Results 631 to 660 of 747
-
2017-12-20, 03:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2011
- Location
- Calgary, AB
- Gender
-
2017-12-20, 03:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2017
- Location
- France
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Not anymore. (panels 8 and 9). There is a difference between "this man must be punished because he is a murderer" and "this man must be punished because he murdered someone I knew", it is called justice.
Hate is good for nothing, simple as that.
Fair enough.
Forum Wisdom
Mage avatar by smutmulch & linklele.
-
2017-12-20, 03:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2015
- Location
- On the tip of my tongue
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Lawful characters may abide by a code without expecting anyone else to live up to it. Chaotic characters may expect everyone to feel the way they do without imposing any sort of code. There may be tendencies to broaden or narrow the scope of a character's expectations according to their alignment (and I'm not at all certain about that), but nothing strong enough to say that having expectations of anyone besides oneself is Lawful behavior.
But I think this is not quite the right framing. Hilgya's pattern of behavior is pretty clear: put in a bad situation, she villainizes the most immediate/personal target. She did it with Ivan, she did it with Durkon. It's not about her prior expectations of what Ivan/Durkon should have done; rather, since she was hurt, she thinks of whatever Ivan/Durkon did as wrong. If they had behaved differently and she had still been hurt, she would have blamed that different behavior instead. If expectations are involved at all, they are Hilgya's expectations about not being hurt. The rest is retroactive.
As the clan putting Hilgya under duress is part of the chain of causation leading to everything Hilgya does later, the clan is logically partly responsible for everything that follows. However, that is not the same as being morally responsible. Moral responsibility does not propagate down the chain of causation in perpetuity. It has to cut off when the chain of events can no longer be rationally linked to the original actor's evaluation of the original action. Otherwise, the morality of people's actions is entirely dependent on future circumstances beyond their control, and nothing they do can be subject to moral evaluation without full knowledge of subsequent events, which is generally impossible.
The clan putting Hilgya under duress makes them responsible for events that are a reasonably foreseeable outcome of the duress. Hilgya trying to kill the person she was forced to marry is such a case; if she had succeeded, it would be sensible to hold the clans at least partly responsible. Similarly with Hilgya running away, and some elements of the situation she may subsequently wind up in.
However, if (for example) Hilgya later burns down an orphanage for s***s and giggles, the clan does not bear responsibility. Being put under duress is still part of the chain of events that led Hilgya to that action, but her choice is not a reasonably foreseeable outcome of the clan's choice. By that point Hilgya's actions become wholly her own.Last edited by Lethologica; 2017-12-20 at 03:48 PM.
-
2017-12-20, 04:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- Brazil
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Setting aside the self-admitted fact that, well, I want to see Hilgya's clan and everything it loves burn and be sent to Hel's care, for it is a large and powerful group that mistreated a then-powerless individual (in short, that I may be biased)...
What if what the clan did is what maddened her or drove her to being CE in the first place? How much or how little mistreatment is sufficient for you to traumatize a normal person into becoming aggressive or violent? If they know mistreatment makes a person violent (and they likely do) and if they know that violence very often has "to whom it may concern" as a target, would it not stand to reason - even morally - that they created a psychopath and, by the exile that they caused, let said psychopath loose in the world? Is it not reasonably foreseeable that Hilgya, mistreated as she was, would lash out?
I'm not even claiming she shouldn't be held accountable for whatever she did on the outside world (never mind that she shouldn't have HAD to go there in the first place), I'm pointing out that Hilgya was the victim of an injustice and that said injustice likely shaped her adult life quite a bit, which would then place some of the blame for what she does in that adult life on the clan.
-
2017-12-20, 04:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2015
- Location
- Germany
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Her entire clan?
That would include more innocents- innocent of that particular mess at least -than I would dare to guess.
I mean I agree on the guys in charge at the time, maybe her direct family, but everyone else?
What could some random dwarf commoner who possibly wasn't even born at the time have done to deserve being damned for something they literally couldn't have done anything about?"If it lives it can be killed.
If it is dead it can be eaten."
Ronkong Coma "the way of the bookhunter" III Catacombium
(Walter Moers "Die Stadt der träumenden Bücher")
-
2017-12-20, 04:19 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- Brazil
- Gender
-
2017-12-20, 04:25 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2017
- Location
- France
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Forum Wisdom
Mage avatar by smutmulch & linklele.
-
2017-12-20, 04:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2015
- Location
- Germany
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
I'm asking this out of pure self-preservation, but please don't apply that particular approach in real life.
Actually, scrap the self-preservation. That request is in the interest of mankind as a whole.
So at least some good came out of it?Last edited by Kantaki; 2017-12-20 at 04:59 PM.
"If it lives it can be killed.
If it is dead it can be eaten."
Ronkong Coma "the way of the bookhunter" III Catacombium
(Walter Moers "Die Stadt der träumenden Bücher")
-
2017-12-20, 05:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2017
- Location
- France
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Forum Wisdom
Mage avatar by smutmulch & linklele.
-
2017-12-20, 05:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- Brazil
- Gender
-
2017-12-20, 05:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2015
- Location
- Germany
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
"If it lives it can be killed.
If it is dead it can be eaten."
Ronkong Coma "the way of the bookhunter" III Catacombium
(Walter Moers "Die Stadt der träumenden Bücher")
-
2017-12-20, 05:13 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- Brazil
- Gender
-
2017-12-20, 05:20 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- Arizona (love it)
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Your definition of Lawful behavior might apply to Monks, to a certain extent, as their Lawfulness is based upon their self discipline, and to a lesser extent on Paladins, who have more severe penalties for evil acts than Chaotic ones. Lawful attitudes imply Judgementalness, that is judging others who do not measure up to their standards.
From Wikipedia
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, -judgmentalness- , and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
Emphasis mine...
I think Hilgya does indeed do a lot of 'finger pointing', blaming others for her misfortune. I claim that is Lawful behavior, perhaps unjustified, but that is what I see.
-
2017-12-20, 05:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2015
- Location
- On the tip of my tongue
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
That is a fair argument in terms of admitting the bare possibility, but I think you are significantly overstating the degree of each point that is a matter of degrees, turning it inappropriately into a matter of black and white (i.e. 'was Hilgya a victim of an injustice or not'). Hilgya was mistreated, yes. Mistreatment can traumatize a person, yes. Trauma can lead to violence and aggression, yes. And violence can be indiscriminate. But Hilgya was not mistreated to the degree that psychopathic indiscriminate murderous violence (the bar I set as an illustrative example only) would be a reasonably foreseeable outcome.
So the crux of the issue of whether/how much to blame Hilgya's clan is whether Hilgya was, in fact, mistreated to the degree that the degree of her subsequent actions is a reasonably foreseeable outcome. The mere fact of duress does not resolve it.
The point you make is encompassed by the second point I made. I don't think Hilgya is judging Ivan or Durkon for not measuring up to her standards. I think she is just putting a name on her resentments after the fact. Still Lawful to some extent or she wouldn't make the effort, but to a much lesser degree.Last edited by Lethologica; 2017-12-20 at 05:52 PM.
-
2017-12-20, 09:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Hang on... is somebody seriously arguing that Hilgya is lawful?
“Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”
-
2017-12-20, 09:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2013
- Location
- Over the Rainbow
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Is it me or you just people forgot that clan alliances and political arrangements aren't equal to human trafficking or jeopardizing HHRR? That is a very disproportionate comparison. Besides, marriage has nothing to do with love, or at least it never was an intrinsic part of it (unless all you did with your life was watching movies). It depends on the society. But mostly, it's just a legal document. That's it.
Hilgyia doesn't strike me as a "Victim of Fate" in the way some people here appear to try to depict her to make a more appealing argument. The only thing that turned her into a "victim" was being born in a society that doesn't value individuality too much; and at the same time, trying to desperately to embrace the her individuality at any cost (while still living in said "oppressive" society). In other words, she is a Western who was born in the Far East. She's just a stranger in a strange land.
It's plausible to think there were several ways she could have avoided being trapped by the clan's issues. In a way, being the rebel she is, she forced herself into a situation where self-exile was the only option*. You seem to forget that, for whatever the reason, the average Dwarf is the exact opposite of Hilgya. At least those who stay with the community. It's not only Durkon's family. Most dwarven people have a high sense of respect the traditions. Sure, forcing people to do something at gun point is a rather extreme method; but that only depicts how Evil people who respect tradition can become. But "extremely traditional" and "undeniably Evil" aren't mutually inclusive. They are things that, by themselves, aren't that bad. It's the combination that makes them extremely awful. And of course, when that combination meets somebody who has rather extreme forms to show its disagreement (trying to kill your husband is not reasonable either, it's still murder).
By no means I am defending the clan, the arranged marriage or her family. But there's a difference between what is political in nature (clan alliances) and what is moral by nature (using extreme methods of coercion). But maybe, just maybe if her family wasn't so Evil, and by extension, if she wasn't such a rebellious child (or rather, if she wasn't as much CE as she appears to be); the clans could have arranged something completely different. Maybe compromise was possible. If her family wasn't evil. If she wasn't so self centered. If neither of them took such extreme actions in order to impose their own worldview...
In other words, I think considering the morality of Dwarven society is speculating a tad too much. Hilgya isn't really a "victim". Her situation is more complex than that. She, very much like Durkon, is probably a product of her upbringing more than anything else.
*In the sense that is plausible to think that if she was an average dwarf, or like her husband, or more like Durkon, she wouldn't have suffered by the arrangement. It's possible other "victims" of similar situations are living a happy life, and it's just her the one who sees that as an "issue".Last edited by Lord Joeltion; 2017-12-20 at 09:41 PM.
(sic)
My English non très bueno, da? CALL: 0800-BADGRINGO
-
2017-12-20, 11:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2015
- Location
- On the tip of my tongue
-
2017-12-20, 11:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2015
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Nope. Been married 29 years. You don't seem to understand marriage, but that's OK, since we are talking about a comic. I think I'll wait for the next strip before I comment on any more of this, as we seem to be rehashing the two threads ago things.
"A work of art that had to be experienced."
Indeed, Fryaltari. A true bon mot.Last edited by KorvinStarmast; 2017-12-20 at 11:25 PM.
Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Worksa. Malifice (paraphrased):
Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
b. greenstone (paraphrased):
Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society
-
2017-12-21, 12:06 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2011
- Location
- Calgary, AB
- Gender
-
2017-12-21, 02:35 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2017
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Did you intend to make the other person do thing, if yes you are most likely at least as responsible for thing as they are.
Tarquin can absolutely be blamed for every evil thing Nale did not to excuse Nale because Tarquin wanted to create an evil person.
Does the reaction of the other person seem proportionate or logical as a direct response to your actions yea your not completely innocent of this either.
Yea can't help that those jerks who destroyed Right Eyes village are sort of responsible for at least what happened to Sapphire city.
Could person A doing first action to person B reasonably know that it changes person B from doing action D to action E P% of the time?
Then I guess person A is responsible for P% of the difference between D and E.
-
2017-12-21, 02:44 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2012
- Location
- Cambridge, Ma.
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
I guess I can understand a parent not wanting their system messed with.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...6#post15476516
I know I'm stealing this from someone else. But it's SO FUNNY
Zweisteine quoting Razanir:
"I am a human sixtyfourthling! Fear my minimal halfling ancestry!"
From: Razanir
Bagnold could be one sixty-fourth halfling.
-
2017-12-21, 04:06 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2017
- Location
- France
- Gender
Forum Wisdom
Mage avatar by smutmulch & linklele.
-
2017-12-21, 08:46 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Attention LotR fans
Spoiler: LotRThe scouring of the Shire never happened. That's right. After reading books I, II, and III, I stopped reading when the One Ring was thrown into Mount Doom. The story ends there. Nothing worthwhile happened afterwards. Middle-Earth was saved.
-
2017-12-21, 09:30 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2013
- Location
- Over the Rainbow
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Ok, so... because you experienced what marriage consists of (whatever that means); every marriage inherently requires that both parties are "in love" with one another? Seriously? It seems to me you are falling into a No True Scotsman, mon ami.
It also is apparent to me that you never read about the popular perception of marriage and romantic love throughout history and in different societies. There's a reason Catholic marriage ask "do you accept your partner..." instead of "do you promise to always look at him/her with puppy eyes until rainbows stop shining in the sky for all eternity?". It's like you never heard about people getting married for the convenience of having a contract (and I don't mean it in a bad way) despite whether they are actually in love or not. Not everyone who is in love wants to marry. Not everyone who lives with their significant other sees any point in going though all the fuss of what is in essence a social ritual. Not everyone thinks marriage is more than just a paper with legal validity. Just because films repeat so, doesn't that magically turn out to be true. People are more complex than that. Societies are usually more complex than that. Specially societies who accept the concept of "arranged marriage" as something normal.
For some people "being in love" isn't even something they look for at all. Some people just ask for somebody who tolerates them and accepts them the way they are. Some people don't look for rainbows, they just ask for commodities. Ivar is one of those. There's a chance he was never in love with Hilgya, but he looks fine. Some people (real fleshy people) are just like that. Call them cynical, whatever. But you need to accept that not everyone has the Hollywood thinking of what constitutes an "acceptable marriage". Some people may be happy with an arranged marriage if their motivation in life is something else than romance.(sic)
My English non très bueno, da? CALL: 0800-BADGRINGO
-
2017-12-21, 09:50 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2015
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Your words, not mine, so please don't try to put words into someone else's mouth. I objected to your extreme minimalist assertion, but did not try to explain to you what marriage is, since there's a heck of a lot to it (and it would be off topic to wander off into that, given that Hilgya's marriage was a farce/fraud/sham and she's the core topic of the strip currently in play).
Beyond that, best wishes.Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Worksa. Malifice (paraphrased):
Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
b. greenstone (paraphrased):
Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society
-
2017-12-21, 11:29 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Marriage is more and more seen as just some antiquated ritual, but with the increasing rates of breakups and of extra-marital family creations, people are also increasingly getting hit in the face by the reality that marriage is not just some antiquated ritual, but has great legal implications.
Too often there are stories of lives ruined after non-married couples who had been together for a while break up. The details obviously vary from one jurisdiction to the next, but the standard is that simply living together, even if for a long time and with children, simply will never offer the same protections marriage will.
I'll never really understand people who refuse to marry. The odds of breaking up increase every year... there's really no logic is setting up the divorce rules only once things have gone sour. Especially since seemingly utterly benign choices can have a large impact when non-married (or with an unfair marriage contract, but in that case, at least the rules have been made blatant to both parties at that point).
If you love your spouse, you love yourself, and you love your (potential) children, then you should marry. Plus, the ritual itself, which may seem superficial from the outside, is actually quite amazing. Doesn't have to be hyper traditional or expensive, either.
My 2 cents.Attention LotR fans
Spoiler: LotRThe scouring of the Shire never happened. That's right. After reading books I, II, and III, I stopped reading when the One Ring was thrown into Mount Doom. The story ends there. Nothing worthwhile happened afterwards. Middle-Earth was saved.
-
2017-12-21, 12:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2017
- Location
- Eaten by the Snarl
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Oh, dear... Is it time for round 2?
Nah, I don't have much to say this time. Except as happy as I am to see Hilgya again, I don't feel like making excuses for her being Evil because I like her. She's still someone who went with Nale and murdered those pixies for that pendand thingy. So, I'm saying Evil (or amoral neutral if that's a thing and judging by those bounty hunters last book it is), until we have proof it's otherwise. Her behaviour up to now doesn't indicate "otherwise" at all.
But I'll say something about real life (Not directed at you TW, I just quoted you for old time's sake ). Looking at arranged marriage as "Evil family forcing offspring to marry" is a simplistic black-and-white-morality way to look at it. Someone said that already, but marriage wasn't about love or happiness primarily, I'm not even sure how much this concept existed outside of stories (come to think of it, it did and some people did run away with each other. Still, rare and if you'll notice: no murder ). Sure, if there were enough candidates with more or less equal standing, the one to get married would have a say and then love or happiness could come into account, but not before that.
It was the kind of thing a family had to do. It was more or less a forced move (for reasons beyond this discussion). The family had to do it and they were people who had already gone through the same thing.
There's always the possibility that the family that makes the choice are ****ty people but that wouldn't affect why they arrange a marriage, just how they treat their offspring.
All that said, I'm very happy this isn't the case anymore and I hope that had it still been the case I'd do what I could to stop it.
Edit: There doesn't have to be a ritual at all. At least where I live, all you have to do is go to the city hall and get a document.Last edited by SilverCacaobean; 2017-12-21 at 12:26 PM. Reason: punctuation
-
2017-12-21, 12:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2017
- Location
- France
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Oh it did, among the peasants, workers and other commoners who had no power or wealth to loose or gain anyway. They also tended to marry closer to the ages we doso nowadays. Our views on history are warped by the fact that records focus on the top class of society.
Forum Wisdom
Mage avatar by smutmulch & linklele.
-
2017-12-21, 12:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2017
- Location
- Eaten by the Snarl
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
Well, here in snarl-land people who have had arranged marriages are still alive [edit: so it feels strange to call it history is why I'm saying that. Correct but strange]. And well that's true, commoners and such still practiced it, but they were far more likely to run away as far as I've seen.
Last edited by SilverCacaobean; 2017-12-21 at 12:37 PM.
-
2017-12-21, 01:17 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
Re: OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread
That's a very broad statement that I would not be so sure about.
First, even low classes had some wealth and power, and just because it wasn't much didn't mean they didn't want to consolidate it. Peasants with or without lands of their own would want to marry their children off to increase their chance of a better life. People without a male heir would arrange marriages for their daughters to keep the business in-house, usually as part of a deal for an apprenticeship.
Now, a large part of this was due to women being at a significant legal disadvantage - in places they might not be allowed to own any property or at least not own a business - but even in places where this was not the case, and there were some, you see that arranged marriages were just a thing that happened throughout the entire society, because that was the expectation. Love, until romanticism gave it a brush up, was considered a passing feeling, something that would drive you crazy in the head for a few days or weeks or even months, but that would eventually pass*. Marriage required a far more substantial base than that, if it was to last, and the objective was for it to last (especially in places were divorce was not a thing, which was most places). Yes, outright hate or profound disgust was preferably avoided, because a marriage that falls apart is never a good thing for a tight-knit society, but it was acceptable for the married couple to be indifferent towards one another. It is also why extramatrimonial affairs were not that badly looked upon by society in general (won't go into religious views, for obvious reasons), except when children were produced.
Grey Wolf
*One of the most surprising things I have learnt about Rome is that it was actually mildly scandalous for a married couple to love one anotherLast edited by Grey_Wolf_c; 2017-12-21 at 01:22 PM.
Interested in MitD? Join us in MitD's thread.There is a world of imagination
Deep in the corners of your mind
Where reality is an intruder
And myth and legend thrive
Ceterum autem censeo Hilgya malefica est