I'll post this on Mangafox too...
I was reading a couple of the older chapters and thinking about the recent developments and I must ask, what is it that determines a Claymores power? Is their strength based on the strength of the yoma whose DNA is in their bodies? Is their power based on training? Does the power of a Claymore stem from their mindset before becoming a Claymore or afterwards? Are all these questions a waste of time because Yagi forget about these holes?
A few things, I was reading the Endless Gravestones which is volumes six through seven I believe. It's the chapters where Clare meets and later fights Ophelia. After Clare tries to regenerate the arm Ophelia cut off, Ophelia tells her that it's impossible for her to do it because she's an offensive type. Ophelia claims that "after" one becomes a Claymore do they think about defending themselves or killing their enemies? From there, they develop accordingly. Many chapters later, this is more or less confirmed and maybe even contradicted by Deneve depending on how one interprets things. Deneve tells us that she hid under the bed as a yoma devoured her sister. I remember her telling Butch, I mean Undine that all she could think about after the fact was protecting herself. As time went on Deneve became a defensive type. The issue here is that Ophelia claims that one’s mindset determines what type of Claymore they are after they take yoma flesh into themselves. According to Deneve this entire process starts before. Of course that's a smaller issue here. The question is does mindset even matter or is there some other factor that is more important?
Exhibit A is Priscilla. Priscilla is a defensive type, presumably because no offensive type can regenerate unless we're talking about an Abyssal One and even they can't begin to regenerate at a fraction of Priscilla's speed. So she seems to be a defensive type. However, as a child Priscilla killed her father who had become a yoma. It seems that she should technically be an offensive type but she isn't. Now you might say that perhaps she killed her father so as to defend herself. Kill daddy yoma before he knows you're in the room and get a chance to kill you. Self-defense = defensive type. I would argue against that angle because there are too many inconsistencies in how this works. When Ophelia escaped from Priscilla and fled her village this was no doubt a defensive act of self-preservation. From a genetic standpoint, Priscilla's danger stimulated a flight response in Ophelia rather than a fight response. Ophelia should technically be an defensive type yet she is an offensive type. You might argue that perhaps she was thinking about killing Priscilla the entire time and thus was undergoing the mental transformation to become an offensive type. This is further proven by Clare's condition who, while fleeing the carnage of battle could probably only think of killing Priscilla and thus became and offensive type. So if mindset does determine ones type we are left with a question of what came first the chicken or the egg? Does the transformation start before yoma DNA is implanted into the body or afterwards. Of course there is another issue to consider as well. The Black Ones.
Correct me if I'm wrong but in "developing" the Black Ones the organization destroyed their sense of self. The twins were raised to be robots more or less so as to better develop the soul link. Both twins ended up being offensive types which leads me to wonder if the organization has a way to determine how a Claymore develops. Come and take a walk with me. If Alicia and Beth had no sense of self, if they were robots more or less then how would their mindset determine whether or not they would be offensive or defensive? They have no mind to serve as a compass for their development. I'm not saying they're brainless, oh goodness no. Rather, given that the organization destroyed their autonomy and with that their sense of self, it shouldn't have been possible for the twins to develop in either direction (offensive or defensive) unless there was an outside variable controlling how the MIB develop Claymores.
This is further complicated by outliers in the ranks such as Miata. Miata is mentally unstable which, from what I can tell is something that goes deeper than perhaps losing her family to yoma. I haven't researched her extensively but Miata's mental illness seems like it was inherited rather than acquired. How does a crazy Claymore develop? Sorry for being politically incorrect (then again not really) but how would a Claymore with a pre-existing mental conditions develop? They wouldn't develop normally that's for certain. In Ophelia's case the crazies didn't set in until after her brother was killed. With regards to Miata though, her illness seems to have been long-standing. It would be impossible for her to develop like other offensive types so again, the MIB must have some other means to determine how their Claymore become defensive or offensive.
Finally, the biggest concern here is Roxanne of Love and Hate. I really don't feel like looking for my old posts so to summarize, Roxanne has proven to possess an ability to copy the other techniques used by Claymores. Due to her own mental instability, she obsesses over Claymore she finds interesting and she undergoes her own mental conditioning to "become" the Claymore of her desires. We have seen this at least three times where Roxanne sees a Claymore who interests her and in trying to become like them, she gets closer to them, trains with them, and so forth until eventually she becomes them. After that happens she kills the Claymore in question (there can be only one). As I explained at length before, some people have that kind of obsession. When trying to become like the person they admire most, some mentally unstable people in the real world will actually do things like change the way they dress, the way they talk, and in extreme cases they will actually eat the hair and nails of the person who they're trying to become and at some point they will try and kill that same person they admire so. With the exception of the hair and nail thing (which probably happened off-panel) Roxanne seems to fit the profile. What is curious about Roxanne is that not only does she seem to change her fighting style but she appears to be a Claymore who can actually switch from being offensive or defensive.
Roxanne and Uranus both had a style called the Blade of Evil which is almost assuredly offensive. After Roxane "became" Uranus she killed her. Neideen then caught Roxanne's eye and in trying to become more like Neideen, Roxanne either gouged out her own eye or let herself be injured in a battle. Of course the wound is too clean to be battle related which leads me to conclude that Roxanne did it to herself. After Roxanne learned Neideen's fighting style she "became" Neideen and killed her during a hunt for an awakened being. According to our nameless narrator, Roxanne's eye healed the very instant Neideen died in battle. Roxanne later killed Elizabeth after stealing her style as well. It seems to me that based on the techniques she's been able to acquire, how she changes up her styles, and her healing rate, Roxanne may be able to actually change her "type" based on the Claymore she copied last. If the Claymore was an offensive type and she copies them she becomes an offensive type. If the Claymore was a defensive type and she copies them then she becomes a defensive type.
Of course everything I said here could be entirely wrong but these are some items that doth truly plague my mind.
i think there is no boundary between defensive and offensive
i consider them fuzzy terms
1 - yes difference between 'wanna protect myself' and 'wanna kill the enemy' works but not always, id say it is just something that apllies for many claymores but doesnt mean anything
2 - since i think they are fuzzy - bounderless, yes, i say that one can be actualy both or none
3 - it depends on personality, probably most on subconscious personality - one's true desires and morale
4 - the same comes to techniques, technique can be one or the ther or both or none..
you can learn some techniques and i dont think defensive type cant learn offensive techniques its all dynamic and i see these terms just as a guide not rule
Argh... sorry ZP... I written a huge post for this thread... and it was lost... not in the mood at the moment to try to re-write it...
HK cries.. I think I did a really good and thorough job at it too... but it is lost... cries...
[edit: hahahhaha... I didn't lose the post... I never posted it here, oopsy-lol... I had just posted it on the other site... an embarrasing relief of joy, lol. anyways, here it is:]
Originally Posted by HK
Last edited by HegemonKhan; January 13, 2012 at 12:35 AM.
Your analyzing this fantasy manga waaay to hard my friend. I've found that is the quickest way to turn something you enjoy into something that is a chore.
We can look at the two types like this.
Offensive types, boast highly destructive abilities, usually based upon abilities and techniques involving physical(this includes sensory) augmentation and manipulation.
Defensive types boast higher regeneration abilities, along with techniques that utilize the manipulations of yoma and physical energy to achieve various affects.
You could think of these like class sets from a video game. When you specialize in on talent tree you lack in another area. The events that happen to a a person before becoming a claymore are not as important as the feelings of the Claymore towards these events.
those with strong feelings of aggression such as revenge or retribution for lost loved ones have predisposition's towards offensive traits, which allow them to destroy there enemies more effectively.
Those with strong feelings of self preservation, preservation of others or the superseding of self interest(another type of preservation) tend to be predisposed to defensive traits, which allow them to endure combat and remain more effective at defending life.
Awakening throws these traits out the window of course. Isley can Regenerate and Riful has a form capable of more wide spread devastation then either of her counterparts but must regenerate considering how often her tendrils are cut smashed and shattered in combat. Priscella an offensive type has so much Yoki pouring out of her that her regeneration isn't even ability based but completely automatic.
As to mental instability, that play little consequence on anything. It could easily be said that mental disorders fall on both sides of the spectrum. Antisocial disorders could be considered extremely defensive by nature while sociopath and psychotic tendencies could be said to be offensive in nature. This goes to show that predisposition could take place regardless of the 'stability' of a mind, in theory.
Characters like Roxanne simply go to show that type associations can be mutable. Roxanne is a defensive type but with enough time she can mimic at least to some degree the techniques of others, HOWEVER there is a grey area. Roxanne has only ever been show mimicking basic abilities. Sword techniques like the 'sword of evil' are more about methodology and less about physical prowess. Its an sort of a rudimentary offensive 'style' that you'd expect on an average sort of warrior. in fact all she ever copied as far as we were shown as 'techniques' that were not very extreme. So in the end we don't know that she could have copied perfectly more extreme abilities like the dust eater, the Quick sword, the Drill sword and so forth. that have a lot of hidden mechanic's to them. That's why there is a time factor to her technique stealing, she still has to learn these abilities, she can't just sharingan them. Then there's really no telling if she'd even be as good as the original user depending on the difficulty of the technique. Rather then being duel type, i consider her as a claymore who never heavily specialized in one skill type over another, allowing her to walk the border line between the two.
Last edited by SaphG1; January 13, 2012 at 01:48 AM.
and by saying there is a grey area, you are saying the same thing as me (that defensive, ofensive type are fuzzy)
i think we are all saying basically the same thing...
the problem people defending absoluteness (even partial) offensive-defensive categories face is:
if there is a theory you will probably have exceptions,
the moment you say there is grey area (you basically implement fuzzy theory) the distinction ( literally te contrast) between those kinds vanish completely, they become equal, with no relationship
because then each type has its own definition, not the kind that if you are one you are the other, if these two kinds have their own definition - that mean you CAN always be both or none
you dont get to say someone is offensive type anymore, it is not binary/digital/ yes-no question anymore
1 you have to say how much is someone of the type 0-100% (or between 0-1)
2 you have to state this value for each category
meaning if you are 25% defensive, it doesnt mean tou are 75% offensive!!
you can be 0%-0% or 100%-100%
i hope it is clear what am i saying
you dont have to agree, but i dont think other system works
another thing i wanna point out is correlation
if claymores who are DT are more restrained and value their life more then killing enemy, that is nice.. we have a correlation indeed
but that doesnt mean anything!
i say that feeling this way is just a consequence of something that resulted in claymore being DT, in other words there is great likelihood that more 'pure' DT will be that way because the original cause for being DT and feeling that way is the same
that means that corellation between those things is meaningless
any corelation between oposite values on those types (DT being one way OT being the opposite) are just a result of the primary cause leading someone to become 'pure' one or the other but it cannot be used to support the theory that you can be one or the other nmot that you have to be one of those
every singer can sing (lets pretend it is true)
than saying there is great correlation between being a singer and being able to sing is pointless
it is not exactly the same thing (because i believe not every DT value life most) but the idea is the same
to sum my idea up into simple words:
DT and OT are not two faces of the same coin
if someone doesnt wanna still go along with me (joke) please look the this ismple example:
young and old are fuzzy too
what it means to be young? or old?
if 50y old is among 70y old people he is considered young, works the opposite way of course
so someone can be young and old both at once! how can his be!?
someone who is 20y old is considered young, but why? because you live in society where average lifespan is like 70years
if you meet group of 12y old they will tell you you are old
you cant say you are young and therefore you are not old!! you have to realize that correlation between being old and not being young (or opposite) doesnt mean anything, you can still be both or none
from the picture it is clear
it doesnt work this way: if it is nt warm it is cold
it woks this way: if it isnt cold then it isnt cold
you have 3 yes/no functions (in the picture value 1 or 0)
in claymore world just subtitute them for DT and OT
Last edited by spit; January 13, 2012 at 05:17 AM.
I disagree, at the end of the day a Claymore is ether Offensive or Defensive and not sort of offensive or sort of defensive. The reason beign is that at the day they turn the person in to a Claymore, they have to pick one or the other. It's like when you go to a store, you ether buy the entire bottle of milk or the loaf of bread. They are not going to sell you half a bottle of milk and half the loaf of bread. Sure a claymore can pick up sills in ether side later on but they can't undo what they started out as.
Or more like this, you go to the pet store and get a pet. You ether get a puppy or a kitten, you don't get a dogcat animal. You take the kitten home but decided you really wanted a puppy instead. So you teach the kitten to fetch, feed it dog food, put it on a leash and walk it around the block. The kitten grows up but act more like a dog instead. However we all know it's really still a cat.
Last edited by Khorr; January 13, 2012 at 02:40 PM.
I'm not sure what your going on about towards me there. I was addressing the original poster and not you, so why do i need to have some sort of differing point from you? If i were addressing you as i am now i would have said @spit. I didn't know there was a rule against stating your own view points regardless of if they were similar to the poster above you, color me surprised.
Most Wiki's seem to have her pegged as a defensive type and I tend to agree with them as her ability is based in Yoki manipulation which tend to signify a defensive type nine out of ten times. The only 100% way to be sure is to get it directly from the mouth of the author, no matter what we fans speculate on the matter, since it's his imagination this all springs from. We're overdo for a new data book for a long time if you ask me
we can speculate who's DT and who's OT, but since we really haven't concrete descriptions of OTs and DTs by the manga, the only certainty is when the manga has directly said a character as DT or OT. And our speculations, are just that, speculations. Yes, you'd think Rigardo would have to be an OT, ... but as while Helen's comment and Rigardo's reaction to his arm being destroyed, does seem to highly suggest he's an OT ... we never get actual confirmation of it ... as Helen is *asking* Rigardo if he's OT, not *saying* he's OT, and he only "tch", which I have no idea what that actually means... "tch" as in Helen is correct, he can't at least Regenerate within the Battle Time Frame, or is it a "tch" as in that Helen is an idiot, not knowing anything, she's wrong, he's not an OT and/or maybe he even can actually Regenerate his arm within the Battle Time Frame but never did so for whatever the reason, etc etc etc... So, even with Rigardo.. while he does seem to be an OT, we don't know for total certainty even with him.
Also, just because their bodies are more offensive oriented (and/or they can't Regenerate)... doesn't neccessarily make them OTs... as again, the manga hasn't been clear enough at exactly what is an OT and DT, what makes an OT an OT and what makes a DT a DT ???
why can't a character be both a DT and an OT ???
and the opposing point as well:
yes, you can be both an OT and a DT, but which are you MORE of, are you MORE OT than DT or are you MORE DT than OT, which is a valid argument for making you an DT or OT, and not a "both".
I do have some liberal views-orientations, but I have MORE and STRONGER conservative views-orientations, so am I really "both" liberal and conservative, or am I really just a conservative?
males and females have both feminine qualities-characteristics-traits-behavior-personalities and masculine qualities-characters-traits-behaviors-personalities, so is there really no such thing as male and female (we're all just Humans, the genders are merely something we artificially-socially created. As both females and males initially-orignally have gonads, which can-then becomes-makes testes or ovaries**), or are there Males and Females, and you're one or the other?*
*(I'm excluding-ignoring asexual, ex's bacterii virii fungii, and androgenous, ex flowers-pollination, as I'm just trying to make a point, and this stuff isn't relevant to that point I'm trying to make).
---------- Post added at 11:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:11 PM ----------
Moderator message by: HegemonKhanBoth or All of you, please keep it civil and stay respectful to each other, as I'd rather neither or none of you getting into trouble, from escalating it into heated posts that would likely be getting you into trouble
Last edited by HegemonKhan; January 14, 2012 at 02:37 AM.
i admit that i made a wrong assumption:
if you admit there is grey area (A^B) that doesnt mean A and B necessarily becomes fuzzy
but i am heavily biased into thinking you can be A,B,both or none(even if there may not be an example in claymore of the last one) and that you can be be more or less DT
---------------------------- my argument for fuzzy theory on DT,OT
as i feel great inconsistencies in deciding who is which + what happens when DT learns offensive technique? does learning offensive techniques makes you more OT?
if yes then you have to take fuzzy concept literaly..
i think it is neat theory - learning more D techniques makes you more D, therefore you can become more DT and more OT with time
you prefer, that you simply can BE or NOT BE one or the other, thats fine, but you think in theory you can still be both or none right? that diagram of yours clearly shows it..
---------- Post added at 11:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:43 AM ----------
it was not meant offensively or to be rude
- i am not insulting you nor doing it because of your opinion.. why are you getting so defensive?
- if i wanted to attack your thinking, you would know it because i use arguments...
- for some reason i had a hunch my comment wont be taken nicely but i think this was overreacting
i didnt read databooks, does that say anything about DT,OT?
---------- Post added at 11:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:00 AM ----------
example#1 is good point.. - you can be conservative about something but there can be someone who can be even more conservative
by that thinking
->being conservative is fuzzy
-----> you can be conservative and liberal at once! (about the same thing - if that seems weird just look at my cold-warm diagram)
-----> question which are you immediately loses meaning
plus there is no way person is conservative in whole (or the other), you always only be that way ABOUT something
example#2 is an easy one
-being male or female is not fuzzy (but crisp) - you re either male/female or you are not
- DNA - those with X chromosome are one , those with Y are other.. those wit both are both.. ( i think it is possible you have two DNAs (at least in dr. Haus it is.. and yes that will make you two people (hurray you have a little brother...))
can you be none or both ? (OT/DT)
i think definitely
if you think it is not possible, could you please tell me more about your idea? (i honestly dont understand your reasoning "which are you more?")
am i correct to think that you disagree with Khorr's diagram too?
-for some reason i think that
Khorr approves idea of being both at once but disagrees on fuzziness
HK agrees wit fuzziness but disagrees on being both
my point is it's a terms debate, we're debating before we establish the terms of our arguments, or rather we're arguing based upon different terms used for each of us.
hmm... let me try to explain a different way:
"Black and White" world (digital world, 0's and 1's, "yes and no", adversarily-opposital, absolutes, extremes)
"Black, White, and Grey" world (Quantum digital world, 0's, 0.1's, 0.2's, 0.3's, etc, and 1's)
0.4 (Grey World) or 0.0 (Black and White World) ?
0.0 = conservative
1.0 = liberal
If I was 0.3, am I both liberal and conservative, or am I just conservative?
for my own personal beliefs, I believe in a "black and white" world, of only opposites (the extremes), adversarial.
I don't understand 0.3 as being both liberal and conservatism, I understand 0.3 as being conservative.
"Ultimately, someone or something is good or evil, right or wrong, hot or cold, fat or skinny, big or small, smart or stupid, long or short, in or out, up or down, push or pull, etc etc etc."
more or less tall doesn't matter, you're still tall. more or less conservative, you're still conservative.
or with fractals:
2.9 Dimensions is still a plane, a 2 dimensional object
Whether a square's face is flat or bumpy, it's still a square.
whether a cube's faces are flat or bumpy, it's still a cube, as the 4th Dimension is time, and not spacial. A 3.9 Dimensional object is still a 3 Dimensional object, a cube. There's no such thing as a 4th spacial dimension...
(I am incorrect!) Uncertain <-> Certain (I am correct!)
(100% incorrect) Uncertain - Highly Uncertain - Slightly Uncertain - Slightly Certain - Highly Certain - Certain (100% correct)
Is there such a thing as Highly Uncertain, or are you just Uncertain?
I was only 33% incorrect... does this make sense to you, or not? Can you be 33% incorrect, or are you just simply incorrect?
Last edited by HegemonKhan; January 14, 2012 at 06:46 PM.
the logging out during writing gets on my nerves... i lost my whole message where i explained many things and showed how it goes together - i ve been writing it around an HOUR.. i wont be writing any of it again..
HK, i still dont understand your view on claymore DT/OT categories
- do you think learning some defensive technique will not make you be more DT?
just part of my previous post:
1 you have to say how much is someone of some type 0-100% (or between 0-1)
2 you have to state this value for each category
meaning if you are 25% defensive, it doesnt mean you are 75% offensive!!
you can be 0%-0% or 100%-100%
well, I'm confusing myself too.. I don't really even know where I'm going with it, or even what point I'm trying to make anymore...
I was getting too off-topic and getting into basically nonsense. sorry about this!
Ignore my last posts... I was rambling nonsense, going very off-topic... so, let me and the discussion try to get back on-topic to the Claymore stuff about the Types, lol.
oh, definately, I think you can gain more of the opposite Type of abilities, becoming closer to that opposite Type and less of your original Type.
I'm not sure if Claymores can change their actual Type (if the Types actually even eixst or not) or if it's permanent - decided upon "birth" (Claymorization).
Last edited by HegemonKhan; January 15, 2012 at 02:14 PM.
i believe so too
1 there is a bit of a problem though, kinda paradox - what is defensive stuff? what is defensive technique
well of course technique that defensive claymore use.. but then now i basically define defensive type by itself (cause i just defined defensive technique based on defensive type and type on technique...)
2 where this all originates from then? egg or chicken..
i think techniques definitely cant be defined by the category, the type should be defined by techniques
i dont think type is determined in the beginning (even if changing types was possible), instead, i simply say that it doesnt exist, i believe DT and OT are simply packages, some claymores fit, but most not so well, i dont believe in the begining you start as pure one or the other - you might (based on personality) but you probably end up starting as neutral
thats one of the main reasons i hold to the fuzzy theory too, since i believe nobody is really pure type, and i dont think there is some factor causing someone to be DT or OT i see it just as a characteristic that doesnt necessarily apply -> so i just rate 0%-100% how good this applies to someone and that is it
by training and experiencing first combat most of pure type claymores should shape up as first time experiences are most deeply experienced (read relevant)
fight or flee reflex ('kill or be saved' if you will...) is the closest to the 'origins' as we can get, i think this as a representation of one's psyche's type works well, but i dont think you can apply it to more than few people, i think vast majority of claymores dont think either,instead act based on circumstances
i do think that if someone is quite pure type - it can be harder to master techniques of the other kind, i am mainly interested in mental jedyism (hello Galatea, Rafutela), to what extend does its full potential goes, i feel that this is one of the hardest techniques to master - not just because it should be hard to learn but i expect it to be complicated to use and require some kind of predisposition
all i can think of is - some form of intelligence, personal insight, be able to see through people
- i think that defensive techniques suite intellectuals better and there are more defenders among them too
personality shapes up during growing up and i just say that there could be organization bringing the orphans up in some way to achieve some results, if this manga was real - they would definitely try to produce pure-types for sure i think this could lead to interesting results
1 - more powerful defensive/offensive techniques - mastering techniques more efficiently and closer to its full potential
2 - greater gap between purists of opposite type
3 - greater gap between yoki based techniques and sword techniques (probably, it certainly would be interesting to see powerfull mindreaders, yoki synchronizers etc powerful so much that they could stand firm against #1)
4 new team work
imagine team 1 pure DT, 1 pure OT + 2 neutral (each with different support ability), mindreader would confuse target (AB for example), attacker went full force and the rest cover, and support as needed
it certainly is better idea than team of 4 random idiots, and whole team relying on strength of 1 claymore - the last 2 (or all 3) are most of the time just fodder
so it would be interesting but i highly doubt (HK, im highly doubting - somewhere about 90%...) yagi went this far, if he didnt there is no point indulging myself in such a fantasy - although yagi is doing something like this right now - the mighty combos...