Topic: Do the Belmonts know Dracula is Mathias?

[Dracula9]

What about the Crimson Stone? If Dracula still wore it during Trevor's time, it would a good way to identify him. Of course, it's not a 100% reliable deduction, but it would be a good enough reason for a Belmont to suspect he is dealing with his ancestor's sworn enemy.

This depends largely on what one considers the rock to be.

Y'all know my personal theory that it's a form of a Philosopher's Stone already, so I'll not delve into that again.

The only reason Leon knew what it was was because Joachim mentioned it offhandedly and Rinaldo clarified more about it when pressed. All he knows about it is that it's a red rock that turns vampire souls into power and can trade humanity for all that vampire power goodness.

Now, even if we assume he passed every possible detail down to his kids and grandkids and they passed it down to theirs, do we really think those details stayed verbatim all that time? We all know the Telephone Game and how details frequently become obscured or lost altogether with the passage of time. Now, 400+ years? In medieval times? Ain't a bloody chance the Belmonts by Trevor's time know the exact details of the Stone, assuming they know any details at all by that point. Even if we assume circumstances like Leon passing information to the Church and the Church then keeping records, the Belmonts spent a great deal of time as pariahs, so why would they even be privy to that kind of sensitive information anymore? Doubly so when one considers that for many years their top priority was mere survival in a land that loathed their very existence, when remembering the details of a magic rock would take second nature to staying alive.

The best explanation/chance I'm willing to believe is that later Belmonts know Dracula has a magic rock that gives him fabulous dark powers, and little more than that.

But by that point, there're plenty of other magic rocks that grant fabulous powers already in the world alongside the Crimson Stone--Rebound Diamond, Sypha's crystal thing, etc. etc. Why, assuming on the extremely plausible likelihood many or all details of Mathias and the Stone were lost to the passage of time, would everyone not simply chalk Dracula's magic rock to be just another magic rock that does evil shit instead of good shit? I just don't see them putting the pieces together from mere scraps of information they very likely don't even have anymore.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the actual thread topic:

I'm seeing a lot of perspectives that the Belmonts knowing the truth and history of their family's relationship with Dracula lends more significance and weight and even intimacy to their dynamic. While I would under many, many other circumstances agree that the idea of "mortal enemy was once a friend way back and their fall from grace is what instigated it all" is a really nice plot element, in CV's case I think it actually lessens the Belmont-Dracula dynamic.

Plot's already used the Batman analogy, so I won't waste time reiterating it. But the principle is basically just that.

The Belmont-Dracula dynamic is important because the Belmonts (and possibly Dracula, depending on whether or not we believe he retains all his memories of his past life at all times) don't know their own history. The tragedy does not lie in them knowing, it lies in their ignorance.

This entire rich history of broken friendship and love lost and the falling from grace of BOTH sides of the rivalry--nobody's the wiser to it. The cycle continues because of its very nature, not because of the circumstances that started it.

It's kind of like those plots you see in films where the hero does a valiant act of self-sacrifice...and the person or people he saves never even know of his heroism. That the people were saved is what matters, not that they know The Hero sacrificed himself or his freedom or whatever else to do so. It's that bittersweetness that lends plot points like that poignancy, and the principle is the same here.

Dracula is no longer Mathias, and the Belmonts are no longer valiant and revered warriors of the Church like Leon was. Neither is what they formerly were, so that past no longer holds weight on the present. In fact, that their respective histories hold no major significance to the current iteration of the rivalry and relationship IS what gives it all weight. The insignificance is what makes it significant.

Here are these two players on the grand stage, battling their lives away across the centuries, and neither is seemingly aware that they were once the closest of allies. Their ancestors' histories no longer matter. The bonds of love and friendship once held and tragically shattered no longer matter. All that matters is the battle, the cycle of good vs. evil, the crusades against one another that will either save or damn humanity.

It's actually all very simply a form of standard theatrical tragedy, really.

The tragedy is not that the two are locked in endless combat and hatred for one another. The tragedy is that two are locked in endless combat and hatred for one another and don't even know why (or even think to QUESTION why) anymore.

Dracula doesn't go after humanity because he's still pissed off at God from his long-past human days. The Belmonts don't go after Dracula because they're still feeling the effects of Mathias' betrayal and wish to carry on Leon's vendetta.

They fight each other because they must. Because they are the two sides of the same coin, the antithesis of each other. They are each other's foils, plain and simple. History, betrayal, lost love, lost friendship, none of these things matter anymore. All that matters is the state of conflict that allows each of the two to thrive and continue the cycle of battle.

Having the entire cycle be relegated to what basically amounts to "oh well we know you were our bro way back in college and we're still pissed you joined the rival football team" kind of subsumes and demeans the whole point of the vicious and (mostly) fruitless cycle Dracula and the Belmonts have been locked in for so long.

A Belmont being aware of the history would only hold weight in few extremely specific circumstances, and honestly all the circumstances I can think of that validate it involve Julius, due to his role in ending the cycle and still being present when it begins to renew itself. Pretty much every other Belmont but him can go pound sand as far as I see any value in them knowing Leon and Mathias' history.

[X]

Do the Belmonts know that Dracula was once Mathias? No, I don't think so. Leon never knew himself, therefore his descendants never knew either. Leon probably would have told them about Mathias in tomes written for his descendants but there would be no word about some powerful count called Dracula. That tome would be written by Trevor and company for future generations of Belmonts. Julius might be the first Belmont to eventually put the pieces together from studying said tomes, however for the most part, in the minds of the Belmont family, there is only Count Dracula.

[AlexCalvo]

I don't really want to try and break down everyone who disagreed with me's argument point by point.  It really just breaks down to what version of events we prefer thematically.  In my opinion Trevor's quest becomes significantly more profound with the added layer of a familial sense of guilt, their ancestor was tricked into creating Dracula, giving him the opportunity to seize power.  He feels responsibility in his blood for all the death and destruction.  Given how integral to the series themes of legacy and guilt are, I don't think this is such an outrageous idea. Just as I don't find the alternative outrageous either, just not my preferred version of events.  I wonder where the animated series will go with this.  I know in the Sylvain White film script, which was not related to the anime, Leon Belmont and his quest were Legend to Trevor, having grown up to the tale.  I really dug that.

Maybe a more interesting question?  How much does Alucard know of Dracula's history? Or the Belmonts' for that matter?

[theplottwist]

Here's an awesome kind of fusion of ideas.  What if Trevor doesn't know he's Matthias until he confronts him,  maybe the whip helps him see, maybe it's the crimson stone, but whatever... what a wonderful moment that would be.  When Trevor realizes that the battle as basically destiny,  and that he is inadvertently fulfilling the family quest.

I'm more sold on this idea. If there's "someone" who could recognize Dracula, it'd be the whip itself. But we do know the whip's hatred is against everything in the night -- as it shows when it meets Walter. So we don't know if the hatred it has for Dracula is the same or not.

I should mention that in the Japanese version this line is written like this: "Me and my kinsman will hunt you down with this whip." This seems to imply Leon intented to pass down his vendetta to his descendants if he himself didn't succeed in fulfulling it.

I'm not even saying he DIDN'T hunt Mathias. I actually do think he did hunt him (and, probably up until the second generation, they could've hunted for him too). But humans, after a long time, simply give up and forget, preferring to aim at the bigger picture. Hell, people forget DRACULA after a 100 years. The dude made Wallachia a living hell and people are willing to forget what he did.

What I mean is that, a flame that goes unkindled, diminishes. Might not disappear, but I have a hard time believing it stays the same.

What about the Crimson Stone? If Dracula still wore it during Trevor's time, it would a good way to identify him. Of course, it's not a 100% reliable deduction, but it would be a good enough reason for a Belmont to suspect he is dealing with his ancestor's sworn enemy.

This one is something that's hard to discuss because of the "If Dracula still wore it during Trevor's time".

Going by IGA's words, I don't think he wore it by Trevor's time -- but might have worn it until JUST short of his meeting with Trevor. IGA said Dracula used the stone to become the Demon King, and we also know there is a pact with an evil god in here somewhere. Both of these informations are confirmed to be true. So, Dracula was not the Demon King until a little earlier than CVIII, then he used two things (Stone, Pact) to become the Demon King with reviving powers he is.

Dracula doesn't need the stone anymore to be a vampire -- he is a level above that, an actual devil, made so by the pact. Why would he need the Stone now? His soul, as we have seen through the series, is not beholden to any Stone.

My guess is: The Stone is gone as is part of the pact. Where it is gone to or how, I don't know. I do have a speculation on this side, but it is just speculation. This being the case, I don't think Trevor would meet him in time to see him with the Stone.

[Nagumo]

I think questions like: "Does Dracula still wear the Crimson Stone?" and "Do the Belmonts know that Dracula is Mathias?" are similar in a way. They both revolve around the question of how much impact LoI has on the later mythos of the series. In both cases, my answer to both question would be: "Yes", not because it's explicitly stated in a particular source but because it feels like both the whole blood feud thing and Crimson Stone are supposed to have a lasting impact on the later canon.

I think it's important to consider how LoI was meant to fit into the series at the time of its release. It was meant as the grand origin story to the entire timeline that reveals how everything came to be. So from a story standpoint it feels unnatural if elements from LoI get downplayed. "The Crimson Stone? Dracula threw that old thing away after a couple of decades." "The blood fleud between the Belmonts and Dracula? The Belmonts stopped caring about that pretty quickly. " If so, then why should I care about those bits from LoI's story if they don't amount to much?

It's difficult to explain, so I hope you understand a little bit what I'm trying to get at.

[AlexCalvo]

I think questions like: "Does Dracula still wear the Crimson Stone?" and "Do the Belmonts know that Dracula is Mathias?" are similar in a way. They both revolve around the question of how much impact LoI has on the later mythos of the series. In both cases, my answer to both question would be: "Yes", not because it's explicitly stated in a particular source but because it feels like both the whole blood feud thing and Crimson Stone are supposed to have a lasting impact on the later canon.

I think it's important to consider how LoI was meant to fit into the series at the time of its release. It was meant as the grand origin story to the entire timeline that reveals how everything came to be. So from a story standpoint it feels unnatural if elements from LoI get downplayed. "The Crimson Stone? Dracula threw that old thing away after a couple of decades." "The blood fleud between the Belmonts and Dracula? The Belmonts stopped caring about that pretty quickly. " If so, then why should I care about those bits from LoI's story if they don't amount to much?

It's difficult to explain, so I hope you understand a little bit what I'm trying to get at.

This. Not only from a standpoint of what the game was supposed to be, but in terms of the drama it creates.  What a waste to build up an intertwined origin where Dracula and the Belmonts literally create each other just to say "oh but they forgot later."  I guess they could easily have forgotten the intricate details of the origin a couple centuries after Trevor, when the mission shifts from hunt the night and Matthias to hunt the night and stop Dracula from reviving and ending the world.  But still only if you believe they'd never write it down.

[theplottwist]

It's difficult to explain, so I hope you understand a little bit what I'm trying to get at.

I do. Why write a beginning story if nothing on the story is actually important down the road? Thing is, I don't agree with this thinking at all because....

If so, then why should I care about those bits from LoI's story if they don't amount to much?

....the important bits from LoI's story are not restricted to "the Belmonts know who Dracula is" and "Crimson Stone". The most important, unchanging, recurring element that greatly amounts to anything in the timeline and directly connects to Dracula is solemnly being ignored: The Vampire Killer. The Belmonts change, the wielder changes, Dracula changes, time passes, and the whip stays the same.

-The Vampire Killer exists because of Mathias' knowledge. It was described on the book belonging to his family how to produce a working Whip of Alchemy AND how to complete it.
-Mathias IS aware of the Belmonts and why are they after him. He is also aware of Leon's promise (supposing Death delivered Leon's message). The Belmonts may not be aware of who he is, but he is fully aware of why they are at his doorstep and his part on the VK's creation.
-LoI shows what happens when you abandon humanity and the difference between a Belmont's moral fiber and Dracula's. This is why the Vampire Killer trusts the Belmonts.

Everything revolves around the whip. Not around secret identities or magic stones. It's been like this ever since the very first Castlevania: Ther permancence of the whip within the vampire-hunting clan, and the obligation it holds the clan to through the blood pact it has with the clan. Lament was made to show what this pact is and what relationship it has with Dracula. Why EVERYTHING changes, sans the whip vs Dracula conflict.

I understand that "Mathias is Dracula" and "Crimson Stone" are important plot points. The idea of all of this playing too-important roles beyond their original roles is too seducing to ignore, but they are plot points made to hold direct impact on the events within Lament, and a much smaller impact later. It's an arc that starts and ends inside Lament. They do compound the story in some way, but their direct perceived "usefulness" expires at the end of Lament. Remember the ending? It says:

"The intermission in this exquisite play from which two souls will never escape"

It's not talking about Crimson Stone. Not talking about "Mathias is Dracula". It's talking about the Vampire Killer and Dracula, existing to antagonize each other. The Belmonts and a possible vendetta are so much not needed to the equation that this LoI conclusion puts forth, that for 200 years they were replaced by the Morris clan. It's about the whip, not about the wielder. The WHIP's connection with Dracula is the maximum compounding element from Lament. If anyone here has a vendetta with Dracula that can be believably alive, it's the whip, which carries it through the Belmonts. It doesn't need the wielder to know of some vendetta to enact its own vendetta-mission of slaying Dracula wherever he shows up.

This is the underlying theme meant to survive -- the conflict Dracula brought upon himself by his name being responsible for creating the Vampire Killer. He created the Crimson Stone? Nice, he also created the only thing able to destroy him, due to his manipulations. Dracula and the Vampire Killer are forever trapped on a cycle of conflict.

The Belmonts don't need to know who he is. They don't need to live a personal, very specific vendetta from 400 years ago. This vendetta already has wielded its result -- the Vampire Killer. I'm not saying they are NOT literally living this vendetta, because it's painfully obvious they are living a result of it. I'm saying they are either not aware of it, or not focusing on it. Their battle is a result of Leon vowing to destroy the night because of what it turned Mathias into and what it did to people such as Rinaldo, not of "destroying Mathias because my wife". Turning his hatred to Mathias in specific and making his entire progeny go after him "because my wife" is being no less selfish than Mathias manipulating people to fulfill his own vendetta with God "because my wife", which again we have established that LoI goes to lengths to show that is NOT in the nature of Leon.

As you put, Leon said "Me and my kinsman will hunt you down with this whip." He could be meaning anything from "our vendetta is against you in particular" to "you will become one more hunted by us on our mission to destroy the night". Last one makes more sense to me because, when we focus too much on the first part, it does sound like he will hunt Mathias and suddenly stop because that was the mission all along: Hunt Mathias. "Oh we hunted Mathias, screw the world." The vendetta has OUTGROWN Mathias to become a mission against all evil -- Mathias wasn't the representative of evil yet, why would Leon then swear to "hunt the night"? He's quite clearly not aiming at Mathias alone.

Again, the Batman analogy: Batman did swear to catch Joe Chill, but he meant that on the sense that Joe Chill will be a result of his mission to catch all criminals, and not that "I'll catch Joe Chill and that will be it". Leon may be hunting the night because of Mathias' scheme, but Mathias became only one more target on the bigger mission. It's irrelevant to keep feeding such an specific vendetta when your mission covers the fulfillment of it sooner or later. Hence why I don't think Trevor knows Dracula's identity at all; Beyond the ridiculous legwork required for him to actually recognize Dracula is Mathias, it appears to me he's merely carrying on the main mission of his clan -- hunting and destroying all related to the night.

EDIT: Forgot to add that this is my opinion only. I'm not trying to force anyone to swallow my personal understanding of Castlevania's story themes.

[Dracula9]

I think questions like: "Does Dracula still wear the Crimson Stone?" and "Do the Belmonts know that Dracula is Mathias?" are similar in a way. They both revolve around the question of how much impact LoI has on the later mythos of the series. In both cases, my answer to both question would be: "Yes", not because it's explicitly stated in a particular source but because it feels like both the whole blood feud thing and Crimson Stone are supposed to have a lasting impact on the later canon.

I think it's important to consider how LoI was meant to fit into the series at the time of its release. It was meant as the grand origin story to the entire timeline that reveals how everything came to be. So from a story standpoint it feels unnatural if elements from LoI get downplayed. "The Crimson Stone? Dracula threw that old thing away after a couple of decades." "The blood fleud between the Belmonts and Dracula? The Belmonts stopped caring about that pretty quickly. " If so, then why should I care about those bits from LoI's story if they don't amount to much?

It's difficult to explain, so I hope you understand a little bit what I'm trying to get at.

No, I gotchu.

But that's precisely why I mean/think the idea of "the true reasons were lost to time" holds so much poignancy. The origin story details aren't gone as if they never happened...but they're gone from memory in the centuries to follow.

The true and simple answer being right under everyone's noses and nobody being the wiser enough to see it--that, I think, is a far more significant use of the origin story than "everyone knows but just doesn't talk about it."

And besides:

"This whip and my kinsmen will destroy you someday. From this day on, the Belmont Clan will hunt the night."

-"You" refers to Mathias, and Dracula is not Mathias anymore.
-Belmonts hunt the night. Dracula is the night embodied. Cause and effect.

There doesn't really need to be any reason for it to come up in frequent conversation, or even at all, not even counting all my thoughts on poetic tragedy and dramatic irony. The statements Leon made have either become null or were vague enough that the current situation qualifies regardless of who knows what.