OOTS #1113 - The Discussion Thread

[The Giant]

New comic is up.

[Peelee]

Huh. I wonder if Hilgya knows this will work, or if she's just heading her bets.

[meto30]

A most wonderfully tasty social critique on Helgya's part. I find myself especially relating to it, as my culture is also rather heavily honour-bound.

[wingedcatgirl]

I believe there are spells a cleric can use to directly ask their god a question, so I figure she's checked.

Also I imagine this idea came from Loki in the first place, but maybe that's not so strong an indicator of its validity.

[hroþila]

I believe there are spells a cleric can use to directly ask their god a question, so I figure she's checked.
Yeah, but we know Loki ignored her until it was in his best interest to give her the information she wanted. And I'm not sure communicating to her that "nope, worshipping me is a waste of time and a huge risk" would be in his best interest.

That said, if no one else contradicts her or challenges her point, I guess it might well be true. Wouldn't be the first time some cheesy technicality deprives Hel of her share of souls.

[hamishspence]

Seems like an inverted Catch 22 - a Catch 55? :smallbiggrin:

[Peelee]

A most wonderfully tasty social critique on Helgya's part. I find myself especially relating to it, as my culture is also rather heavily honour-bound.

Oh man, I know exactly what you mean. Wife's family is Korean, and while I loved just about everything while I was over there, the pressure on the people can get ridiculous.

Yeah, but we know Loki ignored her until it was in his best interest to give her the information she wanted. And I'm not sure communicating to her that "nope, worshipping me is a waste of time and a huge risk" would be in his best interest.

That said, if no one else contradicts her or challenges her point, I guess it might well be true. Wouldn't be the first time some cheesy technicality deprives Hel of her share of souls.
Agreed. I would be a little surprised if the gods answered relatively mundane questions straightforward direct to any and all of their clerics, but not unpleasantly so.

[Knick]

So she is. . . chaotic neutral? not particularly malicious, but not working for the greater good?

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Definitely not surprised to see that Hilgya has this opinion of the Dwarven honor system. However, I do have to wonder if she actually knows if this will work, or if this is all just a working theory. If she does know it works, then no wonder Hel is so pissed at Loki, considering how far he’s going out of his way here to give people a loophole out of Hel.

[wingedcatgirl]

I mean, I'd argue that "simultaneously freeing people from the shackles of an oppressive cosmology and the oppressive social structure that was created to handle the former" is a pretty Chaotic Good life plan.

On the other hand, that doesn't necessarily mean she is a Chaotic Good person.

[PH7]

Attagirl Hilgya. Fight the system!

I suppose this is how Blaise Pascal would have argued had he lived in the OotS world...

[endiku]

Nice logic loop :smallsmile:

[In4Dimensions]

I love the fleshing out of Hilgya’s character. “I like my chances” haha.


Also, first page! Woot!

[Peelee]

Attagirl Hilgya. Fight the system!

I suppose this is how Blaise Pascal would have argued had he lived in the OotS world...

You know the joke about Einstein, Newton, and Blaise playing hide and seek in the afterlife, yes?

[GooeyChewie]

If she dies with regular honor, Hel doesn’t get her anyway. And if she dies with “I followed my diety” honor, Hel still doesn’t get her. Nice!

[Yana]

Be honest Giant, how much fun are you having adding Kudzu reacting in every panel?:smalltongue:

[hamishspence]

I mean, I'd argue that "simultaneously freeing people from the shackles of an oppressive cosmology and the oppressive social structure that was created to handle the former" is a pretty Chaotic Good life plan.

On the other hand, that doesn't necessarily mean she is a Chaotic Good person.

Indeed. We know from War & XPs commentary that she was Evil at the time of her meeting with Durkon - though it's possible that she may have changed alignment since then.

[wingedcatgirl]

Ooh, given that "plane shift over to the afterlife" has been previously established as a method of confirming how it works, I think it's likely that, if not Hilgya, someone in the Church of Loki has plane shifted into his afterlife to find a dwarf who used this logic and see if it really worked.

[Fnordius]

So she is. . . chaotic neutral? not particularly malicious, but not working for the greater good?

Fitting, as the original Durkon was Lawful Neutral. He was all about the Law (of dwarves), and only Good because it fitted with what his friend Roy was. And she was supposed to be his opposite.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Yeah, but we know Loki ignored her until it was in his best interest to give her the information she wanted. And I'm not sure communicating to her that "nope, worshipping me is a waste of time and a huge risk" would be in his best interest.

That said, if no one else contradicts her or challenges her point, I guess it might well be true. Wouldn't be the first time some cheesy technicality deprives Hel of her share of souls.

Actually, I'm getting this feeling that this was the angle that drove Loki to suggesting the bet in the first place: notice that this gives Loki the chance to become the only god a dwarf can worship, if they want to escape the honor system. If he was not particularly liked by dwarves before, this way he got rid of the competition (Hel, which we know was worshiped by default in World 1.0) and gives the dwarves a reason to follow him, despite them generally not being chaotic.


I mean, I'd argue that "simultaneously freeing people from the shackles of an oppressive cosmology and the oppressive social structure that was created to handle the former" is a pretty Chaotic Good life plan.

On the other hand, that doesn't necessarily mean she is a Chaotic Good person.

Given that her actual reason for doing it is just so she doesn't have to follow the honor rules at all, and the other things is just in the nature of a bonus verging of afterthought, I think "Good" is definitely not it. Jury's still out on whether she's Neutral or outright Evil, IMnpHO.


You know the joke about Einstein, Newton, and Blaise playing hide and seek in the afterlife, yes?

No, I don't. Please, do tell (or link, if it's not forum-appropriate content).

Grey Wolf

[chrestomancy]

I mean, I'd argue that "simultaneously freeing people from the shackles of an oppressive cosmology and the oppressive social structure that was created to handle the former" is a pretty Chaotic Good life plan.

On the other hand, that doesn't necessarily mean she is a Chaotic Good person.

Couldn't agree more. Loved this strip.

I'm convinced Hilgya is Chaotic. I would be prepared to believe anything on the Good->Evil scale at this point, particularly when you think about how much the OotS has changed and developed since we last saw her, she's had plenty of opportunity to grow. I can't wait to see how the Hilgya/Kudzu/Durkon/NotDurkon dynamic will develop!

[hroþila]

Actually, I'm getting this feeling that this was the angle that drove Loki to suggesting the bet in the first place: notice that this gives Loki the chance to become the only god a dwarf can worship, if they want to escape the honor system. If he was not particularly liked by dwarves before, this way he got rid of the competition (Hel, which we know was worshiped by default in World 1.0) and gives the dwarves a reason to follow him, despite them generally not being chaotic.
That does sound like a plausible motivation for Loki, beyond the simple "for the lulz". Even if he didn't actually become the main god among the dwarves, he might well have a bigger share than he would otherwise.

[hamishspence]

Fitting, as the original Durkon was Lawful Neutral. He was all about the Law (of dwarves), and only Good because it fitted with what his friend Roy was.

Origin of PCs makes it crystal clear Durkon was Good even before he teamed up with Roy. So good, in fact, that he's willing to protect his fellow adventurers (in the party he was in before Roy and him started adventuring together) despite the fact that they are trying to get him killed, and he knows it.

[Grey Watcher]

Whether he's explicitly told his followers or not, it's certainly fitting with his style. This is the same being that put his head up in a wager and, upon losing, weaseled out of it by claiming that his neck wasn't part of the deal and they could only have his head if they could figure out how to get it without damaging his neck. Exploiting loopholes is a big part of his whole thing.

[Jasder]

Aww, Elan and Kudzu waving at each other. So cute. Which one do we reckon has a higher intelligence score?

[DaOldeWolf]

I like how she thinks. I think I made the right choice choosing Loki as my god of from OOTS. Praise Loki! :smallbiggrin:

[GudBelkarIsGud]

I'm not sure I've ever liked a depiction of Loki's mores and his followers as much as I have this strip's description. Granted, this could just be Hilgya's personal (mis)interpretation of how worshipping Loki should be, but it actually does sound appealing.

Re: Hilgya's good/evil/neutral orientation - I would be really surprised if she's "good". Looking back at her entire history as presented in-story, everything we've seen of her so far points her toward neutral at best. I mean, even her stated reason for helping save the world ("petty, self-serving") stray far, far from the "good" side of things.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

That does sound like a plausible motivation for Loki, beyond the simple "for the lulz". Even if he didn't actually become the main god among the dwarves, he might well have a bigger share than he would otherwise.

I get the feeling that very few actions by Loki are ever solely "for the lulz". This is the guy, after all, that said "Humiliating Thor is not enough of a reason to do this, Hel. It's a pretty funny reason, sure but not enough of one" (source (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1006.html)). Loki always has an angle he can exploit in his schemes, and I have been waiting to hear what his reason to propose the bet was.

Mind you, I'm not 100% sold on it - in part because for all we know this is a delusion from Hilgya, in part because Loki is also known for plans within plans, and there could always be another twist to his thinking (to misquote Pratchett, "He's so twisted he could walk sideways through a corkscrew")

Grey Wolf

[2D8HP]

Seeing a D&D Dwarf saying something is "totally bogus" brightened my morning.

Thanks The Giant/Rich!

[hamishspence]

I'm wondering if Valhalla really is the default afterlife for all dwarves, because the whole Northern Pantheon resides there, or if the Northern Pantheon members each reside on whatever plane suits their alignment - and dwarves only think Valhalla is the default because a few of the best known Northern Pantheon members live there?

If Loki does not reside in Valhalla but in Pandemonium, the Abyss, or Tarterus, then Hilgya may be wrong in her assumption that "acting according to Loki's honor code" gets her into Valhalla.

[Kantaki]

Whether he's explicitly told his followers or not, it's certainly fitting with his style. This is the same being that put his head up in a wager and, upon losing, weaseled out of it by claiming that his neck wasn't part of the deal and they could only have his head if they could figure out how to get it without damaging his neck. Exploiting loopholes is a big part of his whole thing.

True.

I mean my first reaction was „Hilgya, I don't think that's how it works.”

But thinking about it?
It makes enough sense that it might work.
Good enough to take a little leap of faith.

[Morquard]

Oh boy, I just LOVE Hilgya's logic in that comic!

[Aerysil]

I was half expecting Elan to reason out that the narrative momentum of telling other dwarves to break the rules might lead to something not so happy. Oh well, points go to the soapboxers.

[DGM]

Should have titled this one "On Her Dishonor." :smalltongue:

[Peelee]

Actually, I'm getting this feeling that this was the angle that drove Loki to suggesting the bet in the first place: notice that this gives Loki the chance to become the only god a dwarf can worship, if they want to escape the honor system. If he was not particularly liked by dwarves before, this way he got rid of the competition (Hel, which we know was worshiped by default in World 1.0) and gives the dwarves a reason to follow him, despite them generally not being chaotic.
Good point, but a little odd that his beer gives him a small leg up with the dwarves, and a massive boost to Thor with the dwarves (assuming that they didn't already default to Norse-inspired deities).


No, I don't. Please, do tell (or link, if it's not forum-appropriate content).
Einstein is picked to be "it." He turns towards a tree, closes his eyes, and counts to a hundred. Opens his eyes, turns around, and immediately sees someone standing in front of him.

"Isaac," he declares, "why didn't you hide? The games only started, and I've already found you!"

Isaac points towards the ground, where Einstein see he drew a rather large box around himself, and replies, "I'm sorry, dear friend, but you've found Pascal!"

[hamishspence]

True.

I mean my first reaction was „Hilgya, I don't think that's how it works.”

But thinking about it?
It makes enough sense that it might work.

The Easydamus site (mix of D&D data from various editions - and Palladium data) took the approach that each alignment has its own "honor code" - even Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Evil - and that "acting honorably" can be enormously different depending on the alignment.

If Hilgya's "acting honorably for Chaotic Neutral"

http://easydamus.com/chaoticneutral.html

or "acting honorably for Chaotic Evil"

http://easydamus.com/chaoticevil.html

then she may be right in assuming Hel won't get her soul.

[Fyraltari]

Elan waving at kuzdu is the cutest thing I have seen today.
That's totally how I behave around babies too. :smallbiggrin:

And I'm not sure communicating to her that "nope, worshipping me is a waste of time and a huge risk" would be in his best interest.
I dunno. On one hand if she is wrong not contradicting her amounts to handing Hel free souls, on the other hand contradicting her amounts to handing Thor and Odin more followers, either way he's screwed. I wonder which is the worst option for him.

You know the joke about Einstein, Newton, and Blaise playing hide and seek in the afterlife, yes?

No, I don't. Please, do tell (or link, if it's not forum-appropriate content).
Me neither, what is it?
Edit ninja'd.

Actually, I'm getting this feeling that this was the angle that drove Loki to suggesting the bet in the first place: notice that this gives Loki the chance to become the only god a dwarf can worship, if they want to escape the honor system. If he was not particularly liked by dwarves before, this way he got rid of the competition (Hel, which we know was worshiped by default in World 1.0) and gives the dwarves a reason to follow him, despite them generally not being chaotic.
That doesn't look like a really good idea as we have seen most dwarves chose Lawful deities. And there are still a bunch of other Chaotic gods they could choose. Choosing a Chaotic Good deity seems the safer bet for me : if you die doing something good (like risking your life to save someone) you are in the clear anyway and if you don't, you were fighting traditionnal value, hence following your God's wishes.

I just remember that this situation arose from Thor telling the Dwarves so my theory of "this totally backfired on Loki" and yours are not mutually incompatible.


Given that her actual reason for doing it is just so she doesn't have to follow the honor rules at all, and the other things is just in the nature of a bonus verging of afterthought, I think "Good" is definitely not it. Jury's still out on whether she's Neutral or outright Evil, IMnpHO.


Grey Wolf
I have a much more positive view of Hilgya after this strip :
She apologies for a wrong she did, she understands that someone could have sensible reasons not to like her, she wants to help other people and she admits she is "petty [and] self-serving".

I'm gonna say CN not that far away from CE.


Whether he's explicitly told his followers or not, it's certainly fitting with his style. This is the same being that put his head up in a wager and, upon losing, weaseled out of it by claiming that his neck wasn't part of the deal and they could only have his head if they could figure out how to get it without damaging his neck. Exploiting loopholes is a big part of his whole thing.
Nitpick : this is a being based on popular understanding of that one. But yeah, he likes loopholes.


I get the feeling that very few actions by Loki are ever solely "for the lulz". This is the guy, after all, that said "Humiliating Thor is not enough of a reason to do this, Hel. It's a pretty funny reason, sure but not enough of one" (source (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1006.html)). Loki always has an angle he can exploit in his schemes, and I have been waiting to hear what his reason to propose the bet was.
Seconded.
Mind you, I'm not 100% sold on it - in part because for all we know this is a delusion from Hilgya, in part because Loki is also known for plans within plans, and there could always be another twist to his thinking (to misquote Pratchett, "He's so twisted he could walk sideways through a corkscrew")

Grey Wolf[/QUOTE]

Naah Loki is known for making plans, then shooting himself in the foot then improvising like crazy to save his skin.



Einstein is picked to be "it." He turns towards a tree, closes his eyes, and counts to a hundred. Opens his eyes, turns around, and immediately sees someone standing in front of him.

"Isaac," he declares, "why didn't you hide? The games only started, and I've already found you!"

Isaac points towards the ground, where Einstein see he drew a rather large box around himself, and replies, "I'm sorry, dear friend, but you've found Pascal!"
Legitimely made me laugh out loud. I love science jokes.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

That doesn't look like a really good idea as we have seen most dwarves chose Lawful deities.
Yes, but that's my point: Loki saw himself as being cut out of the dwarven worship, and came up with the bet as a way to give himself an edge into the dwarven worship.


And there are still a bunch of other Chaotic gods they could choose. Choosing a Chaotic Good deity seems the safer bet for me : if you die doing something good (like risking your life to save someone) you are in the clear anyway and if you don't, you were fighting traditionnal value, hence following your God's wishes.

That might not be how it works. It might be that only Loki, knowing how the bet would shake out, was in a position to establish as part of his tenets that following him meant you were honorable by being dishonorable. Or maybe they did catch on, but if we take it as true that in 1.0 their share of dwarven worship was practically 0, any kind of increase for the Chaotic gods on the North - even if that share was shared amongst all of them - would still be preferable to the status quo.

As I see it, in 1.0, Good dwarves worshiped Thor, Neutral ones worshiped Odin, and Evil ones worshiped Hel. Loki's bet cut out Hel entirely, and opened any freedom-loving dwarves who would have stuck with Thor or Odin but are now disgusted with the honor system a way out. If he gets all the Evil ones and even a portion of the others, he's still coming out way ahead of where he was in 1.0.

Grey Wolf

[KorvinStarmast]

However, I do have to wonder if she actually knows if this will work, She's a cleric. What matters is that she believes it will work. :smallcool:

As to the strip, Bravo Giant! It's been a while since messing with "the world as it is and the hose job the dwarves got" has been this enjoyable. Also the "the fact that Haley is not in your grill shows how much progress she's made" was a nice observation by Elan.

Edit: I like in the 9th panel where Hilgya makes her point on her evangelizing for Lokiism or Lokianity: to set the dwarves free from their unfair lot through following Loki. Nice touch, Giant. :smallcool:

[CoffeeIncluded]

I loved this interaction, and Elan really was the only one who could get Hilgya talking about this. He's chaotic enough to agree with her point of view, and kind and open enough to get her talking.

[hamishspence]

Nitpick : this is a being based on popular understanding of that one. But yeah, he likes loopholes.


We know at least that while Thor might owe a bit more to Marvel Thor than to Norse Mythology Thor, some Norse Mythology stories are told in-universe as well - possibly as a hint that "in this universe, these events happened, and have become mythologised" :

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0958.html

[endiku]

No, I don't. Please, do tell (or link, if it's not forum-appropriate content).

Grey Wolf

Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, and Blaise Pascal are playing Hide ‘n’ Seek. It’s Einstein’s turn to count, so he covers his eyes and counts to ten. Pascal runs to hide, but Newton draws a one meter by one meter square on the ground, then stands in the middle of it.

Einstein reaches ten and uncovers his eyes. He sees Newton immediately and exclaims “I found you, Newton! You’re it!”

Newton replies “You didn’t find me. You found a Newton over a square meter - that's a Pascal!”

nerd humor :P

[MReav]

I can't help but think Hilgya's plan will backfire when Elan proclaims the Word of Banjo, which allows much lower standards for living and dying with honor without the caveat that you have to be a petty, spiteful jackass.

[SilverCacaobean]

Hah, funny one. I especially laughed at her descriptions of the afterlives.

We also got some background information on what Loki has done... Is it accurate? Not sure, but wouldn't a bunch of chaotic clerics make sure he's not lying to them? And also Hel wouldn't be mad at him if he was tricking his own clerics and then deliver them to her doorstep. Why would he even do that? He'd lose power... I think it's more possible than not that what she said was accurate.

Now I know which god I'd worship if I were an OotS dwarf.

[KorvinStarmast]

Hah, funny one. I especially laughed at her descriptions of the afterlives.

I hear they have a bottle service.

Nice line. I am going to open a thread to appeal for a Hilgya smiley: Nale is dead, Thog is dead, Miko is dead, and their smilies are still alive and well.

Let's have a Higya smilie. I recall a while back that Rich had alluded to adding a strong female character in the near future. I thought it was going to be Lien, but maybe it's Hilgya?

[brian 333]

An in character Alignment argument! This is D&D!

Kudzu is now my official favorite character. He is very expressive. If I knew how I'd turn him into emojis.

[Bakhtosh]

That was beautiful.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

We also got some background information on what Loki has done... Is it accurate? Not sure, but wouldn't a bunch of chaotic clerics make sure he's not lying to them? And also Hel wouldn't be mad at him if he was tricking his own clerics and then deliver them to her doorstep. Why would he even do that? He'd lose power... I think it's more possible than not that what she said was accurate.

Playing devil's advocate, it's not that clear cut. First, you are overestimating how much Loki cares about his followers. Most gods in OotS don't, as far as we can tell. Second, and more important, this page could all be Hilgya's belief, a belief she may not have confirmed because we know the only time Loki has answered her prayers was when asking where to find Durkon. It might not be as easy as she thinks it is - i.e. that yes, there is a certain degree of dishonorable behaviour that still counts as "Loki's Tenets" but not as wide-ranging as she thinks. Or it might be that despite what she thinks, she is still subject to the honor rules because she's a dwarf, and Loki is just using her to spread his beliefs amongst humans (which is, after all, where she has been living).

I still think she is not wrong, but I don't think it is certain she is.

Grey Wolf

[Keltest]

Personally, I'm a little skeptical that "be chaotic and honorless" is enough of a loophole for a non-priest to get out of Hel's grasp. Hilgya's reasoning works pretty well for her, a direct minion of Loki, but for average dwarf in the mines, that seems an awfully tenuous rationale.

[King of Nowhere]

I symphatize with dwarves, forced to live under arbitrary stupid laws and trying to nod at them while actually ingoring them. Feels like my personal struggle with burocracy.

I still won't forget hilgya for trying to murder her husband, who did nothing wrong, and for trying to murder durkon. she is a bad person. but she has good motivations.

I wonder if loki is CE or CN at this point.

[The_Weirdo]

And (provided Hilgya's right) Loki just became the sole deity worth worshipping for any dwarf at all. The dwarven honor system is worthless and evil and anything that declaws it so that it's also powerless is a good thing.

Of course, that Loki also set that system up in the first place makes him an evil jackass, but he is still the sole god worth worshipping for any dwarf.

There should be more clerics and worshippers of Loki. Heck, the entire Dwarven society should worship him and break those chains...

As for Hilgya, more and more she's looking CN, maybe even CG. Regardless, everything she's said in that strip about their honor system and the unfairness of it all is true and every dwarf, regardless of alignment, has a moral right to worship Loki and to cheat that insane system and to stick it to that insane society.

Live free or die, Hilgya. :smallamused:

[Basement Cat]

I do believe that we just learned more about the Northern pantheon, Loki and Dwarven culture/religion in one strip than we have in the entire previous 1112 strips.

Or close to it. Wow! I love Hilgya's logic. It's actually refreshing in light of the oppressive "Honor or be damned" reality dwarves face.

I wonder how much of this is why Loki swindled Hel into making the bet with Thor: In a single move Loki becomes the primary and possibly sole means for Dwarves to avoid Hel and be 'dishonorable' in some fashion. Imagine how many followers he acquired that way!

EDIT: Ninja'd

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I still won't forget hilgya for trying to murder her husband, who did nothing wrong, and for trying to murder durkon. she is a bad person. but she has good motivations.

Not unlike RedCloak, in fact, come to think of it: ostensibly working to rescue their fellows from a pervasive and baked-into-the-world situation by embracing the tents of an Evil god whose ultimate purpose does not seem to match their own intentions.

Unfortunately, I doubt they'll ever actually meet and compare notes.

GW

[Anarion]

I’m not sure that the accuracy of Hilgya’s theory particularly matters here. Especially since the whole arrangement is likely to change during the run of the comic. What does matter is that this comic offers a real insight into her character, including that she really thought through her choices and that her desire to be free of strict and rigid laws drove her to become a cleric.

[Unbodied]

Personally, I'm a little skeptical that "be chaotic and honorless" is enough of a loophole for a non-priest to get out of Hel's grasp. Hilgya's reasoning works pretty well for her, a direct minion of Loki, but for average dwarf in the mines, that seems an awfully tenuous rationale.
That might not be a problem if the point is to make more Clerics rather than more worshippers.


a belief she may not have confirmed because we know the only time Loki has answered her prayers was when asking where to find Durkon.
Correction: We know that Loki refused to answer her prayers for Durkon's whereabouts until Not-Durkon and the Order had actually arrived. Since he needed her kept ignorant until that point so that she could be in the right place at the right time to save the day that does not tell us anything about how forthcoming he is when he doesn't have a reason to keep silent. If anything it suggests that he normally will answer questions, otherwise why even bother trying?

[Hiro Quester]

"But I'm doing if for petty self-serving reasons" That's perfect.

I'm building a CG Dwarf cleric right now. I now have my model philosophy nailed down. Thanks, Giant!!

[Fyraltari]

The dwarven honor system is worthless and evil and anything that declaws it so that it's also powerless is a good thing.
Why?


Of course, that Loki also set that system up in the first place makes him an evil jackass, but he is still the sole god worth worshipping for any dwarf.

There should be more clerics and worshippers of Loki. Heck, the entire Dwarven society should worship him and break those chains...

As for Hilgya, more and more she's looking CN, maybe even CG. Regardless, everything she's said in that strip about their honor system and the unfairness of it all is true and every dwarf, regardless of alignment, has a moral right to worship Loki and to cheat that insane system and to stick it to that insane society.

Live free or die, Hilgya. :smallamused:
Assuming Hilgya is right and Loki did plan for this :

So because Loki set up a situation in which every Dwarf couldbe free provided they worship him, he is the good guy? I don't think we have the same understanding of the word "oppression".

Thor offered another backdoor, remember. One that we know actually works. And since the bet was made when he was drunk he really is the guiltless god here.

[Shulk]

This summarizes what it's like having an evil cleric in a majority good party who DOESNT screw over the party perfectly. PERFECTLY

[The_Weirdo]

Why?

Because a system that says you should either die with "honor" (and by honor we very likely mean insane, ancient rules up to and including letting a Lawful society define how you live) or be a slave for eternity is evil.


Assuming Hilgya is right and Loki did plan for this :

So because Loki set up a situation in which every Dwarf couldbe free provided they worship him, he is the good guy? I don't think we have the same understanding of the word "oppression".

Thor offered another backdoor, remember. One that we know actually works. And since the bet was made when he was drunk he really is the guiltless god here.

Oh, I didn't say Loki is good, let alone guiltless. I said he's the one worth worshipping, for the sake of the dwarves, not for his. Heck, once they get to the afterlife, they should, in fact, figure out a way to betray and kill him. And what is Thor's backdoor? Live with that honor, the one he decided to impose when he was hammered?

[Keltest]

Because a system that says you should either die with "honor" (and by honor we very likely mean insane, ancient rules up to and including letting a Lawful society define how you live) or be a slave for eternity is evil.



Oh, I didn't say Loki is good, let alone guiltless. I said he's the one worth worshipping, for the sake of the dwarves, not for his. Heck, once they get to the afterlife, they should, in fact, figure out a way to betray and kill him. And what is Thor's backdoor? Live with that honor, the one he decided to impose when he was hammered?

You say all of this as if the dwarves (or indeed, Thor) had anything to do with the creation of the "die with honor" exception. The lawful dwarves don't get any say in what happens to their spirits. Theyre telling you how it is, period, whether you like it or not, whether you think its fair or not. If you don't like it, youre welcome to play Russian roulette with your soul, but that's on you, not them.

[wingedcatgirl]

I mean, "do X or be enslaved for eternity" is a bad system even if X is a perfectly reasonable and good thing to do. Disproportionate punishment is bad, y'all.

[The_Weirdo]

You say all of this as if the dwarves (or indeed, Thor) had anything to do with the creation of the "die with honor" exception. The lawful dwarves don't get any say in what happens to their spirits. Theyre telling you how it is, period, whether you like it or not, whether you think its fair or not. If you don't like it, youre welcome to play Russian roulette with your soul, but that's on you, not them.

And that is why worshipping Loki is the best idea for a dwarf: you are no longer playing Russian roulette AND you don't need to follow this madness.

And, no, it would be on the gods. The GODS chose to send to Hel souls that die in dishonor, remember?

[Ivrytwr]

Great. Now I am questioning my faith. But blind faith is bad, so this is good. However, faith requires a little uncertainty ...
Just like the rest of my life, we cannot discuss this crisis until you have done the required reading.

Thanks Giant!

[Keltest]

And that is why worshipping Loki is the best idea for a dwarf: you are no longer playing Russian roulette AND you don't need to follow this madness.

And, no, it would be on the gods. The GODS chose to send to Hel souls that die in dishonor, remember?

A: as mentioned above, I'm skeptical that just worshiping Loki alone, without serving as his cleric, is enough to count as being honorable.

B: a society consisting entirely of in-it-for-themselves chaotic neutral and chaotic evil maniacs is a society not long destined for the world. Remember how Bozzok managed to royally screw himself over with is "me first, screw the other guys" mentality? society requires mutual cooperation to function at a fundamental level, and Loki's followers tend towards the opposite behavior.

C: You have successfully advocated that the dwarves should enslave themselves to the very being responsible for putting them in this situation in the first place.

[The_Weirdo]

A: as mentioned above, I'm skeptical that just worshiping Loki alone, without serving as his cleric, is enough to count as being honorable.

Fair enough, we don't know either way.


B: a society consisting entirely of in-it-for-themselves chaotic neutral and chaotic evil maniacs is a society not long destined for the world. Remember how Bozzok managed to royally screw himself over with is "me first, screw the other guys" mentality? society requires mutual cooperation to function at a fundamental level, and Loki's followers tend towards the opposite behavior.

A society consisting entirely of sheep that have to act one specific way or be damned for eternity is a society that will end up unchanging, decaying and dead and that does not deserve to keep existing anyways. The mutual cooperation the Dwarven society offers, with forced marriage and especially if it makes you miserable is repugnant in all aspects, insane on all grounds and justifies any reaction whatsoever.


C: You have successfully advocated that the dwarves should enslave themselves to the very being responsible for putting them in this situation in the first place.

Yes. I didn't say Loki was nice, I said the dwarves should pay him lip service to stay free and, once they're in Valhalla, figure out a way to kill him.

[Qaanol]

By the rules of drama, the fact that Elan mentioned “our upcoming big battle scene” in the first panel basically guarantees there *won’t* be a big battle scene here, right?

[schmunzel]

Indeed. We know from War & XPs commentary that she was Evil at the time of her meeting with Durkon - though it's possible that she may have changed alignment since then.

WHAT ??????????
Do you have any idea how man pages of posts went into that discussion 10 threads ago ???

are you serious ???

sch


edit : took a deep breath - calmed down and stopped yelling

[hamishspence]

WHAT ??????????
DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA HOW MANY PAGES OF POSTS WENT INTO THAT DISCUSSION 10 THREADS AGO ??????????????????

are you serious ???


I'm pretty sure people quoted the Class & Geekery Thread, and the War & XPs reference, a few times in those many pages of posts. The bone of contention wasn't "Was Dungeon Crawling Fools-era Hilgya Evil?" but "Is present-day Hilgya Evil?".

[137beth]

Heh, I wonder what the odds are that Loki thought of this loophole when he made the deal with Hel in the first place.

[Keltest]

A society consisting entirely of sheep that have to act one specific way or be damned for eternity is a society that will end up unchanging, decaying and dead and that does not deserve to keep existing anyways. The mutual cooperation the Dwarven society offers, with forced marriage and especially if it makes you miserable is repugnant in all aspects, insane on all grounds and justifies any reaction whatsoever.

This is a remarkably short sighted and ill thought out argument. Yeah, the dwarves lot in life kind of sucks. No, acting like it doesn't exist will not make it go away, and pretending that it will just creates even more problems.

Why is your solution to an imperfect system always to burn it to the ground and leave the survivors with nothing? I legitimately do not understand how you can possibly think this is somehow improving the situation.



Yes. I didn't say Loki was nice, I said the dwarves should pay him lip service to stay free and, once they're in Valhalla, figure out a way to kill him.

Sure, because that's remotely feasible. And really, even if that was a remotely viable plan, the correct solution would be to worship Thor, die of old age, and then kill Hel.

Also, paying lip service to an ideal without actually making good on following it through is unlikely to fly with the judges in the afterlife.

[Deliverance]

Ooh, given that "plane shift over to the afterlife" has been previously established as a method of confirming how it works, I think it's likely that, if not Hilgya, someone in the Church of Loki has plane shifted into his afterlife to find a dwarf who used this logic and see if it really worked.
...Except, that just because it worked for some other dwarf there is no guarantee that it would work for her; Or going even further, just because some other dwarf in the Valhalla afterlife believes he got in on a Loki-dispensation that works just like Hilgya believes, that does not necessarily mean that that other dwarf is right - he might have been let in for other reasons.

The "pop into the otherworld to check/ask" runs into the same problem as "ask Loki to confirm or deny Hilgya's theory", namely that Loki is a dishonourable and tricky God. If you could trust his word or count on him to be consistent he wouldn't be Loki.

[Roderick_BR]

So... if she does die in an honourable battle, she's betraying Loki's teachings... and betraying stuff is what Loki does best, so it's still a win-win case for her.

[SilverCacaobean]

Playing devil's advocate, it's not that clear cut. First, you are overestimating how much Loki cares about his followers. Most gods in OotS don't, as far as we can tell. Second, and more important, this page could all be Hilgya's belief, a belief she may not have confirmed because we know the only time Loki has answered her prayers was when asking where to find Durkon. It might not be as easy as she thinks it is - i.e. that yes, there is a certain degree of dishonorable behaviour that still counts as "Loki's Tenets" but not as wide-ranging as she thinks. Or it might be that despite what she thinks, she is still subject to the honor rules because she's a dwarf, and Loki is just using her to spread his beliefs amongst humans (which is, after all, where she has been living).

I still think she is not wrong, but I don't think it is certain she is.

Grey Wolf

I don't think he cares about his followers at all, but he cares about his power. The way worshipers work, it seems they give some power to the God while alive and some when they die. Would he expend effort to acquire followers if half of the potential power he'd get would end up in Hel? You make a good point about her living among humans, though. On the other hand we don't know how long she lived among humans and if she tries to convert humans to Loki. What she said here suggest she mostly tries to convert Dwarves.

Anyway, I'm definitely not certain, but if I had to bet, I'd bet she's right.


Nice line. I am going to open a thread to appeal for a Hilgya smiley: Nale is dead, Thog is dead, Miko is dead, and their smilies are still alive and well.

Let's have a Higya smilie. I recall a while back that Rich had alluded to adding a strong female character in the near future. I thought it was going to be Lien, but maybe it's Hilgya?

Unless you mean official smilie, I think there's a thread with smilies. I know because every time I see it I always read similes, get confused, then click on it to find out what a thread named like this could be about. :smalltongue:

[The_Weirdo]

This is a remarkably short sighted and ill thought out argument. Yeah, the dwarves lot in life kind of sucks. No, acting like it doesn't exist will not make it go away, and pretending that it will just creates even more problems.

Working around it through Loki solves it until the revolution comes.


Why is your solution to an imperfect system always to burn it to the ground and leave the survivors with nothing? I legitimately do not understand how you can possibly think this is somehow improving the situation.

Well, if a system is unfair and oppressive, it should not exist. If it should not exist, it should be destroyed. Of course, I might discuss other, more personal and/or emotional reasons for that, but not here. If the rules allow, I might set up somewhere a thread on my disturbed psyche, provided many people would like to delve. :smallbiggrin:


Sure, because that's remotely feasible. And really, even if that was a remotely viable plan, the correct solution would be to worship Thor, die of old age, and then kill Hel.

Well, actually, the correct solution is to kill them all on account of what they did.


Also, paying lip service to an ideal without actually making good on following it through is unlikely to fly with the judges in the afterlife.

Except this is Loki we're talking about. Paying lip service and backstabbing is a VERY Loki-ish thing to do.

[hamishspence]

the correct solution is to kill them all on account of what they did.


Most of the gods haven't done anything though. Just Thor, Loki, and Hel. It's likely that once Hel had "traded her ability to make living clerics, for Default Dominion" it was a fait accompli - the other deities of the Northern Pantheon - Odin etc - could do nothing to reverse it.

[The_Weirdo]

Most of the gods haven't done anything though. Just Thor, Loki, and Hel. It's likely that once Hel had "traded her ability to make living clerics, for Default Dominion" it was a fait accompli - the other deities of the Northern Pantheon - Odin etc - could do nothing to reverse it.

Yes, fair enough, replace them all with the three.

[SilverCacaobean]

he really is the guiltless god here.

Can we call a guy who makes deals about people's lives while drunk "guiltless"? Moron, yes, but guiltless is going too far. The fact of the matter is, he knew he's a god with great power before getting drunk and he got drunk with Loki of all people.

[hamishspence]

The whole "tell all the dwarves exactly how to Act, Live, and Die with Honor" thing, might be his attempt to mitigate the wrong he'd done. I could certainly see Thor having a "Oh, Me, what have I done, I must fix this as best I can" reaction the morning after.

[The_Weirdo]

The whole "tell all the dwarves exactly how to Act, Live, and Die with Honor" thing, might be his attempt to mitigate the wrong he'd done. I could certainly see Thor having a "Oh, Me, what have I done, I must fix this as best I can" reaction the morning after.

Doesn't make it right. It's not enough to try to mitigate this.

[Keltest]

Doesn't make it right. It's not enough to try to mitigate this.

Youre the one suggesting that the dwarves should live in anarchy, and then suffer Hel anyway.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

he knew he's a god with great power before getting drunk

Actually, was he? We know he is powerful now because such a large majority of the dwarven race worships him, but maybe he was just the Northern God of Drunkards (not unlike Bacchus, but for dwarves), and being drunk was his entire job. Heck, maybe he was Chaotic Good, and the bet is the reason why he makes for such a poor Lawful Good god - it just is not his nature, but he took it up because he had no other choice.

Edit: also, what hamishspence says.

Grey Wolf

[hamishspence]

When it's the only option available at the time though, it makes sense not to condemn him for failing to "do better".

And we know that Thor argues over every "corner case" - doing his best to keep souls from Hel's torments.

[SilverCacaobean]

Northern God of Drunkards, and being drunk was his entire job.

Haha, I'll pretend this is the case until contradicted by the comic (probably never).

[Chei]

I totally dig the conversation in this page, and I'm not even surprised that Elan is the one going into the philosophical metaphysics involved. Boy's come a long way.

I really like that he realized what a tightrope Hilgya is walking - she can't be too Good, or she'll end up in the beer hall anyway, which she doesn't want even though it's the best-case scenario for other dwarves.

[The_Weirdo]

Youre the one suggesting that the dwarves should live in anarchy, and then suffer Hel anyway.

Nope. I'm suggesting that they should worship Loki by lip-service, live as they want - you know, like normal people do in every single very much non-anarchy place that has decent freedom - and then come up with a plan to kill the three deities that made the wager.


When it's the only option available at the time though, it makes sense not to condemn him for failing to "do better".

And we know that Thor argues over every "corner case" - doing his best to keep souls from Hel's torments.

I'm not condemning Alcoholic Moron for failing to do better, I'm condemning him for precipitating the situation in the first place.

[hamishspence]

I'm condemning him for precipitating the situation in the first place.

Except - he didn't. Loki did.

[The_Weirdo]

Except - he didn't. Loki did.

They all did. It's why I'm advocating for three deicides, not one or two. :smallsmile:

[Keltest]

They all did. It's why I'm advocating for three deicides, not one or two. :smallsmile:

We've seen how it came about though. It was Loki's idea. The only thing we don't know is how he got Thor to agree to it, unless it was by making him think something else was happening, or by getting his signature when he didn't know what he was signing or something.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I'm condemning him for precipitating the situation in the first place.

Thor didn't suggest the bet (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1083.html), nor did he word the bet or convince Hel to take the bet. How exactly did he "precipitate the situation"?

pre·cip·i·tate
verb
prəˈsipəˌtāt
1. cause (an event or situation, typically one that is bad or undesirable) to happen suddenly, unexpectedly, or prematurely.

GW

[hamishspence]

It's also entirely possible that Thor gave the dwarves a very basic outline of what "act with honor" means, and a lot of stuff has gotten added to the dwarven definition of "honor" over time, that Thor himself didn't actually control.

After all, as was mentioned earlier - Thor himself comes across as pretty Chaotic.

[schmunzel]

This is a remarkably short sighted and ill thought out argument. Yeah, the dwarves lot in life kind of sucks. No, acting like it doesn't exist will not make it go away, and pretending that it will just creates even more problems.

Why is your solution to an imperfect system always to burn it to the ground and leave the survivors with nothing? I legitimately do not understand how you can possibly think this is somehow improving the situation.




Sure, because that's remotely feasible. And really, even if that was a remotely viable plan, the correct solution would be to worship Thor, die of old age, and then kill Hel.

Also, paying lip service to an ideal without actually making good on following it through is unlikely to fly with the judges in the afterlife.

All I get from The Weirdos' comments, is that everyone who does not live to his liking has lost all rights to his existance.
It is frightening to see the amount of self importance / righteousness / imagined moral superiority with which everybody gets a death sentence who does not live in a "The Weirdo" approved way.

:(

Apart from that it is my firm believe that you cannot spend your entire existance spending lip service to whatever for whatever reason without ending up imploding / really loathing yourself
For a dwarf the hammered out deal by Thor has a standing likened to a natural law.
We do not end up hating god (and/or the univers) because we die if we set ourselves a golden shot or get decapitated.
We acknowledge the fact and live with it (or not). Even if its inconvenient at times.
Mostly however, we deal with it by trying to avoid decapitation. Thats what dwarfes do.
Additionally, it is what defines what it means to be a dwarf. It is very much identity giving. And I do not think that the importance of identity can be overstated.
I really really do believe that I (as a person) or we (as a society) should not judge a different person / society because they have a differing identity.


sch

[Sermil]

Can we call a guy who makes deals about people's lives while drunk "guiltless"? Moron, yes, but guiltless is going too far. The fact of the matter is, he knew he's a god with great power before getting drunk and he got drunk with Loki of all people.

Did he know he was getting drunk with Loki? Or did he think he was having a single glass of beer in the beer hall, and Loki stuck a god-roofie in it?

Anyways, I'm definitely feeling a lot of more sympathetic towards Hilgya than I was yesterday. I kinda hope it works out for her.

[The_Weirdo]

All I get from The Weirdos' comments, is that everyone who does not live to his liking has lost all rights to his existance.
It is frightening to see the amount of self importance / righteousness / imagined moral superiority with which everybody gets a death sentence who does not live in a "The Weirdo" approved way.

:(

Nah, that's actually the point, I'm Chaotic. It's not about how the person lives, it's about whether or not people's rights are respected, whether or not they oppress others or impose their little order on others. :smallwink:

[Keltest]

Nah, that's actually the point, I'm Chaotic. It's not about how the person lives, it's about whether or not people's rights are respected, whether or not they oppress others or impose their little order on others. :smallwink:

Youre awfully quick to revoke those rights when people don't live the way you like, though.

[The_Weirdo]

Youre awfully quick to revoke those rights when people don't live the way you like, though.

Because, you see, living the way I don't like boils down to oppressing others. Even when, for instance, I claim Hilgya had a right to kill Ivan - an innocent - in order to get out of the oppression, I still concede it as an evil action - except all guilt from it goes to the clans.

But enough about me. If you want me to keep talking about myself, I can either set up the narcissistic thread or you can wine me and dine me. :smallbiggrin:

[schmunzel]

Nah, that's actually the point, I'm Chaotic. It's not about how the person lives, it's about whether or not people's rights are respected, whether or not they oppress others or impose their little order on others. :smallwink:

Yeah but dwarfen society isnt opressing you.
Actually you are the ethnocentric guy who is opressing dwarfen culture.
Chaotic by the way is all about being unbound by societal standards. It is not about fighting society.
Thats a peculiar interpretation you use to justify the opression of dissenters.
ätsch :yuk:

[Keltest]

Because, you see, living the way I don't like boils down to oppressing others. Even when, for instance, I claim Hilgya had a right to kill Ivan - an innocent - in order to get out of the oppression, I still concede it as an evil action - except all guilt from it goes to the clans.

But enough about me. If you want me to keep talking about myself, I can either set up the narcissistic thread or you can wine me and dine me. :smallbiggrin:

But its not oppressing others when you inflict violence somebody for not living the way you want, right? :smallannoyed:

Do you not see how immensely hypocritical this position is?

[schmunzel]

Because, you see, living the way I don't like boils down to oppressing others. Even when, for instance, I claim Hilgya had a right to kill Ivan - an innocent - in order to get out of the oppression, I still concede it as an evil action - except all guilt from it goes to the clans.

But enough about me. If you want me to keep talking about myself, I can either set up the narcissistic thread or you can wine me and dine me. :smallbiggrin:

Im just going to kill a ****load of people because Im annoyed. I willl readily concede its an evil action. All is fine!! Except all the blame will be on you because you annoyed me.
So Im like totally covered!

sch

[D.One]

Thor didn't suggest the bet (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1083.html), nor did he word the bet or convince Hel to take the bet. How exactly did he "precipitate the situation"?

pre·cip·i·tate
verb
prəˈsipəˌtāt
1. cause (an event or situation, typically one that is bad or undesirable) to happen suddenly, unexpectedly, or prematurely.

GW

Agreed. It should be also noticed that all that Thor says during the scene is "Huh?".

In fact, Thor's participation in the bet seems more to be a point of comparison, as a "regular-arrangement" god versus Hel's "alternative-arrangement" way.

Which brings me to the following questions:

1) What was bet? (as in, what was the wager?) The bet was about who would get more power in the new world, a "regular-arrangement" god or an "alternative-arrangement" one. Ok. The dwarves situation is a consequence of that alternative arrangement, and even Hel's great influx of power if the world is undone and the dwarves die honnorless is a consequence of the arrangement. But what would the winner of the bet gain?

I believe the answer for this might play out a significant element for the story.

And that takes me to the next question:

2) Why Loki did it? And why did he do it with Hel? And why is Thor the point of comparison, not Loki himself?

The answer eludes me. I think he might have done it for the lulz, but I sincerely doubt it. As said here, he probably has his own agenda, and will gain something (or has already gained something) from this bet, no matter who "wins".

He probably picked Thor as the other part of the bet because Thor was drunk and not paying attention, and because Hel would know better than to bet against Loki himself (and because, as I suggested, being apparently uninvolved, he wins no mater who "wins").

EDIT:

I'm starting to think one of the possible wins for Loki is to convince more and more dwarves to become his clerics (if we accept "Hilgya's way out" works for his clerics), thus gaining follower, clerics and power.

By this thought, The Weirdo is a cleric of Loki, and is only doing his job as such... :smallbiggrin:

[SilverCacaobean]

Did he know he was getting drunk with Loki? Or did he think he was having a single glass of beer in the beer hall, and Loki stuck a god-roofie in it?
Wow, this is getting awfully close to a real world parallel I didn't mean to imply. To be clear, I compared Thor with a hypothetical real world leader who drunkenly makes policy that he is legally not allowed to take back, not some random person getting roofie'd, tricked or worse while drunk.

Anyways, I'm definitely feeling a lot of more sympathetic towards Hilgya than I was yesterday. I kinda hope it works out for her.
She does make a pretty good point. Also nice to see Elan having a real conversation with someone without just being the overly naive (or just plain stupid) comic relief (or punchline) in someone else's conversation.

[Manty5]

Given that she mentions a specifically named Chaotic Good afterlife as her goal, that either means that Loki or Valhalla is CN to avoid the "too far from your diety" rule, or Hylgia's alignment rules has gone so far off the RAW reservation that RAW debates are utterly futile in this matter.


Also nice to see Elan having a real conversation with someone without just being the overly naive (or just plain stupid) comic relief (or punchline) in someone else's conversation.

:elan: Now, now, Haley, introducing new characters is everyone's responsibility! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0719.html)

[schmunzel]

Indeed. We know from War & XPs commentary that she was Evil at the time of her meeting with Durkon - though it's possible that she may have changed alignment since then.

"... (was) Hilgya, who, while evil ..."

I definitively cannot remember that we discussed that quote. Either I was delirious, or Im getting old ... ( ... or we didnt discuss it ...)


sch

[Grey_Wolf_c]

1) What was bet?
My headcanon: 1 soul-power, or something similarly banal.


2) Why Loki did it? And why did he do it with Hel? And why is Thor the point of comparison, not Loki himself?

As I said above, I suspect that Loki did it because 1) it removed Hel from the pool of deities vying for power and 2) gave him an opening to grab some extra dwarf souls now that he was a (or even the) choice to get out of the wager.


ETA: In standard D&D cosmology, if Thor is CG, who is the dwarven LG god? Is there even one?

GW

[schmunzel]

<snip>

By this thought, The Weirdo is a cleric of Loki, and is only doing his job as such... :smallbiggrin:


theres obviously a reason clerics of different faiths keep banging their opposites heads...
that leads to another interesting question - is he by chance a converted dwarf ???

what by the way strengthens your hypothesis regarding Loki and his powersource (erm clerics) is the fact that Loki wants to preserve the world the way it is

sch

[Shining Wrath]

"I like my chances". That was pure gold.

As for the rest, I am not completely certain that Hilgya's theology is correct - although I'm sure Loki wants her to believe it is correct. Can breaking all the rules in the name of Loki earn you a seat in Valhalla? At this point we're into divine politics - Hel tries to claim Hilgya's soul, Loki says "No dice", and then the other gods have to decide who they want to gain the power from that soul. Or maybe the other gods don't get a vote, and it comes down to raw power, Hel versus her dad.

It does explain why Loki gets clerics, though.

[Goblin_Priest]

"I like my chances". That was pure gold.

As for the rest, I am not completely certain that Hilgya's theology is correct - although I'm sure Loki wants her to believe it is correct. Can breaking all the rules in the name of Loki earn you a seat in Valhalla? At this point we're into divine politics - Hel tries to claim Hilgya's soul, Loki says "No dice", and then the other gods have to decide who they want to gain the power from that soul. Or maybe the other gods don't get a vote, and it comes down to raw power, Hel versus her dad.

It does explain why Loki gets clerics, though.

Yea... and my understanding of the "Deal" is that what matters is how honorably you die, with how honorably you live having no importance.

[hamishspence]

Given that she mentions a specifically named Chaotic Good afterlife as her goal, that either means that Loki or Valhalla is CN to avoid the "too far from your diety" rule, or Hylgia's alignment rules has gone so far off the RAW reservation that RAW debates are utterly futile in this matter.

Under the Manual of the Planes (and DMG) rules, Valhalla is Chaotic, very mildly Good (not Good enough for Evil-aligned creatures to suffer mechanical penalties while there though.

[Shining Wrath]

I get the feeling that very few actions by Loki are ever solely "for the lulz". This is the guy, after all, that said "Humiliating Thor is not enough of a reason to do this, Hel. It's a pretty funny reason, sure but not enough of one" (source (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1006.html)). Loki always has an angle he can exploit in his schemes, and I have been waiting to hear what his reason to propose the bet was.

Mind you, I'm not 100% sold on it - in part because for all we know this is a delusion from Hilgya, in part because Loki is also known for plans within plans, and there could always be another twist to his thinking (to misquote Pratchett, "He's so twisted he could walk sideways through a corkscrew")

Grey Wolf

My reading of Loki is that he is not good aligned. Therefore, his bet with Hel and Thor must have primarily served his interests. Hilgya's theology shows how Loki could end up with more followers post-bet than pre-bet. That does not mean that Hilgya's theology is actually correct; I would not be surprised at all if Loki's followers wind up in the worst seats in Valhalla, having earned their way in via a loophole. One assumes that Odin has final authority over Valhalla's seating arrangements and who gets served the best ale and so on.


Yea... and my understanding of the "Deal" is that what matters is how honorably you die, with how honorably you live having no importance.

That's also my understanding. People rise up from their deathbeds to fight battles with trees and so on. OTOH, dwarves always live as though they might die any minute ...

[The_Weirdo]

Yeah but dwarfen society isnt opressing you.
Actually you are the ethnocentric guy who is opressing dwarfen culture.
Chaotic by the way is all about being unbound by societal standards. It is not about fighting society.
Thats a peculiar interpretation you use to justify the opression of dissenters.
ätsch :yuk:


But its not oppressing others when you inflict violence somebody for not living the way you want, right? :smallannoyed:

Do you not see how immensely hypocritical this position is?

And, I pray you tell me, what else besides arranged marriage and the abolition of the right to the pursuit of happiness should one ignore so as not to be "oppressing someone in the name of ethnocentrism"?

Setting aside for a moment the fact that the Dwarven race does not, in fact, exist.
Setting aside for a moment the fact that I didn't say I should go kill dwarves, just that Hilgya, a dwarf herself, had moral justification to do so.
Setting aside for a moment the fact that, if you try to be unbound with regards to a Lawful Neutral-bordering-on-Evil society like the dwarf one, you might get, oh, I don't know, a crossbow pointed at you while Turnip tells you about how this is the best day of his life.

What kinds of evil and oppression should we sit idly by and watch, without criticizing, without claiming the victim has a right to react, without doing anything aside from going "ho hum, it happens, ah well", in the name of non-ethnocentrism?

Or I could go the Belkar route and claim you folks are oppressing my culture, what with, in my particular culture - Chaotic Neutral Brazilian - it being perfectly fine to advocate for the wanton murder of any and all oppressors. There is even an actual, legitimate claim to be made that it can, yes, be considered to be a culture, with a history that explains such a worldview, no less (one I won't discuss here).

So, what will it be?

[schmunzel]

<snip>
Setting aside for a moment the fact that I didn't say I should go kill dwarves, just that Hilgya, a dwarf herself, had moral justification to do so.
<snip>


You advocated their eradication because of their alleged opression of others



sch

[The_Weirdo]

You advocated their eradication because of their alleged opression of others
(quote pending)

sch

Yes. I did. By Hilgya or anyone that were oppressed. And "alleged"? They tried to force a woman to marry...

[Peelee]

My headcanon: 1 soul-power, or something similarly banal.

You're a Trading Places fan, perhaps?
ETA:
Yes. I did. By Hilgya or anyone that were oppressed. And "alleged"? They tried to force a woman to marry...
I believe the "eradication" bit was referring to something along the lines of "turn the world into an FPS until I'm not oppressed?" Do correct me if I'm wrong, schmunzel.

[schmunzel]

Yes. I did. By Hilgya or anyone that were oppressed. And "alleged"? They tried to force a woman to marry...



<snip>

A society consisting entirely of sheep <snip> does not deserve to keep existing anyways. The mutual cooperation the Dwarven society offers, with forced marriage and especially if it makes you miserable is repugnant in all aspects, insane on all grounds and justifies any reaction whatsoever.
<snip>


A being like you so black, so feminine, so jewish or catholic or protestant or white or male or brunette or whatever unlike YOU is so repugnant in all aspects, insane on all grounds and justifies any reaction whatsoever
You know, Im german and there is something here in this country they teach us (for a reason) and sadly I see more and more people failing the basic test.

Its not about the dwarven culture being repugnant or not (I certainly wouldnt want to be one) Its about whether YOU have the god given (insert right or duty or mission or whatever) to judge them
Miko is probably your idol isnt she ??

sch

[schmunzel]

You're a Trading Places fan, perhaps?
ETA:
I believe the "eradication" bit was referring to something along the lines of "turn the world into an FPS until I'm not oppressed?" Do correct me if I'm wrong, schmunzel.

No need for correction I think thats what it was about.
Im frightened however because of the rather sketchy definition of being opressed and even more so because of the definition of fair target by his personal system of justice

sch

[Grey_Wolf_c]

You're a Trading Places fan, perhaps?

How could I not be? The lessons on how the stock market works alone make the film worth it even today.

GW

[schmunzel]

<snip>

What kinds of evil and oppression should we sit idly by and watch, without criticizing, without claiming the victim has a right to react, without doing anything aside from going "ho hum, it happens, ah well", in the name of non-ethnocentrism?

Or I could go the Belkar route and claim you folks are oppressing my culture, what with, in my particular culture - Chaotic Neutral Brazilian - it being perfectly fine to advocate for the wanton murder of any and all oppressors. There is even an actual, legitimate claim to be made that it can, yes, be considered to be a culture, with a history that explains such a worldview, no less (one I won't discuss here).

So, what will it be?

While we are being at it - isnt that exactly what you are advocating the entire time?

btw Belkar isnt advocating the wanton murder of any and all opressors.
And Hilgya was obviously still able to leave dwarfen society with her husband still alive. So there was no need for murder. But we probably should not start that discussion again. I still have nightmares from that thread ...

sch

[The_Weirdo]

A being like you so black, so feminine, so jewish or catholic or protestant or white or male or brunette or whatever unlike YOU is so repugnant in all aspects, insane on all grounds and justifies any reaction whatsoever
You know, Im german and there is something here in this country they teach us (for a reason) and sadly I see more and more people failing the basic test.

Its not about the dwarven culture being repugnant or not (I certainly wouldnt want to be one) Its about whether YOU have the god given (insert right or duty or mission or whatever) to judge them

sch

1- I said it didn't deserve to exist, I didn't say anything should be done about it. In fact, it doesn't exist, so... Mission accomplished. :smalltongue:

2- I said it didn't deserve to exist as a reaction to Kel's claims regarding Chaotic Neutral societies.

3- I'm not claiming the dwarves are inferior. I'm not claiming they should die for not sharing my religion or that they are holding my country back or that they conspired for my country to lose the latest war. I'm claiming - backed by the facts - that their society is, effectively, oppressive.


While we are being at it - isnt that exactly what you are advocating the entire time?

btw Belkar isnt advocating the wanton murder of any and all opressors.

sch

No, Belkar is advocating the wanton murder (by him) of whomever he feels like killing. And, taking the logic you and Kel used to its final consequences, we cannot criticize him under penalty of being ethnocentric.

Likewise, the Dwarven culture is practicing oppression. And, taking the logic you and Kel used to its final consequences, we cannot criticize it under penalty of being ethnocentric.

And I'm advocating the wanton murder of all oppressors. And, taking the logic you and Kel used to its final consequences, you cannot criticize me under penalty of being ethnocentric.

There is something known as the paradox of tolerance...

[oonker]

One of the things I liked most in this strip is the subtle calling out that Hilgya does with Elan.

"What is a dwarf thing to do? I'm a dwarf, so if I'm doing this, this is a dwarfy thing."

Dwarfy things are whatever the dwarves want to do, even if it doesn't fit with the stereotypes of anyone.

[schmunzel]

1- I said it didn't deserve to exist, I didn't say anything should be done about it. In fact, it doesn't exist, so... Mission accomplished. :smalltongue:

2- I said it didn't deserve to exist as a reaction to Kel's claims regarding Chaotic Neutral societies.

3- I'm not claiming the are inferiors. I'm not claiming they should die for not sharing my religion or that they are holding my country back or that they conspired for my country to lose the last war. I'm claiming - backed by the facts - that their society is, effectively, oppressive.

You clearly wrote that they had no right to exist because you didnt like their culture
They should die for not sharing your views on opression. Thats as arbitrary a reason as the others I listed.
You said that everyone who mildly feels opressed has a right to kill whatever because he would not be responsible for his deeds.

You clearly think that your worldview is superior to the one of the dwarfes otherwise you wouldnt feel compelled to pass judgement

sch




No, Belkar is advocating the wanton murder (by him) of whomever he feels like killing. And, taking the logic you and Kel used to its final consequences, we cannot criticize him under penalty of being ethnocentric.

Likewise, the Dwarven culture is practicing oppression. And, taking the logic you and Kel used to its final consequences, we cannot criticize it under penalty of being ethnocentric.

And I'm advocating the wanton murder of all oppressors. And, taking the logic you and Kel used to its final consequences, you cannot criticize me under penalty of being ethnocentric.

There is something known as the paradox of tolerance...

I would be ethocentric if I would not want you to kill me because youre a brazillian and I hate brazilians.
As it is I donot care about brazilians one way or another but I dont want you to kill me because I do not want to die.
The basic idea is that your personal freedom ends where the personal freedom of others is breached.
You negate that idea by stating that only you and your personal freedom counts whereas other peoples viewpoints and rights are ignored

[The_Weirdo]

You clearly wrote that they had no right to exist because you didnt like their culture
They should die for not sharing your views on opression. Thats as arbitrary a reason as the others I listed.
You said that everyone who mildly feels opressed has a right to kill whatever because he would not be responsible for his deeds.

My view on oppression is pretty much the view on oppression to which, oh, I don't know, the United Federation of Planets in Star Trek or the Maquis in the same franchise ascribe. It's not exactly an anarchist's view or something to that effect. On that note, since when is married off to a turnip at crossbow point mild?


You clearly think that your worldview is superior to the one of the dwarfes otherwise you wouldnt feel compelled to pass judgement

Well, yes, I do.


You negate that idea by stating that only you and your personal freedom counts whereas other peoples viewpoints and rights are ignored

Oh, not really. I'll readily advocate for the personal freedom of anyone who doesn't want to be oppressed and transfer the blame for whatever they do to the oppressor.

[JumboWheat01]

Ah, loop-holes. Always make cleric-ing more interesting.

[Dr.Zero]

BUT!
If being dishonorable is what is required to follow Loki's path
AND
there is nothing more honorable for a cleric than following his god's truth (so much that her soul is considered to die with honor)
THEN
she is not following Loki's path, thus she isn't doing what is honorable for a cleric of Loki.


Which means she indeed follows Loki's path. Which means she doesn't. Which means...

The old and dear: "This sentence if false."
I feel like Loki watched too many ST:TOS episodes where Kirk used this to make computers explode.

[schmunzel]

My view on oppression is pretty much the view on oppression to which, oh, I don't know, the United Federation of Planets in Star Trek or the Maquis in the same franchise ascribe. It's not exactly an anarchist's view or something to that effect. On that note, since when is married off to a turnip at crossbow point mild?



Well, yes, I do.

Quot erat demonstratum - all dwarfes will rest easy in their coffins now knowing that star trek was involved so it was probably all ok

what bigotry or idiocy?? stupidity??? naivity???
Did I miss something?? is this even a legitimate test ?? What would the United Federation of the Planets think??
What would they do? Eradicate the entire dwarfen race for not abiding by their societal standards??

Gott im Himmel steh mir bei


<snip>


Oh, not really. I'll readily advocate for the personal freedom of anyone who doesn't want to be oppressed and transfer the blame for whatever they do to the oppressor.
How more opressing can you get than gunning them all down because you just feel like it because its cheap because you imagine you wouldnt be responsible?

You are the worst opressor of them all

[The_Weirdo]

Quot erat demonstratum - all dwarfes will rest easy in their coffins now knowing that star trek was involved so it was probably all ok

what bigotry or idiocy?? stupidity??? naivity???
Did I miss something?? is this even a legitimate test ?? What would the United Federation of the Planets think??
What would they do? Eradicate the entire dwarfen race for not abiding by their societal standards??

Gott im Himmel steh mir bei

Okay, one, they have no coffins. Unless Rich draws said coffins.
Two, I never claimed we (or the in-comic humans) should kill them. I claimed Hilgya had a right to. And I claimed their society should fall.
Three, do you really think the Federation would shed many tears should Bajorans or even Maquis blow up Cardassia Prime?


How more opressing can you get than gunning them all down because you just feel like it because its cheap because you imagine you wouldnt be responsible?

You are the worst opressor of them all

And what if it were Hilgya, then? She didn't want to marry Ivan. She's a dwarf, has actually been harmed by their society and so on. Would she be an oppressor for wanting her pound of flesh?

[The MunchKING]

My headcanon: 1 soul-power, or something similarly banal
GW

It was implied to be a LOT of soul power, as she mentioned it IN ADDITION TO the 10 million dwarf souls that would push her up to above Odin.

[3WhiteFox3]

Quot erat demonstratum - all dwarfes will rest easy in their coffins now knowing that star trek was involved so it was probably all ok

what bigotry or idiocy?? stupidity??? naivity???
Did I miss something?? is this even a legitimate test ?? What would the United Federation of the Planets think??
What would they do? Eradicate the entire dwarfen race for not abiding by their societal standards??

Gott im Himmel steh mir bei
Not to mention they talk about both the Federation and the Maquis, who literally fought over whether or not the federation was assisting in their oppression by the Cardassians. So even their examples are self-contradictory. And the Federation is not the be-all, end-all of what a good society is either. Remember, they are a-ok with condemning billions to die in order to follow the federation's prime directive (seems pretty lawful for a self-proclaimed chaotic person).

And even Picard, the mouth-piece for Federation philosophy admitted that sometimes they had to allow people to do bad things because they have no right to interfere. Does he go in and set up assassination attempts against the Klingons? No, he works with them to try and improve their broken, oppressive system through peace. One of the recurring conflicts on that show is where to draw the line of when you shouldn't interfere with the business of others!

I really don't understand The_Weirdo's position.

[Kish]

My view on oppression is pretty much the view on oppression to which, oh, I don't know, the United Federation of Planets in Star Trek or the Maquis in the same franchise ascribe.

Considering one of the two organizations you just named defines the other as a criminal organization while the second organization defines the first one as an oppressive government, I think there may be something off in this one of your theses.

Also, say what you like about the Prime Directive, it's pretty close to the exact opposite of a mandate to annihilate any oppressive government, though I can think of a Star Trek galactic power dedicated to that end (it's the Borg, prior to the stupid "instead of them being a true collective they're all slaves to an evil queen" retcon).

[The_Weirdo]

Snip.

I used the Federation as a shorthand for the kind of moderate societal norms most of us in this forum presumably believe in - no forced marriages, everyone gets pursuit of happiness and so on.

Basically, the standards for societal freedoms to which, presumably, most of us are accustomed.

[The MunchKING]

Three, do you really think the Federation would shed many tears should Bajorans or even Maquis blow up Cardassia Prime?

Yes? Because they aren’t evil, and see extermination of a semi tent people as horrifying and abhorrent.

[The_Weirdo]

Yes? Because they aren’t evil, and see extermination of a semi tent people as horrifying and abhorrent.

I can think of quite a few Federation citizens going "well, at least now they won't attack us" and of quite a few others, especially among those with Bajoran or Maquis friends, going couldn't have happened to a nicer people. It's perfectly reasonable not to really mind if the Fascist, aggressive state with a history of invading others for slave labor gets blown up.

[Jasdoif]

I really don't understand The_Weirdo's position.I believe it's rationalization of serial killing; the oppression part is just an implementation detail.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

It was implied to be a LOT of soul power, as she mentioned it IN ADDITION TO the 10 million dwarf souls that would push her up to above Odin.

I don't remember that. Link?


I believe it's rationalization of serial killing; the oppression part is just an implementation detail.

More like massively parallel killing, given that it seems this is the second time that they've derailed the conversation into trying to justify annihilation of an entire species.

GW

[The_Weirdo]

I believe it's rationalization of serial killing; the oppression part is just an implementation detail.

HEY!

Didn't I eat you in previous threads?

[3WhiteFox3]

I used the Federation as a shorthand for the kind of moderate societal norms most of us in this forum presumably believe in - no forced marriages, everyone gets pursuit of happiness and so on.

Basically, the standards for societal freedoms to which, presumably, most of us are accustomed.

Right, but one of those standards for societal freedoms is that other cultures will do things that make you very uncomfortable, but in the interests of peace you have to pick your battles. Know what is worth fighting over and what isn't. I follow that standard because I believe it is the best way to allow people to live free. I'd rather convert through words and benevolence than violence (even if violence is sometimes a necessity).

[Jasdoif]

HEY!

Didn't I eat you in previous threads?I recall you saying you ate a banana; that may have been true. I'm not privy to (all) your hallucinations.

[The_Weirdo]

Right, but one of those standards for societal freedoms is that other cultures will do things that make you very uncomfortable, but in the interests of peace you have to pick your battles. Know what is worth fighting over and what isn't. I follow that standard because I believe it is the best way to allow people to live free. I'd rather convert through words and benevolence than violence (even if violence is sometimes a necessity).

And I'm not advocating for us to invade the Dwarven lands, even because there'd be too many of us to stand on poor Rich's computer...

I'm just saying that, well, if Hilgya rained Hel on the Dwarves, can't really blame her.


I recall you saying you ate a banana; that may have been true. I'm not privy to (all) your hallucinations.

>_>

<_<

*Eats you*

[schmunzel]

Okay, one, they have no coffins. Unless Rich draws said coffins.
Two, I never claimed we (or the in-comic humans) should kill them. I claimed Hilgya had a right to. And I claimed their society should fall.
Three, do you really think the Federation would shed many tears should Bajorans or even Maquis blow up Cardassia Prime?



And what if it were Hilgya, then? She didn't want to marry Ivan. She's a dwarf, has actually been harmed by their society and so on. Would she be an oppressor for wanting her pound of flesh?

You claimed they dont deserve to exist - I fail to see a difference

sch

[3WhiteFox3]

And I'm not advocating for us to invade the Dwarven lands, even because there'd be too many of us to stand on poor Rich's computer...

I'm just saying that, well, if Hilgya rained Hel on the Dwarves, can't really blame her.

I can blame her because using the tools of the oppressor to fight oppression just creates collateral damage and casualties of war. What happens when children who survive, who did nothing wrong see the pain caused by Hilga and decide to rain Hel on her? When does it end?

[The_Weirdo]

I can blame her because using the tools of the oppressor to fight oppression just creates collateral damage and casualties of war. What happens when children who survive, who did nothing wrong see the pain caused by Hilga and decide to rain Hel on her? When does it end?

They can take it up with the clans. The clans started it.

[schmunzel]

I used the Federation as a shorthand for the kind of moderate societal norms most of us in this forum presumably believe in - no forced marriages, everyone gets pursuit of happiness and so on.

Basically, the standards for societal freedoms to which, presumably, most of us are accustomed.

So there are societies not believing in these values ??? who would have thought!!
They all probably didnt pass The Weirdos right to existance test.
poor them. Didnt they know he is the one and only moral compass??

All hail The Weirdo!

[3WhiteFox3]

They can take it up with the clans. They started it.

But why is it the clan's responsibility and not the people who started the clan's oppression? After all, the clans don't exist in a vacuum, there's some reason they exist the way they do. Why is Hilga free from all responsibility for the evil she commits (which is just as bad as the evil inflicted on her) but the clans aren't?

Let's assume that the clans are all dead and no one can take responsibility for their actions any more, but Hilga has still harmed millions. Now the oppressed will have no clans to destroy, and Hilga has now oppressed them.

[The MunchKING]

I don't remember that. Link?


Huh, she didn’t say that exactly, at least not where I thought she did (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1000.html).

Here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1083.html) she talks about the winnings in addition to all the dwarf souls in the context of “then there will be Hel to pay”. But not specifically that those would be what pushed over.

[The_Weirdo]

So there are societies not believing in these values ??? who would have thought!!
They all probably didnt pass The Weirdos right to existance test.
poor them. Didnt they know he is the one and only moral compass??

All hail The Weirdo!

Somehow, not only do I think you're being ironic, I also do not think you're preparing my room in the Bundeskanzleramt. :smallbiggrin:

Look, I have to do some work for a while. I'll be back in a few hours.

[The MunchKING]

*Eats you*

AAAAAAAAAALL NIGHT LONG! :smallbiggrin:

[Kish]

Someone did start to blow up Cardassia Prime, or at least the occupied parts of it. It was the series finale of Deep Space Nine and the Federation was unambiguously and wholeheartedly on the side of stopping the horrific atrocity being committed.

Would she be an oppressor for wanting her pound of flesh?
Anyone who wants to carve pounds of flesh out of innocent* people is an oppressor, yes.

*"Innocent" here defined as "they didn't directly and personally do anything," not "no one anywhere near them** did anything."
**No, I will not "take it up with the clans"; a dwarf who responds to oppression with serial or spree killing is a monster who needs to be stopped, and can tell their tale of woe to the prison therapists once they are in a straitjacket.

[schmunzel]

Somehow, not only do I think you're being ironic, I also do not think you're preparing my room in the Bundeskanzleramt. :smallbiggrin:

Look, I have to do some work for a while. I'll be back in a few hours.

Actually I do think that you are evil and just looking for cheap justification of the violence you want to inflict
Angela has many flaws but a malfunctioning moral compass is surely not one of them
sch

[The_Weirdo]

Actually I do think that you are evil and just looking for cheap justification of the violence you want to inflict

So long as I'm not Lawful... :smallbiggrin:

[schmunzel]

So long as I'm not Lawful... :smallbiggrin:

You do not have to be lawful to be honest
You do not have to be lawful to be a good person
You do not have to be lawful to respect other people
You do not have to be lawful to work for the betterment of your peers and society

You have to be a sadistic ass to think its ok to kill innocents as long as you can shift the blame elswhere

I realize you play the part - it still is abhorrent to me

sch

[The_Weirdo]

I realize you play the part - it still is abhorrent to me

Okay, that's not really how it works. I should know; many people, even here, would have said it if your interpretation of the things I said were correct...

[schmunzel]

Okay, that's not really how it works. I should know; many people, even here, would have said it if your interpretation of the things I said were correct...

What interpretation is there for the dwarf apart from being dead due to unrelated reasons??

sch

[The_Weirdo]

What interpretation is there for the dwarf apart from being dead due to unrelated reasons??

sch

Okay, first off, I am condemning a whole culture and I can see why that might be upsetting to you. So far, so good - and, for that, I apologize.

That said, I'm not advocating for their extermination. I'm just saying that a person oppressed by said culture has the right to do the revolution.

[Kish]

Okay, first off, I am condemning a whole culture and I can see why that might be upsetting to you. So far, so good - and, for that, I apologize.

That said, I'm not advocating for their extermination. I'm just saying that a person oppressed by said culture has the right to do the revolution.
And you're hiding random mass murder under the euphemism "do the revolution."

I think you should put a lot less weight on "no one else has said exactly what you said" (referring to this:
Okay, that's not really how it works. I should know; many people, even here, would have said it if your interpretation of the things I said were correct... ).

[The_Weirdo]

And you're hiding random mass murder under the euphemism "do the revolution."

I think you should put a lot less weight on "no one else has said exactly what you said" (referring to this: ).

If the rules allow, I might set up an "Am I Evil?" thread later on for you folks to discuss my many moral failings. Here, though, I suggest we go back to discussing the strip: Loki is a pretty good out...

But I'm not Lawful, right? :smallbiggrin:

[schmunzel]

If the rules allow, I might set up an "Am I Evil?" thread later on for you folks to discuss my many moral failings. Here, though, I suggest we go back to discussing the strip: Loki is a pretty good out...

But I'm not Lawful, right? :smallbiggrin:

For not being lawful your awfully fixated on rules.
Plus good distraction. Haley would be proud!

sch

[Unbodied]

Another thread, another round of the delusional weirdo advocating genocide while claiming to hold the moral high ground.

[The_Weirdo]

For not being lawful your awfully fixated on rules.

Awww... :smallfrown:


Plus good distraction. Haley would be proud!

Thanks, but, well, I do honestly think it would be best for everyone if we went back to discussing the matter at hand instead of discussing me?

On a side note, if you happen to be from Munich or to go there, I recommend the Donisl restaurant in Weinstraße 1, right by Marienplatz! And don't worry, I may be an evil sociopath, but I have taste. :smallbiggrin:

[Peelee]

Thanks, but, well, I do honestly think it would be best for everyone if we went back to discussing the matter at hand instead of discussing me?

Isn't the matter at hand technically OOTS #1113?

[The_Weirdo]

Isn't the matter at hand technically OOTS #1113?

True. It's why my restaurant recommendation was a side note.

Anyways, I do still wonder if there'll be any allusion by Hilgya to Ivan and to the clans...

[Shining Wrath]

Once again, a comic strip where we can't enjoy discussing it because people will not use the "ignore" feature provided by these fora. It's a simple process, people. Click on the userid. Click on "view profile". Click on "add to ignore list".

Regain a GitP forum where we talk about characters and plot in a rational fashion.

[Lethologica]

But why is it the clan's responsibility and not the people who started the clan's oppression? After all, the clans don't exist in a vacuum, there's some reason they exist the way they do. Why is Hilga free from all responsibility for the evil she commits (which is just as bad as the evil inflicted on her) but the clans aren't?
Thank you for bringing up perhaps the first new point I've seen in fifty-odd pages of this 'debate'.

However, T_W doesn't care whether the people on whom he deflects blame are those truly responsible, only that Hilgya is not responsible. So he will happily adjust "take it up with the clans" to "take it up with Loki, Thor, and Hel" - as reflected in his supposedly ideal plan of universal dwarven devotion to threefold deicide.

The most salient issue is that T_W believes in no morality beyond oppression theory. Let the whole world burn, so long as no burdensome obligations arise from the ashes.

[SilverCacaobean]

Aw gawd not this again.


They can take it up with the clans. The clans started it.

I think the whole failure to communicate lies here in this line. It seems the two sides that are arguing care about different things. The_Weirdo's side is just trying to assign blame completely disregarding if the actions they propose fix the perceived problem or create another one, hand-waving things like how these, say, children would know if the clans are to blame or even of the clans' existence and things like whether the children would care about clans or if they would agree the clans are to blame. The focus of the arguments presented is assigning blame (or absolving of blame).

Meanwhile, the other side tries to counter this by 1) listing the practical consequences of the above. This doesn't work to win the argument because The_Weirdo is only interested in the moral part of the situation as if when that's resolved, a Higher Power will sort things out and 2) by proposing that The_Weirdo's position is in fact immoral, which doesn't work because at the end of the day morality is subjective.

This won't lead anywhere.


As an aside, when I joined this forum, I held the belief that the alignment system is just a fun harmless little game that adds some nuance to the d&d cosmology, but I've definitely changed my position since then, after seeing more than a few people defining themselves philosophically in terms of this ill-conceived rambling mess that is the d&d alignment system that has no basis in philosophy, or... anything at all really. I now believe the alignment system was the worst idea in moral philosophy since someone bullied Ayn Rand when she was a kid.

[The MunchKING]

And you're hiding random mass murder under the euphemism "do the revolution."

Not Random, systematic, LAWFUL amounts of orderly mass murder. :smallamused:

[The_Weirdo]

Thank you for bringing up perhaps the first new point I've seen in fifty-odd pages of this 'debate'.

However, T_W doesn't care whether the people on whom he deflects blame are those truly responsible, only that Hilgya is not responsible. So he will happily adjust "take it up with the clans" to "take it up with Loki, Thor, and Hel" - as reflected in his supposedly ideal plan of universal dwarven devotion to threefold deicide.

The most salient issue is that T_W believes in no morality beyond oppression theory. Let the whole world burn, so long as no burdensome obligations arise from the ashes.

1- Well, Hilgya isn't. And, at the end of the day, barring some cosmic shift in the in-comic story, the three gods are...

2- Eh. Freely accepted obligations, I have no problem with. Aside from that, well... Fiat libertas et pereat mundus. As for no morality, that's up for debate, even because I don't fully know what you mean by "Oppression Theory".

But yeah, otherwise, you and SCB are pretty on-target.

[brian 333]

You can't oppress a fish by throwing it in water and you can't liberate a school of them by draining a pond.

Hilgya is not oppressed, she is a child of privilidge, raised by parents in a society made to order for the maximum benefit to her species. In the traditions of her people her mate was selected for her based on attributes which assured her future children's financial and social stability.

Hilgya is not oppressed, she is a selfish, spoiled brat who places her short-sighted ideals ahead of her and her child's welfare.

What she deserves is a swift kick to jump-start her brain. Even if she rejects the culture that created her, she has no moral claim to retribution. She is not a victim because, like the fish in water, dwarven society is her natural element.

[The_Weirdo]

You can't oppress a fish by throwing it in water and you can't liberate a school of them by draining a pond.

Hilgya is not oppressed, she is a child of privilidge, raised by parents in a society made to order for the maximum benefit to her species. In the traditions of her people her mate was selected for her based on attributes which assured her future children's financial and social stability.

Hilgya is not oppressed, she is a selfish, spoiled brat who places her short-sighted ideals ahead of her and her child's welfare.

What she deserves is a swift kick to jump-start her brain. Even if she rejects the culture that created her, she has no moral claim to retribution. She is not a victim because, like the fish in water, dwarven society is her natural element.

See, now, people, would you rather argue with me or with him?

[Fyraltari]

Because a system that says you should either die with "honor" (and by honor we very likely mean insane, ancient rules up to and including letting a Lawful society define how you live) or be a slave for eternity is evil.
The honour system does not require that anyone failing it suffers for all eternity. The Bet does.
If in glorious fatherland Autocratia they decided that the penalty for driving infractions was death the problem would not be with the highway code.




Oh, I didn't say Loki is good, let alone guiltless. I said he's the one worth worshipping, for the sake of the dwarves, not for his. Heck, once they get to the afterlife, they should, in fact, figure out a way to betray and kill him. And what is Thor's backdoor? Live with that honor, the one he decided to impose when he was hammered?
So you are saying that the Dwarves should give their soul-energy to the one who made so their lot was worse than the other races? That is the moral imperative there? Reward the guilty?

Thor didn't impose anything while hammered Loki and Hel did.
And yes the honour system is a backdoor that's why Hel (legitimely) feels cheated.


A society consisting entirely of sheep that have to act one specific way or be damned for eternity is a society that will end up unchanging, decaying and dead and that does not deserve to keep existing anyways. The mutual cooperation the Dwarven society offers, with forced marriage and especially if it makes you miserable is repugnant in all aspects, insane on all grounds and justifies any reaction whatsoever.
Are we even reading the same comic at this point?


Yes. I didn't say Loki was nice, I said the dwarves should pay him lip service to stay free and, once they're in Valhalla, figure out a way to kill him.
Yay they can't. There's only one way to kill the gods, it's purple, drawn in Crayons and not reachable or controlable by anyone.


Well, actually, the correct solution is to kill them all on account of what [some individuals within Hilgya's and Ian's family] did.
Fixed it. The corrrect reaction to the recent drop in Dragon population is to kill all the Elves on account of what they did.

*facepalm*


Except this is Loki we're talking about. Paying lip service and backstabbing is a VERY Loki-ish thing to do.
[Demons] appreciate disobedience only as a general principle. They strongly repress individual cases.
-Disobedience to their own orders, for example.
-Precisely. You'd be surprised by their reactions. Maybe not after all.

Crawley and Aziraphale, Good Omens, Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman

I'm surprised you did not beat me to it, Grey_Wolf_c. :smallbiggrin:


Can we call a guy who makes deals about people's lives while drunk "guiltless"? Moron, yes, but guiltless is going too far. The fact of the matter is, he knew he's a god with great power before getting drunk and he got drunk with Loki of all people.
I think that him being drunk is supposed to imply he had no idea what was happening at the time.


Did he know he was getting drunk with Loki? Or did he think he was having a single glass of beer in the beer hall, and Loki stuck a god-roofie in it?
I don't think "Thor is black out drunk" is rare occurence, nor do I think it is hard to know when he is. One just has to watch out for ligthning bolts. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0201.html)
Maybe that's why Loki did all this, he wanted to teach Thor a lesson in sobriety after one too many lightning bolt to his china.


2) Why Loki did it? And why did he do it with Hel? And why is Thor the point of comparison, not Loki himself?
A) He wanted Hel to be angry at Thor.
B) He wanted Thor to focus on the Dwarves and forget about the other races.
C) He wanted to help Hel and was too clever for his own good.
D) It sounded like a good idea at the time.
E) He was legitimely curiousto see who would win.
F) He knew that if he was the one to tell the Dwarves to be lawful nobody woud take him at his word.
G) What the other Posters theorize about gaining Clerics this way.
H) A comination of the above.
I) Answer I.


And, I pray you tell me, what else besides arranged marriage and the abolition of the right to the pursuit of happiness should one ignore so as not to be "oppressing someone in the name of ethnocentrism"?
You have a very low threshold of "oppression" compared to most people here most people I know every one else I know.
You alsoseem not to grasp the concepts of "proportionnate retribution" or "non violent reform".


And what if it were Hilgya, then? She didn't want to marry Ivan. She's a dwarf, has actually been harmed by their society and so on. Would she be an oppressor for wanting her pound of flesh?
No she wouldbe by killing other Dwarves.

[Lethologica]

As for no morality, that's up for debate, even because I don't fully know what you mean by "Oppression Theory".
That oppression is the only moral wrong, freedom from oppression the only moral good, and moral responsibility the sole province of the oppressor.

[3WhiteFox3]

Aw gawd not this again.



I think the whole failure to communicate lies here in this line. It seems the two sides that are arguing care about different things. The_Weirdo's side is just trying to assign blame completely disregarding if the actions they propose fix the perceived problem or create another one, hand-waving things like how these, say, children would know if the clans are to blame or even of the clans' existence and things like whether the children would care about clans or if they would agree the clans are to blame. The focus of the arguments presented is assigning blame (or absolving of blame).

Meanwhile, the other side tries to counter this by 1) listing the practical consequences of the above. This doesn't work to win the argument because The_Weirdo is only interested in the moral part of the situation as if when that's resolved, a Higher Power will sort things out and 2) by proposing that The_Weirdo's position is in fact immoral, which doesn't work because at the end of the day morality is subjective.

This won't lead anywhere.


As an aside, when I joined this forum, I held the belief that the alignment system is just a fun harmless little game that adds some nuance to the d&d cosmology, but I've definitely changed my position since then, after seeing more than a few people defining themselves philosophically in terms of this ill-conceived rambling mess that is the d&d alignment system that has no basis in philosophy, or... anything at all really. I now believe the alignment system was the worst idea in moral philosophy since someone bullied Ayn Rand when she was a kid.
But TW makes assertions that are internally inconsistent, which is one thing that moral philosophy can generally agree as a no-no. They also assign blame and absolve blame without actually providing warrants for their assertions. We are just supposed to accept TW's positions without any real reason why blame should be absolved.

Also, the fact that they keep quoting Kant's "Fiat libertas et pereat mundus" (assumedly, given that's who that quote is usually attributed to) the person who literally created a moral philosophy about one's moral duty (quite opposite TWs assertions about the oppressed having no moral obligations to those they harm or those who oppressed them) shows a worse understanding of philosophy than even mine, and I know very little.

[The_Weirdo]

That oppression is the only moral wrong, freedom from oppression the only moral good, and moral responsibility the sole province of the oppressor.

Eh, charity, etc. are moral goods too, but yeah, my focus is pretty much on what you said.


they keep quoting Kant's "Fiat libertas et pereat mundus"

Oh, Kant said that? I read "Fiat iustitia et pereat mundus" once and changed it to "libertas", is all. :smallbiggrin:

[3WhiteFox3]

Oh, Kant said that? I read "Fiat iustitia et pereat mundus" once and changed it to "libertas", is all. :smallbiggrin:

He's the one most people tend to think of when making that quote, it just felt odd to me. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_iustitia,_et_pereat_mundus) *shrugs*

[The MunchKING]

See, now, people, would you rather argue with me or with him?

I'd RATHER smack you both in the head and tell you to knock it off, but I know MY being annoyed isn't actually a moral obligation I should act on.

So I don't do that thing and instead roll with it.


Yay they can't. There's only one way to kill the gods, it's purple, drawn in Crayons and not reachable or controlable by anyone.


One way THAT WE KNOW OF. Who knows how many random super-powered artifacts or OP Epic spells there are out there just waiting to be used? Especially as the OotS verse explicitly has loads of dimensions one could travel to.

[The MunchKING]

He's the one most people tend to think of when making that quote, it just felt odd to me. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_iustitia,_et_pereat_mundus) *shrugs*

Google said it was Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor's motto so I assumed it was another "oppress everyone by killing the previous oppressors" reference.

[Fyraltari]

Once again, a comic strip where we can't enjoy discussing it because people will not use the "ignore" feature provided by these fora. It's a simple process, people. Click on the userid. Click on "view profile". Click on "add to ignore list".

Regain a GitP forum where we talk about characters and plot in a rational fashion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4zlC8jAISk


Thank you for bringing up perhaps the first new point I've seen in fifty-odd pages of this 'debate'.

However, T_W doesn't care whether the people on whom he deflects blame are those truly responsible, only that Hilgya is not responsible. So he will happily adjust "take it up with the clans" to "take it up with Loki, Thor, and Hel" - as reflected in his supposedly ideal plan of universal dwarven devotion to threefold deicide.

The most salient issue is that T_W believes in no morality beyond oppression theory. Let the whole world burn, so long as no burdensome obligations arise from the ashes.
Actually we raised that back in #1105's thread. It seems that The_Weirdo believes that the guilt for any actions being committed by an individual that has been oppressed by a group at some point falls on the group and that every member of said group is to blame, up to and including the other victims of the group's oppression. Yeah that doesn't make sense to me either.


They can take it up with the clans. The clans started it.
The clans Are the Dwarves! Every Dwarf is part of a clan, that's what clan means.



at the end of the day morality is subjective.
Higly debatable. In fact we have debated that on this very forum.
I agree with the rest of your post.


You can't oppress a fish by throwing it in water and you can't liberate a school of them by draining a pond.

Hilgya is not oppressed, she is a child of privilidge, raised by parents in a society made to order for the maximum benefit to her species. In the traditions of her people her mate was selected for her based on attributes which assured her future children's financial and social stability.

Hilgya is not oppressed, she is a selfish, spoiled brat who places her short-sighted ideals ahead of her and her child's welfare.

What she deserves is a swift kick to jump-start her brain. Even if she rejects the culture that created her, she has no moral claim to retribution. She is not a victim because, like the fish in water, dwarven society is her natural element.
Okay, now that's bull****.
"That's just how their society is" => "Oh your were born a slave? Well you see this is the society yourwere born in. Tru=ying to reform it would be like draining a pond to save fishes. And by stopping you from running away I am not oppressing you, I am just restoring things to how they should be done".

she is a child of privilege.
[Citation needed].
Also you can tell she was oppressed by the crossbow pointed at her to make her go through with a marriage she did not want!


See, now, people, would you rather argue with me or with him?
Why should we choose? We can do both.

[3WhiteFox3]

Google said it was Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor's motto so I assumed it was another "oppress everyone by killing the previous oppressors" reference.

It originally came from Ferdinand, but Kant's usage of it is more common. And using a quote by a roman emperor as justification for harmful actions is... odd. They are one of the best examples of oppressive government, so not much better than using something from Kant?

[The_Weirdo]

I'd RATHER smack you both in the head and tell you to knock it off, but I know MY being annoyed isn't actually a moral obligation I should act on.

So I don't do that thing and instead roll with it.

Also of note, you can't unless you go to the guy's city in his case or come to Belo Horizonte in my case...

But, hey, if you do come here, I can offer you my services as an interpreter after you smack my head. And I also know of quite a few neat things to do here, it's a great city.

[3WhiteFox3]

See, now, people, would you rather argue with me or with him?

Por que no los dos?

Seriously, I don't see what's being discussed by Brian as being worth discussion atm. (Running off of 0 sleep also contributes)

[Fyraltari]

It originally came from Ferdinand, but Kant's usage of it is more common. And using a quote by a roman emperor as justification for harmful actions is... odd. They are one of the best examples of oppressive government, so not much better than using something from Kant?

German Emperor. Considering the HRE was a loose coalition of sometimes warring states I fail to see what's so oppresive about it.

[Keltest]

It originally came from Ferdinand, but Kant's usage of it is more common. And using a quote by a roman emperor as justification for harmful actions is... odd. They are one of the best examples of oppressive government, so not much better than using something from Kant?

In spite of the name, the Holy Roman Empire wasn't especially related to Rome. It claimed Rome as part of the territory, with varying degrees of accuracy across its history, but it wasn't seated in Rome or anything like that.

[3WhiteFox3]

German Emperor. Considering the HRE was a loose coalition of sometimes warring states I fail to see what's so oppresive about it.


In spite of the name, the Holy Roman Empire wasn't especially related to Rome. It claimed Rome as part of the territory, with varying degrees of accuracy across its history, but it wasn't seated in Rome or anything like that.

Yeah, I should know that...

See my previous statement about having had no sleep. :smallredface:

[LadyEowyn]

Hilgya's philosophy is hilarious and awesome. I'm going to like her how unless she gives me a new reason not to.

Also, Elan is the best at getting along with other Chaotic people.

[The_Weirdo]

Why should we choose?

Because, at some point, the Overton Window kicks in and only one of the two more extreme positions becomes part of the "acceptable discourse", so to speak.

[Keltest]

Because, at some point, the Overton Window kicks in and only one of the two more extreme positions becomes part of the "acceptable discourse", so to speak.

If for some inexplicable reason, I was only allowed to disagree with one position, it would definitely be the one that says you can murder whoever you want with exceptionally flimsy justification, while claiming the moral high ground. Its pretty hard to be more morally wrong than that.

[3WhiteFox3]

Because, at some point, the Overton Window kicks in and only one of the two more extreme positions becomes part of the "acceptable discourse", so to speak.

By presenting a counter-arguments that you yourself admitted were just to try to make people argue for chattel slavery, you yourself make the opposing view more apart of acceptable discourse.

Basically, most disagree with your view and find it unacceptable, making anyone's counter-arguments more acceptable by comparision. So you are actually making the Overton Window bring in unacceptable arguments into acceptable discourse.

[Lethologica]

You can't oppress a fish by throwing it in water and you can't liberate a school of them by draining a pond.

Hilgya is not oppressed, she is a child of privilidge, raised by parents in a society made to order for the maximum benefit to her species. In the traditions of her people her mate was selected for her based on attributes which assured her future children's financial and social stability.

Hilgya is not oppressed, she is a selfish, spoiled brat who places her short-sighted ideals ahead of her and her child's welfare.

What she deserves is a swift kick to jump-start her brain. Even if she rejects the culture that created her, she has no moral claim to retribution. She is not a victim because, like the fish in water, dwarven society is her natural element.
The naturalistic fallacy is alive and well, I see. As well as argument by making stuff up--we don't know how Ivan was selected, nor do we know the circumstances of Hilgya's clan.

Oppression does not become otherwise merely because it is normal.


But TW makes assertions that are internally inconsistent, which is one thing that moral philosophy can generally agree as a no-no. They also assign blame and absolve blame without actually providing warrants for their assertions. We are just supposed to accept TW's positions without any real reason why blame should be absolved.

Also, the fact that they keep quoting Kant's "Fiat libertas et pereat mundus" (assumedly, given that's who that quote is usually attributed to) the person who literally created a moral philosophy about one's moral duty (quite opposite TWs assertions about the oppressed having no moral obligations to those they harm or those who oppressed them) shows a worse understanding of philosophy than even mine, and I know very little.
For better or worse, the inconsistencies are largely a matter of execution. That is, there is a fairly consistent position deriving from T_W's principles, and arguing with the inconsistencies in T_W's actual position mostly serves to bring him closer to that theoretical position. It's not like he's going to respond to the revealed inconsistency by reconsidering his principles.


Eh, charity, etc. are moral goods too, but yeah, my focus is pretty much on what you said.
Nice-to-haves and moral goods are different things.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Once again, a comic strip where we can't enjoy discussing it because people will not use the "ignore" feature provided by these fora. It's a simple process, people. Click on the userid. Click on "view profile". Click on "add to ignore list".

Regain a GitP forum where we talk about characters and plot in a rational fashion.

Unfortunately, for that to work you also have to IL the people who engage with people on your IL, and repeat, and repeat, and repeat...

Much easier to either report someone for, say, advocating genocide, or just quit the forum. Considering how traffic has fallen off to the point it's not hard to keep up anymore, I'd guess most people are opting for the second.

[The_Weirdo]

By presenting a counter-arguments that you yourself admitted were just to try to make people argue for chattel slavery, you yourself make the opposing view more apart of acceptable discourse.

Basically, most disagree with your view and find it unacceptable, making anyone's counter-arguments more acceptable by comparision. So you are actually making the Overton Window bring in unacceptable arguments into acceptable discourse.

I don't know, I've seen extreme views being adopted and resulting in the "middle ground" between them and sane...

[Fyraltari]

Because, at some point, the Overton Window kicks in and only one of the two more extreme positions becomes part of the "acceptable discourse", so to speak.

I don't understand what you mean there. I find both Brian333's position and yours repugnant. That they are opposed do not mean I should stop questionning one. This reeks of false dichotomy.

[schmunzel]

You can't oppress a fish by throwing it in water and you can't liberate a school of them by draining a pond.

Hilgya is not oppressed, she is a child of privilidge, raised by parents in a society made to order for the maximum benefit to her species. In the traditions of her people her mate was selected for her based on attributes which assured her future children's financial and social stability.

Hilgya is not oppressed, she is a selfish, spoiled brat who places her short-sighted ideals ahead of her and her child's welfare.

What she deserves is a swift kick to jump-start her brain. Even if she rejects the culture that created her, she has no moral claim to retribution. She is not a victim because, like the fish in water, dwarven society is her natural element.

Actually Im not sure whether your point is completely valid, albeit I agree that Hilgya is a child of her circumstances
The (problem/issue) is that the dwarfs can Metagame their system, so we cannot use our outlook on life as a blueprint for theirs (plus we dont know about our afterlife)
While I agree with the point of Hilgya being born in this societal system I also agree, that there is a choice to be made by Hilgya. She made a choice and now she needs to live up to the consequences.
While I accept her choice and can relate to it, I have problems with her reasons for doing so. the way she is handling it.
Probably I would be far more comfortable with it when I could think of her more as a victim, and less as offender. This is probably the reason why her character is dividing in this way.
Hilgya is a very selfish person and she places her ideals certainly ahead of her childs welfare - this is probably short sighted, as it just serves the purpose to metagame the system but I honestly wonder what other way she would have out of the system that would not condemn her to hel?
On the other hand she probably already has learned a lesson. While our first glimpse of her fight against the system showed her to try the cheap and easy way by trying to murder a hapless husband (of questionablye responsibility for her plight) a lot more effort, risk and will is necessary to leave your clan and live independently as adventurer in far and foreign lands
I would hope that she would learn to not keep her fellow dwarfs in such contempt.
Perhaps there will be some character developement for her too and not just for Durkon?

sch

[The MunchKING]

Also of note, you can't unless you go to the guy's city in his case or come to Belo Horizonte in my case...

I meant it a bit more metaphorically, and "over the internet" sense.

But If I do ever go full Jay and Silent Bob, maybe I'll take you up on that.

[The_Weirdo]

I meant it a bit more metaphorically, and "over the internet" sense.

But If I do ever go full Jay and Silent Bob, maybe I'll take you up on that.

Oh, you should. Our Central Market has some great snacks and other crafts and oddities, for instance. We could make a day of it. :smallbiggrin:


I don't understand what you mean there. I find both Brian333's position and yours repugnant. That they are opposed do not mean I should stop questionning one. This reeks of false dichotomy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

[Lethologica]

Actually we raised that back in #1105's thread. It seems that The_Weirdo believes that the guilt for any actions being committed by an individual that has been oppressed by a group at some point falls on the group and that every member of said group is to blame, up to and including the other victims of the group's oppression. Yeah that doesn't make sense to me either.
I remember us getting as far as saying that Ivan was a fellow victim, but not that the clans were.


Because, at some point, the Overton Window kicks in and only one of the two more extreme positions becomes part of the "acceptable discourse", so to speak.
That's not how the Overton Window works. And you should think more carefully about which extreme you're really on, since both of you are pulling in the direction of intolerance towards people with different views towards societal oppression, even though your actual views on societal oppression are quite different.

[hroþila]

"Oooh, the discussion thread has gone up from 3 to 7 pages, let's see what sorts of undoubtedly very interesting debates are taking plac- oh".

[Fyraltari]

I remember us getting as far as saying that Ivan was a fellow victim, but not that the clans were.

The clans are the group in question. But it doesn't make sense to blame them since "the clans" and "the dwarves" are the exact same group.

[Kish]

Because, at some point, the Overton Window kicks in and only one of the two more extreme positions becomes part of the "acceptable discourse", so to speak.
Tosh. Multiple people were yelling at you for pages before brian333 posted. If you had never posted your latest defense of random spree-killing as a response to oppression, he would be the only one who'd posted horror in this thread and the only one getting the violently negative reactions; instead he looks more reasonable by virtue of being a counterpoint to you--in other words, the exact opposite of what you keep asserting to justify yourself.

[schmunzel]

The naturalistic fallacy is alive and well, I see. As well as argument by making stuff up--we don't know how Ivan was selected, nor do we know the circumstances of Hilgya's clan.

Oppression does not become otherwise merely because it is normal.


Which is true - but you cant just say out of nowhere that the entire world you were born into, your entire culture you were raised to, every believe you were taught to hold is wrong.
You are - for good or for worse- a child of the culture you were born into
You just dont start rebelling against your clans by saying that the ethical discurse in the western world (you know nothing about) is so much better and all you were taught is void.

At least thats how I understood the point

sch

[Fyraltari]

Which is true - but you cant just say out of nowhere that the entire world you were born into, your entire culture you were raised to, every believe you were taught to hold is wrong.
You are - for good or for worse- a child of the culture you were born into
You just dont start rebelling against your clans by saying that the ethical discurse in the western world (you know nothing about) is so much better and all you were taught is void.

At least thats how I understood the point

sch
If that was the point it was terribly expressed.

[LunarDrop]

Elan waving back to Kudzu is super cute

[Lethologica]

Which is true - but you cant just say out of nowhere that the entire world you were born into, your entire culture you were raised to, every believe you were taught to hold is wrong.
You are - for good or for worse- a child of the culture you were born into
You just dont start rebelling against your clans by saying that the ethical discurse in the western world is so much better and all you were taught is void.

At least thats how I understood the point

sch
As far as I can tell, you're saying not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Which is very different from what brian333 is saying: by extolling the virtues of dwarven society and Hilgya's situation (even the made-up ones) while condemning any opposition to same on Hilgya's part, he's contesting that there's anything to throw out in the first place. Hilgya is not being oppressed because she's a dwarf and that's just what's normal for dwarves. Acting otherwise is short-sighted and selfish and not conducive to her welfare (but not in an oppressive way, because remember, she isn't being oppressed).

[Shining Wrath]

Unfortunately, for that to work you also have to IL the people who engage with people on your IL, and repeat, and repeat, and repeat...

Much easier to either report someone for, say, advocating genocide, or just quit the forum. Considering how traffic has fallen off to the point it's not hard to keep up anymore, I'd guess most people are opting for the second.

If everyone ignored trolls rather than replying, there would be blissful discussion of the cuteness of Kudzu and the doubtless complex machinations of Loki vis-a-vis Hel.

[Jasdoif]

If everyone ignored trolls rather than replying, there would be blissful discussion of the cuteness of Kudzu and the doubtless complex machinations of Loki vis-a-vis Hel.If you want to talk about "the cuteness of Kudzu and the doubtless complex machinations of Loki vis-a-vis Hel", what's stopping you?

[Shining Wrath]

If you want to talk about "the cuteness of Kudzu and the doubtless complex machinations of Loki vis-a-vis Hel", what's stopping you?

I have tried. I made comments about Loki upthread. It got lost in the endless arguments about the moral justifications for genocide.

[DaggerPen]

Nice comic! I am loving Hilgya's philosophy. I found her a little... 2-dimensional when she first walked back onscreen, but I withheld judgement until we could see more of her, and she's starting to show more depth now.

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but I just wanted to say that Hilgya strikes me as a Chaotic Evil character who seeks to be actively Chaotic and is casually evil. I'd say that's probably why she uses Anarchic water as well - it's not that she's not evil, but that she actively identifies and furthers the philosophy of Chaos, while counting as Evil for being willing to ally with Evil causes, throw others (even ones she likes) under the bus for her own ends, etc. (Now, I would not be astonished to find out that she's Chaotic Neutral now - I'm mostly jotting her down as Evil because of her early comic appearances, and everyone's grown a lot since then. But right now I'm still thinking she's Chaotic Evil.)

[Keltest]

I have tried. I made comments about Loki upthread. It got lost in the endless arguments about the moral justifications for genocide.

Perhaps there simply isn't a lot of room for discussion on those topics.

"Hmm, yes, that baby is cute, and that Loki, man, he's tricky!"

We don't have a lot to work with.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Nice comic! I am loving Hilgya's philosophy. I found her a little... 2-dimensional when she first walked back onscreen, but I withheld judgement until we could see more of her, and she's starting to show more depth now.

Well, yeah, it takes time to create multidimensional characters.


I haven't read the whole thread yet,
Honestly, you may want to skip, and I say that despite being actually proud of some of my thoughts earlier on.


but I just wanted to say that Hilgya strikes me as a Chaotic Evil character who seeks to be actively Chaotic and is casually evil. I'd say that's probably why she uses Anarchic water as well - it's not that she's not evil, but that she actively identifies and furthers the philosophy of Chaos, while counting as Evil for being willing to ally with Evil causes, throw others (even ones she likes) under the bus for her own ends, etc. (Now, I would not be astonished to find out that she's Chaotic Neutral now - I'm mostly jotting her down as Evil because of her early comic appearances, and everyone's grown a lot since then. But right now I'm still thinking she's Chaotic Evil.)
I agree wholeheartedly. I believe she is actively Chaotic, while being passively Evil: her objective is to destroy laws and traditions, and if she hurts the innocent along the way, oh, well, she won't lose much sleep over that.

I get the feeling that Rich likes to show us many flavours of Evil, after all, and how they can all be "reasonably" Evil. If nothing else, because we already have Xykon and Belkar as examples of the opposite, and more of the same would be, well, more of the same.

Grey Wolf

[Grey Watcher]

Has Hilgya ever been formally nailed down as Chaotic Evil? I always thought she might be Chaotic Neutral.

[schmunzel]

Well, yeah, it takes time to create multidimensional characters.


Honestly, you may want to skip, and I say that despite being actually proud of some of my thoughts earlier on.


I agree wholeheartedly. I believe she is actively Chaotic, while being passively Evil: her objective is to destroy laws and traditions, and if she hurts the innocent along the way, oh, well, she won't lose much sleep over that.

I get the feeling that Rich likes to show us many flavours of Evil, after all, and how they can all be "reasonably" Evil. If nothing else, because we already have Xykon and Belkar as examples of the opposite, and more of the same would be, well, more of the same.

Grey Wolf

To my great astonishement we have the word of the giant that she actually *was* evil during her time with the linear guild.
I wonder however (the point was brought up before by hamishspence, too) whether evil aligned persons (dwarfs) get to go to Valhalla?
Additionally you almost get the impression that she *cares*about converting her fellow dwarfs (if only because she gets to fight lawful behavior that way)
I would imagine Hylgia as (currently) being neutral bordering on evil as compared to Varsuvius bordering on good (with slip ups)

sch

[M.A.D]

Thanks for the new strip, Giant!

Quite interesting sentiment on Hilgya's part. "If you follow a dishonorable god, your dishonorable actions are honorable" or something along those lines. However, I seem to remember Hel's deal being "Those that die without honour". So to speak, how they live has little to do with the selection protocol, as only the moment of death is taken into account. You can live honourably for a lifetime, then die of a heart attack during a vacation, and Hel would still have a claim over your soul, otherwise the majority of the normally-honorable dwarf wouldn't have to be worry about her so much. Which renders her logic moot, because she can live however she wants, and is fine as long as she dies honorably.


If you want to talk about "the cuteness of Kudzu and the doubtless complex machinations of Loki vis-a-vis Hel", what's stopping you?

Maybe the lack of conversation partners?

[Necris Omega]

Ah...

Divine Morality and the Afterlife - The Definitive 'Who's On First?' Edition

[Grey Watcher]

Has Hilgya ever been formally nailed down as Chaotic Evil? I always thought she might be Chaotic Neutral.


To my great astonishement we have the word of the giant that she actually *was* evil during her time with the linear guild.

Well, that answers that. Thanks!

[schmunzel]

Thanks for the new strip, Giant!

Quite interesting sentiment on Hilgya's part. "If you follow a dishonorable god, your dishonorable actions are honorable" or something along those lines.<snip>


"Cheating systems is even more honorable for followers of Loki! It's like our main purpose!"

I stumbled upon this too and thought it to be quite in line with her thinking. Its not being honorable and the restraints of the ways of her people, that annoys her but not being able to do whatever she pleases.


Well, that answers that. Thanks!

It's in one of the commentary sections of war and XP's where the Giant talks about Cliffport and the way Nale used the linear Guild to dominate his brother.
I looked it up as soon as hamishspence posted it and cannot remember ever having heard of it before

[brian 333]

Okay, now that's bull****.
"That's just how their society is" => "Oh your were born a slave? Well you see this is the society yourwere born in. Tru=ying to reform it would be like draining a pond to save fishes. And by stopping you from running away I am not oppressing you, I am just restoring things to how they should be .

Their society is that way because that's how dwarves are. Humans are Usually Neutral, dwarves are Usually Lawful Good. You and I might feel uncomfortable in dwarven society, but dwarves thrive in such environments. It is not oppression to create a culture which serves the biological needs of the majority of its members.

The idea that dwarven society is oppressive to Hilgya is an indication that something is wrong with her. Proof? The rarity of dwarves outside their homelands. If dwarven society was truly oppressive to dwarves, many more dwarves would abandon home and seek alternate afterlives. Instead we have a dwarf who wants all the benefits of dwarven society with none of the responsibilities. In other words, she is acting like a spoiled child, blaming others instead of taking personal responsibility.

This doesn't equate to blaming the victim. Because Hilgya isn't a victim. She is someone who benefitted from the dwarven society she claims to hate, and when it was time for her to take her place as a member of that society she attempted murder instead of assuming her responsibilities. She could have refused marriage, even to the point of running away, but she only gave up her comfy spot in dwarven society when her murder attempts failed.

In other words, she acted like a spoiled brat who, when required to grow up and assume responsibility, instead attempted murder to maintain her social position while avoiding the duties of that position. She only ran away after her scheme failed.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Which renders her logic moot, because she can live however she wants, and is fine as long as she dies honorably.

No, it doesn't. The trick to dying in the manner of your choosing is to live in the manner of your choosing, so that when death comes, it is in the middle of acting in the manner of your choosing. For most dwarves, that is regular Thor-type honorable. For Hilgya, if she is right, it is Loki-type dishonorable.

Yes, only the last moment counts (for a very broad meaning of "moment" - dying of exposure while ferrying supplies to a snow-trapped village counts as honorable), but the way to maximize your chances that your death moment is honorable is to make every living moment honorable.

Grey Wolf

[Ellen]

Reminds me. I recently heard someone say, "Do NOT argue theology with the viking."

[Mandor]

Hilgya just gained several ranks of Awesome in my book. Of course, what really matters if it she can make the argument stick in her afterlife....

[Lethologica]

Their society is that way because that's how dwarves are. Humans are Usually Neutral, dwarves are Usually Lawful Good. You and I might feel uncomfortable in dwarven society, but dwarves thrive in such environments. It is not oppression to create a culture which serves the biological needs of the majority of its members.
There's an uncomplimentary phrase ending in "of the majority" which is apropos here. Also, you really can't say the society is a consequence of dwarven biological needs when it's known in comic that it's a consequence of dwarven theological needs. Also also, I would be extremely wary of assuming links between racial biology and alignment--that is, between biology and morality--in this comic, of all the D&D universes you could be talking about.


The idea that dwarven society is oppressive to Hilgya is an indication that something is wrong with her. Proof? The rarity of dwarves outside their homelands. If dwarven society was truly oppressive to dwarves, many more dwarves would abandon home and seek alternate afterlives. Instead we have a dwarf who wants all the benefits of dwarven society with none of the responsibilities. In other words, she is acting like a spoiled child, blaming others instead of taking personal responsibility.
There are only several dozen confounding variables between your evidence and your conclusion.


This doesn't equate to blaming the victim. Because Hilgya isn't a victim. She is someone who benefitted from the dwarven society she claims to hate, and when it was time for her to take her place as a member of that society she attempted murder instead of assuming her responsibilities. She could have refused marriage, even to the point of running away, but she only gave up her comfy spot in dwarven society when her murder attempts failed.

In other words, she acted like a spoiled brat who, when required to grow up and assume responsibility, instead attempted murder to maintain her social position while avoiding the duties of that position. She only ran away after her scheme failed.
It can be true that Hilgya reacted terribly to her situation without it being true that there was absolutely nothing wrong with her situation.

[DaggerPen]

Well, yeah, it takes time to create multidimensional characters.

Well, obviously; I just mean that it's nice to see that happening now. I wasn't sure how long we'd have to wait, and while I had faith that Giant would do it well, it's nice to see that actually rewarded.


Honestly, you may want to skip, and I say that despite being actually proud of some of my thoughts earlier on.

God, I wish I'd read this post before the rest of this thread. I'm not even touching that debate, I've learned my lesson.


I agree wholeheartedly. I believe she is actively Chaotic, while being passively Evil: her objective is to destroy laws and traditions, and if she hurts the innocent along the way, oh, well, she won't lose much sleep over that.

I get the feeling that Rich likes to show us many flavours of Evil, after all, and how they can all be "reasonably" Evil. If nothing else, because we already have Xykon and Belkar as examples of the opposite, and more of the same would be, well, more of the same.

Agreed on all counts, and well said.


Quite interesting sentiment on Hilgya's part. "If you follow a dishonorable god, your dishonorable actions are honorable" or something along those lines. However, I seem to remember Hel's deal being "Those that die without honour". So to speak, how they live has little to do with the selection protocol, as only the moment of death is taken into account. You can live honourably for a lifetime, then die of a heart attack during a vacation, and Hel would still have a claim over your soul, otherwise the majority of the normally-honorable dwarf wouldn't have to be worry about her so much. Which renders her logic moot, because she can live however she wants, and is fine as long as she dies honorably.

You know, that's an interesting point - where exactly is that line drawn? I'm sure that, for example, getting killed because of a complex clever scheme gone horrendously wrong would count as a death well in line with Loki's traditions of (dis)honor, but stretching the definition to any non-honorable death seems a bit cheap. Though, then again, as has been said, Loki is all about gaming the system. And even if Loki worship doesn't grant a Valhalla ticket to any non-honorable death, it's probably still a broader range than would be permitted under standard definitions of honor.

EDIT: On addition:


It can be true that Hilgya reacted terribly to her situation without it being true that there was absolutely nothing wrong with her situation.

This. Extremely well phrased, thank you.

[Psychronia]

I don't know about the others, but I'm kinda digging her argument.

In a sense, honor was always what the dwarf chose for it to be, and Loki explicitly made it all about "yourself".

With how Hel seemed to struggle to get any souls, it sounds like an argument about any sort of personal definition of honor would work out for you.

[The_Weirdo]

She could have refused marriage

Crossbow...

[KorvinStarmast]

brian333 She could have refused marriage
The_Weirdo Crossbow...

We've already seen this movie, and the sequel being better is unlikely. :smallyuk:

[The MunchKING]

Humans are Usually Neutral,.

IIRC in 3.5 Humans didn't even tend towards Neutral in significant ammounts to get it as a Racial Alignment. They're too Unique and Special Snowflakes to get nailed down to one alignment like that. :smallannoyed:

[The_Weirdo]

brian333 She could have refused marriage
The_Weirdo Crossbow...

We've already seen this movie, and the sequel being better is unlikely. :smallyuk:

Dude. You can dislike my views or my words or me (I'm not claiming you do dislike me, mind :smallbiggrin:) until the cows come home, but could ANYONE expect to claim that Hilgya could have refused the marriage and not to get, as a reward, a response with at least the word "crossbow"? And I did say "at least", because at this point someone might well have written "There was a (gerund verb) crossbow pointed at her back". And mind, that someone might even not be me. :smalltongue:

[The MunchKING]

Crossbow...

What kind of Cleric can't take 1d8 damage anyway? :smalltongue:

[The_Weirdo]

What kind of Cleric can't take 1d8 damage anyway? :smalltongue:

The kind that was a Commoner at the time and tied up so that the shot would actually work as a coup de grace? :smalltongue:

[The MunchKING]

The kind that was a Commoner at the time and tied up so that the shot would actually work as a coup de grace? :smalltongue:

Clearly not tied up (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0083.html). He's not even aiming at any of the particularly vital bits. :smallbiggrin:

[The_Weirdo]

Clearly not tied up (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0083.html). He's not even aiming at any of the particularly vital bits. :smallbiggrin:

I stand corrected. That clearly means she wanted all that had happened up to and including the marriage, then she got cold feet and decided to murder her way out instead of taking the only honorable and acceptable route and staying forever in a miserable marriage as was her duty, which, clearly, she accepted, because the crossbow would be more like a taser at that point, and, in short, that can only mean she must have wanted it. :smallbiggrin:

(Disclaimer: no, I don't think you actually made that claim. Neither am I. :smallbiggrin:)

[brian 333]

She did successfully leave. She didn't have to try murder first, but did because she didn't want to leave. She wanted the benefits without the responsibility. This is not the act of an oppressed victim of an oppressive society, she is a spoiled brat who would use murder as a way to havd her cake and eat it too.

[The_Weirdo]

She did successfully leave. She didn't have to try murder first, but did because she didn't want to leave. She wanted the benefits without the responsibility. This is not the act of an oppressed victim of an oppressive society, she is a spoiled brat who would use murder as a way to havd her cake and eat it too.

There was a crossbow...

[The MunchKING]

1d8 damages!

[KorvinStarmast]

Dude. You can dislike my views or my words or me (I'm not claiming you do dislike me, mind :smallbiggrin:) until the cows come home What I dislike is that the semi inane argument from a few threads ago has come back to haunt us, like Joan Crawford having risen from the grave. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQBJfQhpw_U) (Start video at about time 1:00, or 1:45 for the chorus).
Blue Oyster Cult had some interesting songs ...

That said, I can't stop people from arguing, so I thought I'd make light of it.

[The_Weirdo]

1d8 damages!

It's a bit of a rule in a debate on the victimization of someone that wasn't a criminal at the time of the incident: if there was a weapon pointed at you - like, say, a crossbow - you're a victim...


That said, I can't stop people from arguing

Yes you can. You can do anything you set your mind to, honey...

Wait, that's my maternal side speaking. :smallbiggrin:

[KorvinStarmast]

Yes you can.
You know who can stop people from arguing?
Godzilla! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTzb-sduiWc)

[rbetieh]

Not that I've read all of the pages (just the first and the last) but her commentary on dwarven society seems morally bankrupt.

She is saying that the only reason Dwarves set their societies as they do is because they are trying to avoid the bad place. That can't be true, as she is not the first person to discover that the god Loki exists. Other Dwarves have to have thought of the same thing, and yet their society remains as it is. I dont think fear of Hel is as gripping as she claims. Perhaps on your death bed, as Durkon implied, but day to day the desire to be honorable seems different from the obsession of dying with honor....

[Dragolord]

I find it interesting that Hilgya is taking the lesser-travelled of the two paths predetermined by the gods that dwarves must if they wish to avoid Hel, and insisting that she's "opting out of the system". Assuming that such a path exists, of course.

[Manty5]

Once again, a comic strip where we can't enjoy discussing it because people will not use the "ignore" feature provided by these fora. It's a simple process, people. Click on the userid. Click on "view profile". Click on "add to ignore list".

Regain a GitP forum where we talk about characters and plot in a rational fashion.

Thank you for the tip. If I never see another The Weirdo spamstorm with consists of the same 5 variations of him repeating the word "oppression" and expecting the mere word to carry him wherever he likes, it'll be too soon.

Any way to eliminate posts that reply to him, or do I have to ignore people who reply to him too?

[eilandesq]

One thing I've never understood--how is it that Loki, Hel, and a drunken Thor were able to make a bet that involved *all* dwarves who worshipped Northern deities, when we know at least Odin had a high priest among the dwarves--wouldn't Odin and all of the other Northern deities have to have signed off on it?

Also, why haven't more dwarves said, "Eff you Northern lunatics--we're moving to the South and worshipping the petting zoo. At least their brains aren't frozen into being defective!"

Finally, why wouldn't Hilgya's argument apply to *any* cleric serving his or her deity in accordance to that deity's teachings at the time of their death? Hel seemed convinced that she'd get custody of the High Priest of Thor.

[schmunzel]

I don't know about the others, but I'm kinda digging her argument.

In a sense, honor was always what the dwarf chose for it to be, and Loki explicitly made it all about "yourself".

With how Hel seemed to struggle to get any souls, it sounds like an argument about any sort of personal definition of honor would work out for you.

I would go so far as to say it depends on who is arguing the case and is on the jury. Thor would not follow this line of thinking. So you better make sure that Loki (or Odin or whoever) are standing up for you.
I would assume that the dwarfes are free to worship whoever comes to their mind. They just are Hels after death whenever they didnt die with (insert arbitrary view of) honor (here).



Not that I've read all of the pages (just the first and the last) but her commentary on dwarven society seems morally bankrupt.

She is saying that the only reason Dwarves set their societies as they do is because they are trying to avoid the bad place. That can't be true, as she is not the first person to discover that the god Loki exists. Other Dwarves have to have thought of the same thing, and yet their society remains as it is. I dont think fear of Hel is as gripping as she claims. Perhaps on your death bed, as Durkon implied, but day to day the desire to be honorable seems different from the obsession of dying with honor....

Most dwarfs I have seen in comic seem to have a very great desire to *be* honorable - I just think the way they are forced to do it (while Metareviewing the situation) is questionable in the extreme.

We tend to see the actions of the gods as actions brought onto the society by other people/men due to the antropomorphised (???) way we see the gods. While it probably should be seen more in the line of being a natural law (bound to the current world)
So I will argue that most dwarfs are lawful because of them being raised as lawful, not because of being forced to it by constant fear of damnation. So Loki will probably have some followers but I would be surprised if it would amount to a great deal.
I view Durkon as honorable because he thinks its the right thing to do, not because he fears Hel.
He would be lawful, too (or stay lawful) without that threat (though this discussion is probably moot)


One thing I've never understood--how is it that Loki, Hel, and a drunken Thor were able to make a bet that involved *all* dwarves who worshipped Northern deities, when we know at least Odin had a high priest among the dwarves--wouldn't Odin and all of the other Northern deities have to have signed off on it?

Also, why haven't more dwarves said, "Eff you Northern lunatics--we're moving to the South and worshipping the petting zoo. At least their brains aren't frozen into being defective!"

Finally, why wouldn't Hilgya's argument apply to *any* cleric serving his or her deity in accordance to that deity's teachings at the time of their death? Hel seemed convinced that she'd get custody of the High Priest of Thor.

I do not think that other gods have to sign the deal of.
When a dwarf dies with honor he will not be Hels. Whether he faihfully served Odin or Loki or Heimdall doesnt seem to be the question?
W
hether the deal extends to other parthenons is an interisting question. I assume only the northern pantheon would be affected, which would mean that dwarves are the race of the north (They are Thors *idea*), while elves would be the race of the south (or whatever) so that apart from travellers, there wouldnt be any dwarfs in the south.

So (in my mind at least) the dwarf that dies in the south would still be under Thors / Lokis/ Hels / whatever jurisdiction.



sch

[Kardwill]

I wonder however (the point was brought up before by hamishspence, too) whether evil aligned persons (dwarfs) get to go to Valhalla?

Well, Valhalla is a chaotic afterlife, and yet most dwarves end up there by following the values of a very lawful, honor bound society. Oh, and Good dwarves end up in Hel, an unquestionably Evil afterlife, if they die from a crippling plague or a stupid accident (slipping on the wet floor while getting out of your bath? Welcome to hell, hope you like brimstone).

So I don't think the alignment is really important for the dwarven afterlives. Only their actions at the time of death are. That's what Hylgia is complaining about in this strip : The humans get to go to an afterlife matching their personal values (i.e. alignment). The dwarves don't, and have to "game the system" and find loopholes ("but I was bathing so I would be clean, wouldn't spread disease, and wouldn't dishonor my clan's reputation with poor hygiene! So I got an honorable death, right?").

[hamishspence]

Well, Valhalla is a chaotic afterlife, and yet most dwarves end up there by following the values of a very lawful, honor bound society. Oh, and Good dwarves end up in Hel, an unquestionably Evil afterlife, if they die from a crippling plague or a stupid accident (slipping on the wet floor while getting out of your bath? Welcome to hell, hope you like brimstone).

Hel, not Hell. :biggrin:

Hel's domain is, at least in D&D media, very cold. It is possibly an area of Hades or Tarturus, in the Great Wheel (which OOTS uses, possibly with a few of the names modified a little - Nirvana rather than Mechanus).

[schmunzel]

I find it interesting that Hilgya is taking the lesser-travelled of the two paths predetermined by the gods that dwarves must if they wish to avoid Hel, and insisting that she's "opting out of the system". Assuming that such a path exists, of course.

She is not *opting out* of the system - even if that is her rationale.
She is using a different approach to honor and by that is pretty much gaming the system in the intended way
Whether the game is winnable is up for debate

sch

[Casimir-Ivanova]

Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, and Blaise Pascal are playing Hide ‘n’ Seek. It’s Einstein’s turn to count, so he covers his eyes and counts to ten. Pascal runs to hide, but Newton draws a one meter by one meter square on the ground, then stands in the middle of it.

Einstein reaches ten and uncovers his eyes. He sees Newton immediately and exclaims “I found you, Newton! You’re it!”

Newton replies “You didn’t find me. You found a Newton over a square meter - that's a Pascal!”

nerd humor :P

The version I heard was that Heisenberg was also playing with them at the time, but he's never involved with the punchline of the joke. So the reason of his existence in the joke is uncertain.

[Fanatic-Templar]

Hel, not Hell. :biggrin:

Hel's domain is, at least in D&D media, very cold. It is possibly an area of Hades or Tarturus, in the Great Wheel (which OOTS uses, possibly with a few of the names modified a little - Nirvana rather than Mechanus).

Canonically Hel resides in the Grey Waste, on the second layer, Niflheim.

[Peelee]

The version I heard was that Heisenberg was also playing with them at the time, but he's never involved with the punchline of the joke. So the reason of his existence in the joke is uncertain.

Probably intending a play on Einstein finding him, but then Heisenberg getting away by telling Einstein how fast he's going. The speeding ticket joke works better for him, though (the one where the the cop tells him his speed, rather than asking).

[Kish]

I suspect "So the reason of his existence in the joke is uncertain." is meant to be a reference to a certain* principle.

*So to speak.

[Fyraltari]

The version I heard was that Heisenberg was also playing with them at the time, but he's never involved with the punchline of the joke. So the reason of his existence in the joke is uncertain.

Let me guess, Schrödinger is both partaking and not partaking in the game until the one who tell the joke takes a decision.

[zimmerwald1915]

Let me guess, Schrödinger is both partaking and not partaking in the game until the one who tell the joke takes a decision.
Nah, he'd be the first to tell you how that can't possibly be what's going on, as the result is absurd.

[brian 333]

The thing I think may be overlooked here is the simple idea that dwarves are not humans.

We keep applying human norms of the 21st Century Western culture to dwarves, when their background material clearly shows this to not apply.

If the characters were Kif instead of Dwarf we would have less trouble identifying the cultural differences and accepting them as normal for that species.

Hilgya and Durkon are not just humans of diminutive stature. They are of another race with different biological and social needs. Their culture is designed for the maximum benefit to their race. When we impose our modern values on them we ignore their history, their biology, and their emotional well being in favor of ideas which humans believe beneficial for humans.

There are individualists in dwarven society, but they are rare enough that dwarven society can ignore them without lasting harm to society. This is not evil or oppressive because it serves to benefit the conformist majority.

So, before you judge any culture by your standards, first learn about it. You may be surprised to learn that people of the other culture think you're bonkers for believing and acting as you do. And they would be just as right as you when you judged them.

Dwarves are not human, so human mores don't apply to them any more than the mores of lions apply to housecats.

[zimmerwald1915]

The thing I think may be overlooked here is the simple idea that dwarves are not humans.
As presented, they pretty much are. As is every people in OOTS.

[Cizak]

The thing I think may be overlooked here is the simple idea that dwarves are not humans.

Dwarfs are short humans. Elves are pointy-eared humans. Orcs and goblins are green-skinned, sharp-toothed humans.

Every humanoid fantasy race is a variation of humans. They are created by human authors living in human contexts with the literary purpose to discuss things related to humanity. If we can't learn something about our situation from theirs, they are wholly uninteresting to write about.

[Lethologica]

The thing I think may be overlooked here is the simple idea that dwarves are not humans.


No one has overlooked that. You just keep assuming facts not in evidence - facts contrary to available evidence, if anything - about what that means.

[Kish]

No one has overlooked that. You just keep assuming facts not in evidence - facts contrary to available evidence, if anything - about what that means.
And specifically assuming that "I find the culture I was born into morally bankrupt" is a position that cannot be valid, as far as I can tell.