That entry in the Lorebook is an error, or a blatant contradiction that may not be resolvable, and may have to be ignored. Here's my argument.
http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/threa...ost1014930
This is the naming conventions post that is still up on the FFXIV forums. This is what was used to give us our conventions on Au Ra names too.
This still arguably leaves a weak potential for the Lorebook information (on Keeper naming) to still be compatible with previously-established lore, so here is the second piece of lore for people.
http://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodestone/...461d8d384/
"The Past is a Story We Never Tell" once again becomes a valuable reference for Keeper of the Moon lore. Feel free to play this Post Moogle Side-quest in-game.
Muah Lihzeh bids the Warrior of Light to find and deliver a message to her sister Urha Lihzeh. You eventually meet both sisters and see their names. Muah drops tons of exposition about Moon-Keeper traditions and mindsets. It is made clear Muah and Urha are sisters from the same mother, and were raised with Keeper traditions.
Setting aside any arguments that might arise with -where- they grew up, this obviously lore-based side-quest displays two Keeper sisters with different forenames (first names) and matching surnames (last names).
Urha Lihzeh
Muah Lihzeh
This is contradicted by the Lorebook, so which is correct?
There's no objective answer. In-game lore should be just as legitimate as Lorebook lore.
If the Lorebook introduces a retcon, the devs must go back and retcon the names of a lot of Keeper NPCs. I doubt they will though, so even if it is a retcon, the old lore will be constantly represented in-game, and it would be unfair to hold any players to the new lore that is only in the Lorebook.
It's not resolvable. If you play a Keeper of the Moon like me, and went by in-game and developer forum post lore about naming conventions like me, I say stick with what you have in this matter; at least until the devs clarify this point of confusion.
Note: I just wanted to add that I LOVE the Lorebook. It is this one point of contradiction that has me peeved and confused. But I am still buying the damn thing.
http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/threa...ost1014930
This is the naming conventions post that is still up on the FFXIV forums. This is what was used to give us our conventions on Au Ra names too.
This still arguably leaves a weak potential for the Lorebook information (on Keeper naming) to still be compatible with previously-established lore, so here is the second piece of lore for people.
http://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodestone/...461d8d384/
"The Past is a Story We Never Tell" once again becomes a valuable reference for Keeper of the Moon lore. Feel free to play this Post Moogle Side-quest in-game.
Muah Lihzeh bids the Warrior of Light to find and deliver a message to her sister Urha Lihzeh. You eventually meet both sisters and see their names. Muah drops tons of exposition about Moon-Keeper traditions and mindsets. It is made clear Muah and Urha are sisters from the same mother, and were raised with Keeper traditions.
Setting aside any arguments that might arise with -where- they grew up, this obviously lore-based side-quest displays two Keeper sisters with different forenames (first names) and matching surnames (last names).
Urha Lihzeh
Muah Lihzeh
This is contradicted by the Lorebook, so which is correct?
There's no objective answer. In-game lore should be just as legitimate as Lorebook lore.
If the Lorebook introduces a retcon, the devs must go back and retcon the names of a lot of Keeper NPCs. I doubt they will though, so even if it is a retcon, the old lore will be constantly represented in-game, and it would be unfair to hold any players to the new lore that is only in the Lorebook.
It's not resolvable. If you play a Keeper of the Moon like me, and went by in-game and developer forum post lore about naming conventions like me, I say stick with what you have in this matter; at least until the devs clarify this point of confusion.
Note: I just wanted to add that I LOVE the Lorebook. It is this one point of contradiction that has me peeved and confused. But I am still buying the damn thing.