Since the Chiru Teaparty is underway, I feel its a good time to discuss this. I have a definition of Golden Truth that fulfills all of its requirements, but since I like being cryptic I’ll only give a clue for my theory.

Here is the refresher for the requirements of the golden truth:
Lambdadelta: …Yes. …Golden truth, effective. The gold truth…can only be used by the territory lord of this world…no. …only by the Game Master himself!!
Dlanor: …Gold TRUTH. A divine truth woven in a different fashion then the red TRUTH. …Its strength is on par with the red TRUTH. …It may sometimes be INFERIOR. But it is sometimes SUPERIOR!!
Ryuukishi: That’s right. The gold text is something that anyone can use if they understand the rules of the game, so ultimately, even ‘pieces’ in the game can use it. That’s probably why Beatrice the Elder could use it too. It’s like a hidden finishing move in a fighting game that anyone can use if they know the right commands (laughs).

Here are the examples from the story (as translated):
EP5: I guarantee that this corpse is Ushiromiya Kinzo’s corpse…!!
EP6: You used magic to create a golden flower petal inside an overturned cup. It was a splendid bit of magic.
EP8: This is the final game that I am bestowing upon Ange…
They exist. They are all protecting me.
This was the most beautiful magic!

Here is the clue to my theory:
Gold TRUTH can always be spoken in Red, but Red TRUTH cannot always be spoken in Gold

I’d challenge that and I’d challenge it hard. Red Truth at its core only works under the assumption that there is a reasonable explanation to any mystery, with the only loophole that it uses the meaning of words its user connects with them. That’s why in the gamboards Beatrice’s red truths always work under the premise that she (or rather Yasu) is the culprit and can decide to ‘kill’ her own creations Shannon and Kanon at will.

Gold Truth however works with the premise that the user knows exactly the rules of the story and therefore the rules of magic itself. You do see that aside the Kinzo confirmation, all Golden Truths were used to state that certain actions are magic. That works because the user knows how the trick worked but due to understanding the heart of the story, knows that this is exactly the magic Yasu worked with. This is however in vast contrast to the aforementioned mystery-leaning of the Red Truth. Because of that, I am fairly sure you could say “Beatrice is the culprit” in Red, but certainly not “She killed them with magic”. You could, however, make the latter claim with the Gold Truth.

I’d rather say it’s the other way around: You can back up every Red Truth with the Gold, but since you can confirm the existance of magic with the Gold, you cannot repeat all its possible claims with the Red.


The topic title spoils the existence of the Gold Truth; this needs reworking

Its kinda hard to have a topic which you can’t refer to the topic

Perhaps there should be a series spoilers subforum?

Certainly you can give your interpretation of the red truth, however as long as my definition of the red truth does not contradict what is established in the story then my use of the red truth cannot be dismissed.

Established rules of the red truth:
EP2: Beatrice “So from now on, when I speak the truth, I will use red.
EP2: Beatrice “Stop!! I will supplement the rule… When I speak the truth, I will use red. When I do, I do not bear responsibility of establishing that by showing proof! It is simply a fact and the truth!!”
EP4 Battler “…But can I do it the red truth too? How…?”
Lambdadelta “…I,If you wish for it to be that way, you can do it. It’s easy”

My interpretation on the usage of the red truth is quite simple:
EP3: The red truth is simply truth, and there is no need to provide evidence, proof, or room for a counter-argument!!

Hence as long as my intepretation of red truth does not violate this, you cannot counter my theory using the argument that my clue for gold truth violates your interpretation of red truth.

How then would you avoid an instant loss for one side or the other (the stalemate that the Witch side speaks of many times) if the latter claim could be made with gold?

You do realize that the Red Truth was established to play a game, do you?
I’m not denying that the Red Truth is simply truth, but you have to look at how it is used to point at a human culprit who is Beatrice, but not a witch who actually used magic. If Beatrice would have confirmed her fantasy scenes with Red Truth, the game wouldn’t be winnable for Battler and yet we got repeated assurances that Battler can win. You claim that all Gold Truths can be spoken in Red, even though you yourself quoted a ton of Gold Truths that confirm magic as such. All I am saying is that you cannot possibly repeat those in Red because magic obviously needs to rely on a trick.

Uh… because the Gold Truth was never meant to be used for playing abovementioned game. I think Virgilia or Ronove said so right after Battler first used it: It can be stronger than Red Truth or weaker depending on the situation. These situations are rather simple: If you use your knowledge of the nature of the story to hand out assurances like that Kinzo is dead in every game, then it can override theories built around Red Truths that invoke Devil’s Proof (like Erika’s claim that she cannot be certain that Kinzo is dead). But if you use the Gold Truth to confirm the existance of Yasu’s magic, then this cannot be considered part of a game that the human side is able to win. So while within the story the Gold Truth may have been used to say that this or that is magic, someone could easily use the Red Truth to say how the trick really worked. What you then regard as truth depends on your perspective towards the heart of the story, I guess.

Then again, when you just cryptically say that you are right and refuse to say what your interpretation of the Gold Truth is, then I cannot possibly convince you otherwise, there you are right…

1 Like

I’ll add my second clue as a supplement, the same phrase spoken in gold can result in different conclusions then when spoken in red

This is a good counterargument where you are correct. Speaking in gold doesn’t result in a stalemate (as seen in the novel, although those statements weren’t used as logic arguements), but speaking in red does (as stated by the witches side) due to the above supplement. However it could still be spoken in red because it doesn’t violate the definition of red, although the game would end (Whether its an indefinite tie or one side immediately loses depends on your interpretation of this :wink:)

Except that Battler uses it to beat Erika in the game when it’s first introduced :wink:. Hence gold truth can be used in playing the game

Hey now, I’m trying to counter your main points here without refusal so have some faith that I’m not cheating with my hand.

Seeing as you also have a definition of the gold truth, I will also launch a counter attack. If all red truths can also be spoken in gold, how is the gold truth sometimes stronger and sometimes weaker? I’ve countered your argument that the gold truth isn’t meant to be played as it already has been done by Battler, so you’ll need another point.

Okay… I actually didn’t want to continue this argument, especially when all I can do is repeat the things I’ve already said, but it seems that I need to do some clarifications.

Conclusions are always dependant on the interpretation of those who listen to any statement. Saying that the colour influences it is rather pointless when it all comes down to matters of bias and perspective.

I really do think that you are just over-interpreting things here and try to push some kind of complex rule system onto what is essentially just a tool to express your understanding of things.
Also: There is no interpretation necessary. It is outright stated that Battler can win, that the Red Truth points at a human culprit and that all magic needs to rely on a trick. You cannot simply say ‘she killed them with magic’ in red. This is not about generating a tie, this is about breaking the premise of the game, about breaking the trust between Witch and Human side. That’s why I believe your ‘definition’, whatever it is, to be flawed when it leads you to the conclusion that you can confirm magic in Red, because that goes against the point of the story.

Battler just essentially bludgeoned Erika with the rule-book. That’s when the gold truth is at its strongest, when you use it to affirm basic premises of the game. Nothing more, nothing less.

And I’m not trying to make this a competition at all, I’m just certain that whatever your definition may be, you work under some wrong assumption and want to help you correct it.

You haven’t countered anything at all. Because I already did say when it can be considered stronger or weaker than the red and that has little to do with playing the game and more with whether you use it to explain the rules of the game or the magic of Yasu.

But I’ll clarify regardless: When you claim in Gold that a certain action was magic, then (like I said before) Red Truth can only be used to explain how it really happened. Because the Red has to rely on basic truth and Umineko the way it is written only ever presents mysteries that can have a rational explanation. You cannot claim magic exists in Red, you may be able to wriggle around with some metaphorically true applications of words, but in the end the Red only points at the mystery side, not the fantasy one. You can, however, decide to back up the Red by just defining in Gold that there has to be a trick, that should be always possible because the Gold user can look into every hand.
In the end, when you have two conflicting truths of “This is magic” in Gold and “This is a trick” in Red, it very much comes down to the duality of Ange’s choice in Episode 8. You decide what makes the most sense in regards to your understanding of the heart of Umineko.

Well, you see this is why the debate doesn’t work. Your starting assumption is that whatever my theory maybe, it is wrong, therefore you add definitions to my viewpoint to supplement that premise, rather then test for apparent weaknesses by logical arguments. Regardless, if this does not interest you, then I don’t see any reason to continue either as the exercise would lose its meaning.

This partially overlaps with my theory, except that your definition of the Red Truth wouldn’t work with my Gold truth. The premise, “Red truth has to rely on basic truth” and “Red only points at the mystery side”, is a little more restrictive compared to my view of the red.
If the witch side were to claim “This was done by magic” in red, then a player like Erika would just counter by saying that magic is just a trick and the witch side would be out of moves because the game is meant to be fair. However should a fair game not guarantee both sides a chance at victory and not just one?

Mmh… if you are saying that the witches’ side cannot deny in red that magic is a trick, then we are essentially in agreement here and just arguing about semantics. I still find it hard to believe though that you could claim that magic exists in red. It just goes against everything established about its purpose.

May I remind you that this game by definition isn’t fair! I am bad with quoting stuff, but I am fairly certain that at some point Virgilia states that Beatrice cannot possibly win. All the witch side can hope for is that the human side gives up thinking, which makes the game end in a draw and continues the perpetual purgatory. There is no equal chance of winning. Either the human figures out the trick and wins or not. After all, it is impossible for the witch to prove that magic exists when the narrative is built around the premise that it doesn’t.

Fundamentally I believe we have a somewhat similar definition of the gold truth, however because we have different viewpoints on other premises (red truth for one) our conclusions differ.

In the case of the red truth, I’m just pointing out from my interpretation you could make a statement about magic, however the game would end immediately so that wouldn’t be a useful move (This interpretation also leads to a viewpoint about Beatrice allegedly wanting to lose in EP4 vs what Lambda said in the ???).

Virgilia, Erika and Bernkastel say things of similar effect at different points. However, they didn’t guarantee what they said was anything more then their opinion or viewpoint. That is to say, there is a possibility for the game to be fair because it has not been explicitly denied (an ephemeral point, but valid none the less).

But we are the readers and we do know that the story adheres to the Knox Decalogue and Knox #2 explicitly says that there are no supernatural solutions. Case in point, Dlanor couldn’t fight on anyone’s behalf at all if that weren’t true. We even know how the stories were crafted, that they have a completely ordinary mystery core and that the whole fantasy shenanigans are just constructed around that. So while characters within the story may have their doubts about certain premises (even though the fun in Erika’s character derives from her not having those^^), we certainly are in a position to judge it with a bird’s eye view. And mine is telling me that a game in which you can either find the truth or not cannot suddenly end with a clear victory for the witch.

Heck, remember Episode 2? Beatrice won! Flawlessly! Battler accepted her and it was game over… and then it just continued in Episode 3 as if it wasn’t of any consequence whatsoever. Sure, the writer change may be responsible in large part, but it still makes it blatantly clear that even when Battler acknowledges Beatrice and accepts that magic exists, it doesn’t change shit. He still has to go on and fight, because that’s his purpose.

But that has derailed the discussion, hasn’t it? This whole thing started because you said that every Gold Truth could be repeated in Red. I disagreed, apparently not because my definition of the Gold is different, but because I thought it natural that the Gold, being used to describe premises of the gameboard and personal truths, naturally has a much broader range of application than the Red, which is just a tool to give definitive truths. Especially these personal truths will cause a conflict, a conflict that is easily resolved by inversing the set theory you were proposing.

On this point, my definition does not suggest that Gold is used to describe personal truths (except in the case where this is included in describing something else). Specifically, my gold truth has a narrower range of usage compared to red truth.
This is derived from the simpler concept of red truth as “a truth that is fulfilled as long as the literal wording could apply”, which would make red truth by nature ambiguous. Gold truth in my definition is narrow and specific because it follows “spirit of the law and not the word of the law” and hence there is less ambiguity.