It's weird people think that, the only Ds1 characters that returned actively and weren't idol decoration corpses or lore were the Chosen Undead and Gwyn in the soul of cinder, and Gwyndolin in Aldrich.
The fact that solaire was killed by a bug, in this theory the bug mutates/evolves thanks to solaire and eventually becomes the sandworm.
There is also the fact that the carthus sandworm is located in what once whats Lost Izalith, the place where solaire dies.
Lastly the fact that the carthus sandworm uses lightning attacks which is kinda weird.
But overall its just conjectures. I personally like to believe in this theory lol cuz i think its funny
The explanation behind the Sandworm is simple.
>There is also the fact that the carthus sandworm is located in what once whats Lost Izalith, the place where solaire dies.
What people tend to forget is that the entire area is a hodgepodge of displaced people and locations as a result of the drift.
It's called the **Carthus Sandworm** after all, so it's not native here. More likely it came from what was once Jugo (which would've become Carthus, "country of the sand") which already had giant ants.
A giant thing getting displaced without any of the sand it traveled in would be odd though, however in cut content Irithyll's snow was actually going to be sand so the Catacombs initially would've been developed to be in the same area.
As a result there's a slight disconnect between lore and what the developers ultimately winded up with though we can headcanon that there might be desert between the forests and such.
>Lastly the fact that the carthus sandworm uses lightning attacks which is kinda weird.
If you look closely at it, you'll see that this thing has been eating basically everyone and everything. You can see in it's exposed belly [countless bodies](https://i.imgur.com/0sNCE2o.png). Inside it's mouth you can [see their faces. ](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/darksouls/images/4/47/Worm_%282%29.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/1200?cb=20160416192159) Lothric's Dragonslayers are buried in the region and it's been munching on them so it's adopted their lightning capabilities.
From what I remember of that video, he leaves it there because it's safe for the dragon to grow up in. And with the clams both there and by his boss area I assume he or trusted servants go back and forth on occasion.
There's.....a LOT of logic problems in that video that occur even prior to his conclusion that Seath created it.
Letting it live down there AND repopulate the race by way of magically imbued dragon stones is one such example of something Seath wouldn't just be chill with.
I'm curious as to what problems you found?
And I don't see why seath wouldn't be chill with it, he wants the dragons to return so he can keep experimenting with their scales. And he probably wouldn't have as much trouble with that if he was their "grandfather" rather than a strange mutant traitor.
I'm not watching that gigantic thing again because breaking it and all it's problems down would require a VERY long reply.
I'd also have to branch off into other areas of the lore in order to further back up why some things in that video are an issue. So we're not gonna do that. haha
But you do also bring up one of the logic problems i'm talking about.
>he wants the dragons to return so he can keep experimenting with their scales.
Seath helped kill them so he could bring them back? And he's letting people he's got no influence over become dragons?
Where's the control? Where's the safety net?
Also consider this. If Seath created the Ancient **Stone** Dragon, then he's already succeeded in manufacturing everlasting stone scales and he need only study his one success.
Why continue to let that success do what it wants and proliferate a race of beings for which he has no oversight?
Not to mention the Ancient Stone Dragon is handing out Dragon Eyes which leave summon signs shrouded in Fog, suggesting that this creature has an understanding of the power of Fog that allows it to transcend time and space. It's ancestors were shrouded in the stuff themselves during the Age of Ancients.
These are all things that point directly to it being a descendant, not an artificial experiment.
Item descriptions do also affirm it to be a descendant of the ancient Archdragons so that's the nail in Hawkshaw's coffin right there.
A child of seath would be a descendent of the ancient dragons, seath was born of the ancient dragons.
Also, seath sided with Gwyn against the dragons so he might be able to harvest their scales. Since scales are worthless after death, it would make sense why seath would want another genuine and living ancient dragon. He tucks it away at the bottom of the world, somewhere he has an obvious connection to given the clams in the crystal caves and the golems that hang around the hydra in darkroot basin.
Your idea seems to stem from the notion that one cannot be a descendent whilst having an artificial birth but that's simply not true. Artificial birth isn't devoid of the biology of inheritance.
>Artificial birth isn't devoid of the biology of inheritance.
Fair, but my idea largely stems from the notion that it makes zero sense for Seath to leave it there to do what it wants and proliferate a species (or following) of Dragonkin that Seath has absolutely no oversight over.
The Dragonstones are used in a "secret rite" and the Ancient Stone Dragon receives dragon scales, seemingly using them to imbue their power into the Dragon Stones we receive (the Ancient Stone Dragon raises it's arms whenever we ascend a rank in the covenant).
And as I mentioned, these powers are on display in conjunction with the powers granted to us through the Dragon Eye Orb.
The Ancient Stone Dragon apparently has great knowledge of the power of Fog which allows it to see through time and space. Furthermore this power is referred to as an "art" rather than it being a literal eye.
The whole thing mirrors Zen Buddhism (note how the Ancient Stone Dragon actually sits cross legged) and the beast has apparently achieved an advanced state of enlightenment, hence why it doesn't respond when we chop off its tail.
These are all things that Seath would undoubtedly be ***IN*** on in a very controlled manner. But he's not.
Think about Seath's previous failed experiments in the Snake Men and the Pisaca.
Suddenly he strikes gold and produces an artificial Archdragon that's almost a mirror match to it's ancient ancestors and it somehow possesses all this advanced magical knowledge and he just ---- leaves it alone? And Hawkshaw argues that this perfect specimen is the result of mating with a human woman?
I mean, take one look at Gwyndolin or Priscilla and that notion very quickly becomes unlikely.
It just doesn't make sense.
Instead it makes far more sense that this dragon, like Seath, is at least second generation Archdragon and was born thousands of years ago, thus properly contextualizing its ancient knowledge of the power of Fog and of the imbuement of the power of Dragon Scales into stone.
===============
Seath's forces do have a connection to Ash Lake as it's clear that's the native home of the Man Eater Shells that seemingly naturally produce their own Purging Stones. They do so by encasing foreign matter (i.e. the skulls of the slain found in their membrane) in microscopic crystals.
This is what real world bivals do to produce pearls (which the Man Eater Shells also produce).
The process of producing stone by way of crystallization would've greatly interested Seath so he would've had specimens collected.
The results of those studies are likely why his crystal breath inflicts curse upon us.
================
The most likely scenario here is that Seath, at the very least, knows about the Ancient Stone Dragon but has yet to do anything meaningful with this knowledge before we kill him.
The presence of the Hydra in Darkroot and the lack of such a lake in Oolacile centuries before indicates that his forces have been to Ash Lake, but perhaps very early on before the Ancient Stone Dragon even arrived at its current position in the present day.
Perhaps even before the water had subsided enough for that path to its nest to even be traversable.
With this in mind, it's equally possible that Seath **doesn't** know of its existence either (though this is unlikely considering even Domnhall knows about it lol).
But what I will bet my life on for sure, is that Seath didn't create it.
I think given seaths interest in specifically the hydra and the clams suggest specific interest in ash lake, the only other place those things are found. I would argue it's more absurd for seath to have not created the ancient stone dragon, find it there and leave it be - compared to making it, putting it down there (where he thought no one would ever go) and leaving it be. Even if he was aware of the undead working for the ASD, they plan on becoming dragons themselves. This practice could've been influenced directly by seath so make more dragons.
I simply find it impossible to believe "Seath has knowledge of ash lake and has clear interest in it. Seath is trying to create an everlasting dragon. There is an everlasting dragon in ash lake. unrelated."
I thought Seath was technically one of the everlasting dragons, but not everlasting due to being scaleless. They already existed, why would the dragon even be a creation 😭
Honestly I'd love a worldbuilding document of the dark souls 1 world. The kingdoms living and undead that surround the empty everlasting Anor Londo. How many armies tried to asail Sens Fortress?
I have a small theory that he's the canon counterpart of Arkon from the Age of Fire comics, hence why there's silver knight statues everywhere in Sen's
I think people need to stop saying characters are other characters as a whole without evidence, the Furtive Pygmy is depicted in those statues in DS3 as they are in the Ds1 intro cutscene, and if she was the Furtive Pygmy she would look like that and also drop a dark soul or dark sign not a Lord soul
The Dark Soul is one of the 4 Lord Souls but the Furtive Pygmy would not drop it because he split his soul and each fragment of it is humanity. I'm not saying that it's true but it is the craziest claim I've heard regarding the lore of Dark Souls.
That Manus is the furtive pygmy. There's nothing to refute this theory, because it's based on no evidence whatsoever because we know almost nothing about either, except that they're both old and both have a connection to humanity. Manus could be the pygmy, the pygmy's uncle, or an entirely unconnected guy who wasn't born until millenia after the pigmy died.
They thought it'd be a laugh.
Simple as that. He's an archetypal trickster and although you could argue that it is the same entity reappearing there's nothing to actually confirm that. Reincarnation of the same soul is more likely and loreful as a conclusion imo.
The theory absolutely has evidence.
Manus wasn’t born until a millennia after the pygmy died as you suggested, because both Elizabeth and Chester refer Manus as a “primeval human.” So he’s very old.
Given Halflight’s birch bow and some architectural similarities (the robed statues in the Ringed City and Manus’ prison for example), there was at least some cultural crossover between the Ringed City and Oolacile. Manus was a sorceror and Oolacile is a place with unique sorceries that gives at least a basic motive for his being there.
Chester mentions a serpent, almost certainly Kaathe, wanted the citizens of Oolacile to dig up Manus’ grave. We know Kaathe is personally invested in the Pygmy and its legacy.
His grave. Manus’ grave is in a cave deep below a prison which is deep below Oolacile Township and it’s marked with a circle of stones. It screams “this person is very very important.” No sense to give it to a character who was never mentioned in the lore up til this point.
The sheer amount of Manus’ humanity. Nobody gets that much humanity without being very special. Even Mildred, who eats humans and absorbs their humanity, only has 8 to take via the dark hand. More than darkwraiths, more than the Four King’s four humanities. Manus has even more. Killing Manus gives you ten soft humanities. His soul is also almost identical in appearance to Gael’s which at that point in the Ringed City DLC is the near-complete dark soul.
The title and meaning of “Father of the Abyss.” Under the right circumstances, any human can spawn the abyss (pus of man). It’s not special. But no creature other than Manus has ever spawned its own abyssal realm. Not even the pygmy lords, even after the time-freezing spell is broken and their humanity can run wild like the other humans in ds3. The abyss that emanated from Manus’ body is so powerful that it lasts until at least dark souls 2 and gave birth to the children of dark.
Lastly, and this isn’t a lore thing but just pattern recognition, it makes more sense to fight all four holders of the Lord Souls in the same game. Before the DLC, the Pygmy was the only one we were missing. Why would they swap out the pygmy with somebody we’ve never heard of?
Your points are similar to the ones that I make in [this reply](https://www.reddit.com/r/darksouls/comments/1de7hy7/comment/l8auj87/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button), but it needs to be pointed out that none of those things are evidence that Manus is the Furtive Pygmy so much as it is evidence that he was a an extremely influential Dark sorcerer of Oolacile.
Manus' proclivities with Dark magic would also explain his abundance of Humanity (which we know can be given or taken anyway so having a large amount isn't necessarily indicative of anything).
As it stands, the notion that he's the Furtive Pygmy would actually benefit from him having ***less*** ties to Oolacile than he currently does.
But given he possesses such strong ties to the area, it's far more likely that he's a high-ranking figure from their past. Perhaps even helped found the city.
>We know Kaathe is personally invested in the Pygmy and its legacy.
Specifically, he's invested in the natural logic of the universe and allowing it to flow unimpeded.
The Pygmy, having happened upon the Dark Soul and split it, is mentioned by Kaathe due to their tangential connection. But Kaathe isn't specifically interested in the Furtive Pygmy themselves. He just wants the Age to come about as it rightfully should.
After all, he paid the Four Kings a visit as well in an attempt to do the same thing: Educate them about their heritage and the natural logic of the world.
The Oolacileans are led to Manus' grave not necessarily because he's the Furtive Pygmy, but because Manus is evidence of mankind's heritage and of Oolacile's past as scholars of the Dark.
>But no creature other than Manus has ever spawned its own abyssal realm.
The Four Kings did.
As you mention, anyone can spawn an Abyss and that Abyss can take on different physical or metaphysical characteristics depending on the source.
Technically speaking, Manus doesn't actually spawn a "realm." His abyss takes on a viscous, fluid property and takes over the surrounding area. We're not descending into a realm to fight him so much as we are descending deeper into the Mausoleum complex that houses his grave. A "chasm" of the Abyss. The rampant corruption his Abyss causes is reflective of the torture he endured which caused his Humanity to run wild.
The Four Kings on the other hand do reside in a realm all their own. This Abyss is much more under control and all-encompassing.
The fact that we require a special ring to safely traverse it also suggests there is an intelligent design at work here and killing the Four Kings removes the need to wear it, cementing the idea that they were the source of that necessity.
>The title and meaning of “Father of the Abyss.”
In the original Japanese it's actually "master" of the Abyss (深淵の主).
This makes more sense since, as we've established, anyone can spawn an Abyss thus making them the master of ***that*** particular one.
>The abyss that emanated from Manus’ body is so powerful that it lasts until at least dark souls 2 and gave birth to the children of dark.
It does not last until DS2.
An Abyss is destroyed (or at the very least kept from spreading) when the one who conjured it is killed. Remember, stopping the spread is what Artorias is remembered for doing.
Also remember that Darkroot bears no sign of any Abyssal corruption and that whole area is Oolacile 300 years later.
So the Children of the Dark were specifically born from the remaining vestiges of Manus's soul, not of his Abyss.
>Lastly, and this isn’t a lore thing but just pattern recognition, it makes more sense to fight all four holders of the Lord Souls in the same game. Before the DLC, the Pygmy was the only one we were missing. Why would they swap out the pygmy with somebody we’ve never heard of?
Both things can be true, that Manus is not the Furtive Pygmy but is still representative of him as one of mankind's earliest ancestors and practitioners of the Dark.
You’ve made some good points, and I checked out your reply. One thing I disagree is that the abyss dies with its host. If you look at the map, the abyss that Manus created is the same abyss below New Londo.
As for it being the same abyss in Dark Souls 2, see the darklurker’s soul description:
*The Dark Chasm of Old is the remnant of some ancient, dissipated being.*
And the abyss is still present because Darkdiver Grandahl mentions it as well.
Edit: I deleted a part about Alsanna’s father, because I misread that section of your comment.
>If you look at the map, the abyss that Manus created is the same abyss below New Londo.
This is a common thing to point out, but looking at map data in this way is flawed.
For example, we cannot work our camera to see the bridge to New Londo over the cliffside in Kalameet’s boss room like we can from the same vantage point in Darkroot basin, even though the bridge must exist in both eras.
The reason for this is because these spots where this oversight would be more easily noticed don't exist in the DLC map.
They weren't designed to mesh together like that and we can see other discrepancies like that between areas even in the base game map.
It is purely coincidence that there is a general overlap.
Besides, the fall of New Londo would've occurred ***before*** the events in Oolacile so it's Abyss can't have come from Manus.
>*The Dark Chasm of Old is the remnant of some ancient, dissipated being.*
>And the abyss is still present because Darkdiver Grandahl mentions it as well.
I see your reasoning but the explanation is simple.
These are new Abyssal territories, spawned from the escaped fragments of Manus's soul.
Grandahl actually affirms this.
*"What once was a great void of darkness became but fragments. But slowly, the scattered fragments grew, absorbing all things."*
He's talking about Manus's soul.
Also remember that we're in a completely new realm altogether in Drangleic.
The fragments of Manus's soul, buried deep, would've found themselves there as part of the same "drift" that caused much of Lordran to be displaced, thus resulting in the blatant architectural influences we see in places like Heide. This drift is also what saw the wyverns come to Drangleic, necessitating the need for it's Dragon Riders.
DS3 formally introduces the concept of drifting lands but DS2 very quietly established that it had already been happening.
I do not think it is purely coincidental that they are in the same place. And I don’t think the developers have ever made the distinction between the two locations, so we can’t claim we know their intention. They are the only two places we encounter the abyss and they are superimposed on one another. It is the same area.
I think your point is based upon these “shards” being Manus’ from soul and not the abyss itself which was still part of Manus. The abyss is essentially humanity gone wild, so it might be impossible to separate the two concepts for the purpose of discussion since humanity/the abyss was part of Manus’ soul. You said the abyss dies with its host but also that shards of Manus’ soul create more abyssal territories. It’s all from the same source.
As for Drangleic being or not being a completely different realm, that’s another discussion, but I think we can both agree the nature of the abyss does not change depending on its physical location.
>I do not think it is purely coincidental that they are in the same place. And I don’t think the developers have ever made the distinction between the two locations, so we can’t claim we know their intention. They are the only two places we encounter the abyss and they are superimposed on one another. It is the same area.
Did you read what I wrote though?
We can't look at map data like that because it's a flawed method of investigation that doesn't maintain it's consistency in every facet.
We can ONLY assume it to be a coincidence *because* of those inconsistencies.
And again, the two Abysses can't be the same anyway as the fall of New Londo takes place ***before*** the fall of Oolacile and the disturbance of Manus's grave.
**EDIT:** Also remember that we're not even intended to be able to view the maps from a viewer. As you say, we can't claim to know their intentions, especially if we're looking at data we're not actually supposed to be looking at. Coincidence is the most likely explanation for this overlap, particularly as the DLC was developed months after the base game released.
I did read what you wrote. I’m saying that map data is a valid form of evidence despite your claim.
Edit: We also do not know when the fall of New Londo took place relative to Oolacile.
But....it's inconsistencies render it invalid is the point I'm making.
It's a flawed method of investigation.
Blighttown doesn't even totally line up with Firelink Shrine, for example and we KNOW one is above the other.
As I mention in my edit above, you're also referencing data the player isn't actually intended to see in the first place.
This is why the bridge to New Londo isn't visible in the DLC, even though it's supposed to be there.
It's because they're not meant to be direct overlaps and weren't developed with that intention.
These inconsistencies tell us that that is the case.
===========================
And once again, the timeline makes this sequence of events impossible.
The Fall of New Londo to the Abyss predates the awakening of Manus.
It just doesn't work.
Would you please explain the timeline of New Londo and Oolacile? Because as far as I understand, it is never said which events occurred first.
Edit: “Londo”
Unless we can establish with evidence that New Londo fell before Oolacile, the inconsistencies you mentioned clear up if you consider New Londo fell afterward. That way the bridge isn’t present in the past simply because it wasn’t built yet.
manus being the pygmy is an annoying idea for two reasons: one because the allure of the vague offscreen lore of dark souls is that we don’t have definitive answers as to who it really is. it would immediately demystify anything interesting about the pygmy if they immediately created a boss fight for him in the dlc. and two, the cutscene clearly means ALL of the pygmy. like plural. they’re saying that the humans had a lord soul too. it’s not one fella
I like the idea of "the furtive pygmy" being just the name for the pre-human race, but I've googled it and haven't found any source of pygmy being used as a plural, it's always pygmies.
It's not necessarily that "pygmy" would a plural, it's more like if you're watching a nature documentary and the narrator says "But there is another species here: The noble mouse." They use the singular but you can tell they're referring to the whole species. If you read it like that it's kind of ambiguous which one they mean.
Tagging u/Schnickie as well.
The Furtive Pygmy found the Dark Soul and split it into fragments which he then distributed amongst mankind.
These fragments of the Dark Soul are Humanity, as Miyazaki confirms in the *Design Works* interview.
He also elaborates a bit more on what he means when describes the Furtive Pygmy as mankind's ancestor on an episode of the Game no Shokutaku podcast.
He refers to the Furtive Pygmy as mankind's ancestor in the sense that he fragmented the Lord Soul into Humanity which all of man now inherits. Humans are his "descendants" in that they received this inheritance and would pass it on to their next of kin.
As it stands, none of this actually necessitates that the Furtive Pygmy ***be*** the progenitor of the entire human race. He shared his Lord Soul with them, much in the same way Gwyn would share his with his kin and trusted allies.
So the only thing we know for sure is that the Dark Soul was split and shared by the one who discovered it.
As to the origin of mankind itself? It's likely these "animals" (as we're referred to in the Japanese) were born out of the same chaotic change that birthed other forms of life in the wake of Fire and Disparity.
As for the player character, there's nothing special about us. We didn't inherit anything different from any other undead from the Furtive Pygmy. We certainly aren't "chosen" by anyone. We're just another in a long line of brainwashed undead swayed by the proselytizations of the Gods and the Church.
What makes us special is that we succeed, but it could've been any other undead.
===========================================
As for the relationship between the Darksign, the soul, and what mankind's true form is, I wrote a lengthy reply about that [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/DarksoulsLore/comments/1dgtb97/comment/l8t1r0c/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
I go more in depth into the purpose of the soul and it's relationship to the body [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/darksouls/comments/1dcqapr/comment/l829ijq/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
The dark soul is what makes humans human. It is in every human. It's either the same as "humanity", or humanity springs from the dark soul. The darksign is meant to limit the connection of humans to their dark soul, placed upon humans because Gwyn fears them. The chosen undead is a successor of the lord soul of the furtive pygmy, and so is every other human, because without the dark soul, humans would be the hollows they originate from and not the humans they became because of that soul. This is also why the curse of undeath, caused by the darksign, turns the undead back into the mindless hollows: they entirely lose their dark soul, or their connection to it. I have a theory that this is also the reason for the curse of undeath in the first place: before disparity came into the world, the hollows that would become human were immortal, because death only came with disparity. Maybe this means that it was the dark soul that gave mortality to them and thus is an inherent part of humanity. By losing their dark soul, they become undead, immortal, as a stepping stone to becoming fully hollow, the original pre-human state of humans, before death was a thing.
>The dark soul is what makes humans human. It is in every human.
That's one thing that was pretty stupid about the Ringed City DLC in 3, they state that the Dark Soul is inside the city, and nothing refutes that.
You can argue that after everyone dies outside of it, the remaining Dark Soul fragments are in the city, but everyone acts as though the Dark Soul itself has been there since its inception.
Priscilla being the daughter of Gwynevere.
It has zero proof. We know she's the daughter of Seath but the only real connection we have to Gwynevere is "they're both big" and "the painting is in Anor Londo". Which is ironic, because Gwyndolin is actually closer to that painting, and is most likely the one linking Priscilla and Gwyn's family : he's her son. There are way too many elements linking Gwyndolin to Seath for it to be ignored. And DS3 almost confirms it with Aldrich's soul yielding the Lifehunt Scythe miracle.
No, devising miracles from dreams is not the issue. The issue is, why Priscilla specifically ? And why from the soul of Aldrich (and therefore Gwyndolin) ?
Nito canonically died in DS1, but the Gravelord Sword was given to all Gravelord servants. And he was a powerful Lord Soul holder. But Priscilla... It's said in the Lifehunt Scythe description that Aldrich dreamt as he devoured Gwyndolin and perceived Priscilla. If there was nothing linking the two, why would Gwyndolin think of Priscilla, except for having last thoughts of his mother before his death ?
I had actually forgotten about this, but Priscilla isn't the onpy Crossbreed and Lifehunt is widely speculated to be a power derived from the Crossbreeds. Specifically, Yorshka is a crossbreed and confirmed sister to Gwyndolin while Priscilla's connectsions to the gods are tenuous at best at this time. Lifehunt even references that Aldrich dreamt of a young girl in hiding, which sounds way more like Yorshka than it does of Priscilla, so I think Aldrich dreamt of Yorshka and learned Lifehunt from her innate ability to use it.
While we do have another crossbreed, Lifehunt Scythe was only wielded by Priscilla and no one else. Nothing connects Yorshka to Lifehunt except Priscilla herself. And the "pale young girl in hiding" could very well be Priscilla too.
Yorshka doesn't disprove the Gwyndolin/Priscilla connection. In fact, she strengthens it. She's obviously a cross-breed related to Priscilla and claims to be the sister of Gwyndolin. Even the daughter of Gwyn and sister of Gwynevere. Her being Priscilla's daughter is the most likely answer. Some would say "adopted" and while that's possible, the connection is right there.
> I have seen several people thinking we find Artorias right the second before he gets "corrupted" by the abyss because he kills a mob in the cutscene and gets shrouded by a dark mist before he fights us
Wait, that's not what happens? There's even deleted dialog of him warning us to stay away because he's about to be corrupted by the Abyss.
The fact it's cut dialogue actually reinforces the fact that that's not the finalised view of the developers. They decided Artorias was fully corrupted when we met him.
>The fact it's cut dialogue actually reinforces the fact that that's not the finalised view of the developers
Or they found it too on the nose and wanted to show not tell. You can't really say either is true with certainty.
Cut content is cut for a reason. The audience isn't really "meant" to ever see it at all.
Artorias' dialogue was cut, which means it didn't fit with the devs' final vision. It's only "evidence" of an earlier stage of production. What we see in-game is Artorias being crazy and attacking anything that moves.
People digging into unused content to justify their fanfiction is deeply pathetic and offensive to the authorship of the creators who actually made the thing.
I would bet that the creators and developers love this shit tbh. They made something so compelling that people will dig through deleted troves of data to come up with more lore and information, especially when coming up with your own theories based on limited info is a key theme to this series
Yeah if I made something I would love nothing more than to watch fans spend hours sleuthing and getting in heated arguments with eachother over something they're all wrong about
As a published author myself, if someone decided to fuck around through my notes and dig out scrapped ideas or entries and unedited work I wouldn't be impressed or happy about it, I would be irritated that they think my scrapped, informed ideas are as valid as the ones refined and published.
I think it depends on how you view "corruption". Unlike heroes who get greedy and get corrupted by evil, Artorias is a knight who fights the literal abyss and gets beaten by the abyss itself instead of being pulled in it. Also when Artorias dies, he lets out a gut wrenching human cry first, following with a monstrous sound that can be correlated with darkness. That implies he in fact still has his the smallest humanity in him which he cries out with his death.
All these aside, Hawkeye Gough thanks us for ending Artorias' misery, implying he has been wandering Oolacile as a broken corpse for a long time.
he guards a cathedral and looks like ornstein and there are some theories roaming around that the only remaining god in anor londo is actually gwyndolin and ornstein and smough are illusions just like gwynevere therefore ornstein might be still alive in ds2. i really don't think this is the case but do we really know who the hell that guy is. i mean like drangleic is filled with dragons because of aldia's fascination and the boss we fight in the same area with "old dragonslayer" is called "dragonrider". Dragon slaying have to be an old concept from Gwyn's age and it really stands out in Drangleic. Who is he really?
We actually do know that Ornstein in DS1 likely is an illusion as item descriptions and locations im DS3 confirm that Ornstein left Anor Londo in search of Gwyn's firstborn. Additionally, Smough is *not* an illusion as item descriptions from DS3 also confirm that he was the last knight to remain at his post. Given that there are two bosses in the O&S bossfight and it's impossible to defeat both of them simultaneously, DS3 likely retroactively makes the death of Ornstein in that fight first the canon outcome. You only receieve one boss's drops in that fight, and it would make more sense if the Ornstein you fight in DS1 really is an illusion that the drop you're meant to get is Smough's.
As for the Old Dragonslayer, he was probably what was intended to be the next step in Ornstein's storyline but ended up being abandoned and retconned by DS3's implications about his decided fate.
He still is evil, though. He traps undead, causing their death to then sell their belongings. In Dark Souls 1, he leads Rhea and her two acolytes to their deaths, and tries to kill the player repeatedly. There are many more corpses there too.
In Dark Souls 3, he steals Siegward's gear, tries to get you killed by the giant, traps you in Firelink's tower thinking you'll die.
Just because he claims to hate clerics and greed (which he himself has in spades) doesn't make him a good guy.
Dark Souls 3 shows that he isn't heartless and can have friends (he tries to save Greirat and assists the player with a bossfight) but that doesn't excuse his devious behaviour.
Prince Lothric is more of a nihilist than a villain - he is the antagonist because he has the power to attempt to break the status quo and does nothing with it. He just lets his kingdom die a slow death.
I remember people insisting that The Last Giant and the Giant Lord were different beings before Scholar of the First Sin released. People would ignore them being identical, being in the same area, and The Last Giant's reaction to the player. But the Scholar update pretty much confirmed it straight up with the description changes.
Yeah, the Soul of the Last Giant was updated to straight up say that directly when Scholar of the First Sin released.
>Soul of the surviving giant, who was bound below the Forest of the Giants.
>The lord of the Giants, who had brought wrack and ruin to the entire kingdom, was said to have been felled by an unknown warrior. His beaten and broken remains were then dragged beneath the stronghold, where he was sealed away.
>Use the special soul of the Last Giant to acquire numerous souls, or to create something of great worth.
okay, but getting to the top of earthen peak and finding an elevator that goes UP and leads to the fucking iron keep of all places was genuinely one of my favorite moments playing any of these games. “poorly created” is subjective
My theory: we are given the answer. Time is convoluted.
The flame has gone out. The lands are collapsing in, fading in Vendrick's failure.
The giants did not invade, their lands collided with Drangleic as the continents merge and reforging in a reverse-pangea effect. Continental drift *is* time, after all.
The issue of how far places are from one another is also solved by this.
And don't forget that you enter the underworld at the beginning of the game through the great black vortex. That is symbolism directly suggestive of a descent into the underworld. We are not in the same world as Lordran anymore, but a shadow of it or potentially a mirror. In this world, the flame was not relit. The fire faded. And the Kiln (throne) is small, feeble and cold. We as the player must insert ourselves into this womblike space and rekindle it with the breath of life of our own body, the flame.
There's so much more symbolism of 2 than people give it credit for and so many people just go 'HAHA YEA THAT INTRO MOVIE IS CONFUZIN AY ANYWAY LEVEL ADP HAHA'
yeah no i actually do believe the confusing map structure is perfect for the story and themes they were going for and is intentional lol, ds2 has my favorite lore of the series
The game director, Tanimura, explained that they had to fit areas together in strange ways and sometimes didn't manage to do what they wanted to convey. It was not intentional. Source is the Design Works interview.
I'm a fan of this kind of stuff, sorta reminds me of the alien geometries of R'lyeh. I made a d&d dungeon with a lot of impossible geometry like this, and i'm definitely planning on using this exact area transition at some point.
That's not a theory.
*"The steel greatshield used by Knight Artorias, who succumbed to the Abyss. Artorias, deeply scarred by the Abyss, used this to form a barrier to protect his compatriot Sif. Although this drained the shield, its magic defense remains high."*
A lot of the in game dialog reflects he was corrupted for some time before we fight him. All the ooze and stuff coming out of him isn't his natural self. I think you're taking a vague quote too far.
Carthus sandworm is solaire
No no this is true. Source: uhhhh fuckin uhhhh
It's weird people think that, the only Ds1 characters that returned actively and weren't idol decoration corpses or lore were the Chosen Undead and Gwyn in the soul of cinder, and Gwyndolin in Aldrich.
I like the theory, and I wish they had made the connections intentionally so that it could be true, but you're right that it is not true.
It's not that far fetched considering how many weird transformations we got in the series
Nah i think that one is quite believable with the evidence presented.
[удалено]
lol the evidence is just a headcanon
Then where is this evidence?
The fact that solaire was killed by a bug, in this theory the bug mutates/evolves thanks to solaire and eventually becomes the sandworm. There is also the fact that the carthus sandworm is located in what once whats Lost Izalith, the place where solaire dies. Lastly the fact that the carthus sandworm uses lightning attacks which is kinda weird. But overall its just conjectures. I personally like to believe in this theory lol cuz i think its funny
The explanation behind the Sandworm is simple. >There is also the fact that the carthus sandworm is located in what once whats Lost Izalith, the place where solaire dies. What people tend to forget is that the entire area is a hodgepodge of displaced people and locations as a result of the drift. It's called the **Carthus Sandworm** after all, so it's not native here. More likely it came from what was once Jugo (which would've become Carthus, "country of the sand") which already had giant ants. A giant thing getting displaced without any of the sand it traveled in would be odd though, however in cut content Irithyll's snow was actually going to be sand so the Catacombs initially would've been developed to be in the same area. As a result there's a slight disconnect between lore and what the developers ultimately winded up with though we can headcanon that there might be desert between the forests and such. >Lastly the fact that the carthus sandworm uses lightning attacks which is kinda weird. If you look closely at it, you'll see that this thing has been eating basically everyone and everything. You can see in it's exposed belly [countless bodies](https://i.imgur.com/0sNCE2o.png). Inside it's mouth you can [see their faces. ](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/darksouls/images/4/47/Worm_%282%29.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/1200?cb=20160416192159) Lothric's Dragonslayers are buried in the region and it's been munching on them so it's adopted their lightning capabilities.
Huh
What evidence? First time I hear about this.
Well_Im_Waiting.gif
That the Ancient Stone Dragon is a creation of Seath that Seath just lets hang out in Ash Lake for some reason.
the concept of everlasting dragons and their inconcievable nature is so eldritch ,seath the traitor could not forge something so cool
I'm just surprised the Hawkshaw loyalists haven't strung me up yet. hehe
From what I remember of that video, he leaves it there because it's safe for the dragon to grow up in. And with the clams both there and by his boss area I assume he or trusted servants go back and forth on occasion.
There's.....a LOT of logic problems in that video that occur even prior to his conclusion that Seath created it. Letting it live down there AND repopulate the race by way of magically imbued dragon stones is one such example of something Seath wouldn't just be chill with.
I'm curious as to what problems you found? And I don't see why seath wouldn't be chill with it, he wants the dragons to return so he can keep experimenting with their scales. And he probably wouldn't have as much trouble with that if he was their "grandfather" rather than a strange mutant traitor.
I'm not watching that gigantic thing again because breaking it and all it's problems down would require a VERY long reply. I'd also have to branch off into other areas of the lore in order to further back up why some things in that video are an issue. So we're not gonna do that. haha But you do also bring up one of the logic problems i'm talking about. >he wants the dragons to return so he can keep experimenting with their scales. Seath helped kill them so he could bring them back? And he's letting people he's got no influence over become dragons? Where's the control? Where's the safety net? Also consider this. If Seath created the Ancient **Stone** Dragon, then he's already succeeded in manufacturing everlasting stone scales and he need only study his one success. Why continue to let that success do what it wants and proliferate a race of beings for which he has no oversight? Not to mention the Ancient Stone Dragon is handing out Dragon Eyes which leave summon signs shrouded in Fog, suggesting that this creature has an understanding of the power of Fog that allows it to transcend time and space. It's ancestors were shrouded in the stuff themselves during the Age of Ancients. These are all things that point directly to it being a descendant, not an artificial experiment. Item descriptions do also affirm it to be a descendant of the ancient Archdragons so that's the nail in Hawkshaw's coffin right there.
A child of seath would be a descendent of the ancient dragons, seath was born of the ancient dragons. Also, seath sided with Gwyn against the dragons so he might be able to harvest their scales. Since scales are worthless after death, it would make sense why seath would want another genuine and living ancient dragon. He tucks it away at the bottom of the world, somewhere he has an obvious connection to given the clams in the crystal caves and the golems that hang around the hydra in darkroot basin. Your idea seems to stem from the notion that one cannot be a descendent whilst having an artificial birth but that's simply not true. Artificial birth isn't devoid of the biology of inheritance.
>Artificial birth isn't devoid of the biology of inheritance. Fair, but my idea largely stems from the notion that it makes zero sense for Seath to leave it there to do what it wants and proliferate a species (or following) of Dragonkin that Seath has absolutely no oversight over. The Dragonstones are used in a "secret rite" and the Ancient Stone Dragon receives dragon scales, seemingly using them to imbue their power into the Dragon Stones we receive (the Ancient Stone Dragon raises it's arms whenever we ascend a rank in the covenant). And as I mentioned, these powers are on display in conjunction with the powers granted to us through the Dragon Eye Orb. The Ancient Stone Dragon apparently has great knowledge of the power of Fog which allows it to see through time and space. Furthermore this power is referred to as an "art" rather than it being a literal eye. The whole thing mirrors Zen Buddhism (note how the Ancient Stone Dragon actually sits cross legged) and the beast has apparently achieved an advanced state of enlightenment, hence why it doesn't respond when we chop off its tail. These are all things that Seath would undoubtedly be ***IN*** on in a very controlled manner. But he's not. Think about Seath's previous failed experiments in the Snake Men and the Pisaca. Suddenly he strikes gold and produces an artificial Archdragon that's almost a mirror match to it's ancient ancestors and it somehow possesses all this advanced magical knowledge and he just ---- leaves it alone? And Hawkshaw argues that this perfect specimen is the result of mating with a human woman? I mean, take one look at Gwyndolin or Priscilla and that notion very quickly becomes unlikely. It just doesn't make sense. Instead it makes far more sense that this dragon, like Seath, is at least second generation Archdragon and was born thousands of years ago, thus properly contextualizing its ancient knowledge of the power of Fog and of the imbuement of the power of Dragon Scales into stone. =============== Seath's forces do have a connection to Ash Lake as it's clear that's the native home of the Man Eater Shells that seemingly naturally produce their own Purging Stones. They do so by encasing foreign matter (i.e. the skulls of the slain found in their membrane) in microscopic crystals. This is what real world bivals do to produce pearls (which the Man Eater Shells also produce). The process of producing stone by way of crystallization would've greatly interested Seath so he would've had specimens collected. The results of those studies are likely why his crystal breath inflicts curse upon us. ================ The most likely scenario here is that Seath, at the very least, knows about the Ancient Stone Dragon but has yet to do anything meaningful with this knowledge before we kill him. The presence of the Hydra in Darkroot and the lack of such a lake in Oolacile centuries before indicates that his forces have been to Ash Lake, but perhaps very early on before the Ancient Stone Dragon even arrived at its current position in the present day. Perhaps even before the water had subsided enough for that path to its nest to even be traversable. With this in mind, it's equally possible that Seath **doesn't** know of its existence either (though this is unlikely considering even Domnhall knows about it lol). But what I will bet my life on for sure, is that Seath didn't create it.
I think given seaths interest in specifically the hydra and the clams suggest specific interest in ash lake, the only other place those things are found. I would argue it's more absurd for seath to have not created the ancient stone dragon, find it there and leave it be - compared to making it, putting it down there (where he thought no one would ever go) and leaving it be. Even if he was aware of the undead working for the ASD, they plan on becoming dragons themselves. This practice could've been influenced directly by seath so make more dragons. I simply find it impossible to believe "Seath has knowledge of ash lake and has clear interest in it. Seath is trying to create an everlasting dragon. There is an everlasting dragon in ash lake. unrelated."
Fair points. I'll look into that more.
I thought Seath was technically one of the everlasting dragons, but not everlasting due to being scaleless. They already existed, why would the dragon even be a creation 😭
Andre is Sen, and that's why he's there by the entrance to the fortress.
the fact that we have no legitimate information about who or what sen is sad
Honestly I'd love a worldbuilding document of the dark souls 1 world. The kingdoms living and undead that surround the empty everlasting Anor Londo. How many armies tried to asail Sens Fortress?
I think (so don't quote me) it's an error in translation, and it's meant to be "fortress of a thousand traps", sen meaning thousand.
I have a small theory that he's the canon counterpart of Arkon from the Age of Fire comics, hence why there's silver knight statues everywhere in Sen's
Sen is a nude guy with an uchigatana. I got invaded by him a few years back
Thre covetous demon from Dark Souls 2 is actually your mom
This is not just a theory.
This is A GAME THEORY!
Did Dark Tark tell you that?
The Witch of Izalith and the Furtive Pygmy are the same person.
Imagine having two great souls and STILL being an awful boss. Only the bed of chaos!!!
I think people need to stop saying characters are other characters as a whole without evidence, the Furtive Pygmy is depicted in those statues in DS3 as they are in the Ds1 intro cutscene, and if she was the Furtive Pygmy she would look like that and also drop a dark soul or dark sign not a Lord soul
The Dark Soul is one of the 4 Lord Souls but the Furtive Pygmy would not drop it because he split his soul and each fragment of it is humanity. I'm not saying that it's true but it is the craziest claim I've heard regarding the lore of Dark Souls.
Dw I wasn't tryna say you did think it or not I'm just stating my thoughts on those kinds of theories as a whole, also you do have a point.
That Manus is the furtive pygmy. There's nothing to refute this theory, because it's based on no evidence whatsoever because we know almost nothing about either, except that they're both old and both have a connection to humanity. Manus could be the pygmy, the pygmy's uncle, or an entirely unconnected guy who wasn't born until millenia after the pigmy died.
I like the fringe theory that Patches is actually the Furtive Pygmy
I will follow blindly every theory that involves Patches
I really, really hate the idea of this. Patches is a joke, not an elder god.
Perhaps that is how he wants to appear, so as to throw you off his trail. /s
Then how do you explain him appearing in different game series entirely? Definitely an elder god
They thought it'd be a laugh. Simple as that. He's an archetypal trickster and although you could argue that it is the same entity reappearing there's nothing to actually confirm that. Reincarnation of the same soul is more likely and loreful as a conclusion imo.
The theory absolutely has evidence. Manus wasn’t born until a millennia after the pygmy died as you suggested, because both Elizabeth and Chester refer Manus as a “primeval human.” So he’s very old. Given Halflight’s birch bow and some architectural similarities (the robed statues in the Ringed City and Manus’ prison for example), there was at least some cultural crossover between the Ringed City and Oolacile. Manus was a sorceror and Oolacile is a place with unique sorceries that gives at least a basic motive for his being there. Chester mentions a serpent, almost certainly Kaathe, wanted the citizens of Oolacile to dig up Manus’ grave. We know Kaathe is personally invested in the Pygmy and its legacy. His grave. Manus’ grave is in a cave deep below a prison which is deep below Oolacile Township and it’s marked with a circle of stones. It screams “this person is very very important.” No sense to give it to a character who was never mentioned in the lore up til this point. The sheer amount of Manus’ humanity. Nobody gets that much humanity without being very special. Even Mildred, who eats humans and absorbs their humanity, only has 8 to take via the dark hand. More than darkwraiths, more than the Four King’s four humanities. Manus has even more. Killing Manus gives you ten soft humanities. His soul is also almost identical in appearance to Gael’s which at that point in the Ringed City DLC is the near-complete dark soul. The title and meaning of “Father of the Abyss.” Under the right circumstances, any human can spawn the abyss (pus of man). It’s not special. But no creature other than Manus has ever spawned its own abyssal realm. Not even the pygmy lords, even after the time-freezing spell is broken and their humanity can run wild like the other humans in ds3. The abyss that emanated from Manus’ body is so powerful that it lasts until at least dark souls 2 and gave birth to the children of dark. Lastly, and this isn’t a lore thing but just pattern recognition, it makes more sense to fight all four holders of the Lord Souls in the same game. Before the DLC, the Pygmy was the only one we were missing. Why would they swap out the pygmy with somebody we’ve never heard of?
Your points are similar to the ones that I make in [this reply](https://www.reddit.com/r/darksouls/comments/1de7hy7/comment/l8auj87/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button), but it needs to be pointed out that none of those things are evidence that Manus is the Furtive Pygmy so much as it is evidence that he was a an extremely influential Dark sorcerer of Oolacile. Manus' proclivities with Dark magic would also explain his abundance of Humanity (which we know can be given or taken anyway so having a large amount isn't necessarily indicative of anything). As it stands, the notion that he's the Furtive Pygmy would actually benefit from him having ***less*** ties to Oolacile than he currently does. But given he possesses such strong ties to the area, it's far more likely that he's a high-ranking figure from their past. Perhaps even helped found the city. >We know Kaathe is personally invested in the Pygmy and its legacy. Specifically, he's invested in the natural logic of the universe and allowing it to flow unimpeded. The Pygmy, having happened upon the Dark Soul and split it, is mentioned by Kaathe due to their tangential connection. But Kaathe isn't specifically interested in the Furtive Pygmy themselves. He just wants the Age to come about as it rightfully should. After all, he paid the Four Kings a visit as well in an attempt to do the same thing: Educate them about their heritage and the natural logic of the world. The Oolacileans are led to Manus' grave not necessarily because he's the Furtive Pygmy, but because Manus is evidence of mankind's heritage and of Oolacile's past as scholars of the Dark. >But no creature other than Manus has ever spawned its own abyssal realm. The Four Kings did. As you mention, anyone can spawn an Abyss and that Abyss can take on different physical or metaphysical characteristics depending on the source. Technically speaking, Manus doesn't actually spawn a "realm." His abyss takes on a viscous, fluid property and takes over the surrounding area. We're not descending into a realm to fight him so much as we are descending deeper into the Mausoleum complex that houses his grave. A "chasm" of the Abyss. The rampant corruption his Abyss causes is reflective of the torture he endured which caused his Humanity to run wild. The Four Kings on the other hand do reside in a realm all their own. This Abyss is much more under control and all-encompassing. The fact that we require a special ring to safely traverse it also suggests there is an intelligent design at work here and killing the Four Kings removes the need to wear it, cementing the idea that they were the source of that necessity. >The title and meaning of “Father of the Abyss.” In the original Japanese it's actually "master" of the Abyss (深淵の主). This makes more sense since, as we've established, anyone can spawn an Abyss thus making them the master of ***that*** particular one. >The abyss that emanated from Manus’ body is so powerful that it lasts until at least dark souls 2 and gave birth to the children of dark. It does not last until DS2. An Abyss is destroyed (or at the very least kept from spreading) when the one who conjured it is killed. Remember, stopping the spread is what Artorias is remembered for doing. Also remember that Darkroot bears no sign of any Abyssal corruption and that whole area is Oolacile 300 years later. So the Children of the Dark were specifically born from the remaining vestiges of Manus's soul, not of his Abyss. >Lastly, and this isn’t a lore thing but just pattern recognition, it makes more sense to fight all four holders of the Lord Souls in the same game. Before the DLC, the Pygmy was the only one we were missing. Why would they swap out the pygmy with somebody we’ve never heard of? Both things can be true, that Manus is not the Furtive Pygmy but is still representative of him as one of mankind's earliest ancestors and practitioners of the Dark.
You’ve made some good points, and I checked out your reply. One thing I disagree is that the abyss dies with its host. If you look at the map, the abyss that Manus created is the same abyss below New Londo. As for it being the same abyss in Dark Souls 2, see the darklurker’s soul description: *The Dark Chasm of Old is the remnant of some ancient, dissipated being.* And the abyss is still present because Darkdiver Grandahl mentions it as well. Edit: I deleted a part about Alsanna’s father, because I misread that section of your comment.
>If you look at the map, the abyss that Manus created is the same abyss below New Londo. This is a common thing to point out, but looking at map data in this way is flawed. For example, we cannot work our camera to see the bridge to New Londo over the cliffside in Kalameet’s boss room like we can from the same vantage point in Darkroot basin, even though the bridge must exist in both eras. The reason for this is because these spots where this oversight would be more easily noticed don't exist in the DLC map. They weren't designed to mesh together like that and we can see other discrepancies like that between areas even in the base game map. It is purely coincidence that there is a general overlap. Besides, the fall of New Londo would've occurred ***before*** the events in Oolacile so it's Abyss can't have come from Manus. >*The Dark Chasm of Old is the remnant of some ancient, dissipated being.* >And the abyss is still present because Darkdiver Grandahl mentions it as well. I see your reasoning but the explanation is simple. These are new Abyssal territories, spawned from the escaped fragments of Manus's soul. Grandahl actually affirms this. *"What once was a great void of darkness became but fragments. But slowly, the scattered fragments grew, absorbing all things."* He's talking about Manus's soul. Also remember that we're in a completely new realm altogether in Drangleic. The fragments of Manus's soul, buried deep, would've found themselves there as part of the same "drift" that caused much of Lordran to be displaced, thus resulting in the blatant architectural influences we see in places like Heide. This drift is also what saw the wyverns come to Drangleic, necessitating the need for it's Dragon Riders. DS3 formally introduces the concept of drifting lands but DS2 very quietly established that it had already been happening.
I do not think it is purely coincidental that they are in the same place. And I don’t think the developers have ever made the distinction between the two locations, so we can’t claim we know their intention. They are the only two places we encounter the abyss and they are superimposed on one another. It is the same area. I think your point is based upon these “shards” being Manus’ from soul and not the abyss itself which was still part of Manus. The abyss is essentially humanity gone wild, so it might be impossible to separate the two concepts for the purpose of discussion since humanity/the abyss was part of Manus’ soul. You said the abyss dies with its host but also that shards of Manus’ soul create more abyssal territories. It’s all from the same source. As for Drangleic being or not being a completely different realm, that’s another discussion, but I think we can both agree the nature of the abyss does not change depending on its physical location.
>I do not think it is purely coincidental that they are in the same place. And I don’t think the developers have ever made the distinction between the two locations, so we can’t claim we know their intention. They are the only two places we encounter the abyss and they are superimposed on one another. It is the same area. Did you read what I wrote though? We can't look at map data like that because it's a flawed method of investigation that doesn't maintain it's consistency in every facet. We can ONLY assume it to be a coincidence *because* of those inconsistencies. And again, the two Abysses can't be the same anyway as the fall of New Londo takes place ***before*** the fall of Oolacile and the disturbance of Manus's grave. **EDIT:** Also remember that we're not even intended to be able to view the maps from a viewer. As you say, we can't claim to know their intentions, especially if we're looking at data we're not actually supposed to be looking at. Coincidence is the most likely explanation for this overlap, particularly as the DLC was developed months after the base game released.
I did read what you wrote. I’m saying that map data is a valid form of evidence despite your claim. Edit: We also do not know when the fall of New Londo took place relative to Oolacile.
But....it's inconsistencies render it invalid is the point I'm making. It's a flawed method of investigation. Blighttown doesn't even totally line up with Firelink Shrine, for example and we KNOW one is above the other. As I mention in my edit above, you're also referencing data the player isn't actually intended to see in the first place. This is why the bridge to New Londo isn't visible in the DLC, even though it's supposed to be there. It's because they're not meant to be direct overlaps and weren't developed with that intention. These inconsistencies tell us that that is the case. =========================== And once again, the timeline makes this sequence of events impossible. The Fall of New Londo to the Abyss predates the awakening of Manus. It just doesn't work.
Would you please explain the timeline of New Londo and Oolacile? Because as far as I understand, it is never said which events occurred first. Edit: “Londo”
Unless we can establish with evidence that New Londo fell before Oolacile, the inconsistencies you mentioned clear up if you consider New Londo fell afterward. That way the bridge isn’t present in the past simply because it wasn’t built yet.
manus being the pygmy is an annoying idea for two reasons: one because the allure of the vague offscreen lore of dark souls is that we don’t have definitive answers as to who it really is. it would immediately demystify anything interesting about the pygmy if they immediately created a boss fight for him in the dlc. and two, the cutscene clearly means ALL of the pygmy. like plural. they’re saying that the humans had a lord soul too. it’s not one fella
I like the idea of "the furtive pygmy" being just the name for the pre-human race, but I've googled it and haven't found any source of pygmy being used as a plural, it's always pygmies.
well you can use it probably just like the phrase "man discovered the fire" the man here is plural and refers to mankind
It's not necessarily that "pygmy" would a plural, it's more like if you're watching a nature documentary and the narrator says "But there is another species here: The noble mouse." They use the singular but you can tell they're referring to the whole species. If you read it like that it's kind of ambiguous which one they mean.
Pygmie is a pushing version of the word used on some Pacific islands like Papua New Guinea, but it's not 'formal' language.
THANK YOU
I always thought the chosen undead is the successor of the lord soul of Furtive Pygmy
Tagging u/Schnickie as well. The Furtive Pygmy found the Dark Soul and split it into fragments which he then distributed amongst mankind. These fragments of the Dark Soul are Humanity, as Miyazaki confirms in the *Design Works* interview. He also elaborates a bit more on what he means when describes the Furtive Pygmy as mankind's ancestor on an episode of the Game no Shokutaku podcast. He refers to the Furtive Pygmy as mankind's ancestor in the sense that he fragmented the Lord Soul into Humanity which all of man now inherits. Humans are his "descendants" in that they received this inheritance and would pass it on to their next of kin. As it stands, none of this actually necessitates that the Furtive Pygmy ***be*** the progenitor of the entire human race. He shared his Lord Soul with them, much in the same way Gwyn would share his with his kin and trusted allies. So the only thing we know for sure is that the Dark Soul was split and shared by the one who discovered it. As to the origin of mankind itself? It's likely these "animals" (as we're referred to in the Japanese) were born out of the same chaotic change that birthed other forms of life in the wake of Fire and Disparity. As for the player character, there's nothing special about us. We didn't inherit anything different from any other undead from the Furtive Pygmy. We certainly aren't "chosen" by anyone. We're just another in a long line of brainwashed undead swayed by the proselytizations of the Gods and the Church. What makes us special is that we succeed, but it could've been any other undead. =========================================== As for the relationship between the Darksign, the soul, and what mankind's true form is, I wrote a lengthy reply about that [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/DarksoulsLore/comments/1dgtb97/comment/l8t1r0c/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). I go more in depth into the purpose of the soul and it's relationship to the body [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/darksouls/comments/1dcqapr/comment/l829ijq/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
The dark soul is what makes humans human. It is in every human. It's either the same as "humanity", or humanity springs from the dark soul. The darksign is meant to limit the connection of humans to their dark soul, placed upon humans because Gwyn fears them. The chosen undead is a successor of the lord soul of the furtive pygmy, and so is every other human, because without the dark soul, humans would be the hollows they originate from and not the humans they became because of that soul. This is also why the curse of undeath, caused by the darksign, turns the undead back into the mindless hollows: they entirely lose their dark soul, or their connection to it. I have a theory that this is also the reason for the curse of undeath in the first place: before disparity came into the world, the hollows that would become human were immortal, because death only came with disparity. Maybe this means that it was the dark soul that gave mortality to them and thus is an inherent part of humanity. By losing their dark soul, they become undead, immortal, as a stepping stone to becoming fully hollow, the original pre-human state of humans, before death was a thing.
>The dark soul is what makes humans human. It is in every human. That's one thing that was pretty stupid about the Ringed City DLC in 3, they state that the Dark Soul is inside the city, and nothing refutes that. You can argue that after everyone dies outside of it, the remaining Dark Soul fragments are in the city, but everyone acts as though the Dark Soul itself has been there since its inception.
Priscilla being the daughter of Gwynevere. It has zero proof. We know she's the daughter of Seath but the only real connection we have to Gwynevere is "they're both big" and "the painting is in Anor Londo". Which is ironic, because Gwyndolin is actually closer to that painting, and is most likely the one linking Priscilla and Gwyn's family : he's her son. There are way too many elements linking Gwyndolin to Seath for it to be ignored. And DS3 almost confirms it with Aldrich's soul yielding the Lifehunt Scythe miracle.
Mind, they seem to have abandoned that by stating that Aldrich manifested it (and the Gravelord Greatsword) from a dream.
No, devising miracles from dreams is not the issue. The issue is, why Priscilla specifically ? And why from the soul of Aldrich (and therefore Gwyndolin) ? Nito canonically died in DS1, but the Gravelord Sword was given to all Gravelord servants. And he was a powerful Lord Soul holder. But Priscilla... It's said in the Lifehunt Scythe description that Aldrich dreamt as he devoured Gwyndolin and perceived Priscilla. If there was nothing linking the two, why would Gwyndolin think of Priscilla, except for having last thoughts of his mother before his death ?
I had actually forgotten about this, but Priscilla isn't the onpy Crossbreed and Lifehunt is widely speculated to be a power derived from the Crossbreeds. Specifically, Yorshka is a crossbreed and confirmed sister to Gwyndolin while Priscilla's connectsions to the gods are tenuous at best at this time. Lifehunt even references that Aldrich dreamt of a young girl in hiding, which sounds way more like Yorshka than it does of Priscilla, so I think Aldrich dreamt of Yorshka and learned Lifehunt from her innate ability to use it.
While we do have another crossbreed, Lifehunt Scythe was only wielded by Priscilla and no one else. Nothing connects Yorshka to Lifehunt except Priscilla herself. And the "pale young girl in hiding" could very well be Priscilla too. Yorshka doesn't disprove the Gwyndolin/Priscilla connection. In fact, she strengthens it. She's obviously a cross-breed related to Priscilla and claims to be the sister of Gwyndolin. Even the daughter of Gwyn and sister of Gwynevere. Her being Priscilla's daughter is the most likely answer. Some would say "adopted" and while that's possible, the connection is right there.
> I have seen several people thinking we find Artorias right the second before he gets "corrupted" by the abyss because he kills a mob in the cutscene and gets shrouded by a dark mist before he fights us Wait, that's not what happens? There's even deleted dialog of him warning us to stay away because he's about to be corrupted by the Abyss.
The fact it's cut dialogue actually reinforces the fact that that's not the finalised view of the developers. They decided Artorias was fully corrupted when we met him.
>The fact it's cut dialogue actually reinforces the fact that that's not the finalised view of the developers Or they found it too on the nose and wanted to show not tell. You can't really say either is true with certainty.
Cut content is cut for a reason. The audience isn't really "meant" to ever see it at all. Artorias' dialogue was cut, which means it didn't fit with the devs' final vision. It's only "evidence" of an earlier stage of production. What we see in-game is Artorias being crazy and attacking anything that moves.
People digging into unused content to justify their fanfiction is deeply pathetic and offensive to the authorship of the creators who actually made the thing.
I would bet that the creators and developers love this shit tbh. They made something so compelling that people will dig through deleted troves of data to come up with more lore and information, especially when coming up with your own theories based on limited info is a key theme to this series
Yeah if I made something I would love nothing more than to watch fans spend hours sleuthing and getting in heated arguments with eachother over something they're all wrong about
As a published author myself, if someone decided to fuck around through my notes and dig out scrapped ideas or entries and unedited work I wouldn't be impressed or happy about it, I would be irritated that they think my scrapped, informed ideas are as valid as the ones refined and published.
I think the idea is that he's already corrupted when we find him, while the theory is that he doesn't corrupt until during the cutscene
Would that change anything?
I think it depends on how you view "corruption". Unlike heroes who get greedy and get corrupted by evil, Artorias is a knight who fights the literal abyss and gets beaten by the abyss itself instead of being pulled in it. Also when Artorias dies, he lets out a gut wrenching human cry first, following with a monstrous sound that can be correlated with darkness. That implies he in fact still has his the smallest humanity in him which he cries out with his death. All these aside, Hawkeye Gough thanks us for ending Artorias' misery, implying he has been wandering Oolacile as a broken corpse for a long time.
But Artorias was never human.
That the old dragon slayer on ds2 was ornstein
he guards a cathedral and looks like ornstein and there are some theories roaming around that the only remaining god in anor londo is actually gwyndolin and ornstein and smough are illusions just like gwynevere therefore ornstein might be still alive in ds2. i really don't think this is the case but do we really know who the hell that guy is. i mean like drangleic is filled with dragons because of aldia's fascination and the boss we fight in the same area with "old dragonslayer" is called "dragonrider". Dragon slaying have to be an old concept from Gwyn's age and it really stands out in Drangleic. Who is he really?
We actually do know that Ornstein in DS1 likely is an illusion as item descriptions and locations im DS3 confirm that Ornstein left Anor Londo in search of Gwyn's firstborn. Additionally, Smough is *not* an illusion as item descriptions from DS3 also confirm that he was the last knight to remain at his post. Given that there are two bosses in the O&S bossfight and it's impossible to defeat both of them simultaneously, DS3 likely retroactively makes the death of Ornstein in that fight first the canon outcome. You only receieve one boss's drops in that fight, and it would make more sense if the Ornstein you fight in DS1 really is an illusion that the drop you're meant to get is Smough's. As for the Old Dragonslayer, he was probably what was intended to be the next step in Ornstein's storyline but ended up being abandoned and retconned by DS3's implications about his decided fate.
Ummm patches is evil Prince lothric is a/the villain Not my theories just answering the question
Wait, Patches isn’t evil? I’ve only played Ds1.
Play dark souls 3 ringed city dlc and follow Lapps quest. You’ll see a whole other side of patches
He still is evil, though. He traps undead, causing their death to then sell their belongings. In Dark Souls 1, he leads Rhea and her two acolytes to their deaths, and tries to kill the player repeatedly. There are many more corpses there too. In Dark Souls 3, he steals Siegward's gear, tries to get you killed by the giant, traps you in Firelink's tower thinking you'll die. Just because he claims to hate clerics and greed (which he himself has in spades) doesn't make him a good guy. Dark Souls 3 shows that he isn't heartless and can have friends (he tries to save Greirat and assists the player with a bossfight) but that doesn't excuse his devious behaviour.
I may have killed patches the first time he kicked me but he sure is fun
Prince Lothric is more of a nihilist than a villain - he is the antagonist because he has the power to attempt to break the status quo and does nothing with it. He just lets his kingdom die a slow death.
You are right about Patches being great. But to hell with Prince Lothric and his cheap attacks...
Hbomberguy claiming a spider near a chest in ds2 is a reference to Macbeth
that patches was a bad guy
I remember people insisting that The Last Giant and the Giant Lord were different beings before Scholar of the First Sin released. People would ignore them being identical, being in the same area, and The Last Giant's reaction to the player. But the Scholar update pretty much confirmed it straight up with the description changes.
wait the last giant and the giant lord are the same???
Yeah, the Soul of the Last Giant was updated to straight up say that directly when Scholar of the First Sin released. >Soul of the surviving giant, who was bound below the Forest of the Giants. >The lord of the Giants, who had brought wrack and ruin to the entire kingdom, was said to have been felled by an unknown warrior. His beaten and broken remains were then dragged beneath the stronghold, where he was sealed away. >Use the special soul of the Last Giant to acquire numerous souls, or to create something of great worth.
wow thanks you learn something new everyday
That Dark Souls is a sequel to Demons Souls bad ending, and that Elden Ring is a painted world.
That DS2’s world is the way it is because the main character’s mind is going crazy. No, DS2’s world was just poorly created.
okay, but getting to the top of earthen peak and finding an elevator that goes UP and leads to the fucking iron keep of all places was genuinely one of my favorite moments playing any of these games. “poorly created” is subjective
My theory: we are given the answer. Time is convoluted. The flame has gone out. The lands are collapsing in, fading in Vendrick's failure. The giants did not invade, their lands collided with Drangleic as the continents merge and reforging in a reverse-pangea effect. Continental drift *is* time, after all. The issue of how far places are from one another is also solved by this. And don't forget that you enter the underworld at the beginning of the game through the great black vortex. That is symbolism directly suggestive of a descent into the underworld. We are not in the same world as Lordran anymore, but a shadow of it or potentially a mirror. In this world, the flame was not relit. The fire faded. And the Kiln (throne) is small, feeble and cold. We as the player must insert ourselves into this womblike space and rekindle it with the breath of life of our own body, the flame. There's so much more symbolism of 2 than people give it credit for and so many people just go 'HAHA YEA THAT INTRO MOVIE IS CONFUZIN AY ANYWAY LEVEL ADP HAHA'
yeah no i actually do believe the confusing map structure is perfect for the story and themes they were going for and is intentional lol, ds2 has my favorite lore of the series
The game director, Tanimura, explained that they had to fit areas together in strange ways and sometimes didn't manage to do what they wanted to convey. It was not intentional. Source is the Design Works interview.
I'm a fan of this kind of stuff, sorta reminds me of the alien geometries of R'lyeh. I made a d&d dungeon with a lot of impossible geometry like this, and i'm definitely planning on using this exact area transition at some point.
All the attempts at linking DS with the other From games.
That's not a theory. *"The steel greatshield used by Knight Artorias, who succumbed to the Abyss. Artorias, deeply scarred by the Abyss, used this to form a barrier to protect his compatriot Sif. Although this drained the shield, its magic defense remains high."*
A lot of the in game dialog reflects he was corrupted for some time before we fight him. All the ooze and stuff coming out of him isn't his natural self. I think you're taking a vague quote too far.
No. It just sounded like OP meant that he wasn't corrupted by the Abyss at all.