[ViTRiOL]

Based on the information given (Savages always lie, Nobles always tell the truth):

Savages: When asked the question will always say, "I am a Noble."
Noble: When asked the question will always say, "I am a Noble."

First man: ...
Second man: He said he's a noble. I'm a noble.
Third man: They're both lying. I am a noble.

Let's hypothesise, had the first man said "I am a Noble." then the second man must be a Noble as Nobles always tell the truth, he would have to truthfully tell you what the man had said and henceforth truthfully revealed his identity. If the second man was a savage in this instance, by proxy he would have to say "He said he's a savage. I'm a Noble." The first man couldn't have said "I am a Savage." as this statement is impossible to conceive in this circumstance (which means there is no platform for a Savage to overhear the first man and say the aforementioned statement), for Nobles always tell the truth and Savages always lie.

So we now know that the first man said "I am a Noble." which, on the face of it, could be a lie or a truthful statement. Since we know that the second man is unequivocally a Noble, we know that the third man must be a savage seeing as he claims that the second man is lying, which we know to be untrue.

Henceforth, here is the full conclusion:

First man: I am a Noble. (Neutral)
Second man: He said he's a Noble. I am a Noble. (Noble)
Third man: They are both lying. I am a Noble. (Savage)

This answers our question. The third man is a Savage, so his claim that both are lying must be a lie. He therefore validates the first man's claim that he is indeed a Noble.

Answer:

First man: Noble
Second man: Noble
Third man: Savage

---------- Post added at 04:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:01 AM ----------

@Dave

First man is definitely a Noble, look again.

[ViTRiOL]

Based on the information given (Savages always lie, Nobles always tell the truth):

Savages: When asked the question will always say, "I am a Noble."
Noble: When asked the question will always say, "I am a Noble."

First man: ...
Second man: He said he's a noble. I'm a noble.
Third man: They're both lying. I am a noble.

Let's hypothesise, had the first man said "I am a Noble." then the second man must be a Noble as Nobles always tell the truth, he would have to truthfully tell you what the man had said and henceforth truthfully revealed his identity. If the second man was a savage in this instance, by proxy he would have to say "He said he's a savage. I'm a Noble." The first man couldn't have said "I am a Savage." as this statement is impossible to conceive in this circumstance (which means there is no platform for a Savage to overhear the first man and say the aforementioned statement), for Nobles always tell the truth and Savages always lie.

So we now know that the first man said "I am a Noble." which, on the face of it, could be a lie or a truthful statement. Since we know that the second man is unequivocally a Noble, we know that the third man must be a savage seeing as he claims that the second man is lying, which we know to be untrue.

Henceforth, here is the full conclusion:

First man: I am a Noble. (Neutral)
Second man: He said he's a Noble. I am a Noble. (Noble)
Third man: They are both lying. I am a Noble. (Savage)

This answers our question. The third man is a Savage, so his claim that both are lying must be a lie. He therefore validates the first man's claim that he is indeed a Noble.

Answer:

First man: Noble
Second man: Noble
Third man: Savage

---------- Post added at 04:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:01 AM ----------

@Dave

First man is definitely a Noble, look again.