What's Hilgya's Role Going to Be?

[hamishspence]

If someone attacks you on the street, and you fight in self defense and kill this person, you aren't going to get in trouble because there was another way to solve the problem that you didn't think of. You were in danger, and you found the best way out that you were able to conceive of.

And what doesn't matter is if she is wrong or not, what matters is if she thinks shes right.

The "reasonable person" standard may still apply. "I believed my life was in immediate danger" - even if accepted as true, doesn't always clear a person entirely, if it was an unreasonable belief.

[Keltest]

The "reasonable person" standard may still apply. "I believed my life was in immediate danger" - even if accepted as true, doesn't always clear a person entirely, if it was an unreasonable belief.

And I think we can all agree that Hilgya's beliefs were unreasonable there. Her husband was not shown in any way to be compelling her to remain or marry him, its pretty obvious that her clan ended up being ineffective in keeping her there since she, you know, left, and at times it appears she was outright imagining her husband being antagonistic. Attempting murder is in no way an appropriate or acceptable response to that scenario.

[zimmerwald1915]

If someone attacks you on the street, and you fight in self defense and kill this person, you aren't going to get in trouble because there was another way to solve the problem that you didn't think of. You were in danger, and you found the best way out that you were able to conceive of.

It depends on your jurisdiction - there are all sorts of exceptions these days - but the default rule is actually yes, you will get in trouble. Generally speaking, if you're attacked on the street, you have a duty to retreat rather than a license to escalate. It's not a matter of thought, it's a matter of recognizing that there are two instinctual responses to being assaulted: flight and fight, and that only one of these responses does not contribute to violence in public, which is considered unacceptable.

None of which says anything about Hilgya, because she was not attacked on the street.

[The Pilgrim]

Don't forget that Hilgya's affair happened a long time ago, when OOTS was still a joke-of-the-week webcomic.

Her background history was not presented to make a serious stand about forced marriage, but to show the contrast between Hilgya's liberal, un-dwarfy ethics, and Durkon's sense of duty and sticking to dwarven tradition even if it makes you miserable. Specially if it makes you miserable.

Since she was a Chaotic Evil character, her husband was presented as a kind, nice man, to quick exemplify why the relationship was impossible due to irreconciliable alignment differences ("he's crushing my [evil] spirit [with his goodness]!"), plus humorous effect.

You shouldn't read too deep into it.

(Though, well, that's what the Forum is for, isn't it?)

[littlebum2002]

I'm not trying to say here that Hilgya was doing the right thing by trying to kill her husband. Of course there were probably other alternatives she could have considered. I am simply saying that the possibility exists where, in her mind, she was justified entirely in doing so. Regardless of how we see her husband treated her, the possibility exists that she was under extreme mental stress which made it seem like he was mean and demanding instead of nice. Regardless of how we can armchair quarterback and think of other ways to get out of the situation, the possibility exists that she was under duress and couldn't think of those, or already tried them to no avail.

(Saying "she ran away, therefore she could have run away at any time" is an insult to anyone who has been kidnapped for years and finally manages to leave, since you're basically saying they chose to live with that person all that time. Perhaps she finally found her opportunity to escape the clan)

If you are being held against your will, and forced to live with someone, that person's actions, no matter how nice they look to the outside world, are never going to look nice to you. The problem is, we are looking at her life from our perspective and judging her, instead of looking at it from her perspective. From her perspective (which was possibly warped due to being forced to live with someone she despised for years) this man was a creep who constantly wanted to touch her even though she wanted nothing to do with him. It's easy for us to see his actions as outsiders and realize he was a nice man; it's a lot harder to look at his actions from the perspective of someone who was being forced to live with them and figure out how that person would interpret them.


Maybe she was just a sociopath who decided killing her husband was slightly more convenient than leaving him.

Or maybe she was just a girl who was forced to live with someone, despite numerous escape attempts, who was driven more into depression every time he asked to touch or spend time with a girl who wanted nothing less in the world than to be touched or spend time with this man, who finally decided her only escape was to kill him, until she ultimately found her path to safety.

[hamishspence]

Maybe she was just a sociopath who decided killing her husband was slightly more convenient than leaving him.

Or maybe she was just a girl who was forced to live with someone, despite numerous escape attempts, who was driven more into depression every time he asked to touch or spend time with a girl who wanted nothing less in the world than to be touched or spend time with this man, who finally decided her only escape was to kill him, until she ultimately found her path to safety.

In the context of Dungeon Crawling Fools, the former seems to me a bit more plausible than the latter.

[Pyron]

(Saying "she ran away, therefore she could have run away at any time" is an insult to anyone who has been kidnapped for years and finally manages to leave, since you're basically saying they chose to live with that person all that time. Perhaps she finally found her opportunity to escape the clan)

Also, to add to this point: just because Hilgya managed to escape doesn't mean that her journey didn't come at a cost. In a recent comic, Sidgi (a veteran warrior) couldn't afford to travel to the Dwarven capital. So, there is a monetary cost.

Plus, the ability to travel in the Stick-verse or most D&D setting is not as easy as it might appear - anywhere between home and the human lands are numerous of random encounters, and it's possible to end up destitute in a foreign city.

The greatest cost is that Hilgya had to leave everything behind. Remember, she didn't leave her clan to move to neighboring village, she left the dwarven lands entirely, because it's possible that everyone would see her as a pariah for leaving her husband and for not following her 'duty', just like Durkon.

The only thing we can say about Hilgya leaving is that she was lucky. She beat the odds thanks to her being a level 7 cleric. Imagine if Hilgya was a first level commoner - would leaving be as easy?

If you are being held against your will, and forced to live with someone, that person's actions, no matter how nice they look to the outside world, are never going to look nice to you. The problem is, we are looking at her life from our perspective and judging her, instead of looking at it from her perspective. From her perspective (which was possibly warped due to being forced to live with someone she despised for years) this man was a creep who constantly wanted to touch her even though she wanted nothing to do with him. It's easy for us to see his actions as outsiders and realize he was a nice man; it's a lot harder to look at his actions from the perspective of someone who was being forced to live with them and figure out how that person would interpret them.

This.

Also, I wanted to empathized the bolded line and point out that it's reasonable to not want to be touched in an intimate way by a person who you have no feelings for - regardless of how nice he might seem.

[goodpeople25]

You know i was planning on avoiding this thread becasue i was afraid of a bunch of "hilgya is definitely 100% going to show up again because reasons" with maybe a few good arguments mixed in on both sides.
But i was not excepting this type of thing at all. And quite frankly the amount of assumptions about Ivan is quite frankly disgusting, nowhere in the comic is there any evidence that Ivan is a kidnapper or a rapist, there is no indication that he ever even asked if she wanted to have sex with him let alone actully having done so or forcing the issue if he did ask.

And on the train of thought that trying to kill him was justisfed even if the fault did not lay with him but with hilgya's and/or Ivan's clan,
Nowhere in the comic does it say he tried to prevent her from leaving him in anyway except maybe by trying to make it work and hoping she would warm up to him instead of fighting his culture. In fact to be there seems to be a greater indication from the wording of the 2nd last panel of comic 83 that hilgya leaving was a last resort to her and killing him was her first option and that it might be because she still wanted to be with her clan which and while this is admittedly guesswork she even in her comic appearances seems to still have some loyalty to or at least be on netural terms with as her armour design bears an uncanny resemblance to the armour that the shotgun crossbow holder is wearing who is most likely of her clan which makes me believe that it is her clans armour which she is still wearing even though all it would take is a horn removal and some paint to get rid of the connection to her clan.

We also have no idea of the timeline or scope of this even for the stuff we see in comic for all we know hilgya was married for months, weeks or maybe even days yet i see people throw out that hilgya had to deal with this creep for years seemingly as fact, (i can't help but notice that there is no indication of significant amount of time passing ie no change in clothing besides from the wedding, no aging though they are dwarves who age slower than humans, and while yes it is a comic in a dare i say lower art qaulity stage than more recent comics, the giant did make a point to show changes in wardrobe and other things on Roy's flashback in 113 even though roy growing would suffice) and also seemingly reading too much into things I mean really, endless questions and an image of Ivan asking if hilgya wants a foot massage= Ivan constantly wanting and asking to touch her?, from the comic it is possible he only asked the question once after she refused and then maybe next time he offered to do something else for her and maybe asked again after a period of time.
To sum up we don't know enough to make any moral judgements except on the practice of forced marriages in general (which is a real world subject so it is one i will not discuss which also Involves real world people including one specific person (who at least to my knowledge is highly respected) who i am slightly suprised has not been mentioned yet) and maybe hilgya's clan for going trough with it and even then we don't know the extent it could just be a few members like hilgya's father perhaps, and maybe they even would have been fine with an annulment down the road if darwf law has that option. All we know is that she was forced into the wedding.

Also I kinda feel uneasy for saying this but i kinda wonder if their would be this amount of conclusion jumping if the genders were reversed, would the same people really sympathize with Ivan trying to kill his arranged wife for her offering a massage and accepting the marriage... Food for thought.

Edit, okay after reflection maybe disgusting is too harsh a term but it definitely is disheartening for me.

[littlebum2002]

And quite frankly the amount of assumptions about Ivan is quite frankly disgusting, nowhere in the comic is there any evidence that Ivan is a kidnapper or a rapist, there is no indication that he ever even asked if she wanted to have sex with him let alone actully having done so or forcing the issue if he did ask.

I haven't seen one person on here categorize Ivan as either a rapist or a kidnapper. We were calling Hilgya's clansman with the crossbow the kidnapper. Ivan is just as much of a victim as Hilgya is, the only difference is, he doesn't realize it and she does; and he just happens to be in the rather unlucky position of standing in the way of her and freedom (since his death would mean the end of the marriage)

Also, if you read my posts you would see that I agree with you that, in order for Hilgya not to be a cold blooded murderer, there must be a lot of things that we didn't see, that why I specifically stated that we don't know. It's entirely possible that what we saw was the god's honest truth, which makes her a murderer, but it's also possible that she tried to escape before resorting to killing him, which would make it her last ditch attempt.

To sum up we don't know enough to make any moral judgements except on the practice of forced marriages in general (which is a real world subject so it is one i will not discuss which also Involves real world people including one specific person (who at least to my knowledge is highly respected) who i am slightly suprised has not been mentioned yet)

You didn't mention a real world subject because it's against the rules, but you're surprised we didn't?

Also I kinda feel uneasy for saying this but i kinda wonder if their would be this amount of conclusion jumping if the genders were reversed, would the same people really sympathize with Ivan trying to kill his arranged wife for her offering a massage and accepting the marriage... Food for thought.

Well, for one, to our knowledge Hilgya never accepted the massage; but yes, if a man was forcibly married to a woman whom he disliked and she kept trying to initiate intimate contact with him (even if she had good intentions like Ivan did) I would feel the exact same way.

[The Giant]

I haven't seen one person on here categorize Ivan as either a rapist or a kidnapper.

Actually...

[Hilgya's] husband was a kidnapper and a rapist. Full stop.

I can't believe I have to be specific about this, but no, their marriage was never consummated and he probably was completely unaware that she was forced into it (because he is not very smart or perceptive, obviously). And one could have extrapolated that fact if one thought for one moment about what the obvious intended joke of the scene was, which was to contrast Ivan's pleasant personality with Hilgya's exaggerated and inaccurate description.

[King of Nowhere]

What good people said, mostly. I can't fault Ivan for being forced into a marriage and trying to make it work. Also, as much as it was an injustice, hilgya attempted to kill an innocent because it benefitted her. Two wrongs do not make one right. The right thing to do would have been to start a movement for civil rights. And to try to make it work as best as possible with ivan anyway; just because you are forced into a marriage, it does not mean that you can't get along with the partner. barring that, the right thing would have been to just run away, without trying to kill anyone.
And then there's the fact that morality is largely subjective. the dwarves do arranged marriages, and to us that's terrible. they are fine with it, and they'd certainly find horrible something else that we do. if we decided that it is right to kill someone just for disagreeing with us on some moral point, humans would be rare. that's why, barring extreme cases, you do not try to force other people to follow your definition of right and wrong. the dwarven clans have different traditions than we do, and deciding that hilgya would have been right to kill them for it... well, I'm sure you all see the implications. What is a good character supposed to do when he faces a people with traditions he considers evil, but that they seem to take in stride and (most of them) live happily with? I'm sure the answer is not "exterminate them all". And I'm trying not to touch real world implications because it's against the rules, but they would be even more dire.

[littlebum2002]

-Ahem-

I stand corrected. Well, I personally never said that, even though some said I did, and I guess I didn't read others' posts well enough.

[goodpeople25]

-Ahem-

I stand corrected. Well, I personally never said that, even though some said I did, and I guess I didn't read others' posts well enough.

Who said that you did?

[littlebum2002]

Who said that you did?

No, you're right, I apologize, I just didn't read the previous posts well enough before responding.

[Onyavar]

This morally-justified-debate is, in my opinion, inappropriate. As we readers are NOT dwarves, we shouldn't judge either Hilgya or Durkon or Ivan for their views on the subject.

I know an Indian woman in an arranged marriage who always defended that institution and who even argued to me that more marriages would be happy if parents arranged them and prepared their kids appropriately. She understood that we Westerners were thinking about this very differently. In her book, arranged marriages that failed, didn't fail because they were arranged - no, certainly they failed because they had been arranged in the wrong way, for example a wrong education of the betrothed-to-be, or in choosing the inappropriate partner. If basically the entire society were optimized the right way, all marriages could be arranged and prove happy. (That last point may be my exaggeration!) Actually, I can't and won't defend her point of view because I don't share her belief. But that viewpoint exists, even today in our modern world, despite what we think is reasonable.

The comic in question had other topics, as I see it.
- It introduced that dwarven culture is putting emphasis on other values than our modern society.
- It was introducing Hilgya as a rogue dwarf who couldn't live in this - her own - society.
- It added depth to Durkons character. While he is a good person, he does apply very strict standards to dwarves. Everyone else has a lot more leeway in Durkon's book. After all, he engaged a human couple who had premarital sex and he adventures with another such couple. Durkon seems to believe in certain racial differences, as he even ridicules human beliefs when alone with Hilgya.
- That introduced the reason why their relationship was as doomed as the marriage had been, and even prepared the ground for a potential offspring and thus future complications.

As it stands now, dwarven society has recently been depicted as different from the human one, but not in the backward-traditionalist-view like Durkon described it. I can't picture that Sigdi would tell Durkon to bury his unhappiness in a deep hole and then forget it. Probably, we will see that scene in a flashback, and see Durkon realize that his perception of tradition had been wrong the whole time. For example, Durkon may have developed his strong sense of sticking to traditional values only in the years of travelling abroad, when everyone but him didn't care one bit about his cultural background. (And in fact, besides Hilgya, the Duergar in AC, and the terrorist in the 230-250 strips, I can't remember seeing any dwarves in the entire story of volumes 1-5. Durkon WAS terribly alone. Being alone can change your view of the world, even change your memories of the past.)

And now, back to topic: What's Hilgya's role going to be?
I don't think that we will dwell on her marriage again, if and when Hilgya enters the stage again. There are other possible topics, like the outcome of their sexual engagement. Maybe Hilgya has come to regret her abandoning tradition, maybe Durkon has realized that he was wrong in sending her away, by then. Maybe both of the latter. Maybe Ivan has died in the meantime. Maybe Hilgya plans to have some kind of revenge on Durkon. If they meet with him still a vampire, that is going to be an issue as well.

[LuisDantas]

This morally-justified-debate is, in my opinion, inappropriate. As we readers are NOT dwarves, we shouldn't judge either Hilgya or Durkon or Ivan for their views on the subject.

That is not really quite true. IIRC there is a forum rule against debating moral justification for the comics characters.

However, the characters are presented and explored in order for us to create impressions about them and discuss their personalities, actions and motivations.

We just have to keep in mind that they are anthropologically different (even the humans) and that debating that specific matter in these forums is not allowed.

I know an Indian woman in an arranged marriage who always defended that institution and who even argued to me that more marriages would be happy if parents arranged them and prepared their kids appropriately. She understood that we Westerners were thinking about this very differently. In her book, arranged marriages that failed, didn't fail because they were arranged - no, certainly they failed because they had been arranged in the wrong way, for example a wrong education of the betrothed-to-be, or in choosing the inappropriate partner. If basically the entire society were optimized the right way, all marriages could be arranged and prove happy. (That last point may be my exaggeration!) Actually, I can't and won't defend her point of view because I don't share her belief. But that viewpoint exists, even today in our modern world, despite what we think is reasonable.

I think she had something of a point. Marriage is ultimately at least arguably between two families, not two people.

The comic in question had other topics, as I see it.
- It introduced that dwarven culture is putting emphasis on other values than our modern society.
- It was introducing Hilgya as a rogue dwarf who couldn't live in this - her own - society.
- It added depth to Durkons character. While he is a good person, he does apply very strict standards to dwarves. Everyone else has a lot more leeway in Durkon's book. After all, he engaged a human couple who had premarital sex and he adventures with another such couple. Durkon seems to believe in certain racial differences, as he even ridicules human beliefs when alone with Hilgya.

I sort of agree, but you should notice that accepting unmarried sex between a commited couple (Daiko and Kazumi) is a lot less concession than knowingly engaging in adultery - with a confessed attempted spouse-murderer, no less.

For all we know (and I personally believe such to be the case) dwarven/human differences played no role at all in Durkon's judgements there. Sure there is a line in #84 that implies otherwise, but I don't think it means too much.

[Father Miles]

That is not really quite true. IIRC there is a forum rule against debating moral justification for the comics characters.

However, the characters are presented and explored in order for us to create impressions about them and discuss their personalities, actions and motivations.

We just have to keep in mind that they are anthropologically different (even the humans) and that debating that specific matter in these forums is not allowed.




I think she had something of a point. Marriage is ultimately at least arguably between two families, not two people.




I sort of agree, but you should notice that accepting unmarried sex between a commited couple (Daiko and Kazumi) is a lot less concession than knowingly engaging in adultery - with a confessed attempted spouse-murderer, no less.

For all we know (and I personally believe such to be the case) dwarven/human differences played no role at all in Durkon's judgements there. Sure there is a line in #84 that implies otherwise, but I don't think it means too much.

It is implied in the Sigdi flashback that Durkon's parents also had premarital relations. If there is no rule against that in Dwarven culture then there is no alignment implication. However if marriage vows include a promise of monogamy then breaking them would be a non-Lawful act. I don't see how human/Dwarven differences come into play here at all. He was not concerned until he found out that they were not both single (and on top of that, Hilgya had broken a ton of additional rules including attempted murder, marking her as both Chaotic and non-Good). A lot of this other discussion seems like overanalyzing to me.

[Mightymosy]

This morally-justified-debate is, in my opinion, inappropriate. As we readers are NOT dwarves, we shouldn't judge either Hilgya or Durkon or Ivan for their views on the subject.

I know an Indian woman in an arranged marriage who always defended that institution and who even argued to me that more marriages would be happy if parents arranged them and prepared their kids appropriately. She understood that we Westerners were thinking about this very differently. In her book, arranged marriages that failed, didn't fail because they were arranged - no, certainly they failed because they had been arranged in the wrong way, for example a wrong education of the betrothed-to-be, or in choosing the inappropriate partner. If basically the entire society were optimized the right way, all marriages could be arranged and prove happy. (That last point may be my exaggeration!) Actually, I can't and won't defend her point of view because I don't share her belief. But that viewpoint exists, even today in our modern world, despite what we think is reasonable.

The comic in question had other topics, as I see it.
- It introduced that dwarven culture is putting emphasis on other values than our modern society.
- It was introducing Hilgya as a rogue dwarf who couldn't live in this - her own - society.
- It added depth to Durkons character. While he is a good person, he does apply very strict standards to dwarves. Everyone else has a lot more leeway in Durkon's book. After all, he engaged a human couple who had premarital sex and he adventures with another such couple. Durkon seems to believe in certain racial differences, as he even ridicules human beliefs when alone with Hilgya.
- That introduced the reason why their relationship was as doomed as the marriage had been, and even prepared the ground for a potential offspring and thus future complications.

As it stands now, dwarven society has recently been depicted as different from the human one, but not in the backward-traditionalist-view like Durkon described it. I can't picture that Sigdi would tell Durkon to bury his unhappiness in a deep hole and then forget it. Probably, we will see that scene in a flashback, and see Durkon realize that his perception of tradition had been wrong the whole time. For example, Durkon may have developed his strong sense of sticking to traditional values only in the years of travelling abroad, when everyone but him didn't care one bit about his cultural background. (And in fact, besides Hilgya, the Duergar in AC, and the terrorist in the 230-250 strips, I can't remember seeing any dwarves in the entire story of volumes 1-5. Durkon WAS terribly alone. Being alone can change your view of the world, even change your memories of the past.)

And now, back to topic: What's Hilgya's role going to be?
I don't think that we will dwell on her marriage again, if and when Hilgya enters the stage again. There are other possible topics, like the outcome of their sexual engagement. Maybe Hilgya has come to regret her abandoning tradition, maybe Durkon has realized that he was wrong in sending her away, by then. Maybe both of the latter. Maybe Ivan has died in the meantime. Maybe Hilgya plans to have some kind of revenge on Durkon. If they meet with him still a vampire, that is going to be an issue as well.

The BIG point about arranged marriages is how much of a say the persons who are getting married have.

If partners are presented and you get to choose, to argue, to make better suggestion etc. I can imagine it being not bad.

If partners are being chosen and forced upon you by your parents for their convenience or profit, well, then that's very bad, and what I have heard, that was a common case some time ago, and probably still is in certain societies...

[rodneyAnonymous]

"Ugh, you've got what the intergalactic call 'a very planetary mindset', Morty."

[Avian Overlord]

Count me in the "Don't think she'll show up" camp. There's no reason for her to be around the dwarven lands, and I don't see why Durkon's one night stand would have more insight into his character than his best friend or traveling companions.

[The_Weirdo]

Hilgya deserved freedom. The means to attain that freedom, which was her right, be damned. If you're oppressed, you have every right to kill until the oppression ceases. She was completely in the right. Ivan might not be evil, he might not even deserve to die, but Hilgya deserved her freedom, which is all that matters. Yes, it matters more than the life of an unwilling and unwitting accomplice on her freedom being taken away from her. That Ivan didn't get killed before Hilgya found or devised some other means to obtain her freedom is his good luck, but she had the right to do anything at all for her freedom.

I'd furthermore posit that our culture actually states as much; in how many movies do you see anyone weep for the mook that gets one in his skull while "just doing his job" in defending a (Lawful) Evil villain's fortress? While our culture isn't universal (or Dwarven), by our standards, she'd be in the right.

[The_Weirdo]

Considering that Ivan's saying "this is the happiest day of my life!" with a big grin and Hilgya's the only one in the frame the crossbowman is pointing his arbalest at -- while she's scowling, I'd say that this is not the case according to existing evidence.

Also of note: he's SEEING that Hilgya is being held at crossbow point (quite cross herself) and, instead of going "I refuse", he goes "YAY, NEW CHATTEL!".

Edit: Okay, word of Giant pointed out that he was unaware. Still doesn't mean it was wrong of her to try to do him in if she thought that was the (or a) key for her to be free.

[Peelee]

Still doesn't mean it was wrong of her to try to do him in if she thought that was the (or a) key for her to be free.

Yes. Yes it does. If he is not in any way forcing her to be with him (and we are given no indication that this is the case), then killing him is unrelated to her ability to leave.

[The_Weirdo]

Yes. Yes it does. If he is not in any way forcing her to be with him (and we are given no indication that this is the case), then killing him is unrelated to her ability to leave.

If she believed killing him would improve her ability to leave - or, and especially, if it would mean she'd not have to wait for a better chance to escape - she had the right to try. Even assuming it was due to pure spite (dubious, but let's), her clan caused that spite, which would lay all fault at the feet of her clan, not at hers.

[Porthos]

If she believed...

Such is the excuse of countless antagonists (and some protagonists for that matter) throughout fiction.

Believing isn't enough. Having a reasonable belief is a different matter.

As for this specific discussion? Yeah, not even touching an (not-so) implied "Hilgya was morally justified" topic when it comes to trying to kill her husband. You may not have noticed but those discussions tend not to end well on this board. Can't imagine why.

[Peelee]

If she believed killing him would improve her ability to leave - or, and especially, if it would mean she'd not have to wait for a better chance to escape - she had the right to try. Even assuming it was due to pure spite (dubious, but let's), her clan caused that spite, which would lay all fault at the feet of her clan, not at hers.

If it was a reasonable belief, that may have mitigated it. However, it is clearly shown her beliefs regarding him (not the marriage) were unreasonable.

Porthos, that ninja avatar is quite appropriate.

[Porthos]

If it was a reasonable belief, that may have mitigated it. However, it is clearly shown her beliefs regarding him (not the marriage) were unreasonable.

HA! Gotcha this time.

Porthos, that ninja avatar is quite appropriate.

Indeed.

[The_Weirdo]

If it was a reasonable belief, that may have mitigated it. However, it is clearly shown her beliefs regarding him (not the marriage) were unreasonable.

Porthos, that ninja avatar is quite appropriate.

Even if we discard my premise (namely that she had the right to do absolutely anything she thought was best to end the oppression until it ceased), I'd argue, in this case, that expecting her to hold onto reasonable beliefs while in her situation would not be reasonable. She was desperate - and she was desperate for the correct reasons, too, in that her rights were being infringed.

[The_Weirdo]

A hypothetical: a kidnap victim is held in a building. She manages to scrounge up some gasoline and sets it on fire in an attempt to escape in the confusion and, along with her kidnapper, succeeds. Is SHE the one to blame when the fire consumes all tenants of that building or is the KIDNAPPER the one to blame? I'd sue the kidnapper for arson and murder. She'd walk.

[Peelee]

By your logic, if a kidnap victim in Metropolis thought that detonating a nuke in Gotham City would afford the victim the best chance of escape, said victim would not be committing murder of millions of people.

Attempting to murder the husband was an Evil act.