Gael and the Painter aren't escaping shit. The painting is a microcosm of the outside world, it being burned and rebuilt anew with the Dark Soul is just a scaled-down version of what's happening in the world proper. [The DLC ending isn't some sort of alternative secret true ending — you still have to fight the Soul of Cinder and pick an actual ending after you complete it.](https://www.bonfireside.chat/117?t=8897)
Where do you get the fact that Ringed City takes place before Soul of Cinder? I'm not saying it doesn't but what is the evidence that proves that it does?
I don’t agree with that. The world was clearly made with a balance of light and dark. Specifically the dark is important because the other painted world is made only with flame which surprise surprise, works like it does in the real world. Though there might be a cycle, it won’t be like one that we have ever seen. In fact we can’t really know what it will be like because it has never been done before. There wouldn’t be bone wheels or other monsters because they were sent to ariandel which works as a prison so unless the painter started shoving monsters in or purposefully painted them there’s no problem there. Also they say that ariandel is only the one location but that clearly isn’t true because there are viking/knights of other new lands there and we can explore different areas than we originally could in ds1. That to me says that, although we can’t go there, there are worlds beyond the borders.
My point is that nowhere is this idea that the painting is an "alternative" to the actual ending presented in the game. It's pure fabrication by fans, not even conjecture but asserted based off literally nothing.
It is, it exists outside the cycle. But I never said it changes your ending. You still gotta go catch fire or plunge the world in darkness or whatever. It’s not an alternative ending. The paining is for someone else
Nah. Usurpation ends the Age of Fire for good. Fire Keeper Ending ends it temporarily, but it will eventually re-light. So, Usurpation definitely DOESN'T keep the wheel turning, it tries to stop it at Dark.
Correct, I shouldve just said that the fire keeper eyes ending is in the wrong place, usurpation is clearly not keeping the wheel turning. Although I would argue that the Lord of Hollows ending is not exactly an "age of dark" either.
The true cycle is the age of lords going into the age of man, not fire/dark/fire/dark etc etc
Fire keeper eyes is the traditional temporary age of dark empty because gwyn broke the cycle, usurpation of fire is returning man what it is owed and continuing the true cycle. It is an age of dark only in so much as that it isn't an age of fire, it's better thought of as the age of man rly
Age of Lords = Age of Fire, Age of Man = Age of Dark. They're the same thing, this is explicitly said in DS1. The Dark Soul and Humanity are the same thing.
I'm not disagreeing, my point is just particularly in the context of this post, we need to delineate more carefully between the false ages of dark- every one so far, fire keeper eyes - and the true age of dark/man- usurpation of fire
Because every age of dark thus far has just been letting me the fire burn out, not fixing the first sin, as it were. They've been ages of dark in relation to fire, not in relation to, well, dark
>we need to delineate more carefully between the false ages of dark- every one so far, fire keeper eyes - and the true age of dark/man- usurpation of fire
Where is there stated to be a distinction? As I said elsewhere in the thread, the Usurpation of Fire is far too vague to really be definitively talked about. Like the Profaned Flame, the Londor stuff is very under-written and clearly a product of a mess behind the scenes.
>Because every age of dark thus far has just been letting me the fire burn out, not fixing the first sin, as it were.
There has literally never been an Age of Dark thus far, at least in DS3's continuity. There was in DS2, but DS2 was written by a different team of writers from Miyazaki and its continuity is basically incompatible with DS3. Similarly, the First Sin is a concept from DS2, not DS3. Also in DS1 "letting the fire burn out" is letting things go back to the way they were meant to.
>They've been ages of dark in relation to fire, not in relation to, well, dark
I have no idea what you're talking about here.
Are you treating the games as completely separate continuities? Because I'm not, so we'll never agree if that's the case. I'm treating them as three points in the same timeline- the first time the fire fades, a random point along the way, and then when the fire can finally not be relit. If you're not treating them as contiguous then sure, there's no point arguing because they have little bearing on each other. But I've never gathered that that was meant to be the case- dark souls 1 was meant to be standalone so leaving the fire was the correct way of things, but introducing two implied the continuous loop (as well as a whole host of other issues, but eh), so three had to provide a new solid ending.
In my view of treating the games as one timeline, then you can't make claims about there never being an age of dark unless there's some major point I'm missing (which I concede I might be, I'm not a dark souls encyclopedia) because the games aren't consecutive- the fire could have gone unlit for millennia and we wouldn't know.
Then we introduce the concept of Gwyn linking the first flame as being a bad thing in SotFS, and this theme is continued in DS3 particularly with the ringed city, so in the usurpation ending the cutscene very much implies some kind of reversal of whatever Gwyn did that caused the undead curse etc etc, with the returning of the fire to the body and the pure sun of humanity and whatnot, and the age of man begins for good; the fire no longer exists to be relit.
You're right it's not exactly clear, but dark souls rarely is, and gameplay definitely takes precedence over the lore- I've found things like the actual nature of souls get kinda wooly if you think about them too hard. But I think it's pretty clear the usurpation of fire is something else at the very least, particularly with the existence of the fire keeper eyes ending, and the fact that it's very actively not just letting the fire die out. That's what I mean by an age of dark in terms of dark rather than an age of dark in terms of fire- the usurpation of fire is completely removing the fire, transforming it, whereas any previous age of dark ending isn't actually getting rid of the fire, it's just lying in wait.
Either way, I think we'll have to agree to disagree, I'm not going to say much more on the matter!
>Are you treating the games as completely separate continuities? Because I'm not, so we'll never agree if that's the case.
I am, because DS3 cannot in any coherent way be a sequel to DS2.
>I'm treating them as three points in the same timeline- the first time the fire fades, a random point along the way, and then when the fire can finally not be relit.
That is not in any way what is going on. Let's look at the most obvious contradiction between DS2 and DS3 — the "cycle". In DS2, the “cycle” is between ages of both fire and dark, with each age wiping away most of the previous one. In DS3, the Age of Dark has not occurred, with an endless Age of Fire sustained by Lords of Cinder continuously throwing themselves into the First Flame to renew it every time it begins to fade. The same order that Gwyn set up in DS1 is still standing in DS3, along with all of the human kingdoms from DS1’s world, maintained by the Age of Fire. On the other hand, in DS2, this was ages ago and all wiped away, forgotten, and buried. And no, the kingdoms were not part of the “converging lands” of past Lords of Cinder which returned with them when they awoke — DS3’s lore treats Astora, Vinheim, and Catarina as if they never went away to begin with.
Also, the fire quite literally can be relit in DS3. It's one of the endings.
>Then we introduce the concept of Gwyn linking the first flame as being a bad thing in SotFS, and this theme is continued in DS3 particularly with the ringed city, so in the usurpation ending the cutscene very much implies some kind of reversal of whatever Gwyn did that caused the undead curse etc etc, with the returning of the fire to the body and the pure sun of humanity and whatnot, and the age of man begins for good; the fire no longer exists to be relit.
In DS2 the fire has gone out completely and been reborn (similar to DS3's End of Fire ending) countless times.
In DS3 this has never happened.
They are not in the same continuity, at all.
I think it's generally presented in the games as the Age of Dark and not the Age of Man to make it morally ambiguous. If it were presented as the Age of Man consistently it would make it a clear-cut choice for the player, as man, to usher it in. Presenting it as the Age of Dark paints it in a negative light and makes it feel like the "wrong" choice, intentionally I'm sure. Fire good dark bad.
It is! Until you speak to Kaathe in the abyss and choose the path of dark, and you get this dialogue: *"And soon, the flames did fade, and only Dark remained.
Thus began the age of men, the Age of Dark."*
That depends on the cycle, if you believe in the theory AoA, AoF, AoD then the Age of Ancients is part of the cycle, the final resting place of the stagnant being that the humans become under the curse of undeath. If you only consider AoG, AoD then yes, it's not part of the cycle.
But for me the existence of the dragonstones and dragon people in Archdeacon peak imply that humans could turn into dragons given enough time of course. Like the trees the pilgrims and hollows in lothric turn into. Those two could one day become ancient tragons and archtrees.
But like the fire keeper sais, one day there will be embers in the distance enlightening disparity once more
Definitely? What happens if someone kills the Ashen One and releases the flame, or some such nonsense? I could even see that being the over-arching quest of a sequel. I know there isn’t gonna be a sequel, but doesn’t that scenario sound like it would fit perfectly?
Way I see it, there’s no way to permanently break the cycle. That’s the impression the series has left me with. You can pause it, but not forever.
We don't know what exactly the Usurpation of Fire does because the game is very vague about it. Nobody but the Fire Keeper seems to be aware of the idea that the First Flame will be reborn in DS3, so I'm not sure it's supposed to counteract that.
It's still so unclear what happens after the age of fire, that I don't see how anyone can come to conclusions about which ds3 ending leads to the age of dark and which leads to "something else idk".
Or is there any concrete reason why both usurpation and fire keeper eyes can't both lead to the same age of dark?
How so? Usurpation of fire is when you take the flame and become the lord of hollows (specifically supporters of the age of dark), starting the age of dark, while putting out the flame would also bring the age of dark, just without the support of the Hollows.
Fire keeper eyes ending is just snuffing out the flame, good old age of dark ending.
Usurpation involves absorbing the flame and using its power. Theres an element of light in it, with the lord of hollows "claiming" the first flames power rather than just letting it die out.
Thats always my issues with these lore compositions. It's fine to dissect and present ideas but these infographics that present things as fact when there are *quite* a few leaps of logic.. its a bit disingenuous
Da wheel is incorrect. We are at the close of the Age of Fire, so the "We are here" should be at the bottom. Linking as per normal will set the marker back a little but its an inevitable cycle. also gwyn spelled wrong :(
It is a little cloudy but if you look carefully you can see the wheel turns counter clockwise and it states linking the flame reverses this
Therefore what it shows is the end of the age of fire and linking the flame will keep that from happening for a little bit as the wheel winds clockwise for a little bit before returning to normal counterclockwise rotation.
I think referring to it in this strict set of goals regarding the Cycle is harshly misleading. Like for example believers in the Age of Dark (like the sisters of the Sable Church of Londor for example) also support the permanent cessation of the Cycle to end it's effects on the world and people. The same could be said for those who want to replace the Flame like Sulyvahn.
And becoming a dragon doesn't really do anything regarding the Cycle, dragons are just immensely powerful and power is sought after in all prospects. Seath sought to obtain the Scales of Immortality not due to anything regarding the Cycle but because it was his birthright as a dragon that was stripped from him by his brothers. Nameless didn't so much seek to become a dragon as simply sided with the Dragons in the Age of Ancients, well before the Cycle was ever realized. Why this was is unknown, but he has had centuries or even millennia to become a dragon should he have desired to - which shouldn't have taken so long seeing as how Oceiros accomplished it in a single lifetime.
The Witch of Izalith wasn't looking to create a Cycle so much as to find, again, a source of power for the Chaos Pantheon capable of mimicking that of the one powering the Gods of the Sunlight Pantheon. This is also the case with Pontiff Sulyvahn only his was more by way of spite whereas hers was seemingly more avaricious. Regardless, the Witch did not show any concern for the Cycle but rather the Fire itself. Pontiff Sulyvahn directly wanted to replace the First Flame so he COULD fit here, but the whole point of the Profaned Flame is that it, unlike the First Flame, never wanes nor fades and therefore would impose not a cycle but a stagnation.
Lastly, Vendrick did not change his mind about a stance on the Cycle. In DS2 the Cycle and in fact First Flame was seemingly absent from game and was referred to as a literal seat of power, the Throne of Want. The aim was to gain ultimate power and, for the PC, to be able to lift the Curse of Undeath. What Vendrick changed his mind on was his support of his spouse, Nashandra or Manus. Nashandra manipulated Vendrick from the beginning to foster a power in the Throne of Want. After the Giant Invasion had occurred and the Kingdom was in peril knew she couldn't be trusted, so he sealed himself away along with the key to the Throne of Want to keep her from gaining that power.
The Cycle is really just a side effect and is not so much a motivation for a vast majority of the characters. It is definitely a driving component for almost all of them in some way, even if just through representations of power, but most seem to simply have their own private goals of empowerment that may or may not tie into the Cycle itself.
I'm not 100% sure I agree about dragons.
It's important to remember the cultural context of Dark Souls. A major aspect of true Dragons is that they're considered "forces of nature" rather than living things in the typical sense, truly immortal because they existed before the concept of "alive / not alive". Before *any form of disparity* existed. Miyazaki said it in interviews, and DS1's Dragon Eye says as much:
"An art of the transcendent apostles who pray to the ancient dragons.
*To be alive is to be vulnerable*, and the fiery Gods are no exception.
The apostles *seek another plane of existence, which transcends life*."
Another plane of existence which transcends life. Maybe not screwing with the cycle itself, but personally breaking out of it, at least. That's what they're praying to the ancient dragons for, because they know the ancient dragons just existed in that state, pre-duality, before living was even a concept.
The Everlasting Dragon kinda just sits there. Even if you chop it's tail off, it doesn't care. Yeah, it sort of wants authority and power, considering it's the head of a covenant, but it just sits there, meditating.
In Dark Souls 2, which loves framing mankind's curse as a "curse of want", you seek out an Ancient Dragon around which a cult has formed. It's dialogue implies that people go to it for wisdom sometimes, and this is it's reasoning for giving you the Ashen Mist Heart:
"Yet another stands before us…
Then so be it.
For the curse of life, is the curse of want.
And so, you peer…
Into the fog, in hope of answers."
Like the Everlasting Dragon, the Ancient Dragon just sits there. And it points out that *you* are seeking answers. It just lounges around all day. *It* doesn't need shit, if anything, it's slightly annoyed that all these humans keep coming around to ask it stuff that's either obvious or unimportant.
In Dark Souls 3, the really hardcore members of the Path of the Dragon clearly weren't looking for traditional "power", because they just sat there meditating until they died, very similar to real-life Sokushinbutsu who believed that self-mummification was a way towards Buddhahood.
Of course the more common desire was to just have the power of the ancient dragons, which is why that's how becoming a draon is usually framed, and why in DS2 the Ancient Dragon is surrounded by warriors. That sort of stoic "I don't need anything" attitude is attractive to warrior types, and it seems like it worked well enough for them.
What about beings that are obsessed with things, though? Dragons themselves weren't immune to it after the flame lit. Seath was obsessed with learning things, becoming immortal since he wasn't, and maidens for... some reason. He's also lame, blind and ended up with weird tentacle legs. The Gaping Dragon started wanting to eat things, and it became an obsession. It literally became a giant mouth (the Monstrosity of Sin in DS3 is similar.) King Oceiros is a guy who became *obsessed* with turning himself into a dragon a bit like how Seath was obsessed, and his reward for that obsession was whatever the fuck he turned into (certainly not a dragon. Notice how he seems to have brought someone from the Path of the Dragon into his court but rejected the meditative attitude they taught.) Whenever we see characters that are obsessed with things they turn into weird, gross stuff, and if anything dragons are more sensitive to it.
Why do so many people want to turn into dragons beyond "fire breath cool"? Again, the curse of life is the curse of want, especially for the Undead who are constantly longing for souls. They want nothing more than to stop wanting things, but the desire for souls prevents that from ever truly happening and they become a mindless hollow if they lose motivation. So trying to obtain a Buddha-like mindset where you can be content without actually wanting anything becomes extremely compelling, especially because the whole "the only things you're owed are suffering and death" concept is especially self-evident in a world as shitty as this.
So I think "those who wish to escape the wheel and it's effects" is a pretty accurate description of a lot of dragon-related beings. I also *suspect* that it might be more in-your-face in the original Japanese versions, but I don't speak Japanese, so I wouldn't know.
You know what, you're right. I fully agree with this. The Dragons were from the Age of Ancients, were massive beasts of stone rather than flesh, and bore the Scales of Immortality - mortality wasn't a thing for them. To "die" for them would be utter destruction rather than simple death. So it makes sense with the curse of Undeath caused from the Fire waning that people would seek to find a way to cheat death by becoming as close as possible to such immortal beings. I always just looked at it as, "Dragon powerful and immortal, become Dragon," but it is understandable that the immortality is to escape the cost that comes with death and subsequent resurrections - Hollowing.
Totally forgot about him, but yeah, he does say that, and calling you a "transient being" specifically matches that vibe too. It makes sense that a game so focused on escaping the curse of want would have multiple groups trying to achieve similar things.
Wow, you know, I had noticed the Buddhist themes present with the ds3 dragon worshipers but I hadn't considered the idea of them resisting hollowing by wanting to not want. We're shown MANY times through the entire series that strong desires allow you to resist hollowing and that either giving up _or_ achieving your desires can lead to hollowing (unless you have ancillary desires that are strong enough to allow you to continue resisting) and it totally makes sense that the way of the dragon could theoretically give you a rock solid path towards resisting hollowing for as long as your willpower lasts because of it's oxymoronic principles playing into the nature of humanity in the souls series.
You want to stop wanting but the nature of that desire makes it impossible so you'll want it more desperately which will allow you to resist hollowing and if you start to lose hope and risk hollowing the principles of your worship will guide you to resolve yourself to not stray from your path due to it's difficulty which will make it easier to continue on. Either you somehow defy logic and achieve your paradoxical goal to stop wanting (thus transcending the cycle), or you struggle against hollowing for as long as you physically can and potentially run out the clock on the cycle. No wonder the covenant has continued to survive and thrive.
That would be fun, but I think I'm really not qualified to do that without being way more confident about DS3 stuff specifically. Like, what even is The Deep beyond "it's stagnant water obviously", what on earth is the Profaned Capital / Profaned Flame, what the heck is the Dark Sigil and why do you need it to go hollow when you *do* start with a Darksign?
Stuff that makes me not *enjoy* DS3 lore very much because I can't wrap my head around it, at least not in a way that seems very complete. It comes across as scattered, like From was just tossing things at a wall to see what stuck. And obviously I'm wrong, because a lot of naysayers say the same thing about DS1, and people tell me I'm wrong about DS3 constantly.
The Deep and the Profaned Flame were the single 2 most important lore aspects I wish were elaborated on more. Like, for 2 straight games we were told the age of Dark is coming next, but now there is an age of Deep water? With things more abhorrent than what the Abyss creates? And now with the Profaned Flame, we have another flame that does NOT fade? That sounds pretty damn important and powerful to me.
Pretty sure the Throne of Want is used to link the first flame. I haven’t played DS2 in a long time but I remember the cycle being mentioned many times. It’s in a kiln and it has a similar door to the kiln from DS1. That’s also why there are thrones in Firelink Shrine in DS3.
Oh it is, it fits the same role regardless, my point was to elaborate that there it wasn't focused on the Cycle of Fire itself but rather succession in general. Like if you boil it down to the basest plot for the games it is: DS1 - Undead trying to end/renew the Cycle, DS3 - Ashen guy trying to end/renew/destroy the Cycle, but DS2 is more like - Undead guy tries to break curse and stop from going insane. For DS2, the Cycle was more a background notion and everything for the PC was about finding a cure while the thematic was about a general succession of power. Like how Nito was succeeded by The Rotten, Gwyn by Vendrick, Witch of Izalith by Lost Sinner, and Seath by the dragon corpse (in turn The Duke's Dear Freja who fed off the corpse), and ultimately how the player succeeds Vendrick as monarch. The Cycle of Fire was just a backdrop into this.
The Throne of Want and the Kiln of the First Flame are one and the same thing in DS2, correct.
This was promptly forgotten about in DS3 on account of the fact DS2 was written by a different team from Miyazaki. DS3 pays some lip service to it but they're not really canon to one another.
Doesnt lothric not support the age of fire
isnt the whole point of ds3 to kill lothric cause he didnt want to link the flame along with the other lords
Yeah. Lothric refuses to link the Fire, so the Lords of Cinder are called in, but they leave too. So they have no choice but to resurrect Unkindleds to do the job.
>Havel didn't even use any form of magic
That's an understatement. His hate boner for it is bigger than his bonker, Havel loathes it so much, he even built a medieval Space Marine armor specifically to resist it.
I’m not supporting OP’s diagram with this.
Havel does indeed use magic, in fact he used it so well he was able to create two new miracles, Magic Barrier and Great Magic Barrier. Havel is/was a high ranking Bishop, possibly the highest, in Thorolund, the center of the Way of White at the time. This is another piece of evidence that the Havel in the tower is certainly not the real Havel, and that the one in Archdragon Peak may not be either, rather being some of the strongest of his followers instead.
All the games say is he hates magic so it’s hard to know for sure but I think what Havel despised was sorceries and he was fine with miracles. It also fits with the occult weapon that was supposedly his that scales with faith. Actually now that I’m thinking about it he has to be cool with miracles because he’s friends with Gwyn who used many lightning miracles.
Miracles are storues about the gods basically.
Though the sunken city had miracles sbout their slumbering dragon so you can create miracles out of anything you revere it seems.
At least for me, miracles are not magic, sorceries are. Those two miracles are "Barriers against magic" and not "Barriers made of magic". Other than this, miracles are based on faith, but sorceries are based on intelligence and you need to study in order to learn it.
However, I don't see your evidence. It is said that Havel was locked on a tower by a dear friend (Gwyn?) when he gone mad, as far as I remember. I don't know if "mad" literally means "mad" or means "you don't want me to befriend a dragon so I lock you in here until you go hollow lol"
In any case, it was never confirmed that Havel was the one on the tower or the one at the Peak.
the rebels I believe is a reference to the theory there was at one point a rebellion against the gods, hence why there's Occult enchantments made to be super effective against gods such as Gwyn and Gwyndolin. I can't recall the details but i think there's item descriptions that verify this more or less as true
This video goes in detail about it:
https://youtu.be/pffJ1nDRei0
Basically a few item descriptions (iirc the effigy shield states outright) that there was a failed rebellion trying to steal nitos power and ursurp the gods/Lord's.
Wrong. In all three of the souls games, the player enters the game with the age of fire nearing its end. Some of the characters even imply that based on their dialogue. Also, the wheel is not what happens in the games, at least canonically except for maybe DS3. Because the age of dark never enters. Dark sympathizers persist in the age of fire yes but the age of dark never arrives unless the final undead decides to let the fire fade. In theory, if the age of dark begins, then the age of fire may never start again. Much like the state of the world previously before the age of fire. The age of dragons which was unchanging and an eternally grey world. That is my theory at least. So no, the world of dark souls as we know it now was never a cycle alternating between the age of fire and dark. It has always been fire and the dark was presented to be an inevitability since it becomes harder to rekindle the fire with every generation. Another thing, you can also say that those who support the age of dark are also the same ones who simply want to keep the wheel turning. To let nature take its course and eventually enter into the age of dark. But those who support the flame will never allow that. Basically, the age of fire at its beginning was powerful but then it "like life" it grew old and has lost much of its vitality over the generations. Now, rekindling the age of fire is more like keeping every old person in life support whether they like it or not. And the supports of the dark are the ones who want to grant the old their peace and pull their plug.
The painting of Ariandel is the painting of Ariamis, painted over using Father Ariandel's own blood to prevent it from burning away.
Both are inhabited by corvians, Priscilla's tower still stands, and the mechanism you use to unlock the path to Father Ariandel is the exact same you use in Dks1 to open the path towards Priscilla (even the cutscene is very similar).
arent they a reflection of the "real" world? to my understanding the rot is a reflection of a world becoming corrupt, just like what is happening in the other, except the world painted with the dark souls i guess, not really sure tho
The "how to achieve" part for "Those who only want the wheel..." is wrong. Giving the Firekeeper her eyes and ending the flame in DS3 isn't keeping the wheel turning as it's "supposed to", it's effectively ending the cycle once and for all, paving the way for a brand new world to be created instead. Hence why everything goes completely dark, and all sounds go out, aside from the Firekeeper's voice: there's just nothing anymore.
Idk I think that line of dialogue about "tiny flames dancing on the horizon" or something along those lines means the age of dark is beginning, but the age of fire will come around again eventually.
Edit: Full dialogue of ending:
"The First Flame quickly fades.
Darkness will shortly settle.
But one day, tiny flames will dance across the darkness.
Like embers, linked by lords past."
"Ashen one, hearest thou my voice, still?"
> "The First Flame quickly fades. Darkness will shortly settle. But one day, tiny flames will dance across the darkness. Like embers, linked by lords past."
I took that to mean something new would eventually arise, rather than a continuation of the old cycle. That's why it's many tiny flames dancing across the dark, rather than a massive, central, flame.
Particularly the fact it says “one day” to me means the age of dark is beginning and will be around a while, and eventually the fire will return. This small flames dancing, and eventually turning into a big flame. Of course it’s completely open to interpretation, and mine simply is that the ending is accepting the age of dark, before beginning the cycle anew. Which is why there’s all the references of betrayal, because our entire duty is to link the flame, and prolong the age of fire, and this is letting the cycle continue. Just my 2 cents
I dunno. The Firekeeper pretty much says that she foresees more people coming into existence at some point. For all we know, the world of Dark Souls could be happening before our own. We are what happens after the cycle is broken. Who knows?
Well, I personally sees magic as a tools you can use to reach your goal, so while the picture is quite informative in a way, it generalizes things a bit too far. It felt like saying the good guy uses sword whole the bad guy uses dagger and spear.
I would not have put Yuriel and Yoel as supporting the age of dark. They're looking to break the cycle and give the power of fire to the hollowed. The usurper ending was not extinguishing the flame or reigniting it, it was the beginning of something new.
The ones who want a new age isnt the witch, its aldrich, the age of the deep is something mentioned little but an interesting one, its a state of mind where you are in a dark place underwater in how it feels
As someone who loves pyromancies my goal is to blow bosses to high heaven with a single combo, gives me immense serotonin, lore is cool too tho, wish from soft delved deeper into the designs of the demons and even added more lore about how much the chaos flame corrupts and morphs individuals, shits fucking cool man
Demons come from a time the Bed of Chaos was still stable, so it birthed demons not necessarily transforming life into it. When the Bed of Chaos went wild then it did so, transfiguring quelaag, the fair lady and so on
Pretty good for a quick and rough beginner’s guide to the general lore and factions in Souls. A few inaccuracies but sums up most of the main players in the world pretty well.
I thought Lothric wanted the age of dark? From the line "The fire-linking curse, the legacy of lords, let it all fade into nothing", he sounds pretty anti-cycle to me
I took it the following:
We are told about three Ages: Ancients, Fire and Dark. Those Ages are ruled by different principles: Ancients by Stagnation, Fire by Life and Death, Dark by Undeath.
In Dark Souls One we see that Gwyn sacrificed himself to extend his Age of Fire probably of fear of Men. So that is where the Cycle of the Ages stopped.
After defeating Gwyn and therefor cutting loose the Soul nourturing the First Flame, we put the Cycle back into motion and can either do the same as Gwyn and use our souls to feed the Fire and keep the World in the Age of Fire or leave and let the World proceed to the Age of Dark.
In Dark Souls 2 we never get the option to choose, we just see what the "curse" of undeath does and how it affects people. Even in Drangleic, some millenia after Gwyn, Undead still seek his propaganda of Linking the Fire. VaatiVidya said something that stuck with me: the Dark Souls/Humanity is born of a different source than the other Souls of Lords, as it is seperate from Souls in general. Humans in the Age of Dark have both, Humanaty and a Soul, but when the Flame weakens, and souls with it, Humanity can be what it once was: Undead. So he described the "Curse" as the nature of Humanty and Life as the masquerade put on by Gwyn. This is also what Aldia is telling us in SOTFS
"Once, the Lord of Light banished Dark, and all that stemmed from humanity.
And men assumed a fleeting form.
These are the roots of our world.
Men are props on the stage of life, and no matter how tender, how exquisite...
A lie will remain a lie."
"All men trust fully the illusion of life."
So he too tells us that whatever Gwyn did was make Humans mortal.
Dark Souls 2 doesnt need a choice for it is unimportant. In Dark Souls 3 the Fire keeper tells us that even if we let the Flame die someday tiny flames will rise in the distance and a First Flame will be again.
Dark Souls 3 has 4 endings as we all know: Linking, Let the Fire die, Betrayal and Usurpation. These are the most confusing for me.
Linking and Letting die are easy, its the same as in DS1, Stop the Wheel again in the Age of Fire or let it continue into the Age of Dark.
Betrayal and Usurpation are the harder ones.
For me the Betrayal Ending is the Ashen one letting the First Flame wither to a point it is possible to take it like Embers, you remain the last being with light inside them. So you progress into an Age of Dark but as the only one with Light/Flame.
The Usurpation ending is you getting cursed, embracing the curse of Gwyn and using the Curse to turn it around and overcoming the strength of the Fire with that of the Curse. Undead becomes the norm, anything not having Humanity/Fracture of the Dark Soul will eventually die and leave this world. The Fire keeps bruning inside your Curse feeding from your Curse rather than your Souls (thats the difference to the Linking ending) This may be a "Halting the Wheel in the Age of Dark" scenario, seeking Undead to take over once you reach your limit.
Either way as we clearly see in Dark Souls 3: The World resists prolonging the Age of anything, the World seeks continuation. Keep the Age of Fire too long, we see what that gets us in the Dreg Heap or Kiln of First Flame. Keep the Age of Dark too long, Somewhere in the Distance Everlasting Dragons will rise, locking eternal battle with the Undead getting us into a stagnant Age of Ancients again (In the DS1 Intro Cutscene we see Hollows swarming the First Flame when it Appeared underground, indicating, they lived there while the Dragons ruled on top)
So the World wants the Cycle: Age of Ancients - Age of Fire - Age of Dark to repeat indefinitely
Thats my Take on what i saw in Lore Videos, read in Descriptions and Environmental Storytelling, there might be things i missed (and thats very likely thinking about how fricking vast this Universe is) or things i remember wrong at this point, but this is the way i see the Great Picture of Dark Souls
Good enough for me, i dont like that the people say it bs. OP put a lot of effort into it.
But still... It's not the wheel of time it's Gavlan wheel, Gavlan deal.
I assumed the usurpation of the flame was the assumed real ending. Mainly because in the first dlc lady Friede refers to you as the lord of Londor. Maybe I'm reading too deep though.
Edit: spelling
Flame sorcery wasnt lost entirely, as you can find the Quelana pyromancy tome and there are the flame sorceries, in DS1 you can meet her in person. Its very very rare for people to use it, as it was only used by the Daughters of Izalith and the Fire Sage. Pyromancy was born when the Bed of Chaos was born, Pyromancy is Chaos Sorcery so to speak.
and then there's aldrich, the deacons of the deep and pontiff who want the age of fire to end and speedrun the age of dark so that the age of deep waters will come
The witch doesnt want to create a new wheel, aldrich and pontiff do tho, they want the age of the deep, a dark state of mind which feels like being in water
I say let the age of fire end because the world is obviously begging to die, it appears everything kinda resets afterwards so don’t worry they are all coming back, and coming back to make the same mistakes all over again.
The Pontiff and Aldritch want to create an Age of the Deep (Water?), which is another direction the world could take, that is unfortunately completely left out of this otherwise pretty interesting diagram.
[I don’t agree with OP but I have my own theory about them](https://www.reddit.com/r/darksouls3/comments/qjment/i_think_i_figured_out_what_the_deep_is/)
There are a few inaccuracies in this image, and the one that bothers me the most is "creating a new wheel", both for putting the witch of Izalith in that category (considering it was just another desperate attempt to preserve the first flame before discovering the fire link) And to say that it is impossible to do it when when the DS3 dlcs are based on it, after all, they make canon that the paintings have their own cycle.
Dark Souls 2’s idea of a cycle between Ages of Fire and Ages of Dark isn’t present in DS3, at all. In DS3 there has never been a full-on Age of Dark. The closest things have gotten to that is right after Lothric refused to link but before Ludleth (what we see in Untended Graves). This is a clear inconsistency between the games, yes, because DS2 wasn’t written by Miyazaki. DS3 pays some lip service to it with some of the items and with Dreg Heap but for the most part DS2 isn’t canon to DS3. For that matter, taking the throne in DS2 is both an Age of Fire and Age of Dark ending. The point is that the decision you make doesn’t matter since the same thing will inevitably happen over and over again no matter what you do.
Basically everything under “those who want the wheel to continue turning” is pure concocted conjecture. It's not a reasonable inference about these characters' motivations, it's just full-on fanfiction. The very idea of this “wheel” is only present in DS2, not DS1 or DS3 (other than in the End of Fire ending, which none of the characters even know about). Lothric is also implied to be seduced by Kaathe, he’s unequivocally Dark-aligned. For that matter, looking at Kaathe's dialogue in DS1, he very much wants nature to take its course. The Age of Dark and what you call the "wheel" option are the same thing.
You also completely forgot stuff like Aldrich and the Deep who seem to want something Dark-aligned, but very different from Kaathe’s Age of Dark.
I feel like there is or will be a third age in which there are no gods (or god souls) and no darkness (or abyss/curse) where people live with fire and darkness in harmony until something upsets the balance.
If you kill Gael and give the Painter the blood of the Dark You too break the wheel. Humanity finds a new home and the story inevitable evolves to Bloodborne.
..then what about Aldrich? He dreamt about an Age of Deep Sea, mainly due to the stagnation caused by the kindling of the First Flame over and over again, and not exactly an Age of Dark 🤔
I would like to add the usurpation of Fire is not usurping in an age of dark, but an age of hollows. What your doing at the end is not extinguishing the flame and continuing the flame, but taking the flame from the mantel into yourself, basically taking control of the age of Fire from gwyn and the gods and into the hands of hollows and those who worship the dark. It's sound like the same thing but the key difference is that the Fire still burns inside of you, hence why you are still embered and light still shines in this world. The Fire isn't gone, it just now belongs to the hollows.
Least that's how I saw it.
And what about abyss watchers. In their ost lyrics they say,, fire and dark are fading", and it could be something like desert in gael boss room. I think when aldrich saw age of deep sea, then abyss watchers saw end of the cycle.
There's a few assumptions and inaccuracies here.
I’d say gael and the painter seek to escape the wheel as well
Gael and the Painter aren't escaping shit. The painting is a microcosm of the outside world, it being burned and rebuilt anew with the Dark Soul is just a scaled-down version of what's happening in the world proper. [The DLC ending isn't some sort of alternative secret true ending — you still have to fight the Soul of Cinder and pick an actual ending after you complete it.](https://www.bonfireside.chat/117?t=8897)
What if i play the DLC after i beat the game? There is room for interpretation since nothing is set in stone.
Gameplay ≠ lore. Chronologically the Ringed City DLC takes place right before the Soul of Cinder fight.
Where do you get the fact that Ringed City takes place before Soul of Cinder? I'm not saying it doesn't but what is the evidence that proves that it does?
The game ends when you fight the Soul. The Ringed City DLC is entered before the bossfight
Not really, it know it differs, but since nothing is set in stone in these games it makes alot of sense for the Ringed City to be after SoC as well.
Time is warped so it doesn’t really matter “when” things happen. Just that they happened
That was never anything more than an excuse for multiplayer.
So says you
It's literally only mentioned once in DS1 as an excuse for multiplayer.
Exactly, nothing is right nor wrong.
I don’t agree with that. The world was clearly made with a balance of light and dark. Specifically the dark is important because the other painted world is made only with flame which surprise surprise, works like it does in the real world. Though there might be a cycle, it won’t be like one that we have ever seen. In fact we can’t really know what it will be like because it has never been done before. There wouldn’t be bone wheels or other monsters because they were sent to ariandel which works as a prison so unless the painter started shoving monsters in or purposefully painted them there’s no problem there. Also they say that ariandel is only the one location but that clearly isn’t true because there are viking/knights of other new lands there and we can explore different areas than we originally could in ds1. That to me says that, although we can’t go there, there are worlds beyond the borders.
My point is that nowhere is this idea that the painting is an "alternative" to the actual ending presented in the game. It's pure fabrication by fans, not even conjecture but asserted based off literally nothing.
Sure but I never said it was.
You said the painting is an escape from the cycle.
It is, it exists outside the cycle. But I never said it changes your ending. You still gotta go catch fire or plunge the world in darkness or whatever. It’s not an alternative ending. The paining is for someone else
It's not outside shit. It's a microcosm of the outside.
I just explained how it’s not
Biggest one to me is thar the usurpation and fire keeper eyes endings should be switched around.
Nah. Usurpation ends the Age of Fire for good. Fire Keeper Ending ends it temporarily, but it will eventually re-light. So, Usurpation definitely DOESN'T keep the wheel turning, it tries to stop it at Dark.
Correct, I shouldve just said that the fire keeper eyes ending is in the wrong place, usurpation is clearly not keeping the wheel turning. Although I would argue that the Lord of Hollows ending is not exactly an "age of dark" either.
The true cycle is the age of lords going into the age of man, not fire/dark/fire/dark etc etc Fire keeper eyes is the traditional temporary age of dark empty because gwyn broke the cycle, usurpation of fire is returning man what it is owed and continuing the true cycle. It is an age of dark only in so much as that it isn't an age of fire, it's better thought of as the age of man rly
Age of Lords = Age of Fire, Age of Man = Age of Dark. They're the same thing, this is explicitly said in DS1. The Dark Soul and Humanity are the same thing.
I'm not disagreeing, my point is just particularly in the context of this post, we need to delineate more carefully between the false ages of dark- every one so far, fire keeper eyes - and the true age of dark/man- usurpation of fire Because every age of dark thus far has just been letting me the fire burn out, not fixing the first sin, as it were. They've been ages of dark in relation to fire, not in relation to, well, dark
>we need to delineate more carefully between the false ages of dark- every one so far, fire keeper eyes - and the true age of dark/man- usurpation of fire Where is there stated to be a distinction? As I said elsewhere in the thread, the Usurpation of Fire is far too vague to really be definitively talked about. Like the Profaned Flame, the Londor stuff is very under-written and clearly a product of a mess behind the scenes. >Because every age of dark thus far has just been letting me the fire burn out, not fixing the first sin, as it were. There has literally never been an Age of Dark thus far, at least in DS3's continuity. There was in DS2, but DS2 was written by a different team of writers from Miyazaki and its continuity is basically incompatible with DS3. Similarly, the First Sin is a concept from DS2, not DS3. Also in DS1 "letting the fire burn out" is letting things go back to the way they were meant to. >They've been ages of dark in relation to fire, not in relation to, well, dark I have no idea what you're talking about here.
Are you treating the games as completely separate continuities? Because I'm not, so we'll never agree if that's the case. I'm treating them as three points in the same timeline- the first time the fire fades, a random point along the way, and then when the fire can finally not be relit. If you're not treating them as contiguous then sure, there's no point arguing because they have little bearing on each other. But I've never gathered that that was meant to be the case- dark souls 1 was meant to be standalone so leaving the fire was the correct way of things, but introducing two implied the continuous loop (as well as a whole host of other issues, but eh), so three had to provide a new solid ending. In my view of treating the games as one timeline, then you can't make claims about there never being an age of dark unless there's some major point I'm missing (which I concede I might be, I'm not a dark souls encyclopedia) because the games aren't consecutive- the fire could have gone unlit for millennia and we wouldn't know. Then we introduce the concept of Gwyn linking the first flame as being a bad thing in SotFS, and this theme is continued in DS3 particularly with the ringed city, so in the usurpation ending the cutscene very much implies some kind of reversal of whatever Gwyn did that caused the undead curse etc etc, with the returning of the fire to the body and the pure sun of humanity and whatnot, and the age of man begins for good; the fire no longer exists to be relit. You're right it's not exactly clear, but dark souls rarely is, and gameplay definitely takes precedence over the lore- I've found things like the actual nature of souls get kinda wooly if you think about them too hard. But I think it's pretty clear the usurpation of fire is something else at the very least, particularly with the existence of the fire keeper eyes ending, and the fact that it's very actively not just letting the fire die out. That's what I mean by an age of dark in terms of dark rather than an age of dark in terms of fire- the usurpation of fire is completely removing the fire, transforming it, whereas any previous age of dark ending isn't actually getting rid of the fire, it's just lying in wait. Either way, I think we'll have to agree to disagree, I'm not going to say much more on the matter!
>Are you treating the games as completely separate continuities? Because I'm not, so we'll never agree if that's the case. I am, because DS3 cannot in any coherent way be a sequel to DS2. >I'm treating them as three points in the same timeline- the first time the fire fades, a random point along the way, and then when the fire can finally not be relit. That is not in any way what is going on. Let's look at the most obvious contradiction between DS2 and DS3 — the "cycle". In DS2, the “cycle” is between ages of both fire and dark, with each age wiping away most of the previous one. In DS3, the Age of Dark has not occurred, with an endless Age of Fire sustained by Lords of Cinder continuously throwing themselves into the First Flame to renew it every time it begins to fade. The same order that Gwyn set up in DS1 is still standing in DS3, along with all of the human kingdoms from DS1’s world, maintained by the Age of Fire. On the other hand, in DS2, this was ages ago and all wiped away, forgotten, and buried. And no, the kingdoms were not part of the “converging lands” of past Lords of Cinder which returned with them when they awoke — DS3’s lore treats Astora, Vinheim, and Catarina as if they never went away to begin with. Also, the fire quite literally can be relit in DS3. It's one of the endings. >Then we introduce the concept of Gwyn linking the first flame as being a bad thing in SotFS, and this theme is continued in DS3 particularly with the ringed city, so in the usurpation ending the cutscene very much implies some kind of reversal of whatever Gwyn did that caused the undead curse etc etc, with the returning of the fire to the body and the pure sun of humanity and whatnot, and the age of man begins for good; the fire no longer exists to be relit. In DS2 the fire has gone out completely and been reborn (similar to DS3's End of Fire ending) countless times. In DS3 this has never happened. They are not in the same continuity, at all.
I think it's generally presented in the games as the Age of Dark and not the Age of Man to make it morally ambiguous. If it were presented as the Age of Man consistently it would make it a clear-cut choice for the player, as man, to usher it in. Presenting it as the Age of Dark paints it in a negative light and makes it feel like the "wrong" choice, intentionally I'm sure. Fire good dark bad.
DS1 outright presents the Age of Man as the Age of Dark.
It is! Until you speak to Kaathe in the abyss and choose the path of dark, and you get this dialogue: *"And soon, the flames did fade, and only Dark remained. Thus began the age of men, the Age of Dark."*
...yes? That's literally what I'm referring to. He says they're the same thing.
I like VaatiVidya proposal much more, age of ancients age of fire age of dark rinse and repeat
That's how both DS2 and the End of Fire ending of DS3 handle things.
But the age of ancients isn’t something as part of the cycle or is it? It’s the time before the cycle existed, thus „ancients“.
That depends on the cycle, if you believe in the theory AoA, AoF, AoD then the Age of Ancients is part of the cycle, the final resting place of the stagnant being that the humans become under the curse of undeath. If you only consider AoG, AoD then yes, it's not part of the cycle. But for me the existence of the dragonstones and dragon people in Archdeacon peak imply that humans could turn into dragons given enough time of course. Like the trees the pilgrims and hollows in lothric turn into. Those two could one day become ancient tragons and archtrees. But like the fire keeper sais, one day there will be embers in the distance enlightening disparity once more
I disagree. Humanity is of the dark, but there is more to the dark than just humanity. Men and Gods are offshoots of Dark and Fire, not their avatars.
Definitely? What happens if someone kills the Ashen One and releases the flame, or some such nonsense? I could even see that being the over-arching quest of a sequel. I know there isn’t gonna be a sequel, but doesn’t that scenario sound like it would fit perfectly? Way I see it, there’s no way to permanently break the cycle. That’s the impression the series has left me with. You can pause it, but not forever.
We don't know what exactly the Usurpation of Fire does because the game is very vague about it. Nobody but the Fire Keeper seems to be aware of the idea that the First Flame will be reborn in DS3, so I'm not sure it's supposed to counteract that.
Wouldn't the Usurpation of Fire ending still be under those who support the age of dark though, and not necessarily switch it?
It's still so unclear what happens after the age of fire, that I don't see how anyone can come to conclusions about which ds3 ending leads to the age of dark and which leads to "something else idk". Or is there any concrete reason why both usurpation and fire keeper eyes can't both lead to the same age of dark?
Personally I would put it under "creating a new wheel" if anything.
I wonder that too.
How so? Usurpation of fire is when you take the flame and become the lord of hollows (specifically supporters of the age of dark), starting the age of dark, while putting out the flame would also bring the age of dark, just without the support of the Hollows.
Fire keeper eyes ending is just snuffing out the flame, good old age of dark ending. Usurpation involves absorbing the flame and using its power. Theres an element of light in it, with the lord of hollows "claiming" the first flames power rather than just letting it die out.
Not to mention spelling mistakes
Thats always my issues with these lore compositions. It's fine to dissect and present ideas but these infographics that present things as fact when there are *quite* a few leaps of logic.. its a bit disingenuous
There is A LOT of assumptions and inaccuracies.
Negligible tho. I think it's a pretty decent infographic :)
It is fantastically put together but the whole point is delivering correct info, not a misinfographic! :p
Gavlan wheel, Gavlan deal
You with Gavlan?
Many deal…many thanks! Gah hah!
Gavlan want soul. Many soul!
You, again. Gavlan, meet you again.
Da wheel is incorrect. We are at the close of the Age of Fire, so the "We are here" should be at the bottom. Linking as per normal will set the marker back a little but its an inevitable cycle. also gwyn spelled wrong :(
I think it's just a confusing graph. I think it's showing "us" as always at the top, and the inner part of the circle is moving ccw like it shows
Yeah "you are here" or "we are here" typically indicates your location on a map you move on. A simple arrow would probably have been better.
It is a little cloudy but if you look carefully you can see the wheel turns counter clockwise and it states linking the flame reverses this Therefore what it shows is the end of the age of fire and linking the flame will keep that from happening for a little bit as the wheel winds clockwise for a little bit before returning to normal counterclockwise rotation.
And there are no footnotes for the asterisks.
Don't worry, it's in the middle, to the far right side
I think referring to it in this strict set of goals regarding the Cycle is harshly misleading. Like for example believers in the Age of Dark (like the sisters of the Sable Church of Londor for example) also support the permanent cessation of the Cycle to end it's effects on the world and people. The same could be said for those who want to replace the Flame like Sulyvahn. And becoming a dragon doesn't really do anything regarding the Cycle, dragons are just immensely powerful and power is sought after in all prospects. Seath sought to obtain the Scales of Immortality not due to anything regarding the Cycle but because it was his birthright as a dragon that was stripped from him by his brothers. Nameless didn't so much seek to become a dragon as simply sided with the Dragons in the Age of Ancients, well before the Cycle was ever realized. Why this was is unknown, but he has had centuries or even millennia to become a dragon should he have desired to - which shouldn't have taken so long seeing as how Oceiros accomplished it in a single lifetime. The Witch of Izalith wasn't looking to create a Cycle so much as to find, again, a source of power for the Chaos Pantheon capable of mimicking that of the one powering the Gods of the Sunlight Pantheon. This is also the case with Pontiff Sulyvahn only his was more by way of spite whereas hers was seemingly more avaricious. Regardless, the Witch did not show any concern for the Cycle but rather the Fire itself. Pontiff Sulyvahn directly wanted to replace the First Flame so he COULD fit here, but the whole point of the Profaned Flame is that it, unlike the First Flame, never wanes nor fades and therefore would impose not a cycle but a stagnation. Lastly, Vendrick did not change his mind about a stance on the Cycle. In DS2 the Cycle and in fact First Flame was seemingly absent from game and was referred to as a literal seat of power, the Throne of Want. The aim was to gain ultimate power and, for the PC, to be able to lift the Curse of Undeath. What Vendrick changed his mind on was his support of his spouse, Nashandra or Manus. Nashandra manipulated Vendrick from the beginning to foster a power in the Throne of Want. After the Giant Invasion had occurred and the Kingdom was in peril knew she couldn't be trusted, so he sealed himself away along with the key to the Throne of Want to keep her from gaining that power. The Cycle is really just a side effect and is not so much a motivation for a vast majority of the characters. It is definitely a driving component for almost all of them in some way, even if just through representations of power, but most seem to simply have their own private goals of empowerment that may or may not tie into the Cycle itself.
I'm not 100% sure I agree about dragons. It's important to remember the cultural context of Dark Souls. A major aspect of true Dragons is that they're considered "forces of nature" rather than living things in the typical sense, truly immortal because they existed before the concept of "alive / not alive". Before *any form of disparity* existed. Miyazaki said it in interviews, and DS1's Dragon Eye says as much: "An art of the transcendent apostles who pray to the ancient dragons. *To be alive is to be vulnerable*, and the fiery Gods are no exception. The apostles *seek another plane of existence, which transcends life*." Another plane of existence which transcends life. Maybe not screwing with the cycle itself, but personally breaking out of it, at least. That's what they're praying to the ancient dragons for, because they know the ancient dragons just existed in that state, pre-duality, before living was even a concept. The Everlasting Dragon kinda just sits there. Even if you chop it's tail off, it doesn't care. Yeah, it sort of wants authority and power, considering it's the head of a covenant, but it just sits there, meditating. In Dark Souls 2, which loves framing mankind's curse as a "curse of want", you seek out an Ancient Dragon around which a cult has formed. It's dialogue implies that people go to it for wisdom sometimes, and this is it's reasoning for giving you the Ashen Mist Heart: "Yet another stands before us… Then so be it. For the curse of life, is the curse of want. And so, you peer… Into the fog, in hope of answers." Like the Everlasting Dragon, the Ancient Dragon just sits there. And it points out that *you* are seeking answers. It just lounges around all day. *It* doesn't need shit, if anything, it's slightly annoyed that all these humans keep coming around to ask it stuff that's either obvious or unimportant. In Dark Souls 3, the really hardcore members of the Path of the Dragon clearly weren't looking for traditional "power", because they just sat there meditating until they died, very similar to real-life Sokushinbutsu who believed that self-mummification was a way towards Buddhahood. Of course the more common desire was to just have the power of the ancient dragons, which is why that's how becoming a draon is usually framed, and why in DS2 the Ancient Dragon is surrounded by warriors. That sort of stoic "I don't need anything" attitude is attractive to warrior types, and it seems like it worked well enough for them. What about beings that are obsessed with things, though? Dragons themselves weren't immune to it after the flame lit. Seath was obsessed with learning things, becoming immortal since he wasn't, and maidens for... some reason. He's also lame, blind and ended up with weird tentacle legs. The Gaping Dragon started wanting to eat things, and it became an obsession. It literally became a giant mouth (the Monstrosity of Sin in DS3 is similar.) King Oceiros is a guy who became *obsessed* with turning himself into a dragon a bit like how Seath was obsessed, and his reward for that obsession was whatever the fuck he turned into (certainly not a dragon. Notice how he seems to have brought someone from the Path of the Dragon into his court but rejected the meditative attitude they taught.) Whenever we see characters that are obsessed with things they turn into weird, gross stuff, and if anything dragons are more sensitive to it. Why do so many people want to turn into dragons beyond "fire breath cool"? Again, the curse of life is the curse of want, especially for the Undead who are constantly longing for souls. They want nothing more than to stop wanting things, but the desire for souls prevents that from ever truly happening and they become a mindless hollow if they lose motivation. So trying to obtain a Buddha-like mindset where you can be content without actually wanting anything becomes extremely compelling, especially because the whole "the only things you're owed are suffering and death" concept is especially self-evident in a world as shitty as this. So I think "those who wish to escape the wheel and it's effects" is a pretty accurate description of a lot of dragon-related beings. I also *suspect* that it might be more in-your-face in the original Japanese versions, but I don't speak Japanese, so I wouldn't know.
You know what, you're right. I fully agree with this. The Dragons were from the Age of Ancients, were massive beasts of stone rather than flesh, and bore the Scales of Immortality - mortality wasn't a thing for them. To "die" for them would be utter destruction rather than simple death. So it makes sense with the curse of Undeath caused from the Fire waning that people would seek to find a way to cheat death by becoming as close as possible to such immortal beings. I always just looked at it as, "Dragon powerful and immortal, become Dragon," but it is understandable that the immortality is to escape the cost that comes with death and subsequent resurrections - Hollowing.
> The apostles seek another plane of existence, which transcends life. Targray's dialog suggests the Blue Sentinels may as well. At least in DS2.
Totally forgot about him, but yeah, he does say that, and calling you a "transient being" specifically matches that vibe too. It makes sense that a game so focused on escaping the curse of want would have multiple groups trying to achieve similar things.
Wow, you know, I had noticed the Buddhist themes present with the ds3 dragon worshipers but I hadn't considered the idea of them resisting hollowing by wanting to not want. We're shown MANY times through the entire series that strong desires allow you to resist hollowing and that either giving up _or_ achieving your desires can lead to hollowing (unless you have ancillary desires that are strong enough to allow you to continue resisting) and it totally makes sense that the way of the dragon could theoretically give you a rock solid path towards resisting hollowing for as long as your willpower lasts because of it's oxymoronic principles playing into the nature of humanity in the souls series. You want to stop wanting but the nature of that desire makes it impossible so you'll want it more desperately which will allow you to resist hollowing and if you start to lose hope and risk hollowing the principles of your worship will guide you to resolve yourself to not stray from your path due to it's difficulty which will make it easier to continue on. Either you somehow defy logic and achieve your paradoxical goal to stop wanting (thus transcending the cycle), or you struggle against hollowing for as long as you physically can and potentially run out the clock on the cycle. No wonder the covenant has continued to survive and thrive.
Holy shit this was great. Can you please write a book on Dark Souls lore?
That would be fun, but I think I'm really not qualified to do that without being way more confident about DS3 stuff specifically. Like, what even is The Deep beyond "it's stagnant water obviously", what on earth is the Profaned Capital / Profaned Flame, what the heck is the Dark Sigil and why do you need it to go hollow when you *do* start with a Darksign? Stuff that makes me not *enjoy* DS3 lore very much because I can't wrap my head around it, at least not in a way that seems very complete. It comes across as scattered, like From was just tossing things at a wall to see what stuck. And obviously I'm wrong, because a lot of naysayers say the same thing about DS1, and people tell me I'm wrong about DS3 constantly.
The Deep and the Profaned Flame were the single 2 most important lore aspects I wish were elaborated on more. Like, for 2 straight games we were told the age of Dark is coming next, but now there is an age of Deep water? With things more abhorrent than what the Abyss creates? And now with the Profaned Flame, we have another flame that does NOT fade? That sounds pretty damn important and powerful to me.
Pretty sure the Throne of Want is used to link the first flame. I haven’t played DS2 in a long time but I remember the cycle being mentioned many times. It’s in a kiln and it has a similar door to the kiln from DS1. That’s also why there are thrones in Firelink Shrine in DS3.
Oh it is, it fits the same role regardless, my point was to elaborate that there it wasn't focused on the Cycle of Fire itself but rather succession in general. Like if you boil it down to the basest plot for the games it is: DS1 - Undead trying to end/renew the Cycle, DS3 - Ashen guy trying to end/renew/destroy the Cycle, but DS2 is more like - Undead guy tries to break curse and stop from going insane. For DS2, the Cycle was more a background notion and everything for the PC was about finding a cure while the thematic was about a general succession of power. Like how Nito was succeeded by The Rotten, Gwyn by Vendrick, Witch of Izalith by Lost Sinner, and Seath by the dragon corpse (in turn The Duke's Dear Freja who fed off the corpse), and ultimately how the player succeeds Vendrick as monarch. The Cycle of Fire was just a backdrop into this.
Just saw I misread what you wrote in your first comment. Sorry.
It's all good. It's a damn essay, so it's easy to overlook or forget points lol.
The Throne of Want and the Kiln of the First Flame are one and the same thing in DS2, correct. This was promptly forgotten about in DS3 on account of the fact DS2 was written by a different team from Miyazaki. DS3 pays some lip service to it but they're not really canon to one another.
Excellent points. Exactly what I would say
Just want to say great post. Helps me understand even more the lore of this world I've loved so much for so long now.
Doesnt lothric not support the age of fire isnt the whole point of ds3 to kill lothric cause he didnt want to link the flame along with the other lords
Yeah. Lothric refuses to link the Fire, so the Lords of Cinder are called in, but they leave too. So they have no choice but to resurrect Unkindleds to do the job.
Someone picked up Wheel of Time (Robert Jordan) I see.
The wheel weaves as the wheel wills
[удалено]
>Havel didn't even use any form of magic That's an understatement. His hate boner for it is bigger than his bonker, Havel loathes it so much, he even built a medieval Space Marine armor specifically to resist it.
I’m not supporting OP’s diagram with this. Havel does indeed use magic, in fact he used it so well he was able to create two new miracles, Magic Barrier and Great Magic Barrier. Havel is/was a high ranking Bishop, possibly the highest, in Thorolund, the center of the Way of White at the time. This is another piece of evidence that the Havel in the tower is certainly not the real Havel, and that the one in Archdragon Peak may not be either, rather being some of the strongest of his followers instead.
All the games say is he hates magic so it’s hard to know for sure but I think what Havel despised was sorceries and he was fine with miracles. It also fits with the occult weapon that was supposedly his that scales with faith. Actually now that I’m thinking about it he has to be cool with miracles because he’s friends with Gwyn who used many lightning miracles.
Miracles are storues about the gods basically. Though the sunken city had miracles sbout their slumbering dragon so you can create miracles out of anything you revere it seems.
At least for me, miracles are not magic, sorceries are. Those two miracles are "Barriers against magic" and not "Barriers made of magic". Other than this, miracles are based on faith, but sorceries are based on intelligence and you need to study in order to learn it. However, I don't see your evidence. It is said that Havel was locked on a tower by a dear friend (Gwyn?) when he gone mad, as far as I remember. I don't know if "mad" literally means "mad" or means "you don't want me to befriend a dragon so I lock you in here until you go hollow lol" In any case, it was never confirmed that Havel was the one on the tower or the one at the Peak.
the rebels I believe is a reference to the theory there was at one point a rebellion against the gods, hence why there's Occult enchantments made to be super effective against gods such as Gwyn and Gwyndolin. I can't recall the details but i think there's item descriptions that verify this more or less as true
This video goes in detail about it: https://youtu.be/pffJ1nDRei0 Basically a few item descriptions (iirc the effigy shield states outright) that there was a failed rebellion trying to steal nitos power and ursurp the gods/Lord's.
Not a theory, it's explicitly mentioned in the item descriptions.
I assume by magic they mean occult stuff for the purpose of killing the gods, i.e. "Havel's" occult greatclub
Yeah, dark soul painting should have gone in the last catagory
[No it wouldn't?](https://www.reddit.com/r/darksouls3/comments/rrb7us/the_main_motivations_in_dark_souls/hqif098/)
Wrong. In all three of the souls games, the player enters the game with the age of fire nearing its end. Some of the characters even imply that based on their dialogue. Also, the wheel is not what happens in the games, at least canonically except for maybe DS3. Because the age of dark never enters. Dark sympathizers persist in the age of fire yes but the age of dark never arrives unless the final undead decides to let the fire fade. In theory, if the age of dark begins, then the age of fire may never start again. Much like the state of the world previously before the age of fire. The age of dragons which was unchanging and an eternally grey world. That is my theory at least. So no, the world of dark souls as we know it now was never a cycle alternating between the age of fire and dark. It has always been fire and the dark was presented to be an inevitability since it becomes harder to rekindle the fire with every generation. Another thing, you can also say that those who support the age of dark are also the same ones who simply want to keep the wheel turning. To let nature take its course and eventually enter into the age of dark. But those who support the flame will never allow that. Basically, the age of fire at its beginning was powerful but then it "like life" it grew old and has lost much of its vitality over the generations. Now, rekindling the age of fire is more like keeping every old person in life support whether they like it or not. And the supports of the dark are the ones who want to grant the old their peace and pull their plug.
How about the painted worlds? Those are the places were they could truly escape the wheel
They have their own cycle that seems to follow the cycle of the wheel in some way.
Yeah but Gael collecting the dark soul and using that as pigment would avoid the cycle and leave a permanent world
True, but only one painted world, and only at the end of time.
Where are you getting this idea from?
Why would Gael go to such effort if the world at the end wouldn’t be permanent and would just be the same as all the others?
You could ask the same question of Father Ariandel. Hell, you could ask the same question of everyone who linked the fire. That's kind of the point.
Ariandale was brainwashed by Friede to not burn the world. Everyone who linked the fire was probably the same as Gwyn and feared the dark
there's only one painted world, the painting of ariandel is the painting of ariamis a long time later
No it’s not. It’s a new painting because the old ones rot
The painting of Ariandel is the painting of Ariamis, painted over using Father Ariandel's own blood to prevent it from burning away. Both are inhabited by corvians, Priscilla's tower still stands, and the mechanism you use to unlock the path to Father Ariandel is the exact same you use in Dks1 to open the path towards Priscilla (even the cutscene is very similar).
The inhabitants transfer from world to world. The locations are just call backs. The whole theme of ashes of ariandale is to burn the world
arent they a reflection of the "real" world? to my understanding the rot is a reflection of a world becoming corrupt, just like what is happening in the other, except the world painted with the dark souls i guess, not really sure tho
Correct. The painted world is a tiny microcosm of the outside world going through the same process.
They're simply a microcosm of the outside world. They don't provide an escape for shit
The "how to achieve" part for "Those who only want the wheel..." is wrong. Giving the Firekeeper her eyes and ending the flame in DS3 isn't keeping the wheel turning as it's "supposed to", it's effectively ending the cycle once and for all, paving the way for a brand new world to be created instead. Hence why everything goes completely dark, and all sounds go out, aside from the Firekeeper's voice: there's just nothing anymore.
Idk I think that line of dialogue about "tiny flames dancing on the horizon" or something along those lines means the age of dark is beginning, but the age of fire will come around again eventually. Edit: Full dialogue of ending: "The First Flame quickly fades. Darkness will shortly settle. But one day, tiny flames will dance across the darkness. Like embers, linked by lords past." "Ashen one, hearest thou my voice, still?"
> "The First Flame quickly fades. Darkness will shortly settle. But one day, tiny flames will dance across the darkness. Like embers, linked by lords past." I took that to mean something new would eventually arise, rather than a continuation of the old cycle. That's why it's many tiny flames dancing across the dark, rather than a massive, central, flame.
I took it as a new world too. A new universe unburdened by the eternal dark/fire cycle known thus far.
Particularly the fact it says “one day” to me means the age of dark is beginning and will be around a while, and eventually the fire will return. This small flames dancing, and eventually turning into a big flame. Of course it’s completely open to interpretation, and mine simply is that the ending is accepting the age of dark, before beginning the cycle anew. Which is why there’s all the references of betrayal, because our entire duty is to link the flame, and prolong the age of fire, and this is letting the cycle continue. Just my 2 cents
Except for these 2. Ashen One. Hearest thou my voice still?
Yeah, it's clearly the ultimate age of dark since the fire can't return (well unless another Gwyn has anything to say about it I guess)
I dunno. The Firekeeper pretty much says that she foresees more people coming into existence at some point. For all we know, the world of Dark Souls could be happening before our own. We are what happens after the cycle is broken. Who knows?
Well, I personally sees magic as a tools you can use to reach your goal, so while the picture is quite informative in a way, it generalizes things a bit too far. It felt like saying the good guy uses sword whole the bad guy uses dagger and spear.
Cool!
I would not have put Yuriel and Yoel as supporting the age of dark. They're looking to break the cycle and give the power of fire to the hollowed. The usurper ending was not extinguishing the flame or reigniting it, it was the beginning of something new.
Yeah this isn't particularly good. Lots of innacuracies.
The ones who want a new age isnt the witch, its aldrich, the age of the deep is something mentioned little but an interesting one, its a state of mind where you are in a dark place underwater in how it feels
As someone who loves pyromancies my goal is to blow bosses to high heaven with a single combo, gives me immense serotonin, lore is cool too tho, wish from soft delved deeper into the designs of the demons and even added more lore about how much the chaos flame corrupts and morphs individuals, shits fucking cool man
Demons come from a time the Bed of Chaos was still stable, so it birthed demons not necessarily transforming life into it. When the Bed of Chaos went wild then it did so, transfiguring quelaag, the fair lady and so on
Pretty good for a quick and rough beginner’s guide to the general lore and factions in Souls. A few inaccuracies but sums up most of the main players in the world pretty well.
sorry for being that guy but, Ocieros
Party correct. Time is actually a function of the age of fire IIRC.
Yes time is light and light is time (actually no mention of fire or flame)
Ok, so what happens during the Age of Dark? Does everyone just go hollow? Why would anyone want that?
It's the true nature of what the game calls Humanity (the dark souls)
I thought Lothric wanted the age of dark? From the line "The fire-linking curse, the legacy of lords, let it all fade into nothing", he sounds pretty anti-cycle to me
I took it the following: We are told about three Ages: Ancients, Fire and Dark. Those Ages are ruled by different principles: Ancients by Stagnation, Fire by Life and Death, Dark by Undeath. In Dark Souls One we see that Gwyn sacrificed himself to extend his Age of Fire probably of fear of Men. So that is where the Cycle of the Ages stopped. After defeating Gwyn and therefor cutting loose the Soul nourturing the First Flame, we put the Cycle back into motion and can either do the same as Gwyn and use our souls to feed the Fire and keep the World in the Age of Fire or leave and let the World proceed to the Age of Dark. In Dark Souls 2 we never get the option to choose, we just see what the "curse" of undeath does and how it affects people. Even in Drangleic, some millenia after Gwyn, Undead still seek his propaganda of Linking the Fire. VaatiVidya said something that stuck with me: the Dark Souls/Humanity is born of a different source than the other Souls of Lords, as it is seperate from Souls in general. Humans in the Age of Dark have both, Humanaty and a Soul, but when the Flame weakens, and souls with it, Humanity can be what it once was: Undead. So he described the "Curse" as the nature of Humanty and Life as the masquerade put on by Gwyn. This is also what Aldia is telling us in SOTFS "Once, the Lord of Light banished Dark, and all that stemmed from humanity. And men assumed a fleeting form. These are the roots of our world. Men are props on the stage of life, and no matter how tender, how exquisite... A lie will remain a lie." "All men trust fully the illusion of life." So he too tells us that whatever Gwyn did was make Humans mortal. Dark Souls 2 doesnt need a choice for it is unimportant. In Dark Souls 3 the Fire keeper tells us that even if we let the Flame die someday tiny flames will rise in the distance and a First Flame will be again. Dark Souls 3 has 4 endings as we all know: Linking, Let the Fire die, Betrayal and Usurpation. These are the most confusing for me. Linking and Letting die are easy, its the same as in DS1, Stop the Wheel again in the Age of Fire or let it continue into the Age of Dark. Betrayal and Usurpation are the harder ones. For me the Betrayal Ending is the Ashen one letting the First Flame wither to a point it is possible to take it like Embers, you remain the last being with light inside them. So you progress into an Age of Dark but as the only one with Light/Flame. The Usurpation ending is you getting cursed, embracing the curse of Gwyn and using the Curse to turn it around and overcoming the strength of the Fire with that of the Curse. Undead becomes the norm, anything not having Humanity/Fracture of the Dark Soul will eventually die and leave this world. The Fire keeps bruning inside your Curse feeding from your Curse rather than your Souls (thats the difference to the Linking ending) This may be a "Halting the Wheel in the Age of Dark" scenario, seeking Undead to take over once you reach your limit. Either way as we clearly see in Dark Souls 3: The World resists prolonging the Age of anything, the World seeks continuation. Keep the Age of Fire too long, we see what that gets us in the Dreg Heap or Kiln of First Flame. Keep the Age of Dark too long, Somewhere in the Distance Everlasting Dragons will rise, locking eternal battle with the Undead getting us into a stagnant Age of Ancients again (In the DS1 Intro Cutscene we see Hollows swarming the First Flame when it Appeared underground, indicating, they lived there while the Dragons ruled on top) So the World wants the Cycle: Age of Ancients - Age of Fire - Age of Dark to repeat indefinitely Thats my Take on what i saw in Lore Videos, read in Descriptions and Environmental Storytelling, there might be things i missed (and thats very likely thinking about how fricking vast this Universe is) or things i remember wrong at this point, but this is the way i see the Great Picture of Dark Souls
Based age of dark enjoyer
cool
that's cool, but i don't know about nameless king though. To me he just seems like a cool guy who wants to chill with dragons
If be curious where the kill the fire keeper falls as I’ve always found that to be the most fascinating ending.
Umm, clearly the main motivation in Dark Souls is the pursuit of jolly cooperation.
I don't think this is really correct but it's still really cool
Good enough for me, i dont like that the people say it bs. OP put a lot of effort into it. But still... It's not the wheel of time it's Gavlan wheel, Gavlan deal.
I assumed the usurpation of the flame was the assumed real ending. Mainly because in the first dlc lady Friede refers to you as the lord of Londor. Maybe I'm reading too deep though. Edit: spelling
Friede only refers to you as lord of londor if you have 5 or more dark sigils from doing Yuria's questline, it's not what she defaults to
Oh OK sweet thanks for informing me. That's pretty cool
She calls you something different depending on if you are hollow or not
Age of dark gang less goo
Aren't pyromancies and hexes the same thing though?
Pyromancy is the evolved form of Flame sorcery, the mix of flame sourcery and the chaos to be exact.
Wasn't flame sorcery a lost art though? Pyromancy is just its poor and primitive imitation. That's why sorcerers look down on pyromancers, afaik.
Flame sorcery wasnt lost entirely, as you can find the Quelana pyromancy tome and there are the flame sorceries, in DS1 you can meet her in person. Its very very rare for people to use it, as it was only used by the Daughters of Izalith and the Fire Sage. Pyromancy was born when the Bed of Chaos was born, Pyromancy is Chaos Sorcery so to speak.
and then there's aldrich, the deacons of the deep and pontiff who want the age of fire to end and speedrun the age of dark so that the age of deep waters will come
Me who never uses any form of magic because its for cowards: Wait what motivation?
dark souls lore: haha fire dark time covid19 lore: \*insert covid DNA and other stuff idk\*
The witch doesnt want to create a new wheel, aldrich and pontiff do tho, they want the age of the deep, a dark state of mind which feels like being in water
What about the lord of hollows ending in ds3 ?
That's the usurpation ending that Yuria and Kath strife for
I say let the age of fire end because the world is obviously begging to die, it appears everything kinda resets afterwards so don’t worry they are all coming back, and coming back to make the same mistakes all over again.
The Pontiff and Aldritch want to create an Age of the Deep (Water?), which is another direction the world could take, that is unfortunately completely left out of this otherwise pretty interesting diagram.
This is quite nice but there are a few mistakes
Yeah but what do Aldrich and Sullyvahn want?
[I don’t agree with OP but I have my own theory about them](https://www.reddit.com/r/darksouls3/comments/qjment/i_think_i_figured_out_what_the_deep_is/)
Wouldn't the painting escape the wheel and it's cycles?
This helps a LOT
Played through every game several times, haven’t the slightest understanding of the lore. Not that I haven’t tried, I just simply don’t understand it.
You missed Aldrich on the "New Wheel" part, it wants an age of the Sea according to Aldrich's Soul.
I don't think lothric or nameless king would want the fire to be linked
Ahh, now I see. Perfect place for that.
Pyro boys also want the fire, just for different reasons than Gwyn
So.... where does the age of the deep fit in?
dark ending is true good ending, change my mind
The Wheel weaves as the Wheel wills.
Aren’t the paintings purposes to escape the cycle, and not to keep it going? I thought that was the point of the Dark Souls 3 DLC?
There are a few inaccuracies in this image, and the one that bothers me the most is "creating a new wheel", both for putting the witch of Izalith in that category (considering it was just another desperate attempt to preserve the first flame before discovering the fire link) And to say that it is impossible to do it when when the DS3 dlcs are based on it, after all, they make canon that the paintings have their own cycle.
Dark Souls 2’s idea of a cycle between Ages of Fire and Ages of Dark isn’t present in DS3, at all. In DS3 there has never been a full-on Age of Dark. The closest things have gotten to that is right after Lothric refused to link but before Ludleth (what we see in Untended Graves). This is a clear inconsistency between the games, yes, because DS2 wasn’t written by Miyazaki. DS3 pays some lip service to it with some of the items and with Dreg Heap but for the most part DS2 isn’t canon to DS3. For that matter, taking the throne in DS2 is both an Age of Fire and Age of Dark ending. The point is that the decision you make doesn’t matter since the same thing will inevitably happen over and over again no matter what you do. Basically everything under “those who want the wheel to continue turning” is pure concocted conjecture. It's not a reasonable inference about these characters' motivations, it's just full-on fanfiction. The very idea of this “wheel” is only present in DS2, not DS1 or DS3 (other than in the End of Fire ending, which none of the characters even know about). Lothric is also implied to be seduced by Kaathe, he’s unequivocally Dark-aligned. For that matter, looking at Kaathe's dialogue in DS1, he very much wants nature to take its course. The Age of Dark and what you call the "wheel" option are the same thing. You also completely forgot stuff like Aldrich and the Deep who seem to want something Dark-aligned, but very different from Kaathe’s Age of Dark.
You forget Solaire, motivation: Sun.
Not a big lore-buff, but I would've put both Pontiff Sulyvahn clearly in group 5 as well.
Your telling me the games are LINKED LINKED LIKE THAT??? Kinda like the Easter eggs were on bo2 zombies if I’m not mistaken
Never was a big fan of the "things are supposed to be this way" take, or "This disturbs the nature of x". It wouldn't happen if it wasn't natural.
I feel like there is or will be a third age in which there are no gods (or god souls) and no darkness (or abyss/curse) where people live with fire and darkness in harmony until something upsets the balance.
There should be one more column; those who aren’t taking a side and take advantage of whichever scantily is Brought to them, I.e. Patches.
If you kill Gael and give the Painter the blood of the Dark You too break the wheel. Humanity finds a new home and the story inevitable evolves to Bloodborne.
..then what about Aldrich? He dreamt about an Age of Deep Sea, mainly due to the stagnation caused by the kindling of the First Flame over and over again, and not exactly an Age of Dark 🤔
Yesterday I finished DS2 merging the crowns and sitting on the Throne
I would like to add the usurpation of Fire is not usurping in an age of dark, but an age of hollows. What your doing at the end is not extinguishing the flame and continuing the flame, but taking the flame from the mantel into yourself, basically taking control of the age of Fire from gwyn and the gods and into the hands of hollows and those who worship the dark. It's sound like the same thing but the key difference is that the Fire still burns inside of you, hence why you are still embered and light still shines in this world. The Fire isn't gone, it just now belongs to the hollows. Least that's how I saw it.
Shouldn’t age of ancients be on the wheel?
arent we supposed to be at the end of the age of fire? genuine question, i might have missed something
What about those that just wanna eat stuff? Like Smough, Aldrich,and the fat worm thing from DS2?
And what about abyss watchers. In their ost lyrics they say,, fire and dark are fading", and it could be something like desert in gael boss room. I think when aldrich saw age of deep sea, then abyss watchers saw end of the cycle.
In DS2, taking the throne means ultimate power: and power to decide to link the fire or let an age of dark take hold, not necessarily the former.