2010-11-03, 15:18 | Link #5041 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
|
Quote:
|
|
2010-11-03, 15:22 | Link #5042 |
The True Culprit
|
Yea, someone's just using the Beatrice legend to get away with it all. Whoever "Beatrice" is on the gameboard is probably as innocent as possible, save for possibly being threatened or manipulated into doing non-murder accomplice work.
__________________
|
2010-11-05, 00:41 | Link #5044 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Age: 36
|
Could someone please try to disprove this proof of Erika's existence, made purely by statements from the final puzzle of EP 6:
Erika exists on the island: "The game ended while I [Erika] was inside the guest room." The Erika existing on the island is Erika herself, and not someone pretending to be her: "It has already been said in red that all people can only use their own names. Therefore, the names Erika, Battler, and Kanon can only be used by those people. The Erika existing on the island is alive, and not a corpse. Corpses do not have the ability to do these things: "I [Erika] set the chain lock." "She [Erika] completely severed the heads of all those she killed." Conclusion: "An authentic, living Erika Furudo existed on the game board of the 6th Episode." |
2010-11-05, 00:53 | Link #5045 | |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2010-11-05, 01:07 | Link #5046 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Age: 36
|
Quote:
Because if you deny a red truth because "it only applies to a hypothetical scenario that might or might not have happened," can't that method of denial be applied to ALL red truths of all games? |
|
2010-11-05, 01:15 | Link #5047 | |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
Quote:
As for the red truth it is meant to lead you to the truth that happened on Rokkenjima you can look at it and apply it however you want.
__________________
|
|
2010-11-05, 02:22 | Link #5048 | |
Dea ex Kakera
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
|
Quote:
It's been established throughout the story that red truth can be applied to individual boards without being universally true across all boards. We also know from Maria's example and various other clues that human pieces can become game masters and create their own game boards, which can then have red truths stated about them in turn. Erika is the eighteenth human on Rokkenjima. Even if she is welcomed, there are seventeen people on the island. Contradictory red truths can't exist on the same game board without creating a logic error. Therefore, these two statements must apply to two different game boards. One is the board created directly by Battler, and the other is a nested board created by one of his pieces. Erika and her actions exist only on the inner board, exactly as described by the coin puzzle early in the story.
__________________
|
|
2010-11-05, 02:31 | Link #5049 | |
Artist
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Yesterday!
|
Quote:
Maybe a better example would be something like Erika saying I am Erika the witch of truth and them replying There's no such things as witches. |
|
2010-11-05, 04:09 | Link #5051 |
The True Culprit
|
I just figured it was basically Erika would be the 18th person countered with True, but there is no 18th person, and there's no Erika. Even if I concede that Erika must be the 18th person if she exists, she does not. gg bro.
Also, Erika-Ball Theory. Pieces are fully capable of acting out Erika's actions and using her name as a title, as far as we know. It's no different from reds that address Beatrice by name.
__________________
|
2010-11-05, 05:01 | Link #5052 | |||
18782+18782=37564
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: InterWebs
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
All of the gameboards shown before us are all hypothetical scenario that didn't even happen. Therefore nothing happened on Rokkenjima because if these were all hypothetical scenario that didn't even happen, no clue of any "real" event was ever presented. No one died, no culprits, no nothing, everyone lived happily ever after. Just checking, is this your personal truth, Judoh?
__________________
|
|||
2010-11-05, 05:51 | Link #5053 | |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
Quote:
Author theory,
__________________
|
|
2010-11-05, 06:08 | Link #5054 | |
18782+18782=37564
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: InterWebs
|
Quote:
At this point, the individual game-board isn't all that important. Spoiler:
It's just that the way you stated it, it sounded like you shouldn't trust the red at all. EDIT: durr, just in case, we shouldn't discuss theories here.
__________________
Last edited by erneiz_hyde; 2010-11-05 at 06:18. |
|
2010-11-05, 06:57 | Link #5055 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
|
The final scene with Erika, Battler and Beatrice can be explained with some reasoning however that affects Erika I dont know. Battler and Beatrice state that even if they welcome her there are 17 people, they never state in that scene that there are only 17 people though.
Crazy logic but the red is used to constrict the truth around the play field, that particular scene didn't constrict anything at all. Last edited by Cao Ni Ma; 2010-11-05 at 08:16. |
2010-11-05, 07:48 | Link #5056 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Age: 36
|
Quote:
The "contradiction" that those two red truths create is easily solvable, just like any of the Closed Room puzzles that Beatrice has tried to trick Battler with. It's probably no coincidence that one statement refers to "humans" and another to "people." Anyway, the contradiction here is a red herring from Ryukishi07, since it can't actually apply to Erika: There are 18 humans on the island. "Erika is the eighteenth human on Rokkenjima." There are 17 people on the island. "Even if she is welcomed, there are seventeen people on the island." "At least one of the people on the island is a human, but not a person." Erika is a human: "Erika is the eighteenth human on Rokkenjima." Erika is a person. Referring to the "count of people on the island" in Episode 5, it's stated that: "Furudo Erika only increases it by one person." The introduction of Erika introduces the count of people by 1. "Erika is both a human and a person. Therefore, one of the other characters on the island is a human, but not a person." How to solve this contradiction? Well: "Maria is in a vegetative state, and is pushed around by the other characters in a wheelchair. Therefore she is a "human", but not a sentient "person." Rosa has the delusion that her daughter is fine, and everyone else humors her. None of the red truths in any of the games are contradicted if we assume this to be true. They only mention Maria being at or leaving locations (at the same time as others leave them), not taking actions, or being killed: i.e., all things that would be possible for a mentally vegetative person in a wheelchair." or, "One of the two humans on the island is actually a single person." (Basically, Shkannon or any similar theory. or, "'Person' only applies to people with the legal rights of personhood. Genji is legally owned by Kinzo as a slave, so while he's a human, he's not a person." etc, etc. I think the "they contradict, so they refer to different game boards" reasoning is a bit suspect. I think we should assume, by default, that all statements apply to the gameboard of their current game. Because if any statement could apply to another gameboard without explicitly stating so, we could ignore any inconvenient truth by saying, "That applies to a different gameboard." Last edited by einhorn303; 2010-11-05 at 08:07. |
|
2010-11-05, 08:04 | Link #5057 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Age: 36
|
Quote:
All of the gameboards shown before us are all hypothetical scenario that may or may not have happened. Therefore we have no certain proof of what happened Rokkenjima because if these were all hypothetical scenario that may or may not have happened, no clue of any "real" event was ever presented. If one denies the Red Truth, we wouldn't know anything about the "real" Rokkenjima except for hearsay. Then it's impossible to conclusively prove or disprove Erika's existence. Maybe she existed on the island, maybe she didn't; one couldn't say with absolute certainty. (Although I personally don't believe any "The Red Truth is fallible" sort of theories.) |
|
2010-11-05, 08:34 | Link #5058 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Yes. No one can say. But one can write a story in which Erika appears, and Erika can even definitely and without question be a real, living, human person on the board of that story.
But, as LyricalAura pointed out, the cups and coins trick is a suggestion as to how this sort of thing could play out, allowing the guestroom reds to apparently contradict each other and then subsequently to conceptually deny Erika. Erika is incapable of thinking outside the bounds of her current scenario; she's very good within that context, but doesn't grasp story trickery (and possibly textual trickery with red). This is the main weakness she has compared to Bern, who definitely does seem to have that skill. She intuitively understands that the works are fiction, but she doesn't take the next step in realizing what that can mean. Example resolution to the Logic Error: On one board, Kanon exists (in some form), evades being entrapped in a room through Method X (name check/shkanon/etc.), and rescues Battler. This Kanon is still in the closet on that board. This is what Beatrice figured out when Kanon told her to go on the offensive. She's not making Kanon go anywhere. She's misdirecting Erika by talking about something else. Preying on assumptions is the core of Beatrice's closed room MO. So she finds a scenario in which Kanon doesn't exist in the room (I suspect she may be talking about "reality," in which Kanon perhaps does not exist at all) and postulates an entirely true red about his non-existence. Erika is blindsided by this and loses. Before her denial, however, she figures this out, which is what she means by the "Witch of Truth" accepting the truth about herself. The truth in this scenario is subjective, and she will never win against an opponent aware of that. To prove it, she advances the red about her own existence, which she already knows Beatrice can counter. By doing so, Beatrice is forced to tip her hand about subjectivity and variable red, even though it successfully denies Erika. (NOTE: This was just an example of a way you could use nested boards to resolve ep6) Arguably, awareness of this subjectivity could be a bad thing to know in the wrong hands...
__________________
|
2010-11-05, 13:00 | Link #5059 |
The Black Vortex.
|
I'me going to make some off-the-wall blue truth theory, I'm just going to the extremes of saying The boat driver is the real culprit. He's actually a 19 year old girl, and his appearance doesn't count as valid even though Battler has seen him because he appeared before the story began (before everyone got off the boat, since everything before then seems set in stone). Since only Ange saw him after the story began, her viewpoint isn't absolute. When the boat left the island, it went to the second dock, where the boat driver got off and hid in the forest, or else Kuwadorian, and preceded to rig a bomb. Battler's sin is not paying the boat driver, and because of this, he has a lot of debt. He's out for revenge because his life was ruined.
...nah, just kidding. I think that Spoiler:
Also, my documentation of notes now includes what I've read of Episode 7. But before I write down the rest of the chapters, I'm gonna try and finish Episode 3. I'll probably be bouncing between the two. |
2010-11-05, 15:45 | Link #5060 | ||
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
Here's a more likely scenario. "Hey guys, I'm Erika, a character given the assignment of 18th person by the Gamemaster." "We're sorry, but even though it is true you were given that assignment by your creator, there are only 17 people on the island. Deal with it." Quote:
The Red Truth is something which is, one way or another, absolutely true we're told, right? Leaving aside the rules of this Red Truth, and it's specific workings, the person who introduced the Red Truth and defined it's powers IS NOT ACTUALLY A WITCH, and MAGIC CANNOT DO SOMETHING THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE BY HUMAN MEANS. Beatrice is a human being. We know this, even if we haven't been able to explicitly prove it; it's the premise for our win condition. If Beatrice is a human being, how in the fuck can she just conveniently whip out some magical power that is magically compelled to be absolutely right all the time? She can't. The power of the Red Truth works because of what she says: That is, she only repeats things she knows are true from her own life experience (Maria's past, for instance), or she speaks about the Gameboards, which are fictions she (or a higher plane author, it doesn't matter) wrote herself, as they exist as stories in the "real world" of 1998. Of course she can speak about the truths of AN IMAGINARY WORLD SHE FUCKING INVENTED, and though these gameboards exist to help us discern the truth between them, these Red Truths do not necessarily speak of the reality of Rokkenjima Prime unless we are explicitly told so or we can prove they do. The Red Truth is no different from JK Rowling saying Dumbledore is Gay. Keeping this in mind, you have been abusing the authority of the Red Truth, treating it's statements as a divine thing that supercedes the Gameboards in all contexts. That's not the way it works. Hell, Beatrice even mentions using magic in Red when Ange tries to get Maria out of the Golden Land, meaning that in the most literal sense, the Red Truth is not absolutely reliable. It is treated as valid only because the players and readers involved decided to trust the speaker. Lambdadelta all but affirms this.
__________________
|
||
|
|