Feral Fandom cutscene confusion

[Astronis]

When Metem first speaks about the WoL to Vamp Fatale, he says thus:
"Metem: As indicated by his appellation, Astronis has climbed his way up the ranks without the use of a feral soul."

But in the very next sentence, he says this:
"Metem: Should this upstart rise to become grand champion, they would be able to do as they please with the Arcadion's soul repository. And it seems they intend to release all the souls..."

This introduces confusion about who Metem is talking about. Who is "they" in this sentence? The WoL? Eutrope, her sister, and Black Cat? The WoL and Black Cat? Either there needs to be a sentence describing who "they" are, or "they" needs to be changed to "he/she".

[Rongway]

“…Forename has climbed his way up the ranks….”
“Should this upstart rise to become grand champion….” is still talking about the PC.

“They” clearly refers to the PC and no clarification is needed. Singular “they” has been in common use about 300 years longer than singular “you”, and the lack of gendering pronoun here is not a problem, even if in the previous line they used a gendered pronoun.

[Iscah]

“They” clearly refers to the PC and no clarification is needed. Singular “they” has been in common use about 300 years longer than singular “you”, and the lack of gendering pronoun here is not a problem, even if in the previous line they used a gendered pronoun.

In general, yes. In specific, our character is usually referred to by their gendered pronouns, and as noted here, the character saying it has used the gendered form in the preceding sentence. It seems likely to me that they just somehow missed setting this one up with the variable he/she.

[Astronis]

“…Forename has climbed his way up the ranks….”
“Should this upstart rise to become grand champion….” is still talking about the PC.

Those do, yes. The issue is the pronouns, not the nouns, proper and otherwise.

“They” clearly refers to the PC and no clarification is needed.

No, it is not clear. One does not use the third person singular masculine pronoun to refer to a noun in one sentence and then in the next use a third person neuter plural (which can and often is used as a singular) to refer to that same noun. To be good grammar, the third person neuter plural must be referring to a different noun in this situation. That there isn't another openly stated noun for the third person plural pronoun to be referring to doesn't mean there isn't one hidden somewhere--it means the statement is unclear.

Singular “they” has been in common use about 300 years longer than singular “you”, and the lack of gendering pronoun here is not a problem, even if in the previous line they used a gendered pronoun.

Completely irrelevant. It is a problem, because it's excruciatingly poor grammar to refer to the same known noun with two different pronouns in rapid succession. I expect better from English localizers.

In general, yes. In specific, our character is usually referred to by their gendered pronouns, and as noted here, the character saying it has used the gendered form in the preceding sentence. It seems likely to me that they just somehow missed setting this one up with the variable he/she.

Likely the localizers just missed it (or got lazy). I would like to believe that the localizers have a better grasp of English than to think this is acceptable grammatically. I could be expecting too much though, thinking that.

[Iscah]

Likely the localizers just missed it (or got lazy). I would like to believe that the localizers have a better grasp of English than to think this is acceptable grammatically. I could be expecting too much though, thinking that.

Mistakes happen. Things slip through even if you check them three times.

It still needs fixing of course, but there's no reason to heap so much blame immediately over something that may not stand out that much. It's not a grammatical error in isolation and won't stand out like one.

[Astronis]

Mistakes happen. Things slip through even if you check them three times.

It still needs fixing of course, but there's no reason to heap so much blame immediately over something that may not stand out that much. It's not a grammatical error in isolation and won't stand out like one.

True. Though if it hadn't stood out I wouldn't have brought it up--maybe I'm oversensitive because I have a family member who forgets to state her nouns before going on whole wild tangents leaving me to try to read her mind for what all the pronouns refer to. Drives me insane!

[Rongway]

No, it is not clear. One does not use the third person singular masculine pronoun to refer to a noun in one sentence and then in the next use a third person neuter plural (which can and often is used as a singular) to refer to that same noun. To be good grammar, the third person neuter plural must be referring to a different noun in this situation. That there isn't another openly stated noun for the third person plural pronoun to be referring to doesn't mean there isn't one hidden somewhere--it means the statement is unclear.

I honestly do not see any universe where a person with at least an 8th grade reading level would think "they" in that sentence referred to Vamp Fatale or any other previously unmentioned entity, when the two clauses immediately preceding it are talking about the PC.

[Astronis]

I honestly do not see any universe where a person with at least an 8th grade reading level would think "they" in that sentence referred to Vamp Fatale or any other previously unmentioned entity, when the two clauses immediately preceding it are talking about the PC.

And I don't see any universe where a person can't understand that using multiple different pronouns for the same noun in rapid succession is crappy grammar that needs to be called out and fixed. And yet here we are, with you arguing about it.

[Iscah]

I honestly do not see any universe where a person with at least an 8th grade reading level would think "they" in that sentence referred to Vamp Fatale or any other previously unmentioned entity, when the two clauses immediately preceding it are talking about the PC.

I don't think it's about getting confused over who "they" is referring to – at least for me, the issue is that it is clear, and the person clearly being referred to is established as being "he" or "she", so it's jarring to see the wrong gender used in this line.

[Astronis]

"As indicated by their appellation, Astronis has climbed their way up the ranks without the use of a feral soul. Should this upstart rise to become grand champion, she would be able to do as she pleases with the Arcadion's soul repository. And it seems she intends to release all the souls..."

"As indicated by her appellation, Astronis has climbed their way up the ranks without the use of a feral soul. Should this upstart rise to become grand champion, he would be able to do as they please with the Arcadion's soul repository. And it seems she intends to release all the souls..."

Do all of you agreeing with Rongway still agree?