Yet another thread on Hilgya's alignment

[MartianInvader]

Although, granted, it's considerably less impressive in her case.

What?? She took him from full to dead in a single round, with no help from dominated teammates OR the ground.

[woweedd]

What?? She took him from full to dead in a single round, with no help from dominated teammates OR the ground.

Yeah, but he wasn't even trying to DEFEND himself.

[Dr.Zero]

Yeah, but he wasn't even trying to DEFEND himself.

With flame strike it doesn't really matter too much.
Aside the obvious fact that Durkon was flat footed and didn't roll for initiative (but if he rolled and lost, it would bring us to the same result.)

Actually, as a lot of things in dnd, probably we can see see it as that he died just because he rolled low (a save against death from damage) when she rolled high.

[Jack Of Rivia]

Lets be real, taking any bounty issued by the Empire of Blood is probably evil. I dont care if youre looking for Frank the Baby-Eater, helping an oppressive tyrannical government enforce violence against its people is bad

They do not help the empire of Blood, they work for the empire of Blood. If you conflate the two, everyone who works for the Empire of Blood is evil. The winged Kobold who if i remeber correctlyp" th Giant painted as Lawful Neutral
Is evil, since it helps the EoB framing innocents, every soldier is evil, every merchant who sell goods to the EoB, everyone who dpes not separate himself from the EoB is Evil. Do you belive that?

Sure. You're not addressing what I quoted from the SRD, you're addressing some other alignment rules; I don't know where you got them from but I don't care about them either way. Find "there is no one you would sacrifice yourself for" in an official D&D 3.5 description of Evil; you can't. "Has compunctions against killing the innocent" does not by any reasonable metric translate into "prefers a majority of the people they kill be guilty...not that they've ever actually attacked a non-innocent person on panel, unless one ineffective spear-trowing

"
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships."

Let's analyze it a little, shall we. Compuntions
Means feeling of guilt, scruples against killing innocents. Does Gannji and Ennor GaE ,have them? We can t say, because we have never seen them use violence on innocents. They targeted who they belived to be Nale and his enforcers, or the big dangerous looking friends, clearly looking for trouble. And then they promisedbrevenge against the idiot who put them in trouble on the first place.
We have never see them actually tested forced to choice between the sake of the innocents and their goals,
We have seen empatize eith the slave drivers, tought not with the skaves themselves, and we have seen Gannji renuking Enor proposal, even if professionalism rather than empathy.
For sure, we can tell that they lack the commitment to makes sacrifices for person who have not personal relation. They are not
Ready to give up their profession to stop the evil empire of Blood.
But for sure, they are committed to the well being ofbtheir loved ones, as they refused tonkill wach other.
Two neutral marks cheched, and one inconclusive Neutral for me.
And more importantly, for the Giant

Evil =/= sociopathic loner with no friends.

Having a friend is one thing. To be committed, even to the point of self sacrifice, that s a while different story.

[Mightymosy]

No!

There is a difference between selling bread to Adolf* and selling out captives to him.

Jeez, why is this so hard to understand??

Opening up a bakery in the EoB in order to feed yourself and your family is ONE thing, even if you happen to deliver to Takin's palace, but choosing to hunt down his enemies for him is another thing entirely.


* Name picked randomly on randomnames.org

[Kish]

Sure, distorting the word "innocent" into meaninglessness is an option...if, for some weird-ass reason, you want to wave away the SRD rather than acknowledge it. No one who Tarquin says is guilty of something is innocent; Roy is not innocent because he's "the idiot who got them into trouble," by asking a reasonable question to which they responded with violence. By that definition, Tarquin's surely not evil either. By his own word, the people he burned alive for the Elan sign were "rebellious little pricks"--not innocent! And even with your dementedly skewed definition of "innocent," you don't claim that they show compunctions against killing the innocent--you just keep trying to pound on your "they're willing to sacrifice themselves for each other!" thing like that's a point.

Yeah, I'm going to disengage with you for real now.

[Dr.Zero]

No!

There is a difference between selling bread to Adolf* and selling out captives to him.

In real life? Sure. I'd classify the latter as very probably evil.

In dnd? Sure: selling bread to Tarquin -let's leave Adolf* (who I suppose is a vampire of some people who formed was called Adolf) alone- can still leave you room for being Good, while selling out captives to him leave you room to be at most Neutral.

Specifically in OOTS we don't even to talk about that, because it is clearly stated the guys are neutral.

Returning to general dnd, Jack Of Rivia has a point: compunction against killing is not: "I won't kill if not coerced, or in self defense, or..."
It's simple:

Guy1: "Kill him, so we can collect the bounty."
Guy2: "Meh, I don't like to kill people, is it really needed?" (<- compunction)
Guy1: "Yes, it says dead."
Guy2: "Well, ok, but this sucks." and then to Guy3: "Sorry, dude, nothing personal. Disintegrate!"
Guy3: "ARRRGGHHH"

Nothing is said about their feelings regarding human dignity, specifically, but I'd say it follows the same pattern.

But at this point I don't understand what is the point of the discussion.

That the two bounty hunters are not aware of what happens in the EoB? They clearly are.
That, when alone, they mourn thinking of the poor people they condemned to some harsh fate? They clearly don't care a bit.
That they are not evil people according to real life morals? YMMV, but I'd classify them as evil without blinking.
That they are Evil in dnd? Debatable, but from my interpretation, they can perfectly be Neutral. And, of course, I consider my interpretation right and everything else wrong!
That they are Evil in OOTS? They are not, for word of the author.
That joining forces with Ian is a turning point for them? No, specially because they do so for a personal grudge they have toward Tarquin.

May I suggest to everyone to specify what they want to prove?

On other news, I restate that I think H is CN.

[Jack Of Rivia]

No!

There is a difference between selling bread to Adolf* and selling out captives to him.

Jeez, why is this so hard to understand??

Opening up a bakery in the EoB in order to feed yourself and your family is ONE thing, even if you happen to deliver to Takin's palace, but choosing to hunt down his enemies for him is another thing entirely.


* Name picked randomly on randomnames.org

But what if, with other possible options, you choose specifically the Empire of Blood because is the best selling location? Does it makes you evil?

Your vision seems to boil down that helping evil doing anything makes you evil yourself, and maybe is true, in our world. In d&d there is a world for it,Neutral.

[hroþila]

Potentially, it could depend on what they know about Nale's crimes. He was wanted for "murder, conspiracy, treason". The last two at least are inherently political and, in light of the politics of the Empire of Blood (since Gannji was somewhat familiar with them), the first one becomes suspect. Getting involved in such a bounty could carry moral weight, therefore. However, if he knew enough about Nale that would change everything, in my opinion.

But to be honest, I'm not sure cooperation with the judiciary of oppressive regimes should be enough to make someone Evil.

[Tarthalion]

I don't really care whether Hilgya is CN or CE, but I agree that she is near the boundary.

However, I do have to take exception to the argument that her treatment of Kudzu is a mark of evilness.

Yes, she's carrying the child into battle in a precarious position, but from her POV she probably considers this a good bonding experience. Add to that she probably doesn't trust anyone else to keep her baby as safe as she trusts herself to do so, even with vampires involved.

(Kind of like a mother who doesn't vaccinate her child: from the outside it looks foolish, but the mother thinks she's doing the best thing.)

If Hilgya sticks with the order, she will have to trust someone (maybe Sigdi?) to look after Kudzu, because I can not see them (or possibly her, after this experience) continuing to tolerate the risk to him. I do not think she can do that, so I am not actually expecting her to be with them much longer.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't really care whether Hilgya is CN or CE, but I agree that she is near the boundary.

However, I do have to take exception to the argument that her treatment of Kudzu is a mark of evilness.

Yes, she's carrying the child into battle in a precarious position, but from her POV she probably considers this a good bonding experience. Add to that she probably doesn't trust anyone else to keep her baby as safe as she trusts herself to do so, even with vampires involved.

(Kind of like a mother who doesn't vaccinate her child: from the outside it looks foolish, but the mother thinks she's doing the best thing.)

If Hilgya sticks with the order, she will have to trust someone (maybe Sigdi?) to look after Kudzu, because I can not see them (or possibly her, after this experience) continuing to tolerate the risk to him. I do not think she can do that, so I am not actually expecting her to be with them much longer.

This is a reasonable position to take, however I will caution you that there are a number of posters who are unable to see things from her point of view.

I too do not believe that she'll be with the Order very long, and given her latest move, and looking back at comic #668, I wonder if she hasn't just signed her own death warrant. It can go either way, I am guessing but here's why the Order probably won't kill her out of hand.
1) She's about to raise Durkon, which they want to have happen
2) Once she's done that, the motivation to kill her out of hand will lessen (both emotionally and practically)
3) They can leave her behind and let the dwarves of Firmament deal with her; and as you noted, the Order has already expressed reservations about her bringing her child into a battle. The battles are only going to get tougher, so at this point I think Roy will put his foot down (and likely Haley will) and not put up with that.

[Kish]

Yes, she's carrying the child into battle in a precarious position, but from her POV she probably considers this a good bonding experience.

And Tarquin thought treating both his sons as pawns was being a good father.

Why does "Hilgya doesn't see a moral problem with carrying her baby into battle" become "There is no moral problem with carrying her baby into battle"?

I could see a case that it shows catastrophically low Wisdom rather than an alignment issue--I wouldn't even bring up the mechanical impossibility of Hilgya having a Wisdom penalty--except that it's unambiguously not a matter of "the dangers have never crossed her Elan-like mind"; Roy pointed them out to her, and she reacted by yelling at him not to tell her what to do.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Yes, she's carrying the child into battle in a precarious position, but from her POV she probably considers this a good bonding experience. Add to that she probably doesn't trust anyone else to keep her baby as safe as she trusts herself to do so, even with vampires involved.

(Kind of like a mother who doesn't vaccinate her child: from the outside it looks foolish, but the mother thinks she's doing the best thing.)

Xykon thinks that turning uppity minions into undead is the best thing. RC thinks that everything he does to his goblins is the best thing for the plan. Belkar thinks that everything he does is the best thing to do. Every child endangering bastard thought they were doing the best thing. It lessens their crime or their responsibility of their actions not one jot. Including Hilgya’s

On top of that, the defense that ”Hilgya is too stupid to understand the consequence of her actions “ flies in the face that she clearly does understand and just doesn’t care.

Grey Wolf

[Dr.Zero]

And Tarquin thought treating both his sons as pawns was being a good father.

He did not. He "thought" it was good for the story.

Why does "Hilgya doesn't see a moral problem with carrying her baby into battle" become "There is no moral problem with carrying her baby into battle"?

Because T doesn't care about the dignity of his children, H does care about the safeness of hers.
She might be wrong (debatable) but she does that because she thinks to keep her children safe, not because "who cares what he wants, he must respect his role in this narrative!"

[hroþila]

Xykon and Belkar at least certainly don't think what they do is the best for others, though. Redcloak does, but he also thinks of it in terms of "the goblin people" and he wouldn't argue that what he does is the best for an individual if that individual is hurt or killed. I think comparing Hilgya to an anti-vaxxer parent is probably spot on. No, it doesn't lessen her guilt or her responsibility, including her legal liability, but I'd say it does bring the Evil tag into question for that particular deed.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Xykon and Belkar at least certainly don't think what they do is the best for others, though. Redcloak does, but he also thinks of it in terms of "the goblin people" and he wouldn't argue that what he does is the best for an individual if that individual is hurt or killed. I think comparing Hilgya to an anti-vaxxer parent is probably spot on. No, it doesn't lessen her guilt or her responsibility, including her legal liability, but I'd say it does bring the Evil tag into question for that particular deed.

I do not. Refusing to protect your child or others because you refuse to educate yourself or tell apart reality from fantasy is evil

Grey Wolf

[The Pilgrim]

Because T doesn't care about the dignity of his children, H does care about the safeness of hers.
She might be wrong (debatable) but she does that because she thinks to keep her children safe, not because "who cares what he wants, he must respect his role in this narrative!"

Tarquin does care for the safety of his children. He protected Nale for certain death a lot of times. He only killed him after Nale rejected to be his pawn too many times and Tarquin had a spare at hand - Elan.

Hilgya is treating Kuzdu as a tool, much like Tarquin did with Nale and Elan. She brings him into battle not for the child's protection, but to keep full control over him. If an adult Kuzdu chooses to reject Hilgya's version of "the wisdom of Loki" and embrances Thor instead, you can bet she will try to brute-force him into the right path like Tarquin did with his son. And you can bet she will end up attacking to kill him if he utterly opposes her, much sooner than Tarquin did with Nale.

[Caerulea]

I do not. Refusing to protect your child or others because you refuse to educate yourself or tell apart reality from fantasy is evil

Grey Wolf

If a person takes a class on biology, and are educated in how vaccinations work, and that they work, and still refuse to vaccinate their children, then that is wrong. If they are simply a fool, and do not wish to take actions that they believe are harmful or useless, that does not make them Evil. It makes them wrong, and they are doing real damage, but that damage is due to incompetence, not malice.

Ascribing morality to the actions of people who are delusional is harder. Does her intent, which ostensibly to protect Kudzu matter more than the way she goes about it? I would say that she is doing the wrong thing, but not maliciously.

[Jack Of Rivia]

In real life? Sure. I'd classify the latter as very probably evil.

In dnd? Sure: selling bread to Tarquin -let's leave Adolf* (who I suppose is a vampire of some people who formed was called Adolf) alone- can still leave you room for being Good, while selling out captives to him leave you room to be at most Neutral.

Specifically in OOTS we don't even to talk about that, because it is clearly stated the guys are neutral.

Returning to general dnd, Jack Of Rivia has a point: compunction against killing is not: "I won't kill if not coerced, or in self defense, or..."
It's simple:

Guy1: "Kill him, so we can collect the bounty."
Guy2: "Meh, I don't like to kill people, is it really needed?" (<- compunction)
Guy1: "Yes, it says dead."
Guy2: "Well, ok, but this sucks." and then to Guy3: "Sorry, dude, nothing personal. Disintegrate!"
Guy3: "ARRRGGHHH"

Nothing is said about their feelings regarding human dignity, specifically, but I'd say it follows the same pattern.

But at this point I don't understand what is the point of the discussion.

That the two bounty hunters are not aware of what happens in the EoB? They clearly are.
That, when alone, they mourn thinking of the poor people they condemned to some harsh fate? They clearly don't care a bit.
That they are not evil people according to real life morals? YMMV, but I'd classify them as evil without blinking.
That they are Evil in dnd? Debatable, but from my interpretation, they can perfectly be Neutral. And, of course, I consider my interpretation right and everything else wrong!
That they are Evil in OOTS? They are not, for word of the author.
That joining forces with Ian is a turning point for them? No, specially because they do so for a personal grudge they have toward Tarquin.

May I suggest to everyone to specify what they want to prove?

On other news, I restate that I think H is CN.

Thank you, good Doctor. Merry Xmas

Tarquin does care for the safety of his children. He protected Nale for certain death a lot of times. He only killed him after Nale rejected to be his pawn too many times and Tarquin had a spare at hand - Elan.

Hilgya is treating Kuzdu as a tool, much like Tarquin did with Nale and Elan. She brings him into battle not for the child's protection, but to keep full control over him. If an adult Kuzdu chooses to reject Hilgya's version of "the wisdom of Loki" and embrances Thor instead, you can bet she will try to brute-force him into the right path like Tarquin did with his son. And you can bet she will end up attacking to kill him if he utterly opposes her, much sooner than Tarquin did with Nale.

I'm not 100% sure... but yes, i think probably it would go that way.

If a person takes a class on biology, and are educated in how vaccinations work, and that they work, and still refuse to vaccinate their children, then that is wrong. If they are simply a fool, and do not wish to take actions that they believe are harmful or useless, that does not make them Evil. It makes them wrong, and they are doing real damage, but that damage is due to incompetence, not malice.

Ascribing morality to the actions of people who are delusional is harder. Does her intent, which ostensibly to protect Kudzu matter more than the way she goes about it? I would say that she is doing the wrong thing, but not maliciously.

I think that is not a pertinent example. Vaxxers and Anti-Vaxxers desire the same thing, the health of Their Children. Where they differ, is the evaluation of danger, what is the more urgent danger to the children's health. In Hilgya's case, it'a a different matter: she fear more for the mental health of the children thah for his physical health. For her, it's worse that Thor's folowers may get their hands on the children and turn him in another dwarf slaves to tradition, that her child simply dies in the battleground. She is forcing her values on her child, despite any common sense. That is evil, for me.

[Dr.Zero]

Tarquin does care for the safety of his children. He protected Nale for certain death a lot of times.

I suppose that is still because he was the only pawn-son at his disposal. But we're going in a circle. So let me try a different approach: see, if up to some point he really cared for Nale, then arguably he wasn't doing Evil when treating Nale, he started to do Evil in treating Nale when he put Nale's well being and dignity below to his (of Tarquin) own plans, well being and dignity.

But let me be clear: I think we are not supposed to think that he EVER cared for Nale but as a pawn.

He only killed him after Nale rejected to be his pawn too many times and Tarquin had a spare at hand - Elan.

That to me seems exactly as I see it too. (see above)

Anyway let me add that I couldn't imagine that, to prove H is Evil, I'd see an argument: "T really cared, in good faith (and above himself and his own plans) about his sons."

Hilgya is treating Kuzdu as a tool, much like Tarquin did with Nale and Elan. She brings him into battle not for the child's protection, but to keep full control over him. If an adult Kuzdu chooses to reject Hilgya's version of "the wisdom of Loki" and embrances Thor instead, you can bet she will try to brute-force him into the right path like Tarquin did with his son. And you can bet she will end up attacking to kill him if he utterly opposes her, much sooner than Tarquin did with Nale.

Yeah, well, let's wait to see if that happens for real.
For example, I think that it will never happen. To begin with, because the comic will end in a short in-universe time, with Kudzu still a child.

[Rrmcklin]

Tarquin "cared" for Nale up until Nale made it very clear that he wanted nothing from him, including his protection.

Nale just didn't realize what a total cutoff of any familial attachment would mean for him until he had a knife in his gut.

[hamishspence]

Even Tarquin didn't know that he didn't really care, until push came to shove.

You reveal who you really are under stress—stress doesn't magically turn you into someone else unrelated to who you usually are. The fact that you may not have ever known that this is who you were doesn't change anything.

I don't think Tarquin sat around thinking, "Ha ha! I am fooling them into thinking I love my family! I am so clever!" I think he thought that he really loved his family, right up until the point where loving his family conflicted with him being in total control. And then both he and the readers got to see which one of the two really mattered to him.

In other words, when I use the word "facade," I am not referring to a conscious artifice on Tarquin's part. I am referring to the idea that the true core of his being is hidden—possibly even from himself—until the crucible of the story burns it out of him.

[Mordar]

Premise: I think Hilgya is CN, and a bad person, worthy of imprisonment and probably an unhappy afterlife. Funny character, useful in the story, no redeeming qualities as a person. I'm starting to think that is using an out-of-date connotation (if that's possible), but am still having issue getting to CE.

Kish, please help me reason through this part:

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

How should innocence judged? Earlier you mention the bounty hunters (who I agree with you should be evil - at least Ganjii - because of his presentation, even if the author says otherwise). They have in hand statements that show their targets to be non-innocent, but we know why that is suspect. They are situationally aware, and have reason to doubt the declaration of non-innocence. So statement of authority isn't a safe harbor.

Hilgya is convinced that Durkon sent her back to an unjust situation that greatly impinged upon her freedom. While he didn't shackle her up and mail her off to the homeland like Ganjii and Enor would do, he was an active participant in her return to "imprisonment". She's convinced he acted in the same fashion as the bounty hunters (totally delusional, objectively wrong and typical of her character). So belief on the part of the actor isn't a safe harbor.

Do we rely on an outside perspective? Does that just leave us with modern sensibilities (which we know aren't all that sensible) and/or the GM's interpretation of what an objective outside party would determine as an innocent when it comes to alignment? I mean the specifics are clear...Durkon doesn't deserve to die for being upset he violated his own code and that Hilgya ignored dwarven cultural norms. He is innocent of any capital crime against Hilyga and would be found so by any sound, lawful judgement. But the person who killed him wasn't/isn't sound. She knows and understands the consequences of the actions but is wholly convinced Durkon sinned against her. Her motivation seems less evil in that context, to me, but still clearly bad/reprehensible.

I think this is difficult for me to express...maybe I am just caught up in the definitions or have been suckered into the trap of alignments in general. This is my last sticking point, I think. Where does intent and belief fall in the determination of innocence?

- M

[Kish]

I think this is difficult for me to express...maybe I am just caught up in the definitions or have been suckered into the trap of alignments in general. This is my last sticking point, I think. Where does intent and belief fall in the determination of innocence?

I think it has to fall nowhere. Because otherwise, only fourth-wall-breaking "I know I'm evil" villains truly are evil. Take Tarquin as an example. Has he ever killed anyone innocent?

From my perspective, this is a preposterous question and the correct answer is "yes, thousands." From his perspective, I believe the answer would, genuinely, be "no." Everyone he has killed has shown him some kind of inappropriate defiance, even if just by existing. Redcloak, similarly, waxed poetic about how utterly non-innocent he believed O-Chul to be. So the question isn't whether the character believes the victim to be innocent--it's whether a (to use a legal term) reasonable observer would call them innocent. Say, the deva who judged Roy.

Enor and Gannji had no compunctions about trying to kill Roy, who Gannji agreed had only asked a reasonable question to which they responded with violence. Knowing Elan was not Nale, Gannji hoped he was being tortured to death. He sympathized with slave drivers and not with slaves. Evil, evil, evil.

Hilgya has never indicated caring for anyone else's lives. "Sorry about this, I really do like you," she said as she helped Sabine incapacitate Durkon as part of a bid to kill all of the Order, which she had no reason to believe wouldn't succeed. She only didn't light (someone's) clan hall on fire because she was concerned about Kudzu's developing lungs, and--even more importantly, I think--she took that attitude for granted as something obviously reasonable that she could casually discuss with a human she barely knew. No compunctions against killing the innocent there. Not even understanding that that could be a thing, really.

[The Pilgrim]

I suppose that is still because he was the only pawn-son at his disposal. But we're going in a circle. So let me try a different approach: see, if up to some point he really cared for Nale, then arguably he wasn't doing Evil when treating Nale, he started to do Evil in treating Nale when he put Nale's well being and dignity below to his (of Tarquin) own plans, well being and dignity.

But let me be clear: I think we are not supposed to think that he EVER cared for Nale but as a pawn.

Yep, that's my thought too. And it is my belief that this is also the attitude Hilgya has about Kuzdu. But we shall see... if that ever needs to happen in the comic.

[Callista]

I think Hilgya thinks of Kudzu as a possession. When she says "my baby", she means "MY baby, and don't you even think about putting your grubby Thor-worshiping mitts all over my stuff!"

I've done a lot of research on parents who kill their children (yes, depressing topic; someone has to do it), and this sort of attitude is very common among them. They often kill when they believe that someone is going to take their children away--when they're about to be found out for abuse or neglect, when they're going through a divorce and might lose custody. Of course the idea that one owns one's children is also common among non-murderous but narcissistic parents, so I'm not saying that Hilgya is sure to kill Kudzu eventually. But she's already shown a willingness to risk his life rather than let the priests of Thor babysit, even though she knows they won't hurt Kudzu (and, since he's three months old or so, can't even try to convert him).

So yeah, Hilgya might love her baby, but because she's so callous and cruel, her love is tainted with possessiveness. I wouldn't trust her as a mother further than I could throw her, and since I'm pretty sure I have a STR penalty, that's not very far.

[Orange Thief~]

Hey, just a lurker chucking his hat in the ring, is it possible that maybe Hilgya is(was) somehow religiously bound to kill Durkon?
Not that it solves the myriad of other moral dillemas being discussed in regards to Hilgya's actions, but maybe Loki had to set strict guidelines to his assistance, including "killing Durkon Thundershield".

I imagine we'll get confirmation shortly if so or nay. What are the odds of it?

[Mike Havran]

Hey, just a lurker chucking his hat in the ring, is it possible that maybe Hilgya is(was) somehow religiously bound to kill Durkon?
Not that it solves the myriad of other moral dillemas being discussed in regards to Hilgya's actions, but maybe Loki had to set strict guidelines to his assistance, including "killing Durkon Thundershield".

I imagine we'll get confirmation shortly if so or nay. What are the odds of it?

I would say they are kinda low. Loki seems to be acting against Hel these days and Durkon's death would be detrimental to his plans.

On the other hand, there is a chance that clerics of Loki are encouraged (a drink upgrade?) to kill clerics of Thor by default, and Hilgya got somehow more religious than she was in DCF, especially as she wanted to hurt him anyway.

[RatElemental]

Premise: I think Hilgya is CN, and a bad person, worthy of imprisonment and probably an unhappy afterlife.
- M

Bit of a quibble, but I'd say nobody deserves an unhappy afterlife, or at least not an eternal one. There's only so much evil a mortal can do before shuffling off that coil, but the time spent in an afterlife is far longer than time spent on the material.

[hroþila]

Bit of a quibble, but I'd say nobody deserves an unhappy afterlife, or at least not an eternal one. There's only so much evil a mortal can do before shuffling off that coil, but the time spent in an afterlife is far longer than time spent on the material.

In many of the most famous real-world religions and mythologies, sure, but in OotS and (I think) D&D the afterlife is not necessarily eternal: the soul eventually loses its being and becomes pure energy.