OOTS #1106 - The Discussion Thread

[arimareiji]

Sure, that's her only stated attack on her. As I've said after one accuses another of abusive behaviour they should not be expected to describe in detail how they'd been abused to anyone [edit]nor state all the attacks they've endured[edit], unless they're talking to the cops or in a courtroom.

If I were Durkon and had no particular reason believe she were lying, I would take her description to be "gaslighting control freak"... which can be every bit as damaging as "physically abusive". Everyone's injuries heal differently, but I actually believe the majority of wounds inflicted by destroying someone's "reality" and ability to trust others are more likely to leave permanent scars than wounds inflicted by physical pain.

I don't mean to minimize any form of abuse; it's all reprehensible regardless of the outcome. But I don't think mental abuse (which we as readers know it's not) should be minimized because it doesn't leave bruises.

Yeah, but if the follow up question you ask someone who said that is "Was he being cruel to you... or does he maybe have slaves and he was being cruel to them and you couldn't bear to see them suffering so you left?" you're making this awfully complicated. Occam's razor.

Everyone is the MC of their own story. If someone describes a person as cruel and doesn't specify who received the cruelty, it's a darn good bet that they're talking about themselves.

I think Rich wrote what was intended to be an almost entirely humorous Lawful vs. Chaotic clash before comic 100 and didn't revisit it for over a thousand comics.

I'm reserving judgment on how he presents what happened and why Hilgya wants to murder Durkon, now that the comic is somewhat more serious.

Ditto. I think people are straining credibility to defend a character they care about (which is very human), but I also think it's there's a good chance it was a toss-off joke with tragic implications that the Giant may or may not have considered.

I'm curious to see where he'll go with this. Lord knows plenty of authors have mentally slipped by having their characters react as if they knew things that the author knows. But I'd be more inclined to lean towards this being an intentional example of "Everyone, including good guys, is imperfect" and "It's very human (or dwarven) to inflict misery on yourself if 'martyr' is part of your self-image".

[Necris Omega]

... I can't help but think that if V's growing genre savvy could put them back at "soul splice" levels of power and capacity if only they could overcome their inherent cynicism to the notion and move on to exploitation.

[Shining Wrath]

It's not just the pregnancy. Don't forget that Durkon knew nothing about Ivan except what Hylgia told him. So, she told him was that he was abusive and he told her to go back to him.

Durkon's response to Hilgya was, simply, that she needed to do her duty as a dwarf.

Based on what we know now of dwarven culture - the Thor-Hel bet and the honor-driven society it begat - Durkon's statement to her can be rephrased as

"Go home, and save your honor, and thereby your very soul from the clutches of Hel herself". I'm not clear on the theology, but it might be possible that Hilgya could have died in combat and still gone to Hel due to the dishonor of leaving her husband. At least possible.

If Hilgya's soul was at risk due to leaving her husband, which seems plausible - then sending her home to her husband was the most loving thing Durkon could possibly do.

Even if Ivan was going to beat her to death when she returned.

Because better a short miserable life on earth and eternity with Thor, then a long happy life on earth and eternity with Hel.

Assuming Durkon knows dwarven theology accurately (he didn't put many points in Religion), this may not be theoretical - this may in fact have been a thing which the dwarves knew for certain. After all, we know that people go to the heavens and then return (e.g., Roy), so there may very well have been at least one dwarf who went to heaven, found out his mom was in Hel's clutches even though she died in combat, because she had left her husband, and then returned to tell the tale.

People in the real world sometimes do terrible things because of religious belief. What if those religious beliefs were confirmed by people who had gone to heaven, conversed with the powers that be, and returned - and this was known to be a (relatively) routine thing?

TL; DR If Durkon knows that Hilgya goes to Hel for leaving her husband, the only choice he has both in terms of honor, AND in terms of Good, is to send her home to Ivan.

[Ornithologist]

My Theory I know will never happen, but I really want it to so bad:

It would be really funny, awkward even, if after having run away from him Ivan decided to go join a religion and changed his name to Gontor.

Points in favor: We never learned Ivan's last name. interesting coincidence

Points against: Everything else, including common sense.

[Fyraltari]

My Theory I know will never happen, but I really want it to so bad:

It would be really funny, awkward even, if after having run away from him Ivan decided to go join a religion and changed his name to Gontor.

Points in favor: We never learned Ivan's last name. interesting coincidence

Points against: Everything else, including common sense.

Wait... Gontor was provided with an arranged marriage... He is not perceptive and trusts the obviously dangerous killer...

[GreatWyrmGold]

Spoiler: Nale's Alignment and Death of the Author

Show

I've always had contempt for the "Death of Author" 'philosophy' because I strongly believe that an author has a much better position than any reader in establishing facts about their own works.

Two things.

1. Once you've written, you've written. Short of a retcon or edit, that is what you wrote, whether or not it's what you meant to write.
To take an example: When George R.R. Martin saw how tall the Wall was in Game of Thrones, he said it was too tall. He was told that it was exactly as tall as GRRM wrote it in A Song of Ice ad Fire (700 feet), to which GRRM replied that he'd written it too big. Now, should we assume that the Wall is as tall as GRRM wrote it (700 feet), or as tall as he meant to write it (probably much shorter)?
There's also a philosophical point to make here. Art (be it a brief sonnet or a years-long webcomic) is, at its heart, communication between author and audience. It might be a treatise on the nature of existence or an image of what the author thinks is cool, but it is still communicating ideas. If you believe the audience has a part in the discourse, then obviously the author isn't the be-all-end-all. But if not, then one again has to ask--if a message is not conveyed clearly, what does it mean? Does it mean what was intended, or what it said? If the Giant intended for Nale to be Neutral but did not convey that clearly, is he?
Maybe I'm just naturally disposed towards Death of the Author because of my scientific mindset, but...for something as (relatively) static as a work of art, to have its meaning and canon change with the whims and statements of the author feels deeply wrong. The meaning of a work of art should not change when the author says something new about it, unless it's a clarification or retcon or sequel or something. And it certainly shouldn't change to something not supported by the original piece.

2. The Giant didn't say "Nale is neutral," he said "This argument about Nale's alignment has merit". Whatever your position on Death of the Author, commenting on an argument means that argument can be critiqued. If the Giant thinks a flawed argument is not flawed, he is wrong. He may have the power to make the conclusion valid, but that is not the same as making the logic valid. And he didn't (directly) comment on the conclusion.

How the hell is not double checking rules or making mistakes an indicator of a very flimsy grasp or understanding of RAW?

I'm not sure, but I do see how it means the Giant does not have a better grasp of the rules than most people.

I think the whole Alignment thing is blown out of proportion. It is not a rod with which DMs can beat players into compliance, but a measure by which players can guide their characters' motivations and choices which are presumed to be different from the players'.

Which is exactly why I take Nale's word on his alignment over the word of some guy on the forums. Even if that guy is Rich.

At any rate, that is the definition I gather lies behind GreatWyrmGold's "I don't believe the author" - i.e. not because nothing Rich says ever matters, but because GWG already has an opinion based on his own reading, and does not believe Rich's words on the matter are any more authoritative than his.

Not quite.
Again, that quote isn't the Giant saying "Nale is NE". It's him supporting an argument that suggests Nale is NE, which essentially means I am disagreeing with that argument. Its support is a combination of dubious assumptions about how Nale's behavior interacts with his alignment and the Giant's approval. I don't see anyone disagreeing with me saying that the original argument is flawed, so for the moment I'll say we all agree that that is not sufficient support along.
You believe "The Giant finds this argument 'interesting'" is sufficient evidence to support the conclusion. I do not. That's it.

Unlike Malack, Tarquin, or even Redcloak, Nale doesn't strike me as very Lawful.

I'll agree that Nale isn't very Lawful, but in my book that's not the same as not being Lawful at all. He's much more Lawful than he is Chaotic (even if he has a pathological need to be on top which prevents him from working in other organizations--much the same could be said of Tarquin), and he calls himself LE.
Let me put it this way: If Nale was a character in my campaign, and his character sheet said Lawful Evil, I wouldn't tell him he had to change it, and he'd show up on Detect Law. If his character sheet said Neutral Evil, I wouldn't tell him he had to change it, and he wouldn't show up on Detect Law. He falls into a gray area, but self-identification is plenty sufficient to push him out of it.

If you deny the solidity of the meaning of the story which you are trying to discuss, then the most you can say is that "we have different experiences of this writing" and at that point someone saying 'nothing will convince you' is not only not insulting, but is true beyond doubt.

You are wrong.
I referenced the debate between Nye and Ham earlier, which I hope doesn't count as discussing real-world religion. One of the most famous bits is where they were both asked what it would take to change their mind. Nye said evidence would change his mind, Ham said nothing would change his.
I am not Ken Ham, and I am insulted when someone ascribes to me that trait of his which I hate. I am (metaphorically) Bill Nye, which is an extremely unusual statement. If I saw evidence which showed Nale as being Neutral Evil, I would accept it. Believe it or not, an unequivocal statement that he is NE would count.
But we don't have that. We have him supporting an argument that Nale doesn't act "Lawful" enough. I do not agree with the logic of the argument (as explained before), so I do not find the argument convincing, even with the Giant calling it "interesting". Even if "interesting" is probably supposed to be a hint.

I'm going to say I find it unlikely that a guy who co-authored several WotC published 3.5 D&D books doesn't know the 3.5 rules well. Very, very, very unlikely.

Then explain the Truenamer. Or, for that matter, this entire thread.
Incidentally, your argument that Rich knows D&D is, essentially, "An author is the best authority for what he writes". A basic understanding of logic should see the error in using such an argument to ultimately support the conclusion that Rich's statements on his work should be taken as ultimate authority.

If the author literally says "My intention is X" and you say "I don't believe you," I think it's quite reasonable to conclude you're not going to believe any argument from someone who has far less knowledge of the intent behind the comic than the author himself.

First: The author didn't say that. He implied it, but by agreeing with a flawed argument. If he had agreed with a sound argument, or said something explicitly, or--you know--actually written Nale as clearly-not-Lawful, I would believe that he isn't Lawful.

I don't have contempt for it, but when the work is ongoing and the author specifically says "I did X for Y reason," I'm not going to say, "Yeah, you're wrong about your own intentions."

I think it should be clear by now that I care little about intentions, save in how they are communicated through the text.

I don't know about you, but where I'm from "screw you" is a far greater insult than "nothing will be convincing to you".

You choose to interpret it as an insult (and, as SilverCacaobean points out, insult me far worse in kind with no actual point to doing so).

"Screw you": "I don't like you"
"Nothing will be convincing to you": "You are closed-minded"
How is the first worse than the second?

To put it another way: "Screw you" is what a disorderly drunk says to a police officer. (Among other situations, but you get the idea." "Nothing will be convincing to you" is what Bill Nye says to Ken Ham. (Well, it's more what Ham said about himself, but I really hope you get the idea.)

It's not just the pregnancy. Don't forget that Durkon knew nothing about Ivan except what Hylgia told him. So, she told him was that he was abusive and he told her to go back to him.

That's a very Lawful action. Not especially good, but given how vague Hilgya was*, it doesn't seem evil.
Not that every action a character takes has to perfectly align with their alignment. (See: Nale's alleged not-Lawful-enough-ness.)

*IIRC, she said she was miserable, and made only vague comments about his behavior, which could probably be interpreted as "they don't have any chemistry, but dammit, they're married".

Some more thoughts on this. I have a theory about why he reacted like that. Durkon has been miserable for a great part of his life because he's very dutiful. Hylgia's belief of putting her own happiness above her duty was a danger to not only his belief system, but also to what his actions have amounted to, all his years of respecting his own exile. So acknowledging the validity of what Hylgia believes is also acknowledging that all his years spent away from his home were for nothing. Since he has invested so much in them he's not ready to do that so he makes himself even more lawful.

Huh. That fits pretty well. Didn't he say you should do your duty especially if it makes ye miserable?
Not to mention that it fits well with honor/duty being a "fatal flaw" in Durkon. He made himself and someone he cared about miserable, and ultimately got a cleric out to kill him, because he didn't want to admit that his decision might have been wrong.

... I can't help but think that if V's growing genre savvy could put them back at "soul splice" levels of power and capacity if only they could overcome their inherent cynicism to the notion and move on to exploitation.

I wouldn't be surprised if she was reluctant to use that kind of power on principle. (I mean...it does have a disturbingly Elan-ish tint...)

[a1chemi]

TL; DR If Durkon knows that Hilgya goes to Hel for leaving her husband, the only choice he has both in terms of honor, AND in terms of Good, is to send her home to Ivan.

Where in the strip has it ever implied at all that she would go to Hel for leaving her husband?

The specific deal is that those dwarves who die with honor go to Thor. An honorable death is a death in battle, based on the same comic where Durkon relates these rules, and every comic where they are discussed (Eugene wants all the dwarves to charge a dragon or split up and squeeze in a civil war).

As an adventurer she is almost guaranteed to die in battle. If she goes back and is murdered for betraying her family she's quite certain to go to Hel.

[arimareiji]

Some more thoughts on this. I have a theory about why he reacted like that. Durkon has been miserable for a great part of his life because he's very dutiful. Hylgia's belief of putting her own happiness above her duty was a danger to not only his belief system, but also to what his actions have amounted to, all his years of respecting his own exile. So acknowledging the validity of what Hylgia believes is also acknowledging that all his years spent away from his home were for nothing. Since he has invested so much in them he's not ready to do that so he makes himself even more lawful.

So, I guess that makes him sunk-cost fallacy guy #2. It pushes him to become more and more lawful to justify to himself all the sacrifices he's made to follow an order from his high priest that to him must look arbitrary and cruel.

Quite so. I just hope he finds a better end than Inspector Javert (Les Miserables).

An arguably-related comic, though I suspect everyone will see what they want to from it: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1087.html

[Ruck]

Spoiler: Nale's Alignment and Death of the Author

Show

Two things.

1. Once you've written, you've written. Short of a retcon or edit, that is what you wrote, whether or not it's what you meant to write.
To take an example: When George R.R. Martin saw how tall the Wall was in Game of Thrones, he said it was too tall. He was told that it was exactly as tall as GRRM wrote it in A Song of Ice ad Fire (700 feet), to which GRRM replied that he'd written it too big. Now, should we assume that the Wall is as tall as GRRM wrote it (700 feet), or as tall as he meant to write it (probably much shorter)?
There's also a philosophical point to make here. Art (be it a brief sonnet or a years-long webcomic) is, at its heart, communication between author and audience. It might be a treatise on the nature of existence or an image of what the author thinks is cool, but it is still communicating ideas. If you believe the audience has a part in the discourse, then obviously the author isn't the be-all-end-all. But if not, then one again has to ask--if a message is not conveyed clearly, what does it mean? Does it mean what was intended, or what it said? If the Giant intended for Nale to be Neutral but did not convey that clearly, is he?
Maybe I'm just naturally disposed towards Death of the Author because of my scientific mindset, but...for something as (relatively) static as a work of art, to have its meaning and canon change with the whims and statements of the author feels deeply wrong. The meaning of a work of art should not change when the author says something new about it, unless it's a clarification or retcon or sequel or something. And it certainly shouldn't change to something not supported by the original piece.

2. The Giant didn't say "Nale is neutral," he said "This argument about Nale's alignment has merit". Whatever your position on Death of the Author, commenting on an argument means that argument can be critiqued. If the Giant thinks a flawed argument is not flawed, he is wrong. He may have the power to make the conclusion valid, but that is not the same as making the logic valid. And he didn't (directly) comment on the conclusion.



I'm not sure, but I do see how it means the Giant does not have a better grasp of the rules than most people.



Which is exactly why I take Nale's word on his alignment over the word of some guy on the forums. Even if that guy is Rich.



Not quite.
Again, that quote isn't the Giant saying "Nale is NE". It's him supporting an argument that suggests Nale is NE, which essentially means I am disagreeing with that argument. Its support is a combination of dubious assumptions about how Nale's behavior interacts with his alignment and the Giant's approval. I don't see anyone disagreeing with me saying that the original argument is flawed, so for the moment I'll say we all agree that that is not sufficient support along.
You believe "The Giant finds this argument 'interesting'" is sufficient evidence to support the conclusion. I do not. That's it.



I'll agree that Nale isn't very Lawful, but in my book that's not the same as not being Lawful at all. He's much more Lawful than he is Chaotic (even if he has a pathological need to be on top which prevents him from working in other organizations--much the same could be said of Tarquin), and he calls himself LE.
Let me put it this way: If Nale was a character in my campaign, and his character sheet said Lawful Evil, I wouldn't tell him he had to change it, and he'd show up on Detect Law. If his character sheet said Neutral Evil, I wouldn't tell him he had to change it, and he wouldn't show up on Detect Law. He falls into a gray area, but self-identification is plenty sufficient to push him out of it.


You are wrong.
I referenced the debate between Nye and Ham earlier, which I hope doesn't count as discussing real-world religion. One of the most famous bits is where they were both asked what it would take to change their mind. Nye said evidence would change his mind, Ham said nothing would change his.
I am not Ken Ham, and I am insulted when someone ascribes to me that trait of his which I hate. I am (metaphorically) Bill Nye, which is an extremely unusual statement. If I saw evidence which showed Nale as being Neutral Evil, I would accept it. Believe it or not, an unequivocal statement that he is NE would count.
But we don't have that. We have him supporting an argument that Nale doesn't act "Lawful" enough. I do not agree with the logic of the argument (as explained before), so I do not find the argument convincing, even with the Giant calling it "interesting". Even if "interesting" is probably supposed to be a hint.



Then explain the Truenamer. Or, for that matter, this entire thread.
Incidentally, your argument that Rich knows D&D is, essentially, "An author is the best authority for what he writes". A basic understanding of logic should see the error in using such an argument to ultimately support the conclusion that Rich's statements on his work should be taken as ultimate authority.



First: The author didn't say that. He implied it, but by agreeing with a flawed argument. If he had agreed with a sound argument, or said something explicitly, or--you know--actually written Nale as clearly-not-Lawful, I would believe that he isn't Lawful.


I think it should be clear by now that I care little about intentions, save in how they are communicated through the text.

"Screw you": "I don't like you"
"Nothing will be convincing to you": "You are closed-minded"
How is the first worse than the second?

To put it another way: "Screw you" is what a disorderly drunk says to a police officer. (Among other situations, but you get the idea." "Nothing will be convincing to you" is what Bill Nye says to Ken Ham. (Well, it's more what Ham said about himself, but I really hope you get the idea.)

One's a conclusion based in observation and evidence, one which I went out of my way to explain (again: If the author of the story telling you something about his intentions doesn't convince you, why would anyone else be able to?), and the other is the verbal equivalent of a middle finger.

Just remember that you're the one who came up with the metaphor comparing yourself to Ken Ham, not me.

(EDIT: In fact, to use your Ham analogy, this would be like the following exchange happened:

BILL NYE: These fossil records show that evolution is real.
GOD: Interesting, that, don't you think?
KEN HAM: Nope, not convinced.

For all intents and purposes, Rich Burlew is the god of the OOTS universe, so if his own statements aren't enough to get you to re-think something, then no, I don't believe any reader of the comic will come up with something that will.)

[KorvinStarmast]

Then the next strip's joke is that Durkon answered her Chaotic Crazy with Lawful Crazy.

You're doing it again, attempting to insert your opinion as fact. (Again, any of us can fall for this).

Durkon responded with "Dwarf Honorable" not "Lawful Crazy.'

I think I can find you the comment Rich made about that development thing, I seem to recall that as well.

--- Edit, I think this is what you may be referring to ---

After leading in with his point that he could do laughs in the strip, he wanted to see if he could so sorrow. Could he evoke tears from his readers? page 102 of the pdf, p. 74 of DCF:

I had already touched on the idea of alignment differences coming between two people back in strip #50 with Elan’s parents. There I played it for laughs, but now I decided to show what it would really be like to discover that the person with whom you were intimate had an opposing alignment. I was confined by the time and space factors of an ongoing dungeon crawl, but I think it turned out pretty good.
Since we already knew Durkon was somewhat passive from his lack of strong identity within the group, I decided to make Hilgya be the “aggressor” in the relationship. They don’t realize, however, that while opposites attract, they can’t always make it work. She’s carelessly self-centered while Durkon is loyally dedicated to others. Her treatment of her husband appalls him while his judgmental scorn offends her. They have no choice but to “break up,” and Durkon—ever the dutiful one—takes responsibility and sends Hilgya away.

That does not come across as Lawful Crazy; that's your value judgment based on, well, I am not sure what.

[GreatWyrmGold]

One's a conclusion based in observation and evidence, one which I went out of my way to explain (again: If the author of the story telling you something about his intentions doesn't convince you, why would anyone else be able to?), and the other is the verbal equivalent of a middle finger.

Again: Rich didn't say anything about his intentions. Again: If Rich had, I would change my opinion.
Also again: I've repeatedly made it clear that I value evidence from within a work more highly than authorial statements outside said work. If you still can't think of anything that might convince me when an authorial statement from outside said work, then I am clearly putting far more effort into each sentence of this paragraph than you are into your entire post.

Also: I still don't see why a middle finger should be more insulting than, you know, an actual insult.

Just remember that you're the one who came up with the metaphor comparing yourself to Ken Ham, not me.

Oh, sure, if you ignore the context, I compared myself to Ken Ham. And also said I wasn't Ken Ham. Weird. It's almost as if that context was ****ing important!
The analogy was an attempt to explain why I was so pissed off when people say I wouldn't change my mind. I wasn't comparing myself to Ken Ham, I was explaining that "You won't be convinced by anything" was ascribing such a trait to whoever you say can't be convinced by anything!

[Bob_McSurly]

My Theory I know will never happen, but I really want it to so bad:

It would be really funny, awkward even, if after having run away from him Ivan decided to go join a religion and changed his name to Gontor.

Points in favor: We never learned Ivan's last name. interesting coincidence

Points against: Everything else, including common sense.

I actually came up with that theory a while ago. I can't find the exact post though. Anyway, glad to see I'm not the only one who thought of this.

[Lethologica]

Without commenting on the larger conversation behind this point:

1. Once you've written, you've written. Short of a retcon or edit, that is what you wrote, whether or not it's what you meant to write.
To take an example: When George R.R. Martin saw how tall the Wall was in Game of Thrones, he said it was too tall. He was told that it was exactly as tall as GRRM wrote it in A Song of Ice ad Fire (700 feet), to which GRRM replied that he'd written it too big. Now, should we assume that the Wall is as tall as GRRM wrote it (700 feet), or as tall as he meant to write it (probably much shorter)?

The best answer is to keep both in mind. Otherwise you'll get confused if the wall behaves as if it's the height the author meant it to be elsewhere in the text. For example, say GRRM meant the Wall to be 70 feet tall, and at some point had someone at the base of the wall hit someone atop the wall with a thrown rock. While it's fun to think about the fantastic exaggeration of hitting someone 700 feet up, and the implications thereof, it's useful to know that that's not what was intended, in order to understand the inconsistency with displays of human strength elsewhere in the story.

[Gluteus_Maximus]

In case no one has made this connection yet...

It's a running joke that evil characters will replace elements of a good character's name with related ones. Xykon calls Roy Bluepommel and Redblade, and Tarquin also says to Elan that it would be easy to find some new adventurers in a random inn somewhere, including a guy named Redblade.

Let's break down the transformation from Greenhilt to Redblade.
-The first change is the color, from Green to Red.
-The other change is the sword vocabulary, from Hilt to Blade.

Now, the connection is Durkon to Hilgya... and Tarquin joked a guy named Redblade to show how replaceable Roy is. Now they're replacing Durkon (temporarily) with Hilgya.
Durkon's last name is Thundershield, and Hilgya's last name is Firehelm.
Changing the classical element in their names, Thunder to Fire,
And the armor vocabulary from Shield to Helm.

Has Hilgya been intended to be a replacement of Durkon all along?

[georgie_leech]

In case no one has made this connection yet...

It's a running joke that evil characters will replace elements of a good character's name with related ones. Xykon calls Roy Bluepommel and Redblade, and Tarquin also says to Elan that it would be easy to find some new adventurers in a random inn somewhere, including a guy named Redblade.

Let's break down the transformation from Greenhilt to Redblade.
-The first change is the color, from Green to Red.
-The other change is the sword vocabulary, from Hilt to Blade.

Now, the connection is Durkon to Hilgya... and Tarquin joked a guy named Redblade to show how replaceable Roy is. Now they're replacing Durkon (temporarily) with Hilgya.
Durkon's last name is Thundershield, and Hilgya's last name is Firehelm.
Changing the classical element in their names, Thunder to Fire,
And the armor vocabulary from Shield to Helm.

Has Hilgya been intended to be a replacement of Durkon all along?

Right, and obviously Nale was a backup Elan. I mean, the only way they could have made it more obvious was if his name was Elan the Second.

[Sinewmire]

Maybe Hilgya has learned the spell "Summon Exposition" and Durkon *did* see how "horrible and cruel" Ivan was.

[factotum]

I don't have contempt for it, but when the work is ongoing and the author specifically says "I did X for Y reason," I'm not going to say, "Yeah, you're wrong about your own intentions."

I may be wrong, but I don't think Death of the Author was ever intended to ignore an author's stated intentions when interpreting their work? It was just supposed to ignore the author's politics, religion, ethnicity etc.

[Kardwill]

Yeah, if the author of the story making a very clear insinuation that Nale didn't exactly live up to his stated alignment is something you "don't find convincing," then absolutely nothing will be convincing to you.

On the other hand, "not living up to your alignment" doesn't mean you're not of this alignment, apparently. Just look at Eugen Greenhilt, who failed miserably at being either lawful or good (at least in comic).
I fail to remember even ONE instance of LG behavior from Eugene, both present day (impersonates an Angel to con paladins, belittles his son for not succeeding where he failed, plays favorite, acts constantly like a jerk) and in flashbacks (Performs dangerous experiments that end up killing his youngest son but never takes responsibility for it, get a blood oath only because he was on a drunken stupor, then abandon said blood oath without thinking out the consequances...).
The man is an irresponsible, egoistic mess, and yet, he's still waiting in front of the LG paradise.

So Giant's comment may have been hinting that Nale was wrong when he said he's lawful, or that he was a very bad example of lawfulness despite all his gloating about his perfect plans and ordered ways.

[B. Dandelion]

Durkon's response to Hilgya was, simply, that she needed to do her duty as a dwarf.

Based on what we know now of dwarven culture - the Thor-Hel bet and the honor-driven society it begat - Durkon's statement to her can be rephrased as

"Go home, and save your honor, and thereby your very soul from the clutches of Hel herself". I'm not clear on the theology, but it might be possible that Hilgya could have died in combat and still gone to Hel due to the dishonor of leaving her husband. At least possible.

If Hilgya's soul was at risk due to leaving her husband, which seems plausible - then sending her home to her husband was the most loving thing Durkon could possibly do.

Even if Ivan was going to beat her to death when she returned.

Because better a short miserable life on earth and eternity with Thor, then a long happy life on earth and eternity with Hel.

Assuming Durkon knows dwarven theology accurately (he didn't put many points in Religion), this may not be theoretical - this may in fact have been a thing which the dwarves knew for certain. After all, we know that people go to the heavens and then return (e.g., Roy), so there may very well have been at least one dwarf who went to heaven, found out his mom was in Hel's clutches even though she died in combat, because she had left her husband, and then returned to tell the tale.

People in the real world sometimes do terrible things because of religious belief. What if those religious beliefs were confirmed by people who had gone to heaven, conversed with the powers that be, and returned - and this was known to be a (relatively) routine thing?

TL; DR If Durkon knows that Hilgya goes to Hel for leaving her husband, the only choice he has both in terms of honor, AND in terms of Good, is to send her home to Ivan.

I don't think this is accurate to how it works, no.

Second, no, because the 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.

(Bolding mine)

They couldn't really have that hope if acting dishonorably prior to their death counted against them. Unless it was an incorrect and misguided hope -- but I think it's clear that's not what's being suggested. The dwarves, knowing that they go to Hel unless they die honorably, set up their society to be extremely honor-bound so as to maximize the chances of dying with honor. They condition their people to leap into action even knowing it might mean their death. But the only thing that counts in the end is the death itself, not the life lived before it.

Saying Durkon was trying to help Hilgya avoid Hel's clutches by sending her back to her husband... I get the motive, and I certainly think Durkon's character has been established as thoroughly Good enough that he should be the beneficiary of whatever reasonable doubt there might be. But this is an invented altruistic motive that goes against what we know already to be truth and was never a part of Durkon's actual stated motive in the first place. Dwarven society is set up the way it is as a means to an end. The means aren't all bad, and Durkon has respect for them, even when they've screwed him over. But all of it is the end result of scheming by gods who are aloof at best and malevolent at worst. To say that Hilgya's salvation from Hel would have ever been helped by submission to her arranged marriage is to fail to see the bigger picture in the sole hopes of making Durkon look better.

[a1chemi]

You're doing it again, attempting to insert your opinion as fact. (Again, any of us can fall for this).

Durkon responded with "Dwarf Honorable" not "Lawful Crazy.'

I think I can find you the comment Rich made about that development thing, I seem to recall that as well.

--- Edit, I think this is what you may be referring to ---

After leading in with his point that he could do laughs in the strip, he wanted to see if he could so sorrow. Could he evoke tears from his readers? page 102 of the pdf, p. 74 of DCF:
That does not come across as Lawful Crazy; that's your value judgment based on, well, I am not sure what.

I agree that it's not really lawful crazy (and Hilgya wasn't chaotic crazy), but I don't think it's really the standard dwarf honor either.

We've seen through the flashbacks, and especially Sigdi's interaction with her friends, that Durkon has an extremely strong sense of honor at the expense of self that other dwarves don't share, and even criticize.

I think he'll have a much different outlook on this given his recent character developments from being ridden around like a stagecoach and reliving his memories.

[SilverCacaobean]

I don't know about the expectation part, Hligya pretty much states what Durkon would have a problem with at the end there.

Oh, I'm not sure about the expectation either. I just wasn't expecting what actually happened when I read that.

<snip>

You've quoted me incorrectly about death of the author.

I also never said that Durkons actions were Evil, just that they were not Good. This could make them neutral, just completely irrelevant to Good and Evil. It's pretty clear he was only thinking about law when he said those things.

<snip>

I'm not really defending anyone in your quotes... Nor did I say anything about physical abuse. In fact, I agree that abuse doesn't have to be physical at all. All in all, I pretty much agree with you. So i don't see why you quoted me... Unless you quoted me to agree with me...? I also hope he gets a better end than Inspector Javert

You're doing it again, attempting to insert your opinion as fact. (Again, any of us can fall for this).

I'm not saying it's a fact, I'm just describing how I read the strip. I'm not sure at all I read it correctly.

Durkon responded with "Dwarf Honorable" not "Lawful Crazy.'

I think I can find you the comment Rich made about that development thing, I seem to recall that as well.

--- Edit, I think this is what you may be referring to ---

After leading in with his point that he could do laughs in the strip, he wanted to see if he could so sorrow. Could he evoke tears from his readers? page 102 of the pdf, p. 74 of DCF:
That does not come across as Lawful Crazy; that's your value judgment based on, well, I am not sure what.

Thanks, that's the quote probably. Again, it's my judgement, not a fact. It's a discussion and I'm stating how I read that.

To elaborate more, I'm calling it "Lawful Crazy" because he says that being a dwarf is about doing your duty especially if it makes you miserable. That's a bit excessive. Hylgia disregarded everyone else when it came to her own happiness and Durkon in contrast was ready to destroy himself completely to do his duty. At the time I read that, we had no context about the bet between Thor and Hel, so it looked arbitrary.

EDIT: Oh, I also used the terms Lawful Crazy and Chaotic Crazy as comedic hyperbole. See? I know what it is.

[Shining Wrath]

Where in the strip has it ever implied at all that she would go to Hel for leaving her husband?

The specific deal is that those dwarves who die with honor go to Thor. An honorable death is a death in battle, based on the same comic where Durkon relates these rules, and every comic where they are discussed (Eugene wants all the dwarves to charge a dragon or split up and squeeze in a civil war).

As an adventurer she is almost guaranteed to die in battle. If she goes back and is murdered for betraying her family she's quite certain to go to Hel.

As an example, if a random dwarf were caught robbing the temple where they worked, and died fighting the guards, would that count as honorable? You die in battle, but you were betraying a trust at the time. Or (ick) a dwarf is molesting a child, gets caught, and the parent bashes the molester's head in. Is that an "honorable" death?

I admit we haven't been told this, in comic. What we have been told is that dwarves have the most honor-bound society on the planet. But think about it. If all that's required is death in combat, honor most of the time is irrelevant - the dwarves would be better off if they did nothing but pick fights with one another. In fact, a society where people regularly gave offense sufficient to fight duels to the death would be just peachy. That doesn't seem to be the case.

I hypothesize that death in combat is necessary but not sufficient. The rest of your life also matters; that's why they have such a rigid society.

[BrolySSG]

I wonder where was Hilgya when she learned Durkon's location. Was she at Dwarven lands or elsewhere?
She arrived in one day... Did she windwalk? Or just walked underground?
If she was in Dwarven lands taking care of Durkson then it means her Husband and her clan have learned about here son... Did she divorse? Was she expelled from her clan? All the more reasons to get her revenge...

[a1chemi]

As an example, if a random dwarf were caught robbing the temple where they worked, and died fighting the guards, would that count as honorable? You die in battle, but you were betraying a trust at the time. Or (ick) a dwarf is molesting a child, gets caught, and the parent bashes the molester's head in. Is that an "honorable" death?

I hypothesize that death in combat is necessary but not sufficient. The rest of your life also matters; that's why they have such a rigid society.

The first part yes I agree. The circumstances around your death probably matter, but leaving the husband you were forced to marry is hardly in a league with any of those, and I doubt it would count as part of how she dies in the end.

The rest of their life can't matter at all, or else Hel could not expect to collect the souls of every dwarf, if any at all. She specifically said that if the world is destroyed there is no honor in that death for any dwarf and she gets all of them.

Loki's exception to her command of all dwarf souls is "those who die with honor". If Hel is wrong about how this works, it wouldn't make any sense and there would be quite a bit less at stake in the conflict.

[Dr.Zero]

As an example, if a random dwarf were caught robbing the temple where they worked, and died fighting the guards, would that count as honorable? You die in battle, but you were betraying a trust at the time. Or (ick) a dwarf is molesting a child, gets caught, and the parent bashes the molester's head in. Is that an "honorable" death?

I admit we haven't been told this, in comic. What we have been told is that dwarves have the most honor-bound society on the planet. But think about it. If all that's required is death in combat, honor most of the time is irrelevant - the dwarves would be better off if they did nothing but pick fights with one another. In fact, a society where people regularly gave offense sufficient to fight duels to the death would be just peachy. That doesn't seem to be the case.

I hypothesize that death in combat is necessary but not sufficient. The rest of your life also matters; that's why they have such a rigid society.

I don't know for sure about "trust", but if the requirement to have a honorable death had been in the likes of "respect authority, traditions and laws for your whole life" (and not only to die bravely during a fight), then Loki would have constructed the most Lawful society possible.
Which is a kinda bizarre outcome, for a god of Chaos (not completely impossible, being him the god of trickery, but still strange).

Moreover the examples are a bit out of topic: Hilgya didn't molest a child, but broke the laws of traditions. I don't think that to prove A -> B the line of reasoning "maybe C -> B, so maybe A -> B, too" is the best way to proceed, if A and C are not clearly related.

Finally, to add the frosting to the cake, we ourselves have plenty of "honorable deaths" tropes which are related exclusively to "the fight where you die". I could cite many manga/anime (dear god, practically every single shonen) where the worst things done are immediately forgotten as long as during the final fight the evil guy fights honorably (like: refusing help from a third part, giving the hero a fair chance, of just being a worthy and strong adversary).

[BrolySSG]

The dwarves' afterlife system is easier than you theorized

If you die without honor (ie. disease) then that dwarf soul goes to Hel
Then if you die with honor, while fighting, anything, then you go to your aligment afterlife

Using the same examples
If a Rogue dwarf, let's say Chaotic neutral, dies while fighting the forces of good then he goes to Chaotic neutral afterlife
If a Neutral evil molester dwarf dies while fighting the victim's father, then he goes to NE afterlife, perhaps Daemons' domains or some evil god if northern gods have a NE god then that dwarf goes to that afterlife.

That's why Hel is so pissed about Loki's deal with her... Most of the dwarves die with honor, despite their aligments or daily actions... Dwarves, lawful, neutral, Chaotic, good and even evil ones, die fighting, or by liver diseases, Odin praise those brave livers fighting for decades the inevitable

[GreatWyrmGold]

Maybe Hilgya has learned the spell "Summon Exposition" and Durkon *did* see how "horrible and cruel" Ivan was.

That sounds like a bard-only spell. I wonder what kind of prestige class she would need for that...

I also never said that Durkons actions were Evil, just that they were not Good.

Ah. Then we're in agreement.

[Dr.Zero]

The dwarves' afterlife system is easier than you theorized

If you die without honor (ie. disease) then that dwarf soul goes to Hel
Then if you die with honor, while fighting, anything, then you go to your aligment afterlife

Using the same examples
If a Rogue dwarf, let's say Chaotic neutral, dies while fighting the forces of good then he goes to Chaotic neutral afterlife
If a Neutral evil molester dwarf dies while fighting the victim's father, then he goes to NE afterlife, perhaps Daemons' domains or some evil god if northern gods have a NE god then that dwarf goes to that afterlife.

That's why Hel is so pissed about Loki's deal with her... Most of the dwarves die with honor, despite their aligments or daily actions... Dwarves, lawful, neutral, Chaotic, good and even evil ones, die fighting, or by liver diseases, Odin praise those brave livers fighting for decades the inevitable

Exactly, and here the strip where Durkon explains it (last panel, penultimate row; first panel, last row) http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html

[Sylian]

That sounds like a bard-only spell. I wonder what kind of prestige class she would need for that...

Perhaps Loki grants a hypothetical "Drama" domain? That would explain why she wanted to make a dramatic entrance, too.

(Note: I don't actually think she used "Summon Plot Exposition".)

[GreatWyrmGold]

Perhaps Loki grants a hypothetical "Drama" domain? That would explain why she wanted to make a dramatic entrance, too.

(Note: I don't actually think she used "Summon Plot Exposition".)

(Neither do I, but we don't have to be serious here.)
Sounds more like Bragi's domain to me.