Encyclopædia Eorzea ("Lore Book") Bug Report Thread

[Anonymoose]

PAGE: 132 & 134 (Perhaps more; perhaps in-game)
HEADING: Organizations
SUBHEADING: The Syndicate; Amajina & Sons

If there is an error here, I'm not sure which part of this it is. Something feels off, though, so I'm just going to lay it all out.

Popokkuli, Seserukka, and Nenekko were the children of Shalala and the guildmaster of the Miners' Guild in 1.0. When the Grand Companies were introduced, Fyrgeiss was named the chief foreman of Amajina & Sons via the Syndicate chart.

As of A Realm Reborn, the Lalafells are referred to as the children of the chief foreman or chairman depending on the reference, and the twins are credited as the "Sons" of "Amajina & Sons". The Encyclopædia Eorzea harks back to both of these sources, calling Fyrgeiss both chief foreman (in the Syndicate section) and chairman (in the Amajina & Sons) section.

Neither the guildmaster father nor Shalala are mentioned in A Realm Reborn.
Meanwhile, Fyrgeiss' bio mentions only that he has three Hellsguard sons with ancient Roegadyn names.

The Encyclopædia Eorzea also mentions the "sons of Amajina & Sons" thing, but also says that Amajina was a tavern proprietress who founded Amajina & Sons 150 years ago ... So how recently was "& Sons" added? Was it really for the twins?

One possibility - a shot from the hip guess - when ARR introduced a new MIN guildmaster, did the old guildmaster, the Lalafells' father, husband of Shalala, fade into oblivion while his children were mistakenly reassigned as children of Fyrgeiss? I harbor some suspicion that this was actually a Lalafell named Checheroya, seen but once in the quest Court in the Sands, assuring ALC guildmaster Faustigeant that "his boys" were looking into an accident at the mines.

Something feels wrong, at any rate.

[Vexander]

Really jealous of those who got a book. Tried to order one on the website, but it seems they're out of stock. Did SE underestimate how much their players care about the lore and learning more? I'm hoping a lot of sales and demand will lead to a lot more future lore books, and more resources devoted to them.

[Unittj]

Finally home to get on this but gonna post the one that had me the most confused.

PAGE: 47 & 80, also sure this info can be accessed in-game and in forum posts
HEADINGS: A Chronology of the Sixth Astral Era and The Hyur
SUBHEADINGS: Entry for the year ca. 350 and History on the Hyur page

The Hyur entry on page 80 states "The Hyur arrived in Eorzea prior to the First Astral Era...three great migratory waves later..." and not only would that put them with the unnamed race in the time after the Calamity of Wind, it would effectively make them the oldest race in Hydaelyn, although the book implies that concept lies with the Auri.

The timeline for the Sixth Astral Era states that's the time the Hyur had their migrations, so, wanted to let readers know there's a potential confusion in terms, and that the Hyur page is meant to be about the Seventh Astral Era instead of the First.

(Edit made after Balipu's comment, confused Hydaelyn with Eorzea)

[Balipu]

Finally home to get on this but gonna post the one that had me the most confused.

PAGE: 47 & 80, also sure this info can be accessed in-game and in forum posts
HEADINGS: A Chronology of the Sixth Astral Era and The Hyur
SUBHEADINGS: Entry for the year ca. 350 and History on the Hyur page

The Hyur entry on page 80 states "The Hyur arrived in Eorzea prior to the First Astral Era...three great migratory waves later..." and not only would that put them with the unnamed race in the time after the Calamity of Wind, it would effectively make them the oldest race in Eorzea, although the book implies that concept lies with the Auri.

Really? I thought Au Ra only recently arrived on Eorzea. Othard is a different contient. They might be the oldest race on Hydaelin but I doubt they are the oldest in Eorzea.

[Unittj]

Really? I thought Au Ra only recently arrived on Eorzea. Othard is a different contient. They might be the oldest race on Hydaelin but I doubt they are the oldest in Eorzea.

Derp...that's what I meant lol. I have the bad tendency to see Eorzea/Hydaelyn as synonymous when they aren't. The inner skrub is hard to quell. Thanks for saying something!

[Colino]

Looks like you guys needed to hire Anonymoose

I have to say though, top notch product!

[Etherelle]

PAGE: 154 & 155
HEADINGS: Knights of the Heaven's Ward
SUBHEADINGS: Charibert de Lieusignac & Janlenoux de Courcillaint

It appears there is some kind of name swap going on in the Heaven's Ward. In the short story, What Remains of a Knight, Charibert is given the name Charibert (de) Courcillain (Courcillaint?), but it appears in the lorebook that the last name either belongs to or was stolen by Janlenoux, the eleventh knight while Charibert's last name changed to Lieusignac. Who has the right of it?

[ExKage]

PAGE: 154 & 155
HEADINGS: Knights of the Heaven's Ward
SUBHEADINGS: Charibert de Lieusignac & Janlenoux de Courcillaint

It appears there is some kind of name swap going on in the Heaven's Ward. In the short story, What Remains of a Knight, Charibert is given the name Charibert (de) Courcillain (Courcillaint?), but it appears in the lorebook that the last name either belongs to or was stolen by Janlenoux, the eleventh knight while Charibert's last name changed to Lieusignac. Who has the right of it?

There was a previous post by Corvinoobus who said that Charibert Courcillain does not have a (de) in it.

First of all, 3.3 ENDING SPOILER warnings for those of you thinking of clicking this cause woo, dev tracker.



Hate to say it, but typos resulting in bad lore must be purged, mhm mhm. That particular name should not have a "de" in it, and it will be deleted with prejudice, hopefully sooner than later. Sorry about that!

One may be the epithet while the other is family name etc.

[Fernehalwes]

Hello all,

I know that this goes without saying and that I am (as I am wont do do) probably overthinking the situation, but...

After posting yesterday, I started thinking about the message and how I may have made it sound like the fault for the various errata that made it into the final version should in some way be placed at the feet of the many testers who worked on the lore book. I wanted step in again to make it clear that this was most definitely not my intention. The translators and fact checkers in the Localization Department, as well as the talented men and women on our world-class Quality Assurance busted their asses (pardon my French) to make sure this book was as clean as it could be. If anyone needs to shoulder the blame for the typos, flubs, and (hangs head in shame) factual errors, it is me, for I was in charge of approving those final edits. (Or me for not figuring a way to get Anonymoose on the editing board!)

That said, I continue to be amazed and humbled at how the book has been received by the community. I know a lot of you have waited so long for something like this, and I am proud to have been given the chance to be a part of it. This is probably why those errors pain me the most. I’ll do my best to address the majority of the glaring discrepancies here in this thread. As for the spelling and grammatical errors? Any way we can file them under analog charm? No?

Koji

[Unittj]

As for the spelling and grammatical errors? Any way we can file them under analog charm? No?

I mean, it gives the lore book its old tome quality, cause there are no records a single scribe or writer of the older 16th century that were good at keeping up with writing, not to mention English wasn't standardized till later soooooooooooo I'm good with typos LOL