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

[The Extinguisher]

Im generally assuming that the scene was written without a direct understanding of how wealthy groups actually have wealth. It seems to come from a very middle class American perspective. We lost all our money, and thus we cant pay our bills, and the things we own (read: were given to us on credit until we pay it back) will be taken away. Just with a larger scale.

Its very possible to gamble away your families entire fortune when that fortune is 'your savings account + money you use to pay bills and buy food'

My point exactly. You punish the robber, on the grounds that they are a robber. You do not punish the family beyond no longer allowing the benefits of the robberies, and to be truly ethical about it, you make sure that no longer receiving this benefit does not consign them all to the streets.

This is different from saying the entire family is complicit in the robberies because they benefited from said robberies; if you held that to be true, the appropriate response would be to lock them all up together.

Complicit is not culpable. The safety net that keeps them from the streets is not inherent to your hypothetical. Its an assumption i made to feel better about it because what i would actually do is pointless information that would just derail this thread in ways that are unnecessary. In a world without this safety net you are supposed to take away the money and let the family deal with it. You certainly dont let them continue to to rob banks.

[GooeyChewie]

You do, of course, realize that I repeatedly and specifically said, by way of example, that Hilgya doesn't have the right to rob a bank, right?

Nope. I thought you were arguing that she was in the moral right to rob her Clan, which isn’t substantially different.

[Ironsmith]

Im generally assuming that the scene was written without a direct understanding of how wealthy groups actually have wealth. It seems to come from a very middle class American perspective. We lost all our money, and thus we cant pay our bills, and the things we own (read: were given to us on credit until we pay it back) will be taken away. Just with a larger scale.

Its very possible to gamble away your families entire fortune when that fortune is 'your savings account + money you use to pay bills and buy food'

Almost certainly... but that might also have something to do with the fact that we have a lot of abstract wealth that hasn't always been available. Sure, the Firehelm clan probably still owns quite a bit of not-liquid assets (a few mines, some farms, probably a few homes), but all their actual funds? Not in bonds, not in stocks, just outright gone. In order to get to the point where they can buy next week's groceries, they're going to have to sell a few things off... and in order to get back to the point where they can run themselves properly again, they're going to have to make those sales substantial and fast, which means they're going to be selling big-ticket items for likely much less than they're worth.

Of course, this is assuming that they collectively have that much wealth... going from the "we're going to be caveless" comment, they probably don't own nearly so much.

Complicit is not culpable. The safety net that keeps them from the streets is not inherent to your hypothetical. Its an assumption i made to feel better about it because what i would actually do is pointless information that would just derail this thread in ways that are unnecessary. In a world without this safety net you are supposed to take away the money and let the family deal with it. You certainly dont let them continue to to rob banks.

The terms are typically used interchangeably. Again, the point stands that you don't punish the family beyond taking away what they already shouldn't have.

[KorvinStarmast]

I am posting to note that this thread is now at page 50, which means that a successful trolling has occurred.

I guess a tip of the cap is warranted for that success.

[Liquor Box]

No, it would not. The trustee owes a fiduciary duty to the beneficiary, and Hilgya's brother did not seem to.

Why do you think that the brother owed no fiduciary duty to the clan for assets he dealt with on the clan's behalf?

[zimmerwald1915]

Why do you think that the brother owed no fiduciary duty to the clan for assets he dealt with on the clan's behalf?

Mostly because the other dwarves don't accuse him of betraying their trust. They're just dismayed at his poor judgment.

[Liquor Box]

Mostly because the other dwarves don't accuse him of betraying their trust. They're just dismayed at his poor judgment.

Sure, because he made a bad investment decision, which was not a betrayal just poor judgment. Had he spent the money on hookers and alcohol for himself I expect they would see it as a betrayal.

Why do you think they were dismayed? Do you think they were feeling bad for him because he had lost his own money, or do you think that they were dismayed because property which was to be used for their own benefit had been lost.

[The_Weirdo]

Nope. I thought you were arguing that she was in the moral right to rob her Clan, which isn’t substantially different.

Well, you see, the point where your metaphor breaks down is when one realizes most banks do not engage in human trafficking.

But, by all means, if a bank married me off at crossbow point, I'd have a right to rob it, too.

[5a Violista]

I'll make a new thread for us.

I'll edit in a link to it in this post. Please wait.


Here.

[Rrmcklin]

It was mentioned that in real-life there are many situations in which bringing justice to harmed/oppressed people may often come at the expense of a bit of harm to people who weren't directly involved/knowledgeable of the harm in question, but I'm not so sure that's the case.

It's certainly true that in many real-life situation narratives are crafted to make it seem like certain groups (white people, men, Christians, any number of other groups) will be harmed, but usually it's less "they will be harmed" and more "they will not receive special treatment". I think that's a different can of worms than Hilgya bankrupting her clan and just considering everyone in it forgivable collateral damage.

[Alchemist_Fire]

Is Chaotic Idon'tcare (CI) an alignment?

Thog is definitely CI