Topic: Reconciling Mathias with Vlad III

[zangetsu468]

I'm late in jumping into this thread, but I just wanna say that the whole "Mathias wouldn't be beaten by his own tactic" thing doesn't seem convincing to me. Nor does the "hundreds-of-years-old vampire master tactician can't be beaten by other tactician" thing. I want to remind you that Mathias is a guy who gets beaten left and right the EXACT SAME WAY in nearly every game. The Belmonts are all young adults when they fight Drac/Mathias, in the 19-24 age range. And every time, they defeat him.

I'd just like to point out that the Belmonts are the ONLY humans capable of defeating Dracula aside from Shanoa (who needed to use Dominus). If some Belmont also isn't heir to the VK, it's doubtful they're going to be defeating Dracula while not being the strongest Belmont and without the VK (Soleiyu is proof of this and fights with a non-VK whip). We're literally talking about a handful of people in the world who have ever been able to defeat Dracula's incarnations. In additional the battle between Dracula and Richter was taxing enough to leave Richter completely vulnerable enough to Shaft/ Shaft's magic entering his body. Despite Jonathan and Charlotte's age it's doubtful that any of these battles were "easy".

Secondly it took Trevor, Sypha, Alucard and Grant to defeat Dracula in CVIII. That means something, maybe Trevor could have done it by himself, maybe not. Though Mathias lived for nearly 400 years without having faced defeat. Saying yes to lone Trevor would be iffy at best. Given that another 3 form Dracula in DXC was beaten by Richter and Maria (SotN's Prologue being canon) I would say the chances of success would be low.

Finally, it took the Belmont clan with the help of others 1000 years to completely destroy Dracula.

[theplottwist]

I mean, I wouldn't be surprised.

I did read somewhere a LOOOOONG time ago (don't remember where, unfortunately. I can't find the source anywhere) that if Dracula is pre-maturely revived, he loses his memories of past revivals. This would explain a number of things, like why Dracula's moment of clarity at the end of SotN was pretty much forgotten in later entries (both release-wise and chronologically), or why he could be beaten in the same way so many times.

I remember debating that exact point over Serio's forums with the other users. We arrived at this conclusion because we didn't have the official instance at the time. However, the official explanation was already available.

Dracula, after SotN, is only evil intent incarnated, with good intent supressed. He doesn't wish to be revived anymore, but black masses revive him against his will, with his evil side amplified by the Demon Realm becoming the one in control. That's why he seems considerably less empathic after SotN -- the last of his humanity is absolutelly gone.

Also, Dracula remembers his past lives VERY WELL, if we account for how Dracula remembers everyone in Judgment. He even remembers that he placed a curse on Simon, or how he wasn't at his full power when he was defeated in Castlevania III.

That being said, this happens all the time. Thus, I can't really find those two arguments convincing. Vlad III, based on historical evidence alone, appears to have tactical genius and an intellectual mind that the likes of Charlotte couldn't even comprehend. Yet Dracula/Mathias himself was defeated by these two young adults, even with his high level of intellect, magical capabilities, experience, and Death himself at his side.

I don't agree with the whole "Vlad III stole the Crimson Stone from Mathias Cronqvist" theory, but I'm trying to say that it could potentially hold some water due to the fact that Mathias himself has been outsmarted by even the likes of Jonathan and Charlotte.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is: No, it makes zero logical sense as to how a master tactician with hundreds of years of experience and magical capabilities could possibly lose his powers and most precious possession to another tactician who, despite being brilliant as well, does not have what Mathias has. But it also makes zero sense as to how Mathias, with all of that, could be beaten constantly by young adults who definitely lack the experience, knowledge, and magical prowess that he has.

This just pushes the question.

If Dracula is Vlad III, then it makes no sense for Vlad III who is a master tactician to be beaten by the Belmonts and their mothers over and over again at the same game.

It's not about being a master tactician. It's about not being able to resist the Vampire Killer. Doesn't matter how good of a tactician you are if you can't best your opponent's weapon. And Dracula DID try "tactician things", such as mind controlling Soleiyu, or sacrificing the last of his strength to kill Simon through a curse (and he would've won that one weren't for the lady ghost in the cemetery).

Order of Ecclesia is a good example for why "tactics" are useless in his state: He is invulnerable to EVERYTHING but a form of his own power or the Vampire Killer. Shanoa couldn't even scratch him (video game mechanics aside) until she used Dominus.

When you're utterly invulnerable to anything except two things you can't find a way around, what good are tactics for?

[sadae]

I remember debating that exact point over Serio's forums with the other users. We arrived at this conclusion because we didn't have the official instance at the time. However, the official explanation was already available.

Dracula, after SotN, is only evil intent incarnated, with good intent supressed. He doesn't wish to be revived anymore, but black masses revive him against his will, with his evil side amplified by the Demon Realm becoming the one in control. That's why he seems considerably less empathic after SotN -- the last of his humanity is absolutelly gone.

Sounds very plausible. Where does this explanation come from? I can't remember the reference.

Also, Dracula remembers his past lives VERY WELL, if we account for how Dracula remembers everyone in Judgment. He even remembers that he placed a curse on Simon, or how he wasn't at his full power when he was defeated in Castlevania III.

Good point. I keep forgetting Judgement exists.

[theplottwist]

Sounds very plausible. Where does this explanation come from? I can't remember the reference.

This info comes from an interview IGA gave here. He said this:

"Q: In SOTN, Dracula was defeated but why is he still being resurrected in the later eras?

A: When someone is sealed in Makai (Demon Realm) only the evil part of that person is amplified. Whenever cult members perform the resurrection ritual, if Dracula himself is not willing, it is supposed that only the evil intent is resurrected.
However, it is thought of that Dracula will be given eternal repose someday."

So, IGA confirmed three things:
1. Dracula was supposed to be defeated once and for all in SotN
2. Dracula is sent to the Demon Realm after he is defeated.
3. If Dracula is not willing to be revived, his evil intent previously amplified by the Demon Realm takes over.

[Lumi Kløvstad]

Yeah, I remember reading that too (and also can't remember where), and yes, it explains a lot. Which is quite sad considering Mathias expected to get back at God and all that, and ended up being a mockery of himself both in power and personality.

Arghhh their vague history makes me cringe  Whenever I write something (even a little lowsy fanfic) around 70% of my work goes into researching the actual historical context. Architecture, everyday life, concurring political events... and as a fashion history fangirl, all those highly inacurate clothes make me want to cry despite the beauty of Kojima's art. I can't understand how people who actually GET PAID to do that screw up so badly.

You. Friend among friends. Level ten. Good job!

 

[X]

I can't understand how people who actually GET PAID to do that screw up so badly.

Then look no further then Stephenie Meyer's Twilight for another big literary screw-up. And she's still making dough off this monstrosity. To make matters worse she's got more 'T' books on the way 

[Dracula9]

I'm late in jumping into this thread, but I just wanna say that the whole "Mathias wouldn't be beaten by his own tactic" thing doesn't seem convincing to me. Nor does the "hundreds-of-years-old vampire master tactician can't be beaten by other tactician" thing. I want to remind you that Mathias is a guy who gets beaten left and right the EXACT SAME WAY in nearly every game. The Belmonts are all young adults when they fight Drac/Mathias, in the 19-24 age range. And every time, they defeat him.

Dracula loses every single battle he's in since first meeting Trevor Belmont in the exact same way every time he's revived. He sits in his throne room and gets beat by people who aren't even 25 yet. Heck, he was even beaten by Jonathan and Charlotte, both of whom I believe aren't even 20-years-old yet, AND he had Death at his side. Yes, he had barely been revived, so he was still weak. But again, he's a master tactician who has existed for CENTURIES, and he has the Grim Reaper by his side, and he was beaten by a headstrong brawn-over-brain Jonathan Morris and the even-younger Charlotte Aulin. Yes, Charlotte is a very smart girl with magical abilities, but Charlotte is 16, and I doubt her intelligence, experience, and magical capabilities even come CLOSE to what Dracula can do.

That being said, this happens all the time. Thus, I can't really find those two arguments convincing. Vlad III, based on historical evidence alone, appears to have tactical genius and an intellectual mind that the likes of Charlotte couldn't even comprehend. Yet Dracula/Mathias himself was defeated by these two young adults, even with his high level of intellect, magical capabilities, experience, and Death himself at his side.

I don't agree with the whole "Vlad III stole the Crimson Stone from Mathias Cronqvist" theory, but I'm trying to say that it could potentially hold some water due to the fact that Mathias himself has been outsmarted by even the likes of Jonathan and Charlotte.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is: No, it makes zero logical sense as to how a master tactician with hundreds of years of experience and magical capabilities could possibly lose his powers and most precious possession to another tactician who, despite being brilliant as well, does not have what Mathias has. But it also makes zero sense as to how Mathias, with all of that, could be beaten constantly by young adults who definitely lack the experience, knowledge, and magical prowess that he has.

Mathias remained Mathias until his defeat in CVIII. After the first resurrection, he wasn't really Mathias anymore. In the games we see Dracula in that have writing and dialogue (excluding the older titles that didn't really have much backstory beyond "kill the dude in the cape", of course), we don't really see any of that "I'm doing this because I'm pissed off at God for letting my wife die" anywhere. It's all about hating the humans and wanting to wipe the perceived vermin from the planet.

This doesn't even account for botched, interrupted, or incomplete resurrections, of which Big D's seen many. It's explicitly stated in the series that incomplete/botched revivals kinda fuck Drac up some way or another. Hell, in Harmony he's not even himself, and we see all kinds of "huh, I'm not all here just yet, this is annoying" comments from him across multiple games. Based on this, it's not hard to surmise that the constant fuckings-up of the resurrection cycle have screwed with his self-identity to the point of Mathias not even being there anymore. He turns into a hate machine, and hate tends to be illogical. Combine the irrationality of hate with fucked-up memories and you have the perfect setup for a dude losing to the same tactics over and over and over. In this theory, he simply gets a memory wipe with each revival to one degree or another (some games he is shown to remember things, other games he's not) and the "humans are trash" mindset takes back over and the whole process begins again.

You see this all the time in mortal vs. immortal conflicts; immortality cannot grasp mortality in full and vice-versa, and so Dracula just thinks himself superior based on raw power alone, and doesn't account for mortality's innate urge to rebel and survive against the odds. He underestimates humanity time and again because that's what his hatred of them produces.

There's also the idea that perhaps Dracula's easy defeats were part of a larger, centuries-spanning plan. We've seen that Dracula gets stronger with each resurrection, and we KNOW that be he Vlad III or Mathias inside he's still a damn good strategist, so why not ponder this avenue, eh? We know that (canonically, not counting anything in fanon even if it's relaly amazing fanon like Umbra) something catastrophically different happens in 1999 in which Dracula basically has to die or the world's going to shit. He's at his most powerful then, and that is at a singular point. Who's to say Dracula didn't plan for that point of absolute power peaking? We've seen a similar plan done by Father in Fullmetal Alchemist, so we know the ins and outs of such a plan are indeed feasible for an entity with immortality and a sharp mind (bit of a stretch comparison, yes, but purely on a practical, operational perspective of how such a plan would need to be enacted, it works).

The purpose of my "Mathias is too smart to lose at his own game" wasn't meant to carry across to all Dracula incarnations; the point of that argument applies solely to Vlad III existing as a separate entity and outwitting Mathias to claim his power. As Mathias is  first killed as Dracula in CVIII, everything up until that moment was done while he was still in his original body and incarnation. He had not yet undergone the memory warping and personality shifts accompanying his resurrections, and was still his original self as far as we are canonically aware.

Therefore, counterarguments about Dracula being consistently defeated by the same methodolgy are not particularly valid. This is only because my original point applied to a period when Mathias was still Mathias, and that's entirely my fault for not clarifying earlier.

Once the resurrection cycle begins and Dracula starts to emerge out of what was once Mathias, the vampire nature overrules the very human desire to pursue revenge out of love; and as we all know, vampires are inherently flawed by nature, because immortality is very boring and an eternal sense of self-superiority allows for gross underestimations and windows for failure. Dracula remains so easily beaten because his subconscious vampiric instinct craves the challenge from a "lesser" being, and the thought that such a lesser being might actually prevail is one that gives him an excuse to flaunt his power (something the proud nature of a vampire is very wont to do). Dracula cannot control this facet of his personality, just as real-world vampires legends could not resist counting thrown mustard seeds one by one even if sunrise approached.

Dracula loses consistently because of this inherently ironic flaw in his nature as a vampire and immortal, and also because his memories are so consistently fucked-up. His strength is his weakness, and that weakness is one that is easily exploitable by the willpower of a focused and driven mortal fighting because they have something to fight for, to lose. Dracula has nothing to lose, as he'll revive from death and other than Lisa doesn't really care about anyone but himself.

That's another point, regarding how utterly human Dracula is within SotN, but explanations and reasonings for that are a discussion for another day, and don't have any inherent bearing on the topic at hand, or at least not the point of said topic I'm addressing.

In sum, I did not specify what I'd meant by my statement when I should have, and I apologize for that. The original intent was not to say Mathias' self-tactical awareness applied forever, but simply in the hypothetical situation he and Vlad III were different people and Vlad tried to beat Mathias at his own game. In that context specifically, Mathias' tactical mind wins because of the centuries of additional experience, and because his base Intelligence stat was already stupidly high to begin with WITHOUT the immortality modifiers.

If I were to try and make that same argument across all Dracula incarnations, your points against it would be absolutely and entirely valid and would require very little explanation to be considered correct and disprove my own point. However, despite my initial lack of clarification, that is not and was not the case, and as such your counterarguments are not ones that I can consider to be valid within the intended context of my original argument.

However, if you can restructure your counters to accommodate my now-clarified intended context, I will gladly hear them and see if I can refute them or not. 

[Lumi Kløvstad]

D9, the Dracula Wraith in HoD is confirmed as not being Dracula at all. It's just Maxim's Jungian Shadow possessing Dracula's remains (and thereby taking his shape). But it's not at all Dracula. Dracula wouldn't be canonically resurrected after Simon's Quest until the events of Rondo of Blood.

So Juste was basically fighting an imitation Dracula -- he never fought the Dark Lord proper.

[Dracula9]

I know that. The point of mentioning it was to illustrate that his power/form coming back isn't always "perfect," especially if some third-party turdlord is responsible for it.

[Lumi Kløvstad]

I know that. The point of mentioning it was to illustrate that his power/form coming back isn't always "perfect," especially if some third-party turdlord is responsible for it.

Forgive my boldness, but I don't feel using the Dracula Wraith as an example successfully illustrates anything pertaining to this thread.

Could you clarify your logic? Maybe I'm just missing something.

[Dracula9]

Dracula's botched resurrections leaving him "imperfect" are directly correlated to my explanation as to why the "can't beat Mathias at his game" argument was only meant to apply to one particular context--that Dracula got more and more wonky when revivals weren't to-plan or one of the "natural" ones and wouldn't remember his past self of Mathias clearly, if he remembered it at all.

I quoted Dracula Wraith because it's the easiest example of a botched "resurrection" resulting in a fragmented and incomplete "Dracula;" it's NOT Dracula, but it's the single most extreme instance of an unplanned resurrection creating a fragmented and fractional incarnation of him. I'm simply really tired and have to be up for classes in the morning, and wasn't really up to the task of poring over the various incarnations of Dracula and the specifics of his mental/emotional/magical/power state in regards to the circumstances of each resurrection (something that would honestly take an entire day at least with the amount of work I expend when I have to go detail-hunting). I'll probably go over my points later and resubmit them to the thread if I feel I can explain things better.

[Lumi Kløvstad]

I quoted Dracula Wraith because it's the easiest example of a botched "resurrection"

Thing 1) It wasn't a resurrection at all. The Dracula Wraith is something entirely new. The events of Harmony of Dissonance can't be called a resurrection. You can't resurrect something that had never existed before that point. If anything, it was a birth.

Thing 2) I view Curse of Darkness as the first flawed resurrection. True, Death was able to make do and successfully resurrect Dracula using Isaac's nearly dead body, but he admitted that Isaac was essentially B-Grade materials to Hector's A-Grade. He wanted Hector (and Hector at the top of his game) because that would have resulted in a stronger revived Dracula because he was the strongest Devil Forgemaster. Instead, he had to make do with the lesser Forgemaster, and the body was already largely ruined by the thrashing Hector gave Isaac moments earlier.

So instead of using the best materials available, Dracula was revived with the Plan B, which was a Plan B for a reason. The result was that Dracula was confronting Hector with Isaac's level of power serving as a limiter to his own (one is restricted by the body they are in, after all), and Hector had already demonstrated that he was superior to that.

If that ain't a flawed resurrection, I don't know what is.

[Dracula9]

The point (which is that Dracula's power is what's in question here, not his goddamned mind)

-----------

Your head (which is trying once again to argue semantics about something completely irrelevant while also acting like I don't actually know anything)


Thought you said you were done being stubborn.

[VladCT]

Just gonna pop in to say that the Tension-o-meter is reaching Caution levels again, you might want to be a teeny bit careful here. :V

[Lumi Kløvstad]

Just gonna pop in to say that the Tension-o-meter is reaching Caution levels again, you might want to be a teeny bit careful here. :V

*shrugs* It doesn't really feel tense to me. Certainly passionate. Maybe even heated.

But that's to be expected.

As I've said before, this is a naturally hot-button issue for the fandom. It's our closest analog to arguing politics or religion that I've ever seen.

I'm not really on edge here, but I am going to stubbornly argue this particular part about the Dracula Wraith, because words have specific meaning, and the meaning of "resurrection" just plain doesn't apply to the Wraith.

Now, as D9 clarified his meaning to that of Dracula's power rather than his being, might I suggest the word "resurgence" or "resumption" in future postings? I believe those words are much closer to what you mean to say than "resurrection" on that particular detail.

I don't argue semantics casually. If I do, trust that I'm getting at something.

But anyway, I can see here that we are actually both correct now that I understand your original meaning D9. Thank you for clarifying.

As for

Thought you said you were done being stubborn.

I'm naturally stubborn. It's not something I can just turn off with the flick of a switch. I'm just treading more carefully.

That being said, there's no need for harsh language here; that's just going to escalate things again. Kindly refrain from profanities.