Is Hilgya Chaotic Evil or Chaotic Neutral II - It's always personal

[5a Violista]

This thread is the sequel to the previous thread, Is Hilgya Chaotic Evil or Chaotic Neutral? (Or Lawful Good?) because it reached 51 pages and people still were discussing it.

To those who are just joining this thread, I'll sum up the arguments for a starting point:

(1) Word of God confirms Hilgya used to be Evil.

(2) It's possible she had an alignment change between then and now.

(3) Some of her actions seem to be less evil than her previous actions, but some of her current intents still seem pretty evil and some of her current actions are being debated about whether they are neutral or evil.

(4) Some people think she was justified in her response due to the circumstances; other people disagree and say it was too far or had the wrong intent

(5) Some people give more credibility to Hilgya's statements

(6) There's also the question of assuming how Dwarven society (and the Firehelm clan) works and the entire context of her actions

(7) If you compare her to confirmed chaotic-evil characters, she seems to be less evil than them; however, she is also arguably more evil than the confirmed chaotic neutral characters

[zimmerwald1915]

Sure, because he made a bad investment decision, which was not a betrayal just poor judgment.

A pension fund trustee betting the fund's money on a horse race would have absolutely betrayed her fiduciary duty, which is basically to seek as high and as safe a return as possible. If I took a client's money from my firm's IOLA account and bet in on a horse race, I would likewise have breached a fiduciary duty even if it paid off in spades and all of it went to the client, because the point of an IOLA account is to preserve that money against any risk. Fiduciary duty is greater than the ordinary trust placed in a Board's business judgment.

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.

I suspect there was an expectation and long tradition that the money be used for the clan's benefit, but that neither the individual clan members nor the clan as a collective body had an actual, cognizable right to the money.

[Liquor Box]

A pension fund trustee betting the fund's money on a horse race would have absolutely betrayed her fiduciary duty, which is basically to seek as high and as safe a return as possible. If I took a client's money from my firm's IOLA account and bet in on a horse race, I would likewise have breached a fiduciary duty even if it paid off in spades and all of it went to the client, because the point of an IOLA account is to preserve that money against any risk. Fiduciary duty is greater than the ordinary trust placed in a Board's business judgment.

Yes, because there are specific duties relating to funds held by lawyer's on behalf of clients. But the individual in Hilgya's clan was not a lawyer holding funds on behalf of a client, so those duties did not apply. Exactly what his obligations were depends on the terms of the trust (and if it was an implied trust, those terms would be implied), but to seek a return by exercising his best judgment might indeed have been those terms.

I suspect there was an expectation and long tradition that the money be used for the clan's benefit, but that neither the individual clan members nor the clan as a collective body had an actual, cognizable right to the money.

Which is entirely consistent with it being a trust arrangement.
- A beneficiary of a trust is called a beneficiary because they expect (sometimes implicitly - eg by 'long tradition')to benefit from property. (your first sentence)
- In a trust neither the clan or the members of it (other than those who are trustees) have rights to deal with the money.

That is what a trust is - one person (trustee) holding property for the benefit of another person (a beneficiary). That arrangement can be formally documented, or it can be merely understood between the parties (an implied trust). The very circumstances you describe go along way to satisfying the elements of an implied trust.

While it is true that the existence of a fiduciary relationship can suggest a trust exist, the existence of a trust will also create a fiduciary relationship - the fiduciary relationship need not exist independently or in advance of the trust.

[zimmerwald1915]

the existence of a trust will also create a fiduciary relationship

Precisely. And since there is no fiduciary relationship, there can be no trust, since a trust would create a fiduciary relationship.

[Rrmcklin]

I posted this in the last thread, but if we're moving to this one I'll post it again:

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.

[Ironsmith]

I posted this in the last thread, but if we're moving to this one I'll post it again:

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.

Seconded, with the reiteration that this is the only form of "harm" that's really just, in regards to people who unknowingly benefit from injustices.

[Liquor Box]

Precisely. And since there is no fiduciary relationship, there can be no trust, since a trust would create a fiduciary relationship.

Which comes full circle back to the question of why you think there was no fiduciary relationship, which you have not adequately answered. Do you genuinely still believe that something less than a trust existed, or are you just still arguing the point because you don't want to concede your earlier position was wrong (if we are honest, I'm sure that's something all of us have done before)?

[KarlMarx]

While I'm no expert on how that works, I would argue that an implicit contract like the one that seems to be being discussed regarding the clan funds that is imposed on a character without their express consent is something that can be broken without it being an inherently evil act. Sure, the implications might be, but per se the breach of any contract is chaotic, particularly one that a character has forced upon them. It is not evil, though the ramifications thereof might be.

[zimmerwald1915]

Which comes full circle back to the question of why you think there was no fiduciary relationship, which you have not adequately answered. Do you genuinely still believe that something less than a trust existed, or are you just still arguing the point because you don't want to concede your earlier position was wrong (if we are honest, I'm sure that's something all of us have done before)?

No, I genuinely believe that the money was Hilgya's brother's private property, for which I gave an anthropological reason last thread.

Another anthropological indication: if it really had been the clan's common property, Hilgya's brother would more likely have been a woman. The transition from communal to private property was also marked by a transfer of wealth to men.

[Keltest]

No, I genuinely believe that the money was Hilgya's brother's private property, for which I gave an anthropological reason last thread.

Another anthropological indication: if it really had been the clan's common property, Hilgya's brother would more likely have been a woman. The transition from communal to private property was also marked by a transfer of wealth to men.

It being his private property is rather at odds with the entire clan becoming destitute at its loss.

[The_Weirdo]

No, I genuinely believe that the money was Hilgya's brother's private property, for which I gave an anthropological reason last thread.

Another anthropological indication: if it really had been the clan's common property, Hilgya's brother would more likely have been a woman. The transition from communal to private property was also marked by a transfer of wealth to men.

Okay, I must have missed something, run it by me again: if it's his money, how come Hilgya bankrupted the clan by getting Gamblingaddict to bet the clan's fortune on a race?

[Liquor Box]

No, I genuinely believe that the money was Hilgya's brother's private property, for which I gave an anthropological reason last thread.

Another anthropological indication: if it really had been the clan's common property, Hilgya's brother would more likely have been a woman. The transition from communal to private property was also marked by a transfer of wealth to men.

I'm afraid that doesn't follow at all.
- If the property was communal then it is not owned by any one person, but communally (presumably men and women). Cultures differed as to whether men or women controlled communally owned property.
- If the property is not communal, the brother being a man is at least as consistent with him being a trustee as it is with him being a sole owner. Men are at least as likely to be a trustee as they are to be the sole owner of property (in part because being a trustee requires them to legally own the property).

But putting all the meadering aside, the strip itself answers the question explicitly - The dwarf to the brother's right says "you bet our entire family fortune". The dwarf is claiming ownership - which suggests actual ownership (more direct than a trust) and certainly more than a complete lack of rights which you were suggesting.

[Jasdoif]

Okay, I must have missed something, run it by me again: if it's his money, how come Hilgya bankrupted the clan by getting Gamblingaddict to bet the clan's fortune on a race?

I believe the position is that since Hilgya's brother was able to bet the entirety of the clan's fortune on a single race, and none of the other Firehelms there expressed outrage (as would almost certainly be the case if he did had something they found illegitimate); it suggests Hilgya's brother was permitted to use all the funds owned by the clan as he saw fit, without an expectation of using them for the good of the clan...in which case "the clan's fortune" is little more than a good-sounding, but ultimately meaningless, phrase.

[The_Weirdo]

I believe the position is that since Hilgya's brother was able to bet the entirety of the clan's fortune on a single race, and none of the other Firehelms there expressed outrage (as would almost certainly be the case if he did had something they found illegitimate); it suggests Hilgya's brother was permitted to use all the funds owned by the clan as he saw fit, without an expectation of using them for the good of the clan...in which case "the clan's fortune" is little more than a good-sounding, but ultimately meaningless, phrase.

So... The net result would be... Hilgya made her brother, not the clan, penniless?

This sort of changes everything in her favor, even if we assumed that bankrupting the clan is an evil act.

[Keltest]

So... The net result would be... Hilgya made her brother, not the clan, penniless?

This sort of changes everything in her favor, even if we assumed that bankrupting the clan is an evil act.

Not really. If those funds were for, say, paying taxes on their clan hall and they simply trusted their brother/cousin to not run off with it and do something stupid, theyre still screwed. I think Zimmerwald is simply overestimating the level of bureaucracy the dwarves have for that position.

[Sylian]

This sort of changes everything in her favor, even if we assumed that bankrupting the clan is an evil act.

Even so, wanting to murder Durkon Thundershield, who is a Lawful Good cleric of Thor who hasn't done anything to warrant it, seems pretty evil to me. Or am I missing something?

[Kish]

I think it's a mistake to put so much weight on the fact that, in one panel in which the depicted clan members were going, "...all our fortune? We're gonna be caveless!" none of them yet said, "You had no right!"

[The_Weirdo]

Not really. If those funds were for, say, paying taxes on their clan hall and they simply trusted their brother/cousin to not run off with it and do something stupid, theyre still screwed. I think Zimmerwald is simply overestimating the level of bureaucracy the dwarves have for that position.

Well, yes, they are. Except they gave that cash to her brother. It's her brother's, now, not the clan's. So Hilgya didn't target any innocents; it's the fault of the clan for giving their cash to Gamblingaddict.

I think it's a mistake to put so much weight on the fact that, in one panel in which the depicted clan members were going, "...all our fortune? We're gonna be caveless!" none of them yet said, "You had no right!"

He had no right to a lot of things.

As a result, their clan is now destitute.

[Keltest]

Well, yes, they are. Except they gave that cash to her brother. It's her brother's, now, not the clan's. So Hilgya didn't target any innocents; it's the fault of the clan for giving their cash to Gamblingaddict.



He had no right to a lot of things.

As a result, their clan is now destitute.

Theres a difference between directing somebody to manage a group's finances responsibly and giving them a wad of cash to do whatever with. The former comes with the implicit and often explicit requirement that you manage the money responsibly and for the betterment of the group, while the latter gives free reign.

[The_Weirdo]

Theres a difference between directing somebody to manage a group's finances responsibly and giving them a wad of cash to do whatever with. The former comes with the implicit and often explicit requirement that you manage the money responsibly and for the betterment of the group, while the latter gives free reign.

Yes, well, a pity for the clan that it had trusted such an irresponsible addict with its money. I am certain it won't happen anymore.

[Jasdoif]

Yes, well, a pity for the clan that it had trusted such an irresponsible addict with its money.

Why assume the rest of the clan's members had any influence on who their financial "advisor" was? Hilgya's "choice" in when/who she married doesn't exactly scream "egalitarian".

[The_Weirdo]

Why assume the rest of the clan's members had any influence on who their financial "advisor" was? Hilgya's "choice" in when/who she married doesn't exactly scream "egalitarian".

The banana speaks wisely.

And also drives home, once again, my point that they should overthrow and kill him.

[2D8HP]

[...]would people still be hemming and hawwing had Hilgya resorted to Lawful, not Chaotic means to get redress/revenge?

Beats me.

The attempted murder of Ivan doesn't seem to have had any lasting effect, and I really don't know how the Stickverse would judge it.



Given the circumstances, fixing the bet seems like petty evil, and if I were DM'ing it I'd call it Neutral.

I just checked and the murder that I mus-remembered her commiting was actually done by Thog.

You know, paradoxically the defense of her as having "the right to kill" has actually made her actions seem worse than what she's actually done.

Hilgya merrily stood by and let Nale murder the fire fairy though.

Got home and quickly flipped through Dungeon Crawlin' Fools, and I didn't see that panel, is it revealed in dialogue?
(Sorry, poor memory and an impatient reader).

[Keltest]

Yes, well, a pity for the clan that it had trusted such an irresponsible addict with its money. I am certain it won't happen anymore.

Its not like he gave it away all on a whim. Hilgya manipulated him into believing that his actions were safer than they were. If you trick somebody into crossing an unstable bridge, and they fall to their death, its your fault for tricking them.

[The_Weirdo]

Its not like he gave it away all on a whim. Hilgya manipulated him into believing that his actions were safer than they were. If you trick somebody into crossing an unstable bridge, and they fall to their death, its your fault for tricking them.

And if they forced me("you") into marriage previously, whose fault is it?

[Keltest]

And if they forced me("you") into marriage previously, whose fault is it?

Still yours. This isn't that hard. You tricked him, its your fault for what happens.

[The_Weirdo]

Still yours. This isn't that hard. You tricked him, its your fault for what happens.

He forced me into marriage, it's his fault what happens.

[Keltest]

He forced me into marriage, it's his fault what happens.

Its his fault that you got married. He does not subsequently rob you of any and all agency and responsibility for your actions. You still make decisions that have consequences, and when you do something like collapse a house on somebody or trick them into crossing a broken bridge, you are the one responsible for those deeds, because you made a decision and acted on it.

[Jasdoif]

Hilgya merrily stood by and let Nale murder the fire fairy though.

Got home and quickly flipped through Dungeon Crawlin' Fools, and I didn't see that panel, is it revealed in dialogue?
(Sorry, poor memory and an impatient reader).

Last panel of #52.

[The_Weirdo]

Its his fault that you got married. He does not subsequently rob you of any and all agency and responsibility for your actions. You still make decisions that have consequences, and when you do something like collapse a house on somebody or trick them into crossing a broken bridge, you are the one responsible for those deeds, because you made a decision and acted on it.

Except I'm a mellow guy. I'd not have done it if I hadn't been provoked.