1

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Chapter One: The sphere of theatre 4

1.1. Theatricality 4

1.2. Drama 5

1.3. Tragedy 9

1.4. Theatrical language 17

1.5. The Meta 18

Chapter Two: Analysis of drama in Legacy of Kain 19

2.1. The meaning of drama

2.2. The four causes of drama

19

20

2.3. Aristotle’s six fundamentals of drama 31

Chapter Three: Analysis of tragedy in Legacy of Kain 37

3.1. The meaning of tragedy 37

3.2. The morality of tragedy 39

3.3. The tragic language 47

3.4. The Meta 49

Conclusion and the future of tragedy and theatricality in video games 51

Bibliography 55

1

INTRODUCTION

Since ancient times, fiction was created for entertainment purposes but also as a

means of learning to a lesser degree. Fiction was never a channel to transmit

factuality; it was meant to enhance the truth or give it a form that would act as a

platform for debate and discussion. As all forms of communication, it is safe to say

fiction began as an oral telling of an event or situation before evolving to written

form. The first medium to enrich fiction was theatre in Ancient Greece. Theatre used

the written form of fiction as a basis, a reliable starting point for oral performance.

The concept of “scripts” originates in ancient theatre. Written fiction remains the

foundation of entertainment but the appeal of blending visual and auditory senses was

impossible to overlook. Theatre invigorated the realm of fiction and intensified the

emotions that it could produce. It gave kinaesthetic life to characters and a tangible

form to the imaginary. However the advantages it offered gave way to certain

drawbacks which in time became a choice, an option for fiction in visual form.

Theatricality implies artificiality and extravagance; the author’s vision is distorted and

the fictive world loses authenticity.

This theatricality generated concepts such as “exaggeration”, “melodramatic” and

“histrionic”. In theatre actors play out the fictional characters and by being histrionic

it is necessary to understand that the character portrayed is no longer a representation

but an interpretation. This deviation reaches its peak during the Renaissance when

Greek plays are rewritten to conform to the ideas of that specific period and changes

are made for the public to understand them better. Physical conflicts are introduced,

lessons of morality, elements of romance and settings closer to the people. The stages

of Ancient Greece became pastoral fields and the conflicts between mortals and gods

replaced with social themes and political views.

Modern history saw the resurgence of theatre both as replication of the ancient

vision but also as inspiration for new material. The 20th

century focused on the

melodic aspect of theatre; monologues and dialogues in Ancient Greek plays were not

so much spoken as they were sung and choirs were predominant in those plays. This

trait was given much attention and from it emerged the opera which concerned itself

with singing and not with discussions or storytelling.

1

We now come to appreciate the transitions throughout history as a phenomenon of

diversification and not a deviation; the newer forms of theatre have not caused a

depreciation of the medium, merely a broadening of it from its humble beginnings.

As such we are left with evidence of how elements, pertaining to an old form of

entertainment has ensured its significance by assimilation into new prospects. These

characteristics have transitioned to the medium of cinematography. The medium of

visual recording started as a factual means of transmitting information. The first use

of it was to report in a journalistic fashion, important events in real life. This

technological revolution was to receive a new purpose, to help the realm of fiction

match the flourishing period when theatre complemented fiction in written form.

Many years later a new technological progress was achieved and computers began

showing signs that on a cultural level, more can be benefited from their use.

Nowadays computers can do much more than calculate a formula or edit a text; they

can create worlds that stretch out as far as nations and present to an audience more

characters than any stage could allow. This is a capability worthy of acknowledgment

but can a computer, a machine, express emotions and present a creative vision? Not

by itself no, but as a medium yes. It remains an instrument and should be treated as

such, just as one would look at a paintbrush or a pencil. Video games are a product of

human creativity. They merge visual and auditory perception with interactivity. It

remains a matter for debate whether the interactivity improves on the pleasure of

viewing and hearing, a person has come to expect from cinematography.

In this study I will demonstrate that the series Legacy of Kain has elements of

theatricality and thus theatrical value. In order to determine the validity of this I will

present the meaning of theatricality, expose its components and their interactions

which have the ability to ascribe theatrical value. At the end of the study I will also

mention a few other videogames that may share traits established in this study

therefore supporting my views of theatricality in video games.

This study will be divided into three chapters. The first chapter will contain the

theoretical framework which I will use to explain the theme and field of research. I

will begin by explaining meaning of theatricality and what are its particularities in

fiction and the medium it is used. After that I will focus attention on the main traits

pertaining to theatre and theatricality and how they are identified. This chapter is

concerned with the outline of the medium and the interconnecting nature of its

1

mediums.

The second chapter will be an analysis of Legacy of Kain to ascertain which

property confers it dramatic quality and how is it implemented. Aristotle defined

drama and insisted that a work of fiction must abide by four causes and six

fundamentals in order to claim dramatic structure.

The third chapter will be an analysis on the theatrical genre of tragedy. I will begin

with addressing the definition of tragedy, the historical origins behind it and how

much of the original meaning has been lost and whether it has had any impact on the

fiction that followed. An important feature of tragedy is language; by tracing over the

language used in Legacy of Kain, I will verify the extent of influence tragedy has had

in shaping the series.

The reason for my analysis is to discover whether a concept which originated in

theatre and has transcended into other forms of media such as cinematography, could

be harnessed intellectually by a new emerging form of media; that of videogames. By

proving Legacy of Kain has theatrical value, I can make the affirmation that

videogames can offer accurate representations of human characteristics, situations and

intellectual thought.

1

Chapter One

The sphere of theatre

1.1. Theatricality

Theatricality is the condition of being grand and dramatic as if being part of a performance

in a theatre. When one hears or sees the word theatricality, our attention is immediately

drawn to the root word “theatre”, as expected seeing as this is the domain from which the

concept originates. Theatre is a collaborative form of arts, using performers to present the

experience of a real or imagined event before an audience. The performers may communicate

this experience through a combination of gesture, speech, song, music and dance; tough not

all are essential. Elements of design and stagecraft are used to enhance the presence of said

event.

To represent this visually imagine a building, theatre would be the foundation while

theatricality its roof, a dome which encompasses all the elements that comprise this art form.

Although as a whole, they describe theatre and theatricality, we are not obligated to take them

as such. Because of their very nature, all of the particularities pertaining to theatre and

theatricality are mostly self-sufficient in implying on a cognitive level what these two convey

and by putting them together, it can only reinforce the overall feeling of theatricality, not

subtract from it.

Theatre is a visual and auditory medium and until the 20th

century, it was always a live

performance medium. Although technology has managed to transmit, capture and preserve a

play, we do not assume that what we are watching is anything but. As such, we can safely

assert that theatricality is intrinsic to the art form and thus by reasoned deconstruction and

interpretation, it can be proven possible to adapt theatricality to other forms of artistic

creation without losing meaning or potency.

Bertolt Brecht in his work “A Short Organum for the Theatre” insists that theatre and its

constituents exist only for the purpose of giving pleasure to the spectator and if they should

include lessons on morality, it should be implemented in an enjoyable manner. He states that

there are simple and complex pleasures which theatre can create, great drama being the latter

because it is more intricate, rich in communication, more contradictory and more productive

of results. And in accordance with Aristotle with whom Brecht agrees, narrative is the soul of

1

drama, not only in old works but also in contemporary ones constructed with the use of old

recipes (1953:180).

1.2. Drama

When we speak of theatre we speak of drama which is the default mode of fiction

represented in performance. Western drama began around the middle of the 6th

century in

Athens. Tragedy is one of the three distinct genres of drama. Drama means action; according

to Aristotle, dramatic poets present people in action rather than third-person narrative or the

combination of narrative and direct speech typical of Homer. For both Plato and Aristotle,

drama is an example of “mimesis” or “representation”. Aristotle perceived mimesis as

natural, pleasurable and essential for human learning. He writes in Poetics: “to engage in

mimesis is innate in human beings from childhood and humans differ from other living

creatures in that humans are very mimetic and develop their first learning through mimesis

and because all humans enjoy mimetic activities (Storey: 2005:1).

Brenda Laurel claims that any attempt at analyzing something regarding its theatrical

values should start with a recollection of Aristotle’s views in Poetics because it remains the

most widely accepted starting point due to a clear formulated approach to drama. She reports

that Aristotle’s goal was to observe, analyze and explain the nature of drama, not generate

rules for producing it. Aristotle distinguishes between tragedy and comedy in terms of the

emotions they intend to evoke. Tragedy arouses pity and fear. Fear is based on uncertainty

and suspense while pity is the response to witnessing something destructive or painful

happening to someone undeserving of it (2014:42).

Laurel proposes four causes in drama. She explains that a representation, its functionality

and success is dependent on the understanding behind the structural components, the intrinsic

creative forces.

1. Formal cause: The completed plot, meaning the whole action (with a beginning,

middle and end)

2. Material cause: The sight and sound of the characters, the enactment.

3. Efficient cause: The skills, tools and techniques which contribute to the finished work.

4. End cause: The pleasure stirred in the audience, the catharsis.

1

The concept of pleasure is important to understanding catharsis; emotions aroused by

representations are not experienced in the same way as emotions triggered by real events as

even the most negative emotions can be pleasurable in a dramatic context. Since emotion

depends on the successful communication of content then some level of communication is

implicit in the end cause. Representation is defined as artistic likeness (mimesis);

coincidently it also means a dramatic production or performance. Though mimesis is inherent

in theatre, it does not necessarily have real-world referents (Laurel: 2014:50).

One of Aristotle’s fundamental ideas about drama is that a finished play is an organic

whole, in the sense that all parts are necessary and have certain relationships to one another.

Laurel presents them in a hierarchical order:

- Action (plot)

- Character

- Thought (cognition, emotion, reason)

- Language

- Melody (everything that is heard especially speech)

- Spectacle (all that is see)

Aristotle maintains that drama is about action, not people. In drama, character is defined

as a bundle of traits and choices which taken together form the plot. Traits circumscribe the

actions that an agent can perform thus defining his potential. Aristotle outlined four criteria

for dramatic characters. The first criterion is that a character be “good”. Often misinterpreted

as virtuous, the Aristotelian definition of a good character is one that successfully fulfils its

function; in other words, one that does (actions) what it intends to do (thought). The second is

that characters be “appropriate” to the actions they perform; there is a match between traits

and actions, it is necessary to see in retrospect the potential for those actions was already

there. Third is the idea that a character be “like” reality, in the sense that there are

connections between thoughts, traits and actions. The last criterion refers to “consistency”; a

character’s traits should not change arbitrarily (Laurel: 2014:71).

What Aristotle wanted to convey through his definitions is the idea of authenticity, that

characters should be believable.

The action of a play is a series of incidents that are causally related to one another. For a

better understanding we have to look at dramatic potential. Dramatic potential refers to a set

of actions that might occur in the course of a play. What could happen is from the beginning

1

constrained by what actually does happen. The potential of a play is a set of possibilities;

every action affects those possibilities and eliminating some while making others more

probable. At the climax of a play all probabilities are eliminated but one, which then becomes

the final outcome. In that moment, probability becomes necessity and the action of the play is

complete (Laurel: 2014:82).

Causality is what binds the plot; it is the cause-and-effect relationship within the action

that is being represented. One of the primary sources of causality in dramatic incident is the

goal of a character, what they want and what they are trying to do. Obstacles and conflicts

they encounter forces changes in their behaviours, plans and sometimes the goal itself. It is

possible that a character’s goal which drove his actions, upon the revelation of another

character’s goal to unify seemingly unrelated incidents into a whole action through the

interweaving of causality (Laurel: 2014:87).

Laurel observes that people search for causality in representational worlds and because of

that Aristotle provided the concept of universality. In layman’s terms, an action is universal if

everybody can understand it, regardless of cultural and other differences among individuals.

Aristotle suggests that any action can be “universalized” simply by revealing its cause; that is

to say, understanding the cause is enough to understand the action. This led Aristotle to the

observation that in dramatic action “an impossible probability is preferable to an improbable

possibility”. Laurel summarizes that probability is the key quality of dramatic action. The

orchestration of probability and causality is what dramaturgy is made of. By manipulating

probability, the author shapes the dramatic world, the plot and indirectly the audience’s

involvement with it (2014:94).

To illustrate the “shape” of a play, a German critic and playwright Gustav Freytag

proposed the “Freytag triangle” in 1863. The climax of a play is the moment at which

probability becomes necessity. Thus the climax is not only an emotional peak but also an

informational one because manipulation of information establishes causality and probability

that is the basis of an audience’s emotional response. Freytag’s visualization is based on the

notions of rising and falling action. The rising action is all that leads to the climax and the

falling action is all that happens from the climax to the conclusion.

1

The complication on Freytag’s graph represents the informational attributes of each

dramatic incident. And incident that raises questions is part of the rising action and those

which answer questions are part of the falling action.

There are five anatomical parts to a play:

1. The exposition is the part of a play that reveals the context for the action. It develops

potential into possibility; it introduces characters, environments and situations. The

exposition continues in the play but slowly diminishes.

2. The inciting incident is the action or event that becomes the central action of the play.

3. The rising action follows the inciting incident, in this part the characters pursue their

main goals, forming and revising plans and encounter obstacles. At the same point the

action goes “critical”, meaning characters must make important decisions and follow

through with their actions.

4. The crisis is the part just before the climax and it proceeds at a faster rate. The climax

eliminates all other probabilities and at this point of action, characters either succeed

or fail.

5. The falling action represents the consequences of the climax and reveals its effects.

This is the dénouement which translated into English means “untying “or

“unravelling”. The dramatic potential ends with no more information to be added, the

meaning behind the action is revealed and the audience experience catharsis.

Laurel concludes by saying that art represents not what is but a kind of thing that might be

(2014:99).

Aristotle maintains that plot and story comes first in theatre, characters are only agents

which perform the function designated by the plot. Theatrical narrative started with the

1

Homeric epics in which there was a primary narrator and sometimes secondary narrators,

heroes recounting events from their own past. Secondary narrators are internal narrators for

the most part and by being restricted in knowledge compared to an external omniscient and

omnipresent narrator, this can be exploited for the benefit of the plot.

An important difference between the external primary narrator and the internal secondary

narrators is in their use of emotional and evaluative words. Characters employ emotional

language in their narratives and speech. However characters also tell stories of events in

which they have not been involved thus making them secondary narrators. The existence of

secondary narrates, characters that listen is important because we see how secondary

narrators adapt their story to the recipient and we are able to make comparisons (de Jong:

2004:18).

In drama there are several devices of narration; there are analepsis, prolepsis, anachrony

and many more but in this case study only the first two are of importance. The distinction

between analepsis and prolepsis is that the first is a narration of an event which took place

earlier than the point in the story where we are and the latter is a narration of an event that

takes place after the current point in the main story. Their scale may vary but are mostly brief

so as not to disrupt the flow of events in the main story. Prolepses are used to create suspense

for what is to come while analepses are there to revise previous interpretations. The concepts

of prolepsis and analepsis are complex as both can be split into internal and external; the

former referring to an event taking place within the time span of the main story and the other

referring to an event that falls outside this time span (de Jong: 2007:3).

Mieke Bal warns that narratives are not so clear-cut and distinguishing between internal and

external is all a matter of perception (1985:88).

Irene de Jong concludes that the handling of time is a central task and one of the most

important tools with which to influence the interpretation is by placing accents and

foregrounding or downplaying events. Because of this vital role in shaping narratives the

ancient Greek authors focused considerable artistic attention on this element (2007:14).

1.3. Tragedy

After observing the characteristics of drama, the next point of interest is one of the two

main genres of pertaining to it, namely tragedy.

1

The origins of tragedy are found in Greece at the turn of the 5th

century although elements of

it can be found well before it as tragedy and comedy had improvisational beginnings which

included phallic songs, dithyramb, ritual practices and only one actor. Aeschylus started the

transition of tragedy by increasing the number of actors from one to two, diminishing the role

of choir and made speech the most important part of tragedy. The tragedians who followed

with their own contributions paved the way to a more dignified form as Aristotle pointed out.

The meter in tragedy moved on from the poetic trochaic tetrameter to iambic trimester and to

add the well known aspect of grandeur, Sophocles and the others did away with simplistic

plots while also bringing scene-painting to the stage, an augmentation which in the centuries

to come proves invaluable to the theatre and all arts theatrical.

Ian Storey observes that tragedy is one of the most over-used and misused words in

modern culture. Nowadays tragedy implies loss of life, immediately or eventually and it is

more than just bitter human suffering; it is the death of a human being at the hands of another

or the forces of nature. He explains that in the modern view, a tragedy is the loss of life in a

situation where said event could have been averted thus the possibility that there is someone

to blame. This presumption gives way to a linear plot and as Aristotle maintained, plot is king

in tragedy. However a cause for “tragedy” is not enough, the plot must be accompanied by

dramatic events and in order for there to be compliance to the Greek definition, tragedy must

involve a fall from a higher status. It is important to notice that characters are beset by

misfortune in a tragic pattern of events happening in a manner that for all the sorrow, it

somehow seems appropriate (2005:72).

Since the time of Aristotle there had been a debate on the origin of tragedy. Although it was

never truly settled, we can be content with at least two variants. One assumes that the

tragedians (tragoidoi) are named as such because their writings would be involved in festival

competitions for which the prize was a goat (tragoi) (Scullion: 2005:30).

The other claims that the same word “tragoidoi” refers to the religious practices of sacrificing

a goat as offering to the gods in exchange for prosperity. Thus, the representation of said

rituals accompanied with choral songs signified the lamentation for the loss of life for the

benefit of the community (Storey: 2005:73).

As for the theatrical works, Aristotle in chapter six of Poetics provides a formal definition

of tragedy: “Tragedy is the representation (mimesis) of a serious and complete set of events

(praxis), having a certain size, with embellished language used distinctly in the various parts

of the play. The representation is accomplished by performance not by narration and through

1

pity and fear achieving the catharsis of such emotions.” Storey speculates that catharsis of

pity and fear for Aristotle meant that tragedy is a poetic drama which creates a strong

emotional response in its audience (2005:77).

Contrary to Plato, Aristotle asserts that the artist does not just copy the shifting appearances

of the world, but rather imitates or represents reality itself, and gives form and meaning to

that reality. In so doing, the artist gives shape to the universal, not the accidental

Aristotle also defined the tragic plot-line.

“One must not portray admirable men undergoing a change from good fortune to bad nor

evil men from bad to good. It is also incorrect to portray a thoroughly bad person falling out

of good fortune as this might satisfy out human sensibilities and sense of justice. What is left

is something in-between; a situation which involves a person who is not outstanding in virtue

or behaviour falling into bad fortune through some mistake (hamartia), one of those who

enjoy great reputation and prosperity” (Aristotle: 350 B.C.E).

Aristotle concludes by saying that tragedies with happy endings are the result of poets

pandering to the audience thus resembling comedy where no one kills anyone.

Traditionally, critics of tragedy have assumed that there is such a thing as “true” tragic

plot and Aristotelian concept that remains resilient to this day. Burian reports that under close

examinations, this model may be inadequate and even irrelevant. He recognizes that there is

no single tragic narrative but rather a number of story patterns characteristic of tragedy. One

clear pattern is the existence of conflict, the starting-point of all storytelling. The most

obvious quality of tragic conflict is its extremity, it does not approve of compromise easily.

In the rare occasion where enemy reconciliation does occur, it is due to divine intervention or

“late learning”, after the tragic crisis has already and irrevocably happened. But conflict in

tragedy involves more than a clash of choices taken by human agents, often we find past

actions that determine the shape of present choices and even their outcome (1997:180).

There are several points to be made concerning Aristotle’s conception of tragedy. First of

all he emphasizes the human element. Second, he recognizes in human life states of

happiness and misery, fortune and misfortune, in and out of which men pass; hence his

rejection of poetic justice, that the good prosper and evil suffer. A.C. Bradley’s famous

interpretation of Shakespearean tragedy maintains that tragedy is a story of human actions

producing exceptional calamity and ending in the death of a man in high estate. This takes

place in a world that has as its predominating feature a moral order which is good. Somehow,

this “fate” or moral order reacts violently against all infractions thereof. From this reaction

1

comes the calamity, which is often out of proportion with the infraction and from it raises a

terrific waste (1905:5).

In the majority of Greek tragedies, the leading characters are members of a royal family,

one of them being king. The authoritative figure is often autocratic thus leading to conflict.

Mirroring life, in tragedy the highest authority is that of the gods; however they are neither

constant nor consistent in their implication and rarely have the final say as to determine the

outcome of an event. Though the gods are generally wished to be just and kind, it is

acknowledged in tragedy that they have personal reasons for action and are often jealous,

intemperate and vindictive, very much unlike the exemplars of morality and justice humans

hope for them to be. Gods tend to deflect the argument of responsibility or fault by stating

that it was “fated long ago”, a selfish attempt at preserving a sense of credibility and

trustworthiness.

Some of the fiercest conflicts occur between a character and an agent of divine power, a

priest or oracle. The contrasting endeavours lead to an extensive irony and demonstration of

human blindness and error. Although the divine agents are presented as reliable, they end up

put into question by another character, frequently revealed to be deceitful (Griffith:

2005:337).

A considerable number of tragedies present one or more main characters as standing

against some form of authority which threatens the hero’s independence, freedom, honour

and happiness. Although in some cases this resistance and self-assertion is misguided and

futile, generally this attempt and the manner in which the hero acts garners the audience’s

respect, admiration and even sympathy due to the principles upon which they are based and

because the energy, language and ideals are recognisable at their core albeit overly dramatic

in form. But in this fictional world, the spectator is invited to witness and judge in a conflict

and struggle that offers a large range of perspectives and in the culmination, a sense of

catharsis and possibly a cause for reflection coupled with a sense of recognition and praise

towards those who take risks and suffer the consequences so that others may survive and

prosper (Griffith: 2005:348).

Tragedy always seems to assume somehow that human life is meaningful and valuable.

Therefore it must concern itself with human values of many sorts, man’s happiness and

misery and all that these conceptions involve. The second assumption tragedy makes is that

man has a free will and is responsible for his actions. However there is another aspect of

tragedy that contradicts it and that is the existence of a superhuman power or force which

1

partially dictates his actions. Tragedy grapples with the fact that there is evil in the world that

must be faced and due to the value of life, there is no utter defeat (Oates: 1938:23).

Tragedy as a genre shows a threat in all its destructiveness but the outcome is not to be

understood simply as the fate of an individual. Its meaning for the continued life of the

community is always part of tragedy’s concern (Burian: 1997:192).

Nietzsche suggests that while facing the truth, a truth that may be harmful and dangerous to

the highest degree, may cause boundless suffering and misery, facing the truth as the tragic

man ennobles oneself. The Homeric affirmation is that death is an evil, for oneself and for

those one loves, this belief makes a coward of even the greatest human being to the extent

that they would prefer slavery over death.

The Socratic thesis is that the acquisition of wisdom is the greatest good and it is good for

us human beings to know even the harsh truth about mortality. Aristotle’s key thesis is that

tragedy does not present its tragic heroes as exemplary beings; they are flawed. Tragedy

inspires pity for the hero but tragedy purges those feelings after showing that the heroes

suffer as a result of a great error in understanding. Aristotle claims that the pleasure of all

poetry, including tragic poetry comes from the philosophic pleasure of learning. We human

beings learn, and enjoy learning, by contemplating the imitation or representation of things.

Of the tragic hero and his situation, Aristotle finds that in understanding the necessity of the

tragic hero’s downfall, the audience is relinquished of their pity (Ahrensdorf: 2009:154).

Nietzsche’s attempt at a new analytical approach to tragedy was for all intents and

purposes flawed, ironically similar to the traits of the tragic hero who is flawed in reason; his

error of thought that misguided him as he strived to reach his goals. Nietzsche admits in his

revised issue of The Birth of Tragedy that “it was created out of merely premature, really

immature personal experiences...For that reason the book should at this point be handled with

some consideration” (1871:10).

His perspective was drawn out of misconception that at heart, music is and was the

foundation for tragedy. This was due to his obsessive interest in music and the composer

Wagner.

It is noteworthy that tragic plots are complex and some build on the aftermath of a

previous plot. Another variation in tragic plot is death followed by redemption to some

degree. Euripides draws attention through his plays upon a plot element which is incidental

though very important, the death of one of more women.

1

Death and killing are central motifs in tragedy, women’s role in religion, funerals and rituals

partly explain their presence. In tragedy women are instigators of tragic events in some way

or another and effective generators of emotional response (Hall: 1997:106).

There is a self-assertive trait that tragedy has inherited from epic in the sense that a hero

develops a self-image which craves validation and any injury to this self-image leads to the

act of restoring said image through retaliation (Cairns: 2005:309).

Euripides admits that this is due to the concept of “manliness”, a trait intrinsic to theatre

mainly because in Ancient Greece society was gender biased, women were not allowed many

things, one of which was acting.

Another aspect of tragic characters stems from Athenian law and life, the over-valuing of

oneself. Athenian views were that failing was dishonourable but to go too far in the pursuit of

victory was just as bad if not worse. This form of pride is known as “hubris” and is often

displayed through physical, sexual or verbal assault demonstrating contempt towards the

victim (Cairns: 2005:313).

In parallel, the concepts of justice and revenge in tragedy are very contrived, their basis

being on the dictum “the doer shall suffer”. However in tragedy there is always the dilemma

that infliction of just retribution on the offender is at the same time and act of injustice on the

part of the avenger (Cairns: 2005:306).

The authorial voice of the tragic author is more elusive if not altogether absent in this

genre compared to any other literary form. The views of the speaking characters are subjected

to no controlling moral evaluation except by other characters and the audience (Hall:

1997:120). To enhance an audience’s ethical judgement, Aristotle proposed the notion of

“hamartia” which spans a range of conditions from mistakes to moral errors (Cairns:

2005:305).

Storey explains that what Aristotle meant by hamartia is often mistranslated as “flaw” thus

the concept of “tragic flaw” created by scholars. Modern readers seek an explanation for

action and mistakenly attribute it to a character’s personality. Winnington-Ingram concurs by

saying that in tragedy the “flaw” resides in the intellect. Aristotle points out in Poetics chapter

six, actions and plot are essential to tragedy, not character. It is important to understand that

“character” refers to an arbitrary morality.

Northrop Frye writes in Aristotle’s defence that in drama characterisation depends on

function: what a character is depends on what he has to do. Dramatic function in its turn

depends on the structure of the play (2005: 84).

1

In Sophocles’ ”Oedipus Tyrannos” we find example of one so called tragic flaw, namely

hubris. The text shows “hybris phyteuei tyrannon”, meaning arrogance breeds a tyrant.

Frederick Blaydes believes that “tyrant” is used simply to mean king or ruler and by

reversing the subject we get tyranny breeds arrogance. The point is that people with power

behave with arrogance (hubris) and as such the actions they take may bring dire

consequences due to flawed reasoning as Ingram stated (Storey: 2005:231).

The main method for exploring ethical and moral issues was the role of tragic hero. They

typically underwent philosophical journeys that ended with suffering, great loss or death. The

journeys are a result of mistakes and transgressions that the characters commit. As a result,

the heroes and the audience end up knowing more about themselves and recognise their faults

and mistakes. The Greeks referred to this process as pathos (suffering), mathos

(understanding) or anagnorisis (recognition).

From a tragic point of view, there are two types of action. It involves on the one hand

reflection, weighing up the pros and cons, foreseeing as accurately as possible the means and

ends; on the other, placing one’s stake on what is unknown and incomprehensible, risking

oneself on a terrain that remains impenetrable, entering a game with supernatural forces not

knowing whether they will bring success or doom (Vernant: 1990:45).

As plot devices go, spectators often find curses a convenient way to explain what happens to

characters in drama, especially those who see the predestined working of gods or fate.

Burian speculates that the tragic form itself is the subject of irony directed toward the

concept of fate that governs human affairs. Jean Giraudoux’s “La Guerre de Troie n’naura

pas Lieu” suggests a destiny that defeats and devalues human will (1997:253).

According to Andre Rivier, the tragic character is subjected to forces outside him but also

within, constraining him to decisions claimed to be his “choices”. From the point of view of

the agent, we see that the actions of reflection and deliberation do nothing but make him

aware of the impassable. In the end it is always an imposed fate or destiny that generates the

decision. As such, tragic man does not “choose” between two possibilities, rather he

recognizes that there is only one way open to him (Vernant: 1990:52).

It would be a mistake however to confuse Greek notions of fate with the Christian idea of

predestination, a doctrine that believes one’s salvation or damnation was predestined. Fate or

“kairos” is somewhat different; life presents us with fateful moments and these kairotic

moments require us to choose our actions carefully. Indeed a reluctance to act in such

1

moments is as fateful a choice as any other, for the kairotic moments do not come again and

the choice made determines all that follows.

A very common subject for the basis of tragedy has been the conflict among kin, partly or

entirely due to jealousy for the gain of power or wealth. The bonds of kinship are often

severed in the process of maturity of the tragic character (Pelling: 2005:83).

Another category of conflict found in tragedy is the clash between mortals and gods, a

struggle always futile for the mortals (Allan: 2005:80).

However the gods were never moral exemplars for mankind as Pendrik remarked (2002:257).

A character in one of Euripides’ plays asserts this by saying “if the gods do anything wicked,

they are not gods” (Bellephron 292:7). Another trait of tragedy is knowledge or lack thereof,

which is directly connected to the gods. In the Homeric view a human being compared to a

god is “an ape in wisdom”. Due to this concept, tragedy has long since based its intricate

plots on deception and unawareness of a character’s true condition (Allan: 2005:77).

Aristotle and all critics since have noted that tragedy is a genre fundamentally engaged

with the complexities of responsibility, choice, causation and reasoning (Goldhill: 1997:132).

Although moral codes are of importance, concepts of free will and duty are alien to Ancient

Greece and therefore absent in their dramas. But because of their absence, ethical issues such

as revenge for example, coupled with a variety of characters, their emotions and conflicts

bring about emotions in the spectators through sympathy or judgement (Gregory: 2005:97).

Blondell claims that through dramatization of conflict and suffering, tragedy addresses issues

of knowledge, religion, and ethics in ways that overlap Greek philosophy (2002:52).

Out of many literary genres, tragedy has become synonymous with death and destruction.

Aristotle insists that an unhappy ending may not be indicative or definitive of said genre

however it is the mark of the best constructed and essentially tragic. What Aristotle also

considers important is a well-structured narrative and plot, with a beginning and an end,

postulating that “A beginning is that which does not come necessarily after something else

but after which it is natural for another thing to exist or come to be”. Barbara Smith considers

that beginnings have a programmatic authority that draws in the spectator, familiarising him

with the characters, tone and story while endings are the point of closure where the audience

looks back at the action now completed and understands it (1968:10).

What is necessary is that all beginnings provide a prologue, a certain amount of information

(Roberts: 2005:138). What was rare was the introduction of back-story into the play, now

1

more or less often seen in cinema. Aeschylus did this in Agamemnon in order to complicate

an audience’s response.

1.4. Theatrical language

Aeschylus and Aristotle both emphasized the importance of speech and language in

theatre but why were they so important? To begin with, rhetoric was important in Ancient

Greece and so was performance. The Athenian pride of being a “city of words” transcends

into tragedy and characters. As previously stated, theatricality was seen as deceptive and that

condition was well implemented in characters of tragedy like Clytemnestra who “acted” as a

faithful wife. Being part of the political and justice system, rhetoric was inducted into certain

characters of tragedy, the villains to be exact. Some tragedies share a moralistic approach to

the universe they create in which heroes are rewarded and villains are punished but many

present moral dilemmas to inspire a more complex debate for the spectator rather than a

simplistic sanction or dissent.

Tragedy is made up of a particular register of language; there is a style and a vocabulary

proper to the genre. One basic particularity of tragedy is the presence of rhesis and

stichomythia. Rhesis is a set of speech of varying length in which a character offers an

exposition of his position, a description of an event or a reflection on events. Stichomythia

refers to the exchange of lines between two or more characters; it often breaks down into a

violent argument (Goldhill: 1997:127).

Tragic language is distinct from other works by meter but also an elevated style, an

adorned vocabulary, complex word order, metaphors, fullness of expression and high-style

diction. As previously stated, rhetoric and high society characteristics of discourse and

language is apparent in fiction (Gregory: 2005:257).

In the performance of action of a character, alongside language we have inflection (the

change in pitch or loudness of the voice), gesture (any movement of the character’s head or

limbs) and facial expression (physical or vocal aspects used to convey mood, feeling or

personality.) In speech, tragedy has since antiquity used iambic meter although trochaic meter

was frequent in early tragedy then less and less as the genre matured. The Greeks believed

trochaic meter to be dance-like and thus potentially less serious.

In tragedy we also find the presence of asides and soliloquies. And aside is a dramatic

device in which a character speaks to the audience. By convention the audience is to realize

1

that the character’s speech is unheard by other characters present. It may be expressed

directly to the audience or represent an unspoken thought. An aside is usually a brief

comment rather than a speech and it occurs within the context of the play. Also by

convention a character may be mistaken in an aside but never dishonest.

A soliloquy is a device often used in drama when a character reflects on thoughts or feelings,

thereby also sharing them with the audience.

1.5. The Meta

Meta-theatre, a concept first named in 1962 by Abel, refers to inclusion or mentioning of

several theatrical elements within a play. There are five essential categories: plays within

plays, generic self-reference, performed rituals, role-playing within roles and self-conscious

intertextual allusion. Only two of these never occur in Ancient Greek tragedies, namely plays

within plays and overt generic self-reference (Hall: 2006:107).

The references to theatrical or literary need not be in any way disruptive of a play’s “serious

atmosphere” (Easterling: 1991:56).

Justine Gregory concurs that theatrical and literary references are prevalent in the tragic

works of Ancient Greece and are by no means a modern concept. Intertextuality is prevalent

in all forms of artistic creation (2005:267).

In the following chapters I will show the transitory nature of theatre, theatricality and their

elements which have been for a long time considered immovable from the medium that holds

them. Limited only by evidence, I will prove that theatre and theatricality can now be found

in the unlikeliest of creative mediums, that of videogames.

For this I will use the videogame series Legacy of Kain as the basis for my research and

proof.

1

Chapter Two

Analysis of drama in Legacy of Kain

2.1. The meaning of drama

As seen previously in the definition of drama, this is the default mode of fiction

represented in performance. Drama means action and by portraying characters in action it

differs from third-person narrative where one is told the story. I have already stated that for

Aristotle drama is an example of mimesis because it is natural and pleasurable; which is why

in Legacy of Kain characters are representations of types of personality and roles that are

familiar and unambiguous. Aristotle and Brecht affirm that narrative is the soul of drama and

thus by having narrative, Legacy of Kain already paves the road to proving it is dramatic.

Narrative by definition is an account of connected events, presented to a reader, viewer or

listener in a sequence. In Legacy of Kain the narrative is presented by means of homodiegetic

narrators, meaning characters present in the story describe their personal experiences. The

narration is not a direct one aimed at the viewer but indirect using soliloquy, a device often

used in drama when a character speaks to himself, relating thoughts or feelings, thereby also

sharing them with the audience and asides, a dramatic device in which a character speaks to

the audience. By convention, the audience is to realize that the character’s speech is unheard

by other characters present. It may be expressed directly to the audience or represent an

unspoken thought. An aside is usually a brief comment rather than a speech and it occurs

within the context of the play. Also by convention a character may be mistaken in an aside

but never dishonest.

These two devices are present in the story when characters are in dialogue and through

this engagement in communication; information regarding plot and story is unveiled to the

audience. And speaking of plot; as Aristotle stated drama is presenting people in action for

action is drama and plot is the summation of character traits and choices. As such, narrative is

also expressed through the actions that characters make within the story because those

choices and actions define a character’s potential.

Brenda Laurel in her work “Computers as Theatre” claims that any attempt at analyzing

something regarding its theatrical value should start with a recollection of Aristotle’s views in

Poetics and proposes four causes in drama.

1

2.2. The four causes of drama

1. Formal cause

Legacy of Kain starts with Blood Omen and introduces the first protagonist Kain, a young

proud nobleman of Nosgoth, murdered and thirsting for vengeance accepts his transformation

into a vampire. Kain succeeds in his quest for vengeance but stumbles upon subtle hints of a

great conspiracy which he thwarts, or at least that is what he is led to believe. Kain changes

his views and values over the course of the game slowly turning from an avenger into an

immortal ruler. By itself, Blood Omen has a beginning, middle and end but it is only the start

of a more complex story.

The second title in the series, Soul Reaver introduces the second protagonist Raziel, who

both opposes and joins Kain in his journey. Raziel is the first lieutenant brought back to life

as a vampire to serve in Kain’s army. He is in a sense Kain’s first-born, unbeknownst of his

and his “brothers” former lives as vampire hunters. Raziel had served Kain a millennium

until the day he evolved wings and by doing so surpassed his master. Kain saw this as an act

of transgression and betrayal thus condemning him to a second death by ripping off his wings

and plunging him into the Lake of the Dead, a great whirling pool of water. Kain previously

stated in Blood Omen that water acts like acid upon contact with vampire skin. Raziel being

immortal meant that his punishment was to be an eternal torment where he would suffer

without the respite of death. Fortunately Raziel was saved from further punishment by an

unnamed entity though not without cost, he had been deformed and now indebted to the

“God” he must serve, exchanging one master for another. The entity tasks Raziel with

hunting down and destroying Kain and his kin; guiding him on his endeavour. On his journey

Raziel discovers the tomb of the Sarafan, a fanatical cult of vampire hunters to which he and

his brethren belonged. Outraged, Raziel reignited his former passionate hate towards

vampires and vows to destroy Kain for desecrating his grave. The game culminates in a

confrontation between Raziel and Kain in a time-travelling chamber where Kain gives Raziel

enigmatic hints at a fate that links them both before passing through a portal that propels him

into an unknown time. Raziel chases after him and the game ends on a cliff-hanger with the

character Moebius, previously seen in Blood Omen as an oracle, welcoming Raziel.

The third title, Soul Reaver 2 continues from the previous cliff-hanger as Raziel steps out

of the portal that brought him to the past, 30 years before the events of the first game. Here he

1

meets Moebius the Timestreamer for the first time and is offered an alliance for the purpose

of killing Kain. Raziel accepts Moebius’s help because of his longing for the priesthood he

once adhered to in his past life but remains distrustful. Raziel briefly travels through the

Sarafan stronghold and discovers the resting place of William the Just, the conquering king

that died at the hand of Kain. And on the king’s tomb he finds the Reaver, an ancient blade

similar to what Kain wielded but now broken from the battle. As he reaches to pick up the

sword, his spirit mends the blade and shortly realises that the spirit inhabiting his body is a

parasite battling for control. Shortly after this Raziel meets Moebius a second time and

arrogantly informs Raziel that they both serve the same God, thus striking down Moebius

would be like “striking down God’s own attendant”. Disgruntled, Raziel leaves to find Kain.

On his way to the Pillars of Nosgoth, Raziel sees the bodies of vampires impaled by the

Sarafan crusaders and his belief dwindles due to their human appearance.

Upon his arrival at the Pillars, Kain reveals the intricate conspiracy that led to the

destruction of Nosgoth and urges Raziel to seek out the truth and his role in a possible

undoing of the horrible events that transpired so far. Kain gives out subtle hints regarding the

guardians of the Pillars, the humans are not intended to serve them but in fact belong to the

vampires. A fact somewhat proven when Raziel unlocks the door to an ancient chamber

leading underneath the Pillars where the walls are festooned with murals depicting winged

beings bearing similar traits to himself. Raziel states that “perhaps this place had never been

seen by human eyes”. Underneath his feet Raziel hears the voice of the entity, the God which

Moebius serves, goading Raziel into killing Kain. Making his way through the underground,

Raziel finds himself at a shrine similar to the chamber underneath the Pillars; its walls were

covered in murals as well, depicting a war between the winged beings and another unknown

inhuman race. Upon exiting the shrine Raziel is met by Vorador, famed by his murder of

many of the Pillar Guardians, who then gives cryptic hints much like Kain about Raziel’s true

nature and possible purpose. Vorador states that the last remaining connection to the winged

race is Janos Audron, killed by the Sarafan five hundred years ago and so Raziel sets out to

meet him by using the time-travelling portal that brought him here. But before travelling to

the past, Raziel once again comes face to face with Kain at the tomb of Wiliam the Just

where Kain hands his sword to Raziel and openly offers the choice whether to kill or spare

his life. Raziel thrusts the sword into Wiliam’s tomb thus showing mercy towards Kain but

not without consequence; the room trembles as the stream of time reshapes itself to

accommodate Raziel’s decision which defied the manipulated false destiny set by Moebius.

1

After this, Raziel attempts to travel into the past but finds himself in the future due to

Moebius’s meddling. As he arrives at the destroyed Pillars, Raziel encounters the spirit of

Ariel, the previous Balance Guardian who was murdered and became the catalyst that started

the downfall of the Pillars. Raziel offers Ariel food for thought: what if Kain’s refusal to

sacrifice himself to restore balance was not the cause for her purgatory; that dark forces

conspired the events meticulously making Kain an unwilling pawn and that she would remain

trapped regardless of his choice.

Raziel returns to the underground chamber beneath the Pillars only to discover a worrying

truth, the Elder God, now a creature of immense size had wrapped its tentacles around the

basis of the Pillars and appears to slowly drag itself out from the depths. Raziel intuitively

taunts him by pointing out the poetic irony: “the great adversary of the vampires turns out to

be the biggest parasite of them all”.

Following the inimical encounter, Raziel succeeds in travelling to Nosgoth’s past and

searches for Janos Audron at the outskirts of the town Uschtenheim. Raziel finds Janos in his

personal retreat built high up in the side of the mountain with only one hidden entrance for

those unable to fly. Climbing to the top of the retreat, Raziel meets Janos who begins

unveiling the truth behind the Pillars, the vampire curse and the human rebellion. The Pillars

were raised as a prison for the ancient enemies of the vampires, the Pillars are sustained by

the vampire blood of the guardians they choose from birth however the curse inflicted upon

them gave them immortality, a thirst for blood and sterility thus vampires are no longer born.

To maintain the Pillars, humans were adopted or abducted and transformed into vampires but

over time, they forgot the purpose for which they have been chosen and rebelled against their

“fathers”. Janos presumes Raziel to be the foretold Messiah that would help Nosgoth and

shows him the key to preserving the integrity of the Pillars, the Reaver blade. Raziel steps

back in fear when seeing the Reaver thinking it might try to consume him. Moments later, the

Sarafan made their way up to the refuge and Janos magically transports Raziel to another

room. As Raziel quickly returns to save his new mentor, he sees his former self in human

form cutting open Janos’s chest, ripping out his heart and stealing the Reaver blade before

fleeing. Raziel is overcome with a sense of self-loathing and vows to return Janos’s heart,

which had become legendary for bringing life back to the dead.

Raziel travels back to Sarafan stronghold from which he initially started but not without

making way through the underground chamber. After being called a failure by the Elder God,

Raziel retorted by asking whether he was truly resurrected or was conveniently found when

1

Kain threw him into the abyss; that maybe there is more to his destiny and history than he or

anyone else knows. Raziel returns to the stronghold and is met by Moebius who flaunts his

superiority in manipulating Raziel and locks him in the room where the Reaver was kept.

Enraged Raziel picks up the blade without thinking and was surprised that it did not try to

consume him. Escaping the room and armed with the seemingly inoffensive sword, Raziel

searches for Moebius in hope of revenge and retrieving the heart. Confronted by his former

brethren, Raziel kills them all and is amused by the revelation that it was him who in a sense

delivered Kain the bodies of the Sarafan’s strongest warriors to be resurrected. After slaying

his brothers, Raziel faces his human self and kills him. As his human counterpart lay on the

floor in front of him, his spirit Reaver enters the sword and attacks him, Raziel realises that

the Reaver was never meant to be a soul-stealing weapon and that the ravenous entity trapped

within the blade had always been him. Raziel falls to the ground pierced by the blade but

Kain suddenly makes his appearance and removes the sword just as it was about to consume

Raziel therefore creating a paradox that changes history. But this gamble meant for rewriting

their destinies seems to have a terrible outcome as Kain was made aware that they stumbled

into a trap. Kain urges Raziel not to resurrect Janos but Raziel could not maintain his physical

form and slipped into the spirit realm. Raziel became conscious of the fact that his terrible

destiny is to be imprisoned in the Reaver and for now he has only postponed it. The game

ends with Raziel’s final words: “History abhors a paradox.”

The final game, Defiance, continues from where Soul Reaver 2 left off as Kain searches

the Sarafan stronghold for Moebius to inquire as to where Raziel could be found. Moebius

with the help of his staff renders Kain helpless and weak on the ground, mocking him for

believing in the vampire prophecy about becoming the Scion of Balance and thinking Raziel

is the key to fulfilling his destiny. Moebius leaves Kain to recover his strength and to

continue their discussion some other time. The story in Defiance changes from one

perspective to the next, the focus on Raziel and Kain alternates. After Kain encounters

Moebius the perspective shifts towards Raziel in the spirit realm; the Elder God scolds him

for his “petty rebellion” and reminds him that it is not his free will that keeps him here but his

fear of becoming trapped in the Reaver. Raziel admits this and fakes submission as he

searches for a conduit into the physical world. In the meantime Kain makes his way for his

second encounter with Moebius, this time on a different footing as he takes away Moebius’s

staff and discards it. Kain asks about Raziel’s whereabouts and Moebius tells Kain that

although Raziel still has free will, the outcome of his actions remain the same, he will kill

1

Kain. Moebius tells him to go west of the Pillars if he wishes to learn the truth about Raziel’s

true nature.

Meanwhile Raziel searches a cemetery in the vicinity of the Pillars for a way to enter the

physical realm and uses a corpse from a nearby crypt as a vessel. Exiting the crypt he

stumbles upon Moebius’s mercenaries. After dealing with them, he realizes that five hundred

years have passed since he had been trapped in the spirit realm. He travels to the Pillars but

on his way Raziel finds an ancient portal device that transports him to a ruin belonging to the

old vampire civilization. The walls were covered in murals depicting the war between the

vampires and their rivals, showing the victory of the vampires, the banishment of their enemy

and the raising of the Pillars as the lock that bind them. The other mural illustrated how the

enemy of the vampires in their defeat retaliated with a terrible curse that afflicted the

vampires with a blood-thirst. The image shows how the curse drove the vampires into despair

and many of them to suicide. Inspecting the vampire ruins Raziel finds a mural showing the

forging of the Reaver and its creator Vorador. He was the first human to receive the dark gift

in an attempt to preserve the vampire bloodline. Raziel travels to the Pillars and meets Ariel

who no longer remembers him but informs Raziel of Vorador’s mansion in the heart of the

Black Forrest. On his way to Vorador he discovers another ruin with a mural portraying the

prophesized vampire champion in battle with his adversary but the image suffered damage

and only the vampire hero was discernable.

Concurrently but in a different time Kain arrives at the destination Moebius spoke of, an

ancient vampire citadel shrouded in mist. Here Kain also finds murals picturing the vampire

hero and his rival the Hylden champion wielding a flaming sword but only one mural was

intact and it foretold the death of the vampire.

Raziel travels through the forest and arrives at Vorador’s mansion. Inside the mansion

Raziel discovers another portal to the vampire ruins, here a mural depicted the two

prophesized champions locked in combat and it dawned on him that he bares no resemblance

to the vampire hero but the Hylden champion with tattered wings, flaming eyes and a fiery

sword. Raziel now thinks Moebius had always been right, that he is destined to fight Kain

and destroy him or be destroyed. Raziel returns from the ruins and unlocks a sealed door to

Vorador’s chamber. Vorador admits that he does not know the purpose of the Reaver and

presents Raziel the body of Janos Audron. Janos’s body shows no signs of decay because his

heart still beats somewhere, possibly hidden in Avernus Cathedral. If Raziel wishes to

resurrect Janos, he should travel to the cathedral but is warned that an ancient evil dwells

1

there, most likely the cause of the Circle’s corruption and in order to succeed he must not be

influenced by its power.

At the vampire citadel Kain makes new discoveries, murals showing the human children

chosen to be Pillar Guardians being turned into vampires and the two guardians who led the

human rebellion, Moebius the guardian of time and Mortanius the guardian of death. In

another room again strewn with murals depicting the vampire hero and his Hylden adversary

but here there are two outcomes prophesized, both victory and failure for the vampire. Kain

opens a sealed chamber and upon entering he sees another mural showing how the vampire

curse condemned them to a sort of spiritual purgatory. In this chamber Kain begins hearing a

loud voice; it introduces itself as the oracle of Kain’s vampire ancestors but is in fact the

voice of the Elder God. He offers to help Kain by transporting him into the future at the very

hour Raziel arrives in Avernus. Although Kain distrusts this oracle, he could do little but

accept. The oracle encourages Kain to meet Raziel and stop him but Kain does not consider

Raziel as his enemy however the oracle in order to persuade him points out that Raziel on the

other hand does.

Raziel arrives at Avernus Cathedral and discovers a portal to the vampire ruins and there

he sees depicted the true reason that drove the vampire to madness and suicide, they

worshiped the Elder God and by becoming immortal, thus cast out from the wheel of fate,

their god abandoned them. But Raziel knows that whatever he was, he was no god. Returning

to the cathedral and entering a portal leading to the catacombs Raziel makes a dark discovery,

a historical tale told from another perspective. Murals painted by the Hylden telling of how

the vampires in their righteousness started the war that would destroy both races because the

Hylden refused to submit and worship the same god as the vampires. Raziel now understands

the poetic irony of the curse and his resemblance to the Hylden champion no longer seems so

accidental; the Hylden prophecy foretold a hero who would deliver them from their

oppressors and destroy the shackles of the vampire tyrannous god. The Elder God begins

speaking to Raziel and asks him what he thinks Kain will do when he finds out about Raziel’s

identity.

In the catacombs Raziel witnesses a sacrificial ritual and Mortanius the guardian of Death

chanting at the edge of a large pit. Raziel moves closer to its edge to look down but is pushed

in. At the bottom of the pit Raziel is greeted by a four-legged creature and despite its hideous

form Raziel recognises him, it is his vampire brother Turel. Before Raziel could question him

about his surroundings, Turel’s voice is replaced by an unknown entity. The entity informs

1

Raziel that it uses the body of Turel as a host to command the worshippers above and asks for

sacrifices to keep the host alive. Turel regains control and attacks Raziel but is swiftly killed.

After climbing out of the Pit, Raziel notices Mortanius chanting in front of a shrine speaking

to the young Kain just as he did in the game Blood Omen. Raziel engages him in discussion

and Mortanius tells him that he is too late for the victory he seeks, presuming that Raziel is

the Hylden champion. Mortanius is seen struggling against the same unknown entity that

possessed Turel. The entity takes brief control and tells Raziel that with or without him they

will succeed. Raziel realises this was the dreaded Unspoken of whom Vorador and Ariel

mentioned, the Hylden possessed Mortanius and murdered Ariel bringing about the

corruption of the Circle. Mortanius regains control and Raziel asks him about Janos Audron’s

heart but receives startling information, Mortanius used the heart to revive Kain as a vampire

in hope of fulfilling the vampire prophecy and the heart is inside of Kain. Mortanius leaves

for the Pillars to meet with the young Kain just as he did in the game Blood Omen.

Raziel exits the catacombs just as Kain arrives. Kain tells Raziel that for both of them to

have a better future Janos Audron must not be resurrected. Raziel criticises Kain for giving

him orders despite his free will and Janos may have the answers Raziel seeks. Kain asks for

his trust but Raziel points out the Reaver, the weapon that can imprison him. Kain states that

he also is taking a leap of faith because Raziel wields the only weapon that can kill him. Kain

firmly tells Raziel that the Heart of Darkness must remain undiscovered but Raziel attacks

him, slashes his chest and rips out the heart before throwing him through the portal leading to

the catacombs. Raziel feels no joy or sense of victory after defeating Kain and departs for

Vorador’s mansion intending to return the heart to Janos’s body. Arriving at the mansion

Raziel is greeted by Moebius who congratulates him for killing Kain. Raziel understands that

this had all been arranged from the start but Moebius arrogantly states that Raziel truly had

free will, which made it even more of a triumph because he acted according to their plans.

Moebius congratulates him once more and leaves. Raziel makes his way to Janos’s body.

Raziel thrusts the heart into the open ribcage and after a brief moment the wound quickly

closes and Janos gasps back to life. Raziel informs him that five centuries have passed since

his murder and that the age of vampires is nearing its end. He asks Janos why the vampires

would create a weapon that would consume and imprison their prophesised saviour. Janos

responds that the Reaver is meant to be wielded by the vampire hero at which point Raziel

summons the Spirit Reaver leaving Janos confused. Janos quickly transports both of them to

1

the vampire citadel and tells Raziel to go to the inner chamber of the citadel where he will

find the answers he seeks.

In the chamber Raziel discovers a forge meant to imbue the Reaver with power but there

as well was his former master the Elder God who congratulates him for killing Kain because

it was never Raziel’s destiny that created a problem but that of Kain’s. At the forge the spirit

of Ariel is summoned and she sacrifices herself to purify the wraith blade. Her last words to

Raziel are to “unite what has been set asunder, only then will the Scion of Balance be armed

for his true endeavour”; Raziel is puzzled by this because Kain is dead. Raziel returns to

Janos but in that moment the cataclysmic event caused by the young Kain shatters the Pillars

and one of the Hylden possesses the body of Janos. The Hylden congratulates Raziel but that

only fuelled his anger. He battles the possessed Janos but is defeated and returns to the

spectral realm where the Elder God waited as always to mock his efforts. The Elder God calls

for Moebius to the inner chamber of the citadel.

In the meantime, despite his defeat, Kain’s role as Scion of Balance keeps him alive and he

departs Avernus Cathedral making his way to the citadel. Inside Kain discovers the forge

chamber, not knowing Raziel is already there in the spectral realm. In the chamber Moebius

speaks to the Elder God and tells him that the Hylden are a temporary inconvenience but

negligible in exchange for Kain’s death, unaware of Kain’s presence behind him. Moebius

attempts to weaken Kain with his staff but without the Heart of Darkness Kain is immune to

Moebius’s sorcery. Having nothing more to offer, Kain kills Moebius. Moebius awakens in

the spectral realm but before he has the chance to speak, Raziel uses his spectral Reaver to

purify his spirit thus showing him the face of the God he served. Shocked and repulsed

Moebius screams as Raziel consumes his soul returning him to the wheel of fate.

The Elder God still mocks Raziel’s rebellion stating that Moebius fulfilled his purpose and

was of no further use. Raziel has an epiphany; neither Moebius nor the vampires knew what

they had worshiped and that all the conflict throughout the centuries was to feed the Elder

God as he leeched the souls that went through the cycle of birth, death and rebirth. Raziel

possesses the deceased body of Moebius and as gets up Kain impales him with his sword.

Raziel reveals himself and prevents Kain from removing his blade, telling Kain that now the

Scion of Balance is healed and revealing the true enemy. As Raziel’s soul is consumed, Kain

is shocked to see the Elder God in his physical form. Wielding the complete and purified

Reaver, Kain defeats but cannot destroy the false God who is then buried by the crumbling

walls of the chamber. The epilogue shows Kain looking into the distance at the collapsed

1

Pillars fully aware of the conspirators and contemplating on the final gift from Raziel, “more

powerful than the sword that now held his soul, more acute than the vision his sacrifice

accorded, the first bitter taste of that terrible illusion - hope.”

The story ends with Defiance but it is neither a closed ending nor an open ending as all

questions have been answered and Kain states that “the masks have finally fallen and the

strings of the puppeteers are now visible”. The potential for future actions is there but more

importantly whatever action commenced at the start of the story has now ended.

2. The material cause

The fictional setting of Nosgoth is a visual combination analogue to medieval Europe, the

Crusades, the Reformation, Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution at appropriate times.

The land is filled with castles, settlements, fortresses and keeps and at the centre of it all are

the Pillars of Nosgoth. The Pillars are inextricably tied to the health of the land; their

integrity, or lack thereof, directly influences the balance of the world. At least three separate

but coterminous planes exist within the setting usually described as "realms"; the material

realm, the spectral realm, and the demon realm. However, even these separate dimensions are

not considered to exist "outside" the boundaries of Nosgoth.

The enactment of the story by the characters is unfolded in certain places throughout Nosgoth

acting as stages for plot progression or conflict.

3. The efficient cause

The world and its inhabitants in Legacy of Kain are created by professional artists and

technicians, after which voice actors instil life into the characters. The story is inspired by

ancient literature, Shakespeare’s plays and Gnosticism. The language is florid and

Elizabethan in style with monologues and asides. The actors were coordinated and performed

together rather than in isolation for a better interpretation of the characters portrayed and

feedback. Animators programmed the movement of said characters to show human responses

and credible presence based on context and emotion in the voice of the actors.

4. End cause

As Brenda Laurel previously stated in “Computers as Theatre”, the concept of pleasure is

important to understanding catharsis; emotions aroused by representations are not

experienced in the same way as emotions triggered by real events as even the most negative

1

emotions can be pleasurable in a dramatic context. Since emotion depends on the successful

communication of content then some level of communication is implicit in the end cause.

The first emotion that connects the viewer to the character Kain is in Blood Omen when he

searches for vengeance. Karol Ondrias in his book “The Brain, Consciousness & Illusion of

Truth” claims that there is a primordial sense of justice and fairness in the human mind along

with compassion, courtesy and honour (1999:39). But at the end of Blood Omen, emotional

support towards Kain is replaced with anger or hate due to his decision of becoming a tyrant.

At the start of Soul Reaver the audience is presented with a new character in which to invest

their emotions. Raziel is depicted as a beautiful servant of Kain who is betrayed by his

brethren and condemned for treason because his physical body evolved before that of his

master Kain. Raziel is punished by hurling him into the Lake of the Dead, deforming his

body and subjecting him to centuries of pain. Once again the theme of vengeance is used to

validate the protagonist’s actions but unlike Kain, Raziel does not become a villain. As the

story continues, the audience is presented with further motives to consolidate their anger

towards Kain by revealing that he defiled the tombs of the Sarafan and resurrected them as

vampires.

In Soul Reaver 2 secondary characters are given more emphasis and their involvement in

the plot builds upon previous emotions while at the same time creating ambiguity to raise the

level of intrigue. Moebius the Time Streamer is an antagonist and it is soon revealed that the

Elder God possesses none of the divine qualities one would apply to a benevolent diety. As

Raziel discovers more about his past and that of Nosgoth, the viewer accompanies him

through a journey of confusion where good and evil change places as Raziel put it “I had seen

the human face of the vampires and now I beheld the monstrousness of these men”. On his

journey of enlightenment Raziel encounters Kain several times but stays his hand and does

not enact vengeance for what was done to him, rather he takes a calm stance and listens to

Kain’s arguments who strangely does not defend his action but explains the reasons behind

them. The spectator is drawn closer to Raziel and becomes intrigued about the possibility that

there is more to the story than it appears so far. The character Janos Audron acts as a wise

mentor to Raziel, revealing the history of the vampires and the purpose behind the Pillars of

Nosgoth. When Raziel asks him whether he hates mankind for hunting and killing vampires

he answers “no, they fear what they don’t understand and they despise what they fear”. At the

moment when Raziel’s former human counterpart kills Janos, the spectator becomes a

witness to the human feeling of guilt and remorse when one overcomes his ignorance and

1

understands the repercussions of prejudiced actions. The concept of justice and judgment

reoccurs when Raziel meets and kills his former human brethren for blindly defending their

belief brought on by ignorance. At the end of Soul Reaver 2, a strong feeling of empathy

surfaces as we see Raziel facing a visual demonstration of the concept of fatalism found

throughout the game as he discovers that he is destined to be consumed by the Reaver

weapon; a prisoner for eternity.

Defiance dismantles previous assumptions regarding Kain’s villainous nature as he strives

to uncover and hopefully fulfil an ancient prophecy in which balance is restored and his

actions to doom Nosgoth in the future will be redeemed. In Defiance both protagonist come

more into focus and their thoughts are overt by means of soliloquy. As both Kain and Raziel

struggle to defy their predestined futures, the manipulations of the characters Moebius and

Elder God stir up in the viewer feelings of anger and resentment greatly enhanced by the

antagonist’s hubris. Uncovering more about Nosgoth’s past, Kain and Raziel see how hatred,

fear and the lust for power caused every catastrophic event throughout history. These

elements have dramatic gravity because they mirror the foundations for conflicts known in

our real world history and when Raziel discovers the meaning behind the war between the

ancient vampires and their Hylden rivals, the truth resonates in the spectator; ignorant belief

evolved to fanaticism and in turn brought demise to both parties. The highest point of tension

where the audience is faced with conflicting emotions is when Raziel finally has his revenge

by killing Kain who refuses to fight. Raziel himself admits to finding no joy or relief after

committing the act and hopes that by sacrificing Kain’s life he will be rewarded with answers

on escaping his fate. Unfortunately the answers are not satisfactory and soon finds out his

actions were manipulated due to his ignorance. At the end of Defiance, the climax of the

entire plot, pity is instilled in the audience as Raziel has a revelatory moment; in order to save

Nosgoth he must choose to abandon freedom and accept his fate of becoming imprisoned in

the Reaver thus healing the corruption Kain was inflicted with from birth and empowering

him against the Elder God also fulfilling Kain’s destiny of becoming the Scion of Balance. In

the murals depicting the vampire champion and the Hylden champion, Raziel was both

because he had free will and could choose the outcome of the ancient prophesies. The irony is

that in the end, Raziel had freedom of choice but not the choice of freedom. The audience

experience catharsis as Kain mourns and contemplates on the gifts he received from Raziel’s

sacrifice; knowledge, redemption and hope.

1

Apart from the four causes Aristotle also established six fundamental ideas by which drama

should be analyzed: Action, Character, Thought, Language, Melody and Spectacle.

2.3. Aristotle’s six fundamentals of drama

1. Action

Legacy of Kain has action in the sense of plot with a beginning, middle and end as

demonstrated.

2. Character

By character Aristotle means a bundle of traits and choices which taken together form the

plot. Those traits limit the actions that a character can perform thus defining his potential.

Aristotle outlined four criteria for dramatic characters: a character should be good and act on

his intentions; appropriate so that his actions match his traits; realistic in the sense that there

are clear connections between his thoughts, traits and actions; and finally a character should

be consistent and not change arbitrarily.

In Legacy of Kain we can see proof of those concepts. Kain is an aristocrat and his vanity

matches his actions that ultimately cause him to condemn Nosgoth and become a tyrant. In

his arrogance, Kain recklessly accepted the vampire curse when he was offered the chance

for vengeance not knowing his murder was planed from the start. In his hubris, after killing

all the corrupt Guardians in order to restore the Pillars of Noagoth, Kain refuses to sacrifice

himself disgusted by the human manipulators. A thousand years later Raziel makes his

appearance as Kain’s “first born” and is killed on an apparent whim. In the following games

Kain reveals that Raziel was murdered because his self-righteous indignation would be

enough to motivate his resurrection and thirst for revenge, a similarity is drawn here between

Raziel and Kain.

Raziel is a very upstanding and moral character, with a strong inherent sense of nobility;

however the conditions and situations he finds himself in rarely lend themselves to ethical

judgments and he often ends up doing the wrong thing for the right reason. He often finds

himself the willing or unwilling pawn of those around him, for good or evil. Kain proudly

admits his actions are motivated by lust for power and revenge while Raziel unrelentingly

claims his sole motivation is a desire to save the world and that he is solely guided by morals.

1

Moebius the Time Streamer is a recurring antagonist. He is a member of the Circle of Nine;

he serves as the Guardian of the Pillar of Time and possesses a limited form of omniscience.

Moebius abused his unique abilities even before the corruption of the Pillars, using them to

satiate his profound hatred of the vampire race. His aversion towards the vampires was

fuelled by his unfaltering worship of the Elder God. Moebius is persuasive and devious, traits

that are evident in his mannerisms and language.

The Elder God is a major character in the series. Although initially a mysterious

benefactor and ally to Raziel, the Elder God's portrayal becomes increasingly malicious as

the series progresses. By the conclusion of Defiance, he is regarded as the cause of "all of the

conflict and strife throughout history", and the central antagonist of the series as a whole.

Depicted as a sentient, writhing mass of tentacles and eyes dwelling deep below the land of

Nosgoth, the Elder God claimed to be the hub of the Wheel of Fate. However Raziel accused

the Elder God of merely being a parasite on the Wheel, not its hub. Thus, as vampires were

immortal and their souls did not return to the Wheel, they served as his greatest enemies. The

Elder God is devious, deceptive and wrathful. In the areas where Raziel finds him, his

tentacles are apparently attempting to destroy the ancient vampires' murals, in attempt to

erase the last remaining evidence of that culture's existence and to prevent others from

discovering his connection to it. He is pompous, pretentious and rhetorical, constantly

assuring Raziel of his power and appealing to him to destroy Kain. All of the Elder God's

agents and worshippers were victims of his deception and he discarded each of them when

their use to him had "run its course". The other characters in the series have personalities

according to context and purpose in accordance to the role of major characters. For example

Vorador acts according to the teachings of his sire Janos Audron and Ariel the former

Balance Guardian acts according to the context of her role as she guides Kain and Raziel to

restore the Pillars of Nosgoth, ending her purgatory.

3. Thought

It is the internal concluding process leading to action: cognition, emotion and reason. The

characters in Legacy of Kain prove to have the presence of thought by the use of soliloquy in

which they perceive the world around them, the circumstances in which they find themselves

and the outcome of possible action that might reflect upon them in the nearby future. In

Blood Omen, Kain slays the corrupt Guardians guided by the possibility of ending his curse

and restoring his humanity. His goals change as the game reaches its end, Kain’s arrogance

1

transcends the threshold of death and as a vampire with supernatural abilities; he revels in his

new powers declaring himself the self-imposed monarch of Nosgoth. In Soul Reaver, Raziel

contemplates the broken and hypocritical system of the vampires which unjustly sentenced

him to centuries of torment and anguish. His motivation for revenge dictates his actions up

until the moment when he meets Kain at the Pillars and his knowledge is challenged. Kain

plants a seed of doubt in Raziel’s mind causing him to take an empirical approach to his

judgment. From then on Raziel unearths details about Nosgoth’s past, evidence of

predestination regarding the actions of every character, the motivations upon which Janos,

Moebius and the Elder God’s beliefs are based and the meaning of his resurrection and of his

very nature. These are the factors that shape his final decision at the end of Defiance.

4. Language

The use of it, the selection and arrangement of words in the Legacy of Kain sets it apart

from every other title in the history of videogames. The dialogue in Legacy of Kain is florid

and Elizabethan in style; with monologues, asides and soliloquies. Some of the Elizabethan

words found in the series are: counsel, pray, sirrah, plague, foe, dispatch, woe, nay, resolve,

wrought.

Intonation is used often to stress the emotions of the characters engaged in conversation. In

Blood Omen, Kain meets Moebius who pretends to be an oracle and addresses Kain as

“sirrah” pointing out with subtlety Kain’s inferiority and youthful ignorance. The effect of

intonation is again observed at the end of Blood Omen when Kain concludes “At my whim

the world will be healed or damned. At my whim."

In Soul Reaver, Raziel upon acknowledging his physical form following his resurrection

utters with a strong sense of heartache and hopelessness “I am destroyed.” Encountering

Kain for the first time after his resurrection, Raziel confronts him and berates his behaviour

and actions “Damn it Kain, you are not God!” And when Raziel questions the Elder God

about his prosperous state of being inversely proportional to the health of Nosgoth, he replies

“I am the engine of life, the source of Nosgoth’s very existence, I am the hub of the wheel,

the origin of all life, the devourer of death”; a statement uttered with profound pompousness.

1

5. Melody

It refers to everything that is heard but especially the melody of speech. In Legacy of Kain

music sometimes plays in the background but never obstructs a character’s voice, merely

accompanies it according with the tone of dialogue or monologue. In regards to language, the

metre used throughout the series is trochaic, conferring dialogue a melodic flow more akin to

poetry rather than prose.

6. Spectacle

Spectacle is everything that is seen; the sensory of the action represented, visually,

auditory and kinaesthetically. By not being a physical world like the stage of a play for

example, the artists tasked with creating the fictional land had free reign over the manner in

which to represent Nogoth visually. The Pillars of Nogoth are seen to stretch infinitely into

the sky and in the subteranian chambers that Raziel visits, the Pillars seem to burrow deep

into the core of the earth. In Blood Omen, Kain remarks on the majestic quality of the Pillars

“Even in life few sights have moved me such as this. I marvel that such beauty should grace

our dying world”. The forests of Nosgoth are lush and green, a seemingly vast paradise

amidst tall mountain ranges. Traveling to the past, before the time when Kain had refused to

martyr himself to restore balance, Raziel describes Nogoth as “a land overflowed with

abundant life and vitality compared to the corpse of Nosgoth in the future, a lifeless husk bled

dry by corruption”.

The characters in the series are visually imposing in one way or another.

Kain’s appearance is barbaric yet regal; wearing black leather trousers, studded black metal

gauntlets with short sleeves, a shoulder-harness, and a red tabard emblazoned with his

symbol in white, clasped to the harness with two golden medallions.

Raziel has his appearance drastically changed due to his resurrection. His skin is light blue,

his muscles and bones are exposed, his jaw completely gone leaving only his upper fangs

which cause him to use a piece of cloth as a cloak and mask of sorts to hide his hideous

disfigurement. His eyes lack pupils leaving only a white glow and his hands completely

lacking skin leaving only bones to use like claws.

Raziel’s vampire brothers have devolved into monsters with striking proportions and the

Elder God is described mockingly as “a giant squid”.

Brenda Laurel explains that action is a series of incidents that are causally related to one

another. Causality is what binds the plot and one of the primary sources of causality in

1

dramatic incident is the goal of a character. Obstacles and conflicts they encounter forces

changes in their behaviours, plans and sometimes the goal itself. It is possible that a

character’s goal which drove his actions, upon the revelation of another character’s goal to

unify seemingly unrelated incidents into a whole action through the interweaving of

causality.

In Legacy of Kain incidents are based on cause and effect despite them not being

presented in a chronological form but this in understood by the end of the series through

retrospective. The ancient vampires worshiped the Elder God, the Hylden refused to accept

the same god thus sparking a holy war which resulted in the banishment of the Hylden and

the vampires’ fall from grace inflicted with a terrible curse. Because the Elder God was

denied sustenance due to the curse of immortality, he indirectly helped inflict the corruption

of the Pillars and return the Hylden from banishment thus creating further conflict in the land

of Nosgoth. Kain was resurrected to become the vampire Scion of Balance but he was

deceived and manipulated at every turn. In order to fulfil his destiny he murdered Raziel

knowing he will return driven by vengeance. Discovering that Kain is the only one who can

restore Nosgoth, Raziel chooses self-sacrifice for the benefit of the world and Kain.

Gustav Freytag states that the climax of action is the moment at which probability becomes

necessity. Thus the climax is not only an emotional peak but also an informational one

because manipulation of information establishes causality and probability that is the basis of

an audience’s emotional response. To Legacy of Kain the climax is clearly Raziel’s moment

of revelation and his final decision to sacrifice himself, “I alone could end this”.

Another important aspect of drama and theatricality is narrative. Theatrical narrative

started with the Homeric epics in which there was a primary narrator and sometimes

secondary narrators, heroes recounting events from their own past. Secondary narrators are

internal narrators for the most part and by being restricted in knowledge compared to an

external omniscient and omnipresent narrator, this can be exploited for the benefit of the plot.

That is the reason why Legacy of Kain does not have a primary narrator and makes use of the

characters by means of dialogue, soliloquies and asides to propel the story forward and bridge

the gaps of information. Characters employ emotional language in their narratives and

speech. Characters also tell stories of events in which they have not been involved thus

making them secondary (internal) narrators. It is through internal narrators that the

dénouement realizes a greater emotional impact as characters achieve revelation in the same

1

instant as the audience. Raziel feels indignation and passionate hatred towards the vampire

race when learning of his former life as a noble Sarafan warrior. However his views change

when is faced with evidence of brutality and ignorance on the part of the “noble and self-

righteous” humans. Raziel develops gradually both on an emotional and intellectual level,

seeking proof and reason on which to base his future actions. He contemplates and imparts to

the audience both knowledge and his emotions. Lacking an omniscient narrator, the spectator

relies on the subjective interpretations of the protagonists; only understanding the grand

scheme of things as it unfolds.

1

Chapter Three

Analysis of tragedy in Legacy of Kain

In order to find out one must revise the definition of tragedy and the basic parts that form

together the meaning of tragedy.

3.1. The meaning of tragedy

Ian Storey observes that tragedy is one of the most over-used and misused words in

modern culture. . He explains that in the modern view, a tragedy is the loss of life in a

situation that could have been averted thus the possibility that there is someone to blame.

However a cause for tragedy is not enough, the plot must be accompanied by dramatic events

and in order for there to be compliance to the Greek definition, tragedy must involve a fall

from a higher status. Aristotle defined the tragic plot-line:

“One must not portray admirable men undergoing a change from good fortune to bad nor evil

men from bad to good. It is also incorrect to portray a thoroughly bad person falling out of

good fortune as this might satisfy out human sensibilities and sense of justice.”

Emil Burian recognizes that there is no single tragic narrative but rather a number of story

patterns characteristic of tragedy. One clear pattern is the existence of conflict, the starting-

point of all storytelling. The most obvious quality of tragic conflict is its extremity, it does

not approve of compromise easily. In the rare occasion where enemy reconciliation does

occur, it is due to divine intervention or late learning, after the tragic crisis has already and

irrevocably happened. But conflict in tragedy involves more than a clash of choices taken by

human agents, often we find past actions that determine the shape of present choices and even

their outcome.

In Legacy of Kain, starting with Blood Omen, the first “tragic victim” is presented in the

form of the protagonist. Kain is a nobleman flawed with vanity and desire for power,

assassinated and then resurrected as an instrument of assassination. As previously stated by

Burian, the most obvious quality of tragic conflict is its extremity which in Legacy of Kain is

shown that the only resolution for conflict is murder. Soul Reaver introduces the second

protagonist Raziel as Kain’s right hand; his first born vampire lieutenant. Raziel becomes a

tragic victim to Kain’s hubris and jealous indignation by evolving into a superior form prior

1

to his lord and master. Raziel’s condition worsens due to his resurrection as a wraith bound in

servitude to the Elder God for eternity and his predestined imprisonment in the Reaver blade.

At the beginning of Defiance, Raziel contemplates his situation:

“I could not deny it. As long as I lingered here, defying my captor, I was able to postpone

what I feared was my inevitable doom: to become the ravenous spirit imprisoned in the

Reaver blade. But that sentence was no worse than the stalemate I now endured. Better to

face one's destiny than cower from it.”

Also in Legacy of Kain two tragic characteristics are intertwined, the change from good

fortune and past actions that determine present choices and their outcomes. The conflict

between the ancient vampires and the Hylden race was caused by ignorance and hatred

fuelled by false beliefs as Raziel mentioned.

“The wisest, strongest, most noble race – gulled by the voice of that old parasite. But I had

seen him – and whatever he was, he was no god. “; “the Vampire histories had conveniently

omitted – how the noble Vampires, god-ridden and righteous, had started the wars that would

destroy both races – victor and vanquished alike. Their adversaries opposed the Vampires’

god, and refused to submit to the Wheel of Fate. For this they were banished.”

Raziel’s second statement makes a point that choices made in the past reverberate in the

present.

“My resemblance to the Vampires’ enemy no longer seemed so accidental. “

Raziel’s journey confronted him with half-truths and half-lies thus pushing him to determine

the validity of his knowledge by himself, a choice of action encouraged by the continuous

encounter with obstacles that were placed in his way to prevent him. Burian affirms that in

the rare occasion where enemy reconciliation does occur, it is due to divine intervention or

late learning, after the tragic crisis has already and irrevocably happened. This is evidenced in

Defiance when the climax occurs and Raziel prepares his final and decisive choice to

sacrifice himself and in doing so makes his peace with Kain.

“The Soul Reaver -- pure of all corruption -- this is what it is for. This is what I am for –“.

Raziel puts his right hand over Kain's wounded chest. The purifying energy of the Spirit

Reaver passes through Raziel and into Kain and the wound heals.

“The two become one - both Soul Reavers - together - and the Scion of Balance is healed.

And I -- am not your enemy - not your destroyer - I am, as before, your right hand. Your

sword.”

1

There are several points to be made concerning Aristotle’s conception of tragedy. First of

all he emphasizes the human element. Second, he recognizes in human life states of

happiness and misery, fortune and misfortune, in and out of which men pass; hence his

rejection of poetic justice, that the good prosper and evil suffer. This view is made manifest

in Legacy of Kain where one of the protagonists, Kain, suffers unjust murder. His relentless

determination to escape his vampire curse is challenged every step of the way and in the end

he capitulates any notions of morality or intention to save Nosgoth. In Soul Reaver, the

second protagonist to fall into misfortune is Raziel, a former Sarafan warrior-priest,

sanctimonious and self-righteous, a trait that transcends twice the boundaries of death. Raziel

shares his fate with Kain in that he is murdered and cast from a place of privilege only to end

up manipulated and deceived in his endeavours to make his own choice, to act with free will.

3.2. The morality of tragedy

In Legacy of Kain tragedy is strongly emphasized by the fact that no true good or evil

characters save for the Elder God who is revealed to have no redeeming features, his only

objective being to satiate his hunger as a parasitic entity. The actions that Kain makes are in

accordance with his flaws but ultimately the greatest atrocities are due to his corruption over

which he has no real control only awareness. By realizing that he now rules a corrupt and

failing empire, Kain places his faith in Raziel to overcome the shackles of fate and rewrite

both their destinies. Raziel has become an unwilling pawn in a game for domination due to

his unique nature, reason for which certain characters refer to him as redeemer and destroyer.

The ancient vampires hold no place on the scales of morality because despite their wisdom

and good nature, their fanatical religious credence drove them to start a holy war. Neither are

the Hylden exempt from judgement because their only motivation is revenge and not the

salvation of their race. In the case of Moebius, his actions were also guided by his blind faith

in the Elder God, ignorant of the entity’s true nature. The series ends on an ambiguous note,

with Raziel’s soul trapped in the Soul Reaver and Kain stoically contemplating the

uncertainty of future events now that the Hylden have escaped from banishment and the Elder

God defeated but not destroyed.

Bradley’s interpretation of Shakespearean tragedy maintains that tragedy is a story of

human actions producing exceptional calamity and ending in the death of a man in high

estate. This takes place in a world that has as its predominating feature a moral order which is

1

good. Somehow, this “fate” or moral order reacts violently against all infractions thereof.

From this reaction comes the calamity, which is often out of proportion with the infraction

and from it raises a terrific waste (1905:5).

This statement from Bradley shines in how the events in Legacy of Kain take place and the

repercussions of small actions give birth to effects that supersede in grand proportions the

inciting incident.

Nosgoth is depicted as a paradisal land by default that is slowly decayed by a monumental

backlash orchestrated by the Hylden. Nuprator was one of the Pillar Guardians and served the

Pillar of Mind; upon discovering the dead body of his lover Ariel, his descent into madness

rippled causing the corruption of the other guardians who were symbiotically connected and

that included Kain despite being a newly-born and that is due to the Pillars choosing their

guardians from birth.

An even greater example of disproportionate reaction is Kain’s refusal to self-sacrifice; this

decision condemned the integrity of the Pillars and sealed the fate of Nosgoth for its health is

inexorably tied to that of the Pillars.

In the majority of Greek tragedies, the leading characters are members of a royal family,

one of them being king. The authoritative figure is often autocratic thus leading to conflict.

The plot in Legacy of Kain conforms to this characteristic of tragedy. As mentioned before,

Kain was born of noble blood and in killing all the Pillar Guardians who were an oligarchy,

forcefully placed himself as Nosgoth’s king and supreme ruler. Raziel had been a respected

leader within the Sarafan ranks and after his resurrection as a vampire, Kain raised him as his

second in command. At first Raziel’s anger stems from losing both his human place of

honour and that of a loyal servant in Kain’s army, anger that is replaced with loathing of the

ignorant; a flaw he finds in himself that caused him to make mistakes that are merely

repetitions of the same mistakes made by those in the past.

Mirroring life, in tragedy the highest authority is that of the gods; however they are neither

constant nor consistent in their implication and rarely have the final say as to determine the

outcome of an event. Though the gods are generally wished to be just and kind, it is

acknowledged in tragedy that they have personal reasons for action and are often jealous,

intemperate and vindictive, very much unlike the exemplars of morality and justice humans

hope for them to be.

To attempt at being a true tragedy, Legacy of Kain fulfils the mandatory requirement of a

god with superior authority that shows little moral values and his intentions are based solely

1

on selfishness revealing him to be as flawed as the less divine creatures that worship him. At

nearly every encounter with Raziel, the Elder God shows his vanity and vindictive nature.

“Your arrogance will spell your demise, Raziel. Deny my will, and the arc of your destiny

will reach a sudden conclusion.”, “Do not test my patience, Raziel. I made you, and I will

unmake you if I become so inclined.” (Soul Reaver 2)

But just as the gods in Greek tragedies where they do not show any ability to directly

influence an event through interaction so does the Elder God rely on servants and

worshippers to act upon his behalf. Raziel realizes this when he confronts the Elder God in

the underground chamber underneath the Pillars.

“I wonder, Old One... Did you truly resurrect me, or were you simply there when I awakened

from my torment in the Abyss? I suspect you found me merely convenient. Dropped in your

lair by Kain, indestructible for some reason. A durable and gullible tool for you to

manipulate.”

Some of the fiercest conflicts occur between a character and an agent of divine power, a

priest or oracle. Although the divine agents are presented as reliable, they end up put into

question by another character, thus frequently revealed to be deceitful (Griffith: 2005:337-

344). In case of Legacy of Kain, the role of agent and deceiver is filled by Moebius who gives

false information to both Kain and Raziel, portraying them as fated rivals to which only one

outcome exists; annihilation.

In Blood Omen, Moebius instructs Kain to kill Wiliam the Just under the guise of an oracle

and thus arranging for Wiliam to become a martyr for humanity and incite the people of

Nosgoth to take arms and begin a crusade against the vampires.

In Soul Reaver 2, Moebius meets with Raziel and offers his guidance as a benevolent ally all

the while knowing of Raziel’s fate to be imprisoned in the Reaver blade; Moebius confesses

this to Kain in Defiance.

“His destiny must be completed - he will enter the sword. But until that time he is dangerous

- far more dangerous than you could understand.”

The contrasting endeavours lead to an extensive irony and demonstration of human

blindness and error on part of the oracle. This is shown to be true nearing the climax in

Defiance when Raziel reveals to Mobies his master’s true face and Moebius screams in

repulsion just before having his soul consumed.

“Do you see it now? The monster that you served? Is this what you imagined when you

worshipped it? And in that knowledge, go - and feed it. I release you.”

1

A considerable number of tragedies present one or more main characters as standing

against some form of authority which threatens the hero’s independence, freedom, honour

and happiness.

Kain and Raziel are the two main characters who struggle to gain independence and in a

sense happiness because both are trapped to walk a predestined path that none of them chose

in the first place. Kain’s destiny was imposed by Mortanius and Raziel’s destiny was

imposed by Kain who acted out of selfishness; when realizing who Raziel might be Kain

jumped at the possibility of becoming the vampire hero of prophecy, the Scion of Balance,

restoring the Pillars and finally rule a healthy kingdom. But Kain is not without qualities

made noticeable when he and Raziel meet at the base of the Pillars. Kain displays a forthright

demeanour when he tells Raziel:

“Let’s drop the moral posturing, shall we? We both know there’s no altruism in this pursuit.

Your reckless indignation led you here – I counted on it. There’s no shame in it, Raziel –

revenge is motivation enough. At least it’s honest. Hate me, but do it honestly.”

For Raziel the game of destiny felt like a devious charade of deceit, offering hope for a

moment and then disheartenment for his futile efforts and sufferings.

“The resemblance I bore to the adversary mocked all my hopes. I was destined to fight Kain

and destroy him…or be destroyed. What part did free will play in any of this?”

Although in some cases this resistance and self-assertion is misguided and futile, generally

this attempt and the manner in which the hero acts garners the audience’s respect, admiration

and even sympathy due to the principles upon which they are based and because the energy,

language and ideals are recognisable at their core albeit overly dramatic in form.

Raziel displays this heroic description to its fullest; even in the face of hopelessness he

carries on to find a solution to a fate that has been enforced on him from every direction. His

language and moments of reflection exhibit his inquisitive nature to the point of committing

to a choice that could be irredeemable and irreversible. Despite renouncing his desire for

vengeance, he kills Kain in hope that Janos Audron would provide answers to his dilemma.

“…my blood offering for the answers I sought from this enigmatic corpse. It was the price of

my freedom, for which Kain had paid with his life. “

Tragedy makes an assumption that man has a free will and is responsible for his actions.

However there is another aspect of tragedy that contradicts it and that is the existence of a

superhuman power or force which partially dictates his actions. Tragedy grapples with the

1

fact that there is evil in the world that must be faced and due to the value of life, there is no

utter defeat (Oates: 1938:23-28).

Although Legacy of Kain uses the restrictive attribute of fate as a plot device it never

saturates the circumstances, in which characters find themselves, with inevitability. Kain

makes a point on the behalf of the story itself.

“Was it still possible that with the right knowledge, the right moves, I might one day see

Nosgoth restored, the Pillars pure once more?”

When meeting Ariel, Raziel willingly or unwillingly defends Kain and his rejection of a

destiny that would see him die albeit for a just cause.

“Would it blunt your wrath to know that Kain’s dilemma was calculated to bring the Pillars

down, regardless of the choice he made? And that the devastation would have been even

greater had he chosen the path you would prescribe for him?”

Raziel on the other hand was destined to be imprisoned in the Reaver but it was his choice to

fulfil that destiny knowing that it was the lesser of two evils. In the murals he and Kain

encountered, the vampire champion and the Hylden champion were two sides of the same

coin. But neither Kain nor Moebius knew this with the exception of the Elder God who

strived to engrave only one choice into Raziel’s mind knowing that by constraining his

knowledge this would secure the outcome the Elder God wanted: Kain’s demise.

But Raziel was the embodiment of free will, to act as a hero or a villain. His act of self-

sacrifice was not an arbitrary act of goodness but a rational decision founded on empirical

reasoning. This is what gives him value as a tragic character; his journey exemplifies the

human battle between ignorance and intellect making it easier for the audience to empathise

with his suffering and cheer his dying victory.

Nietzsche suggests that while facing the truth, a truth that may be harmful and dangerous

to the highest degree, one that may cause boundless suffering and misery, facing the truth as

the tragic man ennobles oneself.

After Raziel’s resurrection he discovered the truth of his past in the Sarafan ranks and felt

longing, admiration and reverence towards humanity and their courage to fight the vampires

he now perceived as evil. This soon changed as he witnessed their methods of judgement,

their cruelty and arrogance. The same feeling of admiration and envy was felt towards the

ancient vampires and it comforted him to know his purpose was respected, until realising his

destiny as a hero meant martyrdom. The admiration faded completely when he discovered the

hypocritical nature of the vampires and their ignorance; his glorification turned into pity. In

1

the end he took pride in the knowledge that where others failed he would succeed and

accepted his fate with dignity.

The Socratic thesis is that the acquisition of wisdom is the greatest good and it is good for

us human beings to know even the harsh truth about mortality. Aristotle’s key thesis is that

tragedy does not present its tragic heroes as exemplary beings; they are flawed. Tragedy

inspires pity for the hero but tragedy purges those feelings after showing that the heroes

suffer as a result of a great error in understanding. Aristotle claims that the pleasure of all

poetry, including tragic poetry comes from the philosophic pleasure of learning. We human

beings learn, and enjoy learning, by contemplating the imitation or representation of things.

Raziel’s odyssey is one of learning, he acquires wisdom and so does the spectator who bears

witness to his flaws and the actions stemming from those flaws. The audience sees the

characters’ error in judgment and is free to judge or accept and maybe even identify with

them. Bertolt Brecht in his work Brecht Organum comments:

“The capacity to represent people should be so that it is easier for the onlooker to identify

himself with them, and at all costs each trait of character must be drawn from the narrow field

within which everyone can say at once: that is how it is. The one important point for the

spectators in these houses is that they should be able to swap a contradictory world for a

consistent one, one that they scarcely know for one of which they can dream.”

Of the tragic hero and his situation, Aristotle finds that in understanding the necessity of

the tragic hero’s downfall, the audience is relinquished of their pity (Ahrensdorf: 2009:154-

160-161).

The feeling of pity felt by the spectator is replaced by admiration and respect created from

understanding Raziel’s actions and acknowledging his rise above the human flaw. He is

elevated from ignorance through learning and as Aristotle pointed out, this is something that

human beings take pleasure from; deep within his mind, Raziel achieved peace.

Another variation in tragic plot is death followed by redemption to some degree.

The two protagonists of Legacy of Kain are rewarded with redemption but not to the point of

exemption from past actions and intentions; Kain is not sacrosanct but merely healed of his

external fault, the corruption inflicted on him from birth. His natural defects contradict the

concept of a hero.

Neither is Raziel redeemed of his transgressions because ultimately the victory over the Elder

God could not be possible without the cost of his freedom. He had the freedom of choice but

only one of them offered success.

1

Euripides draws attention through his plays upon a plot element which is incidental though

very important, the death of one of more women. Death and killing are central motifs in

tragedy, women’s role in religion, funerals and rituals partly explain their presence. In

tragedy women are instigators of tragic events in some way or another and effective

generators of emotional response. (Hall: 1997:106)

This fact is visible in Legacy of Kain; the death of Ariel has meaning because she was

Nupraptor’s lover. Her assassination was poignant due to her gender and not her role as

Balance Guardian. As Hall mentioned, women in tragedy are effective generators of

emotional response and in Legacy of Kain this is made apparent by Ariel’s numerous

lamentations:

“Nupraptor, your madness has shattered our dreams and blinded you . . .” (Blood Omen)

“Forever am I bound, hope abandoned, my spirit tethered to this place... What destroyed the

Circle could not touch me. For I was newly dead, and beyond harm’s reach. I alone was

spared the descent into madness, and Kain alone was spared the pain of death. When

Nupraptor’s poison seized Kain even in the safety of the womb, much more than just his

destiny was lost. All of Nosgoth lost Balance. Consider us now... both of us less than we once

were. I, pure but insubstantial; and Kain terribly real, but corrupted.” (Soul Reaver 2)

According to Andre Rivier, the tragic character is subjected to forces outside him but also

within, constraining him to decisions claimed to be his “choices”. From the point of view of

the agent, we see that the actions of reflection and deliberation do nothing but make him

aware of the impassable. In the end it is always an imposed fate or destiny that generates the

decision. As such, tragic man does not “choose” between two possibilities, rather he

recognizes that there is only one way open to him. (Vernant: 1990:52)

When Mortanius ordered Kain’s assassination, he knew that pride and the aristocratic desire

for retribution would compel Kain to accept the vampire curse. From the start Kain is

constrained to act based on his predicable nature. The lust for power and aspirations for

grandeur Kain had as a human were only enhanced by his new found immortality and the

corruption he was inflicted with that urged his decision at the end of Blood Omen.

“Once I embraced my powers I realized Vorador was correct. We are gods – dark gods – and

it is our duty to thin the herd”

The pitfall of Raziel’s existence was always his credulousness making him an easy tool

for manipulation. One of Raziel’s qualities, loyalty, springs from gullibility which brings

about his downfall time and again. He was a devout Sarafan, vampire lieutenant and an

1

unwilling assassin. On his second meeting with Moebius, Raziel intends on killing him but in

his ignorance spares Moebius’s life thinking he does not represent any real danger. After

Raziel departs, Moebius remarks on the precarious situation he escaped from. “By my soul,

you almost had me, my little blue assassin.

But that’ll be the one and only chance you get, I assure you of that.” (Soul Reaver 2)

Despite claiming to reclaim his free will and enforce his freedom of choice, Raziel once again

shows his ignorance by killing Kain and accepting a misinterpretation of the ancient

prophecy. “If we are who we are, then are we not destined to fight to the death, to decide the

fate of Nosgoth?” (Defiance)

Another category of conflict found in tragedy is the clash between mortals and gods, a

struggle always futile for the mortals (Allan: 2005:80-81).

The futility of the protagonists’ struggle in Legacy of Kain against the godlike forces that are

bent on subverting their progress does not have its basis on an arbitrary unfairness in power

but on the quantity and accuracy of knowledge.

Due to this concept, tragedy has long since based its intricate plots on deception and

unawareness of a character’s true condition (Allan: 2005:77). Aristotle and all critics since

have noted that tragedy is a genre fundamentally engaged with the complexities of

responsibility, choice, causation and reasoning (Goldhill: 1997:132).

Each and every one of these concepts are a fundamental part of the Legacy of Kain plot and

are woven into the characters involved. Kain is perceived at first to be a free character and his

choice to become a villain is his own but by the end of Soul Reaver, he himself admits:

“Our futures are predestined - Moebius foretold mine a millennium ago. We each play out the

parts fate has written for us. We are compelled ineluctably down pre-ordained paths. Free

will is an illusion.”

His action to order Raziel’s murder under the pretext of jealousy was an acceptance of

imprisonment to fate; Kain foresaw this as the only possibility to cheat destiny, by granting

Raziel true freedom.

“I had faith in you. In your ability to hate. In your self-righteous indignation.” (Soul

Reaver); “Your reckless indignation led you here – I counted on it.” (Soul Reaver 2);

“Because of your re-making, you are the one unbound creature; the one among us all that

truly has free will. You have a choice, Raziel.” (Defiance)

1

The motifs of responsibility, choice, causation and reasoning are all and at the same time

present in one moment of reflection when Kain doubts the worth of his actions and the hope

behind them.

“I had cast my fate, refusing the sacrifice, damning the Pillars, and founding my doomed

empire upon their ruins. I would raise the Sarafan priests to be my closest lieutenants, and

would one day cast the strongest of them, my servant Raziel, into the abyss - dealing one last

hand to play against Fate. But in the end, had it made any difference? Had I misread the

signs, as Moebius told me? In my arrogance, had I missed my cast at destiny?” (Defiance)

Out of many literary genres, tragedy has become synonymous with death and destruction.

Aristotle insists that an unhappy ending may not be indicative or definitive of said genre

however it is the mark of the best constructed and essentially tragic (Smith: 1968:10-14).

The finale of Legacy of Kain culminates with the tragic death of a protagonist, the partial

atonement of the other, the defeat but not destruction of its main antagonist and the ruined

fictional land of Nosgoth.

3.3. The tragic language

Aeschylus and Aristotle both emphasized the importance of speech and language in

theatre. As previously stated theatricality was seen as deceptive, a condition that was well

implemented in tragedy; which is why rhetoric was introduced into certain characters,

prominently villains.

The first showcasing of rhetoric in Legacy of Kain and its strength to the benefit of the

fictional realm it is used in is at the end of Blood Omen when Kain confronts the dark entity

which possessed Mortanius and the entity makes an opulent speech revealing his masterful

manipulation that would topple the Pillars and destroy all of Nosgoth.

“You thought yourself a king when in fact you were a pawn! You have served me well,

Kain. Don’t you see? My silencing of Ariel, and its calculated repercussions, this is but the

first act in my theatre of Grand Guignol. Of which you are the tragic ”hero.” Play on, little

vampire, play on . . . “

The Elder God appears in Soul Reaver for the first time under the guise of a benevolent

deity; using the elegance of rhetoric he appoints Raziel as his “angel of death” and embarks

him on a quest to destroy Kain and his followers. At that time it was an appealing

1

proposition, Raziel would avenge himself and in the process save Nosgoth. But after

discovering more of the world than he was told, Raziel questions the meaning of his situation.

“Things in this world, I am learning, are rarely what they seem. This one thing I readily admit

– I have been used by others time and again. But always I seem to stray from their path. Why

do I survive one trial after another... on and on in an endless succession of humiliating deaths

and resurrections? It seems there is much more to my destiny, and my history, than I know.”

(Soul Reaver 2)

Tragic language is distinct from other works by meter but also an elevated style, adorned

vocabulary, complex word order, metaphors, fullness of expression and high-style diction. As

previously stated, rhetoric and high society characteristics of discourse and language is

apparent in fiction (Gregory: 2005:257).

As I have previously stated, the language used in Legacy of Kain is ornate with Elizabethan

words and through the use of metaphors and epithets, adjectives stringed together to enhance

the emotions of a character, emphasize a scene or an action.

“Vorador’s pantry! A vampire’s feast! Like cattle awaiting slaughter, men and women

dangled from the rusted hooks upon the dungeon walls, blood and viscera frosted the dirt and

stone.”; “The room I had entered had but one purpose - the torture and execution of human

beings for the sadistic pleasure of its engineer. Blood was splattered on every surface. The

dread and agony of victims past still echoed through the lethal walls. A symphony of terror

and agony filled the air. Then, from amidst the cacophony of screaming souls came the

perverse laughter of the Vampire himself.” (Blood Omen)

“Enough of your sermonizing - are you trying to bore me into submission? Why must this

game go on? We both know what you are. You're no better than the vampires you so despise

-- a voracious parasite cloaking its appetite in a shroud of righteousness.”(Defiance)

In tragedy we also find the presence of asides and soliloquies. And aside is a dramatic

device in which a character speaks to the audience. By convention the audience is to realize

that the character’s speech is unheard by other characters present. It may be expressed

directly to the audience or represent an unspoken thought. An aside is usually a brief

comment rather than a speech and it occurs within the context of the play. Also by

convention a character may be mistaken in an aside but never dishonest. A soliloquy is a

device often used in drama when a character speaks to himself; reflecting on his thoughts or

feelings, thereby also sharing them with the audience.

1

These dramatic devices are present in Legacy of Kain when Kain and Raziel reflect on their

knowledge, deciphering the hidden intentions behind each other’s actions and that of other

characters. Both protagonists engage in soliloquy however Raziel makes use of asides more

often because he finds himself in the presence of others repeatedly.

3.4. The Meta in Legacy of Kain

Meta-theatre, a concept first named in 1962 by Abel, refers to inclusion or mentioning of

several theatrical elements within a play. There are five essential categories: plays within

plays, generic self-reference, performed rituals, role-playing within roles and self-conscious

intertextual allusion (Hall: 2006:107). However the references to theatrical or literary need

not be in any way disruptive of a play’s “serious atmosphere” (Easterling: 1991:56).

Intertextuality is prevalent in all forms of artistic creation (2005:267).

The first evidence of this is in the prologue of Blood Omen.

"There is a Magical operation of maximum importance; the Initiation of a New Aeon. When

it becomes necessary to utter a Word, the whole Planet must be bathed in blood..."

The quote above comes from the book Magick 4 –Thelema written by Aleister Crowley in

1911. In Crowley’s book, this short passage is a prophecy regarding a new age that could

only arrive through a massive blood sacrifice and amongst the supposed interpretations for

Crowley’s prophecy is World War 1. The role in Legacy of Kain for this excerpt is also as a

prophetic message. The magical operation indicates to the corruption of the Pillars and the

last part refers to the freedom and revenge desired by the Hylden, made possible as a result of

manipulation.

The second theatrical hint is at the end of Blood Omen when the dark entity confronts

Kain. “…this is but the first act in my theatre of Grand Guignol.“

The quote mentions a real world place, The Grand Guignol which was a theatre in Paris

between 1897 and 1962. The meaning behind this invocation is why the Grand Guignol was

famous for. It featured mainly naturalistic horror shows; plays that always involved hatred,

jealousy, murder and revenge.

The third reference is a subtle hint at Shakespeare’s soliloquy in Hamlet and is found in

the prologue of Defiance.

1

“Given the choice - whether to rule a corrupt and failing empire or to challenge the Fates for

another throw, a better throw, against one's destiny - what was a king to do?”

“But does one ever truly have a choice? One can only match, move by move, the

machinations of Fate, and thus defy the tyrannous stars.”

Kain weighs the conflicting possibilities that lie before him just as Hamlet ponders his

choices to live and accept the hardships placed on him by fate or give in to death and hope

despite the lack of evidence that something good awaits. But this reflection is not mirrored in

Legacy of Kain; Hamlet’s speech is used with a different interpretation because of Kain’s

immortality and knowledge beyond the borders of death that frighten Hamlet. What gives

Kain grief is the uncertainty of choice and the limitations imposed.

“Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer

The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune”

…

But that the dread of something after death,

The undiscover'd country from whose bourn

No traveller returns”

Hamlet as a mortal cannot foresee the repercussions of his fatal decision however Kain

knows of the possibility to save Nosgoth through sacrifice but lacks certainty and above all

else refuses this toll; for him the cost is too high.

The quotes “to rule a corrupt and failing empire or to challenge the Fates for another throw, a

better throw, against one's destiny” and

“to take arms against a sea of troubles,

And by opposing end them?”,

have two distinct meanings but are equalised through interpretation. By opposing a sea of

troubles Hamlet refers to suicide as a means to end his suffering while Kain employs other

methods to change his fate by influencing that of others. Both contemplations are connected

by desire but are differentiated in the process to achieving them.

1

Conclusion and the future of tragedy and theatricality in videogames

On the basis of evidence provided, Legacy of Kain does have theatrical value. By

complying to requirements of drama, the series succeeds in producing action; a plot that

progresses uniformly without losing track of information and clarifying it by means of

introspective narration. The characters within the fictional world act consistently in rapport to

their attributes and designated roles. The emotion portrayed by the characters is

communicated genuinely to the audience through language, expression, intonation and

gesture. Having described the notion of causality and its importance in drama, I traced the

evidence in Legacy of Kain pointing out the vera causa which instigated the incidents. By

showing the significance of an internal narrator in the series, I demonstrated that the

emotional impact was strengthened, drawing the audience closer to the characters.

Besides offering proof of dramatic value, Legacy of Kain has a full repertoire of tragic

elements. The characters undergo a regression from a state of prosperity caused by fate but

also their own weaknesses. The inflexible trait of tragedy is present in Legacy of Kain,

permitting only radical outcomes to a situation. The series pits the protagonists against

authority figures and constantly reminds them of their impudence in the face of inevitability.

Legacy of Kain also manages to uphold Aristotle’s necessity that tragedy should present the

pleasure of learning, the benefit of it in the outcome of a character or as a pleasurable

inclusion for the spectator. The language used in Legacy of Kain testifies its merits as a work

of tragedy, symbolized by soliloquies and grand artistic speeches.

Last but not least are the elements of meta-theatre the series embraces as homage to the

significance of theatre and tragedy; the authors included them as a celebration of heritage and

merit.

Besides Legacy of Kain series which began in 1997 and ended in 2003, other videogames

have strived in incorporate elements of tragedy and theatricality. In 2007 two series of

videogames approached these notions in parallel, Bioshock and Mass Effect. Bioshock is a

three part series of videogames that presents a fictional world set in 1960; a dystopian

underwater city created to escape the confinement of morality, religion and politics. The

series develops two protagonists who are manipulated by other characters under the pretext of

alliance against hardship and suffer guilt at the realization of their ignorance and false

freedom of choice. The series introduces antagonists and shows their malice not as an

1

arbitrary evil nature but caused by human defects such as greed, sexual lust, hunger for

power, vanity, racism and scientific curiosity which breaches moral codes.

Both protagonists attempt to redeem themselves but fail in their efforts and are killed leaving

behind a world unaffected by their actions.

Mass Effect is also a trilogy from 2007 to 2012 that makes use of a setting in the far future

where humanity prospers and aspires to reach a peaceful agreement with alien societies that

are both superior and inferior to mankind. The series addresses issues of racism, sexuality,

gender bias and political corruption. By the end of the series, Mass Effect portrays the human

condition through different forms and by means of ambiguous moral choices, coming face to

face with a destructive force and losing the battle. What remains is a fictional world partially

destroyed but still retaining the glimmer of hope decided on the capability of life to sustain

itself and the animal instinct of survival. Mass Effect deals with social affairs that is common

to reality, building up to a dramatized scenario that could potentially be interpreted as

inspired by the two World Wars of modern history.

Another game that touches on the prospect of tragedy and how it could benefit a growing

medium is Spec Ops: The Line. Spec Ops is a videogame published in 2012, a loose,

modernized adaptation of Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad. The character John Konrad is

a reference to the author of the novel. The plot of the game revolves around the main

protagonist Captain Martin Walker as he travels to Dubai on a mission to extract a previous

military company, 33rd Infantry Battalion of the United States Army. At first the spectator is

led to believe the following conflict will be between hostile Afghan insurgents and American

soldiers but soon discovers that the protagonist is forced to kill the very soldiers he was sent

to bring back. The men of 33rd Battalion are declared traitors due to errors in communication

and prevailing stress that slowly plunges all combatants into a state of trauma and paranoia.

The prevailing theme in Spec Ops is the fragile condition of the human mind and its

susceptiveness to distortion and degradation. At the end the audience is left with a conflicting

sense of pity and disapproval of the protagonist when it is revealed that the antagonist was

dead from the start of the game and his presence was only a hallucination in the mind of the

main character. This delusion caused the escalation of the conflict and the murder of innocent

live in during course of the story.

The development of these games could not have been possible without the foundations of

drama, tragedy and theatricality in both ancient and modern culture. The videogames I have

mentioned have received unanimous praise for narrative and the topics their creators

1

approached. To support the critical acclaim, from a financial point of view they have been

successfully received as a product of creativity thus ensuring that the literary material which

has evolved since its antique origins will not only be protected from dissipating but will also

help on improving future works of fiction.

As a form of media in which to communicate ideas and develop concepts, video games are

still in their infancy. Storytelling suffers in favour of visual presentation and simplicity. The

majority of the target audience remains a public that consumes products for the purpose of

entertainment and diversion and not as channel for transmitting powerful emotions and

challenging perceptions or thought. In spite of this, recent years have managed to show that

there is a growing demand for the evolution of this interactive medium to a more intellectual

level.

In November 2012 Jonathan Jones, a writer for The Guardian, attended a philosophy

conference at Oxford University and wrote an article criticising the possibility of labelling

video games as an art form.

“The worlds created by electronic games are more like playgrounds where experience is

created by the interaction between a player and a programme. The player cannot claim to

impose a personal vision of life on the game, while the creator of the game has ceded that

responsibility. No one "owns" the game, so there is no artist, and therefore no work of art.”

My rebuttal to his objections is that his point of view is wrongly placed. He affirms that the

player cannot impose his vision on a game but the fact is, it is not the player but the author

who shares his personal vision, his thoughts and feelings are implemented into his creation.

The onlooker interprets a painting and the player deciphers a game’s meaning through his

own prism of thought.

In January 2014 another writer for The Guardian, Keith Stuart, wrote an article as a

counter to Jones’ opinion.

“The greatest artists, you see, want to communicate in the most popular media of the time,

they want to be heard. That's why Shakespeare wrote for the lice-ridden but packed theatres

of London, that's why Bertolt Brecht collaborated with Fritz Lang to bring his theories to

Hollywood, that's why Dickens and Dumas had their novels serialised in magazines. Why

aren't games just fun? Because video games are now a language and language is a tool of

expression and change. A bit like art, yes?”

I firmly believe that my investigation on whether Legacy of Kain has theatrical value is a

stepping stone to re-evaluating the artistic properties of video games and can offer new

1

insight for debate. If Legacy of Kain encloses concepts found in the sphere of theatre, could

there be more to discover that even those who are familiar to the medium might have

overlooked? I am now confident of it.

1

Bibliography

Primary Bibliography

Silicon Knights.1997. Legacy of Kain: Blood Omen. San Francisco: Crystal Dynamics

Crystal Dynamics.1999. Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver. Wimbledon: Eidos Interactive

Crystal Dynamics.2001. Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver 2. Wimbledon: Eidos Interactive

Crystal Dynamics.2003. Legacy of Kain: Defiance. Wimbledon: Eidos Interactive

Cited Works

1. Davis, C. Tracy and Postlewait, Thomas. 2004. Theatricality. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

2. Gregory, Justina. 2005. A Companion to Greek Tragedy. Oxford: Blackwell

Publishing.

3. Storey, C. Ian and Allan, Arlene. 2005. A Guide to Ancient Greek Drama. Oxford:

Blackwell Publishing.

4. Willet, John. 2001. Brecht on Theatre. New York City: Hill and Wang.

5. de Jong, Irene. 2004. Narrators, Narratees, and Narratives in Ancient Greek

Literature. Leiden: Brill

6. de Jong, Irene. 2007. Time in Ancient Greek Literature. Leiden: Brill.

7. Whitmarsh, Tim. 2011. Narrative and Identity in the Ancient Greek Novel.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

8. Purves, C. Alex. 2010. Space and Time in Ancient Greek Narrative. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

9. Oates, J. Whitney. 1938. The Complete Greek Drama. New York City: Random

House.

10. Laurel, Brenda. 2014. Computers as Theatre. Boston: Addison-Wesley

11. Ahrensdorf, J. Peter. 2009. Greek Tragedy and Political Philosophy. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

12. Thomson, Iain. 2001. Deconstructing the Hero. New Mexico: University of New

Mexico.

13. Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1886 (Trans. Douglas Smith). 2008. The Birth of Tragedy.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

1

14. Wilson, Peter. 2007. The Greek Theatre and Festivals. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

15. Hall, Edith. 2006. The Theatrical Cast of Athens by Edith Hall. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

16. Edmunds, Lowel. 2006. Oedipus. London: Routledge Press.

17. Easterling, P.E. 1997. The Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

18. Batchelor, Stephen. 2008. The Ancient Greeks for Dummies. Hoboken: John Wiley &

Sons.

19. Vernant, Jean-Pierre. 1990. Myth and Tragedy in Ancient Greece. Brooklyn: Zone

Books.

20. Jones, Jonathan. 2012. Sorry MoMA, video games are not art [Online]. Available:

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2012/nov/30/moma-

video-games-art [Accessed 2014, September 10]

21. Stuart, Keith. 2014. Video games and art: why does the media get it so wrong?

[Online]. Available:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/gamesblog/2014/jan/08/video-games-art-

and-the-shock-of-the-new [Accessed 2014, September 10]

22. Dialogue quotes provided by Nosgothic Realm [Online]. Available:

http://www.nosgoth.net/home.htm [Accessed 2014, July 16]