Evil Genius

I'm betting she's got something to do with the water spirits, not apostles. Still kind of a freaky last pic, and is it me or she look mad?

For the expected waiting of 3 months that will ensue I would like to beging the torrent of speculation.

The girl is actually a denizen of the great Cthulu and wishes to eat Isidro when she's done with him, because that's all he's good for.

Cthulu Fatagn!

The Herald wrote:For the expected waiting of 3 months that will ensue I would like to beging the torrent of speculation.

The girl is actually a denizen of the great Cthulu and wishes to eat Isidro when she's done with him, because that's all he's good for.

Cthulu Fatagn!

Ah. So, do we then suspect that the cave the girl kept Isidro from entering leads to the sunken city of R'lyeh? And they need some fresh sacrifices to awaiken the Great Old Ones?

Hmm, that's a good question. Do you think that the old ones will accept godhand sacrifices?

And then the old ones and the godhand will begin to fight and the end of the world will commence!

Istvan wrote: Even simply looking at their character, I don't think there's a single Apostle we've truly learned much about in this story that one could label as "not evil."

Really?

Aside from the fact that they are apostles (and relying simply on a blanket argument that Apostles are evil....or are not not evil), from what we have seen from them so far, I'd like you to point out one instance, just one........ in either case, that would indicate, suggest or even hint at an evil side pertaining to the apostles Locus or Irvine.

Though I am not saying they won't prove to be (evil) in the end.......As far as I'm concerned you won't find any two characters (Skully included) of character characterized in a more noble light (again...from what we have seen at this point in the story) than that of apostles Locus and Irvin.

The Prince wrote:

Istvan wrote: Even simply looking at their character, I don't think there's a single Apostle we've truly learned much about in this story that one could label as "not evil."

Really?

Aside from the fact that they are apostles (and relying simply on a blanket argument that Apostles are evil....or are not not evil), from what we have seen from them so far, I'd like you to point out one instance, just one........ in either case, that would indicate, suggest or even hint at an evil side pertaining to the apostles Locus or Irvine.

Though I am not saying they won't prove to be (evil) in the end.......As far as I'm concerned you won't find any two characters (Skully included) of character characterized in a more noble light (again...from what we have seen at this point in the story) than that of apostles Locus and Irvin.

Please note the qualifier in my statement, namely any "Apostle we've truly learned much about." The story hasn't really given us all that much information about Irvine or (especially!) Locus, and they're both on their best behavior as part of Griffith's PR campaign, so it's not as if we've gotten a very good look at their characters. I'm presuming that, based on all of the Apostles we have gotton a good look at, the two of them will probably follow the pattern. Although even for the two of them, I'd note that the chapter between Sonia and Irvine in the forest at least hints that Irvine has a darker side, and also we know that both Irvine and Locus sacrificed people they loved/cared for to be consumed by demons and have said loved ones souls cast into hell in order for the two of them to persue their own personal desires; I have a hard time qualifying that as anything other than evil, personally.

I've always imagined that there may have been tragic
circumstaces to have led to some sort of twisted course of events munipulatEd
in such a way by the GH to force even the most noblest into a no win situation. In
regards to weighing such a choice. Beyond the simple notion of greed and pursuit of power.
I recall the sad tales of the Ferry apostle and the Egg apostles to illustrate such choices are
not always motivated by greed so much as pain and in some cases revenge, betrayal or
even alienation.

I do agree by the way Locus and Irvine have very dark sides. But the beauty of Miura, you know
in each case there is a very complicated tragic story behind their choice of selling their souls to the devil
so to speak. Where even the most noble of humans can be broken into succumbing, in some
sense this is Concept is being played out with Guts on a day to day basis. Where the only thing keeping
him together is not is inner strength so much as obligation to the one person he loves. If Caska died I could imagine
him succumbing to his inner demons if it allowed him to get a shot at Griffith.

The Prince wrote:I've always imagined that there may have been tragic
circumstaces to have led to some sort of twisted course of events munipulatEd
in such a way by the GH to force even the most noblest into a no win situation. In
regards to weighing such a choice. Beyond the simple notion of greed and pursuit of power.
I recall the sad tales of the Ferry apostle and the Egg apostles to illustrate such choices are
not always motivated by greed so much as pain and in some cases revenge, betrayal or
even alienation.

I do agree by the way Locus and Irvine have very dark sides. But the beauty of Miura, you know
in each case there is a very complicated tragic story behind their choice of selling their souls to the devil
so to speak. Where even the most noble of humans can be broken into succumbing, in some
sense this is Concept is being played out with Guts on a day to day basis. Where the only thing keeping
him together is not is inner strength so much as obligation to the one person he loves. If Caska died I could imagine
him succumbing to his inner demons if it allowed him to get a shot at Griffith.

I agree with that. Some of the Apostles almost certainly were very noble, impressive people in their past lives, and could have suffered any number of horrible circumstances to lead to them becoming Apostles. Nor does their becoming Apostles make them two-dimentional characters, they retain (in some cases) complex characters and motivations. That doesn't mean they're not evil. The way even "bad guys" aren't simplistic, stock characters is one of the things I love about Miura's work.

Ok, you're using that word a lot, Istvan, so I have to ask. In regard to the Berserk universe, what is evil? Just asking for your opinion here.

War Machine wrote:Ok, you're using that word a lot, Istvan, so I have to ask. In regard to the Berserk universe, what is evil? Just asking for your opinion here.

I believe even Miura would have trouble answering this. Though I believe in Berserk there are characters who I would say are clearly evil, through the story of Guts the reader sees that when it comes to good vs evil often comes down to perspective.

I agree, I'm just asking for his perspective cause he's been using a very specific definition of that word that I can't wrap my head around. Is it more of a state of being or what?

War Machine wrote:Ok, you're using that word a lot, Istvan, so I have to ask. In regard to the Berserk universe, what is evil? Just asking for your opinion here.

Well, first I would note that I don't think it should be "in regard to the Berserk universe." The fundamental nature of evil doesn't change depending on the universe/reality you're in; it's a constant. Granted, the skill with which the author portrays evil can vary quite a bit, but that's a different issue.

As to defining evil...that's tricky. I know and understand what it is, I can point out (and explain why) various evil actions, I can demonstrate the existence of evil, and defend against the (usually based on subjectivism) arguments that evil doesn't exist, but to give a definition that includes everything that is evil, and excludes anything that is not, is beyond my ability. Sorry. I know this is a flaw in my argument, but I've never been able to come up with, or heard/read, a truly satisfying definition of the concept. Which doesn't mean that evil doesn't exist, just that's hard to define.

I agree, I'm just asking for his perspective cause he's been using a very specific definition of that word that I can't wrap my head around. Is it more of a state of being or what?

I'm not sure what exactly you're having trouble with in the way I use the word. Could you expand, and explain what's confusing you? Even if I can't fully define the concept, I can probably answer a specific question and/or clarify a point of confusion.

I think what he's asking is what conception of evil you are using, what ethical system/philosophy you are aligning yourself with.
I kinda agree with him, you are being a little vague.
Utilitarian, virtue-based, deontological? Evil as a condition, absence of something or as a form of matter? Evil as something that is inherent to the universe or just society?
I personally go for evil as understood by Kant (though just on the basic premises), but that's because I agree with his world view in general (the differentiation between knowledge of concepts and reality, and the emphasis on coherence). I have to admit I also find Hegelian ethics very appealing.
I think you are leaning towards an Aristotelian conception, but I'm not sure.

Ok, here's a few things I don't understand. You just said it yourself, if Evil is a constant "power" in the universe, how come it can't or hasn't been properly defined? Whatever your answer to that question, if Evil doesn't currently have a proper definition, what makes you so sure anything is evil? What makes you so sure Apostles are evil?

If Evil is inherent in some beings and at the same time not be affected by their actions (since evil creatures can do Good), how can a good person or creature change from Good to Evil and vice-versa. Once they do change, what exactly qualifies them as Evil? Or is it more of a total Evil and total Good where the amount makes the difference?

Going back to Berserk, if the ceremony is what makes the Apostles evil, what makes humans evil? And what of those monsters that don't come from the ceremony like the trolls from Qliphoth?

I'm just don't see Evil in Berserk, or outside of Berserk, as clearly as you seem to be seeing it.

PS: I said "in regard to the Berserk universe" because you can state a very simple, absolute definition without much trouble, like what I said earlier for example, that anything coming from the Idea of Evil is evil. We can also keep to examples from Berserk, but whatever, do as you please.

You have to be a Genius to be Evil, har har har...

Does anyone know when the next chapter is out??? 313

Yes. I've got it right here, in fact. You want it? Then you'll have to sing "I'm a little piggy, here's my snout, oink oink oink, oink oink oink."

War Machine wrote:Ok, here's a few things I don't understand. You just said it yourself, if Evil is a constant "power" in the universe, how come it can't or hasn't been properly defined? Whatever your answer to that question, if Evil doesn't currently have a proper definition, what makes you so sure anything is evil? What makes you so sure Apostles are evil?

The fact that I can't define something in its entirety doesn't mean that I can't recognize it; there's a big difference between the two. Indeed, recognizing something always comes before defining it, since it is by recognizing something that we eventually are able to define it. To argue that I can't label something as evil simply because I can't perfectly define evil is thus false to reality.

War Machine wrote: If Evil is inherent in some beings and at the same time not be affected by their actions (since evil creatures can do Good), how can a good person or creature change from Good to Evil and vice-versa. Once they do change, what exactly qualifies them as Evil? Or is it more of a total Evil and total Good where the amount makes the difference?

First, I'll note that it is very rare (possibly unheard of in the real world, and limited to beings such as Idea in Berserk) to find individuals that are "pure" evil. Thus, even extremely evil beings can perform the occasional good action without in any way ceasing to be evil. Second, I'll note that it is extremely rare for someone to shift from being truly evil (which is not to say "pure" evil) to being truly good (and only slightly less rare to go the other way); most people stay somewhere in the middle, hence I would be more likely to label a person as "not nice" or "bad" than evil; evil is a pretty far extreme, though it does exist. Although I wouldn't say that (in the real world) evil is truly "inherent" in some people, I would be willing to admit that some people seem to start out more predispoused towards it than others. How "evil" a person is can absolutely be influenced by their actions and, more important, by their motivations. Why we do something is as important as what we do in determining and shaping moral character.

War Machine wrote: Going back to Berserk, if the ceremony is what makes the Apostles evil, what makes humans evil? And what of those monsters that don't come from the ceremony like the trolls from Qliphoth?

What makes a human worthy of being labeled "evil" in the Berserk universe is the same as in the real world. Apostles aren't that different. Anyone who commits the acts carried out in the ceremony to become an Apostle, for such purely selfish motivations, is worthy of being labeled "evil." The fact that the ceremony seems to alter their inherent nature in ways to make them even more evil adds to this, but it isn't necessarily the deciding point. In regards to trolls and such, this is more speculative (Miura hasn't given us all that much information to work with) but it's possible that they are like Idea in a way, "pure" evil. They were created out of human imagination, and if humans imagined them as simply evil, they might not have any poitive moral aspects. Again, this is a guess, but it would seem to fit what we know.

Starnum wrote:An action is indefinable as being either good or evil, until you put it in the context of some kind or religious or moral belief.

Nah. Pleny of actions are evil universally evil, defined as such under any people's moral code. There might be indivuduals who can't recognize such an action as evil, but they are what we would term "insane," a.k.a. unable to differentiate between right and wrong. If every single society/culture in history recognized it as evil, however, I don't think it can really be called purely (or mostly) subjective any more.

I think some of you are missing the point: There is no universal evil or universal good. Thinking about everything in black and white is the most ridiculous thing I know. It's all about the shades of gray. And Miura knows this perfectly well.

Thinking about whether someone is evil or good goes beyond the point. An apostle can do good even if they are mostly evil just as any good person can do evil even if they are mostly good. But what does it matter? It's all really about the circumstances. You people need to forget your dualistic views.

And how come sane people's views are more eligible than an insane person's views? I mean, sure they are different than us normal people but in the end they just have different morals than us. Again it's black and white.

It should be pretty clear by this point that nothing is two dimensional...

Istvan wrote:

Starnum wrote:An action is indefinable as being either good or evil, until you put it in the context of some kind or religious or moral belief.

Nah. Pleny of actions are evil universally evil, defined as such under any people's moral code. There might be indivuduals who can't recognize such an action as evil, but they are what we would term "insane," a.k.a. unable to differentiate between right and wrong. If every single society/culture in history recognized it as evil, however, I don't think it can really be called purely (or mostly) subjective any more.

Well right, but only when it's placed under a moral code of any kind. I just mean that since good and evil are concepts, that makes them generally subjective. I do think there is a universal idea of good and evil which is commonly accepted by all people, as basic as it may be. So, I pretty much agree with you on that. As for Berserk, I agree somewhat with what Aldarion said. I don't think of the apostles as automatically being evil just for being apostles. It's what they do as apostles that defines them, the same as people. However, they're clearly compelled to be evil. So it's a matter of their willpower and self-control. If the Idea of Evil is meant to cause men strife, than surely the apostles are instruments of evil. However, since they're not being directly manipulated to do evil acts, then they still have some control over their own actions. So they must still struggle with their inner desires, just like normal people. It was even stated that the apostles are generally left to their own devices. However, by the very nature of being an apostle they are compelled to be evil and greedy, and greed is inherently evil. This is how the Idea of Evil indirectly works through them, even though they still retain the illusion of free will that the normal people have. In a sense it's what makes them human that makes them evil, as those desires are made incarnate, they cause strife for other men. So I do think that for the most part most of them are evil, but it's not just a matter of whether they're an apostle or not, but that does definitely make a difference as to how they may act. Heh, it kind of seems like I'm talking in circles here, but I think you guys get the idea of what I'm trying to say.

Fair enough, Starnum. I'll agree that for an action to have moral meaning it must be judged by some form of moral code, even if the code in question is fairly universal in nature; or when it's not, for that matter. And I think the Slug Count is an excellent example of your point that Apostles seem to have at least some ability to go against their basic nature as Apostles.

Aldarion wrote:I think some of you are missing the point: There is no universal evil or universal good.

If there are certain moral beliefs held in common by all societies across all time periods, how is this not universal?

Aldarion wrote: Thinking about everything in black and white is the most ridiculous thing I know. It's all about the shades of gray. And Miura knows this perfectly well.

Of course most things are "gray" and should be thought of as such. However, in order to have "gray," black and white must exist, and are useful measuring sticks/comparisons when examining the exact shade of the gray. It would be, if anything, more foolish to deny the existence of black and white and claim all is gray than it would be to deny gray and claim all is black and white.

Aldarion wrote: And how come sane people's views are more eligible than an insane person's views? I mean, sure they are different than us normal people but in the end they just have different morals than us. Again it's black and white.

Um. Because we as society (just as every other society that does or ever has existed) have chosen not to give equal moral weight to the views of those who consider it hillarious to walk up to random strangers and start chopping them up with an ax while giggling. Or those who see nothing wrong with killing and robbing someone.

The insanity I was speaking of was the legal definition, the literal inability to tell right from wrong, and we call their views on morality ineligable for much the same reason that scientists label the views of those who claim (and seriously believe!) the moon is made of cheese to be ineligable for scientific consideration.

Istvan wrote:

Aldarion wrote:I think some of you are missing the point: There is no universal evil or universal good.

If there are certain moral beliefs held in common by all societies across all time periods, how is this not universal?

Universe means "everything that is". Universal is something that applies for everything that is.
Something that applies for all human societies is not something universal. it's just something common to all humans. Remember that when you are speaking in absolutes you are including all of reality, you are establishing principles by which all reality abides. Those are the big leagues dude, don't just go throwing the word "universal" around like it's nothing.

Anyway, you said the most important thing when talking about the morality of an action is the intention of the person who performs the act.
You also said some actions are inherently evil. I suppose you had actions like "murder" in mind.
Well, the thing is, "to murder" is not a pure action, it is an action involving an intention. "Ending another sapient being's life" would be a "pure" action. And is that action inherently evil? And what about "evil" actions accompanied by good intentions?
I believe (I won't say "know" to avoid polemic) there are ethical tenets by which all humans abide, but I don't think they are the same as the ones you believe in, and even if they are, we probably believe in them for different reasons.

Just to clarify: Do you believe in the existence of evil as something inherent to reality (or sapient beings) or just inherent to human society?

Rolos wrote:

Istvan wrote:

Aldarion wrote:I think some of you are missing the point: There is no universal evil or universal good.

If there are certain moral beliefs held in common by all societies across all time periods, how is this not universal?

Universe means "everything that is". Universal is something that applies for everything that is.
Something that applies for all human societies is not something universal. it's just something common to all humans. Remember that when you are speaking in absolutes you are including all of reality, you are establishing principles by which all reality abides. Those are the big leagues dude, don't just go throwing the word "universal" around like it's nothing.

Semantics. The phrase universal to all humans was implied, even if not outright stated, in what I said.

Rolos wrote: Anyway, you said the most important thing when talking about the morality of an action is the intention of the person who performs the act.
You also said some actions are inherently evil. I suppose you had actions like "murder" in mind.
Well, the thing is, "to murder" is not a pure action, it is an action involving an intention. "Ending another sapient being's life" would be a "pure" action. And is that action inherently evil? And what about "evil" actions accompanied by good intentions?
I believe (I won't say "know" to avoid polemic) there are ethical tenets by which all humans abide, but I don't think they are the same as the ones you believe in, and even if they are, we probably believe in them for different reasons.

I believe I actually said as important, not most important, but to answer your question, the reason that intent always matters because an action that is caused accidentally or unintentionally doesn't have the same moral weight as one carried out deliberately, except inasmuch as one had the ability/obligation to know the consequences of one's action; willful or deliberate ignorance is not an excuse. But yes, I do believe that some actions, if done deliberately, are always evil. This isn't to say that such acts might not at times be necessary/justifiable (sometimes the only way to prevent a greater evil is to commit a lesser evil) but they are still evil, and one should never blind oneself to that fact.

Rolos wrote: Just to clarify: Do you believe in the existence of evil as something inherent to reality (or sapient beings) or just inherent to human society?

I would at the very least say inherent to all known sapients; it's possible that somewhere in the universe exist sapient speciies of which this is not true, but certainly all humans (not just our societies) possess some degree of evil.

There are/have been human cultures that differ alot from the western system. Iirc, the viking judicial system was like this: If someone performed a crime against you, you could challenge them to a duel of life and death. The one who died was guilty and the one who remained alive was found not guilty. Western societies of present have pretty much the same concepts about good and evil but in the past and in non-western cultures things are much different. Just think of cannibalistic societies. How could anyone in their right minds justify eating another person? Well they can. In some societies it's ok to kill a member of your family if they have ruined to reputation of your family. In some societies it's honorable to commit a suicide if you've fucked up someone's reputation. What you see as evil might not be evil in the eyes of these societies. And if you are going to say that "they are evil no matter what they think", I'll just say that you can only judge them from your point of view. Or the majoritys point of view. But it's still not universal.

Imagine a situation: You see a man about to fall on the railroad. You have a change to save him, but his falling would save five other people who are further down the railroad. Will you let him fall or will you save him? I doubt you can outright say what is morally right and what is wrong. What if on the other you had a gun and by shooting a person you could save five people? Surely in this situation it would be wrong to shoot the person? In these both situations it's your deliberate actions(or the lack of them) that will cause someone to die. If you think that murder is always inevitably evil, then one does not have anything to say whether he is evil or not.

But hey, it seems that my idea of evil is just very different to yours.