Castlevania Dungeon Forums
The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: Lumi Kløvstad on March 15, 2016, 08:28:36 PM
-
This is kind of a split from the current line of discussion in the Vlad:Dracula thread that's all the rage these days.
I wanna argue a specific point by Zangetsu, because it made me realize something that is a common thread between everyone who has beaten Dracula canonically.
First, Z's original post.
I'd just like to point out that the Belmonts are the ONLY humans capable of defeating Dracula aside from Shanoa (who needed to use Dominus). If some Belmont also isn't heir to the VK, it's doubtful they're going to be defeating Dracula while not being the strongest Belmont and without the VK (Soleiyu is proof of this and fights with a non-VK whip). We're literally talking about a handful of people in the world who have ever been able to defeat Dracula's incarnations. In additional the battle between Dracula and Richter was taxing enough to leave Richter completely vulnerable enough to Shaft/ Shaft's magic entering his body. Despite Jonathan and Charlotte's age it's doubtful that any of these battles were "easy".
Secondly it took Trevor, Sypha, Alucard and Grant to defeat Dracula in CVIII. That means something, maybe Trevor could have done it by himself, maybe not. Though Mathias lived for nearly 400 years without having faced defeat. Saying yes to lone Trevor would be iffy at best. Given that another 3 form Dracula in DXC was beaten by Richter and Maria (SotN's Prologue being canon) I would say the chances of success would be low.
Finally, it took the Belmont clan with the help of others 1000 years to completely destroy Dracula.
I like his reasoning here, but are we forgetting Hector? He's not a Belmont, yet he was able to defeat Dracula pretty handily (at least as well as any Belmont).
And he's indisputably canon, too. Given that the only weapon we ever see him use in cutscenes is his basic steel sword (which at least according to in game examination has no special properties in and of itself), I think we can say pretty safely that Dracula is at the very least not ALWAYS undefeatable by anyone other than a Belmont. There are conditions in which he can be defeated by those other than Belmont lineage and without using the Vampire Killer.
I admit it doesn't completely sink Zangetsu's argument yet, but I do feel it dents it a bit.
Let's keep going with this, because if we look carefully, a common string CAN be found.
Dracula is, above all else, vulnerable to the Vampire Killer. I doubt any of us will dispute that point.
Let's consider the origin of the Vampire Killer. It was created by a vampire (in-progress) and her willing sacrifice. The Vampire Killer, therefore, holds some level of vampiric power. Hector was a Devil Forgemaster, and in Death's own words "Devil Forgemasters alone are suffused with my Master's magic", which means Hector was carrying some amount of vampiric power as well -- Dracula's own power, in point of fact. Shanoa did Dracula in by using the Dominance Glyph, which was made from "Dracula's essence/remains", which means she was wielding vampiric power, specifically Dracula's, just like Hector did.
I feel that this is more than enough to suggest that Dracula, is in fact, most vulnerable to powers like his own; those of a Vampire, and especially himself. Anyone capable of wielding that kind of power should be able to defeat Dracula, if only until his next resurrection. Even so, as Zangetsu said in his original post, it took the Belmonts more than a thousand years to figure out a permanent means of ending him as well, so it's not like they were doing it all that much better during that time.
-
I always assumed Dracula was vulnerable to the two things you pointed because they have canon explanations:
-The Vampire Killer (as the entire series explains, because Holy and can destroy everything related to the night).
-A form of his own power (as Order of Ecclesia explains, because Power of ultimate destruction).
This solves every issue where a non-Belmont defeated Dracula, including Hector. He's sufused in Dracula's magic, thus posseses a form of Dracula's power. Alucard is Dracula's son and carries/has inherited a form of Dracula's power. Shanoa uses Dominus -- again Dracula's power.
This, also, dictates that the one to fell Dracula in Portrait was Jonathan with the unlocked Vampire Killer.
Still in OoE's case: Interesting to point out is the fact that Shanoa, without Dominus, was unable to hurt Dracula in any way, and he even scoffs at her because of this (video game mechanics not witstanding) which demonstrates even further that nothing but one of these things can hurt him.
-
I must admit, I do like the notion of a pseudo all-powerful being being mortally weak to his own power. There's something monumentally poetic about that kind of irony.
-
I totally agree with Zangetsu's argument about 'only the Belmonts can kill Dracula'. That's also how I roll on this as well. Shanoa was an exception due to Dominius, but even then IGA was stretching things a bit. The CV series is about Dracula and his battle against humanity's protectors; the Belmont family. And that's all it should need to be. Having other heroes who aren't Belmont-related come along and slay the Count breaks down the foundations on which the games were built upon. At least for me anyways. And it just makes the games feel less and less special to me (as in making them feel cheap in a bad way). If everyone can now kill the count then what's the point of having the Belmonts in-game anymore? I don't count CoD as canon because we have Hector who isn't a Belmont come along and kill Dracula. To add insult to injury Trevor was conveniently removed so that he couldn't fight Dracula a second time. That, and the story was no good. Sypha, Grant, and even Alucard never had any honorable mentions, let alone cameo screen time.
-
I totally agree with Zangetsu's argument about 'only the Belmonts can kill Dracula'. That's also how I roll on this as well. Shanoa was an exception due to Dominius, but even then IGA was stretching things a bit. The CV series is about Dracula and his battle against humanity's protectors; the Belmont family. And that's all it should need to be. Having other heroes who aren't Belmont-related come along and slay the Count breaks down the foundations on which the games were built upon. At least for me anyways. And it just makes the games feel less and less special to me (as in making them feel cheap in a bad way). If everyone can now kill the count then what's the point of having the Belmonts in-game anymore? I don't count CoD as canon because we have Hector who isn't a Belmont come along and kill Dracula. To add insult to injury Trevor was conveniently removed so that he couldn't fight Dracula a second time. That, and the story was no good. Sypha, Grant, and even Alucard never had any honorable mentions, let alone cameo screen time.
X, you know I totally sympathize with the idea of ignoring stuff in the canon we find patently ridiculous in the interests of making the story better by streamlining it.
That being said, Hector's victor does bolster my point here, and as a result I'm going to include it as evidence. I'd be a poor debater to leave good evidence on the table here. It's also notable that the source of power for both the Devil Forgemasters and the Dominus Glyph are VERY closely linked -- they both derive directly from Dracula himself. To ignore this fact is kind of silly, as it's not only canon, but from an "outside the game" perspectivem, the idea that Dracula is weak to his own powers has great storytelling merit, as D9 pointed out.
If we cast Hector out of the picture entirely, then Shanoa would, narratively speaking, have just gotten by essentially on dumb luck. A narrative simile would be if Lex Luthor just HAPPENED to have Kryptonite on his person when facing Superman while having no idea that Kryptonite is Superman's weakness.
As it stands, Hector's victory over Dracula strengthens the case that Shanoa could beat Dracula using Dominus. So really, I don't know why you'd object to Hector setting a (chronological) precedent. Curse is also important because it demonstrates the first ever resurrection of Dracula, which isn't something to be scoffed at. It also points out why Alucard could defeat Dracula in Symphony of the Night, which by your reasoning he shouldn't have been able to do at all unless he was somehow of Belmont lineage or using the Vampire Killer, neither of which was the case.
So which is it bro?
-
I don't see any connection between CoD and OoE. The two games stand out on their own. CoD was fun to play for a time, but the story is shoe-horned and as such, means nothing to me. OoE was a better experience and Shanoa was a breath of fresh air that had not been seen since Sonia Belmont. It also meant that IGA was starting to come out of his personal dark ages. But all in all there were many elements about CoD that just didn't do it for me, and not just about Issac's outrageous and ridiculous fashion sense or the time travel aspect which felt even more shoe-horned then the game itself. CoD just felt tacked on and it really does nothing for the series. Take the game out of the series and you still have what was before the game came along. One of the few things that kept me interested in CoD was the great voice acting in unison with the CG actors (far better and more improved then what was seen in LoI), that and the musical score. Great tracks Excluding the ending theme :P Other then that, the game is entirely forgettable.
That being said, Hector's victor does bolster my point here, and as a result I'm going to include it as evidence. I'd be a poor debater to leave good evidence on the table here.
And there's nothing wrong with that. It's good to have all your bases covered in order to present a debate you feel is important for discussion.
So which is it bro?
I know I already answered this in the above so I'll just say I'm sticking to my guns. What works for me works, just as what works for you works.
-
I like his reasoning here, but are we forgetting Hector? He's not a Belmont, yet he was able to defeat Dracula pretty handily (at least as well as any Belmont).
We are not forgetting Hector at all my friend.
In the COD ending Hector speaks of "The humans" as does Saint Germain. Hector in all likeliness was originally mortal but he as well as Isaac are not strictly human in the traditional sense. Given the displays of power such as Isaac managing to face off against Trevor Belmont (who may not have initially been fighting at his true potential then) they were still strong enough to battle him, and even Isaac managed to sneak attack him and stab him in the back. They are DFM's and hence have strength and skills (such as alchemy) beyond normal mortal capabilities; Hector beats Dracula, even if it's a B-Grade resurrection he's no slouch at battle.
Alucard of course is half-human which is why he wasn't mentioned.
I haven't answered anything else at this stage because I haven't yet had time to read it.
EDIT: I read the rest.
I totally accept COD as canon, yet it also seems to me that as has been stated Hector and Isaac were connected to Dracula's power with the art of Devil Forgemastery. I also accept that initially Hector was the sacrifice and that being so, Trevor would have been the one to defeat Dracula (using Hector's body as a vessel after he originally killed Isaac), however because SG stepped in, this was all avoided and causality found its way to allow Hector to change his destiny while Dracula was still resurrected and defeated, with Trevor conveniently on hiatus.
X, in the first scene where Trevor is introduced in COD he states that Hector shouldn't interfere as says something along the lines of "Many brave warriors fought in that battle[with Dracula]". Those are the honourable mentions imo.
Hector was a special case, like Shanoa, and if Albus hadn't sacrificed his own soul then Shanoa would be dead after OOE. Even Jonathan knows that he will eventually die due to using the VK to defeat Dracula after POR, and he's connected to the Belmonts by blood (Trevor).
Given all of this I don't think it's a stretch to say that the Belmonts basically are the only ones who can defeat Dracula. Outside of any type of Belmont Bloodline it happened twice only in one thousand years by using Dracula's power(s) against him.
-
"Many brave warriors fought in that battle[with Dracula]"
And I agree with this but only partially. Trevor doesn't outright mention his companions by name at all. If he did it would have felt far more meaningful in my mind.
-
And I agree with this but only partially. Trevor doesn't outright mention his companions by name at all. If he did it would have felt far more meaningful in my mind.
I particularly like Steve Staley's dub when Hector says "You killed Dracula, so why don't you just fight Isaac for me?"
And Trevor responds with something like "Yes, it's true, I struck the mortal blow on Dracula, but I did not face him alone." in such a way that really hammered home that he was kind of naming Sypha, Grant, and Alucard in his head. He just didn't do so verbally to Hector because those details wouldn't have helped Hector any more than what he'd already said. Trevor remembers them well, but he argues his point eloquently enough by simply pointing out that he wasn't the only one facing Dracula.
This also works on a meta-level, as people familiar with Dracula's Curse immediately understand the specifics of whom he is speaking, whereas people new to the franchise get the general idea.
-
I think sometimes games purposely are not connected via text to give them their own sense of story and context. "Many brave warriors" could mean any number above 2 imo.
For example, in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, the game never mentions the word "TRIFORCE", not even once. Strange when every almost console/main iteration of Zelda always mention it, and it appears in those games.
-
Speaking of only being killed by A Belmont with the vampire killer ...
How canon is it that Simon actually bought whips from merchants and used those in Castlevania 2?
I've always thought of those as separate whips. Frankly, I kind of like the idea of Simon's flame whip showing up again in the series at some point being called something like "the Whip of Ancestors" or some fancy title.
-
I've always thought of those as separate whips. Frankly, I kind of like the idea of Simon's flame whip showing up again in the series at some point being called something like "the Whip of Ancestors" or some fancy title.
The flame whip is still the Vampirekiller. It is just enhanced when you find the cloaked figure at the bottom blue-stoned aqueduct.
"I will give your Morningstar power to burn away evil."
This tells me that Simon's weapon (VK) is simply enhanced to a greater degree. Apologies if you already know this :) As for the other whips? I don't think it's been clarified as to whether or not it's canon or a game mechanic.
-
Did I just miss it somewhere? - If we were only counting Belmonts, what happens to Alucard and the whole SotN story?
-
The flame whip is still the Vampirekiller. It is just enhanced when you find the cloaked figure at the bottom blue-stoned aqueduct.
"I will give your Morningstar power to burn away evil."
This tells me that Simon's weapon (VK) is simply enhanced to a greater degree. Apologies if you already know this :) As for the other whips? I don't think it's been clarified as to whether or not it's canon or a game mechanic.
I always saw the different states of the whip simply as Simon unlocking the potential power of the whip level by level.
In most games VK upgrades go:
Leather Whip(Short)>Morning Star(Short)> Morning Star (Long)
It just so happens that in CVII the game mechanics were different so that Simon paid currency to unlock the VK's forms which were slightly different the the typical forms.
Also I note that Richter using item crush with no subweapon allows him to use the Flame Whip and his regular VK starts as the Morning Star. If those two forms as well as the Leather Whip are canon, I don't see why the thorn and chain whips also aren't canon (given the chain whip and morning star are nearly identical anyways).
-
It just so happens that in CVII the game mechanics were different so that Simon paid currency to unlock the VK's forms which were slightly different the the typical forms.
Also I note that Richter using item crush with no subweapon allows him to use the Flame Whip and his regular VK starts as the Morning Star. If those two forms as well as the Leather Whip are canon, I don't see why the thorn and chain whips also aren't canon (given the chain whip and morning star are nearly identical anyways).
Now that you mention it, every time the whip appeared after CVII, it was a permanent Morning Star from the get go, while before CVII, it needed to evolve into a chain. The critical point here being the fact that Simon changes it into a flail in CVII.
Maybe this means Simon changed the whip in a fundamental level, by actually physically replacing the leather lash with a chain one in CVII (like what he is literally shown to do in CVII.)
Which leads me to question just how much of the weapon can you change until it's not the same weapon anymore. Just in what part of it is Sara's soul trapped.
-
I'd say the handle since that's the part that touches the hand and has the whole "oh hey this is a Belmont" sensory thing.
Plus, I don't think Simon physically went and tied a bunch of vines and thorny bits together and replaced the rawhide of the original whip. I'd guess there was some iteration of further alchemy to enhance the thing. I don't imagine conventional methods would work on something so strongly enchanted (I think Skyrim does basically this exact thing, if a reference point is needed).
Or maybe Sara's soul became its own thing and can just be transferred to a new whip (this seems a stretch, though).
-
Well, Curse of Darkness shows that Trevor can equip magical stones on the whip's handle to change its properties. So maybe this is what Simon did -- attach a number of stones on the handle that makes the whip into a constant flail, and still allows it to tap in its fiery power.
-
The VK's transformation in CVII has to be alchemical in nature imo. Either it unlocks a new form by alchemically/ magically changing, or it's an attachment like COD or HoD.
-
How does Nathan Graves defeat Dracula, then?
Are we assuming the Hunter Whip is just another name for the Vampire Killer?
How does Carrie defeat Dracula? Is this one of those "Carrie and Reinhardt did it together" like how Maria says the events of Rondo of Blood happened in CVJudgment?
Cornell defeats 'a version' of Dracula. He has no connection to the Belmonts nor has Dracula's Power. Does he actually defeat him or is this just a ruse?
-
How does Nathan Graves defeat Dracula, then?
Are we assuming the Hunter Whip is just another name for the Vampire Killer?
How does Carrie defeat Dracula? Is this one of those "Carrie and Reinhardt did it together" like how Maria says the events of Rondo of Blood happened in CVJudgment?
Cornell defeats 'a version' of Dracula. He has no connection to the Belmonts nor has Dracula's Power. Does he actually defeat him or is this just a ruse?
Basically the VK definitively defeating Dracula (aside from Shanoa and Hector who used forms of his own power) in my mind exists in Iga's timeline.
Cotm was meant to exist in its own timeline. It places heavy emphasis on the Hunter Whip (although one can argue DSS cards are more powerful or debate they are the whip itself - not going to touch that debate right now) being passed down to an heir; Nathan. Though this is never conclusively states this and it's more so used as a plot device to propel Nathan and Hugh to be rivals and create some kind if story/ synopsis and character development within the game itself. In context it was made prior to LOI so the Vampire Killer story element does not play as much of a role.
As for the 64 series in LOD Cornell beat a form of (ultimate?) Dracula that canonically for 2 good reasons was not as powerful as CV64's Dracula:
- He wasn't properly resurrected yet, this is evident in the ending where Cornell reflects on Dracula wanting to absorb his Wolf form all along.
- In CV64 Dracula is physically resurrected as Malus meaning the above plan worked. Malus is Dracula in flesh, blood and spirit with Cornell's Wolf form absorbed and his third form being his Dragon/ Demonic form. I would also debate that Cornell didn't "kill" that ultimate Dracula form but merely sent it back to the spirit realm (makai, or whatever it's dubbed). After it's defeated and starts absorbing Cornell's wolf form, you see it descending back into the portal from whence it emerged (being Dracula's torso sticking out of what appears to be the floor). This is the same deal as when Samus kills Ridley in Prime 3, he doesn't explode or die, he recedes into a void/ dark portal and escapes until the next game. Plus Cornell vs Dracula introduced the Lycan vs Vampire theme to CV which had not previously been touched upon.
Did Reinhardt and Carrie both beat him in 64? More than likely. The same logic applies to Richter and Maria in SOTN's prologue of RoB's final chapter. Why? Well because both characters are canon as well as having to have done something within the game, although never explicitly stated and endings differ i.e. Same situation as RoB/DXC and Dracula XX.
In context these games were made prior to LOI so the VK emphasis wasn't there yet.
My opinions are mostly stated in my sig, fyi,
-
(although one can argue DSS cards are more powerful or debate they are the whip itself - not going to touch that debate right now)
I remember that debate with great fondness, and my fanfic certainly argues that the two whips are seperate.
As for this debate, I think the victories of Hector, Alucard, and Shanoa are definitely the big sticking point. As I pointed out in my OP, they all have the common thread of wielding Dracula's power in some way. As this is essentially the only common point between all three characters -- although Hector and Shanoa definitely have more than a few circumstantial similarities, neither shares much in common with Alucard beyond the use of power derived from Dracula to defeat him.
Hopefully y'all can see why I would make that link.
Now if we're going to argue that all three were incomplete/flawed resurrections, that much is also true. I won't discount that information; I think it is definitely connected. But I am wary of denoting that "connection = cause" in this matter. I think that the weakened Dracula definitely prevented him from hitting them with his full power, which in turn allowed them to hang on long enough to use their fabulous secret powers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR7wOGyAzpw) to finally do in Dracula.
Basically, it's not that Drac's Deflector Shields were weaker, it's that his Turbolasers weren't firing at full power, and his Shields were weak to the kind of power that Hector, Shanoa, and Alucard wield to begin with.
No argument to refute that Curse was badly written though. I mean, how could you try and fight that argument?
-
Which leads me to question just how much of the weapon can you change until it's not the same weapon anymore. Just in what part of it is Sara's soul trapped.
Now that just makes me think of this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-W_P7rMQRA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-W_P7rMQRA)
I remember that debate with great fondness, and my fanfic certainly argues that the two whips are seperate.
Basically, it's not that Drac's Deflector Shields were weaker, it's that his Turbolasers weren't firing at full power, and his Shields were weak to the kind of power that Hector, Shanoa, and Alucard wield to begin with.
Castlevania in Sppppaaaaaccceeeeeee!
-
Now that just makes me think of this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-W_P7rMQRA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-W_P7rMQRA)
Castlevania in Sppppaaaaaccceeeeeee!
You've just described a Ship of Theseus argument, and I love these.
Essentially, if you replace all the parts in a ship till nothing original remains, is it still the same ship?
Likewise, the leather has been replaced on the whip, so if we replace the handle, is it the same whip?
Tough question. Get yer philosophy hats on!
-
Likewise, the leather has been replaced on the whip, so if we replace the handle, is it the same whip?
What if we took the leather from the whip and attached it to a new handle, then took the old handle and attached it to a knew bit of leather. Would we have two Vampire Killers?
-
What if we took the leather from the whip and attached it to a new handle, then took the old handle and attached it to a knew bit of leather. Would we have two Vampire Killers?
Hunter Whip's theory detected!
-
What if we took the leather from the whip and attached it to a new handle, then took the old handle and attached it to a knew bit of leather. Would we have two Vampire Killers?
Nah
It would be just a pair of whips called Vampire and Killer :P
-
What if we took the leather from the whip and attached it to a new handle, then took the old handle and attached it to a knew bit of leather. Would we have two Vampire Killers?
I highly doubt it. Personally if anything is say Sara's Soul is in the leather(or other; chain etc) of the VK. This is the part she was struck with during the ritual, this is the is the part all creatures including Dracula are struck with when a Belmont uses the VK.
I'm not saying the hilt couldn't house her soul as well, but the whip of alchemy itself physically connected Leon and Sara during the final moments of the ritual. It is more than likely through the whole whip imo but if it eliminates duplicating the whip by separating the hilt then I'd say it makes more sense for her soul to exist in the leather component.
-
While writting a certain thing, it just ocurred to me about a possibility on how Hector could've destroyed Dracula: Hector did it simply because he was literally attacking Isaac's body, not Dracula's. Isaac's body CERTAINLY is vulnerable to any weapon.
By destroying Isaac's body, Dracula's soul is forced to return to the darkness since it has no body to inhabit on.
When Dracula is defeated, he even exclaims "The transformation... Was it not complete?!" which implies that, maybe, if the transformation of Isaac's body into Dracula's had been completed, he'd be truly impervious to Hector's attack since it would be Dracula's body in full effect.
-
It just now ocurred to me about a possibility on how Hector could destroy Dracula: Hector did it simply because he was literally attacking Isaac's body, not Dracula's.
When Dracula is defeated, he even exclaims "The transformation... Was it not complete?!" which implies that, maybe, if the transformation of Isaac's body into Dracula's had been completed, he'd be truly impervious to Hector's attack since it would be Dracula's body in full effect.
Or he attacked his body enough before the transformation reached its sticking point, Isaac was already battered and bruised from their previous dual.
-
While writting a certain thing, it just ocurred to me about a possibility on how Hector could've destroyed Dracula: Hector did it simply because he was literally attacking Isaac's body, not Dracula's. Isaac's body CERTAINLY is vulnerable to any weapon.
By destroying Isaac's body, Dracula's soul is forced to return to the darkness since it has no body to inhabit on.
When Dracula is defeated, he even exclaims "The transformation... Was it not complete?!" which implies that, maybe, if the transformation of Isaac's body into Dracula's had been completed, he'd be truly impervious to Hector's attack since it would be Dracula's body in full effect.
Now THIS makes sense as to why Hector could defeat Dracula while he is not of Belmont blood. Although Cornell is still an issue to think about since he too, isn't a Belmont.
-
Isn't LoD retconned, though? How would Cornell anything be an issue?
You've just described a Ship of Theseus argument, and I love these.
Essentially, if you replace all the parts in a ship till nothing original remains, is it still the same ship?
Likewise, the leather has been replaced on the whip, so if we replace the handle, is it the same whip?
Tough question. Get yer philosophy hats on!
The best way I can think to explain a potential method is thus:
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F9lYWlRg.png&hash=ac9358992c1106c138de93084800d821)
Since we're already dealing with alchemy/magic/soul-binding, there's already a suspension of disbelief going on in some form. Extending that to "the same kind of processes used to upgrade an enchanted whip might also be used to bind/isolate its energies into specific portions of the whip so that it becomes possible to upgrade the entire weapon's parts and still maintain the original energies and 'soul' of it due to clever manipulation and redistribution of those energies" isn't a very far stretch, and feels rather sensible/plausible IMO.
-
I have to say I agree with the idea that Dracula is most vulnerable to his own power. Bulgarian folklore does state that a dhampirs were specially selected as vampire hunters since they possessed the vampire's advantages, but none of their disadvantages.
Now, let's not forget alchemy became a very important part of the story after LoI. I strongly believe Dracula in the end IS weak to alchemy. Why? The VK was an alchemical whip before being infused with Sara's soul, and her soul was trapped in it using alchemy. I'm not expert in the subject, but it sounds to me that the power of the whip and Dracula's power (which comes from the Crimson Stone, made by alchemy) resonate in some sort of alchemical process. As far as I know, alchemy repeats over and over again the same process of burning, distilling, grinding, etc. to purify the materials. Maybe Dracula's soul was purified by being subjected to the same process of dying and resurrecting over and over again, because alchemy was applied to it over and over again.
On the VK: this is complete headcanon, but since the Belmonts have witch blood thanks to Sypha, even if the whip itself was completely replaced, Sara's soul could be infused in the new whip by mystic magical means. Juste, for example, can fuse spells with weapons. So, only in theory, they could infuse the VK's spirit into a new vessel (which might or might not have been taken as a sign of disrespect by the lady living in the old whip and might or might not be related to the bloodline being unable to touch the whip till 1999 and stuff). Then again, this is pure speculation so, yeah, whatevs.
-
Isn't LoD retconned, though? How would Cornell anything be an issue?
True. But retconned or not people still bring up Cornell's involved confrontation with Dracula from time to time.
-
True. But retconned or not people still bring up Cornell's involved confrontation with Dracula from time to time.
Cornell only fought off Ultimate Dracula for long enough until his wolf form was absorbed though. He sends him back to where ever he came from. It means Cornell has incredible strength but not necessarily that he can kill Dracula in his true incarnated form (as Reinhardt and Carrie supposedly did).
-
Now THIS makes sense as to why Hector could defeat Dracula while he is not of Belmont blood.
Sorry to double-post but I thought this was interesting, straight off wikipedia under Castlevania COD:
Hector proceeds to fight Dracula, who is unable to take full control of Isaac's body and returns to the afterlife. Hector then uses his powers as a Devil Forgemaster to lift the Curse.
-
Hector proceeds to fight Dracula, who is unable to take full control of Isaac's body and returns to the afterlife. Hector then uses his powers as a Devil Forgemaster to lift the Curse.
I think there was a thread about this very subject a while back. Don't know if any of us ever reached a conclusion about it though.
-
I think there was a thread about this very subject a while back. Don't know if any of us ever reached a conclusion about it though.
I thought that thread was about Dracula's remains being Isaac's remains in all subsequent games. This would be suggesting something else. Since Isaac was the vessel for a Dracula's resurrection, his vessel (body) was still not taken over by Dracula yet. The process/ transformation was unable to be completed which is why we see Isaac's body after the fight.