What do female readers think of Hilgya Firehelm?

[The_Weirdo]

What if it's about saving the kingdom from utter destruction? What if it's to avoid the death of the father by having the other family pay his mob debts? You can't make such absolute claims without considering you may, at some point, be wrong. Or biased. Right of individuals are overrated. They are not.

Not saying the above aren't morally questionable (they still are); but you can't make a hard claim that every arranged marriage carries a negative moral weight. It doesn't seem... appropriate.

No innocent individual should ever be forced to sacrifice his own happiness, and I say this from experience (which may make me biased, and you're more than free to argue that). A sacrifice is voluntary or it's a crime.

[georgie_leech]

No innocent individual should ever be forced to sacrifice his own happiness, and I say this from experience (which may make me biased, and you're more than free to argue that). A sacrifice is voluntary or it's a crime.

Unless it's a post-scarcity society, some amount of happiness being sacrificed is a given. Even then, unless you think that a kleptomaniac should not sacrifice his happiness by resisting his urges...

[Darth Paul]

The problem with Hilgya instead is that she first tried to murder her oblivious husband, and only later to run away.

That's the biggest obstacle for us to understand Hilgya. We still don't know why she didn't simply leave. It's the key to understand her.

Hilgya appears to be driven to get revenge against anyone she perceives as having wronged her, as we see in her attitude toward Durkon... even if the target of her ire doesn't deserve it. Possibly she blamed Ivan for her being in the marriage at all. Or maybe she thought she could inherit his wealth as a stake before she went out on her own, whereas just leaving or divorcing him wouldn't give her sufficient starting money.

I think that the crossbow was there, and that it was there for Hilgya.

I'd like to spin that the opposite way. I now think the crossbow was only there for Hilgya. She was the one who felt forced into the marriage by her society, she was the one who felt compelled. The crossbow represents that compulsion. It's a symbolic crossbow.

Arranged marriages are not inherently evil. The involved parties may be perfectly comfortable with the benefits of it and not interested in eschewing it to pursue other options. Forced marriages, however, are. If someone says "no, I do not want to get married," it is not okay to override that.

But I wonder if she ever outright said this, or if she was a chaotic spirit trapped in a Lawful society. Again, that "crossbow" existed in her mind, compelling her to do things she didn't want to do... until she decided to abandon the society that she couldn't live in.

It's an intrusion upon the rights of an individual. {snip} No innocent individual should ever be forced to sacrifice his own happiness, and I say this from experience (which may make me biased, and you're more than free to argue that). A sacrifice is voluntary or it's a crime.

All sorts of things intrude upon our rights. Your rights intrude on my rights, mine intrude on yours. We just have to live with it.
I'm forced to sacrifice my own happiness every time I go to work and punch the time clock, but that's the choice between starving or not starving, living with a roof over my head or not. I suspect a great many innocent people suffer that same choice (which isn't really a choice). In an ideal world? I agree with you. But sometimes a little sacrifice is just the price of reality.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

All sorts of things intrude upon our rights. Your rights intrude on my rights, mine intrude on yours. We just have to live with it.
I'm forced to sacrifice my own happiness every time I go to work and punch the time clock, but that's the choice between starving or not starving, living with a roof over my head or not. I suspect a great many innocent people suffer that same choice (which isn't really a choice). In an ideal world? I agree with you. But sometimes a little sacrifice is just the price of reality.

In the same vein, in regards to "a group should never override individual right" statement from earlier, that too is simply untenable. There are endless situations in which a group to which an individual belongs can and should restrict the rights of the individual: for example, the right to own a dangerous item such as a car without first demonstrating basic competence in its operation is restricted in most countries, and is usually tied to forcing the individual to purchase insurance in case they do damage. And speaking of insurance, pretty much every western country attempted to allow individuals to decide for themselves whether they wanted fire insurance (and for individuals to own firefighting operations) and both ideas turned out to be terrible for the health of the cities as a whole, leading to the violation of individual rights, both by restricting who can own a firefighting operation and the individual's choice not to purchase fire insurance. And of course, the requirement to purchase fire insurance is just a specific example of a "tax" - i.e. the fact that a society has bills to pay, and can force anyone belonging to said society to participate in paying those bills whether or not they actually benefit from the service being paid for (say, public transport, paid for people that don't use it).

Like those three examples, there are endless others where the rights of the group as a whole override the individual rights, and it is generally considered better than the alternative.

Grey Wolf

[The_Weirdo]

Okay, let me put it another way.

I'm not talking taxes (which the government, at least in theory, uses to improve your own life with nifty things like street lights and maintaining the law). I'm not talking stuff that would likely cause someone to rob other people of their rights (driving a car without a license or knowledge). And I did say innocent, so the klepto example doesn't really apply.

I'm saying that your country or clan doesn't have the right to tell you to table your pursuit of happiness and to live a life of slavery or oppression "for the good of the people".

I'm not railing against taxes, I'm railing against a The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas scenario.

[Keltest]

Okay, let me put it another way.

I'm not talking taxes (which the government, at least in theory, uses to improve your own life with nifty things like street lights and maintaining the law). I'm not talking stuff that would likely cause someone to rob other people of their rights (driving a car without a license or knowledge). And I did say innocent, so the klepto example doesn't really apply.

I'm saying that your country or clan doesn't have the right to tell you to table your pursuit of happiness and to live a life of slavery or oppression "for the good of the people".

I'm not railing against taxes, I'm railing against a The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas scenario.

As has been previously demonstrated, your definitions of slavery and oppression are sufficiently broad as to be all inclusive of anything that a person doesn't want to do. Should kids not be forced to go to school? Can we not force people to shovel their sidewalks so people can walk on them in the winter? There are lots of things people do because society decided they needed to be done, not because somebody wants to do it. Heck, even having a job falls under the banner of "society telling you to do this thing".

[The_Weirdo]

As has been previously demonstrated, your definitions of slavery and oppression are sufficiently broad as to be all inclusive of anything that a person doesn't want to do. Should kids not be forced to go to school? Can we not force people to shovel their sidewalks so people can walk on them in the winter? There are lots of things people do because society decided they needed to be done, not because somebody wants to do it. Heck, even having a job falls under the banner of "society telling you to do this thing".

So did your definitions of choice, up to and including a choice on whether to get married to a moron or to die.

Really, is it that complicated? I'm clearly not talking about going to school or shoveling sidewalks.

[Jasdoif]

I'm clearly not talking about going to school or shoveling sidewalks.

How would you know Hilgya didn't want to shovel school sidewalks? It's probably a low-demand field in subterranean areas where precipitation doesn't reach the roads; she'd have better luck doing it outside the Dwarven lands.

[Keltest]

So did your definitions of choice, up to and including a choice on whether to get married to a moron or to die.

Really, is it that complicated? I'm clearly not talking about going to school or shoveling sidewalks.

Yeah, it kind of is. That's the point. Society isn't easy, it isn't simple, and you cant just say "anything that takes away a right is bad and must be burned to the ground with all its support structures."

[The_Weirdo]

Yeah, it kind of is. That's the point. Society isn't easy, it isn't simple, and you cant just say "anything that takes away a right is bad and must be burned to the ground with all its support structures."

Hilgya has a right not to get married. It's NOT her responsibility to become a "couple" with Moron just for the sake of her clan. That's my point. Societies and groups cannot force someone into marriage or into servitude. Societies and groups cannot mistreat an individual that did not do anything against them just for the well-being or convenience of the society or group. I've given you the Omelas example, it can't be clearer than that.

If an utopia is reached through the willful mistreatment (and I'm not saying punishment for crimes or even coercion to go to school or pay taxes or anything of the sort, just to make it perfectly clear) of an individual, then that utopia is worthless and must not be allowed to stand.

[Keltest]

Hilgya has a right not to get married. It's NOT her responsibility to become a "couple" with Moron just for the sake of her clan. That's my point. Societies and groups cannot force someone into marriage or into servitude. Societies and groups cannot mistreat an individual that did not do anything against them just for the well-being or convenience of the society or group. I've given you the Omelas example, it can't be clearer than that.

If an utopia is reached through the willful mistreatment (and I'm not saying punishment for crimes or even coercion to go to school or pay taxes or anything of the sort, just to make it perfectly clear) of an individual, then that utopia is worthless and must not be allowed to stand.

One, insulting Ivan, who as far as we can tell was not involved with or aware of Hilgya's being forced to marry against her will is childish and only serves to diminish your credibility.

Two, I don't disagree that forcing hilgya to marry against her will was completely out of line, its the part where you think an appropriate response to being compelled to do something is extreme and indiscriminate violence that I take issue with. Anarchy is not an appropriate response to an imperfect society, period.

[Jasdoif]

Anarchy is not an appropriate response to an imperfect society, period.

Anarchy tends towards imperfect societies, anyway. The "might makes right" mentality prospers when there's not enough structure to resist it; It's only anarchy until one group can beat/threaten everyone else into submission.

[Lord Joeltion]

No innocent individual should ever be forced to sacrifice his own happiness, and I say this from experience (which may make me biased, and you're more than free to argue that). A sacrifice is voluntary or it's a crime.

I can't really judge whether you are really biased with or without reason. But I can tell it is an idealistic stance, and one that is also absolutist in it's position, which isn't good for a strict definition.

Basically, it's all to blame the Social Contract. Hilgya was born in a society that gave her some rights, but also some restrictions/responsibilities; which naturally limit her agency on the choices she can rightfully make with her life. Since we don't know the scope of her duty towards her society (be it her clan, her family, or whatever) we can't tell how "right" she is in marrying whoever she "truly loves" or not. Also, since we don't know the specific terms or reasons for the arrangement, we can't tell how "wrong" was her people into trying to coerce her.

Anyway, I'm not saying she doesn't have a right to be "happy" (whatever that means); it's just that painting the situation in strong black/white, doesn't help us discern her real moral values.

Okay, let me put it another way.
(snip)
I'm saying that your country or clan doesn't have the right to tell you to table your pursuit of happiness and to live a life of slavery or oppression "for the good of the people".

I'm not railing against taxes, I'm railing against a The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas scenario.

Let me put it another way:

Nobody asks to be born a nobleman. That doesn't mean you don't have a duty towards your people. One thing is not giving a crap for a failed system (which is totally HIlgya's right). A completely different thing is being absolutely oblivious of the full scope in the consequences of you not giving a crap for your society. Negligence is never a "right" by any standard definition of the word. You never have the "right" to be negligent. You can be negligent if you are open to accept the full consequences of your actions.

You seem to forget that somebody from either clan gave enough a crap to bring a weapon to the very wedding ceremony. That is indicative that Hilgya's marriage carried strong consequences. Consequences she doesn't seem to care in the least. Should she? Heck, that's the whole conundrum: we don't actually know. But we shouldn't give her a Free Pass just because her marriage was "enforced" onto her. Hel, you seem to be giving her a full Free Out of Jail Card for her attempt to murder Ivar (whose innocence should always be presumed until proven otherwise). That's not fair, it's biased towards Hilgya, and (potentially) against every other dwarven people.

Yeah, it kind of is. That's the point. Society isn't easy, it isn't simple, and you cant just say "anything that takes away a right is bad and must be burned to the ground with all its support structures."

Also, this.

[The_Weirdo]

Snip.

She doesn't have a duty to marry Ivan. That's the point. I'm not even discussing her morality at the moment, I'm discussing the morality of Dwarven society.

She doesn't have to care about the consequences of her not marrying Ivan. Whatever they may be, no, she does NOT have to care. If it results in a clan war, starting it is the decision of the clans, not hers. If it results in the clan war spreading along the entire Dwarven society and said society crumbling, it still won't be her fault. Unless there's some sort of natural law that makes it so people named Hilgya HAVE to marry people named Ivan or the Snarl comes out, whatever consequences arise from her not marrying Ivan are the decisions of OTHER people, not HERS. If the two clans fight, that's on THEM, not on HER. If she WANTS to make that sacrifice because the two clans are made up by bloodthirsty morons, then it's her call, but NO ONE can condemn her if she doesn't.

No, no matter what happens. No, REALLY, no matter what happens.

She does not have to marry Ivan. That's not negotiable, that's a fundamental right not to be used as a bargaining chip.

Ivan, for what it's worth (and for what very little he understands), doesn't have to marry her, either. Heck, given how he was portrayed, one has to even wonder if he's legally capable of giving consent. He just happened to be happy with the arrangement (and/or unable to grasp it).

Heck, feel free to treat Hilgya as the reincarnation of Xykon; she was still mistreated and she still didn't have to marry Ivan. And yes, her clan was still fully in the wrong on that count. Even because, even ASSUMING she wasn't CN or CG before they tried to marry her off at crossbow point, being Evil does not automatically make one a criminal, nor does it strip that person of their rights.

[Darth Paul]

Without knowing more of her backstory, we can't know what Higya's duty was under the laws of Dwarven society. Realizing that she rejects the laws of society doesn't mean the laws aren't there.

We're speculating about how she wound up in an arranged marriage to begin with. Was it for the convenience of the clans? Did she seduce Ivan as she did Durkon, thus possibly making it her duty under some Dwarven law to go ahead and marry him? We don't know. Assuming she is a victim accepts her narrative, and I'm not prepared to do that. She has been extremely self-serving in not taking any responsibility for the events of her life and putting the blame on others- see her version of her fling with Durkon.

I'm not arguing that any form of arranged marriage that doesn't include the willing participation of those involved is moral. But Hilgya certainly doesn't have the moral high ground when her reaction to being in one (from the narrative we're given, her first reaction, since she later left successfully) is to try to murder her husband.

[Mad Humanist]

We're speculating about how she wound up in an arranged marriage to begin with. ... Did she seduce Ivan as she did Durkon, thus possibly making it her duty under some Dwarven law to go ahead and marry him?

Until the comic proves otherwise, this will be now my personal headcanon.

[Lord Joeltion]

She doesn't have a duty to marry Ivan. That's the point. I'm not even discussing her morality at the moment, I'm discussing the morality of Dwarven society.

We don't know that. You are just extrapolating the rules of the society you live in to a fictional society whose entire philosophy relies in something Western societies have never been centred about (but Eastern culture sure did). You can't make a moral assessment of a culture you don't know the specific rules, basing said judgement on you personal rules. That's nonsense.

She doesn't have to care about the consequences of her not marrying Ivan.

If you want to be considered as having the moral high-ground on any situation, YES. You must ALWAYS care about the consequences of your actions. That's the whole philosophic conundrum since Utilitarianism was writen on a book. No amount of suffering or oppression gives you a carte blanche to do whatever you please. Certainly NOT murder. Of course Hilgya doesn't care anyway, so it's irrelevant to her. It's only you who seem to be an ardent defender of her higher moral position. All the consequences tied to your decisions always have a moral weight on you decisions, unless those are consequences unrelated to a moral perspective. Trying to murder her husband instead of simply running away completely undermines any possible moral high-ground Hilgya could attempt to claim.

If it results in a clan war, starting it is the decision of the clans, not hers. If it results in the clan war spreading along the entire Dwarven society and said society crumbling, it still won't be her fault.

That's simply pointing fingers to push the burden of guilt onto somebody else. Of course it's the clan's fault whatever conflict that was present before Hilgya had any chance to intervene. That doesn't mean it's her right not to care about trying to fix it. If there was any other possible solution to the clan's conflict that Hilgya hadn't attempted before running away (or becoming a potential murderer) that strips her any moral high-ground. She is still part of a clan. She is still tied by honor to them. Being honorless doesn't magically make her not part of the problem. Whatever the clan did, it's something only the clan can fix. That includes every single member of the clan. If everyone who is part of a clan is "innocent" of the problems a clan causes, then who is to blame? Their banner? And whatever the case, why are you presuming she didn't generate the conflict on her own in the first place? Because she became a "victim" some time after?

If the two clans fight, that's on THEM, not on HER. If she WANTS to make that sacrifice because the two clans are made up by bloodthirsty morons, then it's her call, but NO ONE can condemn her if she doesn't.

That would be true ONLY and ONLY IF she was completely uninvolved in whatever conflict her clan has/had. Hilgya has a long history of actively avoiding the consequences of her own actions, so I don't see why we should give her the benefit of doubt

No, no matter what happens. No, REALLY, no matter what happens.

And this is different what I was arguing with you on the previous posts. One thing is to claim she is innocent of the hypothetical Ivar's suicide attempt if she denied to marry him. A different thing is to claim she is free to choose the worst possible road to solve a problem (that we don't even know if she brought up on herself or not) for the sole reason she is a victim of a supposedly oppressive society (and the only one denouncing said oppression is Hilgya herself). That is the part I simply can't agree with you. Sorry, but that's flawed thinking.

She does not have to marry Ivan. That's not negotiable, that's a fundamental right not to be used as a bargaining chip.

She still did marry Ivar. Also, some people wouldn't agree marriage is not "negotiable". Some people don't care as long as they can be happy (see Ivar). What people would tell you that is never negotiable, is murder instead. Nothing justifies murder and turns it into a morally good action.

Ivan, for what it's worth (and for what very little he understands), doesn't have to marry her, either. Heck, given how he was portrayed, one has to even wonder if he's legally capable of giving consent. He just happened to be happy with the arrangement (and/or unable to grasp it).

Ok, I will try to overlook your condescension towards the only innocent victim (of attempted murder) here.

Heck, feel free to treat Hilgya as the reincarnation of Xykon; she was still mistreated and she still didn't have to marry Ivan. And yes, her clan was still fully in the wrong on that count. Even because, even ASSUMING she wasn't CN or CG before they tried to marry her off at crossbow point, being Evil does not automatically make one a criminal, nor does it strip that person of their rights.

For the last time, nobody here is arguing that it is her moral duty to marry Ivar. Or that not marrying is inherently evil. What most here were arguing with you is that no amount of offences against her person justifies everything she ever did. Victims of abuse don't get a free pass for becoming psychopats or sociopaths. If an abuser turns you into a bad person, you are still a bad person. You don't get to be called a "saint" or "innocent" just because you suffered in your life. And that is never negotiable.

[Darth Paul]

For the last time, nobody here is arguing that it is her moral duty to marry Ivar.

I did come perilously close. For the record, my point was that there may have been some sort of traditional or societal duty which resulted in her being married off to Ivan. But that was purely speculation on my part. It could just as easily have been to cement some bond of friendship between their clans, which would be just reprehensible. However, in a generally Good society, it's hard for me to picture the clans treating their children as political pawns.

Then again, that's my personal standard of Good behavior. The nobility of Europe did these things for centuries and they felt as if they were pretty Good people. And Durkon would agree that it's certainly Good to sacrifice an amount of personal happiness for the good of your family. It's not as though Ivan was a vicious lout.

Even though it's purely my own head canon, I tend to think (until contradicted by canon) that Hilgya was a "wild child" who had already been with Ivan, so she was pressured to make the relationship official and "settle down with somebody already!" The crossbow in the flashback scene was a metaphor for her clan urging her into a marriage she didn't want.

There's absolutely no grounding for any of this, just my speculation, yet to me, it seems to fit with her character.

[The_Weirdo]

Until the comic proves otherwise, this will be now my personal headcanon.

...based on...?

If you want to be considered as having the moral high-ground on any situation, YES. You must ALWAYS care about the consequences of your actions. That's the whole philosophic conundrum since Utilitarianism was writen on a book. No amount of suffering or oppression gives you a carte blanche to do whatever you please. Certainly NOT murder. Of course Hilgya doesn't care anyway, so it's irrelevant to her. It's only you who seem to be an ardent defender of her higher moral position. All the consequences tied to your decisions always have a moral weight on you decisions, unless those are consequences unrelated to a moral perspective. Trying to murder her husband instead of simply running away completely undermines any possible moral high-ground Hilgya could attempt to claim.

Okay, for the second or third time, I'm not even defending her trying to murder Ivan anymore. I'm pointing out that the consequences of her not marrying someone would be the clans' faults and the clans' to deal with. As for utilitarianism, "Those Who Walk Away from Omelas" is just about the perfect answer to that philosophy.

That's simply pointing fingers to push the burden of guilt onto somebody else. Of course it's the clan's fault whatever conflict that was present before Hilgya had any chance to intervene. That doesn't mean it's her right not to care about trying to fix it. If there was any other possible solution to the clan's conflict that Hilgya hadn't attempted before running away (or becoming a potential murderer) that strips her any moral high-ground. She is still part of a clan. She is still tied by honor to them. Being honorless doesn't magically make her not part of the problem. Whatever the clan did, it's something only the clan can fix. That includes every single member of the clan. If everyone who is part of a clan is "innocent" of the problems a clan causes, then who is to blame? Their banner? And whatever the case, why are you presuming she didn't generate the conflict on her own in the first place? Because she became a "victim" some time after?

It was NEVER HER BURDEN! Being part of a clan doesn't make her chattel! She does NOT have to sacrifice her happiness for the sake of her goddamned clan! NO ONE DOES! It wouldn't be her burden to marry that pure, undiluted moron, no matter what happened! Even assuming she went on a killing spree and her clan decided to marry her off for fear of a clan war, the penalty is prison or death, not MARRIAGE! And that's a big if, because there is nothing, absolutely NOTHING to ground the allegation that, oh, she must have done SOMETHING, on!

That would be true ONLY and ONLY IF she was completely uninvolved in whatever conflict her clan has/had. Hilgya has a long history of actively avoiding the consequences of her own actions, so I don't see why we should give her the benefit of doubt

There is no benefit of the doubt here, because she wasn't even accused of generating the reason why she should be married off. And it's not like she was in prison or otherwise in a context where she was punished and, thus, it would be reasonable to assume she committed a felony. Because being married off isn't a punishment in any civilized society. For the same reason, mind you, that RAPE isn't a punishment in any civilized society. It would be one thing if she had escaped from prison and that was her backstory, but she didn't; she was MARRIED OFF and assuming she somehow is to BLAME or had some sort of obligation to do that is just an assumption. People were once arguing that Ivan was just as much of a victim as she is. Why are they now arguing that Ivan is more of one (even pre-sattempted murder) than she was? Because, "oh, she must have done SOMETHING"? That's blaming at least ONE of the victims.

(that we don't even know if she brought up on herself or not) for the sole reason she is a victim of a supposedly oppressive society (and the only one denouncing said oppression is Hilgya herself).

Okay, one, the story never said she did, two, assuming she did is blaming the victim, three that society IS oppressive, four, even if Hilgya were fricking Xykon, it wouldn't mean she was wrong about that society being at least oppressive enough to include forced marriage.

She still did marry Ivar.

Under threat of death, even you would.

Also, some people wouldn't agree marriage is not "negotiable". Some people don't care as long as they can be happy (see Ivar). What people would tell you that is never negotiable, is murder instead. Nothing justifies murder and turns it into a morally good action.

I'm not defending the attempted murder in this thread, but, somehow, that doesn't seem to be enough and now we have to argue about whether or not FORCING A WOMAN TO MARRY SOMEONE AT CROSSBOW POINT was right and whether or not somehow, someway, it must have been her own fault.

Ok, I will try to overlook your condescension towards the only innocent victim (of attempted murder) here.

Hilgya, at the time of the forced marriage, was just as innocent as Ivan. Unless you count oh, but she must have done SUMTHIN' flights of fancy. Heck, maybe Ivan was perfectly intelligent before, was running after her in an attempt to rape her (and shouting at her, come here so I can rape you!, just so it's perfectly clear that she had good reason to run) and then he tripped, hit his head and became the moron we all know and the clans blamed her for not letting herself be raped in the first place. We have exactly as much evidence to support she must have done SOMETHING to warrant being married off as to support that little story I concocted. If we are to make fair-world assumptions, it cuts both ways.

What most here were arguing with you is that no amount of offences against her person justifies everything she ever did. Victims of abuse don't get a free pass for becoming psychopats or sociopaths. If an abuser turns you into a bad person, you are still a bad person. You don't get to be called a "saint" or "innocent" just because you suffered in your life. And that is never negotiable.

I wasn't arguing against that here, either.

[Lord Joeltion]

I did come perilously close. For the record, my point was that there may have been some sort of traditional or societal duty which resulted in her being married off to Ivan. But that was purely speculation on my part. It could just as easily have been to cement some bond of friendship between their clans, which would be just reprehensible. However, in a generally Good society, it's hard for me to picture the clans treating their children as political pawns.

Fair enough. FWIW, I might have been close too. But I think it's worth making a difference between "moral correctness" and "honor-bound duty". While following a code of conduct is generally seen as "morally correct"; a "honor-bound duty" (like marrying for the honor of the clan) doesn't necessarily imply a morally justifiable action. I think when we are talking about Hilgya having a duty towards her clan, doesn't necessarily imply the best moral action is necessarily following that path. But the best moral action must still regard that aspect, otherwise it wouldn't be morally superior.

And like you said, there's no reason to believe in Hilgya's innocence or oppression by a non-Good society; specially when the only argument in her favor is her own.

Then again, that's my personal standard of Good behavior. The nobility of Europe did these things for centuries and they felt as if they were pretty Good people. And Durkon would agree that it's certainly Good to sacrifice an amount of personal happiness for the good of your family. It's not as though Ivan was a vicious lout.

Yeah, I think it's well within the boundaries of plausibility. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one", and all that. That's why I consider making such a hard claim in favor of Hilgya is kinda biased too. The argument that "Hilgya's own agency is primordial above everything else, no matter what" is just looking through Hilgya's delusional eyes.

[Cazero]

...based on...?

Probably the shotgun wedding reference. Shotgun weddings are about forcing the seducer to get married to the seducee.

[The_Weirdo]

Probably the shotgun wedding reference. Shotgun weddings are about forcing the seducer to get married to the seducee.

Except she found the man to be utterly repugnant, he has all the mental capacity of a child and the Giant said they never consummated the marriage, which does mean it stands to reason to think they were never intimate...

[hamishspence]

Except she found the man to be utterly repugnant, he has all the mental capacity of a child and the Giant said they never consummated the marriage, which does mean it stands to reason to think they were never intimate...

The marriage never being consummated:

Actually...

I can't believe I have to be specific about this, but no, their marriage was never consummated and he probably was completely unaware that she was forced into it (because he is not very smart or perceptive, obviously). And one could have extrapolated that fact if one thought for one moment about what the obvious intended joke of the scene was, which was to contrast Ivan's pleasant personality with Hilgya's exaggerated and inaccurate description.

doesn't rule out the possibility of intimacy before the marriage. Indeed, his lack of smarts, might have been what caused her to decide he was "completely repugnant" in the first place - with her discovering his lack of smarts through intimacy, getting caught, and being upset that one mistaken decision is being used against her.

[The_Weirdo]

Snip.

Still very much a stretch, don't you think?

I think it's worth making a difference between "moral correctness" and "honor-bound duty".

Okay, just to be clear, I'm only arguing morals. Because I find the dwarven concept of honor worthless.

[Darth Paul]

Okay, just to be clear, I'm only arguing morals. Because I find the dwarven concept of honor worthless.

Number one, honor is very closely tied to the morality of the society, and in many cases insists on a more stringent code of morals; doing the right thing regardless of one's personal desires. And this is precisely the aspect of the Dwarven concept that Hilgya has a conflict with. Number two, a higher standard of morality is also common to the honor system that many Stick readers are most familiar with: the European code of chivalry. Sparing the helpless, carrying out a sworn oath, doing an unpleasant duty, are all part of the honor system. It's what you are in the dark. Truth is, sometimes being good sucks, but you give up your personal happiness or goal to do the honorable and right thing.

This is what Hilgya is not alongside. She's not interested in the standards of the community (and doesn't have to be). But it doesn't make her a victim.

[Kish]

Equating following the rules with being good, and not following the rules with not being good, is so many-editions-ago.

In this edition, there's a whole separate alignment axis for that.

(I'm also flatly appalled by the equivalancy of "the noble houses of Europe did this" with "it is something that should be declared Good in an objective sense.")

[The_Weirdo]

Number one, honor is very closely tied to the morality of the society, and in many cases insists on a more stringent code of morals; doing the right thing regardless of one's personal desires. And this is precisely the aspect of the Dwarven concept that Hilgya has a conflict with. Number two, a higher standard of morality is also common to the honor system that many Stick readers are most familiar with: the European code of chivalry. Sparing the helpless, carrying out a sworn oath, doing an unpleasant duty, are all part of the honor system. It's what you are in the dark. Truth is, sometimes being good sucks, but you give up your personal happiness or goal to do the honorable and right thing.

This is what Hilgya is not alongside. She's not interested in the standards of the community (and doesn't have to be). But it doesn't make her a victim.

Marrying because someone is pointing a weapon at one's back makes one a victim.

It does not make one chivalrous. It does not make one into a person of fine character. It does not alter one's morality for "good". And, above all, it is not the right thing. If marrying someone you hate is the right thing, what else is? Being robbed? Raped? Oh, no, wait, that last one would actually already have happened were Ivan so inclined.

Being a victim - and Hilgya IS one, because she WAS forced to marry someone she dislikes and that IS a wrong committed against a person, which DOES make them a victim - is not an ethical choice. It's an ordeal no one should have to put up with. Had she CHOSEN to marry Ivan "for the sake of her clan", we wouldn't be having this conversation; we'd be talking about how selfless she was to do something NO ONE HAS TO for the sake of her clan. As it is, however, her clan forced her to marry Ivan at crossbow point, while tied up. Which, guess what, makes her a victim.

This isn't a higher standard of morality, not by a long shot. This is a woman her clan tried to use as a bagaining chip! And, above all, Hilgya doesn't have a moral duty to live out the rest of her days feeling miserable because her clan so decrees.

Heck, I should have kept arguing that she was right in trying to kill Ivan rather than conceding the point. At least, that way, I'd not be here, having to argue that it's wrong to treat women like chattel! All it took was me conceding on Ivan for people to begin going "well, she must have done SOMETHING to be forcibly married off at crossbow point" and "well, nobles that were beheaded long ago did it, so it can't be so bad"...

[Darth Paul]

My repeated point is that she is an unreliable expositor. The crossbow may or may not be as metaphorical as the poison bottle in the sandwich.

With no more backstory than we have, and no objective storytelling, we can't judge who did what leading up to Hilgya's wedding. Whether she protested, whether she was "forced" or merely pressured by societal standards and felt that she had no choice, we don't know. We can't know. All of us, myself included, have to confess to painting with our own feelings and prejudices. I'm doing my best to give her the benefit of the doubt, but knowing (by her own story) that Hilgya tried to poison her husband, and not just up and leave, makes me a little bit biased.

And that's about it for me.

[The_Weirdo]

My repeated point is that she is an unreliable expositor. The crossbow may or may not be as metaphorical as the poison bottle in the sandwich.

The Giant stated the crossbow wasn't a metaphor. And, if we argue that the imagery wasn't real in-comic, it cuts both ways: maybe Ivan was a genius tyrant...

[Darth Paul]

The Giant stated the crossbow wasn't a metaphor..

Link please... that's one that I'm unaware of.