Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon
The gameboard is the real world?
|
If we are arguing that the events were the work of humans, then yes, everything that happens should agree with the rules of the real world. Detective's authority only has meaning to people who are aware of the game, and should be a useless concept for justifying real-world events.
Anyway, I'm fairly sure there was no such red truth in episode 5 indicating that Battler was the detective for the first four games. If I missed one, let me know where it was.
But I don't really have a problem with assuming he was the detective for games 2-4. The reason I'm hesitant to assume that for episode 1 is that, when the game started, Beatrice had no "opponent" for her "game." In that case, what is the purpose of a "detective" if there are no outside observers, and how can we be so sure it was Battler if Beatrice had not challenged anyone yet?
Certainly there are signs that the game exists for Battler's sake, somehow, so it's not impossible that everything was planned ahead from the start, and the episode 1 tea party was just an act. But regardless of that I don't think I should dismiss the possibility that someone else was the detective (there is precedent for this, after all), or that the concept of a "detective" was only first used in episode 2.
Actually, never mind. I just found what you were talking about.
Knox's 8th, it is forbidden for the case to be resolved with clues that are not presented! Until now, you have been the detective! Was it ever shown that you were not the detective this time, and that you were an observer with a subjective viewpoint?!! Unless it was, you do not have the right to falsify your point of view!!
That's a bit different from what you said. While it does suggest that Battler has never not been the detective, it doesn't eliminate the possibility that episode 1 had no detective (or that there was more than one.)