Is the Lord of Hollows ending REALLY the most Heroic choice? (SPOILERS Obivously)

[Ciaran Zagami]

I'm mean really. think off all the evil ♥♥♥♥ you have to do to become Lord of Hollows.

You have to kill Gricks because...he proclaims himself Lord of Hollows?...what? he never says anything to us the player about being Lord of anything muchless Lord of Hollows but Yuria says he must die so he must die then? shouldn't a Lord be able to make there own choices instead of just following the will of some mysterious mask wearing lady?

You have to kidnap and then murder Anri to absorb his/her Dark Sigils. ironicaly the point of no return is also the point where you start questioning yourself most think about it. you just Kidnapped and murder a inocent knight and stoped them from achieving there only goal in life.

Think about it your whole path to lordship is paved with pointless bloodshead and following the orders of a relgious cult..not exactly the hallmarks of a grand and prosperous reign.

and what are we even doing anyway. Perminately stopping the Linking of the Fire so no one has to suffer any more...right? we get this done at any cost and we save everyone else from suffering as we have suffered. Everybody wins!

do they really? Ludth's story shows us that even when the fire goes unlinked for long enough to allow the WHOLE world to be plunged into darkness the fire can still be relinked and the whole cycle rebooted. All it would take is someone to come along whose strong enough to beat us and link the fire for all our hard work to be wiped away and since the undead curse likely still persists (as evidenced by all the Hollows in the Lord of Hollows ending scene) it's not a matter of IF someone strong enough will come along but WHEN will someone strong enough appear.

I'm not saying to link the fire is a heroic deed of sacrifce with out flaw but I'm just trying to point out that murdering several inocent people on the word of a mad cult isn't exactly the heroic thing to do is it? sure it gets us out of the cycle but is it really worth it? and even then whose to say its not a stop gap solution as we await the birth of a soul more powerfull then our own.

also think about all the people whose efforts have gone into linking the fire.

[Forest]

Wait ? Wut ? The lord of hollows ending is far from anything "heroic" if anyhting it's the "true bad ending" to the game cause yea your the lord of teh dark age as to Gwyn being the lord of the fire age but what comes from that dark.

Mindless followers who will try to eat you at first sight, 2 crazy cult chicks who are just useing you to their own means, the F'ing abyss and all the horrible monsters that spawn from it. Yea lord of hollows ending where you "rule" (when you don't cause your just a puppet to the church of Londor) of the age of dark which is nothing but mindless hollows and black goopy monsters is really the most "heroic" ending their is.

[Thomas]

Of course it's not heroic. Who said so? The most "heroic" ending, is the one where you link the flames. It's pure sacrifice.

But in this ending, you just follow orders believing in what Kaathe says, about the man's true nature tied to the hollows and that kind of ♥♥♥♥. Also, it seems like there was something going on in Londor, some kind of crisis perhaps? Yuria saying "Please, make Londor whole again" is what makes me think this. It's only heroic if your mind is as twisted as the mind of Yuria, Kaathe, Yoel, etc.

[Sati44]

You mean Orbeck of Vinheim not Griggs of Vinheim. Do you even dark souls?
You don't need to kill him because a) this is optional and is not needed for the usurpation ending and b) if you do his questline he dies in the archives and you can give his ashes to Yuria.
So yeh you can make a choice and ignore her request to kill him.

In both The Usurpation of Fire and The End of Fire there is no option to link the fire again, ever.
This is not ds1 where you can reignite the fire or go away.
In ds3 you can relink the fire, put it out forever or take it for yourself and become the Lord of Hollows. If a stronger person comes along and kills you they will become the new Lord.

And who says that the usurpation of fire is the heroic ending? The motives befind your actions are up to you.
And linking the fire is not heroic it's just as pointless and stupid as in ds1. It only prolongs the circle. And you choosing to link the fire can be motivated by you wanting to prolong the fire and prolong the suffering of the world. So sadistic motive. Or it can be truly altruistic if you belive you are saving the world.

All the motives behind every ending are up to you.

[Forest]

Originally posted by Sati44:

You mean Orbeck of Vinheim not Griggs of Vinheim. Do you even dark souls?
You don't need to kill him because a) this is optional and is not needed for the usurpation ending and b) if you do his questline he dies in the archives and you can give his ashes to Yuria.
So yeh you can make a choice and ignore her request to kill him.

In both The Usurpation of Fire and The End of Fire there is no option to link the fire again, ever.
This is not ds1 where you can reignite the fire or go away.
In ds3 you can relink the fire, put it out forever or take it for yourself and become the Lord of Hollows. If a stronger person comes along and kills you they will become the new Lord.

And who says that the usurpation of fire is the heroic ending? The motives befind your actions are up to you.
And linking the fire is not heroic it's just as pointless and stupid as in ds1. It only prolongs the circle. And you choosing to link the fire can be motivated by you wanting to prolong the fire and prolong the suffering of the world. So sadistic motive. Or it can be truly altruistic if you belive you are saving the world.

All the motives behind every ending are up to you.

Actually if you choose to let the fire fade it will reignite that's the only reason teh Firekeeper even does it. After you talk to her a 2nd time after giving ehr the firekeeper eyes and choose to end fire she says something like "I see little ember dancing in the distance" basically meaning the fire will reignite again. Examples being when we travel to unentended graves durning a age of dark. It is teh age of dark but in our time the fire is clearly going.

And some theroist even believe that Gwyns age of fire wasn't even the first age of fire and that the age of fire, dark and even gray is a endless cycle goign from grey to fire to dark and back to grey. Which could be why Kaath wants the age of dark so baddly is so that it can be the age of grey once more and for him and his fellow serpants to become dragons cause as Dark Souls explained that a serpent is a imperfect dragon. So Yuria uses you as Kaath uses Yuria.

So it's pretty much either set your self on fire, put out the fire and unleash hell for who knows how long till dragons come back, or be a puppet to a puppet.

[Forest]

Originally posted by Sati44:

You mean Orbeck of Vinheim not Griggs of Vinheim. Do you even dark souls?
You don't need to kill him because a) this is optional and is not needed for the usurpation ending and b) if you do his questline he dies in the archives and you can give his ashes to Yuria.
So yeh you can make a choice and ignore her request to kill him.

In both The Usurpation of Fire and The End of Fire there is no option to link the fire again, ever.
This is not ds1 where you can reignite the fire or go away.
In ds3 you can relink the fire, put it out forever or take it for yourself and become the Lord of Hollows. If a stronger person comes along and kills you they will become the new Lord.

And who says that the usurpation of fire is the heroic ending? The motives befind your actions are up to you.
And linking the fire is not heroic it's just as pointless and stupid as in ds1. It only prolongs the circle. And you choosing to link the fire can be motivated by you wanting to prolong the fire and prolong the suffering of the world. So sadistic motive. Or it can be truly altruistic if you belive you are saving the world.

All the motives behind every ending are up to you.

Pretty much all the endings are pointless and ♥♥♥♥♥♥ :p

[Sati44]

Originally posted by Forest:

Actually if you choose to let the fire fade it will reignite that's the only reason teh Firekeeper even does it. After you talk to her a 2nd time after giving ehr the firekeeper eyes and choose to end fire she says something like "I see little ember dancing in the distance"

"In the far distance, I sense the presence of tiny flames. Like precious embers, left to us by past Lords, linkers of the fire. Could this be what draws me to this strangely enticing darkness?"

No, this implies that she sees the flames of mankind not a new age fire and a new pointless cicle. She says "<Like> precious embers, left to us by past Lords" not that those are the exact same flames.
Only at first she is terrified that you want to extinguish the fire thinking it will bring the end to all things. But then she is calm about it because she somehow feels this is right.
The age of fire is the age of the Lords. The next age was supposed to have been the age of dark, the age of man, after the fire has faded.

ps. use the edit option nex time, there is no need to double post, and to quote the same text in a double post

[Monte]

None of the endings are heroic; they all doom one party or another, and as stated above, your own motives and view determines which one is the "good" ending. If DS2's story (especially SoTFS) is to be taken into account, as long as the fire is linked the world will be kept on the brink of death, as if on life support.
But as with pulling the plug on someone, even if they are suffering, it is not necessarily your decision to make and doing so could cause terrible repercussions.
I see the linking of the fire as pointless, as all it does it prolong suffering, extinguishing the fire is dubious, and while it could be seen as permanent this time around, it may just cause humans to all revert to hollows without any goals or motives, causing the world to become more stagnant. The Lord of Hollows ending is also not "good", but it provides the best chances for moving forward and allowing the world to change, which is why I prefer it.

[A-Silly-Bun-Bun]

I still the think the 1st usurpation of fire is the best ending (not killing the fire keeper), it seems to me that you return the world to the age of ancients, essentially starting everything from scratch.

[Sati44]

Originally posted by Captain Dingus:

The Lord of Hollows ending is also not "good", but it provides the best chances for moving forward and allowing the world to change, which is why I prefer it.

For me this is just as bad as linking the fire You become like Gwyn, a new Lord. And it's as much dubious as extinguishing the fire. You say it may just cause humans to all revert to hollows without any goals or motives, causing the world to become more stagnant.

Well in the usurpation ending everyone is hollow. It's never said if anyone (exept you Yuria a a few selected others) has any consciousness left. You become the Lord of a dead world.
This is the same thing we had in ds1 both serpents manipulating you to do what they want.
In this case we have Ludleth who pushes you to link the fire and Yuria serving Kaathe.
But this is just my take on it

Plus extinguishing the fire would not turn humans back to the state we see in ds1 opening cinematics. All humans have a fragmens of a lord souls in them, the dark soul. This is how humans where made. Gwyn created the race of Lords, Manus the race of men.

[learnedhand]

It is not "heroic" to pursue the lord of hollows path, but that is the point, it is human. And what distinguishes being human is that darkness, envy, murder, jealousy, pointing down, are intrinsic features.

[ChaoticGamer]

what do you expsect, there is no heroic anyone did or not. Look at the hollow men, women and fallen ones, Look at all the lords and before them as well, as we look they all lost their humanity the question is, why did the pygmy didn't stop humanity going madness or chaos to be consumed by it? This is all his plan, a plan is not known but he works in the background.

[Monte]

Originally posted by Sati44:

Originally posted by Captain Dingus:

The Lord of Hollows ending is also not "good", but it provides the best chances for moving forward and allowing the world to change, which is why I prefer it.

Well in the usurpation ending everyone is hollow. It's never said if anyone (exept you Yuria a a few selected others) has any consciousness left. You become the Lord of a dead world.
This is the same thing we had in ds1 both serpents manipulating you to do what they want.
In this case we have Ludleth who pushes you to link the fire and Yuria serving Kaathe.
But this is just my take on it:rbiggrin:

Plus extinguishing the fire would not turn humans back to the state we see in ds1 opening cinematics. All humans have a fragmens of a lord souls in them, the dark soul. This is how humans where made. Gwyn created the race of Lords, Manus the race of men.

Yes, they would; Hollows and the Curse of the Undead are caused by the fading of the flame, and as the fire fades more people are afflicted, die a ton or just lose hope, and go Hollow. The humans in the opening cinematic are Hollows; it is stated by Aldia in SoTFS that "Men assumed a fleeting form", which pretty much describes humans in the dark souls series; Hollows are the natural state, soul or not, but humans fear the fading of themselves so they try to prevent it.

It is inferred that the Pilgrims of the city of Londor still have their minds and goals, as with Yoel, and it is fairly obvious that they are Hollow, at least to an extent.
And before you say "Hollows can't die", Siegmeyer was killed by his daughter, Sieglind, in DS1 when he goes Hollow.
The reason why our character seems unaffected by the Hollowing is that they are not a regular undead; they failed to link the fire once, but were brought back as an Unkindled when the flame started to fade again, and as such are probably affected differently, even though Anri shares the same fate and can go Hollow.

So in the Lord of Hollows ending, yes the world is dead, yes everyone is a Hollow, and it may just break one cycle to begin a new one, even then it is still better than condemning everyone to a similar fate by extinguishing the fire (except now they lack a leader) or linking it to begin a new cycle of suffering.
Gwyn, and his race of Lords, have had their time in the spotlight, but Manus and Mankind has not.

[Nellvan]

When the firekeeper speaks of the embers that were still there I feel like it's supposed to mean that an Age of Dark is not final, that there my very well be fire again.

Originally posted by Captain Dingus:

Gwyn, and his race of Lords, have had their time in the spotlight, but Manus and Mankind has not.

This pretty much is what it comes down to for me as well.
It may be just as bad or even worse, or maybe not. And since there are still these embers, maybe it's even possible to reignite the fire, but to manage a balance between light and dark.

I always loved Artorias' monolouge that was cut from DS1, where he says he now believes that Man can be more than just pure dark. I guess they cut it because it did explain to much, and removed too much doubt. Or maybe I just want there to be at least some more optimism in the story, which Miyazaki decided he didn't want after all.

[Sati44]

Originally posted by Captain Dingus:

Yes, they would; Hollows and the Curse of the Undead are caused by the fading of the flame, and as the fire fades more people are afflicted, die a ton or just lose hope, and go Hollow. The humans in the opening cinematic are Hollows; it is stated by Aldia in SoTFS that "Men assumed a fleeting form", which pretty much describes humans in the dark souls series; Hollows are the natural state, soul or not, but humans fear the fading of themselves so they try to prevent it.

No they would not. I love you like one ending, but making things up to give it more credit does not make it more legit.

The beings in the opening cinematics in DS1 are the beings that found the souls of the lords. Not hollow humans.
"And from they dark they came and foun the souls of Lords within the flame"
This is what we hear when we see the shot.

And don't bring up DS2 lore and Aldia spitting up fanfiction exposition. Miyazaki had little input on the lore of ds2 and you see next to none of it's dibberish in ds3.

The curse of the undead and hollowing was not because the flame faded in the first place. It was brought uppon manking by The Lords, by Gwyn who feard the end of his age so not only did he decide to prolong it, he turned humanity into the fule for the fire that keept his age doing.

Originally posted by Captain Dingus:

It is inferred that the Pilgrims of the city of Londor still have their minds and goals, as with Yoel, and it is fairly obvious that they are Hollow, at least to an extent.
And before you say "Hollows can't die", Siegmeyer was killed by his daughter, Sieglind, in DS1 when he goes Hollow.
The reason why our character seems unaffected by the Hollowing is that they are not a regular undead; they failed to link the fire once, but were brought back as an Unkindled when the flame started to fade again, and as such are probably affected differently, even though Anri shares the same fate and can go Hollow.

Again no. It is not fairly obvious that they are Hollow. This is what we hear from the Crestfallen Warrior:
"Oh, your face! You're <practically> Hollow. But who knows, going Hollow could solve quite a bit!
Hah hah hah hah…"
Looking like and undead and being practically hollow is not the same as being hollow and loosing yourself. The merchants in ds1 look like like that to and the pilgrims are like that.
And why would I say hollows can't die? Almost all characters in ds1 go hollow and we kill them permamently. They can die and rise up countless times but just like us in ds1 they can die a final death.

Btw this is from the character creator:
"A lifeless face almost that of an hollow. Londro is a realm of the hollow and old"
So in Londro we have hollows like in the undead asylum but not everyone is hollow there.

And the reason we are not hollowing in ds3 is because we are free from the curse. We tried to linke the fire we failed but are resurected without the darksign.
Btw Anri is not an unkindled one just an undead. Only Hawkwood is like us.

In my opinion the Lord of Hollows ending is the worst ending you can pick. Not only do you repeat the mistakes of the past, not only are you condeming the world to a dead state you are again a tool of the serpents like in ds1.
The age of dark was said to come after the fire faded as an natural thing. The next step. this is not the next step, it's even worse what Gwyn did.
The only way for humanity to be in the spotlight is to extinguish the fire.

Originally posted by Nellvan:

I always loved Artorias' monolouge that was cut from DS1, where he says he now believes that Man can be more than just pure dark. I guess they cut it because it did explain to much, and removed too much doubt. Or maybe I just want there to be at least some more optimism in the story, which Miyazaki decided he didn't want after all.

No this is not the cut dialogue. He said:
"Surely thine kind are more than pure dark" followed by "I beg of thee, the spread of the abyss, must be stopped." You give it way to much gravity. at this point he might as well be talknig to himself convincing himself you can help him.
And all the boss dialogue in ds1 wac cut to not make you feel special. The bosses don't adress you because you are not the center of the story.

[Skiptro]

The linking and lord of hollows endings is just the continuation of the battle between the primordial serpants frampt and kaathe. Those are not the heroic endings, the heroic ending the usurpation of fire ending where you kill the firekeeper and take the fire for yourself, thereby breaking the cycle once and for all.