Irvine's Apostle Form

CnC said:
Well theres no doubt his powers are greater than the average apostle (some are given more than others, for reasons yet to be established). The powers given to apostles are far from predictable, as are their "features". If Locus can transform his horse and lance and become a metallic centaur (with the occasional lighting coming out of his eyes) and Grunbeld can become a dragon breathed in flame, I don't think an apostle whos form is that of fog is that far fetched.

Sorry to get off topic but even though there doesnt seem to be any definate reason for why some apostles are stronger than other's I think it has to do with why they summoned the godhand and how the godhand grants their "wish". This is most likely just a component of whatever the final factor is but using the slug count as an example, his entier world was ruined after finding his wife in the pagan orgy and when the godhand arrived he asked, and I'm just elaborating, for a way to deal with the trauma in his life. The Godhand granted this wish by giving him a body that could literally "cope" with most any trauma, even extreme ones like still somehow surviving with his head cut off (even though he was dying).

On to the topic at hand, I hope Irvine has a really bizarre unexpected apostle form, nothing too weird and I doubt it will be generic nameless apostle form with lost of tentacles, faces, and extra... pieces at random places or based off an animal (like many are). His and Rakshas are the one's I'm really looking foward too, though Rakshas more so since we dont even know what he looks like under his whole getup.
 

kimedog

mmmmmm BEER!
Irvine's apostle form should be a ballista. He just aims it and launches the bolts at his prey! Rakshas may be in his apostle form already and just doesn't use his full abilities, same with Ganishka. Rishonu (sp?) was apparently always in her apostle form, it could happen with others.
 

Rhombaad

Video Game Time Traveler
kimedog said:
Rishonu (sp?) was apparently always in her apostle form, it could happen with others. 

Not really. She was in her "human" form in the beginning of the arc and then transformed when she and Guts squared off in the cocoons.
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
kimedog said:
Irvine's apostle form should be a ballista. He just aims it and launches the bolts at his prey!

The ballista joke is getting old. At least I hope you're joking.

kimedog said:
Rakshas may be in his apostle form already and just doesn't use his full abilities, same with Ganishka.

I doubt it.

kimedog said:
Rishonu (sp?) was apparently always in her apostle form, it could happen with others.

Like Rhombaad said, she was in her "human form" most of the time, it's just that her human form was supposed to resemble a "yousei" (fairy/elf) and so didn't look very human.
 

Feanor

Nur dem Schwert kannst du vertrauen!
What about some kind of porcupine, which attacks his enemys from the distance with spikes.
I know that a porcupine in reality can not shot his spikes. But for irvine's apostle form it's worth speculating about it.
 

waqas

Oh, nevermind...
MAJOR SPOILER WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SECRET ARTWORK STOLEN FROM MIURA'S OFFICE!!!!!!

SCROLL DOWN AT YOUR OWN RISK!!!!





























cat_archer.jpg
IRVINE APOSTLE FORM!!!!!!!!​
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
Forest Wraith said:
Something akin to a Manticore would be a perfect match.

Why? Because in some interpretations of the monster (not the most widely spread), it's supposed to be able to shoot poisoned darts from its tail? That's not enough to make a perfect match, especially since the whole blind/eye on bow aspect wouldn't be taken into account.

And seriously, what's with that wikipedia article? A MS Paint drawing of a manticore? Where's their credibility?
 

CnC

Ad Oculos
Aazealh said:
And seriously, what's with that wikipedia article? A MS Paint drawing of a manticore? Where's their credibility?

Dude! thats my masterpiece!

And I would something more akin to archery/hunting would suit Irvine better than an animal that can shoot spikes.
 

Forest Wraith

Evil is born when we lose power over ourselves.
Well, its described as a hunter, its featured in medieval mythology and the archery motif is also present. I wasn't thinking of an exact copy, I know that Miura would be more original then that, which is why I stated that something akin to a Manticor would be a perfect match. Perhaps his bow would morph into his apostle-forms tail?
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
Forest Wraith said:
Well, its described as a hunter, its featured in medieval mythology and the archery motif is also present.

It's a fantastical monster said to be a man-eater (hence the name), but I don't think it's specifically related to hunting or being a hunter, it's just a mythological beast. Its creation is also anterior to the medieval era as you must know, although it later came to exist in European legends (and I don't think Miura centers on medieval themes to design apostles anyway, far from it). Apart from that, shooting poisoned darts from its tail isn't much of an archery reference to me, besides it's often represented with a scorpion tail (and wings...), poisonous but unable to hurl any projectiles. And there's still the problem of the blind archer/eye on bow theme which is central to Irvine's character but isn't present in the manticore.

Like I said, while not completely impossible, I hardly see how that would be a perfect match.
 

Forest Wraith

Evil is born when we lose power over ourselves.
Of course it may not be a perfect match, that's because its my opinion that it is. When I saw the topic I tried to think of a savage form that would best combine Irvine's characteristics. The Manticore is obviously a mythological representation of the Tiger, which is noted for being a solitary hunter and is also known as a Man-eater; My book The Encyclopedia of things that never were. States this about the Manticore:

"The Manticore stalks humans through the forest and creeps near enough to fire a volley of poison darts at a victim."

A behavior pattern that can clearly be linked to a character that describes himself as a hunter and is an archer. I could imagine his bow becoming a form of Manticore tail with a seperate intelligence and its eye set in the center of the cluster of spikes . . . As I already stated, I just attempted to think of a mytholigical creature that would best combine the Characteristics of Irvine's character, fighting style and unique weapon and the Manticore was what I immediatly thought of.
I'd like to know what you think would be a good representation of Irvine in his Apostle form; as at this rate I feel as though you are just nit-picking over the fact that I didn't specifically state: "I think that the Manticore would be a perfect match for Irvine's apostle form."
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
Forest Wraith said:
Of course it may not be a perfect match

More than "may not", I'd say it simply isn't.

Forest Wraith said:
When I saw the topic I tried to think of a savage form that would best combine Irvine's characteristics.

Well, savageness itself isn't part of his characteristics from what we've seen so far.

Forest Wraith said:
The Manticore is obviously a mythological representation of the Tiger, which is noted for being a solitary hunter and is also known as a Man-eater

Yeah, tigers hunt preys, like many, many other animals. Does that relate them to Irvine beyond the superficial fact they "hunt" (one for food, the other for the sport)? No. It doesn't really fit the way Irvine describes his hunting either. And manticores have the body of a red lion (not solitary hunters), despite being supposedly inspired by tigers, so...

Forest Wraith said:
My book The Encyclopedia of things that never were. States this about the Manticore:

"The Manticore stalks humans through the forest and creeps near enough to fire a volley of poison darts at a victim."

A behavior pattern that can clearly be linked to a character that describes himself as a hunter and is an archer.

Oh, really, your book says so? And is it as serious and reliable as that wikipedia article you posted? :schierke: The reviews I read aren't flattering. Anyway, manticores were said to kill humans that adventured themselves alone in the wild, and to eat them completely, so much that no trace was left. Creeping near, eh? Yeah, they were said to be able to shoot darts up to some distance (hence the comparison to arrows), but also to fight primarily with their powerful fangs and claws. That falls a bit short of what I'd expect from Irvine (well, except if he was already blind before becoming an apostle, he must have needed to get really close to his target :void:). Also, throwing "a volley of poisoned (paralysing) darts" from one's tail isn't that similar to shooting arrows with a bow no matter how you put it (yeah, in spite of thousand years old descriptions of the monster trying to sound impressive), so please do me a favor and don't insist too much on manticores being archer-like. And it's still the same thing about being a hunter, stalking humans to eat them doesn't strike me as very similar to Irvine's talk of pursuing preys for days and days. On a side note, I don't get much of a feline feeling coming from him.

Manticores were depicted as being extremely bellicose and violent creatures, cruel and fearless, that would attack everything they saw, even preys several times bigger than themselves. They had humans faces with 3 rows of razor sharp teeth, blue-green eyes, and were supposed to have a voice sounding like a trumpet. They're also often represented with wings, like I said. So tell me, how well does that combine Irvine's characteristics?

Manticore01.jpg
Manticore02.jpg

Forest Wraith said:
I could imagine his bow becoming a form of Manticore tail with a seperate intelligence and its eye set in the center of the cluster of spikes . . .

I see, well that's as good a speculation as another, meaning that it's based on nothing concrete given what we know about Irvine (not much). I'm fine with that, the thread is all about guessing, but even if you're so confident in your hypothesis you should expect to see it debated.

Forest Wraith said:
As I already stated, I just attempted to think of a mytholigical creature that would best combine the Characteristics of Irvine's character, fighting style and unique weapon and the Manticore was what I immediatly thought of.
I'd like to know what you think would be a good representation of Irvine in his Apostle form; as at this rate I feel as though you are just nit-picking over the fact that I didn't specifically state: "I think that the Manticore would be a perfect match for Irvine's apostle form."

Actually I don't see how what I think of it is of any importance, as I don't believe we can currently really arrest any definite possibility, we just haven't seen much of Irvine yet that could lead us to believe he'd likely be related to a specific mythological creature. What's clear though is that you affirmed that something akin to a manticore would be a perfect match for Irvine (without providing any argument as to why it would), and that's simply not the case. It would have certainly been more cautious to say that it's just your opinion, but that wouldn't have changed the fact that it's not nearly perfect as an embodiment of what we know of his characteristics (and if it was everybody would have said so already, it's not like manticores are unknown mythical beasts). If you just meant that a tail throwing darts like that of a manticore would be a plausible element to feature in the character design of Irvine's apostle form, you should have explicitely said so and detailed your thoughts in your first post.

It's indeed a possibility and I see no reason to discard it (having thought about it myself in the past), but that element alone (and the fact that manticores hunt preys like chameleons, snakes, mantises or birds do) doesn't suffice to make it a "perfect" match for Irvine. Same thing goes for people saying Irvine's apostle form will be that of a cyclop: while the eye theme fits, the archer part doesn't, and cyclops are supposed to be rather stupid giants. Then there's Medusa (one of the Gorgons), but she doesn't perfectly fit either (if only because she's a female), despite combining both the eyes and the archery elements. And the list goes on.
 

Lliugusamui

around the corner
I have one opinion. Not the truth.
I could imagine Irvine as a sort of eagle-man (sort of that guy in Mystaria back on the Saturn ), flying from roof to roof, spying on his preys. What about his bow ? Unchanged maybe ?
Or he could transform in sthg completly different, with his bow, and i dont have a clue what that could be...Only Miura knows.. :miura:
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
*Gyom* said:
I could imagine Irvine as a sort of eagle-man (sort of that guy in Mystaria back on the Saturn ), flying from roof to roof, spying on his preys. What about his bow ? Unchanged maybe ?

Actually, I like the idea of a birdish design for him (even his human figure seems compatible with it to some degree), but the bow and the blind part don't concord too well with it. I think someone mentioned the eventuality of him being the equivalent of a male harpie in another thread, but that doesn't seem credible as an "elegant" and functional/efficient apostle form (which he seems to be, judging from his current design). The fact his ears (and most of his head aside from his face) are always concealed intrigues me, I've come to believe it might be a key point to what his apostle form is (sort of like Ganishka's beard concealing his teeth... and his turban possibly concealing Daka-like horns?).

*Gyom* said:
Only Miura knows.. :miura:

At this point I think it's pretty clear yeah.
 

Forest Wraith

Evil is born when we lose power over ourselves.
Aazealh said:
More than "may not", I'd say it simply isn't.

Well, savageness itself isn't part of his characteristics from what we've seen so far.

Are you trying to tell me that savagery isn't a common characteristic of the apostles? I know that they are not mindless and with the more cool-headed ones, a savage aspect of their nature may only come out when in the thick of battle; However, the apostles feed upon human beings . . . Perhaps feral would be a better term but I would state that there is no denying that there is an animalistic aspect inherent in the collective nature of apostles.

Aazealh said:
Yeah, tigers hunt preys, like many, many other animals. Does that relate them to Irvine beyond the superficial fact they "hunt" (one for food, the other for the sport)? No. It doesn't really fit the way Irvine describes his hunting either. And manticores have the body of a red lion (not solitary hunters), despite being supposedly inspired by tigers, so...

My thinking is that they both hunt prey, therefore they can both be considered hunters. I'll concede the point about Manticores being modeled after Lions rather then Tigers though; I wasn't thinking on that point.

Aazealh said:
Oh, really, your book says so? And is it as serious and reliable as that wikipedia article you posted? :schierke: The reviews I read aren't flattering.

Way to jump right on the anti-wikipedia band-wagon; it always helps to look at both sides of a debate however: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

But critics have raised concerns about the site's increasing influence, questioning whether multiple, unpaid editors can match paid professionals for accuracy. Writing in the online magazine TCS last year, former Britannica editor Robert McHenry declared one Wikipedia entry — on US founding father Alexander Hamilton — as "what might be expected of a high-school student". Opening up the editing process to all, regardless of expertise, means that reliability can never be ensured, he concluded.
Yet Nature's investigation suggests that Britannica's advantage may not be great, at least when it comes to science entries. In the study, entries were chosen from the websites of Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica on a broad range of scientific disciplines and sent to a relevant expert for peer review. Each reviewer examined the entry on a single subject from the two encyclopaedias; they were not told which article came from which encyclopaedia. A total of 42 usable reviews were returned out of 50 sent out, and were then examined by Nature's news team.
Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopaedia. But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively.
-snip-
But Michael Twidale, an information scientist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, says that Wikipedia's strongest suit is the speed at which it can updated, a factor not considered by Nature's reviewers.

Anyway, manticores were said to kill humans that adventured themselves alone in the wild, and to eat them completely, so much that no trace was left. Creeping near, eh? Yeah, they were said to be able to shoot darts up to some distance (hence the comparison to arrows), but also to fight primarily with their powerful fangs and claws. That falls a bit short of what I'd expect from Irvine (well, except if he was already blind before becoming an apostle, he must have needed to get really close to his target :void:).

In that case, would you expect Irvines apostle form to be capable of fighting in close-quarters? Besides that everything that I have read on the Manticore from various sources besides the two that I have presented; states that they killed primarily by lethal concentrations of venom from spines fired from their tails. However, I will grant that that interpretation comes from our own respective sources, either of which may have modern fatasy elements incidently mixed in.

Aazealh said:
Also, throwing "a volley of poisoned (paralysing) darts" from one's tail isn't that similar to shooting arrows with a bow no matter how you put it (yeah, in spite of thousand years old descriptions of the monster trying to sound impressive), so please do me a favor and don't insist too much on manticores being archer-like. And it's still the same thing about being a hunter, stalking humans to eat them doesn't strike me as very similar to Irvine's talk of pursuing preys for days and days. On a side note, I don't get much of a feline feeling coming from him.

Then how do you see his weapon and its use being incorperated into his apostle form? Of course the use of a bow and firing spines from a tail are two different things but my thinking was that they are both projectile weapons. Just as my point that although their styles of hunting are no doubt not exactly the same; they are both still hunters.

Aazealh said:
Manticores were depicted as being extremely bellicose and violent creatures, cruel and fearless, that would attack everything they saw, even preys several times bigger than themselves. They had humans faces with 3 rows of razor sharp teeth, blue-green eyes, and were supposed to have a voice sounding like a trumpet. They're also often represented with wings, like I said. So tell me, how well does that combine Irvine's characteristics?

I never stated anything about the characteristics of his personality, I was only thinking his aspects as a hunter and archer. As well as only being a model for Irvine in that regard.
How well do any of the apostles apostle forms match the characteristics of their human forms in the first place? I know that the exact mythological ideal of a Manticore will not be represented in Irvine's apostle form but I feel that an apostle form modeled after a Manticore would work best. For the reasons I have already ellaborated upon and because it was the first thing that came to mind when I thought of a way for Irvine to combine his bow with his apostle form. I know that I am going around in circles but you are trying to define specific attributes to what I stated when I stated none because I knew that they were unknowable . . .

Aazealh said:
Manticore01.jpg
Manticore02.jpg

I see, well that's as good a speculation as another, meaning that it's based on nothing concrete given what we know about Irvine (not much). I'm fine with that, the thread is all about guessing, but even if you're so confident in your hypothesis you should expect to see it debated.

I have no problem with that.

Aazealh said:
Actually I don't see how what I think of it is of any importance, as I don't believe we can currently really arrest any definite possibility, we just haven't seen much of Irvine yet that could lead us to believe he'd likely be related to a specific mythological creature. What's clear though is that you affirmed that something akin to a manticore would be a perfect match for Irvine (without providing any argument as to why it would), and that's simply not the case. It would have certainly be more cautious to say that it's just your opinion, but that wouldn't have changed the fact that it's not nearly perfect as an embodiment of what we know of his characteristics (and if it was everybody would have said so already, it's not like manticores are unknown mythical beasts). If you just meant that a tail throwing darts like that of a manticore would be a plausible element to feature in the character design of Irvine's apostle form, you should have explicitely said so and detailed your thoughts in your first post.

It's indeed a possibility and I see no reason to discard it (having thought about it myself in the past), but that element alone (and the fact that manticores hunt preys like chameleons, snakes, mantises or birds do) doesn't suffice to make it a "perfect" match for Irvine. Same thing goes for people saying Irvine's apostle form will be that of a cyclop: while the eye theme fits, the archer part doesn't, and cyclops are supposed to be rather stupid giants. Then there's Medusa (one of the Gorgons), but she doesn't perfectly fit either (if only because she's a female), despite combining both the eyes and the archery elements. And the list goes on.

Agreed: "I think that something very loosely modeled after a Manticore would be a great possible design for Irvine's Apostle form."
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
Forest Wraith said:
Are you trying to tell me that savagery isn't a common characteristic of the apostles?

I'm saying savagery isn't a characteristic of Irvine. He's not a common apostle.

Forest Wraith said:
However, the apostles feed upon human beings . . .

Some do, nothing says they all do. We haven't seen Irvine eating anybody yet, and we have no reason to assume he did or would.

Forest Wraith said:
My thinking is that they both hunt prey, therefore they can both be considered hunters.

Yeah, if you take the word strictly they're both hunters (but like I said, pretty much every other animal is). However I think we both know the type of hunt involved differs. Hunting for food and for sport isn't the same, at least I think so. That makes it somewhat irrelevant as an argument pleading for Irvine's likeness to manticores and especially over any other predator IMHO.

Forest Wraith said:
Way to jump right on the anti-wikipedia band-wagon

I've been leading that wagon since day one, so don't give me that. The day they have a definition for Berserk that isn't ridiculous I may consider revisiting my judgement. Not that it's the only one that needs correction, and I don't need to be an expert to know it (or am I a Berserk expert? :badbone:). Besides they DO have a MS paint drawing as an illustration of a manticore... I mean, how serious is that? I'm not so much anti-wikipedia as I am realistic about the quality of what you can find in it (from very good to very bad), as opposed to some people believing it to be the ultimate reliable source of knowledge. Anyway that isn't the point, I was merely insinuating that your book wasn't the most reliable source of information on the subject, and it isn't if I'm to believe the critics I read and heard. I don't think we need to refer to vague second-hand descriptions to decide what a manticore looks like anyway, at least I don't.

Forest Wraith said:
In that case, would you expect Irvines apostle form to be capable of fighting in close-quarters?

Why not? I'd expect him to be able to fight in close quarter but to be most efficient at a long range (very long range, not like a manticore throwing spines from 10 meters away), just like his human form. Now his apostle form could vary to some extent, even greatly, so I'm not going to dismiss any possibility and I don't think you should either.

Forest Wraith said:
Besides that everything that I have read on the Manticore from various sources besides the two that I have presented; states that they killed primarily by lethal concentrations of venom from spines fired from their tails. However, I will grant that that interpretation comes from our own respective sources, either of which may have modern fatasy elements incidently mixed in.

I've read quite a few things that talked about manticores (mostly talking about old mythological tales here), and the accounts of what they exactly are/do is fluctuating to say the least. Different countries have different interpretations too, in Spain manticores are said to eat kids that behave badly, just like the boogeyman. As far as I know the original records don't put that much more emphasis on the tail than on the rest, and in particular the action of hurling paralysing spines isn't stressed, the creature is often depicted as attacking people like a panther would (in the jungle), moving very fast and stinging them with its scorpion-like dart or just mangling them like any wild beast would. The contemporary representation in fantasy works would be close to the second picture I posted, but even so it isn't constant and can differ in some works.

Forest Wraith said:
Then how do you see his weapon and its use being incorperated into his apostle form?

Do you want a list? There are so many possibilities... Think of Locus' lance and how it transformed, it stayed a weapon distinct from its user but evolved with him, it could be the same for the bow. Or it could become a part of him, and then it could really be anything.

Forest Wraith said:
Of course the use of a bow and firing spines from a tail are two different things but my thinking was that they are both projectile weapons.

Yeah, they're both projectile weapons, and I think that's the strongest point in favor of this idea. Now the bow would have to transform into a spikey tail, but that's another matter. Please note though that other animals (even real ones) are able to shoot projectiles at their enemies, it's not an exclusivity.

Forest Wraith said:
I never stated anything about the characteristics of his personality, I was only thinking his aspects as a hunter and archer. As well as only being a model for Irvine in that regard.
How well do any of the apostles apostle forms match the characteristics of their human forms in the first place?

Well, you just said a manticore would be a perfect match, you didn't specify anything about it being limited to its appearance, so I took it as really perfect, matching him on every level. Concerning the other apostles, I think they match relatively well, thinking about Grunberd, Locus or the Snail Count for example.

Forest Wraith said:
I know that the exact mythological ideal of a Manticore will not be represented in Irvine's apostle form but I feel that an apostle form modeled after a Manticore would work best. [...] I know that I am going around in circles but you are trying to define specific attributes to what I stated when I stated none because I knew that they were unknowable . . .

Your post named something akin to a manticore as perfectly matching, so once again, I took it as being truly the perfect representation of what it'd be, and since it was rather vague, I worded my doubts and asked you to detail your thoughts. I'm exaggerating, but just saying that Irvine's apostle form will somehow shoot stuff would also be a definition, and it'd also need some precision. :guts: I find it normal to try to pinpoint specific features in this case. Anyway I think the matter is clarified so all is well. I still believe the answer lies in his ears though. XD
 

Forest Wraith

Evil is born when we lose power over ourselves.
Alright, good. Next time I have an opinion like this I'll be sure to give a good and precise dissertation on why. I can understand why is important to put thought and effort into the discussions here so I will be more mindfull of that in the future; even when I feel that it is unnecessary for me to elaborate.
 
I would think his apostle form would be aerodynamic/ballstic with a lot of eyes and projectiles just considering the way he fights and he looks in his human form, but I'm sure Mirua will come up with something very unexpected but at the same time perfectly fits him.
 

Wereallmad

I love YaBB 1 Gold!
I dunno why, but his bow makes me think of Ghoma from the original legend of zelda, or from the twilight princess videos (you can see it chasing after Link in one of the older ones). Though that creature wasn't associated with archery (unless you count having to shoot him in the eye with the magic bow.

I'm trying to think in fantasy conventions. We've already got something centaurish, something minotaurish, something wraith-like, and something dragonlike. Grunbeld is not only a dragon, but a geniune giant as well. While there is no garuntee that all of Griffith's generals will be classical monsters, if you wanted to start somewhere, I'd try and think of what creature we're missing. I think Cupid was sometimes depicted as being blind :p.

Anyway, I have no idea what he could be, and I'd be willing to put money on no one else guessing right either.
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
Forest Wraith said:
Alright, good. Next time I have an opinion like this I'll be sure to give a good and precise dissertation on why. I can understand why is important to put thought and effort into the discussions here so I will be more mindfull of that in the future

Cool, thanks for your understanding. :SK:

Zelz said:
I would think his apostle form would be aerodynamic/ballstic

I think that's a safe guess, his current appearance does give that impression.

Wereallmad said:
I dunno why, but his bow makes me think of Ghoma from the original legend of zelda [...]. Though that creature wasn't associated with archery (unless you count having to shoot him in the eye with the magic bow.

Well, maybe shooting laser beams from its eye counts. :void:

gohma.gif

Anyway, dismissing Zodd's apostle form which appeared early in the manga, Grunberd and Locus had strong and easier to notice connections to what their apostle form turned out to be (Grunberd's armor in particular was kind of a giveaway), which isn't the case here. Even so, few expected Locus to actually be a centaur-like monster (a rather unusual one at that), and the whole moonlight knight thing didn't play that big of a role in the end (well, at least from what we've seen), just that the shape of his shield is a crescent. I also consider Rakshas as more oriental inspired than just wraith-like, even his name comes from Hindu mythology (and his apostle form is as much of a mystery as Irvine's). So basically I think we're clueless as far as mainstream mythological creatures go, and if it ends up being based on one I doubt it'd look like its traditional representation.
 

Feanor

Nur dem Schwert kannst du vertrauen!
I think the manticor thing is not bad, because a manticore is a hunter, he can shot things and he is a beast.
At the fire Irvine said something like:
"I'm alone, i hunt by myself.
For days you continue to hunt your pray, running through the wilderness.
You hide alone deep in the forest. Night after night until you lose any sense of time. And then before you know it, yourself have become a beast as well"
By the way, the bow could transform easily into the skorpion tail.
 
Top Bottom