A question for you Darkwraiths

If the "Age of Man" will be so great for humans once you extinguish the flame, why are you killing humans to steal their humanity for a giant snake? After all, it's not like you'll have any fires to kindle.

Stopping others from trying to reignite the flame. And another "True" chosen undead wouldn't be human so won't get invaded

^ I lie

I kill humans because I enjoy it. Whatever those snakes have planned is none of my concern as long as I get my fun. Although, I've never given them more than 10 of my humanity.

To be honest: Most darkwraiths don't see the "truth" as Kaathe would put it. He said they were strong, but did not see the truth. Heavily implying that the darkwraith's motives are not the same as Kaathe's. Darkwraiths aren't concerned about the Age of Fire or the Age of Man, those concerns rest with Kaathe and Frampt; they just want to kill.

The real question isn't why darkwraiths do what they do. The real question is what Kaathe intends to do with the humanity he is given. We already know from the DLC that humanity that runs rampant can only corrupt and destroy, yet if Kaathe could control humanity...

Too be completely honest, I was using Darkwraiths to refer to the PLAYERS who think that letting the flame sputter to death is the "better" ending.

Age of Man refers to an age where the lords have no power. The Age of Man is simply humanity fending for itself and so...survival of the fittest. Darkwraiths kill the weak and survive, after all, Kaathe said the power of the dark lord (and darkwraiths) worked for "preserving your humanity while undead"...I think that translates to "survive".

The 2 endings are merely a choice: "Do you wish to be a slave? Or will you fend for yourself?"

Seignar wrote:Age of Man refers to an age where the lords have no power. The Age of Man is simply humanity fending for itself and so...survival of the fittest. Darkwraiths kill the weak and survive, after all, Kaathe said the power of the dark lord (and darkwraiths) worked for "preserving your humanity while undead"...I think that translates to "survive".

The 2 endings are merely a choice: "Do you wish to be a slave? Or will you fend for yourself?"

I believe you mean, "will you (possibly) sacrifice yourself to grant humanity another 1000 or so years of peace? Or will you throw civilization aside and "rule" in anarchy?"

We have absolutely no evidence that humans are used as slaves. Instead, we have evidence that many humans are actually knighted and/or otherwise made into nobles. The peace of the world is stable, even if you assume that the lack of evidence is evidence for horrible things.

Contrastingly, the age of darkness would LITERALLY run on murder. You survive by being that slightest bit stronger than your challenger and eating their soul. And how would the civilisation last? There would only be a finite amount of humanity, what happens when that is gone? Hell, the only way we know of to use the humanity to restore your "humanity" is through the bonfires, which they are trying to put out.

Contrastingly, the age of darkness would LITERALLY run on murder.

Is there a problem with that?

I don't think the Age of Man would literally run on murder. The darkwraiths are really those who either have given up all hope and accepted the most primitive course of nature (Survival) or are really bad people. Then, there are those who will cling to civilization with or without gods. Humanity will be created by birth (Obvious?) and the humanity of the deceased will be used to preserve the humanity of others. After all, people die naturally, I don't have to put a blade through your neck to prove it.

The only real problem is that excess of humanity or "unstable" humanity will result in the Abyss spreading. Without one to control the Dark Soul, the world will fall to oblivion. I think controlling the Dark Souls is the main objective of the Dark Lord and the primordial serpents.

While true that the Age of Fire has less risks and -apparently- no evil gods, who is to say that in 1 point in history, a god will use his powers for evil and enslave humanity? We have no evidence of what the gods did in the Age of Fire and even less of an idea of how the human world is. Are nobles corrupt? Are cleric knights really evil in the higher ranks?

If there was a ever a tyrant in the Age of Fire, mankind could not stop it. Yet, in the Age of Man, if one Dark Lord would be a tyrant, they are still human. The tyrant can be killed and a successor can takes his/her place.

Seignar wrote:

Contrastingly, the age of darkness would LITERALLY run on murder.

Is there a problem with that?

I don't think the Age of Man would literally run on murder. The darkwraiths are really those who either have given up all hope and accepted the most primitive course of nature (Survival) or are really bad people. Then, there are those who will cling to civilization with or without gods. Humanity will be created by birth (Obvious?) and the humanity of the deceased will be used to preserve the humanity of others. After all, people die naturally, I don't have to put a blade through your neck to prove it.

The only real problem is that excess of humanity or "unstable" humanity will result in the Abyss spreading. Without one to control the Dark Soul, the world will fall to oblivion. I think controlling the Dark Souls is the main objective of the Dark Lord and the primordial serpents.

While true that the Age of Fire has less risks and -apparently- no evil gods, who is to say that in 1 point in history, a god will use his powers for evil and enslave humanity? We have no evidence of what the gods did in the Age of Fire and even less of an idea of how the human world is. Are nobles corrupt? Are cleric knights really evil in the higher ranks?

If there was a ever a tyrant in the Age of Fire, mankind could not stop it. Yet, in the Age of Man, if one Dark Lord would be a tyrant, they are still human. The tyrant can be killed and a successor can takes his/her place.

There is no evidence that the undead curse would be cleansed by putting out the flame. The curse is actually a (relatively) recent thing according to the intro. And while the undead are, technically speaking, "alive", we have no idea if that extends to their reproductive abilities. And even so, they are once again, undead. In order to remain "human," they would have to keep using that humanity (which is hard, given there's no fire to restore your humanity at). It doesn't appear that humanity is some kind of substance that can be reused over and over; the game basically proves that humanity is indeed "used up" when it is used.

The darkwraiths have already shown that they are more than willing to murder someone simply for their humanity. It would be foolish to think one's self safe with a legion of them around.

As for a "tyrant god" scenario, I just have to ask how that would be such an issue? Not, "Why is bad for humans to be slaves," but, "How would that not be just as easy to fix?" Gwyndolin is a god; likely one of the strongest ones, given his father. Yet we not only overpower, but outright kill him. Humans CAN kill gods; they aren't truly immortal, just long-lived. In fact, one could argue that since a human can be stronger than a god, a human tyrant may actually be worse. The good gods would likely feel compelled to stop an evil one, but may try to let humanity sort out some of it's own problems if the tyrant is a human.

As for corrupt officials in the human world, is that really such an issue? Would humans stop being, well, human just because the flame went out and (presumably) the gods were massacred?