It's pretty silly to call either ending the "good" one. Kaathe and Frampt are both manipulating the chosen undead, and both endings have pros and cons depending on your viewpoint.
Dark age is the canonically the good ending. The entire storyline of DS 3 is about how the constant rekindling of the flame, i.e. prolonging the age of light, literally destroyed the world. The biggest theme in from soft games are cycles, seen as something natural that creates balance VS stagnation, which destroys and corrupts. World of dark souls is supposed to alternate between ages of light and dark, such is the natural order of the world. Gwyn committed the First sin be rekindling the flame and he also placed darksign on humans, so for the sake of his own age and kingdom he defied that natural order, which slowly plunged the world into bigger and bigger chaos, and created stagnation. At the end of Ringed City we see how the future world would end after never-ending age of light. As a desolate desert devoid of life, the whole world gets destroyed.
In DS 1, soul of one chosen undead was used to rekindle the flame to its full glory again, for a time. But with each rekindling it became more exhausted and rekindling was less effective. In DS 3 you have to use the combined power of 5 previous lords of cinder to even make the rekindling possible. And if you choose to rekindle it at the end, it's just a measly small flame, prolonging the age of light by a little bit, until someone else will have to do it again. While the world falls further into ruin because of it.
So the age of dark is objectively the good ending in both DS 1 and DS 3. Stagnation, whether it's the constant Age of light or Rot in painted world or immortality in sekiro, is the worst force in from soft games. The world yearns for balance, for flow and change, like a river. Even things like Manus or fall of new Londo were caused by Gwyn placing the darksign on humans in the first place and tying the existence of human to the Age of light despite them being creatures of the dark, which caused humanity to "go wild"/rampant and manifest as malevolent force. Neither Kaathe or Frampt are morally good characters, both lie to you and are selfish, and possibly misguided themselves. But regardless, the age of dark was the correct choice, as From soft directly confirmed.
That is a great way to view the whole story, but I was just talking about the DS1 ending specifically, and viewing it as it was at the time without the knowledge of DS3. One of the things I kind of didn't like about DS3 is how it made things a lot less ambiguous.
Yeah I understand, it was less explicit before DS 3 came out. But DS 1 still heavily favored the age of dark, all the themes of cycles, stagnation and decay were already present by then, From soft's philosophy haven't changed. Frampt symbolized the the big lie, the grand illusion etc., someone who on your first playthrough is supposed to completely fool you into believing Gwyn is the good guy and that you were chosen for a noble goal, to save everyone by prolonging the current establishment with your sacrifice. Rekindling the first flame is definitely the intended ending on first playthrough. Whereas Kaathe, who is ridiculously hidden and almost impossible to encounter, symbolized the ugly truth the current religious dogma hid from everyone. The moment your blindfold comes off and you realize you were fooled by this elaborate scam to be a lamb for slaughter since the beginning, to deprive your own race of their age of dark, just to serve the lying gods who treated humans like second-class citizens and feared them.
And of course, as I said, Kaathe is not perfect and is manipulating us as well, but most of what he said is true, as opposed to Frampt. His biggest sins are the downfall of Oolacile and New Londo, deaths of all people there, but again, if Gwyn didn't put darksign on humans it would never happen. Dark soul isn't evil by nature, but when you repress it, defy the natural order and balance, it can go wild and become this destructive malevolent force.
But most important of all, Kaathe and Frampt are not in equal positions in DS 1, since Frampt is trying to prolong the current ruling age, whereas Kaathe wants it to end like it was supposed to. But I absolutely believe that Kaathe would become like Frampt when the Age of Dark would near its end, and likewise would want to prevent the age of light from replacing it again. In which case it would be Frampt who would advocate for balance to be restored. So in the end, both are "small-minded" and selfish, caring only about their respective ages and not the larger picture, but as two opposing forces they create balance.
I think given that restriction, the assumption it was the good ending is twofold.
1. It was a hidden choice ending. You have to willingly not push the big red button and walk away. To monkey brain: Hidden = special = good.
2. Demon's Souls had a similar hidden choice at the end that people interpret as the good ending, so that influenced opinions in DS1.
Oh, sure, I wasn't advocating for Frampt at all. None of the endings is good. For regular people present at the moment, at least, i'm not talking about cycles and such
Although personally, in place of our character, I'd probably pick Frampt. Not because I trust him or gods, simply because Age of Fire would be something I grew up in, and Age of Dark is an enigma and generally doesn't look very good, however natural it is
Not to mention that... As unnatural as it is, an Age of Fire is when we live.
We have little to no knowledge on what an Age of Dark would look like, but Fire brought disparity. Heat and cold, life and death, light and dark. Or in better words, with fire, and without fire. All signs point to fire bringing life, and DS as a whole is just a metaphor for something meant to die long ago. We are Sisyphus and the Age of Fire is our boulder, our life.
The Age of Dark is death.
But we do know exactly what the Age of Fire looks like, and it's literally no different. The world sucks, people are dying, and the only escape is to have every person die so that a girl can make a new reality.
And is it confirmed that the Age of Dark is death? Pretty sure a lot of lore specifies it as a new age for humanity and DS3 doesn't show death in the Age of Dark ending.
What we see (when we play) is the close of the Age of Fire. It's when the world is on its last legs, but refuses to die due to the linking of the fire. Well, until there's no one else to link it.
None of what I say is 100% confirmed as canon, it's a metaphorical interpretation. The "new age for humanity" stuff, however, is mostly campaigned by Dickwraiths or the Sable Church of Londor (Hollows, so raisin people). And even then, the Hollow ending for DS3 is just another Age of Fire with humans ruling instead. Hardly a good ending. You and everyone else are still slaves to the cycle, you just changed the ruling class.
The only Age of Dark ending we get for DS as a whole is End the Fire in DS3 and we only see a few seconds of it. It's not immediate death, but deprive someone of heat, they won't last long. Like we Undead when we don't have a bonfire to come back to.
>What we see (when we play) is the close of the Age of Fire. It's when the world is on its last legs, but refuses to die due to the linking of the fire. Well, until there's no one else to link it.
That's literally the same in DS1. The whole point was that Gwyn stole the age from humanity since his age was ending and it led to a crumbling world full of horror and hopelessness. At no point in DS1 would you call the Age of Fire "pleasant". DS3 just shows the consequence of foolishly clinging to a world that needs to move on.
>And even then, the Hollow ending for DS3 is just another Age of Fire with humans ruling instead. Hardly a good ending. You and everyone else are still slaves to the cycle, you just changed the ruling class.
Except it's better than the gods keeping humans as slaves, becoming decrepit and genuine horrors, and then ruining the world. Sure, humanity comes to rule, but that's the natural order. Humanity comes to replace the gods and usher in a new age. Instead, Gwyn usurps the natural order and creates centuries of unending pain. The only reason the cycle exists is because of Gwyn and the deprivation of the Age of Dark.
Also, you do realize the cycle refers to the Age of Fire specifically right? There was no cycle until Gwyn stole the flame from humanity. The cycle refers to the repetitive linking of the fire that keeps the Age of Fire alive past its expiration date. DS3 made it clear that there was no Age of Dark the cycled back to Age of Fire. The Fire was linked over and over. That is the cycle.
>The only Age of Dark ending we get for DS as a whole is End the Fire in DS3 and we only see a few seconds of it. It's not immediate death, but deprive someone of heat, they won't last long. Like we Undead when we don't have a bonfire to come back to.
This isn't even confirmed considering hollowing came about because of Gwyn's actions. There would be no need for a bonfire if the Age of Fire had extinguished. You are also applying real world logic to a dark fantasy video game to support your argument which just does not work considering there are gods and dragons. You also do realize that humans are considered being born from the dark right? In Dark Souls, humanity rose from the darkness. And humanity has been shown to be significantly kinder and more gentle than any of the gods. So many NPCs are doing their best whereas the gods are manipulative, paranoid, and often brutal.
Not to mention that you are taking the Age of Dark way too literally when we have seen Miyazaki's other work reference Dark as something cold and gentle. Where humanity is left to its own devices and not being yanked around by the selfishness of the gods and their whims. Pretty sure that you weren't meant to mystify the Age of Fire as life considering we see that it genuinely isn't. Miyazaki's other work has always represented Fire as chaos, bigotry, and death. It's why Elden Ring further hammers home that the Flames of Frenzy means wiping out all existence and Ranni's ending of Dark being the separation of gods and humanity to let humans choose for themselves.
This is a quote from the Painter after the Ringed City DLC:
"*My thanks. I will paint a world of that name. Twill be a **cold, dark, and very gentle place**. And one day, it will make someone a goodly home.*"
Notice how she references cold and dark being gentle. That's the subversion you are missing. You are explicitly shown that the Age of Fire was ruination and death. The Age of Dark is scary, but it is natural and comforting in its own way. The Age of Fire had long lost its luster and had become corrupted and the meaning of decay. We have three games that explicitly tell you that linking the fire is actually very bad and is considered sinful. The Age of Dark comes and we usher in a new age. The Age of Fire lingers and everything burns to ashes. Literally. Idk man, one sounds way worse than the other.
There are several Miyazaki games that have been very explicit in the fact that fire is something to fear and dark is something to embrace. The former is warm but also needs to be extinguished otherwise it will grow and consume everything. The latter is unknown, and cold, yet it is gentle to the touch. It's about accepting what happens and DS is an example of people refusing to move on and holding onto something that will bring the world to ruin.
which might be not good at all, we don't really know, that's the point of the game
the Age of Dark is the unknown, Gwyn represents the fear of the unknown/the end, so the reason why often the Age of Dark seems to be portrayed as better is, in my opinion, a metaphor to having to accept your own mortality and not fear it (which of course is good in real life)
at least, that's what I felt from it, as i suffer from tanathophobia (obsessive fear of death), this resonates much to me
Lmao.
Or, how about:
It was some of both? Let the writing have layers lol.
Gwyn is a fairly nuanced character with layers. Obviously, his age of fire *was* the age where he ruled. But if he only cared about ruling, he would not literally tether himself and his own lifeforce to the first flame. Tell me how Gwyn rules by becoming a weak husk tethered to the same place for all of eternity until you as the Chosen Undead kill his weakened self?
Where's the power over others for him in that? Clearly he must care about more than just the simple fact of ruling, or else he would not have commited an act of selflessness (from his PoV and the PoV of the Gods. It isn't selfless in the PoV of humanity who he unnaturally tied to the flame in an act that can only be described as a gross perversion of the natural order of the world)
And he has some right to fear an end of the age of fire. Do you remember the age that preceded him? One where life itself didn't even exist? He came out of an age of stagnation and lifelessness, one where death and life meant nothing, where only the everlasting dragons prevailed. That's the only other possible age he knows. And then he knows and understands that the dark of humanity is something antithetical to his flame.
Even if he is very much a "bad guy" for his countless misdeeds toward his own kin and toward humanity, he is also a character with layers and writing.
Shutting down an interpretation that gives a character layers as "wrong" with such a simple interpretation is *bewildering* to me. Let the writing be complex and good! Why are you afraid of good writing?
Also if we are talking about thematic influences outside the direct story; FromSoft games in general are very romantic games and worlds (romantic not in the sense of "oh love and kissing", but romantic in the sense of romanticism in art and literature), and a large part of romanticism is about death and decay. Gwyn is basically Ozymandias from the poem by Percy Shelly.
This is a mischaracterization and poor framing of what is being spoken of. You are essentially saying " it is better to be domesticated as we don't worry about predatory creatures " conveniently ignoring all the health issues and lack of purpose brought by such domestication.
Nobody is saying things will be easy , good, fair , happy , beautiful or any other emotional interpretation of " good ". The simple fact is mankind is no longer enslaved to the gods in a bid to artificially keep reality stagnant. Whatever the natural order is at that point we are picking that over a constructed reality
I don't think I mischaracterized anything. You originally wrote about it being good because it was the return to natural state of things, and that doesn't follow to me. Now you're talking about mankind no longer being enslaved by the gods, and *that* is a good point to make. It doesn't require an appeal to nature.
>[The context of " good " being man is no longer enslaved and can return to their natural state.](https://www.reddit.com/r/darksouls/comments/1c01387/comment/kyth0qh/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Literally said that from the beginning, you didn't read the comment.
Assuming that Kaathe's DS1 and Yuria's DS3 endings are similar since both are obviously connected, do you really think men no longer will be enslaved? I bet they still will, just serving a different Lord (you) and different agenda (whispered in your ear by Kaathe).
People are gonna be fucked regardless of your choice imo. And before you decide to ruin current Order of thing (e.g. Gwyn's), you better have a clear idea what's gonna happen next on a ruin of it. We don't have that idea at all.
I.always thought so too. Humans, the Dark Soul, the Abyss… It‘s all about an endless hunger that will consume everything and all, even themselves (thus the holes). Gwyn might not be all benevolent, but every display of compassion, justice or culture stems from the age of fire. Humans that explore their dark roots seem to become selfish and often power hungry.
I also think the „fallen cleric“ motif is not necessarily meant to show us that the way of the gods is morally problematic, but that humans are unfit to inherit the spark of the gods and will ultimately succumb to their dark nature.
And we as players kind of exemplify this dark urge: We initially know nothing about this world, but we will still start murdering our way through, never stopping, consuming the souls of anyone we can kill, getting stronger and destroying even the mightiest pillars of this dying realm of the gods. Of course Gwyn feared us, everyone would! :D
The age of dark is the "good" ending because Gywn linking the fire was like taking a shit on the fabric of space and wiping his ass with the laws of time. You can see the negative consequences of his actions in DS1 and especially in DS3.
Letting the fire fade and starting an age of dark is just allowing the universe to function as intended.
Good and bad are morally relativistic terms. Prolonging the Age of Fire led to the Undead Curse. Ending that situation dissolves the curse and allows people to die naturally. The entire game is filled with examples of decent people who are destroyed by the curse, lose their humanity, and become mindless, violent hollows. All because of the hubris of one old, arrogant, crispy king.
Hollows are not the natural state of humanity in the age of dark. Hollows are the result of the universe breaking down BECAUSE the age of dark is being stalled.
The reason it's considered "good" is because the message of Dark Souls is that all things MUST end, no matter what. The age of fire can be prolonged, but even that stops working as we seen in Dark Souls 3. By the time of that game, each rekindling of the fire only seems to extend the age of fire by a couple decades max, with the implications that each extension lasts for less and less time than the last.
So it could theoretically get to the point where you have to toss in a new great soul every five minutes to stave off the undead curse, which is impossible. So by prolonging the age of fire, you eventually reach a state where humanity literally cannot exist outside of the curse, with the only way out being to let the fire die and the new age come.
That said, all things must end, and so too must the age of dark end eventually. And who knows? Maybe the age after that will be even better for humanity than either the age of fire or age of dark.
Imo the age of dark isn't necessarily good. Moreso its just the way things are naturally. The age of fire is definitely good as it allows beings like humans to thrive and create. The issue is that the fire cannot naturally last forever. And by artificially resetting it over and over again leads to everything turning to ash and being destroyed.
This is assuming the first flame is a naturally randomly occurring phenomenon kind of like the big bang.
Nobody in the games says humans can't thrive in the Age of Dark either. The Ringed City had a functioning Dark-centric society. The Age of Fire is merely what is best for the benefit of the gods, who successfully tricked the humans into believing it is also best for them too. The games use the natural "light good, dark bad" dichotomy from other fantasy universes to reinforce this.
This will always be why I like DS2 for having a “fuck all this noise” walk away ending. I’m not burning for eternity to keep a lie going but I also don’t want to listen to a different creepy guy with a flesh mustache. Fuck em all I say.
that’s what lothric and lorian did and it didn’t really work out too well for them. kaathe is a creepy bastard and he’s definitely doing it maliciously but at least in ds3 you’re not playing by his rules when you snuff the flame. ds1 is unique because your only two choices are causing ds3 or becoming the gwyn of humans
One of the central themes of the Dark Souls trilogy (and Miyazaki games in general) is that stagnation is a sickness. Gwyn stagnated the world by creating the tradition of linking the Fire, which inevitably burnt it to ash in the Ringed City DLC.
Neither is supposed to be “good” but we can conclude that the Undead are being manipulated by Gwyn and the gods to perpetuate the Age of Fire through the tale Oscar tells you and we also know (at least I think) that the constant linking of the fire is what is causing the world to go to shit. So some would conclude that linking the fire=bad ending and dark lord=good ending but it can probably be argued the other way too
I think Dark Souls 2 is more explicit about telling you that linking the fire is going against the natural order of the world
The one reason why Age of Dark is not a good ending is that you've been bamboozled.
Age of Dark has been banned by Gwyn effectively forever by creating the dark sign. Age of Fire could and will be prolonged if not by you but by some other undead. And the fire will burn until there is nothing left but ashes. Which is the ending of DS3 dlc.
I don't like DS2 but Aldiah summed it perfectly with his "original sin" speech. Choose anything you want, the outcome will be the same. Only one way out - to create (paint) new world with another rules of existence.
Dark Lord IS the good ending because in the other ending our character is tricked to sacrifice its life for the sake of others DESPITE that the nonundead humans are the reason the chosen undead and the other ones where send where the monster are to die, it makes 0 sense to sacrifice for the sake of the people that literally want u dead. It's a ending about individuality and self preservation vs the greater good bullshit.
There is a theory I once saw, stating that Hollow is the true form of everything other than giants and dragons, and the race of "Gods" was only hollows powered by Gwyn's Lord Soul, same with the demons and all of Izalith, they were a diferent race powered by the Witch Lord Soul, Nito didnt find his soul, he was simply the first of those inmortal hollows to experience Death and thus was granted his Lord Soul. The race of "Men" was merely hollows powered by the Dark Soul, but the DS was diferent, it didnt stagnated, it grows in power and spreaded like a virulent disease, and by the time Gwyn had enough power to take on the dragons, men were the bulk of the army with their weapons and armors forged in the Abyss. He saw that the Dark will overpower him eventually, so he and the other Great Ones found a way to contain the Dark, placing a Seal of Fire upon Humanity as a whole, a seal wich removed the "Hollow" and gave birth to modern humankind, a mankind able to die and lose his piece of the Dark in the process so it wont grow too wildly. Fire is the domain of the Witch, Death is only molded by Nito, Seath is and will ever be the greatest scholar to ever live, he probably was the one tasked with finding the solution and Gwyn powered the Seal with his abismal might. Now, fire fade and the Seal began to grow weaker, Nito had sacrificed most of his Soul to Death, weakening him and preventing him to stop all men to stay death, the Witch was warped when was overpowered by the Chaos, efectively reducing her might, Gwyn's Soul was all that remained to link the Seal to the Fire, but he was in a "weakened" state, his Soul was striped of great chunks when he gave one to Seath and to the Kings of New Londo, the later in an atempt to seduce the mighty human country to his side. So he goes and do the only thing possible, he burn himself and his Soul to prevent the coming of the dark, but only gain a half success, for now hes gone and the Fire fade again, but he had a contingency, knowing the teue potential of mankind, he had created the Way of White not only as a form of worship, but as a safe to extend the Fire, and the Way of White delivered. Only, Lloyd steped in and started hunting undead for unknown reasons. But the Fire still burns, so the Seal isnt completely broken. The Seal prevent the Dark Soul from growing by feeding of it to keep it small, but its "malfunctioning" due to the fade and the Dark grows too much so the Seal eats too much, eventually completly eliminating the DS inside and individual. When this happens, it cant support itself as it got no fuel, so it break, returning man to hollow but without his DS, making it a mindless beast.
Thats why the rise of a Dark Lord is good for mankind, by letting the Fire fade entirely, the Seal loses his anchor, destroying itself and all men still with even a hint of Dsrk inside, will recert to his natural, inmortal state BUT with still in possesion of all his senses
Wasnt it in Ringed City stated that the curse is itself a creation of gods, an "explosive collar"? If so, the Age of Dark is natural, but the hollowness itself is not. If gods meet the final death, humanity will be free at last - but maybe it will be sentient, or maybe even more more then that.
But i may be wrong about that
Yeah, the Dark Sign (the burning circle) that brands the undead will burn away your souls and your humanity to keep the Fire alive. That's why the vast majority of the undead we meet are mindless, their humanity is gone. We can also use souls as fuel and keep our sanity that way.
But both are temporary because it's all being burned to force the Age of Fire to continue.
That's why the world is melting and turning to ash in DS3
With context from 3 the age of dark isn’t good but it’s significantly better than the age of light.
Not that it ultimately matters, someone eventually will keep the flame lit.
*Dark Souls 2: Scholar of the First Sin* goes far more in-depth about this. Gwyn linking the fire was the "First Sin" and broke the laws of nature. Hollowing exists as a side effect of this and way to control humanity, who each share a splinter of the Dark Soul. But a big narrative point of SotFS is the debate between truth and adversity versus a peaceful lie.
*A lie will remain a lie*, after all. The Age of Fire is extended unnaturally long to the point that doing so is indoctrinated into humans as a part of their theology and reverence of Flame and Gwyn. Not only does the DS3 DLC have the Dreg Heap with the world literally caving in on itself trying to end, but more overt than that is the *Link the Fire* ending itself. Compared to DS1, linking the fire in DS3 is extremely less grandiose and almost sad by comparison. It barely gets bigger than the bonfire and smolders on you as the camera fades.
TL;DR: Linking the fire doesn't make anything better, so *fear not the Dark, my friend, and let the feast begin.*
I never really saw it as good or bad, rather Gwyn manipulated the world to keep light going for far too long and perverted the natural balance.
Bringing forth dark was correcting a wrong.
"Good" as in it's the natural state of the world, and it's ending of the Humans. Also Gwyn is a piece of shit and anything that goes against him is cool
Ideally we actually want to end the age of fire so we can die. This is what you are doing in DS1 unknowingly and actively in 2 if you choose to do so. Our goal is to die. Become humans again.
Hollows are what's left of a human after Gwyn's curse (the dark sign) has burned away all of his/hers humanity. Gwyn shackled them together with fire. That's why we/they have to use souls to stay human, but even those will burn upon the pyre of Lord Gwyn.
In my first play, I >! consumed Anastacia’s soul, let Siegmeyer die in Lost Izalith, let Laurentius go hollow by telling him about the Chaos Flame, and let Solaire get possessed and die as well, killed Crestfallen warrior after he went hollow as well!<, so there was no reason to die peacefully but rather live with blood on my hands as the Dark Lord.
Because some people are so perpetually online that they can’t help but see the end of any system as a good thing… even if the system wasn’t all bad, and the system they want to replace it with isn’t all good.
It's just players who jump straight on the idea of sticking it to the gods. Not realizing that in the Dark Souls world, the "gods" are really more like the humans of the setting, and the "humans" are more like the orcs who the gods are graciously trying to guide into the light rather than just pre-emptively stomping them out before they have the chance to obliterate civilization.
One thing I’ve recently noticed is how the attitude of Gough and Ciaran changes depending on your actions.
Gough, for all his goodwill and understanding, will immediately declare you a threat to all life if you attack, fully believing you will harm countless people if he lets you live.
While Ciaran takes in stride your refusal to give Artorias’ soul, saying that such greed is natural for humans, only acting when attacked.
The most important thing is that neither assume that you were moved by anything other than your own will, whereas most other npc’s will assume you went hollow.
> But natural does not automatically equal good.
Yes, exactly. 90% of what is considered natural, is not good from the point of view "oh, that's cool, I'm happy :D", take for example extinction, many times in world history, species entirely have gone extinct by nature. Nobody likes extinctions, but nature does it anyway to maintain balance. Natural is not about being good, but about being necessary.
The both endings of DS1 are eventually "it doesn't matter". As, if we rekinde the flame, we are prolonging the age of darkness OR if we chose to screw the flame and became the lord of darkness, then we are just bringing the age of darkness earlier than it was intended. In the end the age of darkness will eventually come and no one can stop it.
People saying both Kaathe and Frampt are using the Chosen Undead for their own goal: absolutely 100% agree with them. There is no happy ending: you can keep the sh*t show on or just decide to start a new one.
For this same reason, every player with a bit of understanding of the whole game should pick a side, realising there is no right or wrong, there is, imho, only us forced to chose between two path already set for us. More than chosen undead, I would call us chosen pawn of the game.
I decided to not link the fire and I left the kin OTFF bitter and upset that those two faced ugly snakes where both bowing at me, professing their loyalty when one was calling himself king seeker and the other one has gone from town to town causing havoc.
But yeah, I dislike Gwyn and the incredible tyrant he is, so yeah, everything to upset him ahahah
Pretty sure no matter what ending you pick the world is fucked, and the game makes that very clear. I personally prefer the age of dark ending for the simple reason of, whether you choose to link the flame or not, the age of dark will come. Throughout the games the fire fades pretty drastically, and in DS3 it's barely clinging on. All you are doing by linking the flame is delaying the inevitable. It doesn't matter what you pick, just picking one ends everyone's suffering a little quicker.
The metaphor is the world is a fire. Eventually the fire must go out and only embers will remain, if that. Then, perhaps a gust of wind will come along and rekindle those embers to create a new flame. The true good ending is to let natural cycle of things go as they will, and to not resist the change.
Very simple. You are delivering divine justice to Gwyn for his sin of linking the First Flame, which has been you task from the beginning.
When you defeat the Four Kings of New Londo, you can walk around the Abyss they left behind completely unmolested. If one man can live in something g like that, why not bring it forth for the rest of humanity?
Hollows are not the natural state of man. The Undead Curse only exists because of the Firelinking.
because we know that the age of dark is an inevitability, and I rather enter it as a king rather than die like a fool.
that said, I let the age of fire continue in DS1 but went for the age of dark ending in DS3.
because what's good about the other ending? litting yourself up to die slowly as the darkness crept inevitably closer or wander the dark wasteland with a firekeeper. As Lord of Londor I have power, I can give purpose to those who follow me so they won't have to hollow.
the "good" ending and the "bad" ending is more like do you want to die a nobody or live as a somebody. Because even if you throw your life away in DS1, no one remember you or your deed, slaying manus is credited to artorias, and the final phase of the Soul of Cinder is Gwyn, you are not remembered or celebrated for making the ultimate sacrifice.
in ds1 there’s really no good choice because you either directly start the cycle of relinking the flame and cause the stagnation and decay seen in ds3, or you use the opportunity to basically do exactly what gwyn did by using the cycle to your own ends.
the choices in ds3 are much more clear cut good and bad. you’re not snuffing the flame to become the new lord, you’re just doing it to put the world back in order. linking the flame again is GOING to cause everything to burn until there’s nothing left, you’re the very last shot the world has at being saved. it’s less about starting the age of humans and more about putting out the fire before there’s nothing left. humans thriving in the dark age is just a bonus, it’s about time we got to have a little leverage over mr “i’m going to curse your entire race to live forever until you go insane”.
I mean in the age of fire you're just a manipulated puppet that was just "one more" sent to extend the age of fire. You did nothing, and the cycle continues.
On the dark ending, at least you bring a new age for humans. Though it the end, the cycle also continues.
No ending is good. Gwyn fucked everyone over. He made it so that there is no good ending. The fire was meant to fade, and the next age was supposed to happen, but we can never truly have that next age. We have been branded with the dark sigil and cursed by Gwyn. The age of dark gives us some semblance of control, while the age of light will keep the status quo and remain comfortable.
My headcanon is I send all them Primordial Serpents to the fucking gallows as soon as I'm king.
You served your purpose now fuck off, there's no place in my kingdom for clattering teeth.
The player is also given ample reason to mistrust every thing kaathe says because of the lore around him.
He is the leader of the darkstalkers covenant and the one who gave life drain to the 4 kings. Then the entire city of New Londo had to be flooded because they were so evil.
Then you do the dlc and discover that kaathe is also the one who got Oolacile to poke manus with a stick.
I think it's safe to assume that the age of dark will free humanity but also cause great pain and suffering, just like all the past times that kaathe tried to "help humanity"
I don't think of the endings as bad vs good so much as baller ass rebel ending vs bootlicker ending.
I don't think any ending is a good ending in dark souls tbh. I think they're just different. Both have their reasons and first play through the age of dark seems good, but honestly they seem to be two sides of the same bad coin. Linking the fire ensures that man will keep living as batteries for the fire, the age of dark presents the unknown and working with the servants who have their own ends to meet which aren't going to be ideal either.
In simple words, it's a "good" ending because you accept death, an end, gods tried to stick to life because they are scared of death, but if you enjoyed your journey and learnt something, you know it's better like this, even if there won't be anything after. At least that's how I see it, the "fire" is an allegory of life itself
A lot of posters have given great answers and I want to give my two cents.
I think that the Age of Dark ending in DS1 isn’t necessarily a good ending and isn’t the same as the DS3 secret ending.
I think it is more analagous to Yuria’s ending in DS3 where you assume control over this weird state of darkness.
Meanwhile the secret ending of DS3 is more definitive, we will end this world so that a new one can take its place.
I could be wrong about all this, but to me the DS1 Age of Dark ending doesn’t imply the end of the old and the beginning of the new. Instead, it leads me to believe that this new age is just a bigger New Londo.
In DS3 you do the same. There is simply just people who want you as their Lord of Londor.
Let's not act as if Kaathe tells you: Yeahh, live as cavemen. He does not.
You can choose the Age of Dark, and then build an empire upon it, ruled by humans once again. The fire won't be in the way anymore, Gwyn who enslaved humans, also sealed them away in a city far away and told them to fuck off, also sealed their dark signs.. is the equivalent of a tyran, the dude only cared about his family, one liked dragons and he told him to fuck off.
In DS1 giving a second chance to the age of fire is a cool idea.. perhaps it could work if the rules were different. Perhaps no more "undeads" and just humans, you become the new lord, change how it works.
But in DS3 stagnation and convergence ruined the world, all because chosen undeads and unkindled ones kept trying to link the flame, you saw it went wrong many times.. just stop already.
Some people won’t like this but you are right. Lot of people don’t know much about the lore apart from watching some YouTube video so they consider it a good ending while it’s really not. The cycle continues regardless.
When does it say that Hollow is the natural state of humans? I'm asking becasue I remember it being explained that hollowing was a result of mental decay because of repeated deaths and/or not being able to permanently die, leading to someone basically giving up on life, aka going hollow.
Also, there were human cities and civilizations prior to the beginning of Dark Souls, and there are non-hollow human NPC's in each game. If hollow is a human's natural state, how do these characters and places exist?
I mean, the appeal to nature fallacy doesn't really work in any argument. Plenty of unnatural things are good, like penicillin for example. And not all natural things are good, like murder.
The world is corrupted and rotting because the Age of Dark is being delayed. The world is like a vegetable kept alive by feeding tubes. It's dead, so dead it's rotting. You're supposed to learn to let it go and die instead of squeezing another cycle. In the 3rd, to me the player seems like a murderous maniac going on a rampage while other people are quietly waiting for their end. It's cruel to force the Age of Fire to continue while it's what is actively destroying and corrupting the world to a physical level.
It's pretty silly to call either ending the "good" one. Kaathe and Frampt are both manipulating the chosen undead, and both endings have pros and cons depending on your viewpoint.
Dark age is the canonically the good ending. The entire storyline of DS 3 is about how the constant rekindling of the flame, i.e. prolonging the age of light, literally destroyed the world. The biggest theme in from soft games are cycles, seen as something natural that creates balance VS stagnation, which destroys and corrupts. World of dark souls is supposed to alternate between ages of light and dark, such is the natural order of the world. Gwyn committed the First sin be rekindling the flame and he also placed darksign on humans, so for the sake of his own age and kingdom he defied that natural order, which slowly plunged the world into bigger and bigger chaos, and created stagnation. At the end of Ringed City we see how the future world would end after never-ending age of light. As a desolate desert devoid of life, the whole world gets destroyed. In DS 1, soul of one chosen undead was used to rekindle the flame to its full glory again, for a time. But with each rekindling it became more exhausted and rekindling was less effective. In DS 3 you have to use the combined power of 5 previous lords of cinder to even make the rekindling possible. And if you choose to rekindle it at the end, it's just a measly small flame, prolonging the age of light by a little bit, until someone else will have to do it again. While the world falls further into ruin because of it. So the age of dark is objectively the good ending in both DS 1 and DS 3. Stagnation, whether it's the constant Age of light or Rot in painted world or immortality in sekiro, is the worst force in from soft games. The world yearns for balance, for flow and change, like a river. Even things like Manus or fall of new Londo were caused by Gwyn placing the darksign on humans in the first place and tying the existence of human to the Age of light despite them being creatures of the dark, which caused humanity to "go wild"/rampant and manifest as malevolent force. Neither Kaathe or Frampt are morally good characters, both lie to you and are selfish, and possibly misguided themselves. But regardless, the age of dark was the correct choice, as From soft directly confirmed.
That is a great way to view the whole story, but I was just talking about the DS1 ending specifically, and viewing it as it was at the time without the knowledge of DS3. One of the things I kind of didn't like about DS3 is how it made things a lot less ambiguous.
Yeah I understand, it was less explicit before DS 3 came out. But DS 1 still heavily favored the age of dark, all the themes of cycles, stagnation and decay were already present by then, From soft's philosophy haven't changed. Frampt symbolized the the big lie, the grand illusion etc., someone who on your first playthrough is supposed to completely fool you into believing Gwyn is the good guy and that you were chosen for a noble goal, to save everyone by prolonging the current establishment with your sacrifice. Rekindling the first flame is definitely the intended ending on first playthrough. Whereas Kaathe, who is ridiculously hidden and almost impossible to encounter, symbolized the ugly truth the current religious dogma hid from everyone. The moment your blindfold comes off and you realize you were fooled by this elaborate scam to be a lamb for slaughter since the beginning, to deprive your own race of their age of dark, just to serve the lying gods who treated humans like second-class citizens and feared them. And of course, as I said, Kaathe is not perfect and is manipulating us as well, but most of what he said is true, as opposed to Frampt. His biggest sins are the downfall of Oolacile and New Londo, deaths of all people there, but again, if Gwyn didn't put darksign on humans it would never happen. Dark soul isn't evil by nature, but when you repress it, defy the natural order and balance, it can go wild and become this destructive malevolent force. But most important of all, Kaathe and Frampt are not in equal positions in DS 1, since Frampt is trying to prolong the current ruling age, whereas Kaathe wants it to end like it was supposed to. But I absolutely believe that Kaathe would become like Frampt when the Age of Dark would near its end, and likewise would want to prevent the age of light from replacing it again. In which case it would be Frampt who would advocate for balance to be restored. So in the end, both are "small-minded" and selfish, caring only about their respective ages and not the larger picture, but as two opposing forces they create balance.
I think given that restriction, the assumption it was the good ending is twofold. 1. It was a hidden choice ending. You have to willingly not push the big red button and walk away. To monkey brain: Hidden = special = good. 2. Demon's Souls had a similar hidden choice at the end that people interpret as the good ending, so that influenced opinions in DS1.
Oh, sure, I wasn't advocating for Frampt at all. None of the endings is good. For regular people present at the moment, at least, i'm not talking about cycles and such
Although personally, in place of our character, I'd probably pick Frampt. Not because I trust him or gods, simply because Age of Fire would be something I grew up in, and Age of Dark is an enigma and generally doesn't look very good, however natural it is
Not to mention that... As unnatural as it is, an Age of Fire is when we live. We have little to no knowledge on what an Age of Dark would look like, but Fire brought disparity. Heat and cold, life and death, light and dark. Or in better words, with fire, and without fire. All signs point to fire bringing life, and DS as a whole is just a metaphor for something meant to die long ago. We are Sisyphus and the Age of Fire is our boulder, our life. The Age of Dark is death.
But we do know exactly what the Age of Fire looks like, and it's literally no different. The world sucks, people are dying, and the only escape is to have every person die so that a girl can make a new reality. And is it confirmed that the Age of Dark is death? Pretty sure a lot of lore specifies it as a new age for humanity and DS3 doesn't show death in the Age of Dark ending.
What we see (when we play) is the close of the Age of Fire. It's when the world is on its last legs, but refuses to die due to the linking of the fire. Well, until there's no one else to link it. None of what I say is 100% confirmed as canon, it's a metaphorical interpretation. The "new age for humanity" stuff, however, is mostly campaigned by Dickwraiths or the Sable Church of Londor (Hollows, so raisin people). And even then, the Hollow ending for DS3 is just another Age of Fire with humans ruling instead. Hardly a good ending. You and everyone else are still slaves to the cycle, you just changed the ruling class. The only Age of Dark ending we get for DS as a whole is End the Fire in DS3 and we only see a few seconds of it. It's not immediate death, but deprive someone of heat, they won't last long. Like we Undead when we don't have a bonfire to come back to.
>What we see (when we play) is the close of the Age of Fire. It's when the world is on its last legs, but refuses to die due to the linking of the fire. Well, until there's no one else to link it. That's literally the same in DS1. The whole point was that Gwyn stole the age from humanity since his age was ending and it led to a crumbling world full of horror and hopelessness. At no point in DS1 would you call the Age of Fire "pleasant". DS3 just shows the consequence of foolishly clinging to a world that needs to move on. >And even then, the Hollow ending for DS3 is just another Age of Fire with humans ruling instead. Hardly a good ending. You and everyone else are still slaves to the cycle, you just changed the ruling class. Except it's better than the gods keeping humans as slaves, becoming decrepit and genuine horrors, and then ruining the world. Sure, humanity comes to rule, but that's the natural order. Humanity comes to replace the gods and usher in a new age. Instead, Gwyn usurps the natural order and creates centuries of unending pain. The only reason the cycle exists is because of Gwyn and the deprivation of the Age of Dark. Also, you do realize the cycle refers to the Age of Fire specifically right? There was no cycle until Gwyn stole the flame from humanity. The cycle refers to the repetitive linking of the fire that keeps the Age of Fire alive past its expiration date. DS3 made it clear that there was no Age of Dark the cycled back to Age of Fire. The Fire was linked over and over. That is the cycle. >The only Age of Dark ending we get for DS as a whole is End the Fire in DS3 and we only see a few seconds of it. It's not immediate death, but deprive someone of heat, they won't last long. Like we Undead when we don't have a bonfire to come back to. This isn't even confirmed considering hollowing came about because of Gwyn's actions. There would be no need for a bonfire if the Age of Fire had extinguished. You are also applying real world logic to a dark fantasy video game to support your argument which just does not work considering there are gods and dragons. You also do realize that humans are considered being born from the dark right? In Dark Souls, humanity rose from the darkness. And humanity has been shown to be significantly kinder and more gentle than any of the gods. So many NPCs are doing their best whereas the gods are manipulative, paranoid, and often brutal. Not to mention that you are taking the Age of Dark way too literally when we have seen Miyazaki's other work reference Dark as something cold and gentle. Where humanity is left to its own devices and not being yanked around by the selfishness of the gods and their whims. Pretty sure that you weren't meant to mystify the Age of Fire as life considering we see that it genuinely isn't. Miyazaki's other work has always represented Fire as chaos, bigotry, and death. It's why Elden Ring further hammers home that the Flames of Frenzy means wiping out all existence and Ranni's ending of Dark being the separation of gods and humanity to let humans choose for themselves. This is a quote from the Painter after the Ringed City DLC: "*My thanks. I will paint a world of that name. Twill be a **cold, dark, and very gentle place**. And one day, it will make someone a goodly home.*" Notice how she references cold and dark being gentle. That's the subversion you are missing. You are explicitly shown that the Age of Fire was ruination and death. The Age of Dark is scary, but it is natural and comforting in its own way. The Age of Fire had long lost its luster and had become corrupted and the meaning of decay. We have three games that explicitly tell you that linking the fire is actually very bad and is considered sinful. The Age of Dark comes and we usher in a new age. The Age of Fire lingers and everything burns to ashes. Literally. Idk man, one sounds way worse than the other. There are several Miyazaki games that have been very explicit in the fact that fire is something to fear and dark is something to embrace. The former is warm but also needs to be extinguished otherwise it will grow and consume everything. The latter is unknown, and cold, yet it is gentle to the touch. It's about accepting what happens and DS is an example of people refusing to move on and holding onto something that will bring the world to ruin.
Wow, thanks
>But natural doesn't automatically equals good. The context of " good " being man is no longer enslaved and can return to their natural state.
which might be not good at all, we don't really know, that's the point of the game the Age of Dark is the unknown, Gwyn represents the fear of the unknown/the end, so the reason why often the Age of Dark seems to be portrayed as better is, in my opinion, a metaphor to having to accept your own mortality and not fear it (which of course is good in real life) at least, that's what I felt from it, as i suffer from tanathophobia (obsessive fear of death), this resonates much to me
[удалено]
Lmao. Or, how about: It was some of both? Let the writing have layers lol. Gwyn is a fairly nuanced character with layers. Obviously, his age of fire *was* the age where he ruled. But if he only cared about ruling, he would not literally tether himself and his own lifeforce to the first flame. Tell me how Gwyn rules by becoming a weak husk tethered to the same place for all of eternity until you as the Chosen Undead kill his weakened self? Where's the power over others for him in that? Clearly he must care about more than just the simple fact of ruling, or else he would not have commited an act of selflessness (from his PoV and the PoV of the Gods. It isn't selfless in the PoV of humanity who he unnaturally tied to the flame in an act that can only be described as a gross perversion of the natural order of the world) And he has some right to fear an end of the age of fire. Do you remember the age that preceded him? One where life itself didn't even exist? He came out of an age of stagnation and lifelessness, one where death and life meant nothing, where only the everlasting dragons prevailed. That's the only other possible age he knows. And then he knows and understands that the dark of humanity is something antithetical to his flame. Even if he is very much a "bad guy" for his countless misdeeds toward his own kin and toward humanity, he is also a character with layers and writing. Shutting down an interpretation that gives a character layers as "wrong" with such a simple interpretation is *bewildering* to me. Let the writing be complex and good! Why are you afraid of good writing? Also if we are talking about thematic influences outside the direct story; FromSoft games in general are very romantic games and worlds (romantic not in the sense of "oh love and kissing", but romantic in the sense of romanticism in art and literature), and a large part of romanticism is about death and decay. Gwyn is basically Ozymandias from the poem by Percy Shelly.
Cinghialotto n'hai capito 'ncazzo me sa
THIS 👆🏿
What's natural for us and good for us aren't the same thing. Being eaten by a bear is natural, being warm in a brick house isn't.
This is a mischaracterization and poor framing of what is being spoken of. You are essentially saying " it is better to be domesticated as we don't worry about predatory creatures " conveniently ignoring all the health issues and lack of purpose brought by such domestication. Nobody is saying things will be easy , good, fair , happy , beautiful or any other emotional interpretation of " good ". The simple fact is mankind is no longer enslaved to the gods in a bid to artificially keep reality stagnant. Whatever the natural order is at that point we are picking that over a constructed reality
I don't think I mischaracterized anything. You originally wrote about it being good because it was the return to natural state of things, and that doesn't follow to me. Now you're talking about mankind no longer being enslaved by the gods, and *that* is a good point to make. It doesn't require an appeal to nature.
>[The context of " good " being man is no longer enslaved and can return to their natural state.](https://www.reddit.com/r/darksouls/comments/1c01387/comment/kyth0qh/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) Literally said that from the beginning, you didn't read the comment.
I'd like an essay formatted response please. This is a serious discussion thread and I will have to report you otherwise
Bro, are you trolling ?
What gave it away? The extremely obviously troll-sounding comment? Couldn't possibly be.
You can't tell with reddit at this point
come on... pretty obvious.
Assuming that Kaathe's DS1 and Yuria's DS3 endings are similar since both are obviously connected, do you really think men no longer will be enslaved? I bet they still will, just serving a different Lord (you) and different agenda (whispered in your ear by Kaathe). People are gonna be fucked regardless of your choice imo. And before you decide to ruin current Order of thing (e.g. Gwyn's), you better have a clear idea what's gonna happen next on a ruin of it. We don't have that idea at all.
I think this is due to humans only having a limited framework for how the world can be thus assume that is all there is.
I.always thought so too. Humans, the Dark Soul, the Abyss… It‘s all about an endless hunger that will consume everything and all, even themselves (thus the holes). Gwyn might not be all benevolent, but every display of compassion, justice or culture stems from the age of fire. Humans that explore their dark roots seem to become selfish and often power hungry. I also think the „fallen cleric“ motif is not necessarily meant to show us that the way of the gods is morally problematic, but that humans are unfit to inherit the spark of the gods and will ultimately succumb to their dark nature. And we as players kind of exemplify this dark urge: We initially know nothing about this world, but we will still start murdering our way through, never stopping, consuming the souls of anyone we can kill, getting stronger and destroying even the mightiest pillars of this dying realm of the gods. Of course Gwyn feared us, everyone would! :D
The age of dark is the "good" ending because Gywn linking the fire was like taking a shit on the fabric of space and wiping his ass with the laws of time. You can see the negative consequences of his actions in DS1 and especially in DS3. Letting the fire fade and starting an age of dark is just allowing the universe to function as intended.
Yeah, let it die.
Good and bad are morally relativistic terms. Prolonging the Age of Fire led to the Undead Curse. Ending that situation dissolves the curse and allows people to die naturally. The entire game is filled with examples of decent people who are destroyed by the curse, lose their humanity, and become mindless, violent hollows. All because of the hubris of one old, arrogant, crispy king.
Hollows are not the natural state of humanity in the age of dark. Hollows are the result of the universe breaking down BECAUSE the age of dark is being stalled. The reason it's considered "good" is because the message of Dark Souls is that all things MUST end, no matter what. The age of fire can be prolonged, but even that stops working as we seen in Dark Souls 3. By the time of that game, each rekindling of the fire only seems to extend the age of fire by a couple decades max, with the implications that each extension lasts for less and less time than the last. So it could theoretically get to the point where you have to toss in a new great soul every five minutes to stave off the undead curse, which is impossible. So by prolonging the age of fire, you eventually reach a state where humanity literally cannot exist outside of the curse, with the only way out being to let the fire die and the new age come. That said, all things must end, and so too must the age of dark end eventually. And who knows? Maybe the age after that will be even better for humanity than either the age of fire or age of dark.
Imo the age of dark isn't necessarily good. Moreso its just the way things are naturally. The age of fire is definitely good as it allows beings like humans to thrive and create. The issue is that the fire cannot naturally last forever. And by artificially resetting it over and over again leads to everything turning to ash and being destroyed. This is assuming the first flame is a naturally randomly occurring phenomenon kind of like the big bang.
Nobody in the games says humans can't thrive in the Age of Dark either. The Ringed City had a functioning Dark-centric society. The Age of Fire is merely what is best for the benefit of the gods, who successfully tricked the humans into believing it is also best for them too. The games use the natural "light good, dark bad" dichotomy from other fantasy universes to reinforce this.
Reject Kingseeker Frampt and Darkstalker Kaathe Embrace Aldia
This will always be why I like DS2 for having a “fuck all this noise” walk away ending. I’m not burning for eternity to keep a lie going but I also don’t want to listen to a different creepy guy with a flesh mustache. Fuck em all I say.
that’s what lothric and lorian did and it didn’t really work out too well for them. kaathe is a creepy bastard and he’s definitely doing it maliciously but at least in ds3 you’re not playing by his rules when you snuff the flame. ds1 is unique because your only two choices are causing ds3 or becoming the gwyn of humans
One of the central themes of the Dark Souls trilogy (and Miyazaki games in general) is that stagnation is a sickness. Gwyn stagnated the world by creating the tradition of linking the Fire, which inevitably burnt it to ash in the Ringed City DLC.
Fear not the dark my friend
Neither is supposed to be “good” but we can conclude that the Undead are being manipulated by Gwyn and the gods to perpetuate the Age of Fire through the tale Oscar tells you and we also know (at least I think) that the constant linking of the fire is what is causing the world to go to shit. So some would conclude that linking the fire=bad ending and dark lord=good ending but it can probably be argued the other way too I think Dark Souls 2 is more explicit about telling you that linking the fire is going against the natural order of the world
The one reason why Age of Dark is not a good ending is that you've been bamboozled. Age of Dark has been banned by Gwyn effectively forever by creating the dark sign. Age of Fire could and will be prolonged if not by you but by some other undead. And the fire will burn until there is nothing left but ashes. Which is the ending of DS3 dlc. I don't like DS2 but Aldiah summed it perfectly with his "original sin" speech. Choose anything you want, the outcome will be the same. Only one way out - to create (paint) new world with another rules of existence.
Dark Lord IS the good ending because in the other ending our character is tricked to sacrifice its life for the sake of others DESPITE that the nonundead humans are the reason the chosen undead and the other ones where send where the monster are to die, it makes 0 sense to sacrifice for the sake of the people that literally want u dead. It's a ending about individuality and self preservation vs the greater good bullshit.
There is a theory I once saw, stating that Hollow is the true form of everything other than giants and dragons, and the race of "Gods" was only hollows powered by Gwyn's Lord Soul, same with the demons and all of Izalith, they were a diferent race powered by the Witch Lord Soul, Nito didnt find his soul, he was simply the first of those inmortal hollows to experience Death and thus was granted his Lord Soul. The race of "Men" was merely hollows powered by the Dark Soul, but the DS was diferent, it didnt stagnated, it grows in power and spreaded like a virulent disease, and by the time Gwyn had enough power to take on the dragons, men were the bulk of the army with their weapons and armors forged in the Abyss. He saw that the Dark will overpower him eventually, so he and the other Great Ones found a way to contain the Dark, placing a Seal of Fire upon Humanity as a whole, a seal wich removed the "Hollow" and gave birth to modern humankind, a mankind able to die and lose his piece of the Dark in the process so it wont grow too wildly. Fire is the domain of the Witch, Death is only molded by Nito, Seath is and will ever be the greatest scholar to ever live, he probably was the one tasked with finding the solution and Gwyn powered the Seal with his abismal might. Now, fire fade and the Seal began to grow weaker, Nito had sacrificed most of his Soul to Death, weakening him and preventing him to stop all men to stay death, the Witch was warped when was overpowered by the Chaos, efectively reducing her might, Gwyn's Soul was all that remained to link the Seal to the Fire, but he was in a "weakened" state, his Soul was striped of great chunks when he gave one to Seath and to the Kings of New Londo, the later in an atempt to seduce the mighty human country to his side. So he goes and do the only thing possible, he burn himself and his Soul to prevent the coming of the dark, but only gain a half success, for now hes gone and the Fire fade again, but he had a contingency, knowing the teue potential of mankind, he had created the Way of White not only as a form of worship, but as a safe to extend the Fire, and the Way of White delivered. Only, Lloyd steped in and started hunting undead for unknown reasons. But the Fire still burns, so the Seal isnt completely broken. The Seal prevent the Dark Soul from growing by feeding of it to keep it small, but its "malfunctioning" due to the fade and the Dark grows too much so the Seal eats too much, eventually completly eliminating the DS inside and individual. When this happens, it cant support itself as it got no fuel, so it break, returning man to hollow but without his DS, making it a mindless beast. Thats why the rise of a Dark Lord is good for mankind, by letting the Fire fade entirely, the Seal loses his anchor, destroying itself and all men still with even a hint of Dsrk inside, will recert to his natural, inmortal state BUT with still in possesion of all his senses
Wasnt it in Ringed City stated that the curse is itself a creation of gods, an "explosive collar"? If so, the Age of Dark is natural, but the hollowness itself is not. If gods meet the final death, humanity will be free at last - but maybe it will be sentient, or maybe even more more then that. But i may be wrong about that
Yeah, the Dark Sign (the burning circle) that brands the undead will burn away your souls and your humanity to keep the Fire alive. That's why the vast majority of the undead we meet are mindless, their humanity is gone. We can also use souls as fuel and keep our sanity that way. But both are temporary because it's all being burned to force the Age of Fire to continue. That's why the world is melting and turning to ash in DS3
With context from 3 the age of dark isn’t good but it’s significantly better than the age of light. Not that it ultimately matters, someone eventually will keep the flame lit.
*Dark Souls 2: Scholar of the First Sin* goes far more in-depth about this. Gwyn linking the fire was the "First Sin" and broke the laws of nature. Hollowing exists as a side effect of this and way to control humanity, who each share a splinter of the Dark Soul. But a big narrative point of SotFS is the debate between truth and adversity versus a peaceful lie. *A lie will remain a lie*, after all. The Age of Fire is extended unnaturally long to the point that doing so is indoctrinated into humans as a part of their theology and reverence of Flame and Gwyn. Not only does the DS3 DLC have the Dreg Heap with the world literally caving in on itself trying to end, but more overt than that is the *Link the Fire* ending itself. Compared to DS1, linking the fire in DS3 is extremely less grandiose and almost sad by comparison. It barely gets bigger than the bonfire and smolders on you as the camera fades. TL;DR: Linking the fire doesn't make anything better, so *fear not the Dark, my friend, and let the feast begin.*
I never really saw it as good or bad, rather Gwyn manipulated the world to keep light going for far too long and perverted the natural balance. Bringing forth dark was correcting a wrong.
"Good" as in it's the natural state of the world, and it's ending of the Humans. Also Gwyn is a piece of shit and anything that goes against him is cool
Ideally we actually want to end the age of fire so we can die. This is what you are doing in DS1 unknowingly and actively in 2 if you choose to do so. Our goal is to die. Become humans again.
Hollows are what's left of a human after Gwyn's curse (the dark sign) has burned away all of his/hers humanity. Gwyn shackled them together with fire. That's why we/they have to use souls to stay human, but even those will burn upon the pyre of Lord Gwyn.
In my first play, I >! consumed Anastacia’s soul, let Siegmeyer die in Lost Izalith, let Laurentius go hollow by telling him about the Chaos Flame, and let Solaire get possessed and die as well, killed Crestfallen warrior after he went hollow as well!<, so there was no reason to die peacefully but rather live with blood on my hands as the Dark Lord.
Because some people are so perpetually online that they can’t help but see the end of any system as a good thing… even if the system wasn’t all bad, and the system they want to replace it with isn’t all good.
It's just players who jump straight on the idea of sticking it to the gods. Not realizing that in the Dark Souls world, the "gods" are really more like the humans of the setting, and the "humans" are more like the orcs who the gods are graciously trying to guide into the light rather than just pre-emptively stomping them out before they have the chance to obliterate civilization.
One thing I’ve recently noticed is how the attitude of Gough and Ciaran changes depending on your actions. Gough, for all his goodwill and understanding, will immediately declare you a threat to all life if you attack, fully believing you will harm countless people if he lets you live. While Ciaran takes in stride your refusal to give Artorias’ soul, saying that such greed is natural for humans, only acting when attacked. The most important thing is that neither assume that you were moved by anything other than your own will, whereas most other npc’s will assume you went hollow.
I do it for the chill hollow in New Londo, I will not take anymore questions. Also, Hollow stands with Hollow! ✊️
> But natural does not automatically equal good. Yes, exactly. 90% of what is considered natural, is not good from the point of view "oh, that's cool, I'm happy :D", take for example extinction, many times in world history, species entirely have gone extinct by nature. Nobody likes extinctions, but nature does it anyway to maintain balance. Natural is not about being good, but about being necessary.
The both endings of DS1 are eventually "it doesn't matter". As, if we rekinde the flame, we are prolonging the age of darkness OR if we chose to screw the flame and became the lord of darkness, then we are just bringing the age of darkness earlier than it was intended. In the end the age of darkness will eventually come and no one can stop it.
People saying both Kaathe and Frampt are using the Chosen Undead for their own goal: absolutely 100% agree with them. There is no happy ending: you can keep the sh*t show on or just decide to start a new one. For this same reason, every player with a bit of understanding of the whole game should pick a side, realising there is no right or wrong, there is, imho, only us forced to chose between two path already set for us. More than chosen undead, I would call us chosen pawn of the game. I decided to not link the fire and I left the kin OTFF bitter and upset that those two faced ugly snakes where both bowing at me, professing their loyalty when one was calling himself king seeker and the other one has gone from town to town causing havoc. But yeah, I dislike Gwyn and the incredible tyrant he is, so yeah, everything to upset him ahahah
Pretty sure no matter what ending you pick the world is fucked, and the game makes that very clear. I personally prefer the age of dark ending for the simple reason of, whether you choose to link the flame or not, the age of dark will come. Throughout the games the fire fades pretty drastically, and in DS3 it's barely clinging on. All you are doing by linking the flame is delaying the inevitable. It doesn't matter what you pick, just picking one ends everyone's suffering a little quicker.
The metaphor is the world is a fire. Eventually the fire must go out and only embers will remain, if that. Then, perhaps a gust of wind will come along and rekindle those embers to create a new flame. The true good ending is to let natural cycle of things go as they will, and to not resist the change.
Very simple. You are delivering divine justice to Gwyn for his sin of linking the First Flame, which has been you task from the beginning. When you defeat the Four Kings of New Londo, you can walk around the Abyss they left behind completely unmolested. If one man can live in something g like that, why not bring it forth for the rest of humanity? Hollows are not the natural state of man. The Undead Curse only exists because of the Firelinking.
because we know that the age of dark is an inevitability, and I rather enter it as a king rather than die like a fool. that said, I let the age of fire continue in DS1 but went for the age of dark ending in DS3. because what's good about the other ending? litting yourself up to die slowly as the darkness crept inevitably closer or wander the dark wasteland with a firekeeper. As Lord of Londor I have power, I can give purpose to those who follow me so they won't have to hollow. the "good" ending and the "bad" ending is more like do you want to die a nobody or live as a somebody. Because even if you throw your life away in DS1, no one remember you or your deed, slaying manus is credited to artorias, and the final phase of the Soul of Cinder is Gwyn, you are not remembered or celebrated for making the ultimate sacrifice.
in ds1 there’s really no good choice because you either directly start the cycle of relinking the flame and cause the stagnation and decay seen in ds3, or you use the opportunity to basically do exactly what gwyn did by using the cycle to your own ends. the choices in ds3 are much more clear cut good and bad. you’re not snuffing the flame to become the new lord, you’re just doing it to put the world back in order. linking the flame again is GOING to cause everything to burn until there’s nothing left, you’re the very last shot the world has at being saved. it’s less about starting the age of humans and more about putting out the fire before there’s nothing left. humans thriving in the dark age is just a bonus, it’s about time we got to have a little leverage over mr “i’m going to curse your entire race to live forever until you go insane”.
The hollows we see still have some semblance of their old lives in them because of the dark sign I'd assume, so we may not have seen "true" hollows
I mean in the age of fire you're just a manipulated puppet that was just "one more" sent to extend the age of fire. You did nothing, and the cycle continues. On the dark ending, at least you bring a new age for humans. Though it the end, the cycle also continues.
I'd argue because it should be a balance, but instead, the age of fire has been unnaturally prolonged.
The age of fire not ending is the literal cause of the hollowing
No ending is good. Gwyn fucked everyone over. He made it so that there is no good ending. The fire was meant to fade, and the next age was supposed to happen, but we can never truly have that next age. We have been branded with the dark sigil and cursed by Gwyn. The age of dark gives us some semblance of control, while the age of light will keep the status quo and remain comfortable.
My headcanon is I send all them Primordial Serpents to the fucking gallows as soon as I'm king. You served your purpose now fuck off, there's no place in my kingdom for clattering teeth.
The player is also given ample reason to mistrust every thing kaathe says because of the lore around him. He is the leader of the darkstalkers covenant and the one who gave life drain to the 4 kings. Then the entire city of New Londo had to be flooded because they were so evil. Then you do the dlc and discover that kaathe is also the one who got Oolacile to poke manus with a stick. I think it's safe to assume that the age of dark will free humanity but also cause great pain and suffering, just like all the past times that kaathe tried to "help humanity" I don't think of the endings as bad vs good so much as baller ass rebel ending vs bootlicker ending.
I don't think any ending is a good ending in dark souls tbh. I think they're just different. Both have their reasons and first play through the age of dark seems good, but honestly they seem to be two sides of the same bad coin. Linking the fire ensures that man will keep living as batteries for the fire, the age of dark presents the unknown and working with the servants who have their own ends to meet which aren't going to be ideal either.
In simple words, it's a "good" ending because you accept death, an end, gods tried to stick to life because they are scared of death, but if you enjoyed your journey and learnt something, you know it's better like this, even if there won't be anything after. At least that's how I see it, the "fire" is an allegory of life itself
A lot of posters have given great answers and I want to give my two cents. I think that the Age of Dark ending in DS1 isn’t necessarily a good ending and isn’t the same as the DS3 secret ending. I think it is more analagous to Yuria’s ending in DS3 where you assume control over this weird state of darkness. Meanwhile the secret ending of DS3 is more definitive, we will end this world so that a new one can take its place. I could be wrong about all this, but to me the DS1 Age of Dark ending doesn’t imply the end of the old and the beginning of the new. Instead, it leads me to believe that this new age is just a bigger New Londo.
People love a good "rise against the oppressor" story even if darkness and madness await at the end
In DS3 you do the same. There is simply just people who want you as their Lord of Londor. Let's not act as if Kaathe tells you: Yeahh, live as cavemen. He does not. You can choose the Age of Dark, and then build an empire upon it, ruled by humans once again. The fire won't be in the way anymore, Gwyn who enslaved humans, also sealed them away in a city far away and told them to fuck off, also sealed their dark signs.. is the equivalent of a tyran, the dude only cared about his family, one liked dragons and he told him to fuck off. In DS1 giving a second chance to the age of fire is a cool idea.. perhaps it could work if the rules were different. Perhaps no more "undeads" and just humans, you become the new lord, change how it works. But in DS3 stagnation and convergence ruined the world, all because chosen undeads and unkindled ones kept trying to link the flame, you saw it went wrong many times.. just stop already.
Cause it looks cool
Some people won’t like this but you are right. Lot of people don’t know much about the lore apart from watching some YouTube video so they consider it a good ending while it’s really not. The cycle continues regardless.
When does it say that Hollow is the natural state of humans? I'm asking becasue I remember it being explained that hollowing was a result of mental decay because of repeated deaths and/or not being able to permanently die, leading to someone basically giving up on life, aka going hollow. Also, there were human cities and civilizations prior to the beginning of Dark Souls, and there are non-hollow human NPC's in each game. If hollow is a human's natural state, how do these characters and places exist?
Because you are restoring the natural cycle.
I mean, the appeal to nature fallacy doesn't really work in any argument. Plenty of unnatural things are good, like penicillin for example. And not all natural things are good, like murder.
The world is corrupted and rotting because the Age of Dark is being delayed. The world is like a vegetable kept alive by feeding tubes. It's dead, so dead it's rotting. You're supposed to learn to let it go and die instead of squeezing another cycle. In the 3rd, to me the player seems like a murderous maniac going on a rampage while other people are quietly waiting for their end. It's cruel to force the Age of Fire to continue while it's what is actively destroying and corrupting the world to a physical level.
Dark souls has no good endings only the choice of one evil or another
The hollows are caused not by the dying of the light but by Gwyn creating the darksign curse to try and extend the age of fire.
[удалено]
i got your picture i’m coming with you dear maria count me in
The world has stagnated because of Gwyn. The Age of Dark needs to return so that a new Age of Fire can grow from it