Ashen Homies' Lore Corner: Dragonslayer Armour

[Skeleton]

For a while now, I've seen people in the community coming up with explanations for who/what the identity of the fabled Dragonslayer mentioned in the Sacred Oath description is. A brief recap, I'm referring to the quote that states, "...the Nameless King, his faithful First Knight (Ornstein), and the Dragonslayer that served them both". One of the more popular theories is that the Dragonslayer mentioned is Havel. Theory goes, due to convoluted nature of time/space following the fading of the First Flame (alternate timelines/parrelel realities 'converge' during First Flame's fading), the "Havel" we encounter in front of the dead ancient wyvern must have been the original Havel from some past timeline.

Never been a fan of this explanation as thus far, it's only been explained that beings bound to the First Flame (Darksign-cursed humans are one example) are the only ones able to travel through time, space, and interact with parrelel realities as summonable "phantoms". As far as I'm aware, we've never witnessed the God-kin, or the original Lords, command such an ability or even seem able to traverse past, present, and future as cursed Undead are able to (willingly, or unwillingly). The only Lord that appeared to command any sort of power over Time/Space seemed to be Manus/Furtive Pygmy. Not sure whether this was due to physicality of Dark Soul, or some unkown sorcery. Regardless, actually being able to interact with past, present, and future timelines has been uniquely an Undead/Darksign-afflicted 'thing'. Possibly due to the Darksign-afflicted's connection to the First Flame.

All that mumbo-jumbo aside, the Dragonslayer Armour is a very unique construct (aside from being a kickass boss fight that is) within the meta-lore. Why? It has literally no information on it aside from three item descriptions (one set of which mentioning the even more mysterious Pilgrim Butterflies that were 'possessing' it). Primarily, we know a great Dragonslayer served the Nameless King, and his faithful First Knight (whom we know as Ornstein). People theorize it is Havel, and we've always thought of Havel as the well-known armoured hollow we fought in that tower oh-so-long ago. However, what if we've been wrong this whole time? What if the answer was right in front of us?

The Dragonslayer Armour's very description states it is empty, and was "possessed" by a Pilgrim Butterfly. That the Armour itself "remembered" the sporting hunts of Dragons in the past with it's former master. The style, and size, of the Armour itself resembles nothing within the Lothric Armoury. In fact, it's style is more akin to Gwyn's/NKing's/Ornstein's from ancient times. Even the helm is similar to that of Ornstein's. Then there's the sheer size of the Armour. If a master inhabited the set, he surely must've been related to the God-kin of Gwyn's line/a creation of Gwyn. The Armour's sheer size would put it on par with Nameless King/Ornstein/Artorias (all of which are God-kin). Studying the area where we fight the Dragonslayer Armour, it almost seems as if it would've been on display leading into the Grand Archives of Lothric.

So, here's my theory: The Dragonslayer Armour's master WAS the fabled Dragonslayer that served the Nameless King, and Ornstein. Not Havel. The Armour, which is clearly weathered and ancient (far more ancient than anything in Lothric post-Ludleth linking Flame), seems to have been on display in Lothric Castle. The Armour then became possessed by Pilgrim Butterfly(flies) in an attempt to prevent anyone from linking the Flame with Prince Lothric's Cinders. There's another possibility the Armour's original master was the ACTUAL Havel. And all the armoured warriors in Havel's set are, indeed, his warriors or humans that have sworn an oath to serve Havel through the Ages. This would both explain all the "Havels" we've encountered throughout Ages, AND what the Dragonslayer Armour belonged to initially. Either way, I think the original master of the Dragonslayer Armour was the fabled Dragonslayer mentioned in Sacred Oath's description.

[Jamchow]

Isn't the Havel on DS1 the real Havel, since item descriptions suggest he was locked away for his "own good"? Or did he use the Master Key, and give the Havel guy in DS1 one of his spare knight's armor, and lock him in?

[Skeleton]

Originally posted by ☼ Jamchow ☼:

Isn't the Havel on DS1 the real Havel, since item descriptions suggest he was locked away for his "own good"? Or did he use the Master Key, and give the Havel guy in DS1 one of his spare knight's armor, and lock him in?

The reason this is still up for debate, all these years later, is the Ring/Armor description(s). Both of which state that Havel's soldiers wore that armor/ring. Havel's Ring was worn by his warriors/soldiers-in-general to help with heavy loads/lacking strength to hold heavy things.

"Armour worn by Havel the Rock's warriors. Carved from solid rock, its tremendous weight is matched only by the defense it provides. - Havel's warriors never flinched nor retreated from battle. Those unfortunate enough to face them were inevitably beaten to a pulp." Additionally, the very design of the Dragonslayer Armour in DkS3 is akin to being carved from stone.

[Vinyltavia]

Lore theorizing? stahp my lore member can't handle this.

[Skeleton]

Originally posted by Vinyltavia:

Lore theorizing? stahp my lore member can't handle this.

Oh baby. You know you want it.

You want that lore deep.

Embrace it fam.

[sam]

The entire quote is : "This is the tale of the Sun's firstborn, his faithful first knight, and the brave dragonslayer who served them both."

I think the syntax of the description is misleading. The way I see it, "his faithful first knight" also refers to the Sun's firstborn aka the Nameless King.

The tree swords depicted on the illustration of the spell Sacred Oath would symbolize:
1. Gwyn (the Sun)
2. the Nameless King (the Sun's firstborn, his faithful first knight) --- as in "the Sun's faithful first knight".
3. Ornstein (the brave dragonslayer who served both Gwyn and his firstborn, who is also a god of war)

I might be wrong, but it wouldn't make sense to me that the title "dragonslayer" would be attributed to someone else than Ornstein, since his role as THE dragonslayer of the Archdragons is emblematic in the lore.

[Jamchow]

Originally posted by Sam:

The entire quote is : "This is the tale of the Sun's firstborn, his faithful first knight, and the brave dragonslayer who served them both."

I think the syntax of the description is misleading. The way I see it, "his faithful first knight" also refers to the Sun's firstborn aka the Nameless King.

The tree swords depicted on the illustration of the spell Sacred Oath would symbolize:
1. Gwyn (the Sun)
2. the Nameless King (the Sun's firstborn, his faithful first knight) --- as in "the Sun's faithful first knight".
3. Ornstein (the brave dragonslayer who served both Gwyn and his firstborn, who is also a god of war)

I might be wrong, but it wouldn't make sense to me that the title "dragonslayer" would be attributed to someone else than Ornstein, since his role as THE dragonslayer of the Archdragons is emblematic in the lore.

I always thought as Solaire as the Sun's Firstborn. His name has "Solar" in it in a way. He's also fascinated by the sun.

[Skeleton]

Originally posted by Sam:

The entire quote is : "This is the tale of the Sun's firstborn, his faithful first knight, and the brave dragonslayer who served them both."

I think the syntax of the description is misleading. The way I see it, "his faithful first knight" also refers to the Sun's firstborn aka the Nameless King.

The tree swords depicted on the illustration of the spell Sacred Oath would symbolize:
1. Gwyn (the Sun)
2. the Nameless King (the Sun's firstborn, his faithful first knight) --- as in "the Sun's faithful first knight".
3. Ornstein (the brave dragonslayer who served both Gwyn and his firstborn, who is also a god of war)

I might be wrong, but it wouldn't make sense to me that the title "dragonslayer" would be attributed to someone else than Ornstein, since his role as THE dragonslayer of the Archdragons is emblematic in the lore.

Three crossed-swords would symbolize three individuals:

1. Sun's Firstborn
2. Faithful First Knight
3. AND the Brave Dragonslayer that served them both.


That's the way I, and most others, see it. There's a clear separation between the 'brave dragonslayer', and the 'faithful first knight'. Once again, over-analysis of something that is very straight-forward has often been the Achilles' Heel of the community. This, the situation with Havel's identity, and the identity of the Dragonslayer have far too much over-analysis presently. Often times, the simplest explanation is the correct one.

Additionally Gwyn, Gough, Nameless King, Ornstein, Havel, and (potentially) the master of the Dragonslayer Armour (who might also be Havel) are all renowned slayers of Everlasting Stone Dragons. Wasn't just one or two of the God-kin. Dragonslayer Armour is also an intentionally mysterious artifact. It is completely alien to anything present within Lothric. Far too ancient for Lothric Kingdom, and far too similar in style/stature to ancient God-kin of Gwyn.

Addendum: Forgot to mention the use of the Oxford-comma in the item description for Sacred Oath. If it was this:

"This is the tale of the Sun's firstborn, his faithful first knight AND brave dragonslayer who served them both."

Then it would be the same individuals. Except, it reads as this:

"This is the tale of THE Sun's firstborn, HIS (Nameless King's, not Gwyn's; possessive) faithful first knight, AND THE (the comma, and the use of "the" = separate identity) brave dragonslayer who served them (NK, and Ornstein) both."

Clear difference in language. Clear difference in meaning. I go on what we are given via descriptions, not on what people THINK item descriptions SHOULD state.

[sam]

Originally posted by Kawaii Fire Keeper:

Originally posted by Sam:

The entire quote is : "This is the tale of the Sun's firstborn, his faithful first knight, and the brave dragonslayer who served them both."

I think the syntax of the description is misleading. The way I see it, "his faithful first knight" also refers to the Sun's firstborn aka the Nameless King.

The tree swords depicted on the illustration of the spell Sacred Oath would symbolize:
1. Gwyn (the Sun)
2. the Nameless King (the Sun's firstborn, his faithful first knight) --- as in "the Sun's faithful first knight".
3. Ornstein (the brave dragonslayer who served both Gwyn and his firstborn, who is also a god of war)

I might be wrong, but it wouldn't make sense to me that the title "dragonslayer" would be attributed to someone else than Ornstein, since his role as THE dragonslayer of the Archdragons is emblematic in the lore.

Three crossed-swords would symbolize three individuals:

1. Sun's Firstborn
2. Faithful First Knight
3. Brave Dragonslayer that served them both.


That's the way I, and most others, see it. This, the situation with Havel's identity, and the identity of the Dragonslayer have far too much over-analysis presently. Often times, the simplest explanation is the correct one. Additionally Gwyn, Gough, Nameless King, Ornstein, and (potentially) the master of the Dragonslayer Armour are all renowned slayers of Everlasting Stone Dragons. Wasn't just one or two of the God-kin. Dragonslayer Armour is also, once again, is an intentionally mysterious artifact.

There's a clear separation between the 'brave dragonslayer', and the 'faithful first knight'. Once again, over-analysis of something that is very straight-forward has often been the Achilles' Heel of the community.

Dude, I am completely aware of this, in fact it's called the Ockham razor theory: among different valable hypothesis, the correct answer, often, is the simple one.

My hypothesis seems to me a lot more simple and intuitive than yours. I didn't needed 400 words to expose it. And the separation you make between "faithful first knight" and "brave dragonslayer" is not a clear one, syntactically speaking, it might even be the consequence of an ambiguous traduction from japanese.

Edit: I don't want to start a war over this, I think your theory might be valid, and so is mine.

[Skeleton]

Originally posted by Sam:

Originally posted by Kawaii Fire Keeper:

Three crossed-swords would symbolize three individuals:

1. Sun's Firstborn
2. Faithful First Knight
3. Brave Dragonslayer that served them both.


That's the way I, and most others, see it. This, the situation with Havel's identity, and the identity of the Dragonslayer have far too much over-analysis presently. Often times, the simplest explanation is the correct one. Additionally Gwyn, Gough, Nameless King, Ornstein, and (potentially) the master of the Dragonslayer Armour are all renowned slayers of Everlasting Stone Dragons. Wasn't just one or two of the God-kin. Dragonslayer Armour is also, once again, is an intentionally mysterious artifact.

There's a clear separation between the 'brave dragonslayer', and the 'faithful first knight'. Once again, over-analysis of something that is very straight-forward has often been the Achilles' Heel of the community.

Dude, I am completely aware of this, in fact it's called the Ockham razor theory: among different valable hypothesis, the correct answer, often, is the simple one.

My hypothesis seems to me a lot more simple and intuitive than yours. I didn't needed 400 words to expose it. And the separation you make between "faithful first knight" and "brave dragonslayer" is not a clear one, syntactically speaking, it might even be the consequence of an ambiguous traduction from japanese.

Edit: I don't want to start a war over this, I think your theory might be valid, and so is mine.

I'm sorry my post about DkS lore is too long. I mean, I only wanted to go as in-depth as possible about a lore theory I came up with based on item descriptions, level/armour design, and its implications in the meta-lore.

[sam]

Originally posted by Kawaii Fire Keeper:

I'm sorry my post about DkS lore is too long. I mean, I only wanted to go as in-depth as possible about a lore theory I came up with, and its implications in the meta-lore.

I sense some sarcasm from you, but oh well. Don't be sorry. Also, I just checked on fextralife and your "theory" is in there, in the trivia section of the soul of Dragonslayer Armour http://darksouls3.wiki.fextralife.com/Soul+of+Dragonslayer+Armour

[Skeleton]

Originally posted by Sam:

Originally posted by Kawaii Fire Keeper:

I'm sorry my post about DkS lore is too long. I mean, I only wanted to go as in-depth as possible about a lore theory I came up with, and its implications in the meta-lore.

I sense some sarcasm from you, but oh well. Don't be sorry. Also, I just checked on fextralife and your "theory" is in there, in the trivia section of the soul of Dragonslayer Armour http://darksouls3.wiki.fextralife.com/Soul+of+Dragonslayer+Armour

Except the popular theory is that Havel is the brave dragonslayer mentioned in Sacred Oath's description. I also brought up armor design, and area design in comparison to facets attributed to Gwyn's God-kin from past titles. Don't see that on there. Also, are you now agreeing that Sacred Oath's description refers to Gwyn's Firstborn, Ornstein, and a separate brave Dragonslayer entity? You claimed differently before as I recall. Nice that you had to run to a wiki to only confirm my point. Thanks.

[sam]

Originally posted by Kawaii Fire Keeper:

Originally posted by Sam:

I sense some sarcasm from you, but oh well. Don't be sorry. Also, I just checked on fextralife and your "theory" is in there, in the trivia section of the soul of Dragonslayer Armour http://darksouls3.wiki.fextralife.com/Soul+of+Dragonslayer+Armour

Except the popular theory is that Havel is the brave dragonslayer mentioned in Sacred Oath's description. I also brought up armor design, and area design in comparison to facets attributed to Gwyn's God-kin from past titles. Don't see that on there. Also, are you now agreeing that Sacred Oath's description refers to Gwyn's Firstborn, Ornstein, and a separate brave Dragonslayer entity? You claimed differently before as I recall.

No, my claim is the same as before.

Edit: I consulted the wiki to read again the descriptions of the dragonslayer armor soul and gear, only to refresh my memory on the exact words used in those. I then noticed your "theory" was included under the trivia section of the Soul of Dragonslayer Armour article. How convenient.

Edit 2: I can see that this discussion isn't going nowhere productive or interesting, so I'll leave it here. You seem salty and all, but if you don't want your theories questionned or objected by others, don't post them on a forum. Also, try to clarify your post editing. It's hard to argue with someone who modify his post non-stop.

[gackie]

I assumed the Dragonslayer Armour belonged to the Nameless King, they both employ similar attacks and Nameless King was a Dragonslayer until he sided with them.

[Cryst]

all i know is that the poise dude aint in this game

[Skeleton]

The only thing that can harm dragons are lightning stakes and cross spears; Havel isn't known to wield either.

Also, Havel is seen as an Undead, which means that he was human; as far as I can remember humans weren't a part of the Age of Archtrees/early Age of Fire, when the dragon hunts were still going on. Whoever it was that owned the Armour, I don't think Havel had anything to do with them.

Considering its location in front of the Archives, which are associated with Seathe, it may have never had an owner but rather been a sorcery-powered golem.