Topic: The second most difficult Castlevania thread in history

[KaZudra]

The Real question, what would vampire Bob Ross Paint with Brauner's power?

[DraculaCronqvist]

Yeah, you're right. I'm going to backpedal on that statement. However, I'm still sceptical that the Throne Room is needed to revive Dracula. Are we sure that's the only thing that makes sense? For example, what if Dracula's remains are inside the Throne Room? That could also be reason why Dracula couldn't be revived and it makes sense what we already know. "The Throne Room is neccessary in order to revive Dracula" seems like a completely arbitrary and unneccessary rule to me. Also, then Death's "Now I can revive Lord Dracula"'s line would make sense since he would have access to Dracula's body.     

Well, at least we know definitely know that Dracula just got revived upon Brauner's death, as I still maintain that the only reason Jonathan and Charlotte were able to defeat him was because Dracula had no time to restore his full power (hence why Death helped him). But your translation does make some things much clearer, such as Brauner using the power of the castle for himself, syphoning it off to fuel his own power, rather than just diverting it.

[Nagumo]

OK, let's assume the remains are inside the Throne Room for a minute, and that's what Death needed: Why would Death say he needed the Throne Room instead of saying he needed Dracula's body/remains/soul contained within the Throne Room? Why is he talking about the ROOM and leaving the most crucial part (in this hypothetical case, Dracula's remains) out of the picture?

Well, resurrection someone else requires having access to said person's remains, doesn't it? That seems like such a self-apperent thing to me that it really isn't an assumption. The games themselves support this as well. The story always make a point of showing us whoever wishes to revive Dracula is in possession of his corpse. The only exception being CoD, but there's no indication in PoR that Dracula is using a host body.

We also know Dracula isn't revived until after the Brauner fight. There's an conversation between Jonathan and Charlotte that chronologically occurs BEFORE this where they across the sealed Throne Room, and Charlotte says something like: "So this is what Brauner meant with separating Dracula from the Castle". Which means Dracula must have physically existed inside the Throne Room at that point, albeit dead.

[theplottwist]

The games themselves support this as well. The story always make a point of showing us whoever wishes to revive Dracula is in possession of his corpse.

Exactly.

Which is why I'm defending Dracula's body is NOT on the Throne Room, but elsewhere. Probably with Death. I'll elaborate on this logic:

Well, resurrection someone else requires having access to said person's remains, doesn't it? That seems like such a self-apperent thing to me that it really isn't an assumption.

See, this might be very obvious... Until we learn the room itself is special. We're not working from lack of knowledge about the Throne Room anymore. One game specifically mentions the Throne Room to be special by itself, one novel explains this place is unique on the castle, and one game explains that if the castle is not made complete, Dracula's resurrection cannot be attained.

Death said "the Throne Room is needed", and the Throne Room has, by this point, an history of being special. So we are left no other conclusion to draw -- the Throne Room is needed. Saying the remains were there IS a leap of logic, because they are more important. By logic alone, THEY should be mentioned, not the room. Like, for instance: "The body of my lord was sealed on the Throne Room. Alas, he can now be revived" << Why didn't they write it like this, then?

Let's put it another way:

Imagine I come to you and say: "Now that I have this fryng pan, I can eat omelettes!". There is an element missing that is crucial to the "Omelette" equation: Eggs. When I tell you that now the omelette can be attained since I have the pan, what is the conclusion you draw? That the eggs are somehow on the frying pan, or that they are with me?

When Death says "the Throne Room was necessary to revive Dracula. Alas, now he can be revived" making zero mention of Dracula's remains, I do get the impression he already has the body of Dracula. THIS is the given, not "the remains are on the room".

And there is another point I think should be made. You said it yourself: Whoever wishes to revive Dracula is in possession of his corpse.

How many times did Dracula's body spawn on the Throne Room? Or even inside his castle*? There is a reason why it doesn't spawn inside the castle: So his worshippers can locate it and hold a sacrifice over it. It's been like this for ages. Why, then, when the pattern changes so drastically, we're both not shown his body nor told it is contained in the Throne Room?

This is what I mean. The pattern has established that whoever wants to revive Dracula, has his corpse. So, when Death doesn't mention the need for his body but instead a necessity for the Throne Room, what conclusion, based on the recurring pattern and the evidence that the room itself is special, is the most likely to be the implied/given one?

* = And, you might feel compelled to mention SotN and how Dracula's remains are inside the castle, but:
-What is the Belmont's job after Dracula is destroyed? They were most likely reunited by Richter (under Shaft's control), and they gave rise to Dracula's Castle, getting scattered inside it.
-HoD supports the above with a plot that is almost 100% identical: Maxim, under a mysterious force, located the remains OUTSIDE of the castle previous to the main game, reunited them, and they gave rise to the castle, getting scattered inside it.

So, TL;DR: It's much more likely Dracula's corpse is with the one aiming to revive him, Death. Dracula's corpse/remains are only inside the castle when someone previously gathers them and summons the castle with them (HoD) -- something Brauner did not do, as specified by the intro of Portrait.

There's an conversation between Jonathan and Charlotte that chronologically occurs BEFORE this where they across the sealed Throne Room, and Charlotte says something like: "So this is what Brauner meant with separating Dracula from the Castle". Which means Dracula must have physically existed inside the Throne Room at that point, albeit dead.

Charlotte has no way of knowing where Dracula's body is, and she was never told where it was. But she can STILL make his statement.

Charlotte learned that Dracula was separated from his magical power from Brauner. She knows the castle is the embodiment of his magic, and WE know Dracula doesn't need to be physically at his castle to be connected to it (revival cycle -- Dracula literally revives miles away from his castle as soon as it shows up and vice-versa). She could very well speak of Dracula's connection with his castle and the obvious barrier she can see, without actually knowing where his corpse is. She sees an ominous barrier + she earlier learned from Brauner that he separated Dracula from his magic = Dracula is separated from his magic through this barrier.

(click to show/hide)

And an addendum: On this subject, it's less like I think you're wrong, and more like I tend to make sense of stuff with the rules already proposed by the game's stories. If there are no previous rule supporting the idea, I discard it.

On SotN, I didn't initially know why the remains of Dracula were inside the castle. But, when IGA revealed what the job of the Belmonts is, when HoD demonstrated how they can be inside the castle, and after having learned about the pattern of them spawning OUTSIDE the castle to be used by worshippers, it became unnaceptable to be that they spawn inside the castle WITH the castle after someone NOT intending to revive Dracula revives the castle using the souls of the dead, not with the remains as HoD shows.

There's a good chance we will have to agree to disagree on this one :\

[Nagumo]

Which is why I'm defending Dracula's body is NOT on the Throne Room, but elsewhere. Probably with Death. I'll elaborate on this logic:

See, this might be very obvious... Until we learn the room itself is special. We're not working from lack of knowledge about the Throne Room anymore. One game specifically mentions the Throne Room to be special by itself, one novel explains this place is unique on the castle, and one game explains that if the castle is not made complete, Dracula's resurrection cannot be attained.

Death said "the Throne Room is needed", and the Throne Room has, by this point, an history of being special. So we are left no other conclusion to draw -- the Throne Room is needed. Saying the remains were there IS a leap of logic, because they are more important. By logic alone, THEY should be mentioned, not the room. Like, for instance: "The body of my lord was sealed on the Throne Room. Alas, he can now be revived" << Why didn't they write it like this, then?

Let's put it another way:

Imagine I come to you and say: "Now that I have this fryng pan, I can eat omelettes!". There is an element missing that is crucial to the "Omelette" equation: Eggs. When I tell you that now the omelette can be attained since I have the pan, what is the conclusion you draw? That the eggs are somehow on the frying pan, or that they are with me?

When Death says "the Throne Room was necessary to revive Dracula. Alas, now he can be revived" making zero mention of Dracula's remains, I do get the impression he already has the body of Dracula. THIS is the given, not "the remains are on the room".

I agree with the logic you're using here. However, I probably should have mentioned this in my previous post, but I contest that Death is saying that "the Throne Room is needed in the Japanese version". I'll try to give a grammatical analysis. I'll also post link to websites explaining certain grammar so that you know I'm not making this up.

アトリエの絵によって、ドラキュラ様が蘇るべき玉座の間を切り離すとは…。

アトリエの絵 = atelier painting
によって = by means of 
ドラキュラ様 = Dracula-sama
蘇る = to revive (someone)
べき =  should/supposed to used to describe something that is supposed to be done. "You're supposed to do your homework" "You're not supposed to go in there", etc.   
玉座の間 = Throne Room
を切り離す = to cut something off/to seperate 
とは　＝ regarding/concerning

Then you would end up with: "Cutting off the Throne Room where Dracula is supposed to revive by means of the atelier painting..." 

But this is strange for the following reason:

「べき」 is a verb suffix used to describe something that is supposed to be done. This suffix is commonly defined as "should", however, one must realize that it cannot be used to make suggestions like the sentence, "You should go to the doctor." If you use 「べき」, it sounds more like, "You are supposed to go to the doctor." 「べき」 has a much stronger tone and makes you sound like a know-it-all telling people what to do. For making suggestions, it is customary to use the comparison 「方がいい」 grammar instead. For this reason, this grammar is almost never used to directly tell someone what to do. It is usually used in reference to oneself where you can be as bossy as you want or in a neutral context where circumstances dictate what is proper and what is not.

Dracula is Death's master so it would be very strange if Death would use that phrase when refering to Dracula. Possibily there's another way to interpret this sentence.  It's possible Death is refering to himself and the "I" part is simply omitted (this happens a lot). So then it would be:

"Cutting off the Throne Room where I'm supposed to revive Dracula, by means of the atelier painting..." 
 
I'm not sure, though. I was thinking of asking about it on a forum where you can ask about Japanese grammar. 

[Lelygax]

I think you two are missing a point that I feel the need to adress, and that is that you both are kinda right.
You don't need the throne room to revive Dracula like Nagumo said, in some cases. But you need the throne room sometimes like Plot said.

Think for a moment in a greater scale involving all canon games. Some times there is no castle before Dracula is revived, so whyhe still can be revived? Because of the remains obviously.

So if you have Dracula remains and there isn't a castle yet (since we can see in HoD that an incomplete castle can be a problem, but we can also say its only Death's not having access to Drac remains) you don't need the throne, because you will revive Dracula and Dracula will revive the castle.

Now if you revive the castle instead of Dracula, you will need the throne room.

"Oh, but what about HoD and SotN? In SotN he was being revived on the core". Yeah, but lets not forget there was also 2 castles like in HoD, this should disturb the balance and so Dracula's remains are needed and like I said before, you don't need a throne room if you have Dracula's remains (Rondo of Blood, Bloodlines and Order of Ecclesia clearly shows that).

You can't have a throne room if there is no castle to begin with. Now when there is a castle already, surely you will need one, since there is not like another one will spawn nearby and still be counted as a complete castle.

[Nagumo]

Forget what I said earlier regarding Death's line, I figured it out. Death is using a construction from classical Japanse. This form is listed in the dictionary as "beshi" but when you modify it in order to put it in front of noun it becomes"beki". It indicates certainty. So then the line in question is: "Cutting off the Throne Room in which Lord Dracula shall soon be revived, by means of the atelier painting...". So as I thought, there's no rule that requires the Throne Room in order to revive Dracula.

[Lelygax]

Then why Death wanted the throne room? I have another theory but its more difficult to explain. Maybe be separating the throne room from the material world, time stopped ticking there/it ceased to exist at the same time Dracula was being summoned there. So while he wasn't been resurrected yet, it was in the middle of his ressurection without his body being there yet.

Sure it have more flaws than throne room is needed, but since you dislike the throne room logic I wanted to share some food for thought.

[Nagumo]

Then why Death wanted the throne room?

He didn't. I debunked that "The Throne Room is needed to revive Dracula" line. Death is simply stating that Dracula will soon be reviving in the Throne Room in the Japanse version. This is accurate because that's where you'll find him. You're not supposed to read into it any more than that.

Also, another reason I have trouble with the Throne Room theory is because it's inconsistent. In OoE, Dracula's body couldn't be revived because Dracula's body was sealed away in Ecclesia. Barlowe's focus is only on breaking the seal. The story makes absolutely no mention of anything else from preventing Dracula's return. On top of that, Dracula's castle doesn't even show up until after Dracula was revived, meaning the lack of presence of the Throne Room couldn't have been an obstacle for Dracula's resurrection.

I have another theory but its more difficult to explain. Maybe be separating the throne room from the material world, time stopped ticking there/it ceased to exist at the same time Dracula was being summoned there. So while he wasn't been resurrected yet, it was in the middle of his ressurection without his body being there yet.

Sure it have more flaws than throne room is needed, but since you dislike the throne room logic I wanted to share some food for thought.

This could have been a possible explanation, but as is the same with the Throne Room, theory, it's a highly specific explanation that is never hinted at in the game itself. That's why I think the story is more self-evident than we're thinking. Dracula not being able to revive because Death can't reach his body since it's locked away requires the least amount of assumptions and doesn't create inconsistencies with other games.

[theplottwist]

He didn't. I debunked that "The Throne Room is needed to revive Dracula" line. Death is simply stating that Dracula will soon be reviving in the Throne Room in the Japanse version. This is accurate because that's where you'll find him. You're not supposed to read into it any more than that.

(click to show/hide)

So, if Charlotte and Jonathan had done NOTHING, Dracula would have revived anyway? His castle is standing there for two years, but out of an incredible coincidence, he decided to revive now, that Jonathan and Charlotte have just defeated Brauner and broke his magic. What, then, does separating the Throne Room from the castle accomplishes?

OK see, I'll look like an ass, but, I'll quote myself:

This does not need to be mentioned. If Brauner sealed the Throne Room and this act causes Dracula's revival to not be attainable, that means the Throne Room is necessary for his revival, otherwise Dracula would be revived already.

Rewording of the same logic doesn't debunk the argument. As much as your translation is accurate, it changed Death saying "The Throne Room necessary to revive Lord Dracula" to "Cutting off the Throne Room in which Lord Dracula shall soon be revived" which doesn't really do anything to disprove the importance of the Throne Room. The game ITSELF is showing that no Throne Room = No Dracula, and Death is merely stating that Dracula's revival draws near now that Brauner is gone. The connection is obvious: Brauner kept the Throne away > Dracula is kept at bay || Brauner is no more > Throne is back > Dracula shall soon be back too.

"Ah but Dracula was going to revive in there, it's different"

According to the logic you're proposing, the Throne has nothing to do with his revival, right? Dracula was shown to revive anywhere one can revive him, and all they need are his remains, correct? So, this automatically renders PoR's story nonsensical: It's about a vampire sealing a room that will not really stop Dracula at all. And then Death shows up and praises the fact the room is now connected to the castle, even though the room is not needed at all.

So, again: If the Throne were not necessary, Brauner wouldn't have sealed it and Dracula would be already alive. "Dracula will revive there, so separating it stops his revival" still configures as "needs the Throne Room". What you propose that is INSIDE the room making it special is speculation that is NOT supported by previous Castlevania lore (more on this very subject at the end of this post), while the room being special by itself and the integrity of the castle being relevant to Dracula's revival ARE supported assertions.

Also, another reason I have trouble with the Throne Room theory is because it's inconsistent. In OoE, Dracula's body couldn't be revived because Dracula's body was sealed away in Ecclesia. Barlowe's focus is only on breaking the seal. The story makes absolutely no mention of anything else from preventing Dracula's return.

(click to show/hide)

....Because there ISN'T anything else preventing Dracula's return? Why would the story of OoE talk of Thrones and magical paintings if they are not the problem nor have the focus?

This argument is the same as saying: OoE makes no mention that Dracula's Castle being sealed in an eclipse causes Dracula's revival cycle to be broken. It's therefore inconsistent, because the only thing that ever stops Dracula's revival are his remains sealed on the vessel.

Or even: Harmony makes no mention of Dracula's remains being sealed in a vessel. Therefore it's inconsistent, because the only thing that stops Dracula's revival is the fact both castles are not merged.

On top of that, Dracula's castle doesn't even show up until after Dracula was revived, meaning the lack of presence of the Throne Room couldn't have been an obstacle for Dracula's resurrection.

(click to show/hide)

I get now the previous argument. You're echoing Lelygax's logic that "there is no Throne Room because there is no castle". The argument is flawed because there IS a castle. The castle doesn't suddenly *begin* existing at the start of the game and gets *permanently destroyed* at the end. Only it's physical form -- the means it uses to manifest -- does.

Dracula's real castle exists on/as a spiritual plane, away from contact with the real world. This is proven by Graham ("Dracula's real castle exists somewhere else"), by Arikado ("Dracula's castle is a spiritual plane") and by Death on HoD ("Dracula's spirit alone should have sought to call forth the castle"). "Call forth the castle" from where? To be "called forth" it has to exist somewhere..

The only way to interact with it is by either entering this plane yourself (Aria), or by interacting with a form connected to it (HoD).

On PoR it really is the castle revived and aligned in there, therefore it's far from a stretch to believe that, while the castle is incarnated, what Brauner does with the castle affects the spiritual one. It is fully incarnated after all. And again, from HoD -- what is done on the physical castle affects its spiritual version and vice-versa, if they are connected. Once Dracula is defeated, his castle crumbles, but the REAL castle returns to "somewhere else", intact and disconnected from reality.

So yeah, this is also not an issue. There always is a Throne Room in all games no matter if Dracula's Castle is visually present or not, because it already exists on the spiritual plane. It has to exist as a spirit somewhere to "be revived", which does include "having a Throne Room connected to it".

Dracula not being able to revive because Death can't reach his body since it's locked away requires the least amount of assumptions and doesn't create inconsistencies with other games.

(click to show/hide)

Except the inconsistency of Dracula's remains spawning inside the castle while they were not used to revive the castle (on the logic you propose) -- when the series has already made a point of Dracula's remains spawing OUTSIDE of the castle in the material world everytime, and the inconsistency of them never getting mentioned at all, much less them being inside the Throne Room (which is tied directly to the first inconsistency).

Like you, of course I'm not claiming my version is gospel (as anyone can confirm on the spoiler some responses above). But your version has unsolved inconsistencies that are stopping me from agreeing with you:

-If we know by this point the Throne Room is an important room by itself, why couldn't Death be referring to the Throne Room without requiring us to make a leap of logic?
-If the remains always spawn outside the castle to be reachable by worshippers, why this time they spawned inside the Throne Room?

This last one implies ludicrous amounts of leaps on the logic:

-We know the remains spawn outside to be found and used by worshippers. You claim that, this time, without any explanation, they are somehow inside the castle.
-We know they only are inside the castle (SCATTERED) if someone summons Dracula's castle with them. Furthermore, we know Brauner did NOT use them to summon the castle. Your claim supposes not only that they spawned inside the castle, but that they DIDN'T scatter, all the while Brauner did NOT use them to summon the castle.
-If they were collected by someone and brought to the Throne Room before it was sealed, who is this individual? Death? Wouldn't Death have noticed Brauner summoned the castle and him trying to usurp it? Why didn't Death revive Dracula before the room was sealed? Death doesn't even have any idea who Brauner is at the beginning of PoR, learning of him only later.

For your scenario to work, we must assume that:

-The remains must have spawned inside the castle, all together, no explanations given, contradicting previous lore (separated, outside the castle).
-If they didn't spawn inside the castle but are inside the Throne Room, then some individual must have taken them to the Throne Room before it was separated and willingly let Dracula to be revived later. This individual, also, didn't intend to revive Dracula, because you can revive Dracula anywhere as soon as you have his remains, instead of taking them to the Throne Room. This individual, too, was skilled enough to avoid detection by Brauner, and it couldn't have been Death since Brauner knows Death but Death doesn't know him.
-Supposing this individual IS Death: if he took the remains there before the room was separated, doesn't explain why he would take the remains there and leave them there if he can revive Dracula anywhere (the Throne Room is not important, right?)
-Death's mention of the room is nonsense, because the room was never necessary.
-In a surprising coincidence, Dracula revived at the same time as Brauner's entire plan crumbled, and not as direct result of the plan crumbling. And that at least two years after the castle was revived.

So, to defend the remains are inside the Throne Room, you must defend that there is some individual that took them there lest you contradict the lore (remains spawn outside and separated). If you defend this individual is Death, you must explain why was Death taking the remains to the Throne Room if the room is not important, and why would he leave them there to be separated along with the room by Brauner, because Death is quite clearly not sealed in the Throne Room -- he had to leave so Brauner would seal the remains alone with the room.

For mine to work we need to assume that:

-Death had the remains (a really simple feat for him to accomplish if the remains are just out and about in the world).
-The castle's integrity is important, as previously established by supporting lore. The Throne Room, also, has been shown to be important by itself.

I hope you can understand I'm really trying to make sense of your points. But I'm having a really hard time doing it (and I'm not ruling out me just being dumb and not seeing the obvious).

EDIT: Spoiler tags because, again, walls of text.

[zangetsu468]

I'm sure that I'm not as well informed as some of you. However, I do believe in the scenario of POR, it's highly likely the remains were in the throne room:

https://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FxiS_lnbcuTE%2Fhqdefault.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fsurvivorsucks.yuku.com%2Freply%2F10298501&docid=wivVaYFAicseyM&tbnid=dlxAf0wo_seFzM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwi_2cmn6fTUAhWDy7wKHbYFB-UQMwg2KAcwBw..i&w=480&h=360&hl=en-au&client=safari&bih=460&biw=320&q=castlevania%20portrait%20of%20ruin%20dracula%20form%201&ved=0ahUKEwi_2cmn6fTUAhWDy7wKHbYFB-UQMwg2KAcwBw&iact=mrc&uact=8

It's evident in other games that Dracula doesn't need to be in the throne room to be revived, this can be done remotely. However, in this image the coffin lids been removed with blood spilling out. (Perhaps VHD Bloodlust Carmilla-inspired) There's a level of graphical effect which serves its purpose, but the image is fairly straight forward. It's entirely possible Death collected Dracula's remains, and brought them to the throne room (because otherwise they may be scattered and we're never explicitly told anyone else did this?) to revive Dracula.

[X]

It's evident in other games that Dracula doesn't need to be in the throne room to be revived, this can be done remotely.

Quite true. Dracula in the older titles has been revived many times outside of Castlevania; Cemetery, abandoned abbeys, crypts, etc. In SotN he was revived in a chamber in the centre of the castle, so all-in-all the throne room is not the only definite place for a revival.

[theplottwist]

It's entirely possible Death collected Dracula's remains, and brought them to the throne room (because otherwise they may be scattered and we're never explicitly told anyone else did this?) to revive Dracula.

I'll, then, pose the point I posed to Nagumo:

Why did Death collect the remains, brought them to the Throne Room, left them alone, and proceeded to get sealed outside of the room when Brauner separated it from the castle, instead of immediately reviving Dracula (because we know he doesn't get revived until after Brauner is gone)?

The more this point is made ("the remains are inside the room"), the less sense it makes, and the more its assumptions become obvious.

Bear in mind I'm NOT arguing that it wasn't Death or that he didn't do it. I'm arguing "at what point did he do it".

-Nagumo is saying the remains were inside the room the entire time (contradicting previously cemented lore, on my perspective). If Nagumo says Death brought them in the room before it was sealed, then it doesn't explain why he left the remains alone, but DOES confirm the room is necessary -- otherwise why would Death bring them into that room in the first place? Can't he just revive Dracula anywhere?

-I am saying there was nothing on the room until after Brauner was destroyed, at which point Death followed the course of events that are expected from him: Use the remains to revive Dracula immediately. Also, I'm NOT saying Dracula was revived on the Throne Room -- only that the room is important for his revival cycle. Where Dracula is revived is utterly irrelevant. You could try to revive Dracula on China, if the castle's integrity is compromised, the revival fails. Death could have revived him there because it was the nearest place outside Brauner's studio, for instance.

[Nagumo]

Couldn't Brauner just have placed Dracula's body inside the Throne Room? No idea how exactly he got the remains, but does it matter? For example, it's never explained how Shaft or Elizabeth Bartley got hold of his remains either.

The point I'm trying to make with my OoE example is that the Castle clearly doesn't appear until after Dracula is revived by Barlowe. Meaning it never could have been a requirement for Dracula's resurrection. (EDIT: Never mind, you addressed this in your previous post. I really don't agree with the theory you're putting forward, though. I suppose it's because you're only using secondary evidence to proof something very specific instead of primary evidence. If what you're saying is really true then why isn't that spelled clearly out in the games somewhere? Surely IGA or whoever is responsible for the story must have realized people who may not have played all of the games are not aware of all the story details.       

And I still think you're reading way too much into that specific line from Death. Too bad Koutei isn't here too settle that dispute.       

[Dracula9]

Doesn't OoE have a rather unique position for Dracula, though?

I mean, we've seen him in past titles wherein he's possessing somebody directly and using their body, and we've seen his mere essence incite one to madness and violence.

But in OoE, we see his essence inciting one not only to madness and violence (Albus), but actually *speak* as himself.

Either Albus's extended contact with Dominus made him think he was Dracula, or Dracula's being was actively occupying him.

Considering Dracula himself stays locked in a statue most of the game, yet still manages to consciously exert his will (as seen when he "communicates" with Barlowe and has him sacrifice himself to break the seal), I should think Dracula's mind actively occupying Albus seems more plausible.

I bring this unique circumstance up because of what it suggests for the revival cycle.

Dracula in OoE isn't actually "dead" as he has been in so many past titles. He wasn't physically slain and his soul sent back to his summer home in hell. They put him in a magic rock. I don't recall if it specifies whether or not his body was destroyed prior to this, but I would presume it was due to him not just appearing in physical form right when Barlowe blows the statue up.

EDIT: (Obviously Barlowe was his revival sacrifice, this is just inference to justify the likelihood that his untethered soul was sealed in the statue and that his body was destroyed.)

So if Dracula wasn't "killed" and then revived in his usual fashion, why would any of the established rules about the castle, the throne room, his connection to said castle, or anything of the sort hold water in OoE?

By sealing his soul and consciousness in a corporeal prison on Earth, the standard rules for how he comes back become changed, if they don't go out the window altogether.