Talk:Age of Dark/@comment-199.247.128.250-20130509220716/@comment-6003396-20130719060452

Are you saying that the Dark and the Abyss is interchangeable in every instance that they are mentioned? I am aware that Hawkeye Gough uses them interchangeably, but are there other such examples? The prospect that the Dark and the Abyss are the same would imply many things. Including that the Lords originally came from the Abyss (see Opening). But if Manus is the source of the Abyss, then he not only predates the rest of the Lords, but was essentially their creator either directly or indirectly. It is interesting to consider, but is open to interpretation like many things in Dark Souls. Someone looking at "the whole", as you say, would not necessarily interpret things as you do.

About the question of speculation, it's true that it depends on one's meaning and threshold of what is speculation and what is fact, or proof. In my mind, within Dark Souls, proof is anything mentioned in item descriptions and character dialogue, with item descriptions taking precedence as there are instances of contradiction between the two (there are probably examples of contradictions within item descriptions themselves). It is natural to only draw facts from things within the game to prove/disprove speculation pertaining to that game, as the content is enclosed within the game world. "Proof" from one game, could not strictly be considered proof within another game, since they are within a different realm and are subject to different rules (unless it has been established that there is a direct connection between the games and everything within one is compatible with everything within the other. If there are too many inconsistencies between the two, then every "connection" would be discredited). To draw upon outside abstract concepts for aid would be something different, and might be reasonable for considering speculation. But only drawing from in-game content to prove an in-game theory does not mean that it is circular logic. Circular logic is: "A = B, therefore A = B" there is a premise and conclusion, but a complete lack of relevant proof.