Yet another thread on Hilgya's alignment

[Keltest]

I'll accept that, fair point. For what it's worth, I do think Girard likely turned Evil after the Order of the Scribble broke, but there's not a lot to back up that theory. All we know for sure is he wasn't Evil while he was in the OotS (the other one).

Conceivably, since Gerard was a lunatic, he could have seen Soon's interference as a legitimate threat to the safety of his gate (ie Soon would be coming in to try and steal control away, and he didn't trust in Soon's ability to defend any gates competently) in which case a violent reaction is, while not especially appropriate, still not incompatible with a CN alignment.

[Peelee]

Conceivably, since Gerard was a lunatic, he could have seen Soon's interference as a legitimate threat to the safety of his gate (ie Soon would be coming in to try and steal control away, and he didn't trust in Soon's ability to defend any gates competently) in which case a violent reaction is, while not especially appropriate, still not incompatible with a CN alignment.

I also find it difficult to believe that the family/kidnapping gambit didn't originate with him. But again, no proof, so all I can say is the Giant's standards seem looser than mine (similar to how mine seem looser than Kish's).

[Keltest]

I also find it difficult to believe that the family/kidnapping gambit didn't originate with him. But again, no proof, so all I can say is the Giant's standards seem looser than mine (similar to how mine seem looser than Kish's).

Yeah, I dunno. We know Gerard called in his existing siblings and cousins to defend the gate, so he presumably wasn't the only one working on that problem.

[The Pilgrim]

is there a possibility Girard Draketooth changed alignment after adventuring, bc I don’t have a problem with interpreting Hilgya as CE in a vacuum but I find it hard to reconcile him being able to maintain a CN alignment with her going in the CE box. That seems like a big piece of evidence that she is CN.

If Soon and the Sapphire Guard can get away with "we are LG and burn goblin villages full of children to the ground to protect one of the cornerstones of Existence", I am pretty sure Giriard and his clan can get away with being CN and stealing childs and money from the rich in order to protect their assigned cornerstone of Existence.

I do not know where that leaves Hilgya, but, what she did, did she it to protect the World or to satisfy her own selfish desires? Intent should count if only for a little.

[Peelee]

Yeah, I dunno. We know Gerard called in his existing siblings and cousins to defend the gate, so he presumably wasn't the only one working on that problem.

I don't disagree.

[Keltest]

I don't disagree.

Honestly, im perfectly OK with calling Gerard Chaotic Evil. He seems like a fundamentally damaged character, kind of similar to Nale come to think of it, though the damage to his psyche is different and from a different source. Maybe he started at CN and fell into obsession or whatever after the events of Kraagor's rift, or maybe he just decided "Soon is wrong, so the opposite of a paladin must be right!".

[martianmister]

Girard's skeleton looks like he's died of old age, which means his death is fairly recent.

[CriticalFailure]

The biggest thing was the kidnapping, because based on how much the family seems to have propagated it seemed like that would have had to have gone on for a long time and he died fairly old. It didn’t seem likely that they spontaneously started after his death either: the whole point was that he chose to guard the gate with a system based on trusting only family.

[CriticalFailure]

But it would make sense for him to slide from CN to CE once the order of the scribble split; as the sole power guarding his gate with no one to challenge him it would be easy to fall further and further into “the ends justify the means” type approaches to saving the world.

[Keltest]

Girard's skeleton looks like he's died of old age, which means his death is fairly recent.

Define "recent". He's at least been dead long enough for all his flesh to decay in desert conditions.

[Fyraltari]

Conceivably, since Gerard was a lunatic, he could have seen Soon's interference as a legitimate threat to the safety of his gate (ie Soon would be coming in to try and steal control away, and he didn't trust in Soon's ability to defend any gates competently) in which case a violent reaction is, while not especially appropriate, still not incompatible with a CN alignment.

Lying about the coordinates was protecting his Gate from Soon's interference, putting a bomb at the fake coordinates was revenge for Kraagor's death as the message spells out.

If Soon and the Sapphire Guard can get away with "we are LG and burn goblin villages full of children to the ground to protect one of the cornerstones of Existence", I am pretty sure Giriard and his clan can get away with being CN and stealing childs and money from the rich in order to protect their assigned cornerstone of Existence.

I see no reason to assume Soon had anything to do with the Guard's crusades. The massacre of Goblin Hills happened "34 years ago"(see Start of Darkness) while Soon passed his authority of commander on when octogenarian Shojo was "but a boy learning at [his] father's knee" and Shojo himself lead the Guard for 47 years, so both the events of SoD and HtPghS happened on his watch. Hmm. looking at that page again Shojo does say that Soon lead a crusade against those who would threaten the Gate and we see paladins killing goblins including one wearing a purple cloak. There seems to be a slight continuity issue here as "30 years ago" Redcloak told Xykon the Rift was first discovered "35 years before". Anyway it's entirely possible that under Soon's the Guard did not target non-combatants/innocents.

Girard's skeleton looks like he's died of old age, which means his death is fairly recent.

How long is the average human lifespan in D&D (I'd bet there's a die to roll)? Because even though he was younger than Soon
i can see him having died around 20 years before the events of the comic.

EDIT: I guess we won't have any new information until Serini appears on panel, but I wouldn't be surprised if both Soon's crusades and Girard "trust only blood" policies were both taken to extremes by their respective successors. A nice ironic prallel between these two, it would be.

[Peelee]

How long is the average human lifespan in D&D (I'd bet there's a dice to roll)? Because even though he was younger than Soon
i can see him having died around 20 years before the events of the comic.

Deliberately vague. I'd guess that "certain age" is 50, why not. Also, correct on the dice.

Eugene literally died of old age. When a person reaches a certain age, the gods roll dice to see what his or her maximum lifespan is going to be, and when the person hits 12:01 on that birthday, they keel over dead from no apparent cause.

This is definitely true in the OOTS world, and probably true in many other fantasy worlds (except perhaps the birthday timing). The gods measuring the lifespan of every person has deep roots in mythology—the Fates, the Norns, etc. People don't die of cancer in a fantasy world, they die of having the thread of their existence severed by the personifications of Destiny.

Once you have fireballs and dragons, you have to accept that sometimes, things are exactly what they are described as being, science be damned.

[Jasdoif]

How long is the average human lifespan in D&D (I'd bet there's a die to roll)?

The average on 70+2d20 years is 91.

[martianmister]

The average on 70+2d20 years is 91.

Isn't 90 years the maximum of 70+2d20?

[Keltest]

Isn't 90 years the maximum of 70+2d20?

2 D20, not D10. Although living to 110 seems a bit unlikely even in modern times.

[The Pilgrim]

Isn't 90 years the maximum of 70+2d20?

No, the maximum is 110.

[Emanick]

Rigging the false Gate coordinates to kill Soon et al. stands out to me, but I can't think of anything else.

It didn't kill Roy, and Soon probably had considerably more hit points than Roy did. There are three ways to explain that away, at least that I can think of: 1) Roy got really lucky, 2) Girard's trap was a lot less deadly than he thought it was, or 3) Girard was satisfied with just scaring Soon and hurting him really badly. I consider the third possibility slightly more likely than the other two, because it doesn't rely on an unlikely coincidence or on Girard being pretty stupid, but they're all possible. YMMV; other people tend to find "he just rolled really well" a much more convincing explanation for unlikely plot developments than I do.

[LadyEowyn]

The comments here about Girard do point to the reasons for my opinions on Hilgya’s alignment. I’ve never claimed that all her actions are okay; I simply don’t see how she stands out as being much worse than other Neutral characters like Girard, Gannji, or Therkla.

It’s possible that the Giant just sets a lower bar for Neutral than some of us do.

[Emanick]

The comments here about Girard do point to the reasons for my opinions on Hilgya’s alignment. I’ve never claimed that all her actions are okay; I simply don’t see how she stands out as being much worse than other Neutral characters like Girard, Gannji, or Therkla.

It’s possible that the Giant just sets a lower bar for Neutral than some of us do.

Girard, as far as we know, never tried to murder any innocent people, and never acted as an accessory to murder, either. Hilgya certainly did the latter while part of the Linear Guild, and while The_Weirdo might argue that Hilgya isn't guilty of the former, I think most people disagree with that interpretation.

That said, the whole "seduce rich people and kidnap their children" does strike me as pretty Evil, as does the trap he set for Soon, assuming it was intended to be lethal. I have no issues with calling Girard Chaotic Evil, nor Enor and Gannji, for that matter, so I guess I too have a less strict definition of "Evil" than Rich.

Edit: Just realized that the trap Girard set for Soon pretty much invalidates the first sentence of my post if we assume it was, in fact, intended to be lethal. I'm not sure it was, for reasons I posted above, but it's certainly an active possibility. I suppose that setting a lethal trap for someone if they break an oath isn't exactly the same thing as murder, but it's pretty close.

[hroþila]

It didn't kill Roy, and Soon probably had considerably more hit points than Roy did. There are three ways to explain that away, at least that I can think of: 1) Roy got really lucky, 2) Girard's trap was a lot less deadly than he thought it was, or 3) Girard was satisfied with just scaring Soon and hurting him really badly. I consider the third possibility slightly more likely than the other two, because it doesn't rely on an unlikely coincidence or on Girard being pretty stupid, but they're all possible. YMMV; other people tend to find "he just rolled really well" a much more convincing explanation for unlikely plot developments than I do.

Remember he didn't necessarily expect Soon to be standing there in person, or alone. That trap could have killed some of his paladins, so even if Girard didn't think it would kill Soon, that would still say lots.

[Fyraltari]

Remember he didn't necessarily expect Soon to be standing there in person, or alone. That trap could have killed some of his paladins, so even if Girard didn't think it would kill Soon, that would still say lots.

He also expected it to go off in less than a year rather than several decades. Most of the spells in his dungeon ran out of juice in a few days, maybe this one lost some of its punch?

[Emanick]

Remember he didn't necessarily expect Soon to be standing there in person, or alone. That trap could have killed some of his paladins, so even if Girard didn't think it would kill Soon, that would still say lots.

That's a good point. I think he probably did fully expect Soon to be standing there in person, but IIRC his speech indicates that he does think Soon might not be alone. So yeah, still pretty Evil.

He also expected it to go off in less than a year rather than several decades. Most of the spells in his dungeon ran out of juice in a few days, maybe this one lost some of its punch?

I've never heard of a D&D spell that loses potency over the decades without simply expiring. Still, it's a possibility, I suppose.

[LadyEowyn]

Girard, as far as we know, never tried to murder any innocent people, and never acted as an accessory to murder, either. Hilgya certainly did the latter while part of the Linear Guild, and while The_Weirdo might argue that Hilgya isn't guilty of the former, I think most people disagree with that interpretation.

That said, the whole "seduce rich people and kidnap their children" does strike me as pretty Evil, as does the trap he set for Soon, assuming it was intended to be lethal. I have no issues with calling Girard Chaotic Evil, nor Enor and Gannji, for that matter, so I guess I too have a less strict definition of "Evil" than Rich.

Edit: Just realized that the trap Girard set for Soon pretty much invalidates the first sentence of my post if we assume it was, in fact, intended to be lethal. I'm not sure it was, for reasons I posted above, but it's certainly an active possibility. I suppose that setting a lethal trap for someone if they break an oath isn't exactly the same thing as murder, but it's pretty close.

Enor and Gannji’s work consisted of beating people up and handing them over to a tyrannical regime to be killed in the arena, so they’re certainly accessory to a lot of deaths. (Not murders, but the distinction between “execution by a tyrant” and “murder” is a lawful/chaotic one, not good/evil one.) Therkla’s also accessory to all the deaths from creature-attacks on the fleet that she helped Qaar with. And yet they’re neutral.

Hilgya has some attempted actions that I would characterize as Evil (attempted murder of Ian). On-screen, she has killed one innocent person who she immediately raised, which I would characterize as a lot worse than punching someone and also a lot different than killing someone and leaving them dead. In contrast, the people who are dead because of Enor, Gannji, and Therkla did not immediately get raised by them.

So by the standards of OOTS, it doesn’t seem cut-and-dry that she’s Evil. Whether those standards are correct - either in terms of typical D&D or in terms or real-world ethics - is not something I’m going to debate.

[Kish]

Scenario the First: Soon was there for the worst of reasons. The only scenario Girard bothered to plan for, really. Unfortunately for him, also the only one that had no chance of happening--as anyone who actually knew paladins could have told him.
Scenario the Second: Soon was there for the legitimate reason they all had a monitoring system: one or more of the other gates had fallen and he wanted to confer with his ally. Boom. Either Soon is now dead, or Soon has no ability to warn Girard of the threat coming for his gate and is also substantially more likely to think of Girard as an enemy.
Scenario the Third: Soon sent messengers, for the legitimate reason they all had a monitoring system. Girard murders a bunch of low-level paladins; Soon doesn't know what happened to them, Girard doesn't know a threat is coming.
Scenario the Fourth: A villain gets the coordinates from Soon somehow and looks for Girard's Gate. The entirely gratuitous taunting message informs the villain that Serini has the real coordinates. Serini better hope the trap kills the villain; it certainly wouldn't be enough to stop Xykon (since even if it reduced him to 0 hit points, he has a phylactery).
Scenario the Fifth: A rag-tag group of adventurers gets the coordinates from Soon's successor's successor and comes looking for the Gate, for the legitimate reason they all had a monitoring system. In addition to the results described under Scenario Two, it stands out that Girard just left the trap there long after he had any even vaguely viable case that Soon was going to make a move on his Gate anytime soon.

So, Girard Draketooth: idiot, monster, or both?

Enor and Gannji’s work consisted of beating people up and handing them over to a tyrannical regime to be killed in the arena, so they’re certainly accessory to a lot of deaths. (Not murders, but the distinction between “execution by a tyrant” and “murder” is a lawful/chaotic one, not good/evil one.) Therkla’s also accessory to all the deaths from creature-attacks on the fleet that she helped Qaar with. And yet they’re neutral.

Hilgya has some attempted actions that I would characterize as Evil (attempted murder of Ian). On-screen, she has killed one innocent person who she immediately raised, which I would characterize as a lot worse than punching someone and also a lot different than killing someone and leaving them dead. In contrast, the people who are dead because of Enor, Gannji, and Therkla did not immediately get raised by them.

So by the standards of OOTS, it doesn’t seem cut-and-dry that she’s Evil. Whether those standards are correct - either in terms of typical D&D or in terms or real-world ethics - is not something I’m going to debate.

The idea that Gannji, Enor, and Therkla are all Neutral comes from the author saying so (and very little else). The author also said that Hilgya is evil. Since she was reintroduced, he hasn't suggested she had a moral awakening or that he made her nastier the first time around than he wanted her to be now; he's doubled down on her callousness and selfishness. It's like if the scene where Gannji and Enor try to sacrifice themselves for each other was replaced with another, longer scene of Gannji expounding on how sympathetic he feels to the Empire of Blood's slavedrivers.

[Emanick]

Enor and Gannji’s work consisted of beating people up and handing them over to a tyrannical regime to be killed in the arena, so they’re certainly accessory to a lot of deaths. (Not murders, but the distinction between “execution by a tyrant” and “murder” is a lawful/chaotic one, not good/evil one.) Therkla’s also accessory to all the deaths from creature-attacks on the fleet that she helped Qaar with. And yet they’re neutral.

Hilgya has some attempted actions that I would characterize as Evil (attempted murder of Ian). On-screen, she has killed one innocent person who she immediately raised, which I would characterize as a lot worse than punching someone and also a lot different than killing someone and leaving them dead. In contrast, the people who are dead because of Enor, Gannji, and Therkla did not immediately get raised by them.

So by the standards of OOTS, it doesn’t seem cut-and-dry that she’s Evil. Whether those standards are correct - either in terms of typical D&D or in terms or real-world ethics - is not something I’m going to debate.

I am unsure why The Giant thought that Enor, Gannji and Therkla could possibly qualify as non-Neutral.

I suppose it is possible that Enor and Gannji only hunted down people whom they thought were guilty - the text doesn't indicate as much, and I'm not sure how they could figure out who was actually guilty, but that is the only explanation I can think of that reconciles The Giant's comments with the text in a satisfactory manner.

Therkla is even harder to handwave. It's not clear how she could have been blind to the fact that she was an accessory to a bazillion murders. The Kickstarter story portrays her as pretty clearly Neutral, so it can't be that she was Evil right up until falling in love with Elan "redeemed" her. I guess she wasn't directly causing the deaths of the people the monsters were killing, even if she was working alongside the guy who was, and I guess she didn't actually kill any Good Guys that we saw. Still, I just don't see it.

Personally, I'd rather not say that Hilgya is non-Evil just because other characters who seem Evil are actually Neutral by Word of Giant. I'd rather just call Hilgya Evil because of the Evil stuff that she does. But I can certainly see why you might say she's no more Evil than Enor, Gannji or Therkla, even though I think I'd have to know more about those characters' backstories before agreeing with you.

[KorvinStarmast]

It’s possible that the Giant just sets a lower bar for Neutral than some of us do.

He even drew a picture illustrating that. (More of the area presented fits into "something neutral" or "neutral something" than doesn't)

[KorvinStarmast]

So, Girard Draketooth: idiot, monster, or both?

Egotist => megalomaniac, perhaps.
meg·a·lo·ma·ni·ac
1. a person who is obsessed with their own power.

Girard was a sorcerer, right? So was Xykon, originally. Inherent power/magic, not earned and learned. A likely result of that kind of power, as one grows into it, is megalomania.

Might be overthinking this, but it seems to fit.

[Keltest]

Egotist => megalomaniac, perhaps.
meg·a·lo·ma·ni·ac
1. a person who is obsessed with their own power.

Girard was a sorcerer, right? So was Xykon, originally. Inherent power/magic, not earned and learned. A likely result of that kind of power, as one grows into it, is megalomania.

Might be overthinking this, but it seems to fit.

While that certainly seems possible, I don't think it would explain why he felt the need to leave a magical bomb for Soon. As Kish pointed out, barring an extremely specific set of circumstances that are themselves functionally impossible, Gerard loses his bet and possibly murders a bunch of folks he's never met and should have no real beef with.

Honestly, I don't think theres any scenario here where Gerard's int and wis scores look anything better than below average.

[Emanick]

While that certainly seems possible, I don't think it would explain why he felt the need to leave a magical bomb for Soon. As Kish pointed out, barring an extremely specific set of circumstances that are themselves functionally impossible, Gerard loses his bet and possibly murders a bunch of folks he's never met and should have no real beef with.

Honestly, I don't think theres any scenario here where Gerard's int and wis scores look anything better than below average.

Girard strikes me as someone with an average to slightly-above-average Intelligence score and a low Wisdom.

[Keltest]

Girard strikes me as someone with an average to slightly-above-average Intelligence score and a low Wisdom.

while there is some overlap between the mental scores, I think a failure to understand what a paladin is after adventuring with one is pretty solidly an int failure.