What do female readers think of Hilgya Firehelm?

[Darth Paul]

I'm just interested to see how much intellectual and emotional energy has gone into coming up with reasons behind Hilgya's apparent hatred for Durkon and attempting to make her seem at least somewhat rational. (Not only in this thread. Not even mainly in this thread, I suppose.) It's as if people don't want to think of her as a potential villain.

Is it because she's female? Is it because she was "the nice one in the Linear Guild"? Is there some guilt associated with accepting that women hate people for irrational reasons, just like men do?

So far she's been presented in the text as an off-the-rails villain who's joining the OotS simply because she's out to murder Durkon for the slight of rejecting her, after she seduced him and got pregnant. There's no justification there. Yet there's a lot of justifying going on.

Sure, it's a soap-opera situation. But soap-opera situations crop up in real life all the time.

[are]

I'm just interested to see how much intellectual and emotional energy has gone into coming up with reasons behind Hilgya's apparent hatred for Durkon and attempting to make her seem at least somewhat rational. (Not only in this thread. Not even mainly in this thread, I suppose.) It's as if people don't want to think of her as a potential villain.

Is it because she's female? Is it because she was "the nice one in the Linear Guild"? Is there some guilt associated with accepting that women hate people for irrational reasons, just like men do?

So far she's been presented in the text as an off-the-rails villain who's joining the OotS simply because she's out to murder Durkon for the slight of rejecting her, after she seduced him and got pregnant. There's no justification there. Yet there's a lot of justifying going on.

Sure, it's a soap-opera situation. But soap-opera situations crop up in real life all the time.

Probably has to do with our expectations that Rich is a good writer and his villains will have solid, believable motivations that make sense to them. Is that what you mean by justifying?

[The Vanishing Hitchhiker]

I'm just interested to see how much intellectual and emotional energy has gone into coming up with reasons behind Hilgya's apparent hatred for Durkon and attempting to make her seem at least somewhat rational. (Not only in this thread. Not even mainly in this thread, I suppose.) It's as if people don't want to think of her as a potential villain.

Is it because she's female? Is it because she was "the nice one in the Linear Guild"? Is there some guilt associated with accepting that women hate people for irrational reasons, just like men do?

So far she's been presented in the text as an off-the-rails villain who's joining the OotS simply because she's out to murder Durkon for the slight of rejecting her, after she seduced him and got pregnant. There's no justification there. Yet there's a lot of justifying going on.

Sure, it's a soap-opera situation. But soap-opera situations crop up in real life all the time.

Probably has to do with our expectations that Rich is a good writer and his villains will have solid, believable motivations that make sense to them. Is that what you mean by justifying?

Or rather, we want to see how a character from this early in the strip will (or won’t) mesh with the comic’s current level of writing and characterization. Plus, some people just like to dig for a character’s motivations, even (or especially) when they’re villains. Or just need a way to while away the time between updates.

We’ve had women antagonists before. While there could be a “fairer sex” bias going on, I’m more inclined to suspect it’s based on her being a mother, specifically. Traditionally, they’ve been placed on a pedestal such that stories like old fairy tales are made more palatable by making the bad guy a stepmother instead.

I also think some of this desire for reconciliation could be for Durkon’s sake. She wants him dead and gone, which runs counter to readers’ desire to have him back. Then, if he and Hilgya are on good-to-neutral terms, someday he’ll get to toss around the ol’ ...stoneskin?... with Kudzu, to mangle another American idiom.

[Kish]

I think it might also have to do with "...and she really was forced into a marriage she didn't want at crossbowpoint, over 600 strips before Tarquin was introduced as a named character." Which kind of sticks out in her field of otherwise clearly-disconnected-from-reality complaints.

[are]

Or rather, we want to see how a character from this early in the strip will (or won’t) mesh with the comic’s current level of writing and characterization. Plus, some people just like to dig for a character’s motivations, even (or especially) when they’re villains. Or just need a way to while away the time between updates.

We’ve had women antagonists before. While there could be a “fairer sex” bias going on, I’m more inclined to suspect it’s based on her being a mother, specifically. Traditionally, they’ve been placed on a pedestal such that stories like old fairy tales are made more palatable by making the bad guy a stepmother instead.

I also think some of this desire for reconciliation could be for Durkon’s sake. She wants him dead and gone, which runs counter to readers’ desire to have him back. Then, if he and Hilgya are on good-to-neutral terms, someday he’ll get to toss around the ol’ ...stoneskin?... with Kudzu, to mangle another American idiom.

All very good points. There's a hard needle to thread between Hilgya wanting him dead and his (hopefully inevitable) resurrection. I think the resolution will hinge on Durkon being powerless to speak or respond while Hilgya beats up on the personification of her worst ideas about him and explains why she wants him dead.

[Chronos]

The Giant has been quite clear that although some of his villains have rational, sympathetic reasons for their villainy (Redcloak, Miko, Nale), some of them are just plain evil (Xykon, Belkar), and that trying to plumb their depths will be fruitless, because they have no depths. There's no reason that Hilgya couldn't be in that latter category.

[The Vanishing Hitchhiker]

The Giant has been quite clear that although some of his villains have rational, sympathetic reasons for their villainy (Redcloak, Miko, Nale), some of them are just plain evil (Xykon, Belkar), and that trying to plumb their depths will be fruitless, because they have no depths. There's no reason that Hilgya couldn't be in that latter category.

Until we know for sure, there’s rampant speculation to be had! Is this not a forum? I’d say we do know a bit about Hilgya’s reasons and depths, though. It’s just that whether they’re sympathetic or not is pretty subjective. The rationality is subjective too, though less so for Hilgya’s case in particular. She seems to be a fan of rationalizing, though.

[Goblin_Priest]

Quoting your post because I ended up mostly addressing it anyway.

For one, I think it’s non-controversial enough to cop that the child-bearer is the one who has to deal with the health-related consequences of pregnancy. “Men are the only ones who have to worry” is simply poorly worded, since it implies you can always track down the person who owes child support* and that they’ll pay, and that the person receiving child support for the child they’re raising is then freed of the burden of responsibility.

Also, deciding whether to end a pregnancy or not isn’t free of all concerns. Even in a theoretical society where it would bear no financial burden and no social stigma, it can be a tough decision that takes a psychological toll.

King of Nowere put it best, I think—there are societies where the responsibility is shared. I’m still not convinced Hilgya ever really wanted that, however.

*alimony is a divorce thing, and I think specifically for the spouse, not a kid

You are missing the central point, which is that women never* have unexpected children. They can have unexpected pregnancy, and having children can have consequences, but there isn't some stork that flies into a woman and "Bam, guess who'se a mother now!".

Women, once pregnant, choose whether to pursue the pregnancy or not**. If they have a child, it is because they chose to pursue it. A woman, once pregnant, can deny the father a child unilaterally if so she wishes, or decide to keep him unilaterally if so she wishes, the father, on the other hand, cannot legally choose to make her have it or not have it, and cannot decide to opt out of his legal responsibilities towards the child.

Women totally deal with a lot of issues relating to unplanned pregnancy which I can completely sympathize for, and many of those are not shared by men, but I do not agree with the concept of "unplanned child", which was more relevant to the issue raised, and which I distinguished in my initial comment, and which has nothing to do with negating any and all consequences of having a child, either as a single parent or otherwise.

*Rare exceptions for a few morbidly obese women who gave birth without ever knowing they were pregnant
**If it works otherwise in your country, you live in a degenarate cesspool of villany and should be ashamed of it

[Ruck]

You are missing the central point, which is that women never* have unexpected children. They can have unexpected pregnancy, and having children can have consequences, but there isn't some stork that flies into a woman and "Bam, guess who'se a mother now!".

Women, once pregnant, choose whether to pursue the pregnancy or not**. If they have a child, it is because they chose to pursue it. A woman, once pregnant, can deny the father a child unilaterally if so she wishes, or decide to keep him unilaterally if so she wishes, the father, on the other hand, cannot legally choose to make her have it or not have it, and cannot decide to opt out of his legal responsibilities towards the child.

Women totally deal with a lot of issues relating to unplanned pregnancy which I can completely sympathize for, and many of those are not shared by men, but I do not agree with the concept of "unplanned child", which was more relevant to the issue raised, and which I distinguished in my initial comment, and which has nothing to do with negating any and all consequences of having a child, either as a single parent or otherwise.

*Rare exceptions for a few morbidly obese women who gave birth without ever knowing they were pregnant
**If it works otherwise in your country, you live in a degenarate cesspool of villany and should be ashamed of it

Again, you really need to educate yourself by talking to an actual woman about this, instead of just theorizing.

The Giant has been quite clear that although some of his villains have rational, sympathetic reasons for their villainy (Redcloak, Miko, Nale), some of them are just plain evil (Xykon, Belkar), and that trying to plumb their depths will be fruitless, because they have no depths. There's no reason that Hilgya couldn't be in that latter category.

I think Hilgya's motivation is understandable, which is what makes it interesting. Her extrapolations have not been reasonable and I would not want to wager on her acting in a reasonable manner on them.

[Darth Paul]

Probably has to do with our expectations that Rich is a good writer and his villains will have solid, believable motivations that make sense to them. Is that what you mean by justifying?

I know for a fact that there are a lot of people who blame their problems on everyone but themselves and whose motivation is to get back at the person they blame for their current predicament, even if said predicament was mainly their own doing. I think Rich is writing a good villain on that basis.

What I meant by "justifying" is the amount of speculation going on about her backstory in the time we haven't seen her, guessing why she hasn't been able to contact Durkon, what might have blocked her Sending spells, whether there was a Cloister spell in the way... because surely she would have tried to contact him, right? Tacitly assuming that Hilgya would have tried to contact Durkon and given him the chance to do the decent thing, like any rational person would. It's my opinion that Hilgya was never very rational and seems to have gotten worse.

But yes, we're a forum and guessing is our pastime, so I shouldn't criticize. I apologize.

[are]

The Giant has been quite clear that although some of his villains have rational, sympathetic reasons for their villainy (Redcloak, Miko, Nale), some of them are just plain evil (Xykon, Belkar), and that trying to plumb their depths will be fruitless, because they have no depths. There's no reason that Hilgya couldn't be in that latter category.

Yes, but even the irredeemably evil have short-term motivations. Xykon wants to entertain himself. His boredom if left unchecked will result in an awful dystopia with brutal unrequited punishment and wanton execution, but he at least has motivation and some semblance of a philosophy.

So far, we've seen Hilgya repeat a really warped narrative of her time with Durkon, so the options are to speculate about the type of motivations that could result in her believing such a narrative to be rational, or to write her off as evil based on 3 strips worth of new information.

I think it's more interesting to speculate.

I know for a fact that there are a lot of people who blame their problems on everyone but themselves and whose motivation is to get back at the person they blame for their current predicament, even if said predicament was mainly their own doing. I think Rich is writing a good villain on that basis.

What I meant by "justifying" is the amount of speculation going on about her backstory in the time we haven't seen her, guessing why she hasn't been able to contact Durkon, what might have blocked her Sending spells, whether there was a Cloister spell in the way... because surely she would have tried to contact him, right? Tacitly assuming that Hilgya would have tried to contact Durkon and given him the chance to do the decent thing, like any rational person would. It's my opinion that Hilgya was never very rational and seems to have gotten worse.

But yes, we're a forum and guessing is our pastime, so I shouldn't criticize. I apologize.

No apology necessary, I'm sorry I came off brusquely there. I think you're right that it's definitely possible that Rich could intend for her to be read as a villain. My guess is that the forum is rooting for a win, or some positivity at least, in a story arc that has shown a lot of brutal murders and casual cruelty and evil.

[Mad Humanist]

Women, once pregnant, choose whether to pursue the pregnancy or not**.
**If it works otherwise in your country, you live in a degenarate cesspool of villany and should be ashamed of it

Well in any Western country strongly influenced by Catholicism it is hard to nigh impossible to choose. In Northern Ireland and in parts of America, those strongly influenced by right wing Christianity, it is fairly hard to choose - and is getting harder. Of course if you are rich you can do the impossible.

[Kish]

Goblin_Priest, you need to look up the is-ought fallacy.

(I would say more, but this is forbidden political discussion, so I'm staying out of it.)

[Goblin_Priest]

Well in any Western country strongly influenced by Catholicism it is hard to nigh impossible to choose. In Northern Ireland and in parts of America, those strongly influenced by right wing Christianity, it is fairly hard to choose - and is getting harder. Of course if you are rich you can do the impossible.

I live in a place strongly influenced by catholicism, which is by far the dominant religion.

People who want to get an abortion have no significant problems getting one.

If it's difficult in the place you live in, I stand by my **. The problem is not that my "theory" is not applicable "in the real world", it's that your "real world" is still located somewhere in the middle ages. I fully believe in women's right to get an abortion if so they deem it appropriate, and that any place that does not share this belief ought to be ashamed of themselves. Catholicism is no excuse. Nothing is.

[Darth Paul]

My guess is that the forum is rooting for a win, or some positivity at least, in a story arc that has shown a lot of brutal murders and casual cruelty and evil.

We do love a happy ending. We know that Elan gets one, at least.

[Emanick]

Goblin Priest, you know this tangent is against the rules, right? This is a good thread; please don’t get it locked.

Regarding searching for ways to justify Hilgya’s behavior: I’ve done a fair amount of speculation here, and I can say that I really do not see Hilgya as a sympathetic character, and I don’t think I have a subconscious aversion to the idea of her as both a mother and a villain, either. Still, I find her motivations highly interesting, and I like exploring the full range of possibilities for a character’s actions. For me, at least, I don’t think there’s any particularly deep reason behind my interest in overanalyzing Hilgya’s motives.

[King of Nowhere]

I'm thinking of the child now. What should happen to kudzu?
hilgya is clearly unfit to be a mother. She planned to murder her husband whom, as far as we can tell, was forced into the marriage as much as she was. She planned to kill durkon because he left her without knowing she was pregnant, after knowing she was married. she is akin to a stalker trying to kill their ex who broke up with them, I don't even want to consider how skewed would be a child raised from her.
On the other hand, you can't take the child away from her without killing her. Durkon could go back with her to raise the child, but it would be horrible to force durkon into this - though there are separated couples who decided to keep living together for the sake of raising the children and manage it. I doubt however it would be viable without hilgya trying to murder durkon.
The best case scenario would probably be hilgya getting killed and not coming back, but that would be a convenient way to evade the problem.

[Mad Humanist]

Goblin Priest, you know this tangent is against the rules, right? This is a good thread; please don’t get it locked.

The problem is not that my "theory" is not applicable "in the real world", it's that your "real world" is still located somewhere in the middle ages.

That's his rules-lawyery defence. He's not talking about the Real World, therefore the prohibition on discussing real world politics does not apply.

[Kish]

"Real-world morality doesn't apply to a D&D setting because D&D, unlike the real world, is not in the Middle Ages" is a more amusing formulation than the reverse, anyway--and about equally accurate.

[Fyraltari]

"Real-world morality doesn't apply to a D&D setting because D&D, unlike the real world, is not in the Middle Ages" is a more amusing formulation than the reverse, anyway--and about equally accurate.

I disagree.
"real world morality doesn't apply to the Middle Ages because the Middle Ages, unlike the real world is not a D&D setting" is way more amusing.

[Valynie]

A possible interpretation of why Hilgya would not have tried to contact Durkon with Sending
When she last saw Durkon , he told her he wanted to have nothing with her , that she should go back to her husband and that being a dwarf meant being miserable

We know that Durkon is a good man but she does not know that and with this amount of rejection, there is no reason for her to try to contact him and be rejected AGAIN.

I aggree that her vision of Durkon is not the reality but it also explain why she wants to kill/punish him . In her view , she opened to Durkon and he treated her like trash.
Time for revenge indeed

[Valynie]

I live in a place strongly influenced by catholicism, which is by far the dominant religion.

People who want to get an abortion have no significant problems getting one.

If it's difficult in the place you live in, I stand by my **. The problem is not that my "theory" is not applicable "in the real world", it's that your "real world" is still located somewhere in the middle ages. I fully believe in women's right to get an abortion if so they deem it appropriate, and that any place that does not share this belief ought to be ashamed of themselves. Catholicism is no excuse. Nothing is.

You seem to forget that women are not rational beings. Abortion is never as easy for them as they would be for men. Gross sentimentality and the risk of not being able to bear a child later seems to impact their fragile psyche. SARCASM INTENDED THERE

[DaggerPen]

*siiiiidesteps the lock bait*

The OOTS forums are pretty full, for whatever reason, of people who will try to find a justification for the actions of just about any villain, but in this case I think we have a fairly significant motivation to want Hilgya to have some reason to come around on Durkon because who the heck else is going to resurrect him then? I don't think any of the Clerics in the Temple of Thor were high enough level (Minrah seems to be somewhat lower level and may not be able to cast Resurrection, and if there were clerics significantly stronger than her, I imagine they'd also have come along), and the Godsmoot is a detour in the rush to the North Pole that they probably can't afford. When the only outcomes that look likely are "we don't get Durkon rezzed" or "Hilgya rezzes Durkon", it's no surprise that people will desperately try to find a path to the latter possibility.

[Liquor Box]

*siiiiidesteps the lock bait*

The OOTS forums are pretty full, for whatever reason, of people who will try to find a justification for the actions of just about any villain, but in this case I think we have a fairly significant motivation to want Hilgya to have some reason to come around on Durkon because who the heck else is going to resurrect him then? I don't think any of the Clerics in the Temple of Thor were high enough level (Minrah seems to be somewhat lower level and may not be able to cast Resurrection, and if there were clerics significantly stronger than her, I imagine they'd also have come along), and the Godsmoot is a detour in the rush to the North Pole that they probably can't afford. When the only outcomes that look likely are "we don't get Durkon rezzed" or "Hilgya rezzes Durkon", it's no surprise that people will desperately try to find a path to the latter possibility.

That's a good point - Hilgya may be the one to eventually resurrect Durkon. But I don't think that all her crazyness has to be justified to accomplish that believably. It may equally be that her anger is an irrational byproduct of her desire for Durkon, but when the anger and the desire go head to head (kill or resurrect) the desire wins out.

[SilverCacaobean]

The OOTS forums are pretty full, for whatever reason, of people who will try to find a justification for the actions of just about any villain.

I've noticed this behaviour at many other places too. I think that's just how humans are. Given a story with a sufficiently large audience, for every in-story conflict, all sides, no matter what they are depicted doing, will have a non negligible amount of people who will find a way to defend them. Whether the factions or people depicted exist in the real world or are completely a product of the author's imagination is irrelevant. There could be lots of reasons for this: Real world beliefs align, being a contrarian or even seeing this faction for the first time and agreeing with what it represents (Watch what you write authors. You might give ideas to *******s ). I'm sure there must be many more reasons.

Hel, I think you can replace "story" with "reality" and tweak this a little and it would still be true...

That's my experience at any rate. Maybe I'm wrong. But I'm willing to bet someone out there's rooting for Xykon.

[Dovetail]

Well, Hilgya and the Order are probably going to agree that Vampire Durkon should be destroyed. As per resurrection, that's not as clear. Hilgya doesn't see that there is a difference between Vampire Durkon and regular Durkon. If she does want him resurrected it may be only so she can kill him again. This could result in conflict between her and the OOTS who don't want the resurrected Durkon to be destroyed.

[wumpus]

I think it might also have to do with "...and she really was forced into a marriage she didn't want at crossbowpoint, over 600 strips before Tarquin was introduced as a named character." Which kind of sticks out in her field of otherwise clearly-disconnected-from-reality complaints.

I think the Giant has added a bit more on Hilgya's backstory and character (but I can't say I've seen it). Are we all that certain that whole "forced into a marriage she didn't want at crossbow point" was a reasonable description of Hilgya's marriage? She strikes me as an extremely unreliable narrator of her own backstory and presumably motivated to convince Durkon to ignore her marriage.

Ordinarily that seems a bit odd for dwarven culture, but after seeing how Durkon was treated by an entire dwarven community (with apparently no objection) could be quite possible in the stickverse.

[Fyraltari]

I think the Giant has added a bit more on Hilgya's backstory and character (but I can't say I've seen it). Are we all that certain that whole "forced into a marriage she didn't want at crossbow point" was a reasonable description of Hilgya's marriage? She strikes me as an extremely unreliable narrator of her own backstory and presumably motivated to convince Durkon to ignore her marriage.

Ordinarily that seems a bit odd for dwarven culture, but after seeing how Durkon was treated by an entire dwarven community (with apparently no objection) could be quite possible in the stickverse.

We had a panel with a dwarf pointing a crossbow at her at the altar to go withher narration, so I'd say the forced marriage is 100% true. If she wanted to lie to Durkon she would have just said nothing, she is just recasting her as more of a victim than she was.

Durkon wasn't badly treated byan entire community, he was badly treated by Hurak and two guards.Hurak swore the brewmaster to secrecy (and probably the guards as well) and left no records of the mission. As far as everybody else is concerned Durkon gladly went on a mission for his church and probbly died after all this time.

[Kish]

Are we all that certain that whole "forced into a marriage she didn't want at crossbow point" was a reasonable description of Hilgya's marriage? She strikes me as an extremely unreliable narrator of her own backstory and presumably motivated to convince Durkon to ignore her marriage.

I don't know about "we," but what's the evidence that she's an unreliable narrator? It's that what she's saying clashes with the images, right? That's what it is for me, anyway.

Going from there to "so the one image that fits her words rather than the other images must be some kind of fabrication" defeats the purpose of the entire exercise; either the images are reliable or, hey, there's no reason not to trust her words and conclude Ivan was actually a thoroughgoing Tarquinish brute.

[Darth Paul]

I'll go along with the "forced into a marriage she didn't want", it's the crossbow that I'm not quite buying.

Why not? I suppose because A) Hilgya serially exaggerates her own victimhood and B) her flashback scenes also feature her feeding Ivan a poison-bottle sandwich. They get the point across without spelling it out in so many words. An actual crossbow may not have been in play any more than a bottle of poison, but the point is that somehow she was pressured into getting married.