it wouldnt be as significant for the mother of pyromancy to have to disciples at her side?

<p>Quelana is known to have passed her knowledge of pyromancy to only one other person: Salaman the Master Pyromancer. The problem with the theory that Quelana is the Lost Sinner, is that there is no evidence that she was even still alive, much less that she aqcuired the Lord Soul of Fire (because that is precisely what it is), found her way to Drangleic, someone how got taken control of by the Bed of Chaos larvae (which would've died with the Witch of Izalith once they were slain), and somehow gotten close enough to the First Flame to attempt to rekindle it, even though it was locked away in the Throne of Want that no one but Vendrick would've been able to access. There's too much supposition to the theory and not enough actual evidence. However, there is plenty of evidence to hint at the Lost Sinner having the Witch of Izalith's soul, espeically since the DLC has pretty much come out to say that the theory of cycles of Ages of Fire is a fact, and that the four Great Souls (that would be Gwyn, Nito, Seathe, and the Witch of Izalith) reappear at the waning of every cycle. If you want to claim that Quelana somehow found her mother's soul and took it as her own, there's nothing that would discredit it. But by that logic, there's also nothing to discredit that Vendrick somehow obtained the Covenant of Artorias, and now has the ability to traverse the Abyss. </p>

<p>I respect your theory but i will keep to mine neither are fact and we cant take into account that the  guide states fact other then on stats. Both are probable and are subject to change and until the other to DLCS come out it will stay this way. So i look forward to debating this topic and other lster down the road  </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>Dark Jeto wrote: The Lost Sinner is the Witch of Izalith. No I'm not making an assumption, or stating a theory. The Collector's Edition Strategy guide calls the Lost Sinner out as the Witch of Izalith. It is not infered that it's her, it flat out says "the Witch of Izalith". Note that it also says "THE Witch fo Izalith" and not "A Witch of Izalith". Supposedly she placed herself in the shackles and straight jacket to punish herself. But yes, I assume that bug is also the centipede demon, only further hinting at the identity of the Lost Sinner. </p><p>I assume it merely means that it is the soul of the Witch, but this still upsets me. </p> </i></div>
<p>Your theory is erroneously wrong. </p>

<div class="quote"><i>Ant'lyndaer Barri'ana wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Dark Jeto wrote: The Lost Sinner is the Witch of Izalith. No I'm not making an assumption, or stating a theory. The Collector's Edition Strategy guide calls the Lost Sinner out as the Witch of Izalith. It is not infered that it's her, it flat out says "the Witch of Izalith". Note that it also says "THE Witch fo Izalith" and not "A Witch of Izalith". Supposedly she placed herself in the shackles and straight jacket to punish herself. But yes, I assume that bug is also the centipede demon, only further hinting at the identity of the Lost Sinner. </p><p>I assume it merely means that it is the soul of the Witch, but this still upsets me. </p> </i></div>
Your theory is erroneously wrong. </div> <p>If you're refering to where I said "centipede demon", then yes I meant to say chaos bug, the same model that came from the Bed of Chaos. That part was a mistake I had overlooked when I had originally wrote that seven months ago. </p><p>Otherwise, what exactly is it that you claim I am wrong on? </p>

The whole theory.

<p>The whole isn't a theory. It is a fact that the strategy guide states that the lore of the Lost Sinner is that she is the Witch of Izalith. The how and why are ultimately left open to interpretation, but it isn't my "theory" that it is their claim. </p><p>If you have a problem with that idea, take it up with Future Press. </p><p>In any case, the points discussing this theory in general are listed through this article already. If you actually care enough to bring up some evidence or counter arguments to this idea, instead of just saying "you're wrong", then feel free. Until then though, your opinion doesn't concern me. </p>

<p>Way to be a d*ck about it dude. </p>

<p>Not being a dick. But why should I dedicate my time, effort, or patience on someone's opinion, if their not willing to add any evidence, counter arguments, or any reasoning other than "<span style="line-height:20px;">Your theory is erroneously wrong</span>"? </p>

You are. End of discussion.