Is Hilgya Chaotic Evil or Chaotic Neutral? (Or Lawful Good?)

[Fyraltari]

Again, to be fair, Nale and Thog are Mass-murderers on a pretty epic scale. That's not even counting all the fighting and rebelling against governments that could fight back. So yeah, handing him over to do a few weeks at Bloodstone is just making him pay for his crimes.

True, but all he knew about that is that the Empire wanted him for "murder, conspiracy and treason". Which I am willing to bet are the exact same charges on Ian's own "Wanted" poster.

[The_Weirdo]

Mundane divorce. Done.

Would be contested by the Sexualpredators.

And if you think that means that family manisn't aterrible person, you've failed the point of this quote. It's about how easy it is to do evil and to see nothing wrong with it, not about how it is okay to do horrible things if you just see them as your job.

"The Banality of Evil".

[Fyraltari]

Would be contested by the Sexualpredators.

Who would lose on the ground of crossbow to the head.

"The Banality of Evil".

Yeah. It's a mistake to think evil happens because of Nales, Xykons, Belkars or Tarquins. In the real world the Therklas, Ganjis, Vaarsuvius and Mikos are far guiltier than in D&D.

[Rater202]

...Ivan probably would have said "okay" if she'd just asked for the divorce.

His family might have contested it, but them not contesting the divorce she ended up getting when she presumably didn't ask Ivan and went straight for the lawyers seems more like an afterthought in the retelling, implying she was prepared for contest and Ivan consenting to the divorce would probably shut up most avebnues buy which it could have been contested.

Also, can you stop referring to Ivan's family as sexual predators? She wasn't sold and enslaved, chained up naked to be used by the men of the clan. She was marrid offto a man who probably doesn't even know what sex is.

[The_Weirdo]

Who would lose on the ground of crossbow to the head.

One, forced marriages are likely legal in that society, or Hilgya could have applied legal remedies to it without ever leaving the dwarven lands, which would be easier for her on all accounts.

Two, there were actual people here arguing that "maybe the crossbow is ceremonial"...

Not in the strip.

Here.

...Ivan probably would have said "okay" if she'd just asked for the divorce.

I doubt his family would care either.

His family might have contested it, but them not contesting the divorce she ended up getting when she presumably didn't ask Ivan and went straight for the lawyers seems more like an afterthought in the retelling, implying she was prepared for contest and Ivan consenting to the divorce would probably shut up most avebnues buy which it could have been contested.

I don't think you need to be Brazilian to know the effects social prestige, agendas and interests have on courts.

Also, can you stop referring to Ivan's family as sexual predators? She wasn't sold and enslaved, chained up naked to be used by the men of the clan. She was marrid offto a man who probably doesn't even know what sex is.

No. They accepted the notion of an unwilling woman being forced to marry one of theirs.

[Snails]

Again if you consider revenge to be a worse motivation than money that's your right, I don't particularily care nor will I try to change your mind, but know that not everyone will agree with you on this.

There is an IMO purposeful ambiguity with the alignment system: Is a bandit who regularly spills blood evil?

The designers wanted to give room for DMs to decide either way. Is this a many shades of gray world where only the most vicious humans and bizarre supernatural threats are Evil? Is this a brighter world where only the corrupted show no mercy?

Either approach is workable. It is for the DM to decide and (hopefully) the players will play along.

[Fyraltari]

One, forced marriages are likely legal in that society, or Hilgya could have applied legal remedies to it without ever leaving the dwarven lands, which would be easier for her on all accounts.

Yes, because Hilgya is so rational and trusting of the system...
Arguing that someone isn't evil because they took the course of action that you deduce was the only possible one because if it wasn't it would have bee evil is circular reasonning.

Look at the snipets we've had of Dwarven society and tell me this look like a place where ou can threaten people with death to get your way legally.

Two, there were actual people here arguing that "maybe the crossbow is ceremonial"...

Not in the strip.

Here.

Roses are red, violets are blue,
they are wrong and so are you.

[The_Weirdo]

There is an IMO purposeful ambiguity with the alignment system: Is a bandit who regularly spills blood evil?

The designers wanted to give room for DMs to decide either way. Is this a many shades of gray world where only the most vicious humans and bizarre supernatural threats are Evil? Is this a brighter world where only the corrupted show no mercy?

Either approach is workable. It is for the DM to decide and (hopefully) the players will play along.

And this enlightened and relativistic approach does not apply to Hilgya because...?

[Ironsmith]

Would be contested by the Sexualpredators.

Except we don't actually know that... we know that they won't contest it if the divorce seemingly results from a scandal (since that's what happened), and if Ivan's any indication of what the rest of them are like, they could be totally reasonable and we'd never know the difference. Alternatively, they could contest the divorce... but such doesn't necessarily mean they would win, and it's another story altogether if she convinces Ivan to initiate the divorce to begin with (on the grounds of infidelity). And that's assuming that the dwarven legal system even allows the respective clans to have any input on the matter; if Ivan and Hylgia just decide they're not right for each other, that really ought to be the end of it.

[hroþila]

One, forced marriages are likely legal in that society, or Hilgya could have applied legal remedies to it without ever leaving the dwarven lands, which would be easier for her on all accounts.

I find that very unlikely. Forced marriages as such are usually illegal, but they still happen in practice and the bride has little legal recourse regardless because of other socio-economic issues.

[The_Weirdo]

Yes, because Hilgya is so rational and trusting of the system...
Arguing that someone isn't evil because they took the course of action that you deduce was the only possible one because if it wasn't it would have bee evil is circular reasonning.

Look at the snipets we've had of Dwarven society and tell me this look like a place where ou can threaten people with death to get your way legally.


Roses are red, violets are blue,
they are wrong and so are you.

1- Back then, it was much easier and safer for the Commoner to sue and get protection, if she could, than for her to strike out on her own.
2- Not the only possible one. The most expedient one and the one that paid evil unto evil.
3- Given that Hilgya herself mentions tradition and so on and that she had to see to it that the Sexualpredators didn't contest the divorce, I'd say yes.
4- Yes, they are wrong. But I'm giving you an example of things the Sexualpredators might argue in order to prevent the divorce in the courts.

Except we don't actually know that... we know that they won't contest it if the divorce seemingly results from a scandal (since that's what happened), and if Ivan's any indication of what the rest of them are like, they could be totally reasonable and we'd never know the difference. Alternatively, they could contest the divorce... but such doesn't necessarily mean they would win, and it's another story altogether if she convinces Ivan to initiate the divorce to begin with (on the grounds of infidelity). And that's assuming that the dwarven legal system even allows the respective clans to have any input on the matter; if Ivan and Hylgia just decide they're not right for each other, that really ought to be the end of it.

Reasonableness is for marriages that didn't involve crossbows...

I find that very unlikely. Forced marriages as such are usually illegal, but they still happen in practice and the bride has little legal recourse regardless because of other socio-economic issues.

None of which Hilgya lacks now. Yet, she still needed them not to contest it.

Or, if she still lacks said recourse, then what exactly is the problem with provoking them into not contesting the divorce?

[Ironsmith]

Reasonableness is for marriages that didn't involve crossbows...

Which we only ever saw on the Firehelm side of things.

[Peelee]

Yeah, Homer attempted murder-ed Flanders.

[The MunchKING]

True, but all he knew about that is that the Empire wanted him for "murder, conspiracy and treason". Which I am willing to bet are the exact same charges on Ian's own "Wanted" poster.

Well he IS treasonous and has tried to get conspiracies going. We haven't seen any direct evidence of the Murder thing, but it's generally hard to be a high level rogue without at least ganking SOMEBODY.

Roses are red, violets are blue,
they are wrong and so are you.

Roses are Red, a deep crimson Hue,
Violets are Violet, they aren't *bleep*ing Blue.

if Ivan and Hylgia just decide they're not right for each other, that really ought to be the end of it.

"Ought to" isn't the same as "is".

1- Back then, it was much easier and safer for the Commoner to sue and get protection, if she could, than for her to strike out on her own.

In the real world, maybe. In D&D land? Striking out on your own is how you get badass.

None of which Hilgya lacks now. Yet, she still needed them not to contest it.

Needed? Or she WANTED that because again she wanted to hurt the maximum amount of people as part of her revenge? Including innocents...

[Snails]

And this enlightened and relativistic approach does not apply to Hilgya because...?

And you believe I do not, because....?

[The_Weirdo]

In the real world, maybe. In D&D land? Striking out on your own is how you get badass.

Still she'd have chosen to stay home - or she'd not really treat it like the exile it was.

Needed? Or she WANTED that because again she wanted to hurt the maximum amount of people as part of her revenge? Including innocents...

Needed. Otherwise, she could have just done the divorce first and then the bankruptcy plot. Or staged the plot independently. As it stands, it clearly seems like she needed her clan destitute in order to get a clean and easier divorce.

Besides, "if you hurt me, lots of people will suffer" is a perfectly valid lesson to teach someone.

As is "if you bet all your family savings because you saw someone in a dream, lots of people will suffer", come to think of it, which is the actual lesson Gamblingaddict learned.

[Peelee]

Roses are Red, a deep crimson Hue,
Violets are Violet, they aren't *bleep*ing Blue.

Roses are red, violets are blue,
I'm colorblind, so yeah they are.

[The_Weirdo]

Roses are red, violets are blue,
I'm colorblind, so yeah they are.

Roses are red.
Violets are blue.
Daisies are white (mostly).
Sunflowers are yellow, though their core is orange and green.
Tulips come in all colors, really.
Orchids too.
I need to find a botanist to keep this poem going.

[Fyraltari]

What episode is this from?

1- Back then, it was much easier and safer for the Commoner to sue and get protection, if she could, than for her to strike out on her own.

A)When is back then?
B) Isn't that an argument against your position?

2- Not the only possible one. The most expedient one and the one that paid evil unto evil.

C) Most expedient doesn't equal better. It would be expedient to bring peace to the Middle-East by just nuking the entire region but that would still be the single worst "solution" to the problem.
D)Paying evil unto evil is evil. Don't do evil, kids.

3- Given that Hilgya herself mentions tradition and so on and that she had to see to it that the Sexualpredators didn't contest the divorce, I'd say yes.

E) And? She is agianst the dwarven traditions. Doesn't mean that forced marriage is a tradition especially that when out of three dwarven marriage we know of, hers was the only one where it happened.

4- Yes, they are wrong. But I'm giving you an example of things the Sexualpredators might argue in order to prevent the divorce in the courts.

F) Stop calling them that. It isn't helping you convince anyone and isn't true. Ivan would sooner have sex with a tree than sexually abuse someone and anyone who has spent more than two minuteswith him could tell.
G) If that's the best example you can come up with, you are only strengthening my assessmentof their inevitable loss. I don't know the first thing about Brazil's court system but I don't believe anyone there has ever gotten out of a mugging trial by claiming that holding a gun to someone while asking for charity was a tradition.

Reasonableness is for marriages that didn't involve crossbows...

Reason is for reasonnable people.

None of which Hilgya lacks now. Yet, she still needed them not to contest it.

Or, if she still lacks said recourse, then what exactly is the problem with provoking them into not contesting the divorce?

Need or would prefer?

Except we don't actually know that... we know that they won't contest it if the divorce seemingly results from a scandal (since that's what happened)

I read it has Ivan's family not bothering with it since Hilgya's is poor now and therefore the alliance had lost its value.

[Peelee]

What episode is this from?

Treehouse of Horror n. So helpful, I know.

[The MunchKING]

Still she'd have chosen to stay home - or she'd not really treat it like the exile it was.

Need I AGAIN point out she didn't treat it like an exile? She likes Humans and the Human Realms she just missed having rocks over her head. Durkon was more upset about not hanging out in the Dwarven Lands than her.

She came back for the Murders. And maybe a bit of cultural reformation on the side, but she was quite clear she came back to Murder Durkon and settle things with her family.

Needed. Otherwise, she could have just done the divorce first and then the bankruptcy plot. Or staged the plot independently. As it stands, it clearly seems like she needed her clan destitute in order to get a clean and easier divorce.

Easier doesn't mean "only way" though.

Besides, "if you hurt me, lots of people will suffer" is a perfectly valid lesson to teach someone.

"If you hurt me INNOCENTS will suffer, and you won't want to live with that, but I'm cool with that" is a valid lesson for an EVIL PERSON to try to teach someone. It's pretty much exactly what Xykon was saying whenever he tried to manipulate people to do what he wants.

As is "if you bet all your family savings because you saw someone in a dream, lots of people will suffer", come to think of it, which is the actual lesson Gamblingaddict learned.

I mean, yes it's a decent life lesson, but losing the clan all it's money is going to hurt a lot more innocent people along the way.

I need to find a botanist to keep this poem going.

Doesn't rhyme so not really a poem...

B) Isn't that an argument against your position?

Not really, he's arguing that since it was easier and safer to sue for protection if they could, the fact that Hygia DIDN'T means she couldn't have. Thus the courts couldn't help her and super murder is the only option.

[The_Weirdo]

A)When is back then?
B) Isn't that an argument against your position?
C) Most expedient doesn't equal better. It would be expedient to bring peace to the Middle-East by just nuking the entire region but that would still be the single worst "solution" to the problem.
D)Paying evil unto evil is evil. Don't do evil, kids.
E) And? She is agianst the dwarven traditions. Doesn't mean that forced marriage is a tradition especially that when out of three dwarven marriage we know of, hers was the only one where it happened.
F) Stop calling them that. It isn't helping you convince anyone and isn't true. Ivan would sooner have sex with a tree than sexually abuse someone and anyone who has spent more than two minuteswith him could tell.
G) If that's the best example you can come up with, you are only strengthening my assessmentof their inevitable loss. I don't know the first thing about Brazil's court system but I don't believe anyone there has ever gotten out of a mugging trial by claiming that holding a gun to someone while asking for charity was a tradition.

A) When she first left the Dwarven Lands. As in, when she ran away. You think she would have if she had legal recourse?
B) No. Precisely because I'm stating all evidences point to the notion that she didn't have legal recourse.
C) Well, she has a right not to be married. And she did not nuke anyone.
D) Not really, it's Neutral. Courts worldwide do it all the time.
E) She, a person that, were she real, knows more about dwarven traditions than either one of us, clearly treated her plight as, well, imposed by tradition.
F) Ivan is the good one out of them. The rest of them - or their leaders - clearly accepted forcing Hilgya into marriage. And clearly would have contested a divorce if it were against their interest.
G) I won't get into current politics (let alone current Brazilian politics), but suffice to say courts worldwide bend their rules for prestige or ascribe guilt to someone innocent for convenience. And the Sexualpredators are a prestigious family.

She came back for the Murders. And maybe a bit of cultural reformation on the side, but she was quite clear she came back to Murder Durkon and settle things with her family.

Shouldn't her family be punished for what it did to her?

Easier doesn't mean "only way" though.

She's entitled to the easy way.

"If you hurt me INNOCENTS will suffer, and you won't want to live with that, but I'm cool with that" is a valid lesson for an EVIL PERSON to try to teach someone. It's pretty much exactly what Xykon was saying whenever he tried to manipulate people to do what he wants.

Well, she's not asking to be allowed to rob a bank. She's asking not to be forced into marriage.

I mean, yes it's a decent life lesson, but losing the clan all it's money is going to hurt a lot more innocent people along the way.

Ah well.

Doesn't rhyme so not really a poem...

Take it from someone graduated in Language and Literature: poems don't need to rhyme.

Not really, he's arguing that since it was easier and safer to sue for protection if they could, the fact that Hygia DIDN'T means she couldn't have. Thus the courts couldn't help her and super murder is the only option.

She didn't murder anyone, she bankrupted them.

[Fyraltari]

Well he IS treasonous and has tried to get conspiracies going. We haven't seen any direct evidence of the Murder thing, but it's generally hard to be a high level rogue without at least ganking SOMEBODY.

Still doesn't deserve it.

Roses are Red, a deep crimson Hue,
Violets are Violet, they aren't *bleep*ing Blue.

Roses aren't all red either
If you want tonitpick, do it better.

Still she'd have chosen to stay home - or she'd not really treat it like the exile it was.

By her own admission she prefered the human lands until

Needed. Otherwise, she could have just done the divorce first and then the bankruptcy plot. Or staged the plot independently. As it stands, it clearly seems like she needed her clan destitute in order to get a clean and easier divorce.

"Needed [...] in order to get a clean and easier divorce" But she didn't need it to get a divorce. She just couldn't be bothered to wait, even if that meant impoverishing the innocents in her clan.
Which they are bound to be since a clan numbers in the two-dozens to thousands depending on wether you are closer to "family unit" or "tribe".

Besides, "if you hurt me, lots of people will suffer" is a perfectly valid lesson to teach someone.

It's a terrible lesson to teach anyone and it is a terrible lesson to teach that it is a valid lesson. As we have already told you this is worse than the Law of the Talion.

As is "if you bet all your family savings because you saw someone in a dream, lots of people will suffer", come to think of it, which is the actual lesson Gamblingaddict learned.

"...if you saw someone in a dream that already proved herself to correctly predict the future in an earlier dream in a world where both ghosts andprophecies are real..."
Not a valid lesson either.

Treehouse of Horror n. So helpful, I know.

Yeah but which one is what I am asking.

[Peelee]

D) Not really, it's Neutral. Courts worldwide do it all the time.

Courts don't determine Good or Evil. Courts determine guilt.

Needed. Otherwise, she could have just done the divorce first and then the bankruptcy plot. Or staged the plot independently. As it stands, it clearly seems like she needed her clan destitute in order to get a clean and easier divorce.

Demonstrably false; she did not need Ivan to be dead for her to escape the marriage, yet she tried that first regardless. We can thus show she is more than willing to try something not needed before what is needed.

[The_Weirdo]

Courts don't determine Good or Evil. Courts determine guilt.



Demonstrably false; she did not need Ivan to be dead for her to escape the marriage, yet she tried that first regardless. We can thus show she is more than willing to try something not needed before what is needed.

Courts impose the payment of evil unto evil: rob a bank, do time.

She needed him dead in order to stay home without being married to him.

[hroþila]

Yeah but which one is what I am asking.

S04E05. Treehouse of Horror III.

[Peelee]

Courts impose the payment of evil unto evil: rob a bank, do time.

Courts impose adjudication unto two parties. Between persons or state and person. In any event, they do not determine Evil, or dish out Evil. For instance, if flour was criminalized, then using flour could result in a guilty verdict. No Good or Evil inherent in using flour. In said guilty verdict, a punishment of probation could be given. No Good or Evil inherent in such a punishment.

If courts tried to determine Good and Evil, I can't help but think there would be vastly different court systems.

She needed him dead in order to stay home without being married to him.

Clearly not, as she accomplished that without killing him. So, again, demonstrably false.

[The_Weirdo]

Courts impose adjudication unto two parties. Between persons or state and person. In any event, they do not determine Evil, or dish out Evil. For instance, if flour was criminalized, then using flour could result in a guilty verdict. No Good or Evil inherent in using flour. In said guilty verdict, a punishment of probation could be given. No Good or Evil inherent in such a punishment.

If courts tried to determine Good and Evil, I can't help but think there would be vastly different court systems.

Clearly not, as she accomplished that without killing him. So, again, demonstrably false.

Re: courts, okay; but is the State Evil for applying penalties?

Re: Ivan: after years...

[Peelee]

Re: courts, okay; but is the State Evil for applying penalties?

The state is Lawful when applying penalties. Which is irrelevant to "the courts do not decide on Good or Evil" in any event.

Re: Ivan: after years...

Are you suggesting her cunning plan of "tell him I'm in the bathroom and walk out" took years of preparation, and would have failed if she'd tried it at any previous time?

[Fyraltari]

A) When she first left the Dwarven Lands. As in, when she ran away. You think she would have if she had legal recourse?

Yes. Because she liked the Human Lands before.

B) No. Precisely because I'm stating all evidences point to the notion that she didn't have legal recourse.

I'll accept that once you manage to name one evidence I can't refute.

C) Well, she has a right not to be married. And she did not nuke anyone.

Yes but she tried to murder an innocnet and bankrupted a whole bunch a people including innocents. My point with the example was "easier =/= morally better". Hell, most of the time morally better is harder.

D) Not really, it's Neutral. Courts worldwide do it all the time.

Primo "other people do it too" is a garbage argument. Secundo the point of a legal system is to protect the innocent and reform the guilty. If A Court spreads suffering around then it is doing its jobs wrong. And yes I know many courts and people think the guilty should suffer and, in my opinion, that's a problem. Le's not drift any further into discussing real world judicial systems though please.

E) She, a person that, were she real, knows more about dwarven traditions than either one of us, clearly treated her plight as, well, imposed by tradition.

No she treated tradition as a plight and Ivan's acceptance of the arranged marriage as coming from tradition by opposition as coming from bows and locks.

F) Ivan is the good one out of them. The rest of them - or their leaders - clearly accepted forcing Hilgya into marriage. And clearly would have contested a divorce if it were against their interest.

Still doesn't make her sexual predators since they knew there wouldn't be any non-consensual sex.

G) I won't get into current politics (let alone current Brazilian politics), but suffice to say courts worldwide bend their rules for prestige or ascribe guilt to someone innocent for convenience. And the Sexualpredators are a prestigious family.

"Highborn" doesn't necessary translate to prestigious. And prestigious does not necessarily translate to powerful. And you'd need a judge who wouldn't mind dishonor to be influence by power.

Shouldn't her family be punished for what it did to her?

All of it? Or only those who actually participated?

She's entitled to the easy way.

No one is entitled to the easy way.

Well, she's not asking to be allowed to rob a bank. She's asking not to be forced into marriage.

Irrelevant, in the face of the principle expressed.

S04E05. Treehouse of Horror III.

Thanks.