Board Thread:Lore Discussion/@comment-12349789-20161211080826/@comment-12349789-20170522235228

Astralia123 wrote: I don't think it is a sufficient reason to insult someone because one played and have thought over the game lores several years earlier...

This has been discussed time and time over, though.

Personally I think DS1 intentionally leaved this specific question in an uncertain state; it was not given a final answer if that REALLY is Havel himself. And while I have not played DS2, Havel as well as many other characters clearly was re-used, and this re-appearance did not have to be thoroughly consistent with DS1 lore.

BTW, I'm sure you people kindly remember Ornstein's re-appearance in DS2 and DS3, and it was obviously a lore contradiction: while it was inevitable that he was killed in DS1, in DS3 he was not thought to have been killed by some undead warrior who seeked to link the fire during the events of DS1, and he actually even managed to reach the Archdragon Peak.

So while this DS3 appearance MIGHT be the real Havel (as he is about the right hard-to-defeat level while the DS1 Havel was not quite) and actually provide some new lore theory, it should not be considered to have a final say over the DS1 question, as it is known that DS1 and DS3 lore can be contradictory. As i said above then... small lore holes are ok... dark souls stupidly large ones are not. while i understand stuff like 'they say they are the ashes of a saint who long ago cast himself into the fire' are... kinda ok.... the much larger ones are not.... and as for ornstein?!?!?! i think my friend the mirror knight explains this quite well. https://youtu.be/mc4k_iiivH0?t=3m30s watch the rest of it. it makes good points. plus, in dark souls 1 the curse was SUPPOSEDLY broken. which means even if he was undead. he would have died forever.