Let's try making sense out of PoR's story.
How does the whole "Brauner controls the power of the castle with his paintings" thing actually work?
We know Brauner wants control over the castle's power but what does he plan to do with it exactly? Near the end of the game it's mentioned Brauner is working on "a painting that can destroy the world". Is that what he needed the castle's power for? How exactly can you destroy the world with a painting?
(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)
EDIT: Spoiler tags because wall of text.
Is Dracula really asking for power, though? Isn't that just the English translation? In the original, he says "Ware ni chikara wo...", if memory serves correctly and that does not imply so much asking as demanding power, if my Japanese doesn't fail me here.
Is Dracula really asking for power, though? Isn't that just the English translation? In the original, he says "Ware ni chikara wo...", if memory serves correctly and that does not imply so much asking as demanding power, if my Japanese doesn't fail me here.
これだけの魔力を放つ城。私が本で調べた悪魔城以外考えられない
A castle that emits this much magical power. It's unthinkable that this is anything other than the demon castle I've read about in books.
This castle is pulsing with dark magical power. I can't imagine it's anything but the castle of Lord Dracula that I studied in the books.
Death:
アトリエの絵によって、ドラキュラ様が蘇るべき玉座の間を切り離すとは…。考えたものよ。だが、これで我が主は蘇る。ははははは
Cutting off the throne room where Lord Dracula is expected to revive through means of his atelier painting... A clever plan. Alas, now I can revive Lord Dracula! Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
The studio painting was cutting off the throne needed to revive Lord Dracula. A clever plan. Alas, now my lord can be revived! Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Charlotte:
この先から、ものすごい魔力を感じるわ。
I sense terribly powerful magic up ahead.
Jonathan:
ジョナサン
この先に城の力を取り戻したドラキュラがいるって事か。
Up ahead is Dracula who has reclaimed the castle's power.
Meaning Dracula's that way, restoring the castle's power?
Nagumo's post.
This line was very weirdly translated. The way Death is talking here is that it's common sense that Dracula revives in the Throne Room. However, nowhere is it mentioned the Throne Room is needed to revive Dracula.
This is just my take on the story, of course. I'm not claiming it as absolute gospel or anything.
This does not need to be mentioned. If Brauner sealed the Throne Room and this act causes Dracula's revival to not be attainable, that means the Throne Room is necessary for his revival, otherwise Dracula would be revived already.
Also, your own translation just above does say "Now I can revive Lord Dracula", meaning he has not yet revived at all.
Are we sure that's the only thing that makes sense? For example, what if Dracula's remains are inside the Throne Room? That could also be reason why Dracula couldn't be revived and it makes sense what we already know. "The Throne Room is neccessary in order to revive Dracula" seems like a completely arbitrary and unneccessary rule to me. Also, then Death's "Now I can revive Lord Dracula"'s line would make sense since he would have access to Dracula's body.
Yeah, you're right. I'm going to backpedal on that statement. However, I'm still sceptical that the Throne Room is needed to revive Dracula. Are we sure that's the only thing that makes sense? For example, what if Dracula's remains are inside the Throne Room? That could also be reason why Dracula couldn't be revived and it makes sense what we already know. "The Throne Room is neccessary in order to revive Dracula" seems like a completely arbitrary and unneccessary rule to me. Also, then Death's "Now I can revive Lord Dracula"'s line would make sense since he would have access to Dracula's body.
OK, let's assume the remains are inside the Throne Room for a minute, and that's what Death needed: Why would Death say he needed the Throne Room instead of saying he needed Dracula's body/remains/soul contained within the Throne Room? Why is he talking about the ROOM and leaving the most crucial part (in this hypothetical case, Dracula's remains) out of the picture?
The games themselves support this as well. The story always make a point of showing us whoever wishes to revive Dracula is in possession of his corpse.
Well, resurrection someone else requires having access to said person's remains, doesn't it? That seems like such a self-apperent thing to me that it really isn't an assumption.
There's an conversation between Jonathan and Charlotte that chronologically occurs BEFORE this where they across the sealed Throne Room, and Charlotte says something like: "So this is what Brauner meant with separating Dracula from the Castle". Which means Dracula must have physically existed inside the Throne Room at that point, albeit dead.
Which is why I'm defending Dracula's body is NOT on the Throne Room, but elsewhere. Probably with Death. I'll elaborate on this logic:
See, this might be very obvious... Until we learn the room itself is special. We're not working from lack of knowledge about the Throne Room anymore. One game specifically mentions the Throne Room to be special by itself, one novel explains this place is unique on the castle, and one game explains that if the castle is not made complete, Dracula's resurrection cannot be attained.
Death said "the Throne Room is needed", and the Throne Room has, by this point, an history of being special. So we are left no other conclusion to draw -- the Throne Room is needed. Saying the remains were there IS a leap of logic, because they are more important. By logic alone, THEY should be mentioned, not the room. Like, for instance: "The body of my lord was sealed on the Throne Room. Alas, he can now be revived" << Why didn't they write it like this, then?
Let's put it another way:
Imagine I come to you and say: "Now that I have this fryng pan, I can eat omelettes!". There is an element missing that is crucial to the "Omelette" equation: Eggs. When I tell you that now the omelette can be attained since I have the pan, what is the conclusion you draw? That the eggs are somehow on the frying pan, or that they are with me?
When Death says "the Throne Room was necessary to revive Dracula. Alas, now he can be revived" making zero mention of Dracula's remains, I do get the impression he already has the body of Dracula. THIS is the given, not "the remains are on the room".
「べき」 is a verb suffix used to describe something that is supposed to be done. This suffix is commonly defined as "should", however, one must realize that it cannot be used to make suggestions like the sentence, "You should go to the doctor." If you use 「べき」, it sounds more like, "You are supposed to go to the doctor." 「べき」 has a much stronger tone and makes you sound like a know-it-all telling people what to do. For making suggestions, it is customary to use the comparison 「方がいい」 grammar instead. For this reason, this grammar is almost never used to directly tell someone what to do. It is usually used in reference to oneself where you can be as bossy as you want or in a neutral context where circumstances dictate what is proper and what is not.
Then why Death wanted the throne room?He didn't. I debunked that "The Throne Room is needed to revive Dracula" line. Death is simply stating that Dracula will soon be reviving in the Throne Room in the Japanse version. This is accurate because that's where you'll find him. You're not supposed to read into it any more than that.
I have another theory but its more difficult to explain. Maybe be separating the throne room from the material world, time stopped ticking there/it ceased to exist at the same time Dracula was being summoned there. So while he wasn't been resurrected yet, it was in the middle of his ressurection without his body being there yet.
Sure it have more flaws than throne room is needed, but since you dislike the throne room logic I wanted to share some food for thought.
He didn't. I debunked that "The Throne Room is needed to revive Dracula" line. Death is simply stating that Dracula will soon be reviving in the Throne Room in the Japanse version. This is accurate because that's where you'll find him. You're not supposed to read into it any more than that.
Also, another reason I have trouble with the Throne Room theory is because it's inconsistent. In OoE, Dracula's body couldn't be revived because Dracula's body was sealed away in Ecclesia. Barlowe's focus is only on breaking the seal. The story makes absolutely no mention of anything else from preventing Dracula's return.
On top of that, Dracula's castle doesn't even show up until after Dracula was revived, meaning the lack of presence of the Throne Room couldn't have been an obstacle for Dracula's resurrection.
Dracula not being able to revive because Death can't reach his body since it's locked away requires the least amount of assumptions and doesn't create inconsistencies with other games.
It's evident in other games that Dracula doesn't need to be in the throne room to be revived, this can be done remotely.
It's entirely possible Death collected Dracula's remains, and brought them to the throne room (because otherwise they may be scattered and we're never explicitly told anyone else did this?) to revive Dracula.
Couldn't Brauner just have placed Dracula's body inside the Throne Room? No idea how exactly he got the remains, but does it matter? For example, it's never explained how Shaft or Elizabeth Bartley got hold of his remains either.
The point I'm trying to make with my OoE example is that the Castle clearly doesn't appear until after Dracula is revived by Barlowe. Meaning it never could have been a requirement for Dracula's resurrection.
And I still think you're reading way too much into that specific line from Death. Too bad Koutei isn't here too settle that dispute.
Why would he get those remains if:
1. He managed to revive Dracula's castle without them.
2. He had no intention of reviving Dracula.
Imagine you're Brauner. You want the power of the castle without the owner of the castle knocking on your door. Will you reunite his remains (AKA the evil Dragon Balls) and place them RIGHT where he can wake up and take the castle from you?
True. It's never explained how Shaft or Elizabeth managed it (hell, we can barely discuss how Barlowe did it without entering suposition territory). We can neither explain how any of the other 349723984 worshippers managed it. Hence why I'm saying that Death having them is a non-issue. We know already the remains can spawn by themselves, so Death having them without us knowing how is perfectly OK.
Brauner wants Dracula's remains because he wants to lock it away so that Dracula's followers can't get to it and revive him. It's the exact same situation as Ecclesia, except Dracula's remains are sealed inside a room instead of inside of a coffin.
(EDIT: Never mind, you addressed this in your previous post. I really don't agree with the theory you're putting forward, though. I suppose it's because you're only using secondary evidence to proof something very specific instead of primary evidence. If what you're saying is really true then why isn't that spelled clearly out in the games somewhere? Surely IGA or whoever is responsible for the story must have realized people who may not have played all of the games are not aware of all the story details.
The seal didn't break until he died thought, didn't it? Why would it matter where he would lock away Dracula's body if the seal is broken by killing him? It wouldn't matter because then he would be dead.
Doesn't OoE have a rather unique position for Dracula, though?
I mean, we've seen him in past titles wherein he's possessing somebody directly and using their body, and we've seen his mere essence incite one to madness and violence.
But in OoE, we see his essence inciting one not only to madness and violence (Albus), but actually *speak* as himself.
Either Albus's extended contact with Dominus made him think he was Dracula, or Dracula's being was actively occupying him.
Considering Dracula himself stays locked in a statue most of the game, yet still manages to consciously exert his will (as seen when he "communicates" with Barlowe and has him sacrifice himself to break the seal), I should think Dracula's mind actively occupying Albus seems more plausible.
I bring this unique circumstance up because of what it suggests for the revival cycle.
Dracula in OoE isn't actually "dead" as he has been in so many past titles. He wasn't physically slain and his soul sent back to his summer home in hell. They put him in a magic rock.
Doesn't OoE have a rather unique position for Dracula, though?
I mean, we've seen him in past titles wherein he's possessing somebody directly and using their body, and we've seen his mere essence incite one to madness and violence.
But in OoE, we see his essence inciting one not only to madness and violence (Albus), but actually *speak* as himself.
Either Albus's extended contact with Dominus made him think he was Dracula, or Dracula's being was actively occupying him.
Considering Dracula himself stays locked in a statue most of the game, yet still manages to consciously exert his will (as seen when he "communicates" with Barlowe and has him sacrifice himself to break the seal), I should think Dracula's mind actively occupying Albus seems more plausible.
I bring this unique circumstance up because of what it suggests for the revival cycle.
Dracula in OoE isn't actually "dead" as he has been in so many past titles. He wasn't physically slain and his soul sent back to his summer home in hell. They put him in a magic rock. I don't recall if it specifies whether or not his body was destroyed prior to this, but I would presume it was due to him not just appearing in physical form right when Barlowe blows the statue up.
EDIT: (Obviously Barlowe was his revival sacrifice, this is just inference to justify the likelihood that his untethered soul was sealed in the statue and that his body was destroyed.)
So if Dracula wasn't "killed" and then revived in his usual fashion, why would any of the established rules about the castle, the throne room, his connection to said castle, or anything of the sort hold water in OoE?
By sealing his soul and consciousness in a corporeal prison on Earth, the standard rules for how he comes back become changed, if they don't go out the window altogether.
Albus: Shanoa... What am I--!? Gaaah! No, Shanoa... RUN! You have to get away from here! Now!
(Albus clutches his head again, and then begins laughing.)
Albus: Run...? Ha! What good would that do her? She cannot escape me. All of humanity is merely cattle, led to slaughter at my behest. I, Lord Dracula! Give yourself as sustenance to me, weak, foolish human! That will be your honor!!
Shanoa's word isn't good enough. An outside person with no past experience with Big D would recognize such an occurrence as anything more than madness.
Seems a lot more like someone with multiple personality disorder internally vying for control, rather than simple madness.
Barlowe, meanwhile, is just batshit nuts. He has no delusions about his identity.
The closest excuse I'd be willing to buy is that Dominus transplants the evil will of "Dracula" onto an unprepared host, rather than Dracula himself speaking through them. But even then we have the above issue of multiple personas arguing, which is a step beyond simply going mad.
Maxim had the remains and a subconscious desire for power.
Albus had short exposure to actual bits of his power/soul, one of which he actually absorbed successfully, and had no subconscious sins save perhaps for his anger at and desire to see Barlowe thwarted.
Dracula Wraith was quite literally just the remains coming together without a proper vessel. It was incomplete because it lacked a proper sacrifice, and was little more than duct-taping Dracula together.
Ecclesia Dracula had an actual sacrifice in the form of Barlowe, after settling for second (or perhaps third, since Albus was already dead by this point) best when Shanoa proved untameable.
Very different circumstances.
I also cannot accept that it was merely Dracula's anger acting through Albus. The words he spoke as "Dracula" were not indicative of anger, but of arrogance and pride. We all know the Anger portion of Dracula has a scathing hatred of all things human, and if not balanced out by his pride and everything else would just result in human massacre.
Pure Dracula Anger wouldn't have taunted Shanoa, it would've tried to slaughter her outright.
Such a lovely maiden... Are you the one to whom I owe this great
pleasure? Tell me your desire, child. Is it eternal life you seek? A place at
my side?
Dracula: No? Then please...Tell me of yourself. Surely you've realized my
company comes at a price.
I would not consider
or
to be anywhere near "mild surprise."
He knows someone who wasn't Barlowe played a hand in him getting a body again. But he either doesn't know or doesn't care who.
But to counter you more fairly:
-Dracula also makes no mention of Barlowe, whom he very clearly had that moment of communication with.
-Dracula doesn't give a shit about those who helped him revive or otherwise regain shape. They're means to an end, and once they're finished with their purpose, they no longer matter.
-We don't see Dracula making much mention of anyone else throughout the series beyond the person/people he's immediately talking to. Outside of the Belmonts themselves, the only human Dracula speaks with with any real frequency is Shaft.
-If we assume my theory is correct and Dracula consciously exerted bits of his will through Dominus to corrupt Albus, then it may very well stand to reason he might have no memory of those events that occurred while he was still fragmented. As Dracula Wraith shows, a not-whole Dracula doesn't have all his wits about him, and that presumably includes his memory. Put all the pieces back together, and the result is no longer those unique pieces, but the sum of their parts. I can propose therefore that anything Fragmented Dracula might've done got wiped once he became whole again. We already have instances in the series where he's not whole and it messes with him and his efficacy.
I by no means consider everything stated to be bulletproof, but there's enough leeway either way, and I prefer to take the side that plays Dracula as the manipulator he is.