Is Griffith Evil?

Mizar said:

And what does this have to do with levels of evilness? No, what does this have to do with anything at all?

And what if one's purpose is having fun? And killing people happens to provide you that fun? Isn't that the greatest way to live a sentient life Genn?

Click to expand...

If the point of that persons life is one of wrong doing bad intentions and atrocious deeds id say party on funseeker... but if i wanted to say anymore on this subject id just requote what ive previously said ( just scraping the bottem of the barrel here ^^;;). if you experimented on live bodies for the sake of inproving the future its logically perfectly ok ... but if you wanted to experiment to create a weapon that could kill dozens more would be infact wrong.

btw , The apostles did it for there own well being this is good? Most of them are horrible little peons that rave for a speck of godhands power to use it for there own purpose that could better there lives. These are horrible people with wicked ambitions ( some i find good in a sence) and they know they will have to use disceit murder, etc. to keep themselves in that constant state and live. The apostles proboly had fun killing the hawk's yes, but it was for a further purpose of haveing the brand on them something they knew they must do to ressurect griffithsu as femto .. this act was good to them and proboly there duty( purpose upon acceptence) as apostles. I find this acceptible.

And I'll continue beating this dead horse untill it reincarnates and then I'm gonna beat it some more.

Click to expand...

Well you can beat it alone you dirty little man, im not touching that filthy animal anymore ive had my part in this. ( holy christ mizar this bickering has made it to 6 pages ) ROCK ONNNNN !!!! ( but im stoping )

Genn21 said:

If the point of that persons life is one of wrong doing bad intentions and atrocious deeds id say party on funseeker... but if i wanted to say anymore on this subject id just requote what ive previously said ( just scraping the bottem of the barrel here ^^;;). if you experimented on live bodies for the sake of inproving the future its logically perfectly ok ... but if you wanted to experiment to create a weapon that could kill dozens more would be infact wrong.

btw , The apostles did it for there own well being this is good? Most of them are horrible little peons that rave for a speck of godhands power to use it for there own purpose that could better there lives. These are horrible people with wicked ambitions ( some i find good in a sence) and they know they will have to use disceit murder, etc. to keep themselves in that constant state and live. The apostles proboly had fun killing the hawk's yes, but it was for a further purpose of haveing the brand on them something they knew they must do to ressurect griffithsu as femto .. this act was good to them and proboly there duty( purpose upon acceptence) as apostles. I find this acceptible.Well you can beat it alone you dirty little man, im not touching that filthy animal anymore ive had my part in this. ( holy christ mizar this bickering has made it to 6 pages ) ROCK ONNNNN !!!! ( but im stoping )

Click to expand...

Oh please let that be a promise. You are so hard to understand, and it doesn't help that you keep contradicting yourself.
First you say that killing people is okay as long a they have led lives whose points were wrong doing, bad intentions and atrocious deeds (Sort of like how most apostles live their apostle lives...)
Then you say that you find the apostles slaughtering the Hawks acceptable.

WHAT????
Lemme try to get this... Hawks=humans. As in NOT apostles. Just normal, weak, strong, wretched, noble humans. Apostles=Demons. Humans who have crossed the line and said their goodbyes to their humanity. Creatures who live by committing 'atrocious deeds', and who usually kill because 'it's so fun!'
And the apostles are the ones who have a right to live in your eyes?
......
WHAT??????

*
Oh, And can someone explain to me why I should look at the events at the eclipse from Griffith's point of view? What makes his viewpoint so much more worth than the viewpoints of the hundreds of Hawks who did not want to die?

Insert something pofound and insightful here

SomeKindOfBlue said:

Oh please let that be a promise. You are so hard to understand, and it doesn't help that you keep contradicting yourself.
First you say that killing people is okay as long a they have led lives whose points were wrong doing, bad intentions and atrocious deeds (Sort of like how most apostles live their apostle lives...)

Click to expand...

Man where do you get this stuff ??? killing is ok as long as there lifes amount to wrong doing , are you quoteing the childrens philosophy guide ? , ( wish i had my place in there ).

Im really starting to think your only reading this with confusion ( thats hurting my post when read inncoherently ) allow me to forgive myself as i dont have any picture books to assist in your deduction of my theroum.

Somebody didnt read my example...

Then you say that you find the apostles slaughtering the Hawks acceptable.

Click to expand...

you think ??? well if thats all you got out of this im proud


Why do you think its from griffiths point of veiw CAN SOMONE TELL ME WHAT THIS THREAD IS NAMED ? ( is corku.. evil .. is gut.. evi... is samso.. noooooooo crap i forgot )

Ok now im stopping seriously i will i can kick the habit

So... the question whether you are a good or a bad person depends not on what you have done, nor what others think of you, but whether or not you can justify your actions to yourself?

If you put a little more effort into being understandable, maybe I wouldn't misunderstand you so often... seeing as how I'm a poor, emotional little woman and all... *sweet smile*

Normally I'd lock the topic at this point but you two are making such perfect examples of bad, emotion-filled arguments that I'll let you to eat each other. Bon' appetit!

Walter said:

Bon' appetit!

Click to expand...

Actually "bon appétit"...
Guil
"Enjoy your meal walter"

Guil Torchonlskyon said:

Actually "bon appétit"...
Guil
"Enjoy your meal walter"

Click to expand...

Damn accent agiu or whatever the hell it's called...

Griffith may not be pure evil but hes still a asshole. The guy is very cold and creepy.He sees people as tools.He uses people for his own ambitions and if you are no longer of use to him he just throws you away. Griffith hesitated to kill Guts because he was still useful to him.Hell if read the earlier volumes Griffith even said that he really doesnt give a shit about anyone.At least Guts tries to be a more caring person even after all the shit hes been trough.

Soul Blader said:

Griffith may not be pure evil but hes still a asshole.

Click to expand...

Strongly agreed!

The part where he fight Gutz when he tried to leave the hawk give me a impression that he wanted to control everyone fate, especially Gutz!

I wouldn't necessarily characterize Griffith as an asshole. In my book, to be an asshole, there needs to be some element of maliciousness or vindictiveness within the character. Griffith does "evil acts" not out of some evil intention; but out of his desire to achieve his dream. He's beyond our preconceptions of "good" and "evil"; something out of this world (I guess that was Miura's intention... ).

He may be a cold-blooded bastard but to me, an asshole indicates a person who screws you over just for the fun of it.

EDIT: Yeah, bastard and asshole essentially mean the same thing... but I feel that asshole is a stronger term reserved for the truly "evil" people in the world.

Soul Blader said:

Griffith may not be pure evil but hes still a asshole.

Click to expand...

So is Guts.

Bok Choy [Stir-fried with Rice] said:

EDIT: Yeah, bastard and asshole essentially mean the same thing... but I feel that asshole is a stronger term reserved for the truly "evil" people in the world.

Click to expand...

The asshole of evil ??? Man i thought the stench of evil reaked... but not this wickedly. How can you say only " truly"evil ( wait didnt we say there's no absolutes earlier... ) people can be the asshole variety ? Would this meen assholes that t'k for fun in counterstrike are TRUE EVIL. Are prank caller's TRUE EVIL ? Even animal's are asshole's to eachother it's instinctive when a lion slaughters baby cubs that arent his and wander in his territory... does he need to kill them , no . why then because he feels like it. Is that true evil ?
If a goodguy spends a week doing asshole deeds he is now true evil... ?
Could this just be a opinion from the victem of a asshole deed ?

is evil ?

I didn't mean "evil" as an absolute (note the quotation marks everytime I discuss evil). IMO, truly "evil" killing constitutes killing for the sake of killing. Griffith, for all of his coldness, does not kill others for the joy of the kill or just for the hell of it; he has a singular, defined purpose for all of his actions: to achieve his dream.

Humans are the only creatures on this planet who derive joy into torturing or killing other human beings. When I define "truly evil", I see it as killing or inflicting pain on another human being without any sense of purpose, goal, or logic. It doesn't necessarily mean that killing is justified if accomplished with a defined purpose; however, as stated before, I find killing for the sake of killing or for "fun" especially abhorrent.

Animals don't kill out of maliciousness... they do that out of instinct. Thus, you can't really define their actions as "evil", "good", "asshole-like", etc.; they are beyond that. A lion kills other cubs which are not his in order to increase the probability of his own cubs' survival.

In all things Griffith is consistant. I'll take someone you can consistantly rely on to be a certain way even if they are cold and driven over someone amiable and inconsistant any day. You know where you stand and you can plan accordingly. The worst kind of person gets involved with someone who is consistant and then expects them to change according to their desires.

The only time Griffith has ever been dishonest to anyone, including himself, is in relation to Guts. Guts ruined his consistancy. The only thing evil Griffith ever did was to love Guts. And that wasn't because the love itself was evil, it was because the dual priorities split his soul in half and forced him to be inconsistant. He had two desires, and no one can win two goals, you can only loose both.

Wow.. *points to all that ^*

Yay for sleep-deprived ranting!

Thanks, Kami. That was some good reading.

Mizar you should remember one thing which foreshadows griffith in the berserk manga.He says that he will make a country no "matter the costs",his ambition is straightforward narrowminded no more no less,he could care less.Lets not forget his amazing ability of charisma,he isnt very talkative for a leader of a famous pack but yet he could maintain his leadership with his ability.Mizar Your friend who was sick had love for friends and family,griffith had none of that,your friend didnt have a dream to become something great,griffith did,his ambition was his desire its something to strong his lifestyle is completely different.One thing we humans love do and which were good at is "surviving" we strive to survive,he wanted this instinctively but was also tempted by power.I find his personality amazing the creator did a good job on his character development,i mean look we have a big contraversy of him if hes evil or not great character development does this to us.One thing i know is hes an unpredictable guy with a strange twist to his destiny/fate stuff.He can have a sweet innocent smile but yet grimmice at you with that sweet smile like the devil.It is not possible to conquer a world with having sympathy either no human can do so,there is always a "sacrifice" yet we have to endure.An evil person is someone that does cruel things like torture, rape,anything obscene or inhumane you see in that crazy book "bible".As for the effects he did to the world that is just due to the fact he is the chosen one.Doesnt make him evil from this either cause its his destiny/fate either way its inevitabel

Kaminari said:

Hell, I aim to please!! Hehe, but really...No, no, thank YOU hun...I really didn't expect anyone to read that, LOL! In fact, I pretty much just post for my own intentions...clearing excess thoughts. Anyway, you have a mightily enduring attention span, hehe *pets it*. I like you ;D

Click to expand...

Gasp.. you.. petted my attention span...

THAT IS SO SEXY!!! ;D

And as for mightily enduring, I like that kind of thing.. ;) ..y'know.. -that- kind.. eheh.. *ahem*

But yes, I do love your writing. Funny, insightful, and overall nummy to read. :) Who else has choruses that go "blah blah blaah" and sleep deprived rants that are inspired by the letters F and U?

Kkeh, Imma stop now before the evil moderator peoples get pist. >.>

And yea.. Griffith is not evil; he's just better than you.

Griffith's not evil. He's an asshole. It's a fine distinction

...

Bloody, did you actually read the above post?

Heh. Sorry. Place marker for a less flippant post that I made the mistake of wiping.

I'd say "evil" is a bit of a red herring when it comes to classifying people in Berserk, but I'd say the same of "destiny." The presence of a greater, more archetypal model of Evil doesn't negate the routine small evils of mere mortals, ne? But defining precisely what small evil is -- specially in the case of, ahem, thought crimes -- is going to collapse into subjectivity and casuistry pdq.

If one chooses to take at face value that Idea and pals' statements (hence Miura's assertions in their voices) are the truth, Griffith has been cultivated to take the role of the fifth God Hand, both in a genetic sense and a developmental-psychological one. It can thus be uniquely claimed that the man is a victim of third-party supernatural agency...the parameters of his self have been precisely tuned according to someone else's plans. The tragedy of Griffith lies in the tension between the reader's sense of his inevitable fall and his own willing participation in the former. In the final analysis, Griffith assented to something terrible: the question that can only be answered in the individual reader's mind is whether a choice existed. I say yes, others would say no.

On a really simplistic level one can tie the "fall" of each Apostle to a flaw in their character -- one can even narrow it down to the Seven Deadlies of Biblical lore -- that made them choose the Beherit over the alternative. Griffith's activation of the Beherit is as much a moment of sublimely human weakness as it a grasp of the reins of power. Griffith does not rise to the God Hand as a general seeking greater things, but a broken man seeking to restore the shattered sense of inassailable superiority that has guided his life.

Griffith got a long way powered by pride: farther than most folk do, but then he has his unique, Svengali-like charisma. He states himself that the world is divided into those that flock to him and those that set themselves against him: this understanding of the world suggests a supreme egocentrism that his been reinforced by his unique qualities and situation. Griffith has never had to think of others because he has been the subject, the hub around which spokes revolve. And the product has been the sort of maladaptive understanding of uses of empathetic and mutual human relationships versus the instrumental, hierarchical dynamics that Griffith has with virtually everyone. Whether or not it is "true" within the factual universe, Griffith perceives himself [correctly, as it turns out] as the world around which minute human satellites orbit. Other people sacrifice their own dreams for him, other people are drawn in to his magnetic field. Very simply, Griffith doesn't get refusals.

The fascination of Gatts is his resistance of the normal social dynamic Griffith experiences. Initially Gatts is something like strong prey, a white hart to be captured only with great effort...which is a novelty relative to Griffith's worldview. Yet even though Gatts is brought into the fold of the Hawks, he nevers falls into the pattern of worshipping, idolizing Griffith as superior demonstrated by so many other of the Hawks. Gatts is quite possibly the only individual Griffith's has ever met who has resisted being his subordinate [yet not aligned himself aggressively opposite Griffith, which is just another social dynamic defined with Griffith as the locus].

On one level, Griffith finds this compelling -- it is the first "real" human relationship he's had -- yet at the same time his drive, born of prior experience, is to get Gatts under his thumb...to make him a subordinate rather than an equal. This is a conflict we see in Griffith throughout the "Golden Age" arc. This process metastasizes as Gatts gains his own following: the romantic and sexual relationship of Gatts and Caska is a metonym for Gatts's feasibility as a rival to Griffith...Gatts achieves the impossible by siphoning away some of the adoration, affection, and focus that Griffith is accustomed to receiving. It is this much more insidious rivalry [than their martial one...though the two intertwine], that precedes Griffith's fall.

Along with the ubiquitous pride that always cometh before....

Heh. Must eat breakfast. More later.

A short while back, I came up with a phrase which, upon closer inspection, fits Griffith to a "T". Of course, it is vulgar and slightly perverse. Aw what the hell! Here goes:

Griffith is a helpless meat-puppet, dangling from the giant, diseased, festering, penis of Evil.

Most of the arguments against Griffith make no sense at all.

It's easy to say you would make the right decision right now.

This guy was tortured for a solid YEAR. That would make him certifiably insane, no matter how strong his will was. If I remember correctly, he was so weak he didn't even have enough strength to pierce his skin and commit suicide.

Countless people had died for his dream, and only a few more would be needed. Everyone is going to hell anyway (at least in Berserk), so what's the big deal?