thought a bit further :
Good : disproportionnally small retribution expected (regret and genaral acts of kindness or even not at all)
Neutral : proportionnally consequent retribution expected (fixing what you broke)
Evil : disproportionnally big retribution retribution expected ("eye-for-an-eye", death, whatever)

"forced self exile" looks like an oxymoron : self-exile is a choice, if it was not it would be exile. I'm only pointing that out because you said translation was one of the two things you were LG about.

the father of her baby, who waxed lyrical about obligation and so on, as far as she's concerned, left her holding the bag.

You mean the man she had sex with without telling him she was married who did not know he had a child? Hilgya is clearly wrong about Durkon. the world does not have to fit her delusion.

A proper compensation, you ask? Divorce, no pretense of controlling her life and child support from her Clan for the first two and Durkon for the last. Though she also would have to face justice for attempted murder and battle Durkon for custody of Kudzu.

[Winterhorn]

When will the next come out!?!?!???????

[Kantaki]

When will the next come out!?!?!???????

That's at least ten more pages and three topic shifts of the discussion thread away.

Also a forbidden topic.

[Doug Lampert]

Right, Chaotic Good types serve the good - Caring for the weak, such as their own child.
Chaotic Evil types look out for themselves, the weak, including their own child are there as long as it serves the interests of the parent.
Chaotic Neutrals are somewhere in between.

I don't see where any of that explains Hilgya's actions.

Why does Chaotic need to explain her actions at all. Chaotic Evil means she can do whatever she feels like doing and the heck with anyone else. She does not need to be fair, the idea that she needs to be fair would be a lawful one.

She need not think the rules she gets to ignore are ignorable by anyone else when they are to her advantage. She need not be consistent.

INSISTING that she needs to think some set of rules for how chaotics act applies to everyone would ITSELF be a lawful attitude. Fine for me /= fine for you is a key part of a chaotic ethos. There is no universal set of rules that everyone should follow if you are a chaotic /= there are no rules that that particular person should follow when dealing with me. Not even close.

I don't agree. A grudge, to me, comes from someone not living up to another's expectations. I don't see how that fits into the Chaotic world view.

What?! Chaotics can't have expectations?! Seriously?

[Kish]

Though I maintain that holding grudge for over a year is Evil behaviour before anything else whatever the source of the grudge.

Does that include Roy's grudge against Xykon?

(To be clear, I'm choking on "whatever the source of that grudge"--I can think of lots and lots of actions that merit a grudge that lasts for decades or centuries: rape, murdering someone's loved ones, murdering a random stranger and only remembering doing it because it was Laundry Day. Alas that the no-politics rule prevents me from mentioning the first real-world example that comes to mind.)