This is my last post for this particular debate. If you don't like what I had to say, well get over it, because it's just an opinion. I did not like having to get aggressive and if I sounded like an asshole, well, I'm only 10% sorry.
His love for her has certainly been shown, and he has said that he will never abandon Casca again. As Aaz said, when Casca recovers it is up to her and her alone how their relationship will evolve.
No, it hasn't been shown, not at it's full capacity. They have never seen Guts and Casca, hug, kiss, or do anything even remotely affectionate that displays just how much they truly love each other. Clearly, we have different views on one's capacity for showing love and speaking of love.
May you please not resort to using sexist insults to describe female characters? She wasn't being indecisive anyway, her overwhelming feelings of guilt and duty led her to make the painful, self-sacrificing decision to stay with Griffith and the Hawks.
She called herself a bitch outright, thought of herself as one, and admitted to acting like one. This isn't a social ethics class, and I'm not here to entertain your feminist sensibilities, so cut it out.
Are you sure? We have no idea how things will happen, and just diving into her mind to bring her back won't necessarily involve going over her experiences with Guts. That's certainly not what drove her insane.
I'm absolutely, damn, 100% sure. She ELOPED WITH GUTS after revealing her true feelings with them, struggled between the ones she had for him, and the one she held for Griffith, decided she wanted to stick with Griffith to protect and nurse him back to health. What happened after that?! In a cruel twist of irony, that same person RAPES her, violates and tramples her love for Guts in the worst possible way, WHILE MAKING HIM LOOK AT HER AND FOR HER TO VIEW THE FUCKING ENRAGED LOOK ON HIS FACE.
I should not have to explain something so extremely obvious.
Where did you get this idea?
What the fuck are you talking about? Are you sure you've read the series? Guts definitely did not consider killing the boy at any point, and the Brand doesn't react to him either. You have a serious comprehension problem if that's what you took away from the scene.
No,
you have a serious accusation and dismissal problem.
You also have an IMAGE COMPERHENSION problem. I suggest you fix them.

He looks at the boy, then looks at the knife in his hand. Put two and two together. Holy shit, he's thinking about throwing the knife at the boy so he can practice his circus tricks.
We don't know anything about how those feelings will carry over. Casca might trust Farnese afterwards, but that doesn't mean she will feel comfortable asking for advice. Casca becoming sane is going to change the dynamics of their relationship completely.
This is why we're in a speculation thread, not a black and white thread, called "This will happen because I say so compounded with the fact that I disagree with you." That said, don't shift your connotation of consideration to one of absolution in the following sentence. It contradicts what you're saying and encompasses more than what you're trying to argue against as it pertains to my opinion.
Again, may you please refrain from using sexist slurs? It's unnecessary.
Farnese as she is now doesn't come off as someone who can offer useful advice. She has not been one to react objectively, her behavior when she yelled at Casca while giving her a bath in in episode 331 are two examples. She has been motivated entirely by her feelings.
She called herself a bitch, and she has yet to redeem her bitchy quality, and no it's not a sexist slur. And again, I'm not here to entertain your misguided feminist sensibilities, so cut it out, or I'll just stop replying to anything you have to say from here on out.
Second, showing? Showing what? You're thinking of some voyeuristic experience where snapshots of Casca's past experiences with Guts would somehow indubitably prove something that mere words wouldn't?
It proves the sheer depth of why he's protecting her as well as his violent reaction to Apostles that never fails to enrage him beyond any reason. It's about more than him just loving her and protecting her, it's about what he wants to protect her from, ontop of shedding insight as to what in the fuck caused the Beast of Darkness to be borne inside him. All this shit has to be addressed, all of it, it is all interconnected and none of it is even remotely separate. Farnese, Isidro, Serpico, and with the borderline exception of Schierke all know JACK SHIT about the true nature of his past with her.
Guts loves her in spite of her state, he's shown it, and it's been recognized by all interested parties. Anyway, like I said, their relationship will change when she regains herself, that's obvious.
What is this "in spite of her state" thing all about. There's no spite, he hasn't openly shown rage against Casca, the beast of Darkness which is a mental creation from his mind doesn't hate her or spite her either, save for the specific context that it views her as an obstacle to getting to Griffith.
Yes, their relationship will change, now stop telling me things that I'm not disagreeing with you about. It's a cheap attempt to give yourself some delusional high ground and it's pretty annoying.
Are you sure? We have no idea how things will happen, and just diving into her mind to bring her back won't necessarily involve going over her experiences with Guts. That's certainly not what drove her insane.
I explained it to the other girl but I guess I have to explain it twice. Falls in love with Guts, elopes with Guts, has mixed feelings. Griffith witnesses Casca's love for Guts, Griffith becomes jealous, Griffith rapes Guts to spite him and forces Casca to feel like she betrayed Guts by making him look at her as she's being raped.
I say again, it's all connected. How is it connected? Because Griffith -- okay Femto (don't want to trigger the cynical part of you again) -- DESTROYED THE RELATIONSHIP THEY HAD DAYS AFTER IT HAD FORMED. DUH.
We're able to see any character's opinion so long as Miura sees it fit. That's not particular to Schierke, and her opinion on whether going against Griffith is worth it or not is not especially more valuable than anyone else's to me.
This is what I mean by "Nice dodge." only this time it's like an ant trying to dodge an asteroid. It won't work. Stop hiding behind the author to make you points, because we all know the author, Mr. Miura isn't here to back you up and he's not interested in doing it either. The author provides points for us to look at in the story, he also provides us with future points to speculate on, and that's exactly what point we're at right now as it pertains to this debate.
A speculation point, not one where things are written in stone, and have been pre-determined. If you truly don't understand this point, which I'm not interested in explaining multiple times, simply don't respond to it because I'm not going to waste time here having an intellectual shit-flinging contest.
Could you please not gratuitously insult the characters? Because not only is what you're saying completely untrue, it's puerile and annihilates any attempt you may make at being taken seriously.
Well, since you said please, I'm going to assume it's not a rule. NO. Do that thing you do again, where you quote the wrong panels to prove your point against me and I might just reconsider. Other people's moral opinion of me isn't my concern, not when it pertains to arguing a real point about Casca's mixed feelings. Furthermore, we're reading Berserk. If you can handle rape, pedophilia, and other horrible things, then you can handle me referencing it as a point of contention.
tl;dr Grow up.
Because as readers, we definitely don't need Schierke to see Casca's traumatic memories in order to have "an external lens" (that doesn't mean anything, by the way) on whether or not going up against Griffith is "worth it".
Who is we? You're the admin of a discussion board, not Miura's spokesperson and while I appreciate you doing your best to help me and provide a place to discuss Berserk, I am in no way obligated to count myself among the collective opinions that you seem to think are orbiting around your brain.
And while you're at it, stop with the statements of absolution, so I can actually have a two-way discussion with you and not constantly resist the urge to say things that might get me into serious trouble. And at least have the decency to say it to me directly, not in parenthesis.
But the problem here man is that we can get many perspectives on the situation without resorting to the scenario you've concocted. For one thing, like I've been saying, I doubt revenge will be the main drive for the group to go after Griffith. Why would they all follow if it were the case? Besides, Guts has forsaken his revenge for Casca's sake so far, and while we know he'd like to face him it's not like he'll be desperate to get off Elfhelm right after arriving there, dragging everyone with him against their will. That's a pretty big assumption on your part that warps all of what you're saying.
None of what you just said is anything I am arguing aside from the "concocted scenario". If you're going to accuse me of being assumptive try to do it while not being presumptuous at the same time. It makes you look like you're arguing with a ghost of a person who never lived.
How about you try looking at it from another perspective yourself: do you not think Guts will be unwilling to kill his own son? Because if so, you're sorely mistaken. Which ties to what I've been trying to tell you: it's not going to just be about revenge.
Don't ask me to look at something from another perspective then dismiss it in the same breath. That's basically putting a gun in my hand and then trying to arrest me for "possession of a lethal weapon".
Enough of these attempts at using dead-end methods of arguing your points. I don't fall for them, I don't listen to them, and I don't acknowledge them as valid, but I will acknowledge their invalidity.
Uh, what? The lunar cycle is a little over 29 days. That's once a month.
Oops.

Guess that means Casca will be even more pissed off when she finds out she only gets to see him
once a month instead of twice. This is starting to feel like a custody battle.
That isn't true. Casca was a leader, and she acted as such on numerous occasions, taking initiative when needed. Asking for people's counsel doesn't mean you can't take decision on your own, and I feel that's a deliberately disingenuous comment on your part here.
Last we saw her, she couldn't make the decision as to whether she loved Guts or Griffith, but then Femto raped her into saying: "Well, if I can't have both, I can't have either." Don't tell me you
feel I'm being disingenuous, because I will throw it back in your face as far as this debate is concerned. And no, I won't flame, or insult you in the process either. That's not my style, so don't take it the wrong way or I'll have more annoying crap to clear up.
What the hell are you talking about? Like I've said, all characters in the story have their own perspectives, but they're just that: the perspectives of characters in a story. The reader does not need one or two of those perspectives to be somehow "more objective" than that of every other character, because the reader has the ability to enjoy the story from outside, by virtue of being a reader. I'm not sure why you started talking about lenses and "lens-seers" and nonsensical stuff like that, but I can assure you it's not going anywhere.
Because the characters help to tell the story. If you can't grasp what I meant by "lens-seers" and other sensical stuff like that, then I can assure you, you'll be the only one not going anywhere.

*
Slap*
Don't troll me if you want me to take you seriously. That's why my responses are becoming less professional and more geared toward poking fun at their absurdities, while using them to aid my own arguments.
Affect. Affect the entire party.
Relevancy, your honor? Don't point that out. I don't care, but I'll sure not to make that mistake again, so I don't have to mock you for using misspellings as stacking tools to make a point. In other words, don't get uppity about tomato tomato or potato potato.
It's not that not all that crushial to your point.
There's no ground at all for that line of reasoning, that someone would take a decision without caring about the others, and I actually argued against that possibility in my previous post. It's also pretty funny that you seem to forget that Farnese and Serpico had both decided to leave the group without giving any proper reason to the others in Vritannis.
Well since you agree with so much, why don't you stop pretending to be the teacher, and I the student in your imaginary classroom.
That's not a valid point at all. You don't need to witness something in order to believe what someone tells you. Saying otherwise is rather ridiculous,
Saying otherwise means other people take different levels of convincing to believe what a person says. Go read a book on individuality and come back to me after you've enlightened yourself on the nature of discussing points with other
people.
Please don't take the Band of the Hawks translation as canon.
Fortunately I'm using images to argue my points and not words. Words can be misleading at times, especially when they come from the wrong lips.