Clarify Zodd's prophecy for me..

[Fradener]

[spoiler]All right, so, Zodd said when Griffith's ambition crumbled, Guts would die. We know he was referring to the first Eclipse because he was surprised that Guts had survived it.
..So how exactly were the events there the crumbling of Griffith's ambition? If you're measuring by when Griffith hit the largest speed bump to his dream, I'd say that would be when he was captured by Midland. The Eclipse was more of a turn of fortune in his favor.
Or was there some miscommunication and it's actually supposed to be 30 volumes later after Guts topples Griffith's kingdom or whatever and Griffith is destroyed? That would make more sense.[/spoiler]

[Istvan]

Basically, the eclipse only ever happens after the person in question has had their entire dream/purpose to life destroyed. The reason that this took awhile after he was captured to occur is that it was only after the rescue (and the events during it) that it became totally clear to Griffith that it had become impossible to ever achieve his dream again. Only after his despair became total was it time for the eclipse to occur.

[Fradener]

Ahh, I get it now.. thanks.

[Ultimate]

How I thought of it was that his ambition first crumbles when Guts has left and Griffith can no longer pick up his weapon and be his own man, the kind of man others can rely on. Which itself is evident when he goes to find comfort (although misdirected) in the arms of Princess Charlotte. Hell, he couldn't even kill himself when he wanted to right before the Great Eclipse. At that point he had absolutely no ambition, and the only way for him to have dealt with the absence of the emotion and force that had been driving his life up until that point was to completely remove himself from humanity, ie the Great Eclipse. Ambition after all is a human concept.

[Istvan]

I disagree completely.

How I thought of it was that his ambition first crumbles when Guts has left and Griffith can no longer pick up his weapon and be his own man, the kind of man others can rely on. Which itself is evident when he goes to find comfort (although misdirected) in the arms of Princess Charlotte.

My interpretation was that, in the moment that Guts left he realized that, contrary to what he had said/believed up to that point, Guts friendship was actually more important to him than his dream. Guts leaving thus caused him great psychological pain, and so the only thing left to do was throw himself even more into his dream, despite the fact that doing so was highly risky/unlikely to work (the fact that he had the Hawks gather ahead of time indicates that he knew this was likely to backfire).

Hell, he couldn't even kill himself when he wanted to right before the Great Eclipse. At that point he had absolutely no ambition

Again, I see that scene as proof of his ambition. The reason he tried to kill himself was that he could predict what the future would look like (remember when he's dreaming of living in a cottage with Caska) and the utter loss of his dream, and he finds that future unacceptable. He's not willing to live such a life, without possibility of achieving his dream. But, on the other hand, he doesn't want to die either, which is why he instinctively flinches from suicide. He still wants to achieve his dream, he still has that burning drive to live and succeed, he just can't see any way to accomplish it...which is why he chooses to make the sacrifice. You can see this again later on the hill of swords, when he says that the reason he sacrificed the Hawks was because he simply didn't abandon his dream.

and the only way for him to have dealt with the absence of the emotion and force that had been driving his life up until that point was to completely remove himself from humanity, ie the Great Eclipse. Ambition after all is a human concept.

Griffith most definately does still possess ambition; otherwise everything he's doing since the eclipse makes no sense whatsoever. If you look at the Apostles, they still have human emotions, and lots of them. The eclipse doesn't destroy emotion itself, it destroys positive emotions (more or less), as symbolized by the whole sacrificing your dearest and most important individuals aspect. If they lacked human emotion they wouldn't do nearly as much damage as they do.

[DrPepperPro]

My interpretation was that, in the moment that Guts left he realized that, contrary to what he had said/believed up to that point, Guts friendship was actually more important to him than his dream. Guts leaving thus caused him great psychological pain, and so the only thing left to do was throw himself even more into his dream, despite the fact that doing so was highly risky/unlikely to work (the fact that he had the Hawks gather ahead of time indicates that he knew this was likely to backfire).

I don't think Griffith told them to meet there. The order was probably given by the king, and delivered to Caska by some messenger or whatever.

More clarification on Zodd Prophecy:
Maybe Zodd just had a feeling that Guts would be at the eclipse due to causality. Or maybe he realized how much Griffith risked for Guts' sake, and knew that Guts would be one of those people close enough to Griffith to be a sacrifice.

[hbi2k]

Or maybe he realized how much Griffith risked for Guts' sake, and knew that Guts would be one of those people close enough to Griffith to be a sacrifice.

Bingo. The impression I got was that Zodd wasn't giving a "prophecy" in any supernatural sense (there's certainly never been any other indication that he or any other apostle can tell the future-- that power seems reserved for the God Hand, or possibly only the Idea itself). He was just putting two and two together: Guts was important enough to Griffith that Griffith was willing to go up against a flippin' huge demon to save him; Griffith had the Crimson Behelit and was thus destined to sacrifice everyone who was important to him when he reached an apex of despair. Ergo, when Griffith's ambition crumbled, Guts was doomed.

Griffith most definately does still possess ambition; otherwise everything he's doing since the eclipse makes no sense whatsoever. If you look at the Apostles, they still have human emotions, and lots of them. The eclipse doesn't destroy emotion itself, it destroys positive emotions (more or less), as symbolized by the whole sacrificing your dearest and most important individuals aspect. If they lacked human emotion they wouldn't do nearly as much damage as they do.

Even the destruction of positive emotion is arguable, depending on your interpretation of some of Griffith's actions post-Eclipse such as saving Casca from the rockslide. Certainly apostles have been shown numerous times to possess the full range of human emotions, the most obvious example being the Slug Count's refusal to sacrifice his daughter.

[Rolos]

yep, contrary to whats stated in the first volumes, apostles don't become "evil" after making a sacrifice. They just forfeit a part of themselves, and in the process adopt the true form of their amputated egos. My own theory is that, the clearer their idea of their purpose and existence, the "purer" (and more powerful) their apostle form is. That's the reason behind Zodd's clearly defined demon form, in contrast with the formlessness found in weaker apostles.
Man, I suck at writing under pressure (I gotta give back this computer now), so I'll just post some images to explain my point:

Sucker:




Zodd:

[Istvan]

yep, contrary to whats stated in the first volumes, apostles don't become "evil" after making a sacrifice. They just forfeit a part of themselves, and in the process adopt the true form of their amputated egos.

I'd beg to differ. I think that all of the Apostles become "evil" after the sacrifice, and part of what they sacrifice are their positive or "good" emotions. Now, they don't always become completely without positive emotions (as with the slug count), but they do all become evil. If you note, even the slug count became a far worse person, overall, after he made the sacrifice. But I can't think of a single Apostle for whom the label of "evil" can't honestly be applied. My own theory for why some of them retain a few positive emotions is that it has to do with the completeness (for lack of a better word) of the sacrifice. They are required to sacrifice the person(s) who are closest and most important to them. In a case like the slug count, he sacrificed one of the two people most important to him. Those who sacrifice all of the people who are important to them probably have a more complete transformation. The exact way that diferent Apostles are "evil" also varies, which probably is related to the personality they had beforehand. But in no case do I think they could be called "good," which makes sense when you consider that their patron is "The Idea of Evil," whose purpose is to cause/be the reason for suffering.

[Starnum]

Right, I totally agree with you on that, Istvan. To become an apostle is a transformation of evil. Of course some apostles are very complex, and can show positive emotions and even honor. It's all dependent upon the psyche, but there's no getting around it, they are incarnations of desire. The less complex people turn into rampant monsters, and the deeper ones turn into more defined creatures. Regardless, they are inherently evil by nature.

[hbi2k]

I'd beg to differ. I think that all of the Apostles become "evil" after the sacrifice, and part of what they sacrifice are their positive or "good" emotions. Now, they don't always become completely without positive emotions (as with the slug count), but they do all become evil. If you note, even the slug count became a far worse person, overall, after he made the sacrifice. But I can't think of a single Apostle for whom the label of "evil" can't honestly be applied.

True enough, but the question is whether they become evil through a supernatural transformation, or through what we would consider a "natural" result of undergoing an insanely traumatic event (whatever caused them to be willing to make the sacrifice in the first place) combined with some degree of self-deception (they're told over and over that they are now no longer human, they no longer WISH to be human, so they convince themselves that they are not and, hence, don't act like it much of the time). Are they evil because the God Hand waved a magic wand over them and made it so, or are they evil because as human beings they had that potential all along, and they were put through such terrible experiences that that part of their nature became dominant? Or to put it another way, would they be exactly as evil if they had gone through those same experiences, but retained their human form?

It's a matter of interpretation, and I think it unlikely that there will ever be such overwhelming evidence that either of us will be able to be definitively proven "right," but personally, I find the story much more interesting thematically if we assume that the apostles and God Hand are still human in the fundamental sense and that their supernatural transformation was purely physical, so that's the interpretation I choose to believe.

[Rolos]

That very similar to my interpretation.
My theory is that, like you said, they don't magically "become" evil, its just that becoming an apostle usually involve doing things that would be considered evil by any sane human. They leave behind anything besides their dream, and that includes morality. Some of them retain some sort of rules of conduct, but thats because those very rules were part of their dream. Like the warrior's code that Grunbeld kept quoting while he fought Gutts.
So, as I understand it, apostles don't become evil, just....... "morally challenged".

EDIT:




Oh crap. There goes my theory.

[Istvan]

That's a good find, Rolos, and also consider the conversation Griffith has while he is being transformed (with Void? I can't recall), where the impression I got was that the souls of the Band of the Hawks who were dying were literally transforming his mind. That's part of why I think that there is a supernatural element to their change in personality. The sacrifice is not just a symbol, it is a necessity to their transformation.

[Starnum]

Well I half agree with you hbi2k, and I think the pages Rolos has shown helps support what Istvan and I are talking about. However, to go back for a moment about the humanity thing. I do believe that it's more than a physical transformation, but I think of it more as an evolution. I believe that humanity is evil by nature. Sure most people like myself try to do what's right and act good-natured, but at our core everyone is selfish and full of desire. We are born with sin and propagating it is second nature. That's why we must learn maturity, to control our desire and base instincts. So even though the apostle transformation is mainly physical, I think that upon their initial transformation they ascend being human and evolve into a higher form of incarnation of evil and desire. If that makes any sense. I don't think they're ethereal beings at that point, but I don't think they're human either. Even though some of them still act human, that doesn't mean they're not all still bound by fate (aka The Idea of Evil), even more so than normal people. They have made a pact with the Godhand & Idea, and sacrificed something they love most, in return for power. You don't come away from that unchanged. At the time they may think it a blessing, or a chance, but really it's only a curse. I mean, it has to be a supernatural transformation, IMO. Berserk and the Godhand are supernatural by nature, heh. However, what I do agree with is that their psyche remains human. They still feel and act like a human, only they're consumed by their desires to do evil and cause suffering. That's like the whole point of an apostle, I thought. It's because they still retain their human emotions, that they are filled with such evil desires. On the otherside though, it's also why some of the stronger willed apostles like Zodd and Locus, are able to control themselves.

[Rolos]

I think you got things mixed up there.
While it is part of the christian belief that humans are born tainted, with the original sin an all its "naughty" (I just love that word. Thank you hbi2k, for using it so often in that Christmas abridged special you did last year) implications, that doesnt mean Miura's humans are like that. Heck, I don't even think real humans are like that.
You see, humans aren't born evil. They are born completely, utterly and absolutely (deliciously, too) amoral. Except from some basic genetically inherited notions, like "protect infants" or "cooperate to survive", there aren't any real moral guidelines in a newborn's mind. Those are added later by the society he grows up in.
Let me put some images here so I can continue to explain my point.





As you can see, Idea explicitly states that he just does what he does because he was made that way. He didn't choose to be the cause of all suffering. Can someone be evil if they are not given the choice to do good? At this point of the story we all know that Apostles are nothing less than the earthly agents of Idea, extensions of him. That forces them to be the source of suffering Idea is supposed to be. They renounce to the ability to tell good from evil in exchange to have their wishes granted. That makes them amoral.


PD: yes, I know I am taking this discussion a little too far into the philosophical field, but....common. Berserk IS philosophy. Its a rare mix between Plato, the lord of the rings and DIEHARD

[Starnum]

Well regardless of whether you believe in original sin or not, you seem to be missing my main point, which is that people are greedy by nature. People are inherently "evil", and driven by their desires. It's easy to be selfish and mean, but it takes effort to be compassionate and giving. Apostles are controlled by their desires, and compelled to inflict pain and suffering. You might not believe that people are evil by nature, and you can argue that apostles are amoral, but I don't really agree. We all know that apostles do the work of the Idea of evil, it doesn't matter if the Idea wanted to cause suffering or not, as stated, it manifest as the cause of strife and suffering. Apostles cause suffering because they want to, not only because they're driven to. They are consumed by their desires. This is my take on things at least. We can argue over semantics all we want, but apostles are clearly monsters that pillage, rape, and kill. Regardless of the why, they are still agents of evil, committing evil works.

[Rolos]

thats cool, everyone can have their own takes on the same material.
I was just saying that the concept of evil is very subjective, and because of that, at least for me, reasons DO matter.
I just don't think they can be all simply labeled as "evil". Monstrous may be, but evil.....

[Starnum]

Yes, well good and evil are subjective, so I understand where you're coming from. While most of the apostles are easily classified as "evil" by normal social standards, some are more complex and harder to label. In the end though, they all serve the Idea of Evil, and are bound by their pact with the Godhand. Though I believe their transformations increase their ego and make them want to cause suffering. I mean, they eat people, for one, heh. For most people, turning them into an apostle is a sure fire way to turn them into a horrible monster, heh. It's kind of hard to fully express my theory on apostles, but it is very similar to Istvan's, from what I can tell. I believe that it is because they are human, that they are transformed into monsters. The human psyche can manifest itself is some pretty sick ways. Idea said that he is "God" and creates destiny, and we know that he was created by mankind as the cause for strife and suffering. So in the end I think all apostles are meant to propagate pain and suffering. Though it's as easy as transforming them into apostles for most, and then their ego is increased and they become consumed by their desires. For some that goes as far as eating people, heh. Though Idea told Griffith that he was leaving the choice up to him, so let's just wait and see what he chooses.

[Istvan]

As you can see, Idea explicitly states that he just does what he does because he was made that way. He didn't choose to be the cause of all suffering. Can someone be evil if they are not given the choice to do good?

Of course they can; they just can't be blamed for it. It's not Idea's fault that it is evil (that would be the humans who created it, if anyone), but it is undoubtably evil: hence the name, "Idea of Evil."

At this point of the story we all know that Apostles are nothing less than the earthly agents of Idea, extensions of him. That forces them to be the source of suffering Idea is supposed to be. They renounce to the ability to tell good from evil in exchange to have their wishes granted. That makes them amoral.

I'm not convinced that they have renounced the ability to tell good from evil. It's more like they have renounced much of the emotions that lead to the desire to do good. An amoral agent ought to be value neutral, but the Apostles seem far from that. They frequently engage in extremely "evil" activities, but I can only think of a single action of any Apostle that could be labeled "good," namely when the Slug Count refused to sacrifice his daughter, and even that contained at least some level of selfishness. So while the Apostles might not be "pure" evil, they are still essentially human, the sacrifice definately tilts them quite a bit in the evil direction - which after all is the reason Idea creates them in the first place.

I was just saying that the concept of evil is very subjective, and because of that, at least for me, reasons DO matter.
I just don't think they can be all simply labeled as "evil". Monstrous may be, but evil.....

I agree that reasons matter, and that evil is subjective, but I still think the Apostles most definately fall under the catagory of evil. As I mentioned above, they aren't "pure" evil (if such a thing could exist), but I can't think of a single Apostle that I wouldn't, without hesitation, label "evil," although if anyone else can think of such an example, please share. I would argue that the reason the Apostles aren't pure evil is because Idea understands that leaving them as somewhat human makes them more effective at causing evil/pain/suffering. After all, it lets them blend in and persuade humans to help them and do much of the work for them; simple monsters would be far easier to resist/oppose. To achieve this genuineness, the final result is based on the original person (just a somewhat distorted version thereof), which also accounts for why some of the Apostles are so much more complex then others - it depends on their original character and dream. But again, the sheer variety of Apostles' nature probably makes them even more effective at achieving Idea's purpose.