Yet another thread on Hilgya's alignment

[Caerulea]

In many of the most famous real-world religions and mythologies, sure, but in OotS and (I think) D&D the afterlife is not necessarily eternal: the soul eventually loses its being and becomes pure energy.

Escaping from torture and other bad things by becoming pure Chaotic Evil energy doesn't seem like much of a consolation.

[Harbinger]

The fact that there are people who are genuinely arguing that Hilgya isn't Evil is disappointing and frightening to me. Try imagining if a real person did the things she did. And like Kish said, her self-perception and her made-up justifications are irrelevant.

No!

There is a difference between selling bread to Adolf* and selling out captives to him.


* Name picked randomly on randomnames.org

...you couldn't have rolled again when you got "Adolf"?

[Draconi Redfir]

all i'm gunna say is this:

You can be evil and still be a decent person and / or fight for the cause of good.

as Zangeif once said: "You are badguy. this does not mean you are bad guy"




At this point i'm halfway tempted to just make a thread with the tile of "Hilgya" and an opening post with nothing but the word "discuss" in it. just to see how long it takes for it to get out of hand.

[Rrmcklin]

all i'm gunna say is this:

You can be evil and still be a decent person and / or fight for the cause of good.

as Zangeif once said: "You are badguy. this does not mean you are bad guy"

Swing and a miss. Being an affable person who might even have close relationships they care about is not the same thing as being decent.

I don't think anyone would argue that Hilgya isn't personable (at least as long as she's not actively upset with you), that's not what's being discussed.

[Kish]

Swing and a miss.

Indeed, didn't Rich write an entire book in part about the fact that no, you bloody well cannot be evil and decent? Why yes, he did.

[Draconi Redfir]

ehh, might be a personal thing. Way i see it, there's the traditional "Blargh maim kill destroy conquer all civilization" evil

and then there's "I don't see anything wrong with cannibalism, food is food. and i don't really care about civilization or it's rules and ethics" evil.

personal interpretations i guess idk

[Callista]

ehh, might be a personal thing. Way i see it, there's the traditional "Blargh maim kill destroy conquer all civilization" evil

and then there's "I don't see anything wrong with cannibalism, food is food. and i don't really care about civilization or it's rules and ethics" evil.

That's why D&D has a two-axis system. Your first one is Evil; your second category is Chaotic*.

People who are used to a single-axis alignment system often mix up Law and Good, and Chaos and Evil. Examples:
Following tradition is fundamentally Lawful, not Good. It can be Evil when a tradition demands you harm the innocent.
Helping someone in trouble is fundamentally Good, not Lawful. It can be Chaotic when the person you're helping is one who has been rejected or oppressed by society and deemed unworthy of help.

Neutrals are biased toward Good. In a neutral society, most criminal laws are against Evil acts; neutrals don't want Evil acts happening because those hurt people, and neutrals naturally care about themselves and their families and friends and communities. Humans are a generally-neutral society where most laws forbid outright Evil, so we've learned to associate Law with Good.

So your second sort of Evil is actually more like Chaos; it's just that you're thinking of tradition and law as the sort of law and tradition you're used to. Imagine living in a society where slavery is legal and helping a slave escape is illegal, or a society where it's accepted practice to kill infants that are born weak. That would be Evil-aligned Law.

Hilgya is both Chaotic and Evil. Dwarven society is both Lawful and Good.

Dwarven society idealizes tradition, dependability, and organization (Law), and also altruism, compassion, and protection of the weak and innocent (Good).

Hilgya has rejected Dwarven society entirely--both the Lawful and the Good parts--so she believes in being independent, setting her own course, and not following tradition (Chaos); she also doesn't mind hurting others for her own benefit or convenience (Evil).

It might be an interesting exercise for you to think about what Hilgya might be like if she had only rebelled along one axis of the alignment spectrum. What if she had been Chaotic Good--rejecting the Dwarven tradition and organization, but not the altruism? Or what if she had been Lawful Evil--rejecting compassion, but not order? She might have handled things very differently in either case.

*Well, generally. Cannibalism is generally considered evil because you have to kill the person first or because you'll cause distress to the living relatives; that sort is chaotic AND evil. But having to eat the dead to survive, or just not to waste food, is a chaotic neutral act because it goes against society's norms. Compare Jeffrey Dahmer to the Donner Party and you'll get the idea.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

*Well, generally. Cannibalism is generally considered evil because you have to kill the person first or because you'll cause distress to the living relatives; that sort is chaotic AND evil. But having to eat the dead to survive, or just not to waste food, is a chaotic neutral act because it goes against society's norms. Compare Jeffrey Dahmer to the Donner Party and you'll get the idea.

Cannibalism is generally considered bad because it gives you Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease. Most societies that tried it quickly realised that it wasn't good for you and thus, like with close-relations marriages, seafood or pork, outlawed them and became tradition to avoid it.

One of the last places on Earth were it is still practiced it is a form of ancestor worship and death right: when a family member dies, everyone has a big feast and eats them. Honestly, if it wasn't for the ridiculously dangerous practice that is, it probably would be amongst the better ways to deal with dead people. The standard western approach of designating massive plots of land to inter them in lead caskets is less than ecologically ideal, for example.

Grey Wolf

[Emanick]

Cannibalism is generally considered bad because it gives you Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease. Most societies that tried it quickly realised that it wasn't good for you and thus, like with close-relations marriages, seafood or pork, outlawed them and became tradition to avoid it.

One of the last places on Earth were it is still practiced it is a form of ancestor worship and death right: when a family member dies, everyone has a big feast and eats them. Honestly, if it wasn't for the ridiculously dangerous practice that is, it probably would be amongst the better ways to deal with dead people. The standard western approach of designating massive plots of land to inter them in lead caskets is less than ecologically ideal, for example.

Grey Wolf

Sure, but you're forgetting why the practice of burying corpses in lead caskets arose in the first place. Once a body is safely sealed behind that thick sheet of lead, it is impossible for extraplanar entities to use divination spells to read what remains of their mind, preventing them from using knowledge gleaned from the dead in order to gain a strategic advantage over the living. That is exactly why the rise of cremation is so dangerous: there's no leaden layer sealing away the ashes that used to make up the brain.

[The Pilgrim]

ehh, might be a personal thing. Way i see it, there's the traditional "Blargh maim kill destroy conquer all civilization" evil

and then there's "I don't see anything wrong with cannibalism, food is food. and i don't really care about civilization or it's rules and ethics" evil.

personal interpretations i guess idk

Both are Chaotic Evil by D&D standards.

[Caerulea]

Cannibalism is generally considered bad because it gives you Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease. Most societies that tried it quickly realised that it wasn't good for you and thus, like with close-relations marriages, seafood or pork, outlawed them and became tradition to avoid it.

One of the last places on Earth were it is still practiced it is a form of ancestor worship and death right: when a family member dies, everyone has a big feast and eats them. Honestly, if it wasn't for the ridiculously dangerous practice that is, it probably would be amongst the better ways to deal with dead people. The standard western approach of designating massive plots of land to inter them in lead caskets is less than ecologically ideal, for example.

Grey Wolf

Composting them would probably be best. No squick or disease factor, and their fleshy bits are returned to the natural life cycle.

[hroþila]

As long as you don't eat the brains or the viscera, you should be fine practicing cannibalism, shouldn't you? It's bad news for the zombies, but their diet was never supposed to be very healthy.

[Heksefatter]

If I was her GM, I'd rule her chaotic evil if the player tried to declare her chaotic neutral. Any doubts would be removed after her killing Durkon on a whim. I could maybe, just maybe, accept keeping her neutral if it was in a fit of anger, but she seems calm and collected.

She's acting like killing is no big thing for her.

It is also my impression that there are quite a few red flags being dropped in the comic. She is talking about burning down a clan hall, with loads of potential fatalities, again as if it was no big deal, except for the risk to Kudzu's lungs.

She doesn't seem Xykonically evil, no. But that still leaves plenty of room for evil.

[MartianInvader]

The fact that there are people who are genuinely arguing that Hilgya isn't Evil is disappointing and frightening to me. Try imagining if a real person did the things she did.

The point (for me at least) is that D&D and OOTS evil doesn't match perfectly with "real-life" evil (unless virtually every alignment-based mechanic has been houseruled). Hence the idea of comparing Hilgya's behavior to characters of known alignment, instead of just judging how we feel about her actions.

And based on some characters of known alignment *cough" Sapphire Guard *cough* Eugene *cough*, I don't personally think Hilgya's three or four "real life evil" acts necessarily imply she has evil alignment.

That's why I created this thread for character comparisons, and I haven't yet been convinced she's evil - because does she really commit murder more wantonly than the paladins? Does she lie and steal any more than Haley? Does she put her child in more danger than Eugene did?

[Caerulea]

The point (for me at least) is that D&D and OOTS evil doesn't match perfectly with "real-life" evil (unless virtually every alignment-based mechanic has been houseruled). Hence the idea of comparing Hilgya's behavior to characters of known alignment, instead of just judging how we feel about her actions.

And based on some characters of known alignment *cough" Sapphire Guard *cough* Eugene *cough*, I don't personally think Hilgya's three or four "real life evil" acts necessarily imply she has evil alignment.

That's why I created this thread for character comparisons, and I haven't yet been convinced she's evil - because does shen really commit murder more wantonly than the paladins? Does she lie and steal any more than Haley? Does she put her child in more danger than Eugene did?

The one absolutely terrible thing that betrays her mindset is:

Yeah, it turned out much better than my first idea of setting their clan hall on fire in the middle of the night would have.

That her first idea was to burn everybody to death because she wanted to divorce her husband reveals her morality. The only reason she didn't do that was because it didn't make her as much money and because her son would have gotten smoke in his lungs. This alone betrays an evil though process even if her other onscreen actions weren't enough.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

That's why I created this thread for character comparisons, and I haven't yet been convinced she's evil - because does shen really commit murder more wantonly than the paladins?

Than one that didn't fall? Yes. Also: the lack of remorse over the act itself is a massive tell.

Does she lie and steal any more than Haley?

Stealing and lying are chaotic acts. Who they impact is far more crucial than the act themselves. Hilgya steals from those who don't deserve to be stolen from. And of course, as Haley has become more and more good rather than her starting good-ish, she has been stealing far less from the undeserving.

Does she put her child in more danger than Eugene did?

Yes, she obviously does. Roy is a grown up, Kudzu is a baby. And if you are referring to Roy's brother, Eugene killed him by accident, where Hilgya is purposely and in full awareness of the danger nevertheless choosing to put Kudzu in danger.

Grey Wolf

[Kish]

I won't say it's impossible that it'll turn out that Eugene was just as careless with Eric as Hilgya is with Kudzu.

I will say that if Rich reveals that, the point is going to be "Eugene is just as bad as Hilgya," not "Hilgya is just as good as Eugene."

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I won't say it's impossible that it'll turn out that Eugene was just as careless with Eric as Hilgya is with Kudzu.

I will say that if Rich reveals that, the point is going to be "Eugene is just as bad as Hilgya," not "Hilgya is just as good as Eugene."

We do have confirmation from his ex-wife that he wasn't all that bad. If the mother of the child he killed can forgive him, he probably was a damn sight better every other day of his life than the bitter borderline-good cloud-stuck bastard he is now, nor the baby-killing negligent SoB he was that day.

ETA: which also brings me to another point with how useless this exercise is, MartianInvader. When it takes comparing Hilgya to the worst aspects of three different characters, that really tells you how bad she is: she's as evil as when Haley steals from the underserving, and when a Paladin breaks their vows by committing an Evil act and as bad as Eugene when he killed his child. And your conclusion from this is that that makes Hilgya Neutral? Really? Rather than, as is obvious to me, that even good people can and do commit evil acts on occasion and need to compensate or atone for them, and yet Hilgya commits them regularly and without any compensation in a volume equivalent to multiple good people, and without any of the compensating good acts, or even indicating in any way that she feels like these acts need to be compensated for or at least that they bother her conscience in any way whatsoever.

Grey Wolf

[hamishspence]

We do have confirmation from his ex-wife that he wasn't all that bad. If the mother of the child he killed can forgive him, he probably was a damn sight better every other day of his life than the bitter borderline-good cloud-stuck bastard he is now, nor the baby-killing negligent SoB he was that day.

I'm guessing she was the one who put "Devoted Husband, Passable Father" on his tombstone, with Roy still being at Bash University when he died?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I'm guessing she was the one who put "Devoted Husband, Passable Father" on his tombstone, with Roy still being at Bash University when he died?

It's a good guess, and I feel that killing your own child through negligence puts you way, way underwater in the grade department, so he must have really worked hard if he ended up in passable.

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

Grey Wolf

[Draconi Redfir]

Both are Chaotic Evil by D&D standards.

yeah, but i'd much rather hang out with the latter then the former is the thing.

[The Pilgrim]

yeah, but i'd much rather hang out with the latter then the former is the thing.

To be honest, I'd rather enlist as a trooper for an evil conqueror than as a side course for a cannibal.

[MartianInvader]

And if you are referring to Roy's brother, Eugene killed him by accident, where Hilgya is purposely and in full awareness of the danger nevertheless choosing to put Kudzu in danger.

If you think Eugene didn't knowingly put his child in danger before "killing him by accident" I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree there. I'll just say that in my personal opinion, alignment and competence are separate. I can buy that Hilgya genuinely thinks Kudzu is safe with her, and I don't think it makes her evil even if she's wrong. She still does a better job of protecting her kid than Eugene, after all.

Separately, I think I'm coming to a realization here - a lot of our disagreement stems from different perceptions of what Hilgya has been doing off-screen. If you think her backstory highlights her most evil actions because they're about her most desperate and life-changing times, you can believe that generally she spends her time spreading the word of Loki, trying to help dwarves escape the fate of Hel without submitting to the honor thing. Then she seems like she could easily be chaotic neutral. If you think that she always behaves the way she did to escape her marriage, regularly killing innocents and stealing from the poor, then it's seems much more likely that she's evil.

I don't see how this ambiguity can be resolved (at least to my satisfaction) given what we've seen so far - as I said earlier, we've seen her commit three or four evil acts, and all have been pretty central to her life and freedom. But she just hasn't had much screen time yet, and those acts represent the majority or the moral choices we've seen her make. I guess I'd like to see how she handles a more trivial situation like "this gnome has a cart I can use" to guage how she behaves day-to-day.

[Draconi Redfir]

To be honest, I'd rather enlist as a trooper for an evil conqueror than as a side course for a cannibal.

never said they're active eat-everyone-on-sight cannibals.

was more thinking "oh, there's a dead body here. free food!" cannibals.

[Ruck]

I don't see how this ambiguity can be resolved (at least to my satisfaction) given what we've seen so far - as I said earlier, we've seen her commit three or four evil acts, and all have been pretty central to her life and freedom. But she just hasn't had much screen time yet, and those acts represent the majority or the moral choices we've seen her make. I guess I'd like to see how she handles a more trivial situation like "this gnome has a cart I can use" to gauge how she behaves day-to-day.

1)I think the "ambiguity," such as it is, comes from the assumption she behaves differently off-panel than on-panel. I tend to think what we see on-panel is representative of someone's character; even if it is at great times of stress, stress reveals who we really are.

2)Murdering Durkon was not central to her life and freedom.

3)When presented with choices central to her life and freedom, her default option is to kill the people around her, rather than try to find any solution that respects the life of sapient beings or at least doesn't unnecessarily harm innocent ones.

[diplomancer]

If you think Eugene didn't knowingly put his child in danger before "killing him by accident" I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree there. I'll just say that in my personal opinion, alignment and competence are separate. I can buy that Hilgya genuinely thinks Kudzu is safe with her, and I don't think it makes her evil even if she's wrong. She still does a better job of protecting her kid than Eugene, after all.

Separately, I think I'm coming to a realization here - a lot of our disagreement stems from different perceptions of what Hilgya has been doing off-screen. If you think her backstory highlights her most evil actions because they're about her most desperate and life-changing times, you can believe that generally she spends her time spreading the word of Loki, trying to help dwarves escape the fate of Hel without submitting to the honor thing. Then she seems like she could easily be chaotic neutral. If you think that she always behaves the way she did to escape her marriage, regularly killing innocents and stealing from the poor, then it's seems much more likely that she's evil.

I don't see how this ambiguity can be resolved (at least to my satisfaction) given what we've seen so far - as I said earlier, we've seen her commit three or four evil acts, and all have been pretty central to her life and freedom. But she just hasn't had much screen time yet, and those acts represent the majority or the moral choices we've seen her make. I guess I'd like to see how she handles a more trivial situation like "this gnome has a cart I can use" to guage how she behaves day-to-day.

Yes, if Rich is out to defame Hilgya by just showing her bad acts and her lack of remorse for killing people and treating them like tools, while concealing all the beautiful, self-sacrificing, ennobling things she has done, she might even be chaotic neutral, but Rich would be a bad writer. I'm betting she is CE.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Separately, I think I'm coming to a realization here - a lot of our disagreement stems from different perceptions of what Hilgya has been doing off-screen.

And the rest is that you continuously, even studiously, ignore that she shows no remorse over any of it.

I do not believe that her unseen actions compensate for her assorted acts of murder, attempted murder and premediation of murder because someone that sees murder as a completely non-newsworthy solution to their problems is not going to avoid murdering people when they are not on page. I would far more easily believe, given her attitude towards murder, that she has murdered any number of other people while she was in human lands because she could, than I would ever buy this saintly version of yours were the author is somehow trying to paint a terrible picture of her, purposely hiding all her good works.

If a character in a novel quacks like a duck, looks like a duck and walks like a duck, I assume that it is duck. I do not assume that it is a cat with very good impersonation skills unless and until the author pulls away the curtain. The author has told us she is Evil, and with every action she has taken, she reveals only Evil outlooks, impulses and actions (and Chaotic, ones, of course, but that is neither here nor there). I do not feel the need to assume she opened 100 orphanages off-screen just so I can justify she is Neutral, when every available evidence shows her to be Evil. I simply accept that she is Evil, as are plenty of other characters.

ETA: please note that I would think Eugene was definitely South of Good if it were not because of the evidence of the comic - Roy's Archon saying that him going to Hel is not a realistic possibility at this point, Sarah's good words for him and, as was reminded by hamishspence, his tombstone, amongst others. What do you have for Hilgya along those lines? Absolutely nothing.

Grey Wolf

[Rrmcklin]

If you think Eugene didn't knowingly put his child in danger before "killing him by accident" I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree there. I'll just say that in my personal opinion, alignment and competence are separate. I can buy that Hilgya genuinely thinks Kudzu is safe with her, and I don't think it makes her evil even if she's wrong. She still does a better job of protecting her kid than Eugene, after all.

You have no actual grounds to say he did so knowingly, however. With Hilgya, that bringing Kudzu along would have endangered him would have been obvious, but she balked at leaving him in a (relatively) safer place with caring adults with "don't tell me what to do!"

Separately, I think I'm coming to a realization here - a lot of our disagreement stems from different perceptions of what Hilgya has been doing off-screen. If you think her backstory highlights her most evil actions because they're about her most desperate and life-changing times, you can believe that generally she spends her time spreading the word of Loki, trying to help dwarves escape the fate of Hel without submitting to the honor thing. Then she seems like she could easily be chaotic neutral. If you think that she always behaves the way she did to escape her marriage, regularly killing innocents and stealing from the poor, then it's seems much more likely that she's evil.

I have no reason to believe she behaves any better off screen, and therefore I will judge her based on what I've actually seen her do. And that does not leave a good impression of her.

I don't see how this ambiguity can be resolved (at least to my satisfaction) given what we've seen so far - as I said earlier, we've seen her commit three or four evil acts, and all have been pretty central to her life and freedom. But she just hasn't had much screen time yet, and those acts represent the majority or the moral choices we've seen her make. I guess I'd like to see how she handles a more trivial situation like "this gnome has a cart I can use" to guage how she behaves day-to-day.

Did she not kill Durkon for daring to ask her something she didn't like on-screen? Even with the "she can bring him back" narrative that's still causing him massive amounts of pain disproportionately and unnecessarily.

[pendell]

Xykon thinks that turning uppity minions into undead is the best thing. RC thinks that everything he does to his goblins is the best thing for the plan. Belkar thinks that everything he does is the best thing to do. Every child endangering bastard thought they were doing the best thing. It lessens their crime or their responsibility of their actions not one jot. Including Hilgya’s

On top of that, the defense that ”Hilgya is too stupid to understand the consequence of her actions “ flies in the face that she clearly does understand and just doesn’t care.

Grey Wolf

Indeed. Thog had an intelligence score one step above a brute animal, but he still qualified as chaotic evil. So, A) stupidity isn't an excuse for evil in D&D. Any creature more intelligent than the beasts of the field is expected to be able to distinguish between good or evil. B) Given that Hilgya's wisdom score has to be above-average to qualify as a cleric, she would not be that stupid in any case. I realize that intelligence and wisdom are different things, but I should think wis would be sufficient for such a basic distinction.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[MartianInvader]

I do not believe that her unseen actions compensate for her assorted murders

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