Corwin is also mistrustful of goblin party members. Like most of the population of the Sword Coast, she is somewhat racist.
She's prejudice, however everyone in the D&D universe is racist, due to the fact that it is a universe where race actually exists (i.e. elevs, humns, orcs,goblins, dwarves, etc.). It would have made more sense for M'khinn to call people bigots instead of racists, I'm guessing that the writer was not smart enough to think of these things.
You think it's inappropriate for someone to use the word "racist" because race exists?!!
Anyway, I wasn't talking about M'khinn's selection line, I was talking about Corwin's line about not trusting goblins.
Corwin is also mistrustful of goblin party members. Like most of the population of the Sword Coast, she is somewhat racist.
She's prejudice, however everyone in the D&D universe is racist, due to the fact that it is a universe where race actually exists (i.e. elevs, humns, orcs,goblins, dwarves, etc.). It would have made more sense for M'khinn to call people bigots instead of racists, I'm guessing that the writer was not smart enough to think of these things.
You think it's inappropriate for someone to use the word "racist" because race exists?!!
Anyway, I wasn't talking about M'khinn's selection line, I was talking about Corwin's line about not trusting goblins.
Yes, because in D&D humanoids are subdivided by race, and they all have their own particular traits. A racist, is someone who believes in the aforementioned things. In the real word race does not exist so the above mentioned is obviously wrong, in D&D it is not. Being bigoted and hateful towards elves, goblins etc is a separate issue. The writer conflated racism with bigotry.
Captain Corwin is well written (mb even better then others), though I am not sure ending suits a lawful alignment (law is supposed to be above all, is not it?). But I do not like her on personal level and can not see any reason for her to be anywhere outside BG.
Voghiln has no substance in him. Walking cliche without a story to justify it. However, he actually could be in BG2 the same way any commoner can be in BG2, and with that much significance.
M’Khiin - class is interesting but a goblin? An outcast of outcasts, with probability lower then a fireball in a real life. Did not look believable to me, Deekin Scalesinger (obvious inspiration) was much more convincing, truly. Yet, if her very existence does not bother you, there can be ocean of reasons and ways to place her in Athkatla.
Now, Glint has everything - personality (even if of Jan 2.0), story, reasons to travel, usefulness and whatever else you are asking from companion.
Captain Corwin is well written (mb even better then others), though I am not sure ending suits a lawful alignment (law is supposed to be above all, is not it?). But I do not like her on personal level and can not see any reason for her to be anywhere outside BG.
Well, LG doesn't mean that the character will obey the law 100% in their life or else "fall" to NG. It means that the majority of the time they will do what's lawful. But LG also realizes that if a law is unjust, they are obligated to follow the "good" part of their alignment over the "lawful" part. I think it's more in line with a LN character to follow the law even if the intent of the law isn't good.
Captain Corwin is well written (mb even better then others), though I am not sure ending suits a lawful alignment (law is supposed to be above all, is not it?). But I do not like her on personal level and can not see any reason for her to be anywhere outside BG.
Well, LG doesn't mean that the character will obey the law 100% in their life or else "fall" to NG. It means that the majority of the time they will do what's lawful. But LG also realizes that if a law is unjust, they are obligated to follow the "good" part of their alignment over the "lawful" part. I think it's more in line with a LN character to follow the law even if the intent of the law isn't good.
I don't think it's that cut and dry. Lawful Good believes in law and good. When the two clash, it becomes a question of what you believe in more. Kheldorn faces this crisis with his wife. Do as the law demands, or forgive her as good demands.
Most of the time LG characters believe that law does (or should) support the common good, and that supporting it helps as many as possible live safe, happy lives. Should the law fail to do this, the law must be changed.
For Corwin, the law isn't corrupt enough to rebel, even should she believe justice isn't being served in this case. So she is torn between the civic good and justice, ultimately siding with the civic good.
Captain Corwin is well written (mb even better then others), though I am not sure ending suits a lawful alignment (law is supposed to be above all, is not it?). But I do not like her on personal level and can not see any reason for her to be anywhere outside BG.
Well, LG doesn't mean that the character will obey the law 100% in their life or else "fall" to NG. It means that the majority of the time they will do what's lawful. But LG also realizes that if a law is unjust, they are obligated to follow the "good" part of their alignment over the "lawful" part. I think it's more in line with a LN character to follow the law even if the intent of the law isn't good.
Well can be, but I still question readiness of so called "lawful good" characters to sacrifice others for what they believe is good or moral.
Truly, if Corwin deeply believes the unrest in BG can be ceased by unjust execution of the hero who saved the city twice (not to mention all other good deeds on the way) - how can she call herself either lawful or good? I'd say it's condemning souls of citizens to hell, making them responsible for death of innocent. She did not step up saying "it was me, who murdered the girl and framed the Hero" - putting an end to the story in service to what she believes is a greater good, no, she wants the hero voluntarily sacrifice him\herself. Do not see here neither "good" nor "lawful".
Captain Corwin is well written (mb even better then others), though I am not sure ending suits a lawful alignment (law is supposed to be above all, is not it?). But I do not like her on personal level and can not see any reason for her to be anywhere outside BG.
Well, LG doesn't mean that the character will obey the law 100% in their life or else "fall" to NG. It means that the majority of the time they will do what's lawful. But LG also realizes that if a law is unjust, they are obligated to follow the "good" part of their alignment over the "lawful" part. I think it's more in line with a LN character to follow the law even if the intent of the law isn't good.
Well can be, but I still question readiness of so called "lawful good" characters to sacrifice others for what they believe is good or moral.
Truly, if Corwin deeply believes the unrest in BG can be ceased by unjust execution of the hero who saved the city twice (not to mention all other good deeds on the way) - how can she call herself either lawful or good? I'd say it's condemning souls of citizens to hell, making them responsible for death of innocent. She did not step up saying "it was me, who murdered the girl and framed the Hero" - putting an end to the story in service to what she believes is a greater good, no, she wants the hero voluntarily sacrifice him\herself. Do not see here neither "good" nor "lawful".
Also, keep in mind that Corwins stance on that matter varies depending wether you romance her. Love conquers all.
Captain Corwin is well written (mb even better then others), though I am not sure ending suits a lawful alignment (law is supposed to be above all, is not it?). But I do not like her on personal level and can not see any reason for her to be anywhere outside BG.
Well, LG doesn't mean that the character will obey the law 100% in their life or else "fall" to NG. It means that the majority of the time they will do what's lawful. But LG also realizes that if a law is unjust, they are obligated to follow the "good" part of their alignment over the "lawful" part. I think it's more in line with a LN character to follow the law even if the intent of the law isn't good.
Well can be, but I still question readiness of so called "lawful good" characters to sacrifice others for what they believe is good or moral.
Truly, if Corwin deeply believes the unrest in BG can be ceased by unjust execution of the hero who saved the city twice (not to mention all other good deeds on the way) - how can she call herself either lawful or good? I'd say it's condemning souls of citizens to hell, making them responsible for death of innocent. She did not step up saying "it was me, who murdered the girl and framed the Hero" - putting an end to the story in service to what she believes is a greater good, no, she wants the hero voluntarily sacrifice him\herself. Do not see here neither "good" nor "lawful".
I agree that she was acting against alignment. But IMO the point of the alignment system is not to dictate a character's every action but act as a guide for the majority of their actions. People can act against their alignment occasionally without them needing to change alignments. It would be unrealistic to expect a person to always act in the same manner, that's not how people work.
I think if Corwin continued to act in this manner she might need to shift to NG, similar to how Viconia acts in TN ways several times throughout SoA and ToB but doesn't actually shift alignment unless romanced and the correct dialogue options are chosen.
Paladins are the exception to this, which is why there are fallen paladins but not fallen LG characters. They must always follow their code/alignment or risk falling. But for everyday people, if they act against alignment every so often, it's not the end of everything.
Yes, because in D&D humanoids are subdivided by race, and they all have their own particular traits. A racist, is someone who believes in the aforementioned things. In the real word race does not exist so the above mentioned is obviously wrong, in D&D it is not. Being bigoted and hateful towards elves, goblins etc is a separate issue. The writer conflated racism with bigotry.
Semantics. The intent is clear; that's what is important.
Truly, if Corwin deeply believes the unrest in BG can be ceased by unjust execution of the hero who saved the city twice (not to mention all other good deeds on the way) - how can she call herself either lawful or good? I'd say it's condemning souls of citizens to hell, making them responsible for death of innocent. She did not step up saying "it was me, who murdered the girl and framed the Hero" - putting an end to the story in service to what she believes is a greater good, no, she wants the hero voluntarily sacrifice him\herself. Do not see here neither "good" nor "lawful".
I think you're misinterpretting the intent of lawful good if you think this way. Alignment is not a "hard and fast", unbreakable thing. A Lawful Good character may view sacrifice as part of their personal code. Has not Corwin sacrificed in her life a great deal, to serve Baldur's Gate? Her daughter often sees mommy head off, while the daughter is left with relatives. She is sacrificing a great deal, because she views the safety and security of the city as something she can secure for her child. To Corwin, willful sacrifice is part of her ethos. If CHARNAME does not hold to that, well...tough for CHARNAME.
Yes, because in D&D humanoids are subdivided by race, and they all have their own particular traits. A racist, is someone who believes in the aforementioned things. In the real word race does not exist so the above mentioned is obviously wrong, in D&D it is not. Being bigoted and hateful towards elves, goblins etc is a separate issue. The writer conflated racism with bigotry.
Semantics. The intent is clear; that's what is important.
Truly, if Corwin deeply believes the unrest in BG can be ceased by unjust execution of the hero who saved the city twice (not to mention all other good deeds on the way) - how can she call herself either lawful or good? I'd say it's condemning souls of citizens to hell, making them responsible for death of innocent. She did not step up saying "it was me, who murdered the girl and framed the Hero" - putting an end to the story in service to what she believes is a greater good, no, she wants the hero voluntarily sacrifice him\herself. Do not see here neither "good" nor "lawful".
I think you're misinterpretting the intent of lawful good if you think this way. Alignment is not a "hard and fast", unbreakable thing. A Lawful Good character may view sacrifice as part of their personal code. Has not Corwin sacrificed in her life a great deal, to serve Baldur's Gate? Her daughter often sees mommy head off, while the daughter is left with relatives. She is sacrificing a great deal, because she views the safety and security of the city as something she can secure for her child. To Corwin, willful sacrifice is part of her ethos. If CHARNAME does not hold to that, well...tough for CHARNAME.
It's not "semantics," they are not the same thing.
Yes, because in D&D humanoids are subdivided by race, and they all have their own particular traits. A racist, is someone who believes in the aforementioned things. In the real word race does not exist so the above mentioned is obviously wrong, in D&D it is not. Being bigoted and hateful towards elves, goblins etc is a separate issue. The writer conflated racism with bigotry.
Semantics. The intent is clear; that's what is important.
Truly, if Corwin deeply believes the unrest in BG can be ceased by unjust execution of the hero who saved the city twice (not to mention all other good deeds on the way) - how can she call herself either lawful or good? I'd say it's condemning souls of citizens to hell, making them responsible for death of innocent. She did not step up saying "it was me, who murdered the girl and framed the Hero" - putting an end to the story in service to what she believes is a greater good, no, she wants the hero voluntarily sacrifice him\herself. Do not see here neither "good" nor "lawful".
I think you're misinterpretting the intent of lawful good if you think this way. Alignment is not a "hard and fast", unbreakable thing. A Lawful Good character may view sacrifice as part of their personal code. Has not Corwin sacrificed in her life a great deal, to serve Baldur's Gate? Her daughter often sees mommy head off, while the daughter is left with relatives. She is sacrificing a great deal, because she views the safety and security of the city as something she can secure for her child. To Corwin, willful sacrifice is part of her ethos. If CHARNAME does not hold to that, well...tough for CHARNAME.
Do you seriously compare "seeing kid not as often as kid wants" with loosing life? Really?! God, half of the modern parents do not know they are heroes whose deeds are equal to life sacrifice!
Disagree with everything you are saying. "Not always follow alignment" is one thing, and totally understandable. But justifying such break as another side of alignment - is something I can not agree with. Breaking the law by accusing an innocent - is not a lawful deed, and sacrificing that innocent for easing your job of keeper of the order - is not good by any standards. Corwins alignment here is a "cop/politician" alignment. And a bad one too. It justified by writing, by character development, by anything (aside from the fact that everyone sims suddenly way too happy to blame a hero from the start without any proofs), but it's not a lawful-good alignment.
Do you seriously compare "seeing kid not as often as kid wants" with loosing life? Really?!
Don't be rude. If you know anything about raising a child, you would know what a sacrifice that is. Oh, and modern psychology supports the idea that a child's development is better with both parents. Corwin is a SINGLE parent who often leaves for months at a time to serve the Flaming Fist. If you arrogantly believe that is not a great sacrifice, then you're ignorant. Ask any parent what a sacrifice it is to be gone from their children, even for a week -- let alone months.
Breaking the law by accusing an innocent - is not a lawful deed, and sacrificing that innocent for easing your job of keeper of the order - is not good by any standards.
Why are you assuming that Corwin thinks CHARNAME is innocent?...You're a Bhaalspawn. Corwin basically thinks you're already quite the suspicious person, at the beginning of SOD; before a damn thing happened. You know, before things like
CHARNAME burning the symbol of Bhaal into a major bridge or CHARNAME potentially letting a priestess of Bhaal spread potential chaos
. I mean, seriously, what does Corwin have to believe that a non-romanced PC is innocent?! Precious little.
Corwin is also mistrustful of goblin party members. Like most of the population of the Sword Coast, she is somewhat racist.
She's prejudice, however everyone in the D&D universe is racist, due to the fact that it is a universe where race actually exists (i.e. elevs, humns, orcs,goblins, dwarves, etc.). It would have made more sense for M'khinn to call people bigots instead of racists, I'm guessing that the writer was not smart enough to think of these things.
You think it's inappropriate for someone to use the word "racist" because race exists?!!
Anyway, I wasn't talking about M'khinn's selection line, I was talking about Corwin's line about not trusting goblins.
Yes, because in D&D humanoids are subdivided by race, and they all have their own particular traits. A racist, is someone who believes in the aforementioned things. In the real word race does not exist so the above mentioned is obviously wrong, in D&D it is not. Being bigoted and hateful towards elves, goblins etc is a separate issue. The writer conflated racism with bigotry.
So, by the same argument, since "male" and "female" are real things in the real world, clearly, the word "sexism" cannot possibly exist in this world.
Do you seriously compare "seeing kid not as often as kid wants" with loosing life? Really?!
Don't be rude. If you know anything about raising a child, you would know what a sacrifice that is. Oh, and modern psychology supports the idea that a child's development is better with both parents. Corwin is a SINGLE parent who often leaves for months at a time to serve the Flaming Fist. If you arrogantly believe that is not a great sacrifice, then you're ignorant. Ask any parent what a sacrifice it is to be gone from their children, even for a week -- let alone months.
Breaking the law by accusing an innocent - is not a lawful deed, and sacrificing that innocent for easing your job of keeper of the order - is not good by any standards.
Why are you assuming that Corwin thinks CHARNAME is innocent?...You're a Bhaalspawn. Corwin basically thinks you're already quite the suspicious person, at the beginning of SOD; before a damn thing happened. You know, before things like
CHARNAME burning the symbol of Bhaal into a major bridge or CHARNAME potentially letting a priestess of Bhaal spread potential chaos
. I mean, seriously, what does Corwin have to believe that a non-romanced PC is innocent?! Precious little.
And now read your post and tell me who is rude here. Lot's of assumptions, names-calling and all of this over one word - "really".
I do know what it means to raise a child. But I do not a) applying modern psychology to medieval settings, b) comparing incomparable things - working against loosing life.
Now, about Corwin's believes.
1. Corwin does not THINK you are innocent, she says it. In the same speech where she suggest to CHARNAME to sacrifice him/herself for stopping unrest in the city. To says it to the un-romanced character. 2. We are talking (at least I was talking) about alignment. My first point proves there is nothing good in her suggestion. Now about the lawful part. There is no single evidence about CHARNAME being the murderer. None. And it was shown during pure act of law - court. More then this, the whole time CHARNAME was saving that very girl (and the people). All facts proves innocence, judge did not call you guilty, yet, Corwin demands from CHARNAME to confess - where is lawful part of her alignment in that?
Her motives are clear but have nothing to do with her alignment.
I think Corwin can end up thinking and saying several different things, depending on what happens during the game.
But I think it's extremly ironic that in the same thread we are seeing people objecting to the word "racist" as too modern, whilst also expecting the VERY modern concept of "innocent until proven guilty" to apply.
b) comparing incomparable things - working against loosing life.
Sacrificing one's life for one's city? Huh...what an odd belief for a dedicated captain of the Flaming Fist to have. How strange that a captain of the Flaming Fist would tell CHARNAME to commit self-sacrifice, something Corwin thinks she is doing every time she goes on a mission for the Fist. So...weird!...
1. Corwin does not THINK you are innocent, she says it. In the same speech where she suggest to CHARNAME to sacrifice him/herself for stopping unrest in the city. To says it to the un-romanced character.
This depends on alignment and what your character did...
2. We are talking (at least I was talking) about alignment. My first point proves there is nothing good in her suggestion.
Your revulsion assumes that concepts like "individual right to life" applied by (or are even considered) an average member of a city like Baldur's Gate. It's much more likely that things like "the greater good" or "for the betterment of the city as a whole" are on Corwin's mind.
Now about the lawful part. There is no single evidence about CHARNAME being the murderer. None. And it was shown during pure act of law - court. More then this, the whole time CHARNAME was saving that very girl (and the people). All facts proves innocence, judge did not call you guilty, yet, Corwin demands from CHARNAME to confess - where is lawful part of her alignment in that?
Huh...and yet, there's multiple instances where many other players had clearly ambiguous evidence presented in court. There's nothing unlawful in Corwin's actions there. If you properly examine the evidence, then what's shown in court is that there's not enough evidence to nail CHARNAME down. But, as has been said multiple, multiple times before now on this board, the Sword Coast doesn't have the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". In fact, it's basically the opposite: "guilty until proven innocent". Since that is the case, it's not unlawful for Corwin to follow that line of thinking.
Side-note: "Lawful" doesn't necessarily mean "follows the law". It means that one has a personal code in place, something one considers their driving morals. Apparently, "guilty until proven innocent" does NOT violate Corwin's moral code.
I'm voting for the Vast mostly because they created all these great new Bard items and none of them suit a Blade. If we are just bringing one character forward let it be a Bard I want to see sing and play these instruments!
Also, I'd love to see our lady of archery honestly because a romance with someone other than a cleric type would be much appreciated. Relationships are hard enough without bringing religious debates in to the household
The thing with Corwin, the critical thing, is that she's not wrong.
Sarevok's scheming alone, before his Bhaalspawn status was even known, was extremely damaging to the community of Baldur's Gate. Assassinations (attempted and successful) of numerous high ranking individuals, the disrupted coronation of Sarevok as a duke that almost led to the deaths of all the dukes, his use of doppelgangers to chip away at and destroy the foundations of the community... it's really bad.
Then Sarevok's bloodline becomes known and people realize just how close they were from not just getting embroiled into a needless war, but becoming ground zero for an evil god's ascension. And then rumors come up from the ground about the Scion being bhaalspawn as well and suddenly nobody knows if their champion is on their side or simply using them like Sarevok did (gods know the big guy knew how to wield public opinion even better than a greatsword).
Then the crusade begins, and the town becomes flooded with refugees they couldn't support in good days, much less on coat tails of a confidence shattering (and likely recession causing) event like the near coronation of Sarevok. Then, right after saving the day, their champion outright kills (or seems to kill) the daughter of a duke.
Every day the Scion sits in that dungeon, the community of Baldur's Gate is splintering. Every night everything Corwin has fought to protects slides just that further out of control. Silvershield will never allow the Scion to be pardoned. Likewise, Belt is very likely to resist any attempt to execute his champion. From top echelons of the city to the deepest dregs, this controversy is ripping the city apart. With no end in sight, and in what would certainly be an escalating fashion.
From Corwin's point of view, the Scion will never be legitimately freed, even if 75% of the dukes believe them innocent, but they have one course left to them to save the city: to stop being the wedge driving it apart. It would work. It's not a fair request, and it's not a reasonable request, but it would work. Were they not a Bhaalspawn, it might even be worth it. As it is, however, it most definitely is not. And it may be the one memory that will haunt her to the day she dies.
Please note, however, that it was a request. Corwin isn't calling for your head or manipulating the powers that be to ensure your execution, she's begging you to do the one thing she believes can heal the city. She's trying to appeal to any vestige of law and good in your heart, to sacrifice yourself to save the city one last time, a sacrifice only you can make with any meaning. If she had talked to Belt, she likely would never have had cause to make the request.
Corwin is not betraying her alignment here. She's living up to it the only way she can. Corwin is powerless to fix anything, you are not, and she asks you to do what you can for the good of the city. And while it might suck to say it, she's not wrong.
I mean, he's bisexual, so that depends on what you consider "ideology"...
No. It really, truly does not. Sexual orientation in no way is the equivalent to ideology. People really need to educate themselves, not only about gender, identity and sexuality but about the English language in general or stop talking altogether.
Sexual orientation in no way is the equivalent to ideology. People really need to educate themselves, not only about gender, identity and sexuality but about the English language in general or stop talking altogether.
You misunderstand, massively. Certain folks in the US tend to believe that the inclusion of bisexual, gay, etc. characters in games, books, movies, etc. is "pushing the homosexual ideology". Whether they are right or wrong, it doesn't matter.
Corwin is also mistrustful of goblin party members. Like most of the population of the Sword Coast, she is somewhat racist.
She's prejudice, however everyone in the D&D universe is racist, due to the fact that it is a universe where race actually exists (i.e. elevs, humns, orcs,goblins, dwarves, etc.). It would have made more sense for M'khinn to call people bigots instead of racists, I'm guessing that the writer was not smart enough to think of these things.
You think it's inappropriate for someone to use the word "racist" because race exists?!!
Anyway, I wasn't talking about M'khinn's selection line, I was talking about Corwin's line about not trusting goblins.
Yes, because in D&D humanoids are subdivided by race, and they all have their own particular traits. A racist, is someone who believes in the aforementioned things. In the real word race does not exist so the above mentioned is obviously wrong, in D&D it is not. Being bigoted and hateful towards elves, goblins etc is a separate issue. The writer conflated racism with bigotry.
So, by the same argument, since "male" and "female" are real things in the real world, clearly, the word "sexism" cannot possibly exist in this world.
You are confused, racism and bigotry have a categorical difference. Being accusative about racism in a world where race is a real thing is stupid, being accusative about bigotry is a separate issue.
Corwin is also mistrustful of goblin party members. Like most of the population of the Sword Coast, she is somewhat racist.
She's prejudice, however everyone in the D&D universe is racist, due to the fact that it is a universe where race actually exists (i.e. elevs, humns, orcs,goblins, dwarves, etc.). It would have made more sense for M'khinn to call people bigots instead of racists, I'm guessing that the writer was not smart enough to think of these things.
You think it's inappropriate for someone to use the word "racist" because race exists?!!
Anyway, I wasn't talking about M'khinn's selection line, I was talking about Corwin's line about not trusting goblins.
Yes, because in D&D humanoids are subdivided by race, and they all have their own particular traits. A racist, is someone who believes in the aforementioned things. In the real word race does not exist so the above mentioned is obviously wrong, in D&D it is not. Being bigoted and hateful towards elves, goblins etc is a separate issue. The writer conflated racism with bigotry.
So, by the same argument, since "male" and "female" are real things in the real world, clearly, the word "sexism" cannot possibly exist in this world.
You are confused, racism and bigotry have a categorical difference. Being accusative about racism in a world where race is a real thing is stupid, being accusative about bigotry is a separate issue.
"Racism" means judging someone based on their race.
So it actually makes a whole lot MORE sense to use it in a world where where race is "a real thing".
Bigot means judging someone based upon any factor - it is a much broader term.
M'kiin is suggesting you are judging her based upon her race - goblin. Not her gender, sexuality, religion, etc, so "racist" is absolutely the correct word for her to use.
Corwin is also mistrustful of goblin party members. Like most of the population of the Sword Coast, she is somewhat racist.
She's prejudice, however everyone in the D&D universe is racist, due to the fact that it is a universe where race actually exists (i.e. elevs, humns, orcs,goblins, dwarves, etc.). It would have made more sense for M'khinn to call people bigots instead of racists, I'm guessing that the writer was not smart enough to think of these things.
You think it's inappropriate for someone to use the word "racist" because race exists?!!
Anyway, I wasn't talking about M'khinn's selection line, I was talking about Corwin's line about not trusting goblins.
Yes, because in D&D humanoids are subdivided by race, and they all have their own particular traits. A racist, is someone who believes in the aforementioned things. In the real word race does not exist so the above mentioned is obviously wrong, in D&D it is not. Being bigoted and hateful towards elves, goblins etc is a separate issue. The writer conflated racism with bigotry.
So, by the same argument, since "male" and "female" are real things in the real world, clearly, the word "sexism" cannot possibly exist in this world.
You are confused, racism and bigotry have a categorical difference. Being accusative about racism in a world where race is a real thing is stupid, being accusative about bigotry is a separate issue.
"Racism" means judging someone based on their race.
So it actually makes a whole lot MORE sense to use it in a world where where race is "a real thing".
Bigot means judging someone based upon any factor - it is a much broader term.
M'kiin is suggesting you are judging her based upon her race - goblin. Not her gender, sexuality, religion, etc, so "racist" is absolutely the correct word for her to use.
You're still confused. There is a categorical difference. Race is a false (in our world) biological taxonomy, a classification of people based on certain traits. A racist is someone who believes in said taxonomy. Bigotry means 'intolerance' of those traits, it is added on to those perceived traits after the fact.
Comments
Anyway, I wasn't talking about M'khinn's selection line, I was talking about Corwin's line about not trusting goblins.
Captain Corwin is well written (mb even better then others), though I am not sure ending suits a lawful alignment (law is supposed to be above all, is not it?). But I do not like her on personal level and can not see any reason for her to be anywhere outside BG.
Voghiln has no substance in him. Walking cliche without a story to justify it. However, he actually could be in BG2 the same way any commoner can be in BG2, and with that much significance.
M’Khiin - class is interesting but a goblin? An outcast of outcasts, with probability lower then a fireball in a real life. Did not look believable to me, Deekin Scalesinger (obvious inspiration) was much more convincing, truly. Yet, if her very existence does not bother you, there can be ocean of reasons and ways to place her in Athkatla.
Now, Glint has everything - personality (even if of Jan 2.0), story, reasons to travel, usefulness and whatever else you are asking from companion.
Most of the time LG characters believe that law does (or should) support the common good, and that supporting it helps as many as possible live safe, happy lives. Should the law fail to do this, the law must be changed.
For Corwin, the law isn't corrupt enough to rebel, even should she believe justice isn't being served in this case. So she is torn between the civic good and justice, ultimately siding with the civic good.
Next time you open your mouth, close it quickly--before that sort of idiocy spills of your tongue.
That's what she has said to break the silence a few times. Odd. I still don't know when exactly or why she says it.
Do not see here neither "good" nor "lawful".
I think if Corwin continued to act in this manner she might need to shift to NG, similar to how Viconia acts in TN ways several times throughout SoA and ToB but doesn't actually shift alignment unless romanced and the correct dialogue options are chosen.
Paladins are the exception to this, which is why there are fallen paladins but not fallen LG characters. They must always follow their code/alignment or risk falling. But for everyday people, if they act against alignment every so often, it's not the end of everything.
Disagree with everything you are saying. "Not always follow alignment" is one thing, and totally understandable. But justifying such break as another side of alignment - is something I can not agree with. Breaking the law by accusing an innocent - is not a lawful deed, and sacrificing that innocent for easing your job of keeper of the order - is not good by any standards.
Corwins alignment here is a "cop/politician" alignment. And a bad one too. It justified by writing, by character development, by anything (aside from the fact that everyone sims suddenly way too happy to blame a hero from the start without any proofs), but it's not a lawful-good alignment.
I do know what it means to raise a child. But I do not a) applying modern psychology to medieval settings, b) comparing incomparable things - working against loosing life.
Now, about Corwin's believes.
2. We are talking (at least I was talking) about alignment. My first point proves there is nothing good in her suggestion. Now about the lawful part. There is no single evidence about CHARNAME being the murderer. None. And it was shown during pure act of law - court. More then this, the whole time CHARNAME was saving that very girl (and the people). All facts proves innocence, judge did not call you guilty, yet, Corwin demands from CHARNAME to confess - where is lawful part of her alignment in that?
Her motives are clear but have nothing to do with her alignment.
But I think it's extremly ironic that in the same thread we are seeing people objecting to the word "racist" as too modern, whilst also expecting the VERY modern concept of "innocent until proven guilty" to apply.
In fact, it's basically the opposite: "guilty until proven innocent". Since that is the case, it's not unlawful for Corwin to follow that line of thinking.
Side-note: "Lawful" doesn't necessarily mean "follows the law". It means that one has a personal code in place, something one considers their driving morals. Apparently, "guilty until proven innocent" does NOT violate Corwin's moral code.
Else your question would need an explanation.
Also, I'd love to see our lady of archery honestly because a romance with someone other than a cleric type would be much appreciated. Relationships are hard enough without bringing religious debates in to the household
WINK
Sarevok's scheming alone, before his Bhaalspawn status was even known, was extremely damaging to the community of Baldur's Gate. Assassinations (attempted and successful) of numerous high ranking individuals, the disrupted coronation of Sarevok as a duke that almost led to the deaths of all the dukes, his use of doppelgangers to chip away at and destroy the foundations of the community... it's really bad.
Then Sarevok's bloodline becomes known and people realize just how close they were from not just getting embroiled into a needless war, but becoming ground zero for an evil god's ascension. And then rumors come up from the ground about the Scion being bhaalspawn as well and suddenly nobody knows if their champion is on their side or simply using them like Sarevok did (gods know the big guy knew how to wield public opinion even better than a greatsword).
Then the crusade begins, and the town becomes flooded with refugees they couldn't support in good days, much less on coat tails of a confidence shattering (and likely recession causing) event like the near coronation of Sarevok. Then, right after saving the day, their champion outright kills (or seems to kill) the daughter of a duke.
Every day the Scion sits in that dungeon, the community of Baldur's Gate is splintering. Every night everything Corwin has fought to protects slides just that further out of control. Silvershield will never allow the Scion to be pardoned. Likewise, Belt is very likely to resist any attempt to execute his champion. From top echelons of the city to the deepest dregs, this controversy is ripping the city apart. With no end in sight, and in what would certainly be an escalating fashion.
From Corwin's point of view, the Scion will never be legitimately freed, even if 75% of the dukes believe them innocent, but they have one course left to them to save the city: to stop being the wedge driving it apart. It would work. It's not a fair request, and it's not a reasonable request, but it would work. Were they not a Bhaalspawn, it might even be worth it. As it is, however, it most definitely is not. And it may be the one memory that will haunt her to the day she dies.
Please note, however, that it was a request. Corwin isn't calling for your head or manipulating the powers that be to ensure your execution, she's begging you to do the one thing she believes can heal the city. She's trying to appeal to any vestige of law and good in your heart, to sacrifice yourself to save the city one last time, a sacrifice only you can make with any meaning. If she had talked to Belt, she likely would never have had cause to make the request.
Corwin is not betraying her alignment here. She's living up to it the only way she can. Corwin is powerless to fix anything, you are not, and she asks you to do what you can for the good of the city. And while it might suck to say it, she's not wrong.
No. It really, truly does not. Sexual orientation in no way is the equivalent to ideology. People really need to educate themselves, not only about gender, identity and sexuality but about the English language in general or stop talking altogether.
So it actually makes a whole lot MORE sense to use it in a world where where race is "a real thing".
Bigot means judging someone based upon any factor - it is a much broader term.
M'kiin is suggesting you are judging her based upon her race - goblin. Not her gender, sexuality, religion, etc, so "racist" is absolutely the correct word for her to use.