OOTS #1114 - The Discussion Thread

[bravelove]

Chaotic is not somehow more evil than Lawful.

It's not but it holds different connotations, for instance, a lawful evil person doesn't tend to serve Loki, a chaotic god

[The_Weirdo]

"You don't marry someone off at crossbow point if you really care about their wellbeing" would be a very debatable issue in the context of an aristocratic family in a medieval setting. Still, debating it is beyond the point. Fact is, she was forced into rape.

Hylgia has done nothing in this comic but repeat again and again how much she depises her clan and dwarven traditions for getting in the way of she doing what she fancies, and how much she likes Loki for providing her a way to blend the rules and do as she likes. That doesn't implies that she is morally flawed or evil in any way. The fact that she worshipps an Evil god, attempts to murder her husband (who, again, never raped her and is obvious to the fact that she depises their marriage), associates with a band of evil characters, wants to murder someone just because he turned her away after having consensual sex with her, and expresses no moral concern on the notion of burning alive a whole clan, does.

1- This isn't about what she fancies, it's about what her clan did. And what her clan did was to commit a serious crime against her autonomy at crossbow point.
2- The "rules" are unfair. To give you a country-wide example (so that it's not one "evil person trying to escape the rules"), in RIFTS, given half a chance, Free Quebec seceded from the Coalition States BECAUSE the rules were unfair and BECAUSE Free Quebec was oppressed. Would you blame anyone for seceding in this situation? Likely not, right?
3- She clearly regrets having attempted to murder him. She clearly regrets having associated with Nale. And she's not trying to kill Durkon because they had sex and he left, but because, as far as she knows, he took pains not to talk to her again even as she was pregnant with his child.
4- "Not expressing moral concern" is not Evil. Evil is in how you ACT.

[The Pilgrim]

yeah, because The Giant isnt the kind of author that thinks casual rape makes a good story, but regardless of whether or not sex actually occurred it is absolutely appalling to not recognize that being forced into marriage at crossbow point leads to rape.

You got a nice set of Miko's Boots of Jumping to Conclussions. There is a very long way from stating that Hylgia is not the victim of a rape, to not akcnowelding that forced marriage is wrong.

[Jasder]

On both the issue she has with Durkon, I'm sure this has been brought up in previous discussion threads, but from Hilgya's point of view she has good reason to be bitter. We know Durkon really is as concerned with duty as he said he was, and that his rejection of Hilgya in favour of their duties hurt him greatly. But she doesn't know that. Sure, that's what he said, but only after they'd just had sex. It's not totally crazy for her to assume he was just using her. Now, it's also perhaps not perfectly rational, but who the hell is perfectly rational, especially where matters of the heart are concerned? So I feel her anger at Durkon is understandable.

Her other actions show a similar pattern, with Hilgya herself realising this about her view of her husband. Now, she has a legitimate grievance against both her family and his, and taking revenge in those circumstances, I don't think qualifies as Evil.

Additionally, on the whole, "She's fine killing innocents thing" I don't think that's ever been shown. Sure, it's not the reasoning she used for not burning down the clan hall, but

a) We don't know that action would have endangered innocents.
b) The fact it's not a reason she brings up for avoiding it doesn't mean it's not a reason she had.

ETA-

4- "Not expressing moral concern" is not Evil. Evil is in how you ACT.

The first bit of that is exactly right. The second bit I mostly agree with.

[Mandor]

Dang. Putting her own clan in the poorhouse. I get she was ripped at them over the whole arranged / forced marriage thing, but that's a tactic that will have a LOT of collateral damage to the next generation or two. Any younger nieces, nephews, cousins, or children of cousins, may be rather severely impacted by that.

Then again, I never accused Hilgya of being Good.
Poossssibly CN.
And still quite possibly CE.

[The Extinguisher]

You got a nice set of Miko's Boots of Jumping to Conclussions. There is a very long way from stating that Hylgia is not the victim of a rape, to not akcnowelding that forced marriage is wrong.

okay then whats the point of bringing it up? why bother taking the time to "well, actually" that she wasn't technically raped? If you're not trying to insist that her marriage at crossbow point wasn't actually all that bad, why are you laying out arguments for it?

[Dragolord]

On both the issue she has with Durkon, I'm sure this has been brought up in previous discussion threads, but from Hilgya's point of view she has good reason to be bitter.

From Xykon's point of view, he had a good reason to kill Fyron and his son. It doesn't necessarily follow that he did, or that literally anybody else would see it that way.

[Kish]

It's not but it holds different connotations, for instance, a lawful evil person doesn't tend to serve Loki, a chaotic god

You're the only person in this thread who suggested "Lawful" in conjunction with Hilgya, and you did it in reference to her actions not being evil enough for you to call Chaotic Evil. You even said "Lawful Evil at worst." So if you're now saying you didn't very strongly imply that Lawful Evil is less evil than Chaotic Evil, you might want to start over.

[The_Weirdo]

Dang. Putting her own clan in the poorhouse. I get she was ripped at them over the whole arranged / forced marriage thing, but that's a tactic that will have a LOT of collateral damage to the next generation or two. Any younger nieces, nephews, cousins, or children of cousins, may be rather severely impacted by that.

And all of that pales to utter insignificance in light of the fact that she is now free. She had a right to her freedom. This was the means to that end. She also certainly had a right to be angry.

Then again, I never accused Hilgya of being Good.
Poossssibly CN.
And still quite possibly CE.

She was CE. So far, she's only shown herself as CN.

[The Pilgrim]

Additionally, on the whole, "She's fine killing innocents thing" I don't think that's ever been shown.

Remember her smile as she assisted Nale into murdering the fire sylph?

[The_Weirdo]

Remember her smile as she assisted Nale into murdering the fire sylph?

No one is arguing that she wasn't CE back then. You know, 1062 strips ago.

[Mandor]

And all of that pales to utter insignificance in light of the fact that she is now free. She had a right to her freedom. This was the means to that end. She also certainly had a right to be angry.



She was CE. So far, she's only shown herself as CN.

I disagree. She was FREE when she was out with Durkon and Nale. She went back to the dwarven lands of her own accord. She could have left again, just as she did the first time. But, she chose a form of revenge that WILL result in collateral damage on people who have done her no wrong. Unless you think some 5 year old kid or grandkid of the clan elders shares moral fault with her being forced into marriage.

THAT said, I do not expect anyone in this thread to share my view. I have clarified my point, and my position on the matter. Whether or not anyone else agrees, is not required.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I do like that better, but I can somewhat understand the desire to get even.

Being good is not easy. Most people tend to gravitate to neutral, which doesn't require you to put your own desires on hold above the needs of others.

On both the issue she has with Durkon, I'm sure this has been brought up in previous discussion threads, but from Hilgya's point of view she has good reason to be bitter. We know Durkon really is as concerned with duty as he said he was, and that his rejection of Hilgya in favour of their duties hurt him greatly. But she doesn't know that. Sure, that's what he said, but only after they'd just had sex. It's not totally crazy for her to assume he was just using her.

Yes, yes it is crazy to assume that, because she initiated, and forced the situation. Durkon was at every step of the process passive, as Durkon tends to be. There is a lot of projecting in her accusations of Durkon.

Additionally, on the whole, "She's fine killing innocents thing" I don't think that's ever been shown.

You'd be wrong.

Sure, it's not the reasoning she used for not burning down the clan hall, but

a) We don't know that action would have endangered innocents.
b) The fact it's not a reason she brings up for avoiding it doesn't mean it's not a reason she had.

So your defence of Hilgya is assuming that the reason she did something was better than the one she admitted to? When she's talking to a Good person? That makes no sense to me. You don't lie to make yourself look worse.

I disagree. She was FREE when she was out with Durkon and Nale. She went back to the dwarven lands of her own accord. She could have left again, just as she did the first time. But, she chose a form of revenge that WILL result in collateral damage on people who have done her no wrong. Unless you think some 5 year old kid or grandkid of the clan elders shares moral fault with her being forced into marriage.

THAT said, I do not expect anyone in this thread to share my view. I have clarified my point, and my position on the matter. Whether or not anyone else agrees, is not required.

Well, I do. So there.

Grey Wolf

[The_Weirdo]

I disagree. She was FREE when she was out with Durkon and Nale. She went back to the dwarven lands of her own accord. She could have left again, just as she did the first time. But, she chose a form of revenge that WILL result in collateral damage on people who have done her no wrong. Unless you think some 5 year old kid or grandkid of the clan elders shares moral fault with her being forced into marriage.

Except she had the right not to live in exile as well. The five-year-old can take it up with the elders.

THAT said, I do not expect anyone in this thread to share my view. I have clarified my point, and my position on the matter. Whether or not anyone else agrees, is not required.

Whew.

[The Pilgrim]

okay then whats the point of bringing it up? why bother taking the time to "well, actually" that she wasn't technically raped? If you're not trying to insist that her marriage at crossbow point wasn't actually all that bad, why are you laying out arguments for it?

Basically because there are people arging that Hylgia was forced into rape. And truth is, rape has nothing to do with Hylgia's motivations. And the truth always has an use.

[The_Weirdo]

Basically because there are people arging that Hylgia was forced into rape. And truth is, rape has nothing to do with Hylgia's motivations. And the truth always has an use.

I was arguing that her clan set her up to be raped.

As in, they married her off to someone she didn't want to marry. They very likely thought the marriage would be consummated. And it wasn't only by author's fiat.

[bravelove]

You're the only person in this thread who suggested "Lawful" in conjunction with Hilgya, and you did it in reference to her actions not being evil enough for you to call Chaotic Evil. You even said "Lawful Evil at worst." So if you're now saying you didn't very strongly imply that Lawful Evil is less evil than Chaotic Evil, you might want to start over.

I was saying that her actions weren't chaotic evil by very definition and you could maybe pin it at lawful at worst, as in it could also be spun as chaotic neutral, and lawful evil is worse then that, but if you insist on more detail then she worships Loki, a chaotic god, so she's probably a chaotic alignment, and as shown she doesn't fit chaotic evil, but if we ignore that and insist she's evil she must be neutral evil or lawful evil.

A lawful evil would indeed rig races but Loki isn't really a good fit with the alignment, as lawful evil aren't really tricksters, and while they may attempt to follow Loki for loophole reasons, probably wouldn't be able to correctly follow him. Neutral evil are like mercenaries, they tend to follow whatever serves there purpose but will betray you in an instant if it benefits them, neutral evil would have killed the husband but left the families alone, and once again, and while they may follow Loki, wouldn't spread his teachings or try to convert people like Hilgya. So where does that leave Hilgya?

[The Extinguisher]

Basically because there are people arging that Hylgia was forced into rape. And truth is, rape has nothing to do with Hylgia's motivations. And the truth always has an use.

It has everything to do with her motivations. Once again, ignoring the rape is a consequence of forced marriage simply because in this case the author decided to avoid it is appalling.

The truth may have some use when other people are lying, but no so much when its used to assert moral superiority through technicality.

[Mandor]

I was arguing that her clan set her up to be raped.

As in, they married her off to someone she didn't want to marry. They very likely thought the marriage would be consummated. And it wasn't only by author's fiat.

That point, I do concede. The fact that arranged marriages have had their place in MANY nations across human history and are still in use in some places today, does not necessarily contradict that.

In an ideal world, arranged marriages would never take place.
Failing that, no one would be forced into anything physical across the life of said marriage. No intercourse would occur until both parties had come to accept each other as tolerable mates.
But it doesn't take much of a "What is more likely?" to guess that that's NOT the way things normally play out in such cases. At least among humans.

For dwarves, given the relative disparity in male-to-female that is normally depicted in fantasy, perhaps dwarves in Stickverse share much with the populace of Luna, in Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, where even the accusation of raping a woman was generally a very rapid and very one-way ticket out an airlock. IF.... IF.... that is the case among Stickverse dwarves, then it's not necessarily as bad. But one would genrally assume such attitudes would also prevent an unwanted and unagreed to arranged marriage in the first place.

I defend Hilgya's action on no other point. But I do see it hard to read the arranged marriage otherwise without very creative and generous interpretation that has little evidence (for or against) in comic.

[The_Weirdo]

Okay, Pilgrim, let me give you an example.

Suppose instead of the clans (whom you don't seem to dislike) forcibly marrying off Hilgya (whom you do seem to dislike) qualifying as setting her up to be raped (which is a foreseeable result of that marriage), it is:

1- Me (whom you likely dislike)
2- Throwing a kitten (whom you likely like)
3- Into a race course with cars zooming around. (Which has, well, kitten pancake as the foreseeable result)

Now. By the sheer luck of the kitten, he wasn't ran over.

Does that mean I didn't set the kitten up to be ran over and killed?

[Kish]

I was saying that her actions weren't chaotic evil by very definition and you could maybe pin it at lawful at worst, as in it could also be spun as chaotic neutral, and lawful evil is worse then that,

"At worst" only works if something else that is being used for comparison is worse than what you're talking about--in this case, Lawful Evil.

What do you consider worse than Lawful Evil?

To be clear, I don't agree with any of the premises you've asserted here. The Evil alignment has as much moral range as the Good alignment; the mother black dragon was Chaotic Evil and loved her son and husband wholeheartedly, her evil manifesting as a Weirdoish willingness to punish innocent children for being related to her son's murderer. If you know someone's alignment you know a little bit about their personality, an important part, but far from all of it; if you know someone's Lawful Good you don't know if they're like Roy, Durkon, Soon, O-Chul, Lien, or Hinjo. And if someone's Chaotic Evil, you don't know any more about their personality than you would from knowing they're Lawful Good. You have not shown that she doesn't fit Chaotic Evil; you've only asserted one particular model of Chaotic Evil which doesn't describe her.

[The_Weirdo]

the mother black dragon was Chaotic Evil and loved her son and husband wholeheartedly, her evil manifesting as a Weirdoish willingness to punish innocent children for being related to her son's murderer.

Always good to be remembered.

[bravelove]

"At worst" only works if something else that is being used for comparison is worse than what you're talking about--in this case, Lawful Evil.

What do you consider worse than Lawful Evil?

To be clear, I don't agree with any of the premises you've asserted here. The Evil alignment has as much moral range as the Good alignment; the mother black dragon was Chaotic Evil and loved her son and husband wholeheartedly, her evil manifesting as a Weirdoish willingness to punish innocent children for being related to her son's murderer. If you know someone's alignment you know a little bit about their personality, an important part, but far from all of it; if you know someone's Lawful Good you don't know if they're like Roy, Durkon, Soon, O-Chul, Lien, or Hinjo. And if someone's Chaotic Evil, you don't know any more about their personality than you would from knowing they're Lawful Good. You have not shown that she doesn't fit Chaotic Evil; you've only asserted one particular model of Chaotic Evil which doesn't describe her.

Alright in that case, tell me how her actions are chaotic evil. If you disagree with my belief on chaotic evil, the definition according to (2003). Dungeons & Dragons: Player's Handbook (Special ed.), it's only fair you tell me what your definition is so we may debate on equal footing

[Shining Wrath]

There are examples of sexless marriages in history, especially among aristocrats forced into loveless marriages. In fact, it's a trope.

Until evidence is presented that Hilgya was forced to have sex with Ivan (newlywed couples required to display the bloody bedsheets or some other similar custom), we have no reason to believe she was ever raped.

[Jasder]

Being good is not easy. Most people tend to gravitate to neutral, which doesn't require you to put your own desires on hold above the needs of others.


Yes, yes it is crazy to assume that, because she initiated, and forced the situation. Durkon was at every step of the process passive, as Durkon tends to be. There is a lot of projecting in her accusations of Durkon.


You'd be wrong.


So your defence of Hilgya is assuming that the reason she did something was better than the one she admitted to? When she's talking to a Good person? That makes no sense to me. You don't lie to make yourself look worse.


Grey Wolf

As others have pointed out, and as I've said previously, I've no problem with the idea that Hilgya was Chaotic Evil when she was part of the Linear Guild.

On the Durkon being passive bit, people use lots of means to trick others into sex, including pretending to a sweet shy innocent. It's still not crazy for Hilgya to think that of him, at least in my opinion.

On the final point, well, yes people do sometimes lie to make themselves look worse, or deceive themselves into thinking they're worse than they are, but even ignoring those options, there are other reasons to lie about such actions, such as to not make yourself look weak, which I think would be very in character for Hilgya. Sure, Elan may not see it that way, but again, Hilgya doesn't know that.

ETA-

From Xykon's point of view, he had a good reason to kill Fyron and his son. It doesn't necessarily follow that he did, or that literally anybody else would see it that way.

The difference there is that Xykon understands what he's doing and why, he know's it hurts people who don't deserve it. My point about Hilgya was that from her understanding of what happened her actions are more reasonable, but from the objective point they're less so. She's wrong about what she thinks about Durkon, but if she was right, she'd be justified in being angry. That was what I meant from 'from her point of view'

[The_Weirdo]

There are examples of sexless marriages in history, especially among aristocrats forced into loveless marriages. In fact, it's a trope.

Until evidence is presented that Hilgya was forced to have sex with Ivan (newlywed couples required to display the bloody bedsheets or some other similar custom), we have no reason to believe she was ever raped.

She wasn't. The Giant states that she wasn't. I myself said she wasn't.

That she wasn't doesn't mean that she wasn't set up by the clan to be.

[Fyraltari]

There are examples of sexless marriages in history, especially among aristocrats forced into loveless marriages. In fact, it's a trope.

Until evidence is presented that Hilgya was forced to have sex with Ivan (newlywed couples required to display the bloody bedsheets or some other similar custom), we have no reason to believe she was ever raped.

Nobody ever said she was raped. However the only argument we have for her family knowing that in advance is "Maybe they knew how harmless Ivan is." Which is kinda weak.

[AutomatedTeller]

I think there's a lot of assumption about Hilga's past where she is the only source we have. Given that the picture she paints of Durkon is absolutely at odds with who we KNOW him to be, I have a hard time trusting most things she says about how she got married.

[zinycor]

always be evil responsibly

[The_Weirdo]

I think there's a lot of assumption about Hilga's past where she is the only source we have. Given that the picture she paints of Durkon is absolutely at odds with who we KNOW him to be, I have a hard time trusting most things she says about how she got married.

True. Since we can't trust the pictures in her flashbacks OR her words on them, it must surely mean that she was actually a male elven lumberjack that got changed into a dwarven woman and blamed the trees for it. So she decided to join the dwarves, but since she knew she couldn't or wouldn't be trusted, she created a new identity and a fake past as a victim of a terrible wrong.

(Sarcasm)