What's so shocking about Sigdi's sacrifice?

[Tiiba]

Are you telling me that Durkon would condemn five compatriots to eternal slavery for a big pile of money?

I wasn't just surprised that Sigdi's decision confused Durkon, I was surprised the vampire needed an explanation. Sure, he'd scoff and call it stupid, but it shouldn't be shocking to the point of inducing an identity crisis.

[hroþila]

Are you telling me that Durkon would condemn five compatriots to eternal slavery for a big pile of money?

I wasn't just surprised that Sigdi's decision confused Durkon, I was surprised the vampire needed an explanation. Sure, he'd scoff and call it stupid, but it it shouldn't be shocking to the point of inducing an identity crisis.
Not for a big pile of money: for his Pa or, failing that, for his Ma's health and happiness.

[Tiiba]

Not for a big pile of money: for his Pa or, failing that, for his Ma's health and happiness.

But he should still see what the right decision is. Sometimes there's a difficult moral dilemma, where murdering a little girl with an axe will save two grown men. This is a choice between saving one man from the horrors of Valhalla and saving five from Hel's tender mercies.

[Michaeler]

Durkon reacted emotionally. When he had time to think about it calmly he agreed with the decision.

[Goblin_Priest]

"A big pile of money" tends to mean a whole lot more to people who have lived their lives in great poverty. It's not just shinies, it's a lifetime's worth of sacrifices and hardships that did not have to be.

[Rrmcklin]

Because she did it for five people she didn't even know over bringing back the man she loved, or, failing that, restoring her arm.

The real sticking point there is the total strangers part. Most people are not so altruistic is to put the sake of total strangers over closed loved ones.

Ever hear the question "In a burning building if you could save one sibling or five strangers, which would you pick?" People tend to say they'll save the sibling.

[Sylian]

For Durkon, I think it was more an initial reaction based on growing up without a father and growing up in relative poverty. Once he had some more time to think about it, he ended up agreeing that she made the right call.

For Greg, well... He's Evil. From an Evil perspective, her action really doesn't make much logical sense. She'd benefit more from restoring her arm and living in luxury, or at least it'd seem like that to Greg. I imagine Greg probably undervalues friendship and family as well, though: Sigdi did benefit from raising them, she gained several new friends and family (it's not like she just raised them and then never say them again, though I imagine she still would have done it, because she's a Good character).

[Jubal_Barca]

But he should still see what the right decision is. Sometimes there's a difficult moral dilemma, where murdering a little girl with an axe will save two grown men. This is a choice between saving one man from the horrors of Valhalla and saving five from Hel's tender mercies.

This is objectively true, but I think very, very few people would see it with that level of objectivity if given the choice between a life with the person they loved and a life in comparative poverty with five, and this is worth stressing, completely unknown strangers of unknown alignment happening to be alive who wouldn't be otherwise. Yes, in the Dwarven case the calculations are heavily skewed because of the afterlife situation, but it's still an incredible feat of willpower to make that choice and value the ultimate cosmic-level stuff over and above the stuff that is immediately going to affect you for the remaining couple of centuries of your life.

Whilst OOTS Dwarf society is balanced towards being honour-driven, that doesn't mean everyone is treated as under obligation to fight to drag every soul they can back from Hel: indeed if anything Dwarf society seems very familial and clan driven, one in which generally people are responsible for themselves but not usually treated as having that sort of soul-level responsibility for people outside their clan and family. We're looking in on that society from the outside, and we have a very clear view of the cosmic picture and problems, so it's pretty easy for us to argue that on a cosmic scale, the Dwarves should perhaps just become a collectivist society that pools all its surplus wealth to drag souls back from Hel; given life after death is eternal, it potentially becomes a kind of utility monster for living dwarves. But from the perspective of the dwarves themselves, in this as so many other things, they don't have such a high vantage point; Sigdi putting dwarf-kind above wealth and clan I can see being considered an extremely shockingly strong act of piety and self-sacrifice.

I mean, imagine if everyone on this forum pooled the full contents of our savings accounts to buy malaria nets or some other form of cheap life-saving device. The net gain for humanity could be considerable, but it's not going to happen, because our considerations around personal hardship ultimately override it. Even for Good characters, you're responsible for others and have duties to them, but only up to a point; characters aren't penalised for e.g. every time they buy a beer or new clothes because they could have spent that money on rehoming orphans. Sigdi kind of threw away the "up to a point" in this case and decided she didn't care about the personal hardship, and that's unusual and extremely praiseworthy.

[Rrmcklin]

Also, as needs to be remembered, it's not how a dwarf lives that matters, it's how they die. If Sigdi had just revived her husband, it likely wouldn't have affected her chances of getting into Valhalla at all.

The dwarves strive to live honorably because it increases their chances of doing something honorable at the moment of death, but she was in no such danger when she made the decision. Her soul would not have been in danger no matter which course of action she took.

Really, I don't want to sound rude, but this kind of seems like needing human(oid) emotion explained to you, and that human(oid)s aren't always thinking logically.

[Silverionmox]

More shocking observations?
- the treasure contained *exactly* enough gold and gems to resurrect five people, but not enough to include a regenerate for her arm.
- she didn't decline to resurrect unlucky #5 and use the money for a regenerate instead
- she chose the selfish and proud option of making a grand gesture rather than taking care of her existing responsibilities (herself and Durkon).
- miners don't have life insurance, despite the risks and the readily available resurrection
- dwarven society doesn't forward the costs for a regenerate spell, despite that being financially much more sensible than paying a pension to a disabled person for the rest of their lives
- neither does the church of thor, despite the obvious profitability and better PR

[Rrmcklin]

More shocking observations?
- the treasure contained *exactly* enough gold and gems to resurrect five people, but not enough to include a regenerate for her arm.
- she didn't decline to resurrect unlucky #5 and use the money for a regenerate instead
- she chose the selfish and proud option of making a grand gesture rather than taking care of her existing responsibilities (herself and Durkon).
- miners don't have life insurance, despite the risks and the readily available resurrection
- dwarven society doesn't forward the costs for a regenerate spell, despite that being financially much more sensible than paying a pension to a disabled person for the rest of their lives
- neither does the church of thor, despite the obvious profitability and better PR

1) Why is this shocking? It's an arbitrary amount of treasure.
2) She didn't even want the priest to tell them she was the one who paid for it, and why do you assume she even knew she was pregnant at the time? And putting others above yourself (at least sometimes) is kind of a thing good people do.
3) What does that have to do with anything?
4) Can't say anything on this.
5) Same as four.

[Inst]

More shocking observations?
- the treasure contained *exactly* enough gold and gems to resurrect five people, but not enough to include a regenerate for her arm.
- she didn't decline to resurrect unlucky #5 and use the money for a regenerate instead
- she chose the selfish and proud option of making a grand gesture rather than taking care of her existing responsibilities (herself and Durkon).
- miners don't have life insurance, despite the risks and the readily available resurrection
- dwarven society doesn't forward the costs for a regenerate spell, despite that being financially much more sensible than paying a pension to a disabled person for the rest of their lives
- neither does the church of thor, despite the obvious profitability and better PR

Zing. But let's just go on with the ride.

Also, I think Sigdi doesn't want her arm regenerated, for reasons vaguely similar to what happened to Redcloak. Her missing arm is evidence of her bond to Tenrin, no matter how inconvenient it might be.

[Inst]

1) Why is this shocking? It's an arbitrary amount of treasure.
2) She didn't even want the priest to tell them she was the one who paid for it, and why do you assume she even knew she was pregnant at the time? And putting others above yourself (at least sometimes) is kind of a thing good people do.
3) What does that have to do with anything?
4) Can't say anything on this.
5) Same as four.

She knew she was pregnant due to the clerics' check-up post-battle. She made her choices.

[Rrmcklin]

She knew she was pregnant due to the clerics' check-up post-battle. She made her choices.

That she did then. Admirable choices at that, which most people seem to agree upon.

I feel like some weird false dichotomy is being made her by some users that doing anything other than what she did would be wrong. That wasn't my impression. Something can be the "right" thing to do, with it still be acknowledged as reasonable that not everyone (or even most people) will do it.

Personally, I can't say I consider it a crime to save five people, even if doing so made her and Durkon's lives harder. From all appearances Durkon grew up happy, but we can most certainly say those five wouldn't have been happy with Hel.

[Inst]

Ehhh, we more or less pointed out that she had a survivor's guilt issue. The point is more that, if Durkula wanted to have this debate, he could have very well drew upon any type of Durkonian resentment to break Durkon, and he would have had a good chance of succeeding.

TBH, argument by volume is simply not fun, and I'm logging out now.

[Rrmcklin]

Ehhh, we more or less pointed out that she had a survivor's guilt issue. The point is more that, if Durkula wanted to have this debate, he could have very well drew upon any type of Durkonian resentment to break Durkon, and he would have had a good chance of succeeding.

TBH, argument by volume is simply not fun, and I'm logging out now.

...But, no, she doesn't have survivors guilt, like, at all. Her incident and what happened with those five are completely unrelated. There is absolutely nothing indicating anything of the like factored into her decision.

It really just seems like you just say things, while ignoring everything that disagrees or goes against your points.

[Tsukikira]

Ehhh, we more or less pointed out that she had a survivor's guilt issue. The point is more that, if Durkula wanted to have this debate, he could have very well drew upon any type of Durkonian resentment to break Durkon, and he would have had a good chance of succeeding.

TBH, argument by volume is simply not fun, and I'm logging out now.

But what debate can he have? He literally was basically a soul with some of Durkon's filtered memories, tainted by the core memory being one really bad day in Durkon's life. Durkula is dumbfounded in this debate because he cannot comprehend the concept; It's not like he actually has any other memories to really rely on of people being unexpectedly evil. The simple fact is that this plan involved such a rush that Durkula never had time to gain any basis or thought process or memories that were not just a filtered version of Durkon's memories. Anything Durkula had was a part of what Durkon STILL HAS, which was the primary point of this plot twist. The lack of tracing back connections in memories were used to point out how poor Durkon was in his childhood, to point out his mother's struggles and his family, all to set up the backdrop to give him something that would make no sense to Durkula - that she had a choice, and she chose the saint's path.

[hamishspence]

- she chose the selfish and proud option of making a grand gesture rather than taking care of her existing responsibilities (herself and Durkon).

"Selfishness and pride" have nothing to do with it - what I see here is textbook "selflessness and humility".

[Themrys]

Why she didn't have her husband raised is easy to explain: He was finally safe. He died with honour, therefore got to Valhalla. If she raised him, she'd have put him at risk of dying in less honourable circumstances. For someone who knows that the afterlife is real, and how it works, it is just logical.

Her arm is harder to explain, since lacking an arm could mean she won't be able to pick a fight with a potted plant when the grim reaper comes calling.

But most people aren't confronted directly with the choice of saving someone from a lifetime of slavery or doing something for themselves.

Buying a cheap t-shirt even though you know that the women who make them live in eternal poverty (and as newly discovered, are at risk or death by building collapse) is a lot easier when the people your decision affects aren't right in front of you.


Not saying that most people wouldn't still be able to make the more selfish decision, but I suppose Sigdi just wouldn't have been able to live with the knowledge that she could have saved five dwarves from Hel and didn't do it.

[hroþila]

Durkon has no problem accepting the argument for not raising Tenrin, from an intellectual point of view. He just sometimes struggles with it from an emotional point of view.

[SilverCacaobean]

[...]- she chose the selfish and proud option of making a grand gesture rather than taking care of her existing responsibilities (herself and Durkon).[...]

So you're using the word "selfish" for something opposite than what it means. And please spare me the juvenile pseudo-philosophical rambling that would justify your use of that word.

As for "proud". Pride could have been a reason for someone to make the choice she made, but it absolutely is not the only reason as you imply, nor is it the reason she did it.

0/2 you need to work on your adjectives.

[LuisDantas]

"A big pile of money" tends to mean a whole lot more to people who have lived their lives in great poverty. It's not just shinies, it's a lifetime's worth of sacrifices and hardships that did not have to be.

Quite so.

Also, at least among humans that I have known, there is a very strong trend to few attached to any money that might conceivably come our way and to feel little duty to spend any of it towards helping the confort or dignity of other people.

[warmachine]

Greg thought all decisions are made only in rational self-interest. Charity is just a gain in non-quantifiable reputation. Subordination is just gaining more from a powerful lord or organisation than the effort put in. Sacrifice for no expected reward shouldn't exist.

[LuisDantas]

Not saying that most people wouldn't still be able to make the more selfish decision, but I suppose Sigdi just wouldn't have been able to live with the knowledge that she could have saved five dwarves from Hel and didn't do it.

I wonder if we will at any point have some insight on what Sigdi's life was besides or before Tenrin and the friends that she was not directly responsible for.

It would be very interesting to learn whether Durkon has any living blood family or close friends beyond Sigdi herself and the crew that we already saw. It is IMO implied that he has few if any, even in the title of strip #1128.

For all we know, Sigdi may have faced the fear of raising Durkon with no emotional, material or logistical support network whatsoever were it not for that one time sacrifice. Or she may have been pestered by a toxic family that she would rather not have. Or, going to the other side, he may have offended or displaced some of the finest and more influential dwarf-people that live in the region in order to create room for Squeaky and the others in her life and Durkon's.

Yet another possibility is that she very much kept for herself and Tenrin before the tragedy, but turned a new leaf once she felt responsible for the five. There is a wealth of possible scenarios to complete the emotional mindset of young Durkon.

[Leirus]

I wonder if we will at any point have some insight on what Sigdi's life was besides or before Tenrin and the friends that she was not directly responsible for.

It would be very interesting to learn whether Durkon has any living blood family or close friends beyond Sigdi herself and the crew that we already saw. It is IMO implied that he has few if any, even in the title of strip #1128.

For all we know, Sigdi may have faced the fear of raising Durkon with no emotional, material or logistical support network whatsoever were it not for that one time sacrifice. Or she may have been pestered by a toxic family that she would rather not have. Or, going to the other side, he may have offended or displaced some of the finest and more influential dwarf-people that live in the region in order to create room for Squeaky and the others in her life and Durkon's.

Yet another possibility is that she very much kept for herself and Tenrin before the tragedy, but turned a new leaf once she felt responsible for the five. There is a wealth of possible scenarios to complete the emotional mindset of young Durkon.

This is idle guessing, but Sigdi was in the army. Likely her friends were also soldiers (his husband had been one), and maybe she lost touch with them after retiring. At any rate, Sigdi was still being called "sarge" years after retiring, so I guess she commanded a certain amount of respect among the general population.

[The Pilgrim]

Are you telling me that Durkon would condemn five compatriots to eternal slavery for a big pile of money?

I wasn't just surprised that Sigdi's decision confused Durkon, I was surprised the vampire needed an explanation. Sure, he'd scoff and call it stupid, but it shouldn't be shocking to the point of inducing an identity crisis.

The point of the experience is that Durkon owes his happiness as a child with his family to her mother's pain and suffering. Sigdi could have resurrected her husband and regenerated her arm instead of raising five random people, and she would have been happier if she had done so. Instead, she chose to help five random people and give Durkon five father/mother figures, and live thereafter single and one-armed. That knowledge ceates mixed feelings on Durkon.

Just like the fact that Belkar owes his life to Durkon losing hims, creates mixed feelings on the little bastard.

[KorvinStarmast]

"Selfishness and pride" have nothing to do with it - what I see here is textbook "selflessness and humility". Yeah. It's interesting to see how some people with Grinch sized hearts have a hard time grasping those qualities.

Buying a cheap t-shirt even though you know that the women who make them live in eternal poverty (and as newly discovered, are at risk or death by building collapse) is a lot easier when the people your decision affects aren't right in front of you. If they have a job, all OSHA problems the world over considered, in a lot of places that takes them out of poverty, which is a locally adjudicated condition. My dad grew up with no running water until age 8, his dad died at age 10, and they grew their own veggies in their garden. Poor but proud; through family and self sacrifice, his mom kept a roof over their heads. (And she was a seamstress, so she was able to do piece work ... but I am moving a bit too far toward RL stuff, so maybe best to stop.

I wonder if we will at any point have some insight on what Sigdi's life was besides or before Tenrin and the friends that she was not directly responsible for. She was a Sergeant who led a team with diverse skills to handle emerging security threats to dwarven homes and territory. You might compare her to a senior non-com in the US Army who runs a Special Forces A-Team. In short, if that model is about right, she was/is smart, resourceful, competent, and caring.
There is a wealth of possible scenarios to complete the emotional mindset of young Durkon. Yes, that whole circle of past memories is a neat place to ponder on that. That huge splash panel is really neat.

This is idle guessing, but Sigdi was in the army. Likely her friends were also soldiers (his husband had been one), and maybe she lost touch with them after retiring. At any rate, Sigdi was still being called "sarge" years after retiring, so I guess she commanded a certain amount of respect among the general population. I'd guess she kept in touch with her old team. (Though by the time of this story, some of them may have died in the line of duty).

[Jay R]

More shocking observations?
- the treasure contained *exactly* enough gold and gems to resurrect five people, but not enough to include a regenerate for her arm.

It is common in literature that the resources available match the moral decision the author wants the character to make.


- she didn't decline to resurrect unlucky #5 and use the money for a regenerate instead.

That's right. She didn't. She put that stranger's life and soul above her own right arm. I'd like to believe that I'd do the same, but I also hope I'll never be tested like that.


- she chose the selfish and proud option of making a grand gesture rather than taking care of her existing responsibilities (herself and Durkon).

This simply doesn't match how people use those words.
A. Saving people's lives, and in fact their very souls, is not a "gesture". It's real.
B. Giving up riches isn't selfish, by any non-twisted use of that word.
C. Choosing a life of poverty isn't "proud"; it's humble. Note that she didn't even want them told who paid for their resurrections.
B. She does take care of herself and Durkon for the rest of her life. Doing things one-handed and occasionally having to replace broken plates is not failing to take care of her responsibilities.


- miners don't have life insurance, despite the risks and the readily available resurrection

Life insurance only dates back to the 18th century. It is simply inconsistent with a society with a medieval level of technology. [For a brief time in Rome, there was a way to pre-pay burial costs, but miners very often have that taken care of at the moment of death.]


- dwarven society doesn't forward the costs for a regenerate spell, despite that being financially much more sensible than paying a pension to a disabled person for the rest of their lives

Spells cost money. "Dwarven society" isn't a big pile of gold; it's a bunch of dwarves who live together. And Sigdi giving up her riches to resurrect 5 strangers is exactly and precisely dwarven society paying for the raise dead spells. There was no extra money to pay for the regenerate spell.


- neither does the church of thor, despite the obvious profitability and better PR

It's clear that the cleric was sad about the deaths, and then quite glad when Sigdi paid for the Raise Dead spells. The church simply doesn't have the money to cast those spells without donations.

Also, on your profitability assertion, you are assuming that it's a disability pension, not a retirement pension. She may get it even if she has both hands, in which case there is no potential profitability at all.

----
But the details don't matter. The real situation is this: Rich is inventing a situation for a specific purpose -- to create a specific moral choice for the benefit of his story. You are trying to invent ideas to take away that moral choice, for the detriment of the story. This never works.

Disguises work when stories require them to, from Shakespeare and Plautus down to Superman's glasses. Leia doesn't recognize that Luke is his brother in the first movie, even though she knows his name is "Skywalker". And Sigdi has a moral choice to make between her own arm, or the souls of five strangers.

It's called "willing suspension of disbelief". Accept the premise and move on.

[Kish]

I also note a lack of consistency here. That dwarven society doesn't make arrangements to resurrect those who die in mining accidents reflects badly on dwarven society; a pension, meanwhile, is a "handout" that Sigdi should feel ashamed of living on and should take any opportunity to stop needing.

[Flabbicus]

I also note a lack of consistency here. That dwarven society doesn't make arrangements to resurrect those who die in mining accidents reflects badly on dwarven society; a pension, meanwhile, is a "handout" that Sigdi should feel ashamed of living on and should take any opportunity to stop needing.

I would argue that it's more realistic for societies to not be consistent in this regard. A society tying in public benefits to military service while not doing so for everyone isn't unheard of.

As for Sigdi's pension being a "handout"; from Durkon's perspective he grew up living hand-to-mouth because of his mother's situation that's one way he could feel shame while she accepts it because of their imbalance of knowledge.

I'd argue the lesson Sigdi taught Durkon is charity, that when society fails to provide for people who fall through the cracks someone needs to step up and shoulder the burden. Greg exists as an exploitation of a cosmic loophole, and Durkon's philosophy from Sigdi appears to be that he needs to be the one to plug the loopholes no matter what it personally costs him.

[Kish]

Let me clarify: I'm saying there's a lack of consistency in Silverionmox's expressed beliefs about shoulds. Not that dwarven society lacks verisimilitude.

[Flabbicus]

Let me clarify: I'm saying there's a lack of consistency in Silverionmox's expressed beliefs about shoulds. Not that dwarven society lacks verisimilitude.

Gotcha, agreed with you there! I was too busy wrapped up in making my point to realize that you were responding to Silverionmox!

[KorvinStarmast]

I'd argue the lesson Sigdi taught Durkon is charity, that when society fails to provide for people who fall through the cracks someone needs to step up and shoulder the burden. ... the greatest of these is charity.


And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

[woweedd]

... the greatest of these is charity.


And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
We kinda have a rule against religious discussion here.

[Particle_Man]

Sigdi was quick to point out that she earned her pension and thus it was not a handout.

A separate point is that the High Priest of Hel might have trouble internalizing why going to Hel was such a bad thing that one needed to be rescued from it.

[Lethologica]

A separate point is that the High Priest of Hel might have trouble internalizing why going to Hel was such a bad thing that one needed to be rescued from it.
HPoH knows enough to taunt Roy with the knowledge that he'll be taking care of Durkon's soul in Hel's domain. His first memory was of Durkon cursing dwarves to Hel. His mission from Hel is concocting a way to send a bunch of dwarves to Hel without their knowledge or consent. It's pretty clear that HPoH knows dwarves don't want to go to Hel.

[Sky_Schemer]

Gotcha, agreed with you there! I was too busy wrapped up in making my point to realize that you were responding to Silverionmox!

I just figured Silverionmox's post was a gag, and not a serious set of observations.

[JennTora]

"Selfishness and pride" have nothing to do with it - what I see here is textbook "selflessness and humility".

Based on what we know of sigdi, I can see some pride in a "I'm strong and smart enough to live without a big pile of gold" sort of way, but it's clearly not her primary motivation.

And to the person who said sigdi and durkon were living on handouts, I agree with sigdi, she earned her pension fair and square, if defending the town wasn't enough, the donation to raise the five dwarves certainly was.

[CJG]

Just a reminder that a good deed is still good if the doer benefits from that deed.

Also, because Sigdi is not an oracle, there was no way for her to tell if her choice would result in her and Durkon’s poverty. I’m deeply concerned at what some folks must think of poor people.

[Rrmcklin]

I'll just mention that while Sigdi's reasoning was entirely rational and admirable, the shocking thing is also that most grieving people shouldn't be expected to be thinking rationally. The dwarves afterlife situation doesn't really change that either.

You could go "If she brings him back, that might mean he could go to Hel the next time he dies!" but, like, most dwarves apparently don't go to Hel.

And resurrection is a two-way street; if Tenrin accepted, it just meant that he'd want to be with his wife (and his soon to be son) in life, which would also be completely understandable.

[brian 333]

I also note a lack of consistency here. That dwarven society doesn't make arrangements to resurrect those who die in mining accidents reflects badly on dwarven society; a pension, meanwhile, is a "handout" that Sigdi should feel ashamed of living on and should take any opportunity to stop needing.

But they do make such provisions: it's called a family. It is unfortunate that some dwarves don't have one.

Sigdi said she had never seen that much money in her life, indicating that the cost of raising the dead is not inconsequential. Raising every accident victim may simply be beyond the means of any society, and so it is not a failing of society that a person can die accidentally and not be raised.

As for the pension: a pension is not charity. It is deferred payment of salary earned through service. Charity is unearned, given because the giver chooses to rather than because the reciever deserves it.

[Rrmcklin]

Kish's point wasn't that there was an inconsistency in Dwarven society, rather a person who was arguing that Sigdi's decision was selfish and the entire situation made no sense was being inconsistent with their stated views.

They clarified that at the top of the page.

[brian 333]

Kish's point wasn't that there was an inconsistency in Dwarven society, rather a person who was arguing that Sigdi's decision was selfish and the entire situation made no sense was being inconsistent with their stated views.

They clarified that at the top of the page.

Yeah, kish's post was the last one I read between then and my posting. I was somewhat surprised by the number of ninjas that beat me to it. I wonder how many posts will hit before mine goes in this time?

[Mightymosy]

We know from the Giant that one example where a dwarf dies honorably by "fighting" to provide their clan with food for the winter.

One could say that Sigdi now fights all the time - she has to fight the inconveniences of doing things with one arm only, ALL THE TIME, until she dies - honorably, because she did it for other people.

The Giant also said that in regard to the afterlife and where somone goes, it's important what the person who dies thinks.
In other words, Sigdi's "sacrifice" makes emotional, and rational sense, given the setting's parameters.