Vergil, a good guy?

[DarkSlayer54]

I remember a year ago there was a huge discussion regarding Vergil and if he is a good guy, an anti-hero, or if he is borderline evil. For the life of me, I can't find it, or any threads regarding this topic.

Pardon this post if that thread is still somewhere on the forum... maybe I'm just terrible at searching, but none the less... I feel like I have to throw out my two cents on this. For whatever reason I started thinking about Vergil and whether or not he was a good guy... I came to the conclusion that he is, and I have an urge to share my opinion.

In DMC3 he opens up the demon gate to try and get the power of Sparda... at first, it's like "yeah, he let demons in, the demonds killed people, so he's a bad guy"... but you don't see any dead human bodies anywhere in the city. Obviously some innocent people died, but I'd guess the death count was only in the hundreds. I say "only" because initially I thought the all the people in the city would have died.
It's more than possible that 90% of the people in the town evacuated prior to the demons attacking.

Anyway, that's nothing important... The thing that I thought about was the dialog, and Vergils tone of voice. He tells Dante that without power, he can't protect anyone. Vergil's main goal is to learn more about his father, and to be more like his father, Sparda. On top of that, he wants more power... so to some extent the goal of having Sparda's power may have blinded him. Dante knew this.
Vergil has no motives for destroying the world, or killing innocent people as that goes against his father... pretty obvious, but I believe that he's more like his father than shown in DMC3. Sparda's human costume in both DMC1/3 show him as a wise, calm-minded, honorable, and caring person. Vergil takes after him. The death of his mother would have made him colder, but he would have still cared for humans. I think the most logical think for him to have done was cling onto one simple answer, power is the key. With power, he can avenge his mother, and kill any demon that tries to step foot in the human world, no matter how strong.

This leads me back to DMC3. Yes, he opened up the demon world, temporarily. I think his reasoning was still of good heart... well, let me explain. He was blinded by the fact that the power he was seeking was his fathers... but with that power he could have been earths protector, and destroy all demons that hide on it. The demon gate would have only been temporarily been opened, and Vergil could have closed it prior to using Sparda's power. This is apparent in DMC1, since Dante obtained Sparda's power to defeat Mundus, and the demon portal remained sealed.

Dante's reasoning for stopping Vergil confuses me a bit... but maybe he simply just doesn't believe Sparda's power belongs to anyone. He even walked away from the power after defeating Mundus...

All in all, I think Vergil knew that the power could be taken with a loop hole and little damage caused... though blinded, he still had good intentions... and if he succeeded, I think he would have succeeded in protecting earth. I keep thinking that he might be the cliche guy that gets corrupted by power... but bah, I just don't see it. His whole personality resembles Sparda... he's still honorable, wise, and calm-minded... I doubt he loves humans, but I think he likes them. Also, I just don't see how his mothers death could make him want to kill people... demons would be his number 1 enemy.


Anyway, that's my two cents. Feel free to ignore this thread, but I'd be glad to hear counter-arguments or other angles/opinions. Also, if any of you know a thread discussing this topic, please link it for me. I'd be happy to give it a read.

 

[aoshi]

Yeah, its jus capcom screwing with fans by killing off vergil. I read somewhere that hideki kamiya was not very interested in vergil. In fact, he did not like him. So, i would say creators really did not expect a "questioning" on why vergil was so "EBIL" to be killed off forever.

But i get your dilemma, I too have analyzed why in the hell a character like vergil(a son of sparda jus as dante) would end up with such a fate.

Let's jus say, its capcom's way of depressing fans.

Also, I could not find "Morality" in both dante and vergil. They were adolescent in DMC 3, making decisions hastily. Like when dante says,"I jus don't like you"(No morality). So , justifying vergil's actions on morale would not solve your dilemma.

 

[DarkSlayer54]

Yeah, its jus capcom screwing with fans by killing off vergil. I read somewhere that hideki kamiya was not very interested in vergil. In fact, he did not like him. So, i would say creators really did not expect a "questioning" on why vergil was so "EBIL" to be killed off forever.

But i get your dilemma, I too have analyzed why in the hell a character like vergil(a son of sparda jus as dante) would end up with such a fate.

Let's jus say, its capcom's way of depressing fans.

Also, I could not find "Morality" in both dante and vergil. They were adolescent in DMC 3, making decisions hastily. Like when dante says,"I jus don't like you"(No morality). So , justifying vergil's actions on morale would not solve your dilemma.

Yeah, you're right... Both Dante and Vergil had no morality at the beginning of DMC3. I kind of feel that Dante developed one near the end (partially anyway), which would tie in his decision to stop Vergil to DMC1. But yeah... now that you point it out I don't think Vergil had any morals thoughout DMC3. I still think he had good intentions for obtaining his fathers power due to honor and respect towards Sparda.

I think Hideki Kamiya left Vergils defeat in DMC1 as a loose end for a possibility for him to make a return in future games. Although, I have a feeling Hideki Kamiya would have made Vergil go insane and become a main villain since he disliked him and all. I doubt we would have gotten the Vergil shown in DMC3 if he continued to direct it... I'm still not happy he wasn't asked to direct the following DMC games, I really liked DMC1's difficulty.

 

[V]

Dislike of Vergil there probably comes from the fact he is a stoic character and Dante is not. Japanese people (I hear) tend to like 'wild' upbeat characters like Dante. Stoics not so much.

As for Vergil having no morality, I disagree. Morality is subjective to the individual— 'morality' itself does not mean 'taking the side of good', it means 'having principles'. Those principles could be anything a person chooses, and they would still 'have morals'. Different cultures have different principles or morals; cannibal tribes had them and it does not make them 'amoral'— except to a culture that believes eating people is immoral. Vergil has morality— or 'honour', or whatever you wish to call it— it's even explicitly shown. In DMC1 it is stated in the description of Nelo Angelo, and Dante even states "a man with guts and honour" when referring to Nelo Angelo. In DMC3 he is not a mad murderer who cuts up anybody for the fun of it, even if they happen to be trying to kill him (i.e. Lady). Clearly she is no contest for him and he does not kill her when he could have turned her into human pate. His behaviour shows he has some morals, specific to himself, but does not share the SAME morals as Dante. That doesn't make him amoral. In fact, at the point of DMC3 I'd say Vergil has the most developed morals at the start of the game, and Dante has them at the end of the game when he finally figures out what he bothers fighting for. Vergil has ALREADY figured out exactly what he is fighting for at the beginning, and who he will and will not kill to get it.

Basically his morals in DMC3 are not to kill those who are no contest or threat at all, but the goal of power is paramount. If anyone gets in his way seriously, or is a serious threat to the goal, like Arkham or Dante, they have to be defeated so he can get to it. He kills betrayers. It certainly makes sense to get rid of a dangerous betrayer, especially since he proved Vergil's suspicions entirely correct by being the true bad guy. He does not kill Lady because she's hardly a danger to him and wouldn't able to stop him. And he had to raise the tower and sacrifice the town to get the power. I would say those are the morals of a Machiavellian. But still morals. Even antagonists can have them.

 

[V's patron]

I think he is a sympathetic villain with the potential of being an anti-hero, I'm just not sure the writer got that across in the game itself as he was more of an enigma which helped us relate to Dante more since I'm sure Dante was confused as top what Vergil wanted or why he was doing the things he was doing.

So im not saying he cant be, im just not sure the writers were succesful in getting it across without me putting the dots together myself.

 

[Gorbashou]

How can capcom be screwing with fans by killing off Vergil? He was predestined to die in the first game before there were any fans of the game, it was written in the code before publishing.

Other than that, he do what he has to reach his goal following his own set of principles. Thinking in the lines of good and bad will only limit you, there's in true nature no good nor bad.
I think I gotta agree with Lexy on her points though.

 

[DarkSlayer54]

How can capcom be screwing with fans by killing off Vergil? He was predestined to die in the first game before there were any fans of the game, it was written in the code before publishing.

Other than that, he do what he has to reach his goal following his own set of principles. Thinking in the lines of good and bad will only limit you, there's in true nature no good nor bad.
I think I gotta agree with Lexy on her points though.

I think they screwed us over by making Vergil such a likable character in DMC3... After reading your posts I think some of you are right, he's really not good nor bad.
The more I think about it... neither Dante or Vergil were good or bad in DMC3. They were both just too young to care about humans. Dante wanted to stop Vergil simply because of his rivalry with him, and at the end of the game he seemed to want to stop him simply because he believed that Sparda's power didn't belong to anyone.

What sucks the most is that they don't even attempt to bring Vergil back after DMC1's story. With all the plot holes there are dozens and dozens of ways they could bring him back.

 

[D-Sparda]

Dislike of Vergil there probably comes from the fact he is a stoic character and Dante is not. Japanese people (I hear) tend to like 'wild' upbeat characters like Dante. Stoics not so much.

As for Vergil having no morality, I disagree. Morality is subjective to the individual— 'morality' itself does not mean 'taking the side of good', it means 'having principles'. Those principles could be anything a person chooses, and they would still 'have morals'. Different cultures have different principles or morals; cannibal tribes had them and it does not make them 'amoral'— except to a culture that believes eating people is immoral. Vergil has morality— or 'honour', or whatever you wish to call it— it's even explicitly shown. In DMC1 it is stated in the description of Nelo Angelo, and Dante even states "a man with guts and honour" when referring to Nelo Angelo. In DMC3 he is not a mad murderer who cuts up anybody for the fun of it, even if they happen to be trying to kill him (i.e. Lady). Clearly she is no contest for him and he does not kill her when he could have turned her into human pate. His behaviour shows he has some morals, specific to himself, but does not share the SAME morals as Dante. That doesn't make him amoral. In fact, at the point of DMC3 I'd say Vergil has the most developed morals at the start of the game, and Dante has them at the end of the game when he finally figures out what he bothers fighting for. Vergil has ALREADY figured out exactly what he is fighting for at the beginning, and who he will and will not kill to get it.

Basically his morals in DMC3 are not to kill those who are no contest or threat at all, but the goal of power is paramount. If anyone gets in his way seriously, or is a serious threat to the goal, like Arkham or Dante, they have to be defeated so he can get to it. He kills betrayers. It certainly makes sense to get rid of a dangerous betrayer, especially since he proved Vergil's suspicions entirely correct by being the true bad guy. He does not kill Lady because she's hardly a danger to him and wouldn't able to stop him. And he had to raise the tower and sacrifice the town to get the power. I would say those are the morals of a Machiavellian. But still morals. Even antagonists can have them.

Did you read Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince: Power Politics During the Italian Renaissance, 1513?

As for Vergil being good or bad, at the end of the day it does not matter.
Vergil is first and foremost an ambitionist. If he was always questioning himself on the morality of his endeavor of gaining Sparda's endowment resting on the latter's sword, what would happen? He would not advance in reaching the goal he fixed himself since his juniority, but he would be stalling because of trivial questions. Vergil is not senseless. That half devil knows what he is doing. He is perfectly acquainted with the fact that the journey to reach his father's prestige is bloody and sacrifices must be made.

The badass himself agrees with me.

For example, the children in the bus and the strippers in the strip club who lost their essence after Temen-ni-gru's erection was quite unfortunate, but does it mean that the Darkslayer wished for their death? No, they were just some casualties that were there at the wrong time. Did Vergil ask them to die? No. Why couldn't they avoid death? It's simple, they were fodders. Looking at them die at the top of the tower was a sort of reminder for Vergil of what he was striving to avoid, since his mother's death: the weaknesses of being human.

I am not trying to defend Vergil's actions in a good or bad way, I just wanted to state what I comprehend of his character.

 

[sylvanas]

All in all, I think Vergil knew that the power could be taken with a loop hole and little damage caused... though blinded, he still had good intentions... and if he succeeded, I think he would have succeeded in protecting earth. I keep thinking that he might be the cliche guy that gets corrupted by power... but bah, I just don't see it. His whole personality resembles Sparda... he's still honorable, wise, and calm-minded... I doubt he loves humans, but I think he likes them. Also, I just don't see how his mothers death could make him want to kill people... demons would be his number 1 enemy.

I doubt he would've protected earth. It's correct that he wanted that power to be just like his father. By opening the demon gates in DMC3, he almost flooded the whole world with demons that would destroy an conquer. After all that power, he'd fight Mundus and defeat him. After all of that, he wouldn't protect anyone, instead he'd take over the world. He also tried to kill Dante because he was standing in his way. This proves that he would slaughter anyone who'd try to stop him.
Well that's the scenario from my point of view.
He doesn't seem the type to protect anyone from what we've seen in DMC3...

 

[DragonMaster2010]

Vergil, in my opinion, isn't so much of a bad guy. He just does things that have bad results. However that doesn't nessesarily make him evil as Capcom was trying to make him. Sometimes the things we do can seem evil in other people's eyes but to us its our only way to get ahead in life. Like in one of my classes, I have a-holes in there who don't do sh*t and just give my teacher a hard time about every little thing. However I'm the one actually doing work and trying to pass and my teacher sees that in me, so she allows me extra chances to do work and gives me A's all the time. Some kids got jealous and asked "Why are you passing while all of us are failing?" My response: "I'm just better then all of you." But in actuality what I was thinking was "I'm just a better student compared to all of you." I then realized I use the students in that class to make myself succeed. They're my stepping stones in passing that class, and I really do that just to get by. I said this one day and they thought I was evil for doing it, but I saw it as me "gaining power for myself."

This ties into Vergil's state of mind that he's got to get power by any means nessesary, even if it means a few sacrifices or stepping on others to get it. It's not evil, it's just doing what he needs to do.

However, I don't really like Vergil's reasons for getting power; In DMC3 he seems to only want power just to get it. Most of the people who say he wants it cause of him being weak from his mother's death seems like a unnessesary reason. They're mom's dead, so who does he need to get stronger to protect if the only person he wanted to protect is dead? Plus he's not fighting for humans, he just wants power, and will make sacrifices. Does he want power to kill all demons in the world to satisfy his vengence? That seems a bit better, but the narrow minded "I want power" thought process is played out in all anime antagonist.

 

[Valcorn]

Vergil ain't evil 100% sure of that, he was an anti-hero/tragic character.

 

[ROCKMAN X]

It doesn't really matter he's the villain

lets take a person for example he's very kind and humble but he wants to build a memorial for his family but in the process many other people who're living there are now homeless

So his intentions were Good somewhat but his way of achieving that goal damages a lot

Vergil was purely selfish from the beginning... he just wants power but in the process he'll unleash HELL on humans and i don't think he'll be kind enough to fight them all actually i don't think he was powerful enough to fight them all anyway

.

Man your sign shows that dante's walking animation is so short

 

[darkslayer13]

I don't think Vergil even knew what he would have done with Sparda's power. Dante even asked him what his goal was and he changed the subject. He wanted power because he felt weak, he didn't have anything he wanted to do with it. If he would have gotten it he would have probably used it to protect human because that is what Sparda would have done but he wouldn't actually care about them.

Vergil is honorable, he fights fairly and doesn't directly kill people he doesn't have to but he is also completely ruthless and is not the slightest bit concerned about innocent people that die because of his actions.

Good and Evil are both inaccurate terms to describe Vergil. Good implies that someone wants to help people or at least wants to avoid harming people. Evil implies a deliberate choice to ignore conventional morality. Vergil's behavor does not show those traits. What his behavior does show is that his thought processes are not entirely connected to reality. He thinks that he needs power but he shows no sign of any actual reason to need power. He doesn't want to rule the world or save it or destroy it. He never expresses any desire for revenge and he has no one to protect but he still thinks that it is absolutely essential that he gets his father's power at all costs. The word for that would be insane.
(Note : the term anti-hero has been used to describe Vergil. That term is inaccurate. An anti-hero has a heroic goal or is helping someone with heroic goals but possesses traits that are not heroic. The term for someone with harmful or misguided goals that has sympathetic or heroic traits is anti-villian)

 

[DarkSlayer54]

Good and Evil are both inaccurate terms to describe Vergil. Good implies that someone wants to help people or at least wants to avoid harming people. Evil implies a deliberate choice to ignore conventional morality. Vergil's behavor doesn't not show those traits. What his behavior does show is that his thought processes are not entirely connected to reality. He thinks that he needs power but he shows no sign of any actual reason to need power. He doesn't want to rule the world or save it or destroy it. He never expresses any desire for revenge and he has no one to protect but he still thinks that it is absolutely essential that he gets his father's power at all costs. The word for that would be insane.

That's a good point. It's kind of neat how everyone here has a slightly different view of Vergil. My opinions on him have kind of changed after reading these posts.
I'm kind of curious though... if he were to return, would he remain a neutral character, or would he end up being good? It's kind of a funny question to ask since there's really not much to go on.
What would his goal even be if he were to return? Would he try and take Sparda's sword from Trish? Would he try and find Sparda?

Sadly it doesn't seem like he has much purpose in DMC... but honestly, Dante didn't have much purpose in DMC3 either. He was just kind of discovering who he was.

 

[darkslayer13]

That's a good point. It's kind of neat how everyone here has a slightly different view of Vergil. My opinions on him have kind of changed after reading these posts.
I'm kind of curious though... if he were to return, would he remain a neutral character, or would he end up being good? It's kind of a funny question to ask since there's really not much to go on.
What would his goal even be if he were to return? Would he try and take Sparda's sword from Trish? Would he try and find Sparda?

Sadly it doesn't seem like he has much purpose in DMC... but honestly, Dante didn't have much purpose in DMC3 either. He was just kind of discovering who he was.

A lot would have to change for Vergil to ignore his goal when it is right in front of him. Trish's appearance would make it impossible for him to kill her but it would be easy for him to just steal the sword (he would probably also want his half of the amulet). What happens after that would probably depend on how Dante responds.

 

[Valcorn]

Except he is dead lol

 

[darkslayer13]

Except he is dead lol

The really cool thing about unrealistic fictional universes is that they don't have to conform to the way real life works. For example in reality dead means gone forever, in fiction it means gone until the writers decide to bring them back and come up with a way to resurrect them ( magic, nanotechnology, mutant powers, etc.) or retcon away their death ("he was just hiding","it was a dream", "because we said so", etc.)

 

[V's patron]

Even if he is a bad guy, that doesnt mean he has to stay one. He could be redeemed or turn over a new leaf.

 

[aoshi]

As for Vergil having no morality, I disagree. Morality is subjective to the individual— 'morality' itself does not mean 'taking the side of good', it means 'having principles'. Those principles could be anything a person chooses, and they would still 'have morals'.

Uh...No. "Morality" is the conscience that decides wat is right or wrong.Take a look at the definitions in the below link.

http://ardictionary.com/Morality/6959

The words that re-occur in most definitions is to decide wat is right. And wat needs to be decided right can not be subjective. I would draw inspiration to adhere to "morality" from ancient times where the "ten commandments" were decided as basis for right and transgressing them would be wrong. It was not followed or ignored subjectively by christians but was common for everyone who believed in it. Some of which have been turned as laws that citizens should abide and breaking them would result in consequences. Like ...not stealing ....not killing...not give false testimony. I am not saying all laws were written from the commandments but i am more emphasizing that morality would eventually decide wat is right and so do the laws and laws are not subjective.

Principles can be moral but not necessarily. Anyone who follows a principle can not be considered moral. A vegetarian decides not to eat meat. Which can be his principle. But he can't claim a non-vegeterain as immoral if he eats meat which is against his principle. So principles can be moral but not "any" principle can be moral as moral is more to decide as wat is right.

Different cultures have different principles or morals; cannibal tribes had them and it does not make them 'amoral'— except to a culture that believes eating people is immoral.

Cannibalism was supposedly in a time where there was no religious or moral values that governed their actions.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/618962.Eat_Thy_Neighbor

Even in an age when almost nothing is sacred, religious, moral and social prohibitions surround the topic.

Cannibalism was not a principle that was followed but an alternative in the below situations. Motives behind cannibalism don't make it anyway moral or their lack of knowledge from wat is right.

cases where famine, poverty, disease or war has left no alternative;

Vergil has morality— or 'honour', or whatever you wish to call it— it's even explicitly shown. In DMC1 it is stated in the description of Nelo Angelo, and Dante even states "a man with guts and honour" when referring to Nelo Angelo.

Again, morality and honour are not the same. Honour is to demand or show respect due to reputation or any other factor that demands respect. Someone who seeks honour can be moral but not necessarily.Vergil sought and demanded honour cuz he was a son of sparda(a demon, swordsman who slayed the demon world). That does not make him moral. He went against his father's intentions of keeping the demon world sealed. He impulsively and disrespectfully lashed at jester for making an appearence at end of mission 13. There was nothing moral about his intentions that jester needed leave his presence. And dante referring to nelo-angelo as man with guts and honour does not make him moral either.

In DMC3 he is not a mad murderer who cuts up anybody for the fun of it, even if they happen to be trying to kill him (i.e. Lady). Clearly she is no contest for him and he does not kill her when he could have turned her into human pate. His behaviour shows he has some morals, specific to himself, but does not share the SAME morals as Dante. That doesn't make him amoral. In fact, at the point of DMC3 I'd say Vergil has the most developed morals at the start of the game, and Dante has them at the end of the game when he finally figures out what he bothers fighting for. Vergil has ALREADY figured out exactly what he is fighting for at the beginning, and who he will and will not kill to get it.

He did not go after lady cuz he assigned that to arkham. He wanted arkham to kill her.Vergil confronts arkham as to why he did not kill her and questioned if "Some pesky fatherly love got in the way" and stabbed him for it. Not because he knew arkham would betray him. He did not know it. He also thought arkham was no longer necessary and found him to have outlived his purpose. At the end of mission 13, when lady enters and finds dante and vergil fighting each other, dante was fending off vergil from going after lady. If dante had not been there or jester interfering , he would have killed her.
Which makes me wonder at the beginning of mission 18 or 17(not sure,after dante confronts lady), lady finds vergil walking through the door. Its not logical to question why he did not kill lady there cuz he was pre-occupied with arkham's betrayal. He would have killed off lady at mission 13 if it were not for the plot twist.

Basically his morals in DMC3 are not to kill those who are no contest or threat at all, but the goal of power is paramount. If anyone gets in his way seriously, or is a serious threat to the goal, like Arkham or Dante, they have to be defeated so he can get to it. He kills betrayers. It certainly makes sense to get rid of a dangerous betrayer, especially since he proved Vergil's suspicions entirely correct by being the true bad guy. He does not kill Lady because she's hardly a danger to him and wouldn't able to stop him. And he had to raise the tower and sacrifice the town to get the power. I would say those are the morals of a Machiavellian. But still morals. Even antagonists can have them.

Vergil did not know that arkham would betray him. He killed him or intended to kill him as he had outlived his purpose. He was surprised as dante and lady when jester says he preserved the 3 to unlock the portal at mission 13. And vergil followed arkham at mission 7 from killing off dante as he wanted arkham till he had reached the gate and arkham was scheming that dante would not get killed. Otherwise, he would have killed off dante as well in mission 7. It was clear when even after dante was impaled with yamato and was on the ground, vergil stabbed rebellion into his heart to make sure he was dead.

There was nothing moral about vergil's actions but was only over-confident that his beliefs of becoming his father would get him to reach his goals and under-estimated arkham and dante.The only segment where he tried to be moral was at the end of mission 20 where he says he will stay in the demon-world cuz it was his father's place.

 

[DarkSlayer54]

Vergil did not know that arkham would betray him. He killed him or intended to kill him as he had outlived his purpose. He was surprised as dante and lady when jester says he preserved the 3 to unlock the portal at mission 13. And vergil followed arkham at mission 7 from killing off dante as he wanted arkham till he had reached the gate and arkham was scheming that dante would not get killed. Otherwise, he would have killed off dante as well in mission 7. It was clear when even after dante was impaled with yamato and was on the ground, vergil stabbed rebellion into his heart to make sure he was dead.

There was nothing moral about vergil's actions but was only over-confident that his beliefs of becoming his father would get him to reach his goals and under-estimated arkham and dante.The only segment where he tried to be moral was at the end of mission 20 where he says he will stay in the demon-world cuz it was his father's place.

I really can't agree with that... Vergil wouldn't of killed Dante or Lady even if he had the chance. For a guy that's so inspired by his father, why would he go directly against him and kill in cold blood for more power? It doesn't fit.
Vergil had principles, stabbing Dante with Rebelion wasn't an attempt at killing him at all. It was merely to slow him down, and add insult to injury. Both brothers did indeed care for eachother, but they were both too young admit it. Vergil had multiple opportunities to kill Dante, yet he always pushed him aside to get a step closer to his goal.
I can't accept Vergil as a cold-hearted character. As far as humanity goes, Vergil didn't care... but neither did Dante. None the less, killing a human directly would have never been a choice of his in respect to his father. That, and humans are so weak compared to him that he would merely shove them aside if it came down to it. Ontop of that, Vergil is suppose to be an intelligent character, I'm pretty sure he would have figured out Arkhams intentions before killing him. As for his surprise when Arkham came back, well yeah... I'm sure Vergil actually expected Arkham to die when he stabbed him through the chest. Otherwise he would have tried cutting his head off or something.