Topic: Why didn't Dracula make any change after SOTN?

[Lumi Kløvstad]

Symphony of the Night gave us a lot of memetastic dialog and moments, but let's talk about that final dialog between Alucard and Dracula.

Dracula actually seems pretty broken up when he learns that he wasn't being respectful to Lisa's wishes, so it seems obvious that this would be a candidate for lopping off the timeline at this point -- a clear point to end the saga of Dracula vs the Belmonts.

And yet Dracula shows up again (canonically) in Order of Ecclesia, Bram Stoker's Dracula, Bloodlines, and Portrait of Ruin, before being destroyed once and for all in 1999.

And he's pretty damn evil in all of them, if not more evil than he was previously (though for obvious reasons we can't speak to the 1999 event).

My theory (and I've held this idea for a while mind you) is not too dissimilar from Lords of Shadow 2's explanation.

There are two Draculas.

The first is Mathias, the original human who, for twisted but noble reasons, became the Dark Lord in the first place, and for similarly twisted but noble reasons declared war on the world.

The second is... let's call it a lingering sentiment of Dracula. You could say that the Dracula Wraith in Harmony of Dissonance was kind of a telagraphing ahead of time that such a thing was possible: you can have Dracula without Mathias.

When Dracula dies in Symphony of the Night, he's had one truly pure moment of regret for the things he's done. Lisa's soul forgives him (or God does -- one or the other) and Mathias' soul is finally allowed to go to Heaven.

However, his old power remains, and all that hatred and anger that would not be welcome in Heaven remains on Earth, bound to Mathias' physical remains due to the less than usual circumstances behind Dracula's initial turning coupled with all the vampiric souls (or at least echoes of them) that Dracula had trapped within the Crimson Stone (which he presumably still possesses as of 1797).

From then on, Dracula is unredeemable. He can't be redeemed because there is literally nothing human left in him. He's even more undead than he was; an imperfect ghost of a Dark Lord animated by lingering power and dark emotions and further affected by the cacophony of angry undead souls it had absorbed over his long life.

Dracula, but without Mathias.

Nothing more than a revenant, a wraith, carrying on the "good work" and attempting to finish unfinished business with God and humanity until it is finally put down for good in 1999.

Soma being the reincarnation of Dracula doesn't mean he is the reincarnation of Mathias. He is literally the reincarnation of Dracula, the things Mathias left behind. My guess would be that God is giving the rest of Dracula a chance to be better, to be worthy of rejoining with Mathias. And through the best endings of Aria and Dawn, I'd say it's fair to suggest that plan is finally working.

[zangetsu468]

There are signs which strongly point to Dracula's "human" side not returning after SOTN and IGA has commented on this in the past. If Dracula's human self is unwilling for resurrection then his "evil" self manifests (basically his hatred for God/ humanity).

To say Soma and Mathias aren't connected, well I beg to differ. If you look at Soma/ Mathias artwork there are definite similarities there, and I believe these were considered during character design. Similarly if only the "evil" part of Dracula was reincarnated, that wouldn't be the full soul. Soma has both the normal human traits as well as the traits, abilities, and power of dominance that the Dark Lord Dracula has. There is also evidence pointing to Mina being to Soma, the equivalent that Lisa was to Dracula and Elisabetha was to Mathias (Pre-Dracula).

[Lumi Kløvstad]

There are signs which strongly point to Dracula's "human" side not returning after SOTN and IGA has commented on this in the past. If Dracula's human self is unwilling for resurrection then his "evil" self manifests (basically his hatred for God/ humanity).

To say Soma and Mathias aren't connected, well I beg to differ. If you look at Soma/ Mathias artwork there are definite similarities there, and I believe these were considered during character design. Similarly if only the "evil" part of Dracula was reincarnated, that wouldn't be the full soul. Soma has both the normal human traits as well as the traits, abilities, and power of dominance that the Dark Lord Dracula has. There is also evidence pointing to Mina being to Soma, the equivalent that Lisa was to Dracula and Elisabetha was to Mathias (Pre-Dracula).

I probably should clarify then: Dracula's soul (or whatever was left of it) fused to Soma on the day of Soma's birth.

But it's worth noting that Soma was BORN on the day Dracula died, not CONCEIVED on the day Dracula died.

Dracula's power/soul/essence fused to a soul that was already partially made. Ergo, Soma is a new person that is neither Dracula nor Mathias, but as Dracula was leftovers from Mathias, Soma inherited the power of Dracula and traits from Mathias, getting sort of the "Greatest Hits from both soundtracks" as it were.

As for Mina, I feel that whatever powers governed Soma's creation also were responsible for Mina's, to ensure that Dracula's metaphysical remains had an "out" from the evil path they would have otherwise been on.

Mina is the fated catalyst for Dracula's ultimate completed redemption via Soma, or for his ultimate damnation depending on Soma's choices.

This ties into the Christian theme that any soul can be redeemed, but redemption cannot be forced -- a soul must choose it for themselves; fitting, as Mathias was first a man of Faith before his fall from grace. Via Soma, Dracula is being offered a second chance to fully redeem himself. His humanity was already redeemed in 1797, and the time eventually came for the rest of him to be offered a chance to be remade into a good man.

That's part of why I dislike fanfic or calls for the bad endings to be canon where Soma becomes the new Dark Lord: it just doesn't fit Dracula's long term narrative arc and instead argues a sense of predestined fatalism that "once evil, always evil" with no option to choose another way. It's very Greek Tragedy, that perspective that no matter what Soma chose, he'd wind up evil.

Hence why I'm glad there was no official sequel that followed the Bad Ending plotlines, and that the Best Endings were canon instead. Narratively and spiritually, it's the best plotline that makes the most sense.

[zangetsu468]

You're saying Soma's soul was born on the day Dracula died, rather than him being conceived? Because I doubt Soma is 35 yrs old, in his description he is a student.

Despite what IGA said about resurrection rules in context of Dracula's last few incarnations bring purely evil, I still believe the soul exists as one and that Mathias = Soma. Dracula (Mathias included) has been the main antagonist and constant character since day dot and the Sorrow series is no exception imo.

[theplottwist]

I probably should clarify then: Dracula's soul (or whatever was left of it) fused to Soma on the day of Soma's birth.

But it's worth noting that Soma was BORN on the day Dracula died, not CONCEIVED on the day Dracula died.

Erm, no. Soma was born some good 18 years after Dracula's downfall.

Despite what IGA said about resurrection rules in context of Dracula's last few incarnations bring purely evil, I still believe the soul exists as one and that Mathias = Soma. Dracula (Mathias included) has been the main antagonist and constant character since day dot and the Sorrow series is no exception imo.

Same here, and in Dawn there is proof for that.

Dmitrii says that he has scanned "Soma's past lives" and therefore knows who Alucard is. The only way for this scan to work is if Mathias, Dracula and Soma are all the same person.

Now, about your original post, as Zangetsu pointed out, Dracula's evil side is amplified upon his resurrection if he is not willing to resurrect. No wonder Dracula acts like a pure maniac after SotN - it's his evil side speaking, not his good side. He's not willing to return anymore, but cultists keep forcing him to revive.

[Lumi Kløvstad]

You respond too fast. I was busy writing my response.

Dracula's soul would have had to hitch to SOMETHING connected to Soma prior to his actual birth before he could inherit it. I'm saying that he wasn't truly Dracula's Heir until his physical birth. During the 9 months of fetal development, he was just another "bun in the oven" and stood no greater a chance at being Drac's heir than anyone else on the planet. By coincidence or fate (though I'm heavily on the fate side) Dracula's "shattered" soul, his spiritual remains, latched onto Soma, making him the One True Heir.

This carries continuity with the series, as Dracula needs a set of remains to return to, be it the power he gave the Devil Forgemasters like Hector or Isaac (actually a pretty cunning contingency plan imo), physical remains like in Harmony of Dissonance, Simon's Quest, or Symphony of the Night etc. al, or in this case, his spiritual remains.

After 1999 everything that was still left of him was metaphysical: there were no more Devil Forgemasters (so he couldn't hijack a body), his physical body was either obliterated completely (most likely scenario), or trapped in the Eclipse with the Castle making it useless for the purposes of a resurrection (less likely but still plausible).

Without physical remains to return to, it latched to a human boy as he was born. Whether this was on the day Dracula died or not is ultimately insignificant. The birth alone was the opportunity Dracula's essence needed, and I will explain why.

Warning: shit's about to get real heavy and complex.
In real world magical theory, birth is a key threshold -- lending additional credence to that idea that prior to birth Soma was just a human fetus, but after birth he was Dracula's heir and reincarnation. Iga probably didn't realize that when he and his guys penned it; they likely just assumed that "yeah, that sorta makes sense and sounds pretty neat so let's run with that". But it matches up, regardless of why it was written that way.

Thresholds like a New Moon, Full Moon, Birth, Death, or indeed a TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE are all massive in scope, power, and vulnerability.

Concerning the 1999 Event and the times that lead to Aria's 2035 setting, we get several doozies of thresholds that would set up for Dracula's reincarnation as Soma.

Dracula died in 1999 (first Threshold) during a Total Solar Eclipse (second Threshold) that in real life occurred on August 2nd, 1999 and was in fact visible from Europe. Dracula's essence fuses to Soma at the moment of Soma's birth (birth being the third Threshold). Now, Soma is 18 in Aria of Sorrow, which places his birth in 2017. There will be a Total Solar Eclipse that passes over the United States in 2017 on August 21st. This is the fourth Threshold, and it is presumably when Soma is born and Dracula's essence latches onto him.  Furthermore, there will in fact be yet another Total Solar Eclipse on September 2, 2035 AD in the real world... and it passes right over Japan. This is doubtless the fifth and final Threshold that opens the way to the Castle for Soma and those caught up his destiny.

In addition to now knowing the most likely dates of Dracula's final death, Soma's birth, and the events of Aria of Sorrow, we now have a chain of serious magical thresholds of power and vulnerability that make a clear path for the reincarnation of Dracula, bolstered by actual real world data that would line up PERFECTLY with what we know of Soma's life.

Really, Dracula's reincarnation was an astrological certainty.

But none of this detracts from my initial theory that Dracula by 1999 was distinct from Mathias, and that Soma's life simply finishes the redemption that Alucard began for his father in 1797.

[zangetsu468]

Good points. In fact it was Graham who was born in 1999 the day that Dracula died and this is partly why he believes himself to be the Dark Lord.

[Lumi Kløvstad]

Good points. In fact it was Graham who was born in 1999 the day that Dracula died and this is partly why he believes himself to be the Dark Lord.

True, and if you read my most recent response, I account for Soma's youth.

How coincidental is it that he's born in the year of a major solar eclipse when Dracula died in the year of a major solar eclipse and Soma is in Japan (and then the Castle) during another major solar eclipse?

That's fate, not coincidence.

[theplottwist]

Dracula's essence fuses to Soma at the moment of Soma's birth (birth being the third Threshold). Now, Soma is 18 in Aria of Sorrow, which places his birth in 2017. There will be a Total Solar Eclipse that passes over the United States in 2017 on August 21st. This is the fourth Threshold, and it is presumably when Soma is born and Dracula's essence latches onto him.

Yeah, these dates are pretty well known BUT there is an issue with the localization in this specific case quoted above. Soma is a japanese, not an american in the original script. It makes sense for Dracula's soul to escape from the eclipse and get reincarnated in 2017, but we have to ignore the geolocalization.

Also, I don't know if you have noticed, but all these eclipses belong to the same cycle (Saros 145).

There is also something pretty unique and funny that happens in 1999, but this one I'm keeping under wraps to use on my little project as a ThePlotTwist Brand plot-twist

[Lumi Kløvstad]

Yeah, these dates are pretty well known BUT there is an issue with the localization in this specific case quoted above. Soma is a japanese, not an american in the original script. It makes sense for Dracula's soul to escape from the eclipse and get reincarnated in 2017, but we have to ignore the geolocalization

I think the changing of Soma Cruz to an American makes sense, or at least making more sense as to why a kid with a Hispanic surname grew up in Japan (which would be quite a doozy irl given that the Japanese aren't noted for being fond of immigrants).

There are some plot holes the change introduces, but I feel these can by and large be logically hand waved and explained and it then fits the real world astrological and astronomical events even better.

In that sense, the localization improved the logic of the premise.

[theplottwist]

I think the changing of Soma Cruz to an American makes sense, or at least making more sense as to why a kid with a Hispanic surname grew up in Japan (which would be quite a doozy irl given that the Japanese aren't noted for being fond of immigrants).

There are some plot holes the change introduces, but I feel these can by and large be logically hand waved and explained and it then fits the real world astrological and astronomical events even better.

In that sense, the localization improved the logic of the premise.

Yeah, but consider this: "Kurusu Soma (来須蒼真)" sounds nothing like an hispanic name. It's romanization does, but the fact of the matter is that the kanji do have a japanese meaning - 'come/next' (kuru), 'by all means' (su), 'pale/blue' (sō), 'truth/reality' (ma). It's perfectly plausible for japanese parents to name their child like this.

[zangetsu468]

General comments re: Dracula's remains

This can't apply to HoD, Dracula Wraith comes from Maxim's dark desires aka Dark Maxim.

Dracula's soul would have had to hitch to SOMETHING connected to Soma prior to his actual birth before he could inherit it. I'm saying that he wasn't truly Dracula's Heir until his physical birth. During the 9 months of fetal development, he was just another "bun in the oven" and stood no greater a chance at being Drac's heir than anyone else on the planet.

I think this is overcomplicating reincarnation, predominantly because DoS' script informs us otherwise:


Dmitrii: Th-This cannot be...my dominance should be complete!

Arikado: So that's what's happening...

Soma: Arikado, what's going on?

Arikado: The power of dominance isn't easily contained. He isn't like you. His soul can't withstand a power that intense.

Dmitrii: Liar!!! I've heard enough from you!

(blasts Arikado away)

Arikado: Gwoh!

Soma: Arikado!

Dmitrii: I am the chosen one! I am the dark lord! I shall not succumb to the power! Wrooooaah!

Soma: It's useless. You can't control it.


If you're saying that you don't believe a foetus has a soul until X amount of time, then I would ask why not?

Because before you mentioned and emphasised fate, yet you also mention Soma's chances of being Dracula were not above anyone else's.
Disregarding the eclipse material not mentioned in Castlevania canon (ie anything outside of 2035 and sealing the castle) between 1999 and Soma's conception, many years pass. More than enough years for a soul to be reborn anew. Thus, The two above ideas of Soma being "any other human" until Dracula's soul latches onto his foetus/ a pre-existing soul, working in synchronicity with "fate" are not cohesive. From the above script, there is no evidence Soma was ever a "regular" soul, his soul IS Dracula's.

The fact that Elisabetha>Lisa>Mina's reincarnation of the same soul all seem to correlate. Similarly Dracula's reincarnation (Soma) manifesting as the "Dark Lord" again correlates with 2035, particularly when the eclipse and Nostradamus' prophecy come to fruition.

As for the other dates outside of CV canon it's interesting, as plottwist said though one must be mindful of context. In the English version of AoS, Soma is an exchange student, but if anything he seems European to me. Iga admittedly altered this for localisations and it's one that I welcome as it makes his background seem more mysterious and maybe infers that he was born in Dracula's original geography.

[Lumi Kløvstad]

Dracula Wraith comes from Maxim's dark desires aka Dark Maxim.

Which was exactly my point to begin with. It is possible to have Dracula without Mathias. The Wraith looked like Dracula, spoke like him, and fought like him but was not in any way connected to Mathias. He was born from Evil Maxim, who himself was born from Maxim coming into contact with Dracula's physical remains to begin with; like an infection. As evidence that Dracula is distinct from Mathias, that's pretty compelling in my book.

Because before you mentioned and emphasised fate, yet you also mention Soma's chances of being Dracula were not above anyone else's.

I endorsed the fate side of the argument, but I did not fully discount random chance either. I personally believe Soma was fated to be infused with Dracula's essence, but the existence of other Dark Lord Candidates like Dario or Graham indicates that the only thing that was definitely predestined was the reincarnation itself -- someone was going to end up on that path, and astrology and magical theory definitely favored Soma as the ideal heir.

We know virtually NOTHING about Dmitrii and Dario's lives, though it's likely they too were born in Eclipse Years (there's a solar eclipse visible from somewhere on Earth about every 18 months, though major ones are rarer, which may explain why neither was a "front runner" for the reincarnation in addition to details I will very soon explain).

Graham was also a highly viable candidate, being born the day Dracula died. In fact, had Soma not been there, Graham would have probably ended up the next Dark Lord due to having the strongest connection to Dracula (even stronger than Soma's own). This strengthens my belief that a greater outside force was predetermining events (engineering fate, in other words) so that Soma became the heir -- which gives Dracula's ultimate redemption a shot at success -- instead of Graham, where there would have been no chance of redemption; all this, despite Graham having more connection to the events of Dracula's death.

Soma: Arikado, what's going on?

Arikado: The power of dominance isn't easily contained. He isn't like you. His soul can't withstand a power that intense.

That doesn't effectively communicate any meaning other than Soma = stronger than Dmitrii.

Remember that Soma was born to that power (via being infused with Dracula's essence) and Dmitrii essentially counterfeited it. This is no more or less than a clear case of the Genuine Article (Soma) being superior to a Cheap Knockoff Brand (Dmitrii's copied Power of Dominance). The knockoff brand simply wasn't up to the job. That's all.

The fact that Elisabetha>Lisa>Mina's reincarnation of the same soul all seem to correlate similarly Dracula's reincarnation (Soma) correlates with 2035, particularly when the eclipse and Nostradamus' prophecy come to fruition.

I refuse to believe that Mina is a direct reincarnation of anybody. There's nothing in story to warrant such a claim, furthermore as a writer I would like to point out that the narrative wouldn't need that detail anyway. There's nothing wrong with suggesting that Mina is simply Mina -- she's just the right person in Soma's life at the right time.

A lot of things in Castlevania are connected; but as in real life, not everything is necessarily connected.

[theplottwist]

I endorsed the fate side of the argument, but I did not fully discount random chance either. I personally believe Soma was fated to be infused with Dracula's essence, but the existence of other Dark Lord Candidates like Dario or Graham indicates that the only thing that was definitely predestined was the reincarnation itself -- someone was going to end up on that path, and astrology and magical theory definitely favored Soma as the ideal heir.

I dislike this logic so much.

Soma isn't special and THEREFORE Dracula's soul choose him. It's because he is Dracula's reincarnation that THEREFORE he is special. Dawn of Sorrow hammers this point home with Dmitrii ultimatelly not being able to withstand the Dominance because "Dmitrii's soul is not like Soma's".

MANY kids were born in the same day as Soma was. The question is not "Why Soma?", it could've been anyone, and this individual would be in Soma's shoes.

We know virtually NOTHING about Dmitrii and Dario's lives, though it's likely they too were born in Eclipse Years (there's a solar eclipse visible from somewhere on Earth about every 18 months, though major ones are rarer, which may explain why neither was a "front runner" for the reincarnation in addition to details I will very soon explain).

They were born in the same exact time as Dracula's downfall, just like Graham. This is specified on their bios - they are the exact same age, even.

[Lumi Kløvstad]

I dislike this logic so much.

Soma isn't special and THEREFORE Dracula's soul choose him. It's because he is Dracula's reincarnation that THEREFORE he is special.

MANY kids were born in the same day as Soma was. The question is not "Why Soma?", it could've been anyone, and this individual would be in Soma's shoes.

They were born in the same exact time as Dracula's downfall, just like Graham. This is on their bios - they are the exact same age, even.

That's all interesting, but it doesn't disprove the stance that Soma is the rightful heir because some outside force (and I'm literally assuming God Himself here as the series doesn't present a better option) rewrote fate to allow for Dracula's final redemption. All three alternate candidates had the will and personality to be PERFECT Dark Lords. Graham was a religious leader (admittedly of a cult) and a spiteful and sadistic streak. Dmitrii had endless ambition and a desire to rule the world. Dario was just an infinitely violent individual who wanted power for its own sake. Furthermore, since you have rightly corrected me on the date of Dario and Dmitrii's birth, they were all in a perfect position in terms of timing and magical astrology to be more viable candidates for Dracula's title and power.

Contrast Soma, who doesn't want the power at all and was born significantly after Dracula's death. He shouldn't have even BEEN a candidate by all rights.

Unless God was trying to throw opportunities for redemption Dracula's way and wanted the best possible chance for him.

Soma, a kind kid who doesn't want power or glory, and doesn't want anything to do with the mantle of the Dark Lord, would be the perfect opportunity for that redemption.

As the saying goes: "the best man for the job is the man who doesn't want the job at all."