OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread

[Jasdoif]

*btw, I'm not sold on Kudzu being male, baby beard notwithstanding

Hilgya refers to Kudzu with "he" and "him", though.

[Peelee]

I might be an easy sell, but I'm sold on the beard.

[Cazero]

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.

I guess you can blame her for pursuing revenge instead of dedicating herself to her baby.
However, you gave her a pass for the wrong reason because she planned to kill Durkon, a high level Cleric, and probably anyone else who would stand in her way, like every Cleric of Thor around and the town guards.

So her spell selection must be way off to kill vampires. It's clearly unresponsible of her to keep going on !

[Fyraltari]

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.

Thing is she already knows there are several vampires for all she knows there could be in army in there. Assuming you are just going to win, especially after spending some of your spells protecting a non-combatant isn't really a sign of great strategy. Then again if they lose nothing matters cause they're all dead.
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".[/QUOTE]
That's a good point I didn't think of that.

btw, I'm not sold on Kudzu being male, baby beard notwithstanding

He's safest right here with me

[Grey_Wolf_c]

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.

"Taking your baby to work" is fine and dandy, unless you are volunteering to go to the front line of a battlefield. I am quite amazed, in fact, that you really are attempting to downplay the fact that she is under no obligation to go hunt for vampires with her baby, and nevertheless is choosing to do so.

Magic protection (Sanctuary, if nothing else)

A level 1 spell with a wisdom check to overcome. Against vampire priests.

Unless she has an epic level spell of "protection from all harm", it would still be safer for the baby to NOT be taken into a combat that the mom is under no obligation to go to. She could just walk away from this until the Order cleared out the infestation. But she has NOT chosen the safest action for her baby. She has chosen the action that leads to her getting the revenge she wants. So even if she does care for Kudzu - and I agree, we have no reason to think otherwise - she still cares more for herself and her whims than she does for his needs.

you gave her a pass for the wrong reason because she planned to kill Durkon, a high level Cleric, and probably anyone else who would stand in her way, like every Cleric of Thor around and the town guards.

No, I gave her a pass on taking her baby up against the vampires, because she didn't know about them. She was going to the temple of Thor because she had heard there were people there wanting to kill Durkon. Absent the vampire attack, nothing in such a first move should have put Kudzu in danger.

Grey Wolf

[Draconi Redfir]

"Taking your baby to work" is fine and dandy, unless you are volunteering to go to the front line of a battlefield. I am quite amazed, in fact, that you really are attempting to downplay the fact that she is under no obligation to go hunt for vampires with her baby, and nevertheless is choosing to do so.

maybe i misunderstood the thing about abjduration spells, but my understanding was that she was going to be hanging in the back, attacking with ranged spells and providing support, not going onto any sort of front lines. Did nobody else get that idea?

[MReav]

I wonder if Hilgya and Julio Scoundrel are aupposed to embody the uglier side of chaotic alignments. Like, if the negatives of Lawful are that they are authoritarian or at least have an overbearing paternalistic aspect, unsympathetic chaotic people are responsibility dodgers (Hilgya blames and takes out her issues on convenient targets, Julio has a kid in every port on the Southern Continent and avoids dealing with them).

I guess unsympathetic Neutrals are at best fence-sitters and at worst mercenaries (if Therkla was supposed to embody sympathetic neutral, then she can piss off. She seriously expected the people she helped murder to get over it and go their separate ways because it'll keep the people she personally cares about from hurting each other. If her position was supposed to be naive, alright then).

[Grey_Wolf_c]

maybe i misunderstood the thing about abjduration spells, but my understanding was that she was going to be hanging in the back, attacking with ranged spells and providing support, not going onto any sort of front lines. Did nobody else get that idea?

How did that work out for V in the last combat? How well is that likely to work against intelligent creatures who can turn into mist and know that their most dangerous foe is the cleric?

When the entire team is seven people, all of them are in the front lines.

GW

[Jasdoif]

When the entire team is seven people, all of them are in the front lines.

Maybe they're even seven front lines.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Maybe they're even seven front lines.

No, in my TW experience, that's one front line that just got flanked.

GW

[TheTinyMan]

I'm in the Hilgya-is-evil camp here, but it does strike me: while bringing her child into combat seems recklessly dangerous, in her eyes, Dwarven society is a terrible and awful thing, for very valid reasons that have been elucidated well over multiple threads by people like Themrys. To Hilgya, though, perhaps the most responsible thing for the baby IS bringing it into battle - because the best ends for the baby would be to grow up seeing her perception of dwarven society, and the baby growing up as another cog in the machine of oppression - i.e. she left the baby behind when she went on a life-threatening mission - would be worse than death.

All that being said...I'm kind of worried that she'll get to a final encounter with Durkula, hear Hel's side of the story, and decide, "yeah, these other dwarves are some oppressive jerks, why am I on their side again?" and turn (maybe figuratively, maybe literally) at a pivotal moment.

Er...turn. You know. Turn undead, like becoming undead. Not like, uh, not-rebuking undead. Darn triple entendre.

[Ruck]

Wait what? Why does this forum automatically censor the colloquial word for feces, but lets misogynist slurs stand? Where is the logic there?

I don't know, honestly. I don't mind it not being auto-censored, but for the usage it's been used ITT, I didn't think that would be allowed to stand.

LOL triggered.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that a forum for a geek interest has such proud misogynists, but just like Manty, you reveal a lot more about yourself than anyone else with your comments.

Anyway, I don't think what we see of Hilgya in this strip is inconsistent with what we had already seen of her. We didn't see much, and what we saw could be interpreted in different ways.

Agreed.

*btw, I'm not sold on Kudzu being male, baby beard notwithstanding

I'm comfortable doing so because as far as I recall we haven't seen a single Dwarf female in-comic with a beard. Sure, it could be that all the women shave and that's a rigid expectation of Dwarven society, but until more evidence arises I'm going with the simpler explanation for now.

Hilgya refers to Kudzu with "he" and "him", though.

Oh, that, too.

[Skull the Troll]

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.

Her assuming that he would therefore willingly become a vampire is a bit exaggerated, sure, but she's understandably bitter about the whole thing.

Her assumption that he would treat other women the same as he treated her is, however, quite justified.

Let's be realistic, she has no proof at all that his talk of duty and **** wasn't just a lame excuse on his side for not taking responsibility.


Edit: And the assumption that Hilgya hates little Kudzu is utterly idiotic. Why would she be carrying around a child she hates? Especially those of you who believe she is completely evil should have realized that yes, babies can be killed, ... assuming you live in a country with a misogynist government that won't let you have an abortion. An abortion being the preferable option that she would have taken FIRST if she didn't want a child by Durkon.
And even if you, more reasonably, assume that she would not kill a baby: it was stated that the Church of Loki does provide (bad) childcare, and that would have been the perfect way to rid herself of him without even committing a crime.

You are massively misrepresenting what Durkon did. He didn't "have his fun and cast her aside" He entered into a relationship unknowingly with married woman, and when he found out he broke things off. I can imagine that happening in the real world today, never mind in world based on medieval social norms. He also didn't "Leave her to raise the child" - he had no knowledge of it. I feel fairly certain that Durkon would have taken responsibility if he had known. You're also including a lot of things in your argument that don't really exist as far as I can tell in this world, like birth control, abortions, the ability to predict the skin color of a baby that hasnt been born yet, etc.

*EDIT* I replied to your earlier post, but now I'm wishing I hadn't. I'm not certain you're just trolling here. In which panel in the comic would you have wanted Durkon to take different action, and what should it have been? The only one I can think of is he shouldn't have slept with a woman he just met - but that applies to her as much as him - she definitely was receptive to the idea of them hooking up.

maybe i misunderstood the thing about abjduration spells, but my understanding was that she was going to be hanging in the back, attacking with ranged spells and providing support, not going onto any sort of front lines. Did nobody else get that idea?

What, no one ever makes it past the meatshield?

[drazen]

Hilgya seems nuts, but wasn't there talk a couple comics back that carrying Kudzu into battle was simply a logical thing for a dwarf to do? If their baby dies of illness or negligence of strangers, it goes to Hel. If it dies "in battle," even a battle it can't possibly contribute to, then suddenly that's an honorable death under Dwarven OOTS rules, right?

I think the "die with honor" rule is a really dumb one... go to an Evil goddess of undeath unless you happen to die in a fight? It allows dishonorable (lying, cheating, evil) dwarves into Valhalla, while sending kinder souls who get the flu when there's no cleric nearby to damnation in Hel's domain, which is presumably a lower plane. But if that's the rule, carrying the kid around seems to make a weird sense. And Hilgya yelling at Roy about it would make sense, as well.

What I cannot figure out is how ROY didn't make this connection -- he just heard all about this part of dwarven society at the Godsmoot!

[hroþila]

Hilgya seems nuts, but wasn't there talk a couple comics back that carrying Kudzu into battle was simply a logical thing for a dwarf to do? If their baby dies of illness or negligence of strangers, it goes to Hel. If it dies "in battle," even a battle it can't possibly contribute to, then suddenly that's an honorable death under Dwarven OOTS rules, right?

I think the "die with honor" rule is a really dumb one... go to an Evil goddess of undeath unless you happen to die in a fight? It allows dishonorable (lying, cheating, evil) dwarves into Valhalla, while sending kinder souls who get the flu when there's no cleric nearby to damnation in Hel's domain, which is presumably a lower plane. But if that's the rule, carrying the kid around seems to make a weird sense. And Hilgya yelling at Roy about it would make sense, as well.

What I cannot figure out is how ROY didn't make this connection -- he just heard all about this part of dwarven society at the Godsmoot!

If that was the reason, you'd think Hilgya would have mentioned it instead of going on a tangent. Carrying the baby to battle because it'll have a "good" death doesn't make any more sense than all dwarves dueling each other to extinction: martial societies don't work that way.

[Fyraltari]

Hilgya seems nuts, but wasn't there talk a couple comics back that carrying Kudzu into battle was simply a logical thing for a dwarf to do? If their baby dies of illness or negligence of strangers, it goes to Hel. If it dies "in battle," even a battle it can't possibly contribute to, then suddenly that's an honorable death under Dwarven OOTS rules, right?

I think the "die with honor" rule is a really dumb one... go to an Evil goddess of undeath unless you happen to die in a fight? It allows dishonorable (lying, cheating, evil) dwarves into Valhalla, while sending kinder souls who get the flu when there's no cleric nearby to damnation in Hel's domain, which is presumably a lower plane. But if that's the rule, carrying the kid around seems to make a weird sense. And Hilgya yelling at Roy about it would make sense, as well.

What I cannot figure out is how ROY didn't make this connection -- he just heard all about this part of dwarven society at the Godsmoot!

If you could have an honorable death by dying in a battle you didn't choose to take part in then Hel's plan would make no sense since the entire dwarven race would have an honorable death when the world is unmade, therefore you can't. Sadly that means that every dead dwarf baby goes to Hel.
No the systemvdoes not allow lying, cheating and evil dwarvesvthat had an honorable death in Valhalla it allows them in whatever afterlife suits their alignment (so not a good one).

Yep that rule is horrible everybody fromthe characters to the readers and the author agree on this. That's because it wasn't made while taking the Dwarves' well being into consideration.

[KorvinStarmast]

I am quite amazed, in fact, that you really are attempting to downplay the fact that she is under no obligation to go hunt for vampires with her baby, and nevertheless is choosing to do so.

She may be underestimating the threat the vampires pose.
She might be totally optimized to defeat undead.
She may be far more powerful than any of us appreciate.
She may have carried this baby into a few dozen battles before this scene comes up.

We don't know. You are making more assumptions than I am.

Look, when I was in the military, there's no way I take my kid to battle. None.
But I didn't have magic, see, and in OoTS verse, magic is a thing. (I'll look up "protection from good/evil' 3.5 version and see what it does different to the editions I am more used to).

I recall that her original mission, for Loki, was to get her hands on the amulet for Loki, or Loki's temple

I never wanted to help Nale, he's a big jerk. Loki commanded me to steal the Talisman from him, so I pretended to be his friend

, which meant that she'd have to betray/backstab Nale to get the amulet to where she was supposed to get it. (Perfect example of a chaotic character; steal the quest treasure from someone else in the party. This archetype goes back to Arneson's original Blackmoor group before D&D was ever published, FWIW).

[Lord Joeltion]

Hilgya has also shown little regard for Dwarven tradition/custom, so it's kinda OOC that she is taking the kid into battle for cultural reasons. I think it's more about her overprotectiveness clashing with her egoistic pursue of her own goals. It's also yet another show of her poor judgement (the best way to be safe from bullets isn't wearing kevlar, it's by avoiding gunfights altogether!)

Despite all her flaws, I seriously want her to end up with Durkon. I think her hyper-rebelliousness would help Durkon overcome his own uber-orthodoxy and love for customs. Maybe they manage to cancel out their own flaws that way. Also, Loki/Thor churches will provide a good Romeo/Juliet narrative, which is always fun. Now with extra Raise Dead!

[hamishspence]

You are massively misrepresenting what Durkon did. He didn't "have his fun and cast her aside" He entered into a relationship unknowingly with married woman, and when he found out he broke things off. I can imagine that happening in the real world today, never mind in world based on medieval social norms.

Or as The Giant puts it in Dungeon Crawling Fools:



Since we already knew Durkon was somewhat passive from his lack of strong identity within the group, I decided to make Hilgya the "aggressor" in the relationship. They don't realize, however, that while opposites attract, they can't always make it work. She's carelessly self-centred, while Durkon is loyally dedicated to others. Her treatment of her husband appalls him, while his judgemental scorn offends her. They have no choice but to "break up" and Durkon, ever the dutiful one, takes responsibility and sends Hilgya away.



Since "selfish vs altruistic" or "self-centred vs dedicated to others" is the Good/Evil axis, not the Law/Chaos axis (there are plenty of selfish LE characters and altruistic CG ones), it makes sense that, at the time, the opposition between them was intended to be Good/Evil and not just Law/Chaos.

I recall that her original mission, for Loki, was to get her hands on the amulet for Loki, or Loki's temple
, which meant that she'd have to betray/backstab Nale to get the amulet to where she was supposed to get it. (Perfect example of a chaotic character; steal the quest treasure from someone else in the party. This archetype goes back to Arneson's original Blackmoor group before D&D was ever published, FWIW).

Back then, Chaotic was pretty much synonymous with Evil. It wasn't till much later that effort was put in to make Chaotic people as capable of Good as Lawful people, and Lawful people as capable of Evil as Chaotic people.

[Keltest]

She may be underestimating the threat the vampires pose.
She might be totally optimized to defeat undead.
She may be far more powerful than any of us appreciate.
She may have carried this baby into a few dozen battles before this scene comes up.

We don't know. You are making more assumptions than I am.

Look, when I was in the military, there's no way I take my kid to battle. None.
But I didn't have magic, see, and in OoTS verse, magic is a thing. (I'll look up "protection from good/evil' 3.5 version and see what it does different to the editions I am more used to).

I recall that her original mission, for Loki, was to get her hands on the amulet for Loki, or Loki's temple
, which meant that she'd have to betray/backstab Nale to get the amulet to where she was supposed to get it. (Perfect example of a chaotic character; steal the quest treasure from someone else in the party. This archetype goes back to Arneson's original Blackmoor group before D&D was ever published, FWIW).

There is no amount of magic that is going to make going into combat safer than not going into combat. Buffs or not, that kid is at extreme risk just being in the middle of a fight. If someone points a flame strike at her, the kid is toast, period.

[KorvinStarmast]

Hamish, good points and good call up. Your analysis of Hilgya's alignment tags is rational.

Hmm, Protection from Evil is a spell with an alignment: Good. (Or so I read the 3.5 SRD). That might preclude Hilgya from casting it? It does protect 1 creature, but it isn't like a force cube that keeps all harm out ...

If someone points a flame strike at her, the kid is toast, period.

Yep. Hilgya may be underestimating the danger in this encounter.

There is no amount of magic that is going to make going into combat safer than not going into combat.

You don't need to convince me, convince Hilgya. (And good luck with that). I find Roy's objection to be rational, and probably how I'd react. The fact is that we do not know how often she's gone into combat with the kid in tow -- and gotten away with it -- between leaving Durkon, and now. (Strip 1107 = now for these purposes). If she's gotten away with it a few times, then she'll take the attitude "I can manage this!" We know (but she does not) how dangerous this encounter is that the party is facing, and that she is rushing into.

She doesn't know what we, the audience, know about the looming encounter. (And as before, here acceptance of the advice or opinions of others isn't very much).

Back then, Chaotic was pretty much synonymous with Evil. It wasn't till much later that effort was put in to make Chaotic people as capable of Good as Lawful people, and Lawful people as capable of Evil as Chaotic people.

Sort of. I started playing D&D in 1975. Depending upon which books the DM read informed a great deal how alignment played out, that was my experience. We negotiated with chaotic beings with some frequency, given that we often had encounters that were very deadly, or were "what the heck is this, maybe we should parley?" in nature. (Heh, one of my favorite raids early on was when we bribed a small tribe of Hobgoblins with gold and cattle to help us defeat some gnolls. )

[Grey_Wolf_c]

as far as I recall we haven't seen a single Dwarf female in-comic with a beard

Wasn't MitD's (non-)act at the circus followed by a "bearded lady" who was just a female dwarf?

To Hilgya, though, perhaps the most responsible thing for the baby IS bringing it into battle - because the best ends for the baby would be to grow up seeing her perception of dwarven society, and the baby growing up as another cog in the machine of oppression - i.e. she left the baby behind when she went on a life-threatening mission - would be worse than death.

Please stop misrepresenting my position. No-one is suggesting she should leave the baby in the care of people she doesn't trust. What I'm saying is that she has the choice to NOT go on the baby-threatening revenge mission. She is not in it to save the world, she just wants to kill Durkon. She is literally putting her own desires ahead of the needs of her child.

She could simply turn around and go to the human lands and raise Kudzu in the ways of the humans. (Of course, then he'd grow unknowing of Loki's wager, die of old age, and spend eternity in Hel's clutches, because that's the kind of future a mother would want for her child, I'm sure).

She may be underestimating the threat the vampires pose.
She might be totally optimized to defeat undead.
She may be far more powerful than any of us appreciate.
She may have carried this baby into a few dozen battles before this scene comes up.

We don't know. You are making more assumptions than I am.

I am making no assumptions whatsoever. I am stating the simple truth: it is safer to NOT take a baby into battle than it is to take said baby into battle. No matter how many spells or levels Hilgya has, the battle avoided is always safer than the battle taken.

She may have carried this baby into a few dozen battles before this scene comes up.

So what? How is this in any way refuting "it is safer to NOT take a baby into battle"?

GW

[hamishspence]

Hamish, good points and good call up. Your analysis of Hilgya's alignment tags is rational.

For another example (focusing more on Thog - but it should be kept in mind that Hilgya has done almost exactly the same thing - killed an innocent (fire) sylph, to achieve her goals)

These are the villains of the strip, after all. They are all Evil, with a capital E. Ever since strip #51, where Thog murders an innocent sylph just because she's there, all the while thinking about puppies, he has intentionally straddled the line between "cute" and "horrifically violent". I want people to be unsure if Thog is an innocent who is lead to evil by his buddy Nale, or if he is truly as black-hearted, just dumber.

People tend to look at Thog and think that he's supposed to be good, deep down, because he's kind of dumb and often funny. He is childlike, but he's the kind of child that pulls the wings off of butterflies. But he is one of the bad guys here, so a little ambivelence on whether to like him or not is perfect.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0052.html

How she killed the sylph, it would appear, is by using her Commanded fire underlings.

[KorvinStarmast]

So what? How is this in any way refuting "it is safer to NOT take a baby into battle"?
GW

It's safer to stay home than drive to work. It was safer to stay in Rio than to fly to Paris, June 1, 2009. The people who died on Air France flight 447 made some assumptions about the comparative safety of a long flight.

I already pointed out that if she's done this before, then she's going to take the attitude that "I can handle this" even though we, the audience, know how dangerous the coming encounter is. Ignorance is bliss ... almost a trope. I get the idea that she is blissfully unaware that there are multiple vampires with some seriously bad intentions awaiting in a room nearby, where the battle will take place.

Do I agree with Minrah that the baby would be better off in the Temple of Thor with the kids of that other priest(Rogo)? Yeah. Minrah shows wisdom, prime requisite for a cleric.

Hilgya is acting in character, as I see it, in adopting the attitude that she has presented so far.

PS: this is a comic. Exaggeration is a tool in the writer's hands.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0052.html

How she killed the sylph, it would appear, is by using her Commanded fire underlings.

I read that strip as Nale killing the sylph, since Hilgya and the two firenewts were on screen, while the murder was off screen to the right.

[hamishspence]

Fair enough - I thought there were a whole bunch of them, not just the ones visible on screen.

Either way, it casts her in a pretty poor light.

[Manty5]

Wait what? Why does this forum automatically censor the colloquial word for feces, but lets misogynist slurs stand? Where is the logic there?

Oh god, we've got another warrior. Say goodbye to the next 20 pages.

I refer you to the "Why are all men such pigs?" strip. Don't worry, I'm sure a whiteknight will be along shortly to explain how any microaggression, no matter how minor, warrants a fainting couch. But only when ONE gender is insulted. Belkar is a walking "men are pigs" trope, but I don't see anyone throwing themselves to the ground in a fit.

EDIT:

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that a forum for a geek interest has such proud misogynists, but just like Manty, you reveal a lot more about yourself than anyone else with your comments.

Never mind the "will be along shortly". It's already arrived. I must be a "past psychic".

[KorvinStarmast]

Fai Either way, it casts her in a pretty poor light.

Oh yeah. She's certainly an accomplice.

@Themrys:
should I get deeply offended that Rich often uses goddamn as profanity in OoTS? Please advise. (I'd link to the multiple times Roy has used it, but that one example should suffice).

[Ranadin]

A theory: what if Hilgya's husband be one of Count Durkula's lackeys now?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

It's safer to stay home than drive to work. It was safer to stay in Rio than to fly to Paris, June 1, 2009. The people who died on Air France flight 447 made some assumptions about the comparative safety of a long flight.

You keep presenting this as if it helped your position. it does not. Of course it is safer to NOT take the baby to work in your car. People that do it, do it because they have no other choice. Hilgya DOES have a choice. No-one is forcing her to take her baby into battle.

GW

[eilandesq]

Hilgya seems nuts, but wasn't there talk a couple comics back that carrying Kudzu into battle was simply a logical thing for a dwarf to do? If their baby dies of illness or negligence of strangers, it goes to Hel. If it dies "in battle," even a battle it can't possibly contribute to, then suddenly that's an honorable death under Dwarven OOTS rules, right?

I think the "die with honor" rule is a really dumb one... go to an Evil goddess of undeath unless you happen to die in a fight? It allows dishonorable (lying, cheating, evil) dwarves into Valhalla, while sending kinder souls who get the flu when there's no cleric nearby to damnation in Hel's domain, which is presumably a lower plane. But if that's the rule, carrying the kid around seems to make a weird sense. And Hilgya yelling at Roy about it would make sense, as well.

What I cannot figure out is how ROY didn't make this connection -- he just heard all about this part of dwarven society at the Godsmoot!

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that "intentionally exposing your baby to death in battle" goes into the "unacceptable" bin along with the "the dwarves should commit mass suicide via attacking whatever monsters are in range before the world can end" gambit, no matter what imperatives seem to be reasonably implicated by the Loki/Hel bet.