Lore Book Revelations

[Anonymoose]

After spending six hours in various official and/or unofficial-but-no-one-told-them lines, I've finally secured one of these things and (after making time for some of the nicest friends ever) am ready to tear into it a bit (but only a bit - still so much to do this weekend).

To respond to the bits in the thread so far:

NAEL
All in all, it sounds like a nice clean-up. We knew that all of Nael's 1.0 assets (and, truth be told, ARR assets sans the modded head and hair) were male, and we knew that, while there didn't seem to be consensus on much in 2012, not everyone did assume Nael to be a man. Turn 9, then, seemed like a manifestation of one interpretation of Nael, and one that has apparently now grown to be the dominant and canonized figure. Does it fit with everything we had before now? Not perfectly. Is it conclusive and can we move on? Thank the Twelve, yes.

Many problems addressed more explicitly (given specific attention) in the lore book seems to be things where the stitches were already showing. It was clear that some things were decided earlier, and some things were decided later, and sometimes plans changed. It's not a surprise, then, that some of the stitches might still show a bit even when polished up and laid down as hard canon.

For example, the book defines Corguevais as probably-Ascian despite 1.0 setting the rule that Ascians have no shadows - we ruled him out when that rule still stood (or at last from our POV should have been consistent with Travanchet).

But hard-canon citations are worth their weight in gil. Truth counts most.

GAIUS
Welp, "at best he's not yet deader than dead" seems to be "deader than dead" after all.

I'll let you know if this opinion changes as I go through the book, but it seems to "know best".
e.g. Everyone in Eorzea calls phurbles voidsent, but here they're listed as Elementals.