Castlevania Dungeon Forums
The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: Kaneda on March 08, 2016, 06:49:46 PM
-
Has anyone brought up reincarnation as a possible resolution for this discrepancy? I searched the forums for the topic but didn't find anything that caught my attention, that I thought I'd start a thread.
Malus was Dracula reborn as a boy and then restored to his vampiric form. What if Vlad was Mathias reborn as well? Even taking CV64's canon status into the equation, the concept could still remain in place.
-
What if Vlad was Mathias reborn as well? Even taking CV64's canon status into the equation, the concept could still remain in place.
This would have been more acceptable in my mind rather then seeing Vlad III shoved aside in favor of the stereo-typical Japanese anime villain. And since Mathias and Vlad have two totally different attitudes it would make far more sense in that regard. Sadly it never happened. And on a different note I especially did not like to hear that Death was relegated to a Shinigami rather then remaining the Greece-European Grim Reaper as he was supposed to be. I could go on a rant about this but that's not this topic.
-
The easiest assumption I can make is that Mathias took up residence in Wallachia later -- he probably wasn't settling down until his power was much greater and he became less easily assailable.
Once he was there, it would be easy enough for a reclusive only-seen-by-night noble to be Vlad II Dracul AND Vlad III Dracula by passing himself off as his own son (Lex Luthor did something similar in the Superman comics of the 1990's). All it would take are a few slight adjustments to how he presented himself to how he was as Vlad II, and nobody would be the wiser -- with few people who had gotten a good look at their leader other than in portraits, and no real court to speak of, who would be around to tell people that Vlad 2 and 3 were the same person? And anyone who figured it out would surely be an outlier, on the margins, as everyone else would justify all doubt in their own heads as Vlad III Dracula simply being "the spitting image of his father".
It's worth noting that Trevor's slaying of Dracula in Castlevania III coincides with the date of the real life death of Vlad III Dracula, so I'll use that to support my supposition here.
-
I have to agree with The Bloody Scholar. It seems very likely Mathias settled in Wallachia and simply disguised himself as Vlad. Although the "Malus" theory seems possible, canonically speaking, Mathias had not been killed until Trevor showed up. This means he most likely had his original body and had been building up power for centuries, which could have made very easy for him to change his appearance, very much like Alucard did when he disguised himself as "Arikado". Besides, I think the Curse of Darkness manga (according to the wiki) says Dracula had defended that land before Lisa's death, which resulted in his crusade to destroy humanity (something Mathias didn't do before I think; his only concern was his revenge against God).
-
I think Mathias just disguised himself as Vlad III when the real Vlad III was dead. This would ensure with ease his control of an army, fear and reverence of the people and being feared by his enemies to no end with all the crazy shit Vlad III had done.
Obviously Lisa had died prior to CVIII which would make sense as to why he would do this, choosing to wage war on humanity in addition to the aforementioned cursing of God.
Vampires also shape shift or appear differently at will, if you can turn into a wolf, bat, mist and change your appearance you can look like someone else.
I also don't buy the Malus theory, the IGA timeline says every slain Vampire added to Mathias' power and he was a fucking beast by CVIII, no way did he previously die.
-
Here's an idea. So Mathias does his thing, becomes a naughty vampire god. While going about trying to make a bad world filled with evil, he eventually resides in Transylvania and has his history with the (still human) Vlad the Impaler.
Vlad eventually has his epic quest where he goes after Mathias. Personally, I like the idea of Vlad the Impaler and the Belmont of the era being friends, but anyway, with Dracula's already (although much more limited) magical knowledge he's eventually able to defeat Mathaias and absord his power and everything he is. So Mathias becomes part of Dracula. At first he's just a whispering voice in the back of Vlad's head, but as time and the years go by, he becomes more integrated into Dracula's personality until they reach the point where there's no difference between them.
So there you go, now Mathias still gets to become Dracula and Vlad Dracula gets to stay Dracula (and even gets his time as the hero of Transylvania.)
-
I stand by my opinion that Vlad III never existed on the Castlevania's universe, and is likely* a character fabricated by the Church to close the hole that a vampire-demon lord left on history.
The evidence: Dracula's official full name is "Dracula Vlad Tepes" and we know very well that "Tepes" wasn't Vlad III's name nor is the word an actual, real-world name.
One may argue that he could've changed names to wage war on mankind and was simply "Vlad III" before, but this is not true. Alucard's true name is "Adrian Fahreinheit Tepes" and this name was obviously given to him before the war started, which goes to show that Dracula wore the name "Tepes" WAY before the war after all. So, if he was "Tepes" he couldn't be "Vlad III" as Vlad III wasn't called "Tepes" until well after his death (almost 100 years later). And again, the addition of "Tepes" wasn't as a name, but as an adjective. Vlad the Impaler was dubbed "the Impaler" as much as Alexander the Great was dubbed "the Great".
* - "Likely" because the "Vlad III" personality itself is never once uttered anywhere in the game for me to make this assumption. I base it solely on the fact that some geopolitical events depend on the existence of a "Vlad III character" so history is not broken (the very existence of a place named "Romania" itself depends on a "Vlad III" existing at some point).
So, I think trying to reconcile both doesn't work unless we break something. Assuming that "Vlad III" is a character invented to manipulate history to hide Dracula's existence (ensuring that things end up playing out how they did on our world) is a much more elegant solution than trying to fit the real Vlad III in there somewhere with Mathias.
-
I think what some may call evidence for one theory, or evidence for another, are simply mistakes made by konami. They didn't have a clear vision of how they wanted to handle Dracula. They changed concepts for him mid-cannon, and basically tarnished the authenticity of the character. Then LOS took it to a whole other level of botching it.
I think the treatment of Dracula is the biggest flaw in CV.
For anyone who agrees with me and thinks that Dracula should be portrayed as Vlad the Impaler. After Lecarde Chronicles 2, Mig and I will be creating a CV-inspired game called Wallachia. The game will portray Dracula as I believe he should be. As a merciless, vengeful ruler, who fights his own battles using guerrilla tactics, night combat, scorched earth, unspeakable torture, ect, ect.
This will be our first salable game.
This is not a Dracula who would wait patiently in a throne room for an assassin to come to him. This is a Dracula who would do anything it takes to win. This is who he was, and it made him into a real life monster and a legend at the same time.
He wasn't a vampire. But he certainly was a monster.
-
I stand by my opinion that Vlad III never existed on the Castlevania's universe, and is likely* a character fabricated by the Church to close the hole that a vampire-demon lord left on history.
The evidence: Dracula's official full name is "Dracula Vlad Tepes" and we know very well that "Tepes" wasn't Vlad III's name nor is the word an actual, real-world name.
One may argue that he could've changed names to wage war on mankind and was simply "Vlad III" before, but this is not true. Alucard's true name is "Adrian Fahreinheit Tepes" and this name was obviously given to him before the war started, which goes to show that Dracula wore the name "Tepes" WAY before the war after all. So, if he was "Tepes" he couldn't be "Vlad III" as Vlad III wasn't called "Tepes" until well after his death (almost 100 years later). And again, the addition of "Tepes" wasn't as a name, but as an adjective. Vlad the Impaler was dubbed "the Impaler" as much as Alexander the Great was dubbed "the Great".
* - "Likely" because the "Vlad III" personality itself is never once uttered anywhere in the game for me to make this assumption. I base it solely on the fact that some geopolitical events depend on the existence of a "Vlad III character" so history is not broken (the very existence of a place named "Romania" itself depends on a "Vlad III" existing at some point).
So, I think trying to reconcile both doesn't work unless we break something. Assuming that "Vlad III" is a character invented to manipulate history to hide Dracula's existence (ensuring that things end up playing out how they did on our world) is a much more elegant solution than trying to fit the real Vlad III in there somewhere with Mathias.
All good points, but I need to quibble with history here.
the very existence of a place named "Romania" itself depends on a "Vlad III" existing at some point
No it doesn't. Vlad the Impaler predates the nation of Romania by centuries. In his time, it was all Hungary. Romania is a modern nation that didn't even exist until the 1880's -- in 1859, Wallachia united with Moldavia to form the United Principalities, which adopted the name Romania in 1866 and officially became the Kingdom of Romania in 1881. Later, in 1918, Transylvania was ceded by the Treaty of Trianon from Hungary to the Kingdom of Romania, forming the modern Romanian state. Dracula had literally no part in forming Romania.
On a side note:
Wallachia existed in Vlad's time, but the real world Dracula would have never been a Count either -- that was something Stoker made up. He might as well have called Dracula an "earl" or a "baron". The real world Vlad was a straight up prince, being descended from a royal family ("Count" being a noble title, not a royal one). Furthermore, his only known wife, Ilona Szilágyi (try pronouncing that five times fast) WAS a countess by inheritance, but Vlad's title as Prince of Wallachia would have superseded that. She was also Mathias Corvinus' cousin, and this created even stronger royal ties for Vlad's family. Fortunately, all this transpired AFTER Mathias and Vlad reconciled.
In essence, while Konami BEGAN with a Dracula that was in some way inspired both by film and by history, Iga's Dracula was just as made up as Stoker's was, if not more so. He exists only as a good story.
And Gabriel Belmont is notable for being a rehash of that exact same story that just makes him a composite of both Mathias and Leon to seem original and force a plot twist at the end of the first game.
-
No it doesn't. Vlad the Impaler predates the nation of Romania by centuries. In his time, it was all Hungary. Romania is a modern nation that didn't even exist until the 1880's
Which makes sense as the real figure, Matthias Corvinus was once King of Hungary.
-
BAM eat some history.
See, I was not talking about "Romania" in the sense that the "place be baptized as Romania." I'm very aware that "Romania" was something that started in the 1880s. I was talking about the historic weight of Vlad III and his battle with a multitude of strangers trying to take Wallachia from him, and how does that impact the existence of the place called "Romania" itself in the future.
If his lands were taken or his lineage never existed (a lineage that extends after him, btw), it's a very likely possibility that Romania would never be formed in the future.
Vlad III was not some unknown dude with no political influence. Erasing him from history starts a chain of events that affects the geopolitical scenario to the point of, again, it possibly never even existing as we know it. Butterfly effect.
Wallachia existed in Vlad's time, but the real world Dracula would have never been a Count either -- that was something Stoker made up
Bram Stoker never says Vlad III was a Count in his book. He doesn't even directly tell you Dracula is Vlad III. The "Dracula" persona created by the vampire is a Count. As in "The dude living in a castle in the 1890s wanting to buy estate is a Count" and not as "the dude who ruled Wallachia is a Count".
Castlevania is the media saying Dracula was a Count in the 1400s (which of course he wasn't), not Bram Stoker. Castlevania's developers got that bit wrong.
-
See, I was not talking about "Romania" in the sense that the "place be baptized as Romania." I'm very aware that "Romania" was something that started in the 1880s. I was talking about the historic weight of Vlad III and his battle with a multitude of strangers trying to take Wallachia from him, and how does that impact the existence of the place called "Romania" itself in the future.
If his lands were taken or his lineage never existed (a lineage that extends after him, btw), it's a very likely possibility that Romania would never be formed in the future.
Vlad III was not some unknown dude with no political influence. Erasing him from history starts a chain of events that affects the geopolitical scenario to the point of, again, it possibly never even existing as we know it. Butterfly effect.
I have to disagree as well. It's easy to say that Vlad III was so important that erasing him from history would mean that Romania never exists as it does in reality. However, from a narrative point of view it is just as easy to say that there was no real person named Vlad III and the church fabricated this fiction in order to cover up the existence of the Dark Lord Dracula. As a work of fiction it is easy to state that aside from the true nature of Vlad III, the rest of history played out basically the same as in reality. At the very least AoS confirms that Dracula's castle is commonly known to be in Europe.
-
Plottwist is correct in saying that the Dracula novel never states the character in the past tense was Vlad III, at least not imo.
This is the issue, CV was influenced by Stoker's work to the point where it included the novel as part of the official canon. The fact Vlad III's death coincides with Trevor beating Dracula can't be ignored if you ask me, the date is just too significant that anyone can say it's coincidental. Originally he was probably supposed to be Vlad, following the original (pseudo?-)historical mythos of Dracula where Vlad's remains couldn't be found in his tomb (or that they excavated his tomb and found animal bones; whichever theory one subscribes to) so that his enemies thought him to be resurrected as a Vampire.
Along came Mathias (staring Ben Stiller as Mathias, Jennifer Aniston as Rinaldo, and Philip Seymour Hoffman as Elisabetha :p ) and the fabric of CV's history was altered.
We know Mathias grew stronger with every Vampire slain between LOI-CVIII adds to Mathias/ Dracula's power and we know that he is fought and defeated in CVIII, not Vlad III.
Therefore it's 2 scenario's:
- Vlad III didn't exist in CV's history, hence manifesting a slightly different series of events, or
- Vlad III did exist in CV's history with the least amount of pissing about ie
Mathias assumed his throne at some stage (either before or upon his death?) which gave him access to waging war on humanity post-LD (Lisa's Death). That war he wished reached it's climax in CVIII.
Personally I prefer the latter because it incorporates the Mythos of the Vampire Dracula as we know it while explaining where Mathias got his means (including his followers) for waging war etc.
-
Right. Stoker must have been talking about another called Dracula who fought against the Turks and was betrayed by his brother.
He didn't have a lot of history at his disposal. But his intent was clear.
It doesn't matter that at the start of writing the story he didn't have the vampire as Dracula. The finished novel makes it clear as day.
Even the most knowledgable character in the book, Van Helsing, states that he is indeed Dracula who fought the Turks.
Where is the discrepancy?
-
Right. Stoker must have been talking about another called Dracula who fought against the Turks and was betrayed by his brother.
There were 3 who attended my primary school. ;)
-
Bram Stoker very much based Dracula off of Vlad III. And yes there is a line in the novel that points to Dracula being Vlad III.
"He must, indeed, have been that Voivode Dracula who won his name against the Turk, over the great river on the very frontier of Turkeyland." - Van Helsing
Here's an idea. So Mathias does his thing, becomes a naughty vampire god. While going about trying to make a bad world filled with evil, he eventually resides in Transylvania and has his history with the (still human) Vlad the Impaler.
Vlad eventually has his epic quest where he goes after Mathias. Personally, I like the idea of Vlad the Impaler and the Belmont of the era being friends, but anyway, with Dracula's already (although much more limited) magical knowledge he's eventually able to defeat Mathaias and absord his power and everything he is. So Mathias becomes part of Dracula. At first he's just a whispering voice in the back of Vlad's head, but as time and the years go by, he becomes more integrated into Dracula's personality until they reach the point where there's no difference between them.
So there you go, now Mathias still gets to become Dracula and Vlad Dracula gets to stay Dracula (and even gets his time as the hero of Transylvania.)
I had a similar idea back in the day as well. However there was no unification between Mathias and Vlad III. Mathias' powers were stolen when he unwillingly lost the Crimson stone to Vlad III and became a mere mortal once more. Without that stone Mathias is now subjected to fate like any other mortal. As for Vlad III? The true Dracula now reigns supreme.
-
I had a similar idea back in the day as well. However there was no unification between Mathias and Vlad III. Mathias' powers were stolen when he unwillingly lost the Crimson stone to Vlad III and became a mere mortal once more. Without that stone Mathias is now subjected to fate like any other mortal. As for Vlad III? The true Dracula now reigns supreme.
That's the best headcanon I've seen on this subject yet.
It now occurs to me that we the fans are MUCH better writers for this saga than anyone Konami ever hired.
-
Regarding the debate about whether or not Count Dracula in Stoker's novel is really Vlad Tepes, I read a very interesting scholary article about this (written by a certain Andrew Collins from the the university of Otago) from 2011 which argues he definitely was not. To summarize his point briefly, he states the only source mentioned in Stoker's notes from he which he could have gotten his information about the historical Dracula is "An Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia" (he also links all the passages from the novel that relate to historical events to information in this book) which mention two Dracula's: Vlad II and Vlad III. So, the author further goes on that the novel mentions on a few occasians two Dracula's:
1) A Dracula who ‘crossed the Danube and beat the Turk on his own ground’, whose ‘unworthy brother, when he had fallen, sold his people to the Turk and brought the shame of slavery on them’.
2) A second Dracula who was inspired by Vlad the Impaler’s military exploits.
Was it not this Dracula, indeed, who inspired that other of his race who in a later age again and again brought his forces over the great river into Turkey-land, who, when he was beaten back, came again, and again, though he had to come alone from the bloody field where his troops were being slaughtered, since he knew that he alone could ultimately triumph! They said that he thought only of himself. Bah! What good are peasants without a leader? Where ends the war without a brain and heart to conduct it?
This second Dracula is supposed to have fought in the battle of Mohács, which took place in 1526, as mentioned in the novel.
The author argues that Stoker assumed because of the multiple uses of Dracula in the book he consulted, Dracula was actually a lineage, not simply a title. So this means that Stoker actually meant for Count Dracula to be a fictionalized relative of Vlad Tepes who also happend to have fought Turks at a later point in time, but also dabbled in black magic, alchemy, and so on.
Anyway, I just did a quick summary. I don't think this article is accessible unless you're affliated with an university, so you just have to take my word for it, I guess.
-
Bram Stoker very much based Dracula off of Vlad III. And yes there is a line in the novel that points to Dracula being Vlad III.
"He must, indeed, have been that Voivode Dracula who won his name against the Turk, over the great river on the very frontier of Turkeyland." - Van Helsing
Even the most knowledgable character in the book, Van Helsing, states that he is indeed Dracula who fought the Turks.
Where is the discrepancy?
"He must, indeed, have been that Voivode Dracula who won his name against the Turk, over the great river on the very frontier of Turkeyland. If it be so, then was he no common man, for in that time, and for centuries after, he was spoken of as the cleverest and the most cunning, as well as the bravest of the sons of the 'land beyond the forest."
"If it be so" IF. Notice how Van Helsing says "IF" then proceeds to draw conclusions IN THE CASE his assumption is true.
Also notice how he never even utters "Vlad III" and uses "Voivode Dracula" instead. Bram Stoker thought that "Dracula" was a group of people, not a single guy, as seen here:
"The Draculas were, says Arminius, a great and noble race, though now and again were scions who were held by their coevals to have had dealings with the Evil One."
"The Draculas"? A "noble race" of "Draculas"? Read Nagumo's point above to understand why this is important.
That's why I said the story doesn't directly say he's Vlad III. Not even Van Helsing is completelly sure of it. The story ends with this uncertainty, because it's not important. Bram Stoker relegates the "Dracula was a voivode" fact to a ONE LINE bit where Van Helsing is not even sure of it, and according to Stoker's intent, it could have been any of "the Draculas".
I'm not saying Bram Stoker didn't base Dracula on Vlad III nor wanted Dracula to be Vlad III. He probably did, and any researcher nowadays can point this out easily. I'm saying the story never tells this to you directly, because it's not important. And also, the story never says that Vlad III was a Count.
I had a similar idea back in the day as well. However there was no unification between Mathias and Vlad III. Mathias' powers were stolen when he unwillingly lost the Crimson stone to Vlad III and became a mere mortal once more. Without that stone Mathias is now subjected to fate like any other mortal. As for Vlad III? The true Dracula now reigns supreme.
This is very good.
Imagine how plot twistey would it be if Mathias wound up tricked by Vlad III after they had allied, and ended up becoming Olrox with Dracula as his master.
This would be just like Murnau's Orlok is nothing but a knock-off of the true Dracula :o
-
No offense to X, but Mathias losing the CS to Vlad III sounds very fanfic.
We already have the fact that if Vlad III did exist then eventually the rational line of thought would dictate Mathias took his throne (and castle?). This is already in and of itself making assumptions, but they're based on the least amount of assumptions made when mixing historical fact, mythology and fiction.
To assume Mathias loses the CS just involves way too many assumptions for me. Iga's timeline blatantly states that Mathias' power grew with every slain vampire. We have Dracula (Mathias) at what appears to be his strongest form in CVIII as well as the second time ever that we see him have 3 forms. This coincides with the timeline talking about how powerful Mathias was becoming but also LOI and the timeline re-affirming in text that the Belmonts and Mathias wouldn't see each other for hundreds of years ie until CVIII.
In the context of cv it takes less assumptions to say that Vlad III was a vampire which is why he got off on impaling/ blood drinking and when he died Mathias not only absorbed his power but also saw an opportunity and nabbed his throne in the process. This subsequently would assist Mathias in waging his war on humanity.
-
No offense to X, but Mathias losing the CS to Vlad III sounds very fanfic.
Well of course it sounds fanfic, and that's because I don't own or run the franchise, therefore its fanfic. That's blatantly obvious, lol. Everything we're discussing here is, on some level or another, fanfic becuase none of use holds any rights or liberties to the CV franchise. What I wrote in my other post in brief is just my headcanon, because I don't -and never will- see Mathias as Dracula. IGA should not have touched upon that element. It never made sense to me. But because Mathias' name is so much similar to the Hungarian king of Vlad's time it makes sense to me that that is Mathias' current identity. And given the relation of Vlad III to Matthias Corvinus, it presents an ample opportunity to see how the true Dracula got such a power boost. Dracula became the vampire as we know him through the strength and power of his own Will. Something not even Mathias could have ever done as he relied on the alchemical stones to do so. Having the Crimson stone merely gave Vlad an extra boost in power. Anyways it's just my headcanon and I'll stick with it. I don't care for IGA's Mathias villain as it does not compare nor hold up to Bram Stoker's (or history's) Dracula. They're just to different beasts.
-
Honestly, at this point, I'm pretty close to out and out rejecting that a canon even exists and just going with one I wrote myself. The main canon is far too confusing and contradictory for my tastes, and completely ignores reality's rules of operation.
If there's anything my recent studies have indicated, it's that Iga and his team make great games but none of them should ever be asked to write a compelling and coherent story.
So I'm gonna deliberately invoke Fanon Discontinuity (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FanonDiscontinuity) going forward, as my inner historian just cannot take it anymore.
*frustrated scream*
-
Honestly, at this point, I'm pretty close to out and out rejecting that a canon even exists and just going with one I wrote myself. The main canon is far too confusing and contradictory for my tastes, and completely ignores reality's rules of operation.
If there's anything my recent studies have indicated, it's that Iga and his team make great games but none of them should ever be asked to write a compelling and coherent story.
So I'm gonna deliberately invoke Fanon Discontinuity (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FanonDiscontinuity) going forward, as my inner historian just cannot take it anymore.
*frustrated scream*
I must agree with you sir. It's all for not.
-
And I'm just sitting here wondering what the hell Vlad III would have had to do to outsmart Mathias, a known master tactician who by Vlad's time has 400+ years of power growth and experience added to his tactician resume, to obtain his power supply.
Vlad III might have been an excellent tactician (except where his funds were concerned), but the Targoviste raid and forest of dead guys simply doesn't hold up to the tactician who's now close to 500 years old and who got Death himself as a wingman.
Sorry, doesn't matter how interesting a theory it might be to ponder. There's way too large of a hole in the idea that a regular-ass human outsmarted a master vampire tactician with nearly 500 years of experience under his belt for me to buy into it.
Sure, one could argue that Mathias, a regular-ass human, outsmarted Walter; but I'm pretty sure Mathias would be able to see right through Vlad trying the same trick, considering Mathias knows exactly how that kind of plot works.
-
And I'm just sitting here wondering what the hell...
Because nothing is an absolute reality, all is permitted.
-
There IS an absolute reality; Mathias is fucking Dracula. Pretending the canon doesn't exist doesn't retcon it.
The theory's instability doesn't mean Mathias in any headcanon still has to become Dracula. The theory's instability dictates that Vlad III's chances of outwitting Mathias to get the Stone are practically zero.
Oh, and I doubt losing the Stone just makes you human again. I imagine you'd just die from all those collective centuries backlogging at once.
You want to convince me? Bring some actual evidence to the table either from the canon or using a headcanon that makes logical sense, because "wah I don't like it so my headcanon is more right" doesn't cut it.
"Anything goes" is a piss-poor excuse and just tells me "I can't actually defend it with anything solid." Since I know you're not really one to make empty arguments, how's about we actually try and explain ourselves, rather than stamp our foot that the canon doesn't cater to our personal whims?
Unless I can be rationally convinced of otherwise, it's a crap--but admittedly slightly interesting to ponder for a moment or two--theory that makes no sense purely on the basis of it assuming one character somehow lost all his insanely high intellect and tactical mind and forgetting how his own trick works.
You couldn't beat a chess master with a move he invented; he'd see it coming and know exactly how to counter it, so why the hell wouldn't the same principle apply here?
-
It's all for not.
Naught, I believe.
And I'm just sitting here wondering what the hell Vlad III would have had to do to outsmart Mathias, a known master tactician who by Vlad's time has 400+ years of power growth and experience added to his tactician resume, to obtain his power supply.
Vlad III might have been an excellent tactician (except where his funds were concerned), but the Targoviste raid and forest of dead guys simply doesn't hold up to the tactician who's now close to 500 years old and who got Death himself as a wingman.
Sorry, doesn't matter how interesting a theory it might be to ponder. There's way too large of a hole in the idea that a regular-ass human outsmarted a master vampire tactician with nearly 500 years of experience under his belt for me to buy into it.
Sure, one could argue that Mathias, a regular-ass human, outsmarted Walter; but I'm pretty sure Mathias would be able to see right through Vlad trying the same trick, considering Mathias knows exactly how that kind of plot works.
Yes agreed that people seem to be riding the Vla'D' Train a little too much.
So many flavours and yet people end up choosing salt.. :P #thebeach #original
-
There IS an absolute reality; Mathias is fucking Dracula. Pretending the canon doesn't exist doesn't retcon it.
The theory's instability doesn't mean Mathias in any headcanon still has to become Dracula. The theory's instability dictates that Vlad III's chances of outwitting Mathias to get the Stone are practically zero.
Oh, and I doubt losing the Stone just makes you human again. I imagine you'd just die from all those collective centuries backlogging at once.
You want to convince me? Bring some actual evidence to the table either from the canon or using a headcanon that makes logical sense, because "wah I don't like it so my headcanon is more right" doesn't cut it.
"Anything goes" is a piss-poor excuse and just tells me "I can't actually defend it with anything solid." Since I know you're not really one to make empty arguments, how's about we actually try and explain ourselves, rather than stamp our foot that the canon doesn't cater to our personal whims?
Unless I can be rationally convinced of otherwise, it's a crap--but admittedly slightly interesting to ponder for a moment or two--theory that makes no sense purely on the basis of it assuming one character somehow lost all his insanely high intellect and tactical mind and forgetting how his own trick works.
You couldn't beat a chess master with a move he invented; he'd see it coming and know exactly how to counter it, so why the hell wouldn't the same principle apply here?
I'm tired of doing my damndest to patch an ultimately broken canon.
Seeing as it's ultimately a work of fiction, I can and will play the "there is no absolute reality" card, because these are not real events, nor will they ever resemble real events.
These are words on a digital page penned by a frankly two bit author who isn't much more skilled than E.L James. I give Lords a lot of flak (and rightly so) but that canon is much more consistent (though equally confusing).
I'm not arguing this as a debate anymore as that's never netted me anything good, just a lot of salty disagreements. Castlevania ain't Shakespeare. Hell, it's not even Twilight. The attempt to shoehorn in a timeline where one frankly wasn't needed (we were doing just fine treating each game as an isolated instance) did immense damage.
There's no. effing. point. to any of this debate.
This thread even confirms that. There's as much hard evidence that Vlad = Mathias =\= Vlad as there is for anything else we might argue. The simple fact is the writers never even cared about these details, and the more we decide we do care, the more riled up we're going to get (as seen here, in this very response), and not even over anything rewarding.
So, inasmuch as this is a made up thing that is not a historical documentation, whatever helps you enjoy it is the true thing. And there's nothing wrong with that. This is a GAME SERIES, after all, and if it's just generating salt instead of sugar, something is horribly wrong.
I've decided that attempting to argue a canon is not in my best interests to further enjoying these games. So I won't. It's not denying the holocaust or the moon landing. It's me, an individual fan, deciding to focus on the sugar instead of the salt.
Some people argue that Vlad III didn't even exist in Castlevania. Sure, cool, whatevs. Some people insist that Vlad and Mathias are seperate, others argue that they are the same.
And this being the vaguely written work of fiction with too many conflicting authors to ever give a definitive answer on the subject that it is: whatever floats your boat shall sail the seas.
Whichever version of the story helps you enjoy it the most is the best one for you.
Some people like a fairy tale where the knight rescues the princess from a dragon. Others might prefer the version where the dragon wins. A fairy tale being what it is, both sides are just as true as the other.
I'm just done dealing in all of this. It's a game.
There is no absolute reality.
Hakuna Matata.
-
You're arguing real-world absolutes in a fictional universe. I can't really take you seriously based solely on that.
Plot busted his ass digging through the canon to write something compelling and good for Umbra, and I like to believe I've done the same for the Megaman X project I'm working on (and I would honestly argue that the Megaman canon is as bad or worse than the CV as far as plot holes and absolute nonsense goes).
We can bust ass and wade through all the shit to come up with something that not only fits within the universe, but also patches up a lot of the holes and wraps a lot of things up nicely. So what the hell's your problem that you can't? You're intelligent, after all.
If you're pissed about trying to make sense of a crap canon, that's all fine and dandy as there are at least four people on this board who can attest to what that's like; but please don't resort to long-winded rants about how everyone sees things differently and Castlevania's not Shakespeare or Twilight (no shit, otherwise it'd be called Shakespeare and Twilight) and how you're interpreting salt from people's interpretations of the canon where none might exist.
You were in the thick of it the same as the rest of us, and you're backpedaling now. If you're salty, fine. If you've decided to focus on the things you enjoy rather than the things that annoy you, equally fine.
But do not sit there and talk all aloof like you've been above this conversation from the start. That's not how it works.
I'm not salty about the CV canon. I'm salty that people are going to outrageous lengths (like pretending canon isn't actually canon) to try and justify theories and points that otherwise would be dead on arrival, when a two-minute glance at the relevant canon will give them their answers.
Whether or not those answers are the kind they wanted is irrelevant.
The canon is the canon, and within the universe of the game series it is law. "It's just a game, bro!" doesn't mean a damn thing and is an absolutely pitiful attempt at a redirect.
Don't like certain parts of the canon? Write your own headcanon for it; by that, I don't mean things like "Vlad III obviously stole the Crimson Stone from a 500 year old vampire tactician whose centuries of knowledge and experience suddenly went away and he got tricked."
I mean things like digging your heels in and making some sugar out of the salt. You know, like plot and I and others have done in the past. It's not impossible to write a fanon or headcanon that fits the true canon and does so sensibly; it just requires a shitload of analyzing and detail-digging and work, and if you're too tired to want to do that work anymore, that's perfectly okay!
But don't give me this aloof attitude. I'm not the person you're pissed at.
I'm not really even arguing the worth of CV's canon at this point; I'm more concerned with the fact that you're both denying the canon simply because it's not to your tastes at times, and are now acting awfully self-superior because I called you on it.
It may be your right as a fan to choose what you believe and that's fine, but when it's a complete 180 to posts you made in the same thread, I will question the sudden discrepancy as I have been.
You're free to do whatever the hell you want. The sudden change in gears is where I'm currently concerned. You were going on tangents that the timeline/canon didn't follow the rules of reality, when we're dealing with a series with magic monster castles, immortal shapeshifting vampires, skeletal personifications of a natural biological process that somehow see and talk and move without organs or sinews, demons and alchemy and magic and alternate dimensions and gods and personified entropy and all this other shit that isn't even remotely realistic.
Who exactly's barking up the wrong tree here with their framework, again?
I guess the long-and-short of this would be: you can believe whatever and do whatever, but please don't act aloof or like you're above the discussion you were so vehemently a part of just a short while ago when I or someone else happens to question your motives or rationale, because it really comes off as something you're probably not really intending and because of the likelihood of miscommunication I'm finding this whole exchange grossly out of character for you.
-
If the fans were in charge of writing, the quality of the games would skyrocket, almost overnight.
Why?
Fans are far more dedicated than the guys who officially handle this stuff. And while that makes for an incredibly productive fanbase that exceeds anything I've seen short of the Whovian and Brony communities, this is also the source of all the canon's shortcomings. Written as a summary meant to explain things in brief, the canon is perfectly serviceable. Maybe a little cliche'd, but it gets the job done.
However, it is when we place it under the microscope of examination, and question specific details that the whole thing starts to fracture, and it breaks apart more the closer you zoom in. This isn't any one person's fault -- Castlevania's timeline has always been rickety beyond belief. But, early games don't line up their fine print with later games.
I point out, once again, Dracula's Curse as an example as it has the clearest overlap with real history (which is useful as a reference). Set in 1476, Tralph (hah) Belmont slays Dracula. Real world Dracula died in 1476. The insinuation there is clear: that Vlad Tepes III WAS the same Dracula that we fight in all the games, and TrevorRalph was the reason Dracula *actually* died and the real world history was a Church cover story. Furthermore, you can excuse Dracula's later resurrections from not appearing in the historical record as the result of "cleaners" who scrub the evidence from history.
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wearysloth.com%2FGallery%2FActorsJ%2F8597-26914.gif&hash=1085f97b27f4c17b51a2fbc4e1494cc693619c96)
(Probably this guy and his minions)
It doesn't really follow history to the letter, but it makes a good story. But later games don't jibe with this telling, and furthermore, that schism goes perpetually unaddressed.
You could argue, in fact, that the topic of this very thread is the fault line upon which the whole canon rests. Press it the wrong way and watch as everything falls apart in a catastrophic pile that makes the movie San Andreas look tame. If Mathias IS Vlad, then a lot of things about Drac's personality start making sense. If he ISN'T, then, well, someone has a lot to explain now.
This to my mind is why it's never been directly addressed, merely implied one way or another to the point where no answer reliably exists. No writer wanted to be the one to "push the button", and their hesitance has created one of the largest continuity snarls ever seen in any franchise.
And here's what I'm getting at.
This snarl still exists. We're debating it now. It will continue to go unaddressed, even if the series started back up tomorrow. The same hesitance by official authors that created this problem will persist, and the status quo will remain unchanged.
There is simply no canon answer to this kind of question, and it's unlikely there ever will be.
I'll continue to argue points based on real history because that is enjoyable for me and it allows me to look at the series from a new viewpoint that wasn't considered by the authors, but I'm not trying for definitive answers anymore; I fully accept that it won't happen.
Hence, why bother worrying about these things? Go for whatever makes a better story for you.
Do what brings you joy.
Personally, with the evidence presented in Dracula's Curse as my guide, I think Mathias IS Vlad Dracula (and his father, and his father's father, etc.). Others are sure to disagree.
But hey, it's just a game, and like I said before.
Hakuna Matata.
-
You were in the thick of it the same as the rest of us, and you're backpedaling now. If you're salty, fine. If you've decided to focus on the things you enjoy rather than the things that annoy you, equally fine.
But do not sit there and talk all aloof like you've been above this conversation from the start. That's not how it works.
..........
I guess the long-and-short of this would be: you can believe whatever and do whatever, but please don't act aloof or like you're above the discussion you were so vehemently a part of just a short while ago when I or someone else happens to question your motives or rationale, because it really comes off as something you're probably not really intending and because of the likelihood of miscommunication I'm finding this whole exchange grossly out of character for you.
Out of character is the only thing I disagree with you on D9. Here's why..
I have to say something here and I don't really care if people (mods included, I'm sorry in advance but this has to be said) think I am out of line.
I agree strongly with Dracula9's point of view and it's really starting to frustrate me that when a bunch of us are in the heat of a debate and Bloody Scholar is involved something like this happens http://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/index.php/topic,8473.45.html (http://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/index.php/topic,8473.45.html)
It then winds up with a deterrent or some throw away statement such as "just a game", "possibilities are endless" etc.
I'm not going into detail but this backpedaling business is seriously annoying me.
If people want to debate, good - debate, if you're adamant in your beliefs then be that way, but similarly if you're proven otherwise then ffs just take it in stride and either gather evidence to argue against and/or move on.
My belief is that we're all here to learn something by connecting with each other. People here have some kind of vested interest in Castlevania and right or wrong in that belief it's my belief.
If I debate or argue and someone proves me wrong then I may not like it but I absorb the salt and carry on. Even though I may not like it, there's something much worse: when people throw bullshit motherhood statements at other people to try to blanket the fire which is the fact that they can't back up their own convictions with anything, not even that single grain of salt which right about now is looking pretty damn tasty in comparison.
Yes this statement was pointed but that's MY opinion and I'm not saying this to insult someone, but I have to call things how I see them.
I am not doing this in disdain of one individual, it just is incredibly frustrating to debate in this context.
I've said my peace on the Mathias/ Vlad connection.
-
Out of character is the only thing I disagree with you on D9.
I actually agree with you that it's not all that out of character for me.
I have to say something here and I don't really care if people think I am out of line.
You're not out of line.
other stuff
I admit it's backpedaling going "it's just a game".
And I did it on purpose. Not as a defensive tactic, mind, but mostly because I'm tired. Not sleepy tired, but just tired of arguing. I'm tired of trying to be right. I'm tired of arguing my (admittedly very stubbornly held) viewpoints. I'm a Taurus through and through and make no apologies for being what I am.
But this thread will go down in history as marking the day I reached my limit.
From here on, it's all just a game to me.
I've gotten way too serious and heated about this franchise, and it's stupid that I did.
Likewise, I shouldn't be getting angry at people on the internet, especially people I respect on the internet. It's a mark of personal failure for me.
While I think you might have been gentler with the slap, I actually appreciate being called out publicly about it. I don't think a mod could have handled my ego as effectively in private.
But anyway, it's just a game for me now, like grade school kickball. Canon shouldn't interest me (it actually kind of hurts to think about at this juncture), and whatever viewpoints I have are my own and not meant to apply to the whole Castlevania franchise blah blah blah insert generic disclaimer here.
I know I can be an ass on frequent occasion. Thanks for putting up with me.
-
I think I'm also somewhat indirectly responsible for how things escalated in this thread due to my posts about how I feel in terms of who Dracula is and is not. I just can't help but feel personal about the character Dracula and I don't know why... He's such an iconic figure of both reality, fiction, and especially the CV franchise that I just can't see anyone else take the title, or have writers try to replace him with an unknown entity. It just feels wrong and threatening if that makes any sense to others here. And honestly I don't know why I feel this way. I don't know if we can ever reconcile Mathias with Vlad or vice-versa without quarreling. That damage was done when IGA crafted the LoI backstory. It is definitely a sensitive subject that gets people riled up very easily.
-
Sensitive as it may be for people, two things to bear in mind:
1) Dracula was completely destroyed in for the first time in 1999 by Julius
2) Iga's timeline (http://nichegamer.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/timeline-side2.jpg (http://nichegamer.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/timeline-side2.jpg)) states "Mathias changes hisname to Vlad Tepes and continues to live for hundreds of years".
If there is any reconciliation it's how the two figures co-existed if at all without forgetting the above points.
-
No offense to X, but Mathias losing the CS to Vlad III sounds very fanfic.
I don't know, Dracula isn't really Dracula. He's this other cool guy that I made up who only calls himself Dracula sounds more fanficy to me.
-
I don't know, Dracula isn't really Dracula. He's this other cool guy that I made up who only calls himself Dracula sounds more fanficy to me.
Do you even know the difference between what's counted as canon and what's not?
I don't think how things sound to you is the topic of debate, if people want to make up their own version of the canon then fine, but don't go stating the canon is fanfic purely based on "just because I said so" or "because it doesn't sound the way I want it".
That's really immature.
-
One thing that popped into my head literally 30 seconds ago was: what if Vlad II adopted Mathias/Dracula as his son and heir?
I mean, it's headcanon beyond headcanon, but in a certain light it makes everything make sense to me.
I'll be honest, like I said earlier, I'm just throwing stuff at the wall here and seeing what sticks for my own amusement, but bear with me for a sec here.
Suppose that Vlad II Dracul's real son died young (or he just plain didn't have one due to his wife being infertile or what have you) in the Castlevania universe. A guy like Vlad II would totally look at a powerful man like Mathias and go "this guy could be my legacy and guard the borders flawlessly against the Turks."
Some negotiating later, et voila, Mathias is legally adopted by Vlad II under the name of Vlad III, and takes the moniker "Tepes" after showing off his more... brutal way of dealing with foes. I mean, real life Vlad Tepes III had his son born WELL after he'd earned the nom de guerre of Tepes, so that might also explain how Adrian inherited the "name".
Due to this deal, Mathias gets a place he can settle down, a position of authority as a Prince that comes with a comfortingly familiar life that would enable him to meet Lisa, and Vlad II gets a worthy heir who can defend the land after his death. Both parties win.
Granted, this is all after a grand total of 30 seconds of thinking, but it explains a lot to me. I wonder why I never thought of it earlier.
-
I actually agree with you that it's not all that out of character for me.
You're not out of line.
I admit it's backpedaling going "it's just a game".
And I did it on purpose. Not as a defensive tactic, mind, but mostly because I'm tired. Not sleepy tired, but just tired of arguing. I'm tired of trying to be right. I'm tired of arguing my (admittedly very stubbornly held) viewpoints. I'm a Taurus through and through and make no apologies for being what I am.
But this thread will go down in history as marking the day I reached my limit.
From here on, it's all just a game to me.
I've gotten way too serious and heated about this franchise, and it's stupid that I did.
Likewise, I shouldn't be getting angry at people on the internet, especially people I respect on the internet. It's a mark of personal failure for me.
While I think you might have been gentler with the slap, I actually appreciate being called out publicly about it. I don't think a mod could have handled my ego as effectively in private.
But anyway, it's just a game for me now, like grade school kickball. Canon shouldn't interest me (it actually kind of hurts to think about at this juncture), and whatever viewpoints I have are my own and not meant to apply to the whole Castlevania franchise blah blah blah insert generic disclaimer here.
I know I can be an ass on frequent occasion. Thanks for putting up with me.
Thank you for being the bigger person with this post.
-
Thank you for being the bigger person with this post.
You're welcome, entire forum. ;D
Chimichangas all around!
-
2) Iga's timeline (http://nichegamer.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/timeline-side2.jpg (http://nichegamer.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/timeline-side2.jpg)) states "Mathias changes hisname to Vlad Tepes and continues to live for hundreds of years".
I forgot about this completely, but it settles the issue: Mathias IS Vlad Tepes. How he became such is matter of fanfiction and headcanons and we'll probably never agree, not that we have to anyways.
Changing the subject dramatically, I briefly want to say that you people are the most beautiful fandom out there. Other fandoms finish debates with people ragequitting and severe name calling, and despite the heated posts, you all were very nice. :'D I love this place.
-
The theory's instability dictates that Vlad III's chances of outwitting Mathias to get the Stone are practically zero.
[...]
Unless I can be rationally convinced of otherwise, it's a crap--but admittedly slightly interesting to ponder for a moment or two--theory that makes no sense purely on the basis of it assuming one character somehow lost all his insanely high intellect and tactical mind and forgetting how his own trick works.
You couldn't beat a chess master with a move he invented; he'd see it coming and know exactly how to counter it, so why the hell wouldn't the same principle apply here?
I'm late in jumping into this thread, but I just wanna say that the whole "Mathias wouldn't be beaten by his own tactic" thing doesn't seem convincing to me. Nor does the "hundreds-of-years-old vampire master tactician can't be beaten by other tactician" thing. I want to remind you that Mathias is a guy who gets beaten left and right the EXACT SAME WAY in nearly every game. The Belmonts are all young adults when they fight Drac/Mathias, in the 19-24 age range. And every time, they defeat him.
Dracula loses every single battle he's in since first meeting Trevor Belmont in the exact same way every time he's revived. He sits in his throne room and gets beat by people who aren't even 25 yet. Heck, he was even beaten by Jonathan and Charlotte, both of whom I believe aren't even 20-years-old yet, AND he had Death at his side. Yes, he had barely been revived, so he was still weak. But again, he's a master tactician who has existed for CENTURIES, and he has the Grim Reaper by his side, and he was beaten by a headstrong brawn-over-brain Jonathan Morris and the even-younger Charlotte Aulin. Yes, Charlotte is a very smart girl with magical abilities, but Charlotte is 16, and I doubt her intelligence, experience, and magical capabilities even come CLOSE to what Dracula can do.
That being said, this happens all the time. Thus, I can't really find those two arguments convincing. Vlad III, based on historical evidence alone, appears to have tactical genius and an intellectual mind that the likes of Charlotte couldn't even comprehend. Yet Dracula/Mathias himself was defeated by these two young adults, even with his high level of intellect, magical capabilities, experience, and Death himself at his side.
I don't agree with the whole "Vlad III stole the Crimson Stone from Mathias Cronqvist" theory, but I'm trying to say that it could potentially hold some water due to the fact that Mathias himself has been outsmarted by even the likes of Jonathan and Charlotte.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is: No, it makes zero logical sense as to how a master tactician with hundreds of years of experience and magical capabilities could possibly lose his powers and most precious possession to another tactician who, despite being brilliant as well, does not have what Mathias has. But it also makes zero sense as to how Mathias, with all of that, could be beaten constantly by young adults who definitely lack the experience, knowledge, and magical prowess that he has.
-
I want to remind you that Mathias is a guy who gets beaten left and right the EXACT SAME WAY in nearly every game. The Belmonts are all young adults when they fight Drac/Mathias, in the 19-24 age range. And every time, they defeat him.
Maybe being revived and killed so many times really does mess you up XD
-
Maybe being revived and killed so many times really does mess you up XD
I mean, I wouldn't be surprised.
I did read somewhere a LOOOOONG time ago (don't remember where, unfortunately. I can't find the source anywhere) that if Dracula is pre-maturely revived, he loses his memories of past revivals. This would explain a number of things, like why Dracula's moment of clarity at the end of SotN was pretty much forgotten in later entries (both release-wise and chronologically), or why he could be beaten in the same way so many times.
-
This is all good and stuff until one realizes there are actually FOUR Vlads who have had a claim to the Wallachian throne, of which Vlad II and Vlad III are the most famous and we don't know if Mathias was one, several, or all of them.
Y'all know me. I don't like to disregard history if I don't have to, and I think it's pretty likely that Mathias *is* Vlad III, but also (slightly less) possibly Vlad II, in a hypothesis I mentioned earlier. I hate not knowing for sure, but I think this is as close as we can get.
Mathias is "most likely but not certainly" Vlad III Dracula, the circumstances of how and when he became this are forever lost to the fog and vagueries of Konami's writing department.
Those morons.
-
I mean, I wouldn't be surprised.
I did read somewhere a LOOOOONG time ago (don't remember where, unfortunately. I can't find the source anywhere) that if Dracula is pre-maturely revived, he loses his memories of past revivals. This would explain a number of things, like why Dracula's moment of clarity at the end of SotN was pretty much forgotten in later entries (both release-wise and chronologically), or why he could be beaten in the same way so many times.
Yeah, I remember reading that too (and also can't remember where), and yes, it explains a lot. Which is quite sad considering Mathias expected to get back at God and all that, and ended up being a mockery of himself both in power and personality.
Mathias is "most likely but not certainly" Vlad III Dracula, the circumstances of how and when he became this are forever lost to the fog and vagueries of Konami's writing department.
Those morons.
Arghhh their vague history makes me cringe :rollseyes: Whenever I write something (even a little lowsy fanfic) around 70% of my work goes into researching the actual historical context. Architecture, everyday life, concurring political events... and as a fashion history fangirl, all those highly inacurate clothes make me want to cry despite the beauty of Kojima's art. I can't understand how people who actually GET PAID to do that screw up so badly.
-
I'm late in jumping into this thread, but I just wanna say that the whole "Mathias wouldn't be beaten by his own tactic" thing doesn't seem convincing to me. Nor does the "hundreds-of-years-old vampire master tactician can't be beaten by other tactician" thing. I want to remind you that Mathias is a guy who gets beaten left and right the EXACT SAME WAY in nearly every game. The Belmonts are all young adults when they fight Drac/Mathias, in the 19-24 age range. And every time, they defeat him.
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 mean, I wouldn't be surprised.
I did read somewhere a LOOOOONG time ago (don't remember where, unfortunately. I can't find the source anywhere) that if Dracula is pre-maturely revived, he loses his memories of past revivals. This would explain a number of things, like why Dracula's moment of clarity at the end of SotN was pretty much forgotten in later entries (both release-wise and chronologically), or why he could be beaten in the same way so many times.
I remember debating that exact point over Serio's forums with the other users. We arrived at this conclusion because we didn't have the official instance at the time. However, the official explanation was already available.
Dracula, after SotN, is only evil intent incarnated, with good intent supressed. He doesn't wish to be revived anymore, but black masses revive him against his will, with his evil side amplified by the Demon Realm becoming the one in control. That's why he seems considerably less empathic after SotN -- the last of his humanity is absolutelly gone.
Also, Dracula remembers his past lives VERY WELL, if we account for how Dracula remembers everyone in Judgment. He even remembers that he placed a curse on Simon, or how he wasn't at his full power when he was defeated in Castlevania III.
That being said, this happens all the time. Thus, I can't really find those two arguments convincing. Vlad III, based on historical evidence alone, appears to have tactical genius and an intellectual mind that the likes of Charlotte couldn't even comprehend. Yet Dracula/Mathias himself was defeated by these two young adults, even with his high level of intellect, magical capabilities, experience, and Death himself at his side.
I don't agree with the whole "Vlad III stole the Crimson Stone from Mathias Cronqvist" theory, but I'm trying to say that it could potentially hold some water due to the fact that Mathias himself has been outsmarted by even the likes of Jonathan and Charlotte.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is: No, it makes zero logical sense as to how a master tactician with hundreds of years of experience and magical capabilities could possibly lose his powers and most precious possession to another tactician who, despite being brilliant as well, does not have what Mathias has. But it also makes zero sense as to how Mathias, with all of that, could be beaten constantly by young adults who definitely lack the experience, knowledge, and magical prowess that he has.
This just pushes the question.
If Dracula is Vlad III, then it makes no sense for Vlad III who is a master tactician to be beaten by the Belmonts and their mothers over and over again at the same game.
It's not about being a master tactician. It's about not being able to resist the Vampire Killer. Doesn't matter how good of a tactician you are if you can't best your opponent's weapon. And Dracula DID try "tactician things", such as mind controlling Soleiyu, or sacrificing the last of his strength to kill Simon through a curse (and he would've won that one weren't for the lady ghost in the cemetery).
Order of Ecclesia is a good example for why "tactics" are useless in his state: He is invulnerable to EVERYTHING but a form of his own power or the Vampire Killer. Shanoa couldn't even scratch him (video game mechanics aside) until she used Dominus.
When you're utterly invulnerable to anything except two things you can't find a way around, what good are tactics for?
-
I remember debating that exact point over Serio's forums with the other users. We arrived at this conclusion because we didn't have the official instance at the time. However, the official explanation was already available.
Dracula, after SotN, is only evil intent incarnated, with good intent supressed. He doesn't wish to be revived anymore, but black masses revive him against his will, with his evil side amplified by the Demon Realm becoming the one in control. That's why he seems considerably less empathic after SotN -- the last of his humanity is absolutelly gone.
Sounds very plausible. Where does this explanation come from? I can't remember the reference.
Also, Dracula remembers his past lives VERY WELL, if we account for how Dracula remembers everyone in Judgment. He even remembers that he placed a curse on Simon, or how he wasn't at his full power when he was defeated in Castlevania III.
Good point. I keep forgetting Judgement exists.
-
Sounds very plausible. Where does this explanation come from? I can't remember the reference.
This info comes from an interview IGA gave here (http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cv-chron/manual/dengeki-scoop2.jpg). He said this:
"Q: In SOTN, Dracula was defeated but why is he still being resurrected in the later eras?
A: When someone is sealed in Makai (Demon Realm) only the evil part of that person is amplified. Whenever cult members perform the resurrection ritual, if Dracula himself is not willing, it is supposed that only the evil intent is resurrected.
However, it is thought of that Dracula will be given eternal repose someday."
So, IGA confirmed three things:
1. Dracula was supposed to be defeated once and for all in SotN
2. Dracula is sent to the Demon Realm after he is defeated.
3. If Dracula is not willing to be revived, his evil intent previously amplified by the Demon Realm takes over.
-
Yeah, I remember reading that too (and also can't remember where), and yes, it explains a lot. Which is quite sad considering Mathias expected to get back at God and all that, and ended up being a mockery of himself both in power and personality.
Arghhh their vague history makes me cringe :rollseyes: Whenever I write something (even a little lowsy fanfic) around 70% of my work goes into researching the actual historical context. Architecture, everyday life, concurring political events... and as a fashion history fangirl, all those highly inacurate clothes make me want to cry despite the beauty of Kojima's art. I can't understand how people who actually GET PAID to do that screw up so badly.
You. Friend among friends. Level ten. Good job!
;D
-
I can't understand how people who actually GET PAID to do that screw up so badly.
Then look no further then Stephenie Meyer's Twilight for another big literary screw-up. And she's still making dough off this monstrosity. To make matters worse she's got more 'T' books on the way :P :P :P
-
I'm late in jumping into this thread, but I just wanna say that the whole "Mathias wouldn't be beaten by his own tactic" thing doesn't seem convincing to me. Nor does the "hundreds-of-years-old vampire master tactician can't be beaten by other tactician" thing. I want to remind you that Mathias is a guy who gets beaten left and right the EXACT SAME WAY in nearly every game. The Belmonts are all young adults when they fight Drac/Mathias, in the 19-24 age range. And every time, they defeat him.
Dracula loses every single battle he's in since first meeting Trevor Belmont in the exact same way every time he's revived. He sits in his throne room and gets beat by people who aren't even 25 yet. Heck, he was even beaten by Jonathan and Charlotte, both of whom I believe aren't even 20-years-old yet, AND he had Death at his side. Yes, he had barely been revived, so he was still weak. But again, he's a master tactician who has existed for CENTURIES, and he has the Grim Reaper by his side, and he was beaten by a headstrong brawn-over-brain Jonathan Morris and the even-younger Charlotte Aulin. Yes, Charlotte is a very smart girl with magical abilities, but Charlotte is 16, and I doubt her intelligence, experience, and magical capabilities even come CLOSE to what Dracula can do.
That being said, this happens all the time. Thus, I can't really find those two arguments convincing. Vlad III, based on historical evidence alone, appears to have tactical genius and an intellectual mind that the likes of Charlotte couldn't even comprehend. Yet Dracula/Mathias himself was defeated by these two young adults, even with his high level of intellect, magical capabilities, experience, and Death himself at his side.
I don't agree with the whole "Vlad III stole the Crimson Stone from Mathias Cronqvist" theory, but I'm trying to say that it could potentially hold some water due to the fact that Mathias himself has been outsmarted by even the likes of Jonathan and Charlotte.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is: No, it makes zero logical sense as to how a master tactician with hundreds of years of experience and magical capabilities could possibly lose his powers and most precious possession to another tactician who, despite being brilliant as well, does not have what Mathias has. But it also makes zero sense as to how Mathias, with all of that, could be beaten constantly by young adults who definitely lack the experience, knowledge, and magical prowess that he has.
Mathias remained Mathias until his defeat in CVIII. After the first resurrection, he wasn't really Mathias anymore. In the games we see Dracula in that have writing and dialogue (excluding the older titles that didn't really have much backstory beyond "kill the dude in the cape", of course), we don't really see any of that "I'm doing this because I'm pissed off at God for letting my wife die" anywhere. It's all about hating the humans and wanting to wipe the perceived vermin from the planet.
This doesn't even account for botched, interrupted, or incomplete resurrections, of which Big D's seen many. It's explicitly stated in the series that incomplete/botched revivals kinda fuck Drac up some way or another. Hell, in Harmony he's not even himself, and we see all kinds of "huh, I'm not all here just yet, this is annoying" comments from him across multiple games. Based on this, it's not hard to surmise that the constant fuckings-up of the resurrection cycle have screwed with his self-identity to the point of Mathias not even being there anymore. He turns into a hate machine, and hate tends to be illogical. Combine the irrationality of hate with fucked-up memories and you have the perfect setup for a dude losing to the same tactics over and over and over. In this theory, he simply gets a memory wipe with each revival to one degree or another (some games he is shown to remember things, other games he's not) and the "humans are trash" mindset takes back over and the whole process begins again.
You see this all the time in mortal vs. immortal conflicts; immortality cannot grasp mortality in full and vice-versa, and so Dracula just thinks himself superior based on raw power alone, and doesn't account for mortality's innate urge to rebel and survive against the odds. He underestimates humanity time and again because that's what his hatred of them produces.
There's also the idea that perhaps Dracula's easy defeats were part of a larger, centuries-spanning plan. We've seen that Dracula gets stronger with each resurrection, and we KNOW that be he Vlad III or Mathias inside he's still a damn good strategist, so why not ponder this avenue, eh? We know that (canonically, not counting anything in fanon even if it's relaly amazing fanon like Umbra) something catastrophically different happens in 1999 in which Dracula basically has to die or the world's going to shit. He's at his most powerful then, and that is at a singular point. Who's to say Dracula didn't plan for that point of absolute power peaking? We've seen a similar plan done by Father in Fullmetal Alchemist, so we know the ins and outs of such a plan are indeed feasible for an entity with immortality and a sharp mind (bit of a stretch comparison, yes, but purely on a practical, operational perspective of how such a plan would need to be enacted, it works).
The purpose of my "Mathias is too smart to lose at his own game" wasn't meant to carry across to all Dracula incarnations; the point of that argument applies solely to Vlad III existing as a separate entity and outwitting Mathias to claim his power. As Mathias is first killed as Dracula in CVIII, everything up until that moment was done while he was still in his original body and incarnation. He had not yet undergone the memory warping and personality shifts accompanying his resurrections, and was still his original self as far as we are canonically aware.
Therefore, counterarguments about Dracula being consistently defeated by the same methodolgy are not particularly valid. This is only because my original point applied to a period when Mathias was still Mathias, and that's entirely my fault for not clarifying earlier.
Once the resurrection cycle begins and Dracula starts to emerge out of what was once Mathias, the vampire nature overrules the very human desire to pursue revenge out of love; and as we all know, vampires are inherently flawed by nature, because immortality is very boring and an eternal sense of self-superiority allows for gross underestimations and windows for failure. Dracula remains so easily beaten because his subconscious vampiric instinct craves the challenge from a "lesser" being, and the thought that such a lesser being might actually prevail is one that gives him an excuse to flaunt his power (something the proud nature of a vampire is very wont to do). Dracula cannot control this facet of his personality, just as real-world vampires legends could not resist counting thrown mustard seeds one by one even if sunrise approached.
Dracula loses consistently because of this inherently ironic flaw in his nature as a vampire and immortal, and also because his memories are so consistently fucked-up. His strength is his weakness, and that weakness is one that is easily exploitable by the willpower of a focused and driven mortal fighting because they have something to fight for, to lose. Dracula has nothing to lose, as he'll revive from death and other than Lisa doesn't really care about anyone but himself.
That's another point, regarding how utterly human Dracula is within SotN, but explanations and reasonings for that are a discussion for another day, and don't have any inherent bearing on the topic at hand, or at least not the point of said topic I'm addressing.
In sum, I did not specify what I'd meant by my statement when I should have, and I apologize for that. The original intent was not to say Mathias' self-tactical awareness applied forever, but simply in the hypothetical situation he and Vlad III were different people and Vlad tried to beat Mathias at his own game. In that context specifically, Mathias' tactical mind wins because of the centuries of additional experience, and because his base Intelligence stat was already stupidly high to begin with WITHOUT the immortality modifiers.
If I were to try and make that same argument across all Dracula incarnations, your points against it would be absolutely and entirely valid and would require very little explanation to be considered correct and disprove my own point. However, despite my initial lack of clarification, that is not and was not the case, and as such your counterarguments are not ones that I can consider to be valid within the intended context of my original argument.
However, if you can restructure your counters to accommodate my now-clarified intended context, I will gladly hear them and see if I can refute them or not. :)
-
D9, the Dracula Wraith in HoD is confirmed as not being Dracula at all. It's just Maxim's Jungian Shadow possessing Dracula's remains (and thereby taking his shape). But it's not at all Dracula. Dracula wouldn't be canonically resurrected after Simon's Quest until the events of Rondo of Blood.
So Juste was basically fighting an imitation Dracula -- he never fought the Dark Lord proper.
-
I know that. The point of mentioning it was to illustrate that his power/form coming back isn't always "perfect," especially if some third-party turdlord is responsible for it.
-
I know that. The point of mentioning it was to illustrate that his power/form coming back isn't always "perfect," especially if some third-party turdlord is responsible for it.
Forgive my boldness, but I don't feel using the Dracula Wraith as an example successfully illustrates anything pertaining to this thread.
Could you clarify your logic? Maybe I'm just missing something.
-
Dracula's botched resurrections leaving him "imperfect" are directly correlated to my explanation as to why the "can't beat Mathias at his game" argument was only meant to apply to one particular context--that Dracula got more and more wonky when revivals weren't to-plan or one of the "natural" ones and wouldn't remember his past self of Mathias clearly, if he remembered it at all.
I quoted Dracula Wraith because it's the easiest example of a botched "resurrection" resulting in a fragmented and incomplete "Dracula;" it's NOT Dracula, but it's the single most extreme instance of an unplanned resurrection creating a fragmented and fractional incarnation of him. I'm simply really tired and have to be up for classes in the morning, and wasn't really up to the task of poring over the various incarnations of Dracula and the specifics of his mental/emotional/magical/power state in regards to the circumstances of each resurrection (something that would honestly take an entire day at least with the amount of work I expend when I have to go detail-hunting). I'll probably go over my points later and resubmit them to the thread if I feel I can explain things better.
-
I quoted Dracula Wraith because it's the easiest example of a botched "resurrection"
Thing 1) It wasn't a resurrection at all. The Dracula Wraith is something entirely new. The events of Harmony of Dissonance can't be called a resurrection. You can't resurrect something that had never existed before that point. If anything, it was a birth.
Thing 2) I view Curse of Darkness as the first flawed resurrection. True, Death was able to make do and successfully resurrect Dracula using Isaac's nearly dead body, but he admitted that Isaac was essentially B-Grade materials to Hector's A-Grade. He wanted Hector (and Hector at the top of his game) because that would have resulted in a stronger revived Dracula because he was the strongest Devil Forgemaster. Instead, he had to make do with the lesser Forgemaster, and the body was already largely ruined by the thrashing Hector gave Isaac moments earlier.
So instead of using the best materials available, Dracula was revived with the Plan B, which was a Plan B for a reason. The result was that Dracula was confronting Hector with Isaac's level of power serving as a limiter to his own (one is restricted by the body they are in, after all), and Hector had already demonstrated that he was superior to that.
If that ain't a flawed resurrection, I don't know what is.
-
The point (which is that Dracula's power is what's in question here, not his goddamned mind)
-----------
Your head (which is trying once again to argue semantics about something completely irrelevant while also acting like I don't actually know anything)
Thought you said you were done being stubborn.
-
Just gonna pop in to say that the Tension-o-meter is reaching Caution levels again, you might want to be a teeny bit careful here. :V
-
Just gonna pop in to say that the Tension-o-meter is reaching Caution levels again, you might want to be a teeny bit careful here. :V
*shrugs* It doesn't really feel tense to me. Certainly passionate. Maybe even heated.
But that's to be expected.
As I've said before, this is a naturally hot-button issue for the fandom. It's our closest analog to arguing politics or religion that I've ever seen.
I'm not really on edge here, but I am going to stubbornly argue this particular part about the Dracula Wraith, because words have specific meaning, and the meaning of "resurrection" just plain doesn't apply to the Wraith.
Now, as D9 clarified his meaning to that of Dracula's power rather than his being, might I suggest the word "resurgence" or "resumption" in future postings? I believe those words are much closer to what you mean to say than "resurrection" on that particular detail.
I don't argue semantics casually. If I do, trust that I'm getting at something.
But anyway, I can see here that we are actually both correct now that I understand your original meaning D9. Thank you for clarifying.
As for Thought you said you were done being stubborn.
I'm naturally stubborn. It's not something I can just turn off with the flick of a switch. I'm just treading more carefully.
That being said, there's no need for harsh language here; that's just going to escalate things again. Kindly refrain from profanities.
-
I literally yesterday deleted all these HoD images off my phone for taking up too much room, all the photos were dialogue in-game. Boo..
As I recall in the best ending, Maxim fights off evil Maxim - expels him from his consciousness/ body, Dracula's body parts resonate at this point talking smack about destroying Juste, Juste tells him to not underestimate the Bloodline of Belmont, Dracula Wraith gets slain by Juste who re-iterates that he should not underestimate his bloodline, DW says "So this is the power of Belmont... ", Lydie who was supposed to be the sacrifice(vessel) never was and she is saved, game ends.
Things to note/ that are inferred:
- The 2 layers of the Castle (A & B) are the two halves of Maxim's consciousness; one is the regular Maxim, the other being "Dark Maxim". This is also inferred by the layer of the castle in which the player fights the final boss form 1 (Maxim) altering the ending. (I assume in Castle A the original Maxim dies, not the Dark one)
- Lydie was the original vessel for Dracula's resurrection. Therefore assuming that she was sacrificed, the real Dracula and not simply Dracula Wraith would have been incarnated.
- Dracula's remains influenced the original Maxim to find them and kidnap Lydie. At some point after Castle (dual layered) had manifested, Dark Maxim separates the individual remains so that anyone (say Juste) can't tamper with/ destroy them. (I think plottwist and I discussed this in another thread). Which means that if Lydie was used as the sacrifice/ vessel as the first point of call, Dracula would have come back in a stronger and/ or more complete form.
- Original Maxim about half way through the game says to Juste "Dracula's power was so overwhelming." Many can argue it was indeed the power of the remains, not Dracula himself. However, I can't help but think that the remains contain power, specifically power that has come from Dracula directly (although how much is unknown).
- From the above points I think it's somewhat fair to say that Dracula's remains influenced Maxim etc so that Lydie could be the sacrifice/vessel and Dracula could reincarnate in some form. That didn't happen so we got DW, plan B, like how Isaac was plan B to Hector.
Thoughts or anything missed?
-
I literally yesterday deleted all these HoD images off my phone for taking up too much room, all the photos were dialogue in-game. Boo..
As I recall in the best ending, Maxim fights off evil Maxim - expels him from his consciousness/ body, Dracula's body parts resonate at this point talking smack about destroying Juste, Juste tells him to not underestimate the Bloodline of Belmont, Dracula Wraith gets slain by Juste who re-iterates that he should not underestimate his bloodline, DW says "So this is the power of Belmont... ", Lydie who was supposed to be the sacrifice(vessel) never was and she is saved, game ends.
Things to note/ that are inferred:
- The 2 layers of the Castle (A & B) are the two halves of Maxim's consciousness; one is the regular Maxim, the other being "Dark Maxim". This is also inferred by the layer of the castle in which the player fights the final boss form 1 (Maxim) altering the ending. (I assume in Castle A the original Maxim dies, not the Dark one)
- Lydie was the original vessel for Dracula's resurrection. Therefore assuming that she was sacrificed, the real Dracula and not simply Dracula Wraith would have been incarnated.
- Dracula's remains influenced the original Maxim to find them and kidnap Lydie. At some point after Castle (dual layered) had manifested, Dark Maxim separates the individual remains so that anyone (say Juste) can't tamper with/ destroy them. (I think plottwist and I discussed this in another thread). Which means that if Lydie was used as the sacrifice/ vessel as the first point of call, Dracula would have come back in a stronger and/ or more complete form.
- Original Maxim about half way through the game says to Juste "Dracula's power was so overwhelming." Many can argue it was indeed the power of the remains, not Dracula himself. However, I can't help but think that the remains contain power, specifically power that has come from Dracula directly (although how much is unknown).
- From the above points I think it's somewhat fair to say that Dracula's remains influenced Maxim etc so that Lydie could be the sacrifice/vessel and Dracula could reincarnate in some form. That didn't happen so we got DW, plan B, like how Isaac was plan B to Hector.
Thoughts or anything missed?
That's pretty much word for word what my take away was from Harmony's translated script. I really like that it was named the Dracula "Wraith" as I think it's a fitting name. It's the closest we could likely get to Zombie Dracula given that his soul wasn't using the body, but rather the remains acting on their own using what they picked up from Maxim's dark side.
A closer literary meaning would probably be "Dracula Revenant", but "Wraith" is close enough, easier to say for most, and still sounds plenty awesome.
Everybody wins.
-
That's pretty much word for word what my take away was from Harmony's translated script. I really like that it was named the Dracula "Wraith" as I think it's a fitting name. It's the closest we could likely get to Zombie Dracula given that his soul wasn't using the body, but rather the remains acting on their own using what they picked up from Maxim's dark side.
A closer literary meaning would probably be "Dracula Revenant", but "Wraith" is close enough, easier to say for most, and still sounds plenty awesome.
Everybody wins.
Funnily he's named "Dracula Phantom" in japanese.
-
Funnily he's named "Dracula Phantom" in japanese.
Which is also an excellent word.
I wonder why they didn't just port that name over to the English version? Maybe they were trying to avoid some kind of Phantom of the Opera comparison for some reason?
...and I just got a new topic idea brb
-
I'm naturally stubborn. It's not something I can just turn off with the flick of a switch. I'm just treading more carefully.
That being said, there's no need for harsh language here; that's just going to escalate things again. Kindly refrain from profanities.
I'm naturally inclined to use swears casually. If you get to play the "it's just who I am" card, so will I.
Sometimes there's just nothing like a well-placed fuckin' curse to get a point across. I don't think it's a mark of poor character or manners on my part, as it's part of my regular thought patterns and I dropped a singular bottom-of-the-ladder one. "Goddamn" really isn't much, as I could have easily dropped "worse" words in its place or had one every other non-swear word, but I didn't.
If you're inclined to instantly take any swears as an act of aggression or instigation, that's not my problem.
I wonder why they didn't just port that name over to the English version?
I imagine it has more to do with the word itself. In the Western world, "phantom" is synonymous with "ghost," and you're certainly not encountering the ghost of Dracula. DW is a hollow shell of Big D's true essence and being, and among other definitions (one of which is also synonymous with "ghost," yes) "wraith" can be termed to mean a pale or insubstantial person, or a faint trace of something.
To the best of my knowledge, "phantom" doesn't carry connotations like that. I would be more inclined to believe that he was named Wraith based on those metaphorical definitions, as he is indeed an insubstantial being who is little more than a slight trace of Drac himself.
-
This is one instance where I think believe the Japanese name was a less apt description than the English version.
Depending whose definition we're going by. The two most differentiated descriptions I've seen were through Websters and Wraith seems more accurate to me.
I also prefer Simon Wraith to the Japanese version's "Shimon".
-
It's even more amusing when you realize that phonetically, its name is Death-mon.
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette1.wikia.nocookie.net%2Fgrimadventures%2Fimages%2F2%2F2b%2FGrim_2.png%2Frevision%2Flatest%3Fcb%3D20141229151527&hash=f65b92da35005566e5f5ba3a4a00a08bd9fddf06)
DEATH, MON!
-
It's even more amusing when you realize that phonetically, its name is Death-mon.
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette1.wikia.nocookie.net%2Fgrimadventures%2Fimages%2F2%2F2b%2FGrim_2.png%2Frevision%2Flatest%3Fcb%3D20141229151527&hash=f65b92da35005566e5f5ba3a4a00a08bd9fddf06)
DEATH, MON!
Okay, you done made me laugh right thar. :D
On a completely tangential note, why have we never seen the return of the Simon Wraiths? It always seemed appropriate that a Belmont be confronted by a twisted mockery of themselves. We have had Doppelganger bosses here and there, but the Wraiths always felt... different, like they were a real personal affront to the Belmonts somehow.
-
They're the remnants of every time you died in past games.
-
I think in the case of Dracula's Wraith, the "Phantom" is more about "Image" or "Apparition" or even "Illusion." Many dictionaries define the word "phantom" like this, something illusory and without substance. A mirage.
I think it works, even though I believe the choice of "Wraith" was better to avoid confusion.
They're the remnants of every time you died in past games.
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FSla4id3.png&hash=f2477f21fa4bb46459d4278e153125b6d8e35903)
-
They're the remnants of every time you died in past games.
Then boy howdy, there's a lot of them to go around.
-
Castlevania already deals with time-travel and alternate realities; the "your in-game death was real and had consequences" concept is no more ridiculous than a dinosaur wizard in leopard-print spandex travelling 10,000 years in the past to kill an old dude in a cape and getting turned into a candle when that old dude's androgynous son kicked his ass.
ORRRRRR the Skeletons are all the SAME skeletons, just reassembled, and they change their outfits because they're bored, and decided to dress up like Simon to make fun of him and laugh with the other skeletons, but got interrupted by the protagonist and had to fight them in-costume.
-
the Skeletons are all the SAME skeletons, just reassembled, and they change their outfits because they're bored, and decided to dress up like Simon to make fun of him and laugh with the other skeletons, but got interrupted by the protagonist and had to fight them in-costume.
That has the makings of the greatest fanfic ever.
-
That has the makings of the greatest fanfic ever.
I actually tried doing something like that with the Simon Wraith lol
http://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/index.php/topic,7165.msg161509.html#msg161509 (http://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/index.php/topic,7165.msg161509.html#msg161509)