Why is the end of fire ending considered the bad one? *Spoilers*

[FreshPrinceOfPine]

So I guess the endings are kinda subjective in the sense you can determine if theyre good or not, but take the linking of the fire ending: Yay youre the hero who is prolonging the age of fire by sacrificing themselves to the first flame. Then in the end of fire there are a number of indications that tell you that that's frowned upon. The firekeeper refers to it as a grand betrayal, Ludleth speaks a little condescending when he realizes whats going on, and Andre trusts you to link the fire "for your fellow humans" or whatever the line is. Even at the end when you do get the ending, the firekeeper says "tiny flames will dance across the sky" as if your choice to end the fire doesn't even matter bc the fire will return. But you are human! The dark is the undead's best friend. Why should you have to sacrifice yourself as kindling for Gods or people who aren't like you. It's talked up like its this bad thing to end the fire, but youre doing that for yourself and your fellow undead, so why would Andre for example not want that and why wouldn't the firekeeper understand that ending the fire is whats best for humans?

[garebear]

The end of fire isn't considered the bad end, it's considered the true ending. The usurpation of fire, where you the first flame for yourself and the sable church is considered the bad end.

[Frisolino]

Ez.
Because there's so many humans that dearly believe in the gods and think the gods know what's best for humans.
(Andre is linked to Astora who were huge worshippers of the Way of White; Firekeepers have always been under the wing of the gods)
Usually the humans that aren't fond of the gods are hated by the ones that do believe in them.

Also, i don't think you can consider the usurpation ending bad.
Technically, the world just becomes like it was before the fire existed.
You're the most powerful being in the world with the deepest dark of humanity and brightest light of the flame combined, ready to lead Londor to an age of "whatever-the-ashen-one-feels-like".

The End of Fire basically just proceeds the usual cycle to its next stage: the age of dark. For the first time in the world's history ever.
The firekeeper mentions that eventually a new age of fire will come to exist (Tiny embers and all that stuff).

Seeing how the cycle itself brings only pain for kingdoms and people, i think the usurpation is the actual good ending.
No matter what Miyazaki calls "the official ending"

[Average Citizen (Not FBI)]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von garebear557:

The end of fire isn't considered the bad end, it's considered the true ending. The usurpation of fire, where you the first flame for yourself and the sable church is considered the bad end.

The general consensus I've seen is that the Usurpation ending is seen as the "best" ending, because mankind forges a new path outside the cycle by usurping the fire.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Frisolino:

Seeing how the cycle itself brings only pain for kingdoms and people, i think the usurpation is the actual good ending.
No matter what Miyazaki calls "the official ending"

When did Miyazaki ever declare any ending to be "official" or canon? I've never heard of such a thing, and the very notion goes against Miyazaki's style of storytelling. He's very much a "death of the author" type, except when it comes to other people coming in and meddling with his story like DS2.

[THI_GOD]

I also tink like you, take father gym for example, he's a god, and killed himself to keep the powerfull gods on the power, to keep the rich ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ rich. The humaity, as always where nothing much than a slaves to then. So why keep the powerfull gods on power if it keeps the humanity on the bad state. I am against the LordOfHollows ending for obvius reasons, you get crazy when you do it, you are no more than a crazy lord. But the end of the fire ending, you simple speeds up the (almost) forever process of flames fading, you just act like prince lotrhic did "damn you all this took to much time its time to stop this CURSE" as you see, even the lords of cinder dont want to link anymore. 3 Lords refuse to keep this ♥♥♥♥ going so why would you a undead keep it going? Just to another one do it again and again and again? Heeeell no boy

[THI_GOD]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Frisolino:

Ez.
Because there's so many humans that dearly believe in the gods and think the gods know what's best for humans.
(Andre is linked to Astora who were huge worshippers of the Way of White; Firekeepers have always been under the wing of the gods)
Usually the humans that aren't fond of the gods are hated by the ones that do believe in them.

Also, i don't think you can consider the usurpation ending bad.
Technically, the world just becomes like it was before the fire existed.
You're the most powerful being in the world with the deepest dark of humanity and brightest light of the flame combined, ready to lead Londor to an age of "whatever-the-ashen-one-feels-like".

The End of Fire basically just proceeds the usual cycle to its next stage: the age of dark. For the first time in the world's history ever.
The firekeeper mentions that eventually a new age of fire will come to exist (Tiny embers and all that stuff).

Seeing how the cycle itself brings only pain for kingdoms and people, i think the usurpation is the actual good ending.
No matter what Miyazaki calls "the official ending"

You are right in ALMOST everything, remember, hollows are CRAZY, at anytime the lord can go mad and start a killing spree or worst than this ( much more worst than some people dying). Hollows are just waiting to die or kill somone, hollows are no more than that, hollows.

[Blazing Black Dragon]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von THI_GOD:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Frisolino:

Ez.
Because there's so many humans that dearly believe in the gods and think the gods know what's best for humans.
(Andre is linked to Astora who were huge worshippers of the Way of White; Firekeepers have always been under the wing of the gods)
Usually the humans that aren't fond of the gods are hated by the ones that do believe in them.

Also, i don't think you can consider the usurpation ending bad.
Technically, the world just becomes like it was before the fire existed.
You're the most powerful being in the world with the deepest dark of humanity and brightest light of the flame combined, ready to lead Londor to an age of "whatever-the-ashen-one-feels-like".

The End of Fire basically just proceeds the usual cycle to its next stage: the age of dark. For the first time in the world's history ever.
The firekeeper mentions that eventually a new age of fire will come to exist (Tiny embers and all that stuff).

Seeing how the cycle itself brings only pain for kingdoms and people, i think the usurpation is the actual good ending.
No matter what Miyazaki calls "the official ending"

You are right in ALMOST everything, remember, hollows are CRAZY, at anytime the lord can go mad and start a killing spree or worst than this ( much more worst than some people dying). Hollows are just waiting to die or kill somone, hollows are no more than that, hollows.

Hollows don't HAVE to be crazy. The most featured hollows of Londor are the Pilgrims like Yoel and those guys only left Londor to come to Lothric to be as close as possible to the First Flame so they could finally die in peace. Also while the Sabel Church is kinda unknown in their motives , both Yuria and Friede are decent enough as long as you stay in their good graces, despite Yuria trying to make you murder a random person and Friede wanting the Painting to rot.

[Frisolino]

I'm quite certain there's a piece of lore (dunno if item or an NPC says it) that says the hollows are despised but they're not just mad hollows.
Look at Lapp. Just a bloody hollow, no clue as to who he is.
Does he randomly murder people? Nah, helps you out and finds treasure for you!
In Dark Souls 1 it also says people don't go fully hollow so long as they have something that they an cling to.
I'd say Gael is a good example. Kept his sanity by hoping to find the Dark Soul.

TL;DR
Hollows aren't necessarily mad. They can be nice.

[Krono]

Whether it's a good or bad ending depends on your perspective

[Blazing Black Dragon]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Frisolino:

I'm quite certain there's a piece of lore (dunno if item or an NPC says it) that says the hollows are despised but they're not just mad hollows.
Look at Lapp. Just a bloody hollow, no clue as to who he is.
Does he randomly murder people? Nah, helps you out and finds treasure for you!
In Dark Souls 1 it also says people don't go fully hollow so long as they have something that they an cling to.
I'd say Gael is a good example. Kept his sanity by hoping to find the Dark Soul.

TL;DR
Hollows aren't necessarily mad. They can be nice.

I believe those bits come from the Untrue Dark Rings you can buy from Yuria. The descriptions of those read that the hollows of Londor are decieveful, hated creatures that despise all living beings while embracing everything undead. If that makes all the hollows living there evil or not is your call.

[Average Citizen (Not FBI)]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Archdemon:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Frisolino:

I'm quite certain there's a piece of lore (dunno if item or an NPC says it) that says the hollows are despised but they're not just mad hollows.
Look at Lapp. Just a bloody hollow, no clue as to who he is.
Does he randomly murder people? Nah, helps you out and finds treasure for you!
In Dark Souls 1 it also says people don't go fully hollow so long as they have something that they an cling to.
I'd say Gael is a good example. Kept his sanity by hoping to find the Dark Soul.

TL;DR
Hollows aren't necessarily mad. They can be nice.

I believe those bits come from the Untrue Dark Rings you can buy from Yuria. The descriptions of those read that the hollows of Londor are decieveful, hated creatures that despise all living beings while embracing everything undead. If that makes all the hollows living there evil or not is your call.

No, the description says "The Hollows of Londor are wretchedly aged, fraught with deceit and dubiously secretive. It is no wonder they are deeply detested." Nothing in the game says they "despise all living beings while embracing everything undead."

[Blazing Black Dragon]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Average Citizen (Not FBI):

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Archdemon:

I believe those bits come from the Untrue Dark Rings you can buy from Yuria. The descriptions of those read that the hollows of Londor are decieveful, hated creatures that despise all living beings while embracing everything undead. If that makes all the hollows living there evil or not is your call.

No, the description says "The Hollows of Londor are wretchedly aged, fraught with deceit and dubiously secretive. It is no wonder they are deeply detested." Nothing in the game says they "despise all living beings while embracing everything undead."

My mistake, the part about cursing living things is actually from the Londor Braille Divine Tome you can buy from Yuria.

"This is a forbidden tome, as it offers salvation to all Hollows, and conversely curses all things living."

[SomethingSomethingDarkside]

Andre is from the 1st souls, so he is old school traditional "link that fire". Firekeeper's job, is to literally tend to the flame. Not sure how these two are confusing. Especially the firekeeper. It's literally in the name.

As to the question of why. From the get go, the gods had held a strangle hold. It was ingrained into folks that Age of Dark=bad, Age of Fire=good. What happens when from the start, something is decided as the way things must be? It tends to stick around. All reason against it, is frowned upon.

I mean think what would happen if you denounced god back in the heyday of Christianity. Sure you might have had nonbelievers, but going against that grain wouldn't be looked kindly upon.

[Sir Psycho]

Crazy theory time.

Watched a video connecting Demon's Souls, all the Dark Souls and Bloodborne. I believe it's AshenHollow and it's a bit out there. He suggests that the DS ending where you sacrifice yourself to the old one or some such looks a lot like the world of arch trees and dragons from the start of DkS. You know where the flames started dancing and the lord souls were found.

Considering what the fire keeper says at the end of the speech about flames once again dancing in the darkness, maybe the age of darkness isn't the age of humans but the age of dragons again. Would make sense that the primordial serpents in dark souls 1 would like that and they all show up at the dark end in that game.

Primordial could mean that those guys will evolve into dragons if the age of darkness comes along, doesn't necessarily mean old

[SomethingSomethingDarkside]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Sir Psycho:

Crazy theory time.

Watched a video connecting Demon's Souls, all the Dark Souls and Bloodborne. I believe it's AshenHollow and it's a bit out there. He suggests that the DS ending where you sacrifice yourself to the old one or some such looks a lot like the world of arch trees and dragons from the start of DkS. You know where the flames started dancing and the lord souls were found.

Considering what the fire keeper says at the end of the speech about flames once again dancing in the darkness, maybe the age of darkness isn't the age of humans but the age of dragons again. Would make sense that the primordial serpents in dark souls 1 would like that and they all show up at the dark end in that game.

Primordial could mean that those guys will evolve into dragons if the age of darkness comes along, doesn't necessarily mean old

Eh? Why do people always assume that everything must be connected. At any rate.

What ending sacrificing yourself to to what old one? There were two endings to DS1. 1st was cosplaying tinder, and lighting yourself on fire. Second one is ignoring that noise, then edge walking away from it. Also the area, looked like a wasteland. Only place that looked anything pre lords, was Ash Lake.

As for dark being the age of reborn dragons. Humans are of the dark. Not dragons. Age of dark belongs to them. Serpents could have an ulterior motive, but do remember we had two outlooks in DS1. One for, and one against the fire.

[Blazing Black Dragon]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von SomethingSomethingDarkside:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Sir Psycho:

Crazy theory time.

Watched a video connecting Demon's Souls, all the Dark Souls and Bloodborne. I believe it's AshenHollow and it's a bit out there. He suggests that the DS ending where you sacrifice yourself to the old one or some such looks a lot like the world of arch trees and dragons from the start of DkS. You know where the flames started dancing and the lord souls were found.

Considering what the fire keeper says at the end of the speech about flames once again dancing in the darkness, maybe the age of darkness isn't the age of humans but the age of dragons again. Would make sense that the primordial serpents in dark souls 1 would like that and they all show up at the dark end in that game.

Primordial could mean that those guys will evolve into dragons if the age of darkness comes along, doesn't necessarily mean old

Eh? Why do people always assume that everything must be connected. At any rate.

What ending sacrificing yourself to to what old one? There were two endings to DS1. 1st was cosplaying tinder, and lighting yourself on fire. Second one is ignoring that noise, then edge walking away from it. Also the area, looked like a wasteland. Only place that looked anything pre lords, was Ash Lake.

As for dark being the age of reborn dragons. Humans are of the dark. Not dragons. Age of dark belongs to them. Serpents could have an ulterior motive, but do remember we had two outlooks in DS1. One for, and one against the fire.

When he wrote "2 endings for DS" he meant Demon's Souls. And joining the Old One and becoming a demon was the secret ending in that game.