Forum

It is just grammatically odd. Whereas they/them is the most common nonbinary pronoun.

Perhaps this issue can be revisited in any subsequent reprint or pdf updates.

Because them/they implies multiple people and Merigall, as a deamon, is arguably not even a single person. It takes on a human like form but it doesn't have to.

Krasylla is given he as a pronoun.

Grammatically speaking, they can be both singular and plural. In this context, it's referring to a particular person (or demon). And even if Merigall is not one single person, they would still sound more apt than it.

As the translator I went with "it" because the demon Merigall was described as a sexless being, neither male, female or non-binary. It was a demon, a wicked thing, a manifestation of trickery and deceit. More of a force/ideal than a person. Whether it was a he/she/they seemed inconsequential to me. Krasylla was specifically male in all the original texts, so he was designated as a he.

EDIT: Disclaimer: As I was only one of the freelance translators employed for this project I can only explain my own reasoning. I don't know how the other translators have reasoned as to Merigall's pronoun.

Ok let me see if I understand the reasoning. Merigall is not human. Merigall is a demon. This is the reason Merigall gets the pronoun "it".

This raises a few issues, even in the original text before translation:

Shouldn't all demons, including Krasylla have "it" as pronouns? Grelf, in encounter 10, also gets "he" as a pronoun.

Animals aren't intelligent humanoids, so shouldn't they have "it" as pronouns too? Why then does the Pegasus Velakia have "she" as a pronoun?

If a demon has self-awareness and is intelligent, just like other non-human self-aware and intelligent beings, why do they need to have "it" as a pronoun? Or are they given the pronoun because they don't have a conscience?

Does this then mean that all monsters should be given the pronoun "it"? If so, why then do minotaurs get "he" as a pronoun?

Just trying to understand the logic here. Maybe there are good reasons, but right now, their application to the text is inconsistent.

The alternative proposal therefore is this: if the intent is that beasts and monsters are to be given the pronoun "it", that all beasts and monsters should be labeled as "it".

That is not what the translator said. They said that Merigall is closer to a force of nature. A manifestation of certain aspects. A thunderstorm is an it. A tidal wave is an it. Merigall is an it.

That is not what the translator said. They said that Merigall is closer to a force of nature. A manifestation of certain aspects. A thunderstorm is an it. A tidal wave is an it. Merigall is an it.

This is what the translator said:

It was a demon, a wicked thing, a manifestation of trickery and deceit. More of a force/ideal than a person.

The translator is implying that demons are a force/ideal.

The translator also called out how Merigall was different from other deamons called out by name.

Deamons are not a singular race. Everything that comes from churnamog is a deamon. There could be deamon air. Deamon dirt. Deamon spirits. Deamon animals. Merigall is a deamon, but that doesn't make merigall the same thing as a bloodling.

The translator also called out how Merigall was different from other deamons called out by name.

Deamons are not a singular race. Everything that comes from churnamog is a deamon. There could be deamon air. Deamon dirt. Deamon spirits. Deamon animals. Merigall is a deamon, but that doesn't make merigall the same thing as a bloodling.

I think this is a big part of it. Demons are all things not native to the world of Forbidden Lands. So as Konungr said, there can be no singular pronoun that works for all demons since they (!) differ so much in their nature. To me, Merigall is singularly unique in this setting, unlike any other. I also think that making it a they/them would make it less "other", less alien. More of a person, if you will. I could of course be wrong, but that was my reasoning.

Does this then mean that all monsters should be given the pronoun "it"? If so, why then do minotaurs get "he" as a pronoun?

Just trying to understand the logic here. Maybe there are good reasons, but right now, their application to the text is inconsistent.

The alternative proposal therefore is this: if the intent is that beasts and monsters are to be given the pronoun "it", that all beasts and monsters sound be labeled as "it".

A few comment from me as the original writer of Merigall and other stuff in the game:

The use of ”it” in Merigall's case is really not a logical choice to me, nor a political one if anybody has thoughts in that direction. It's was more a question of giving the impression of a truly non-gender being that still uses gender as part of its appearance, an estrangement effect. Demons in the game to me is not a consistent group (some of them are) but more a bunch of unrelated ”others” – ”beings that shouldn't be here”. If they do have gender or even choose a consistent gender appearance, they could be called it or he or she. The same goes for animals. A male dog can be called ”it” as a dog or ”he” as a male dog – I don't see any logical inconsistencies in that and switch all the time in my own literary writing. To me, this is more a question of giving the desired impression + literary style.

Note also that the initial game texts were written in Swedish, a language that inherently has two separate ”it” / ”the”. Many dead things, like ”clock” are given gender in Swedish, especially in dialects. This might affect how gender is perceived.