Hilgya: a redemption arc?

[wumpus]

He also did not ask her if she had any STDs. Because both are the kind of thing you expect both partners on a consensual relationship to be honest and upfront about.

Remove disease is a third level cleric spell. In the unlikely even Hilgya had one (Durkon was a virgin but Hilgya could still cast it), Durkon could simply burn a single day's spellslot. STDs simply aren't an issue to this couple.

It should be fairly clear that Thor won't find anything wrong with the one night stand. Durkon's might be unhappy with the event, but is unlikely to be kicking himself over the act of fornication.

The idea of Durkon abandoning a baby is wildly more severe. While it isn't clear how bad such a thing is to Thor, I can't imagine Durkon failing to do his duty for a son, especially if it makes him miserable. I'm curious if Durkon was inside a cloisture when Hilgya cast a bunch of sendings. I've also missed Giant commentary on Hilgya's backstory: presumably we shouldn't take *anything* Hilgya says [barring third party confirmation such as Durkon or Halley] as being true [note that the stickverse's trope sensibility pretty much confirm's that the baby is Durkon's. Little else is confirmed].

[Euclidodese]

Remove disease is a third level cleric spell. In the unlikely even Hilgya had one (Durkon was a virgin but Hilgya could still cast it), Durkon could simply burn a single day's spellslot. STDs simply aren't an issue to this couple.

It should be fairly clear that Thor won't find anything wrong with the one night stand. Durkon's might be unhappy with the event, but is unlikely to be kicking himself over the act of fornication.

The idea of Durkon abandoning a baby is wildly more severe. While it isn't clear how bad such a thing is to Thor, I can't imagine Durkon failing to do his duty for a son, especially if it makes him miserable. I'm curious if Durkon was inside a cloisture when Hilgya cast a bunch of sendings. I've also missed Giant commentary on Hilgya's backstory: presumably we shouldn't take *anything* Hilgya says [barring third party confirmation such as Durkon or Halley] as being true [note that the stickverse's trope sensibility pretty much confirm's that the baby is Durkon's. Little else is confirmed].

I don't think Durkon's ever been inside a Cloister has he? He left Azure City before it was first cast on that town, and he hasn't returned there since. He wasn't in the first dungeon until after Dorukon died, and I don't think Xykon cast it on the Dungeon of Dorukon.
Xykon scries on the party and the chimera in the first book, I'm not sure he could do that if he'd last Cloister on them, the caster can't be immune to the spell's effects, since if they were, Dorukon would not have needed to exclude summoning spells in order to summon Lirian.

[goodpeople25]

I don't think Durkon's ever been inside a Cloister has he? He left Azure City before it was first cast on that town, and he hasn't returned there since. He wasn't in the first dungeon until after Dorukon died, and I don't think Xykon cast it on the Dungeon of Dorukon.
Xykon scries on the party and the chimera in the first book, I'm not sure he could do that if he'd last Cloister on them, the caster can't be immune to the spell's effects, since if they were, Dorukon would not have needed to exclude summoning spells in order to summon Lirian.

The cloister was recast on the dungeon according to #532, so what I get is that Durkon would be unable to be contacted from outside the effect when he was in the dungeon. (Scrying and the like works if you cast it from inside the effect) Now the timeline and likelyhood of that happening I'm not sure about and he'd be free to be contacted once the spell went down. (And he left the area anyway)

[Liquor Box]

I don't think the "rape" issue is relevant here, unless Durkon decides to take the matter to the Court. Sometimes the figure of "non-consent" is also applied to situations where it isn't actually "rape" (in the sense that it wasn't a traumatic experience during the act, but after) in the way common folks use the word.

Durkon wasn't traumatized by Hilgya at all, but he had everything in his right to be mad at her. Because she still withheld information that was relevant to one of the parties (him), and she was aware that some dwarves would react in the way Durkon did (after all, why ask about his marital status?). Probably it doesn't constitute rape in a strict/legal sense; but just because something is "legal" doesn't mean it's not bad behaviour or morally wrong. And that's what Durkon was accusing her of: he believes she shouldn't have been unfaithful to his husband, and specially he (probably) didn't want to be involved in that. Hilgya made a stupid assumption (thinking Durkon was a "liberal" as she was) and it was completely her fault.

I used the word rape to mean any sex that was not consensual. In my country the law specifically defines rape as being sex where there is no consent (and the accused does not believe that there was consent).

Maybe you (and others here) are using the word differently though. If so, everywhere I said 'rape', instead please read 'non consensual sex'.

However, if you are simply meaning 'somewhat immoral', I suggest non-consensual is probably not the term you are looking for.

[Euclidodese]

The cloister was recast on the dungeon according to #532, so what I get is that Durkon would be unable to be contacted from outside the effect when he was in the dungeon. (Scrying and the like works if you cast it from inside the effect) Now the timeline and likelyhood of that happening I'm not sure about and he'd be free to be contacted once the spell went down. (And he left the area anyway)

Ahhhh... That makes sense, it would kind of be dumb to eliminate your own ability to see who was ringing your doorbell.

I'm wondering how Sending works now, would you know your message had been blocked before you started talking?

In other words, if you tried to reach Durkon, and the Cloister blocked it, then would you notice before you started casting (and then assume Durkon just didn't want to talk to you because the break-up was too tough.)

Or would you deliver your 25 words, and then sit there waiting for a response, not knowing your words hadn't been heard? (Like if you'd said: "Hey, I'm mondo-preggers and stuff, want to maybe relocate back to the Dwarven Homelands so we can raise this sprog together, takes a village." And then heard nothing in response, and assumed Durkon didn't care...)

Edit: Boom. Second option. Panel 4 of 747. You don't know if your Sending spell works or not if they don't respond.

[unbeliever536]

The cloister was recast on the dungeon according to #532, so what I get is that Durkon would be unable to be contacted from outside the effect when he was in the dungeon. (Scrying and the like works if you cast it from inside the effect) Now the timeline and likelyhood of that happening I'm not sure about and he'd be free to be contacted once the spell went down. (And he left the area anyway)

Not while OOTS was inside, though, as far as we can tell.

[goodpeople25]

Not while OOTS was inside, though, as far as we can tell.

If you mean the spell wasn't cast when they were there preventing contact for weeks, yup thus I said he'd be able to be contacted as soon as the spell came down/he left. If you mean the spell wasn't active at all when the order was there, I believe the comic indicates it was but I could be wrong.

[Euclidodese]

If you mean the spell wasn't cast when they were there preventing contact for weeks, yup thus I said he'd be able to be contacted as soon as the spell came down/he left. If you mean the spell wasn't active at all when the order was there, I believe the comic indicates it was but I could be wrong.

I don't know if it was active/cast while they were there, I don't think there's a way of telling, since no one contacts them from outside while they're inside. (Other than Eugene, and we know he can breach the Cloister anyway (Epic Inside))

Soon's diviners apparently notice that the Gate has exploded in strip 120, I don't know if that means the Cloister was over by then, or if the diviners detected the part of the explosion's blast wave which was outside the Cloister's effect.

The image in 532 of Xykon holding the soul-capture crystal and the focus in the other hand, kind of implies he started work on mastering it very shortly after SOD's climax, which is 6 months (24 weeks) before strip 1, but who knows when he first cast it, and who knows if it ran out and he recast it, either event could be when the Oots are inside.

532 implies to me that the Cloister went down when Dorukon got trapped in the gemstone (It went down 'right before Xykon moved in,' he literally walks into the castle minutes after the battle with Dorukon, it could just be that the spell happened to run out at almost exactly that time by coincidence though) if that's the case, then Roy killing Xykon could also have knocked the spell out.

[unbeliever536]

If you mean the spell wasn't cast when they were there preventing contact for weeks, yup thus I said he'd be able to be contacted as soon as the spell came down/he left. If you mean the spell wasn't active at all when the order was there, I believe the comic indicates it was but I could be wrong.

Well I would assume Hilgya gave birth after the dungeon exploded.

[Kish]

Dwarf gestation period: two hours.

[goodpeople25]

Well I would assume Hilgya gave birth after the dungeon exploded.

True likelihood was not what I was going for. Though I figured magic could possibly detect pregnancy as soon as it was cast so it'd technically be possible (hardly likely and magic dosen't solve everything or maybe the mechanics with detecting it that early would/should bump the level beyond her range) but I'm not sure how big the time window for that would be anyway.

[KorvinStarmast]

Edit: Boom. Second option. Panel 4 of 747. You don't know if your Sending spell works or not if they don't respond.

Heh, if in the next few strips we get a flashback to a sending from Hilgya to Durkon that he does not respond to, the discussion changes considerably.
For example: OoTS and Hilgya enter the place where Durkula and allies are ready to fight them. Durkon's bound soul looks and goes "WTF?" and we get the inner monologue from Durkula 'who's this' and then the memory from Durkon of a sending, or many sendings, of "I'm pregnant, you sanctimonious (nasty term) what are you going to do about it?" and then "why won't you answer my texts" and so on.

I'm still not 100% sure that the baby isn't a shape changed Sabine, though that is a low odds bet.

[atemu1234]

Consent was certainly given, but informed consent seems... problematic. Of course, this is a sliding scale, somewhere between "I don't tell the guy that I find him an utterly boring conversationalist (but hey, he's still hot)" and "I don't tell the girl about my large assortion of STDs", but the more likely it is that knowing this would make the person not want to sleep with me, the more problematic it becomes.
I believe there was a case where a woman had a shortlived sexual relationship with someone and only during intercourse discovered her partner was in fact another woman (most of the relationship was on the net and she was blindfolded during RL encounter). As the first woman was very much straight, she did not appreciate that and AFAIK a court ruled that the sex was not consensual.

The typical legal metric for informed consent is when you are not actively withholding information from your partner that you know would lead to them not having sex with you, or whether you are actively lying to them.

Clear violation: I claimed to be Ricard Nixon because she said she would only sleep with former presidents.
Grey area: We were both impaired (from alcohol or drug use) and I forgot to mention that I had an STI.
In the Clear: We had a one night stand and I didn't tell her that I really love musicals, and my assortment of Rent memorabilia was enough to make her not want to see me, ever again.

I feel like we're closer to the last one on this one. He carries around a holy symbol, for the gods' sakes, it's not like he was more than one Know (Religion) check away from her figuring out who it was he worshipped. He probably assumed she knew, which is not a crime.

[Lord Joeltion]

I used the word rape to mean any sex that was not consensual. In my country the law specifically defines rape as being sex where there is no consent (and the accused does not believe that there was consent).

Maybe you (and others here) are using the word differently though. If so, everywhere I said 'rape', instead please read 'non consensual sex'.

However, if you are simply meaning 'somewhat immoral', I suggest non-consensual is probably not the term you are looking for.

Yeah, It's a tricky word. For instance, in my country there's a difference between kinds of sex-abuse and I can't fathom the possible differences among other legislations. Also, one could argue that psychologically speaking "rape" is a special kind of traumatic experience that doesn't necessarily involve sex.

In any case, my point was that probably Durkon in no manner felt himself "abused" by Hilgyia*; so speaking of "abuse" just because she concealed certain information** from him is pointless for the case presented in the comic. It's not there, so let's not delve into unnecessary speculation.

What Durkon felt cheated on, was because he'd rather not be involved in an unfaithful relation. He never said he was disgusted by her (as any victim of abuse would). Instead he was angry to her because she lied to him and used him to be unfaithful, something he would rather not. He also is hinted to be sad for having to tell her what he thinks is the Dwarven way, so again: not totally in line with how a victim would feel. Not to mention, I seriously doubt the comic would ever deal with speculative sex-offenders. I'd rather not discuss this situation in such serious terms, and focus on the fact that Hilgya is a manipulative liar and Durkon is kind of a ****

*Meaning that maybe he doesn't regret having had sex with her; even if he would have abstained from it if he had previously know about her marital status.
**It's not like she manipulated him like a Black Widow either

[Grey_Wolf_c]

he'd rather not be involved in an unfaithful relation.

Sorry to insist on this, but I think we need to be clear that Durkon's primary objection to having sex with a married individual was not that it was unfaithful, but dishonorable. Yes, to humans being dishonorable is no major deal, but the dwarves live under a bet with extreme consequences for such behaviour. We know from Rich's words that Loki's bet has reduced the dwarven society to the equivalent of a permanent defensive crouch. They act honorably all the time, because that maximizes the chances of not ending in Hel's clutches.

By withholding crucial information, Hilgya placed Durkon in a position where he had NOT been acting honorably. His recourse was to insist that they must act honorably "because that is what dwarves do even if it makes them unhappy", yes, but the reason they do so is not because they don't care about being happy, but because they'd rather be unhappy for 300 years and then NOT spend a few millennia tortured by Hel.

To repeat myself: by knowingly involving Durkon in a dishonorable act, Hilgya was risking Durkon's soul, without his knowledge or consent. Honestly, he had the right to be pissed at her, and she has no right to rage against his actions.

Grey Wolf

[atemu1234]

Sorry to insist on this, but I think we need to be clear that Durkon's primary objection to having sex with a married individual was not that it was unfaithful, but dishonorable. Yes, to humans being dishonorable is no major deal, but the dwarves live under a bet with extreme consequences for such behaviour. We know from Rich's words that Loki's bet has reduced the dwarven society to the equivalent of a permanent defensive crouch. They act honorably all the time, because that maximizes the chances of not ending in Hel's clutches.

By withholding crucial information, Hilgya placed Durkon in a position where he had NOT been acting honorably. His recourse was to insist that they must act honorably "because that is what dwarves do even if it makes them unhappy", yes, but the reason they do so is not because they don't care about being happy, but because they'd rather be unhappy for 300 years and then NOT spend a few millennia tortured by Hel.

To repeat myself: by knowingly involving Durkon in a dishonorable act, Hylgya was risking Durkon's soul, without his knowledge or consent. Honestly, he had the right to be pissed at her, and she has no right to rage against his actions.

Grey Wolf

What, so if Jason Voorhes just popped out of ground and killed them while they were having sex, he'd have gone to Hel? I don't think the given stories support that. He's more likely to die from an infected splinter.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

What, so if Jason Voorhes just popped out of ground and killed them while they were having sex, he'd have gone to Hel? I don't think the given stories support that. He's more likely to die from an infected splinter.

No, but he could've had a heart attack.

More importantly, "what might have killed him" is irrelevant, as I said in my post. The consequence of the bet is that it forces dwarves to act honorably all the time, regardless of the danger involved in the specific action, just in case, because the potential consequence is so dire. When you risk millenia of torture for dying at the wrong time, you don't play with "oh, what are the odds that this will kill me? Low? OK, then I can ignore honor". They act with honor all the time, and it is internalised to the point where being forced into dishonorable conduct is a massive violation of trust and social norms.

[T]he proper solution is actually, "Live a life of honor and service to your fellow dwarf so that whenever you happen to die, you'll be in the middle of acting honorably." Yes, a dwarf can live their life like a selfish coward and hope to wiggle out in the end, but most dwarves don't do that.

Grey Wolf

[Dr.Zero]

She asked if Durkon was married. So she knows people have a problem with people who are legally married. Her pretending that she isn't legally married doesn't make her any less of a liar.

I might be a little biased toward little cute blonde girls, but my interpretation of she inquiring about Durkon's relationship has always been not like: "If he is married or if he has a gf, I don't want him, because he is married and I'm so respectful of lawful bonds, even if I'm chaotic.", but: "If he is married or he has a gf, I won't hit on him because [he will refuse me/he won't commit to me, and I don't want an one night stand]".
To make it short: she, to me, seemed worried about the existence of an obstacle to a long lasting relationship.

Since, on the other hand, she didn't think of her marriage as an obstacle to a relationship, she didn't even think to tell about it.

Logically, if she had hidden the fact she was married on purpose (=lied), she wouldn't have talked of it so freely, then.
Therefore, I don't classify that as a lie.

[Lord Joeltion]

Sorry to insist on this, but I think we need to be clear that Durkon's primary objection to having sex with a married individual was not that it was unfaithful, but dishonorable. Yes, to humans being dishonorable is no major deal, but the dwarves live under a bet with extreme consequences for such behaviour. We know from Rich's words that Loki's bet has reduced the dwarven society to the equivalent of a permanent defensive crouch. They act honorably all the time, because that maximizes the chances of not ending in Hel's clutches.

But isn't the "unfaithful" part what makes it the very act "dishonorable" in and of itself? I agree with you totally, but I think that here they are basically synonyms. It's worth clarifying, but please correct me if I'm wrong at treating them as the same. It was always clear to me that she is the unfaithful one, not Durkon.

To repeat myself: by knowingly involving Durkon in a dishonorable act, Hilgya was risking Durkon's soul, without his knowledge or consent. Honestly, he had the right to be pissed at her, and she has no right to rage against his actions.

Yes. Also, that's why I think that even if Durkon was pissed, that doesn't mean he stopped having feelings for her. I mean, heart tends to be dumb that way.

I might be a little biased toward little cute blonde girls, but my interpretation of she inquiring about Durkon's relationship has always been not like: "If he is married or if he has a gf, I don't want him, because he is married and I'm so respectful of lawful bonds, even if I'm chaotic.", but: "If he is married or he has a gf, I won't hit on him because [he will refuse me/he won't commit to me, and I don't want an one night stand]".
To make it short: she, to me, seemed worried about the existence of an obstacle to a long lasting relationship.

Since, on the other hand, she didn't think of her marriage as an obstacle to a relationship, she didn't even think to tell about it.

Logically, if she had hidden the fact she was married on purpose (=lied), she wouldn't have talked of it so freely, then.
Therefore, I don't classify that as a lie.

The argument doesn't quite stand to scrutiny, actually. Either:
-Durkon thinks like her, and doesn't have high regard for "being engaged" in a relationship.
(In which case, asking his status would be a waste of time) or;
-Durkon, like most Dwarfs she met in her life, think being in a relationship is serious business.

In any case, no reasoning or logic would tell you how Durkon regards relationships if he isn't presently in a relationship at all. Making her either:
-Jump into conclusions by thinking Durkon is as Chaotic as her
(in which case she is a fool, and the only one to blame for not checking out) or;
-Thinking the fact that she is married isn't a relevant matter in the least, despite whatever Durkon thinks.

If the latter, she is a liar. Now, specifically:

To make it short: she, to me, seemed worried about the existence of an obstacle to a long lasting relationship.

If she really only asked because of her own well being, having little to no regard about Durkon's concerns about her past life; then she isn't just a liar, but a manipulative bastard. Ok, a Cute Manipulative Bastard. IMHO, that's a tad worse than just being a fool or a careless liar.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

But isn't the "unfaithful" part what makes it the very act "dishonorable" in and of itself? I agree with you totally, but I think that here they are basically synonyms. It's worth clarifying, but please correct me if I'm wrong at treating them as the same. It was always clear to me that she is the unfaithful one, not Durkon.

I'd say that at best unfaithful is a type of dishonorable conduct. But that's nitpicking. More importantly, by concentrating on the unfaithfulness, you get the impression that the issue was a "wordly" one - that Durkon was "merely" risking his faith (i.e. his vocation). My point was that the stakes were much, much higher than that.

Yes. Also, that's why I think that even if Durkon was pissed, that doesn't mean he stopped having feelings for her. I mean, heart tends to be dumb that way.

Agreed. The tear in Durkon's eye indicates he was heart broken by the necessity of his actions.

Grey Wolf

[Kish]

I don't think she considered Durkon caring about her past life as a thing that could happen. She's sufficiently Chaotic that the idea of caring about "so, did you by any chance take a vow (at crossbowpoint) not to do what we just did?" seems like total insanity to her.

[Jasdoif]

I don't think she considered Durkon caring about her past life as a thing that could happen. She's sufficiently Chaotic that the idea of caring about "so, did you by any chance take a vow (at crossbowpoint) not to do what we just did?" seems like total insanity to her.

Indeed. I note that Hilgya's recent evaluation of Durkon would support that she's convinced he had to have been lying to say he cared about such things.

[Dr.Zero]

If the latter, she is a liar. Now, specifically:

If she really only asked because of her own well being, having little to no regard about Durkon's concerns about her past life; then she isn't just a liar, but a manipulative bastard. Ok, a Cute Manipulative Bastard. IMHO, that's a tad worse than just being a fool or a careless liar.

Come on, now tell me you've never tested the waters to see if someone who you liked could have been interested in you as well, before asking them out.

Dear god, probably more than 90% of the people of the world is a "manipulative bastard" by this standard, starting from first graders.

I have the feeling that on this forum the stated standards to be a decent person are quite high.

(By the way, maybe she thought that if Durkon was really interested in something of her past, it was his duty to ask, exactly like she was doing; again, she was not infected by STD, she was married and didn't consider her marriage an obstacle and she could have never talked about it, if she wanted to lie on that point)

[Grey_Wolf_c]

she was married and didn't consider her marriage an obstacle

False. She knew it would be an obstacle if Durkon was married. Therefore, she knew that her own marriage would be an obstacle for Durkon. And she still chose to proceed with the seduction.

GW

[Dr.Zero]

False. She knew it would be an obstacle if Durkon was married. Therefore, she knew that her own marriage would be an obstacle for Durkon. And she still chose to proceed with the seduction.

GW

Are you just trolling me now?

I might be a little biased toward little cute blonde girls, but my interpretation of she inquiring about Durkon's relationship has always been not like: "If he is married or if he has a gf, I don't want him, because he is married and I'm so respectful of lawful bonds, even if I'm chaotic.", but: "If he is married or he has a gf, I won't hit on him because [he will refuse me/he won't commit to me, and I don't want an one night stand]".
To make it short: she, to me, seemed worried about the existence of an obstacle to a long lasting relationship.

Since, on the other hand, she didn't think of her marriage as an obstacle to a relationship
<snip>

(The obstacle, to make it clear, would be Durkon rejecting her because in love with someone else. But since she doesn't love her (imposed) husband...)

Edit 2: What makes this discussion a bit surreal is that everyone talks about the marriage like a contract you must respect (like Durkon) and no one seems to realize at least the possibility that her inquiring about Durkon's relationship status was simply because she was checking if he was in love with someone else (which should be the USUAL reason for someone to be in a relationship, really, even in dwarven society, like it is shown by Durkon's parents).
Meh.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The obstacle, to make it clear, would be Durkon rejecting her because in love with someone else. But since she doesn't love her (imposed) husband...

This is literally the same argument as reasoning "I have an STD, but I have no problem with treating it with daily antibiotics, so I'm going to assume you don't either, so I'm not telling you about the STD".

It is not Hilgya's place to decide for Durkon what he does and does not consider important. She was fully aware of dwarven culture. Even if she thinks that marriage is not important, only love is, that doesn't mean that withholding critical information is suddenly OK when she knows full well that the great majority of dwarves do think it is important. Again: lie by omission, reinforced by the fact that by inquiring about Durkon's marital status, she was indicating she did consider it a problem, and therefore implying she was free of marital obligations as well.

If all she cared about was love, then Hilgya's question should have been "is there anyone special in your life" not "do you have a wife".

GW

[Dr.Zero]

This is literally the same argument as reasoning "I have an STD, but I have no problem with treating it with daily antibiotics, so I'm going to assume you don't either, so I'm not telling you about the STD".

Sure. Exactly the same.

It is not Hilgya's place to decide for Durkon what he does and does not consider important. She was fully aware of dwarven culture. Even if she thinks that marriage is not important, only love is, that doesn't mean that withholding critical information is suddenly OK when she knows full well that the great majority of dwarves do think it is important. Again: lie by omission, reinforced by the fact that by inquiring about Durkon's marital status, she was indicating she did consider it a problem, and therefore implying she was free of marital obligations as well.

Meh, I don't know. Durkon could have asked -like she has done- before banging her, maybe?
Of course, he assumed that she was not married, because he assumed she had his same Lawful approach to life he had.
And she assumed he didn't care about her coerced marriage because she assumed that he had her same Freedom-first approach to life she had.
What exactly makes Hylgia guilty?

If all she cared about was love, then Hilgya's question should have been "is there anyone special in your life" not "do you have a wife".
GW

Indeed she inquires about him having a girlfriend, too.
Which I included in my example above.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

What exactly makes Hylgia guilty?

What makes her guilty of lying by omission is not giving Durkon the full relevant picture. And then blaming him for reacting badly when she does.

I am not claiming Durkon is blameless. I am claiming that Hilgya is not blameless.

Indeed she inquires about him having a girlfriend, too.
Which I included in my example above.

Girlfriend is not synonymous with special any more than wife is.

GW

[Keltest]

What makes her guilty of lying by omission by not giving Durkon the full relevant picture. And then blaming him for reacting badly when she does.

I am not claiming Durkon is blameless. I am claiming that Hilgya is not blameless.



Girlfriend is not synonymous with special any more than wife is.

GW

She could have continued to list various types of significant other I suppose, but that would stretch out the dialogue a lot longer than it needed to go for us to understand what she was doing. Seriously Greywolf, we know you aren't that obtuse.

[Dr.Zero]

What makes her guilty of lying by omission by not giving Durkon the full relevant picture.

Fun fact: she cared to inquire, Durkon didn't.
But as soon as he made a single question, she said it all.

A single question.

And then blaming him for reacting badly when she does.

I am not claiming Durkon is blameless. I am claiming that Hilgya is not blameless.

We might agree on this.
Both made assumptions, both were wrong. That's it, for me.

Girlfriend is not synonymous with special any more than wife is.

But I won't agree on nitpicking definitions like this.