"I was told someone here needed help..."

[Fish]

"...murdering Durkon Thundershield," says Hilgya.

Told by whom? Who told Hilgya about this? How, when?

I scanned the first 10 pages of the thread and didn't see anyone addressing this. What does this mean?

Furthermore, who could have told Hilgya this? And who would have?

[Chronos]

It could have been Loki, who we know is on the "save the world" side of the voting, and is just the sort to bend the rules a little to meddle. We know, after all, that the gods can talk directly to their priests when it suits them.

[Deliverance]

"...murdering Durkon Thundershield," says Hilgya.

Told by whom? Who told Hilgya about this? How, when?

I scanned the first 10 pages of the thread and didn't see anyone addressing this. What does this mean?

Furthermore, who could have told Hilgya this? And who would have?
I haven't read the 1105 thread, but Loki struck me as the obvious suspect and if this is not being discussed in the 1105 thread I guess I'm not alone in that.

But it is a good question. Loki is not only top of my list of suspects, he is the list of suspects. Who else would a) know her, b) know where Durkon is, c) know enough about her and Durkon to point her in Durkon's direction, d) Be able to inform her? The only other possible contenders I can think of are Hel, Hel's Durkon vampire, and Thor - and at most they know of her, Thor having seen her with Durkon and Hel&Co from Durkon's memories (and that's besides Hel&Cod not having a motive for telling her). I just don't see any of the three as viable candidates.

No, it has got to be the God who has her direct line and who has every reason to intervene, Loki. Either directly or indirectly. If not, I can't wait to see what explanation the Giant has cooked up. :smallsmile:

EDIT: Yendor (a few posts below) posits Sabine on behalf of the IFCC, Hilgja being an ex-pawn and knowing Sabine... Now I'm jealous - I like that idea even better than Loki telling Hilgja as it suits their behind-the-scenes manipulation perfectly, so my list now reads: "1. Sabine, 2. Loki".

[Fish]

Who else [but Loki] would a) know her, b) know where Durkon was, and c) know enough about her and Durkon to point her in Durkon's direction?
I grant you a) and b), but c) is not warranted. The person who told Hilgya need only have said, "There's a dwarf by the name of Durkon Thundershield who must be stopped, and this is where he is." They didn't need to know her personal backstory in order to tell her that much. If there's a c) then it's that the person must know that there are other people here trying to kill Durkon. The elements of the quote are "someone needed help," "here," and "murdering Durkon Thundershield." Who, where, what.

I was going to go with one of the priests at the Godsmoot, personally; that seems like a likely place to start. There are a lot of clerics there, from every pantheon, who heard the name of Durkon and saw personally what he (and Hel) were doing.

Loki is a possible suspect. The whole idea of Thor vs Loki has been going on during the whole strip; perhaps Durkon and Hilgya are the agents of reconciliation between the two. Who knows? Anyway, let's call Loki suspect #1.

I would call one of the temple priests suspect #2.

If I had to name suspect #3, I'd have to think about it. It doesn't seem likely that anybody else knows all three elements of who, where, and what, all together.

[Jasdoif]

I was going to go with one of the priests at the Godsmoot, personally; that seems like a likely place to start. There are a lot of clerics there, from every pantheon, who heard the name of Durkon and saw personally what he (and Hel) were doing.It's possible communication isn't actually blocked (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1023.html), but I wouldn't put any bets on it.

[Deliverance]

I grant you a) and b), but c) is not warranted. The person who told Hilgya need only have said, "There's a dwarf by the name of Durkon Thundershield who must be stopped, and this is where he is." They didn't need to know her personal backstory in order to tell her that much. If there's a c) then it's that the person must know that there are other people here trying to kill Durkon. The elements of the quote are "someone needed help," "here," and "murdering Durkon Thundershield." Who, where, what.

Good point.

[Yendor]

"...murdering Durkon Thundershield," says Hilgya.

Told by whom? Who told Hilgya about this? How, when?

I scanned the first 10 pages of the thread and didn't see anyone addressing this. What does this mean?

Furthermore, who could have told Hilgya this? And who would have?

I suggested it was Sabine. The IFCC should be monitoring the situation, and Hilgya was one of their Linear Guild pawns, so it seems likely they could bring her in to disrupt a plan which likely conflicts with their own.

[Deliverance]

I suggested it was Sabine. The IFCC should be monitoring the situation, and Hilgya was one of their Linear Guild pawns, so it seems likely they could bring her in to disrupt a plan which likely conflicts with their own.
I like that idea; Never thought of that.

[Jasdoif]

I suggested it was Sabine. The IFCC should be monitoring the situation, and Hilgya was one of their Linear Guild pawns, so it seems likely they could bring her in to disrupt a plan which likely conflicts with their own.Hilgya was crossed off of their graphical list of pawns (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0668.html)...though Sabine probably could still make a convincing case out of it. Might explain the "murder" aspect.

[Fish]

Sabine is a possibility, because we know the IFCC does like to interfere with things, and they do know her (and that she'd be likely to go).

I personally don't like the idea of Loki, because it seems to break the non-interference thing the gods have going on with respect to the Gates.

The priests in the Godsmoot are a possibility because nobody said that magical communication was used to contact someone (although admittedly in this world this is likely). They shouted through the barrier to someone outside, so not all communication is blocked; and we don't know if the field was dropped for some reason, due to a change in the vote circumstances. Not very likely but not impossible.

Who else could have known about this particular need at this time and place, had the ability, had the motivation, and knew Hilgya?

Eugene might have the knowledge, might know who Hilgya is from his vantage point, probably has the motivation, doesn't have the power

Tarquin's gang has the ability, probably doesn't have the knowledge (although they've got a Gate and might have discovered there's a threat), motivation questionable (Tarquin would pursue Elan, not Durkon)... knows Hilgya? can't rule it out

Anyone from the Mechane, including Julio Scoundrél, has the knowledge, probably has the motivation, probably doesn't have the ability

[Fish]

I'm revising my list of requirements:

a) knew where Durkon would be ("someone here ...")
b) knew there was a team who needed help killing him ("...needed help...")
c) had the ability to contact Hilgya / knew Hilgya / could plausibly be in contact with her ("I was told...")
d) has the motivation to send somebody after Durkon

Nothing in that statement suggests knowledge of the Gates, of Durkon's mission, of his vampiric status, or the presence of the rest of the Order.

So, other possibilities:

The Oracle told her that she needed to be here, and here now, to help someone kill Durkon. Plausible. If she went to the Oracle and asked, the Oracle would definitely have a), b), and c), and Hilgya could supply d).

Malack. It's distantly, remotely possible that he left a message for someone. Unlikely; he wouldn't know Durkon would be here, specifically, or that a team would be after him at that very moment.

[Yendor]

Hilgya was crossed off of their graphical list of pawns (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0668.html)
True, but that didn't stop them making use of Zz'dtri.

Hilgya wasn't listed on Nale's Wanted poster (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0715.html), so it appears she wasn't known to Tarquin.

[Fyraltari]

Hilgya was crossed off of their graphical list of pawns (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0668.html)...though Sabine probably could still make a convincing case out of it. Might explain the "murder" aspect.
So was Z.


I personally don't like the idea of Loki, because it seems to break the non-interference thing the gods have going on with respect to the Gates.

Ah but Loki is Chaotic Evil, to play with the leter of the rules is what he does.
Besides Count Durkula is not protected by the rules anymore (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1019.html).

[ReaderAt2046]

Sabine is a possibility, because we know the IFCC does like to interfere with things, and they do know her (and that she'd be likely to go).

I personally don't like the idea of Loki, because it seems to break the non-interference thing the gods have going on with respect to the Gates.


That might be why Loki phrased it the way he did. He didn't order Hilgya to interfere with the vote or even hint on the existence/location of an agent of Hel. He told Hilgya where to find people who wanted to murder Durkon Thundershield, and let her freely choose what to do with that information.

[Fish]

I'm not ready to presume it was Loki. I'm not even willing to presume she's here to help murder Durkon. She just said "I was told someone here needed help" doing so, not that she would assist.

[hroþila]

I like the idea of it being Sabine because it's plausible while not being obvious at all, and it gives her a way to reappear in the story (which we have reason to suspect she will do eventually). That said, Loki would be the more likely candidate.

I don't think Loki would be breaking any rules by sending Hilgya, though. That's explicitly what clerics are for. If that were against the rules, Hel would have been in breach of them long ago, thus rendering the whole thing pointless.

[Keltest]

Loki seems to be the most likely source of the information, given the short notice and the level of investment he has in the outcome, however it does beg the question as to how she could use Turn Undead instead of Rebuke Undead, because even if she were neutral, Loki couldn't grant her that power by virtue of his being evil.

[hroþila]

Loki seems to be the most likely source of the information, given the short notice and the level of investment he has in the outcome, however it does beg the question as to how she could use Turn Undead instead of Rebuke Undead, because even if she were neutral, Loki couldn't grant her that power by virtue of his being evil.
New theory: the baby is a Good-aligned Cleric of Thor.

[Fyraltari]

Are scrolls/wands/whatever of turn undead a thing ?

[Keltest]

Are scrolls/wands/whatever of turn undead a thing ?

not as such. Its a cleric and paladin class feature, similar to a ranger or druid's animal companion.

A cleric of an evil god gets rebuke undead. A cleric of a good god gets Turn Undead. Neutral clerics of neutral gods have to pick one. Since Loki is evil, it doesn't matter if Hilgya became chaotic neutral at some point, she would still Rebuke Undead if she worshipped Loki.

[Tiltowait]

I think Loki told his priesthood about it the same way Thrym got the message across to that elder frost giant cleric.

[Sencara]

Well there is always the prospect that strip 79 is how Loki knew she would be fine with killing Durkon. And there is also the chance she converted to worship Thor to get Turn Undead? And holy crap I wonder if that was a baby she already had or it is Durkon's.... Because wow that was a fast transition. Then again I lose track of time in the comic world.

[Dr.Zero]

"...murdering Durkon Thundershield," says Hilgya.

Told by whom? Who told Hilgya about this? How, when?

I scanned the first 10 pages of the thread and didn't see anyone addressing this. What does this mean?

Furthermore, who could have told Hilgya this? And who would have?

Yeah, Loki was my first choice back at the times when we were discussing this for the n-th time (based on the assumption that, if Hel could talk directly with Durkula even when he wasn't anymore her high priest, so could Loki... and he did that already when he ordered her to steal the Talisman from Nale).

Right now, I still think this would be the simplest explanation.


There are plenty of explanations for Hilgya being there which are not contrived (ie: whatever explanation sounds as a good explanation is by definition not contrived).

Starting with the fact she is a high level cleric of Loki. If she still mirrors Durkon, she probably is one of the few clerics in this world in the high teens, level-wise.

With that premise, I don't find particularly contrived an explanation like: "Hey, little one, Loki here. Yes, yes, praise me. I want to inform you and your new 5 questing friends that the world is going to end, if no one acts and that you dwarves are going to get a particular short end of the stick from it. Yes, that includes you, even if you hate all other dwarves. So: [buy one of those teleport ball and go/explain it to your mage or psion and teleport/windwalk, if close enough] to Firmament to fix this mess. More details will follow. Remeber: Vote Loki 2017!"

Edit: just adding that, thinking twice about it, I find much more contrived that only Hel and Thyrm act through their followers, while all the other gods -starting with Loki, Odin and Thor- sit down on their thumbs.

[Fyraltari]

not as such. Its a cleric and paladin class feature, similar to a ranger or druid's animal companion.

A cleric of an evil god gets rebuke undead. A cleric of a good god gets Turn Undead. Neutral clerics of neutral gods have to pick one. Since Loki is evil, it doesn't matter if Hilgya became chaotic neutral at some point, she would still Rebuke Undead if she worshipped Loki.
Thank you


Well there is always the prospect that strip 79 is how Loki knew she would be fine with killing Durkon. And there is also the chance she converted to worship Thor to get Turn Undead? And holy crap I wonder if that was a baby she already had or it is Durkon's.... Because wow that was a fast transition. Then again I lose track of time in the comic world.

They celebrated New Year back in Azure City and are getting close to the end of that year, so I guess this is very likely to be Durkon's child.

[syskill]

I'd guess it was the resident priest of Odin. We already established in #1098 that he put Durkon on course to join the OOTS, and become Hel's high priest, by means of his self-fulfilling death-and-destruction prophecy. Assuming that Odin doesn't want the world destroyed, it stands to reason that there would be a plan to deal with Durkula now. Hilgya fits the bill perfectly because her fateful encounter with Durkon was also a result of the prophecy.

As a nice bonus, Hilgya's ability to turn undead can be explained by her being given temporary holy orders as a cleric of Odin.

[dps]

I'm revising my list of requirements:

a) knew where Durkon would be ("someone here ...")
b) knew there was a team who needed help killing him ("...needed help...")
c) had the ability to contact Hilgya / knew Hilgya / could plausibly be in contact with her ("I was told...")
d) has the motivation to send somebody after Durkon

Nothing in that statement suggests knowledge of the Gates, of Durkon's mission, of his vampiric status, or the presence of the rest of the Order.

So, other possibilities:

The Oracle told her that she needed to be here, and here now, to help someone kill Durkon. Plausible. If she went to the Oracle and asked, the Oracle would definitely have a), b), and c), and Hilgya could supply d).

Malack. It's distantly, remotely possible that he left a message for someone. Unlikely; he wouldn't know Durkon would be here, specifically, or that a team would be after him at that very moment.

Redcloak, Xykon, and the MitD would fit c (knew Hilgya) and presumably d, but probably not a or b, so they'd be longshots. Of the 3, I'd think Redcloak the most likely--he's much more likely than the other 2 to actually remember Hilgya, and the MitD would be questionable on d as well. Also, we know that Redcloak and the MitD know that Durkon and Hilgya had sex, but it's not something I'd think either would be likely to tell Xykon about.

[alwaysbebatman]

I'm revising my list of requirements:

a) knew where Durkon would be ("someone here ...")
b) knew there was a team who needed help killing him ("...needed help...")
c) had the ability to contact Hilgya / knew Hilgya / could plausibly be in contact with her ("I was told...")
d) has the motivation to send somebody after Durkon

Nothing in that statement suggests knowledge of the Gates, of Durkon's mission, of his vampiric status, or the presence of the rest of the Order.

So, other possibilities:

The Oracle told her that she needed to be here, and here now, to help someone kill Durkon. Plausible. If she went to the Oracle and asked, the Oracle would definitely have a), b), and c), and Hilgya could supply d).

Malack. It's distantly, remotely possible that he left a message for someone. Unlikely; he wouldn't know Durkon would be here, specifically, or that a team would be after him at that very moment.

This is a really excellent analysis. Between Loki, Odin, the Oracle, and the IFCC, I think it's really a tough call.


Loki is the most obvious, meeting all 4 qualifications easily.

The negative for the Oracle is that Hilgya would have had to seek him out and pay his fee with baby in tow, all for revenge. It seems like a situation where she could have arranged for a sitter first.

I like Syskil's idea: Odin meets (a)-(c) obviously-- being the god of prophecy, he could predict it all, and give his priest instructions for where and when to seek out Hilgya, and just what to say. But (d) is iffy. Durkon* works for Hel, but it's Odin's actions that led to his creation. But I wouldn't put it past Odin to play both sides here: causing Durkon* to be, because of something important he will soon do (presumably), but also put Hilgya into motion to help stop Durkon* from going beyond that purpose, whatever it may end up being.

But the IFCC is a Dark Horse. They meet (a)-(c) easily, and have the advantage of a personal connection via Sabine. Like with Odin (d) is an open question: how do they want this to go down?

@dps: I really don't see any reason to believe anybody on Team Evil know anything about what OOTS are getting up to since they last saw them at Girard's Pyramid.

[Gift Jeraff]

Order of likelihood, in my opinion:
1. Loki, or a member of Loki's church
2. A new god Hilgya may have converted to, or a member of said god's church (obviously a god opposed to Hel)
3. Sabine

[Tass]

A cleric of an evil god gets rebuke undead. A cleric of a good god gets Turn Undead. Neutral clerics of neutral gods have to pick one. Since Loki is evil, it doesn't matter if Hilgya became chaotic neutral at some point, she would still Rebuke Undead if she worshipped Loki.

Are we absolutely sure Loki is evil? I could see both him and Hilgya as chaotic neutral.

In addition to the turn undead, we also see her spamming cure spells in the early comics. While not a proof - they could be prepared - it seems to indicate spontaneous casting and thus that she channels positive energy.

[Chronos]

I think it's more likely that it's Sabine working alone than that she's acting on behalf of the IFCC. She's seriously pissed off against Tarquin, and by extension against his entire team, and by extension against the vampire spawned by Tarquin's teammate. That's enough motive.

[Keltest]

Are we absolutely sure Loki is evil? I could see both him and Hilgya as chaotic neutral.

In addition to the turn undead, we also see her spamming cure spells in the early comics. While not a proof - they could be prepared - it seems to indicate spontaneous casting and thus that she channels positive energy.

He is described as an evil god in SoD, and is constantly seen in opposition to the Good(ish) deity Thor, save when something is mutually threatening.

[MesiDoomstalker]

I think it's more likely that it's Sabine working alone than that she's acting on behalf of the IFCC. She's seriously pissed off against Tarquin, and by extension against his entire team, and by extension against the vampire spawned by Tarquin's teammate. That's enough motive.

I don't think anyone questions her motivation, but if she wasn't sent on IFCC behalf its a big question on how she knew where Durkon was, or that people were trying to kill him.

[The Pilgrim]

Maybe Hilgya has not been sent by Loki himself, but by the High Priest of Loki, who knows:

1) Hel's plan
2) That Hel's plan screws with his Patron God's plan
3) Where are Hel's paws headed to
4) Where the gang bound to stop Hel's pawns are headed to
5) Is Hilgya's hierarquical superior, and while Loki's church may or may not have a rigid hierarchy, he would certainly know a high level priest of Loki like Hilgya, and could just have cast a Sent to the higher level clerics of his God and ask them if they are along for the ride
6) If point 2 doesn't suffice as motivation, the guy can actually commune with his God and get hints from him, just like the High Priest of Odin got the hint to cast Durkon away
7) Is the High Priest of a Chaotic Evil God, so, screw the rules

[137beth]

I don't think anyone questions her motivation, but if she wasn't sent on IFCC behalf its a big question on how she knew where Durkon was, or that people were trying to kill him.

Even if she wasn’t sent by the IFCC, she could still have used their scrying monitor (or another one in the lower planes) to see what the Order was up to.

[Jasdoif]

It occurs to me that Minrah, Tinna and Rogo are all clerics; and would thus capable of using a scroll of sending even if they can't/don't have it prepared. Which would, of course, leave questions of how long has passed since they heard about Durkon, who'd they contact, why'd they mention Durkon by name, and why Hilgya would be in a position to know about it....

But in general, why assume Hilgya had to be know about Durkon before Durkon was there?

[KorvinStarmast]

I was going to ask why we assume that Hilgya is a cleric of Loki, until I checked her outfit and realized that the same theme is still present. I had a moment of thinking that she'd gone over to Thor for the sake of the baby, but the color scheme argues against that conclusion. Also, I am pretty sure that if she'd converted to Thor she'd wield a hammer, not a morning star or mace.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I was going to ask why we assume that Hilgya is a cleric of Loki,

Honestly, I assume that all characters remain the same as their last appearance until such time as something indicates they have changed, regardless of how they dress. I.e. the most parsimonious assumption is that Hilgya remains a follower of Loki until proven otherwise (but I do admit I do not have an explanation I am happy with for the turn Undead business).

GW

[hamishspence]

Maybe The Giant has houseruled out, the "one-step rule"? It's hard to justify the LG Durkon getting spells from the almost certainly CG Thor (given how Chaotic Thor's behaviour is) otherwise.

If she's now CG to his CE - same-size gap as LG to CG would be for Durkon.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Maybe The Giant has houseruled out, the "one-step rule"? It's hard to justify the LG Durkon getting spells from the almost certainly CG Thor (given how Chaotic Thor's behaviour is) otherwise.

If she's now CG to his CE - same-size gap as LG to CG would be for Durkon.

I suppose I could be reading the tone wrong, but she seems to be volunteering to join a group of people out to murder her baby's father. I can accept she might be Neutral (if she's been building hospitals off-screen), but I can't imagine her being Good, based on our single point of reference.

Grey Wolf

[hamishspence]

Maybe Loki's already told her Durkon is now a vampire - and she's implying she doesn't know, and wants to murder living Durkon, purely to troll them?

[Jasdoif]

Maybe Loki's already told her Durkon is now a vampire - and she's implying she doesn't know, and wants to murder living Durkon, purely to troll them?Or she wants to stop them from murdering Durkon, and wants to know if these are actually the people she's looking for first; the last few panels would support that she's only seen Minrah at this point, not anyone from the Order she might recognize.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Maybe Loki's already told her Durkon is now a vampire - and she's implying she doesn't know, and wants to murder living Durkon, purely to troll them?

That is quite possible, although the phrasing is a bit off for that - you'd think the "he's a vampire now" crucial detail would make it into her phrasing somewhere. We are likely to figure that out sooner than if she really has changed deities (and I doubt we'll be getting a 100% certainty on her alignment, short of the Giant telling us in the forum, at least for a while).


Or she wants to stop them from murdering Durkon, and wants to know if these are actually the people she's looking for first; the last few panels would support that she's only seen Minrah at this point, not anyone from the Order she might recognize.

Yes, that's what I say about me misreading the tone. I can see it meant "because when I find them, I'm gonna introduce them to my spiky mace". But again, I'm sure it will become a lot more clear in the very next strip.

Grey Wolf

[Fyraltari]

Come on people this is her it's-been-13-years entrance, she's being dramatic for the sake of it, we'll know a lot more next strip.

[texsoroban]

Why was Belkar glowing? OH yeah it was the protection from evil broach. got it..carry on.

[SlashDash]

I personally don't like the idea of Loki, because it seems to break the non-interference thing the gods have going on with respect to the Gates.

Except you're forgetting the Dark One sent Redcloak on his path and we saw that Jirik (?) talking to him before they left Gobtopia.

We also know that Thyrm sent his minions to delay the party, so obviously the gods can take some actions. Heck, Hel was about to interfere again as well when she mentioned that Mr.Scruffy is a carrier.

I don't see any reason why Loki wouldn't be able to send someone, though that would sort of beg the question that Roy said - if the gods just send him their high clerics to smite a certain evil lich they could be done by lunchtime.


However, Sabine is indeed my current bet. The IFCC is watching and Hel's plan clearly ruins things for them. We know they said they wanted a struggle for the final gate. So they need to do something. Pulling out V would backfire obviously since this time the party needs a buff.

I'm actually eyeing out any NPC we're meeting for a potential Sabine in disguise.


not as such. Its a cleric and paladin class feature, similar to a ranger or druid's animal companion.
Isn't there a feat that gives the power to do so? Or a perstiege class feature?
If not, there is one as soon as the Giant says so.

We did get made up ones in the past (I don't think Roy's feat from his grandfather is in any official book, is it?)

[Stabbey]

Sabine is a possibility, because we know the IFCC does like to interfere with things, and they do know her (and that she'd be likely to go).

I personally don't like the idea of Loki, because it seems to break the non-interference thing the gods have going on with respect to the Gates.

Oh? In that case, who told the Frost Giants to set up an ambush in the pass?

Hel told Lord Thrym to do that, and he told his clerics. Lord Thrym ordered his clerics to intervene, therefore, tit-for-tat, Loki can now also speak to one of his priests and subtly suggest that they intervene.

[KorvinStarmast]

... but I do admit I do not have an explanation I am happy with for the turn Undead business. That to me is the easiest one to answer: Rich does not feel bound to the restriction against turning undead by chaotic evil clerics, per his previous observations in re rules fidelity. Further that point, since the vamps are bound to Hel, and Loki's in opposition to her, that may inform why Hilgya can to that

[Keltest]

That to me is the easiest one to answer: Rich does not feel bound to the restriction against turning undead by chaotic evil clerics, per his previous observations in re rules fidelity. Further that point, since the vamps are bound to Hel, and Loki's in opposition to her, that may inform why Hilgya can to that

He should, however, feel bound to the previous portrayals of evil characters using rebuke undead in his own comic. Heck, it was even a plot point briefly that they channeled negative energy when they used their Rebuke.

[KorvinStarmast]

He should, however, feel bound to the previous portrayals of evil characters using rebuke undead in his own comic. Fair point on his generally being consistent. So we've got some more to learn about Hilgya, I'd guess.

[Themrys]

The Oracle told her that she needed to be here, and here now, to help someone kill Durkon. Plausible. If she went to the Oracle and asked, the Oracle would definitely have a), b), and c), and Hilgya could supply d).


Assuming she's like Belkar and wanted to know whether she'd get to kill Durkon, it is possible the Oracle told her that there were some people trying to "murder" him. (Her wording is strange, that might be explained by it being a quote. The oracle would know that technically, Durkon isn't alive anymore, so cannot be killed.)

Or her word choice is because she is actually good-aligned now and pretends to be evil in an attempt to infiltrate them and prevent them from murdering him. They can tell her that Durkon is Durkon* now, and they want to resurrect him once they killed the vampire, and she can join them in their quest. (In that case, I also would suspect the oracle - she could have asked the oracle where Durkon is simply for the purpose of telling him he has a child)

The Giant has recently made an effort to have less misogyny in his writing, so I would consider it more likely she is a more nuanced character, not a "crazy ex" trying to kill Durkon as revenge for getting her pregnant and leaving. The fact that she can turn undead, which the forum informs me only at least morally neutral characters can do, would support this theory.

[Kish]

I personally don't like the idea of Loki, because it seems to break the non-interference thing the gods have going on with respect to the Gates.
This is only peripherally about the Gates though. She's interested in helping murder Durkon, not in anything to do with Gates.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

This is only peripherally about the Gates though. She's interested in helping murder Durkon, not in anything to do with Gates.

Nota Bene: assuming that she isn't about to pull a reverse tone and follow

"I was told someone here needed help murdering Durkon Thundershield"
with

"And I intend to stop them",

although it is hard to imagine why she'd mention that they're looking for help instead of just saying "I was told someone here is looking to murder Durkon Thundershield" or similar.

GW

[Jasdoif]

although it is hard to imagine why she'd mention that they're looking for help instead of just saying "I was told someone here is looking to murder Durkon Thundershield" or similar.Suppose Hilgya wants Minrae to think she's offering her assistance, to make suspicion less likely if Minrae is after Durkon (via implicit assumption that murdering Durkon isn't something Hilgya objects to); and phrasing it that way reduces the chance she'd need to make a Bluff check since it's technically true.

[Fish]

Except you're forgetting the Dark One sent Redcloak on his path...


Oh? In that case, who told the Frost Giants to set up an ambush in the pass?

Yes, yes, the bad guys break the rules all the time, so what? Some gods who want to destroy the world are throwing huge obstacles in the way of the heroes: armies of spellcasting giants, armies of evil hobgoblins headed by a nigh-epic cleric with a divine artifact ... and so that justifies one of the friendly non-world-destroying gods sending a mental memo to a single cleric.

Loki doesn't make much sense when you compare it to what the other gods have done, and to what Loki and Thor and Odin could have done.

If gods like Thor and Loki and Odin were freely communicating with their priests...
Why weren't the dwarves warned about the coming of the vampires?
Why haven't they sent an army of other clerics to the scene? Sure, they can't send the high priests, but they must have thousands of other clerics.
Where was the army of good cloud giants fighting the army of evil frost giants?
Edit: Why didn't Loki send Hilgya to where Durkon is right now, instead of sending her wandering through the halls trying to find his murderers? She's looking for people who are looking for Durkon. That seems remarkably inefficient.

Because then it's not about the heroes, obviously. That's why it's unlikely that the gods are now helping. If the gods were suddenly helping the heroes, it would be a very short finale.

Also, it doesn't make sense that they'd help in this way. If we view the actions of the other gods as rampant cheating, I don't think it adds up that the only thing Loki does is to send a note to a single cleric asking her to pitch in with some other people who aren't even devoted to Loki. It seems like an inappropriately feeble response for a god to make.

I could be wrong, of course. Maybe Loki sent Hilgya because he knew that was the winning move. Maybe he sent a thousand clerics and Hilgya was the first to arrive. But it feels too easy to suddenly have divine assistance at this stage of the story.

[SilverCacaobean]

I think this hasn't been said yet (maybe I missed it) but I don't see how Loki telling Hilgya to go kill Durkon is different from what Thrym did (They would have the same restrictions, right? I mean since Thrym wasn't banned why would Loki?). It's not that different from what Hel is trying to pull. So I think it's Loki. But I admit this turn undead she used is a big hole in that theory...

EDIT: That mace she wields is similar to the one of the other cleric of Loki we've seen, right? Could that mean anything?

[Keltest]

Yes, yes, the bad guys break the rules all the time, so what? Some gods who want to destroy the world are throwing huge obstacles in the way of the heroes: armies of spellcasting giants, armies of evil hobgoblins headed by a nigh-epic cleric with a divine artifact ... and so that justifies one of the friendly non-world-destroying gods sending a mental memo to a single cleric.

Loki doesn't make much sense when you compare it to what the other gods have done, and to what Loki and Thor and Odin could have done.

If gods like Thor and Loki and Odin were freely communicating with their priests...
Why weren't the dwarves warned about the coming of the vampires?
Why haven't they sent an army of other clerics to the scene? Sure, they can't send the high priests, but they must have thousands of other clerics.
Where was the army of good cloud giants fighting the army of evil frost giants?

Because then it's not about the heroes, obviously. That's why it's unlikely that the gods are now helping. If the gods were suddenly helping the heroes, it would be a very short finale.

Also, it doesn't make sense that they'd help in this way. If we view the actions of the other gods as rampant cheating, I don't think it adds up that the only thing Loki does is to send a note to a single cleric asking her to pitch in with some other people who aren't even devoted to Loki. It seems like an inappropriately feeble response for a god to make.

I could be wrong, of course. Maybe Loki sent Hilgya because he knew that was the winning move. Maybe he sent a thousand clerics and Hilgya was the first to arrive. But it feels too easy to suddenly have divine assistance at this stage of the story.

My assumption is generally along the lines of "the gods shot themselves in the foot by not paying attention to the mortals at the godsmoot and are only just now figuring out that Hel is attempting to subvert the vote."

The gods are very definitely not omniscient or omnipotent, and theyre only "mostly powerful" instead of "all powerful" within their spheres because of their various codes of conduct.

Who knows, Thor may be mobilizing his legion of vampire slaying dwarven clerics and paladins, and meanwhile is playing for time in such a way that results in the Order solving the problem before they get here. We don't know, and probably wont know, unless someone says as much.

[Fish]

I'm going to throw another theory on the heap. It was Odin ... a long time ago.

Odin gave his priest a vision about the return of Durkon, bringing death and destruction. The vision was then passed on to the high priest of Thor.

...and maybe it was passed on to the high priest of Loki as well.

Since Odin handed out that vision, he knew it would come to pass, and that anything the mortals did to prevent it would also bring it about. He also could have known (in theory) that knowledge of the prophecy could cause others to take action to mitigate its effects. Hilgya might have been told about people coming to kill Durkon years ago. Nothing in Hilgya's statement says that she was told this information recently. She could have known where, when, and who, long before she found out why he had to be killed. She might have known when she first met Durkon.

We recently had a scene where we were questioning the motives of Odin, the various high priests, and everybody involved. This would explain a lot.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm going to throw another theory on the heap. It was Odin ... a long time ago. I am going to thank you for that theory, as I like how it fits Norse themes, and offer another theory.

Hilgya is a bundle of contradictions. I went back and read all of the strips with Hilgya in them, which are of course early OoTS, and make the following observation:

She's only been nice to Durkon, and when we first see her she's got a smile on her face.

She's in on the evil scheme, she was in on the defeat of whatever spirit/sylph was guarding the fire sigil (Nale got killing blow) but her prime duty was to Loki (to steal the talisman from Nale, which got foiled by Haley's shot). When that fell through, and she fell into the pit of 2e monsters, she was at loose ends.

Her attraction to Durkon was a feature of her characterization from the first few strips, and it carried forward. If we look at how Rich uses and abuses alignment, part of Hilgya as a character is that she's got feelings and a personality that is far more nuanced than some two dimensional construction of her alignment (which needed to be CE to be Durkon's polar opposites).

Hmmm. Magnetism: opposites attract. (Though in the Haley-Elan case, two CG's attract well enough ...)

Her conversation, post love making, is our first hint at the difficulties of the archaic Dwarvish society, all of which got more amplification as time went on and as Rich has pointed out via narrative exposition that some of the core elements of Dwarvish lawfulness and societal norms turn into a turd sandwich regardless of your alignment:
For Hilgya, the arrange marriage custom was a bitter pill.
For Durkon, his lawfulness (and his being turned out of his homeland 'for the greater good' ) was likewise a bitter pill.

With the two having that frustration in common, and their having an attraction to each other (though she was more active in pursuit than he) was another of Rich's various dagger stabs at the D&D alignment system, and societal norms, that gave us the break up where they both walked away in tears.

Hilgya's own speech bubbles have her rejecting dwarvish norms, and dwarvish societal constraints on her freedom, but she goes ahead and has the baby.

Is this her heart, though wounded, still feeling a connection to Durkon? Hard to say.

If we took the two dimensional CE alignment of "only selfish/only self centered" as our only guide to Hilgya, she'd have had the pregnancy terminated and gone on living among humans whose society is more attuned to individual/personal happiness than dwarven society, per her own commentary to Durkon when she shares with him that she bailed out on her marriage.

The key contradiction I see linking her to strip 1105 and all of those early strips is that she had a change of heart in terms of personal freedom and personal happiness being the end all and be all. Being a parent requires being a bit more selfless, and a lot less selfish, than not being a parent.

Does that mean her alignment changed? Maybe (see turn undead) but not necessarily. Goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, etc have kids too. While the goblinoids are "generally evil" per the MM, they are in OoTS-world treated more like "people from a foreign country" than "monsters who happen to breed" by the author.

A chaotic evil cleric of Loki can also be more than what we try to construct by simply applying a template from the rule books based on class, deity, and alignment.

I'll argue the following:

by choosing to be a mother, rather than terminating her preganancy (which I'll assume originated during the scenes with Durkon) she made a profound change in who she is, regardless of what alignment a cleric / mother can be vis a vis her deity.

She as to be more selfless (more like Durkon) and less selfish (like the Hilgya we originally meet in the early strips) - ask any parent.
What is the generic alignment of a mother?
I can't find any mother being CE if we use the all too common two axis alignment as the baseline for what that means for a given character's behavior and outlook on life.

Hilgya's alignment is likely changed, though to what I'm not prepared to say, but it did change because now, she's Mom. (I tend to agree with people who read her alignment as CN since she seems a lot more free spirit than murderous sociopath). (On the other hand, it need not have changed, since Rich writes characters with more depth than " since you are Lawful Neutral, you must ..." )

[knag]

by choosing to be a mother, rather than terminating her preganancy (which I'll assume originated during the scenes with Durkon) she made a profound change in who she is, regardless of what alignment a cleric / mother can be vis a vis her deity.

She as to be more selfless (more like Durkon) and less selfish (like the Hilgya we originally meet in the early strips) - ask any parent.
What is the generic alignment of a mother?
I can't find any mother being CE if we use the all too common two axis alignment as the baseline for what that means for a given character's behavior and outlook on life.

Hilgya's alignment is likely changed, though to what I'm not prepared to say, but it did change because now, she's Mom. (I tend to agree with people who read her alignment as CN since she seems a lot more free spirit than murderous sociopath). (On the other hand, it need not have changed, since Rich writes characters with more depth than " since you are Lawful Neutral, you must ..." )

Hilgya was never CE. This is explicit in the comic. She turns undead rather than rebuking them. This ability shows she is neutral (or good) on the good/evil axis. Furthermore, if neutral, the choice of turn/rebuke can never be changed, so she didn't gain this ability recently, but has always turned undead as a cleric. Just because Loki is CE in Deities & Demigods, doesn't mean that Loki is CE in Ootsverse, and even if he is, it doesn't mean that Hilgya can't be CN ("one step" from CE).

As far as this tread goes, I like the Sabine hypothesis, but my first reaction to the comic was not that she was summoned as part of some scheme by a god or whatever, but that she was already in Firmament (perhaps looking for Durkon who may have told her where he was from), and when "Durkon" arrived killing people, word spread that local boy Durkon Thundershield had returned and was killing people. It doesn't require any outside actor, just that some witnesses to "Durkon"'s attack escaped being killed and warned others in the city. To me this is the most likely explanation.

[Keltest]

Hilgya was never CE. This is explicit in the comic. She turns undead rather than rebuking them. This ability shows she is neutral (or good) on the good/evil axis. Furthermore, if neutral, the choice of turn/rebuke can never be changed, so she didn't gain this ability recently, but has always turned undead as a cleric. Just because Loki is CE in Deities & Demigods, doesn't mean that Loki is CE in Ootsverse, and even if he is, it doesn't mean that Hilgya can't be CN ("one step" from CE).

As far as this tread goes, I like the Sabine hypothesis, but my first reaction to the comic was not that she was summoned as part of some scheme by a god or whatever, but that she was already in Firmament (perhaps looking for Durkon who may have told her where he was from), and when "Durkon" arrived killing people, word spread that local boy Durkon Thundershield had returned and was killing people. It doesn't require any outside actor, just that some witnesses to "Durkon"'s attack escaped being killed and warned others in the city. To me this is the most likely explanation.

Loki is identified as Evil in Start of Darkness, so Hilgya wouldn't be able to use Turn Undead even if she herself were neutral.

[hroþila]

For the time being, I think the simplest explanation is that Hilgya was always CN and that there's a house rule in operation that says only the cleric's alignment matters when it comes to turning/rebuking. I imagine we'll get more details soon, though.

[KorvinStarmast]

Hilgya was never CE. This is explicit in the comic. She turns undead rather than rebuking them. This ability shows she is neutral (or good) on the good/evil axis.
It points that way, certainly. What she was originally (1000 strips ago) was chaotic something.


... but my first reaction to the comic was not that she was summoned as part of some scheme by a god or whatever, but that she was already in Firmament (perhaps looking for Durkon who may have told her where he was from), and when "Durkon" arrived killing people, word spread that local boy Durkon Thundershield had returned and was killing people. Sensible and less complicated than the standard Nale plot/forum discussion. :smallbiggrin:


For the time being, I think the simplest explanation is that Hilgya was always CN and that there's a house rule in operation that says only the cleric's alignment matters when it comes to turning/rebuking. Works for me.

[Shatteredtower]

However, Sabine is indeed my current bet. The IFCC is watching and Hel's plan clearly ruins things for them. We know they said they wanted a struggle for the final gate. So they need to do something. Pulling out V would backfire obviously since this time the party needs a buff.

I'm actually eyeing out any NPC we're meeting for a potential Sabine in disguise.

Disguise? Such as:

a character with the sort of skin tone she tends to adopt in most of her disguises?

Yes, I know the odds are long against Sabine posing as the baby, but I wouldn't put this level of deception past either of these two. The OotS has experience with Sabine's SOP, but a baby might slip under their radar. It depends on whether Hilgya is more the sort of person who'd want to hurt a lover with such a lie or the sort of mother that wouldn't trust another to watch her baby even if the alternative involved child endangerment. Imagine a dwarf who found her society too restrictive turning into a smothering parent.

[KorvinStarmast]

Disguise? Such as:

a character with the sort of skin tone she tends to adopt in most of her disguises?

Yes, I know the odds are long against Sabine posing as the baby, but I wouldn't put this level of deception past either of these two. The OotS has experience with Sabine's SOP, but a baby might slip under their radar. It depends on whether Hilgya is more the sort of person who'd want to hurt a lover with such a lie or the sort of mother that wouldn't trust another to watch her baby even if the alternative involved child endangerment. Imagine a dwarf who found her society too restrictive turning into a smothering parent.

Brilliant. I tip my cap to you. :smallbiggrin:

[nbLurkerAbove]

Disguise? Such as:

a character with the sort of skin tone she tends to adopt in most of her disguises?

Yes, I know the odds are long against Sabine posing as the baby, but I wouldn't put this level of deception past either of these two. The OotS has experience with Sabine's SOP, but a baby might slip under their radar. It depends on whether Hilgya is more the sort of person who'd want to hurt a lover with such a lie or the sort of mother that wouldn't trust another to watch her baby even if the alternative involved child endangerment. Imagine a dwarf who found her society too restrictive turning into a smothering parent.

The baby's even already wearing red... hmm...

Of course, if it is Sabine, there's no (in universe) reason to assume Hilgya's a mother. I'm not sure where I was going with this. :smallconfused: Oh well, post it anyway

[Yendor]

I think it's more likely that it's Sabine working alone than that she's acting on behalf of the IFCC. She's seriously pissed off against Tarquin, and by extension against his entire team, and by extension against the vampire spawned by Tarquin's teammate. That's enough motive.

If Sabine was left to her own devices, I'd expect her to go after Tarquin directly by teaming up with Amon-Zora. Although, if she wants motive, the fact that Durcon turned on Nale at the first opportunity seems more convincing than a convoluted revenge-by-proxy. Still can't see her making it a priority.


Disguise? Such as:

a character with the sort of skin tone she tends to adopt in most of her disguises?

Nice try, but not a match. She'd have to look like Brother Sandstone or Rogo.

[The Pilgrim]

Regarding the Turn Undead thing, the rules states that a Good Cleric turns undead. An Evil cleric controls undead. A Neutral cleric chooses between controling or turning, but once chosen, the choice cannot be undone.

So maybe Hilgya turned Neutral (clerics can be one step away from their patron god) and chose to Turn instead of Control.

[hamishspence]

So maybe Hilgya turned Neutral (clerics can be one step away from their patron god) and chose to Turn instead of Control.


problem is - deity's alignment matters too. In fact, it matters more. A Neutral cleric of an Evil deity must Rebuke. A Neutral cleric of a Good deity must Turn. Only when the deity is Neutral, does cleric alignment come into it:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm


A good cleric (or a neutral cleric who worships a good deity) can turn or destroy undead creatures. An evil cleric (or a neutral cleric who worships an evil deity) instead rebukes or commands such creatures. A neutral cleric of a neutral deity must choose whether his turning ability functions as that of a good cleric or an evil cleric. Once this choice is made, it cannot be reversed.

So - if Loki is Evil (as is strongly implied, more than once) going from CE to CN, wouldn't affect Hilgya's Turning ability.

It seems more likely to me, that Hilgya changed deities. If she changed alignments from CE to CN, and changed from Loki, to worshipping a non-Evil deity - she'd get to choose (if deity is Neutral) or automatically become a Turner (if deity was Good)

[Roland Itiative]

Until any extra proof appears in the comic, I'm assuming it's just Loki, under the pretense of "it's totally not an attempt to change the outcome of the Godsmoot, I'm just helping out a cleric (or former cleric) in a personal quest for revenge".

[hroþila]

Until any extra proof appears in the comic, I'm assuming it's just Loki, under the pretense of "it's totally not an attempt to change the outcome of the Godsmoot, I'm just helping out a cleric (or former cleric) in a personal quest for revenge".
This is probably not an official part of the Godsmoot, which is why Hel can interfere in the first place. Loki should be fine, if it's him.

[Fyraltari]

What is the generic alignment of a mother?
I can't find any mother being CE if we use the all too common two axis alignment as the baseline for what that means for a given character's behavior and outlook on life.

I fail to see why. Evil people by definition do not treat everyone equally/fairly, it is entirely possible to plot the downfall of society as large because you can and be a loving mother at the same time without contradiction.

[Riftwolf]

Just want to say regardless of what was posted after, first post was worth it for 'loki isn't on the list of suspects, he *is* the list of suspects', a line I may have to steal for my short stories.

[Themrys]

I fail to see why. Evil people by definition do not treat everyone equally/fairly, it is entirely possible to plot the downfall of society as large because you can and be a loving mother at the same time without contradiction.

And if we are just speaking of "mothers" that doesn't mean anything. A woman who was raped and was forced to give birth is a mother, even if she kills the baby immediately after birth. There's no active decision involved there.

Sure, a woman who consciously decides to have a child decides to risk her own life to enable someone else to live, and also, in most societies, ruins her own life for a good 18 years if she does survive the birth. But that's not different from any other heroic sacrifice. If Nale risked his own life to save Sabine, would that make him not-evil?

And I hope we all agree that Tarquin, despite successfully raising Nale to adulthood, making him not only a father but even a comparatively good one, is still evil. I mean, it was spelled out in giant flaming letters.

If Tarquin was female, would the selfless decision to give birth weigh heavier than a lifetime of enslaving and torturing people? I don't think so.


I don't think that Hilgya's backstory is any proof of her alignment - if we take that backstory seriously, then dwarf society is deeply misogynist and patriarchal, something that doesn't seem to be the case in the way it has been portrayed in the flashbacks to Durkon's childhood.

I predict that Hilgya is not evil. Nothing to do with being a mother - her being neutral enough to side with the OotS would just make for a more interesting story than her being a villain. (Okay, it has to do with the child, but only for meta-reasons: We know the author doesn't want to show violence against babies, so someone who carries a baby is unlikely to be an antagonist.)

[Keltest]

I don't think that Hilgya's backstory is any proof of her alignment - if we take that backstory seriously, then dwarf society is deeply misogynist and patriarchal, something that doesn't seem to be the case in the way it has been portrayed in the flashbacks to Durkon's childhood.

No, I think that's just you reading more into what is shown than is actually there. Hilgya is unhappy because she's a free spirit who would jump off a cliff out of spite if somebody told her not to, and who is chafing at the necessarily duty-bound dwarven culture, not because she was treated poorly for being a woman.

In other words, if you switch the sexes of Hilgya and Ivan, absolutely nothing changes about the scenario, except maybe the shotgun wedding joke being a little less strained.

[hroþila]

Is the "shotgun wedding" joke actually intended?

[Jasdoif]

Is the "shotgun wedding" joke actually intended?It was indeed.

Yes, it's a shotgun wedding reference.

[D.One]

I'm revising my list of requirements:

a) knew where Durkon would be ("someone here ...")
b) knew there was a team who needed help killing him ("...needed help...")
c) had the ability to contact Hilgya / knew Hilgya / could plausibly be in contact with her ("I was told...")
d) has the motivation to send somebody after Durkon

The Oracle told her that she needed to be here, and here now, to help someone kill Durkon. Plausible. If she went to the Oracle and asked, the Oracle would definitely have a), b), and c), and Hilgya could supply d).

Really liked this possibility. We haven't seem the Oracle for a while, and it's quite on character for Hilgya to go to him searching for informations on Durkon.

[hroþila]

It was indeed.

Huh, that's weird. But thanks!

[KorvinStarmast]

I fail to see why. Evil people by definition do not treat everyone equally/fairly, it is entirely possible to plot the downfall of society as large because you can and be a loving mother at the same time without contradiction. Fair point, perhaps that wasn't a well asked rhetorical question. :smalleek:

@Themrys: yeah, points taken, I have an extremely positive bias to what constitutes mother based on both my mom and my wife. There are other variations on the role that I probably didn't think through very well, so again a badly asked rhetorical. :smalleek:


I predict that Hilgya is not evil. Nothing to do with being a mother - her being neutral enough to side with the OotS would just make for a more interesting story than her being a villain Yeah, previous points have been made in re here contrast to Durkon was in being Chaotic to his Lawful.

[texsoroban]

That is quite possible, although the phrasing is a bit off for that - you'd think the "he's a vampire now" crucial detail would make it into her phrasing somewhere. We are likely to figure that out sooner than if she really has changed deities (and I doubt we'll be getting a 100% certainty on her alignment, short of the Giant telling us in the forum, at least for a while).



Yes, that's what I say about me misreading the tone. I can see it meant "because when I find them, I'm gonna introduce them to my spiky mace". But again, I'm sure it will become a lot more clear in the very next strip.

Grey Wolf


Think about Loki though...she may have been begging to kill Durkon for a while, what a hilarious joke when she finds out she's killing an undead monster.

[wumpus]

I fail to see why. Evil people by definition do not treat everyone equally/fairly, it is entirely possible to plot the downfall of society as large because you can and be a loving mother at the same time without contradiction.

While this is certainly possible, the Giant appears to have issues with the whole alignment system. Babies are defined as good (except for humor, see baby Nale). This would interfere with an evil mom working tirelessly in support of a good baby (still possible, but it would wear on her).

Look at Belkar*, he is *slowly* being redeemed by a cat (note that real cats kill other animals at least as often as Belkar commits murder on his own (or would without Roy around), but they are still neutral since both the cats and victims are non sapient), and this can't have been more than a few months. Babies presumably have a far greater effect on moms over a greater length of time.

So why hasn't multiple generations of babies removed all evil from the stickverse? Presumably any movement toward good in babies is countered out by dealing with teenagers. No idea if the giant agrees, but at least it is a workable theory.

* no, Belkar won't die "redeemed" due to this effect (his manner of death might, but not just the cat's effects). I have no idea how long it would take to improve from kilonazis of evil, but it is far longer than he has.

[Kish]

While this is certainly possible, the Giant appears to have issues with the whole alignment system.
Citation and/or clarification needed.

Babies are defined as good
Great big citation needed.

[KorvinStarmast]

Citation and/or clarification needed.
The entire Miko story arc/sub arc, the black dragon being color coded for our convenience ...

Great big citation needed.
I think I'll go along with this. It's a far cry from "not gonna kill babies" to "babies are defined as good."

[Emanick]

The entire Miko story arc/sub arc, the black dragon being color coded for our convenience ...

Counterpoint: Celia's entire speech about the alignment system, which I and others have read as basically The Giant's own viewpoint.

The Giant has also gone on record on several occasions about the alignment system basically being okay (albeit not perfect), and the problem being with people's perceptions of it and how they choose to use it (Example A being players who say 'X is Evil, that means we can kill it with no consequences!').

[The MunchKING]

I think I'll go along with this. It's a far cry from "not gonna kill babies" to "babies are defined as good."

I think his stance was "No child has done anything irredeemably evil unless the text tells you so". It was from the part where he was talking about the goblin children in SoD being killed by Paladins. So as we don't see the baby murdering other people for fun, it is non-evil. :smalltongue:

[Kish]

I mean clarification of what wumpus meant, not what other people would mean if they said the same words.

If they mean, "Rich has indicated finding some problems with the alignment system," that's true though the immediately following weirdness about babies being Good is not (and I suspect may be being misremembered from Rich saying that killing a baby black dragon should be treated as an atrocity, just like killing a baby of any other species), and the ongoing thing about Good being contagious somehow is just baffling.

If they mean, "Rich has indicated hating the alignment system and wanting it abolished," the whole post is confusing and confused.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

the Giant appears to have issues with the whole alignment system.Citation and/or clarification needed.
I have to say, as a statement it's likely to be true, if nothing else because everyone that spends more than a couple of minutes thinking about the alignment system of D&D has issues with it. It's sort of like saying "Person X has issues with the government". It's practically a tautology.



Babies are defined as goodGreat big citation needed.
"All babies are to be assumed not evil unless the text says otherwise" is I think the basis for the assertion. Of course, that would suggest most babies, like animals, are probably neutral rather than good, so I too disagree with the statement.

GW

[Jasdoif]

Why yes, it has been a while since I've thrown a batch of Giant quotes next to each other. Lot of aberration quotes recently, though.





Here are the stats you actually need for a hatchling dragon:

Movement: Gets away if you let it.
Saving Throws: Miraculously survives all accidents.
Armor Class: You hit.
Hit Points: Congratulations, Baby-Killer.
Special Qualities: I hope you can live with yourself.

Coincidentally, these are the same exact stats for every other species of baby.You missed one.

Alignment: TBD.Normally, I'm against listing alignment in stat blocks, but for that I'll make an exception.



Further, your definition of "what the comic is about" is also wrong. You seem to think it should be about me regurgitating an accurate portrayal of how the game should ideally be played. Nothing could be further from my mind. The comic is criticizing not how the game is intended to be played, but how the game is actually played and has been for 35+ years. And how it is actually played 9 times out of 10 is that goblins are slaughtered because they are goblins, and the book says that goblins are Evil so it's OK. If you've never played in a game with people like that, then congratulations! You've had an exceptionally lucky D&D career, and that whole portion of the comic's subtext is Not For You. But there are plenty of people who maybe have never given it a second thought. Just because you've already learned some of the lessons of a work of fiction does not mean that there's no point to including them.



Generally, it is most useful either as a.) shorthand between experienced players to allow them to easily discuss a broad range that a character falls in, or b.) a tool for inexperienced players to even consider issues like what their characters believe. And it's b.) that's really the benefit.

It's tough for those who spend all their time talking about D&D to remember that most players are very casual and don't think too deeply about this stuff at all. For that sort of player, picking an alignment is a great introduction to the idea of having a group of characters with diverse motivations. We all take for granted that you have to decide what your character believes, but remember that D&D gets taught to kids who haven't even really figured out what they themselves believe yet. Left to their own devices, they're unlikely to delve deep into their fictional character's philosophies. Alignment is good for starting that conversation. It's also a good way to keep beginning players on the general sort of path of heroics without them burning down the village for kicks.

Then, once they've had a campaign or two under their belt, alignment provides an easy stepping stone for stretching their roleplaying muscles. You may have noticed that most players—especially younger players—tend to play characters that trend toward their own personal alignment, or else some sort of wish fulfillment variation thereof. But after a few different characters like that, there's a natural tendency to want to try something new. Alignment gives a great way to channel that feeling into expanding their roleplaying repetoire by giving them easy-to-understand options that they can pick from. Always played Chaotic Good? Try Lawful Good. Or Lawful Neutral. It's the sort of thing that can really push a player into trying new things, way more than a new race or class can.

Eventually, a player will master switching back and forth between all the alignments and will be a reasonably conversant roleplayer. Then they can move on to playing against alignment stereotypes, or if everyone's at the same level, they can try a more complex alignment system or even abandon the concept altogether. The exact layout and mechanics of the system is sort of beside the point. I do think that the alignment system is much more robust and flexible than most people give it credit for, which is one of the reasons that I spend so much energy dealing with it in OOTS.

But in terms of teaching how to roleplay, it's a great aid. Which is why I think published D&D should always have it; not only is it part of the culture of D&D anyway, but D&D is basically the "training wheels" of roleplaying. If there's a system that can help train new players about how to roleplay, it should be in there. More experience players can always ignore it, but new players won't know to add it in.

Do other games need alignment? Not really, though some sort of structure for roleplaying decisions isn't a bad thing.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Why yes, it has been a while since I've thrown a batch of Giant quotes next to each other.

Could you also please dig up the "text shouldn't need to tell you a baby is evil" quote, please? For completion's sake?

Thank you so much, as always, for doing this.

Grey Wolf

[Jasdoif]

Could you also please dig up the "text shouldn't need to tell you a baby is evil" quote, please? For completion's sake?Well, I left it out because it wasn't quite about babies....


And it's ridiculous to think that any given six-year-old may have committed a horrible act worthy of being executed unless the text says otherwise, just because that six-year-old has green skin and her parents bring her to their church services. That right there is enough reason for the story to be the way it is. No author should have to take the time to say, "This little girl ISN'T evil, folks!" in order for the reader to understand that. It should be assumed that no first graders are irredeemably Evil unless the text tells you they are.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Well, I left it out because it wasn't quite about babies...

Which is why you can do this and I can't. No wonder I couldn't find it. Thankfully, I think I'm not going to get much pushback when I say that anything that applies to a six year old also applies to a baby.

GW

[The MunchKING]

Could you also please dig up the "text shouldn't need to tell you a baby is evil" quote, please? For completion's sake?

Thank you so much, as always, for doing this.

Grey Wolf

Shouldn't need to tell you it ISN'T evil you mean. :smalltongue:

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Shouldn't need to tell you it ISN'T evil you mean. :smalltongue:

I stand by my ridiculous statement (http://www.egscomics.com/index.php?id=373)
(but only because Jasdoif found the quote anyway)
Grey Wolf

[AutomatedTeller]

Hilgya is clearly either not evil, or Rich isn't worrying about the rules. I'm not sure it matters. I'm more wondering if anyone will recognize her.

[Themrys]

Hilgya is clearly either not evil, or Rich isn't worrying about the rules. I'm not sure it matters. I'm more wondering if anyone will recognize her.

Durkon's love interest, returned with a baby that has a skintone suspiciously like Durkon's, out for revenge on Durkon?

That sort of thing is Elan's specialty. Of course he will recognize her. He might point out that it's a bit too many clichés all at once, but since the one the knowledge of who she is has to be kept from to make it possble to have a dramatic reveal (Durkon) is not present right now, there's no reason for Elan to not share his knowledge with the group.

[Windscion]

So why hasn't multiple generations of babies removed all evil from the stickverse? Presumably any movement toward good in babies is countered out by dealing with teenagers.
Works for me.

[tomandtish]

Regarding the alignment and turning undead, has it ever been made 100% clear in comic that Loki IS/WAS actually evil? I know there are plenty of beings assuming he is, but any chance he is (and has always been) CN?

it would certainly fit with the original myths before they got modernized.

[Emanick]

Regarding the alignment and turning undead, has it ever been made 100% clear in comic that Loki IS/WAS actually evil? I know there are plenty of beings assuming he is, but any chance he is (and has always been) CN?

it would certainly fit with the original myths before they got modernized.

No, it’s never been outright stated. Just heavily implied.

[Goblin_Priest]

Gotta say, anywhere worth wearing heavy armor in is not really a good place to carry a baby over said heavy armor in.

That's pretty much worse than bikini mail...

[Themrys]

Gotta say, anywhere worth wearing heavy armor in is not really a good place to carry a baby over said heavy armor in.

That's pretty much worse than bikini mail...

She's probably wearing the heavy armor because that's the easiest way to carry heavy armor. (Assuming real world physics)

The chainmail bikini is inherently idiotic. Heavy armor with a baby carried over said heavy armor has some quite reasonable explanations.

In OotS world, carrying the armor would not be as much of a concern, it'd probably fit in a backpack, but she obviously has to wear the armour so we know she has it.

If a battle starts, you can hand your soft, unprotected baby to the nearest non-combatant, grab your weapon and join the fight.

Try doing that with your soft, unprotected belly.

[Fyraltari]

Gotta say, anywhere worth wearing heavy armor in is not really a good place to carry a baby over said heavy armor in.

She should obviously be carrying the baby under the heavy armor. What is she thinking !?

[Themrys]

She should obviously be carrying the baby under the heavy armor. What is she thinking !?

She obviously didn't buy maternal armor, with baby-shaped extra space in the breast compartment, for easy breastfeeding during battle.

Why?

Probably she couldn't afford it because Durkon didn't pay child support, and she couldn't sell the pregnancy armor for a good price at Ebay. Being a single mother is tough.

Single mothers work so hard, and still they are criticised for the way they carry their babies.

Tarquin carried a child on his war chariot in a battle, but I cannot recall any criticisms of that. People probably applauded him for having a "baby on board" sign on his chariot. :smallfurious:

[wumpus]

She's probably wearing the heavy armor because that's the easiest way to carry heavy armor. (Assuming real world physics)


It is even easier in 3e "physics" where dwarf movement isn't restricted by heavy armor. Non-dwarves might leave the armor on a horse, but dwarves might as well just wear it.

[Goblin_Priest]

She's probably wearing the heavy armor because that's the easiest way to carry heavy armor. (Assuming real world physics)

The chainmail bikini is inherently idiotic. Heavy armor with a baby carried over said heavy armor has some quite reasonable explanations.

In OotS world, carrying the armor would not be as much of a concern, it'd probably fit in a backpack, but she obviously has to wear the armour so we know she has it.

If a battle starts, you can hand your soft, unprotected baby to the nearest non-combatant, grab your weapon and join the fight.

Try doing that with your soft, unprotected belly.

The point isn't that there's better way to carry armor than to wear it, the point is that one is heading into combat, completely intentionally, and placing the protective barrier between her body and the nice squishy baby

I'm pretty sure she never had the intent to pass the baby off to a nearest non-combatant, if she even expected to find any such person when a battle was to occur.


She should obviously be carrying the baby under the heavy armor. What is she thinking !?

At her level, she could clearly afford it.

Of course, realistically speaking, wearing a baby under armor would still expose him to threats of bludgeoning damage crushing the life out of it, or seriously maiming it, but the baby would be mostly protected from slashing weapons and, to a lesser extent, piercing weapons.


She obviously didn't buy maternal armor, with baby-shaped extra space in the breast compartment, for easy breastfeeding during battle.

Why?

Probably she couldn't afford it because Durkon didn't pay child support, and she couldn't sell the pregnancy armor for a good price at Ebay. Being a single mother is tough.

Single mothers work so hard, and still they are criticised for the way they carry their babies.

Tarquin carried a child on his war chariot in a battle, but I cannot recall any criticisms of that. People probably applauded him for having a "baby on board" sign on his chariot. :smallfurious:

I'm really hoping this is a joke, but I'll just quit this thread here. I don't think anybody ever said that Tarquin was a model parent or praised either his methods nor his results, when it comes to raising Nale. And while it's obviously ridiculous to bring a child on a wagon into war (probably against low CR enemies), I fail to find it comparable to wearing a child as what is essentially an extra layer of armor that one almost HAS to attack in order to hurt the wearer (against enemies as strong or stronger than oneself, no less).

Of course, it's hard to see the punchline being delivered in any other way, though. A baby hidden away somewhere isn't quite the same reveal.

[Ruck]

The point isn't that there's better way to carry armor than to wear it, the point is that one is heading into combat, completely intentionally, and placing the protective barrier between her body and the nice squishy baby

I'm pretty sure she never had the intent to pass the baby off to a nearest non-combatant, if she even expected to find any such person when a battle was to occur.
As was discussed in the thread for #1105, she wasn't intending to head into combat; she was intending to head into the Temple of Thor. She didn't know there would be combat there.


What is the generic alignment of a mother?
I don't think parenthood comes with a default alignment.


I suggested it was Sabine. The IFCC should be monitoring the situation, and Hilgya was one of their Linear Guild pawns, so it seems likely they could bring her in to disrupt a plan which likely conflicts with their own.


I like the idea of it being Sabine because it's plausible while not being obvious at all, and it gives her a way to reappear in the story (which we have reason to suspect she will do eventually). That said, Loki would be the more likely candidate.

I don't think Loki would be breaking any rules by sending Hilgya, though. That's explicitly what clerics are for. If that were against the rules, Hel would have been in breach of them long ago, thus rendering the whole thing pointless.


I think Loki told his priesthood about it the same way Thrym got the message across to that elder frost giant cleric.
I like all of this. I could see it being either one.


I grant you a) and b), but c) is not warranted. The person who told Hilgya need only have said, "There's a dwarf by the name of Durkon Thundershield who must be stopped, and this is where he is." They didn't need to know her personal backstory in order to tell her that much.
No, but I think anyone who would tell her that information and expect her to make use of it immediately would need to know her backstory in order to know why she would. (And this does make me lean a little towards Loki, who did know and is that kind of master manipulator.)

[Deliverance]

So the answer is in, and 'twas Loki what done it.

[ella ventic]

Oh, I know the new comic seems to clear things up, but when has that ever kept anyone from speculating? Especially as off-the-wall wildly as I'm about to:

What if the baby is actually Sabine?

[137beth]

Oh, I know the new comic seems to clear things up, but when has that ever kept anyone from speculating? Especially as off-the-wall wildly as I'm about to:

What if the baby is actually Sabine?

The baby is both Thog and Sabine. All surviving members of the original Linear Guild are back together.

[KorvinStarmast]

The baby is both Thog and Sabine. All surviving members of the original Linear Guild are back together. I was under the impression that Thog died under the pile of building collapsing on him. Did I miss a comic, or did Rich indicate that Thog survived in the BRiTF book?

[Keltest]

I was under the impression that Thog died under the pile of building collapsing on him. Did I miss a comic, or did Rich indicate that Thog survived in the BRiTF book?

Rich has deliberately left Thog's survival ambiguous. Its not impossible, but given how close we are to the last book, where Xykon will almost certainly be the antagonist again, it strikes me as unlikely that Thog will be returning.

[Fyraltari]

I was under the impression that Thog died under the pile of building collapsing on him. Did I miss a comic, or did Rich indicate that Thog survived in the BRiTF book?

Come on, guys, what more do you need ? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0793.html)
I don't think he'll be back for the big fight with Xykon but I can see an epilogue where we see what that plan of Elan's to deal with Tarkie is involving Sabine and Thog.

[goodpeople25]

Come on, guys, what more do you need ? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0793.html)
I don't think he'll be back for the big fight with Xykon but I can see an epilogue where we see what that plan of Elan's to deal with Tarkie is involving Sabine and Thog.
We pretty clearly saw that the Linear Guild didn't die in that comic's instance though, that was more about Elan/the Order thinking they died off screen and a discussion of the concept itself. And I can't remember any instances of the comic really playing it that straight, (Belkar at the Godsmoot, maybe?) to me Thog's defeat seems a little too ambiguous all around to fit the concept they're describing.

Not that I can't see him in an epilogue either. Like I said it's ambiguous but that that concept seems to lean heavily (if not ensures) that the subject survived.

[wumpus]

Rich has deliberately left Thog's survival ambiguous. Its not impossible, but given how close we are to the last book, where Xykon will almost certainly be the antagonist again, it strikes me as unlikely that Thog will be returning.

The situation is wildly similar to the "Miko rushing into a burning building". They playground insisted that since it wasn't magic fire, it couldn't possibly damage Miko enough to be of concern (and her class-granted lack of fear prevents her from worrying about a mere 1d6 points of damage or so). Others insisted that it was heroic and possibly in the range or 8d10/round (even if it wasn't, if the building collapsed that 1d6/round would add up trying to get out).

There are strong arguments for insisting that while the damage Thog took was wildly more than any first level human (i.e. anyone on Earth) could take, but well under Thog's limit. It might take a few days to climb out (thanks to D&D's funky rules, he won't be the slightest bit impaired from the damage), but he should escape. Judging by Elan's comment to Tarquin "you'll live", it seems that the characters are fully used to this type of thing and wouldn't be at all surprised if Thog shows up (even without a rez).

[Keltest]

The situation is wildly similar to the "Miko rushing into a burning building". They playground insisted that since it wasn't magic fire, it couldn't possibly damage Miko enough to be of concern (and her class-granted lack of fear prevents her from worrying about a mere 1d6 points of damage or so). Others insisted that it was heroic and possibly in the range or 8d10/round (even if it wasn't, if the building collapsed that 1d6/round would add up trying to get out).

There are strong arguments for insisting that while the damage Thog took was wildly more than any first level human (i.e. anyone on Earth) could take, but well under Thog's limit. It might take a few days to climb out (thanks to D&D's funky rules, he won't be the slightest bit impaired from the damage), but he should escape. Judging by Elan's comment to Tarquin "you'll live", it seems that the characters are fully used to this type of thing and wouldn't be at all surprised if Thog shows up (even without a rez).

Tarquin was digging Thog out of the rubble. If he survived, its quite likely that he finished Thog off, since that was his goal with the whole arena champion bit.

[Fyraltari]

We pretty clearly saw that the Linear Guild didn't die in that comic's instance though, that was more about Elan/the Order thinking they died off screen and a discussion of the concept itself. And I can't remember any instances of the comic really playing it that straight, (Belkar at the Godsmoot, maybe?) to me Thog's defeat seems a little too ambiguous all around to fit the concept they're describing.

Not that I can't see him in an epilogue either. Like I said it's ambiguous but that that concept seems to lean heavily (if not ensures) that the subject survived.
I ain't calling him dead until I see him like that : X___X



Tarquin was digging Thog out of the rubble. If he survived, its quite likely that he finished Thog off, since that was his goal with the whole arena champion bit.
Yes but we last saw Tarkin stranded in the desert after his ride bailed on him. Depending on how much the others wanted him to get over it they might not have got to him before the Snarl attacked at which point they had bigger fishes than Thog to fry.

Without Malack, Tarquin and a good chunk of their military I don't really see anyone in The Empire offing Thog before he randomly leaves in search of ice cream and puppies.

[137beth]

I ain't calling him dead until I see him like that : X___X



Yes but we last saw Tarkin stranded in the desert after his ride bailed on him. Depending on how much the others wanted him to get over it they might not have got to him before the Snarl attacked at which point they had bigger fishes than Thog to fry.

Without Malack, Tarquin and a good chunk of their military I don't really see anyone in The Empire offing Thog before he randomly leaves in search of ice cream and puppies.

Well, unless one of the soldiers tells him they are out of sprinkles. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0252.html) Then they'll all have to focus on killing him before he destroys them all in a rage to find more sprinkles.