Yet another thread on Hilgya's alignment

[The Extinguisher]

Shes chaotic evil. But thats unimportant. You cant just call someone evil and then wash your hands of thinking about them as a character.

Invoking morality is so boring, and D&D is worse off by putting it front and center

[Larre Gannd]

Shes chaotic evil. But thats unimportant. You cant just call someone evil and then wash your hands of thinking about them as a character.

Invoking morality is so boring, and D&D is worse off by putting it front and center

It’s only front and center people choose to make it front and center.

[The Extinguisher]

Its on page 13 of the Players Handbook (5th edition)

We can talk all day about "flexibility of the system" but we cant disregard that the majority of players will include it in their games as something important and that its the style of play the game was designed for

[Mightymosy]

There is no doubt that the Empire was an Evil tyranny, the question is what alternatives there were. From the names of other lands like Cruelvania and Dictatoria, and the casual description of the state of affairs by the mapmaker, there doesn't seem to be much difference among most states on the Western continent. People need to make a living somehow; orthodox view would be that anybody who doesn't try to rebel against rulers or flee, and provides his services or taxes to the Evil empire de facto conforms to its existence and should be condemned, but that approach lacks any empathy. I consider possibility that Gannji focused on delivering deliquents that he believed deserved punishment to be plausible.

On the other hand, Hilgya seems to live in a predominantly Lawful, non-Evil society, and has/had plenty of alternatives to provide for herself or her kid that aren't appalling.

Well, there is CLEARLY a difference between catching victims for the evil tyranny and working to survive in other jobs.
There are other jobs in the empire, like running an inn, for example. Like the one Roy meets them in.
Or mapmaking. Is said to be a good business on the western continent.
Protecting caravans might be a good job, given their abilities. We see in the comic that there is a need for caravan protectors, and we see that caravans have money to play said carvan protectors.
Heck, go into trading yourselves: you have one guy how is smart enough to run a business, and one guy who naturally is an airborne transport! Seems like a fit.
If you want to go semi-legally, be smugglers! Smuggle goods and people between the various countries.

No, no, I don't buy into this "They had to do it to survive" theory.
They seem to be proud of what they're doing, and what they're doing is delivering hapless victims to a torture regime, period. They do that because they like their job, not because they just can't find another way to survive.

If the Giant thinks they are neutral, so be it. That's his view.
But using these same scales, I would measure Hilgya as neutral as well.
All three harm other people to further their own goals, which sounds just evil to me. But if you wanted to call two of them neutral, I fail to see why the third one would be an exception.

[Jack Of Rivia]

I think that Aquillion immediately above has adressed that specific point quite well.
Specifically:

Aside the obvious Evil flavor of the name, that I can concede might be a joke for the readers and might (or might not, since they are self-aware, but whatever) someway be "invisible" to the characters, it's an empire ruled by a Red Dragon with an iron fist. And this might still classify that as strongly Lawful, I suppose.
But it is even a place where, for example, slavery is practiced.
An evil nature that, name aside, should be reasonably deducible by the lack of care for human dignity (of the slaves, specifically, for example)
Begin guilty of treason means basically rebelling. Nale was rebelling for his own evil reasons, right; but a guy like Ian, or a gal like Haley, might rebel for the evil nature of the empire.
More to the point, if Haley was just a regular citizen of the EoB and she freed some slaves, or rebelled to Ms Red Dragon (and her puppeteer), she would have been correctly sentenced of treason and/or rebellion, therefore becoming a valid target for the two bounty hunters because she really did all of that things like treason, rebellion, conspirancy and murder (hell, she killed a bunch of guards in her first encounter with Tarquin, technically she was already guilty or rebellion against authorities and murder).

Well, there is CLEARLY a difference between catching victims for the evil tyranny and working to survive in other jobs.
There are other jobs in the empire, like running an inn, for example. Like the one Roy meets them in.
Or mapmaking. Is said to be a good business on the western continent.
Protecting caravans might be a good job, given their abilities. We see in the comic that there is a need for caravan protectors, and we see that caravans have money to play said carvan protectors.
Heck, go into trading yourselves: you have one guy how is smart enough to run a business, and one guy who naturally is an airborne transport! Seems like a fit.
If you want to go semi-legally, be smugglers! Smuggle goods and people between the various countries.

No, no, I don't buy into this "They had to do it to survive" theory.
They seem to be proud of what they're doing, and what they're doing is delivering hapless victims to a torture regime, period. They do that because they like their job, not because they just can't find another way to survive.

If the Giant thinks they are neutral, so be it. That's his view.
But using these same scales, I would measure Hilgya as neutral as well.
All three harm other people to further their own goals, which sounds just evil to me. But if you wanted to call two of them neutral, I fail to see why the third one would be an exception.

Following your logic, if Ian's revolution works out and empire of Blood is replaced with let s say a Good regime, which then place bounties over Tarquin and his friends heads, will that makes Ganji and Ennor Good? I do not think so.

A neutral character can work for evil people, just as well it can work for good people, like V, without automatically becoming Evil or Good, because this is what is all about: he is neutral.
The point about moral Neutrality is not about jobs, it's about loyalty.
A good character cares about all people; an Evil character cares only about himself. But a Neutral Character? He cares about his TRIBE. His famiky, his friends, his race. And Ganji and Ennor definetly cares about their friends, they cares about each other: when they were forced to kill one another; when they it was to kill or be killed, they refused. They just cant do that. Texbook neutrality.

Now, has ever Hilgya showed this kind of loyalty to anyone? She has hurt her clan, tried to kill her husband, tempoary killed her child's father. Of course, each one of these persons has slighted her in the past, true, but that is the point: no one is special, for her.
She may likes you,or love you, but once you cross her, you are done: she ll makes you pay, kill you or ruin you. It doesn t matter ifbthere were mitigating factors. You are family only as long as you do not hurt her. Then, you are an enemy.

Now she cares for Kuzdu, true: but do you think, should he ever cross her in any way, that she could tolerate that? Another question: should she ever be forced to choose between her life and her children, you think she ll made that sacrifice?
I think not.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Now she cares for Kuzdu, true: but do you think, should he ever cross her in any way, that she could tolerate that? Another question: should she ever be forced to choose between her life and her children, you think she ll made that sacrifice?
I think not.

She had to choose between her goal of seeking revenge against Durkon and keeping her baby safe, and decided to strap him on to her chest and go hunt vampires. If that doesn't tell the reader were her loyalties are between "what she wants" and "what is good for Kudzu", I don't know what will.

Grey Wolf

[Dr.Zero]

Following your logic, if Ian's revolution works out and empire of Blood is replaced with let s say a Good regime, which then place bounties over Tarquin and his friends heads, will that makes Ganji and Ennor Good? I do not think so.

Following my real life logic, if you go to collect bounties for an evil empire, which you know is blatantly evil, (no real life examples given, nor required, I suppose: everyone is able to make a parallel), then you probably are a bit evil, surely not good nor interested in the justice and general principles of human dignity and whatnot.

If you collect bounties from a peaceful and good empire, you can be either good (hunting the baddies, and getting a living out from it), neutral (I don't give a damn), or evil (they are not a big family, after all; and the important thing is to get money to build some toture items for my captives! bwahaha!)

That's with my real life logic.

In dnd logic, and this is a dnd comic, in the first case you are either Evil or Neutral (I don't give a damn even if these people are Good and are tortured, because... well, I am Neutral and I don't dabble too much in morality!); in the second case you can still be one of the three.

On a side note: the neutral="I don't give a damn about them, I don't dabble too much in morality" stands true for Therkla, for the bounty hunters and for anyone else. Even for Hilgya, of course.

[The Pilgrim]

After the last strip, it's pretty clear that Hilgya is far further south of Neutral than Belkar.

[Mightymosy]

No she isn't. Belkar is worse

[Kish]

Following your logic, if Ian's revolution works out and empire of Blood is replaced with let s say a Good regime, which then place bounties over Tarquin and his friends heads, will that makes Ganji and Ennor Good? I do not think so.

A neutral character can work for evil people, just as well it can work for good people, like V, without automatically becoming Evil or Good, because this is what is all about: he is neutral.
The point about moral Neutrality is not about jobs, it's about loyalty.
A good character cares about all people; an Evil character cares only about himself. But a Neutral Character? He cares about his TRIBE.

That's just one line from the SRD. Try reading the one before it.

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

Enor and Gannji sure don't seem to have compunctions against killing the innocent. How about the description of Evil?

Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
[...]
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

Let's see, no compassion for others (except for slave drivers who aren't getting paid enough for driving slaves, in what I'm still having trouble wrapping my mind around was not an "oh, yeah, these bounty hunters are mega-evil!" message encoded in a joke), kill without qualms, destroy innocent life for profit...check, check, check.

I understand that Rich declared them Neutral, but I'll never understand why.

(Someone is going to bring up them not killing Elan, Haley, and Vaarsuvius. Even though the bounty notice said clearly that they would get paid 25,000 gold more for "Nale" alive than dead, and wouldn't get paid at all for his "associates" if they were dead, even though Enor attacked Roy immediately with lethal force for asking a reasonable question, and even though when Roy later offers to ally with them Gannji gloats that Enor will eat Roy's heart.)

[hamishspence]

Gannji at least has compunctions against arresting random people off the street and then pretending the poster was confusing:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0728.html

[Kish]

Yes, he explicitly objects to tarnishing the violent kidnappings with petty fraud.

Another case where I am mystified that that was not a "Lawful Evil" signpost.

[hamishspence]

Apparently it was a signpost that Gannji is more Lawful than Enor, at least:

Gannji and Enor are both True Neutral, though Gannji leans a little more Lawful and Enor leans a little more Chaotic.

[The Pilgrim]

No she isn't. Belkar is worse

Belkar stopped killing people on a whim (like Hilgya just did) long ago. And has recently developed a certain capacity for empathy, that Hilgya lacks.

[Rrmcklin]

Belkar stopped killing people on a whim (like Hilgya just did) long ago. And has recently developed a certain capacity for empathy, that Hilgya lacks.

Eh, I don't think Hilgya lacks a capacity for empathy. And Belkar stopping killing people on a whim was more about practicality than morality.

[Liquor Box]

Eh, I don't think Hilgya lacks a capacity for empathy. And Belkar stopping killing people on a whim was more about practicality than morality.

I wonder if Belkar and Hilgya are reasonably similar in their journeys and degree of evil. Both unambiguously (and explicitly) evil, but both seem set for the possibility of a role in the finale that might move them into neutral.

Sure, Belkar has committed a lot more on-screen evil, but he has had a hell of a lot more screen time.

[Jack Of Rivia]

That's just one line from the SRD. Try reading the one before it.


Enor and Gannji sure don't seem to have compunctions against killing the innocent. How about the description of Evil?

Let's see, no compassion for others (except for slave drivers who aren't getting paid enough for driving slaves, in what I'm still having trouble wrapping my mind around was not an "oh, yeah, these bounty hunters are mega-evil!" message encoded in a joke), kill without qualms, destroy innocent life for profit...check, check, check.

I understand that Rich declared them Neutral, but I'll never understand why.

(Someone is going to bring up them not killing Elan, Haley, and Vaarsuvius. Even though the bounty notice said clearly that they would get paid 25,000 gold more for "Nale" alive than dead, and wouldn't get paid at all for his "associates" if they were dead, even though Enor attacked Roy immediately with lethal force for asking a reasonable question, and even though when Roy later offers to ally with them Gannji gloats that Enor will eat Roy's heart.)

I'm sorry, who are this "innocents" you write
About? Criminals like Nale?
You seem to work under the assumption that, since the Empire of Blood is evil, each and every of his mark should be an innocent scapegoat. But that, Like the Nale bounty proves, is simply not true. Evil does not always quarrel only with good: on the contrary, Evil fights Evil most of the times. When the Empire of Blood issue a bounty, it can equally being an innocent framed by the empire, or a criminal like Nale. How they are supposed to.know who is who?
Of course, a Good person would never take the job, on the chance to hurt some.innocent. A good person would sacrifice his chance to makes some money, to makes sure no innocent is gonna suffer: but a neutral character " lacks the compunction to.makes sacrifices for others".
To deliberate hunt innocents is one thing, and is evil; but to not makes a special effort to makes sure no innocents gets harmed, well it's a different thing
Deliberate Evil DOES NOT equate superficiality. It is not good, but not necessary evil. Neutral, is the right term.

[Kish]

That's nice. Y'ever feel like reading what I quoted from the SRD and what I wrote and addressing it, instead of grabbing a word and writing a disconnected post, it'll still be here.

[diplomancer]

I wonder if Belkar and Hilgya are reasonably similar in their journeys and degree of evil. Both unambiguously (and explicitly) evil, but both seem set for the possibility of a role in the finale that might move them into neutral.

Sure, Belkar has committed a lot more on-screen evil, but he has had a hell of a lot more screen time.

I dont know, as you say, it is true that Hilgya is unambiguosly evil (though for me, the scene that ended all doubts was the current one, other people had gotten it faster, others- a somewhat vocal minority- still hasn't gotten it). However, from what I understand, the Giant has been very cagey towards giving Word of God in that respect, and, someone who follows threads more closely here correct me if I am wrong, has even given indications in other directions.

There are, as I see it, two possible reasons for that:
1- The Giant stopped caring about the D&D alignments a long time ago, and doesn't want people to evaluate his characters based on them. All reasonable; but then, why the misdirection (if it actually happened, I am not sure)?
2- Apart from Belkar, who being a member of the Order gets a pass, all evil characters in the comic have, to my recollection, opposed the Order. Hilgya, so far, has not. I believe she will, and she will do it probably still during this book, most likely during the final confrontation with the vampires.

I don't think that she would be terribly displeased by an Apocalypse in which all dwarves end up in Hel, after all, and I don't know how much she knows about Loki's position on the issue (even assuming that Loki is not pulling some sort of trick that we readers can't figure out yet, but would make sense in hindsight... the Giant is good at those)

[Liquor Box]

I dont know, as you say, it is true that Hilgya is unambiguosly evil (though for me, the scene that ended all doubts was the current one, other people had gotten it faster, others- a somewhat vocal minority- still hasn't gotten it). However, from what I understand, the Giant has been very cagey towards giving Word of God in that respect, and, someone who follows threads more closely here correct me if I am wrong, has even given indications in other directions.

There are, as I see it, two possible reasons for that:
1- The Giant stopped caring about the D&D alignments a long time ago, and doesn't want people to evaluate his characters based on them. All reasonable; but then, why the misdirection (if it actually happened, I am not sure)?
2- Apart from Belkar, who being a member of the Order gets a pass, all evil characters in the comic have, to my recollection, opposed the Order. Hilgya, so far, has not. I believe she will, and she will do it probably still during this book, most likely during the final confrontation with the vampires.

I don't think that she would be terribly displeased by an Apocalypse in which all dwarves end up in Hel, after all, and I don't know how much she knows about Loki's position on the issue (even assuming that Loki is not pulling some sort of trick that we readers can't figure out yet, but would make sense in hindsight... the Giant is good at those)

Maybe I am mistaken that Hilgya is expressly evil. If she is not, then I still believe her to be obviously evil for the reasons Harbinger gave on the previous page.

Hilgya has opposed the order. Directly, as a member of the Linear Guild. She is in good company (with Tarquin and the like) as people who have sometimes opposed and sometimes aided the Order.

[hamishspence]

I dont know, as you say, it is true that Hilgya is unambiguosly evil (though for me, the scene that ended all doubts was the current one, other people had gotten it faster, others- a somewhat vocal minority- still hasn't gotten it). However, from what I understand, the Giant has been very cagey towards giving Word of God in that respect, and, someone who follows threads more closely here correct me if I am wrong, has even given indications in other directions.

We have Word of Giant from War & XPs that she was Evil when she met Durkon. It's possible she's changed alignment since then, but when I compare past Hilgya to present Hilgya, I don't get the impression that she's a noticeably better person.

That's my main reason to think she's Evil - Word of Giant for the past, plus apparent lack of improvement leading up to the present.

[Jack Of Rivia]

That's nice. Y'ever feel like reading what I quoted from the SRD and what I wrote and addressing it, instead of grabbing a word and writing a disconnected post, it'll still be here.

I have done it. I have.contested your assumptions that all, or even most, Gannji and Ennor victims are innocents. And i have argumented that refusing to sacrifice their profession to the good of strangers is in the tenents of neutral alignment.
Actually, the one who ignores argumentation is you. You have just ignored that your supposed evil characters woukd let themselves be killed rather than kill each other.

[Kish]

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

[The Extinguisher]

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

[Caerulea]

You have just ignored that your supposed evil characters woukd let themselves be killed rather than kill each other.

Evil =/= sociopathic loner with no friends.

[Kish]

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

Or, say, looking for a brutal assassin and terrorist?

[woweedd]

Evil =/= sociopathic loner with no friends.

Heck, i'd argue Tarquin and Malack were pretty much as close to true friendship as two sociopaths can ever get. Doesn't make them less horrifyingly Evil.

[MartianInvader]

2- Apart from Belkar, who being a member of the Order gets a pass, all evil characters in the comic have, to my recollection, opposed the Order. Hilgya, so far, has not. I believe she will, and she will do it probably still during this book, most likely during the final confrontation with the vampires.

Hilgya *is* in the pretty exclusive "I killed an OOTS member" club along with Xykon and Malack.

[KorvinStarmast]

We have Word of Giant from War & XPs that she was Evil when she met Durkon.

Direct Opposite, aye.

It's possible she's changed alignment since then, but when I compare past Hilgya to present Hilgya, I don't get the impression that she's a noticeably better person.

That's my main reason to think she's Evil - Word of Giant for the past, plus apparent lack of improvement leading up to the present.

That's a very rational progression there, unlike some of the other discussion on this topic.

[woweedd]

Hilgya *is* in the pretty exclusive "I killed an Oots member" club along with Xykon and Malack.

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