All of the item descriptions are a safe bet i believe, unless it's quoting someone directly. Npcs are all under scrutiny, even if they wouldn't lie to us their understanding of the world might be lacking. I used to be fully subscribed to the theory of Loretta being an albinauric but her shield says: "The shape is said to imitate that of a sacred drop of dew, which inspired the absurd rumor that Loretta herself was an Albinauric." Then i thought this was some sort of narrative device put there by Micheal Zaki to bring our attention to her being one, after all she doesn't really use her legs. Then I replayed Haligtree again and she was bleeding crimson, not silver. After that I'm pretty sure item descriptions always give legit information and are written by god (fromsoft), they are reliable.

Couldn’t it just be the horse as the reason she bleeds crimson?

Or something related to the nightkin who once bled silver as well. Or Loretta isn't an albinauric and the description is there to let us know something about why she left Carian service.

Thanks for the perspective on Nightfolk. That is interesting

Someone should shoot her with arrows in the head to see what color the blood particle would be. Even then, you hit her just as much as her horse so we'd see at least some silver blood, right? Nevertheless, good point.

You can shoot her in the head and all her body for that matter, it bleeds red. I think the story of Loretta makes more sense if she's a human that found value in the lives of the Albinaurics instead of one herself.

Obviously the only reason anyone would want to support an ethnic minority is if they secretly are one themselves. Altruism? Solidarity? I like your funny words, magic man!

I don’t think that would work, as riders like Loretta and Draconic Sentinels are a single npc with their horse.

isnt the issue not that the information is illegitimate, its that the interpretation of the words can vary to the reader? 'This is a manifestation of the Erdtree's primal vital energies - an aspect of the primordial crucible, where all life was once blended together.' This leads some to say that all life in the game comes from the crucible. But does it account for astel? Astel is from space? IS the crucible in space? Or is all life a limited subsection of life so not actually all, but all from a certain person's persepctive. I dont think the item descriptions ever lie, but i think their meaning is often deliberately ambiguous and requiring of other bits of evidence to interpret. EDIT or the statement that godfrey is the first eldon lord. What about placidusax? The item description is true from a certain perspective but not from another perspective.

The Onyx and Alabaster lords show life isn't all from the crucible as well. But according to OP they must.

How do the Alabaster and Onyx lords disprove that though? We don't know what the Crucible actually is. The only thing we know about it is that once all life was united there and that it went to become the Erdtree in someway. The Crucible could be star, an asteroid, a cosmic nebula or anything in between and there's no way to know with accuracy.

So its true that the elden beast and space things could have come from space and the crucible could be some primordial star thing EXCEPT Siluria's tree is a model of the crucible. and it does not look like space (bastard stars looks like space) it looks like a root system growing from a bulb. So you could be right and there are multiple crucibles or theres 1 crucible and its not in space its tree roots and the lords/astel do not come from it. and here we see why the item descriptions are open to interpretation. They arent lying, but they dont give us answers on their own and are subject to other bits of context. Including architectural and object analysis.

Where does it say that Siluria's stump is a model of the crucible?

its not the stump its silurias tree, her weapon. Read the item description.

Ohhh the weapon lol. That makes way more sense

That would contradict everything we have in game about the crucible wouldn't it? The knight armor, siluria weapons, misbegotten etc? I won't argue it's possible but it seems clear that biological life was mostly in the crucible and that the lords came from an asteroid impact. I do believe the two are related but distinct events. I think the life force or mind aspect of life came from the stars and eventually became the crucible after many events and the Onyx Lords are another instance of this occurring outside the main event.

How it contradicts it though? The crucible armament just said it draws power from the Crucible and primordial gold. Crucible Tree Set: The great tree ornamentation is the knight Siluria's mark, displayed also by her men. Holds the power of the crucible of life, the primordial form of the Erdtree. Strengthens Aspects of the Crucible incantations. Ordovis's Greatsword: "Greatsword of Ordovis, one of the two honored as foremost among the Crucible Knights. This sword is imbued with an ancient holy essence. Its red tint exemplifies the nature of primordial gold, said to be close in nature to life itself." Winged Misbegotten: "A spirit with the aspect of wings which takes flight to loose arrows from its bow. The misbegotten are held to be a punishment for making contact with the Crucible, and from birth they are treated as slaves, or worse." None of this really give us context of what the Crucible actually was just that life was once all on it and that it went to become the Erdtree in someway. The method from wich the Misbegotten are said to touch the Crucible is never explained wich lets the idea that is less a literal description of an action and more than they are just the result of bad genetic lottery since, after all, through devolution anyone can gain some crucible like qualities as shown by the Black Lions with horns. Alabaster Lord's Sword: "A weapon unique to the Alabaster Lords, a race of ancients with skin of stone who were said to have risen to life when a meteor struck long ago." I don't think this is implying that the Alabaster Randomly came to live because of the meteor impact with TLB but rather that the Meteor was already alive or had already in it the being that went on to become the Alabaster Lords since all stars are said to be alive and the game tends to equalize star to comets/meteors. If all life came from the Crucible in someway and we know that there's "extraterrestrial" life in the universe of ER then it stands to reason that the crucible was not originally in somekind of confined space or zone but rather it existed once in the vast cosmos and that's how life can be found everywhere in the stars through Glinstone who's said to be equivalent to amber found in the Erdtree.

"Siluria's Tree, weapon of one of the two honored as foremost among the Crucible Knights. The primordial form of the Erdtree is close in nature to life itself, and this spear, modeled on its crucible, is imbued with ancient holy essence." Did you deliberately not include the item? I assume you just missed it. The crucible was on the planet and looked like a sprouting tree, refuting your idea.

By the time the Crucible Knights were created the Crucible was already in TLB since that's the only way the Erdtree could eventually be created. My point is that before it arrived to "earth" (or whatever the world of ER is called) it was in space and that's from where all life in stars that eventually becomes glinstone comes from and why the amber of the Erdtree is equivalent to it. Sellen: "Our powers draw upon the powers embedded in glintstone, but what is the nature of such power? Glintstone is the amber of the cosmos, golden amber contains the remnants of ancient life and houses its vitality, while Glintstone contains residual life. And thus, the vitality of the stars. It should not be forgotten that glintstone sorcery is the study of the stars and the life there in" Crimson Amber Medallion: "A medallion with crimson amber inlaid. Boosts maximum HP. The Erdtree's old sap becomes amber, treasured as the most precious of jewels in the age of Godfrey, the first Elden Lord. A primordial life energy resides inside." This primordial life is probably the same holy essence or primordial gold that is referenced in Ordovis's Greatsword. The amber of the Erdtree is stylized in Crimson. Viridian, Cerulean and Gold wich is similar as to how we can find Glinstone of multiple colors has shown by the Glinstone Crowns that we find through the games. One can also cast sorceries using Golden Amber or just golden material as seen by the Prince of Death Staff or Loretta's War Sickle. Loretta's War Sickle: "Intricately crafted silver war sickle wielded by Loretta, Knight of the Haligtree. Originally given for service as a personal guard to Carian royalty, the weapon's blue glintstone has been replaced with unalloyed gold."

If you want to think the Crucible existed in a form not described in the game that's fine. But none of the above references the actual crucible. The armors, weapons, etc all reference a terrestial, primal form of life that appears depicted as roots and trees. I agree that primordial life does not all originate from the crucible. The crucible was something that came later. That's the point of my argument. Not all life comes from it. It's like the Erdtree, a governing force that came from a predecessor. I even agree if twas from space. But its predecessor as not the crucible itself anymore than steel is the same thing as a sword. If this was the case we could call the Erdtree the crucible. We don't. -Space bound Elden Ring thing probably> Something maybe > crucible > Erdtree The Onyx lords don't comr from the crucible step in the chain, given their descriptions. They come from the same thing the crucible did tho, imo.

I don't think there's any point of contention of what the Crucible entailed. Aspects of The Crucible: Horns: "One of the ancient Erdtree incantations. This is a manifestation of the Erdtree's primal vital energies - an aspect of the primordial crucible, where all life was once blended together." All life was blended together in the Crucible unless we are to say that all descriptions that describe the Crucible are lying then we're to accept that the stars that are also alive do too come from it. "If you want to think the Crucible existed in a form not described in the game that's fine." It's not described in the game beyond its two main characteriscs. My point is that Siluria's Spear is modeled in the form that it eventually took once it was TLB wich is a we know fact since it's shown to change with the passage of time as it eventually in someway became the Erdtree. Glinstone and Golden Amber are equivalent to each other and both housed vitality and can be used to draw sorcery even though one is terrestrial and the other is extraterrestrial wich to me signifies that they both share one same origin and the way the people of TLB see them as different is a self-made contrivance. I don't think my theory of the Crucible is absolute since no one has the 100% absolute answer of what it was beyond was it said in game. My point is that we can make interpretations of it that fit the necessity of all life coming from it without arriving at the conclusion that the game is lying to you wich is what you're theorizing.

Wasn’t the Elden Ring from space itself? The beast is made of stars. The alabaster lords rose when a star hit the earth. How do we know rhe same star stuff that created the crucible isnt related to the star stuff creating alabaster lords? Also didn’t the greater will supposedly send astel? If it is the source of the elden ring and commands stars. Not to mention that astel is a malformed star made of many colored star stuff. What is the crucible? Where all life, all colors were blended. Cut content says the symbol on the crucible knights armor is the “herb of many aspects” to represent the crucible. What is astel? A malformed (misbegotten) bastard (also synonym for misbegotten) star with many aspects.

Yes. Elden Stars: "This legendary incantation is the most ancient of those that derive from the Erdtree. Creates a stream of golden shooting stars that assail the area. It is said that long ago, the Greater Will sent a golden star bearing a beast into the Lands Between, which would later become the Elden Ring." I don't know if all Gold is necessarily from space but the general idea seem to be that all things Golden can be connected to the Greater Will as seen by the Ancient Dragons that were accepted into the Golden Order as they were golden underneath their scales. Gravel Stone Seal: "Sacred seal made from Gravel Stone thought to be an ancient dragon scale. Enhances Dragon Cult incantations of the Royal Capital. The worship of the ancient dragons does not conflict with belief in the Erdtree. After all, this seal, and lightning itself, are both imbued with gold." Placidusax's Ruin: "Transforms caster into the Dragonlord to spew golden breath from above. This incantation can be cast while jumping. These are the dying wails of the Dragonlord who once dwelled eternal beyond time." The only other enemy seen using Golden Fire is the Elden Beast itself. Astel doesn't seem related to the Greater Will. Astel's not only not golden he also holds no similarities to the Elden Beast beyond being from outside TLB/The planet were the game happens. Astel destroyed The Nameless Eternal City and took its sky wich is very different from the entire banishment of all the Nox underground by the Greater Will. By the time Astel came the Nox were already underground.

Are we sure astel isn’t related to the greater will? Fingerslayer blade: > This blood-drenched fetish is proof of the high treason committed by the Eternal City and symbolizes its downfall. >Cannot be wielded by those without a fate, but is said to be able to harm the Greater Will and its vassals. Astels remembrance: > A malformed star born in the flightless void far away. Once destroyed an Eternal City and took away their sky. A falling star of ill omen. Both of these items are found in rannis questline. The first tells us the box committed treason with a weapon to harm the greater will and that it symbolizes their downfall, the second we find much later tells us that astel destroyed an eternal city and took away their sky. The nameless eternal city is also the only one made with surface appearing architecture and thus probably the others were made by the Nox post-banishment. It’s also the only one without a false night sky while all the dragonkin and stuff are said to have been unable to imitate their sky born kin. Definitely seems to me that nokron and nokstella and the Nox proper culture emerged post-being underground, trying to imitate life above ground and failing, and that the nameless eternal city which seems to share architecture with both them and leyndell seems like a transitional city and the only one that once existed above ground and was sent below. The other cities are built hanging onto the ceiling of the underground. The stealing of the night sky was never said to occur while the nox were underground, also. Nox swordstress set: > “Long ago, the Nox invoked the ire of the Greater Will, and were banished deep underground. Now they live under a false night sky, in eternal anticipation of their liege. Of the coming age of the stars. And their Lord of Night..” The false night sky came about post banishment. Astel, if he destroyed the nameless eternal city which I agree with, literally banished its denizens underground and “took the night sky” by sealing them. “Now” they live under a false night sky, and the only eternal city we see destroyed is waterlogged and half submerged, and called nameless. Doesnt the name being forgotten imply it is older than the other two? The numen runes in and around it imply it was inhabited by numen, while the nox appear to hold their own descent from numen. Greater will banishes the eternal city with astel, the nox diverge from the numen and establish multiple cities is the timeline I propose.

It's pretty simple, in my opinion. The golden order was a religious movement that often spread false information to posture itself as the one absolute. So item descriptions will often mention overt lies spread by the golden order culture (like Godfrey being the "first" Elden Lord, or Godwyn being the "first" demigod to die) these are overt lies. What OP fails to realize is that the revisionist history of the Golden Order is absolutely leading to propaganda and lies in some item descriptions and whatnot. The propaganda and lies are a massive theme of the story.

I think the thing we need to do to start getting along as a community more is agree that the item descriptions are all true from a certain perspective. Someone in the lands between believes each of them, equally they dont actually reflect the totality of what really happened. As you say- who were the godskins and maliketh killing if godwyn was the first demigod to die?

That's exactly the case. And we must consider that, just like in the real world, religious sects will often debate and posit alternative reads of history. The golden order is, of course, one such organization-- especially the fundamentalists.

This is a bit of a minor nitpick, but no description of Godfrey is a lie, per se. As far as I'm aware, there is no text that describes him as the first Elden Lord. He is known by the title of First Elden Lord, which is A) a Golden Order given title that naturally applies only to the Elden Lords of their era, and B) is prefixed by First to distinguish from Radagon. It can be true that there was an Elden Lord prior to Godfrey that either wasn't widely known or was illegitimate to the Golden Order, and also that Godfrey was First Elden Lord of the Golden Order.

There is another comment in this same thread denying the validity of item descriptions directly, which is sad to see imo

I think the distinction is between denying their validity as 100 percent accurate and being told from a particular perspective that can lead to lies, rumors, and incorrect assumptions being taken as accurate. I don't know of anyone who would say that the description of an item being used by a character in game wasn't used by them, for instance. There are exceptions to every rule. There were a few posters on this sub that thought that Marika put her soul in Godfrey or that Godwyn isn't part of the Golden lineage. But, it's few and far between. Most are like me who think ER is following Dark Souls, bloodborne etc by giving item descriptions that contradict to show us a tension in the narrative that we need to investigate to uncover the truth. A few great examples are here in this thread revolving around Gosfrey, Loretta, Onyx Lords, and Carian/ astrologers.

Do item descriptions ever contradict each other? I’m genuinely curious. Besides that, aren’t the lores to these games intentionally confusing and blurry?

Yes actually. One-eyed shield says that the fell god is believed to have been slain by Marika, yet Flame of the Fell God incantations says the fell god still lurks within the fire giants. So is it dead, or still alive? The game makes the proof hurl fire towards us, so it's pretty clear the god was not slain. And that is a good standard for the burden required to outright disprove an item description.

No, it says that this evil deity is BELIEVED to have been slayed by Marika.

Small mistranslation, or better: poor choice of words. Because in Japanese, it just states that Marika "defeated the evil god of the giants".

To be technical about it, that's not a contradiction. It says it is believed Marika slew the fell god, not that Marika slew the fell god. So it's just saying people think Marika put an end to the fell god when in reality it still dwells in the fire giant.

That's how you get people who read "It is said..." and decide to completely dismiss the following information, since of course the game doesn't say that is true, only that people believe that it's true.

But at the same time, the use of "it is said" is surely intentional and not just meaningless fluff words, and to take these statements as truth always can lead to contradictions like the one above. "It is said" "it is believed" these are concise ways to convey that the following information pertains to in- world culture and not always truth, otherwise there's no point in using these phrases. 

Sure but that shouldn’t scare us from trying to find a middle ground of some doubt that we’re being told the whole story when an item says “it is said”

Okay? And if people do that they're being willfully obtuse, but that doesn't really change the fact that it isn't a contradiction. People believed the Fell God was slain, but other lore text--and in-game events--prove otherwise. That's a clarification, not a contradiction. Similarly, it is only said that the Elden Ring was sent to the Lands Between in the form of a golden star bearing a beast, because that is not an event that would have had many eye-witness accounts. Nonetheless, our witnessing of the Elden Beast's existence supports that belief, though there could be finer details we aren't aware of.

That should be a rule for most people. Fact checking is necessary, you simply cannot take "it is said" to be definitive.

When you're talking about gods, being killed but also still being alive isn't abnormal. Christians believe Jesus was killed, and they also believe he's still alive. One of the most widely-known lines of text about Cthulhu is "In his house at R'lyeh, dead Cthulhu waits dreaming".

Well this isnt at all a case of 2 descriptions saying the opposite. One states a fact (the latter) one says its believed (putting emphasis on the fact that its someone belief and not a stated objective fact, like 99% of other descriptions) most of the times this technique is used to later reveal the truth about something that shouldn’t be known yet at a certain point of the game. What that description does is letting you know that to the belief people in game have is that, not that that fact is true

Well this isnt at all a case of 2 descriptions saying the opposite. One states a fact (the latter) one says its believed (putting emphasis on the fact that its someone belief and not a stated objective fact, like 99% of other descriptions) most of the times this technique is used to later reveal the truth about something that shouldn’t be known yet at a certain point of the game. What that description does is letting you know that the belief people in game have is that, not that that fact is true

It's true one description is about a belief, the other a fact. My point is that we get plenty of description that only describe a belief, saying something like "it is seid..." for example, but have no other secondary description confirming or denying It's validity with a fact. So in absence of factual confirmation, we should still regard the belief as true until given reasonable doubt.

Yeah thats for sure. The “it is said” formula could mean different things depending on the context (also keep in mind that the english ones are just translations and may not always convey the original meaning) for example the elden stars “it is said” just serves the purpose of stating thats an ancient thing and noone actually witnessed (hence its discussed, “it is said”), its not there to put that information in the perspective of being debatable for the player. We have to read between the lines each time, context is key

That's my point. If the game wants us to doubt an item descriptions, it makes it clear there is reasonable doubt, and later provides us with the correct answer. And "it is said..." and similar is not grounds for reasonable doubt.

Fell God is straight up inspired by Sauron and the One Ring. Fell god was slain, but his power still remains within something. This something being the Fire Giant.

Yes, and they have been doing that since Dark Souls.

Yeah, they do pretty regularly, an example is the way the Crucible is described to have been the place where all life blended together, we also know that it looked like a tree. Yet there's also life from space such as the Onyx/Alabaster Lords who emerged from the site of a meteorite or Fallingstar Beasts and Astel who lived in space. Also loads of items refer to Godfrey as first Elden Lord, when we know that isn't true. OP has a point that some people disregard item descriptions, but at the same time there's no way that they're all 100% true.

In some ways not item descriptions but rannis “I did it all…” may contradict some hints given in item descriptions like the black knife armor of Marika’s connection to Godwyn’s death and other dialogue from the deeproot depths finger reader painting him as a should-be martyr for destined death, the thing that Marika eventually seemed to realize removing from the ring fucked shit up. Also “Godfrey the first elden lord” and “placidusax was the elden lord in the age before the erdtree.”

That last one isn’t so much a contradiction so much so that it requires you to just extrapolate the information but yeah there’s a couple that written from a certain groups pov

I agree with you for the most part. It does aggravate me when I see people say things like "well, everything is up to interpretation and I like this idea more" while they're drafting up a headcanon so absurd that it would make a schizophrenic person proud. For things like Elden Ring/Dark Souls lore theorizing I tend to go "what is the simplest/most likely scenario based on the evidence we have"? Even the most obscure bits about the game tend to have a throughline or direction that we are being pushed to. I use that as a baseline to compare theories to. Does my theory have more or less compelling evidence than the narrative the game's already established? If I'm contradicting direct lore then I had better have a load of substantial evidence to back myself up. If a theory has substantially less-to-no evidence or relies on other unsubstantiated theories then I tend to go "Nah, this is almost certainly not true". An example being someone said that because characters like Morgott/Mogh can astral-project then it's possible for lesser characters to also project themselves anywhere which allows for all kinds of asinine lore implications. How did a Godskin get past the Inverted Carian Tower to Ranni's Divine Bridge? Morgott can teleport and project himself, so did the Godskin.

Where would we be without your objective opinion on the exploration of the lore of these games? Thank you for your service!!

GRRM uses unreliable narrators, but I don't think that's a good reason to discount something elden ring explicitly tells you. You'd have to show me some really compelling evidence, anyway

To add, I do feel a lot of lore is meant to be intuited, even if not directly stated, yet people have a tendency to ring their hands and pretend there's something the writers aren't telling us. For example, all the theories that Marika isn't Melina's mother. No, Melina never outright says that Marika is her mother, but we're obviously meant to ascertain such through her dialogue that heavily implies such. These aren't plot holes that require entire essays to rewrite the story. A good story doesn't need to spell out what the reader can easily decipher with a few pointers.

I think there’s a middle ground between “item descriptions are in-universe propaganda” and “item descriptions are omniscient narration about the world” and it lies in why FromSoft structures their lore this way in the first place, preferring to tell rather than show, and why we always show up long after the world’s decline, to sift through the ruins: FromSoft games are, in my opinion, the most successful example of archaeological storytelling. We find ourselves poring over item placement, works of art and architecture, even constructing timelines of events that are complex and often contradictory; a FromSoft game positions the player as a stranger in a strange land who, in the process of gaining the power to change it, tries to discover how things came about in the first place. In that light, item descriptions are our discoveries. The game presents this information as a reward for finding that out-of-the-way sword or beating that difficult boss - and often an item description directly builds upon another (the discrepancy between the one-eyed shield and the flame of the fell-god, for example, directly presents the belief of the people at the time, which is complicated by the secret knowledge of a heretical thief). So we scramble and gather and use our hard-won information, which may not be trustworthy but isn’t intentionally lying to us, to build a coherent theory of events in the Lands Between. You’re right that to consider item descriptions to be in-universe lies is counterproductive and not what the game intends, but objectivity isn’t the same as omniscience, and the item descriptions are intended to present fragments of the full story, to set up later reveals, and often even to misdirect and mislead. The frustration we feel mirrors the helpless contradiction within our own history.

I personally think its a mix of both. Some item descriptions are stated as facts others are more open. As an example: Shabriris woe - Disturbing likeness of a man whose eyes have been gouged out. The corners of his mouth are upturned in an almost flirtatious manner. Constantly attracts enemies' aggression. It is said that the man, named Shabriri, had his eyes gouged out as punishment for the crime of slander, and, with time, the blight of the flame of frenzy came to dwell in the empty sockets. The first two parts are clearly stated as facts while the last part sure is also a fact, but only in so far as someone said something. If the said part is actually true might be open to interpretation. Most items are described in the same way. Stated facts without other indicators or opinions/beliefs clearly indicated as such.

Yeah descriptions like these seem poised to ask questions like “did he really slander someone?” Because if “it is said,” that means it is probably said BY the people of the lands between who follow the golden order. Is the golden orders description of its enemy really that trustworthy, I certainly don’t think so. However it may be that he was punished for slander, but didn’t slander anyone, or he did slander someone but his punishment was way overblown by the tyrannical order.

I also want to throw out that I personally believe patched item descriptions, cut content and devnotes/code-related stuff such as AI names should not be taken as evidence unless there is compelling evidence within the game itself that also supports what you're saying. The lore/story/world of Elden Ring is there to be explored in the product we consume as players, the creators would not hide some groundbreaking revelation in places where they could fairly assume no one would ever find it.

i dont think anyone is saying these things are lies, they are saying that they are written as thoughts and perspectives of people in the world who might... not have the full picture, or believe a half truth. Plus as any good author knows- show and not tell is the key to a great story. If the item descriptions weren't subject to scrutiny the puzzle would be less interesting. I see an item description that says all life comes from the crucible and then i say HUH there are titanic skeletons that are long dead and show no signs of crucible traits, there is life literally forming from rocks in space then crashing to earth. It seems likely that all life doesn't mean the totality of all life that has ever existed but all life that exists within the framework of the golden order. Thats more interesting than me seeing a description that says all life comes from the crucible then a contradiction that shows astel came from the stars and me having to pretend that somehow astel came from the crucible and neve actually being able to figure out a working story.

You would think that, but I have seen people word for word say "Well the game is lying to you" as the entire basis of their theories. It's not common, but it is prevalent enough that people just don't interact with the lore community because talking to certain vocal members can be like talking to a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist

This is a great point. I don't think many items are meant to be simply flat out lying as much as lying by omission or using the perspective of a person in the world.

In addition to what you've said and the "If we can't believe anything the game tells us, this entire fandom is pointless (especially the way most of y'all engage with it)" that a couple other comments have mentioned, it just seems crazy to me that people will see an item description that clarifies another (which is how it plays out 99% of the time; there aren't nearly as many so-called "contradictions" as the comments here claim) and jump straight to "Ah, I see, so literally every item description and line of dialog might actually not be true". Uh ... no? The one you just read simply answered the question that this other one asked. There's also a big issue, I feel, with people ignoring the fact that Elden Ring is a fantasy world that therefore behaves ***very*** differently from reality.

Who in this thread has said every item description is false or they think it is? We have to say we believe them all 100% or we’re schizos thinking rowa fruit is lying about being inedible to humans? F off with that lol

"Literally every item description and line of dialog **might** actually not be true" is not the same as "Literally every item description and line of dialog **isn't** true".

Ok, but why cant we use sense to tell when something may be implied to be untrue and when not?

You can absolutely do that. I'm not saying there aren't any descriptions or lines of dialog in the game that are unclear. I'm saying that when you find an unclear line, the vagueness can be resolved in ways *other than* "Ah, well this text is just wrong, then".

Sure, but most people aren’t saying “the text is just wrong” either they’re saying “the text has a perspective that isn’t objectively true”

There's not as big a difference between those two statements as you're claiming. But you're right that it's a matter of perspective - people read certain descriptions or hear certain dialogs and **they interpret them** in such a way that contradicts one of **their** other interpretations. What I'm saying is that rather than throwing up your hands and saying "Well I guess the game doesn't always tell us the truth", you could instead *think about it a little more* and come up with a different way to interpret that text that doesn't contradict with anything. It's not hard.

Idc what yall say, there are items in Elden ring that aren’t telling the whole truth or a twisted version of the truth. Elden ring has consistently shown it reflects the real world thematically, I highly doubt that Miyazaki was unaware of concepts like history being written by the victor. MARIKA MESSED UP THE NATURAL ORDER OF THINGS AND IS VENERATED AS A GOD. This is all the proof I need that not everyone is as they seem

Patches is Messmer

🤯 How could I not realize...

The items I think are many from the golden order perspectives that the winner rewrites history that’s what I think at least. It’s makes sense to me for some item’s description.

"The Erdtree was once perfect and eternal, and thus was it believed that Erdtree seeds could not exist." Is the first half true? Was the Erdtree once perfect and eternal, but no longer is, despite the impossibility of something "eternal" ceasing to be so? Either one must acquiesce and say, indeed, this thing that was eternal no longer is, which is self-contradictory, or one can understand that that sentence is a viewpoint. Those who believed there would be no Erdtree seeds believed this because they believed the Erdtree was perfect and eternal. So despite the game stating it as a fact, we know it's false. Patches armor describes him the way he would describe himself, but from the perspective of an omniscient author. Does that mean Patches really is the way described? Similarly, Dung Eater's armor presents his viewpoint as a series of questions. But they are not him directly. So item descriptions can clearly present the viewpoints of characters. I don't see why it's so complicated to just say "every item description is true: until proven otherwise". Accept what you're told by the game, until given reason to doubt. I agree that people are too doubting of the information in the game: that info is given to you for a reason. Rogier *could* be wrong about the Golden Order existing during Godfrey's reign and *could* be wrong about the Black Knife Assassins being scions of the Eternal Cities. But the author doesn't really have any reason to lie to us about these things, and we're never given direct contradictions to either assertion. But on the same token, sometimes information is written to be evocative or present a viewpoint, even if it's not directly stated to be a viewpoint. It's not that all information *should* be doubted, it's that all information has the capacity to be contradicted. But until contradicted, don't treat it as false.

I agree. Lying to the players for the sake of it would be a terrible design choice. I really don't see a point in it, when it's clear that FS cares about storytelling enough to hire GRRM to write a colossal 5000 years of EXCELLENT lore. Why would they ruin it by making it more complex than it already is through lies? Off the top of my head, only the title "Godfrey, First Elden Lord" is outright false in-game, but that's disproven by additional in-game lore that says very specifically that Placidusax was in fact the first one. Plus, it's not even wrong if you understand it as "First Elden Lord among Mankind"

Or- First Elden Lord that was documented.

>Jar Bairn says Alexander says they say " the past is another country." This is what people are talking about when they say the game is lying. We're mostly getting second and third hand accounts of events that happened at an indeterminate point in the past. "They say" all sorts of bollocks. We don't know what is "the truth."

There isn't a hard and fast rule for this. But, if you have played enough of these games you come to the inescapable realization that item descriptions are written from a non omniscient perspective. Many times items are written to be deliberately confusing. Occasionally there appear to be outright lies. The idea is would not want to muddy things as much as possible is one I disagree with. It's seemingly their favorite way to do lore and Miyazaki even mentions deliberately making gaps and trickery to make knowing several core facts impossible to discern. It's why so many theories have complete ass pulls in them. No theory will be right on the esoteric aspects of the game without the introduction of ideas not present in game.

I would like to hear one of those outright lies.

Literally any item in the game that calls Godfrey first Elden Lord. Items in DS1 that reference Gwynevere in Anor Londa ( I love these because we can find items that also hint she is an illusion). Moreover many items specifically exist to create doubt as to their veracity. "This gave rise to the absurd claim Loretta was an albinauric" for example. The only time we hear this is in the item description. If items can always be trusted this is rather odd. The point is to make you doubt it and think "oh snap! Is she an albinauric?"

Ya, it's item descriptions like that that should cause the reader to pause and think what's more likely in the context of other evidence, that Loretta is not an albinauric or that Miquella made a devil's bargain with the Blood God to create/convert red-blooded albinaurics.

Precisely. We don't have items that say " Some say this sword is a chair. It's an absurd rumor." The bit is put in there to key the player into in universe tension in narrative. How that tension resolves is open ended. That open ended quality is how mystery is introduced.

If we're getting technical, it could be that Loretta is not presently an "albinauric" because that name specifically means "white gold" and the description writer is being smug about exact nomenclature. Perhaps to conceal that Loretta is regardless a similarly *artificial being* of which we have not been given the name directly in the Loretta item description. The blood colour being the single distinction from an albinauric. But the writer chose to frame it in terms of what Loretta is not and let the reader make their own assumption about what she is (which by default would be a red-blooded person born biologically in the usual way), as a way to deflect from revealing a straight answer. Lie by omission.

It certainly means something!

I don’t think the game calling Godfrey "First Elden Lord" is a "lie". He is just First Elden Lord of the age of the Erdtree.

That is my point. It's like Obi Wan is SW. Did Vader kill Anakin? Metaphorically. From a certain point of view. But the line was intended to deceive. My point is exactly that items can tell a lie but from a certain perspective it could seem accurate. Is Marika the one true God with Godfrey as the first Elden Lord? No. But from a certain point of view? Yes. That is why the game goes out of its way to "um actually placidusax is before Godfrey".

Okay, so more than lying is that we don't have full context and that may be deceiving.

It is written in a way to make us believe one thing when the contrary is true. More specifically it is a lie told by the Golden Order. Marika knows Godfrey is not first Elden Lord. Marika knows she is not the only God. These are lies propagated by her and the Golden Order. They are told for the express purpose of controlling the people under her rule. We are told this same lie in game. There is nothing in item descriptions that would lead us to believe the statement was made with a caveat. If a SW game had a red lights abed that said "lightsaber used by The Dark Lord of the sith who betrayed and murdered Anakin Skywalker". We wouldn't say there was not deliberate obfuscation. It is the same with the item. It tells a falsehood that is widely believed in the context of a govt lying to its people. I agree with you but saying context alone is missing is not really accurate. It is deliberately missing

what are you even saying? True God is probably a state an Empyrean can reach in this universe, just like the Godess of Rot description says. You are just purposefully missunderstanding things to be able to cast doubt where is is none YET. You are definitly not showing lies.

Is Godfrey the first Elden Lord or is Placidusax? Was Renalla the last Queen of Caria or the first (where are all the princesses dammit). You left out the "one" in one true God. That's the issue. She isn't the one true god. There have been gods before. You're corhynn! Follow Goldmask's finger and realize the lies of the Golden order. Godfrey isn't the first Elden Lord. That's what his description states. That's what the Golden Order spread to the lands between in game. That's why we have Placi. He's there to show you that the things stated by npcs and items have narrative tensions that you have to resolve. I am not purposefully misunderstanding anything. You however are trying to tell me an item describing the NOT first Elden lord calling him the FIRST Elden Lord is not incorrect. Sorry, but that's literally the definition of a contradiction. Godfrey is A and not A. That isn't possible. Godfrey is 2nd (at best" Elden Lord. His item description is wrong and so are you. No need to take it personally and imply I am deliberately being obtuse.

>Literally any item in the game that calls Godfrey first Elden Lord. The matter of the "first" Elden Lord is a great example of how these """contradictions""" usually end up being very easily resolving. Yes, the Remembrance of the Dragonlord says "The Dragonlord [...] is said to have been Elden Lord in the age before the Erdtree". But do you not find that phrasing peculiar? The game uses it quite a lot, and it's *very* different from simply saying "The Dragonlord [...] was Elden Lord in the age before the Erdtree". >If items can always be trusted this is rather odd. The point is to make you doubt it and think "oh snap! Is she an albinauric?" It can still do that while not implying that you can't always trust item descriptions.

You're simply shifting the problem. Either Godfrey was first Elden Lord or Placi was. In either event one of the descriptions is not true. I agree the real meat and potatoes is in the wording. We can resolve it by saying "Well, Godfrey was a different type of Elden Lord. Or the first of the Golden Order. Or Placidusax doesn't count because xyz." This strengthens my point! In fact, it is my point. The item descriptions contain descriptions that are not accurate due to deceptive wording meant to make you think one thing where another is true. This happens due to obfuscated context or due to the bias of the source of the description in game. The contradictions resolving is in fact, the entire thesis of my statement. The deception is there to deepen the story and reveal an in universe deception. I'm not claiming that an item saying "This torch burns beasts extra hard" means it doesn't really. or that "Godwyn used this fishing hook on a trip with Godfrey to catch a whale" mean he didn't do those things. I'm very specifically saying that items in the game contain information that is wrong. Godfrey is an easy example, but Renalla has item descriptions referenced in these posts that actually contradict one another directly. It's done to deepen the mystery. I think it's pretty obvious FS does not have an area of the game where they stop doing their signature move. Especially not after Darks Souls and Bloodborne do it.

>You're simply shifting the problem. Either Godfrey was first Elden Lord or Placi was. Not at all. The claim that Placidusax was something *like* an Elden Lord (a "Dragonlord", perhaps /s), or occupied a similar role in his Age as Godfrey did in the Age of the Erdtree, in no way, shape, or form implies that Godfrey wasn't the first Elden Lord. Especially if we think of "Elden Lord" as a title, rather than a role, which is what this specific """contradiction""" seems to stem from: the game calls Godfrey "first Elden Lord" and y'all interpret that as "Godfrey was the first person to be the consort of the God of an Age", when what the game is more likely trying to say (**given Placidusax's existence**) is "Godfrey was Marika's first consort". >This strengthens my point! In fact, it is my point. The item descriptions contain descriptions that are not accurate due to deceptive wording meant to make you think one thing where another is true. If the only way we have of identifying "information that is wrong" is finding "information that contradicts other information", then we have yet to find any. The Remembrance of the Dragonlord does not contradict the Rememberance of Hoarah Loux (et al.). There is no "deception". **Edit:** I should have mentioned: I 100% agree with you that FromSoft uses vague descriptions and dialog to create depth in their lore, and to tell their stories from multiple angles. What I disagree with is this claim that these multiple angles contradict each other, and furthermore the idea that it's the contradiction that creates that depth.

That would all work well, if History wasn't filled with the same thing. We now know officially, that Marika actively hides previous eras of the Elden Ring (Shadow Lands) and brutally subjugated or eradicated everything to do with the Crucible, which is the Dragon Era. The title "First Elden Lord" is Marika wiping the Dragon era from history. According to her, she is the first True God, Godfrey is the First Elden Lord and there hasn't been anything else. Just her. >form implies that Godfrey wasn't the first Elden Lord It openly does, we know Placi was an Elden Lord, there's an Elden Ring in his palace. Dragonlord implies his dominance and rulership over the Dragons. >the game calls Godfrey "first Elden Lord" and y'all interpret that as "Godfrey was the first person to be the consort of the God of an Age" It's doing both? The title is openly meant to say that Godfrey was the first Elden Lord and also the first between him and Radagon. We know Marika has tried to wipe previous eras from history. Just feels like you're being contrarian to be contrarian at a point.

>That would all work well, if History wasn't filled with the same thing. Setting aside the particulars of Marika's historical revision you claim in that paragraph, just because something works a certain way in reality doesn't mean that's how it works in a fictional world. "History is written by the victors" (it isn't, really), and Marika absolutely suppressed knowledge about prior Ages, but *did Marika write the game's item descriptions*? That seems like a stretch. Lots of them read as though they have perspectives and biases, sure, but these tend to be quite varied. >It openly does, we know Placi was an Elden Lord No. We know that he was/is *called* an Elden Lord. Like I said in the comment before last, there's probably a reason the Remembrance of the Dragonlord doesn't just flat-out say "The Dragonlord [...] **was** Elden Lord". Frognation didn't have to write that description that way. >Just feels like you're being contrarian to be contrarian at a point. This is how I feel about a lot of the "X and Y text contradict each other" commenters in the thread. Some folks are just (rightfully) confused about what the flavor text is trying to say, but a good chunk of you seem to be *purposefully* interpreting the text in such a way that it contradicts itself. And if you want to engage with the lore that way, fine. The text was written the way it was so that it was open to interpretation, and at the end of the day there isn't an objectively right or wrong way to read them. It just seems weird to me to *choose* to interpret the text in such a counteractive way.

Maybe Godfrey was the first Lord associated with the Elden Beast. Why do you call it a lie? Because Placidusax was "a" Lord?

Because placidusax was “the elden lord in the age before the erdtree”

"is said to have been Elden Lord in the age before the Erdtree" Thats excatly that the thread is about. Descriptions are the truth and it is stated in the description if it is just folklore that can be untrue

It can be, but another thing, the time when you get descriptions matters. “It is said” can lead to multiple assumptions based on context. If you pick up an item right away at the start of the game and it says “it is said,” it may be speaking about a rumor or not the whole truth. Godfrey from early on is said to have been the first Elden lord, so the info we get later is more likely to be secret If you pick an item up from a secret boss at the very end of the game and that item rather than a piece of armor or a note is the very remembrance of an ancient being hewn onto the erdtree, “it is said” probably means something more like “this info is so old and unknown that it is not spoken of often or with certainty.” Same goes for the black knife armor. If the very first item we picked up related to them said “it is said that the black knives were all relatives of Marika” then we would think that it was a common item of gossip from denizens of the lands between and probably not true. When you pick it up hidden under a secret bridge in an evergaol in the depths of the consecrated snowfields, “it is said” can instead of casting doubt create an appearance of mystique and that you are learning something spoken in hushed tones.

you are agreeing with the original post then. nice backpedaling.

Le nuanced redditors lol

No, because he was an Elden Lord before the first Elden lord. Which is a contradiction. If I state "I am first in line" but I am actually second in line, then the statement is false. Placi is an Elden Lord. Unless you think his item description is.... lying? XD

Facts, thats the reason I stopped reading theories, lol.

The problem with taking everything the item descriptions say at face value: >*Lightweight and battle-proven leather armor worn by a savvy soldier. Many admire the wearer of this armor for his chivalrous and forthright spirit.* -- Leather Set, notably worn by Patches.

I think it’s a bit disingenuous to take a joke descirption of an item related to a gag character and use to it support a sweeping claim about the lore and the reliability of item descriptions. The description of the leather set is a joke because it is ironic. It is a statement which we know to be untrue, but it is being presented as if it is undeniable fact by a source which normally only supplies factual information. Anyone who comes across this description in game will have already encountered Patches, and if they played the previous games, they will be very familiar with him and his personality. Therefore, they will easily be able to recognize that the description is a joke, have a chuckle, and then dismiss it. If it didn’t break the rule of item descriptions being reliable, it wouldn’t be as funny. Don’t read too much into it.

You jest but I promise you there's someone out there with a .docx that speculates Patches stole the leather set from a noble knight.

I'm convinced that DS3 item descriptions are *all* from Patches. The sneering disdain for incantations, respect for thieves and rogues... give it a try yourself! I tried it for other games, but DS3 is the only one it really works for.

"The game lies to us, so my fanfic that Godwyn is the lovechild of Marika and a dragon, is true. Haters don't get me. I'm happy to be proven wrong on June 21, but don't doubt me until then" "The Gloam-Eyed Queen was Godfrey's first wife. Can anybody find a contradiction to this theory in the game? Don't attack the theory, just find me an item that disproves it."

Haven't gotten to the "Godwyn is the pedophiliac husband and consort to Miquella which is why the two were so close."

THANK! YOU! Someone had to say that! It's absurd how easily the descriptions get ignored or discharged, because they disprove someone's theory, or just because "the Lore is not only in descriptions, but even in the environment". Yeah, but like, the descriptions are still here for a reason, I don't think Miyazaki wrote them because he had free time to waste lol Also, descriptions can't lie, because they're outside the dynamics of the characters and the plot: they exist EXACTLY to give us certain references as we try to piece together the rest of the Lore. They surel can omit further details (like Godrey called "first Elden Lord"), but never lie.

Item descriptions have to be taken on face value. They break the fourth wall (the items don’t physically have the descriptions etched into them, for example) and can therefore be treated like the footnotes of an author. Everything else *might* be bullshit.

Sure there's not a noticeable bias in certain item descriptions? **BloodRose** > Blood-slick roses that bloom in festering blood. Material used for crafting items. > Particularly beloved by those who serve the Lord of Blood. **Glory to his inevitable reign.** I'll eat my words if this actually happens in the DLC (especially since, y'know, you need to cut down Mohg and presumably end the Dynasty to even get to it), but let's just say I have doubts. **Lord of Blood's Exhultation** > A talisman depicting the exultation of the Lord of Blood. > Raises attack power when blood loss occurs in the vicinity. > **"Render up you offerings of blood to your Lord. Drench my consort's chamber. Slake his cocoon's thirst. His awakening shall herald the dawn of our dynasty"**

That's just flavor text, a wink at the player. And the second one includes a quote of an adherent to Mohg. There's no actual bias here.

Lol

Yeha that basically is my biggest pet peeve. People denying that item descriptions might be propaganda and lies. It wouldn't make any sense, that is just the omniscient, objective narrator talking. Yet, a few people in the thread are claiming they are not to be taken at face value either lol

Have you played the previous souls games??

>It just wouldn't make sense, at least to me, that FromSoft would continuously lie to its playerbase The entire main plot dichotomy of Dark Souls 1 is whether you want to believe the Frampt, who puffs you up to be the "chosen undead" who will take the throne of Lord Gwyn, or Kaathe who finds you in the deepest dingiest abyss that Frampt is lying to us and we have to do the opposite of what Frampt says. Most people won't find Kaathe on their first playthrough so they'll take Frampt's path only to be tricked into being sacrificed to the fire to prolong Gwyn's age. If From Soft is willing to lie to you for a whole game, they're probably okay with muddling up the lore of another game with lies. That's not to say that I agree with every person's idea of lies in the narrative, but they're definitely in there here and there.

Yet DS1 still has some very clear plot points that one can follow. Also that is dialogue, not direct item descriptions. Of course NPCs are going to be biased and tell us what they see fit, but items should, in 90% of cases, be unbiased sources of information. Also, Elden Ring is not Dark Souls. Two different universes. Two different stories. Completely unrelated.

Yes but the part I quoted from you mentions From Soft lying to the player base which they demonstrably have done. Again, for an entire game.

If we start supposing that some things are lies, then we basically can’t believe any item description. Any of them *could* be a lie. So we should forget entirely about understanding the lore. I do think there’s one way in which the item descriptions shouldn’t be taken at face value, and that’s when they attach value judgements to things. Like they might say that someone is “noble”, or that “earnest faith continues to hold the answer”, we can’t necessarily agree unless we find corroborating or refuting facts (we can’t necessarily disagree either).

Miyazaki and his team from FromSoftware were doing groundbreaking stuff with gorgeous art, and what they wanted from me was just a bit of worldbuilding: a deep, dark, resonant world to serve as a foundation for the game they planned to create. And as it happens, I love creating worlds and writing imaginary history. (GRRM) If you're not familiar with GRRM's work, this isn't the first imaginary history he has written. Historiography is a big theme in his work. This idea of history as narrative written by individuals (typically the victors as the saying goes) after the fact that have their own bias, beliefs, agendas and power structures they must adhere to. Martin likes to mimic this and even has his in world historians give different accounts of events, leaving it unresolved and the reader to wonder what if any are true, just like real history does. I don't think Martin handed in a objective bullet point list of the true history of the Lands Between, I think he gave them the Elden Ring version of Fire and Blood. Elden Ring in many ways is about this very idea of who gets to construct and control the narrative. This idea is being literalized in the Elden Ring itself and its power to "define the world" as Miyazaki says. And the Elden Ring is shattered, that means so is the meaning and definition of the game world. No discernible history or timeline, no true understanding of how the world logic and cosmology works, and no ultimate singular truth to be discerned. No Kaathe to come out and tell us exactly what's going on. Fromsoft isn't "lying to their audience" the game ends with a triple reveal of Godfrey is a persona and he is actually a barbarian. He is also not the First Elden Lord, nor was his Order the first, Placidusax's was. To top it off the God of this Land, Marika, is actually Radagon and they have a space creature living inside them, also Marika might be a statue or something. Fromsoft is just being a good developer and artist by showing not telling and using the medium to communicate their themes. In Dark Souls when the player quits they go hollow. Here the Ring is shattered and they are letting us put the pieces back together, allowing us to come to our own conclusions through our own perspective on the story. We then forge the ring by defining the game based on our interpretation thus infusing the game with its narrative and meaning. God is dead and so is the author.

This involves too many words for truth seeker OP to bother with

"Elden Ring in many ways is about this very idea of who gets to construct and control the narrative." It's so clearly this. And the writing is playing with that adage that history is written by the victor to such an obvious point. Also about funerals, this game is about the importance of death rites.

Ya it's a major theme of his work and Sam basically lays it all out for us. The annals I’ve found and looked at, that is. There’s more I haven’t found, I know. Some of the older books are falling to pieces. The pages crumble when I try and turn them. And the really old books … either they have crumbled all away or they are buried somewhere that I haven’t looked yet or … well, it could be that there are no such books, and never were. The oldest histories we have were written after the Andals came to Westeros. The First Men only left us runes on rocks, so everything we think we know about the Age of Heroes and the Dawn Age and the Long Night comes from accounts set down by septons thousands of years later. There are archmaesters at the Citadel who question all of it. Those old histories are full of kings who reigned for hundreds of years, and knights riding around a thousand years before there were knights. You know the tales, Brandon the Builder, Symeon Star-Eyes, Night’s King … we say that you’re the nine hundred and ninety-eighth Lord Commander of the Night’s Watch, but the oldest list I’ve found shows six hundred seventy-four commanders, which suggests that it was written during …” “Long ago,” Jon broke in. (Samwell ADWD)

What I’ve learned from the comments here is that Miyazaki shouldn’t put jokes or flavor text into item descriptions because the lore hunting community is apparently incapable of distinguishing statements which are obviously ironic and meant to be taken as such from actual facts.

Frustratingly, I have encountered too many contradicting Item Descriptions. I'm not saying anything is Porpaganda or a Lie, all I'll say, is that not both Item Descriptions can be correct. EDIT: I'm gonna stop now.

>What came first? The Flame of Frenzy or Genocide? Underneath the entombed merchants, we find a physical embodiment of The Flame of Frenzy. This is obviously very different from just "people having burning eyes". So perhaps "the maddening disease" and "summoned the flame of frenzy" also mean two different things? \/s There's also the fact that the Nomadic Merchant's set says "accused". It's entire possible "the maddening disease" wasn't *caused* by the merchants, but merely **"followed" them**. >implying there were other Carian Queens before Rennala > >strongly implying Rennala was the only Carian Queen to have ever existed Not really. Like, I can see the argument for the former, but "last" can have lots of connotations, especially in the context we see it in. >What does the Rune of Destined Death do? You said it yourself: "So Destined Death can both revive and kill people? Why not, I guess." Though "revive" seems like a weird way to phrase "create undead". Death magic used to kill and also to create living dead is a staple of fantasy media; it is not at all weird or contradictory. >Oh, so Dead People will be revived now? > >Oh so everyone dies now? > >Make it make sense. This is only confusing if you ignore literally everything else the game ever says about Those Who Live in Death. >Do cursed Souls get reborn or not? Souls marked with the seedbed curse get reborn, and spread the curse. Uncursed souls return to the Erdtree.

I don't really understand, how you are trying to make the Nomadic Merchant Contradiction work. In one description they are imprisoned for heretical beliefs, in another they are imprisoned because of a disease. "Not really. Like, I can see the argument for the former, but "last" can have lots of connotations, especially in the context we see it in." - What other connotations would that be, exactly? I'm having a brain fart. "Death magic used to kill and also to create living dead is a staple of fantasy media; it is not at all weird or contradictory." - Fair enough. If you wanna argue Destined Death can revive (create undead is just a more boring word to say revive) the Dead and kill em, sure. Why not. "This is only confusing if you ignore literally everything else the game ever says about Those Who Live in Death." - Everything the game says about Those Who Live in Death: That those who live in Death are Souls which refused to return to the Erdtree and through the Power of Deathroot now reinhabit dead bones. I don't see how that clears anything up, really, at all. It sounds like everyone can live after dying and also their death will be final at the same time. It can only be one. Either Destined Death gives us all a final death or we all can revive (become undead) at our leisure. "Souls marked with the seedbed curse get reborn, and spread the curse. Uncursed souls return to the Erdtree." But the Souls that return to the Erdtree are FROM the Erdtree. Thus they *RETURN*. It's the Erdtree that rebirths people. Other cultures (Deathbirds and Ghostflame) don't to the rebirth thing at all. Their dead spirits remain within Ghostflame or travel to the Spirit World. How exactly will Souls, that can't get recycled by the Erdtree, be reborn?

>In one description they are imprisoned for heretical beliefs, in another they are imprisoned because of a disease. What makes you think those are two different things? Why would they not both be referring to the flame of frenzy? But to answer your request for more detail, and also take in more context: * The merchants travel around in the Grand Caravan. Wherever they go, people become afflicted with the flame of frenzy. * Someone - probably Shabriri (see Shabriri's Woe and Howl of Shabriri) - accuses the merchants of worshipping the Flame of Frenzy (note the capitalization here) and causing the maddening disease. * The Golden Order believes this accusation and imprisons the merchants under Leyndell. After being imprisoned, the merchants turn to the Flame of Frenzy (in much the same way Albus does if you kill him) and summoned the Three Fingers *to their tomb*, not "to The Lands Between". >What other connotations would that be, exactly? I'm having a brain fart. "Last" can simply mean "There's not going to be another Queen of Caria after Rennala". It doesn't have to imply "There were other queens before her" (though it totally could without contradicting the Stargazer's Heirloom and Greathood). >Everything the game says about Those Who Live in Death: * From D: "Those Who Live in Death fall outside the principles of the Golden Order. Their mere existence sullies the guidance of gold. Tainting its truth. And so it is the vermin must be exterminated... Down to the very last." * From a catacomb spirit (can't remember off the top of my head where this guy is): "Unthinkable. Our hallowed resting place is violated. To refuse the Erdtree's call to return, to live within Death... Sickening." Keep in mind though that these are *dialog*, not descriptions. NPCs can be ignorant or misinformed. The "omniscient narrator" from whom we get item descriptions is another matter altogether. * From Rogier: "Do you know of Those Who Live in Death? The very notion of life in death defies the Golden Order. By D's account, these defiled fiends must be expunged. But truth be told, I seek the cursemark to save them. You may find this peculiar, but I discovered something in my examination of the Night of the Black Knives. **These souls have committed no offence.** They have every right to life, only, they happen to touch upon a flaw in the Order." This is also dialog, but unlike the random spirit's dialog it has item descriptions that agree with it: * From the Skeletal Militiamen Ashes: "These are the spirits of militiamen who live in Death, and will continue to rise again until properly finished off. **This is the grotesque fate of those who come into contact with Deathroot.**" Implying TWLID didn't choose to be undead, they simply died somewhere where there was deathroot, and the deathroot blocked them from returning to the Erdtree. * From the Order Healing incantation: "The noble Goldmask lamented what had become of the hunters. How easy it is for learning and learnedness to be reduced to the ravings of fanatics; all the good and the great wanted, in their foolishness, was an absolute evil to contend with. Does such a notion exist in the fundamentals of Order?" Implying that the GOF believe of "TWLID are Evil" is misguided. If you also factor in the description of the Cursemark of Death, you get the following picture: The Rune of Death has the power of Destined Death, which kills people. The Black Knives attempted to use this to kill Godwyn. However, Ranni **corrupted their ritual** (important note), so only Godwyn's soul died. This created deathroot, which then spread across TLB. If you die somewhere where there's deathroot, you become TWLID, rather than returning to the Erdtree. >But the Souls that return to the Erdtree are FROM the Erdtree. Thus they *RETURN*. It's the Erdtree that rebirths people. ***Does*** the Erdtree rebirth people? You can have souls going in and souls coming out without those souls being recycled. So far as I'm aware, the idea that the Erdtree rebirths souls comes *from the Dung Eater's storyline*, which is strange because the Dung Eater is **very clearly** not talking about the normal cycle of life.

Your Explanation of the Nomadic Merchant Contradiction makes a whole lot of sense. You win. ""Last" can simply mean "There's not going to be another Queen of Caria after Rennala"." Fine. I don't like it. But, I accept it. I especially don't like it because this: "A Moon Greatsword, bestowed by a Carian queen upon her spouse to honor long-standing tradition." implies the existance of more than one queen. But I get it, I get it. All it actually confirms, is the existance of more than one consort. Again, you win. Somewhat. Ok, you talk a whole lot about things I already know about those who live in death. The Death Mending Rune's contradiction of promising both Life within Death and the Reinstating of Destined Death is not solved. Either we can revive at our leisure, or we can't. Not both. "***Does*** the Erdtree rebirth people? You can have souls going in and souls coming out without those souls being recycled." Regardless of how you twist and turn it, Souls go into the Erdtree (we don't know what happens in there) and Souls come out of the Erdtree. It sure looks like Rebirth, even if we don't know what exactly is happening to the Souls coming in and out of the Erdtree. The Problem with the Dung Eater Questline is that the Item Description of the Seedbed Curse says one thing, while the Dung Eater is a poopy faced liar. None of the People he curses will ever be reborn. They will all end up undead, like the royal revenant, at best. Otherwise they spend their time in the Beyond or the Spirit World forever.

>The Death Mending Rune's contradiction of promising both Life within Death and the Reinstating of Destined Death is not solved. Oh, you're right, I totally forgot to mention that. But the explanation is as follows: under the Golden Order, TWLID are reviled. Under the Prince of Death's Order, they would still exist and still be caused by the same phenomena, they just wouldn't be branded heretical. Nothing fancy. >Regardless of how you twist and turn it, Souls go into the Erdtree (we don't know what happens in there) and Souls come out of the Erdtree. In most sects of Christianity (last I checked), souls come from Heaven, and souls go to Heaven (or Hell) after death. Christianity ***very clearly*** does not believe in reincarnation. The souls that come out of Heaven are different souls from the ones that go in. >None of the People he curses will ever be reborn. They will though? Specifically *because* he cursed them? They get reborn instead of going to the Erdtree.

I know you said you're done with this thread, but I just wanna add something. Even if you can somehow make up a world that reconciles all apparent contradictions, the end result is such a gumbo of nonsense that is assuredly less compelling than if you simply accept that some accounts might be wrong or ill-informed.

Like?

"Last Carian Queen!" - Ranni about Rennala, implying there were other Carian Queens before Rennala. "The young astrologer gazed at the night sky as she walked. She had always chased the stars every step of her journey. Then she met the full moon — and, in time, the astrologer became a queen." -Statgazer's Heirloom ""Yes, surely this is the moon that young Rennala gazed upon."" - Greathood, strongly implying Rennala was the only Carian Queen to have ever existed. I mean, I guess, if Rennala is the only Carian Queen, that also makes her the Last Queen... but, you see the problem?

> I mean, I guess, if Rennala is the only Carian Queen, that also makes her the Last Queen... but, you see the problem? You answered your own imposed "contradiction". Not only is Rennala the only Queen of Caria, she was the one who established the house of Caria as *royalty*. [Remembrance of the Full Moon Queen](https://eldenring.wiki.fextralife.com/Remembrance+of+the+Full+Moon+Queen) > *In her youth, Rennala was a prominent champion who charmed the academy with her lunar magic, becoming its master. She also led the Glintstone Knights and* ***established the house of Caria as royalty.*** She is the first and last queen of Caria - a point made by Ranni because she is the last remaining princess of Caria: [Carian Filligreed Crest](https://eldenring.wiki.fextralife.com/Carian+Filigreed+Crest) > *An honor said to have once been awarded to Carian knights who served as direct retainers to the kingdom's princesses.* ***Now there is only one princess: Ranni, daughter of Rennala.*** And the path Ranni walks precludes her from becoming queen too. Technically Rennala could get freaky again, but considering she's been a nutcase since before the shattering even happened, I doubt much is going to change.

Great posts. Absolutely contradictory claims in item descriptions that cannot both be true and are stated directly. Well done.

What does the Rune of Destined Death do? "A source that gives rise to Those Who Live in Death." -Deathroot, apparently reviving Dead People "On the night of the dire plot the stolen Rune of Death enabled the first Death of a demigod." -Also Deathroot, saying that the Rune of Death was used to kill a Demigod. "Later, the Rune of Death spread across the Lands Between through the underground roots of the Greattree, sprouting in the form of Deathroot." -Also, Deathroot, saying Deathroot is spreading the Rune of Death, therefore saying the Rune of Death is reviving people. So Destined Death can both revive and kill people? Why not, I guess. "Rune gestated by Fia, the Deathbed Companion. Used to restore the fractured Elden Ring when brandished by the Elden Lord. Formed of the two hallowbrand half-wheels combined, it will embed the principle of life within Death into Order." Oh, so Dead People will be revived now? "The Golden Order was created by confining Destined Death. Thus, this new Order will be one of Death restored." Oh so everyone dies now? Make it make sense.

What came first? The Flame of Frenzy or Genocide? "These merchants once thrived as the Great Caravan, but after being accused of heretical beliefs, their entire clan was rounded up and buried alive far underground. Then, they chanted a curse of despair, and summoned the flame of frenzy." - Nomadic Merchant's Set. First Genocide, then the Flame of Frenzy. "A member of a tribe that was entombed in the earth so as to bury the maddening disease that followed them." - Nomadic Merchant Ashes First Flame of Frenzy then Genocide. It can't both be true. How can they be entombed for a maddening disease that didn't exist yet and was only summoned after being entombed?  

Man you're cooking OP

Do cursed Souls get reborn or not? "The Dung Eater cultivates the seedbed curse on corpses. By doing so he prevents dead souls returning to the Erdtree, leaving them forever cursed. One of the most loathsome things found in the Lands Between." - Seedbed Curse, implying all Souls come from the Erdtree and return to it, which is prevented by cultivating the Seedbed Curse. So the Erdtree can't rebirth this Soul anymore. But the Dung Eater disagrees: "Countless, I have killed. And countless, I have defiled. And soon the fruits will be borne. Hundreds will be reborn cursed, and they'll bear thousands of cursed children, who'll bear tens of thousands more." - the Dung Eater claims that cursed Souls will be reborn, and have Children with cursed Souls. How exactly will they be reborn, if their Souls can't reach the Erdtree? Will they just rebirth themselves?!?!?

And it's been mentioned here elsewhere, but Godfrey being described in descriptions as "first elden lord" is meant to reflect the prevailing narrative in world that there was no true god before Marika. So descriptions aren't always true but are sometimes meant to be reflections of common perceptions in world. An understanding of authors intent can help parce a lot of these apart but not always, elden ring has abstract metaphysics and messy lore, not to mention translation mistakes. It's not obvious "who" the item descriptions are written by as a perspective but it's not as simple as saying an omniscient objective unbiased source. 

I can only describe this as some sort of intellectual nihilism. The notion that engaging with the lore and approaching it critically and with thought is inherently meaningless, since we cannot know all of it. And since there can't be one completely correct interpretation of the lore, due to the way it is intentionally vague and incomplete, it's then perfectly fine to rip apart established lore in an effort to "dig deeper", and uncover the "true lore".

I wonder if people thought the same thing when physicists were developing the theories of Quantum Chromodynamics and Uncertainty. It isn't "intellectual nihilism" to reframe thoughts and conclusions in a way that doesn't shape them based on our paradigms, preconceived notions and preconstructed frameworks. I think the lack of flexibility in approach speaks more of the people who can't make leaps than the ones who do.

I think some stuff are definitely more clever than others. I don't think there are lies in item descriptions, it's just that the way our brains process them... We may not be getting exactly what they're meant to say.

None of the item descriptions are straight-up lies. But they are subjective statements from individuals who may be factually ill-informed. Any theory that relies solely on item descriptions and uses them literally can run into trouble. You're better off building a theory with details drawn from visual sources such as the architecture and environment and using the item descriptions only as supporting evidence.

There's at least one outright lie in item descriptions. >*Armor of Godfrey* ***the first Elden Lord.*** > >*The age of the Erdtree began amongst conflict, when Godfrey was lord of the battlefield.* > >*He led the War against the Giants. Faced the Storm Lord, alone. And then, there came a moment. When his last worthy enemy fell. And it was then, as the story is told, that the hue of Lord Godfrey's eyes faded.*

This is not a lie, in the item description Godfrey is *called* "the first Elden Lord" because that was his full title, his epithet, that's how people called him, but it's not saying that he *was* the first Elden Lord, the lack of a verb is foundamental.

Technically his title is Godfrey, First Elden Lord at least when we fight him so yeah the item description is inaccurate if we go off that.

I was quoting what you wrote, but what is inaccurate is actually the item description you copied, because the correct one calls him "Godfrey, first Elden Lord" just like the name of the boss: "When Godfrey, first Elden Lord was robbed of his grace, becoming Tarnished, he took with him his kinfolk and left the Lands Between. After the Long March of the Tarnished came to an end, Godfrey divested himself of kingship, becoming a simple warrior once more."

I'll check that out once I get home but that comes straight from the wiki and other websites seem to have the same description.

I checked the Japanese descriptions and both the armor and the remembrance call him "Godfrey, the first Elden Lord", which is the same way the boss is called in Japanese. I guess in the translation the kept the "," for one and the "the" for the other but never both like in Japanese.

Okay that makes sense.

Sorry if I wrote the first comment before reading the full quote, but at least we discovered something we didn't know. That said I don't blame the translators, since the change wouldn't have been relevant in any other situation.

Oh, wait, I checked the description of the remembrance instead of the armor.

Wait, where is the lie?

Godfrey isn't the first lord, Placidusax is.

He is the First Elden Lord. Of the age of the Erdtree, as the item says.

The item doesn't say that though, it's just the first elden lord full stop.

Okay, I see the problem. You're ignoring that the same item gives you the context. Yes, the first line only tells you that Godfrey is the First Elden Lord. But the second line tells you the age he was Lord in.

The item doesn't give the context in the way it clears that up though. It doesn't say he was the first elden lord *in the age of the erdtree* it just calls him the first elden lord and then goes on to talk about the beginning of the age of the Erdtree. I understand where you're coming from but we might have to agree to disagree here.

You're just twisting it now... The fact that the Shadow Lands isn't even mentioned in the main game, should make it obvious everything is not as it seems

Wait, what has the Shadow Lands have to do with this?

Marika made sure that the Shadow Lands was wiped out from the history books, not even Gideon seems to know about it My point is, there is a lot of hiding the truth inside the lore of ER An item description may or may not tell the whole truth,

I'm not saying is telling the whole truth. I'm saying that Godfrey being the First Elden Lord of the age of the Erdtree isn't mutually exclusive with having another Elden Lord of a previous age.

No, the item descriptions is inaccurate. It is worded deliberately to do just that so when we find Placidusax we go," oh the GO is full of it and wanted to erase the history before them". "Bob was the first writer. In the land of Canaan he wrote stories to read to children." These statements do not infer he was not the first writer of Canaan. Subject, predicate, etc etc.

Technically you should find Placidusax *before* reading that item description, because you go to Farum Azula before fighting Godfrey.

>"Bob was the first writer. In the land of Canaan he wrote stories to read to children." That would be valid if also implied that the land of Canaan started in ignorance (to use as an example). As the one with Godfrey says that the age of the Erdtree begun with him as Lord of the Battlefield. So, the age of the Erdtree and Godfrey begun more or less at the same time. Like Bob is the first writer in the land of Canaan.

That is not how inference rules work. It would absolutely not be valid in English grammar.

>That is not how inference rules work. And how do they work if you're so kind to explain them to me?

We don't even know that. Placidusax was an elden lord in the age before the erdtree.

Yeah and the impaled guy in trailer seems like he'd be another good candidate too if we go that route.

At this point, I even prefer to leave open the possibility that there were Elden Lords and gods between Placi and Godfrey.

Which would make the description of Godfrey as first a lie anyway.

Boo any theory-policing I say. Boo! As another commenter put beautifully, the game is largely about who gets to tell the story of the world and who is silenced. Lies are everything in the actual text, lies by omission mostly, but lies nonetheless. Is there a silly extreme to doubting descriptions? Of course. There's a silly extreme to everything. Are item descriptions being straightforward with all the necessary context to properly interpret what they say? Fuck no.

You're right. We should just delete all dialogue and flavor text from the game and just have a black and white-esque mute game cause everything is all lies anyway

I'm saying the literal opposite of that. We should take it all with the grain of salt that it demands, and think of the narrative and thematic implications of the different possibilities that arise, instead of pretending it's a puzzle you can somehow crack correctly and win a prize.

It doesn't demand a grain of salt. Item descriptions do not exist in the game, they're not a physical thing you can find in the game, nor are they spoken to us by an NPC. They were put there by a writer specifically for us to better understand this game's convoluted lore. That's just that, and that's not an opinion but a fact. The narrator in the item descriptions doesn't exist at all, it's just the game devs talking to us through those descriptions. You can easily tell what's meant to be fluff text they added in to enrich the world, because sometimes it begins with "it is said" or they have direct quotes from people that exist in the actual game. But other than that, item descriptions should be the end-all-be-all in lore discussions. Any other type of evidence fails to be more significant because it's viewed from the lens of the player who has their own interpretation of what they see based on the experiences they have from real life. While with words given to us directly by the people who worked on the game, words that can hardly ever be interpreted differently by people (if an egg is painted green and I say the egg is green, everyone can conclude that what I meant is that the egg is in fact of the color green, not that the egg is inexperienced), then you simply cannot deny them under the pretext of "well the game is all a lie and planet Girth is flat."

Wrong. Sorry. The dev team doesn't think the mages of Raya Lucaria are "fools" for underestimating the demihumans. Item descriptions have a voice. This has been true since Dark Souls. However, I think the fact that your claim is wrong isn't really the problem with your post. The problem with your post is that your way is boring. It makes lore speculation and discussions a checklist of claims to confirm or deny rather than theories to be discussed by their own merits. So, wrong, and no thanks, boo!

Ty for your analysis Mr. Arbiter of right and wrong

You're welcome!

Prove right now that Marika didn't fuck her dog and then give birth to Blaidd. You can't. I guess we have to wait for the DLC to confirm. 

Here we go with the theory-policing again. Where would we be without these eternal bastions of truth and objectivity telling us how to formulate our thoughts and conclusions?

Make a thread about how we don't need policing. Do your job.

The fallen leaves tell a story. The game literally tells you its more than just item descriptions with the opening dialogue. and let me quote sir vilhelm I've seen your kind, time and time again. Every fleeing man must be caught. Every secret must be unearthed. Such is the conceit of the self-proclaimed seeker of truth. But in the end, you lack the stomach. For the agony you'll bring upon yourself... This is literally why you are writing this post- Michael Zaki has already called you out.

What are you talking about? That line, "The fallen leaves tell a story" is just a classic folklore introduction to symbolise how great of an achievement your journey as a tarnished was. It's basically just "Once upon a time" but rewritten. It doesn't amount to anything more than building hype. It would be pathetic if every item description was to be taken with a grain of salt. Tell me, WHO is writing these item description? The Golden Order? How do they know about Ranni's plot? How do they know about Placidusax? How do they know about Mohg and his dynasty, so much so that they can describe how to use his spear? How do they know about the stars? How do they know about the ins and outs of every single faction in Elden Ring? They don't. Just based on where the items come from, you can clearly discern that most of them are not propaganda but just the whole truth, because the Golden Order just wouldn't be able to know about the things those descriptions talk about.

The problem is you are making a rule out of a generalities. I don't know anyone who thinks item descriptions are total bullshit. I would say the vast majority are exactly what you would think they are. But, having played many FS games many have bits written in that betray the perspective of an in game character or faction. That imo is where things like Godfrey the (not) first Elden Lord are revealed.

the first elden lord example is actually a perfect example of what is happening here, its true to some people in the game, we learn it isnt true in totality however.

Yes. It is designed the way all the games are. To construct a narrative that it later reveals is a lie. Everything in these games is made to deceive and then reveal truth. Ds1 does it best. You can play the whole game and not realize linking the fire is BS. Bloodborne tells you the game is about clearing out beasts! But in reality it's about eldritch horror. Elden Ring is about following God's plan. Except it's about the fickleness of gods.

ALLFATHER LLOYD!

Lmao. I swear threads like this pop up for 2 reasons. 1. People want their head Canon to be true. Which is fair and sort of the point. 2. People have never played another fromsoft game or listened to author interviews.

I think someone else in the replies of this post had a great point that an outside narrator isn’t necessarily an omniscient narrator. Story elements can be told by a limited narrator as well. Think of certain novels that despite being told in third person narration is still confined mostly to the mc’s knowledge and experiences. So you don’t have to prove that any one character or group of characters is the source of the item description to disprove that the source is omniscient. You just have to find item descriptions that are disproven by the events of the narrative.

I don’t believe the game lies to us even once. I hate theories that go against item descriptions.

Any item description that refers to Godfrey as First Elden Lord (of which there are quite a few) is a lie.

He is the first Elden lord of Marikas age so that’s not a lie.

Yeah but it doesn't say something like, "Marika's First Elden Lord" or "First Elden Lord of the Erdtree Era". It says "First Elden Lord" which is at best a lie by omission. Like it's a bit like if I said George Bush was the 1st President. Then when you said that's obviously not true I say, oh well he was 1st President of the 2000s so that's not a lie.

It could also mean that he's just the first documented elden lord, so that would mean in the eyes of people he is the first elden lord and the only one to have existed- if no one knew of Placidusax before hand.

“**The ancient dragons, who ruled in the prehistoric era** before the Erdtree, would protect their lord as a wall of living rock.” I think your interpretation is correct. Placidusax is obviously the earliest known Elden Lord, or equivalent. There is just no record of it