[Game] Umineko no Naku Koro ni - Ep. 4 Alliance of the golden witch

[sento]

Originally Posted by ghost_zero5

But I never doubted that she wasn't a good witch. Actually, I wonder what indications did anyone have to believe that she was a good witch.

Mii... Nipaa-!

[Klashikari]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

My opinion on Bern hasn't really changed. I always thought she was a cruel witch. She said that herself, why people doubted that?

And I don't think she is a villain now. Why do you think so? Her purpose is to make Battler win. By making Battler win she will find a Kakera where he and his parents will go back to Ange. How exactly is this bad?
Her methods might be questionable, and her indifference toward human fates might give you the chills, but she's definitely on the good side of the board.

Furthermore, NOTHING confirms she is indeed using questionable means.
Who said the Tanabata was true? Who said the "troll face" as indeed proof of a wicked ailement?

There is the usual thing as "If you want to deceive your enemies, deceive your allies". Thus, I prefer remain neutral towards such gratuitous display of ill intention: actually, is that really the truth? Beato was acting in both extremes, but why wouldn't the others do the same?
Heck, if she is cruel against her opponent, that's fair and square as well. Beato wasn't frugal in cruelty against Battler, Battler couldn't stand Beato at some moment etc, etc.

Bernkastel was known to be on "her" side only, she has her own agenda and there is nothing that can remotely make her in Lambda's side.
Determining her as a villain is completely trivial and unecessary.

Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon

...She did terrible things to Ange for her own personal amusement, as detailed in one of the extra TIPS, which, although not useful enough to solve the mystery, are canon.

And what confirm the extra tips are canon? Surely you aren't telling me that the valentine was also canon...?

And she has that ridiculously evil grin at the end of Ep4's ????. Good people do not smile like that.

Villains aren't always in an evil lair with spider webs everywhere, henchmen N°1, evil pet (cat dog, goldfish, your call) etc. Likewise, the "good guys" aren't always shaved, with nice clothes, uninterested by money or whatever you want (halo, wings?). Cliché are rather trivial and not always used.

The question we should be asking is WHY she wants Battler to win.

I doubt it's for any positive reason.

Hidden empathy? if she is really the remnants of Furude Rika, she knows the torture Battler is going through. That's only 1 example.

[Tyabann]

Originally Posted by sento

Mii... Nipaa-!

In two words you explained it better than I ever could. Thank you so much.

Originally Posted by Klashikari

Who said the "troll face" as indeed proof of a wicked ailement?

Tropes.

Originally Posted by Klashikari

Determining her as a villain is completely trivial and unecessary.

...Wasn't the point of the Ep4 ???? to show that she isn't really on Battler's side either?

Outside of their antagonism, she and Lamdba are friends. That isn't a good thing if I ever saw one.

[ghost_zero5]

Originally Posted by sento

Mii... Nipaa-!

So you mean the reason was/is because she looks cute and innocent? However, there we only thought of her as a human but she is a witch which probably have lived a while for now already - though she still looks like a child. Btw. in Umineko: Could it be that your body stops to age once you turn into a witch?

Well: I really wonder if there will be more than one Battler (meaning if that statment of Beato was the truth). After all it would be kinda hard that there would be two different ones with no one remembering the other one BUT Battler remembering his cousins and such things but not remember that he took over some other person's "place".

[Klashikari]

Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon

...Wasn't the point of the Ep4 ???? to show that she isn't really on Battler's side either?

If she isn't on Battler's side, does it automatically mean she is on Beatrice or Lambda's side?
There aren't only "2 sides" in a story, there are neutrals and other "factions". Battler and Bern share the same objective: defeating Beatrice, but for obvious different reasons. That make them on the same side, in some extent.

Outside of their antagonism, she and Lamdba are friends. That isn't a good thing if I ever saw one.

Friends? Lambda is so in love she wants to gouge bern's eyes and the like? She is ranting so much about how she lost etc.

Likewise, Bern doesn't lose any chance to make a jab and so forth.

I really cannot call that friendship, they are plain rival and they want to crush each other, even if they are ambigous when their objective merge for circumstancial reason, here: beato abandoning the game.

[luckyssol]

Originally Posted by sento

We got to know the existence of "Beatrice" in the island as Maria's friend. Battler see "Beatrice" in EP2 and EP4.

Sorry I can't let that one slip by.
In Ep2 he was drunk.
In Ep4 the person he thought was Beatrice was on a balcony far away. Why do you think the story was written that the door was locked so Battler couldn't just run up to the balcony and confirm the person's identity up close?

Also, I can't wait to see Battler crush those two little arrogant (w)itches, Bern/Lambda. Be it with with Beato's help or not.

[ghost_zero5]

Regarding Lambda and Bern "friendship": I wonder if Lambda is only joking around with those or if you could say that because Bern defeated her she actually loves and hates her equally. After all you could say that from the defeat she was kinda impressed of Bern and that that "affection" turned into some kind of "strange" love but also that she, of course, hates her for defeating her, the "greatest witch". With "strange" love I mean, such kind of love that says, if I can't have her, no one can and therefore I will kill her or something like this which would, of course, also help her "hating Bern part".

Though I agree that relation is very likely just rivalry with a few "jokes" here and there.

Oh btw. a bit off-topic but that has been on my mind for some time now:
What is the difference between jabs and jokes? Actually, according to my dictionary "jabs" should be something totally different but that wouldn't make any sense here and on various other places I came in "contact" with that word.

[Tyabann]

Originally Posted by ghost_zero5

So you mean the reason was/is because she looks cute and innocent? However, there we only thought of her as a human but she is a witch which probably have lived a while for now already - though she still looks like a child. Btw. in Umineko: Could it be that your body stops to age once you turn into a witch?

Like I said, it's because of her resemblance to Rika Furude from Higurashi, who was undeniably a good person. The game expects most of its readers to be familiar with Higurashi.

And I think it's more that, after becoming a witch, magic is all that's keeping your body alive... but you also have control over your appearance.

Which is why Bern has tits and Rika does not.

Originally Posted by Klashikari

If she isn't on Battler's side, does it automatically mean she is on Beatrice or Lambda's side?
There aren't only "2 sides" in a story, there are neutrals and other "factions". Battler and Bern share the same objective: defeating Beatrice, but for obvious different reasons. That make them on the same side, in some extent.

Okay, true.

I think what's a cause for concern is her reasons, though. We don't know what they are.

In this story that's probably a bad thing.

Originally Posted by Klashikari

I really cannot call that friendship, they are plain rival and they want to crush each other, even if they are ambigous when their objective merge for circumstancial reason, here: beato abandoning the game.

THEY'RE HAVING A SLUMBER PARTY.

That's all I can say.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by ghost_zero5

Actually, I think - and I guess always thought that way - she is on HER side and ONLY her side.
She would probably do nearly everything for this and if it means making people miserable.
She might not be a villain but she is definitely not good either. She uses everyone as she pleases.

Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon

...She did terrible things to Ange for her own personal amusement, as detailed in one of the extra TIPS, which, although not useful enough to solve the mystery, are canon.

And she has that ridiculously evil grin at the end of Ep4's ????. Good people do not smile like that.

The question we should be asking is WHY she wants Battler to win.

I doubt it's for any positive reason.

I disagree on the "personal amusement". She did that because she needed a piece to win. Are you comparing Bern to the black witch? I don't agree with that. Bern doesn't do such things for trivial reasons such as "amusement".

Bern doesn't find pleasure in making people miserable. She just looks at people as if they were ants. She is jaded by the fact she knows no matter what kind of miserable fate a person has, there will always be another kakera where they are happy and viceversa, so she ignores completely the fate of people on those sad kakera.

About reasons, she only has one. Lambda challenged her, and she wants to win, plus, she need to avoid being bored. There isn't really any other reason imho.

And the evil laugh, come on! I've seen a lot of good people in anime doing a more evil laugh than that. And then again she is cruel so there's no surprise she can laugh evilishly.

But to qualify as "villain" she needs to be in total opposition to the hero and she is not.

Actually, that is wrong. As you already stated in Ep3 you can have two explanations for the same thing. The magic one DOESN'T BECOME USELESS once you have another theory. You would need a theory THAT is "PROOFED" to be true. Just another theory means that you haven't checked the contents of the "box" of "schroedinger's cat box" yet.

Ep3 states that once you open the box you only have ONE explanation. Do you really think at the end the box will be left unopened? I don't think so. The very act of finding a realistic explanation will equal to the act of opening the box. Once the realistic explanation is shown and not denied, the box will be opened, and the magic theory will vanish into nothingness.
The same thing happened with the braun tube, with the phlogiston theory, with the updraft theory and so on. Have you forgot all those nice examples?

[ghost_zero5]

@Jan-Pro:
I didn't say personal amusement. I only meant that she would do everything to win

Regarding the Braun Tube: That is different there is not only a theory but one that has been "proofed". That's the difference here. Just because Battler states his theory that doesn't open the box and proof his theory.

[Deathkillz]

Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon

THEY'RE HAVING A SLUMBER PARTY.

That's all I can say.

It's called a love-HATE relationship

Lambda hates Berns guts to the point of completely flipping out and doing a 180 to loving her in an insane way. Have you read what she wants to do to torture Bern? "Oh, let me lock you up in a room and fill the place with sweets so you get crushed into pulp". Now replace sweets with bricks.

Bern also Hates Lambda but she basically doesn't give a fuck what she does and boredom is more of a killer for her than anything so she goes along with the ride as long as it entertains her.

[Tyabann]

Originally Posted by Ssol

Sorry I can't let that one slip by.
In Ep2 he was drunk.

Battler says he sobered up the minute Genji told him to come upstairs.

Originally Posted by Ssol

In Ep4 the person he thought was Beatrice was on a balcony far away. Why do you think the story was written that the door was locked so Battler couldn't just run up to the balcony and confirm the person's identity up close?

Even from that distance, it could only really have been Jessica if it wasn't Beato. Who was probably dead at that point. Probably.

Originally Posted by ghost_zero5

With "strange" love I mean, such kind of love that says, if I can't have her, no one can and therefore I will kill her or something like this which would, of course, also help her "hating Bern part".

Simply put, it's Stalker Love. Which is perfectly in-character for Lamdba, the candy-colored witch who forgets to breathe when she gets too excited.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

But to qualify as "villain" she needs to be in total opposition to the hero and she is not.

Semantics. Would you prefer "bad person"?

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

The very act of finding a realistic explanation will equal to the act of opening the box. Once the realistic explanation is shown and not denied, the box will be opened, and the magic theory will vanish into nothingness.

The meta-world is, by its very description, metaphysical.

Like I said, when Battler finds the answer it's likely that everything magical about Rokkenjima will vanish into nothingness.

Magic is 'real'. It 'exists'. Notice the quotations. If Battler proves it isn't 'real', then it will cease to 'exist'.

Originally Posted by Deathkillz

Bern also Hates Lambda but she basically doesn't give a fuck what she does and boredom is more of a killer for her than anything so she goes along with the ride as long as it entertains her.

Frankly I think she considers Lambda more of an amusing pet...

[ghost_zero5]

Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon

Like I said, when Battler finds the answer it's likely that everything magical about Rokkenjima will vanish into nothingness.

Magic is 'real'. It 'exists'. Notice the quotations. If Battler proves it isn't 'real', then it will cease to 'exist'.

However, the question is: With just proofing that it would be possible without magic, doesn't proof that magic doesn't exist.

THOSE TWO things are totally different points. just because he finds a possible solution to the murders without magic, doesn't mean that he proofs that no magic exists.
He just proofed that it could also be done without magic.
As I said: THIS situation would be BEFORE looking into the BOX. To look into the box, he would also have to proof that magic doesn't exist.
However, that could be kinda hard, when we consider him being in the Meta-World I mean come on, we can't really explain this, except with dreams or something like that which would be kinda stupid.

[Tyabann]

Originally Posted by ghost_zero5

However, the question is: With just proofing that it would be possible without magic, doesn't proof that magic doesn't exist.

THOSE TWO things are totally different points. just because he finds a possible solution to the murders without magic, doesn't mean that he proofs that no magic exists.
He just proofed that it could also be done without magic.
As I said: THIS situation would be BEFORE looking into the BOX.

If Battler comes up with a realistic proof that the witch can't tear apart, he wins, the box is metaphorically opened, and Rokkenjima's metaworld ceases to exist, probably killing Beatrice in the process, though I doubt it will have any effect on Bern and Lambda.

[ghost_zero5]

Well, yeah but he would have too find a proof for that and not only find a possible solution to the murders without a witch
However, even then he only opened the box for Rokkenjima's murder case BUT NOT for witches in general.

EDIT:
As I think that question probably got lost - as I edited it into one of my previous posts pretty late:

Oh btw. a bit off-topic but that has been on my mind for some time now:
What is the difference between jabs and jokes? Actually, according to my dictionary "jabs" should be something totally different but that wouldn't make any sense here and on various other places I came in "contact" with that word.

[Tyabann]

Originally Posted by ghost_zero5

Well, yeah but he would have too find a proof for that and not only find a possible solution to the murders without a witch
However, even then he only opened the box for Rokkenjima's witch as murder theory AND NOT for witches in general.

Effectively, the blue and red text work as proof simply because Battler isn't a professional detective.

Although I can't see Holmes or Poirot solving this either.

Originally Posted by ghost_zero5

As I think that question probably got lost - as I edited it into one of my previous posts pretty late:

It's the only real translation of the Japanese word "tsukkomi", if that's what you're thinking of.

Basically pointing out someone else's foolish mistake, or a humorous comeback.

When was it used in Umineko again?

[ghost_zero5]

OK but that only means that he proofs that the murders weren't done by a witch but not regarding witches in general or witches at Rokkenjima.
However, if he could find the real culprit, he should be able to find proof for it too and if it is a testimony from that very culprit.
There still could be a witch called Beatrice leaving at Rokkenjima but she just wasn't the one who carried out the murders.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by ghost_zero5

@Jan-Pro:
I didn't say personal amusement. I only meant that she would do everything to win

Regarding the Braun Tube: That is different there is not only a theory but one that has been "proofed". That's the difference here. Just because Battler states his theory that doesn't open the box and proof his theory.

Kaisos did. I was answering to both of you at the same time ^^;

As for the proof. The red truth works as proof in this context. Provided Beatrice won't be able to deny Battler theories, that will prove Battler's theories. She might let some wacky theories pass for her strategy purposes, but ultimately she wants Battler to find the truth until then she won't let Battler win. Even if she did Lambda wouldn't allow her to do so. So a proof is bound to come in the end. If neither magic nor human theory is proven, such in the case of a braun tube unopened, then the game will not reach a solution and Lambda will win. But you know Lambda can't win. "This is not endless eight" So a proof will come, the brain tube will be opened, and when that happens only one theory will survive. This is consistent with the schroedinger cat theory.

Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon

Semantics. Would you prefer "bad person"?

I like "cruel" person better XD. Yeah semantics. The small difference is a cruel person doesn't necessarily aim for bad ends. Anyway as I said I always thought she was cruel, so in that respect my opinion on her hasn't changed.

[Tyabann]

Originally Posted by ghost_zero5

OK but that only means that he proofs that the murders weren't done by a witch but not regarding witches in general or witches at Rokkenjima.
There still could be a witch called Beatrice leaving at Rokkenjima but she just wasn't the one who carried out the murders.

Battler simply has to come up with a simple and elegant reason as to why witches cannot exist, and why humans are behind the murders.

I'm starting have doubts he can do this.

[ghost_zero5]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

So a proof will come, the brain tube will be opened, and when that happens only one theory will survive. This is consistent with the schroedinger cat theory.

OK but that is only the case for the murder case and also: Red text normally isn't a proof
But of course it could be some kind of testimony from the real culprit.

That itself doesn't proof that witches don't exist at all, nor does it proof that a witch called Beatrice doesn't exist and that she doesn't live at Rokkenjima.
Those are actually, different things. Though I guess that no such witch exists and he might even proof that by proofing that a person called Beatrice existed but was human but he at least WON'T be able to proof that no witches exist at all.

Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon

Battler simply has to come up with a simple and elegant reason as to why witches cannot exist, and why humans are behind the murders.

I'm starting have doubts he can do this.

He should be able to proof that a human was behind the murders but as said that doesn't mean that he proofed no witches exist at all. He just proofed that those were not reponsible for the murders. Everything behind this part should be kinda hard to proof for him, as there doesn't even exist a proof for this in our world but as I once said: What is the definition of magic/witches anyway? It is more or less something that can't be explained otherwise but every far enough advanced technology fits under that category (can be considered as such) at least for those who are not knowledgeable with the theory, e.g. how many can really explain how a computer works. And with really, I mean really and not just in principle.