Castlevania Dungeon Forums
The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: theplottwist on November 12, 2016, 10:37:49 PM
-
This one I had realized long ago, but after a discussion over Youtube with a stranger and some discussions I had here, I decided to try and clarify this subject here, where the Castlevania think-tank is done:
Barlowe was not intentionally trying to resurrect Dracula at first, and he's NOT Dracula's vessel.
To explain better: In Order of Ecclesia, after Barlowe is defeated and Dracula is revived, his enemy entry reads "A pitiable madman, his body is now Dracula's vessel." So this would answer beyond any doubt that Barlowe became Dracula's vessel, right? No.
Barlowe's description in japanese not only clears his intentions, but never once says anything about "vessels." It reads:
Japanese: ドラキュラの意思に取り込まれ狂気に堕ちた哀れな男
English: A pitiable man who was drawn in by Dracula's will/intention and fell into insanity.
So, here you have what appears to be one more of the numerous mistranslated ideas on the english-localized Castlevanias. Not only it says nothing about vessels, but it also quite clearly says that Barlowe was taken by Dracula's influence, much like Albus was from handling Dominus. I'm open to be proved wrong, though, by the forum's japanese speakers.
"But Plot, you're not thinking clearly, for you see, Barlowe's body is gone when the vessel breaks open. Obviously Dracula has taken over it."
This has a pretty clear explanation provided by Dracula X Chronicles' intro. When someone is sacrificed for Dracula's resurrection, their entire body vanishes, clothing and all, and absolutelly nothing is left. The person is quite literally consumed entirely by Dracula all at once. Furthermore, in Order of Ecclesia, we learn that Dracula's bodily remains are contained within that vessel -- things able to reconstitute his body when the time is right. So he is not using a human vessel to incarnate, he's reviving with his own body.
-
I never even bothered to check if Barlowe's description was correct. What an odd thing to put into a translation. Though it was always a bit odd it was never brought up during any of the dialogue. This reinforces the idea even more that the English translations of the game cannot be trusted. So I guess the only time Dracula ever used a vessel was in 1479?
By the way, I'll raise you one better: unlike what the English version of Aria of Sorrow states, Chaos is not the source of Dracula's power. It's the personification of Dracula's will/intention (and all the negative emotions of humans).
-
No, Barlowe isn't "Dracula's vessel."
Agreed. I never once thought otherwise. Barlow simply sacrificed his life in order to resurrect Dracula Since Shanoa was unwilling to be the sacrifice herself.
-
By the way, I'll raise you one better: unlike what the English version of Aria of Sorrow states, Chaos is not the source of Dracula's power. It's the personification of Dracula's will/intention (and all the negative emotions of humans).
Chaos as in triangle-angel greenball eyeball dragon boss from White-Out Land with signature move Steal Your Powers and Shit, or chaos as in naturally or instigated bedlam?
-
Chaos as in triangle-angel greenball eyeball dragon boss from White-Out Land with signature move Steal Your Powers and Shit, or chaos as in naturally or instigated bedlam?
The former. For some reason Chaos is said to be the source of Dracula's power, but this is not what is said in the Japanese version at all. Chaos is the personification of the evil in human's hearts and it's what causes Dracula's evil side to be amplified. Regarding what actually constitutes Dracula's power, from what I understand, this consists of two things: the Power of Dominance which is an inherent part of Dracula's soul, and the various abilities he accumulated over the years.
-
So I guess the only time Dracula ever used a vessel was in 1479?
I think so. And it turned out to be a bad idea, it seems. We learn on Curse of Darkness that one needs to be both influenced by Dracula's will and sufused on Dracula's magic to work as a vessel. On Order of Ecclesia there's only one person that could potentially fit the bill: Albus. Shanoa is infused with Dracula's magic, but not influenced by his will. Barlowe is influenced by his will, but never once sufused with Dracula's magic (remember: he never once wears Dominus!) before he dies.
We know in this series that being influenced by Dracula's will and being infused with his magic are two separate, very different things, and again, that both must take place so the person can become a vessel for Dracula. Barlowe fits one, but not the other.
Chaos is the personification of the evil in human's hearts and it's what causes Dracula's evil side to be amplified. Regarding what actually constitutes Dracula's power, from what I understand, this consists of two things: the Power of Dominance which is an inherent part of Dracula's soul, and the various abilities he accumulated over the years.
I'm aware of this, but this:
Chaos is not the source of Dracula's power. It's the personification of Dracula's will/intention (and all the negative emotions of humans).
Doesn't appear to be correct. Mostly because the opposite is precisely what the Ricordanza novel says: Chaos is the embodiment of humans' collective evil AND the source of Dracula's power/regenerative cycle. I'll be pasting a piece of Shiroi's translation:
“As I’ve said, I would equally gain control over the human world and the source of Dracula’s power, chaos. I do not intend to obey someone else’s mind aside from my own. That includes you [Death] who were born out of chaos.”
His Castle is the symbol of his power/magic, and was woven out of Chaos, exactly as Alucard says in Symphony both in japanese and english. I don't have access to Aria's japanese script (yet), but I do have access to Dawn's japanese Library, and it also confirms the same: The castle is what is the symbol of his power, not Chaos. Once it was locked within the eclipse, Dracula was torn off from his magic (which again implies that Chaos is Dracula's power source with the castle serving as this power's symbol):
ドラキュラが完全に滅びる事になった戦い。
ノストラダムスの予言、恐怖の大王はドラキュラを意味していた。
しかし、この戦いで日本にある白馬神社の神主の力により、ドラキュラの魔力の象徴であるドラキュラ城が日食に封じられる。
これにより、ドラキュラの魂と魔力が引き剥がされ、復活の運命から解き放たれた。
Furthermore, Chaos can't be a creation of Dracula, because Death existed before Dracula was even a thing. Even if Shiroi has embelished the line above about Chaos being Dracula's power source (which I don't believe to be the case), the novel confirms multiple times that Death was born from Chaos along with all other demons and monsters, which also have existed before Dracula did, as we know from Lament of Innocence.
I'll be checking the japanese script of Aria to learn more about this.
-
Sorry, where do you get the Japanese
I'll be checking the japanese script of Aria to learn more about this.
where do you get your scrip from? Is there a site, or do you have to buy it.
sorry this is off topic, but they'd be good to have. lament of innocence in particular, as its will be very helpful for that project I'm working. Again sorry for cutting in here.
-
Sorry, where do you get the Japanese
where do you get your scrip from? Is there a site, or do you have to buy it.
sorry this is off topic, but they'd be good to have. lament of innocence in particular, as its will be very helpful for that project I'm working. Again sorry for cutting in here.
I just looked over the Aria script. Indeed I found nothing stating that Chaos itself is a creation of Dracula. But I did found (again) confirmation that the castle was created from Chaos, and that there is an access to Chaos itself inside the castle.
As for where you'll find Lament's script, I have no idea. The site where I got the Aria script from doesn't appear to have the Lament script. Here's the Aria script:
http://www.geocities.jp/clearfeathers/menuett/words/words.html (http://www.geocities.jp/clearfeathers/menuett/words/words.html)
-
I just looked over the Aria script. Indeed I found nothing stating that Chaos itself is a creation of Dracula.
As for where you'll find Lament's script, I have no idea. The site where I got the Aria script from doesn't appear to have the Lament script. Here's the Aria script:
http://www.geocities.jp/clearfeathers/menuett/words/words.html (http://www.geocities.jp/clearfeathers/menuett/words/words.html)
Ahh thank you anyway.
And thank you for the site as well.
-
I'm aware of this, but this:
Doesn't appear to be correct. Mostly because the opposite is precisely what the Ricordanza novel says: Chaos is the embodiment of humans' collective evil AND the source of Dracula's power/regenerative cycle. I'll be pasting a piece of Shiroi's translation:
“As I’ve said, I would equally gain control over the human world and the source of Dracula’s power, chaos. I do not intend to obey someone else’s mind aside from my own. That includes you [Death] who were born out of chaos.”
His Castle is the symbol of his power/magic, and was woven out of Chaos, exactly as Alucard says in Symphony both in japanese and english. I don't have access to Aria's japanese script (yet), but I do have access to Dawn's japanese Library, and it also confirms the same: The castle is what is the symbol of his power, not Chaos. Once it was locked within the eclipse, Dracula was torn off from his magic (which again implies that Chaos is Dracula's power source with the castle serving as this power's symbol):
ドラキュラが完全に滅びる事になった戦い。
ノストラダムスの予言、恐怖の大王はドラキュラを意味していた。
しかし、この戦いで日本にある白馬神社の神主の力により、ドラキュラの魔力の象徴であるドラキュラ城が日食に封じられる。
これにより、ドラキュラの魂と魔力が引き剥がされ、復活の運命から解き放たれた。
Furthermore, Chaos can't be a creation of Dracula, because Death existed before Dracula was even a thing. Even if Shiroi has embelished the line above about Chaos being Dracula's power source (which I don't believe to be the case), the novel confirms multiple times that Death was born from Chaos along with all other demons and monsters, which also have existed before Dracula did, as we know from Lament of Innocence.
I'll be checking the japanese script of Aria to learn more about this.
Let me rephrase what I said earlier. Chaos is indeed not Dracula's creation. What Aria's script says on the matter is this:
ドラキュラの邪悪な意思は、破壊と混沌を求める人間達によって作られたものだ。
ならば、その意思に影響を与えている混沌を切り離せば良い。
Dracula's evil will/intention (i.e Dracula's "evil side") is a thing that was created by humans seeking chaos and destruction. If possible you should seperate the chaos that is influencing that intention.
As we know, Chaos is created from humanity's collective evil. What Alucard/Arikado is saying here is that Chaos is what's causing Dracula to be evil. If you remember, this ties into something IGA said before:
開発者がひもとく「ドラキュラ」の秘密３ 改心後も復活してしまう訳:
PS「月下の夜想曲」で、ドラキュラは改心して滅びていくんですが、そのあとの時代でもなぜか復活しています。
これは魔界に封印された者は、その邪悪な部分だけが増幅されるため、
邪教の信者などが時期を見て復活の儀式を行えば、ドラキュラ本人の意思を伴わずに、邪悪な意思だけが復活するためと思われます。
ただ、いつかはドラキュラにも完全な安息を与えたいと思っています
IGA uses the same phrasing used in Aria: "邪悪な意思" (evil will/evil side). I believe we all this interpreted this to mean that whenever Dracula was sealed in the Makai, the Makai itself was what caused Dracula's evil to be amplified. However, based on what is said in Aria, I think the correct interpretation is that it's Chaos that's causing Dracula to become more evil whenever he is sealed. And Chaos in turn, is a result of the evil in the hearts of humans.
I think this also explains what happend at the end of Aria. After Soma defeated Graham and absorbed his powers, he for all intents and purposes became Dracula because the two neccessary ingredients became mixed: Dracula's soul which contains "the power to rule" and Dracula's powers which Graham somehow managed to obtain. Afterwards, as pointed out by Arikado, an "evil intention" starts flowing into Soma, which is Chaos. In order not to succumb to his evil side, Soma had to destroy Chaos in order to stop this flow of evil intention.
I trust that Shiroi translation is mostly correct but I have a hunch the original Japanese text most likely links Chaos to Dracula's evil intention rather than his power (though I could be wrong).
-
Let me rephrase what I said earlier. Chaos is indeed not Dracula's creation. What Aria's script says on the matter is this:
ドラキュラの邪悪な意思は、破壊と混沌を求める人間達によって作られたものだ。
ならば、その意思に影響を与えている混沌を切り離せば良い。
Dracula's evil will/intention (i.e Dracula's "evil side") is a thing that was created by humans seeking chaos and destruction. If possible you should seperate the chaos that is influencing that intention.
As we know, Chaos is created from humanity's collective evil. What Alucard/Arikado is saying here is that Chaos is what's causing Dracula to be evil. If you remember, this ties into something IGA said before:
開発者がひもとく「ドラキュラ」の秘密３ 改心後も復活してしまう訳:
PS「月下の夜想曲」で、ドラキュラは改心して滅びていくんですが、そのあとの時代でもなぜか復活しています。
これは魔界に封印された者は、その邪悪な部分だけが増幅されるため、
邪教の信者などが時期を見て復活の儀式を行えば、ドラキュラ本人の意思を伴わずに、邪悪な意思だけが復活するためと思われます。
ただ、いつかはドラキュラにも完全な安息を与えたいと思っています
IGA uses the same phrasing used in Aria: "邪悪な意思" (evil will/evil side). I believe we all this interpreted this to mean that whenever Dracula was sealed in the Makai, the Makai itself was what caused Dracula's evil to be amplified. However, based on what is said in Aria, I think the correct interpretation is that it's Chaos that's causing Dracula to become more evil whenever he is sealed. And Chaos in turn, is a result of the evil in the hearts of humans.
I think this also explains what happend at the end of Aria. After Soma defeated Graham and absorbed his powers, he for all intents and purposes became Dracula because the two neccessary ingredients became mixed: Dracula's soul which contains "the power to rule" and Dracula's powers which Graham somehow managed to obtain. Afterwards, as pointed out by Arikado, an "evil intention" starts flowing into Soma, which is Chaos. In order not to succumb to his evil side, Soma had to destroy Chaos in order to stop this flow of evil intention.
I trust that Shiroi translation is mostly correct but I have a hunch the original Japanese text most likely links Chaos to Dracula's evil intention rather than his power (though I could be wrong).
Ah OK, that's what I agree with. What I understood by your "Chaos is the personification of Dracula's will/intention (and all the negative emotions of humans)" is that Dracula had, intentionally or not, amassed his evil intention and all of the mankind's into a single entity, therefore creating it.
Aria's english script isn't too far off from what you said, even:
Arikado: The evil in this spirit comes from those who seek chaos and destruction. So we need to cut off the source of the chaos influencing the spirit.
Though I do believe that both the Makai concept and the Chaos concept are working together. I believe this because the Makai's concept was not dropped -- it returned in Dawn of Sorrow, as something that directly influences the demons, being their power source and making them invincible (again, the same concept used for Dracula -- he can't be killed by anything else but the Vampire Killer).
If the Makai is a world of demons, and the demons are a creation of Chaos, then it's possible that the chaos within humans affects the Makai in general (thus affecting the evil intention present there when Dracula is dead). IGA mentioned that this evil intention is amplified in the Makai, but not created by it -- that would be the chaotic nature of humans.
-
Agreed. I never once thought otherwise. Barlow simply sacrificed his life in order to resurrect Dracula Since Shanoa was unwilling to be the sacrifice herself.
This, exactly what I believed. Although I had my own ideas on Barlowe's intentions, I never thought he was the "vessel" for Dracula's resurrection. He chose to "self-destruct" because Shanoa wouldn't use Dominus.
-
Hey guys uh... this was the most recent OoE thread I could find and I need your expertise.
Now I know this is going to sound really random and sketchy, but I swear I need to know this for plot reasons and it's totally relevant.
But uh
Does Shanoa wear anything under her backless dress?
-
Panties are likely. Bra-less probably but it's kinda redundant when you are wearing a cuirass and a tight dress.
Make the Carmilla/Annette fanfic i mentioned slave xoxo
-
Panties are likely. Bra-less probably but it's kinda redundant when you are wearing a cuirass and a tight dress.
Make the Carmilla/Annette fanfic i mentioned slave xoxo
Might as well jump on this crazy train. I'm calling thong, and damn anachronisms to hell, half the foods in the series are anachronistic. Totally thong. Though I also venture that Shanoa probably looks a hell of a lot better in her dress than out of it.
-
Hey guys uh... this was the most recent OoE thread I could find and I need your expertise.
Now I know this is going to sound really random and sketchy, but I swear I need to know this for plot reasons and it's totally relevant.
But uh
Does Shanoa wear anything under her backless dress?
She's a nun, so chastity belt.
Discussing Shanoa's undergarments is making me really unconfortable.
-
Plottwist, don't get worked out on waffle's queries. He is just wondering what to write for his fanfic's "plot".
-
well excuse me princess.
-
Plottwist, don't get worked out on waffle's queries. He is just wondering what to write for his fanfic's "plot".
He's just mad cos he gets................... Nun
-
That joke really only works for Shanoa's Judgment design. I like that one more, but it's not what I was referring to.
-
In order not to succumb to his evil side, Soma had to destroy Chaos in order to stop this flow of evil intention.
Soma can't destroy Chaos, it's impossible. If he did then the universe as we known it would be destroyed as well. Our very existence cannot survive without both Order and Chaos. Without Chaos influencing change our Orderly universe would stagnate and die. A very slow death for all existence. Chaos has no physical form. Nether does Order. The creature you fight at the end of AoS I'm convinced is a chaotic being that is channelling chaotic energies into Soma. Probably a creation of Dracula's back in the day. So when Soma killed the creature the flow of Chaos was stopped.
-
Castlevania Chaos is in no way ever implied to be universal chaos. It's human chaos born from the essence of human evil. The series has hammered this home quite a few times.
Come to think of it, doesn't plot have a thread about this exact thing somewhere? I can't remember where it is.
-
The series has hammered this home quite a few times.
When? I only know of it ever being mentioned in any capacity whatsoever in the Sorrow games
-
Uh...literally any and every game wherein they drive home the whole "Dracula draws power from the darkness in the hearts of mankind and that is why he continues to be reborn" thing?
"Dracula comes back and draws strength from humans being shits" and "Chaos is the source of Dracula's power" is a pretty damned clear connection.
-
Uh...literally any and every game wherein they drive home the whole "Dracula draws power from the darkness in the hearts of mankind and that is why he continues to be reborn" thing?
"Dracula comes back and draws strength from humans being shits" and "Chaos is the source of Dracula's power" is a pretty damned clear connection.
I'm saying there being "a source" as named is only ever mentioned in the Sorrow games. The other titles have a much more allegorical yet logical "if it weren't for people being such jerks they'd stop bringing Dracula back and the Belmonts wouldn't have to deal with this shit" line of reasoning. There's very little (in fact practically nothing in the games themselves) suggested that human corruption is the source of Dracula's power, rather than simply being the reason he keeps coming back -- everyone just seems to want him back for one selfish reason or another.
Which is also a beautiful veiled "you suck" commentary aimed at the player. If YOU didn't enjoy the chaos Dracula caused, the dude could just rest in peace and the Belmonts could retire but noooo you keep asking for more games you horrible player-of-games, you! Dracula keeps rising because people inside the game universe keep wanting him to. And because people in the real world keep wanting him to.
His actual "flings fireballs teleports transforms and delivering of bitching axe kicks" powers have their source in his (super)nature as an atypical vampire who has spent a long time stealing the powers of his would-be rivals and generally doing everything possible to increase his strength. With or without human evil, he'd still have all of these abilities and be no less difficult to defeat. But humans are the predominant source of his resurrections -- usually on purpose but occasionally as an unintended side-effect. In that sense, human evil can be thought of as the source of his power: without it, defeating him would have very likely been a twice and done affair (as it was Death, not humans, who engineered his return in Curse of Darkness).
But I cannot and will not subscribe to this theory that there is some outside force without which Dracula is powerless if he were to be cut off from it. He's not a Battle Droid in Star Wars Episode One. There is no command post you can blow up, mystical talisman that you can smash, or Horcrux to neutralize, in order to switch him off for good. Dracula is his own power source. That being said, one can easily argue that his inability to stay dead is arguably his real, and most dangerous, power. And humans are definitely the majority source of that.
-
There is no command post you can blow up, mystical talisman that you can smash, or Horcrux to neutralize, in order to switch him off for good.
1999 would like a word with you.
It's also not a "theory," but blah blah I'd be repeating myself to explain again, so I'll not waste anyone's time with redundant information.
I lack both the means and moreso the desire to go digging up a Works Cited footnote for you, so I'll just wait for Plot to inevitably weigh in here to say the exact same thing in a manner you're more preferential of.
-
1999 would like a word with you.
And it might if it ever showed up as more than a slight inference of which practically nothing is known. And besides, Dracula still reincarnated, so in the end 1999 only accomplished half it's goal. He just essentially resurrected into a nicer guy this time around.
-
Also wrong.
His power revived, not his consciousness. His consciousness and being was never the problem, his power and the hands it was in was. Something something Hector mumble mumble Something™ Harmless™ whisper whisper.
But see above. I'm incredibly lazy and cannot be arsed to hand over MLA citations for information I already know to be correct regardless of whether such a citation exists.
-
Also wrong.
His power revived, not his consciousness.
But see above. I'm incredibly lazy and cannot be arsed to hand over MLA citations for information I already know to be correct regardless of whether such a citation exists.
MLA is horrible and I'd never ask you to do that to yourself, though still not as bad as APA.
But Aria of Sorrow is one of the most divisive games in the whole franchise for exactly these reasons: it needlessly fucked up what was essentially up until then a given quantity, and left us with something that's poorly explained, endlessly reinterpretable, and further attempts to clarify things just wound up attempting to dig Castlevania out of that hole with a bigger shovel.
Here's my personal read on Soma, damning canon to it's convoluted and unpredictably self-contradictory self which I do not trust for many reasons (particularly since due to translation errors there are essentially two separate canons depending on which side of the Pacific you're on). I have read the canon a number of times and there is no end to the list of things that do not make a lick of real sense when held up to scrutiny (which was a HUGE flaw of the Iga era -- trying to make a unified timeline at all was a huge mistake).
Soma's power of dominance is one expression among many possible ones of Dracula's power. It is an expression that is unique to him. Graham is the first alternate "Dracula candidate" (Dracula isn't a Sith Lord after all) that we meet, and from what we understand of him, his "facet" of Dracula was his charisma and ability to sway people to do what he wants. Dmitrii essentially embodies Dracula's adaptability by being able to duplicate the powers of those around him, and Dario simply embodies the sheer raw power of Dracula as well as his rage at God. These are all relatively unimportant points of data. Maybe they help fill out a canon, but they lend zero sense of narrative, which as a writer I will stress is the ENTIRE POINT OF STORYTELLING. So. Moving on.
But let's address that narrative, because it really is great, but only if you disregard a strict interpretation of canon based on Word of Creator and instead firmly invoke Death of the Author.
Soma's physical appearance shares a LOT in common with Mathias. They dress very similarly (simply accounting for changes in fashion across a millennium). Their faces share a LOT of their basic skeletal structure: enough so that I don't think this is just Ayami Kojima is only good at drawing one type of face (that is also true though). I mean this in the sense of "change the hairstyle and color and they look like the exact same guy", which I am CERTAIN is intentional. We don't know much about Mathias, but we know a lot about Soma. And what we know about Mathias jibes with what we know of Soma --Mina is his Elisabetha and both Sorrow games go to almost PAINFUL levels of detail to communicate this (as in if they hammered that nail any harder it would have split the castle). Ergo, I'm gonna tell canon flat out that it's wrong here. Soma isn't some guy who inherited Dracula's power. Soma isn't even Dracula's reincarnation. He's Mathias'. 1999's result served to remove Dracula from Mathias' human equation, and Mathias is being given essentially a second chance. This is at once a very Eastern spiritualist viewpoint and one perfectly in line with the Christian New Testament; the greatest sinner has been given his greatest shot at redemption. This is also perfectly in line with Iga's preferred kind of story; those games of his which we typically regard as his best all share a theme of humanising Dracula and lending context to his actions that we can understand and empathise with. In that sense, Soma represents the ultimate culmination of what Symphony of the Night and Lament had set up: Mathias given a chance to cast aside Dracula and engage in the highest form of humanisation: becoming human again. One can easily infer that Soma's idealism and good nature represent what Mathias used to be (at least if we go by how Leon described him, which admittedly wasn't much).
The STORY BEING TOLD pretty much adds up to Mathias being reincarnated, Hindu style, for one last shot at spiritual redemption, rather than a "resume from checkpoint" which had been typical of Dracula's prior resurrections. The story's authors clearly were not aware that's what they were saying, at least what they were saying to me. Whether God is behind it or not is a matter for other debates.
Canon is GREAT. It helps explain a lot. But it's also tricky. You cannot read it like a textbook because it deprives necessary context and interpretation, especially when writing teams frequently change and have their own ideas (which was incidentally the thing Iga had been trying to clear up by enforcing a canon to begin with). The best way to understand a story is to read it, read what the author has to say and consider it, and form your own interpretations from what you've gathered. I am NOT a guy who feels that "canon" is a concept that deserves absolute loyalty, especially when I find something that makes more sense. Canon is not the be-all-end-all, not the Alpha and Omega. It's maybe an Alpha at best, but you, me, Waffle, Jorge, and everyone else who has taken the Castlevania journey represent the ACTUAL omega. What I have just spent a page writing is the result of my runthrough of this process, having played the games, read the notes, read Iga's interviews, and decided on as the interpretation that makes the most sense.
This isn't math. It doesn't all add up neatly and cleanly. It doesn't spreadsheet well (thank the gods). This is art (suck it Jack Thompson!). And art, at its core, is subjective and meant to be interpreted by its beholder, not its author.
I respect your views, and I have also given mine. I do not believe that our views are entirely incompatible, but I also believe that to argue that further is pointless as we can never truly see eye to eye.
As a peace offering, have a dove.
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.litlepups.net%2F2016%2F04%2F07%2Fsmall_67-not-out-the-white-dove-as-a-messenger-of-the-dead.JPG&hash=924bc61e084ed334ed84e1f20e63d4be)
-
He doesn't reincarnate as Dracula, is all I'm saying, only to disprove this:
And besides, Dracula still reincarnated, so in the end 1999 only accomplished half it's goal. He just essentially resurrected into a nicer guy this time around.
It's not a problem for Dracula's residual power to be a-floatin' about so much as who's got it. Shitty Russian Beatle Reject, Poser In Desperate Need Of A Chill Pill, and Definitely Not Joel Osteen had some, but they were shits so they were a problem. Soma had the Whopper™ Value™ Meal™ Combo™ but wasn't a problem unless he went nuts and turned into a shit.
Sending Big D an eviction notice was a complete success, as the methods therein stopped him from coming back as himself, not that it just divided his entire power by zero and made it go blip.
-
He doesn't reincarnate as Dracula, is all I'm saying, only to disprove this:
It's not a problem for Dracula's residual power to be a-floatin' about so much as who's got it. Shitty Russian Beatle Reject, Poser In Desperate Need Of A Chill Pill, and Definitely Not Joel Osteen had some, but they were shits so they were a problem. Soma had the Whopper™ Value™ Meal™ Combo™ but wasn't a problem unless he went nuts and turned into a shit.
Sending Big D and eviction notice was a complete success, as the methods therein stopped him from coming back as himself, not that it just divided his entire power by zero and made it go blip.
See, on that I think we agree completely.
But I was originally addressing whether or not Dracula had an exterior source of his powers at all. Do his powers exist without human evil (or an evil fireball-spitting series of MC Escher Impressionist Paintings in the American localization) or not? I'm inclined to believe the latter is likely true based on how it's been related throughout the series -- Dracula's powers probably exist divorced from external factors, although external factors definitely have been shown to affect his power by lessening or increasing it depending on what they are.
For instance, if he were to be resurrected into a world in which everyone was a Peace & The Power of Love and Friendship hippie commune, his powers would be PRESENT, but far weaker than what's usually on display, hence why his powers seem to be at their strongest at points where the human race are shittier than usual: he's not dependent on those conditions to possess his power, but he certainly is able to make use of them, much like a plant grows best in soil with a favorable nutrient balance but will still attempt to grow in whatever soil you put it in regardless.
[EDIT] I am glad we ran through our little Magical Mystery Tour of narrative though.
-
Dracula's power is Dark Lord. That power is the ability to command the demonic legions, and nothing more. Any human can become Dark Lord if they're willing and able to control those forces. Alucard even confirms this in Dawn by essentially calling the Candidate thing a bunch of crap. Julius also says in Aria that he sealed the whip on the castle to "weaken Dracula's spirit," which obviously can't be referring to the soul inside Soma since that wasn't sealed. Ergo, "Dracula" and "Mathias" are two different entities. If Mat feels sleepy and doesn't wanna get outta bed that day, Big D takes over, and true to the name "Big D" proceeds to try and fuck everything (up).
The writers didn't need to outright state that Dracula's identity and his power are two different things--there're more than enough heavy hints at it in the series. IGA himself even clarified back in SotN's days that Dracula has an "evil spirit" take the reigns when he doesn't feel like waking up.
Everything else of his is just magic. Fireballs, meteors, teleporting, rawr giant monster, it's all just regular old dark magic. Highly powerful dark magic, but still abilities that theoretically anyone can learn. Graham's "miracles" and charismatic powers of seduction of the masses could be done by anyone with magical inclination--Succubae have powers of mass seduction and any sorcerer can produce "miracles" depending on who/what defines a miracle. Dario's possessed by a flame demon, and Dmitrii has powers of imitation--much like a Doppleganger or Mimic. Nobody in the series has inherently unique or special abilities, except Dracula's long-time ownership of Dominance.
Dominance is the only unique ability, and is what defines the mantle of Dark Lord. In theory, any regular old human could've taken that title from Dracula, if he or she had a lust for death and power that surpassed Dracula's. But he's a pretty hateful dude, so that's a rather tall order.
A world without evil or conflict just means he's not Dark Lord. Everything else of his not directly correlated to that power is still on the table. It would be just as your plant analogy suggests. It isn't ideal, but he could work his way back up to it if given enough time.
Basically, the canon explains more than you give it credit for. It's not as if we're writing philosophy here, which is meant to be open-ended. It (OG Dracula's arc) is a narrative plot, one with a beginning (Lament) and an ending (1999). Dracula's role and power and how it all connects is explained in the canon in every way but outright "boom, here it is" statements. It is not the fault of the writers or IGA if someone cannot connect their dots for whatever particular reason, and to suggest that somehow the canon or official writing is "wrong" because one doesn't like it is, barring certain circumstances that I will say are NOT the case here, is both an insult to the writers and a bit of narcissism on the part of the accuser.
It doesn't matter what you come up with. It doesn't matter what I or even Plot comes up with. It'll never be canonized and legitimized unless IGA/Konami declare it so (yes, I know he's not officially able to touch CV anymore and honestly I don't give a shit about the parts of the fanbase with an unreasonable butthurt hatred of the man and literally anything to do with him--IGA is to CV lore as Tolkien is to Middle-Earth's, and just for comparison's sake J.R.R. doesn't hold the rights to his work anymore either, it's his kid, so both guys in my comparison wrote a bunch of shit and don't officially own it anymore). The only thing we as fans can do to write legitimately faithful stories is to rely on what canon we have as well and with as much scrutiny for details as we can. Some disregard more or less of the canon than others, and that's completely fine. But the more one disregards, the less truly faithful their work is--even if they consider their work more accurate or faithful to, say, a given character's mindset or motivations. If their work doesn't line up at least somewhat neatly with what's officially canon, then it's objectively inaccurate and unfaithful as far as those two areas are concerned.
You don't have to like the canon or parts that you can't wrap your head around or just don't make sense. Nobody does. But the canon is still true regardless. It's the word of god whether we like and want it to be or not. There is no debating this. It's not a matter of opinion. We're not talking about the Bible and its hundreds and hundreds of official derivatives. It's a game series with (in one universe anyway) one timeline and most of the same writers' involvement (directly or indirectly, as IGA collaborated with previous writers to ensure his additions fit). There IS no room for argument over whether a detail is canon beyond the simple question of "is the source it's from retconned or not?".
And just for the record on this particular thing:
Accepting that canon is fact and true whether I want it to be or not != Showing absolute unwavering loyalty to it. It is the Alpha and it is the Omega, and nothing your or I or anyone comes up with will change that unless we start working for Konami.
There's shit in the canon I don't like myself. But my opinion doesn't matter as to whether those things remain true or not.
Also, I too have enjoyed the Tour. But you said "ran through." "Ran."
Silly Aperture, have you forgotten?
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.kym-cdn.com%2Fphotos%2Fimages%2Ffacebook%2F000%2F419%2F226%2F8ca.jpg&hash=7e993bdf121510cdc2dcac1ede7e29fc)
-
But I was originally addressing whether or not Dracula had an exterior source of his powers at all. Do his powers exist without human evil
What about the case of Maxim. He wasn't evil in principle but he was envious of Juste. Dracula's remains influenced him otherwise. Again, this is not Dracula's actual "power" it's his remains. Since this thread is about Barlowe, I will say that I don't believe Barlowe necessarily went "crazy" in OOE prior to the Shanoa fight, but he was in possession of Dracula's remains for a very long period of time. Maybe he wanted Dracula resurrected from the start, maybe not, either way the remains influenced him.
My point with all this is that the effect Dracula's remains had on these two is basically how I see Chaos' effect on humanity, albeit at a more macro scale. When this happens, Chaos (energy) as a whole is augmented, wheels are put into motion and "chaotic" individuals/ circumstances cause Dracula to resurrect.
Chaos, in AoS is not the entirety of the world's "evil energy". This is obvious because there are still Dark Lord cults in DoS and the rest of it. What I understood about "Chaos" in AoS is that the creature Chaos is both the link and "fuel tank" between this energy (call it 'Chaos Energy') and Dracula's soul.
Call me a minimalist, but I believe when things are translated into English that certain concepts are often "simplified". Chaos would be one example, Mathias becoming "King of the Night"/ "Lord of Darkness" as opposed to the Japanese translation would
be another. It's almost as if in the English version they don't believe we'll understand the concepts or semantics that the Japanese do. Then again, some translations, particularly with manuals have been contradictory or embellished.
Julius also says in Aria that he sealed the whip on the castle to "weaken Dracula's spirit," which obviously can't be referring to the soul inside Soma since that wasn't sealed.
That's interesting, I thought it was to weaken the Castle itself.
-
That's interesting, I thought it was to weaken the Castle itself.
To weaken "Dracula's magic" AND his spirit, actually.
You see, some people here think "we know little" about 1999. But I've done research, and I can tell you quite a lot of the juicy bits about 1999 are actually readily available. This is one of them.
The entire Arikado > Julius > Soma > Mina dynamic explains in scary detail (for a story that doesn't exist) how Dracula was finally defeated. One of these details is that [Dracula] is a composite of two entities, and these entities were severed away from each other in 1999. One has found reincarnation, the other became trapped within the castle by the Vampire Killer. One made a pact for power, and the other has the burden to use it.
And no, I'm not talking about Chaos. Chaos is one third entity altogether.
-
To weaken "Dracula's magic" AND his spirit, actually.
You see, some people here think "we know little" about 1999. But I've done research, and I can tell you quite a lot of the juicy bits about 1999 are actually readily available. This is one of them.
The entire Arikado > Julius > Soma > Mina dynamic explains in scary detail (for a story that doesn't exist) how Dracula was finally defeated. One of these details is that [Dracula] is a composite of two entities, and these entities were severed away from each other in 1999. One has found reincarnation, the other became trapped within the castle by the Vampire Killer. One made a pact for power, and the other has the burden to use it.
And no, I'm not talking about Chaos. Chaos is one third entity altogether.
That's fine, I'll have to re-check this quote. Mind you I did recall it in English, not Japanese, not sure if this makes any difference.
I understand the 2 entities and realise you are not talking about Chaos, but thank you for clarifying.
I myself have inferred a lot simply from Julius' memory loss in 1999.
-
That's fine, I'll have to re-check this quote. Mind you I did recall it in English, not Japanese, not sure if this makes any difference.
It sort of does. The translation causes enough differences to snowball that in essence canon is one way in Japan and another way in America (one of my big issues with invoking canon in this series).
And I don't think I've ever typed "canon" or variations thereof as many times I have tonight as I have in the rest of my life put together. Damn.
-
It sort of does. The translation causes enough differences to snowball that in essence canon is one way in Japan and another way in America (one of my big issues with invoking canon in this series).
This is why it's crucial to remember that canon literalists like a certain two of us here tend to rely on the original writings rather than any localizations.
-
This is why it's crucial to remember that canon literalists like a certain two of us here tend to rely on the original writings rather than any localizations.
This is precisely why I tended to only theorise about CV's timeline in the past. I can't keep up with the differences in localisation and even if the English version is not the holy-grail-localisation, it still tells a good tale.
-
This is precisely why I tended to only theorise about CV's timeline in the past. I can't keep up with the differences in localisation and even if the English version is not the holy-grail-localisation, it still tells a good tale.
(https://i.imgflip.com/z7y22.jpg)
One thing I prefer in the localized version of Aria, for instance, is that Soma's described as a transfer student. His surname suddenly doesn't stick out as much in Japan because OF COURSE IT DOES. He's a foreigner! Granted, this dredges up some minor issues (like how Mina can be his childhood friend if he's a foreigner) but these are fairly easy for me to find a lore-friendly excuse for.
Just an example.
Now, making the titanic effort to shift this back to Barlowe, I think the Japanese text is probably the better story here. I've written essay length theories before on the various kind of resurrections that Dracula has used in the past to return, and possession-style resurrections have happened. That being said, this is a case where the story as written is so plausible that alternate theories just seem outlandish. Barlowe is a fallen hero. In his zeal to destroy evil, he became the sort of person he despised. That's downright classical lit 101 right there.
I've seen the argument made, even, that resurrecting Dracula was ALWAYS Barlowe's plan, and I gotta get this out of the way and say that's horseshit for a number of reasons: it doesn't jibe with anything Barlowe says prior to his boss fight, or even with anything other characters say about him (story reason), that plotline is cliche, too easily predictable, and trite (meta reason), and because the Japanese version of this story deals with a powerful message of "he who fights monsters must take care to never become one himself", which is about as time-honored a moral as morals get.
That being said, I thought it WAS fairly clear that while he hadn't always planned on reviving Dracula, he HAD planned on sacrificing Shanoa to accomplish his goals all along (goes with the Fallen Hero territory, I guess).
-
I've seen the argument made, even, that resurrecting Dracula was ALWAYS Barlowe's plan....
That being said, I thought it WAS fairly clear that while he hadn't always planned on reviving Dracula, he HAD planned on sacrificing Shanoa to accomplish his goals all along (goes with the Fallen Hero territory, I guess).
The reason I don't believe that is, Barlowe wanted Shanoa to use Dominus, Albus wanted to protect Shanoa so he stopped that from happening, cool. What nearly happens at the start of the game (Shanoa absorbing and using Dominus) is what Albus prevents by stealing it etc. However, if Shanoa had used Dominus either at point a) Start of the game, or point b) Instead of fighting Barlowe, she would have cracked the seal to the vessel containing Dracula's remains... Then what?
Was it supposed to destroy Dracula's remains or was it Barlowe's plan to crack the seal all along? I haven't played it for a long while, I can't recall all the details. However, Barlowe cracks the seal himself and what does that do? Frees a bunch of spiritual energy and Dracula resurrects. Barlowe wanted Shanoa to do this so he wouldn't have to sacrifice himself. But, if he was adamant about Shanoa doing this to "destroy" those remains to which she then says "No.." why does an insane Barlowe fight Shanoa on this? Furthermore, if insane Barlowe wants Shanoa to use Dominus to "crack open the vessel" - what he eventually did - rather than using his own life, it therefore means that using Dominus will indeed only crack open the vessel only and not destroy Dracula's remains. Insane Barlowe still persists on Shanoa using Dominus, because he knows what it will do, it will free Dracula, not destroy him. Sane Barlowe can't actually believe that Dominus will destroy the remains, because insane Barlowe reinforces the opposite, that Dracula will be resurrected. That whole altercation doesn't make sense otherwise.
-
The reason I don't believe that is, Barlowe wanted Shanoa to use Dominus, Albus wanted to protect Shanoa so he stopped that from happening, cool. What nearly happens at the start of the game (Shanoa absorbing and using Dominus) is what Albus prevents by stealing it etc. However, if Shanoa had used Dominus either at point a) Start of the game, or point b) Instead of fighting Barlowe, she would have cracked the seal to the vessel containing Dracula's remains... Then what?
Was it supposed to destroy Dracula's remains or was it Barlowe's plan to crack the seal all along? I haven't played it for a long while, I can't recall all the details. However, Barlowe cracks the seal himself and what does that do? Frees a bunch of spiritual energy and Dracula resurrects. Barlowe wanted Shanoa to do this so he wouldn't have to sacrifice himself. But, if he was adamant about Shanoa doing this to "destroy" those remains to which she then says "No.." why does an insane Barlowe fight Shanoa on this? Furthermore, if insane Barlowe wants Shanoa to use Dominus to "crack open the vessel" - what he eventually did - rather than using his own life, it therefore means that using Dominus will indeed only crack open the vessel only and not destroy Dracula's remains. Insane Barlowe still persists on Shanoa using Dominus, because he knows what it will do, it will free Dracula, not destroy him. Sane Barlowe can't actually believe that Dominus will destroy the remains, because insane Barlowe reinforces the opposite, that Dracula will be resurrected. That whole altercation doesn't make sense otherwise.
Honestly, I think the writing is confused because, like me, the writers got confused about how to accurately relate what they meant to say.
Now, there is a bit of me that suspects that Barlow may have been infected by close proximity to Dracula's Remains the way Maxim was, which might explain a lot. I don't know for certain, but that seems as likely an explanation for his madness as anything else might be.
One thing the game isn't clear on is exactly what Dominus would have done if it had been used when Mad!Barlowe wanted it to be. The guy's an expert in his field and may have developed a way to channel Dominus' power back into Dracula to bring him back at his full power, but all we know for certain is that when Dominus actually WAS used (under different circumstances) it did in fact destroy Dracula, at least until World War 1 rolls around. Or Bram Stoker's Dracula happens, if you believe early 90's promotional material. One or the other.
-
Now, there is a bit of me that suspects that Barlow may have been infected by close proximity to Dracula's Remains the way Maxim was, which might explain a lot. I don't know for certain, but that seems as likely an explanation for his madness as anything else might be.
One thing the game isn't clear on is exactly what Dominus would have done if it had been used when Mad!Barlowe wanted it to be. The guy's an expert in his field and may have developed a way to channel Dominus' power back into Dracula to bring him back at his full power, but all we know for certain is that when Dominus actually WAS used (under different circumstances) it did in fact destroy Dracula, at least until World War 1 rolls around. Or Bram Stoker's Dracula happens, if you believe early 90's promotional material. One or the other.
Being "influenced" by remains or Dracula, what have you I agree with in the sense that nothing disproves it, and Barlowe seems "possessed" but in the sense that his actions have been calculated and he knows his end game. This is exactly why he rushes to the vessel and self destructs in a last ditch effort. This means he did need Shanoa's life (using Dominus) to open that vessel, but in failing he tried doing it himself. If not, there'd have been no need to fight Shanoa, but he obviously thought he would win and therefore be able to take her life. it's unclear as to "how"(logistics) it would have worked if Shanoa had resisted, but it could have obviously happened, otherwise Barlowe wouldn't have tried to beat Shanoa into submission.
Either way sane or insane, the outcome of Shanoa using Dominus in sacrifice is the same. Therefore it's not unreasonable to say that Barlowe (both Barlowes) had that same agenda.
-
Barlowe wanted to kill Shanoa because she didn't want to absorb his other Glyph.
He didn't handle the rejection well, to say the least. And Dracula's got all them monster girls hanging around...
-
Barlowe wanted to kill Shanoa because she didn't want to absorb his other Glyph.
By that time in the game Shanoa already had absorbed all three Glyphs. But knowing what Albus had said about using Dominius Shanoa chose not to go through with it, and then explained to Barlowe why that was the case. It was then that he lost his s**t and we know the rest.
-
Barlowe wanted to kill Shanoa because she didn't want to absorb his other Glyph.
Yes but there was still a purpose to him wanting Shanoa to absorb it, is what I'm saying.
-
Nobody tell them.
-
By that time in the game Shanoa already had absorbed all three Glyphs. But knowing what Albus had said about using Dominius Shanoa chose not to go through with it, and then explained to Barlowe why that was the case. It was then that he lost his s**t and we know the rest.
I knew I'd remembered that correctly. All 3 glyphs were already absorbed, so shit was about to go down either way.