Castlevania Dungeon Forums
The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: Nagumo on June 06, 2017, 04:01:56 AM
-
And if so, how did they find out?
I was just wondering about this because there's a possibility this might be brought up in the upcoming animated series (if they care enough to acknowledge LoI). I would assume that the Belmonts knew because that makes the most sense from a narrative standpoint. After all, the entire point of LoI's story was to create a personal connenction between the Belmonts and Dracula. This also creates a personal motivation for Trevor. He goes to fight Dracula because of Leon's vow. (and also because he wants to restore his family's reputation, most likely). But then there's the question of how Trevor knew beforehand he was dealing with Mathias.
Does anyone have an idea how that could play out? I suppose you could write it in such a way that Trevor only has his suspicions beforehand because he knows Dracula is a vampire. And then Dracula would most likely reveal his old identiy during his confrontation with Trevor. Most likely he would be prompted to do so because he recognizes the Vampire Killer or something like that. Any other possible scenarios?
-
I like to think that Matthias and the Belmonts kept some level of tabs on each other. Matthias knew how impressive a warrior Leon was and I doubt he took his boasts at the end of LoI lightly. And on the flip side the Belmont's whole mission is kind of built around destroying Matthias some day, so I imagine tracking him, knowing what he's up to was pretty high on the to do list. I'd bet in the time between Leon and Trevor other Belmonts tried and failed to find and or battle him.
-
Do the Belmonts even know the Vampire Killer is the transubstantiated form of some dude's dead waifu?
-
I think they don't. Not only that, but I think they shouldn't as it cheapens their duty.
I think they don't because of the time span between Leon and Trevor. Also, at the end of Lament, Leon seems to put aside his personal vendetta with Mathias to look at the bigger picture: Walter turned his wife, Mathias is now a vampire and will turn many more. It became more about the suffering people will be subjected to than about his personal vengeance. Leon's altruism appears to be in stark contrast with Mathias' selfishness.
This is the key point: Personal. Leon's promise was about the clan hunting the night, not "Mathias". Of course he condemned Mathias to die by the whip one day, but this became an afterthought on this promise's conclusion.
Think Batman. He made a vow to catch criminals until the day he dies. He wanted to catch Joe Chill, his parents' killer, but he had no idea who he was. He simply knew he would catch him one day as an afterthought of the "I will catch ALL criminals because I'm Batman".
So I think they don't because I think it would be outside Leon's character to actually pass on Mathias' name and past forward. He wouldn't honor his greatest betrayer with a memory of him to consume his children or make his children wield the whip out of pity due to knowing Leon's dead wife is inside it. Besides, it's supposed the Leon DID live a happily ever-after ending with a new wife with whom he made mini Belmonts, and who should seriously get more recognition lol. I think he would train his kin to hunt demons and monsters as their bread-winning with the intention of them becoming so good at it Mathias would perish at their hands eventually, but not actually weave long expositions about who Mathias was or make him their focus.
Ignoring aside a bit the fact that most Dracula vs Belmont conflicts happened way before Lament was developed and therefore they couldn't write about a centuries-old vendetta, I think the Belmonts not recognizing Dracula as "Mathias" could be a hint they don't know his past with Leon. Leon shutting up would be what truly killed Mathias -- or, as they say, you die for real when nobody remembers you anymore. Them remembering Mathias would, on my opinion, cheap their duty because they would be quite literally fighting another guy's personal vengeance instead of fighting to do what they were trained to do and constantly evoke the reason to be: Save humanity. Fighting for this makes them their own person taught to do what is right.
But again, that's what I think. Not actually any proof or something for that.
Does anyone have an idea how that could play out? I suppose you could write it in such a way that Trevor only has his suspicions beforehand because he knows Dracula is a vampire. And then Dracula would most likely reveal his old identiy during his confrontation with Trevor. Most likely he would be prompted to do so because he recognizes the Vampire Killer or something like that. Any other possible scenarios?
Dracula: You know nothing, boy. The only reason you're here is because of me. Not because of what I did now, not because of some people crying for help, but because what I did to your fool of an ancestor. You call me selfish? Isn't condemning your children to live life fighting your battle an act of selfishness?
Trevor: I know exactly what you did. But this is irrelevant. The world doesn't revolve around you.
Dracula: So, you decided to trample on Leon's promise of killing me, then?
Trevor: No. I have come here to fulfill his promise. Not of killing you, but killing the night making people miserable. You just happen to be the last one standing between me and my mission.
*cue epic whippage with the night literally fading afterwards*
-
I don´t want to get into a pages long essay war... but I couldn't disagree more. I find the idea of the Belmonts not knowing who Dracula was akin to Harry Potter defeating Voldemort without knowing he was the one who killed his parents. Yes LoI came later, but it adds so many layers to the story in entwining the origins of both in a way that makes them create each other. It adds a layer of drama, and scope to the confrontation with Trevor.
I think the idea of a clan finally fulfilling it's most sacred duty (though not it's ONLY sacred duty, and not fully fulfilling it due to resurrections) adds a weight to the confrontation that absolutely annihilates the alternative "I'm good for goodness sake! I just want to help everyone, and you're evil!" And I get that "the Belmont clan will hunt the night." But I think you are really dismissing "this whip and my kinsman will destroy you someday" far too out of hand. Believe it or not, familial duty is a powerful thing, especially when it's a duty that has gone on for many generations.
Another level to this is how arbitrary the continual battle against him would become under this circumstance. Giving the Belmonts' a much more personal stake in fighting Dracula, I.E. the progenitor of their clan literally created him, improves the story immensely. Elevating it above the generic "super warrior vs. evil lord." A trope that gets progressively sillier as the resurrections stack up. This IMO was the greatest strength in LoI, the weight it added to every game in the series, and the storyline as a whole. Making the Belmonts after Leon not know who Dracula is really cheapens that, to me it really doesn't add anything, just makes the Belmonts into more of your standard generic goodie two shoes heroes. Make them good guys, who want to save the world from evil, but throwing in a personal stake makes it even better.
There's also a whole other aspect about Dracula clearly not wanting people to know of his past, given that he literally creates a new identity. The Belmonts knowing who he is makes the confrontation more intimate. And that is always better.
I would much prefer a Trevor confrontation along these lines...
Dracula: So finally you've come. What can a mere man hope to accomplish against me?
Trevor: What indeed Dracula... or should I say Matthias.
*Dracula's expression grows cold*: Where did you learn that name?! That man is gone! Centuries dead!"
Trevor: I know who you really are Matthias Cronqvist, and I've come to fulfill the promise of my ancestors. I, Trevor Belmont have come to destroy you!"
Dracula *enraged*: Enough talk! Have at you! (or some other Dracula-ism)
-
Thing is: Trevor already has his personal reason.
Trevor still is his own person with his own goals. He has been banished from the living with other people because he's seen as some freak of nature with vampire powers (yes, the Belmonts have been specifically banished because their powers are confused with vampires'). Earning the right to walk amongst the people again and renewing his actual perceived humanity is reason WAY beyond enough. Dracula is to blame for their banishment -- he's a vampire, he has displayed powers that compound the fear people have of the Belmonts.
He doesn't need another personal reason from a personal vendetta of someone who lived 400-odd years ago. The Belmonts have already spent this time hunting other vampires and beasts of darkness. For me, it's much more believable to think that they have outgrown the vendetta after not finding Mathias for so long, and just accepted that they hold power to banish evil, and that this power should be used responsibly. That NOT using this power to protect humanity incur on not only irresponsibility, but in a case of "I helped nobody, now that I need help nobody is here to help me". On a Batman analogy: Joe Chill (Mathias) is the symbol of evil that spurred Batman (Belmonts) on their hunting of evil. He's not in to catch Joe Chill in specific, but what he represents -- Joe Chill will be caught eventually because he's a criminal, but that's a footnote on the bigger "hunt all evil" page Joe Chill started.
To the Belmonts starting at Trevor, Dracula is a total stranger. Yeah yeah "ancestor vendetta" but the ancestor in question is long gone and 400 years is a LONG-ASS time with no contact with the actual offender (Dracula) to give it too much importance.
Another very, very important detail is: How would they even recognize Dracula as Mathias? Just being a powerful vampire isn't enough, dude. By Dracula they have already seen vampires abound. They don't know what Mathias looked like, they don't know what name he chose for himself, and even if they had a painting of Mathias survive all the way from Leon up until Trevor (damn unlikely), Dracula's face by Trevor's time is far from being recognizable (as we've seen it depicted, at least).
Like, I would be much more convinced if they had actually witnessed Dracula doing Draculy things all through these 400 years, having their mind refreshed on who the guy at a constant pace. But 400 years with no word of the man? For all they cared he could have died already by their own or some other hunter's hands. He changed identities, remember? It's the point of a disguise. Nobody will recognize you given enough time.
Not everything needs to be "ancestor vendetta" levels of personal. Every Belmont has their own personal stake with Dracula. Be it "Dracula kidnapped my girlfriend" or "Dracula mind-controlled my son".
The Belmonts knowing who he is makes the confrontation more intimate. And that is always better.
Eh. Not sold on that. You can't be believably intimate with a guy from 400 years ago. You may even know there is a vendetta, but in truth you don't KNOW this guy. You haven't quite built your perception of him because all you know are tales from ages past. It's like meeting Hitler and thinking you have an intimate confrontation with him because you read too many WWII books. You don't KNOW the guy -- you just understand the basic concept that he is really evil.
It may be better when revealing Dracula's identity has any importance. What importance does telling the people who Dracula is has at all? What importance does knowing he was some guy on the crusades 400 years ago has? None. It's not like the Church could do anything against him (they are already trying their hardest, and failing miserably were not for the Belmonts). Knowing who Dracula is would go on more or less like this:
Belmont: I HAVE COME TO SLAY THEE, O MATHIAS, BETRAYER OF BARON LEON BELMONT!
Dracula: Oh cool, 'tis been ages since I have last heard this name.
Belmont: I KNOW THY NAME, O INFERNAL DEMON OF LEGEND!
Dracula: Nice. What will you do with it? Try to scavenge some occult knowledge from my long dead heritage which I have obviously destroyed on this centuries-long timespan because I'm a genius tactician and don't plan on having my alchemy used against me? Tell Aunt May?
Belmont: I WILL REVEAL THAT YE HAVE LIVED FOR LONGER THAN THE COMMON MAN!
Dracula: What, wasn't that cat already out of the bag when the whole vampire stuff became obvious?
I'm joking here, of course. But I'm trying to express that I see no advantage of knowing who Dracula is beyond "I know who Dracula is". I don't think an ancient vampire warlock would even bat an eye to someone knowing his name. Like, remember Bison? Same concept here: Betraying Leon, for Dracula, living long as he has and seeing the shit he saw through all this time, was a Tuesday.
Also, another important thing: This "I know who you are, DRACULA!" stuff cheapened Mirror of Fate immensely for me. Dracula has been already waging war on humanity for long, but all Trevor thinks is "U MUH FATHER". This "ancestor vendetta" trope is an easy way to write antagonism between two characters without actually having to develop a reason for the character itself to have a personal vendetta to hate the other party. It CAN be done very right -- I'm not saying it can't -- but the stars must be aligned. One such star is seeing the guy your father hates doing shit, then the son still sees the same guy, then his son, then his son... Keeps the vendetta flame alive.
-
Technically Mathias isn't Dracula because he was "reborn" as a vampire thanks to the crimson stone, like, he totally changed his body, soul, name and even species legally.
It would be rude af for a Belmont to call him by his slave name
-
It'd be irresponsible for the Belmonts not to know about their whip, their sworn nemesis, and the story behind their very raison d'etre. But I can see Leon not telling his son so as not to taint his (and consequently the entire lineage's) thoughts of Sara with resentment.
So yeah, I don't think the Belmonts know... but I can see Julius finding out before or during the Demon Castle War. Maybe the knowledge was instrumental in bringing down Dracula one last time and finally fulfilling Leon's vendetta.
-
I think Leon must have wrote something and the book might be read by some Belmonts but not all. I agree with Puritan that definitely Julius would know.
-
Do the Belmonts know who Mathias is? The answer is that there's no definitive answer, however, nothing in the canon specifically alludes to this. I personally don't believe the Belmonts knew, given that Mathias fled to faraway lands and it was generations before they ever crossed paths again, it makes me believe less in them knowing one another. (In fact Mathias lives relatively under the radar in a "peaceful" state until the events of CV3 according to Iga's timeline and an interview he did).
I always thought it was that Leon could've tracked Mathias to some extent and then lost his trail.
As for the other question about the Belmonts knowing about Sara's soul, specifically that it was Sara's? Probably not. However, there must've been some knowledge about the VK's memory, since Stella and Loretta knew about it in POR. Julius mentions the "Whip's power fading" after Soma defeats the Creature of Chaos which implies the VK's rage has been quelled due to the absence of a Dark Lord candidate.
-
I think they do not know, and I'd like to think they don't know. It would be very much in-character for Leon to keep something like this to himself, not wanting to shame his old friend, but rather just upholding the duty of warding off the ultimate evil. Even after everything Mathias did, Leon did not seem to truly hate him and I think he would not mingle personal feelings into his family's duty like such. As for canon status, nothing ever hints at the Belmondos knowing of Dracula's true self.
-
I think they do not know, and I'd like to think they don't know. It would be very much in-character for Leon to keep something like this to himself, not wanting to shame his old friend, but rather just upholding the duty of warding off the ultimate evil. Even after everything Mathias did, Leon did not seem to truly hate him and I think he would not mingle personal feelings into his family's duty like such. As for canon status, nothing ever hints at the Belmondos knowing of Dracula's true self.
"You are a cursed being, and I will never forgive you. This whip, and my kinsman will destroy you some day." I know the hunt the night part is the dramatic climax, but can we stop ignoring the first part. Leon hates Matthias, like you can only hate someone you cared about deeply, who betrayed you profoundly.
-
"You are a cursed being, and I will never forgive you. This whip, and my kinsman will destroy you some day." I know the hunt the night part is the dramatic climax, but can we stop ignoring the first part. Leon hates Matthias, like you can only hate someone you cared about deeply, who betrayed you profoundly.
Is this being taken in context though, I wonder. Of course Mathias is responsible for Sara's demise. However, Mathias rejected God, he made the offer to Leon to do the same and he chose God. Then he talks about someday destroying Mathias.
What I'm saying is that in context, Leon's reason for saying he'll never forgive Mathias is alluding to the fact that predominantly, he's turned his back on God. I say this for two reasons:
1- Sara made it very clear she didn't want anyone to suffer the same fate as her, hence her sacrifice. Leon is very much aware of Sara's wishes.
2- Leon would not base several legacies' worth of Belmonts "hunting the night" purely and solely to avenge his wife, because that was his own bone-to-pick with Mathias. He swore to hunt the night meaning destroying beings such as Walter and Mathias are; "cursed".
If for arguments sake Sara's death (and not simply the VK having a memory) was that important to the timeline, if the Belmonts knowing Dracula was Mathias post-LOI, then they would have alluded to this in later games or added some detail about it in the 400 year time lapse of Iga's timeline where it stated Mathias was living a peaceful/ undetected life. After all COD made reference to the Battle of 1999, and the two games weren't set in the same era.
I'm sure Leon would be as furious as the next man given what happened to his spouse, however, his last speech seems of a more holistic nature than simply for a "revenge" kill. If anything I can see him destroying many cursed beings because of Sara's wishes, he was probably hoping he'd cross paths with Mathias again one day.
See the difference between Mathias and Leon is that Leon is man of faith and a man of God. Even after what happened to Sara, Leon's faith never waivered and his resolve became stronger. So I can't for one believe that he was hell bent purely on his revenge as the only reason for wanting to hunt the night and destroy Mathias. Mathias on the other hand lost his faith and did what was necessary to reject and curse God for what he believed would be eternity.
-
"This whip, and my kinsman will destroy you some day."
I should mention that in the Japanese version this line is written like this: "Me and my kinsman will hunt you down with this whip." This seems to imply Leon intented to pass down his vendetta to his descendants if he himself didn't succeed in fulfulling it.
Another very, very important detail is: How would they even recognize Dracula as Mathias? Just being a powerful vampire isn't enough, dude. By Dracula they have already seen vampires abound. They don't know what Mathias looked like, they don't know what name he chose for himself, and even if they had a painting of Mathias survive all the way from Leon up until Trevor (damn unlikely), Dracula's face by Trevor's time is far from being recognizable (as we've seen it depicted, at least).
What about the Crimson Stone? If Dracula still wore it during Trevor's time, it would a good way to identify him. Of course, it's not a 100% reliable deduction, but it would be a good enough reason for a Belmont to suspect he is dealing with his ancestor's sworn enemy.
-
Here's an awesome kind of fusion of ideas. What if Trevor doesn't know he's Matthias until he confronts him, maybe the whip helps him see, maybe it's the crimson stone, but whatever... what a wonderful moment that would be. When Trevor realizes that the battle as basically destiny, and that he is inadvertently fulfilling the family quest.
-
What about the Crimson Stone? If Dracula still wore it during Trevor's time, it would a good way to identify him. Of course, it's not a 100% reliable deduction, but it would be a good enough reason for a Belmont to suspect he is dealing with his ancestor's sworn enemy.
This depends largely on what one considers the rock to be.
Y'all know my personal theory that it's a form of a Philosopher's Stone already, so I'll not delve into that again.
The only reason Leon knew what it was was because Joachim mentioned it offhandedly and Rinaldo clarified more about it when pressed. All he knows about it is that it's a red rock that turns vampire souls into power and can trade humanity for all that vampire power goodness.
Now, even if we assume he passed every possible detail down to his kids and grandkids and they passed it down to theirs, do we really think those details stayed verbatim all that time? We all know the Telephone Game and how details frequently become obscured or lost altogether with the passage of time. Now, 400+ years? In medieval times? Ain't a bloody chance the Belmonts by Trevor's time know the exact details of the Stone, assuming they know any details at all by that point. Even if we assume circumstances like Leon passing information to the Church and the Church then keeping records, the Belmonts spent a great deal of time as pariahs, so why would they even be privy to that kind of sensitive information anymore? Doubly so when one considers that for many years their top priority was mere survival in a land that loathed their very existence, when remembering the details of a magic rock would take second nature to staying alive.
The best explanation/chance I'm willing to believe is that later Belmonts know Dracula has a magic rock that gives him fabulous dark powers, and little more than that.
But by that point, there're plenty of other magic rocks that grant fabulous powers already in the world alongside the Crimson Stone--Rebound Diamond, Sypha's crystal thing, etc. etc. Why, assuming on the extremely plausible likelihood many or all details of Mathias and the Stone were lost to the passage of time, would everyone not simply chalk Dracula's magic rock to be just another magic rock that does evil shit instead of good shit? I just don't see them putting the pieces together from mere scraps of information they very likely don't even have anymore.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the actual thread topic:
I'm seeing a lot of perspectives that the Belmonts knowing the truth and history of their family's relationship with Dracula lends more significance and weight and even intimacy to their dynamic. While I would under many, many other circumstances agree that the idea of "mortal enemy was once a friend way back and their fall from grace is what instigated it all" is a really nice plot element, in CV's case I think it actually lessens the Belmont-Dracula dynamic.
Plot's already used the Batman analogy, so I won't waste time reiterating it. But the principle is basically just that.
The Belmont-Dracula dynamic is important because the Belmonts (and possibly Dracula, depending on whether or not we believe he retains all his memories of his past life at all times) don't know their own history. The tragedy does not lie in them knowing, it lies in their ignorance.
This entire rich history of broken friendship and love lost and the falling from grace of BOTH sides of the rivalry--nobody's the wiser to it. The cycle continues because of its very nature, not because of the circumstances that started it.
It's kind of like those plots you see in films where the hero does a valiant act of self-sacrifice...and the person or people he saves never even know of his heroism. That the people were saved is what matters, not that they know The Hero sacrificed himself or his freedom or whatever else to do so. It's that bittersweetness that lends plot points like that poignancy, and the principle is the same here.
Dracula is no longer Mathias, and the Belmonts are no longer valiant and revered warriors of the Church like Leon was. Neither is what they formerly were, so that past no longer holds weight on the present. In fact, that their respective histories hold no major significance to the current iteration of the rivalry and relationship IS what gives it all weight. The insignificance is what makes it significant.
Here are these two players on the grand stage, battling their lives away across the centuries, and neither is seemingly aware that they were once the closest of allies. Their ancestors' histories no longer matter. The bonds of love and friendship once held and tragically shattered no longer matter. All that matters is the battle, the cycle of good vs. evil, the crusades against one another that will either save or damn humanity.
It's actually all very simply a form of standard theatrical tragedy, really.
The tragedy is not that the two are locked in endless combat and hatred for one another. The tragedy is that two are locked in endless combat and hatred for one another and don't even know why (or even think to QUESTION why) anymore.
Dracula doesn't go after humanity because he's still pissed off at God from his long-past human days. The Belmonts don't go after Dracula because they're still feeling the effects of Mathias' betrayal and wish to carry on Leon's vendetta.
They fight each other because they must. Because they are the two sides of the same coin, the antithesis of each other. They are each other's foils, plain and simple. History, betrayal, lost love, lost friendship, none of these things matter anymore. All that matters is the state of conflict that allows each of the two to thrive and continue the cycle of battle.
Having the entire cycle be relegated to what basically amounts to "oh well we know you were our bro way back in college and we're still pissed you joined the rival football team" kind of subsumes and demeans the whole point of the vicious and (mostly) fruitless cycle Dracula and the Belmonts have been locked in for so long.
A Belmont being aware of the history would only hold weight in few extremely specific circumstances, and honestly all the circumstances I can think of that validate it involve Julius, due to his role in ending the cycle and still being present when it begins to renew itself. Pretty much every other Belmont but him can go pound sand as far as I see any value in them knowing Leon and Mathias' history.
-
Do the Belmonts know that Dracula was once Mathias? No, I don't think so. Leon never knew himself, therefore his descendants never knew either. Leon probably would have told them about Mathias in tomes written for his descendants but there would be no word about some powerful count called Dracula. That tome would be written by Trevor and company for future generations of Belmonts. Julius might be the first Belmont to eventually put the pieces together from studying said tomes, however for the most part, in the minds of the Belmont family, there is only Count Dracula.
-
I don't really want to try and break down everyone who disagreed with me's argument point by point. It really just breaks down to what version of events we prefer thematically. In my opinion Trevor's quest becomes significantly more profound with the added layer of a familial sense of guilt, their ancestor was tricked into creating Dracula, giving him the opportunity to seize power. He feels responsibility in his blood for all the death and destruction. Given how integral to the series themes of legacy and guilt are, I don't think this is such an outrageous idea. Just as I don't find the alternative outrageous either, just not my preferred version of events. I wonder where the animated series will go with this. I know in the Sylvain White film script, which was not related to the anime, Leon Belmont and his quest were Legend to Trevor, having grown up to the tale. I really dug that.
Maybe a more interesting question? How much does Alucard know of Dracula's history? Or the Belmonts' for that matter?
-
Here's an awesome kind of fusion of ideas. What if Trevor doesn't know he's Matthias until he confronts him, maybe the whip helps him see, maybe it's the crimson stone, but whatever... what a wonderful moment that would be. When Trevor realizes that the battle as basically destiny, and that he is inadvertently fulfilling the family quest.
I'm more sold on this idea. If there's "someone" who could recognize Dracula, it'd be the whip itself. But we do know the whip's hatred is against everything in the night -- as it shows when it meets Walter. So we don't know if the hatred it has for Dracula is the same or not.
I should mention that in the Japanese version this line is written like this: "Me and my kinsman will hunt you down with this whip." This seems to imply Leon intented to pass down his vendetta to his descendants if he himself didn't succeed in fulfulling it.
I'm not even saying he DIDN'T hunt Mathias. I actually do think he did hunt him (and, probably up until the second generation, they could've hunted for him too). But humans, after a long time, simply give up and forget, preferring to aim at the bigger picture. Hell, people forget DRACULA after a 100 years. The dude made Wallachia a living hell and people are willing to forget what he did.
What I mean is that, a flame that goes unkindled, diminishes. Might not disappear, but I have a hard time believing it stays the same.
What about the Crimson Stone? If Dracula still wore it during Trevor's time, it would a good way to identify him. Of course, it's not a 100% reliable deduction, but it would be a good enough reason for a Belmont to suspect he is dealing with his ancestor's sworn enemy.
This one is something that's hard to discuss because of the "If Dracula still wore it during Trevor's time".
Going by IGA's words, I don't think he wore it by Trevor's time -- but might have worn it until JUST short of his meeting with Trevor. IGA said Dracula used the stone to become the Demon King, and we also know there is a pact with an evil god in here somewhere. Both of these informations are confirmed to be true. So, Dracula was not the Demon King until a little earlier than CVIII, then he used two things (Stone, Pact) to become the Demon King with reviving powers he is.
Dracula doesn't need the stone anymore to be a vampire -- he is a level above that, an actual devil, made so by the pact. Why would he need the Stone now? His soul, as we have seen through the series, is not beholden to any Stone.
My guess is: The Stone is gone as is part of the pact. Where it is gone to or how, I don't know. I do have a speculation on this side, but it is just speculation. This being the case, I don't think Trevor would meet him in time to see him with the Stone.
-
I think questions like: "Does Dracula still wear the Crimson Stone?" and "Do the Belmonts know that Dracula is Mathias?" are similar in a way. They both revolve around the question of how much impact LoI has on the later mythos of the series. In both cases, my answer to both question would be: "Yes", not because it's explicitly stated in a particular source but because it feels like both the whole blood feud thing and Crimson Stone are supposed to have a lasting impact on the later canon.
I think it's important to consider how LoI was meant to fit into the series at the time of its release. It was meant as the grand origin story to the entire timeline that reveals how everything came to be. So from a story standpoint it feels unnatural if elements from LoI get downplayed. "The Crimson Stone? Dracula threw that old thing away after a couple of decades." "The blood fleud between the Belmonts and Dracula? The Belmonts stopped caring about that pretty quickly. " If so, then why should I care about those bits from LoI's story if they don't amount to much?
It's difficult to explain, so I hope you understand a little bit what I'm trying to get at.
-
I think questions like: "Does Dracula still wear the Crimson Stone?" and "Do the Belmonts know that Dracula is Mathias?" are similar in a way. They both revolve around the question of how much impact LoI has on the later mythos of the series. In both cases, my answer to both question would be: "Yes", not because it's explicitly stated in a particular source but because it feels like both the whole blood feud thing and Crimson Stone are supposed to have a lasting impact on the later canon.
I think it's important to consider how LoI was meant to fit into the series at the time of its release. It was meant as the grand origin story to the entire timeline that reveals how everything came to be. So from a story standpoint it feels unnatural if elements from LoI get downplayed. "The Crimson Stone? Dracula threw that old thing away after a couple of decades." "The blood fleud between the Belmonts and Dracula? The Belmonts stopped caring about that pretty quickly. " If so, then why should I care about those bits from LoI's story if they don't amount to much?
It's difficult to explain, so I hope you understand a little bit what I'm trying to get at.
This. Not only from a standpoint of what the game was supposed to be, but in terms of the drama it creates. What a waste to build up an intertwined origin where Dracula and the Belmonts literally create each other just to say "oh but they forgot later." I guess they could easily have forgotten the intricate details of the origin a couple centuries after Trevor, when the mission shifts from hunt the night and Matthias to hunt the night and stop Dracula from reviving and ending the world. But still only if you believe they'd never write it down.
-
It's difficult to explain, so I hope you understand a little bit what I'm trying to get at.
I do. Why write a beginning story if nothing on the story is actually important down the road? Thing is, I don't agree with this thinking at all because....
If so, then why should I care about those bits from LoI's story if they don't amount to much?
....the important bits from LoI's story are not restricted to "the Belmonts know who Dracula is" and "Crimson Stone". The most important, unchanging, recurring element that greatly amounts to anything in the timeline and directly connects to Dracula is solemnly being ignored: The Vampire Killer. The Belmonts change, the wielder changes, Dracula changes, time passes, and the whip stays the same.
-The Vampire Killer exists because of Mathias' knowledge. It was described on the book belonging to his family how to produce a working Whip of Alchemy AND how to complete it.
-Mathias IS aware of the Belmonts and why are they after him. He is also aware of Leon's promise (supposing Death delivered Leon's message). The Belmonts may not be aware of who he is, but he is fully aware of why they are at his doorstep and his part on the VK's creation.
-LoI shows what happens when you abandon humanity and the difference between a Belmont's moral fiber and Dracula's. This is why the Vampire Killer trusts the Belmonts.
Everything revolves around the whip. Not around secret identities or magic stones. It's been like this ever since the very first Castlevania: Ther permancence of the whip within the vampire-hunting clan, and the obligation it holds the clan to through the blood pact it has with the clan. Lament was made to show what this pact is and what relationship it has with Dracula. Why EVERYTHING changes, sans the whip vs Dracula conflict.
I understand that "Mathias is Dracula" and "Crimson Stone" are important plot points. The idea of all of this playing too-important roles beyond their original roles is too seducing to ignore, but they are plot points made to hold direct impact on the events within Lament, and a much smaller impact later. It's an arc that starts and ends inside Lament. They do compound the story in some way, but their direct perceived "usefulness" expires at the end of Lament. Remember the ending? It says:
"The intermission in this exquisite play from which two souls will never escape"
It's not talking about Crimson Stone. Not talking about "Mathias is Dracula". It's talking about the Vampire Killer and Dracula, existing to antagonize each other. The Belmonts and a possible vendetta are so much not needed to the equation that this LoI conclusion puts forth, that for 200 years they were replaced by the Morris clan. It's about the whip, not about the wielder. The WHIP's connection with Dracula is the maximum compounding element from Lament. If anyone here has a vendetta with Dracula that can be believably alive, it's the whip, which carries it through the Belmonts. It doesn't need the wielder to know of some vendetta to enact its own vendetta-mission of slaying Dracula wherever he shows up.
This is the underlying theme meant to survive -- the conflict Dracula brought upon himself by his name being responsible for creating the Vampire Killer. He created the Crimson Stone? Nice, he also created the only thing able to destroy him, due to his manipulations. Dracula and the Vampire Killer are forever trapped on a cycle of conflict.
The Belmonts don't need to know who he is. They don't need to live a personal, very specific vendetta from 400 years ago. This vendetta already has wielded its result -- the Vampire Killer. I'm not saying they are NOT literally living this vendetta, because it's painfully obvious they are living a result of it. I'm saying they are either not aware of it, or not focusing on it. Their battle is a result of Leon vowing to destroy the night because of what it turned Mathias into and what it did to people such as Rinaldo, not of "destroying Mathias because my wife". Turning his hatred to Mathias in specific and making his entire progeny go after him "because my wife" is being no less selfish than Mathias manipulating people to fulfill his own vendetta with God "because my wife", which again we have established that LoI goes to lengths to show that is NOT in the nature of Leon.
As you put, Leon said "Me and my kinsman will hunt you down with this whip." He could be meaning anything from "our vendetta is against you in particular" to "you will become one more hunted by us on our mission to destroy the night". Last one makes more sense to me because, when we focus too much on the first part, it does sound like he will hunt Mathias and suddenly stop because that was the mission all along: Hunt Mathias. "Oh we hunted Mathias, screw the world." The vendetta has OUTGROWN Mathias to become a mission against all evil -- Mathias wasn't the representative of evil yet, why would Leon then swear to "hunt the night"? He's quite clearly not aiming at Mathias alone.
Again, the Batman analogy: Batman did swear to catch Joe Chill, but he meant that on the sense that Joe Chill will be a result of his mission to catch all criminals, and not that "I'll catch Joe Chill and that will be it". Leon may be hunting the night because of Mathias' scheme, but Mathias became only one more target on the bigger mission. It's irrelevant to keep feeding such an specific vendetta when your mission covers the fulfillment of it sooner or later. Hence why I don't think Trevor knows Dracula's identity at all; Beyond the ridiculous legwork required for him to actually recognize Dracula is Mathias, it appears to me he's merely carrying on the main mission of his clan -- hunting and destroying all related to the night.
EDIT: Forgot to add that this is my opinion only. I'm not trying to force anyone to swallow my personal understanding of Castlevania's story themes.
-
I think questions like: "Does Dracula still wear the Crimson Stone?" and "Do the Belmonts know that Dracula is Mathias?" are similar in a way. They both revolve around the question of how much impact LoI has on the later mythos of the series. In both cases, my answer to both question would be: "Yes", not because it's explicitly stated in a particular source but because it feels like both the whole blood feud thing and Crimson Stone are supposed to have a lasting impact on the later canon.
I think it's important to consider how LoI was meant to fit into the series at the time of its release. It was meant as the grand origin story to the entire timeline that reveals how everything came to be. So from a story standpoint it feels unnatural if elements from LoI get downplayed. "The Crimson Stone? Dracula threw that old thing away after a couple of decades." "The blood fleud between the Belmonts and Dracula? The Belmonts stopped caring about that pretty quickly. " If so, then why should I care about those bits from LoI's story if they don't amount to much?
It's difficult to explain, so I hope you understand a little bit what I'm trying to get at.
No, I gotchu.
But that's precisely why I mean/think the idea of "the true reasons were lost to time" holds so much poignancy. The origin story details aren't gone as if they never happened...but they're gone from memory in the centuries to follow.
The true and simple answer being right under everyone's noses and nobody being the wiser enough to see it--that, I think, is a far more significant use of the origin story than "everyone knows but just doesn't talk about it."
And besides:
"This whip and my kinsmen will destroy you someday. From this day on, the Belmont Clan will hunt the night."
-"You" refers to Mathias, and Dracula is not Mathias anymore.
-Belmonts hunt the night. Dracula is the night embodied. Cause and effect.
There doesn't really need to be any reason for it to come up in frequent conversation, or even at all, not even counting all my thoughts on poetic tragedy and dramatic irony. The statements Leon made have either become null or were vague enough that the current situation qualifies regardless of who knows what.