[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[goldendust]

I played through episode 8 in the original Japanese. My Japanese isn't fluent so maybe I misunderstood something.

Though when Bernkastel said that Battler is dead in red, then it was countered that the credibility of the red truth is based on choice. What do guys make out of that?

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Y
Then again, it's pretty much impossible to make literal sense of: "You are all alone on this island. And of course, I am not you. Yet I am here, now, and will kill you." So what's she really saying? Is it really just a stupid riddle for "explosives"? Maybe the answer really is just "Beatrice", who as Yasu's legacy both exists and does not exist at the same time.

It depends. If you pull a trigger

-of a gun to shoot someone resulting in their death in the following seconds
-of a bomb to kill someone resulting in their death in the following hours

Who is the culprit, the tools or the person who triggered them?

Both are means for murder. The only difference is that the second one will still fulfill its purpose even if the murderer dies before the victim.

I saw it as a hint that the game will end with or without the witch being alive.

Originally Posted by haguruma

Of course the relationship between Battler (give me TEH truth) and Beato (don't find me-find me-don't find me-find me) was a completely different one than that of Team Solve it vs. Team Hide it in Chiru. Trying to compare them is difficult in itself I think.

I agree on this. They are too different to compare. For me both have their pros and cons in terms of enjoyability.

Though initially the "games" were described as torture however when Battler and Erika played it. It felt more like that. That Erika outright tormented Battler and she herself seemed to suffer as well if she was countered.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by haguruma

I think you are trying to hard to apply your idea of sense and reason to a fictional work that tries to aim into a different direction. When does a fictional motive actually makes sense, if it made perfect sense it would in most cases be rather easy to guess or be, simply put, boring. Most mysteries aim for a over-the-top motive...and because you already said you don't particularly like mysteries in general, this makes it kind of hard to discuss this point when you are arguing from a completely different direction.
It is like arguing about the existence of god from a scientific and a religious PoV...we can both point out or arguments, but in the end you can not join these two without loosing some of both.

Most of the classics and many of the revival stories that are popular in Japan right now feature over the top solutions to the actual motive. It is not about it being a realistic motive, it is about being a motive that you can guess.

Yes but here's the thing. There are really only two kinds of murders overall: Passion killings on the spur of the moment, and intentional killings based on some kind of deliberate reasoning (if not necessarily premeditation).

A passion killing being what it is, it doesn't necessarily have to make sense. Most do ("She slept with someone else so I killed her") but sometimes they don't ("The Steelers lost and I got so mad I beat my son to death").

However, a deliberate killing always makes some kind of internal sense to the person doing it. The default state of interaction with people is generally not to kill them. Thus, some sort of logic always intercedes to make that decision reasonable.

Even in the cases of, as you say, "over the top" motive, the motive still makes sense to the culprit. The strength of the work is how much sense that motive actually makes to people. One reason a lot of people had more of an easy time swallowing the Kyrie thing than the Beatrice roulette nonsense is because while it may or may not be out of character for Kyrie to actually do, a financial motive is something that would plausibly make internal sense to someone who has decided to kill over it.

The Beatrice thing just doesn't make a lot of sense and it's so far afield that for it to be internally comprehensible to the person doing it, an enormous number of basic assumptions about human rationality must either be hopelessly twisted, or else the character must have an inherently broken rationality. In other words, be crazy.

I do not believe Yasu is even remotely crazy, so I cannot swallow that the rationale presented in ep7 makes sense to her. And if it doesn't make sense to her, I can't see any reason why she would actually do it.

Considering how Beatrice was constructed as a facade (and it was clear she was one) you could easily entertain the thought that the true person behind her had to be the opposite of everything that Beatrice was. This is not necessarily realistic but it is possible to construct.

I don't see why you would entertain that thought before first considering the similarities. Most people who try to construct a mask that is everything they're not wind up creating one that's way more like them than they realize.

Generally in Umineko murder is considered evil...which is why I find it less morally confused.

If Yasu is the culprit, the moral confusion lies in the justification for her (and Battler's) act of covering it up. The act itself is wrong, that's why the truth must be exposed. There are really only two rational motives for wanting to hide it, and as it so happens, one of those motives is evil. The other one is mistaken - in my opinion - but comprehensible to me, but only if she's not the killer herself. So I can accept it as a mistake she would have made.

I would dare to disagree. I found the dynamics between Battler and Erika delightfully antagonistic...there was not even a hint of friendship between them, it was pure goal-driven antagonsim. Between Beato and Battler there was always this sexual tension that drove their contest forward and while I found it entertaining I never actually bought her act of being this "witch who destroys love". There was always this underlying theme that was fully established to make the truth behind Beato guessable...but with Erika, she was just vile, mean and hellbent on reaching her goal.

Well... you've kind of made my point for me.

Erika is really a character who exists to antagonize (and arguably this was one of the other character destructions in Chiru, turning Bern into an outright antagonist for no conceivable reason and giving her an annoying lackey). She's a petty, sniveling, bumbling troll who only succeeds because the framework of the story can be abused to let her win. On her own merits, she is as incompetent as Battler but without his endearing traits and personal nobility.

Beatrice has everything she doesn't. She's confident, unapologetic, and crafty, and she succeeds in spite of giving Battler handicaps (colored text, remember that?). She doesn't have to cheat by exploiting the rules (let's ignore that Ryukishi made her retroactively do so). She gives him rules that she didn't even have to allow. This is the role of an authority figure, not a toady, and ultimately that's all Erika is. Chiru pretty blatantly went ahead and set up Bern as end boss, which means Erika was never anything more than her midboss. Big whoop.

The "sexual tension" you mentioned is precisely one of the things that electrifies the Battler/Beatrice dynamic. By contrast, the whole wedding thing in ep6 (which was generally far more euphemistically sexualized than anything Battler and Beatrice did) just made me break out in laughter. It was juvenile, unerotic, and not creepy enough to be unsettling. Yes, there is a place for eroticism in fiction, and one of the big places for it is male-female rivalries. Sexuality is part of Beatrice's thing and she doesn't shy away from it, but she also doesn't need it (she rarely teases, but when she does it's usually pretty brutal).

Besides, I can't think of better traits for a love-destroying witch to have than eroticism and charged sexuality, precisely because sexuality isn't love, but something which falsely appears to be an integral part of it. Especially when the ep1-4 Beatrice's ideals of sexuality appear to be about dominance (under herself in ep2, under Kinzo in ep4). If her goal was not actually to win, then it sort of parallels this understanding in Battler that love is a mutural construct.

Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura

@ Renall
Ive been thinking this for a long time, but I really have to ask, why do you even continue to keep an interest on Umineko? You only seem to despise it now yet you remain one of the most active posters, so I really have to ask.

Because I'm an evil witch.

Originally Posted by Wanderer

I think he's just really tsun for it.

That's an acceptable alternative theory.

[Kani]

Originally Posted by Cao Ni Ma

In my opinion the gold truth is a truth you create to make someone happy, or protect someone, or to hide a painful truth. I think it fits in just about every case.

Hmm interesting theory. Let's match it with what Will says:

Second game, first twilight. Six with their stomaches split in the closed room chapel.
Illusions to illusions. The gold truth locks the lock of illusions.

Would this imply that Rosa had looked inside the chapel, seen the dead people and closed the door again? Then went after the key? Hmm I can't make it fit for this one. Do you have a better theory?

Fourth game, first twilight. A massacring storm sweeps through the dining hall.
Illusions to illusions, tales woven by the gold truth return to illusions.

I don't remember exactly who died here. But I guess the "illusion" is that Kinzo trapped them and made the tests for the grandchildren. How is this a gold truth as you see it?

Fourth game, second twilight. The 2 young ones face their trials and pass away together.
Illusions to illusions, tales woven by the gold truth return to illusions.

Probably connected to the one above somehow.


I'm not at all trying to disprove your theory. I'm actually quite interested in it but can't fit it with these.

[cronnoponno]

Originally Posted by Renall

Erika is really a character who exists to antagonize (and arguably this was one of the other character destructions in Chiru, turning Bern into an outright antagonist for no conceivable reason and giving her an annoying lackey). She's a petty, sniveling, bumbling troll who only succeeds because the framework of the story can be abused to let her win. On her own merits, she is as incompetent as Battler but without his endearing traits and personal nobility.

This was a good read, I was trying to explain why Erika was a serious disappointment in the end for me, and this pretty much sums up what I was thinking.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Kani

Can anyone explain the nature of the gold truth? I remember battler used it to prove Kinzo is dead. And Will used it many times as well. I was thinking in the case Will uses it it might mean the people have been bribed with gold to make up a fake truth. But that doesn't make sense for the case with Battler. Are they 2 different kinds of truth or the same?

I think Golden Truth is about trust in things without certain proof. Sometimes it can lead to answers through common sense (like Kinzo being dead), but sometimes it facilitate malicious deceit, (like Will's reference to the Golden Truth that "locked" the chapel in episode 2- Battler's initial belief that the chapel was locked was founded upon his trust of Rosa and the others).

Although, there are other times where Will doesn't mention "Golden Truth" even when misplaced trust would still be a suitable explanation.

Here's a basic example of how I think Red vs. Gold works:
Gold>Red when: "You can't prove that.", "But I believe it because it's common sense."
Red>Gold when: "You can't prove that.", "But I believe it because it's more fun that way."

And I suppose the reason gamemasters aren't supposed to use Gold too often is because it reveals too much about their true inner beliefs, their true inner heart, the heart of the game itself.

Originally Posted by haguruma

Considering how Beatrice was constructed as a facade (and it was clear she was one) you could easily entertain the thought that the true person behind her had to be the opposite of everything that Beatrice was. This is not necessarily realistic but it is possible to construct.

Agree completely. After all, Beatrice is an illusion; it's basically part of being a witch. Why should her creator being completely different from her be a surprise?

Originally Posted by haguruma

Regarding the justified killing of sinners I was talking about Higurashi (especially the death of Teppei and Rina). In Umineko's case I think there is no such moral confusion...killing IS considered bad, it is rather the question wether it is possible to forget doubts and grudges in favor of being able to live on...
Generally in Umineko murder is considered evil...which is why I find it less morally confused.

I have to disagree with this for quite a number of reasons. Natsuhi murdered her maid and nearly murdered baby Yasu, yet she's portrayed super-duper sympathetically. There's also a fair chance that Eva killed (manslaughtered) somebody due to unwarranted aggression like what she did to Natsuhi in the episode 7 Tea Party, yet in episode 8 she was also portrayed very positively. And we know that at least someone almost certainly committed murder on Rokkenjima prime, yet we're taught the moral that we should love and remember everyone positively and not even learn who actually committed the crime.

Still don't think Yasu's a murderer though.

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by Renall

However, a deliberate killing always makes some kind of internal sense to the person doing it. The default state of interaction with people is generally not to kill them. Thus, some sort of logic always intercedes to make that decision reasonable.

Yet to Yasu it does make sense, she experienced herself to be powerless against what she called fate. Therefore designing a systematic where she leaves all her actions (which can be active, only decided by an intricate system of rules) to chance is not at all illogical in any way.
I can understand why you (especially considering your profession) might find this system too farfetched to suspend your disbelief, but it is thoroughly woven into the context of the story. Her story was never about wanting to murder though...I don't actually believe that.

I would always agree with you that this is not a realistic motive and that it certainly asks for a suspension of disbelief, but most modern detective stories do that. It's something you either like or dislike, yes, but a story does not automatically become objectively bad by abiding by those rules.

I don't see why you would entertain that thought before first considering the similarities. Most people who try to construct a mask that is everything they're not wind up creating one that's way more like them than they realize.

Which did happen and it actually shows whenever Beatrice is cornered by another character. The rants against love towards Shannon, her childish behaviour towards Virgilia, her moe'ish quirks, her sudden desperation at the end of EP4. All those were cracks in the perfect mask that we got to see during most of EP2. This mask became weaker and weaker over time...which basically showed that the initial description of that mask must be the opposite of the person wearing it or there is no reason to hide anything. The stronger the cracks in a mask stand out the liklier it is that what is hidden behind is something completely different.

Erika is really a character who exists to antagonize (and arguably this was one of the other character destructions in Chiru, turning Bern into an outright antagonist for no conceivable reason and giving her an annoying lackey). She's a petty, sniveling, bumbling troll who only succeeds because the framework of the story can be abused to let her win. On her own merits, she is as incompetent as Battler but without his endearing traits and personal nobility.

And she was supposed to be exactly that!!
This is why I attack your statement, because you say that the characterization of Beato and Erika and basically all of Chiru is bad because it did what it decided to do. I for example dislike the characters and the stories of Theodor Fontane, but it is because I dislike the way of writing and the school he is writing in...I can't say that his works are objectively BAD. I merely dislike what the stories try to do.

The point that Ryûkishi was trying to make might have been rather subjective, but not inheretly wrong, it's just a possible way of seeing the detective. Not as a glorified key of justice, but only as a cold instrument of order. She is not necessarily incompetent, she is not designed to do that what Battler set out for.

Beatrice has everything she doesn't. She's confident, unapologetic, and crafty, and she succeeds in spite of giving Battler handicaps (colored text, remember that?).

Beatrice is so different because she has a different goal. Though appearing in the same novel Sauron and Saruman had different objectives, as had Richelieu and de Winter or many other antagonists. They are basically acting in the same rule-set but use it differently and act differently because they are designed to achieve different reactions in the reader.

The "sexual tension" you mentioned is precisely one of the things that electrifies the Battler/Beatrice dynamic.

I never said it was bad or wrong.

Originally Posted by Wanderer

I have to disagree with this for quite a number of reasons. Natsuhi murdered her maid and nearly murdered baby Yasu, yet she's portrayed super-duper sympathetically. There's also a fair chance that Eva killed (manslaughtered) somebody due to unwarranted aggression like what she did to Natsuhi in the episode 7 Tea Party, yet in episode 8 she was also portrayed very positively. And we know that at least someone almost certainly committed murder on Rokkenjima prime, yet we're taught the moral that we should love and remember everyone positively and not even learn who actually committed the crime.

Still don't think Yasu's a murderer though.

Well the difference is that in Umineko they are punished nevertheless even if they did horrible things in their past. Their puishment though is not glorified either. Umineko is a little more about forgiving than forgetting (though it tends to do that as well)...while Higurashi had instances that basically said "we stand by your side no matter what you do".

[AuraTwilight]

Yet to Yasu it does make sense, she experienced herself to be powerless against what she called fate. Therefore designing a systematic where she leaves all her actions (which can be active, only decided by an intricate system of rules) to chance is not at all illogical in any way.

What the hell does this have to do with killing people? Why can't she just set up a game that is 100% harmelss but still leads to deciding which cousins she should marry and which adults should get the gold and all that? At what point does she decide "Man, I totally don't care if Maria gets strangled to death? She's my best friend but fuck it"?

Yasu loved most of the people on the island, and she doesn't even have a grudge against the person who is pretty much 100% responsible for everything that went wrong in her life. You have to explain why she thinks that murder is NECESSARY, or else this doesn't explain anything. Saying that she "set up a roulette" is pure nonsense because she rigs her roulette constantly to the point that it's just nonsense words blathered out to absolve her of personal responsibility of her actions without explaining why she did anything she did do.

[Renall]

No actually it makes no sense that a person "resigned to fate" believes in the affirmative act of killing people. If you are a person who feels extremely powerless and resigned to the belief that whatever happens, happens, you will adopt a passive personality which tends to mean inaction. Setting up a mass murder, even merely activating a bomb, is an extremely affirmative act.

To say on the one hand "fate will decide" and on the other "but if it doesn't, I'll kill everyone I know" simply doesn't make sense to anyone who is remotely sane. When powerless people act out from being pushed to some limit, they usually specifically target the people who make them feel helpless. Last I checked, Maria doesn't make anybody feel helpless, and neither does Jessica or Kumasawa or one of a number of other people. There's no rational purpose to killing any of them, and it seems unlikely that a passion killing would manage to take all of them out. Nevermind that she's supposedly resigned to this Battler/George/Jessica thing, yet would kill all of them for no apparent reason.

Which one is it? "Fate will decide which path I take" or "I'm going to kill all of them regardless?" It can't be both.

Originally Posted by haguruma

And she was supposed to be exactly that!!
This is why I attack your statement, because you say that the characterization of Beato and Erika and basically all of Chiru is bad because it did what it decided to do. I for example dislike the characters and the stories of Theodor Fontane, but it is because I dislike the way of writing and the school he is writing in...I can't say that his works are objectively BAD. I merely dislike what the stories try to do.

The point that Ryûkishi was trying to make might have been rather subjective, but not inheretly wrong, it's just a possible way of seeing the detective. Not as a glorified key of justice, but only as a cold instrument of order. She is not necessarily incompetent, she is not designed to do that what Battler set out for.

You can't excuse bad writing with "well, he tried to do that." He's a bad writer. If he succeeded at being bad, he's competent at being bad.

It's not merely that I don't like it. I have argued that I don't think it was executed well and that it sacrificed the best parts of the work for the purposes of making its point. A good writer can do that and have you coming out of it understanding why certain elements were fundamentally altered. That did not happen here.

[rogerpepitone]

Perhaps what happened on Rokkenjima Prime was:

Yasu believed that having a "solve or die" situation would cause one of the Ushiromiyas to have the sudden insight to solve the puzzle. (IIRC, Episode 1 mentioned how being trapped between Pharaoh's army and the Red Sea caused the Israelites to split the sea.) She might have picked that up from Kinzo. It's ridiculous, but it's the sort of thing I could see hir believing.

If Yasu didn't turn the bomb on, or were willing to turn it off on Oct 5 at 11:50 PM, the pressure would be phony, and the miracle never happen. Perhaps, even at 11:59 PM, she knew that if her faith held, Battler or George or Jessica or Maria would solve it at the last minute...

[AuraTwilight]

Yasu believed that having a "solve or die" situation would cause one of the Ushiromiyas to have the sudden insight to solve the puzzle. (IIRC, Episode 1 mentioned how being trapped between Pharaoh's army and the Red Sea caused the Israelites to split the sea.) She might have picked that up from Kinzo. It's ridiculous, but it's the sort of thing I could see hir believing.

Kinzo and Yasu are also both con artists. She could tell people they were in danger and convince them of that fact WITHOUT ACTUALLY PUTTING THEM IN DANGER.

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

What the hell does this have to do with killing people? Why can't she just set up a game that is 100% harmelss but still leads to deciding which cousins she should marry and which adults should get the gold and all that?

Well, basically that is what I believe happened in the beginning. I agree that a big problem is that she probably never intended to murder, but that was never fully disclosed in the narrative.
The only thing which leads me to believe that a certain readiness was present in Yasu is the existence of the Winchesters...was what I wanted to post and then another idea hit me. Actually it's possible to insert "Yasu takes the blame" into EP3 quite well, that was done already, but it's possible to do it with EP4 just as well.

All the parents agreed they met Kinzô in the dining room, who had been called down by Krauss. We could assume that it was Yasu who made his/her appearance here...but what if the parents just actually teamed up on them and it became a shoot-out between the parents. The result was not that Yasu captured the parents but the other way around, the culprit captured Yasu.
The only calls made by "Beatrice" were made after everybody had already been killed. The only thing she actually set into motion was calling Maria...maybe to give her a mercyful death similar to EP3 and Battler whom she wanted to meet from the very beginning...and realizing he didn't remember her at all she just gave up and sent it all to hell.
If this scenario was actually close to what Tôya revived from Battler's memory then we could assume that all Battler "knows" is based on phonecalls from different family members and when he finally left the guesthouse everybody was already dead and the only one he met was Beatrice. Considering how harsh his response would be to her if she actually just witnessed someone from his family murder everyone...a response like "I just don't want this anymore" would be understandable.

Originally Posted by Renall

No actually it makes no sense that a person "resigned to fate" believes in the affirmative act of killing people. If you are a person who feels extremely powerless and resigned to the belief that whatever happens, happens, you will adopt a passive personality which tends to mean inaction. Setting up a mass murder, even merely activating a bomb, is an extremely affirmative act.

You really think that people are this easy to categorize? A person who believes in fate to a certain extent is always passive? I wouldn't agree.
If "the roulette" falls into the right slot, it could just as well be a slot of "taking action"...it just wouldn't be an action that she decided upon it just randomly fell into her lap.
I had several such events in my life both myself and watching other people. Of course you could say that somebody with an unhealthy believe in control by fate might be a passive person...but believing in fate does not actively disable you to act. For example the members of several cults and sects believe in everything being decided by a higher power, waiting for a certain sign...but ultimately once that sign appears they spring into action.

Mind you, I don't think Yasu is a murderer.

You can't excuse bad writing with "well, he tried to do that." He's a bad writer. If he succeeded at being bad, he's competent at being bad.

It's not merely that I don't like it. I have argued that I don't think it was executed well and that it sacrificed the best parts of the work for the purposes of making its point. A good writer can do that and have you coming out of it understanding why certain elements were fundamentally altered. That did not happen here.

But you basically prescribe that you know what good writing is and Umineko isn't, just because you dislike what he was doing. I for example am one of those readers who "understands why certain elements were fundamentally altered. So why is your understanding of the series worth more than mine?!

[J the Drafter]

You know, perhaps Yasu committed murder ( if she did) because the people who were playing dead didn't want to play along anymore. Yasu killed in order to maintain her control over the situation. In any event, I can see Yasu killing the parents and Gohda for real just to set up her challenge, but Nanjo and Genji are stretching it, and Yasu should flat-out not be willing to kill Kumasawa or the cousins. (Kanon mentions that his positive and negative feelings towards Genji mixed and canceled out to a neutral feeling about the man, but Kumasawa should be someone Yasu feels close to. The characterization of Virgillia as being like Beato's mother makes me feel strongly about that.)

[Renall]

Originally Posted by haguruma

But you basically prescribe that you know what good writing is and Umineko isn't, just because you dislike what he was doing. I for example am one of those readers who "understands why certain elements were fundamentally altered. So why is your understanding of the series worth more than mine?!

See, this is precisely the problem with the state of things right now. If you believe everything's a matter of opinion, then I suppose you're right. If, on the other hand, there are academic or literary standards, then there are measurements that can be used.

As a person who advances considerable knowledge of e.g. genre conventions, I would think you'd understand that.

[rogerpepitone]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Kinzo and Yasu are also both con artists. She could tell people they were in danger and convince them of that fact WITHOUT ACTUALLY PUTTING THEM IN DANGER.

No. Yasu really believed that actually being in danger was key. Whether or not they believed they were in danger was irrelevant.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by rogerpepitone

If Yasu didn't turn the bomb on, or were willing to turn it off on Oct 5 at 11:50 PM, the pressure would be phony, and the miracle never happen. Perhaps, even at 11:59 PM, she knew that if her faith held, Battler or George or Jessica or Maria would solve it at the last minute...

So essentially you're writing it off as "she's delusional."

I just don't buy that, and I seriously don't buy that Kinzo would do it either (and Kinzo, supposedly, did it multiple times!).

[Kealym]

Bah - leave for just a little while, and the forum's moved ahead several wordy pages.

I'm probably gonna bow out of the "Yasu is a crazy bitch" discussion, because I doubt I can be dissuaded that she was possibly a real murderer. I can see her as innocent, but I can't see that as the only possible conclusion. Even taking into account that the idea of "maybe we'll all die by the roulette" is a little outta left field, it makes no LESS SENSE to me than "maybe we'll play a serious business murder theatre. For fun. And I'll pass the headship and choose a waifu."

And yes, the unfortunate result of that is that it seems like Ryukishi is kinda handwaving the moral implications of killing 17 people, and to be honest, that's rather what it feels like thinking about it, sometimes. It also feels possible that people may be overestimating the degree to which Ryukishi's judgement of that action is a morally good one.

I mean, I'm not saying "Yasu is toooootally the killer", I'm saying it seems odd to completely remove the possibility. Hell, Even in AT's rather lovely George-culprit killed by Kyrolf killed by Evay, it still starts with George-culprit, and it's like saying What? George wouldn't kill people. Leave the family for his maid wife, tease a cousin, sure. But shoot someone? Kill someone? NEVER."

I feel like I could be expressing this better, but I can't. >_<

[Renall]

If your point is that it doesn't seem like it has to be any one particular candidate for culprit... well, you're right, basically. But I think that as much applies to the person who seems to be claiming responsibility as to anyone else. What exactly that means for things... well, I guess it depends on how important assigning blame is. In the case of over a dozen people apparently killed, I'd think pretty important. But some people apparently don't think so.

[Used Can]

Originally Posted by Renall

I just don't buy that, and I seriously don't buy that Kinzo would do it either (and Kinzo, supposedly, did it multiple times!).

Are you putting things past grandfather!?

[AuraTwilight]

You know, perhaps Yasu committed murder ( if she did) because the people who were playing dead didn't want to play along anymore. Yasu killed in order to maintain her control over the situation. In any event, I can see Yasu killing the parents and Gohda for real just to set up her challenge, but Nanjo and Genji are stretching it, and Yasu should flat-out not be willing to kill Kumasawa or the cousins. (Kanon mentions that his positive and negative feelings towards Genji mixed and canceled out to a neutral feeling about the man, but Kumasawa should be someone Yasu feels close to. The characterization of Virgillia as being like Beato's mother makes me feel strongly about that.)

Why would they do that? They're doing a harmless dinner party game and in exchange they get countless amounts of wealth. You're excusing one action of Senseless Behavior by positing a DOZEN counts of Senseless Behavior.

No. Yasu really believed that actually being in danger was key. Whether or not they believed they were in danger was irrelevant.

No, it's not. If she's trying to put pressure on them in order to make them experience a miracle, they have to know or believe they are in danger. Putting them in danger without telling them won't cause any sort of inspiration on their parts, and so long as they think they are in danger, it shouldn't matter if the danger is real or not.

And Yasu tricking everyone into thinking they're in danger is perfectly consistent with her past behavior; bitch has been trying to convince everyone there's a dangerous witch haunting the island for YEARS.

What? George wouldn't kill people. Leave the family for his maid wife, tease a cousin, sure. But shoot someone? Kill someone? NEVER."

George has gone on record as saying he is willing to kill everyone else to make Shannon his and make the entire world his enemy and he would kill a child.

[J the Drafter]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Why would they do that? They're doing a harmless dinner party game and in exchange they get countless amounts of wealth. You're excusing one action of Senseless Behavior by positing a DOZEN counts of Senseless Behavior.

It's implied in the games that there's some fight over the gold. You do have a point, though. It doesn't make much sense to fight Yasu when they can get what they want by playing along. However, the cash card is the only piece of wealth Yasu can offer that is of practical use. Maybe there was a fight over that card (there must have been, if multiple siblings knew about it), though I don't know how that leads to Genjasawo being killed in the first game. (Maybe they knew too much?)