Topic: I think I know why the powers of good weaken every 100 years

[Nagumo]

This thought came to me for no apperent reason. We know because of the plot of CoD that after Dracula was defeated by Trevor and co, he managed to cast a curse before he died. As said in the game, this curse slowly started to increase the evil in people's hearts. This sounds awfully familiar to what is said to occur every century, when the minds of people get corrupted and they desire Dracula's return. However, I dismissed this idea at first. After all, Hector destroys Dracula's curse at the end of CoD, so it couldn't be responsible for this phenomenon.  But then I randomly checked the ending dialogue between Hector and Julia, and I thought the bolded line was interesting:

Julia: It's over at last.

Hector: Even so. I pray this will truly free the people's hearts...

Julia: Those hearts are yet filled with darkness. The curse has reached deep inside of them. Its mark will not easily vanish. For my brother, only death could erase it.

So I think that although Hector managed to get rid of Dracula's curse, a small amount of darkness was left behind in people's hearts, and somehow this darkness becomes dominant once every 100 years, causing Dracula to get revived by humans. In hindsight, that makes the plot of CoD more relevant to the overall lore of the series.
   

[Claimh Solais]

So basically, we can think of Dracula's curse as an airborne disease. And Trevor's holy power essentially inoculated him. And while Hector's spell at the end of CoD may have gotten rid of said disease, those who were infected by it may still be.

I dunno why I never thought much about Julia's line. It really gives CoD a bit of a bittersweet ending. Though the world was saved, mankind is still affected by the curse and, also, Trevor's kinda dying (that last bit I was kinda annoyed they didn't give any closure on. Last we heard from Trevor, we were told he was barely alive. And that's it).

Still, this does make CoD more relevant.

[zangetsu468]

The way I saw it darkness exists in the hearts of men already. Dracula's Curse augments that darkness which sways people to desire his return.
Evil has to have existed before Dracula in the CV universe but it seems no other entity/ being aside from Dracula is strong enough to place a curse over an entire country/ land.

I always believed Trevor survived in COD, but he wasn't recovered in time to fight Dracula.

Side note: Also, didn't he curse Wallachia along with Simon prior to his defeat in CV1, being the impetus of Simon's Quest? 

[X]

The way I saw it darkness exists in the hearts of men already. Dracula's Curse augments that darkness which sways people to desire his return.
Evil has to have existed before Dracula in the CV universe but it seems no other entity/ being aside from Dracula is strong enough to place a curse over an entire country/ land.

^^^
This.

I for one don't recognize the CoD story in the CV Canon, but zangetsu468 said above makes sense to me. Besides Dracula is the King of vampires and the ultimate evil in the CV universe (not counting LoS's Lucifer). It's only fitting that the ultimate evil cannot be held at bay forever. So after said hundred years Dracula wakens to a world ripe with opportunity. I also agree that Dracula spreading a curse over the land can help perpetuate and guarantee his resurrection. But yes, darkness is already in humanity as part of its flawed nature, which is how Dracula came to be in the first place. And just like the curse, humans wanting destruction can bring about Dracula's rise earlier then waiting the full century of rebirth.

[theplottwist]

I honestly just chalked it up to forgetfulness and/or accommodation.

Truth is that mankind gets easily accommodated. It doesn't take more than two generations for bizarre and fantastic stories such as Dracula's to be "forgotten" or relegated to "myth" status. True, 100 years is too little for people to forget so much, but Dracula needs only but ONE dude to be weak, so he can be corrupted.

With accommodation, the hearts of the people in the CV universe grow lenient, and Dracula's darkness slowly creeps inside, corrupting them and manipulating them into resurrecting him. With his revival, terror settles with the populace, and they are forced to be strong on their faith again, that once more will be weakened with time.

I think this is one of the beauties of this story. It shows how true good/faith can keep evil at bay, but once it wavers ever so slightly, Dracula returns to remind mankind.

But I do believe that the Curse has something to do with his constant return. I mean, there are evil people everywhere, but Dracula needs someone to be evil in Wallachia so he can return. It's like his corrupting power is bound to the land itself, like it has a ripple-effect starting from his castle that can't extend much farther from Wallachia. But I think this might be obvious, giving Dracula's ethereal hindrances and all...

...In CoD, however, what interests me more and has me scratching my head until today is Hector's mention of turning the curse into "something harmless."

I wonder what this "something" is. What did Hector forge with such a powerful curse...

[Nagumo]

Yeah, but the descriptions seem to imply there's some outside force that causes this phenomenon every 100 years or so, so I think this was what CoD specifically tried to address. Before then its origin wasn't really defined. Whether that was how the world worked or if it was something else, it was probably deliberately left vague. So essentially Dracula indirectly assured his own resurrections, which seems like something he would do.

[TatteredSeraph]

Interesting reading, definitely matches up to my own thougts pertaining to Dracula's resurrection, and how the Curse just amplified the effect of swaying the darkness in the hearts of men.  I always figured that Trevor was seriously wounded, but recovered fully from his run-in with Isaac, his special Belmont blood giving him that boost.  (I'm not even mentioning my thoughts on the matter of what if Legends were canon, and Trevor was Alucard's son, thus his vampire blood helping him to survive.)

[X]

I think this is one of the beauties of this story. It shows how true good/faith can keep evil at bay, but once it wavers ever so slightly, Dracula returns to remind mankind.

Beautifully put Plot, beautifully put 

This is in essence the core of the original CV canon story and why I like the series so much.

[son_the_vampire]

This is a question I pondered a while; exactly how much evil does Drac need before he's strong enough to return? I feel like the natural balance of good and evil (should) take 100 years. However due to the impurity becoming more common as time goes on, he is able to come back frequently.

[zangetsu468]

This is a question I pondered a while; exactly how much evil does Drac need before he's strong enough to return? I feel like the natural balance of good and evil (should) take 100 years. However due to the impurity becoming more common as time goes on, he is able to come back frequently.

Doesn't it depend on the strength of the individuals who are consumed and hence swayed by this evil? In HOD, Maxime was all it took to resurrect Dracula, though he was an incredibly powerful for an individual.

Although this was not a centennial resurrection, it seems those are more about the evil in the  hearts of the masses of Wallachia (as one whole) swaying them to act. This makes sense since Dracula is at his most powerful at these times ie there's a correlation to the evil in people's' hearts.

[X]

In HOD, Maxime was all it took to resurrect Dracula, though he was an incredibly powerful for an individual.

Maxim is powerful, but was not evil to begin with, however he did have Dracula's remains and accidentally/unintentionally brought about Castlevania's rise. Plus Dracula never showed up in HoD. It was the darkness and strong desires within Maxim (coupled with the remains) that game rise to a separate entity. This entity would then use the remains to become the Dracula Wraith.

[zangetsu468]

Maxim is powerful, but was not evil to begin with, however he did have Dracula's remains and accidentally/unintentionally brought about Castlevania's rise. Plus Dracula never showed up in HoD. It was the darkness and strong desires within Maxim (coupled with the remains) that game rise to a separate entity. This entity would then use the remains to become the Dracula Wraith.

Sorry but are you saying Dracula is not Dracula at the end of hod?
My understanding was that assembling his remains brought him back in his "wraith form".
What you're saying about Maxime and Dracula doesn't seem to be any different to the Isaac/ Dracula scenario in cod where Isaac was used as his vessel.

[theplottwist]

Sorry but are you saying Dracula is not Dracula at the end of hod?
My understanding was that assembling his remains brought him back in his "wraith form".
What you're saying about Maxime and Dracula doesn't seem to be any different to the Isaac/ Dracula scenario in cod where Isaac was used as his vessel.

Simon Wraith is not Simon. Dracula Wraith is not Dracula.

In the dialogue of HoD, Dracula Wraith mentions two or three times that he doesn't know about the power of the Belmonts. By this time Dracula has already fought the Belmonts FOUR times.

Death mentions, too, that Maxim is possessed by an entity born out of the remains, and not Dracula himself.

Plus, Isaac was a direct vessel to Dracula. Dracula Wraith is nothing more than Maxim's negative emotions given sentience and shape by the power of the remains. They might look like Dracula for a myriad of reasons:

-They're incarnating Maxim's thoughts about defeating Dracula to gain recognition.
-It's shape was influenced by the remains. Since they belong to Dracula, the entity is shaped in the form of Dracula.

And, if I'm not mistaken, that boss Shadow is the same entity.

Here is a nice article concerning this topic.

http://www.oocities.org/nec43xkq3/hod/index.html

And you'll be astonished to see that the Castle in HoD is also not the real castle:

http://www.oocities.org/nec43xkq3/cvsl.html

[zangetsu468]

Simon Wraith is not Simon. Dracula Wraith is not Dracula.

In the dialogue of HoD, Dracula Wraith mentions two or three times that he doesn't know about the power of the Belmonts. By this time Dracula has already fought the Belmonts FOUR times.

Death mentions, too, that Maxim is possessed by an entity born out of the remains, and not Dracula himself.

Plus, Isaac was a direct vessel to Dracula. Dracula Wraith is nothing more than Maxim's negative emotions given sentience and shape by the power of the remains. They might look like Dracula for a myriad of reasons:

-They're incarnating Maxim's thoughts about defeating Dracula to gain recognition.
-It's shape was influenced by the remains. Since they belong to Dracula, the entity is shaped in the form of Dracula.

And, if I'm not mistaken, that boss Shadow is the same entity.

Here is a nice article concerning this topic.

http://www.oocities.org/nec43xkq3/hod/index.html

And you'll be astonished to see that the Castle in HoD is also not the real castle:

http://www.oocities.org/nec43xkq3/cvsl.html

Right so in Simon's Quest when Simon assembled the body parts of Dracula (which is referenced in Hod's introduction) this wasn't exactly the same thing that happened in Hod ?

Why are the two situations so different when one is referencing the other? Why didn't Dracula become a Simon wraith in CVII?


Regarding your link, what is this exactly and who translated?
They left out the fact that DOS has a fake castle, but remember to mention Hod's ?

Give me a break, this was poorly translated. I suppose we should start training ourselves spelling "Vampire Killerm", "Mathias Cronqyst" and "chalenge.

[theplottwist]

Right so in Simon's Quest when Simon assembled the body parts of Dracula (which is referenced in Hod's introduction) this wasn't exactly the same thing that happened in Hod ?

Well for one, Dracula did not resurrect by Simon reuniting his body parts, but by an occult sixth part: His fang.

Now for the rest, I'm not exact sure how is this different. I mean, Simon did have a curse place upon him, but he didn't have the negative emotions Maxim had.

Why are the two situations so different when one is referencing the other? Why didn't Dracula become a Simon wraith in CVII?

The fact that they reference each other doesn't mean they are the exact same situation, as I see it. Simon and Maxim gathered the body parts with different motivations (even if they both wanted to destroy them at the end). Also, there was not a castle made out of Maxim's mind in CVII. There was no castle at all.

Another point is that Maxim is not a Belmont. And we learn in Ecclesia that Belmonts are naturally impervious to Dracula's influence, be it from himself or some manifestation of his power, such as his remains. So, even though Simon was not influenced, Maxim could very well have had his feeling amplified by the remains' power.

Also, Maxim mentions that he found the remains as if "he were being guided by a higher power." I'm almost 100% sure this was the remains' influence preying on his feelings.

Regarding your link, what is this exactly and who translated?
They left out the fact that DOS has a fake castle, but remember to mention Hod's ?

Give me a break, this was poorly translated. I suppose we should start training ourselves spelling "Vampire Killerm", "Mathias Cronqyst" and "chalenge.

It is an official timeline released by IGA. This is the first timeline that removed Legends officially from the canon.

They didn't leave out that it is a "fake castle." It simply is not the same castle. Even if it's claimed to be a "replica" in the game, it is not actually trying to pose as the real deal. Everyone knows full well it is nothing but the cult's base.

Also, the translators are japanese. This site belongs to Koutei, who is fluent in japanese. We could always summon Shiroi-chan, - if she's willing of course - to translate HoD's bit and DoS' bit for us and settle this matter up.

But I should point out, however, that the meat of the translations, even with typos, are accurate with everything we know from the series. I think they wouldn't "incorrectly translate" JUST the specific bits important for this conversation. And even the the bit with the "(fake)" parenthesis and all, is present in the corresponding japanese text.