Yet another thread on Hilgya's alignment

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Quick question - I see you pluralized "murders" there. Have we seen her commit more than one murder? Maybe we disagree about her alignment because I've forgotten something she did.

No, there is only one actual murder. I was thinking of grouping all the attempted and premeditated-but-uncommited murders, then I changed my mind and spelled them out but forgot to take out the 's'.

ETA: to be absolutely clear, I think her attempted murder(s) of Ivan is considerably worse than her actual murder of Durkon, whilst still both being Evil, despite having failed at it. Incompetence is no excuse, and lack of regret of endangering a fellow sentient being (her only regret is that it would not have accomplished anything for her) is horrific.

Grey Wolf

[The Pilgrim]

No, there is only one actual murder.

She was also an accessory in the murder of the Fire Sylph.

[Emanick]

(I'm in no way suggesting he was dad of any year)

To be fair, you don't need to clear a high bar to be named Father of the Year in this comic.

[Liquor Box]

While I think that Hilgya is clearly evil, I am going to disagree with those who think that her treatment of Kudzu is an evil act.

Rightly or wrongly, Hilgya believes that being strapped to her in a baby-carrier is the safest place for Kudzu. From a moral (evil/good spectrum) perspective, doing what you believe to be safest for your child is a good think (or at least not an evil one).

Her error (unless she's right) is that she has simply misjudged what is safest for her baby. That is not a moral failing.

[Draconi Redfir]

Being incorrect =/= being evil.

it means you're stupid yes, but stupidity does not equate to evilness.

note: not saying she's not evil. just agreeing with the poster above me

[Caerulea]

There is, however, a point at which idiocy and malice become indistinguishable. I am not saying she is at that point, though continuing to bring Kudzu into battle after he was used as a human shield causes her to approach it.

[Kish]

Dwarven. Kudzu will never be a human anything.

[woweedd]

Dwarven. Kudzu will never be a human anything.

Humanoid, technically.

[Caerulea]

Dwarven. Kudzu will never be a human anything.

He may be a human's victim, with the carelessness that Hilgya is treating him.

[LadyEowyn]

So it seems like the predominant view on this forum is that Hilgya is Chaotic Evil, with a minority (myself included) believing she's Chaotic Neutral. This is not a thread to debate her alignment generally - I want to focus on something a little more specific.

I think we mostly agree that alignment is a continuum - you can have two Evil people but one of them is more Evil, or two chaotic people but one of them leans more neutral, etc.

I was recently thinking about how Hilgya's "evil level" stacks against other characters of known alignment, and couldn't think of a single known CE character whom she's more evil than, nor a single known Chaotic Neutral charactic whom she's less evil than. Whether CE or CN, she does seem close to the boundary between "Don't tell me what to do" and "Screw you, I got mine".

I'm wondering if others would agree with this view? Whichever side of the CE/CN boundary she falls on, can we agree that she's either the "least evil CE" or the "most evil CN" character we've seen so far? And if not, are there specific characters that serve as counterexamples?

I would agree with you. She hasn’t killed numerous unconnected innocents for fun like Xykon, Tarquin, Belkar, etc., but her general behaviour has been worse than the worst CN character we know of (Girard). The only other CN character I can think of is Julio, who’s on the high end of CN, close to being CG. She’s probably similar to Enor and Gannji on the Good-Evil axis.

[Rrmcklin]

While I think that Hilgya is clearly evil, I am going to disagree with those who think that her treatment of Kudzu is an evil act.

Rightly or wrongly, Hilgya believes that being strapped to her in a baby-carrier is the safest place for Kudzu. From a moral (evil/good spectrum) perspective, doing what you believe to be safest for your child is a good think (or at least not an evil one).

Her error (unless she's right) is that she has simply misjudged what is safest for her baby. That is not a moral failing.

Being incorrect =/= being evil.

it means you're stupid yes, but stupidity does not equate to evilness.

note: not saying she's not evil. just agreeing with the poster above me

Evil people usually think what they're doing is right/good. Most people aren't card carrying villains like Xykon.

[LadyEowyn]

All the CE people I can think of in OOTS revel in being evil: Xykon, Crystal, Thog, and (until recently) Belkar.

LE people, in contrast, are a mix of those who are openly and happily evil (Tarquin, Nale) and those who consider their actions to be right or justified (Redcloak, Malack, Ancient Black Dragon).

So Hilgya, if she is CE, would be the first CE character to not actively self-identify as Evil.

[Rrmcklin]

All the CE people I can think of in OOTS revel in being evil: Xykon, Crystal, Thog, and (until recently) Belkar.

LE people, in contrast, are a mix of those who are openly and happily evil (Tarquin, Nale) and those who consider their actions to be right or justified (Redcloak, Malack, Ancient Black Dragon).

So Hilgya, if she is CE, would be the first CE character to not actively self-identify as Evil.

Crystal enjoyed killing, but I don't recall her going "Man, I just love being evil!" or anything close to it. Same with Thog. Also, Crystal was Neutral Evil (because of Bazzok reigning her in, but still).

The characters loving what they do and not hiding it isn't the same thing as being a cartoon villain the way Xykon is (at least in his less serious moments).

That's a very weak argument, I have to say.

[Draconi Redfir]

There is, however, a point at which idiocy and malice become indistinguishable. I am not saying she is at that point, though continuing to bring Kudzu into battle after he was used as a human shield causes her to approach it.

To be fair, she HASN'T entered battle after he was used as a human shield. The battle ended when the Vampire Durkon died, or at least shortly afterwords. And we haven't seen what happened since then.

[KorvinStarmast]

There is, however, a point at which idiocy and malice become indistinguishable.

Uh, no. The distinction matters somewhat in this context, given the clunky mechanical thing that alignment is in the setting.
I do like to remember during these discussions that she was introduced way back when as durkon's opposite number, so the natural opposites would be LG - CE (though LE would also be a kind of opposite) Starting from that position as the base line is a rational position to take, and nobody that I can think of has made a case for LE. So CE is the logical starting point. You'd want to see some movement from the center of that zone to feel that a shift had been made.
The flame strike on Durkon does not look like a move in a favorable direction.

[Caerulea]

Uh, no. The distinction matters somewhat in this context, given the clunky mechanical thing that alignment is in the setting.

I meant in effect. Committing evil acts out of idiocy is still evil, just ask Thog.

To be fair, she HASN'T entered battle after he was used as a human shield. The battle ended when the Vampire Durkon died, or at least shortly afterwords. And we haven't seen what happened since then.

No. Should she do so again, then that would make her lean even further (farther?) towards evil than she already is.

[Draconi Redfir]

I meant in effect. Committing evil acts out of idiocy is still evil, just ask Thog.

I'd say he was evil AND stupid. Not evil BECAUSE he was stupid.

If stupidity was how you become evil, then Elan would be evil as heck.

No. Should she do so again, then that would make her lean even further (farther?) towards evil than she already is.

i can agree with that.

[LadyEowyn]

Crystal enjoyed killing, but I don't recall her going "Man, I just love being evil!" or anything close to it. Same with Thog. Also, Crystal was Neutral Evil (because of Bazzok reigning her in, but still).

The characters loving what they do and not hiding it isn't the same thing as being a cartoon villain the way Xykon is (at least in his less serious moments).

That's a very weak argument, I have to say.

You said that Evil characters generally think what they’re doing is right/good. That’s not the case with any of the CE characters we’re seen; they show no indications of thinking they’re good, they just think killing people is fun.

[Caerulea]

I'd say he was evil AND stupid. Not evil BECAUSE he was stupid.

If stupidity was how you become evil, then Elan would be evil as heck.

Yes. My mistake, I was overly broad there. I do think some of the evil acts he commits are due to him not fully understanding that other people have experiences, but I in no way meant to imply that being of low intelligence lead to evil.

[Draconi Redfir]

Yes. My mistake, I was overly broad there. I do think some of the evil acts he commits are due to him not fully understanding that other people have experiences, but I in no way meant to imply that being of low intelligence lead to evil.

fair enough, i can agree with that.

[Liquor Box]

Evil people usually think what they're doing is right/good. Most people aren't card carrying villains like Xykon.

Have you any examples?

I think there's a difference between making an incorrect moral judgment (eg. its ok to keep slaves) and making an incorrect judgment about safety (eg. I trusted the man who turned out to be a paedophile). In my opinion, the first may be evil, but the second is not. If you do something wrong in good faith, I don't think it's evil.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

While I think that Hilgya is clearly evil, I am going to disagree with those who think that her treatment of Kudzu is an evil act.

Rightly or wrongly, Hilgya believes that being strapped to her in a baby-carrier is the safest place for Kudzu. From a moral (evil/good spectrum) perspective, doing what you believe to be safest for your child is a good think (or at least not an evil one).

Her error (unless she's right) is that she has simply misjudged what is safest for her baby. That is not a moral failing.

Let's review her reasons:
1) She thinks Thor clerics can't be trusted with a baby, possibly because Loki's church is so terrible at it
b) She won't accept being told what to do when someone points the bleeding obvious to her
iii) She considers her spell selection sufficient to protect her even if she solo'ed the vampires
δ) She's in a hurry because feeding time is coming and wants to be done with murder before then

None of those show any sort of concern for the needs of the child: the first is pure paranoia, second and fourth are all about her, and the third is delusional. Sure, the third on the surface looks like Kudzu-related in that she thinks she can protect the baby, but there are two issues with that: she's wrong and it ignores that there are better ways to not endanger a child by the simple method of not pursuing dangerous tasks like vengeance when your baby is in need of babysitting - thus revealing that even in this, it's really about what she needs and not what her baby needs.

Her choice is eminently self-centered: what she wants, what she needs, rather than what anyone else needs. A very Evil frame of mind.

Grey Wolf

[Liquor Box]

Let's review her reasons:
1) She thinks Thor clerics can't be trusted with a baby, possibly because Loki's church is so terrible at it
b) She won't accept being told what to do when someone points the bleeding obvious to her
iii) She considers her spell selection sufficient to protect her even if she solo'ed the vampires
δ) She's in a hurry because feeding time is coming and wants to be done with murder before then

None of those show any sort of concern for the needs of the child: the first is pure paranoia, second and fourth are all about her, and the third is delusional. Sure, the third on the surface looks like Kudzu-related in that she thinks she can protect the baby, but there are two issues with that: she's wrong and it ignores that there are better ways to not endanger a child by the simple method of not pursuing dangerous tasks like vengeance when your baby is in need of babysitting - thus revealing that even in this, it's really about what she needs and not what her baby needs.

Her choice is eminently self-centered: what she wants, what she needs, rather than what anyone else needs. A very Evil frame of mind.

Grey Wolf

It seems to me that you are saying that Hilgya did not genuinely believe that Kudzu was safest with her, she just used that as a justification to keep Kudzu with her for convenience. If you are right about that, then I would agree that it was evil of her.

But I don't think there's any indication in the comic that Hilgya does not genuinely believe that Kudzu is safest with her and that she is not acting in good faith by keeping Kudzu with her. To address your points:
1. Not leaving the baby with Thor's clerics because she thinks they cannot be trusted with him is showing concern for the child
2. She doesn't like to be told what to do, but that is not her reason how keeping Kudzu with her. She states her reason in the next panel (she thinks him safest with her).
3. Actually, she suggests that her spell selection is sufficient to protect Kudzu (not herself). That is showing concern for Kudzu
4. Her hurry could be interpreted as being out of concern for Kudzu (she doesn't want him to be hungry), but even if not it is her reason for wanting to end the argument, not her choice to keep Kudzu with her.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

It seems to me that you are saying that Hilgya did not genuinely believe that Kudzu was safest with her, she just used that as a justification to keep Kudzu with her for convenience. If you are right about that, then I would agree that it was evil of her.

No, I'm saying that Kudzu's safety is secondary to her own wants. And that her excuses are transparently wrong. Only an idiot or an absolutely self-centered person would think that a bunch of spells are sufficient protection against dispelling-capable vampires. I discard the possibility that she is an idiot, since she is capable of casting high-level spells, leaving self-centered.

A parent doesn't get to do what they want when they are caring for a child if they put the needs of the child first. That she decided to keep pursuing vengeance while having to care for Kudzu reveals her priorities. Her reasons are a consequence of those priorities. You can't read "she really cares about Kudzu" in any of those decisions because that's not what she says. Her reason is never "it's what is best for Kudzu" but "it's what will allow me to keep pursuing vengeance against Durkon the fastest". What would be best for Kudzu is to not be there at all. There is no "split the difference" between keeping a child safe and taking him to battle as ablative armour - you do one, or you do the other.

So what you are left is with the insane excuse that "she thought the safest option for Kudzu was to carry him to battle", which is ridiculous in the face of the far more reasonable "she ignored that the safest option for Kudzu was for her not to go into battle, but that was unacceptable because Hilgya puts her wants above his needs". Or the alternate "she's so stupid she can't think of the latter", but as I've said, I discard the possibility of someone with WIS above 16 being that stupid, and, again, even if she somehow was that stupid and still capable of casting spells, being Thog-level stupid doesn't mean your actions aren't Evil.

Grey Wolf

[diplomancer]

it is also important to point out that Hilgya has been shown to be smarter than the Order, thus invalidating the argument "she is too stupid to realize the danger she is putting Kudzu in"; she is not at all stupid like Thog, she is just evil.

[5crownik007]

According to my heavily calibrated instrumentation, Hilgya is Chaotic Evil.
Why?
Well, let's look into what Hilgya's beliefs are:
Dwarven society is stupid and restrictive. The rules are oppressive and I don't want to conform.
Pretty easy Chaos verdict there she's against the order of society(Law). What about Evil?

Well, she's very clearly placing her own interests above the interests of others. She's also willing to murder people for crossing her. The one thing I can find inconsistent with this assessment is her care of the infant Kudzu.
However, I'd say that her total morality coefficient leaves her Evil.

Chaotic Evil, with future Neutrality a possibility.

[diplomancer]

except that this care says absolutely nothing about her alignment. Tarquin "cared" about Elan and Nale. Redcloak "cared" about Right-Eye. Heck, Nale cared, no quote marks involved, about Sabine, and vice-versa; crazy-wight chick cared about her wights, and loved them even while they were killing and eating her.

Honestly, has Hilgya ever been portrayed as doing ONE good, self-sacrificing, altruistic act?

edit: oh, and how could I forget this? Thog loves puppies.

[MartianInvader]

Honestly, has Hilgya ever been portrayed as doing ONE good, self-sacrificing, altruistic act?

When discussing her reasons for spreading the word of Loki with Elan, her motivations sound pretty altruistic.

I guess from my point of view, every campaign setting has slightly different rules about what's good, what's evil, and where the lines are drawn. I already know that OOTS-verse morality doesn't conform to my own. That's why I think the only effective way to analyze it is by comparing to in-universe examples.

So if we establish Hilgya as "either the most evil CN or the most neutral CE", then I think without explicit canon confirmation we *can't* know which side of the line she falls on, because we don't really know where that line is. And because of that, I wouldn't even particularly care where exactly she and the line are relative to each other.

[pendell]

Humanoid, technically.

Demihuman, or does that term still have meaning in 3.5?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Emanick]

Demihuman, or does that term still have meaning in 3.5?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I dunno, it's always sounded sort of in-universe racist to me.