Why "Mata Nui's apostles" are arrogant?

This is just my headcanon, and a guess theory.


Makuta, who was a rebel against the world, and Barraki/The Six kingdoms, who was allowed to rule directly by Mata Nui.
The MU is sometimes ruled by those who can be described as “arrogant” or “domineering”.

The interesting point is, they were all created directly by the Great Spirit Mata Nui.
They could have managed the MU in a more “ideal” way than would normally be the case.
So I write a hypothesis, that why only those who were privileged by Mata Nui were rebellious.


This is a very pessimistic view, but I think it’s important to note that most of BIO-Being initially had only very limited, insect-like (just like Kestora) AI.

Originally, many BIO-Beings, including Matoran, were “internal structures” to maintain the health of the “huge humanoid body” called MataNui, and GB had expected them to act more like “internal organs” or “red blood cells” rather than a life form in the true sense of the word.

In other words, if they were properly the “entrails” of MataNui, what is needed there is not “goodness” or “humanity” or “conscience”.
it’s a ruthless prioritization and a minimal sense of how to work without questioning it.

In this case, Makuta’s and Baraki’s “arrogance” was in a sense an “expected feature,” by GB, and In the MU culture, which was given evolution of intelligence by Velika and became more “social”, their “inherent function” could have been naturally regarded as an “inborn character defect”.

I think this is the why many of the Makuta, the “apostles of Mata Nui” who had direct access to the very structure of the MU, and the Baraki who were allowed to rule directly, were “arrogant”.

Mata

This hypothesis also explains why GB created Marendar as a danger to Toa’s rebellion instead of Makuta.

Greg said the reason GB was wary of the Toa and not the Makuta was because the Makuta were so important to the operation of the MU that GB thought it unlikely they would rebel.

In other words, GB may have viewed Toa, “a relatively unimportant but highly threatening entity,” as the greatest risk.
.
.
.

I couldn’t think of a sentence that would end the sentence in a cool way. The end.

24 Likes

Something else I find interesting is the Toa Empire. Tuyet’s despotism is obviously tolerated by Mata Nui, so it’s fair to assume, I feel, that when it comes to the happiness and rights of his worker-slave-matoran… he doesn’t care.

7 Likes

This all boils down to Matoran having a different culture to us. It’s really interesting to think about - they don’t mind authoritarianism because if not everyone is working, then their universe dies. They need rulers who will whip the working masses into shape and get them moving.

4 Likes

well I think they would have been more willing to work if they knew they lived inside a giant robot.

But yeah I doupt Matoran dislike authoriatism. Turaga of a village is basically a dictator. One went mad and no one did anything to stop him/her.

3 Likes

They may not know they’re in a robot, but they definitely understand that if they stop working, the Great Spirit dies, and that spells trouble for everything else.

2 Likes

He didn’t care until he was given a living body and sent to live amongst those fellow beings where he was actually capable of feeling real pain.
It was supposed to be touching but it really felt kind of like “dang you really lacked empathy until you felt something eh?”

4 Likes

If you had never felt pain, your ability to symphatise and emphatize would be non existent.

1 Like

I wonder about that. Mata Nui almost died as a result of the Metru Nui Civil War, and surely the world-shaking conflicts which must have taken place within 100,000 years of history—the Barraki Conquests, for example—must have put some strain on his body. Moreover, a central aspect of Mata Nui’s mission is to observe foreign worlds/cultures, in the interest of making a value-judgement on the efficacy/nature of each. He probably has some sense of how these cultures impact the individuals which compose them.
In any case, I think @Takutanuva’s point, overall, rings true: his characterization in 2009 was incongruent with the personality we had come to perceive that he had, and his statements about loyalty to his old workers, after only ever showing them utter neglect (and even malignance) come off as annoying. It’s like a parent who neglected their child suddenly coming around after losing custody.

2 Likes