Was griffith's torture necessary?
- Thread starter Lauralana
- Start date
R
Raftrider
Guest
I think Griffith's torture was necessary. Even though I detest monarchies, think about it--He seduced "royalty"...
But then again, If Griffith had knocked up my kid, his torture wouldn't have been the severing of his tendons, etc. I would have just Keel-hauled the son'bitch and castrated him.
WHOA. I better becareful when I read the manga...
But then again, If Griffith had knocked up my kid, his torture wouldn't have been the severing of his tendons, etc. I would have just Keel-hauled the son'bitch and castrated him.
WHOA. I better becareful when I read the manga...
I believe it was necessary because if it had not happend Griffith wouldn't have sacrificed the Hawks. Look at how he's acting now, he gave up the supernatural position that he was given just to keep on keepn' on the same old rode to Kingdom. For Griffith it was a crown the old fashioned way, his hands only, or no crown at all.
Some people see that as debatable, but I always saw Griffith as a man detached but still a man...if you know what I'm sayin'.
Some people see that as debatable, but I always saw Griffith as a man detached but still a man...if you know what I'm sayin'.
Jon Schaffer 2
Mar...
Of course any damages done before the rebirth of Griffith would be healed. First, he is being reborn. Second, if you read the lost chaper, if you noticed, at the begining Griffith's body is in peices, then at the end its back whole. See where I'm going?