Board Thread:Lore Discussion/@comment-5632187-20130203042433/@comment-72.8.246.201-20131004011154

1.) I agree with you that the pendant was more a prank than a case of trolling, and I'm done with debating on the pendant because it's getting us off topic. Considering Andre though I don't think it was all that the hard for the developers to change the lore about the first-born son. They had the concept and probably much of the framework for the story arc during development. For whatever reason they had for dropping the character in that form it would have been easy to reduce, rewrite, or rework the story into new and existing characters. The fact that we have so many theories on this thread speaks to how little evidence and in game material they put to creating the first-born; which also shows how great of story tellers they are by creating so much debate with so little material.

2a.) Now on this debate about what the annals are, I don't recall it ever being explicit that the annals are a physical object. All that is fact is that the first-born lost the "annals" and was punished with the loss of his deific status (even that is vague- did he lose his immortality, his powers, his social status, his life, or all of the above.) It isn't a huge leap of faith to guess to think that the annals are a metaphor rather than a literal interpretation. Annals are only the "annual/yearly recording of events that usually deliver in a more matter of fact format rather than narrative or themed styles of histories. Dark Jeto, you say that there isn't much evidence to support my claims, but really there isn't much evidence to support any claims. We all have the same facts and circumstantial evidence, and in the end it all comes down to interpretation.

2b.) Just some food for thought regarding the annals. Why was the first-born blamed for losing the annals. Was it his duty to ensure their safe keeping and his failure to do so was enough to punish him, or maybe he is directly responsible for losing them in that he gave them away to somebody he shouldn't have or literally lost them out his pocket (in a joking sense).

3.) I still believe a god can become undead. Obviously they can lose their deific status and what ever immunity that may give them as was the case of the first-born. What makes Gwyn a god. I believe it was his possession of a lord soul. The primordial beings (Nito, Gwyn, The Witch, and the Pygmy) all found a lord soul, but only those that used them became god-like and powerful enough to challenge the dragons. The pygmy didn't use the dark soul and became the progenitor of the undead. Gwyn used his lord soul to light the first flame once again, and in doing so not only lost his will to continue onward but also his immuntiy to becoming undead. As for Seath it is a case of which came first the chicken or the egg. Did he achieve immortality first or did he become mad first. If he went mad first then perhaps he is not hollow, but if he went mad after immortality then that is an arguement for hollowing since he lost is one purpose in life to find immortality. Dark Jeto, I agree with you that Seath went mad before reaching immortality since he did committ horrible experiments, so in hind sight Seath probably isn't hollowed but is a special form of an undead.

4.) One final point, Gwyn probably at some point knew the flame would fade, so how does this affect the view that the first-born was possibly his heir-apparent.