Hilgya: a redemption arc?

[Quartz]

I wonder if Hilgya is going to have a redemption arc as a counterpoint to Tsukiko and Miko?

[Fyraltari]

I hope so, I'm a sucker for redemption.
But I doubt it. Her one crime we know about was unsuccessful and played as a joke. So unless she does something heinous soon and is still there during the next book, I don't think there's much in the way of redemption to happen.
This is Durkon's story here so I could see a reconciliation happening. Would that count as redemption for you ?

[Quartz]

If anything, I think it will be a mini-arc. And self-reconciliation is probably a better term.

[Themrys]

I wonder if Hilgya is going to have a redemption arc as a counterpoint to Tsukiko and Miko?

I doubt it. Her "crime" was a joke. That would be as if V had gotten a redemption arc for using the "Evan's spiked tentacles of forced intrusion" spell. Which, you know, was rape. But was never taken seriously at the time.

No, she's more likely to be part of Durkon's redemption arc. Because she is totally right about everything he did. Let's face it, by telling her to "do her duty" he very conveniently ridded himself of the responsibility for his child. (And no, no "but he didn't know!" excuses for him. Sex leads to babies. This is a known fact, and it has been hinted at that this fact was explained to child!Durkon)
Now the only sin he committed on-screen has come back to bite him in the ass.

I know, it is a tired old trope, women always just being part of men's stories, but Hilgya just doesn't meet the qualifications.

[Euclidodese]

Sex leads to babies. This is a known fact

Sometimes it does, some times it does not.
Durkon had a brief fling, which he (to his own readily-visible sadness) had to break off after new information came to light, as it became clear the relationship was incompatible with his personal moral philosophy.
His ex (a powerful Cleric with a ton of high-level Divination spells no less) makes as far as we can tell, no attempt to inform him of the child he didn't know existed... And now she's angry... Because reasons?

And assuming Dwarf physiology is roughly similar to that of humans, there was no guarantee she was pregnant, in fact, human couples actively attempting to get pregnant only have a 20% chance per month of trying. Should he have given her a mailing address to get in touch just in case she happened to be pregnant or in case something started to itch? Possibly, but in his moment of sadness I think we can probably excuse him of that.

Let's face it, by telling her to "do her duty" he very conveniently ridded himself of the responsibility for his child.

Durkon refused to break Belkar and Roy out of a dictatorship's abusive jail because they were technically guilty of a victimless crime they had no way of knowing they were committing, despite the fact that their continued incarceration literally increased the risk that a Lich would destroy and/or conquer the world.
On this basis, I feel we have no reason to believe that Durkon was lying about being unwilling to be with a woman just because she was technically married, and therefore no reason to believe that this was a 'convenient excuse.'

I know, it is a tired old trope, women always just being part of men's stories, but Hilgya just doesn't meet the qualifications.

I know it's a tired old trope, to have a woman sweep in with baby-mama-drama and for everyone to simply assume she's in the right... But frankly, I don't think she meets the qualifications...

(I'm not trying to be argumentative but... I genuinely don't get why this constitutes a face-turn for Hilgya, we can only wait and see how this goes.
I'm holding out hope on the idea that she reveals that she is still evil, as I think that would be quite refreshing... Oh, and maybe Elan can adopt the baby so they can have a reminder of their fallen friend... But that's probably going too far...)

[Inkidu]

I doubt it. Her "crime" was a joke. That would be as if V had gotten a redemption arc for using the "Evan's spiked tentacles of forced intrusion" spell. Which, you know, was rape. But was never taken seriously at the time.

No, she's more likely to be part of Durkon's redemption arc. Because she is totally right about everything he did. Let's face it, by telling her to "do her duty" he very conveniently ridded himself of the responsibility for his child. (And no, no "but he didn't know!" excuses for him. Sex leads to babies. This is a known fact, and it has been hinted at that this fact was explained to child!Durkon)
Now the only sin he committed on-screen has come back to bite him in the ass.

I know, it is a tired old trope, women always just being part of men's stories, but Hilgya just doesn't meet the qualifications.

Actually, I find her wrong about everything. She's a massive hypocrite. Having read the whole series twice, I'm familiar with Firehelm's bit with Durkon. In the alignmnent's entirety... well... being a hypocrite is not out of the wheelhouse for chaotic-evil people. It seems to be that she's all for doing what you want and freedom but not up for dealing with the consequences (again like chaotic evil to a T).

Their fling was mutual and they both generally broke it off. Babies can be a consequence of that, but it's not like Hilgya was upset over it when they broke it off, at least no more upset than Durkon was. I'm not saying Durkon is free of responsibility, but barring his current condition as Roy said and I paraphrase, "The man would break his leg kicking his own ass out the door."

Durkon (again barring certain vitality issues he's currently experiencing) would no doubt stay with Hilgya and raise their child even if it was entirely loveless.

"A dwarf does his duty, even if it makes him miserable. Especially if it makes him miserable!"

Hilgya is just acting like a spoiled and petulant child. She hasn't been wronged in the least. The only thing Durkon could do that would be wrong in this instance would to not take responsibility once he finds out, and knowing the dwarf that'd be so out of character it'd be terrible writing if the Giant went that way.

A man is not a monster simply because he has a baby with a woman. A woman is not a victim just because she has to raise it on her own. Sometimes people make their own beds after all.

[hamishspence]

Their fling was mutual and they both generally broke it off. Babies can be a consequence of that, but it's not like Hilgya was upset over it when they broke it off, at least no more upset than Durkon was. I'm not saying Durkon is free of responsibility, but barring his current condition as Roy said and I paraphrase, "The man would break his leg kicking his own ass out the door."

Durkon (again barring certain vitality issues he's currently experiencing) would no doubt stay with Hilgya and raise their child even if it was entirely loveless.

"A dwarf does his duty, even if it makes him miserable. Especially if it makes him miserable!"

Hilgya is just acting like a spoiled and petulant child. She hasn't been wronged in the least. The only thing Durkon could do that would be wrong in this instance would to not take responsibility once he finds out, and knowing the dwarf that'd be so out of character it'd be terrible writing if the Giant went that way.

A man is not a monster simply because he has a baby with a woman. A woman is not a victim just because she has to raise it on her own. Sometimes people make their own beds after all.

Indeed. She's the one who made the decision in the first place, after sounding him out on whether he has a wife or girlfriend:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0076.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0079.html

Combine with the fact that he's a virgin and that she can tell:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0083.html

and it's safe to say that treating him as the one seducing her, gets things entirely backward.

[KorvinStarmast]

Not redemption, but reconciliation.

At some point, Durkon has to be confronted with the fact that, for all of his core beliefs in being honorable, he has indeed fathered a child out of wedlock and will be given a choice to man up and do right by the child ... which means he needs to make peace with Hilgya somehow. It would be interesting to see them talk to each other , rather than at each other as they did in the last scene before they both walked in different directions. It's going to be a while before that kind of scene will be in the strip, given that Durkula needs to be defeated first.

It might be a tricky bit of writing, and a bit of trope busting may ensue, but I'd like to see Durkon (once raised) and Hilgya have a sit down and try to make peace. Could make for some good drama and good character growth. I envision Elan trying to be the peacemaker, and maybe V. I don't see Roy, nor Haley, making that effort, and Belkar is still in it for the lulz.

[hamishspence]

I'd go with something like the end of Mrs Doubtfire - child support/visitation rights, but not remarriage (or, in Durkon/Hilgya's case, just getting married at all).

Irreconcilable alignment differences aren't one of those things that can just be handwaved away.

[Themrys]

Sometimes it does, some times it does not.
Durkon had a brief fling, which he (to his own readily-visible sadness) had to break off after new information came to light, as it became clear the relationship was incompatible with his personal moral philosophy.
His ex (a powerful Cleric with a ton of high-level Divination spells no less) makes as far as we can tell, no attempt to inform him of the child he didn't know existed... And now she's angry... Because reasons?

And assuming Dwarf physiology is roughly similar to that of humans, there was no guarantee she was pregnant, in fact, human couples actively attempting to get pregnant only have a 20% chance per month of trying. Should he have given her a mailing address to get in touch just in case she happened to be pregnant or in case something started to itch? Possibly, but in his moment of sadness I think we can probably excuse him of that.

See, I even explained it so no such silly excuses would be made, and you still do it.

If Hilgya had given her husband a mushroom which is only lethal to 10% of dwarven population, you would still hold her responsible for having tried to kill him.

But the same suddenly doesn't apply when a man wants to have sex without taking responsibility? I call bullsh*t.

Durkon knew there was a chance he had gotten her pregnant, he also knew that his skin colour is different from hers, so her husband could know the baby was not his.

Durkon, moreover, did not ask whether she was married, or even if she wanted to marry him, before having sex with her.

For such a lawful, goody two-shoes characters, that's pretty bad behaviour.

I don't even bother to number Belkar's failure to pay child support for the dozens of children he probably fathered among his crimes, because really, it'd be the least of his sins.

But Durkon is supposed to be this model of lawfulness, and I would have expected him to not have sex outside marriage in the first place if he is so very holier-than-thou and doesn't believe in divorce. I would, furthermore, have expected him to not have unprotected sex at all, but again, he apparently did. (Unless there's a flashback in which we are shown that he did use protection, I will assume this is not a contraception failure.)


Just accept that he is not as perfect as he (and you) would like to believe.

[Inkidu]

Indeed. She's the one who made the decision in the first place, after sounding him out on whether he has a wife or girlfriend:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0076.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0079.html

Combine with the fact that he's a virgin and that she can tell:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0083.html

and it's safe to say that treating him as the one seducing her, gets things entirely backward.

What I think has happened is that Firehelm's actions have saddled her with a responsibility she can't shirk when she feels like it and that pisses her off. If it's one thing she hates its being responsible. I mean, the Giant could totally botch the handling (he's human after all), and make Durkon the bad guy for not being there for a child he had no idea existed at all. It wasn't as if she was breaking her back or bank account to scry him or do a sending, which she probably can do being a cleric. This is an event with zero foreshadowing, and adding a bunch after the fact would be really hackneyed.

I have more confidence in the Giant's writing abilities than that though.

[hamishspence]

Durkon is supposed to be this model of lawfulness, and I would have expected him to not have sex outside marriage in the first place if he is so very holier-than-thou and doesn't believe in divorce.

Durkon's a cleric of Thor though:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0501.html

[Inkidu]

See, I even explained it so no such silly excuses would be made, and you still do it.

If Hilgya had given her husband a mushroom which is only lethal to 10% of dwarven population, you would still hold her responsible for having tried to kill him.

But the same suddenly doesn't apply when a man wants to have sex without taking responsibility? I call bullsh*t.

Durkon knew there was a chance he had gotten her pregnant, he also knew that his skin colour is different from hers, so her husband could know the baby was not his.

Durkon, moreover, did not ask whether she was married, or even if she wanted to marry him, before having sex with her.

For such a lawful, goody two-shoes characters, that's pretty bad behaviour.

I don't even bother to number Belkar's failure to pay child support for the dozens of children he probably fathered among his crimes, because really, it'd be the least of his sins.

But Durkon is supposed to be this model of lawfulness, and I would have expected him to not have sex outside marriage in the first place if he is so very holier-than-thou and doesn't believe in divorce. I would, furthermore, have expected him to not have unprotected sex at all, but again, he apparently did. (Unless there's a flashback in which we are shown that he did use protection, I will assume this is not a contraception failure.)


Just accept that he is not as perfect as he (and you) would like to believe.

There's only one person in this comic that can see the future and he's a kobold. Of course Durkon's not perfect and Durkon knows it. And no one has made an excuses for his inevitable responsibility once he finds out. Only you seem to be dead set on holding Durkon responsible for an event that he has no knowledge happened. It isn't like Hylgia's been hounding him the whole time to pay his child support.

Hylgia seduced Durkon. That's pretty clear. You're basically saying Hylgia's not responsible for her own actions, but Durkon is responsible for her actions, which is hypocritical in the extreme.

[hamishspence]

We don't even know that Durkon doesn't believe in divorce.


I'd say that what he doesn't believe in, is infidelity within marriage. If "go home and be with husband" ended with "divorce husband" I doubt he'd be upset.

[Themrys]

I'd go with something like the end of Mrs Doubtfire - child support/visitation rights, but not remarriage (or, in Durkon/Hilgya's case, just getting married at all).

Irreconcilable alignment differences aren't one of those things that can just be handwaved away.

And then there's the fact that Hilgya is probably still married. Because societies that force women to marry usually don't allow women to divorce, as the forcing part would be rather pointless in that case. So, getting married is not likely, unless her backstory has been retconned. Or Durkon decides to consider her previous marriage void because she didn't consent.

It'll be interesting to see what Durkon thinks of his actions back then, now.

I would be very disappointed if he had the same lame excuses people on the forums make for him.

[hamishspence]

And then there's the fact that Hilgya is probably still married. Because societies that force women to marry usually don't allow women to divorce, as the forcing part would be rather pointless in that case..

They do tend to allow men to divorce women though. Given how nice Ivan really is (going by The Giant's comments about him) then, when presented with all the facts, I think he'd cooperate.

[KorvinStarmast]

You're basically saying Hylgia's not responsible for her own actions, but Durkon is responsible for her actions, which is hypocritical in the extreme.

I get the feeling, now and again, that panel 5 is operative. However, when one guesses one has to admit that one may wrong.

[Themrys]

We don't even know that Durkon doesn't believe in divorce.

You are grasping at straws. "Go back to your husband" - those are not the words of someone who considers divorce a valid option.

"Why didn't you just divorce him?" would be the words of a clueless person from a civilised country upon hearing that a woman ran away from her husband.

Hell, even "How do I know you aren't lying about running away and he doesn't faithfully wait for you to return from your holiday trip while you cheat on him? I won't be with you unless you show me the divorce papers!" would be an option.

But no, really, you cannot argue that Durkon ever entertained the idea of her getting a divorce. It is utterly ridiculous.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Durkon, moreover, did not ask whether she was married, or even if she wanted to marry him, before having sex with her.

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.

Furthermore, Durkon, despite what you and Hilgya want to believe, was not the active participant in the process. Hilgya initiated it, pursued it, and deliberately hid information she knew would sink her chances in order to bone him. If a man lied to a women to have sex with her, what would you call that man? And why do you give Hilgya a pass when she did the same?

But Durkon is supposed to be this model of lawfulness, and I would have expected him to not have sex outside marriage in the first place if he is so very holier-than-thou and doesn't believe in divorce.

Interesting assumptions in which you must rely for Durkon to look bad.

1) You do not know and cannot assume that Durkon has a problem with sex out of wedlock. In fact, evidence in the comic is that he does not.
2) You do not know and cannot assume that Durkon has a problem with divorce.

What you do have to assume is that Durkon has a problem with being denied information crucial to making an informed decision regarding a consensual relationship. The fact that Hilgya hid said relevant information is sufficient, as far as I know, to stop calling their sex consensual.

I would, furthermore, have expected him to not have unprotected sex at all, but again, he apparently did.

I'm sorry, why is only Durkon being blamed for this? Aren't both partners responsible for ensuring safe sex? Blaming ONLY Durkon for this is quite sexist on your part.

You are grasping at straws. "Go back to your husband" - those are not the words of someone who considers divorce a valid option.

They are, if divorce requires both partners to be involved in the process. More to the point, given the reality of Dwarven marriage, divorce will involve the clans that arranged the marriage in the first place. It is not something Durkon can provide or assist with.

Grey Wolf

[Lord Joeltion]

There's only one person in this comic that can see the future and he's a kobold. Of course Durkon's not perfect and Durkon knows it. And no one has made an excuses for his inevitable responsibility once he finds out. Only you seem to be dead set on holding Durkon responsible for an event that he has no knowledge happened. It isn't like Hylgia's been hounding him the whole time to pay his child support.

Hylgia seduced Durkon. That's pretty clear. You're basically saying Hylgia's not responsible for her own actions, but Durkon is responsible for her actions, which is hypocritical in the extreme.

Not only that, but Themrys argument is both anachronistic to the comic and to our modern times. It's always expected the mother to communicate her pregnancy to the father, and it's never required the father to constantly ask her every day "did you get knocked up?" for three months every time they happen to have unprotected sex. That's nonsense.

In real life, when people have an affair both parties are expected to be open about marital status (asking is OK, but shouldn't be required) and whoever finds out first about any consequences (eg pregnancy) is expected to communicate the involved partner about it. Not the other way around. It's safe to assume for a woman or a man that if the significant other never declared being married and never communicated any meaningful findings after the deed (information about diseases or a child) it's safe to assume that the other party wasn't lying or isn't hiding any posterior knowledge that should be relevant.

In any case, I don't blame Helga Hilgya. Durkon was unnecessarily harsh on her, so it's only natural for her to try to deny him the fatherhood and also try to kill him for abandoning her (he technically did abandoned her, and also pushed her away*). People aren't usually rational, specially when feelings are involved. I hope they make peace after he is resurrected

*That doesn't mean he actually abandoned any child he had no way of knowing the existence of

[KorvinStarmast]

The fact that Hilgya hid said relevant information is sufficient, as far as I know, to stop calling their sex consensual.

I think you may have stretched the rubber band a bit too far on that one. The sex was consensual, even though Hilgya was more active comparatively in initiation. Durkon never said no. The "no means no" issue never arises.

Was his accepting her advances ... hasty? Unwise? Thinking with the second brain? Yeah.

Not consensual? Not a fair characterization.

I hope they make peace after he is resurrected

Yay, that's two votes for ...

[Themrys]

Oh, and about Hilgya not telling Durkon about her marriage?

Why would she?

I certainly don't tell men I want to have sex with about the fact that there once was this Nice Guy (TM) who wanted to be in a relationship with me, but I didn't like him, so nothing ever came of it. Which, as far as Hilgya is concerned is ALL THAT EVER HAPPENED with her husband. It is not cheating if you never agreed to be in a relationship!

If, as those who want to judge her for trying to poison her husband assert, the marriage was never consummated, then not even the real-world pope would consider it legally binding. (Not that he would, anyway, because for all I know, consent is required for a marriage to be lawful under Church law. Emotional coercion may be handwaved away, but a crossbow to the head? I don't think so)

How could Hilgya have predicted that a dwarf willing to leave the dwarven lands would be conservative enough that he would consider her marriage binding?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I think you may have stretched the rubber band a bit too far on that one. The sex was consensual, even though Hilgya was more active comparatively in initiation. Durkon never said no. The "no means no" issue never arises.

Was his accepting her advances ... hasty? Unwise? Thinking with the second brain? Yeah.

Not consensual? Not a fair characterization.

I understand that hiding information that would otherwise may have lead to a potential partner to deny sex is grounds to consider sex non-consensual. The example I had in mind, and which i kinda referenced, is the presence of an STD. "Would you still have had sex with them if they had told you they had AIDS?" being the exact case I am thinking - the answer (unsurprisingly) was "No" and I do believe that it was grounds for determining responsibility/culpability in a legal case.

Now, Hilgya could argue she didn't know it was relevant information to Durkon - that because she doesn't care, it means no-one should care. But besides ridiculously self-serving (which is par for the course, she's as self-centered as a spinning top), it is a ridiculous idea that she would not be aware of how most dwarves think of the problem, given that she grew in the culture ETA: and as joeltion points below (thanks!) she did know this might be an issue, since she did inquire in advance. So lets add hypocrisy to the list of issues, since she made sure there wouldn't be competition but denied Durkon the ability to give informed consent.

Grey Wolf

[hamishspence]

We know that the dwarven equivalent of 15 is 40.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#age

We know that Durkon is 55 now (1184?)

It's been estimated that he was born in 1129, and was kicked out of his hometown over the prophesy, in 1166.


http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...light=timeline

That means he was only 37 or so - under 15, in dwarven terms.

Basically, he's the equivalent of a human that was forced to fend for himself (before joining an adventuring party that tried to get him killed) between the ages of 14 and 20 or so.

[Fyraltari]

Yay, that's two votes for ...

Let's make it three.

[Lord Joeltion]

Oh, and about Hilgya not telling Durkon about her marriage?

Why would she?

I certainly don't tell men I want to have sex with about the fact that there once was this Nice Guy (TM) who wanted to be in a relationship with me, but I didn't like him, so nothing ever came of it. Which, as far as Hilgya is concerned is ALL THAT EVER HAPPENED with her husband. It is not cheating if you never agreed to be in a relationship!

If, as those who want to judge her for trying to poison her husband assert, the marriage was never consummated, then not even the real-world pope would consider it legally binding.

How could Hilgya have predicted that a dwarf willing to leave the dwarven lands would be conservative enough that he would consider her marriage binding?

Honestly, you are trying too hard to defend her, Themrys. Any kind of information that may be inconvenient to the other partner is expected to be disclosed. Being legally married implies other potential consequences/dangers that Durkon may prefer to avoid (retaliation from the husband family/clan, for example). It's not everything about Hilgya's feelings. In fact, Hilgya's situation is inconsequential to the fact that she lied*.

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. And to Durkon no less, who she is supposed to having "fell in love". She was in the wrongs here, and the only "sin" Durkon committed is that he was naive enough to trust her. Admittedly, it's a minor infraction, but was significant enough for Durkon to react in the way he did. If he had knew, he wouldn't have consented sex. She manipulated him.

*Which I think would be different if the husband was actually abusive and did so terrible things to her that she prefers to pretend he never existed. But we know that this is not the case, and that Hilgya is more a rebellious child than a victim of a dwarven patriarchy. For all we know, the arrangement should have been merely political and probably the husband was equally coerced, but isn't as rebellious as her

[hamishspence]

How could Hilgya have predicted that a dwarf willing to leave the dwarven lands would be conservative enough that he would consider her marriage binding?

As he points out, he was ordered to leave dwarven lands:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0084.html

(as we know now, at the equivalent of 14 in dwarven terms).

[KorvinStarmast]

(Not that he would, anyway, because for all I know, consent is required for a marriage to be lawful under Church law. Emotional coercion may be handwaved away, but a crossbow to the head? I don't think so)

You are correct. If you are interested, the law you refer to is here. (It's a dry read).
FWIW, coercion of any form IRL won't be waved away if a marriage is contested as invalid; it forms the basis for annulment. (My cousin went through that about 30 years ago. It all worked out for her, but it took a bit of time and effort).

Spoiler: what the rules say

Show

Canon Law clearly states that for a marriage to be valid in the eyes of the Church, the consent of both parties is required. Can. 1057 §1. The consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons qualified by law, makes marriage

Anyway, enough about that RL digression, the full text of the analogous rules in Dwarf Land are not as easily accessible, so we can only guess based on what we know so far.

[Fyraltari]

She did assume he felt like she does about Dwarven customs.

In her defense, the only Dwarf adventurers that we have seen (unless I'm wrong) are Durkon (special circonstance), herself (chaotic) and Kraagor (barbarian so a priori not lawful). So it seems that very few dwarves, let alone lawful dwarves travel in human lands if that is the case, Occam's razor would justify her assumption.

[Lord Joeltion]

She did assume he felt like she does about Dwarven customs.

She could have asked

Of course both made very naive assumptions. The problem is that one assumption isn't more valid than the other. But "assuming your partner isn't lying" is a risk you yourself are willing to take and that it can only hurt you, not the other. On the other hand "assuming your partner won't be bothered by X" is something that affects both of you. So, even if both are equally stupid, Hilgya was the more inconsiderate about the other's feelings. Just as Durkon was with her a couple seconds after when he dumped her broke her heart. From my perspective, both have things to excuse about.