Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 156
  1. - Top - End - #91
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grey_Wolf_c's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007

    Default Re: Hilgya: a redemption arc?

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    She could have continued to list various types of significant other I suppose, but that would stretch out the dialogue a lot longer than it needed to go for us to understand what she was doing.
    "I do, but they aren't important" is stretching the dialogue?

    She chose to bring SOs into the conversation, and them conveniently "forgot" to mention her own. It's dishonest. And more importantly to dwarves, dishonorable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    Seriously Greywolf, we know you aren't that obtuse.
    You could've fooled me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Zero View Post
    But I won't agree on nitpicking definitions like this.
    So If I said "I have a boyfriend" you assume I love him, but if I said "I have a husband", you assume I don't?

    GW
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Ceterum autem censeo Hilgya malefica est

  2. - Top - End - #92
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Hilgya: a redemption arc?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    "I do, but they aren't important" is stretching the dialogue?

    She chose to bring SOs into the conversation, and them conveniently "forgot" to mention her own. It's dishonest. And more importantly to dwarves, dishonorable.



    You could've fooled me.



    So If I said "I have a boyfriend" you assume I love him, but if I said "I have a husband", you assume I don't?

    GW
    Who cares? Hilgya knows that she doesn't love her husband and has no attachment to him whatsoever. She assumed that Durkon wouldn't be bothered by the existence of some sheet of paper somewhere in the Dwarven Lands that said they were married. Even the way she was asking the questions is asking for more than just a technical relationship status, but a loving relationship. Somebody who misses Durkon and who he would miss back.

    I don't understand how you can't see that as a roundabout and slightly more subtle way of asking if he is in love with anybody.
    Last edited by Keltest; 2017-12-12 at 10:11 AM.
    “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.”

  3. - Top - End - #93
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grey_Wolf_c's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007

    Default Re: Hilgya: a redemption arc?

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    Who cares?
    Every dwarf Hilgya has met cares.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    Hilgya knows that she doesn't love her husband and has no attachment to him whatsoever. She assumed that Durkon wouldn't be bothered by the existence of some sheet of paper somewhere in the Dwarven Lands that said they were married. Even the way she was asking the questions is asking for more than just a technical relationship status, but a loving relationship. Somebody who misses Durkon and who he would miss back.

    I don't understand how you can't see that as a roundabout and slightly more subtle way of asking if he is in love with anybody.
    No, she could've asked for that, but she did not. "Anyone waiting for you back home?" is the traditional roundabout question to know about special people for soldiers. "Girlfriend/wife" is for the "you are in an established, legally bounding" relation.

    And either should have been followed by "I do, but he was horrible, so I abandoned him". Which yes, would have meant that if Durkon was the traditional kind of dwarf, she would not have got the chance to bone him. But if Durkon was the free spirit she hoped he would be, would have meant she had found the twin soul she was looking for. But she chose not to clarify to increase her chances of getting him into her sack, thus leading inevitably to the scene where she does reveal it, well too late to avoid heartbreak.

    The most interesting part is that if the genders were reversed, we would not be having this conversation at all. If a man with a wife chose to pursue a virgin girl and failed to reveal to her he was married, I doubt a single person would be disputing he had failed to be sufficiently upfront.

    Grey Wolf
    Last edited by Grey_Wolf_c; 2017-12-12 at 10:36 AM.
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Ceterum autem censeo Hilgya malefica est

  4. - Top - End - #94
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Dr.Zero's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Hilgya: a redemption arc?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    So If I said "I have a boyfriend" you assume I love him, but if I said "I have a husband", you assume I don't?

    It seems much simpler than that, to me.

    Hylgia assumed Durkon was a free spirit (like Durkon assumed Hylgia was lawful and both were wrong) so, either if he replied that he had a wife or a girlfriend, she could go along with the thought: "He is in love with someone else. Else, like me, he would have dumped her already. So bad, he was cute!"

    Because, you know, people, even dwarfs, seem to stay in a relationiship because they love each other.

    On the other hand, again, Durkon didn't even think to ask back a simple: "And you, what about your husband/bf? Or maybe are you into girls?" if not after he banged her.
    Because he wrongly assumed that she was lawful and took for granted she had not a "contract" running.

    Then, again, you can try to bend the definitions all the way along to make Hilgya match the role you assigned her, which is that of an evil liar instead of that, more likely, of a dwarf with some hints of a delusional personality, but it makes no favor to the discussion.

    But at that point I'd like to know why, if she was such a manipulative, conscious liar, she said all the truth immediately after a single, generic question.

    Edit: Yeah, mostly what Keltest said the post immediately above. I appoint him as my spokeperson (albeit unwilling) on this subject, since for me is too hard to debate like this in english.
    Last edited by Dr.Zero; 2017-12-12 at 11:23 AM.

  5. - Top - End - #95
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grey_Wolf_c's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007

    Default Re: Hilgya: a redemption arc?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Zero View Post
    It seems much simpler than that, to me.
    You haven't answered my question, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Zero View Post
    Hylgia assumed Durkon was a free spirit (like Durkon assumed Hylgia was lawful and both were wrong) so, either if he replied that he had a wife or a girlfriend, she could go along with the thought: "He is in love with someone else. Else, like me, he would have dumped her already. So bad, he was cute!"

    Because, you know, people, even dwarfs, seem to stay in a relationiship because they love each other.
    Then why not mention the cruel husband, to gain some extra "look how much of a rebel free spirit I am" points? In this scenario, Hilgya loses nothing and gains everything for mentioning it. Keeping it quiet indicates she knows it might be an issue, just like asking at all indicates she knows it is an issue.

    But she didn't mention it. The topic was in her mind, and even as a "free spirit" she checked, but didn't reveal her own situation. There is no excuse for that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Zero View Post
    On the other hand, again, Durkon didn't even think to ask back a simple: "And you, what about your husband/bf? Or maybe are you into girls?" if not after he banged her.
    Because he wrongly assumed that she was lawful and took for granted she had not a "contract" running.
    No, because he got kicked out of dwarven society at 15*, he's 18* and had never been in a relationship. It is a lot easier to explain Durkon's actions as a mistake due to his lack of experience than Hilgya's. Should he have asked? Yes. But he didn't. But as the novice, I won't hold him to the same standard as Hilgya.

    ETA: Also, Durkon, once he realised that his conduct was dishonorable, took steps to stop. So he admitted his mistake, and worked towards fixing it. Hilgya did not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Zero View Post
    But at that point I'd like to know why, if she was such a manipulative, conscious liar, she said all the truth immediately after a single, generic question.
    Because they had just "sealed the deal".

    GW

    *in human-equivalent maturity years
    Last edited by Grey_Wolf_c; 2017-12-12 at 11:44 AM.
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Ceterum autem censeo Hilgya malefica est

  6. - Top - End - #96
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Hilgya: a redemption arc?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    Then why not mention the cruel husband, to gain some extra "look how much of a rebel free spirit I am" points? In this scenario, Hilgya loses nothing and gains everything for mentioning it. Keeping it quiet indicates she knows it might be an issue, just like asking at all indicates she knows it is an issue.
    Or it means she doesn't consider it an issue at all. Heck, even Durkon isn't particularly bothered by the idea that he just cuckolded Ivan, because he can see theres no loving relationship there for him to intrude on.

    Her inquiring after a girlfriend shows that she is probing for romantic partners, not legal ones.
    “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.”

  7. - Top - End - #97
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    A Michigan Far, Far Away
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Hilgya: a redemption arc?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Zero View Post

    On the other hand, again, Durkon didn't even think to ask back a simple: "And you, what about your husband/bf? Or maybe are you into girls?" if not after he banged her.
    Because he wrongly assumed that she was lawful and took for granted she had not a "contract" running.
    I don't think it was that at all.

    Looking at #76, immediately after Hilgya establishes that Durkon is unattached, she makes a flimsy excuse to hold his hand. Durkon isn't thinking about a relationship at this time, he's thinking about getting out of the dungeon. He has no reason to ask about her "attached" status (or otherwise). As Durkon says, "I'm na gettin' no feelin'..."

    Next comic she's asking him to put his arm around her for warmth. The very next time we see them together, she's suggested they camp for the night and ends with kissing him. Hilgya's taken the initiative the whole time, it obviously wasn't in Durkon's mind at all until the third panel of 79 when she says "We're here in the dark. Alone."

    I don't know about anyone else, but to me, that's no time for questions. I think Durkon assumed, if he was thinking much of anything at that point, that Hilgya wouldn't have been approaching him this way if she hadn't been 100% free and unencumbered.

    Yes, married people go around all the time hitting on other people without mentioning their spouses. Presenting oneself as single, acting as a person free of attachments, is a lie of omission if you're not actually single. It's not the obligation of the hittee to ask "Are you secretly married and just hiding the fact from me?" before sleeping together. In everyday society (especially if you're an honorable dwarf) one could expect to accept others at face value.

    Could and should Durkon have been a little bit suspicious, knowing that she was a worshiper of Loki, God of Deceit? Well, sure. But she was the first dwarf he'd seen in years and he was homesick. And, see above, she put the moves on him before he had any notion of what she was thinking. Durkon isn't blameless; but Hilgya is the one who was deceiving someone.
    Last edited by Darth Paul; 2017-12-12 at 12:01 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    Also, everything Darth Paul just said.
    Namer Of MitD Threads
    Charter Member and Head Ninja of Peelee's Lotsey Ninjas
    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    [furiously scribbles notes on how Darth Paul is the MitD]

  8. - Top - End - #98
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grey_Wolf_c's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007

    Default Re: Hilgya: a redemption arc?

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    Or it means she doesn't consider it an issue at all.
    If it wasn't an issue, she wouldn't have asked. But she did. Also, everything Darth Paul just said.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    Heck, even Durkon isn't particularly bothered by the idea that he just cuckolded Ivan, because he can see theres no loving relationship there for him to intrude on.
    No, it just means that in the hierarchy of issues "you've just risked our souls" is somewhat higher than "I just cuckolded your husband"

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    Her inquiring after a girlfriend shows that she is probing for romantic partners, not legal ones.
    No. And I've already said why. So if you are going to resort to just restating your assertions without backing them up, so am I.

    GW
    Last edited by Grey_Wolf_c; 2017-12-12 at 12:02 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
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Ceterum autem censeo Hilgya malefica est

  9. - Top - End - #99
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    A Michigan Far, Far Away
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Hilgya: a redemption arc?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    Also, everything Darth Paul just said.

    GW
    That's it, I have a new signature line....

    With your permission, GW. Should have asked first.
    Last edited by Darth Paul; 2017-12-12 at 12:11 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    Also, everything Darth Paul just said.
    Namer Of MitD Threads
    Charter Member and Head Ninja of Peelee's Lotsey Ninjas
    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    [furiously scribbles notes on how Darth Paul is the MitD]

  10. - Top - End - #100
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Hilgya: a redemption arc?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    If it wasn't an issue, she wouldn't have asked. But she did. Also, everything Darth Paul just said.
    Context man. She's asking about whether he has a romantic partner at home. She explicitly doesn't give one whit about the legal or traditional implications of marriage.


    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    No, it just means that in the hierarchy of issues "you've just risked our souls" is somewhat higher than "I just cuckolded your husband"
    Is there any doubt in your mind whatsoever that Durkon cares about the rules for their own sake, and not because of a metaphysical gun held to his head (a gun, I hasten to point out, that did not exist at the time that strip was written).


    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    No. And I've already said why. So if you are going to resort to just restating your assertions without backing them up, so am I.

    GW
    Maybe its different where you live, but in America, "girlfriend" (or boyfriend) is an exclusively romantic title. We use "fiancé" for somebody who has pledged to marry you, which does have non-romantic implications. So your claim is basically a rejection of the meaning of girlfriend. Color me unmoved.
    “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.”

  11. - Top - End - #101
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grey_Wolf_c's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007

    Default Re: Hilgya: a redemption arc?

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Paul View Post
    That's it, I have a new signature line....

    With your permission, GW. Should have asked first.
    Given, but unneeded.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    Context man. She's asking about whether he has a romantic partner at home. She explicitly doesn't give one whit about the legal or traditional implications of marriage.
    She gives enough whits to ask. If she didn't care, why bother asking? Because she does know and care that others may have an issue with her boning "their" Durkon. But she doesn't extend the same courtesy of knowledge to Durkon, even though he'd care that her husband might also care about the situation even if he is the same kind of "free spirit".

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    Is there any doubt in your mind whatsoever that Durkon cares about the rules for their own sake, and not because of a metaphysical gun held to his head (a gun, I hasten to point out, that did not exist at the time that strip was written).
    Durkon cared for the rules for their own sake, but those rules are there to protect his soul. We don't know how much of that he is aware of and how much he simply accepts, but he definitely knows that the thing he must do above all others is act honorably, and he did not, thus he needs to rectify his actions. Which he does. But too late to prevent all damage, because of Hilgya's actions and choices.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    Maybe its different where you live, but in America, "girlfriend" (or boyfriend) is an exclusively romantic title. We use "fiancé" for somebody who has pledged to marry you, which does have non-romantic implications. So your claim is basically a rejection of the meaning of girlfriend. Color me unmoved.
    Everything I have seen about America dating culture is that "girlfriend" is considered a binding relationship status. That you can't sleep around while you have a girlfriend, even if the relationship is in a bad phase. More importantly, "Context man": by being mentioned in the same sentence as wife, the intent here is to determine binding relationships, not emotional attachments. I've already given you the right question for the latter.

    Grey Wolf
    Last edited by Grey_Wolf_c; 2017-12-12 at 12:23 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
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Ceterum autem censeo Hilgya malefica est

  12. - Top - End - #102
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Hilgya: a redemption arc?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    She gives enough whits to ask. If she didn't care, why bother asking? Because she does know and care that others may have an issue with her boning "their" Durkon. But she doesn't extend the same courtesy of knowledge to Durkon, even though he'd care that her husband might also care about the situation even if he is the same kind of "free spirit".
    She asks because she recognizes that somebody who is married probably likes the person they are married to. She does not, but she understands that her loathing of her husband is not an inherent function of marriages.


    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    Durkon cared for the rules for their own sake, but those rules are there to protect his soul. We don't know how much of that he is aware of and how much he simply accepts, but he definitely knows that the thing he must do above all others is act honorably, and he did not, thus he needs to rectify his actions. Which he does. But too late to prevent all damage, because of Hilgya's actions and choices.
    Anything he does to rectify that, at this point, is entirely because he feels it needs to be rectified. He didn't die during the action, so it has no impact on whether he goes to Hel or not.


    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    Everything I have seen about America dating culture is that "girlfriend" is considered a binding relationship status. That you can't sleep around while you have a girlfriend, even if the relationship is in a bad phase. More importantly, "Context man": by being mentioned in the same sentence as wife, the intent here is to determine binding relationships, not emotional attachments. I've already given you the right question for the latter.

    Grey Wolf
    That varies from couple to couple. You may have heard the term "open relationship" used. That means that the partners have given mutual consent to sleep around if they desire to. Its up to each individual couple to determine how open (or not) they want their relationship to be. Regardless of how open it is though, the only way a girl/boyfriend relationship is binding is emotional. There are no obligations save those one assumes upon oneself to maintain the relationship. If Durkon had a girlfriend and for some reason didn't care about her on an emotional level, that relationship would not be binding.
    “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.”

  13. - Top - End - #103
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    A Michigan Far, Far Away
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Hilgya: a redemption arc?

    It's been said before that if a male character (married) had omitted to mention his wife and seduced a female character, there would be no question who the villain of the piece was.

    Unsurprisingly, there is a trope for this- Double Standard Rape- Female on Male. As the page quote says:

    "Obviously if you're watching a scene with a woman tied to a bed while a man forces sex on her, the final act of that movie will involve said man getting shot in the face by Bruce Willis. If, on the other hand, it's a man being tied down and forced into sex by a pretty lady, well, you're watching a wacky romantic comedy."

    I'm not suggesting that this rises to the level of rape, but Durkon would not have consented to the act had he been in possession of all the facts. Hilgya did not present him with the one vital fact of her being married. That means it was nonconsensual sex, after the fact. (I know I have the legal term wrong, but I'm no lawyer. Just Lawful Good with Libertarian tendencies.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    Anything he does to rectify that, at this point, is entirely because he feels it needs to be rectified. He didn't die during the action, so it has no impact on whether he goes to Hel or not.
    Oh, yes it does. His honor has been sullied. Through no intentions of his own, but he has still acted dishonorably. Once dishonored, he can go to Hel's domain upon death.
    Durkon is comparable to Lancelot in "The Once and Future King", who is tricked into sleeping with another woman and breaking his promise to Guenevere (already an adulterous relationship... it's complicated). His honor, once broken, has to be restored. It doesn't matter to him whether he was tricked or not, it was still his actions and his responsibility, no matter who was to blame.

    Having an honor system is a pain in the butt.
    Last edited by Darth Paul; 2017-12-12 at 12:48 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    Also, everything Darth Paul just said.
    Namer Of MitD Threads
    Charter Member and Head Ninja of Peelee's Lotsey Ninjas
    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    [furiously scribbles notes on how Darth Paul is the MitD]

  14. - Top - End - #104
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grey_Wolf_c's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007

    Default Re: Hilgya: a redemption arc?

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    She asks because she recognizes that somebody who is married probably likes the person they are married to. She does not, but she understands that her loathing of her husband is not an inherent function of marriages.
    No, she asks because she knows it is not good to have sex with people already in binding relationships.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    Anything he does to rectify that, at this point, is entirely because he feels it needs to be rectified. He didn't die during the action, so it has no impact on whether he goes to Hel or not.
    "In a relationship with a married woman" is an ongoing dishonorable conduct. If he dies in the next random battle while defending his married lover, he died while acting dishonorably, and therefore his soul goes to Hel. He doesn't need to understand any of that, to know that not breaking it off immediately is dishonorable, btw.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    That varies from couple to couple. You may have heard the term "open relationship" used. That means that the partners have given mutual consent to sleep around if they desire to. Its up to each individual couple to determine how open (or not) they want their relationship to be. Regardless of how open it is though, the only way a girl/boyfriend relationship is binding is emotional. There are no obligations save those one assumes upon oneself to maintain the relationship. If Durkon had a girlfriend and for some reason didn't care about her on an emotional level, that relationship would not be binding.
    I have heard it seldom enough to know that it is NOT the default assumption, and thus that you are grasping at straws when you attempt to imply that "girlfriend" is not binding "because 1 in a 1000 boyfriend-girlfriend scenarios is open to sleeping with others". And to be honest, I think 1 in 1000 is generous.

    Grey Wolf
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Ceterum autem censeo Hilgya malefica est

  15. - Top - End - #105
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Hilgya: a redemption arc?

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Paul View Post
    It's been said before that if a male character (married) had omitted to mention his wife and seduced a female character, there would be no question who the villain of the piece was.

    Unsurprisingly, there is a trope for this- Double Standard Rape- Female on Male. As the page quote says:

    "Obviously if you're watching a scene with a woman tied to a bed while a man forces sex on her, the final act of that movie will involve said man getting shot in the face by Bruce Willis. If, on the other hand, it's a man being tied down and forced into sex by a pretty lady, well, you're watching a wacky romantic comedy."

    I'm not suggesting that this rises to the level of rape, but Durkon would not have consented to the act had he been in possession of all the facts. Hilgya did not present him with the one vital fact of her being married. That means it was nonconsensual sex, after the fact. (I know I have the legal term wrong, but I'm no lawyer. Just Lawful Good with Libertarian tendencies.)
    Ehh... that's not quite analogous though. In practical terms, the marriage only exists in the official records of whatever dwarven organization keeps track of those things. Other than that, there was no relationship between Hilgya and Ivan. She just made the mistake of assuming that Durkon, like her, doesn't care about what a piece of paper in another country says. Yes, absolutely had she brought it up, Durkon would have broken off the relationship then and there, but because of an aspect of Durkon's psychology that she didn't know about, not because being legally married to somebody she has no contact with is inherently a terrible horrible thing.
    “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.”

  16. - Top - End - #106
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grey_Wolf_c's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007

    Default Re: Hilgya: a redemption arc?

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    Yes, absolutely had she brought it up, Durkon would have broken off the relationship then and there, but because of an aspect of Durkon's psychology that she didn't know about, not because being legally married to somebody she has no contact with is inherently a terrible horrible thing.
    This is as ridiculous an argument as your "because some people have open relationships, everyone does" above. Hilgya knows dwarven culture. Her assumption that Durkon will believe the same things she does is specious and self-justifying. And even if I accepted that was a reasonable position - it is not, not when the large majority of dwarves do NOT agree with her and she knows that - it still leaves the obvious problem that despite her supposedly believing all that, she still checks to make sure, but then doesn't think to offer a basic piece of information that she knows will change the situation completely.

    And I think it is obvious that she doesn't tell him about her husband in advance precisely because she knows it will blow her chances with him, not because she thinks it won't change a thing. Because there is no scenario in which it doesn't change a thing - no matter who Durkon is, that piece of information would make a major difference in the long-term stability of the relationship; either by making it inviable immediately, or by establishing honesty from the start.

    Grey Wolf
    Last edited by Grey_Wolf_c; 2017-12-12 at 12:56 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
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Ceterum autem censeo Hilgya malefica est

  17. - Top - End - #107
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Hilgya: a redemption arc?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    No, she asks because she knows it is not good to have sex with people already in binding relationships.


    "In a relationship with a married woman" is an ongoing dishonorable conduct. If he dies in the next random battle while defending his married lover, he died while acting dishonorably, and therefore his soul goes to Hel. He doesn't need to understand any of that, to know that not breaking it off immediately is dishonorable, btw.



    I have heard it seldom enough to know that it is NOT the default assumption, and thus that you are grasping at straws when you attempt to imply that "girlfriend" is not binding "because 1 in a 1000 boyfriend-girlfriend scenarios is open to sleeping with others". And to be honest, I think 1 in 1000 is generous.

    Grey Wolf
    I don't understand what point youre trying to make here. Your position has shifted from 'Hilgya considers the act of marriage important because it is legally binding" to "Hilgya considers marriage important because it is emotionally binding." Which is what I have been saying the whole time. Hilgya does not consider the aspects of marriage that bind people together to apply to her and Ivan. She brought it up anyway because she believes that the aspects that she considers binding (ie romance) could potentially apply to Durkon. She follows up with asking about a girlfriend, which is binding in the same romantic way. She gets a negative on both of those, and concludes that since neither of them have any binding relationships, its ok to pursue one with him. She does not consider the legal aspects of marriage to be binding. Durkon does. She did not inquire about that, having made a (not unreasonable) assumption that no dwarf would voluntarily be out in human lands if they didn't object to dwarven culture like she did.
    “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.”

  18. - Top - End - #108
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    A Michigan Far, Far Away
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Hilgya: a redemption arc?

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    Yes, absolutely had she brought it up, Durkon would have broken off the relationship then and there, but because of an aspect of Durkon's psychology that she didn't know about, not because being legally married to somebody she has no contact with is inherently a terrible horrible thing.
    She made the choice not to give him that choice. She denied him the information. That's the point. Just as he knew she worshiped Loki, and should have been a little more cautious, she knew he worshiped Thor and, I argue, knew or should have known that he followed the honor system. She put her wants over that- which is the chaotic thing to do.

    In other words, Rich portrayed both following their alignments to a T. Good storytelling and characterization, but that doesn't make her a good person. It means she was a manipulator.

    Also, everything Grey Wolf just said.
    Last edited by Darth Paul; 2017-12-12 at 12:59 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    Also, everything Darth Paul just said.
    Namer Of MitD Threads
    Charter Member and Head Ninja of Peelee's Lotsey Ninjas
    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    [furiously scribbles notes on how Darth Paul is the MitD]

  19. - Top - End - #109
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Hilgya: a redemption arc?

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Paul View Post
    It means she was a manipulator.
    And it may also mean that both she and Durkon were dwarfs far from their homeland, a bit lonely, and glad to be in the company of one of their own kind.
    Avatar by linklele
    Quote Originally Posted by Malifice View Post
    (paraphrased) Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    Quote Originally Posted by greenstone View Post
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also quite handsome) ... 2D8HP told me so
    Quote Originally Posted by HappyDaze
    Self-deception tends to have a low target number

  20. - Top - End - #110
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Kish's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2004

    Default Re: Hilgya: a redemption arc?

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Paul View Post
    Just as he knew she worshiped Loki, and should have been a little more cautious, she knew he worshiped Thor and, I argue, knew or should have known that he followed the honor system.
    Now that you bring up Thor, it occurs to me that she may have thought that would mean he would not object to adultery...

    (Thor is married.)
    Spoiler
    Show
    "The really unforgivable acts are committed by calm men in beautiful green silk rooms, who deal death wholesale, by the shipload, without lust, or anger, or desire, or any redeeming emotion to excuse them but cold fear of some pretended future. But the crimes they hope to prevent in the future are imaginary. The ones they commit in the present--they are real." --Aral Vorkosigan

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    This, in a nutshell.
    Yes, exactly.

  21. - Top - End - #111
    Orc in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2011

    Default Re: Hilgya: a redemption arc?

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    She asks because she recognizes that somebody who is married probably likes the person they are married to. She does not, but she understands that her loathing of her husband is not an inherent function of marriages.
    Yeah, this whole argument is really silly.

    On top of that, someone who happily spills everything as soon as they're asked isn't hiding anything. If you really think she was lying by omission, that she knew full well Durkon would react negatively to the news and decided to manipulate him, you kinda have to explain why she just openly told him everything at the drop of a hat despite obviously wanting to continue the relationship and being totally willing to lie. And, for that matter, why she clearly expected him to be ok with it if just hours ago she apparently expected him to be against it.

    Hell, Durkon doesn't even ask about marriage or husband's at all. He asks why she's in the human lands, to which she happily responds "I ran away from my marriage." Hilgya wasn't lying or being manipulative when she didn't mention her husband. She considered it an unfortunate bit of irrelevant history.
    Quote Originally Posted by crayzz
    That a given person is known for his sex appeal does not mean that he is only known for his sex appeal.
    Quote Originally Posted by jere7my
    For instance, I am also known for my humility.

  22. - Top - End - #112
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grey_Wolf_c's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007

    Default Re: Hilgya: a redemption arc?

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    I don't understand what point youre trying to make here. Your position has shifted from 'Hilgya considers the act of marriage important because it is legally binding" to "Hilgya considers marriage important because it is emotionally binding."
    No. I'm saying it is socially binding. Which in dwarven culture inevitably means it is tied to honor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    Which is what I have been saying the whole time. Hilgya does not consider the aspects of marriage that bind people together to apply to her and Ivan. She brought it up anyway because she believes that the aspects that she considers binding (ie romance) could potentially apply to Durkon.
    No, she brought it up because she knows dwarven culture.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    She follows up with asking about a girlfriend, which is binding in the same romantic way.
    And also socially.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    She gets a negative on both of those, and concludes that since neither of them have any binding relationships, its ok to pursue one with him. She does not consider the legal aspects of marriage to be binding. Durkon does.
    Most dwarves do. Her assumption she could keep a crucial bit of information hidden is a sign she is delusional. Or that she isn't, and knew that revealing it would damage her chances.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    She did not inquire about that, having made a (not unreasonable) assumption that no dwarf would voluntarily be out in human lands if they didn't object to dwarven culture like she did.
    She's delusional about how free spirit Durkon is. That doesn't make it reasonable, it makes it unreasonable. By all accounts, dwarves are not rare outside of the dwarven lands (we've seen dwarven smiths in human cities) and the Loki priest from Greysky City immediately points out that Durkon is a bog-standard dwarf, not "huh, really, most dwarves around here don't have an issue with trees. That description is good enough for a Send".

    ETA:
    Quote Originally Posted by Kish View Post
    (Thor is married.)
    We don't know that to be true in OotS.

    Grey Wolf
    Last edited by Grey_Wolf_c; 2017-12-12 at 01:14 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
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Ceterum autem censeo Hilgya malefica est

  23. - Top - End - #113
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Kish's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2004

    Default Re: Hilgya: a redemption arc?

    Technically, we only know he has a relationship with Sif that involves "pawing" and is definitely not exclusive in OotS, it's true.
    Spoiler
    Show
    "The really unforgivable acts are committed by calm men in beautiful green silk rooms, who deal death wholesale, by the shipload, without lust, or anger, or desire, or any redeeming emotion to excuse them but cold fear of some pretended future. But the crimes they hope to prevent in the future are imaginary. The ones they commit in the present--they are real." --Aral Vorkosigan

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    This, in a nutshell.
    Yes, exactly.

  24. - Top - End - #114
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Hilgya: a redemption arc?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    I have heard it seldom enough to know that it is NOT the default assumption, and thus that you are grasping at straws when you attempt to imply that "girlfriend" is not binding "because 1 in a 1000 boyfriend-girlfriend scenarios is open to sleeping with others". And to be honest, I think 1 in 1000 is generous.
    It's more like 1 in 20 in the US, according to research in Psychology Today:

    Exact numbers for individuals practicing non-monogamy can be maddeningly hard to come by. But most researchers estimate that a full 4–5 percent of Americans participate in some form of ethical non-monogamy. In her Psychology Today blog post on May 9, 2014, Elisabeth Sheff relates the findings of independent Australian academic Kelly Cookson:

    “It appears that sexually non-monogamous couples in the United States number in the millions. Estimates based on actually trying sexual non-monogamy are around 1.2 to 2.4 million. An estimate based solely on the agreement to allow satellite lovers is around 9.8 million."
    Given that actively polyamorous people can have multiple partners, the percentage of partnerings that are open is actually higher than the percentage of partners. (Four monogamous people can only have two partnerings, while four polyamorous people could have as many as six without leaving their quad.)

  25. - Top - End - #115
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Fyraltari's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    France
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Hilgya: a redemption arc?

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    And it may also mean that both she and Durkon were dwarfs far from their homeland, a bit lonely, and glad to be in the company of one of their own kind.
    Hey look a sane and reasonnable point of view. I thought they were exctinct.
    "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
    Gehm's corollary to Clarke's Third Law



    Forum Wisdom

    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyraltari View Post
    the Vector Legion [is the IFCC's new pawns], mark my words. Way too much unfinished business there and they already know about the Gates.
    I'll take that bet.

  26. - Top - End - #116
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Hilgya: a redemption arc?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fyraltari View Post
    Hey look a sane and reasonnable point of view. I thought they were exctinct.
    I don't know what got into me. I'll check my meds, and see if I took the correct pills.
    Avatar by linklele
    Quote Originally Posted by Malifice View Post
    (paraphrased) Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    Quote Originally Posted by greenstone View Post
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also quite handsome) ... 2D8HP told me so
    Quote Originally Posted by HappyDaze
    Self-deception tends to have a low target number

  27. - Top - End - #117
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    ElfPirate

    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    County Whatcom
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Hilgya: a redemption arc?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post


    "In a relationship with a married woman" is an ongoing dishonorable conduct. If he dies in the next random battle while defending his married lover, he died while acting dishonorably, and therefore his soul goes to Hel. He doesn't need to understand any of that, to know that not breaking it off immediately is dishonorable, btw.

    I'm fairly sure that's not how it works. If a dwarf dies in battle (fighting, not just getting stabbed in the back with no time to respond), youhe/she doesn't go to Hel. If they were a chaotic dwarf, then they will go to a chaotic plane for the afterlife, but no matter how dishonourably they lived, and how dishonourable the reason they were fighting was, death in battle qualifies as an honourable death, and they would thus avoid ending up in Hel. Hel's plane is for those dwarves who didn't die with honour (and for her clerics and followers, but that is pretty irrelivent in this case). It is not the defult home for Chaotic dwarves, or Evil dwarves, and even the most depraved chaotic evil dwarf in the history of dwarves, if they died fighting, didn't go to Hel, but instead to The Abyss, or whatever OOTS's equivilent is.

    Edit; Unless I'm misunderstanding the point you were trying to make here, which I very well might be.
    Last edited by Bob_McSurly; 2017-12-12 at 05:16 PM.
    Literary Henchman of the Tarquin Fan Club
    Quote Originally Posted by schmunzel View Post
    I respect Tarquin for his clear cut agenda

    There would be no fooling around with foot rubbing while he was round

  28. - Top - End - #118
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Knaight's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008

    Default Re: Hilgya: a redemption arc?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    I understand that hiding information that would otherwise may have lead to a potential partner to deny sex is grounds to consider sex non-consensual. The example I had in mind, and which i kinda referenced, is the presence of an STD. "Would you still have had sex with them if they had told you they had AIDS?" being the exact case I am thinking - the answer (unsurprisingly) was "No" and I do believe that it was grounds for determining responsibility/culpability in a legal case.
    This gets into the matter of relevant information - an STD is always relevant, it's always known to be relevant, and that creates an obligation to inform someone. That doesn't exist for all information of that class - which is good, because that class can potentially include anything, and for most of it there's no way of knowing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    The bolded part is an interesting question. It came up in a thread where people argued about whether a person withholding that they are trans from a sexual partner is rape. In that thread somebody raised a case where a man was found guilty of rape for dishonestly holding himself out as a jew, to a woman who he knew would only have sex with jews (I am not clear whether he actively claimed to be jew, or merely allowed the woman to incorrectly assume he was).
    It's also a case involving active lying, and not simply nondisclosure, and it was a load of crap.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    This is literally the same argument as reasoning "I have an STD, but I have no problem with treating it with daily antibiotics, so I'm going to assume you don't either, so I'm not telling you about the STD".

    It is not Hilgya's place to decide for Durkon what he does and does not consider important. She was fully aware of dwarven culture. Even if she thinks that marriage is not important, only love is, that doesn't mean that withholding critical information is suddenly OK when she knows full well that the great majority of dwarves do think it is important. Again: lie by omission, reinforced by the fact that by inquiring about Durkon's marital status, she was indicating she did consider it a problem, and therefore implying she was free of marital obligations as well.
    She also essentially refers to that marriage in the past tense - as far as she's concerned it only exists in the minds of an illegitimate authority halfway across the world. A better equivalent would be someone considering it important that you not be a member of a particular religion, and you not telling them that you're a member of that particular religion because you don't believe in it and have no associations with it - except that they keep membership rolls and won't remove you, and you got on said membership rolls when they kidnapped you and performed an initiation ceremony of some sort.

    It's the difference between a tangible thing and a social contract, and the thing about social contracts is that they cease to exist when removed from their societies. It's also entirely unreasonable to expect people to abide by the restrictions of social contracts in a society they escaped.

  29. - Top - End - #119
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grey_Wolf_c's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007

    Default Re: Hilgya: a redemption arc?

    Quote Originally Posted by Knaight View Post
    It's the difference between a tangible thing and a social contract, and the thing about social contracts is that they cease to exist when removed from their societies. It's also entirely unreasonable to expect people to abide by the restrictions of social contracts in a society they escaped.
    Except this one's consequences involve a verifiable tangible consequence - potential millenia of torture - it falls under the "STD" example and not the "I'm a member of a religion" example. Hilgya is free to choose to risk her soul. It is a stupid decision, but hers to chose. But it is not her position to risk Durkon's soul.

    GW
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Ceterum autem censeo Hilgya malefica est

  30. - Top - End - #120
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Hilgya: a redemption arc?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    Except this one's consequences involve a verifiable tangible consequence - potential millenia of torture - it falls under the "STD" example and not the "I'm a member of a religion" example. Hilgya is free to choose to risk her soul. It is a stupid decision, but hers to chose. But it is not her position to risk Durkon's soul.

    GW
    By that logic, Durkon has been at risk the whole time, being away from home under false pretenses working on a mission that doesn't exist. Living honorably doesn't guarantee an honorable death, just as living dishonorably doesn't guarantee a dishonorable death. The Dwarves choose the former because the odds are better for them, but that doesn't mean that every single moment must be filled with an honorable action, or that they have to be super paranoid about it.

    If the dungeon were to suddenly collapse and kill Durkon, it wouldn't matter what he was doing because he died in a random accident that he was in no way involved with. Even if he was in the middle of being honorable, his death would still be dishonorable. I cant possibly conceive of any death that could be inflicted on him in that moment that would not be dishonorable, in fact. And yet he chose to risk it anyway.
    Last edited by Keltest; 2017-12-12 at 06:14 PM.
    “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.”

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •