Dark Lord Ending Conjecture

Uh hi.

Going to dive right in... even though this is wild speculah and not a good way to start a first post.



Has anyone thought of the relevance of the last line of the game in the Dark Lord outro?

Our lord hath returns't...
 
I find that combining that with Darkstalker Kaathe's explanation about how the chosen undead needs to kill the fading Lord Gwyn and - now here's the crunch...

and become the Fourth Lord, so that you may usher in the Age of Dark!


Fourth Lord? Going by Kaathe's words, there were 3 lords before the potential Dark Lord, but only one we know by name - Gwyn, Lord of Sunlight, who spearheads the creation of the Age of Fire.


But the intro definitely says -


In the Age of Ancients,The world was unformed...
But then there was Fire...




What I am suggesting is that Dark Souls ages are cyclic, with the land of gray crags,archtrees and everlasting dragons being a  constant while cycles go on between light and dark. So given that a (self-proclaimed?) Lord begins each age, there were actually 2 cycles before the current one - in the Ancients, Fire, Dark, Ancients, Fire manner, with the dragons and the serpents being present throughout it all.


Feel free to tear this apart. (as long as it is done is a reasoned manner:) )

Dibsville wrote:The three lords:
Nito, First of the Undead
Gwyn, Lord of Sunlight (Lord of Cinder once the Fire is Linked)
Bed of Chaos, Mother of Demons

By "Fourth Lord", the game is most likely referring to just that, you becoming the Fourth Lord, leading Humanity as the previous Lords did, whether it be for the sake of humanity or the death of it.

 So the pygmy does not count? I mean, look at Manus... if the pygmy is anything close to his power you'd think the Primordial Serpents would consider him a Lord.

And this still does not touch on the returns't part - return implying their true lord, the Dark lord left them and his (spiritual) successor had come to claim his place after 2000 years of Fire.

Btw, correct me if I'm wrong, but

Dibsville wrote:leading Humanity as the previous Lords did

Didn't they shepherd them, NOT lead? Far as I recall the Lords and their acolytes were drunk on power and went against the dragons head on, with lots of collateral damage in the process. Only Gwyn had a millitary force worth talking about, and we already know it was entirely comprised on nonhumans (with the notable exception of  Bishop Havel (?))

I've always thought the souls games were cyclic in there stories and that between the game and new game x centuries passed... So I agree with you completely.

I thought it was a time circle

Teh Kitten´s Cat wrote:I thought it was a time circle

 Like how? I guess you could say that of DKS cause time is distorted n' junk but DS was the same way and time was normal there...

Oh, first off, DeS is not related to DkS. Motivations behind NG + and such is therefore different.

Anyways, I was thinking something like this:

Basically, I think Lordran is kept in a perpetual loop, that can turn out in either two ways, the age of dark or the continuation of the age of flame.

The character that completes it, get's thrown back time and it all starts over.

δelta wrote:

Dibsville wrote:The three lords:
Nito, First of the Undead
Gwyn, Lord of Sunlight (Lord of Cinder once the Fire is Linked)
Bed of Chaos, Mother of Demons

By "Fourth Lord", the game is most likely referring to just that, you becoming the Fourth Lord, leading Humanity as the previous Lords did, whether it be for the sake of humanity or the death of it.

 So the pygmy does not count? I mean, look at Manus... if the pygmy is anything close to his power you'd think the Primordial Serpents would consider him a Lord.

And this still does not touch on the returns't part - return implying their true lord, the Dark lord left them and his (spiritual) successor had come to claim his place after 2000 years of Fire.

The furtive pygmy, so easily forgotten... Yes, the pygmy was the 4th Lord, and the original Dark Lord. And Kaathe wishes for you to inherit the pygmy's title (as opposed to Frampt, who wishes for you to inherit Gwyn's). You are basically the pygmy's reincarnation (you both are the Dark Soul), so that's why you have 'returns't'.

Dibsville wrote:
And as Elifia said, you are taking place of the Fourth Lord. If you would not inherit the title of the "Dark Lord", then you would have became the Fifth Lord, but since you do inherit the title, you become the Fourth.

Look again at the opening cinematic - the 3 lords gained identical looking souls which boosted their powers by x amount, whereas the pygmy got something so tiny everyone literally forgot about him.

The cutscene identifies the Witch, Gravelord and Lord of Sunlight as "LORDS"... see,

"with the strength of lords, they challenged the dragons"


And in that one line groups them as lords, with the pygmy nowhere to be seen. And another defining characteristic - huge amounts of immediate power.


Basically, my take is that the pygmy was way too insignificant and patient (he took 2 THOUSAND YEARS to act) for the primordial serpents, who have been around since the Age of Ancients, to hold him in such high regard and consider him their true lord, when to everyone, the Lords seemed to be top dog.

The situation is further complicated with Manus, who I clearly hold is NOT the pygmy (will explain if you need), but the guy has enough humanity to manifest something as enduring as the abyss. So this guy, identified as primordial man, and is clearly a more active personality than the pygmy - why is he not their Dark Lord?


Your conjecture is plausible, of course, especially since the lore is so ambiguous, yet you have made a leap in your viewpoint I fail to follow as of yet... eg.

Elifia wrote:you both are the Dark Soul

and

Dibsville wrote: would have became the Fifth Lord

I simply do not remember this being implied in any manner. Care to elaborate?

Teh Kitten's Cat wrote:
DeS is not related to DkS

Gonna have to agree to disagree there. The game plots have strong thematic links, if not outright callouts.

And could you elaborate on this?

Teh Kitten's Cat wrote:
Basically, I think Lordran is kept in a perpetual loop

If I remember correctly, from has stated that their stories are not related. Also, theme is not relevant. It is part of the game, no theme, no souls game.

I meant that I think that the hunt for the lord souls, getting the lordvessel and winning over gwyn is stuck in a loop, at least in Lordran.

I said so twice, no need to repeat it, Dibs.

No offense, I just prefer to stand my own ground

Doesn't mean others can't agree with you and say so, geez.

Dibsville wrote:There is nothing showing that Manus is not the Pygmy, but he is the earliest known human, thus there is evidence that he is the Pygmy.

My take on this is that the guy who "claimed the Dark Soul, and waited for Fire to subside" for 2 millennia does not sound like the guy who broke a temper tantrum against his kind because they broke into his grave and stole his necklace - sorry, pendant. From gives two telling points too -

First, they kept the Manus-Pygmy connection deliberately ambiguous (is Manus primordial man, or the primordial man?)

Second - look at Chester's wording of Manus' awakening... "incited his ornery wrath"
Ornery, according to Google, means "Bad-tempered and combative/Stubborn/Mean".
This is just my impression, but that does not sound like the Pygmy to me.

Dibsville wrote:The Pygmy is the Dark Lord

Not enough evidence for or against. Not going to discuss this point, because it's up in the air.

Dibsville wrote:You are re-becoming the Dark Lord, thus you are becoming the Fourth Lord in place of the Pygmy

My double-take does not occur at the Pygmy being the Fourth, it happens because the primordial serpents almost wholly support an unknown future(according to you) which is to be initiated by someone who is nowhere to be seen.

The pygmy is not a figure to command their obedience, especially since he is not around. Even then, the primordial serpents, who were neutral, did not stay neutral or back the winning horse - they embraced the Abyss and made it their home... and threw their whole support behind something they had little idea about.

They knew Age of Ancients, and Fire, but not Dark - Dark is an unknown quanitity(again, if I am not correct). Yet they support and work for "true dark fall over the world" and talk about "our lord hast returns't" (note the change is speech pattern) implying they had a Lord, an authority figure in the first place(which supports fire-dark loop, in my POV)
 

Teh Kitten's Cat wrote:If I remember correctly, from has stated that their stories are not related.

Because Demons Souls IP is owned by Sony, so FROM can't draw any obvious ones, or state it directly. Some direct ones I can remember:
- Gloomy depressed warrior in the beginning, who considers you to be a fool for trying to achieve the goal he couldn't
- Evil knight you save from a prison who promises trinkets at first but eventually kills friendly NPCs and tries to murder you (Yurt, Lautrec). Both of them like Shotels
- Patches....... well, he's Patches. He even kicks you of a ledge just like in demon's
- Anor Londo sentinels are very similar to the Tower knight, they even have the shield ground pound.
- Bellfry gargoyles = Maneater but in easier mode.
- Paladin Leeroy physically reminds me of Garl Vinland with his huge hammer
- Havel the rock physically reminds me of Biorr of the twin fangs with his huge weapon and heavy shield, I believe even the attack animations are pretty similar.
- Chester from the DLC is clearly a reference to the fat ministers with the creepy grin
- All of Blighttown is a carbon copy of Valley of Defilement, even enemies are nearly the same
- Catacombs are the equivalent of the Shrine of Storms, even the skeletons are very similar, with their charging rolling attacks.
- Witch Beatrice physically resembles Yuria.
- Puzzle boss fight that doesn't require direct confrontation but quick evasion maneuvers and cutscene activation by fixed triggers (Bed of Chaos, Dragon God)
- Phalanx in Painted World is a reference to the DeS counterpart
- Xanthous king Jeremiah's headgear is a reference to The Old Monk's headgear
- And not to mention all the spells, weapons, items that made a comeback with different names

Then there's the inaccesible 6th archstone - Land of Giants... see Anor Londo, giants in general, and Tomb of Giants. Way too many connections to count, but nothing solid.

It is just that. Similarities!

Ever read Tvtropes? Shows a billion connections just like that.

References mean nothing. They might just do it as a throwback to their other works. Movies do the same all the time, so does books.

They are not related because, first, they have stated, second, there is no solid evidence that hold up under scrutiny!

It is about theme. You know, the moonlight greatsword for example goes further back than DeS. Also, just a side note, what NPCs remind you of is not really important. I can say that Forrest Gump reminds me of the bartender in The Shining, it means absolutely nothing about that, nor does it make any connections.

All you have there are so called "Shout outs" They put it there in order to show their work, and just generally a trademark of them.

Also, the only ones that were "Direct" throwback were:

Patches.

Weapons, for example moonlight greatsword.

Chester is a reminder of fat ministers.

And the armor of Xanthous King.

[Edit: I forgot about Phalanx]

The rest are similarities draw. A game needs to fit a theme, and since DeS they set the theme for the series. They do throwbacks, just like any other company does.

A last example. In skyrim you can find a cave, sword and everything set up just like the Star Wars scene where Skywalker is trapped in a ice cave. Does that make any similarities? No. There are shout outs and throwbacks.

Also, that with the sixth arch-stone, that does not mean anything. I mean literally, I have no ideas how draw working similarities there.

Even if they are not related physically or legally doesn't mean they are completely separate and different, they are very similar in in aformentioned areas and especially in story structure (your quests for both games are basically the same) ie the occurrences between ng and ng+ may be similar as well.

There is a reason dark souls is a called a "Spiritual sequel" instead of "sequel"

I never denied the similarities in themes and areas, but as I argued, throwbacks and shout outs.

Leeroy_Jenkins wrote:I've always thought the souls games were cyclic in there stories and that between the game and new game x centuries passed...

 Here's me stating a point in which I feel the two games are similar.

"Oh, first off, DeS is not related to DkS. Motivations behind NG + and such is therefore different." -Cat

Here's you rejecting my view and denying they are similar.

I meant souls game as in Dark Soul, badly phrasing right there. I apologized for any misunderstanding.

With game and new game I mean first play through and consecutive NG +

The cyclic is also explained further down, as someone misunderstood that too, and I cleared it up.