Hilgya: a redemption arc?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

By that logic, Durkon has been at risk the whole time, being away from home under false pretenses working on a mission that doesn't exist. Living honorably doesn't guarantee an honorable death, just as living dishonorably doesn't guarantee a dishonorable death. The Dwarves choose the former because the odds are better for them, but that doesn't mean that every single moment must be filled with an honorable action, or that they have to be super paranoid about it.

If the dungeon were to suddenly collapse and kill Durkon, it wouldn't matter what he was doing because he died in a random accident that he was in no way involved with. Even if he was in the middle of being honorable, his death would still be dishonorable.

Yes, so? I am on record saying that Loki screwed over the dwarves. But just because they are constantly in danger doesn't mean you are allowed to add to that danger without telling them.

Failing to tell your passenger that the safety belts in your car don't lock properly and therefore are just for show before they join you in a road trip "because driving a car is always dangerous regardless" is a ****ty thing to do.

GW

[Keltest]

Yes, so? I am on record saying that Loki screwed over the dwarves. But just because they are constantly in danger doesn't mean you are allowed to add to that danger without telling them.

Failing to tell your passenger that the safety belts in your car don't lock properly and therefore are just for show before they join you in a road trip "because driving a car is always dangerous regardless" is a ****ty thing to do.

GW

That situation is not analogous to this one though. "at risk" is the default state. Durkon and Hilgya having sex does not exacerbate that.

Furthermore, you have yet to explain how the alleged risk goes away if Hilgya explains her marriage before hand, or if she were not married. The circumstances of his death would be the only thing determining whether it was honorable or not.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

That situation is not analogous to this one though. "at risk" is the default state. Durkon and Hilgya having sex does not exasperate that.

Furthermore, you have yet to explain how the alleged risk goes away if Hilgya explains her marriage before hand, or if she were not married. The circumstances of his death would be the only thing determining whether it was honorable or not.

I did. If he had stuck with her and died saving her from danger, the circumstances are no longer a death "saving another". It is now "saving his married lover". It switches from honorable to dishonorable death.

GW

[Sir_Norbert]

"Exasperate" means to annoy, and only applies to animate entities. You want "exacerbate".

[Keltest]

I did. If he had stuck with her and died saving her from danger, the circumstances are no longer a death "saving another". It is now "saving his married lover". It switches from honorable to dishonorable death.

GW

He dies in combat, therefore its honorable. That's pretty explicit, and just because you don't like what he's fighting for doesn't make it less honorable to fight for it.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

He dies in combat, therefore its honorable.

No. We don't know that. "Death in battle" is not the only honorable death, and as per Rich's words, and therefore I would not be surprised that not all combat deaths are automatically honorable, and depend on the reason why they went into in the first place.

But more importantly, I did not mention battle at all in the post you are quoting. Since you are not actually addressing my arguments, but making strawmans to make your life easier, I am done talking to you.

Grey Wolf

[Keltest]

No. We don't know that. "Death in battle" is not the only honorable death, and as per Rich's words, and therefore I would not be surprised that not all combat deaths are automatically honorable, and depend on the reason why they went into in the first place.

But more importantly, I did not mention battle at all in the post you are quoting. Since you are not actually addressing my arguments, but making strawmans to make your life easier, I am done talking to you.

Grey Wolf

You said he died protecting her. Protecting her from what, if not an enemy? A falling rock, maybe? Either way, that's still honorable because he's putting himself in danger to protect somebody else. Durkon is Lawful Good, he doesn't even have to know the person he's saving to risk himself to protect them.

And i don't really care what would surprise you. Durkon says death in combat is honorable, period. There is no evidence to the contrary.

If you don't want to defend your claims, that's no skin off my nose, but don't pretend it's because I'm not addressing them.

[crayzz]

I did. If he had stuck with her and died saving her from danger, the circumstances are no longer a death "saving another". It is now "saving his married lover". It switches from honorable to dishonorable death.

GW

The circumstances are still "saving another." That doesnt stop being true because Durkon slept with her, even if he continues to sleep with her. Hilgya is still fundamentally someone else that Durkon is dying to save, in your hypothetical. You have 0 basis to assert that such a death would be dishonorable.

Of all the stretches of logic you could have made, "dying to save the life of another stops being honorable if you slept with that person under a particular set of circumstances" is among the more questionable ones.

Hell, per your reasoning, this whole thing is terri-bad-wrong because Hilgya supposedly lied (somehow, despite being fully open the moment she was asked), which means Durkon didn't know his actions even could be dishonorable. We have no reason to think Durkon doing something dishonorable unknowingly would be treated the same as him doing it knowingly. What little we've seen of how actions are judged in the afterlife doesn't support it. In fact, Thor going to bat over grey areas and the Deva telling Roy that doing your best is important suggests that Durkon, acting honorably to the best of his (imperfect) knowledge would probably be fine.

But more importantly, I did not mention battle at all in the post you are quoting. Since you are not actually addressing my arguments, but making strawmans to make your life easier, I am done talking to you.

True, you didn't say battle. In that specific post. But you explicitly discuss death in battle in your own previous post which you linked to to support your current argument, which you present as a reiteration of said post. Addressing your own written words, which you went out of your way to highlight, is not a strawman.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The circumstances are still "saving another." That doesnt stop being true because Durkon slept with her, even if he continues to sleep with her. Hilgya is still fundamentally someone else that Durkon is dying to save, in your hypothetical. You have 0 basis to assert that such a death would be dishonorable.

Actually, my basis is that Durkon considered the circumstance dishonorable. It is you that is grasping at straws trying to tell me that a character/author is wrong about his own culture. All I am doing is giving plausible scenarios that fit the given text.

Hell, per your reasoning, this whole thing is terri-bad-wrong because Hilgya supposedly lied (somehow, despite being fully open the moment she was asked),

She lied by omission. Not extending the lie later doesn't change that she lied by omission earlier.

means Durkon didn't know his actions even could be dishonorable.

Do you even listen to what you are saying? Durkon was the one that established that the actions were dishonorable.

We have no reason to think Durkon doing something dishonorable unknowingly would be treated the same as him doing it knowingly.

So make the assumption that fits the text, not the opposite.

What little we've seen of how actions are judged in the afterlife doesn't support it. In fact, Thor going to bat over grey areas and the Deva telling Roy that doing your best is important suggests that Durkon, acting honorably to the best of his (imperfect) knowledge would probably be fine.

The Deva review is irrelevant. The honor process is not the same situation at all. And we do not know how direct evidence of how Thor would react to having to defend a dwarf that died while involved with a married woman, so all we have to go with is Durkon's opinion on the matter, and Rich's text of the dwarven honor system. And both indicate that what Durkon and Hilgya did was not OK.

GW

[crayzz]

Actually, my basis is that Durkon considered the circumstance dishonorable. It is you that is grasping at straws trying to tell me that a character/author is wrong about his own culture. All I am doing is giving plausible scenarios that fit the given text.[1]


She lied by omission. Not extending the lie later doesn't change that she lied by omission earlier.[2]


Do you even listen to what you are saying? Durkon was the one that established that the actions were dishonorable.[3]


So make the assumption that fits the text, not the opposite.[4]


The Deva review is irrelevant. The honor process is not the same situation at all.[5] And we do not know how direct evidence of how Thor would react to having to defend a dwarf that died while involved with a married woman, so all we have to go with is Durkon's opinion on the matter, and Rich's text of the dwarven honor system. And both indicate that what Durkon and Hilgya did was not OK.[6]

GW

1: I am not disputing that sleeping with a married woman is dishonorable. I am disputing that giving your life to save that same woman is dishonorable. The former is established in the comic text. The latter is something you've invented out of whole cloth.

2: Lying by omission requires deceptive intent: that is, after all, the only actual difference between a lie by omission and just not telling someone literally everything you possibly can. We have no reason to believe Hilgya intended to deceive, and the fact that she willing, openly, and happily explained the situation the moment she was asked suggests that deception was not, in fact, her intent.

3: You're confused. Durkon during the act of sleeping with Hilgya did not know his actions were dishonorable. That information came later. That's the whole problem here, right? That Hilgya withheld information that changed the calculated risk to his soul?

4: If you check, you'll note I've made no assumptions yet: merely pointed out yours, and why they're baseless.

5: The honor process was created by the same class of being who created the Deva process. Such evidence is weak, but it's also the only evidence we have. I am 100% upfront that this evidence is hardly definitive, but if you insist on scouring the text for evidence one way or the other, that is what you'll find.

6: To reiterate: they establish that sleeping with a married woman is wrong. They do not establish that unknowingly sleeping with a married woman is treated the same way, and they do not establish that giving your life to save her at a later date becomes dishonorable. Neither is evident in the text, the latter is contradicted in the case of combat, and both are inventions of your own.

[Darth Paul]

And it may also mean that both she and Durkon were dwarfs far from their homeland, a bit lonely, and glad to be in the company of one of their own kind.

That's not mutually exclusive. (Sorry for the lateness of my reply- work happened.)

[Grey_Wolf_c]

1: I am not disputing that sleeping with a married woman is dishonorable. I am disputing that giving your life to save that same woman is dishonorable. The former is established in the comic text. The latter is something you've invented out of whole cloth.

Again: I "invented" nothing. Durkon's reaction tells us that it was dishonorable. If you don't like my example of how that might come to bear, make up your own. If you can't, that's on you for lack of imagination.

2: Lying by omission requires deceptive intent: that is, after all, the only actual difference between a lie by omission and just not telling someone literally everything you possibly can. We have no reason to believe Hilgya intended to deceive, and the fact that she willing, openly, and happily explained the situation the moment she was asked suggests that deception was not, in fact, her intent.

We have reason to believe she was actively lying: she was trying to get Durkon to have sex with her. That accomplished, her need to lie to him was no longer in effect. She would not be the first person that misread the sex into thinking the relationship was now "sealed" and therefore that Durkon would put sex above honor. She is, after all, quite enamoured with human culture and that is a fairly standard human culture belief.

4: If you check, you'll note I've made no assumptions yet: merely pointed out yours, and why they're baseless.

You assumed Hilgya did not lie. You assumed that there is no way for a dishonorable sexual relationship could land Durkon in Hel's clutches. You assumed that the soul-processing and Loki's bet work in the same way (this one is specially galling, given that we know it is not). You assumed that "not knowing something is dishonorable makes it honorable". Etc.

5: The honor process was created by the same class of being who created the Deva process. Such evidence is weak, but it's also the only evidence we have. I am 100% upfront that this evidence is hardly definitive, but if you insist on scouring the text for evidence one way or the other, that is what you'll find.

You are wrong. The "Deva" process involves checking if the professed alignment of a deceased person matches their actual alignment by examining their entire lives. It involves no gods at all, and in the LG plane it is ruled from the Book, not from the commands of any gods. Every soul belongs to an alignment - a circumstance completely removed from the control of a god - and the soul must go to the plane of that alignment - again, out of control of any god. In fact, we know belief in a god is irrelevant to the process.

Loki's wager is a step before that process, and involves two gods determining whether the death of a dwarf was honorable, and ignores their lives prior to the circumstances of their deaths. It was created by a northern god, Loki. Other than both applying to dead dwarves, they are nothing alike.

6: To reiterate: they establish that sleeping with a married woman is wrong. They do not establish that unknowingly sleeping with a married woman is treated the same way, and they do not establish that giving your life to save her at a later date becomes dishonorable. Neither is evident in the text, the latter is contradicted in the case of combat, and both are inventions of your own.

The assertion that "if you don't know its dishonorable, that makes it honorable" is ludicrous in the face of it. An action is honorable or it is dishonorable. The opinion or knowledge of the individual is irrelevant, because it is judged by Thor and Hel at the time of the individual's death.

From there it follows that continuing to be in a dishonorable relationship is a dishonorable conduct whether the participants are aware of it or not. Dying while involved in a dishonorable conduct gives Hel a reason to claim your soul. Sure, we cannot know if dying in combat supersedes the dishonorable status of the relationship when said relationship is involved in the combat. However, based on Durkon's reaction, either it does, or it is also not clear to him and because of the risks involved he is unwilling to risk it, which for the purpose of this discussion comes to be the same thing.

Grey Wolf

[Fyraltari]

Again: I "invented" nothing. Durkon's reaction tells us that it was dishonorable. If you don't like my example of how that might come to bear, make up your own. If you can't, that's on you for lack of imagination.

Or you know, Durkon is pissed that a Dwarf might put her needs before her duty when he sacrificied his life to his and blows his reaction out of proportion. He talks about "duty" and "dwarven way" but not "honor".

The assertion that "if you don't know its dishonorable, that makes it honorable" is ludicrous in the face of it. An action is honorable or it is dishonorable. The opinion or knowledge of the individual is irrelevant, because it is judged by Thor and Hel at the time of the individual's death.

Hmm, no it is not? You may believe that the information that one had when one made a choice do not help decide whether his behaviour was honorable or not, but you have no proof that Hel, Thor or any other god believe the same.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Or you know, Durkon is pissed that a Dwarf might put her needs before her duty when he sacrificied his life to his and blows his reaction out of proportion. He talks about "duty" and "dwarven way" but not "honor".

The "dwarven way" was created by Thor to ensure that dwarves would act honorably and thus not end in Hel's clutches.

Hmm, no it is not? You may believe that the information that one had when one made a choice do not help decide whether his behaviour was honorable or not, but you have no proof that Hel, Thor or any other god believe the same.

We have seen the dickering of Thor and Hel more than once. We also have a wealth of examples from Rich. Not once is "they believed to be doing the right thing" brought up. It is always what they were actually doing, not what they believed they were doing that counts.

ETA: It is also ludicrous to suggest that if you trick a dwarf into stealing from someone by telling them that they are in fact recovering stolen property, that suddenly their thievery goes from dishonorable to honorable. I'm sorry, that's not how honor works.

GW

[Keltest]

The "dwarven way" was created by Thor to ensure that dwarves would act honorably and thus not end in Hel's clutches.


We have seen the dickering of Thor and Hel more than once. We also have a wealth of examples from Rich. Not once is "they believed to be doing the right thing" brought up. It is always what they were actually doing, not what they believed they were doing that counts.

ETA: It is also ludicrous to suggest that if you trick a dwarf into stealing from someone by telling them that they are in fact recovering stolen property, that suddenly their thievery goes from dishonorable to honorable. I'm sorry, that's not how honor works.

GW

Counterpoint: getting killed by a tree counts as honorable even though trees are inanimate objects, and their nature as a threat is a mass dwarven cultural delusion.

[Bob_McSurly]

Actually, my basis is that Durkon considered the circumstance dishonorable. It is you that is grasping at straws trying to tell me that a character/author is wrong about his own culture. All I am doing is giving plausible scenarios that fit the given text.





The Deva review is irrelevant. The honor process is not the same situation at all. And we do not know how direct evidence of how Thor would react to having to defend a dwarf that died while involved with a married woman, so all we have to go with is Durkon's opinion on the matter, and Rich's text of the dwarven honor system. And both indicate that what Durkon and Hilgya did was not OK.

GW

Durkon considered the circumstances dishonourable, in the sense of living dishonourably. So it could (theoretically, and probably won't) influence whether Durkon goes to a Lawful Good or Neutral Good after-life. It probably will not, because he wasn't aware at the time that she was married. But living dishonourably has zero influence on whether you go to Hel. It's all about dying honourably. And in the comic, it has been established that dying in combat is honourable, at least as it pretains to not going to Hel. There are no stated exceptions. If he had died fighting to save Hilgya, he would have died honourably. Because, at least as far as we've seen in the comic, dying in combat is always considered an honourable death. If, instead, some rocks fall on him while he is sleeping with Hilgya, you are probably right to say that that would be a dishonourable death. But it would probably have been a dishonourable death anyway, and dying with Hilgya wouldn't have changed anything. Of course, you could say that he would die living dishonourably in one case but not the other, but that is totally irrelevant, because he would die dishonourably whether he was crushed by rocks alone, or with Hilgya, because, based on what we've seen in comic, there is no evidence that there is any reason sleeping with Hilgya could have had any effect on whether Durkon goes to Hel.

Counterpoint: getting killed by a tree counts as honorable even though trees are inanimate objects, and their nature as a threat is a mass dwarven cultural delusion.

Very much this.

[hroþila]

I'm very curious about how the dwarves manage to get killed by trees, actually. I imagine it is as simple as overexertion, but I'd like to think it's even sillier than that

edit: I mean, it'd be hilarious if we could actually extrapolate from the one such death we see. How many splinters do you need? How many tries? How badly must you fight?

[Keltest]

I'm very curious about how the dwarves manage to get killed by trees, actually. I imagine it is as simple as overexertion, but I'd like to think it's even sillier than that

edit: I mean, it'd be hilarious if we could actually extrapolate from the one such death we see. How many splinters do you need? How many tries? How badly must you fight?

We've seen Durkon climb up to the top of a tree and get flung to the ground. Its possible that gravity plays a similar role in other conifer-related deaths.

[Fyraltari]

The "dwarven way" was created by Thor to ensure that dwarves would act honorably and thus not end in Hel's clutches.

Was it ? We know Thor helped the Dwarves develop the most honorbound socierty on earth. We know that Dvalin, the dwarfest dwarf who ever dwarfed does not consider Thor's words to be definite on what is honorable behaviour and we know Odin's church is at least as present as Thor's in DL (assuming a more powerful high priest means more priests in general/more resources hence a lot of followers). So it is completely possible for Dwarfs to come up with traditions that did not involve Thor's input. It is just that most did.

We have seen the dickering of Thor and Hel more than once. We also have a wealth of examples from Rich. Not once is "they believed to be doing the right thing" brought up. It is always what they were actually doing, not what they believed they were doing that counts.

Because every time, there was no arguing that it was (at least for Thor, Hel feels different about the trees) so it was not relevant.

ETA: It is also ludicrous to suggest that if you trick a dwarf into stealing from someone by telling them that they are in fact recovering stolen property, that suddenly their thievery goes from dishonorable to honorable. I'm sorry, that's not how honor works.

Excuse me, I was not aware I was dealing with the absolute authority on honor. It's notlike it's aconcept that has had different interpretations depending on time and place. Oh wait...

Don't call other people's opinion ludicrous because they are not the same as yours especially when dealing with morality, honor, justice and such.

Also I would not assume anything about an honor system where fighting a flipping tree to death is honorable.

I'm very curious about how the dwarves manage to get killed by trees, actually. I imagine it is as simple as overexertion, but I'd like to think it's even sillier than that

edit: I mean, it'd be hilarious if we could actually extrapolate from the one such death we see. How many splinters do you need? How many tries? How badly must you fight?

My guess is axing a tree without taking into acount where it's gonna fall. Else google "lethal accident lumberjack" and I think you'll have a few ideas.

[Dr.Zero]

I'm very curious about how the dwarves manage to get killed by trees, actually. I imagine it is as simple as overexertion, but I'd like to think it's even sillier than that

edit: I mean, it'd be hilarious if we could actually extrapolate from the one such death we see. How many splinters do you need? How many tries? How badly must you fight?

It might work more or less like this one (you need a big screen to see it well), just using swords and hammers instead of chainsaws.

On a more serious note, since they only need to fall in battle, I suppose that being sick and fighting till you don't die of exhaustion works as well.

[The MunchKING]

I'm very curious about how the dwarves manage to get killed by trees, actually. I imagine it is as simple as overexertion, but I'd like to think it's even sillier than that

In the first scene where they established that trees were the racial enemy of Dwarves, didn’t it show the roots breaking their cave roof?

So if they fight it from the underside, it may be that it’s a cave in, and they died honorably because they saved everyone else who would have been in there if they weren’t fighting the tree.

[Lord Joeltion]

I was gonna answer a lot of comments, but I gave up after yesterday. So, to make it short:

Everything Grey Wolf and Darth Paul said

To everyone else: The Barn called; they want all their straws back

Come on, now tell me you've never tested the waters to see if someone who you liked could have been interested in you as well, before asking them out.

Dear god, probably more than 90% of the people of the world is a "manipulative bastard" by this standard, starting from first graders.

I have the feeling that on this forum the stated standards to be a decent person are quite high.

(By the way, maybe she thought that if Durkon was really interested in something of her past, it was his duty to ask, exactly like she was doing; again, she was not infected by STD, she was married and didn't consider her marriage an obstacle and she could have never talked about it, if she wanted to lie on that point)

I'm fascinated how you totally missed every single meaning on my words, because that's totally not what I was talking about. How she sees things have literally nothing to do with the way she knows dwarfs react by default. She was the one jumping on conclusions and making entirely baseless assumptions, while Durkon was simply acting upon unreliable information.

The most interesting part is that if the genders were reversed, we would not be having this conversation at all. If a man with a wife chose to pursue a virgin girl and failed to reveal to her he was married, I doubt a single person would be disputing he had failed to be sufficiently upfront.

It's funny because that's the plot for the original tale of the Sleeping Beauty

Spoiler: snip

Show

I don't think it was that at all.

Looking at #76, immediately after Hilgya establishes that Durkon is unattached, she makes a flimsy excuse to hold his hand. Durkon isn't thinking about a relationship at this time, he's thinking about getting out of the dungeon. He has no reason to ask about her "attached" status (or otherwise). As Durkon says, "I'm na gettin' no feelin'..."

Next comic she's asking him to put his arm around her for warmth. The very next time we see them together, she's suggested they camp for the night and ends with kissing him. Hilgya's taken the initiative the whole time, it obviously wasn't in Durkon's mind at all until the third panel of 79 when she says "We're here in the dark. Alone."

I don't know about anyone else, but to me, that's no time for questions. I think Durkon assumed, if he was thinking much of anything at that point, that Hilgya wouldn't have been approaching him this way if she hadn't been 100% free and unencumbered.

Yes, married people go around all the time hitting on other people without mentioning their spouses. Presenting oneself as single, acting as a person free of attachments, is a lie of omission if you're not actually single. It's not the obligation of the hittee to ask "Are you secretly married and just hiding the fact from me?" before sleeping together. In everyday society (especially if you're an honorable dwarf) one could expect to accept others at face value.

Could and should Durkon have been a little bit suspicious, knowing that she was a worshiper of Loki, God of Deceit? Well, sure. But she was the first dwarf he'd seen in years and he was homesick. And, see above, she put the moves on him before he had any notion of what she was thinking. Durkon isn't blameless; but Hilgya is the one who was deceiving someone.

That's an excellent account of the actual events in the comic

Now that you bring up Thor, it occurs to me that she may have thought that would mean he would not object to adultery...

Nobody (not even Durkon) in that scene was arguing about cheating; they were talking about pre-marital sex. And entirely different can of worms, if you haven't learned by now...

Or you know, Durkon is pissed that a Dwarf might put her needs before her duty when he sacrificied his life to his and blows his reaction out of proportion. He talks about "duty" and "dwarven way" but not "honor".

For all practical purposes, they are synonyms under this context. Whether there are particular exceptions or cases between them, is a matter of perspective, not of essence. All three belong to honor-bound traditions.

Counterpoint: getting killed by a tree counts as honorable even though trees are inanimate objects, and their nature as a threat is a mass dwarven cultural delusion.

Counter-counterpoint: Trees and specifically, roots; are an actual threat for anyone who lives underground. The delusion is that they are objects (they are not) and that they are inanimate (they are not). Sure, "killed by a tree" is a difficult feat to pull, but that doesn't mean they pose no danger for dwarven culture. I hope you don't come back arguing that trees don't grow and aren't actually alive... That's too big of a straw, even for you

Was it ? We know Thor helped the Dwarves develop the most honorbound socierty on earth. We know that Dvalin, the dwarfest dwarf who ever dwarfed does not consider Thor's words to be definite on what is honorable behaviour and we know Odin's church is at least as present as Thor's in DL (assuming a more powerful high priest means more priests in general/more resources hence a lot of followers). So it is completely possible for Dwarfs to come up with traditions that did not involve Thor's input. It is just that most did.

Just because Dwarfs have been misguided from time to time, that doesn't make the whole honor-system invalid or something a dwarf shouldn't be concerned about. Nobody is arguing whether Durkon is objectively right; only that his concerns are real because Honor-system is a real thing. Eternal damnation IS a real thing. Being honorable happens to be the only way to avoid it for a Dwarf.

Excuse me, I was not aware I was dealing with the absolute authority on honor. It's notlike it's aconcept that has had different interpretations depending on time and place. Oh wait...

Don't call other people's opinion ludicrous because they are not the same as yours especially when dealing with morality, honor, justice and such.

Problem is that Grey Wolf is actually right. Just because you don't seem to understand how honor works doesn't mean Grey Wolf isn't right. Having "an opinion" doesn't automatically validate your position. You are backing your interpretation of comic events with your own personal system of belief. Which is totally irrelevant for the discussion at hand.

[Keltest]

Counter-counterpoint: Trees and specifically, roots; are an actual threat for anyone who lives underground. The delusion is that they are objects (they are not) and that they are inanimate (they are not). Sure, "killed by a tree" is a difficult feat to pull, but that doesn't mean they pose no danger for dwarven culture. I hope you don't come back arguing that trees don't grow and aren't actually alive... That's too big of a straw, even for you

Counter-counter-counter point. You know darn well that's not the threat the dwarves are concerned about, and their methods of combating this menace are to charge them with weapons rather than, you know, actually curb their growth in sensitive areas. The delusion is that they are sapient and plotting the downfall of the dwarves, as demonstrated by the numerous times Durkon has claimed as much.

[Fyraltari]

To everyone else: The Barn called; they want all their straws back

Not before they give me a refund. I haven't won a single argument with their straw. This straw is inferior quality, that's what it is!

It's funny because that's the plot for the original tale of the Sleeping Beauty

Bah! Those commoners and their "equal rights". Back in the old days, only royalty could go around raping people and now everybody should? Peuh! This is all that James Bond fellow's fault whoever he is

For all practical purposes, they are synonyms under this context. Whether there are particular exceptions or cases between them, is a matter of perspective, not of essence. All three belong to honor-bound traditions.

Fair point. Though I keep arguing that this is more about his personnal issues than the fates of any of their immortal souls.

Just because Dwarfs have been misguided from time to time, that doesn't make the whole honor-system invalid or something a dwarf shouldn't be concerned about. Nobody is arguing whether Durkon is objectively right; only that his concerns are real because Honor-system is a real thing. Eternal damnation IS a real thing. Being honorable happens to be the only way to avoid it for a Dwarf.

Fair point.

Problem is that Grey Wolf is actually right. Just because you don't seem to understand how honor works doesn't mean Grey Wolf isn't right. Having "an opinion" doesn't automatically validate your position. You are backing your interpretation of comic events with your own personal system of belief. Which is totally irrelevant for the discussion at hand.

Really, now? please, then tell me where to find the Universal and Timeless Guide to Honorable Behaviour so that I can enlighten myself. I guess I was wrong when I thought that European Knights and Japanese Samuraï had wildly different opinions on whether or not it was honorable to commit suicide.

[Dr.Zero]

<snip>
Just because Dwarfs have been misguided from time to time, that doesn't make the whole honor-system invalid or something a dwarf shouldn't be concerned about. Nobody is arguing whether Durkon is objectively right; only that his concerns are real because Honor-system is a real thing. Eternal damnation IS a real thing. Being honorable happens to be the only way to avoid it for a Dwarf.
<snip>

Everything else has been deeply analyzed, so I reply only to this, in the case you missed the other discussion.

Evidence collected which prove that neither his soul nor Hilgya's was (more than the usual) in danger from having sex


Reasoning that explain how, even if we go with the assumption that Durkon's knowledge is worst than the average dwarf (which, btw, would mean to assume that either his mom, his uncles, his friends and his church have the same holes in knowledge or that none of them ever cared to explain him correctly how things work, which to me appears utterly ridiculous, specially being the argument the basis of dwarven culture), the simply fact that he believes thing work that way means he cannot be worried about Hel because of that act (since, you know, to be worried about something, you should believe you have a reason to worry in the first place).

Finally, the idea that Durkon was blaming Hilgya for putting in danger Durkon's soul (which is a point that cannot be true, for the reasons above) is a point that actually the same Durkon never raised and that came out from nowhere in this and that other discussion, without a hint of an evidence. Durkon blamed her for not respecting HER duty, because he is so lawful stupid to think that if an authority coerce you to marry someone, you must obey. That if an authority, even if it is clearly an evil tyrrany, imprisons your friend, you should not free them. And probably that if an authority says him to stick a broom in his ass, he must obey. That's it.

[Lord Joeltion]

Fair point. Though I keep arguing that this is more about his personnal issues than the fates of any of their immortal souls.

Not for Durkon, no. He has high regards of duty and honor, because he is kind of a "paragon Dwarf". A dwarf is all about honor, duty and avoiding Hel at all costs (that's how he was raised). Nothing suggests that Durkon thinks less of people who don't commit to their lovers; but he literally expressed that a Dwarf should follow his duty and code no matter what on several occasions. For him it's all about honor. Actually, I have no idea whatever he thinks about people who are different (cough Haley cough Shoho cough Belkar cough) than him on that matter. Point being, he keeps his honor dearest than anything else in the world. Even love.

Really, now? please, then tell me where to find the Universal and Timeless Guide to Honorable Behaviour so that I can enlighten myself. I guess I was wrong when I thought that European Knights and Japanese Samuraï had wildly different opinions on whether or not it was honorable to commit suicide.

Neither European Knights nor feudal Japan appear to be relevant for the Honor Code presented in the comic. Or the one presented in D&D, for what it's worth. All I gathered in this discussion is that Grey Wolf is following a train of thought that matches the one in the comic (and by extension, Dwarven people) and nobody (not just you) yet offered a single actual counterargument that wasn't entirely based on personal opinion, speculation or simply grasping straws.

Everything else has been deeply analyzed, so I reply only to this, in the case you missed the other discussion.

Evidence collected which prove that neither his soul nor Hilgya's was (more than the usual) in danger from having sex

As I said before, the actual objectivity of the Honor Code and its reason to exist is entirely beside the issue whether Helga is a liar/manipulative/sex-driven whatever; and the fact that Durkon holds his belief system (not just on religious aspects, but his way of life) very dearly. It doesn't matter if they were "technically" in danger or not; the problem is that Dwarven people is very honorable and very cautious when getting involved in dishonorable matters. Hylgia is the exception here, not the rule. If there's anyone where any responsibility should fall is onto her.

Whether Durkon is right or wrong about dying with honor (or even, if that was his only reason to be mad) that doesn't change the fact that he cares about being involved in dishonorable acts. I could link every single frame where he mentions/hint/says so, but that would be the entire comic, wouldn't it? And yeah, for Durkon, Lawful=Honorable. I think it should be obvious by now.

Reasoning that explain how, even if we go with the assumption that Durkon's knowledge is worst than the average dwarf (which, btw, would mean to assume that either his mom, his uncles, his friends and his church have the same holes in knowledge or that none of them ever cared to explain him correctly how things work, which to me appears utterly ridiculous, specially being the argument the basis of dwarven culture), the simply fact that he believes thing work that way means he cannot be worried about Hel because of that act (since, you know, to be worried about something, you should believe you have a reason to worry in the first place).

The fact that doctrines change through time for reasons is beyond this discussion. It's something that just happens, and doesn't change the way people deal with said doctrine, in it's essence. A "fake" religion that spawns from a "real" religion is just as valid for its believers. It doesn't really matter whether it's true or not, as long as people respect said religion.

Also, Durkon says "Die with honor". How do you solely interpret that very specific phrase as "dying by doing some honorable act" and automatically discard its more general meaning (dying with your honor intact) is beyond me. Yes, I know he previously mentions "dying in battle"; but since he also says "specifically those dying of some sickness" it appears obvious to me that he wasn't being thorough in his description. Because there are a bazzillion ways to die other than "in battle" and "of sickness", you know? It's just that honorable people tend to die in battle (because that's the dwarven way to die for Thor followers); and dishonorable people tend to just die of sickness (by dwarven standards).

Finally, the idea that Durkon was blaming Hilgya for putting in danger Durkon's soul (which is a point that cannot be true, for the reasons above) is a point that actually the same Durkon never raised and that came out from nowhere in this and that other discussion, without a hint of an evidence. Durkon blamed her for not respecting HER duty, because he is so lawful stupid to think that if an authority coerce you to marry someone, you must obey. That if an authority, even if it is clearly an evil tyrrany, imprisons your friend, you should not free them. And probably that if an authority says him to stick a broom in his ass, he must obey. That's it.

It's not because he is lawful, but because he is honorable. He mentioned "duty", not "illegitimacy". You can be both lawful and honorable at the same time, you know? What is very difficult, is the opposite in fact. It's true that we don't know the specific reasons of WHY Durkon told her she should be more honorable. He doesn't need to see himself worth Ultimate Punishment for a minor transgression either. The magnitude of the transgression isn't something worth questioning in any case. Be it minor or not, Durkon would still throw a lecture about how being Honorable Beyond Reason is everything that makes a dwarf worth its shoes, because that's who Durkon is. He is a Honorable-Two-Shoes, no matter what. He wouldn't risk breaking the honor code; and wouldn't recommend it to anyone specially not to a fellow dwarf

[The MunchKING]

Counter-counter-counter point. You know darn well that's not the threat the dwarves are concerned about

He does? Cause I brought THIS up earlier.

[Onyavar]

First of all, I share the belief that Durkon isn't the one to blame for Hilgya's bad situation. That's Hilgya herself. While I can't hold Durkon entirely blameless, he made a swift decision based on his beliefs: He helped her doing her duty. Sure, it was a rude move, but he realized that she was chaotic and probably evil. Looking at her now, I still see that she is extremely chaotic. I'm not entirely confident about "evil", she may be chaotic neutral but that's just because I give her the benefit of doubt.

Grey Wolf has made lots of compelling arguments in this debate. But one of the pillars of his arguments is faulty:

The "dwarven way" was created by Thor to ensure that dwarves would act honorably and thus not end in Hel's clutches.

Except for the rules about honorable death we know little about the dwarven way. We know that most dwarves worship Thor, yet we have seen three dwarven High Priests of different gods: Odin, Freya, Frigg. Of course, we learned what Durkon believed to be the dwarven way in #84. Still we have seen in the most recent arc that his friends+family were NOT adhering to the grim dwarven way of suffering that Durkon described back then. Which means, at least to me, that Durkon might have made up most of this - because he WAS suffering in exile, didn't like it, but still had to uphold his duty. By "made up", I mean that he focused on the existing aspects of the dwarven way that justified perseverance in suffering - and he practically forgot all the fun aspects of being a dwarf. Belkar has lampshaded his dull outlook on life often enough. This may change after the current arc. I sure hope for it.

Again: I "invented" nothing. Durkon's reaction tells us that it was dishonorable. If you don't like my example of how that might come to bear, make up your own. If you can't, that's on you for lack of imagination.

Emphasis mine, here you contradict yourself: You used your imagination to interpret the situation. In the paragraph above, I use my imagination to create a different interpretation. But both of these interpretations are actually inventions by ourselves. We don't know for sure until word of the Giant (probably in-comic) tells us otherwise.

He talks about "duty" and "dwarven way" but not "honor".

And that's the gist of it. I can't find any mention of "honor" in #83 or #84. These words and their implications are closely related (as most honor systems inflict multiple duties upon their followers), but are you really entirely sure that the duty to be a good partner in marriage has anything to do with the honorable death clause? You can of course deduce some connections between those two by interpreting canon knowledge - but again, those deductions might turn out to be vivid imaginations.

... As for arguing against the ridiculous positions of posters that argue in favor of Hilgya, however, there isn't so much to say. She sought the relationship with Durkon; she was by far the more experienced partner which places more responsability with her; and she pretty much deceived him about her situation. Also, in D&D there is no gender gap (with regards to the rape trope that Darth Paul mentioned on a previous page). In D&D, women and men ARE equal, and as readers we shouldn't make assumptions based on real-world inequality.

So, after the act, when Hilgya told Durkon about her attempts to poison/abandon her lawful husband, Durkon had very few options:
- Forgive her for the sake of their illicit relationship was a no-go for a lawful good character like him: It's very probable that she'd have confronted him with similar situations regularly, forcing him to betray his principles over and over. So it was better to stick to his principles in the first place, avoiding the slippery slope.
- NOT Forgive her while allowing her to stay around? An even worse idea, she might get her hopes up again. Also, it's inconsequential because she still shirks her duties at home.
- Sending her away was the only reasonable solution. (As I already mentioned, Durkon was very rude about it. But that scene was a defining moment for his character portrayal: Durkon is painfully honest and straightforward, in every situation. And keep in mind, unilateral break-ups are always messy. Insulting the other and drive them away quickly is just as bad in the end as gently pussyfooting around because you're afraid to hurt the other.)

[Dr.Zero]

<snip>
Also, Durkon says "Die with honor". How do you solely interpret that very specific phrase as "dying by doing some honorable act" and automatically discard its more general meaning (dying with your honor intact) is beyond me. Yes, I know he previously mentions "dying in battle"; but
<snip>

Of course, if you choose to ignore all what is said explicitly that proves your theory wrong, then nothing explicitly is said which can prove that your theory is wrong.
It works quite well.
As if I choose to ignore all this mess made just to avoid to admit that Durkon wasn't worried for his own soul, if not in some theory coming out from absolutely nowhere and without any base, and that you keep to insist on without bringing any solid evidence or reference about it, then this won't kill my brain anymore.

So let's do that.

[Fyraltari]

Not for Durkon, no. He has high regards of duty and honor, because he is kind of a "paragon Dwarf". A dwarf is all about honor, duty and avoiding Hel at all costs (that's how he was raised). Nothing suggests that Durkon thinks less of people who don't commit to their lovers; but he literally expressed that a Dwarf should follow his duty and code no matter what on several occasions. For him it's all about honor. Actually, I have no idea whatever he thinks about people who are different (cough Haley cough Shoho cough Belkar cough) than him on that matter. Point being, he keeps his honor dearest than anything else in the world. Even love.

I'm not sure if that is supposed to contradict what I wrote. I meant that Durkon's personnal issues regarding his exile explains why he reacted that strongly to Hilgya's story. I mean take a look at his childhood flashbacksthat is not nearly as grimm an education as he implied there.

Neither European Knights nor feudal Japan appear to be relevant for the Honor Code presented in the comic. Or the one presented in D&D, for what it's worth. All I gathered in this discussion is that Grey Wolf is following a train of thought that matches the one in the comic (and by extension, Dwarven people) and nobody (not just you) yet offered a single actual counterargument that wasn't entirely based on personal opinion, speculation or simply grasping straws.

If there is evidence in the comic that "knowing that what you were doing was wrong" is irrelevant for the purpose of passing judgement on your actions, I'd appreciate if you could link to it because I missed it. Grey Wolf stated that (paraphrased) "that's just how honor works" to which I replied that there is no single universal understanding of honor therefore one can not just assume it works like that for Dwarves.