OOTS #1171 - The Discussion Thread

[Worldsong]

This isn't any kind of defense, and if anything, reinforces her in the role of useful idiot.

I dunno, it reinforces her position of not being part of a group of greedy expansionists. I find that a very important defence since I find malice worse than stupidity.

[zimmerwald1915]

I dunno, it reinforces her position of not being part of a group of greedy expansionists. I find that a very important defence since I find malice worse than stupidity.

Well, the important thing is that you've learned to oppose things like GPS and the exploration of Mars.

[Worldsong]

Well, the important thing is that you've learned to oppose things like GPS and the exploration of Mars.

I'm not sure why we would oppose exploration of Mars. From what I've heard nobody lives there so expanding into that region doesn't seem to directly harm anybody.

[Larre Gannd]

I'm not sure why we would oppose exploration of Mars. From what I've heard nobody lives there so expanding into that region doesn't seem to directly harm anybody.

Except humans who go there.

[zimmerwald1915]

I'm not sure why we would oppose exploration of Mars. From what I've heard nobody lives there so expanding into that region doesn't seem to directly harm anybody.

We always think no one lives "over there" until proved wrong. At which point it's too late and the expropriation-exploitation-extermination machine has already started up its inexorable operation. Best not to even go and look.

[Dion]

This sort of absolutism leads to absurd results. For example, every judge delivering a civil judgment becomes Evil.

I’m certainly not a legal scholar, but I have the vague sense that most civil cases are decided based on facts, and judgments are based on a theory of restitution or punitive damages to discourage specific behaviors or redress specific harms.

Although I recognize I have an idealized vision of the world, I believe judges are discouraged from simply punishing a party because the judge believes they “deserve” it.

[Verappo]

Regarding the whole question of whether Hilgya is right in her loophole theory, I really do not see what narrative purpose would be served by the reveal that Loki is just lying and she's going to Hel anyway.

The strip doesn't seem to be hinting at that, Loki seems earnestly proud of Hilgya for following his philosophy, so the only reason to do this would be to add some kind of unexpected twist to punish the character who is looking for a way out of her very traditionalist society (and who ran from a literal crossbow marriage), and all others who are looking for a way out. That doesn't strike me as a direction the comic is interested in exploring, as the only thing it would add is the confirmation that yup, Loki sure is chaotic for no reason, how fun.

If anything, this whole book has been a study on the ways that dwarven society finds to escape Hel, be it by picking a fight with a conifer or a different interpretation of honor. I'm guessing Loki needs souls just like every other deity (especially among dwarves, since they automatically go to Hel) , so I think it's fair to say that his selling point is providing a shelter from both Hel and a life wholly devoted to honor. This incidentally just happens to be the right way to piss off both Hel and Thor, so Loki and the believer all get what they want. That's chaotic enough to me without adding a cruel twist for shock value.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: I would suggest taking this in a non-real world political direction, avoiding anything to do with real world governments and their various systems and branches.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Regarding the whole question of whether Hilgya is right in her loophole theory, I really do not see what narrative purpose would be served by the reveal that Loki is just lying and she's going to Hel anyway.

The reveal would not be that Loki is lying to her, but that he never said anything of the sort and instead she's delusional and she came up with a justification for her actions that in no way shape or form matches reality. I.e. consistent with all her other delusions about what is going on versus what is really going on. The reveal would further be that Loki doesn't care about her, what with him being an Evil god, and thus when Hel claims her soul because she died dishonorably, Loki shrugs and says "sure, whatever, she's no longer amusing to watch".

Grey Wolf

[Aquillion]

Or, more probably in the context given in the comic, Hel doesn't get many Loki's followers because there are very few dwarven Loki's followers, given all the honor thing and Loki being usually an enemy of Thor, who plays a central role in dwarven culture. Remember, Hel doesn't get (and have to argue about) all the dishonorable dead, just the dwarves.

Yes, but "fine with me, hardly any of these were mine anyway" implies he would not be fine with Hel just taking a bunch of souls that ought to go with him. So the implication that he'd just cheerfully let a cleric go to Hel is false.

Like I said, he has several pressing reasons not to let the souls of anyone who might be contacted or resurrected, in particular, go to Hel, because once word gets out that he's not protecting his followers after death, they're going to abandon him.

Regarding the whole question of whether Hilgya is right in her loophole theory, I really do not see what narrative purpose would be served by the reveal that Loki is just lying and she's going to Hel anyway.

It's absurd to even suggest she could just be flat-out wrong (I assumed people were suggesting that Loki could make an exception for her, I guess because the audience hates her.) She's a Cleric of Loki in a world where people can literally speak to the dead - there is zero credible reason to think she could be wrong about the general way the afterlife works, at least when it comes to a central tenet of her faith.

Otherwise the faith of Loki would fall apart the first time someone who died in dishonor gets resurrected or otherwise contacted and says "yeah, Loki didn't stand up for me." Heck, Hilgya has Plane Shift - she can physically visit the afterlife and see what happens to the dead with her own eyes. And so can every other high-level Cleric of Loki.

[Dion]

Best not to even go and look.

Good idea! Homer once said “trying is the first step toward failure.”

He also said “Let me not then die ingloriously and without a struggle, but let me first do some great thing that shall be told among men hereafter.“

Complex guy. We can learn a lot from Homer.

[The MunchKING]

Although I recognize I have an idealized vision of the world, I believe judges are discouraged from simply punishing a party because the judge believes they “deserve” it.

Whether they deserve the level of harm you inflict on them is absolutely the basis for whether it's evil or not. That's why good adventures ARE allowed to kill the goblins in an adventure. Because they did something to deserve it, like kill your civilians. But they are NOT allowed to just kill ALL the Goblins. Most of them didn't do anything to deserve it.

Humiliation is far lighter than killing, and (again in the case of Trickster Gods) is usually better because ideally the humiliated target will learn from their humiliation and quit doing what ever it is that caused them to deserve to be humiliated.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

It's absurd to even suggest she could just be flat-out wrong (I assumed people were suggesting that Loki could make an exception for her, I guess because the audience hates her.) She's a Cleric of Loki in a world where people can literally speak to the dead - there is zero credible reason to think she could be wrong about the general way the afterlife works, at least when it comes to a central tenet of her faith.

Otherwise the faith of Loki would fall apart the first time someone who died in dishonor gets resurrected and says "yeah, Loki didn't stand up for me."

It is not absurd if she's the first one to come up with the loophole. It is not absurd if Loki has never said, taught or promised that this is a loophole that exists. It is not absurd, in short, if this is an assumption of Hilgya consistent with all her assumptions of how the universe works, going all the way back to "polite offers of foot massages are an attack on her freedom".

Grey Wolf

[Rrmcklin]

Yes, but "fine with me, hardly any of these were mine anyway" implies he would not be fine with Hel just taking a bunch of souls that ought to go with him. So the implication that he'd just cheerfully let a cleric go to Hel is false.

The unspoken implication is that at least a few of them are his though, and he doesn't care enough to argue over them. I think that's the point being made; Hilgya might be a faithful and strong cleric, but she still is only one soul.

[Dion]

Yes, but "fine with me, hardly any of these were mine anyway" implies he would not be fine with Hel just taking a bunch of souls that ought to go with him.

That’s not how I interpret it.

He pointed at a pile of dwarven souls and said “I don’t care about this pile of souls because of some stupid, selfish, petty excuse.”

That doesn’t mean that he really does care, but this particular pile somehow fell just short of his exacting standards.

To me, it just means that he really doesn’t care, and he has stupid selfish petty excuses for not caring.

[Verappo]

Why would Hilgya be completely delusional about the afterlife, while Thor's followers get to be right? I mean as a conscious choice for the character. The only reason to do that would be to punish her for not wanting to live in a society that forces her to marry (the crossbow was not a foot massage), and I think the comic has made it clear, through Sigdi, that her mistake was hurting Durkon (or you know, the threat that she might do it again, which Sigdi is implied to have taken care of), not refusing the proposal. Punishing her for hurting Durkon by pulling the rug from under her feet regarding ETERNAL DAMNATION -due to not having lived a honor bound life she never agreed to- is a little much to me. I get that she has been shown to come to conclusions easily, but this strip seems to show that this conclusion in particular is not that far fetched. Through literal word of (a) god, no less.

Idk maybe Hilgya just kind of resonates with people who may have been told they'd go to hell for somethign they have no control over, and who had to look for new value systems that do not invalidate their choices. Also fire, pretty.

[The_Weirdo]

It is not absurd if she's the first one to come up with the loophole. It is not absurd if Loki has never said, taught or promised that this is a loophole that exists. It is not absurd, in short, if this is an assumption of Hilgya consistent with all her assumptions of how the universe works, going all the way back to "polite offers of foot massages are an attack on her freedom".

Grey Wolf

I dream of the day when you and others will stop pretending the assault on her right to remain a single woman boils down to a foot massage.

(the crossbow was not a foot massage)

Thank you.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Why would Hilgya be completely delusional about the afterlife, while Thor's followers get to be right?

This is nonsense. All dwarves, not just "Thor's followers" know what the rules are. And Hilgya is delusional, this would just be one more thing she is delusional about.

The only reason to do that would be to punish her for not wanting to live in a society that forces her to marry (the crossbow was not a foot massage)

And now you are simply skating past her murder, attempted murders, planned murders, theft, character assassination, etc., which tells me there is no reason for me to continue this conversation.

That's what I get for giving second chances.

Grey Wolf

[Gnoman]

Why would Hilgya be completely delusional about the afterlife, while Thor's followers get to be right? I mean as a conscious choice for the character. The only reason to do that would be to punish her for not wanting to live in a society that forces her to marry (the crossbow was not a foot massage), and I think the comic has made it clear, through Sigdi, that her mistake was hurting Durkon (or you know, the threat that she might do it again, which Sigdi is implied to have taken care of), not refusing the proposal. Punishing her for hurting Durkon by pulling the rug from under her feet regarding ETERNAL DAMNATION -due to not having lived a honor bound life she never agreed to- is a little much to me. I get that she has been shown to come to conclusions easily, but this strip seems to show that this conclusion in particular is not that far fetched. Through literal word of (a) god, no less.

Idk maybe Hilgya just kind of resonates with people who may have been told they'd go to hell for somethign they have no control over, and who had to look for new value systems that do not invalidate their choices. Also fire, pretty.

The difference is that we've not only seen a near universal belief that the world works the way Thor says it does, as well as every god in the pantheon agreeing, and an entire Evil Plane based on it, we've seen massive evidence to support it - every scene involving a Dwarven afterlife shows that "die with honor or you go to Hel" is in effect. Meanwhile, the only thing we have to support Hilgya's claim is that a single psychopathic egomaniac confidently declares the world works that way - with no god, not even hers, so much as commenting on it.

[The_Weirdo]

This is nonsense. All dwarves, not just "Thor's followers" know what the rules are. And Hilgya is delusional, this would just be one more thing she is delusional about.


And now you are simply skating past her murder, attempted murders, planned murders, theft, character assassination, etc., which tells me there is no reason for me to continue this conversation.

That's what I get for giving second chances.

Grey Wolf

Well, in order to restore your faith in humanity with regards to second chances (mind you, Verappo is not me), you only need to stop conflating Hilgya's absolute, sacred right not to be married to someone who is not her choice and the attempted murder of Ivan or her bankrupting the sexual traffickers that were her "family". Unless, of course, you truly do see both in the same, or similar, lights?

[Krenn]

No. Taking stuff from others without their consent harms them. That there are worse ways to harm them doesn't get you off the hook. A career built on deliberately harming others for your own advancement is Evil.

Grey Wolf

As I said, it's a great ongoing debate, between various systems, editions, and Gamemasters. D&D 3e isn't the only game that uses some version of the good-evil, order-chaos alignment system.

Personally, I find that the following setup works the best, in terms of keeping track of characters, making sense of the gods, providing rule-of-thumb explanations for how well different alignments get along, driving the story, and providing equal representation to each position on the grid.

Good: can inflict major harm or loss on others, provided it is reasonably justified and necessary, for the benefit of all, or in accordance with a reasonably fair and moral system.

Neutral: can inflict major harm or loss on others, out of 'mere' selfishness, greed, apathy, mild corruption, or according to the ideology of a facially neutral system or organization.

Evil: Can and should inflict major harm or loss on others, out of malice, sadism, cruelty, nihilism, or spitefulness.

I'm well aware that a lot of systems and interpretations disagree with me on this, but I find that this way leaves a lot more room for 'mild' corruption and asocial behaviors among the neutral alignments, makes the evil alignments more clearly despicable, and does less to lock the 'Good' characters into moral straightjackets.

Otherwise I tend to see problems occur where no-one wants to play a good character, and lots of people don't think that having a clearly evil-aligned character in the party is a very big deal....

in that situation, it usually turns out that their working definition of 'evil' is pretty close to my working definition of 'neutral', and their definition of 'neutral' is pretty close to my definition of 'good'.

Like I said, a lot of people, and a lot of systems or editions, agree with you. It just gives me a headache, and I prefer my method. For example, the Kalamar system pantheon tends to follow the definitions I just used.

[hroþila]

Not that I'm keeping tabs, but Hilgya has been wrong about LOTS of things in the comic. It's not a stretch at all to think she could be wrong about her chances to avoid Hel by following Loki's teachings.

It might well be true, and Thor has advocated even flimsier cases (although we don't know whether he won). But there's plenty of room for doubt.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Like I said, a lot of people, and a lot of systems or editions, agree with you. It just gives me a headache, and I prefer my method. For example, the Kalamar system pantheon tends to follow the definitions I just used.

But we are not here to discuss your or Kalamar's system. We are here to discuss the OotS, which uses the D&D alignment system, where harming others is Evil. Purposely, to a great degree, to highlight its issues. But it does no good to say "this person is not Evil because in my classification, 'mild' corruption and asocial behaviors are Neutral". Whether that is a better or worse system, it's not the one in place in the comic.

Grey Wolf

[Krenn]

But we are not here to discuss your or Kalamar's system. We are here to discuss the OotS, which uses the D&D alignment system, where harming others is Evil. Purposely, to a great degree, to highlight its issues. But it does no good to say "this person is not Evil because in my classification, 'mild' corruption and asocial behaviors are Neutral". Whether that is a better or worse system, it's not the one in place in the comic.

Grey Wolf

yeah, but Kalamar is written for the 3e system, and depending on the GM's point of view, the d20 alignment rules can be read either way. I blame sloppy copyediting; the d20 rules always seemed kind of skewed to me, with it being really unclear which of several possible measuring sticks they meant to use for good-evil vs law-chaos, and the text as written inconsistently switching between different measuring sticks at different times.

[Peelee]

Punishing her for hurting Durkon by pulling the rug from under her feet regarding ETERNAL DAMNATION -due to not having lived a honor bound life she never agreed to- is a little much to me.

Every dwarf who doesn't die honorably is punished despite not agreeing to those terms. Why should it happening to this one specific person too much when it's the same deal all dwarves in the thousand-plus years the world has been going get?

[The_Weirdo]

Every dwarf who doesn't die honorably is punished despite not agreeing to those terms. Why should it happening to this one specific person too much when it's the same deal all dwarves in the thousand-plus years the world has been going get?

Off the top of my head, she's a fairly important character, portrayed quite a bit, with a somehow-controversial backstory. The system is already described as horribly unfair and dwarves that drink themselves to death are canonically described as dying with honor. All of it means that Hilgya going to Hel would be viewed as tacit or clear endorsement of the narrative that Hilgya deserves punishment for bankrupting a sex trafficking ring - and that her loophole, incidentally, is somehow flimsier than "liver battle".

That, of course, assuming she dies and assuming the bet doesn't come undone because of Hel's meddling. I doubt she'll die (or, at least, die without being rezzed), not the least of it because it would condemn Kudzu to the same issue Durkon faced as a child, and it has already been described as something terribly unfair to him.

[Verappo]

That's what I get for giving second chances.

?

Anyway, what I am saying is that there's not really proof that the loophole theory is wrong, Maybe next strip Loki will say "Whatever Hilgya, the sucker thinks she'll go to Valhalla lol", but right now he seems proud of her and accepts/shares her disruptive attitude. Moreover, If we're meant to think she's wrong, I think the comic would have been clearer about this on the strip where she shared this philosophy, as it's never shied away from pointing out her other delusions (like when he portrayed Durkon as a casanova and her point of view on the matter came up repeatedly with Haley and Minrah, and was shot down immediately and unsubtly).

It's harder here because we have no history to inform us on the matter of course, but again, I don't really see what that would add to the story other than showing Hilgya was wrong about another thing and ahah, she's receiving eternal damnation. Also I don't think she's dying in the comic, so it would have to be a pointed comment by Loki aimed solely at reassuring us that Hilgya is going to Hel. The strip has been kinder to eviler characters.

[Peelee]

Anyway, what I am saying is that there's not really proof that the loophole theory is wrong

There's also no proof that the loophole is right, and given that it's supposedly a loophole, that's not a promising look.

[Dion]

o stop conflating Hilgya's absolute, sacred right not to be married to someone who is not her choice and the attempted murder of Ivan or her bankrupting the sexual traffickers that were her "family".

Ok. Hilgya has the right to marry the person of her choice.

Hilgya does not have the right to attempted murder or to bankrupt her family.

I agree with you that we should not conflate the two things. Let’s agree to never discuss them together in the same post again.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Anyway, what I am saying is that there's not really proof that the loophole theory is wrong,

A thousand years' worth of dwarven souls that would have trivially belonged to Loki had he but told them of the loophole on day 1 suggests otherwise.

Grey Wolf