It's a verytraditional worldview, that does not hold much truth. Gladly in modern media the vulnerability and damsel in distress trope is used less and less. I think in BG 3 they do a pretty good job with the female companions so far in that regard (in other games too). Ironically I can't say much about Minthara, I only watched her scenes on YouTube, but she doesn't seem fall into that trope either.
It's not a traditional view, it's just an aspect of femininity. I've said this before, femininity =/= female, a male can also have vulnerability and that will be a feminine trait.
Minthara does not fall into this trope.
I said true or efficient but I think in either case you're being a little obtuse. And coming up with a system of your own with out it being universally applicable is Existentialism, so there's some overlap with Nihilism.
Do you understand that there is no such thing as universal morality? It exists in the mind of humans, and is different depending on the individual, it does not exist on a cosmic scale in a vacuum. I'm not saying that people ought to do whatever they want, there are clearly right and wrong actions withing the system of rules we created, but it is a social construct.
I am (sincerely) sorry to disappoint Sozz but in real life I, as I do suspect you, believe that morality is a socio-historical construct and not the instantiation of divine or natural forces.
And that's all I am saying, and it is not a concept I want to be objective due to magic in video games.
I'm at least open to possibility that the feeling of empathy has evolutionary origins.
Yes, empathy is an evolved mechanism to keep species that are not loners together to work for the greater benefit of all.
So do I have you right, are you a social constructionist? If so what gives you the confidence that you have an objective view of what morality is like in our world?
Logic and reason. I am all ears to the alternatives, if it sounds better and more logical I will change my mind.
