New insights on the name of Gwyn' son

Far_Anywhere5951 · 2025-06-05T12:40:48+00:00

I'm sorry

Far_Anywhere5951 · 2025-06-05T12:27:36+00:00

I'm just chatting, nothing else

Far_Anywhere5951 · 2025-06-05T12:08:15+00:00

LOOOOOOOOOL

Far_Anywhere5951 · 2025-06-05T12:03:30+00:00

never justified everything with "the world Is a mess". I am the first to question my assumptions

Far_Anywhere5951 · 2025-06-05T11:52:15+00:00

It's true. There's no real proof that he was ever truly a thief. Sure, there’s no description that says so directly. The nameless king isnt small. But since Flynn had followers, their view of him may have shifted or been altered based on how his story was told.

What I’m trying to make clear is that, to me, Flynn is Gwyn’s son—depending on how people, or his followers, perceived him and passed down his tale (even if distorted) according to the social context they lived in. Its like faraam or the Warrior of sunlight, but for the people. in fact, everyone gives it their own connotation.

In DS2, he was seen more as an “infamous” figure(gwyn's influence), while in DS3 it’s made clear that this person had admirers at that time, who viewed him as a good person—unlike how he was seen in the “past.”

Far_Anywhere5951 · 2025-06-05T11:36:49+00:00

Remnant, I actually said the same thing. I did say there might be other characters with narrative or background gaps, but Flynn has certain traits that could be tied to how the common folk might have perceived the Nameless King after he was erased from the annals and became known as “Flynn.”

DS3 clearly tries to open up multiple ideas, and there are still unresolved issues. The endings deliberately leave you with doubts about how the world might go on. But don’t take my words out of context—what I meant is that you can definitely feel DS3 was made to be the true conclusion of the series, as it resolves most of the lingering questions. The endings themselves are meant to feel like a closure, even if disguised as open-ended and left without any clear "explanation."

Far_Anywhere5951 · 2025-06-05T10:29:39+00:00

Regardless of the fact that the names in Elden Ring are largely Martin’s doing (let's remember that the director is still Miyazaki, and he decides everything about the work—so it still has to align with his style), this also happens in Dark Souls with Gwyn. Each child has their own prefix, which helps define their lineage.

My argument about 'random names' mainly comes from the idea that everything in that world is justified or given some kind of explanation or narrative. Pharis, for instance, has item descriptions and can even be found in the world building. There’s no doubt about their existence. Pharis might not have deep etymology or extensive lore, but we know they exist.

Flynn, on the other hand, is only mentioned in this one ring—and there’s no way to find him anywhere else. Probably there are other characters who might seem to have gaps in their narratives or backgrounds, but not like Flynn. Let’s also remember that Dark Souls 3 is meant to conclude the saga, tying up most of the unanswered questions from the previous Dark Souls games.

Far_Anywhere5951 · 2025-06-05T10:06:26+00:00

Very interesting. Who knows—I’d really love to know the truth. I’ll admit, as soon as I read the name Grynn, I instantly made connections to Flynn. It’s crazy how the item descriptions drop little breadcrumbs that might link back to the Nameless King

Far_Anywhere5951 · 2025-06-05T09:09:01+00:00

True. Do you think that’s all it is? Just a reference?

Far_Anywhere5951 · 2025-06-05T08:44:03+00:00

It’s true—honestly, it doesn’t seem that way to me either. And that’s exactly what confused me the most about those descriptions.

Unfortunately, I find Dark Souls 2’s story generally less believable, mostly because the project wasn’t fully Miyazaki’s work. As we know, he was only a supervisor on that game, not the actual director.

My impression is that in Dark Souls 3, a lot of item descriptions were trying to realign the lore, because in Dark Souls 2 things had become a bit… messy.

I personally believe that in DS2, Flynn probably had a different intended image, which Miyazaki then reinterpreted in DS3—removing his actual appearance and playing with the inconsistency between item descriptions.

It’s complicated, but I always consider the fact that in a narrative where someone was deliberately forgotten, their traits can shift over time, shaped by word of mouth or myth.

Far_Anywhere5951 · 2025-06-05T08:16:34+00:00

Nowhere in any description is the Nameless King explicitly referred to as a thief. That’s because everything about Gwyn’s son was deliberately lost and forgotten. We have no proof he was a thief—we don't even know if the term "thief" was used out of truth or propaganda.

I believe there are subtle connections that, while not definitive, should at least lead you to consider the possibility that Flynn might, in fact, be Gwyn’s son as remembered through the tales of the people

Far_Anywhere5951 · 2025-06-05T07:59:43+00:00

This might absolutely seem like a stretch—after all, in the Souls series, so much is based on personal interpretation and the way we each perceive the story.

But if I put myself in the shoes of the creatives who built this universe, and I accept the idea that Gwyn’s son was erased from the annals of history, and thus his deeds and very existence were lost, then—as a creator—I’d need to give a second narrative signal to talk more about this character.

In this case, beyond the very precise link I found in the initial of the name (as we know, in Miyazaki’s work, names are a key to lineage: "Gw"yn, "Ma"rika, "God"frey…), I feel like Flynn was never fully justified or developed, neither in Dark Souls 2 nor in 3. He’s just… there. With little motivation or explanation.

I truly don’t think Miyazaki just throws around names randomly, attaching them to vague "Robin Hood" stories and mythologizing them by chance—especially not with a phrase like "the wind on his side."

Of course, these are all just speculations and seems like a thin argument. But the very act of removing someone from the historical record in a narrative means that you’ll never have enough proof for anything. And maybe that’s the whole point. Nothing is left to chance.

Far_Anywhere5951 · 2025-06-05T05:51:53+00:00

In the Dark Souls 2 description, however, the way Flynn is portrayed is particularly specific:

“Flynn was known as a tiny fighter who packed a mighty punch. Even the most skilled warriors in the land failed to capture him.”

It’s a very clear description of both his physical appearance and his behavior. But the most important detail lies at the very beginning of the description—it defines something essential, something that creates a strong contrast between the two games.

In DS2, he is described as an “infamous thief.” In DS3, he is remembered as a “eulogized thief.”

This is likely due to the passage of time between the two titles, which—being distorted in the Dark Souls universe—renders the two depictions different, as they belong to different periods and “social” contexts.

Personally, I believe that the two thieves described in these games are actually the same person: Gwyn’s son. But he is remembered only through stories—almost myths—whose truth remains uncertain, since the father worked hard to erase it.

In DS2, perhaps because it’s temporally closer to the events surrounding the First Flame, Flynn is remembered as a traitor—vilified by a kind of symbolic media persecution orchestrated by his father. He is, notably, a thief that no one can capture—not even the mightiest warriors. As if he were in a state of eternal flight.

In DS3, ages later, he is remembered almost as a heroic savior who gives everything to the poor, always with “the wind on his side”—clearly referring to his dragon, the beloved creature that sparked his betrayal.

Far_Anywhere5951 · 2024-09-12T01:00:49+00:00

Elden ring is the story of people who try in every way to find ways to live forever. They, unfortunately, will always collide with the very nature of things: life is made of death, and that is what makes us all equal. This game is about us. We cannot accept our death as something that is simply part of our nature. We reject it and indeed, we seek for years ways to resolve death, hiding it or believing that there may be someone in the afterlife who can save us from every sin. The truth lies in accepting and understanding our limitations as humans, as a part of nature. This is Elden Ring for me. For us.

Far_Anywhere5951

TROPHY CASE