#v3 spoilers | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

venus-is-thinking · 8 months

Text

A Narrative Defense of Eden Culprit Theory

Hello everyone!

As I’m sure many of you know, I, among others (notably @accirax, @1moreff-creator and @thebadjoe) believe Eden to be the culprit of the Chapter 2 murder case. I’ve seen a fair number of people say they aren’t convinced for one reason or another. While I fully understand people who don’t buy all the evidence/the insane contraptions we’ve come up with or people who are in denial, I was a little surprised at how many people I saw say that it would be bad writing for Eden to be the killer here.

While others are fully entitled to their opinions on who the killer is, I want to address this claim. Personally, whenever I’m reading a fangan, I always believe that I shouldn’t consider any killer to be “bad writing” until I see how it’s actually written. After all, there can always be a key twist you’re not expecting to make it actually make sense. Plus, in Eden’s case, I actually fully believe that all the building blocks of a narratively successful killer are already put into place. So, in this post, I’m going to attempt to back up my claim that Eden being the second killer actually makes narrative sense, and it isn’t bad writing either.

Because fangan writing is subjective and what any given author believes is the right move varies, I’ll be doing my best to support my claims with similar content from the canon game trilogy (given that that’s a pretty standard baseline) and from what we’ve already seen of DRDT thus far. That should (hopefully) give us some fair perspective into the sorts of narrative decisions the creator would want to make.

I’ll be going through various points at which I think something could or could not be bad writing, so hopefully that’ll provide some much needed structure to this theory.

Topic 1: Motive

I want to say this early: I do not think Eden is secretly evil. I think that in the context of killing games, “good” people can end up being killers, and I think that’s where Eden’s headed. I understand why, if some people have only seen Eden killer theories in the context of her being evil, they don’t like it. I don't like it either. I think it completely misinterprets her character.

For now, though, I want to talk about what motive she does have. There’s the fact that Arturo is threatening her, obviously. If she feels there’s a genuine threat to her safety, it would be decently reasonable to decide that, if her priority is her life, she’d rather try to get away with a murder than let herself be taken out by Arturo.

There’s another potential motive out there for Eden that might be enough to push her over the edge. That being, we know she cares a lot about her friends and relationships outside of the killing game too.

A lot of people, I think, have seen the theory floating around that goes “Eden is trying to leave to get back to the girl she kissed.” I’ve also seen it mentioned that this could be problematic, given that it could be saying “being gay = becoming a killer,” but I think there are several reasons why that doesn’t hold up.

First of all, we have a lot of canonically LGBT cast members. Nico is nonbinary, Whit is bisexual, and in the most recent Q&A, other characters such as Ace, Veronika and Eden herself were also all confirmed to be LGBT+. Given that Eden isn’t the “token gay character,” I think it’s a lot safer to make her a killer without sending the message “if you’re gay you’re a killer.”

Secondly, I think that there’s more to Eden’s motive than just whoever that girl is. I think the girl will likely be part of it and be relevant, given that it’s Eden’s motive secret. Because it’s the Chapter 2 motive, the motive secrets should play into things in general. But, it’s not like that girl is the only one from Eden’s past that she cares about, right?

Eden cares about her family, as we see in the scene where she talks to Levi. We know that Eden cares about her friends, as we clearly see within the killing game. We know that Eden cares about this girl. I think it’s safe to say that, for gay reasons or not, Eden has a lot of people she’d fight to get back to.

Rather than using her motive secret as the only way of justifying the “Eden wants to return to her previous life” motive, why don’t we look at other secret Eden content?

I’m talking about the secret quotes. I assume most people have heard about them by now, but basically, if you go to the characters’ profile pages on the main tumblr account and inspect elements, each character has a secret quote that you can find. Eden’s secret quote is “You can’t go back, no matter how hard you try.”

We haven’t really seen much of Eden trying to go back yet. I guess you could say that when she makes breakfast with Levi, she talks a lot about trying to get the group back together and back to normal, and that isn’t unrelated. Still, I think it makes a lot of sense if Eden is someone who’s focused on the past. After all, Eden’s talent is clockmaking. To the extent her talent influenced her personality/character themes, it seems like time is an important thing with her. Trying to turn back the clock and return to her life before the killing game would make a lot of sense thematically.

I suspect that Eden’s secret quote relates to the fact that she tries to go back to her previous life by escaping the killing game. “No matter how hard you try” definitely sounds like she goes to pretty extreme lengths, but she still fails in the end. That would be when she’s caught as the blackened and executed; she never gets to go back. It’s precedented for secret quotes to directly relate to how characters died; both Min’s “I wanted to save you” and Arei’s “Because that’s what friends do” tie into the way in which they arrived at their death. I could definitely see it being the same for Eden.

Interestingly, there’s another reason to consider that Eden might be extra-motivated to leave the killing game. That point is that Eden has been shown to be the main person fighting against the killing game. For example, she and Hu brainstormed ways to deal with the Chapter 2 motive.

That doesn’t really tell us anything though, right? It’s just trying to manage the killing game from within. That’s not it, though. It’s actually a repeated thing that Eden is constantly looking for ways to obstruct the killing game.

Even the plan to bore out the killing game, the one Veronika tells us couldn’t work because she’d get too horribly bored, originally came from Eden. I fully believe that there’s a reason we’re being told every other scene that Eden is working towards ending the killing game is that Eden has extra incentive to want the killing game to end, and that’s to try to return to the life and loved ones she left behind.

I also think it’s worth mentioning that, in the canon games, every single second killer commits their crime due to previous attachments that go beyond the killing game. Mondo kills because of the promise he made to his now-dead brother Daiya, Peko kills because of her allegiance to Fuyuhiko, who wants Mahiru dead due to the death of his sister Natsumi, and Kirumi kills because she’s actually the Prime Minister and needs to get back to her duties. Hell, Ryoma is even Kirumi’s victim because he doesn’t have previous outside attachments, which makes him feel like a more understandable victim for her crime. If you throw in “Eden has a lot of meaningful relationships back home and, here in the killing game, she misses them so badly that she’d kill to go back,” I don’t think it feels out of place.

This is pretty niche, but there’s also something I want to look at in relation to Xander and Min. Notably, the pinned comments by the official account in their bonus episodes.

Xander’s is “Someone who wants to hold onto the past.” Min’s is “Someone who wants to move on from the past.” While this trend doesn’t have to keep up, I think it would be interesting if every killer/victim pair had one of each. Arei pretty clearly wants to move on from the past where her sisters and classmates ruthlessly bullied her. Eden wants to hold onto it, hoping to return, but she can’t go back, no matter how hard she tries. Just an interesting thing to point out.

But Eden’s motive isn’t the only thing stopping people from believing she’d be a reasonable killer, right? There are other things to consider, too.

Topic 2: Story Arc

To be clear here, “Story Arc” refers to how Eden fits into the larger narrative and story of DRDT. I’ll be talking about her individual story and growth later on in the section labeled “Character Arc.”

For the most part, the larger narrative, at present, seems to be relating to Teruko and how she navigates her trust and relationships with everyone else. Eden is certainly a key factor in that, given that Teruko has basically acknowledged that outright.

Teruko actively tries to avoid being friends with Eden, given the fact that she’s very nice and it’d be easy for Teruko to be friends with her. To Teruko, that means she’d be opening up the door to get hurt to easily when Eden inevitably dies and/or betrays her. Wouldn’t it only be proving Teruko right if Eden were to become a killer?

Yeah. It would. And that’s the point at the story we’re at.

I don’t think it would make any sense for Teruko’s beliefs to be strongly challenged in Chapter 2. Like, at some point, I’m sure Teruko will figure out why it’s a problem to not trust anyone. After all, her secret quote is “It is an equal failing to trust everybody, and to trust no one at all.” However, at this point in the story, things are going as she expects.

Think about it this way. Teruko believes that trusting people is opening yourself up for betrayal, and those who she gets close to will betray her and die. Let’s go through the people who have died so far, one by one, and see how they match up against that.

Xander: Was Teruko’s closest friend. Betrayed her by trying to kill her, then died. Check. Min: Was Teruko’s biggest supporter after she got stabbed. Betrayed her by actually being the killer, then died. Check. Arei: Previously shared Teruko’s worldview that being nice will just screw you over. Opened up and became friends. Had that friendship used against her to kill her. Check.

It definitely seems like, thus far, we’re validating Teruko’s worldview, basically as much as possible. No killer would validate her worldview more than Eden. That would make Arei an even closer parallel to Teruko (the person who she most tried to befriend was the one who tried to kill her in the end), and it would introduce another would-be friend as a killer.

Eden: Was Teruko’s biggest supporter after the first class trial. Betrayed her by being the second killer, then died.

It looks an awful lot like Min’s, right?

In a more predictive sense, there’s also the popular theory that Charles will be one of the Chapter 3 victims. If that holds true, it’ll be another example in the same wavelength.

Charles: Was more like Teruko and didn’t trust people, avoiding them to stay safe. After rejoining the group and beginning to trust people, he died.

If that prediction is right, it’d mean that the trend continues past the point of the second victim to the point of a third victim, which would mean that the second killer would likely fit into the pattern.

But that’s a whole lot of my opinion, right? After all, maybe Levi or someone who isn’t particularly related to Teruko is the killer, so Teruko stays mostly the same, too.

I do want to take a moment to acknowledge a bigger critique of this. It’s possible that some people might say that Eden killing here would be too repetitive in regards to Min and Xander. There are some key differences, though.

Eden was Teruko’s friend after she started being mean and closed off to everyone. Min and Xander never really got the chance to react too much to Teruko’s antagonistic antics because they died before she was really pushing people away. That means it would carry more significance. Teruko has also spent more time with Eden, so their relationship is a little bit more developed. Eden is also someone that Teruko actively tried not to get close to before she killed, which wasn’t true of Xander or Min.

Plus, I’d argue that it’s also supposed to feel a bit repetitive. This is what happens to Teruko, all the time. This is her life. It makes it feel more real and understandable how she reacts to Xander and Min if we as the audience begin to see and understand, oh, it really is like this every single time.

Besides all of that, though, there are a few more thoughts that lead me to believe that someone closer to Teruko might be the killer this time around.

One of the biggest points in favor of this interpretation is the MonoCredits.

MonoCredits are introduced in the scene where MonoTV asks Teruko to caulk the bathrooms. Then, she immediately uses one in the next scene where Charles is confronting her about her more antagonistic ways. At first glance, it seems like MonoCredits may have been introduced solely for that Charles interaction, and as a reason to plausibly get Teruko to help MonoTV out so that she could talk to it, too. However…

MonoTV gave Teruko two MonoCredits. That means she still has one. I wouldn’t blame you at all if you forgot this small detail– and that’s part of why I think the killer will be closer to Teruko.

MonoCredits, and the fact that Teruko received two instead of one, are a pretty unimportant detail. I wouldn’t expect the creator to necessarily expect the audience to remember that Teruko still has one once we get to, like, the Chapter 4 daily life. I think that, because of that, Teruko will probably end up using this second one sometime soon, so that the audience will have that “oh yeah!” moment when it comes up, rather than an “oh… I kind of remember that…?” moment.

There’s a very specific scenario in which I think Teruko might use it, too.

It’s pretty specific, but it’s already happened once, right? I think the most plausible situation for Teruko to use the second MonoCredit, if I’m right about it being this chapter, would be if she ends up in a similar situation before the execution again.

I can totally imagine Eden hugging Teruko and apologizing for betraying her trust, and Teruko, in the middle of freaking out, tells MonoTV she’s using a MonoCredit to get Eden away from her, which would then immediately launch into Eden being executed.

I think that could also be the right kind of push on Teruko’s character arc; her desire to get away from Eden led to Eden dying that much faster. It’d be something that could haunt Teruko a little bit and make her start thinking about how she pushes people away and what the potential failings of that are.

The final reason I have is just, like… overall despair. Chapter 2 is usually a pretty emotionally devastating case for the cast. Taka loses Mondo and Chihiro meets a pretty tragic end; Peko dying launches Fuyuhiko into his grief → survivor arc while Hiyoko mourns Mahiru; Kirumi leaves the group feeling guilty about killing the Prime Minister, plus Ryoma’s death as a result of him loving no one and no one loving him is pretty sad. Chapter 2 is typically a chapter in the canon Danganronpa games where things get worse, not better.

Then, Chapter 3 is used as a processing point where characters that aren’t in it for the long run are usually killed off, and Chapter 4 prompts the characters to start really moving towards the finale (Sakura’s death spurs people to want to fight and makes Byakuya realize why emotions are important, Gundham’s sacrifice sets the tone for Nagito’s insane Chapter 5 play and Gonta’s mercy kill in Chapter 4 directly leads into all the Kokichi “I’m the mastermind” stuff that happens in Chapter 5).

I suspect DRDT will follow a roughly similar pattern. Because of that, it would make sense if the creator wants to pick a very emotionally devastating second killer, frequently due to the relationships that character has with the cast. Eden is the perfect pick for this position.

Eden has also gotten A LOT of focus this chapter. Getting focus doesn’t necessarily mean you’re going to die right then. After all, Charles, for instance, got a lot of focus in Chapter 1, but he’s still alive. It’s difficult to tell when a character is getting content that impacts their character moving forward and when a character is getting focus because their story is about to end.

In DRDT’s case specifically, though, the creator seems to heavily emphasize a character shortly before they die. Excluding Teruko, Xander was the most visible character in the Chapter 1 daily life. They focused on Min heavily during the Chapter 1 investigation to make sure that she got enough content in before her death. Between her fight with MonoTV, her heartfelt conversation with David, and the conversations she had post-death confronting David about his secret and defending Eden from Arturo, Arei got a lot of focus just before dying, too.

Eden is one of the most heavily featured characters, and to me, it feels more like one being set up for immediate payoff rather than long-term.

For example, David’s personality has shifted in a way that’s very interesting. People will want to see how his relationships with other characters are impacted and get to know the “real him” more before any potential death. Because of that, it makes sense that David’s heel turn is being set up for later, rather than being focus on him before he dies in Chapter 2.

Eden, on the other hand, has shown us pretty much everything she can with this perspective. If she’s already spent two chapters being nice, happy and supportive, where does she go from there that’s narratively interesting and different? The only answer I can really come up with is “becoming less nice, happy, and/or supportive.” If that’s where her character is heading anyways, then doesn’t it make sense that being a killer could be a succinct way to do it? We already have enough people running around who don’t trust people, and it would feel odd to add Eden to that contingent.

There’s one more story reason that Eden being the killer would make sense here. Check out the Chapter 2 title screen.

It’s pretty faint, but if you look after the “Glitters,” you can see faint text. It’s easier to see if you crank up the exposure.

You can tell what it is if you squint hard enough. Here’s me tracing it:

“A Good Person.”

The original chapter title is “All That Glitters,” which is pretty clearly a play on the saying “All that glitters is not gold” (RIP to anyone who just heard “all that glitters is gold in All Star by Smashmouth and didn’t question it. I was with you there). That seemingly applies a lot to this chapter, with appearances of success not being what they seem. It relates to the fact that J’s celebrity wasn’t all it was cracked up to be, and David’s persona was too good to be true.

The good person interpretation is interesting, too. If you input “A Good Person” into “All That Glitters,” you get “A good person is not gold.” Now, there’ve been a lot of characters who’ve claimed to be or mentioned wanting to be good people over the course of this chapter. However, I think the person most at the center of that is Eden, who’s been called a good or kind person by a lot of people– at the very least, I know Teruko, Arei and Levi do this.

Eden being the killer would be another way to show that people can’t be infallibly good. Again, I don’t think Eden’s gonna pull a 180 and suddenly become evil, I just think she’ll show a little more nuance. Her being suddenly evil does about the same thing for me as her being undeniably good; it reduces her character down to one trait rather than making her a full human. I don’t want her to be a pure cinnamon roll, I want her to be herself.

Given this chapter title, I honestly think it’d be weirder if Eden didn’t do something notably Not Good this chapter. There could be other options, too, but Eden being the killer seems by far the most likely to me.

Topic 3: Relationships

I want to talk about Eden’s relationships to others in the cast. I’ve already mentioned Teruko a good bit, so I’m not really going to keep going over that. There are two others that I want to touch on.

One, Eden and Hu are known to be friends. They wash dishes together every night, and they generally seem to rely on each other for companionship and mutual help with steering the group in a more positive direction. Hu is someone who hasn’t gotten that much character arc focus, so I think she’ll probably be a bit more of a spotlighted character in the next daily life. Hu has already lost a friend and trusted co-leader in David, but I think it’d be even more interesting for her if she loses both of those people at once. With David in full-on evil theater kid mode and Eden dead as the killer, Hu will be forced to grapple with the fact that both of the people she trusted to help her guide the group not only aren’t helping her anymore, but did so in a way that betrayed her and her trust.

That’s very speculative, though. The main relationship I’m here to analyze is with Arei, the victim of the case in question.

Arei and Eden have a very complicated relationship. At first, they were pretty neutral. Then, after the cake scene, Arei appeared to be jealous of Eden and her friends for, y’know, having friends. Later, when Eden tries to invite Arei, Arei goes off on Eden and Eden runs out of the room crying. Finally, when Arturo threatens Eden into silence over his secret, Arei shows up and promises to defend Eden and do whatever it takes to assure her that her friendship is real.

This is pretty much the entirety of Arei’s character arc. Because we know that Arei is the second victim, I want to examine that in the context of the canon games’ storylines in Chapter 2.

Chapter 2 frequently deals with the concept of bullying. Kirumi’s kinda doing her own thing here, but if you look at Mondo/Chihiro and especially Peko/Mahiru (and all the lore behind that one), it’s pretty standard. Chihiro is someone who I’m pretty sure has been bullied, and Mondo fits the bully role well enough. SDR2 is the big one, though, with Mahiru being bullied by Natsumi, Sato killing Natsumi because of that, then Peko killing Sato under Fuyuhiko’s command in revenge, and THEN Peko killing Mahiru in the killing game as even more revenge. So, let’s look at bullying in DRDT Chapter 2.

The big and obvious one is Ace and Nico. Ace bullied Nico, and eventually they snapped and tried to kill him in revenge. That means that the creator, at least in this case, opted for a situation where the bullied kills the bully, rather than the other way around.

Arei also bullies Eden notably in Chapter 2, and now she’s dead. I’m not saying that it has to be the same thing, but I think it would be interesting to parallel Ace and Arei and Nico and Eden. Ace, with his fear of death, would have to process just how close he came to being a victim, seeing the same thing play out with Arei, who actually did die. Nico, who’s trying to dodge any actual blame for their crime, would see Eden get executed for doing roughly the same thing.

That’s something to address, though. What does this all mean for Eden? After all, Eden and Arei were friends now. It seems uncharacteristic of her to kill Arei for any reason. If I’m going to focus in on Eden’s character relationships, I really have to address that part.

Well, my answer is pretty simple. Eden simply didn’t believe her relationship with Arei actually changed. This might seem like an unfair claim at first, but if you look into it, it’s actually quite supported by the game.

Arei certainly thought Eden didn’t believe Arei’s sudden change of heart. She even goes as far as to call Eden out for it in the moment.

That’s not a very good argument though, is it? It disregards everything that happens afterwards, what with Arei explaining more and Eden hugging her and saying that her promise means “more than she knows.” It’s possible Arei convinced Eden during that second segment, so there’s not really any reason to believe that Eden didn’t believe her anymore.

Except…

Charles gets cut off by Whit here and immediately shuts up, which is played off as a joke. It is a joke, but I’ve noticed the DRDT creator is very good at putting in jokes that actually convey important information moving forwards.

The fact that the creator put in not one, but two references to Eden possibly not believing Arei makes me think there’s more to it than making a joke or moving dialogue along. Whit even phrases it as “you wanna do that later?” which might be a hint that we actually are going to come back to that point of conversation later.

For the record, I do think it’s also possible that Eden sort of half-believed Arei. She might’ve been committed to a murder plan by that point or something, so even if she thought Arei was being genuine, it’s possible she intentionally tried to convince herself Arei wasn’t genuine. That gets more into character interpretation, though.

Topic 4: Character Arc

This is the biggest one, in my opinion. If Eden is going to die here, what does her story say? Ignoring the big plot beats, Eden should get to have her own character arc, and if this is its conclusion, I want to look at where it went.

In the prologue, Eden is noted to stay positive, but she seems to be the most scared of the killing game itself. Here’s her slide from the official Prologue Recap video:

In Chapter 1, we honestly didn’t see too much of Eden. What we did see was mostly her being nice and friendly. It was also established that Arei picked on her. Here’s her slide from the Chapter 1 Recap video:

Notably, the creator paired all the characters up for Chapter 1. We already know Arei is going to be important to Eden’s story, whether she’s the killer or not. They did pair up Xander and Min though, so it’s not like it’s impossible that they paired a victim with their killer.

Anyways, that means that, going into Chapter 2, the things the creator wanted us to remember about Eden are that she’s nice, cheerful, and one of the people who defended Teruko. Through Arei’s slide, we’re also encouraged to remember that Arei picked on Eden specifically for baking. (Arei also manipulated Levi in that scene pretty heavily, but Eden is the one they want us to remember.)

Where does Eden’s character arc go from there? Well, I’d say that she basically doubles down.

Eden basically spends the chapter trying really hard to prevent conflict and stay friends/befriend everyone. She blackmails Teruko for the sole purpose of actually getting to hang out with her, she washes dishes with Hu, she makes breakfast with Levi, and she invites Arei to clockmaking to make sure she isn’t left out again.

That means that Eden’s story in Chapter 2 is that she’s trying to be the one to get everyone through this hard time.

Because of that, killing seems rather counterproductive. After all, Eden’s been trying to end the killing game on her own terms, right?

However, it’s possible that the message the creator wants to send us is that the cast isn’t currently capable of being entirely positive and friendly. While David pretended that the point of revealing all their secrets was so that they could get along, that was a lie. Eden being the killer would fit the messaging: with this cast, in this killing game, friendships aren’t a possibility right now.

Would it be a change in Eden for her to kill now? Yes, of course. That’s how it goes with killers beyond Chapter 1; something changes that prompts them to kill. Like I examined earlier, I believe the motive of getting back to her previous life, in combination with the constant fighting, Arturo's threats against her and her apparent inability to actually make a meaningful change in those around her, would be enough to get her to break and kill in this Chapter 2 position.

I’ve talked about motive, overall narrative, Eden’s relationships and her character arc. That’s pretty much everything, but there’s one more big point I feel I need to touch on.

Topic 5: Eden’s Breakdown

This is what I assume makes people have the biggest problem with Eden culprit theory from a writing standpoint. After all, this is a very emotional moment and feels very important for Eden’s character arc. If she’s the killer, it would all be a lie, and it would invalidate everything we learned about Eden from this moment.

Except, I don’t think that’s fully true. It’s very possible to have a killer have an emotional breakdown moment mid-trial that makes them seem more innocent, but actually very much relates to the fact that they did kill.

Even if she is a killer, I still believe Eden is a good person. Because of that, I think that she is genuinely haunted by Arei’s death, as well as Min’s. In fact, we know she’s haunted by Min’s death, before any of this Arei trial stuff happened.

Given the fact that Eden runs out of the room crying after this, I think it’s fair to say that Arei’s words stuck with Eden. Because of that, pairing it with Eden’s breakdown in the trial, we can conclude that Eden feels guilty for both Min’s death and Arei’s death. Because Min’s death wasn’t Eden’s fault, it’s easy to disregard both as her blaming herself for things out of her control.

It could be genuine this time, though. If Eden is the killer, at least some of that speech has to be fake (ex. When I saw that note, I knew someone must’ve overheard our conversation). However, what’s really interesting to me is what happens after the main part of Eden’s breakdown.

David goes on a little rant about how the victim would have to be incredibly stupid to actually fall for the note– or they’d have to be Arei, who wanted to be friends so desperately that she’d believe anything “Eden” told her. Afterwards, Eden says this:

This is Eden agreeing with David’s rant. The non-killer interpretation of this is that Eden is just repeating the same thing, saying that Arei died because of her and her weakness. But, if you look at it from a different perspective, the phrasing is… a little odd?

In her speech earlier, what Eden said boiled down to “I couldn’t defend myself, and because Arei was nice to me and tried to defend me, she died.” Then, David says, “Because Arei wanted to be your friend, she died.” That’s basically the same information and logic, right?

But Eden asks it as a question. Even though she said “it’s all my fault” earlier, this time she asks, “it really is my fault, isn’t it?” That means that there was something Eden didn’t know in David’s rant.

This could be several things, but I think the most likely thing is that, in my opinion, this is the point at which Eden realized that Arei was genuine about wanting to be her friend. Before this, she still wasn’t sure that Arei was being real, and that allowed her to proceed forward with her plan, keeping it together. However, once David, who got to see Arei in her breakdown, confirms that, yeah, Arei did that because she genuinely wanted to be Eden’s friend, Eden realizes that it was her fault.

Arei wanted to be her friend, but now she’s dead, and it’s all Eden’s fault.

Interestingly, immediately after that last line, Teruko starts talking, bringing us back to mystery-solving mode. However, if you look at Eden while Teruko’s talking, she’s sobbing.

Most of the time when a character is shown to the side, they’re left in whatever pose they were last in. For example, look at MonoTV making the :| face back there despite it having no relevance to the current point of the trial. In fact, MonoTV has that face for the entirety of Chapter 2, Episode 10. The last time MonoTV talked was in Episode 9, where…

Yeah, same face. It doesn’t change from there. My point is that, switching Eden’s sprite from the face-on, holding her wrist sprite to the sobbing and wiping her tears sprite is a conscious decision. They want to make sure we know that Eden is sobbing after that interaction with David. While that could be prolonged guilt from generally feeling at fault for Arei’s death, I think it makes more sense if it’s her coping with the fact that Arei did want to be her friend, and she killed her.

Conclusion

Well, that’s my defense of Eden culprit theory from a writing perspective. Hopefully it was fun to read, whether you agree with it or not. Again, my point here isn’t to shame anyone who disagrees or anything, it’s to provide reasoning for why Eden could be the culprit and to defend the creator’s decision if that is the truth of this case. I’d love to hear about any and all other killer theories as well in order to have the greatest chance of catching the real criminal.

#drdt #danganronpa despair time #drdt spoilers #fanganronpa #theory #thh spoilers #sdr2 spoilers #v3 spoilers #eden tobisa #arei nageishi #long post #drdt theory #thanks for actually reading gang #hopefully this gave some better perspective on why i believe eden could be the killer #and those who believe eden did it bc of evidence but not narratively hopefully this helped #i just feel bad if this is what the creator is doing and people call it bad writing #because it isn't and we haven't seen enough yet to deem it bad writing even if it was #but yeah. eden stuff

62 notes · View notes

accirax · 5 months

Text

DRDT vs. The Scrum Debate

Greetings party people (<- DRDT fan community). By complete accident, I wound up writing some analysis addressing DRDT's Chapter 1 Scrum Debate and what it might mean for the future of Chapter 2. Although it can no longer be used in the exact context for which I originally wrote it, there were still some interesting things to note, so I thought I'd share.

So, here's the question I'll pose: whenever DRDT's Chapter 2 Scrum Debate eventually appears, can we deduce who the killer is by which side of the Scrum Debate they're on? (DRDT spoilers, obviously, as well as V3 spoilers.)

Let's start out with the facts of DRDT so far. I'll recap the Scrum Debate using this formatting: the person listed first is the one who speaks first, on the team opposite the protagonist. The person listed after the arrow (->) is the person who countered them from the protagonist's team. The team whose opinion is proven correct by the end of the Trial will have their names in green, while the incorrect team will be listed in red. The killer is bolded. The protagonist is underlined. The protagonist's side always wins, so I'm not additionally marking that in any special way. I'll list anyone who doesn't talk at the bottom, and cross their name out (name) if they're dead.

DRDT Chapter 1 Scrum Debate

Question: Is Teruko the culprit? (yes/no) J -> Nico David -> Whit Veronika -> Rose Levi -> Ace Hu -> Eden Arei -> Arturo Min -> Teruko No lines: Xander, Charles

In this case, Xander didn't speak in the Scrum Debate (because he's dead) and neither did Charles (because he was having a mental breakdown). As it stands so far in DRDT, the "pattern" is that the killer, Min, spoke and was on the team opposite from Teruko. She was countered by Teruko herself, even!

Therefore, you could say that "the killer will be someone who argues on the opposite side of the protagonist, and possibly even whoever is countered by Teruko. If your killer pick winds up on Teruko's team, it's bad news for you."

However, it's hard to find a pattern in only one example. Now, we'll see if those assumptions hold true when compared to the OG of Scrum Debates, the canonical Danganronpa V3: Killing Harmony.

V3 Chapter 1 Scrum Debate

Question: Is Shuichi the culprit? (yes/no) Kiyo -> Gonta Miu -> Kaito Maki -> Kirumi Ryoma -> Kiibo Kokichi -> Kaede No lines: Rantaro, Angie, Tenko, Tsumugi, Himiko, Shuichi (^ Unlike what's been shown in DRDT so far, in V3, characters' death portraits are assigned to a side of the Scrum Debate. That is what these colors note for Rantaro right now, and other dead students below.)

V3 Chapter 2 Scrum Debate

Question: When was the body put in the piranha tank? (in the morning/at night) Tsumugi -> Angie Kiyo -> Himiko Miu -> Kaito Kokichi -> Shuichi Gonta -> Maki Kirumi -> Tenko No lines: Rantaro, Kaede, Ryoma, Kiibo

V3 Chapter 3 Scrum Debate

Question: [Should we] Vote for Korekiyo [now, or discuss it further]? (vote now/discuss further)* Himiko -> Kiibo Miu -> Shuichi Kaito -> Kiyo Gonta -> Kokichi Maki -> Kiyo Tsumugi -> Shuichi No lines: Rantaro, Kaede, Ryoma, Kirumi, Angie, Tenko (*Although the team that said vote for Kiyo now would have technically been correct, given that he did kill Tenko and Angie, it's generally good practice to discuss every piece of evidence in a Class Trial in case something strange comes up last minute. Thus, I will call the team that said they should discuss further correct. If you disagree with this verdict, just flip the colors in your mind.)

V3 Chapter 4 Scrum Debate

Question: Could Gonta have committed the crime? (no/yes) Kaito -> Shuichi Tsumugi -> Kokichi Maki -> Kiibo Kaito -> Shuichi Kaito -> Kokichi Himiko -> Kiibo Gonta -> Shuichi No lines: Rantaro, Kaede, Ryoma, Kirumi, Angie, Tenko, Kiyo, Miu

V3 Chapter 5 Scrum Debate

Question: Which one is dead? (Kokichi/Kaito) Kiibo -> Shuichi Himiko -> Maki Tsumugi -> Maki Kiibo -> Shuichi Himiko -> Maki Tsumugi -> Shuichi No lines: Rantaro, Kaede, Ryoma, Kirumi, Angie, Tenko, Kiyo, Miu, Gonta, Kokichi, Kaito

Oof, my man Ryoma cannot catch a break. And Miu is only correct once she's dead; that's pretty funny.

Now, let's answer some questions! As established by v3...

Does the blackened have to be on the opposite team from the protagonist? No, Kiyo argued on Shuichi's side in Ch3!

Does the blackened have to be countered by the protagonist in their Class Trial? No, Kirumi, Kiyo, and Kaito were never countered by Shuichi!

Is the blackened always on the incorrect side of the Scrum Debate? No, Kaede, Kiyo*, and Kaito answered correctly!

Does the blackened have to speak in the Class Trial? No, Kaito didn't say anything, as himself or as Kokichi!

(Granted, Kaito not speaking was a very special circumstances that will in all likelihood never apply to DRDT, much less in this Class Trial. And, of course, Kaede wasn't countered by the protagonist either, but given that she was the protagonist at the time, that would have been basically impossible.)

With these answers, I think we can confirm that, in general, you cannot determine who the killer of a given Trial is based on where they're placed in the Scrum Debate. As established by V3, they can talk on the side of the protagonist, talk against the protagonist, or not talk at all, and they can still be the killer. It makes sense that it would be this way, or else you could start calling the killer as early as the first episode of the Trial, depending on the Scrum Debate's placement.

However, that's not to say that you can never infer things from the evidence you're given. In a well written Class Trial (which DRDT has, in my opinion), a killer is always looking to support their end goals in subtle ways. In V3, all of the killers acted in the way that made the most sense to them based on the question asked: Kaede wanted to protect Shuichi and everyone else, Kirumi wanted others to think the truth of the murder was impossible, Kiyo wanted to extend the Trial to evade a guilty verdict, Gonta genuinely believed he was innocent, and Kaito didn't tip the scales by commenting on one side or another. Of course, that begs the question: what will DRDT's Scrum Debate be about?

Personally, I think it will be about whether Arei met with the killer at 7:30 PM or 7:30 AM, and will happen almost immediately once episodes resume. Thus, in that specific scenario, I find it likely that DRDT Chapter 2's killer will once again be on the team opposite Teruko. Presumably, the killer would want to argue that the time was 7:30 PM, because they likely left AM or PM off of the note intentionally because they had an alibi at night. If we assume that Teruko would side with Charles in saying that the time was 7:30 AM, playing into her feeling that something about David being the blackened is wrong, then that would put her on the (likely correct) AM team, opposite the killer.

An interesting side note about this theory for the Scrum Debate's subject is that it's really similar to V3's Chapter 2 Scrum Debate question. V3 Ch2 asked whether Ryoma's body was placed in the Gym in the morning or at night, and DRDT's may ask if Arei's body was put in the Playground in the morning or at night. Similarly, "is Shuichi the culprit" and "is Teruko the culprit" are almost identical questions, down to the person suspected being the innocent eventual protagonist who was only put into this precarious position by their trigger-happy bestie.

If this pattern holds up, we might expect DRDT's subsequent Scrum Debates to ask us whether we should make an impulsive or cautious decision, something about someone's personality as it pertains to the crime, and which of two people is dead/the culprit. Does that information get anyone theorizing? I certainly think it's interesting idea.

Well, whatever happens, I'm sure we'll have lots to talk about once Episode 12 does eventually dropped. Thanks for checking this out, and hopefully I can post more properly planned DRDT content soon.

#danganronpa despair time #drdt #drdt spoilers #v3 spoilers #just remembered that the canonical title of this event is debate scrum not scrum debate. i give up (/j)#i feel like everyone calls it a scrum debate though. right? i'm not just making that up???#maybe that's what the music track is called i don't remember #kinda want to look as sdra2's scrum debates too now but i'm lazy and the formatting is kind of a pain so maybe not #unless of course anyone other than me particularly wants to see it #my theories

65 notes · View notes