[Game] Umineko no Naku Koro ni Chiru - Ep. 6 Dawn of the golden witch

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Renall

So wait. Ange isn't a "human" because she's not "on the game board?" Then what exactly is she? Being "on Rokkenjima" has nothing to do with being human, just whether you're part of the "humans on Rokkenjima" count... whatever that means.

None of the meta-characters are humans. Humans do not disappear into nothingness simply because someone denies their existence with words. But for the hundredth time, it's really pointless to state what they are. The matter of "definition" of a word it's only relevant to understand the red truths, specifically the red truths about the gameboard. The games are fictional stories, they are realities separated from the rest. So whatever definition "human" has inside the gameboard it doesn't mean the same definition applies elsewhere.

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Here's the flaw in your argument. This question you're asking is the same as "what if we can't solve a detective novel because they don't give us enough clues?" Obviously, this is a pointless question, since the rules of the detective genre require that all games be solvable.

In other words, there's nothing wrong with word definitions changing (and as I've said, it's even more ridiculous to have a whole Death Note-style dictionary for all words) as long as there are enough hints for us to figure out what they mean in each context. Just like how a footprint doesn't necessarily mean that the person who owns those shoes was there, but can still be used to find the answer.

You should read carefully what I write. I used the word "arbitrarily". The defintion of arbitrarily is:

"Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle"

I'm quite fine with the idea that a word or a name might have a different meaning if it's hinted every time which meaning it has. But that's not what people assume when they use this trick to get around red.

X can mean A and also B? Okay show me, for any given sentence including "X" where is the hint that clearly shows that it means "A" or where is the hint that clearly shows that it means "B".

If there are no hints at all, then we can only guess if that given "X" means A or B, we might as well toss a coin to decide it.

And no, arbitrarily deciding that "X" is "B" or "A" because it fits with your own theory is not good reasoning.

[Kylon99]

Originally Posted by Renall

Yeah, one problem with "Kanon renounced his name" as a prospect is that Kanon can't just decide that. Other people will still see him as Kanon, address him as Kanon, think of him as Kanon, and talk about him as Kanon. Even if he fakes his death, if even one person suspects he might be alive, did "Kanon" really die? Who does the red text believe? If it's permissible to be selective, you might as well declare everyone is dead at the start of the game because in some definition of "dead" you could theoretically be right.

You know, I kept looking for a reason for Kanon to be 'special' because it seemed like there was some way for him to still be moving around after he's dead.

But what if he's not special in ability but in attitude? Ok, if the red indicates 'death' in the game then he certainly has that attitude of rebelling against the roulette. Or rebelling against the game.

Perhaps Kanon is the hardest person to persuade in following the Epitaph Fakery Plan... The guy just won't stay dead. 8)

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

X can mean A and also B? Okay show me, for any given sentence including "X" where is the hint that clearly shows that it means "A" or where is the hint that clearly shows that it means "B".

If there are no hints at all, then we can only guess if that given "X" means A or B, we might as well toss a coin to decide it.

And no, arbitrarily deciding that "X" is "B" or "A" because it fits with your own theory is not good reasoning.

Agreed, though people might disagree on what counts as a hint. And it may be that there is a hint that's hard to find unless you follow the logic down a ways.

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by Renall

Yeah, one problem with "Kanon renounced his name" as a prospect is that Kanon can't just decide that. Other people will still see him as Kanon, address him as Kanon, think of him as Kanon, and talk about him as Kanon. Even if he fakes his death, if even one person suspects he might be alive, did "Kanon" really die? Who does the red text believe? If it's permissible to be selective, you might as well declare everyone is dead at the start of the game because in some definition of "dead" you could theoretically be right.

That's going to be a problem as long as that subjective element is left unrestricted. If I suddenly claim that the sky is polkadot, it shouldn't automatically be possible to say so in red, because at that point all notion of reality would break down. On the other hand, there are different kinds of subjective truths -- if I play a character in an RPG where the sky is polkadot, or spend all afternoon by myself vividly imagining that it is, it might be reasonable to give those activities a certain degree of reality of their own.

The ways of creating subjective truths I could think of are:

• Imagining that X is the case
• Believing that X is the case (alone or as a group)
• Pretending that X is the case (within a group)
• Performing an act that X is the case (as a group)
• Lying that X is the case (alone or as a group)

There's some overlap between those, but there ought to be some criterion for deciding which ones can be elevated to red truth, if that's going to be an option. We can at least say up front that just believing something is true shouldn't be enough to qualify, because otherwise Maria could say "Beato is a real witch who can use real magic" and the game would be over. Lying in general shouldn't work for the same reason. For the more complex cases, there are some concepts from the story that might be relevant:

• White versus black magic. In other words, some kind of distinction between storytelling, belief, and imagination on one side and simple lying on the other. I'm not sure how to articulate this, but thematically it seems to be very important.
• "Two people are needed to create a world." It may be important whether a subjective truth is shared by multiple people or not. A shared fiction might rise to the level of a "world" that has its own truth.
• Belief as the foundation of magic. It may be important whether the source of the subjective truth really believes it or is actively suspending disbelief of it.

A working criterion would probably be some combination of those, but I haven't found one I'm happy with yet.

EDIT:
We do have the example of Maria's internal game board with Sakutarou on it, the Golden Land, and the Rokkenjima board itself as sources of truth. That may actually be the only requirement for red truth in the end -- whether or not the statement is true on some game board in play. So what activities generate game boards?

[Renall]

That's pretty dangerous territory. While possible, at that point the red starts to break down. Now, I suppose you can argue that only "boards" or "worlds" of truth actively subscribed to by the current Game Master can be elevated to red truth. In such a case, you at least have some degree of expectation as to what a red means if you know a particular GM.

The problem is, I don't think we know any particular GM well enough. We may know some of the "boards" to which they subscribe, but can we really know all of them? Imagine Meta-Beatrice happens to subscribe to all the things we expect she does, but then she also subscribes to a view that says "dead" means "has a Kick Me sign taped to their back." How the hell are we supposed to know that, and if we don't know that, how do we approach it from the other theoretical direction?

[Zetsumaru]

I think the whole point of Ep6 is that two truths can coexist at the same time, therefore I dont think it strange that Erika (from her own truth/ POV) can say that she's the 18th human while Battler can claim that there's still 17 people (either because of Shkanon or some other shenanigan), I think that, for that matter, Erika's conversation with Dlanor about her ex-boyfriend was kind of a hint.

For all we know Erika's and Battler's definition of human could be different, time and context have already been shown to be quite important in regards to the red truth, it should be no surprise then that the red truth's "owner"'s belief factor in the red truth itself too.

[matteas]

LyricalAura:
Quite an interesting theory. After all, creating subjective truths is an everyday thing everywhere and people often try to turn those "truths" or let's say self-conviction, or you could even say dream-like state of things, into reality. However, if it was possible to turn your subjective truth into red truth even though it's only your self-conviction, it would make it virtually impossible for anyone else to find out that the things stated in red are actually fabricated or that their true meaning actually differs from what has been claimed. Like Renall said, if "dead" meant "has a Kick Me sign taped to their back" for Meta-Beatrice, how are we supposed to find it out if there's no hint for it? In fact, wouldn't it violate Knox's 8th? It is forbidden for the case to be resolved with clues that are not presented.

Imagining that X is the case - can't be elevated to red
Believing that X is the case (alone or as a group) - might be possible for a group of people (group = at least two people)
Pretending that X is the case (within a group) - for an individual, it shouldn't be possible
Performing an act that X is the case (as a group) - seems very similar to pretending to me. For a group of at least two people, it might be possible
Lying that X is the case (alone or as a group) - can't be elevated to red, I think

Thus, I don't think it's possible for an individual to turn his or her subjective truth into red truth. But if he or she has the support of another person, the subjective truth grows stronger and might become red. This pattern can be likened to the Illusion of the Witch. If somebody believes that something has been done by magic and couldn't be done in another way, the magic is acknowledged and the Illusion is created. Similarly, if one believes that something is true and there's no way it can be false, this "truth" might be also acknowledged.
This is very intriguing theory, worthy of speculation.

[Leafsnail]

For Nanjo ep3... I'm not sure if I ever liked the "Someone comes up to him, shoots him, then dies for some reason".

I mean, the only options we have are Kyrie, Hideyoshi, Rudolf, Krauss and Natsuhi (all other deaths were confirmed in red at the time)... and why would any of them get up, stumble over to Nanjo (of all people) and shoot him?

[Renall]

They think he's helping the killer, would be the obvious reason. They don't have to be correct, if Nanjo was seen doing something that appeared initially suspicious.

[Zork]

Originally Posted by Leafsnail

For Nanjo ep3... I'm not sure if I ever liked the "Someone comes up to him, shoots him, then dies for some reason".

Battler does talk about that murder in EP6:

Spoiler:

Unfortunately, his explanation is far from complete. Strictly speaking, an "unknown person" would contradict Knox, so presumably he is just being vague to avoid naming the culprit. Regardless, his answer is effectively that Eva planted a decoy in her list, so there doesn't seem to be much need for the "the killer died after killing Nanjo" theory anymore.

[Thunder Book]

Could you expand upon that theory Zork? I'm not quite getting what you're saying.

[Leafsnail]

Originally Posted by Renall

They think he's helping the killer, would be the obvious reason. They don't have to be correct, if Nanjo was seen doing something that appeared initially suspicious.

I guess... but I don't see what killing the accomplice would achieve, in any case. I suppose Natsuhi could've done it to protect Jessica (although I'd say the death that was most likely to be fake was Kyrie's).

The bit Zork brings up is interesting. Battler now knows the answers, so I guess he would have to be right in saying that. So... does that mean personality death? Or one personality never existed at all?

[ErenselTheJester]

Just a thought, but... Erika's red truth is quite shaky.

[Sniesk]

Originally Posted by Zork

Battler does talk about that murder in EP6:

Spoiler:

Unfortunately, his explanation is far from complete. Strictly speaking, an "unknown person" would contradict Knox, so presumably he is just being vague to avoid naming the culprit. Regardless, his answer is effectively that Eva planted a decoy in her list, so there doesn't seem to be much need for the "the killer died after killing Nanjo" theory anymore.

This is interesting, but who would be the decoy? Assuming the Shkannon theory, and giving that a personality can be proclamed dead in red, saying that Kanon and Shannon are both dead, it can be that yet another personality (maybe Beatrice) is still alive and she is Nanjo's killer. This isn't exactly playing with names, but with personalities and i don't know if it is the right answer. To be honest, i don't really like it...

[Raiza Sunozaki]

Originally Posted by Leafsnail

For Nanjo ep3... I'm not sure if I ever liked the "Someone comes up to him, shoots him, then dies for some reason".

I was being a little lazy, but by "dies for some reason," I meant the explosion, which by now should be a confirmed fact. I don't have an exact motive for killing Nanjo, but it should fall under the same motive the culprit has for killing other people.

[Leafsnail]

So how would "Battler is alive", "Jessica is alive" and "Eva is alive" work if there's an explosion?

[Judoh]

Guys Nanjo was proclaimed dead after progressing the game to the point where nanjo was found dead and Jessica was found to be missing. We have at least six possible fakers at this point in time. It's possible for someone who faked their death to stand in front of Nanjo with a weapon and Kill him and die of a wound or something in this amount of time. Remember the red is time sensitive.

There is even room to argue that this faker entered the room Eva and Battler were in got shot and that's why Battler calls her the culprit.

[Sniesk]

Originally Posted by Judoh

Guys Nanjo were proclaimed dead after progressing the game to the point where nanjo was dead and Jessica was found to be missing. We have at least six possible fakers at this point in time. It's possible for someone who faked their death to stand in front of Nanjo with a weapon and Kill him and die of a wound or something in this amount of time. Remember the red is time sensitive.

There is even room to argue that this person entered the room Eva and Battler were in got shot and that's why Battler calls her the culprit.

And that's what i was thinking until now, but why Battler would say that in ep6?

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Sniesk

And that's what i was thinking until now, but why Battler would say that in ep6?

That's not a problem either. Battler made the person X theory in blue to solve it first, before it was denied in red. He's just referencing that and acknowledging how troublesome that theory can be, which I think was the whole point of saying 'everyone else' is in the cousins' room.

[Titanguy654]

So has anyone come up with any interesting theories for Battler's closed room yet? I've looked at it time and time again myself, but I have not been able to get anywhere. Featherine makes a comment that makes me believe that the window in the next room over was definitely used if we can believe that her theory is correct. However, this makes it difficult because All people can only use their own names. This makes it hard to create a scenario where Kanon escaped from that window, even if you do support the Shkannon theory.