Dark Souls 3 story discussion (spoilers obviously)

[omega 616]

You as the protagonist, did you die and then get revived in a place like hell?

In DS1? No, you're a bearer of the Curse of Undeath. Your souls and humanity are being siphoned out by the First Flame to keep itself burning, causing you to become a soul-hungry zombie. As such, when your affliction was discovered you were picked up and thrown in an asylum -until you escape and make your way to Lordran in the hopes of finding a cure. Lordran is the throne of the gods, basically, and time/space are a little wonky there.

I mean where does this place exist? Is your mother in this world or is this the after life or what?

Based on shit that happens in DS1 and convos between characters, the world of DS1 is attached to the real world, but in the region of the game proper there is some kind of warping that allows different worlds to cross over briefly with each other (summoning/invasions). Basically the undead asylum is geographically accessible by the surrounding nations, but you are ferried from the asylum to firelink which is more remote, but still accessible. We know it is still accessible because onionbro's daughter is able to travel to the game world to talk to him, and then presumably return home.

You got found out as undead, then dumped in the asylum, then carried by crow to the main game world by crow.

Ok thanks.

One more question which is the good ending? Is it better to continue the link or start the dark age?

 

[Willinium]

You as the protagonist, did you die and then get revived in a place like hell?

In DS1? No, you're a bearer of the Curse of Undeath. Your souls and humanity are being siphoned out by the First Flame to keep itself burning, causing you to become a soul-hungry zombie. As such, when your affliction was discovered you were picked up and thrown in an asylum -until you escape and make your way to Lordran in the hopes of finding a cure. Lordran is the throne of the gods, basically, and time/space are a little wonky there.

I mean where does this place exist? Is your mother in this world or is this the after life or what?

Based on shit that happens in DS1 and convos between characters, the world of DS1 is attached to the real world, but in the region of the game proper there is some kind of warping that allows different worlds to cross over briefly with each other (summoning/invasions). Basically the undead asylum is geographically accessible by the surrounding nations, but you are ferried from the asylum to firelink which is more remote, but still accessible. We know it is still accessible because onionbro's daughter is able to travel to the game world to talk to him, and then presumably return home.

You got found out as undead, then dumped in the asylum, then carried by crow to the main game world by crow.

Ok thanks.

One more question which is the good ending? Is it better to continue the link or start the dark age?

I preferred to bring about the Age of the Dark, the Age of Man myself. Why should we continue with Gwyns cycle of false light?

 

[EvilRoy]

You as the protagonist, did you die and then get revived in a place like hell?

In DS1? No, you're a bearer of the Curse of Undeath. Your souls and humanity are being siphoned out by the First Flame to keep itself burning, causing you to become a soul-hungry zombie. As such, when your affliction was discovered you were picked up and thrown in an asylum -until you escape and make your way to Lordran in the hopes of finding a cure. Lordran is the throne of the gods, basically, and time/space are a little wonky there.

I mean where does this place exist? Is your mother in this world or is this the after life or what?

Based on shit that happens in DS1 and convos between characters, the world of DS1 is attached to the real world, but in the region of the game proper there is some kind of warping that allows different worlds to cross over briefly with each other (summoning/invasions). Basically the undead asylum is geographically accessible by the surrounding nations, but you are ferried from the asylum to firelink which is more remote, but still accessible. We know it is still accessible because onionbro's daughter is able to travel to the game world to talk to him, and then presumably return home.

You got found out as undead, then dumped in the asylum, then carried by crow to the main game world by crow.

Ok thanks.

One more question which is the good ending? Is it better to continue the link or start the dark age?

Will more or less got my feeling on it but generally asking which is better is like asking 'did the good guys win the civil war'. If you're American, then yes, if you're British, then no. It really depends on whether you supported the (sort of) ongoing aristocracy and wanted a return to form, or if you wanted to install a human ruler as a lord of darkness.

Personally when I more or less figured out how I think the story went I decided that the dark age was the 'better' ending. Basically all linking the fire would do is prop up the old gods - but in the time of DS1, the gods had all already bailed except for gwyndolin who was a glorified gravekeeper with a fanclub. There was nobody left to prop up (everybody, including Gwynevere, presumably left for the land that you see in DS2), so the only question left is whether light helps the people left behind or dark helps them. The DLC for DS1 kind of muddies the question, as it shows shit going seriously south when the big bad dark dude wakes up, but at the same time it could be interpreted as a wrath of god thing - they fucked with an ancient god, of course he fucked them back.

 

[Fat Hippo]

Will more or less got my feeling on it but generally asking which is better is like asking 'did the good guys win the civil war'. If you're American, then yes, if you're British, then no. It really depends on whether you supported the (sort of) ongoing aristocracy and wanted a return to form, or if you wanted to install a human ruler as a lord of darkness.

Personally when I more or less figured out how I think the story went I decided that the dark age was the 'better' ending. Basically all linking the fire would do is prop up the old gods - but in the time of DS1, the gods had all already bailed except for gwyndolin who was a glorified gravekeeper with a fanclub. There was nobody left to prop up (everybody, including Gwynevere, presumably left for the land that you see in DS2), so the only question left is whether light helps the people left behind or dark helps them. The DLC for DS1 kind of muddies the question, as it shows shit going seriously south when the big bad dark dude wakes up, but at the same time it could be interpreted as a wrath of god thing - they fucked with an ancient god, of course he fucked them back.

I've heard some people interpret that what ending you choose in Dark Souls 1 doesn't really matter, and that the cycle will continue no matter what. Whatever you do will only have a temporary effect, because even if you become Dark Lord, a new age of fire will be ushered in eventually. Though I'm not really sure how that ties in with the lore of Dark Souls 3. Do we even know if the cycle has been broken at the end of that game? Have there been any permanent changes this time? I've gotta be honest, I didn't really grasp much of what was going in when I played it, even though I had studied the lore of the first two games a bit.

 

[EvilRoy]

I've heard some people interpret that what ending you choose in Dark Souls 1 doesn't really matter, and that the cycle will continue no matter what. Whatever you do will only have a temporary effect, because even if you become Dark Lord, a new age of fire will be ushered in eventually. Though I'm not really sure how that ties in with the lore of Dark Souls 3. Do we even know if the cycle has been broken at the end of that game? Have there been any permanent changes this time? I've gotta be honest, I didn't really grasp much of what was going in when I played it, even though I had studied the lore of the first two games a bit.

In terms of how I view it, the ultimate goal isn't winning but rather just 'changing'. We don't know what really happens after DS1, because DS2 happens in another location (and the goal isn't link/dark), and DS3 seems to have specifically avoided addressing it beyond stating that there have been a lot of guys who linked the fire (we don't see 'Pickles I' as a lord of cinder). However, we do know that as of DS1 all the people who would have specifically benefited from a new age of fire have left. Gwyn is dead, his daughter bailed with most of the other gods like Faraam, and only his son stayed because he seems to have a 'bad son' guilt complex. Anor londo is empty, and everywhere else has gone to shit - the DLC hints that the fire got linked by Gwyn not long after Oolacile happened, since we already see the four knights basically retired. Oolacile is described as being a land existing a crazy long time ago (and the final boss in DS1 takes place in the decimated remains of an Oolacile structure where you fight Artorius), so chances are the land has been this way for a long ass time.

Whether or not you get to win forever, it seemed to me that there just isn't any point in linking the fire. Those people are all gone, may as well make it dark for a while. When all the dark people leave (THAT sounds racist) the next run of fire people may as well link it.

 

[Mahorfeus]

I think one point that the developers mentioned about Dark Souls II that I overlook is that the game isn't so much about the flame as it is about the curse. We learn that the dreaded curse is actually the intrinsic nature of man. All humans are doomed to Hollow eventually. Hence why Yoel believes that tapping into the Darksign can bring out one's true potential, and why Karla refers to all humans as Children of the Abyss. After all, Manus himself was a human once.

The curse doesn't actually affect you in Dark Souls III unless you willingly accept the Dark Sigil, which makes me wonder if the Lost Crown DLC did have far reaching implications.

I kind of hope that Dark Souls III's DLC delves into those connections a bit more. Maybe we'll get to actually go to Londor, and perhaps even speak with Kaathe himself. I feel like the Dark Soul is something that could be touched on.

 

[Samechiel]

Do we even know if the cycle has been broken at the end of that game?

You cannot break the cycle, because the cycle is the natural state. The Age of Fire will always rise from the previous Age of Dark, and then slowly wither and die to bring in the next Age of Dark. What has been happening all this time is people artificially extending the Age of Fire by throwing themselves into the First Flame, and the curse that was placed upon mankind when Gwen linked humanity to the flame.

But you can purify the cycle. If you snuff the flame rather than letting it die on its own, then when the next Age of Fire comes it will be a new flame not linked to humanity. No more curse, no more undead.

At least, that's how I understand it.

 

[Dansen]

I don't get it, people say it's a continuation of 2, but it seems more like an interquel between them, since I didn't see any actual references to DS2, and the entire point of 2 that the world of 1 disappeared into obscurity, no?

There is a Dark Souls 2 character sprawled out on the ground in the profaned capital, its the ladder smith guy. We have the draglake armor as well as the seeds of a giant. ds3 definitely takes place after the ds2.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I haven't had time to finish the game quite yet, and have not been reading the rest of this thread because I still don't want to spoil myself, but I did recently beat the Aldrich boss fight, and that boss triggered some negative feelings about this game's story that I wanted to share.

So here's my problem with this boss:

It's heavily implied that a short time before you got to him Aldrich ate Gwyndolin, or could perhaps even still be in the process of eating him during the fight. Yes, THAT Gwyndolin, the god and Gwyn's third born son.

Here's my problem with this: I killed Gwyndolin in Dark Souls 1. So basically for anyone who killed Gwyndolin that's not a canon decision since he's still alive during the majority of Dark Souls 3. I HATE THIS. Say what you want about Dark Souls 2 but at least it never invalidated any of your decisions from Dark Souls 1 and made them non-canon. Even though whether you decided to link the fire in dark souls 1 doesn't end up mattering, dark souls 2 never says that either decision was canon, and nothing in Dark Souls 2 ever directly contradicts anything that the player character had the option to do in Dark Souls 1.

So yeah, this revelation has seriously hurt my enjoyment of this game. I've really been liking the game up to this point, but this one single revelation has really kind of sunk a lot of my good will toward it. I still think that so far it's a very well made game, I'm loving the combat, the enemies, the locations, but the story just took a hard hit for me. When I got to Anor Londo I thought it was a really cool throw-back level, and then within 10 minutes I was incredibly disappointed.

Now maybe I'm completely wrong about how this works because I still haven't finished the game, and therefore there might be an explanation for how this is happening (and I hope that explanation isn't wibbily wobbly timey wimy stuff), but for the moment I feel really unsatisfied.

So yeah, what do you guys think about the idea that certain choices from Dark Souls 1 are now no longer canon in Dark Souls 3?

 

[Level 7 Dragon]

I haven't had time to finish the game quite yet, and have not been reading the rest of this thread because I still don't want to spoil myself, but I did recently beat the Aldrich boss fight, and that boss triggered some negative feelings about this game's story that I wanted to share.

So here's my problem with this boss:

It's heavily implied that a short time before you got to him Aldrich ate Gwyndolin, or could perhaps even still be in the process of eating him during the fight. Yes, THAT Gwyndolin, the god and Gwyn's third born son.

Here's my problem with this: I killed Gwyndolin in Dark Souls 1. So basically for anyone who killed Gwyndolin that's not a canon decision since he's still alive during the majority of Dark Souls 3. I HATE THIS. Say what you want about Dark Souls 2 but at least it never invalidated any of your decisions from Dark Souls 1 and made them non-canon. Even though whether you decided to link the fire in dark souls 1 doesn't end up mattering, dark souls 2 never says that either decision was canon, and nothing in Dark Souls 2 ever directly contradicts anything that the player character had the option to do in Dark Souls 1.

So yeah, this revelation has seriously hurt my enjoyment of this game. I've really been liking the game up to this point, but this one single revelation has really kind of sunk a lot of my good will toward it. I still think that so far it's a very well made game, I'm loving the combat, the enemies, the locations, but the story just took a hard hit for me. When I got to Anor Londo I thought it was a really cool throw-back level, and then within 10 minutes I was incredibly disappointed.

Now maybe I'm completely wrong about how this works because I still haven't finished the game, and therefore there might be an explanation for how this is happening (and I hope that explanation isn't wibbily wobbly timey wimy stuff), but for the moment I feel really unsatisfied.

So yeah, what do you guys think about the idea that certain choices from Dark Souls 1 are now no longer canon in Dark Souls 3?

Well, there are three explanations for this.

First, Aldrich might have found the corpse of Gwyndolin and reanimated it (you know how when you kill Kirk or loutrek their bodies materialize in a completely different place).

Second, since the Dark Sun is the master of illusion, he might have escaped at the last minute.

Third, he tried to save his own life through necromancy which made him the way he is (look wgat necromancy did to Pinwheel)

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I haven't had time to finish the game quite yet, and have not been reading the rest of this thread because I still don't want to spoil myself, but I did recently beat the Aldrich boss fight, and that boss triggered some negative feelings about this game's story that I wanted to share.

So here's my problem with this boss:

It's heavily implied that a short time before you got to him Aldrich ate Gwyndolin, or could perhaps even still be in the process of eating him during the fight. Yes, THAT Gwyndolin, the god and Gwyn's third born son.

Here's my problem with this: I killed Gwyndolin in Dark Souls 1. So basically for anyone who killed Gwyndolin that's not a canon decision since he's still alive during the majority of Dark Souls 3. I HATE THIS. Say what you want about Dark Souls 2 but at least it never invalidated any of your decisions from Dark Souls 1 and made them non-canon. Even though whether you decided to link the fire in dark souls 1 doesn't end up mattering, dark souls 2 never says that either decision was canon, and nothing in Dark Souls 2 ever directly contradicts anything that the player character had the option to do in Dark Souls 1.

So yeah, this revelation has seriously hurt my enjoyment of this game. I've really been liking the game up to this point, but this one single revelation has really kind of sunk a lot of my good will toward it. I still think that so far it's a very well made game, I'm loving the combat, the enemies, the locations, but the story just took a hard hit for me. When I got to Anor Londo I thought it was a really cool throw-back level, and then within 10 minutes I was incredibly disappointed.

Now maybe I'm completely wrong about how this works because I still haven't finished the game, and therefore there might be an explanation for how this is happening (and I hope that explanation isn't wibbily wobbly timey wimy stuff), but for the moment I feel really unsatisfied.

So yeah, what do you guys think about the idea that certain choices from Dark Souls 1 are now no longer canon in Dark Souls 3?

Well, there are three explanations for this.

First, Aldrich might have found the corpse of Gwyndolin and reanimated it (you know how when you kill Kirk or loutrek their bodies materialize in a completely different place).

Second, since the Dark Sun is the master of illusion, he might have escaped at the last minute.

Third, he tried to save his own life through necromancy which made him the way he is (look wgat necromancy did to Pinwheel)

First explanation is definitely not true since Aldrich is said to have "imprisoned a God of the old royalty" so that Aldrich could devour him. Wouldn't make sense to refer to a corpse in that way.

Third explanation doesn't really make sense because Necromancy is associated with Nito and it's implied that the necromancers have that ability because they stole it from Nito. Furthermore Necromancers can revive skeletons but they do not themselves revive indicating that using necromancy doesn't prevent them from dying.

Second explanation makes sense but would be a lame cop-out and no better than just saying that killing Gwyndolin isn't canon.

 

[ChupathingyX]

Now maybe I'm completely wrong about how this works because I still haven't finished the game, and therefore there might be an explanation for how this is happening (and I hope that explanation isn't wibbily wobbly timey wimy stuff), but for the moment I feel really unsatisfied.

I've finished the game and there didn't seem to be any explanation other than 'Chosen Undead canonically never killed Gwyndolin and instead he was vore'd up by Aldritch'. You could theorise that the CU did kill him and that he was resurrected or brought back in some other magical way, but I don't recall reading anything in game to back that up specifically.

So yeah, what do you guys think about the idea that certain choices from Dark Souls 1 are now no longer canon in Dark Souls 3?

Doesn't really bother me, happens all the time. Sometimes developers will think up magic bullshit ways for multiple endings/choices to work (e.g. TES: Daggerfall), while other times they'll choose specific choices and endings and roll with those (e.g. Fallout games).

 

[Fat Hippo]

Do we even know if the cycle has been broken at the end of that game?

You cannot break the cycle, because the cycle is the natural state. The Age of Fire will always rise from the previous Age of Dark, and then slowly wither and die to bring in the next Age of Dark. What has been happening all this time is people artificially extending the Age of Fire by throwing themselves into the First Flame, and the curse that was placed upon mankind when Gwen linked humanity to the flame.

But you can purify the cycle. If you snuff the flame rather than letting it die on its own, then when the next Age of Fire comes it will be a new flame not linked to humanity. No more curse, no more undead.

At least, that's how I understand it.

See, I had always thought that we had already gone through this cycle a few times, because that would allow for both Dark Souls 1 endings to be possible. The implications of an "age of dark" are never exactly spelled out either, so I had just figured humanity would go on somehow. And in the place of Lordran, we would get new great kingdoms, like Drangleic in DkS II, which would again fall into ruin when the age of dark starts to creep in. No clue if this theory makes sense though.

 

[Samechiel]

See, I had always thought that we had already gone through this cycle a few times, because that would allow for both Dark Souls 1 endings to be possible. The implications of an "age of dark" are never exactly spelled out either, No clue if this theory makes sense though.

Naw, man. That's why everything is so screwed up by the time DaS3 rolls around. The Flame needed stronger and stronger souls to keep burning, but there just wasn't anyone left so they had to bust out the Lords of Cinder.

so I had just figured humanity would go on somehow.

Humanity WILL go on, that's why thy also call the Age of Dark the Age of Man -it's the twilight of Gods and Lords, when mankind comes to rule. And probably fight lots of monsters and spooky skellingtons because that's what you do.

And in the place of Lordran, we would get new great kingdoms, like Drangleic in DkS II, which would again fall into ruin when the age of dark starts to creep in.

There were new kingdoms, several of them built directly on top of the ruins of Lordran... but it's not because of the cycle, it's just because it's been hundreds of years and kingdoms rise and fall with time. Drangleic is not actually one of those built on top, though. It's a place out in the world like Oolacile, Catarina, or Astora. If I'm remembering correctly, all the temporal shenanigans that take place in Drangleic are the result of it being a place where powerful souls congregate so the First Flame is jacking that shit up cray cray like it does in Lordran.

 

[Fat Hippo]

If I'm remembering correctly, all the temporal shenanigans that take place in Drangleic are the result of it being a place where powerful souls congregate so the First Flame is jacking that shit up cray cray like it does in Lordran.

This is legitimately the best explanation of Dark Souls II's plot that I've heard yet.

 

[Fappy]

-Snip-

I am fairly certain that canonically only those characters that had to be killed to progress the story are actually dead in DS3. In fact, I am also pretty sure that the "Link the Fire" ending is the canon ending for DS1. In any case, however, it doesn't really matter. Space/time is distorted and crumbling as the first fire fades. Gwyndolin could have simply come back to life. It's implied Priscilla is alive as well, and she's killable in DS1 too. This logic could be applied to a few characters. Andre is clearly alive despite being killable in DS1 (he even respawns if killed in DS3), and probably a few others.

 

[EvilRoy]

First explanation is definitely not true since Aldrich is said to have "imprisoned a God of the old royalty" so that Aldrich could devour him. Wouldn't make sense to refer to a corpse in that way.

Third explanation doesn't really make sense because Necromancy is associated with Nito and it's implied that the necromancers have that ability because they stole it from Nito. Furthermore Necromancers can revive skeletons but they do not themselves revive indicating that using necromancy doesn't prevent them from dying.

Second explanation makes sense but would be a lame cop-out and no better than just saying that killing Gwyndolin isn't canon.

I actually just assumed either sunbro's ending was the one the series moved forward with or Gwyndolinnian just came back as undead. Remember, his dad came back after linking the fire so we know its not like gods are immune to undeath. Otherwise, honestly we don't even know if this is the same 'time stream' as DS1 - even if you took path of dark in the first game, we know that sunbro took linking the fire. This could be his game.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

The curse doesn't actually affect you in Dark Souls III unless you willingly accept the Dark Sigil, which makes me wonder if the Lost Crown DLC did have far reaching implications.

That could well be the case. The Faraam Armor description in Dark Souls III reads:

This set is named after a god of war.

The armor of the Forossa Lion Knights was preserved even after the destruction of their homeland, and is mentioned in numerous legends, alongside the names of those who are said to have gone beyond death.

Which we all remember was the tagline for Dark Souls II. If you played all the DLC, got the crowns and became immune to hollowing, that is very much in line with "going beyond death". The implication might be that over the eons numerous adventurers have become immune to the undead curse, through one way or another.

Or it could just be an indulgent self-reference, which Dark Souls III seems all too happy to wallow in.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

-Snip-

I am fairly certain that canonically only those characters that had to be killed to progress the story are actually dead in DS3. In fact, I am also pretty sure that the "Link the Fire" ending is the canon ending for DS1. In any case, however, it doesn't really matter. Space/time is distorted and crumbling as the first fire fades. Gwyndolin could have simply come back to life. It's implied Priscilla is alive as well, and she's killable in DS1 too. This logic could be applied to a few characters. Andre is clearly alive despite being killable in DS1 (he even respawns if killed in DS3), and probably a few others.

There was no canon ending for Dark Souls 1, that's one of the things that some people thought was clever about Dark Souls 2, the fact that both endings were simultaneously canon because it didn't matter whether you chose to link the fire or not since the world takes place in cycles, and therefore linking the fire would have ultimately only resulted in the prolonging the age of fire, the age of dark occurring was inevitable. For a lot of people this seemed to undermine the choice in Dark Souls 1, even though in Dark Souls 1 it was clear that the choice doesn't ultimately matter. Even before Dark Souls 2 brought in the idea of the cycles it was clear that linking the fire was only a stop-gap measure, a way to temporarily stave off the dark, not an actual solution.

So now I find it unfortunate that certain things are non-canon since Dark Souls 2 had managed to completely side-step that. Sure, Dark Souls 2 fell flat on its face in some other ways, but I liked that it implied that EVERYTHING that the player had done in Dark Souls 1 had happened.

First explanation is definitely not true since Aldrich is said to have "imprisoned a God of the old royalty" so that Aldrich could devour him. Wouldn't make sense to refer to a corpse in that way.

Third explanation doesn't really make sense because Necromancy is associated with Nito and it's implied that the necromancers have that ability because they stole it from Nito. Furthermore Necromancers can revive skeletons but they do not themselves revive indicating that using necromancy doesn't prevent them from dying.

Second explanation makes sense but would be a lame cop-out and no better than just saying that killing Gwyndolin isn't canon.

I actually just assumed either sunbro's ending was the one the series moved forward with or Gwyndolinnian just came back as undead. Remember, his dad came back after linking the fire so we know its not like gods are immune to undeath. Otherwise, honestly we don't even know if this is the same 'time stream' as DS1 - even if you took path of dark in the first game, we know that sunbro took linking the fire. This could be his game.

Even if From Software decided on a canon ending for Dark Souls 1 I highly doubt that it would be the one were Solaire links the fire. Miyazaki has stated before that he feels the most appropriate ending for Solaire is the one where the Sunlight maggot drives him crazy and you have to kill him. I can't find the translation of that interview at the moment, but German Spy and Plague of Gripes have talked about it during lets plays of Dark Souls 1.

Also, Gwyn never "came back" from linking the fire. Linking the fire didn't kill Gwyn, he stayed within the Kiln of the First Flame and burned for 1000 years as his soul was used as fuel for the fire. Gwyn wasn't undead at the end of the game, he was basically in the same state that he was in before he found the Light Soul within the first flame (during the intro cutscene). The only people who become "undead" are people with the Dark Sign, and the only people who carry the Dark Sign are humans. That's also why Gwyndolin shouldn't have been able to come back as an undead after being killed.