OOTS #1181 - The Discussion Thread

[Peelee]

She only killed Durkon after he proposed marriage, for all we know her original plan was to just yell at him and get him to pay child support, we don’t have enough information there

She openly stated her original intention was to murder Durkon. To multiple witnesses.

ETA: Banana'd!

[bravelove]

I think she meant "murdering" when she said "murdering", myself.

Exact quote “I was told someone needed help murdering Durkon Thundershield” suggesting she already knew they were on the way to kill him especially because she didn’t immediately demand they turn him over or anything

[Rrmcklin]

You know, I wish I could say I was surprised that several people keep framing this about Hilyga's inalienable rights as a parent as opposed to justifiable concerns over Kudzu's well-being, or how certain people keep acting as if Hilgya's lack of active malice towards Kudzu himself means it's unreasonable to evaluate how her prior behavior and choices have or could affect his life and well-being, but that happens all the time in real life, so I'm not.

Or how certain people keep reframing Hilgya's actions to be more focused on Kudzu than they actually are - i.e. how justifying her leaving the battle as "she's worried about Kudzu's safety" even though she had very specifically said she hadn't felt invested to begin with, and Kudzu and his safety were not the focus of her leaving statement. But, again, I'm not surprised.

Look, I understand that female characters very often are subject to harsher criticisms, both in media in general, and this comic specifically, but it really does feel like certain people are using that as a shield of any criticism of Hilgya or her parenting which is, frankly, ridiculous.

On the Tarquin comparison, yes, Tarquin was a horrible person and unfit parent and never should have been given custody of Nale. Hilgya is also a horrible person (whether she's capital E "Evil" or not is basically irrelevant as far as I'm concerned) and unfit parent and should not retain custody of Kudzu. These statements are not contradictory, it's possible to believe both of them, and I frankly find it a bit strange the Giant clearly wants us to believe one, but not the other.

And for people making the argument of "Well, the Giant thinks this so...", I'm not disputing he seems to think that Hilgya is somehow more fit than Tarquin. I'm just saying I disagree with that assessment, because it's entirely possible to disagree with the author on things like this, while also acknowledging that it is ultimately his decision and I have no actual say in it.

[Jasdoif]

Exact quote “I was told someone needed help murdering Durkon Thundershield” suggesting she already knew they were on the way to kill him especially because she didn’t immediately demand they turn him over or anything

It's true; she wanted Durkon dead, and so was willing to help them murder Durkon.

[Schroeswald]

It's true; she wanted Durkon dead, and so was willing to help them murder Durkon.

Clearly when she said that she wanted to help them kill Durkon what she meant was she was planning on capturing him and then giving him a stern talking-to.

[Themrys]

It's true; she wanted Durkon dead, and so was willing to help them murder Durkon.

She didn't want him dead. She wanted to murder him. In D&D, that's two different things.

I don't get why people suddenly apply real world logic to Hilgya, when no one ever did for any of the other characters. (I do suspect it's because she's a woman and it is about who gets to seize ownership of her baby, though.)

This is the world where people consider fighting their elderly friends and relatives do the death. The people who openly talk about that are still deemed good people because people accept the premise that this actually benefits the elderly person.

But when it comes to Hilgya, everyone suddenly forgets the wackyness of D&D life, death and afterlife rules, and pretends this is a real life situation.

[Jasdoif]

She didn't want him dead. She wanted to murder him. In D&D, that's two different things.

If you pretend that she can murder him without him being dead as a result of being murdered, sure.

[Dion]

I don't get why people suddenly apply real world logic to Hilgya, when no one ever did for any of the other characters..

[citation needed]

Pretty sure people talk about real life logic and morality here all the time, at least when they’re not talking about Star Wars.

But let’s have a thought experiment. If Princess Leia strapped her little baby Rey to her chest while she fought stormtroopers, would that make her a bad mom?

What if Han strapped Rey’s brother Kylo to his chest, while fighting Bobby Fett? Would that make him a bad dad?

No, of course not, in both cases. Leia is a bad mom because she abandoned Rey in some barren planet to fend for herself, and Han is a bad dad because he’s just a bad person. Strapping babies to their chest like ablative blaster armor wouldn’t make them any worse as parents or people.

[Rrmcklin]

She didn't want him dead. She wanted to murder him. In D&D, that's two different things.

I don't get why people suddenly apply real world logic to Hilgya, when no one ever did for any of the other characters. (I do suspect it's because she's a woman and it is about who gets to seize ownership of her baby, though.)

This is the world where people consider fighting their elderly friends and relatives do the death. The people who openly talk about that are still deemed good people because people accept the premise that this actually benefits the elderly person.

But when it comes to Hilgya, everyone suddenly forgets the wackyness of D&D life, death and afterlife rules, and pretends this is a real life situation.

Because of understanding context? Because the context of "fighting their elderly friends and relatives to the death" was concerning a situation in which something like that could result in said friends and relatives going to a great afterlife, as opposed to be tortured in Hel for eternity, whereas Hilgya murdered Durkon because he asked her a stupid question in a tactless way? Oh, and the fact that when she brought him back she was surrounded by his armed and powerful friends ready to attack, so it can't even be said to be clear she would have brought him back if that were not the case.

You honestly don't understand the difference between those situations? Even assuming your opening premise of Hilgya being the only one people apply real-world logic and morality to (she isn't, not by a long-shot) those situations still aren't actually comparable.

{scrubbed}

[KorvinStarmast]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Aargh. Even without TW, it seems to be happening again.

Rather than get involved in this (seemingly neverending) discussion about Hilgya, I went back to the strip #1181 and looked at each panel with Kudzu in it. I then tried to think through why Rich had the baby pull a particular face in each panel. Doing that reminded me of reading the little "drawn out dramas" in MAD magazine years ago, as done by Sergio Aragones.
It also made me smile and chuckle - which is about the opposite reaction that I get when I see this battle over Hilgya start up again. (With her soon to be off screen, I think).

My daughter recently gave birth to her first child ... and maybe I am getting better vibes from baby and family things than argument things.

Looking forward to the next transition strips: I wonder if O'Chul and Lien have played lots of games of Go, and if Lien is winning a few. (She said she does not like that game)

[MossyMeow]

Honestly, Hilgya seems like she would be an abusive parent- not physically, but emotionally and verbally. She does seem to love Kudzu, but would that change if he defied her? What if he became a worshipper of Thor?

[Schroeswald]

Aargh. Even without TW, it seems to be happening again.

Rather than get involved in this (seemingly neverending) discussion about Hilgya, I went back to the strip #1181 and looked at each panel with Kudzu in it. I then tried to think through why Rich had the baby pull a particular face in each panel. Doing that reminded me of reading the little "drawn out dramas" in MAD magazine years ago, as done by Sergio Aragones.
It also made me smile and chuckle - which is about the opposite reaction that I get when I see this battle over Hilgya start up again. (With her soon to be off screen, I think).

My daughter recently gave birth to her first child ... and maybe I am getting better vibes from baby and family things than argument things.

Looking forward to the next transition strips: I wonder if O'Chul and Lien have played lots of games of Go, and if Lien is winning a few. (She said she does not like that game)

I must say that whenever you look at Kudzu its fun, he seems obsessed with both the idea of feet and his mom's helmet (he wants one of his own) throughout his appearances.

[MossyMeow]

I must say that whenever you look at Kudzu its fun, he seems obsessed with both the idea of feet and his mom's helmet (he wants one of his own) throughout his appearances.

Aren’t all babies obsessed with feet?

[Themrys]

Honestly, Hilgya seems like she would be an abusive parent- not physically, but emotionally and verbally. She does seem to love Kudzu, but would that change if he defied her? What if he became a worshipper of Thor?

You do remember that Durkon was not just a worshipper but a cleric of Thor when she met him, yes? And that she didn't have a problem with that, while he apparently only tolerate her being a cleric of Loki because he didn't know she was one due to having failed his knowledge religion check.

The emotionally and verbally abusive person in this relationship is Durkon, who told her to go back to her arranged husband (who she told him was abusive) and explicitly said he WANTED her to be unhappy because he considered being unhappy her DUTY.

So yeah, clearly, Durkon is the person who should get custody of Kudzu, nevermind that he is no more than a glorified sperm donor who didn't even know about Kudzu's existence until very recently and has previously made it very clear that he wants Kudzu to be considered the child of Hilgya's husband, as many countries would, in fact, do. /sarcasm


It is a very, very, very bad idea to try and bring intolerance into this.

Because, you know who has been shown to be intolerant of other religions? Durkon. Malack wanted to stay friends with him and tried to compromise. Now, I don't say Durkon didn't have a point when he refused to compromise with an evil, bloodsucking vampire, but tolerance really isn't the thing in which he is superior to Hilgya in any way whatsoever. It just isn't.

[Sindeloke]

My daughter recently gave birth to her first child ... and maybe I am getting better vibes from baby and family things than argument things.

I would hazard to suggest that most people do.* However, humans are strongly associative creatures. We are wired to connect things to their context. Not always, obviously - taking things wildly out of context is also a quintessentially human thing - but for many people, in this instance, we cannot just appreciate Kudzu's cute faces and ignore the person holding him, any more than we can watch Han Solo approach his son across a bridge and be touched by his loving and accepting gesture without any regard for what we know will be the result of that choice. (Y'all wanted Star Wars again, right? That's what you were saying?)

Kudzu does not exist in isolation; he exists as part of a complex story and is intimately involved in the question of Hilgya's morality and treatment of others. Some people can ignore that and d'aww at the image of his lil dwarflet face, others cannot. It's not really an indictment of either group. Stories hit people differently and different things catch in the craw of different people based on our own different perspectives and experiences.

* Some people really do love a good bit of antagonism, but I suspect it's many fewer than it seems from simply observing the internet.

And for people making the argument of "Well, the Giant thinks this so...", I'm not disputing he seems to think that Hilgya is somehow more fit than Tarquin. I'm just saying I disagree with that assessment, because it's entirely possible to disagree with the author on things like this, while also acknowledging that it is ultimately his decision and I have no actual say in it.

Yeah I think a big part of the problem with Hilgya is a tonal mismatch. This comic strip has evolved a great deal from the days when the team did obviously Evil stuff as one-off gags and we were meant to laugh and move on without thinking about it. The Giant has, in fact, singled out a couple of those thoughtlessly Evil moments as the strip has evolved, and used them to echo back on the players and examine (and implicitly condemn) the carelessness of the strip's early morality. But Hilgya seems to still exist in that original dynamic, to a certain degree, which becomes a real issue when her "flame strike to resolve domestic dispute" overreaction humor hits up against a narrative environment that no longer treats such things so trivially, and an audience conditioned to view things from within that new more serious narrative framework.

(Reminds me a lot of some of the old arguments I had with people over Harley/Ivy, Harley/Joker, and relative abusiveness of relationships back in the day before H/I was explicit canon. Genre tone is so important and a surprisingly common problem with author-audience communication.)

[Rrmcklin]

You do remember that Durkon was not just a worshipper but a cleric of Thor when she met him, yes? And that she didn't have a problem with that, while he apparently only tolerate her being a cleric of Loki because he didn't know she was one due to having failed his knowledge religion check.

Did you miss the part in which Hilgya specifically refused to hand over Kudzu's the people at the temple specifically because they were worshipers of Thor? Or when she insulted Thor in this very strip? Hilgya was okay with Durkon at first because of her mistaken impression that he was like her, and hated Dwarven customs and rules, and that apparently trumped her distaste for his god. Now, you could say that Kudzu being her son would do the same - or not.

The emotionally and verbally abusive person in this relationship is Durkon, who told her to go back to her arranged husband (who she told him was abusive) and explicitly said he WANTED her to be unhappy because he considered being unhappy her DUTY.

Neither of those things constitute emotional or verbal abuse. They constitute reasons she would justifiably not like Durkon, but those aren't the same thing. Also, a bit of a misinterpretation of what actually happened, which is unnecessary because, again, how things actually played out are already good enough for her to not like him, you don't need to distort the truth to get justification out of it.

So yeah, clearly, Durkon is the person who should get custody of Kudzu, nevermind that he is no more than a glorified sperm donor who didn't even know about Kudzu's existence until very recently and has previously made it very clear that he wants Kudzu to be considered the child of Hilgya's husband, as many countries would, in fact, do. /sarcasm

Whether Durkon is fit to have custody has no barring on whether Hilgya is. Personally I'd say he is (more so than her, anyway), and your arguments against such are incredibly weak, but that's besides the point right now because neither he nor the story are acting as if he should have sole custody or as if Kudzu should go with him right now.

You keep bringing up this false dichotomies (like either Kudzu stays with Hilgya or Durkon, as if absolutely no other options exist) to shut down people's points, and it's very annoying.

It is a very, very, very bad idea to try and bring intolerance into this.

Because, you know who has been shown to be intolerant of other religions? Durkon. Malack wanted to stay friends with him and tried to compromise. Now, I don't say Durkon didn't have a point when he refused to compromise with an evil, bloodsucking vampire, but tolerance really isn't the thing in which he is superior to Hilgya in any way whatsoever. It just isn't.

{scrubbed}

[MossyMeow]

It is a very, very, very bad idea to try and bring intolerance into this.

Because, you know who has been shown to be intolerant of other religions? Durkon. Malack wanted to stay friends with him and tried to compromise. Now, I don't say Durkon didn't have a point when he refused to compromise with an evil, bloodsucking vampire, but tolerance really isn't the thing in which he is superior to Hilgya in any way whatsoever. It just isn't.

Unless I missed something, Durkon didn't want to stop being friends with Malack because of his religion, or even because he was a vampire; he stopped being friends with Malack because he was hurting other people. Can we at least agree that hurting other people is wrong, or do we have to argue about that, too?

[Dutch]

This comic made me feel all warm and fuzzy. Especially the last panel, that just hit me right in the feels!!!!

[hroþila]

I'd like to note that Malack's religion wasn't vampirism, it was Nergal worship, which wasn't a secret, and Durkon was perfectly cool with it.

[Schroeswald]

Unless I missed something, Durkon didn't want to stop being friends with Malack because of his religion, or even because he was a vampire; he stopped being friends with Malack because he was hurting other people. Can we at least agree that hurting other people is wrong, or do we have to argue about that, too?

Hurting other people is good actually you see, and that is because Chaotic Evil is the real Good and thus Belkar is Neutral Good, y'see.

[MossyMeow]

I'd like to note that Malack's religion wasn't vampirism, it was Nergal worship, which wasn't a secret, and Durkon was perfectly cool with it.

And that he was perfectly willing to allow Malack to explain his point of view, and was even eager to learn more. Durkon’s not perfect, but he is not intolerant.

[Liquor Box]

Hilgya is clearly a bad person, is in the wrong more than Durkon with respect to their relationship and tribulations, but I don't think we have anything to say that she is not fit to be a parent. The only thing we really have to go on is that she took Kudzu into a dangerous situation, but given the context of D&D I think people are overemphasising that.

Yeah I think a big part of the problem with Hilgya is a tonal mismatch. This comic strip has evolved a great deal from the days when the team did obviously Evil stuff as one-off gags and we were meant to laugh and move on without thinking about it. The Giant has, in fact, singled out a couple of those thoughtlessly Evil moments as the strip has evolved, and used them to echo back on the players and examine (and implicitly condemn) the carelessness of the strip's early morality. But Hilgya seems to still exist in that original dynamic, to a certain degree, which becomes a real issue when her "flame strike to resolve domestic dispute" overreaction humor hits up against a narrative environment that no longer treats such things so trivially, and an audience conditioned to view things from within that new more serious narrative framework.

Any sch tonal mismatch only arises if you perceive Hilgya as a character that is supposed to be sympathetic though. There would be no such mismatch if Xykon were to act similarly. But I don't think there's anything in the comic that suggests that Hilgya is supposed to be sympathetic - she is simply an evil character who does evil things. I don't think the giant foresaw that some people would seize on things like her gender to perceive her as sympathetic.

[Rrmcklin]

Hilgya is clearly a bad person, is in the more than Durkon with respect to their relationship and tribulations, but I don't think we have anything to say that she is not fit to be a parent. The only thing we really have to go on is that she took Kudzu into a dangerous situation, but given the context of D&D I think people are overemphasising that.

Except we have fair enough reason to think (via the case of Eric) that if something actually did happen to him (and it got very close to being the case) he wouldn't have been possible to bring back.

Hilgya basically had three options:

1) Leave a soon as found out more about the situations instead of carrying him into battle.

2) Leave him with the acolytes of Thor for a bit.

3) Do what she did.

Of the three, the first very clearly puts his well-being ahead of the other two, but the second one is at least not ridiculous.

Though, she also had the option of not seeking revenge to begin with, but she wouldn't be Hilgya if she did that.

[HalfTangible]

Except we have fair enough reason to think (via the case of Eric) that if something actually did happen to him (and it got very close to being the case) he wouldn't have been possible to bring back.

We know that. Hilgya doesn't; I'm not even sure Roy remembers it (or, well, more specifically doesn't remember why it didn't work).

[Necris Omega]

She doesn't deserve custody because of the way she named him? That doesn't strike you as a Miko-esque gross overreaction?

If you want to defend the fitness of a a mother who essentially names her child "choking invasive parasite" then... alright.

If you want to defend an impulsive murderer as a fit mother, then that's... I'm sorry, but that's not reasonable. At all.

Also, she raised Durkon. He got better.

And? Savagely assaulting someone, then administering medical aid does not make it okay to assault someone.

Second, even with Resurrection, death in this world still has consequences. Roy spent the vast majority of this strip trying to catch up to where he died in terms of character capacity, and that's from dying once. With that as a yard stick, in terms of mechanics, Durkon is not only done progressing, he's been set back so far there probably isn't enough of the comic left for him to even get back to where he'd be if he wasn't murdered a second time.

As a character in the plot, sure. Durkon's back. As a character in a world adhering to D&D mechanics, mechanics which can, have, and doubtlessly will still play a significant role in said plot? ... Durkon's back, but with damage he will never recover from, or at the very least won't recover from for a very, very long time.

Resurrection or no, killing Durkon has serious consequences that will be plaguing this strip probably for the rest of its run.

How do you want the Order to deal with her, kill her and raise her? Strictly an eye for an eye? They're not judge, jury, and executioner. They're not meting out justice for every transgression they see. They have a mission, and that's what they're focused on. Hilgya can get her comeuppance in the afterlife, there's no reason for the Order to have to address every wrong they come across.

Incapacitate her, have her imprisoned, and put her child in the hands of the not murderous grandmother perhaps? I just don't see this as being that prohibitively complicated. And, "no reason?" "Every transgression?" Pardon? This isn't just some random side-quest, or a twenty page detour to cleanup the main plot's left overs. This is as deeply a personal issue as any of them could ever face. Durkon's child is now in the hands of an unbalanced murderous agent of chaos. Your response kind of reads as, "oh well, not OotS' problem to solve, on with the plot"?

"Now, as I stated, I would like us to refocus our efforts on saving the world, unimpeded by any other foolishness." ~ Vaarsuvius

Sorry, but that interpretation just really comes off as callous. No one's can expect them to deal with every possible issue, sure. But a better resolution for Hilgya than, "well, whatever, here's a cute picture of Durkon and his child," doesn't feel like that big of an ask. For me, that just overshadows the emotions of this installment.

[NobleCuriosity]

Aye, I once played a dwarf druid who was all about rocks and geology.

That piqued my interest. Care to expand on this character concept?

I really dislike the idea of killing two such characters off-panel, but I'm also not sure this meets the traditional definition of fridging. (What love interest of Lien's is being motivated by her death in this narrative?)

Spoiler

Show

She says she has a steady boyfriend in a Don’t Split the Party bonus strip (572f), but that’s literally all we know about him.

Also, I read 3 pages of Hilgya arguments just to see if anybody else made these responses to those posts. :/

[Rrmcklin]

We know that. Hilgya doesn't; I'm not even sure Roy remembers it (or, well, more specifically doesn't remember why it didn't work).

Even assuming she doesn't, her going "if my baby dies I can just have him resurrected so I'll take the risk" in and of itself would count as a strike against her to me (and any other parent, for that matter).

[HalfTangible]

That piqued my interest. Care to expand on this character concept?

Spoiler

Show

She says she has a steady boyfriend in a Don’t Split the Party bonus strip (572f), but that’s literally all we know about him.

Also, I read 3 pages of Hilgya arguments just to see if anybody else made these responses to those posts. :/

Lien also mentioned her boyfriend in this very book. She told O'Chul that she was lucky most people she knew lived on the waterfront, as most of them got away from Azure City.

Even assuming she doesn't, her going "if my baby dies I can just have him resurrected so I'll take the risk" in and of itself would count as a strike against her to me (and any other parent, for that matter).

Probably, yeah, but precision is important.

I don't think Hilgya is a good person at all and I'm not 100% happy with the resolution but I'm not angry about it. The idea here seems to be that Hilgya and Durkon have moved past their mutual dislike and emotional pain and will do what's best for their son moving forward. That's a start. (and maybe I'm reading too much into it but Hilgya seemed concerned Durkon wouldn't make it back. Giving a **** about the life of someone you previously wanted dead is, at least, a step in the right direction)

[Liquor Box]

Except we have fair enough reason to think (via the case of Eric) that if something actually did happen to him (and it got very close to being the case) he wouldn't have been possible to bring back.

Hilgya basically had three options:

1) Leave a soon as found out more about the situations instead of carrying him into battle.

2) Leave him with the acolytes of Thor for a bit.

3) Do what she did.

Of the three, the first very clearly puts his well-being ahead of the other two, but the second one is at least not ridiculous.

Though, she also had the option of not seeking revenge to begin with, but she wouldn't be Hilgya if she did that.

The context that I was thinking of was not the availability of raising dead, but the high incidence of violence in the universe. It seems to me that a lot of common sense norms that apply to real life are frequently violated by the comic and life is consistently treated cheaply (even where raising seems unlikely). In that context, Hilgya going into a dangerous situation with a baby seems less egregious than it would in real life.

That wont stand up to too much scrutiny, but I think that neither would some other similar scenes involving violence. I mean, applying real life norms, Roy dangling the oracle out the window to extort further answers from his would arguably make him evil and require a significant redemptive storyline to bring him back to good - something that uin real life he might have to achieve from prison.

[Sindeloke]

Sorry, but that interpretation just really comes off as callous. No one's can expect them to deal with every possible issue, sure. But a better resolution for Hilgya than, "well, whatever, here's a cute picture of Durkon and his child," doesn't feel like that big of an ask. For me, that just overshadows the emotions of this installment.

Yeah, that.