Castlevania Dungeon Forums
The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: Abnormal Freak on April 30, 2012, 12:35:15 AM
-
Is there really any reason to go with one over the other or does it all just boil down to personal preference?
I kinda prefer Demon Castle since that's always what I've known till Wikipedia started using Devil's Castle almost exclusively, and also Demon Castle kinda implies the castle itself is a demon...maybe? Some kind of hellish entity of sorts, since it's always changing. Or is it just an extension of Dracula's pouty moods?
-
I also prefer Demon Castle seeing as it is, in Alucard's words, "a creature of chaos" after all.
-
Also, technically "demon" and "devil" are two completely different words. A devil is a malicious slanderer or foe, whereas a demon is a spirit or lesser god. Seeing as how Dracula wasn't actually up to any real no-good and the castle is indeed populated by spirits, Demon Castle is the better name. The problem is Japanese took from "modern" English, which erased any distinction between demons and devils. So even in the Japanese language you'll see "akuma" used interchangeably. However, they are distinct terms which have been bastardized by the Church over the years. However, the title is indeed AKU-ma, which implies not just a demon but an evil demon. In some sects of Buddhism that may be an important distinction, because a spirit which causes suffering isn't necessarily evil ("onma"). And technically Satan in the modern passivist (huh, thought that was a real word... well it is now!) sense as the tempter would be a "bonnohma". In the strictest literal sense, the closest thing to "akuma" would be Ahriman, the god of chaos in Zoroastrianism. Perhaps a better translation for "akumajou" would be Fiend Castle or Fiendish Castle or Castle of Fiends, but none of those have a nice ring to them.
-
I've seen Akumajo Dracula officially translated from Japanese to English as Dracula's Satanic Castle. Demon Castle pretty much means the same thing but I think most offical translators probably would go with the latter because it's less religious sounding. So it comes down to personal preference.
-
I've seen Akumajo Dracula officially translated from Japanese to English as Dracula's Satanic Castle.
Where? D:
-
I always refer it to as Demon Castle due to the 1999 story being called The Demon Castle Wars.
-
Where? D:
A Japanese licensed gamebook. :)
-
Noticed this before, too. I also thought it was weird how wikipedia switched over to just Devil's Castle Dracula.
I remember seeing the whole Dracula's Satanic Castle thing on the wikipedia entry for the first game. It said that Akumajo Dracula translated to either Demon Castle Dracula, or that.
I always just assumed that Demon Castle Dracula was the most widely accepted translation. But I have to admit, Devil's Castle sounds pretty awesome. Using a term like Satanic almost seems a little heavy-handed for the tone of the series though, at least to me.
-
I like "Demon Castle". Goes nice with the whole "Creature of Chaos" thing and the castle is in fact filled with..well, demons. "Devil's Castle" would also imply that the castle isn't really Drac's. Besides, Devil's not in his element in CV; he's just a regular enemy that appears every now and then :)
-
I use "Devil Castle". In almost all cases, I translate "Akuma" into "Devil".
And, "Devil's Castle" is "Akuma no Shiro" for me.
-
I like "Demon Castle". Goes nice with the whole "Creature of Chaos" thing and the castle is in fact filled with..well, demons. "Devil's Castle" would also imply that the castle isn't really Drac's. Besides, Devil's not in his element in CV; he's just a regular enemy that appears every now and then :)
I always just imagined Dracula and the Devil as one and the same in the CV universe.
...which is why I was kind of baffled by the inclusion of Satan in Lords of Shadow, but that's for another topic I guess.
-
But Dracula isn't the devil, he's just evil. How many times have you beaten Dracula with Holy Water? And I don't mean when it hits him and shatters, which is 1 damage. I mean when it breaks open spewing holiness everywhere? He's pretty hard to defeat with that stuff.
-
Demon or Demonic Castle Dracula has a nice ring to it. how bout Devil's Demonic Castula Dracula
There are deities in the castle that predate the Christian Satan. Pazuzu, Erinys, Mushussu for instance.
Did AoS/DoS ever actually refer to the Demon Castle War (singular, not plural) as such? Or was it referred to as just the "Battle of 1999?"
-
The "Dracula's Satanic Castle" bit is also found in the packaging of the European release of Vampire Killer. Frankly, it would've been hilarious had they stuck with that. It's so Hammer-esque.
-
'Demon castle' for me. 8)
-
But Dracula isn't the devil, he's just evil.
Well, yeah, but he's the ultimate embodiment of evil, and all that stuff. So he might as well be the devil, imo. I don't know why, but it always seemed weird or redundant to me to imagine Dracula and the devil coexisting in the same fictional universe.
-
Again as I said, the "embodiment of evil" is Ahriman. The Devil isn't technically evil, he's just a slanderous, duplicitous being. He's kind of like Medusa or even Dark Pit in Kid Icarus: Uprising, neither of whom are actually evil. And anyway, as Crisis pointed out, some of the denizens of the castle are pre-Christian and the correct term for an entity from outside Christianity is "demon". And as for the Dracula's Satanic Castle translation, consider where that translation was done.
-
Akuma is a more generic term in Japanese for an evil spirit which is why I always use Demon to translate it. I generally don't like to use the term devil even if it used in a general way because of the Christian connotation that ties it to Lucifer.
And just to be clear on a certain point, in no way is Dracula's Satanic Castle even remotely a correct translation on a technical level especially when one considers that Satan isn't the devil and is never named as such in the bible. In fact, Satan is little more than an angel commanded to oppose a certain human in one of the old testament stories and is never even implied to be an evil entity at all. So for me it's Demon Castle all the way. Hell, my fan game is even titled "Castlevania: The Demon Castle".
-
I wish Satan from LoS was called "Lucifer" instead. Would've made more sense.
a-and, "Castlevania: The Demon Castle" would be a good title for the 1999 game; simple, straight to the point.
-
a-and, "Castlevania: The Demon Castle" would be a good title for the 1999 game; simple, straight to the point.
"Castlevania: Demon Castle War" sounds better IMO.
-
especially when one considers that Satan isn't the devil and is never named as such in the bible.
Several times he is. :p
Then Jesus said to him, "Go, Satan!" [...] Then the devil left Him[.]" (Matt. 4:10,11 NASB)
And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. (Rev. 12:9)
The Bible makes it clear that Satan is the serpent devil who tempted Eve, and is Lucifer the most glorious angel who was cast out of heaven.
Jesus also said that Satan goes by the name Beelzebub, an allusion to the fertility god Baal, relating Satan to pagan gods of old.
But some of them said, "He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons." Others, to test Him, were demanding of Him a sign from heaven. But He knew their thoughts and said to them, "Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and a house divided against itself falls. If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say that I cast out demons by Beelzebul. And if I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out?" (Luke 11:15–19)
As for whether Dracula is the devil in the Castlevania (pre-LOS) series, for some reason I used to think of them as synonymous when I was a kid. As mentioned, Dracula pretty much is the embodiment of evil in the series, the ultimate bad guy, but it would seem he's separate from Satan.
The name Dracula basically means "son of the dragon" or alternately "son of the devil"; Satan is called "that great dragon, the serpent" so he somehow kind of...took on a great role in Satan's kingdom, I guess, so much that he's basically Satan's son or heir in a sense, even though I get the feeling Drac has never seen Satan if indeed he exists in the series' world. :p But perhaps Dracula is Satan's greatest pawn or tool.
-
Again as I said, the "embodiment of evil" is Ahriman. The Devil isn't technically evil, he's just a slanderous, duplicitous being. He's kind of like Medusa or even Dark Pit in Kid Icarus: Uprising, neither of whom are actually evil. And anyway, as Crisis pointed out, some of the denizens of the castle are pre-Christian and the correct term for an entity from outside Christianity is "demon". And as for the Dracula's Satanic Castle translation, consider where that translation was done.
I don't think the pre-Christian entities being present mean much regarding what or who the "devil" is. Devil would likely be "Christian Devil"(considering a lot of Christian/Church themes in the CV games), and in Christianity, his "being" predates organized religion.
And as Abnormal Freak said, the term is likely just tossed around by the original Japanese writes to make it sound cool. It's done a lot of times with games. I think Dracula would be affiliated with the Devil, but the whole "Dark Lord" thing came much after the original games. Though, interestingly enough, Dracula has had the nickname "Prince of Darkness" in various movies(and I think I even saw some television shows and cartoons where they referred to him by that). Oddly enough, the Christian Devil and Antichrist are also referred to as "Prince of Darkness".
-
Except Satan isn't a proper name, it's a common noun like "dog" or "cat" or "god". It simply means "opposer". In a similar vain, "devil" meant "slanderer". So basically Jesus is saying, "Piss off, my enemy. I don't like what you say." It wasn't until Zoroastrianism crept into Christianity that Satan and Devil became proper names. Christianity at the time of the King James Bible was way more varied than it is today, with some sects being way out in right field. In order to get the various sects to unite under one church, there had to be some give and take in doctrine and thus Satan the Angel-Turned-Devil came to be. Some sects of Christianity don't believe in the existence of Lucifer (a Roman loan word) and some don't even believe that Satan as a single entity even exists. And all the evidence points to Lucifer/Satan being an adoption of Ahriman into Christianity, just as Beelzebub/Baal was adopted. And why would Jesus refer to Satan and Beelzebub in separate references? Why not just straight up say, "If Baal also is divided against himself--"? Just as Lucifer is a mistranslation of an honorific title of a Babylonian King simply meaning "(Planet) Venus" (I don't get why it's so hard for people to grasp that concept. Why, of all the deities in the Bible, would only one deity have a Roman name? It's obviously a mistranslation, but it's heresy to say the Bible wasn't translated correctly.), "satan" is just a title he used to refer to any heretical deity. Beelzebub was the most famous in his time and it was the one pharisees accused him of calling on, not because Beelzebub is Satan. It's that same kind of spin doctoring that makes political races in Democratic countries a deplorable mockery of the original ideology. And of course the great dragon would be called "devil" -- he spun lies to get Eve to eat the apple and share it with Adam -- and "satan" -- he opposed God's will and creation. And the whole irony of Revelation is people insist the dragon is The Devil proper, yet Lucifer is depicted as a beautiful archangel or serraph. Wait, was he an angel or a dragon? There are so many inconsistencies in Revelation. Even if you take from the Apocrypha, which is also heresy to ascribe truth to, then it just becomes apparent that Christianity borrowed from other religions and is no different than the religions of the barbarians and other heretics. And even the Jews complained the original Western translations of the Old Testament before Jesus' time were very faulty. Different authors ascribed different interpretations of the Old Testament. It's just like if you took a book written in Japanese or Chinese and asked a class of students to translate the book. Each translation will vary and some will be so far off that it's almost not even the same story. Yet many Christian churches had to rely on those texts because it was the easiest way to read old scriptures, so from there they interpreted the New Testament as they saw fit. Even Jesus' disciples had their own understandings of the religions of that era. Judaeism and Christianity were not unified (within their own disciplines, I mean) religious beliefs, there were numerous sects each with their own scriptures and each with their own interpretations and translations of scriptures.
He's probably called the Prince Of Darkness because Beelzebub was likely a bastardization of "Baal, Lord on High" or "Prince of Baal". And for that matter, why would Satan only be a prince of darkness? Who's the king or monarch or emperor or lord or duke of darkness?
But I think I diverged from the topic too much.
-
WHy not Dracula's Castle of Demons? I always thought that was the meaning behind the name :(
-
And is it Akumajou Dracula or Akumajou: Dracula? The other games suggest it's Akumajou: Dracula (since there is simply Akumajou and then there's Akumajou Densetsu). But everytime I see Akumajou Dracula, I'm like, "Whoa, the CASTLE is Dracula? Not just the dude in the cape, but the whole entire castle?! That's impressive."
Anyway, another thing:
Death doesn't answer to Satan.
Why would Satan live in a castle and be defeated routinely by a human with a whip when God can't even beat him until End Days?
Recently, Dracula's castle has contained religious artifacts, chapels, even victorious angels. Why would Satan have that?
Of course it still falls back to the second one, i think: How could Satan, aka The Devil, the supreme evil, the prince of darkness himself, be defeated so easily by a mere human?
And furthermore, if the Belmonts can defeat Death time after time, why do they still die? Why not defeat Death again and achieve immortality? (that always bugged me)
-
And furthermore, if the Belmonts can defeat Death time after time, why do they still die? Why not defeat Death again and achieve immortality? (that always bugged me)
Because Death is not death itself but a powerful necromancer or a "god of death" and blah blah blah...
:P
-
Many castles are referred to as "Castle [Name]." It simply implies it's the castle of whomever or wherever. :p
-
I like "Demon Castle". Goes nice with the whole "Creature of Chaos" thing and the castle is in fact filled with..well, demons. "Devil's Castle" would also imply that the castle isn't really Drac's. Besides, Devil's not in his element in CV; he's just a regular enemy that appears every now and then :)
Think like you ! :) The Demon Castle sound better to me
Ps: Your signature is Awesome , i can't stop laughing x)
-
Except Satan isn't a proper name, it's a common noun like "dog" or "cat" or "god". It simply means "opposer". In a similar vain, "devil" meant "slanderer". So basically Jesus is saying, "Piss off, my enemy. I don't like what you say." It wasn't until Zoroastrianism crept into Christianity that Satan and Devil became proper names. Christianity at the time of the King James Bible was way more varied than it is today, with some sects being way out in right field. In order to get the various sects to unite under one church, there had to be some give and take in doctrine and thus Satan the Angel-Turned-Devil came to be. Some sects of Christianity don't believe in the existence of Lucifer (a Roman loan word) and some don't even believe that Satan as a single entity even exists. And all the evidence points to Lucifer/Satan being an adoption of Ahriman into Christianity, just as Beelzebub/Baal was adopted. And why would Jesus refer to Satan and Beelzebub in separate references? Why not just straight up say, "If Baal also is divided against himself--"? Just as Lucifer is a mistranslation of an honorific title of a Babylonian King simply meaning "(Planet) Venus" (I don't get why it's so hard for people to grasp that concept. Why, of all the deities in the Bible, would only one deity have a Roman name? It's obviously a mistranslation, but it's heresy to say the Bible wasn't translated correctly.), "satan" is just a title he used to refer to any heretical deity. Beelzebub was the most famous in his time and it was the one pharisees accused him of calling on, not because Beelzebub is Satan. It's that same kind of spin doctoring that makes political races in Democratic countries a deplorable mockery of the original ideology. And of course the great dragon would be called "devil" -- he spun lies to get Eve to eat the apple and share it with Adam -- and "satan" -- he opposed God's will and creation. And the whole irony of Revelation is people insist the dragon is The Devil proper, yet Lucifer is depicted as a beautiful archangel or serraph. Wait, was he an angel or a dragon? There are so many inconsistencies in Revelation. Even if you take from the Apocrypha, which is also heresy to ascribe truth to, then it just becomes apparent that Christianity borrowed from other religions and is no different than the religions of the barbarians and other heretics. And even the Jews complained the original Western translations of the Old Testament before Jesus' time were very faulty. Different authors ascribed different interpretations of the Old Testament. It's just like if you took a book written in Japanese or Chinese and asked a class of students to translate the book. Each translation will vary and some will be so far off that it's almost not even the same story. Yet many Christian churches had to rely on those texts because it was the easiest way to read old scriptures, so from there they interpreted the New Testament as they saw fit. Even Jesus' disciples had their own understandings of the religions of that era. Judaeism and Christianity were not unified (within their own disciplines, I mean) religious beliefs, there were numerous sects each with their own scriptures and each with their own interpretations and translations of scriptures.
He's probably called the Prince Of Darkness because Beelzebub was likely a bastardization of "Baal, Lord on High" or "Prince of Baal". And for that matter, why would Satan only be a prince of darkness? Who's the king or monarch or emperor or lord or duke of darkness?
But I think I diverged from the topic too much.
I'm talking about the modern interpretation of the Christian Devil. Castlevania is a game series hailing from our modern age, hence it's depiction of such mythology would be drawing upon modern take of such subject. I mean, and this is not to offend anybody(if it does, I apologize), but the word "fag/faggot" has had many different meanings from throughout the ages. When we, in our modern culture, hear it, we don't consider it's more archaic meaning(a bundle of sticks) and immediately register it with it's popular meanings(for Brits, slang for cigarettes, and a derogative name for homosexuals). Castlevania might be set in older times, but the depction of those times are nonetheless modern, with creative license, of course.
But, don't think I'm actually on the "pro-Devil Castle" side. Demon Castle has always had a better ring to it, IMO. It sounds more fitting. Dracula might be considered a devil in CV lore, but the castle IS home to a multitude of demons(evil spirits), and is talked about as being alive itself. Demon Castle just fits better, as it doesn't just encompass Dracula, but him, his castle and all the monsters within it.
-
The Castle itself IS a Demon, hence Demon Castle Dracula.
-
Think like you ! :) The Demon Castle sound better to me
Ps: Your signature is Awesome , i can't stop laughing x)
Cheers matey.
-
Several times he is. :p
Then Jesus said to him, "Go, Satan!" [...] Then the devil left Him[.]" (Matt. 4:10,11 NASB)
And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. (Rev. 12:9)
The Bible makes it clear that Satan is the serpent devil who tempted Eve, and is Lucifer the most glorious angel who was cast out of heaven.
Jesus also said that Satan goes by the name Beelzebub, an allusion to the fertility god Baal, relating Satan to pagan gods of old.
But some of them said, "He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons." Others, to test Him, were demanding of Him a sign from heaven. But He knew their thoughts and said to them, "Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and a house divided against itself falls. If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say that I cast out demons by Beelzebul. And if I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out?" (Luke 11:15–19)
As for whether Dracula is the devil in the Castlevania (pre-LOS) series, for some reason I used to think of them as synonymous when I was a kid. As mentioned, Dracula pretty much is the embodiment of evil in the series, the ultimate bad guy, but it would seem he's separate from Satan.
The name Dracula basically means "son of the dragon" or alternately "son of the devil"; Satan is called "that great dragon, the serpent" so he somehow kind of...took on a great role in Satan's kingdom, I guess, so much that he's basically Satan's son or heir in a sense, even though I get the feeling Drac has never seen Satan if indeed he exists in the series' world. :p But perhaps Dracula is Satan's greatest pawn or tool.
I meant it as in the Old Testament, by the time the New Testament was written they had already screwed it up, plus most of the translations are wrong to begin with. Or, basically, this...
Except Satan isn't a proper name, it's a common noun like "dog" or "cat" or "god". It simply means "opposer". In a similar vain, "devil" meant "slanderer". So basically Jesus is saying, "Piss off, my enemy. I don't like what you say." It wasn't until Zoroastrianism crept into Christianity that Satan and Devil became proper names. Christianity at the time of the King James Bible was way more varied than it is today, with some sects being way out in right field. In order to get the various sects to unite under one church, there had to be some give and take in doctrine and thus Satan the Angel-Turned-Devil came to be. Some sects of Christianity don't believe in the existence of Lucifer (a Roman loan word) and some don't even believe that Satan as a single entity even exists. And all the evidence points to Lucifer/Satan being an adoption of Ahriman into Christianity, just as Beelzebub/Baal was adopted. And why would Jesus refer to Satan and Beelzebub in separate references? Why not just straight up say, "If Baal also is divided against himself--"? Just as Lucifer is a mistranslation of an honorific title of a Babylonian King simply meaning "(Planet) Venus" (I don't get why it's so hard for people to grasp that concept. Why, of all the deities in the Bible, would only one deity have a Roman name? It's obviously a mistranslation, but it's heresy to say the Bible wasn't translated correctly.), "satan" is just a title he used to refer to any heretical deity. Beelzebub was the most famous in his time and it was the one pharisees accused him of calling on, not because Beelzebub is Satan. It's that same kind of spin doctoring that makes political races in Democratic countries a deplorable mockery of the original ideology. And of course the great dragon would be called "devil" -- he spun lies to get Eve to eat the apple and share it with Adam -- and "satan" -- he opposed God's will and creation. And the whole irony of Revelation is people insist the dragon is The Devil proper, yet Lucifer is depicted as a beautiful archangel or serraph. Wait, was he an angel or a dragon? There are so many inconsistencies in Revelation. Even if you take from the Apocrypha, which is also heresy to ascribe truth to, then it just becomes apparent that Christianity borrowed from other religions and is no different than the religions of the barbarians and other heretics. And even the Jews complained the original Western translations of the Old Testament before Jesus' time were very faulty. Different authors ascribed different interpretations of the Old Testament. It's just like if you took a book written in Japanese or Chinese and asked a class of students to translate the book. Each translation will vary and some will be so far off that it's almost not even the same story. Yet many Christian churches had to rely on those texts because it was the easiest way to read old scriptures, so from there they interpreted the New Testament as they saw fit. Even Jesus' disciples had their own understandings of the religions of that era. Judaeism and Christianity were not unified (within their own disciplines, I mean) religious beliefs, there were numerous sects each with their own scriptures and each with their own interpretations and translations of scriptures.
He's probably called the Prince Of Darkness because Beelzebub was likely a bastardization of "Baal, Lord on High" or "Prince of Baal". And for that matter, why would Satan only be a prince of darkness? Who's the king or monarch or emperor or lord or duke of darkness?
But I think I diverged from the topic too much.