Jump to content

I am so angry at the Sith warrior main story. (Spoiler inside)


Varlak

Recommended Posts

How the hell is this possible to be forced to keep Malavai Quinn. I'm role playing a Dark Side Sith. I kill people because they have failed to complete a task but I will let live someone who tried to kill me and worst. I'll keep him as an allied.

 

If I was a light side sith I might be able to see a reason to let him live, but keeping him on my ship ?

 

Sure I can sit him and don't even send him on crew mission. But every time I come aboard my ship I see his face and it makes me rage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was made possible to kill him in the beta, however, he was also the SW's only chance at a healer comp. Without him, the class would be made without a healer. As such, Bioware removed the option to keep the player base happy because they were mad decisions actually mattered.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

 

You have the option to kill Quinn when he returns on Iokath.

 

Quinn is a man, so there's less than no point in using the "singular they" to talk about him.

 

No,

 

You have the option to kill Quinn when they return on Iokath.

 

I guess it has never occurred to you that a person may use gender neutral pronouns because of who they are. I use gender neutral pronouns. If you do not like that I do not care. The next time that you find my use of gender neutral pronouns so offensive that you feel the need to make a completely unnecessary comment to try to correct something that is only incorrect to you instead you could ignore it and move on since it does not affect you in any way.

Edited by ceryxp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No,

 

You have the option to kill Quinn when they return on Iokath.

 

I guess it has never occurred to you that a person may use gender neutral pronouns because of who they are. I use gender neutral pronouns. If you do not like that I do not care. The next time that you find my use of gender neutral pronouns so offensive that you feel the need to make a completely unnecessary comment to try to correct something that is only incorrect to you instead you could ignore it and move on since it does not affect you in any way.

 

I agree that him making a post only for that purpose was unnecessary. But saying that using a neutral pronoun is the way to go is actually incorrect. Quiin never asked to be referred with a neutral pronoun and since he is referred as a HE/HIM several times during the questing it would be actually rude to refer to him with a neutral pronoun. You may refer to people you don't know with a neutral pronoun to be polite if you want, but once they state a preferred one, continuing using the neutrality is quite impolite.

 

Also since when THEY is a correct use of neutral pronoun ? French speaker so I'm curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not correct...English uses he/him for masculine and when referring to someone whos gender in unknown, she/her for feminine, and it/them for neuter (inanimate objects).

 

That is an outdated way of thinking. Language changes and evolves. In modern society I would say it is actually rude to use he/him to refer to a person who's gender is unknown to you. Acting as though everyone is male unless you are told otherwise can annoying. I don't bother correcting people who call me 'dude' or 'man' in chat, but too much of that sort of assumption being normal gets tiresome.

 

https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/

 

In this particular case it might not be technically correct to have used 'when they return' instead of 'when he returns', but it doesn't really matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can not misgender by using gender neutral pronouns. They are simply not specifying a gender. That is quite different from gendering someone with a gendered pronoun that does not align with that person's gender. When someone has identified their gender and their preferred pronouns it is polite to use those pronouns, but continuing to use gender neutral pronouns is not the same as misgendering someone, and most certainly not the same as continuing to misgender someone after they have identified their gender and pronouns. People who do not align with the gender binary often feel more comfortable using gender neutral pronouns rather than assuming a person's gender based upon their gender expression.

 

It can not be rude to refer to a video game NPC by a gender neutral pronoun. That would be like someone getting angry because someone called their car a "she" when the owner has decided that the car is a "he." While Quinn is referenced with male gender pronouns throughout the game, when the game launched it catered solely to the heteronormative, cisgender crowd. All characters of male sex were a "he," and all characters of female sex were a "she." But sex is not gender. While several other BioWare games are much more inclusive, for example the mono-sexual and mono-gendered Asari in Mass Effect, and Cremisius "Krem" Aclassi from Dragon Age, a transgender character, SWTOR was not very inclusive at launch. Some progress has been made with the inclusion of same-sex romances, but the game steers quite far from the topic of gender. Characters are identified by their sex and within the context of the game sex is a binary (except for Hutts). But sex is not gender, and deciding on gender based upon sex can lead to misgendering.

 

The use of "they" as a singular, gender neutral pronoun is not a new convention in English. "They" has been in use as a singular pronoun consistently since the late 1300's. From Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales in the later decades of the 14th century, to Shakespeare's Hamlet around 1600, Jane Austin's Pride and Prejudice in 1813, to Emily Dickinson in 1881 when they wrote: "Almost anyone under the circumstances would have doubted if [the letter] were theirs, or indeed if they were themself." The usage of "they," "their," and even "themself" as singular, gender neutral pronouns is not new; only their use as non-binary pronouns is new. It was only in the mid- to late-18th century that male pronouns, "he" and "him," began seeing usage as gender neutral pronouns, but studies have shown that when "he" or "him" is used as a gender neutral the listener does not hear it as gender neutral, instead they think about a man. As reported by The Guardian, a study published in 2019 found that using gender neutral terms reduced gender biases that favor men and produced more favorable attitudes towards women and LGBTQ+ people[1].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my god...are we really getting triggered over gender pronouns in this post? I play a **** ton of female toons and get called "her" all the time. I don't even notice 99% of the time.

 

As for Quinn, YES. I ALWAYS WANT TO KILL HIM THERE. I'd say bring back the choice, but now that he's on Iokath...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we should just call everyone it to avoid both gender inflammation and potential confusion over plural vs singular. "Can you kill Quinn?" "Can you kill him?" "Can you kill them?" "Can you kill it?" Oh how language evolves.

 

Sorry couldn't resist - /sarcasm if it wasn't obvious, I find the whole argument silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This "gender neutral pronouns/don't assume Quinn's gender" bs is the funniest crap I've read all day.

 

@OP I had a similar issue being forced to keep him. At least I got to force choke him. I kind of had to headcanon it that he's too valuable alive and owes the warrior his life and more importantly, his career! In development you could kill off certain companions but players didn't like having to go forever without a healer or messing with their crew skills. Instead of offering substitute companions (or just outfit the ship droid to replace them) it was probably cheaper to just get rid of those dialog options. So now your by the book bounty hunter can't say no to Gault and the warrior can't punish Quinn.

Edited by eldefail
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
One can not misgender by using gender neutral pronouns. They are simply not specifying a gender. That is quite different from gendering someone with a gendered pronoun that does not align with that person's gender. When someone has identified their gender and their preferred pronouns it is polite to use those pronouns, but continuing to use gender neutral pronouns is not the same as misgendering someone, and most certainly not the same as continuing to misgender someone after they have identified their gender and pronouns. People who do not align with the gender binary often feel more comfortable using gender neutral pronouns rather than assuming a person's gender based upon their gender expression.

 

It can not be rude to refer to a video game NPC by a gender neutral pronoun. That would be like someone getting angry because someone called their car a "she" when the owner has decided that the car is a "he." While Quinn is referenced with male gender pronouns throughout the game, when the game launched it catered solely to the heteronormative, cisgender crowd. All characters of male sex were a "he," and all characters of female sex were a "she." But sex is not gender. While several other BioWare games are much more inclusive, for example the mono-sexual and mono-gendered Asari in Mass Effect, and Cremisius "Krem" Aclassi from Dragon Age, a transgender character, SWTOR was not very inclusive at launch. Some progress has been made with the inclusion of same-sex romances, but the game steers quite far from the topic of gender. Characters are identified by their sex and within the context of the game sex is a binary (except for Hutts). But sex is not gender, and deciding on gender based upon sex can lead to misgendering.

 

The use of "they" as a singular, gender neutral pronoun is not a new convention in English. "They" has been in use as a singular pronoun consistently since the late 1300's. From Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales in the later decades of the 14th century, to Shakespeare's Hamlet around 1600, Jane Austin's Pride and Prejudice in 1813, to Emily Dickinson in 1881 when they wrote: "Almost anyone under the circumstances would have doubted if [the letter] were theirs, or indeed if they were themself." The usage of "they," "their," and even "themself" as singular, gender neutral pronouns is not new; only their use as non-binary pronouns is new. It was only in the mid- to late-18th century that male pronouns, "he" and "him," began seeing usage as gender neutral pronouns, but studies have shown that when "he" or "him" is used as a gender neutral the listener does not hear it as gender neutral, instead they think about a man. As reported by The Guardian, a study published in 2019 found that using gender neutral terms reduced gender biases that favor men and produced more favorable attitudes towards women and LGBTQ+ people[1].

 

The Guardian is an extremely biased source to quote from. From Wikipedia "The paper's readership is generally on the mainstream left of British political opinion, and its reputation as a platform for social liberal and left-wing editorial has led to the use of the "Guardian reader" and "Guardianista" as often-pejorative epithets for those of left-leaning or "politically correct" tendencies."

 

I talk to strangers on a daily basis, both as part of my job and my social life. Except in perhaps some extremist social circles, more offense is caused by intentionally "gender neutering" an individual then is caused by the accidental misgendering of an individual. "Regular" people are going to think of you as a weirdo if you insist on tiptoeing around their gender. They're not going to respect you, because you've just disrespected them. If someone doesn't present as their chosen gender well, it is on them to somehow indicate which pronoun they prefer to be referred to. A polite introduction goes a really long way.

 

The real question is, in a room full of 100 people, why aren't you concerned with offending 99 of those people, but insist that offending that one person is somehow the worst thing that could possibly happen? Why are you willing to question the gender of 99 people, who give you no reason to question their gender?

 

Quinn presents himself as a man, and doesn't indicate in any way, shape, or form that he is not a man. He's a well written character, and at least deserves enough respect to be called by his chosen gender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This "gender neutral pronouns/don't assume Quinn's gender" bs is the funniest crap I've read all day.

 

pvp trolls venturing outside of the pvp forums :D

 

Quinn presents himself as a man, and doesn't indicate in any way, shape, or form that he is not a man. He's a well written character, and at least deserves enough respect to be called by his chosen gender.

 

clearly you are making a mistake here, its irrelevant what Quinn wants to define himself as, whats important is what this troll wants to define him as :p

Edited by RikuvonDrake
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
I kill people because they have failed to complete a task but I will let live someone who tried to kill me and worst. I'll keep him as an allied.

 

If I was a light side sith I might be able to see a reason to let him live, but keeping him on my ship ?

 

Sure I can sit him and don't even send him on crew mission. But every time I come aboard my ship I see his face and it makes me rage.

 

I completely get your frustration. Can't stand that annoying traitor face and still have him on my ship

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
That is an outdated way of thinking. Language changes and evolves. In modern society I would say it is actually rude to use he/him to refer to a person who's gender is unknown to you. Acting as though everyone is male unless you are told otherwise can annoying. I don't bother correcting people who call me 'dude' or 'man' in chat, but too much of that sort of assumption being normal gets tiresome.

 

https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/

 

In this particular case it might not be technically correct to have used 'when they return' instead of 'when he returns', but it doesn't really matter.

 

It's not outdated. It's only a problem for the easily offended who insist everyone else speak the way they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not outdated. It's only a problem for the easily offended who insist everyone else speak the way they want.

 

And yet the ones who seem most offended are the ones who want the gendered pronouns. After all, this all started because someone decided to correct me when I used a gender neutral pronoun. Just look at the second, third, and fourth comments above yours.

Edited by ceryxp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Ah - Malavai Quinn ... where to begin?

 

I'm playing a female SW, light side and romanced Quinn. I was so mad at his betrayal that I wanted to kill him. He is now parked on my ship with no chance of ever getting talked to again. I would have preferred to be able to get rid of him or at least punish him in some significant way - maybe end his career or something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah - Malavai Quinn ... where to begin?

 

I'm playing a female SW, light side and romanced Quinn. I was so mad at his betrayal that I wanted to kill him. He is now parked on my ship with no chance of ever getting talked to again. I would have preferred to be able to get rid of him or at least punish him in some significant way - maybe end his career or something like that.

 

You unfortunately have to tolerate his presence due to meta-issues, at least until you reach the "Knights" expansions.

(They decided not to allow permanently killing companions, Quinn in particular, because originally he was the Warrior's only healer and by the time they removed role-locks they were already done with the base game and doing expansions)

The good news is

'Revenge is a dish best served cold'... and with some seven years to marinate; a Warrior, whether they side with Republic or Empire, gets approached by Quinn (either on his own or after being taken prisoner by the Alliance) and can choose to kill him - specifically referring to the fact that they 'should have crushed the life from (Quinn's) body the first time (he) betrayed (the Warrior) to Baras'.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You unfortunately have to tolerate his presence due to meta-issues, at least until you reach the "Knights" expansions.

(They decided not to allow permanently killing companions, Quinn in particular, because originally he was the Warrior's only healer and by the time they removed role-locks they were already done with the base game and doing expansions)

The good news is

'Revenge is a dish best served cold'... and with some seven years to marinate; a Warrior, whether they side with Republic or Empire, gets approached by Quinn (either on his own or after being taken prisoner by the Alliance) and can choose to kill him - specifically referring to the fact that they 'should have crushed the life from (Quinn's) body the first time (he) betrayed (the Warrior) to Baras'.

 

Yeah, I know about the stuff in the spoiler - and I probably will do that. I get, why they made companions unkillable in the storyline, but I would have preferred it otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quinn is a man, so there's less than no point in using the "singular they" to talk about him.

That doesn't matter to the woke crowd. 🙂

You're supposed to ask him what his preferred pronouns are first. Then ignore it. 😉

 

But, on topic, I also thought that not killing Quinn was ridiculous. But I can't say I went so far as to get angry about it. 🙂

Edited by JediQuaker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, on topic, I also thought that not killing Quinn was ridiculous. But I can't say I went so far as to get angry about it. 🙂

 

It's strange now that I think about it; Quinn The Betrayer seems to be the only 'hated' companion people want to kill. No one ever seems to complain about having to let 'that crazy terrorist' (Kaliyo) live or not getting the chance to execute Khem/Zash after she possesses the Deshade, or anyone else like that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's strange now that I think about it; Quinn The Betrayer seems to be the only 'hated' companion people want to kill. No one ever seems to complain about having to let 'that crazy terrorist' (Kaliyo) live or not getting the chance to execute Khem/Zash after she possesses the Deshade, or anyone else like that...

 

Well I don't remember Kaliyo trying to actually kill you. And while you can't kill Zash when she's inside the Dashade, you can banish her into a mind prison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
It's strange now that I think about it; Quinn The Betrayer seems to be the only 'hated' companion people want to kill. No one ever seems to complain about having to let 'that crazy terrorist' (Kaliyo) live or not getting the chance to execute Khem/Zash after she possesses the Deshade, or anyone else like that...

 

 

I mostly tend to ignore Kaliyo and Zash gets banished - which I think is much more cruel than just killing her

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...