With the recent developments in the manga and the various speculation about how the apostles will end up staying true to their "nature" I came upon a strange thought and would be thrilled to hear everyone's thoughts on the matter. I searched through quite a few threads about apostles but I didn't find anything dedicated this topic.
Throughout the manga there are numerous references to the degree of an apostle's power in relation to how much evil they received when they became apostles.
Ganishka boasts about it to Locus
Now the issue isn't with Ganishka but actually with Griffith's commanders, or more specifically the strongest members of his new Band of the Hawk. We know that Locus, Grunberd, Zodd, Rakshas and Irvine are all incredibly powerful. Wouldn't this imply that they should all actually be the most evil in Griffith's army (Griffith naturally excluded)? Yet when it comes to which apostles are most regularly doing evil things, it's usually the cannon fodder. The weaker apostles are the ones that eat and rape humans and do the things that we would normally consider evil. Grunberd and Locus on the other hand have demonstrated that they are fully capable of interacting with humans on a normal level. We don't really see what Rakshas does. And from the few scenes we've scene of Irvine, he seems to be a relatively normal person (his interaction with Sonia). I would assume that if Sonia had fallen asleep beside normal apostles she probably would have been raped and eaten. As for Zodd well for now I'll just exclude him because most humans that have come face to face with him were probably going "Holy Sh!t! that man has no eyebrows" Okay bad joke. But apart from Mule and Sonia I don't recall him ever really coming face to face with someone that he didn't kill. (Guts and co excluded)
Considering that these apostles are supposed to be the most evil from the Band of the Hawk, why is it that they commit the least amount of evil acts? We don't see them raping people or even eating human flesh. Is it possible that the other apostles are just a more primitive type of evil? Or is the standard definition of evil not appropriate. If we consider how the Idea of Evil came into being and that it all starts with the negative and darker feelings within humans, should we actually consider the more "human" apostles more evil then the other ones?
Your thoughts?
Note* by small 5, I mean Zodd, Grunberd, Locus, Rakshas and Irvine.* The big 5 are obviously the five members of the God Hand.
Throughout the manga there are numerous references to the degree of an apostle's power in relation to how much evil they received when they became apostles.
Ganishka boasts about it to Locus
and his new transformation also appears to be a cause of him forcing more evil into himself,getting overconfident with the small amount of evil you received into your body. Feel the true power.
- as usual a thank you to the translators at sk.net -...How much evil does he have residing within his body... No, the Lord Emperor himself is now the evil world itself!!
Now the issue isn't with Ganishka but actually with Griffith's commanders, or more specifically the strongest members of his new Band of the Hawk. We know that Locus, Grunberd, Zodd, Rakshas and Irvine are all incredibly powerful. Wouldn't this imply that they should all actually be the most evil in Griffith's army (Griffith naturally excluded)? Yet when it comes to which apostles are most regularly doing evil things, it's usually the cannon fodder. The weaker apostles are the ones that eat and rape humans and do the things that we would normally consider evil. Grunberd and Locus on the other hand have demonstrated that they are fully capable of interacting with humans on a normal level. We don't really see what Rakshas does. And from the few scenes we've scene of Irvine, he seems to be a relatively normal person (his interaction with Sonia). I would assume that if Sonia had fallen asleep beside normal apostles she probably would have been raped and eaten. As for Zodd well for now I'll just exclude him because most humans that have come face to face with him were probably going "Holy Sh!t! that man has no eyebrows" Okay bad joke. But apart from Mule and Sonia I don't recall him ever really coming face to face with someone that he didn't kill. (Guts and co excluded)
Considering that these apostles are supposed to be the most evil from the Band of the Hawk, why is it that they commit the least amount of evil acts? We don't see them raping people or even eating human flesh. Is it possible that the other apostles are just a more primitive type of evil? Or is the standard definition of evil not appropriate. If we consider how the Idea of Evil came into being and that it all starts with the negative and darker feelings within humans, should we actually consider the more "human" apostles more evil then the other ones?
Your thoughts?
Note* by small 5, I mean Zodd, Grunberd, Locus, Rakshas and Irvine.* The big 5 are obviously the five members of the God Hand.