Yet another thread on Hilgya's alignment

[Kish]

I can't find it in the Player's Handbook, I'm glad to say. Hopefully the explicit "if you're a PC race that isn't human you're casually referred to as 'lesser humans'" terminology died with Gygax.

In any event, Durkon, Hilgya, Kudzu...

No humans amongst them.

[Heksefatter]

I can't find it in the Player's Handbook, I'm glad to say. Hopefully the explicit "if you're a PC race that isn't human you're casually referred to as 'lesser humans'" terminology died with Gygax.

In any event, Durkon, Hilgya, Kudzu...

No humans amongst them.

Was the phrasing 'lesser humans' ever actually used in the game rules or was it "only" demihumans?

[Kish]

The prefix "demi" was never, to my knowledge, actually translated from the original French in any D&D material, but I didn't pull "it means lesser" out of my ass, you know.

[Heksefatter]

The prefix "demi" was never, to my knowledge, actually translated from the original French in any D&D material, but I didn't pull "it means lesser" out of my ass, you know.

I get that. I just wanted to know if the explicit phrasing 'lesser humans' was ever used.

[pendell]

I get that. I just wanted to know if the explicit phrasing 'lesser humans' was ever used.

If you mean explicit words to the effect of "lesser races", the answer is no. However, D&D 1e crippled nonhuman PCs; ISTR they had level caps and other issues . Only humans had the potential for unrestricted growth and levels. It was a very human-centric game. So I can see why the attitude and the term would rankle even if Gygax never actually spelled it out. I would say it is implicit speciesism, not explicit.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Heksefatter]

If you mean explicit words to the effect of "lesser races", the answer is no. However, D&D 1e crippled nonhuman PCs; ISTR they had level caps and other issues . Only humans had the potential for unrestricted growth and levels. It was a very human-centric game. So I can see why the attitude and the term would rankle even if Gygax never actually spelled it out. I would say it is implicit speciesism, not explicit.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Again, I get that. I even got on board in the truly ancient days, in basic D&D, where being an elf, dwarf or halfing was a class, meaning that all dwarf PCs were a variant of fighters, and elves were fighter-mages. Halfings were sort of fighter-rouges (if I recall correctly, which I am frankly not sure if I do) and could only advance to level 8. There is even a joke about it in OotS.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0748.html

This is a reference to the fact that while halfings couldn't advance past level 8, they (as well as dwarves and elves) could increase their ability to hit with additional XPs.

D&D old-school was weird. Especially at higher levels. I don't know if you have seen the rules for the immortal quests. They are frankly insane.

[The Pilgrim]

The thing with the old D&D was that the Heroes were intended to be Humans, and the "demiumans" were intended to be supporting characters/sidekicks. That's why the demis got the flexibility of multiclassing while the humans had the unrestricted grow to become real heroes.

[Peelee]

Again, I get that. I even got on board in the truly ancient days, in basic D&D, where being an elf, dwarf or halfing was a class, meaning that all dwarf PCs were a variant of fighters, and elves were fighter-mages. Halfings were sort of fighter-rouges (if I recall correctly, which I am frankly not sure if I do) and could only advance to level 8.

The more I hear about original Dungeons and Dragons, the more impressed I am that it became such a massive franchise.

[Kish]

People rarely played to terribly high levels. If your campaign was going to end at level 10, you played an elf if you wanted an arcane spellcaster, a halfling if you wanted a thief, a dwarf if you wanted a fighter, and a human non-cleric only if you wanted pie in the sky.

One of the books did spell out that subhuman level limitations were because they were, by design, vastly more powerful than humans of the same levels. It argued against removing demihuman level limitations with such palpable indignation that I can only guess someone had tried to point out that "everyone gets a turn being awful!" was a really bad way to approach balance to Gary...or to someone else who was heavily invested in it, anyway.

[hroþila]

The thing with the old D&D was that the Heroes were intended to be Humans, and the "demiumans" were intended to be supporting characters/sidekicks. That's why the demis got the flexibility of multiclassing while the humans had the unrestricted grow to become real heroes.

I've always been puzzled by this. Like, why. Why make them playable but crap. Why bother designing whole playable races that you don't want people to play. Why make them bad to keep players away from them. It'd be another thing if they'd handicapped them in certain ways in order to integrate that into the stories and make a point, but this always felt so... so pointless. It's hardly even a reflection of their own real-world biases except perhaps at a very subconscious level. It's just baffling.

edit: if it was just an hilariously misguided attempt at game balance, it makes more sense.

[Liquor Box]

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,

Grey Wolf

You start your post with the word 'no', but the rest of your post still goes on to suggest that Hilgya is just using "he's safe with me" as a justification for pursuing her own goals, rather than that being her genuine considered belief. Unless there is a shade of grey between what I am saying and what you are saying that I am missing.

As I said before, if you are right, and she is knowingly putting Kudzu at significant risk to pursue her own goals, then that is absolutely the wrong thing to do. The key word in there remains 'knowingly' and taking what she says at face value, she think he is safe with her.

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.

Being stupid in an of itself does not mean that your actions aren't evil. But if, because you are stupid, you do something that has a harm you didn't foresee then it may indeed not be an evil act.

Examples:
- Roy deliberately kills an innocent - evil
- Thog deliberately kills an innocent - evil (being stupid does not take away the evil from this act)
- Roy deliberately knocks down a tree despite being intelligent enough to realise that the tree might fall on a person and maim them - evil
- Thog deliberately knocks down a tree but is not smart enough to realise that the tree might fall on a person and maim them - not evil

In my opinion, for an act to be evil, the person who did it must realise the possibility of harm arising from it (putting aside the more difficult question of whether there can be evil without harm). That does not mean stupid people, like Thog, are never evil - Thog realises that when he hits someone with his axe it causes them harm.

[Doug Lampert]

Again, I get that. I even got on board in the truly ancient days, in basic D&D, where being an elf, dwarf or halfing was a class, meaning that all dwarf PCs were a variant of fighters, and elves were fighter-mages. Halfings were sort of fighter-rouges (if I recall correctly, which I am frankly not sure if I do) and could only advance to level 8. There is even a joke about it in OotS.

The more I hear about original Dungeons and Dragons, the more impressed I am that it became such a massive franchise.

The original game did NOT have races as classes, a halfling could be a fighter, or magic user, or cleric, just like anyone else including elves and dwarves.

Nor do I recall any level limits for non-humans in the original game.

[pendell]

The original game did NOT have races as classes, a halfling could be a fighter, or magic user, or cleric, just like anyone else including elves and dwarves.

Nor do I recall any level limits for non-humans in the original game.

AD&D did.

n 1980, the second "Basic" D&D was published, edited by Tom Moldvay. This is the first of the classic Basic rulebooks. It took oD&D as a base, but cleaned up things dramatically. This is the first version where races-as-classes was properly stated. Your options here were Cleric, Fighter, Magic-User, Thief, Dwarf, Elf or Halfling. This retained the 3-alignment system from original D&D. Along with the "Basic" rules (levels 1-3) came the Expert rules (levels 4-14, sort of).

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[KorvinStarmast]

The prefix "demi" was never, to my knowledge, actually translated from the original French in any D&D material, but I didn't pull "it means lesser" out of my ass, you know.

It means half, which I learned taking piano lessons before I was 10, when I had to look at little lines on sheet music and correctly identify hemi, semi, and demi quavers. "prefix" ...

Not sure if your "lesser" is an idiomatic or literal translation of your own. Update: it's a secondary definition:

1.
half; half-size.
"demisemiquaver"
2.
partially; in an inferior degree.
"demigod"

AD&D 1e did this thing in an explicitly humanocentric world:
Humans: humans
Humanoids: orcs, goblins, etc
Demi Humans: elves, gnomes, dwarves.

Gygax loved his thesaurus, and he loved trying to make categories of things so that he could make another table to roll on. He created classifications for pole arms that in some cases didn't quite exist, and for my money he created a pointless classification for dwarves, elves etc ... in a humanocentric world. Why? I guess because he admired how scientists did speciation and taxonomy.

Thankfully, later editions chose to leave that in the creative dust.

I've always been puzzled by this. Like, why. Why make them playable but crap.

The were not crap. Being able to multi class as an elf (4/8) was pretty cool when most games didn't get past 10.

The original game did NOT have races as classes, a halfling could be a fighter, or magic user, or cleric, just like anyone else including elves and dwarves.

Sorry Doug, I have Men and Magic. (1974). That is incorrect. Before the Greyhawk book, a hobbit (not halfling, this was before the cease and desist order) could get as far as 4th level Fighting Man. And that was it. No cleric. No Magic User. Dwarf? No cleric. 6th level fighter, max. Elf? 4 Fighter, 8 Magic user. Max. When Greyhawk came out, anyone and every one took a close look at thief. Level restrictions for thief? Nope. (I recall high str and high int might allow a higher level dwarf ... and helf elves were introduced who could be 6/6 ...) And we had some oddball half elf ftr/cler/MU's in one campaign.

You could run into a dwarf cleric as NPC, but it was rare. Of course, in a wide open game, we had DM's who decided that "I 'll have a dwarf cleric, it's my world!" and that's how it worked and it was great!
We didn't have the internet police to try and shame us in those days.
Caveat: if you brought that character to another DM's game, you might get told "Nope!"

[Peelee]

Before the Greyhawk book, a hobbit (not halfling, this was pre cease and desist order) could get as far as 4th level Fighting Man.

I will forever be sad they nixed the Fighting Man name. It lives on forever in my heart.

[Mordar]

Again, I get that. I even got on board in the truly ancient days, in basic D&D, where being an elf, dwarf or halfing was a class, meaning that all dwarf PCs were a variant of fighters, and elves were fighter-mages. Halfings were sort of fighter-rouges (if I recall correctly, which I am frankly not sure if I do) and could only advance to level 8.

D&D old-school was weird. Especially at higher levels. I don't know if you have seen the rules for the immortal quests. They are frankly insane.

The thing with the old D&D was that the Heroes were intended to be Humans, and the "demiumans" were intended to be supporting characters/sidekicks. That's why the demis got the flexibility of multiclassing while the humans had the unrestricted grow to become real heroes.

This does not match my experience or recollection at all. Everyone wanted to be an elf, or halfling or dwarf. Level restrictions? Never an issue. Want to have a sword *and* cast spells? Want to be the burly tough fighter? The sneaky thief? Non-humans it is. Sure, there was a sprinkling of humans played, but maybe 10%.

We saw the level restrictions but they were a non-issue. Even then, as 12-year-olds we saw them as the answer to "Why wouldn't you play an elf or a dwarf or a hobbit halfling?" And then we laughed at the level limits and played the non-humans anyway.

People rarely played to terribly high levels. If your campaign was going to end at level 10, you played an elf if you wanted an arcane spellcaster, a halfling if you wanted a thief, a dwarf if you wanted a fighter, and a human non-cleric only if you wanted pie in the sky.

One of the books did spell out that subhuman level limitations were because they were, by design, vastly more powerful than humans of the same levels. It argued against removing demihuman level limitations with such palpable indignation that I can only guess someone had tried to point out that "everyone gets a turn being awful!" was a really bad way to approach balance to Gary...or to someone else who was heavily invested in it, anyway.

This mostly matched my experience, without the premeditated campaign end point. I remember something like what you spell out in the second paragraph, but not with the vehemence...likely because I think it matched our expectation at the time. It was the only bad thing about playing an elf...but since we moved to AD&D before we got close to the point where the XP/Level table went sour, it didn't much matter in the end. And then we only played humans if we wanted to be a paladin. And we still seldom got close to the level limits.

From a Dragon magazine article in 1979, quoting EGG:

The character races in the AD&D system were selected with care. They give variety of approach, but any player selecting a non-human (part- or demi-human) character does not have any real advantage. True, some of those racial types give short-term advantages to the players who choose them, but in the long run, these same characters are at an equal disadvantage when compared to human characters with the same number of experience points. This was, in fact, designed into the game. The variety of approach makes role selection more interesting. Players must weigh advantages and disadvantages carefully before opting for character race, human or otherwise. It is in vogue in some campaigns to remove restrictions on demi-humans — or at least relax them somewhat. While this might make the DM popular for a time with those participants with dwarven fighters of high level, or eleven wizards of vast power, it will eventually consign the campaign as a whole to one in which the only races will be non-human. Dwarves, elves, et al will have all the advantages and no real disadvantages, so the majority of players will select those races, and humankind will disappear from the realm of player character types. This bears upon the various hybrid racial types, as well.

While that might have been broadly accurate, it really didn't stop us from elf-ing it up.

I've always been puzzled by this. Like, why. Why make them playable but crap. Why bother designing whole playable races that you don't want people to play. Why make them bad to keep players away from them. It'd be another thing if they'd handicapped them in certain ways in order to integrate that into the stories and make a point, but this always felt so... so pointless. It's hardly even a reflection of their own real-world biases except perhaps at a very subconscious level. It's just baffling.

edit: if it was just an hilariously misguided attempt at game balance, it makes more sense.

They were never crap. Unless you mean the humans. Like I mentioned, 90% of the PCs in our games were non-human. We viewed the human as the bland, no-benefit race. My understanding (though I'm not sure when I formed it) on the in-game justification of level limits was "if there weren't level limits on races that live longer than humans, why wouldn't all the biggest/bestest warriors, magic-users, thieves and clerics be dwarves/elves/halflings?" Circular, I know, but at least it was a nod to the issue.

I wonder if the different perception on the impact of the level cap has to do with changing style of play, or just different individual experiences. By that I mean "back then" we didn't often start characters above level 1. Even when we got to AD&D we played from 1 up, or used pre-generated characters for fancy modules we wanted to play through. I didn't play 2e at all, but to the best of my knowledge it wasn't until 3e that there were "official" rules on how to build a starting character at levels other than one.

Because of our style of play the level caps were never approached. I don't think we had any "basic" groups get past level 5. In AD&D we seemed to play "to type", so the level limits weren't a big impact either because dwarves weren't clerics, elves were never single-classed fighters, and no one played gnomes. Ever. Other than pre-generated characters I don't think I played a 12th level character until 3e, so I suspect that's why the level caps never really mattered to me.

A different expectation exists now, I think, where common campaign startup questions include "What level are we starting?" People coming on board in the last couple decades have good cause to wonder at a system that prevents certain characters from even entertaining participation if the answer to that question was anything about say 7.

- M

[KorvinStarmast]

I will forever be sad they nixed the Fighting Man name. It lives on forever in my heart.

As Roland the Gunslinger* once said, "the world has moved on" and indeed it has. IIRC, the original name for first level Fighting Man was Veteran.

(*Well, S. King wrote it).

[Rrmcklin]

@Liquor Box, you seem to not understand the concept that a person self-delude themselves into thinking what they want to do is right, even when it clearly isn't it.

Hilgya does this with Kudzu. Redcloak did it with Right Eye and with the goblin people as a whole. Tarquin did it with both Nale and Elan.

I'm not saying any of these people don't care about the one they hurt/endangered, I'm saying they didn't care enough to put the other person's needs and wants ahead of their own.

Hilgya's first priority is Hilgya. Anything she says to the contrary is lie, not just to the people she's talking to, but herself. Which is why this "even if she was wrong, she thought she was doing the right thing" line means nothing.

All of the pieces for it should be obvious that taking Kudzu along to kill Durkon in the first place, and then refusing to leave him with other adults in a vampire free area when she found out there were a bunch of vampires, were there. That Hilgya didn't recognize the obvious does not mean we should give her slack for not recognizing the obvious.

[Liquor Box]

@Liquor Box, you seem to not understand the concept that a person self-delude themselves into thinking what they want to do is right, even when it clearly isn't it.

Hilgya does this with Kudzu. Redcloak did it with Right Eye and with the goblin people as a whole. Tarquin did it with both Nale and Elan.

I'm not saying any of these people don't care about the one they hurt/endangered, I'm saying they didn't care enough to put the other person's needs and wants ahead of their own.

Hilgya's first priority is Hilgya. Anything she says to the contrary is lie, not just to the people she's talking to, but herself. Which is why this "even if she was wrong, she thought she was doing the right thing" line means nothing.

All of the pieces for it should be obvious that taking Kudzu along to kill Durkon in the first place, and then refusing to leave him with other adults in a vampire free area when she found out there were a bunch of vampires, were there. That Hilgya didn't recognize the obvious does not mean we should give her slack for not recognizing the obvious.

When you talk of self deluding oneself into thinking what one does is right, I see a distinction between making a delusional moral judgment and making a delusional assessment of risk. If Hilgya was to say "I was was justified in killing Durkon because he spurned me" that would be a delusional moral judgment and Hilgya would be blameworthy. But where Hilgya says "I think with me is the safest place for Kudzu, so I am justified in having him with me" that may be a delusional assessment of risk, but if she genuinely believes it (and I accept you doubt that) then she is not morally blameworthy, she is just stupid.

Both your examples (Tarquin and Redcloak) made delusional moral judgments. Both knew that were harming people on multiple occasions but thought their own ends justified those means. Accordingly, they are blameworthy.

If you think Hilgya was lying, or was obfuscating the truth in her own mind to justify her goals at the expense of Kudzu, then I agree it was evil. And I accept that there's a grey area where Hilgya may know deep down that her justification doesn't fly, but not acknowledge that even to herself.

[diplomancer]

we know that Hilgya is not stupid, she is smarter than the Order; therefore, if she does not realize that there are better options than taking your kid on a vampire hunt, it is because she refuses to consider that possibility. And that is a moral choice.

[Peelee]

When you talk of self deluding oneself into thinking what one does is right, I see a distinction between making a delusional moral judgment and making a delusional assessment of risk. If Hilgya was to say "I was was justified in killing Durkon because he spurned me" that would be a delusional moral judgment and Hilgya would be blameworthy. But where Hilgya says "I think with me is the safest place for Kudzu, so I am justified in having him with me" that may be a delusional assessment of risk, but if she genuinely believes it (and I accept you doubt that) then she is not morally blameworthy, she is just stupid.

But she's not saying "I think with me is the safest place for Kudzu, so I am justified in having him with me." She's saying, "I think with me is the safest place for Kudzu while I am fighting vampire clerics, so I am justified in having him with me." That's on a whole 'nother level. Remember, her choices weren't leave Kudzu with someone else or take him with her; she also had the choice to not willingly go fight vampires with her baby strapped to her. She decided getting revenge on Durkon was worth more than ensuring her child's safety. Note that the vampire actually got her child, and didn't harm him solely because of Durkon.

[hroþila]

we know that Hilgya is not stupid, she is smarter than the Order; therefore, if she does not realize that there are better options than taking your kid on a vampire hunt, it is because she refuses to consider that possibility. And that is a moral choice.

I think this reasoning is potentially shaky in a comic that has lots of absurdist comedy which, if taken out of context and extrapolated to the real world, would lead us to conclude that almost every character is a moron.

What about Kazumi?

Spoiler: Good Deeds Gone Unpunished

Show

She clearly put her unborn child (late enough in her pregnancy that it could be considered an autonomous human being) at considerable risk by insisting on going on a dungeon crawl. She had Daigo constantly pointing out the danger to her, and if that wasn't enough, she was almost killed by a trap to drive it home. But she didn't care. Was that Evil on her part? Perhaps, but narratively it was not really portrayed in that light, more like wacky humour.

The situation with Kudzu is different, in that the situation did turn serious (in terms of narrative framing) when he was taken hostage by Durkon. But prior to that, I think it was portrayed as a bit wacky too. And the narrative framing might be a legitimate difference in a universe that literally runs on that kind of thing. I don't know.

[Kish]

Endangering oneself while in an advanced state of pregnancy really shouldn't be compared to endangering a baby.

And in light of the no-politics rule, that's all I'll say about that.

[hroþila]

Sure, there are differences. Let's say it's not nearly the same. Is it still an Evil act? If it isn't, would the explanation of why not also apply to Hilgya to any degree?

[Mightymosy]

Don't forget the stupid dwarf rules!

I don't know if and how this applies to children, but maybe he can go to Valhalla if he dies in combat with Hilgya, but goes to Hel when he dies in the safety of the temple (for whatever random reason?)?

Seriously, this whole afterlife rules system for the Dwarves means that "real life" ethics are twisted in a way that we just should NOT put too much weight on them, I think.

Even the fact that the people in the comic KNOW that a definite afterlife exists and that it can be very nice (Celestia, Valhala) means our own moral codes aren't readily portable into the OotS world.

Yes, the author may possibly want us to think that way (when Roy says he still doesn't want to die and go back to Celestia), but if so, it still doesn't hold up as well.

Death is just different when you KNOW that you will afterwards be "living" on clouds with infinite one night stands, debates where you are always right, and encounters just hard enough to challenge you - and talking with people you like and love, and understand your goals.
And if death is fundamentally different, so must ethics that involve death be different.

I'm sure someone will soon show me why this isn't Celestia, specifically because of points 2, 4 and 5 .

[RatElemental]

I can't find it in the Player's Handbook, I'm glad to say. Hopefully the explicit "if you're a PC race that isn't human you're casually referred to as 'lesser humans'" terminology died with Gygax.

This is why I prefer the term 'metahuman' from shadowrun. Or just 'person' but you have to expand the accepted definitions of that one to apply it to sapient nonhumans.

[Fyraltari]

Don't forget the stupid dwarf rules!

I don't know if and how this applies to children, but maybe he can go to Valhalla if he dies in combat with Hilgya, but goes to Hel when he dies in the safety of the temple (for whatever random reason?)?

How do you justify "being physically dragged into combat by his mother when he's too young to do anything about it" as honorable? The way things are, it looks like dwarf infants go to Hel every time.

Seriously, this whole afterlife rules system for the Dwarves means that "real life" ethics are twisted in a way that we just should NOT put too much weight on them, I think.

Why the quotes?

Even the fact that the people in the comic KNOW that a definite afterlife exists and that it can be very nice (Celestia, Valhala) means our own moral codes aren't readily portable into the OotS world.

I mean a whole lot of people are pretty damn convinced of a definite afterlife in the real world and if you look at history the proportion who weren't is probably statistically insignificant.

Leaving that pile of potential thread-lock aside, I'd like an explanation of how the certainty of afterlives effect say the golden rule? Or why you shouldn't judge people by their birth? Or the Kantian Imperative or any other moral system ever?

Yes, the author may possibly want us to think that way (when Roy says he still doesn't want to die and go back to Celestia), but if so, it still doesn't hold up as well.

Death is just different when you KNOW that you will afterwards be "living" on clouds with infinite one night stands, debates where you are always right, and encounters just hard enough to challenge you - and talking with people you like and love, and understand your goals.
And if death is fundamentally different, so must ethics that involve death be different.

Again, a lot of people I know are convinced that's what await them if they act right, and I haven't noticed any difference in ethics more significant with them than with others.

[Ruck]

You start your post with the word 'no', but the rest of your post still goes on to suggest that Hilgya is just using "he's safe with me" as a justification for pursuing her own goals, rather than that being her genuine considered belief. Unless there is a shade of grey between what I am saying and what you are saying that I am missing.

As I said before, if you are right, and she is knowingly putting Kudzu at significant risk to pursue her own goals, then that is absolutely the wrong thing to do. The key word in there remains 'knowingly' and taking what she says at face value, she think he is safe with her.

Nuts, I was going to write a reply, but it would've just been almost exactly this:

But she's not saying "I think with me is the safest place for Kudzu, so I am justified in having him with me." She's saying, "I think with me is the safest place for Kudzu while I am fighting vampire clerics, so I am justified in having him with me." That's on a whole 'nother level. Remember, her choices weren't leave Kudzu with someone else or take him with her; she also had the choice to not willingly go fight vampires with her baby strapped to her. She decided getting revenge on Durkon was worth more than ensuring her child's safety. Note that the vampire actually got her child, and didn't harm him solely because of Durkon.

[Peelee]

Nuts, I was going to write a reply, but it would've just been almost exactly this:

I've had that issue with you before, so turnabout is fair play. Neener neener.

[Rrmcklin]

We've been given no reason to assume that there's an exemption for dwarven children for the afterlife rules (and honestly, would it matter if there were?) so I see no reason to see why that acts as some sort of valid buffer for Hilgya unnecessarily risking her child's life.

And despite what some people would argue, we also have no reason to assume that Hilgya could just bring him back even if he died (and again, starting from that position is terrible to begin with).