|
Post by heirloomairloom on May 13, 2016 0:10:39 GMT
So wait, are you pairing Witch and Sylph on a whim and then looking for ways that they could actually function as a pair? That seems backwards. I'm fairly sure we ought to be looking at each class's individual behaviours, then pairing them together based on the similarities of those behaviours, not the other way around. No, just saying that I got the verb from Witch, not Sylph. I agree with Maids as creators, I have them as that myself. But the problem with Jane is a healer is that she's never healed except through using powers. As much as I like powers as a guide to class definitions, even I admit that a verb that fails to capture someone's mundane actions is just as bad as one that doesn't cover the powers they have. Sburb should never just make someone a Healer even though they'd never otherwise heal anybody. Baking is just a hobby, one that never provided any benefit to her. Just because she could hypothetically fix a starving person is irrelevant because that situation never came up. Meenah is also into baking and thus has just as strong a claim on being a healer if that's all someone needs. But the fact that that specific act of passive creation involved healing was incidental. It's trivial to think of an example of allowing creation that has nothing to do with healing or that is even harmful, like bringing a fire into a heavily wooded area where it has plenty of room to grow into a deadly inferno. On the other side of the coin, not all healing involves allowing something to be created. Aradia didn't allow Time to be created, she went out and made it by delaying bad guys. Even your own example of Aradia fixing the timeline had nothing to do with passive creation, she was just going back through time to fix people's mistakes. Limiting passive creation to healing is no different than doing the same to passive manipulation.
|
|
|
Post by obsidalicious on May 13, 2016 1:12:51 GMT
No, just saying that I got the verb from Witch, not Sylph. So why do you pair them? If you see the Witches as Manipulators, and the Sylph as healers, why did you pair them and then try to figure out how that pair works? What would you say Jane's mundane actions point to? You're assuming that Sylph has been fully confirmed as a Healer and nothing but a Healer. It is entirely possible that Aranea only said 'Healing' because that was the subset that was relevant to the situation at hand, or given what she was doing, it's also possible she was being deliberately misleading. It may be the case that the Sylph is the Nurturer, whose powers/specialties include, but is not limited to, Healing. And Aradia's example wasn't supposed to be an example of Passive Creation, because she's a Maid, not a Sylph.
|
|
|
Post by heirloomairloom on May 13, 2016 2:41:23 GMT
So why do you pair them? If you see the Witches as Manipulators, and the Sylph as healers, why did you pair them and then try to figure out how that pair works? The earliest evidence is exposition about the Condesce. "Her touch could extend life, but never restore it, to her lament." (p=005964) This sets up a situation with a Witch who can adjust what exists but cannot restore what was lost, and was preceded on p=005962 by further exposition that seems to tie in to how Witches can amplify or diminish how much of their Aspect something has. "Because while the Condesce could extend a single life on her whim, she could just as casually cut short that of millions." That part isn't really relevant to Witch/Sylph directly, but does set the mood for further classpect hints in the scene. Secondly, "manipulate" is hinted at for Witches within the comic itself, and does seem to describe both Feferi and Jade's powers and actions. Given Witches are the Active Manipulator class, which class is the Passive Manipulator? We may immediately throw out Knight and Seer. Next we can eliminate Heir, Maid, and Page, as turning into wind, resurrecting the dead, and making a giant hope bubble/army of angels/brain ghost Dirk are all way beyond any reasonable definition of "manipulate" that could ever work as a class verb. That leaves only Sylphs, who can easily fit as manipulators, and Mage, which has so little information it can always fit anywhere. Looking at it from the other side, is there a better place for Sylphs? They don't work as the active Understanders next to Seer. They could plausibly work as the passive Makers with Maid (or less plausibly active if paired with Heir), but those both share the same flaw as Witch of having the "healing" theme not really connected to the class verb at all other than as an arbitrary limitation on their definition, and have the side effect of breaking the better foreshadowed Heir/Maid pair. I don't see any way to make a strong connection between what Sylphs do and what Knights or Pages do, so we're left with Witch/Sylph as Sylph's best pairing as well. Finally, and weakest as evidence, Maid/Heir receives both heavy foreshadowing and works well as a pair of Maker classes. This requires Witch/Sylph in order to have a female exclusive pair. Jane's only important action was engaging Trickster Mode, so something related to that. But without a full canon definition of Life, you could pick any out of a ton of verbs, choose some suitable concept to be a part of Life, and explain her as performing that verb on/with it, so Jane can't point us in any direction very strongly. Kanaya's role as Sylph of Space obviously revolved around her fixing her species's broken reproductive cycle, so there's another example of it. It is possible that there's more to Sylphs than healing, but that hardly hurts my case against "heal" or anything similiar as being their verb. "Nurture", although broader than "heal", is close enough that it shares all the same problems as "heal" did when applied to Maids, such as what criterea are being used to determine that Aranea and Kanaya are passive nurturers whil Aradia and Jane are active ones.
|
|
|
Post by obsidalicious on May 13, 2016 3:02:49 GMT
The earliest evidence is exposition about the Condesce. "Her touch could extend life, but never restore it, to her lament." (p=005964) This sets up a situation with a Witch who can adjust what exists but cannot restore what was lost, and was preceded on p=005962 by further exposition that seems to tie in to how Witches can amplify or diminish how much of their Aspect something has. "Because while the Condesce could extend a single life on her whim, she could just as casually cut short that of millions." That part isn't really relevant to Witch/Sylph directly, but does set the mood for further classpect hints in the scene. The Condesce, if anything, is a Thief, not a Witch. She was even described as such here. Firstly, its been pointed out how "manipulate" is a terrible verb, even if it was used in the comic. Secondly, if we pretend for a moment that manipulate is viable, generalizing John's powers as Turning into Air is a bit of a Disservice to him. What about all the times he flung gusts of air and tornadoes about the place. That seems like a clear cut case of Manipulating Breath to me. So now that you've admitted that Maid/Sylph is plausible, can you now tell me how pairing the Healer with the generic Manipulator is somehow the better, more likely choice? Heavy Foreshadowing such as? Regardless of whatever you feel the Life Aspect is, I'm sure we can all agree that actual, literal lifeforms fall under its umbrella, and when Jane went Trickster Mode, all the plant life on her planet, which had been too weak/under nourished to live on the surface suddenly bloomed, flourished and spread across the surface. While I'm sure there are many ways to twist this for really odd verbs, I think that something in the ballpark of Creation/Restoration/Nurturing/Healing is the most straightforward reading of this event. I'm not saying that "Nurture" is the actual Verb. I advocate for "Create" and I'm saying that through the lens of Passivity, particularity in the realm of Allowing, that often results in Nurturing, while the Active Maids are more suited for more direct, manual Creation.
|
|
|
Post by amiabletemplar on May 13, 2016 3:40:10 GMT
To be fair, "one who is healed through" is a pretty weird class description. Technically speaking, that's not how it would be phrased--if we're following the pattern Calliope established. It's extremely close, so don't take this as admonishment. Just clarifying. Calliope's structures were stated as: Prince, "one who destroys X, or causes distruction through X." Bard, "one who allows X to be destroyed, or invites destruction through X," (with an external, and therefore parenthetical, phrase 'as if by the will of the aspect.' This was NOT included in the actual, closed-by-quotes description she gave--which means it's of a different character than the quoted part.) Therefore, the "one who steals" structures, if they are appropriate, would be: Thief, "one who steals X, or causes theft through X." (Note: "stealing" is a valid word, but "theft" sounds more natural in English, so I went with that.) Rogue, "one who allows X to be stolen, or invites theft through X." (Again, 'as though by the will of the aspect.') Then, if "heal" is the verb for Sylphs and their paired class, it would be: ****, "one who heals X, or causes healing through X." Sylph, "one who allows X to be healed, or invites healing through X." ('As though by the will of the aspect.') If you classify Sylphs as active, just switch the name around. I don't, so I'm keeping it as above. For me, I think "heal" as a verb is a little overly limited--not to the point I think it's invalid, just...I feel like it could easily be improved without breaking it in the process. I think whatever verb Sylphs and their paired class have, it's got healing as one strong and valid subset of a larger and more intricate possibility space. Alisa's suggestion of "fix" works well, as does my original thought, "maintain." So, for me, I pair Maid-/Sylph+ as "fixers" or "maintainers," people who restore good order, hold the course, and address the flaws or problems. The Sylph is more like a gardener, health coach, or psychiatrist: they don't cause things or people to be healthy/strong/improved, but their efforts make such things possible and likely, and under the Sylph's influence, their aspect pushes things toward completion and wholeness. The Maid is more like a surgeon, trailblazer, or engineer: cutting out the dangerous elements, stitching their aspect back together, being the avenging angel, Putting Right What Once Went Wrong, etc. This way, Sylphs are still clearly support characters without being so terribly pigeonholed (unless, and I stress this as EXTREMELY important, their desire is to be really good healers--which is a totally cool desire to have!), and Maids can have supportive elements while, on the main, being dynamic ass-kickers. That way, no girl-- even one with an allegedly "healing" class--HAS to be thrown into a narrow, can't-fight-the-man box without recourse or alternative. A Sylph can encourage wholeness through her bold example (Sylph of Blood, most likely) or her shrewd tactics (probably Sylph of Mind); a Maid can be a problem-solver through her undeniable power (Maid of Rage) or her ability to overcome even the toughest obstacles through perseverence (Maid of Hope). Yeah, I should have clarified. Obviously the first two definitions are just more synonyms of use/exploit that aren't valid as class verbs. I meant only the third, putting Witches in charge of changing/modifying/adjusting features of instances of their Aspect that already exist (contrasted with Princes who can break apart or remove examples of their Aspect entirely or Maids who can create them ex nihilo.) I think that gives them roughly the same amount of latitude as Thieves, who move their Aspect around without changing it. Also, they must be restricted to only manipulating their Aspect, instead of manipulating with it, as that would also make them generic to the point of covering everything. That ability can safely go to the other Manipulators, Sylphs, because with them it is heavily constrained by their focus on healing. Perhaps, to avoid this issue, you could use a more specific verb? My own--which I freely admit I am still somewhat skeptical of--is "convert," or "transform" if you prefer. Either one narrows the focus from the overly-broad "manipulate." It also allows us to avoid, or at least try to avoid, the problems of "change," since every class (again, pretty much by definition) must "change" their aspect (or allow it to "change") as a result of acting upon it. I like "convert" because it allows for a degree of double meaning (e.g. you convert energy from one form to another, but you also convert people to your cause). Which dovetails very nicely with my pairing of Witch/Heir and John's association with stumbling butt-forwards into leadership.
|
|
|
Post by heirloomairloom on May 13, 2016 19:14:17 GMT
The Condesce, if anything, is a Thief, not a Witch. She was even described as such here. She's also called a witch tons of times, even after Meenah shows up, with the first time being by Mindfang (p=005658, saying that her lusus will find "another little witch to serve.") In fact the last time anyone refers to her is Roxy calling her "the witch." Besides which, this was from Doc Scratch's exposition, when the ancestors were most closely tied with the Alternia trolls and their classpects (Mindfang being a professional thief instead of a healer, Redglare showing "the foresight of a true seer", the Handmaid being the HandMAID, etc.) Sure, some of John's powers manipulate wind. Some of them use wind to destroy, but that hardly makes him a Prince. The important powers aren't the ones that fit the pattern, but the ones that don't. Focusing solely on evidence that fits while ignoring the parts that can't possibly fit is just confirmation bias. That's why I only listed the powers that clearly aren't manipulation. For the record, Aradia's time stop ability should also probably count as manipulation. It's not that pairing the healer with the manipulator is the better choice than the creator. They work roughly equally well. Rather, it's that the healer is the only possible pair for the manipulator, while the creator has another, better candidate. Jane constantly being referred to as an "heiress", which is most blatantly tied into class stuff by the "The heiress is the Maid" line from (p=007463). I agree that it's meant to be interpreted like that, and that's my reading as well, but the really important thing wasn't finishing her land's quest by growing flowers, but turning everyone else into Tricksters, which has something to do with energy or liveliness or some such rather than literal life. I don't see why passive creation "often" causing healing matters. Passive creation would "often" do lots of different things. Trying to work around the fact that Sylphs are locked down into a healer role requires that all the exposition about healing and Kanaya basing her whole life around healing Space were just coincidences, and Sylphs are actually centered around a much broader concept (like creation) that never gets mentioned or demonstrated beyond this one specialization that covers all of our Sylphs. But that kind of logic lets you pair anything with anything. Therefore, the "one who steals" structures, if they are appropriate, would be: Thief, "one who steals X, or causes theft through X." (Note: "stealing" is a valid word, but "theft" sounds more natural in English, so I went with that.) Rogue, "one who allows X to be stolen, or invites theft through X." (Again, 'as though by the will of the aspect.') Then, if "heal" is the verb for Sylphs and their paired class, it would be: ****, "one who heals X, or causes healing through X." Sylph, "one who allows X to be healed, or invites healing through X." ('As though by the will of the aspect.') If you classify Sylphs as active, just switch the name around. I don't, so I'm keeping it as above. This is at odds with Roxy, who is repeatedly said to (and who we actually see) steal instead of invite or allow theft. It also doesn't work with the example Rogue Hussie himself used, Robin Hood. What's more, it implies that Sylph must be active, because Kanaya directly heals her Aspect instead of allowing it to be healed. I do like "maintain" as a verb for the Maid/Sylph pair though. I could. There's plenty of verbs that would work: adjust, modify, edit, etc. But I think the fact that "manipulate" gets used in the comic itself makes it the most likely to be correct, even if it can sound over-broad.
|
|
|
Post by Neptz on May 13, 2016 21:15:44 GMT
You know, sometimes I visit this thread and think "God damn this fandom is still theorizing even when it's source material ended" and I'm kinda amazed how dedicated you guys are.
|
|
cookiefonster
Dead
TAKE US THEIR FRESH JIMMY
Posts: 723
Pronouns: he/him/his
|
Post by cookiefonster on May 13, 2016 21:21:18 GMT
You know, sometimes I visit this thread and think "God damn this fandom is still theorizing even when it's source material ended" and I'm kinda amazed how dedicated you guys are. It's not actually that much of a surprise given how much the ending left unaddressed.
|
|
|
Post by Neptz on May 13, 2016 21:22:32 GMT
Oh, obviously, but most fandoms I've been in cease the theorizing after the source material ends/stops.
|
|
|
Post by legendary on May 13, 2016 21:30:37 GMT
One bit of evidence for Maids being active that is relatively new is the division of healing duties. Jane strictly brought the dead back to life; Nannasprite was the one in charge of restoring lost vitality. While of course some will point out that Nannasprite is also a Maid of Life, I'd argue that since she is generating sprite cookies that we can infer that this healing is in fact just a standard sprite thing (or at least a relatively useful conjunction of her healing abilities with the innate subservient nature of sprites). Likewise, Jane's apparent inability to provide restorative healing to the living suggests that such a thing isn't an intended use of a Maid of Life - whereas one can easily see a Rogue of Life being tasked with such a duty, and certainly a Sylph of Life, as a literal healer of health, would be a boon to her teammates.
Perhaps Jane's limits on her resurrection magic are a similar nod to her being active - a Hero of Life *should* be able to bring the dead back to life, but it shouldn't be a Maid's entire focus. Just something to help her team in a pinch (like how active Dave was still expected to die to benefit his team).
|
|
|
Post by obsidalicious on May 13, 2016 22:48:15 GMT
Sure, some of John's powers manipulate wind. Some of them use wind to destroy, but that hardly makes him a Prince. The important powers aren't the ones that fit the pattern, but the ones that don't. Focusing solely on evidence that fits while ignoring the parts that can't possibly fit is just confirmation bias. That's why I only listed the powers that clearly aren't manipulation. For the record, Aradia's time stop ability should also probably count as manipulation. If we're going to count Aradia's Timestop as manipulation than literally everything counts as manipulation. If we actually describe the action with a Verb that isn't so Broad and Vague, I feel that she is giving herself Time to think of a way out of the situation, as an Active Creator would. And how have you determined that turning into air is a far more important power that John's other Air manipulation? He achieved far more things with his 'airbending'(Putting out fires, getting around, retrieving the tumor, combat, defending the Beat Mesa, playing Typheus' pipe organ) while turning into air was never more that a means of survival and transportation. On that point I disagree. Even if the Maid did have a better pair, the fact that the last pair in your system are thrown together simply out of being the last ones left, and have such radically different functions should tell you that there's something not quite right there. I'd say that it's far more likely that Jane is referred to as an heiress, because she literally is an heiress to the Crocker Empire. As for having 'heiress' and 'Maid' in the same sentence: It's well established that Game Constructs always refer to the Players by their Class and not their name or anything. If this counts as 'Heavy' foreshadowing, then Rose being called a witch that one time should tell us that Witch/Seer is a pair. I think she turned everyone else into Tricksters because of what Trickster Mode is, not because of her Title. Everyone else was in on the Trickster conversion once converted themselves. Can I get a link to where Kanaya actually says she's all about Healing? In any case, even if she did say that, she doesn't exactly have the best record about knowing what her Title is about. Kanaya directly heals Space? What about the fact that it was not even her, but Roxy that procured the matriorb that was Kanaya's whole shtick?
|
|
|
Post by ashercrane on May 14, 2016 3:04:20 GMT
I think it's less that Kanaya says she's all about healing, it's more that a good portion of her actions seems to be fixing a problem in one way or another, from threatening to upend Vriska's load gaper over her head when she was messing with Tavros to wanting to kill the clown because she was sick of his stuff. Of course... by "fix" in this way, a lot could fall under it as well.
|
|
|
Post by heirloomairloom on May 14, 2016 14:47:02 GMT
If we're going to count Aradia's Timestop as manipulation than literally everything counts as manipulation. If we actually describe the action with a Verb that isn't so Broad and Vague, I feel that she is giving herself Time to think of a way out of the situation, as an Active Creator would. There are plenty of things that aren't manipulation. Vriska stealing luck, Roxy making things through meditation, Terezi seeing potential timelines, Dirk ripping souls out, etc. I also hold that Maids are party-focused despite being active. Aradia was also giving the rest of the trolls more time until Jack could come looking for them and her robot army held back the king's vast glub attacks long enough for everyone to defeat him. Her delaying Jack when he made it to the Green Sun to give the meteor time to get a larger lead didn't benefit her at all, because she could have escaped from danger before he even made it there, and so only helped others. It's important because it doesn't fit the pattern. If I saw a character who was the Priest of Cats, theorized that Priest was a Summoner class, then saw that character use one thousand different powers that brought cats to him and one power that let him merge two cats into a single stronger cat, that last power would be the most important one because it's the one that proves me wrong. Well, yes, given that Witch and Sylph don't make sense as a pairing obviously choosing Maid/Heir over Maid/Sylph is a poor idea. But I obviously disagree with the premise that Witch/Sylph doesn't make any sense on its own. In one of my earlier posts, you can even see the reasoning for how I can reach a conclusion of Witch/Sylph because Sylph is the best partner for Witch even with none of the other classes paired off yet. On the other hand, I do pair Knight/Page because they're the last one left, although there they do at least have the second strongest name connection behind Thief and Rogue. There are many different ways to communicate the idea that Jane is next in line to the empire. Don't you think there's anything intentional about how Hussie keeps coming back to the one phrasing that emphasizes that she is a "female heir"? As for the other point, "the (female heir) is the Maid" is quite a bit stronger than just having two classes in the same sentence. It would be equivalent to someone saying "the prophet is the Knight" as evidence of Knight/Seer. Oh, no, converting other people wasn't a power she got from being Maid of Life, it's just the most important thing she ever did. A pretty good chunk of Kanaya's conversations are about how she wants to restore the troll reproductive cycle by hatching a new mother grub. She says this about herself on p=009536: KANAYA: The Refrain Of Our Being Maybe You Could Call It KANAYA: A Thing That Attracts And Inspires Us And Simultaneously Weighs On Us So Heavily We Are Never Sure What To Do KANAYA: For Me It Is Procreation I Believe KANAYA: And So Does She KANAYA: Fighting For The Persistence Of Our People KANAYA: I Guess You Could Say KANAYA: Motherhood? And it's pretty obvious that what she intends to do about all that stuff is restart their currently unusable reproductive cycle. If raising a new mother grub isn't related to Kanaya's classpect, then what is? And if it is related, I really doubt it's a coincidence that we have two Sylphs, one of whom keeps performing supernatural feats of healing while expounding about what a healer she is and the other of whom is a Space player who wants to restore her species's currently disrupted reproductive cycle back to the way it used to be. A heart surgeon installs a pacemaker in a patient. Who directly healed in this situation, the doctor who performed the operation or the person who made the pacemaker? If anything Roxy is the one who allowed Space to be healed.
|
|
|
Post by amiabletemplar on May 15, 2016 6:17:48 GMT
But raising a mother grub is not, in itself, procreating, is it? Kanaya is biologically incapable of being a mother herself. She can only raise the entity that will do the procreating. So, fundamentally, her quest is not about being the new mother of her race; her quest is about facilitating the mother of her race. She is naturally taking an "enabling" stance, rather than an "acting" stance: she is, after all, an auxiliatrix, from " auxiliator," "helper" or "aide." The auxiliaries of an army (the more typical use of the term) are those members, not necessarily soldiers, who provide aiding or assisting capacity to the main force--they don't typically perform any direct duties themselves, but are rather assigned to make the jobs of other units easier or smoother. I consider all of these things fundamentally passive in nature: not personally acting, not personally procreating, not personally rebuilding, but accepting the resources of others in order to build up a third party which can accomplish these goals. All of Kanaya's actions will lead to new life, to new creation and growth, but do not in themselves actually give birth, create, or grow.
|
|
|
Post by heirloomairloom on May 15, 2016 22:44:03 GMT
Sure, there are tons of ways you could describe Kanaya's actions to make them Passive along the "allowing others to ___" axis, but "one who allows Space to be healed" isn't one of them. You have to change something there, either making Sylph active, changing the verb to something other than heal, or stop insisting on applying Bard's definition to all Passive classes. It isn't a huge obstacle, though. Even your "maintain" verb resolves it, since she is allowing the new mother grub to maintain the reproductive cycle rather than doing it herself.
|
|
|
Post by obsidalicious on May 15, 2016 23:20:16 GMT
There are plenty of things that aren't manipulation. Vriska stealing luck, Roxy making things through meditation, Terezi seeing potential timelines, Dirk ripping souls out, etc. Vriska uses stolen Luck to manipulate outcomes. Roxy manipulates ideas to bring reality to them. Terezi uses her Mind Knowledge to manipulate people into making sensible decisions(or she trys to). Dirk has to manipulate a soul in order to remove it from its housing. You seem to be forgetting the other clause of the basic Title descriptor: "One who [verb]s [aspect] and [verb]s with [aspect]". So have you considered 'Transform' or 'Shape' both of which would then still fit the Witch, while accommodating the Heir? In any case, Titles are very flexible, and can take any number of increasingly loose and creative interpretations of their descriptions. Turning into Air could be parsed as 'Allowing the Wind to manipulate him' which would mean letting the wind take him, in a very literal way. It could also be the case that the fact that he got this power much later may indicate that it's further from his Title's base function(s) that his earlier powers are. I'm looking back at what you said, and the only reasoning you gave was where you settled on the idea that, besides the Witch, the Sylph is the only manipulator, even though most if not all the classes manipulate their Aspect, and even though 'manipulate' is a poor description of the Sylph for a number of reasons. She keeps being called a female heir, because she is a female heir. While I accept that it could mean something more, we cannot say that it does mean something more. So here you're concerned about what the most important action is, but in the case of John, the fact that his Aerokinesis achieved far more things than his Aeromorph isn't relevant? So Kanaya doesn't actually use the word "Heal"? Because 'Fix', 'Restore', 'Nurture' etc. all still fit this description she's giving. So I can't take this as evidence that the Sylph is limited to Healing.
|
|
|
Post by heirloomairloom on May 16, 2016 1:18:25 GMT
Vriska uses stolen Luck to manipulate outcomes. Roxy manipulates ideas to bring reality to them. Terezi uses her Mind Knowledge to manipulate people into making sensible decisions(or she trys to). Dirk has to manipulate a soul in order to remove it from its housing. You seem to be forgetting the other clause of the basic Title descriptor: "One who [verb]s [aspect] and [verb]s with [aspect]". I assert that the "One who ___s Aspect or who uses Aspect to ___" is not universal to all Active classes. If it were, I would have to switch to something like my old verb "regulate," as "one who uses (Aspect) to manipulate" is too broad. Thus we can throw out the Vriska and Terezi examples as not manipulating their Aspect like Witches do. Further, I mean manipulate only in the sense of changing the particulars of an example of their Aspect. Roxy does not change the idea, she only takes away its non-existence, and so is not manipulating Void. Dirk cannot make any changes to a soul, only rip it out in an attempt to destroy it, so also not Witch-like manipulation. The first fits Witch less well than "manipulate." Jade isn't transforming one kind of space into another, she's changing an object's Space related values. The second could work for Witches, though it doesn't have the canon reference manipulate has. Shape doesn't work for John's ability to create wind though, as he isn't influencing winds that already exists. It might work for manipulating air, but most (possibly all) references to John's powers refer to them as wind related instead of air related. I could also describe it as "Allowing wind to destroy his body" or Terezi's power to remember what her alternate timeline selves' did as "Stealing their thoughts." If you allow that degree of leeway for describing powers then concerns about manipulate being too broad are already moot, since you can already use any verb to do anything. None of the others specialize in changing the condition of instances of their Aspect (rather than destroying it outright or moving it around) and thus don't manipulate in the concrete way Witches do. We can never say with certainty that anything is or isn't a hint about classes without having those classes actually confirmed for us. It's still evidence in the pairing's favor. Correct. Someone's most important actions determine which classpects they can be assigned, while their most important power uses do not (except insofar as the latter may be a part of the former.) Meanwhile, all powers (as distinct from Fraymotifs) must conform to the user's classpect's definition (except during "inversion"), while their normal actions are not so constrained. It's not like Terezi can run around breathing fire on imps as long as she makes sure not to burn anything so important that it eclipses her potential-future-vision. Thus, it doesn't matter which of John's powers were most useful any more than we're required to find a verb for Maid that covers everything Jane has ever done. True. "Fix" and "restore" are equally congruent with what we know about Sylphs, but being a restorer isn't meaningfully different being a healer when the things you are healing are leadership or death or concealment.
|
|
|
Post by obsidalicious on May 16, 2016 3:03:22 GMT
]I assert that the "One who ___s Aspect or who uses Aspect to ___" is not universal to all Active classes. If it were, I would have to switch to something like my old verb "regulate," as "one who uses (Aspect) to manipulate" is too broad. Thus we can throw out the Vriska and Terezi examples as not manipulating their Aspect like Witches do. Further, I mean manipulate only in the sense of changing the particulars of an example of their Aspect. Roxy does not change the idea, she only takes away its non-existence, and so is not manipulating Void. Dirk cannot make any changes to a soul, only rip it out in an attempt to destroy it, so also not Witch-like manipulation. Do you have any good reason to believe that this basic pattern doesn't apply to all classes? We saw these two clauses in the Destroyer Classes, can you say why these two, out of all classes, would be the ones to have extra clauses? We can also point to many instances of other classes following that second clause e.g. Roxy using the Void to steal Rose from danger in Game over. You're putting a lot of emphasis on the fact that 'manipulate' was used once in the context of a Witch. If this were reliable evidence, then the Knight would be the Exploiter and/or Weaponizer but very few people use those for good reasons. As for John's powers, you seem to be nitpicking there. Wind is made of Air. You couldn't do anything with Wind without doing it to Air. Separating them into separate things and saying that John should only be able to work with one of them is a bit weird. That's only the case if you view an entity's health as an arbitrary variable like width/height is to Jade. But healing could also be described as, say, Adding Aspect to an Aspect deficient entity, in which case a number of alternate pairings open up. And it can still be said that many other Classes manipulate, even with this definition of yours; "changing the condition of instances of their Aspect" Dirk Destroys Souls: a soul is an instance of Heart, damaged is a condition of it. John creates Tornadoes: Wind/Air is an instance of Breath, low air-pressure is a condition of it. Aradia fixes Timelines: a timeline is an instance of Time, doesn't feature [player] dying is a condition of it. Besides that, you've still got the earlier problem where you've placed arbitrary restrictions of what 'Manipulate' means in order to not make the Witch so broad, and that these restrictions happen to encompass the Sylph in a round-about way. But there's probably other ways to limit the meaning of Manipulate to still fit the Witch while encompassing some other class instead of the Sylph. Sure. But it a very weak and minor piece of evidence. As I said earlier, if this is the 'heavy foreshadowing' you're working with, then Witch/Seer should be on the table as Eridan called Rose a Witch once. But if you agree that powers conform to a person's Title, why do you also want to discount them from the evidence pile? It seems like that, in your model at least, they'd be the most reliable indicator of a Title. Jane's Life powers are pretty clearly of a restorative nature, but earlier you said that this didn't matter and that it was the actions she did in Trickster mode(which hardly a proper state of mind) that mattered. We don't count Rose's Grimdarkness towards the Seer of Light definition and I would think that Trickster mode ought to get the same treatment. But with Fix we can link them to the Maid, where Aradia frequently fixed her Session's timeline and Porrim wanted to fix her society's ideas of reproduction. Then in this case the Maid and Sylph would not only share a Verb, but their resultant function would also be in the same ball park as one another. With the Classes we know the most, the Destroyers and Stealers, we see that their function and actual actions are somewhat similar to their pair, as is intuitively obvious for a verb based pairing. But in you're pairing you've got them linked by verb(which I still say is a stretch) and then you seem to have no issue with the fact that the Witch and Sylph are completely unalike in function.
|
|
|
Post by heirloomairloom on May 17, 2016 0:04:48 GMT
Do you have any good reason to believe that this basic pattern doesn't apply to all classes? We saw these two clauses in the Destroyer Classes, can you say why these two, out of all classes, would be the ones to have extra clauses? We can also point to many instances of other classes following that second clause e.g. Roxy using the Void to steal Rose from danger in Game over. I think that every class has it's own unique definition. Even you yourself are breaking the pattern here. You describe Roxy as "using the Void to steal," but the Bard definition doesn't allow for that. If those definitions were truly universal, then Roxy should be limited to inviting theft through Void. But exploit was used to describe active classes in general, so we have even better evidence that it can't be. And I do think that line is evidence in favor of "weaponize" or something similar, although I have a hard time finding a way to use it to describe Pages as well. You're also overlooking all the times that Hussie has done this exact thing with the classes whose definitions we do know, both before and after they were revealed. On forumspring, he described Vriska as taking fortune and Eridan as choosing to define himself as "one who destroys hope." Then you have Horuss saying Rufioh "stole his breath" and Caliborn saying that he will "master time." Do you think these are the only times Hussie ever used any of the class verbs in reference to a member of that class? On the second point, working with one implies working with the other, but they can have slightly different results. Compare destroying wind, which leaves behind still air, to destroying air, which leaves behind a vacuum. Health is totally an arbitrary variable in Homestuck. It's a vial that floats above your head and empties of Health Gel the more injured you are. But more generally, if there is a problem with something, there is usually something with wrong with its condition that needs to be repaired by making changes to it. But I do agree that there are many other ways we could describe healing, I'm not arguing that. None of these specialize in manipulation though. Dirk can only change souls in a single specific way (damaging them) by trying and failing to destroy them (theoretically, Aranea and Caliborn's souls seem just fine after they got hit.) Some (but not all) of John's powers involve manipulation, just as some (but not all) involve destruction. Aradia might broadly be described as manipulating Time, but not Jane. You are right about the restriction of what manipulation means to be somewhat arbitrary. My Witch/Sylph pairing is basically the same as it was under the old verb I used, regulate, except switched out for the one that gets hinted at in canon. We could have just as easily gotten a Manipulator class that was all about social interaction and using their Aspect to trick people into things, but this is the one we got. I still wouldn't be surprised if any official explanation goes for a less broad synonym like adjust or modify though. Is it now? Do textual hints that reference classpect terminology really lead to false conclusions so often? Consider a hypothetical reader who skipped all of Calliope's exposition and picked up the "classes have verbs" information from a friend. They simply start assigning verbs to classes based on the kind of hint where a character or the narrator describes someone as (verbing) their Aspect, ignoring literally all other information. They would wind up with Thieves as takers, Rogues as stealers, Princes as destroyers, Lords as masterers, and Knights as exploiters. Of our six known classes they would get three right and one essentially right, at the cost of getting one class (Knight) wrong. If this hypothetical theorist also heard classes come in pairs that share verbs and that Calliope confirmed Thief/Rogue, Prince/Bard, and Lord/Must, they would get all six of our known classes essentially correct, again at the cost of a single class that we can reasonably say they must be wrong about. Considering that these kind of hints correlate that strongly with our known classes, I wouldn't call them weak. A class's definition must cover all of it's players powers and also their personal stories. In most cases, we can discount a player's personal actions because most players are trolls whose actions in their sessions were barely mentioned, but Jane is a main character. We see everything she does except a six month stretch of time in which we're told nothing important happened and nobody made any appreciable progress. Thus Maid's definition must cover Jane, unlike, say, Porrim, and aside from Trickster Mode, what has she done? Make her planet bloom? That's only because the game gave her a land whose quest was to regrow plants. In the end it didn't even matter, since none of the characters ever even went to that side of LoCaH anyway. I'm not comfortable with agreeing with the sort of circular definition where Jane is a Maid of Life only because the game decided to give her a land fit for a Maid of Life. Resurrect people during Collide? Again, circular: she was in charge of bringing people back to life because the game gave her the power to raise the dead. I think they're already in the same ballpark. They both concern themselves with making modifications to their Aspect (but not ones so great that they could be described as destroying it.)
|
|
|
Post by probatiodiabolica on May 17, 2016 10:44:31 GMT
I don't know if anyone interested in that kind of speculations but I found some very convincing parallels between classpects and virtues known in positive psychology. Let's check how it works! So called VIA-IS designed to identify an profile of psychological strengths. In that system 24 different virtues are described. As you can see numbers already here because in Homestuck there exist 24 classpects. Main idea is very simple one. Players are heroes, so title describe what kind of heroes they are or in other words, their main heroic traits. Next, I will go by the list and show what known virtues could be attributed to certain classes or aspects. With some addition changes. - The first character trait is Creativity. This one isn't that easy to attribute, but it is fitting for Witches. It is a class that always brings something new to the table. They are always trying to find new ways. They could change the world at broad scale. Jade is inventor. Feferi tried to change society. Damara was pretty rebellious and original in her methods.
- Second virtue is Curiosity. The love of exploring and discovering, being open to your expierence seems to be shared trait of Pages. Tavros was interested in quest solving and exploring nuances of his planet. Jake was literally always ready for adventure and even Horuss was really deep into exploring entire universe of himself as strange as it sounds.
- Next one is kinda tricky. Judgment and critical thinking should be attributed to Mages. They are experts of their respective fields. They are good at redefining existant concepts. Sollux redefined meaning of the death. Meulin as Disciple reached the relationships beyond existant quadrants. Seems to be good for active knowledge based class if you believe in such theories.
- Mastery that is a love of learning and practicing new things belong to Knights, the only class that is really defined by their skills and practical knowledge more than anything. We can see such trait directly in case of Latula. But even Karkat and Dave was at least as much competent in their roles. Don't forget that this class is one who doubt its abilities the most so Knights clearely are beyond Dunning-Kruger trap.
- Next one is pretty self-evident. Perspective is the ability to provide wise counsel to others and having ways of looking at the world that make sense to oneself and to other people. This is practically the definition of Seer class. Terezi and Kankri as Sufferer literally seen the world from different perspective. Rose fits the description too. The Seer should form coherent view at the world and provide it to people.
- Confidence, bravery, courage, etc. Being able to act even when it would be a challenge or accomplish goals against any kind of opposition including opinions of other people. This should be a Thief modus operandy. We got two examples but they both provides enough basis. Vriska was literally pathologicaly competetive. Meenah tried to fight against undefeatable Lord English with her ghost armies.
- Persistence is another one about acting in spite of obstacles. Let's remember who was the most persistant character in all homestuck. This one is for Time. It shouldn't be surprising. This is maybe only one good Caliborn trait. Damara was persistant to destroy her session. Aradia done a god job fixing all problems again and again. I don't know about Dave but you can't be a time player without some of that.
- Authenticity is probably most hard to understand. I want to give this to Rage. Acting on your true desires and following your true belives or express character despite external pressure seems to belong in this self-empovering and very personal aspect. Gamzee and Kurloz was both very good at following their religion or destroying authenticity of other people. So I guess my position holds somewhat.
- Vitality is another trait that is trivial. It couldn't not be Life. Approaching life with excitement and energy, feeling alive and activated. Feferi is very known for being excited, isn't it? All connotations are already here. Life players are good at enjoying life. Not that crazy idea, really. Meenah is good example here and so should be a Jane. Most knbown theories agree on that one.
- Love is defined as valuing close relations with others, in particular those in which sharing and caring are reciprocated. You can made a logic jump from that to Rogue relatively easy. That class role is to share. Rogues obviously defined by their relatioships with other people. We can remember Nepeta or Rufioh for this interpritation and even Roxy wouldn't be out of the picture.
- Altruism is for Sylphs. More than anybody else they are helpers. They help people who need help. They help the one who doesn't deserve any help. And they want to help even when help isn't really needed. Aranea is good example of how it shouldn't work but desire to help and good, even if only on paper, intentions was clearly here. Kanaya is another more straight example.
- Social Intelligence that is just fancy name for understanding people can easely be attributed Heart. Heart players are good at understanding people, at least they are interested in that. Dirk was dangerously good in it, actually. Meulin was good with her miracleous pairings and even Nepeta was able to express all this interest in other people in the form of roleplaying and grids.
- Leadership is commonly associated with Breath despite some forced memes being contrary. Well, there is some basis for such claims that is declared over and over in discussions. John become the best leader in all sessions. Rufioh was able to be inspiring and even breath-taking in both of his life. Tauros was being good enough to create the sense of direction for thousands of ghosts.
- Teamwork as much commonly associated with Blood. There is nothing surprising here. Both our blood players were focused on their teams working as intended. Karkat clearly was best one at that. Kankri vision was more formulaic one and his methods could be disputed but he also counts. Social responsibility was theme for Suferrer as he tried to change society as a whole.
- Mercy is another hard one to solve, but I think it should be common for Maids. If you remember Aradia was an okay with a lot of things so this kind of behavior perfectly expresses what forgiveness and such is all about. Actually, if you think about it, being able to give people the second chance is literally Jane power so this is really fitting after all. Porrim was also kind of tryed to keep people out of trouble.
- Humility which is all about not being more special than other and as far from the center of attention as possible is most fitting for Void. Void players tend to be just here, doing their job without unecessary vanity and such. Equius was polite to the point of censoring himself. Horuss was accomplished many thing but he is also not relevant at the slightest. Even Roxy was a grounded person.
- Somewhat speculative, but Foresight seems to be good choice for Doom aspect as it cares the most about risks, future dangers and such. If there even exist the common theme for Doom it is all about being careful about catastrophic events in the future. Both Doom players have that trait. Sollux was even uneceassy pessimistic with that. Mituna was also tried warn his team about some great danger.
- Discipline is another simple enough to solve. This is a trait of Princes. Well, they kind of push it into control freak side of things but it is clearly still here. What great feats of discipline are here for them? Kurloz sewed his own mouth because he choose to not speak ever again. Dirk is able to decapitate himself when it is the part of his plan. Even Eridan was being able to fight hard to kill angels just because he choose to do it.
- Aesthetics is a very clearly defined theme of the Space aspect. Being artistic, being fashionable, being a writer and so on. This is all pretty established to went into the space domain of things. Calliope was really into art, Kanaya was intersted in fashion and so on. What interesting could even be said here that isn't really said already? I don't know. Maybe space palyers are lonely because artist have to be lonely?
- Appreciation is thematically goes hand to hand with class that is based on receiving things which is Heir. All of our Heir players are very content persons. They are always ready to accept circumstances and proposed course of actions. Most of the time John goes with the flow of events. Equius was ready to accept any order from his team. Even Mituna wasn't that shaterred by what hapenned to him.
- Hope is clearly reference for Hope. Shocking! Who could've guess this one?! Despite that one being pretty crystal clear I still need to write something. All of our hope players embody this trait in very obvious ways. They all have a great hopes. Such hope could trun into reality but they also can be a very delusional one. If you remember how Jake, Eridan and Cronus operates this should be simple to see.
- Humor should be for Bards. Cronus is the biggest joke ever so what other arguments do you need here? Jokes aside, bards seems to be the such kind of players who doesn't take anything seriously and that is why they are dangerous. Gamzee is a cloun so association with humor is pretty simple there. Everything is a game for him. Even for Cronus everything is a game. He is playing being greaser, wizard or whatever.
- Last but not least, Sense of Purpose. You can conclude this one by elination or just using logic. This is Light players trait. Such players really want existence to be meaningful and their lifes be significant in one way or another. More than anything they belive in meta-narratives, story arcs or just a stories. Vriska wanted to be a hero. Rose tried to find a purpose of the game. Aranea trying to give meaning to doomed timeline.
I don't really think that such connections was ever intended or even implyed, but for unifying theory based only on highly speculative coincidences and subjective interpretations this one is best of them all. I was highly amused to develop it from scratch.
|
|
|
Post by obsidalicious on May 17, 2016 21:56:09 GMT
I think that every class has it's own unique definition. Even you yourself are breaking the pattern here. You describe Roxy as "using the Void to steal," but the Bard definition doesn't allow for that. If those definitions were truly universal, then Roxy should be limited to inviting theft through Void. You're fogetting that the Active/Passive scale is multi-faceted. While in some contexts the Passive Class may take the 'inviting' approach, other Classes, in other contexts may take the 'for others' approach, as we saw with Roxy. But under the Class Verb, and under the Passive modifiers that same basic clasue is there; in which the Hero uses the Aspect as the means of their action, rather than the subject. As has been said, Titles are hyper flexible, and all manner of weird and wonderful interpretations of their definitions have been made in canon. Having a Class limited strictly to Acting on their Aspect, whilst never being able to Use the Aspect in any way, is not only very limited compared to other Classes, but is also extremely awkward if not impossible. Take Jade for Instance: Can you say she never used Space as a means of achieving some action? What about the time she teleported Dirk and Union Jack outside of the Session, using the Space she put between them to allow herself and c. to work uninterrupted? By the very nature of being able to manipulate as Aspect, it is then very difficult and awkward to never use your manipulations as part of a larger maneuver. So to define a Class as one manipulating Aspect, but not one who uses Aspect to Manipulate, would limit the Witch to some really oddly specific and generally unhelpful powers, which is obviously not the case. And Sylph was described as a healer, so why are you trying to stick it with another word when we already have a nice word used in Canon? The Vial just represents your health, it isn't actually your health. I'd like to see you walk up to someone who's just been shanked by Jack Noir and say 'toughen up, your health is just a number' as they are bleeding out in agony. And besides that if changing the vial is Manipulation, does that not make the Page a Manipulator for that time that Jake manipulated the Fakeness vial of Brain Ghost Dirk? The Sylph doesn't specialise in Manipulation either. They specialise in Healing. This is the crux of the issue: You've failed to define 'Manipulate' in a way that satisfyingly includes the Sylph while excluding all other classes. And I don't think there is a way to do this. Just as the Bard Destroys, the Seer Understands and the Rogue Steals, the Sylph Heals(or something like it). Heal is a specific type of action, as is Destroy, as is Understand, as is Steal. Manipulate is another Action. Under some definitions, you could limit it so that it doesn't overstep on the others, but runs into the issue of having to justify whatever restrictions are placed on it, or you could use its full definition, in which case it oversteps everything from Healing to Stealing. A Class being described as something and a Class being compared to another Class are two separate things. If we are looking for instances of Classes compared to one another, then we'd find that Witch/Thief has a load of support as the Condesce is referred to as a Witch and a Thief on separate occasions, as was Grandma Jade. But like I said before, we don't expect the definition of 'Seer of Light' to include and account for Rose's Grimdarkness, so why should we expect the Maid of Life's definition to account for what one particular Maid of Life did while under the influence of another very strong mind-altering state? As for the Plant Bloom: Could it not be the case that her personal planet quest may be related to her Title? Seems odd that Sburb would have two entirely separate and unrelated questlines for a player. Also, this is Homestuck, circular causes are nothing special to this story. If we were to discount them, then we could probably discount, say, Eridan as we could argue that he's only a Destroyer of Hope because the game gave him a land full of angels that told him pessimistic prophecies of a powerful demon coming to kill them, without which he may never have concocted his plan to betray his friends and join Bec Noir(not to mention his Hope Beam powers). I'm also still not quite getting why you're uncomfortable with Jane's healing being relevant. Titles are Roles, they are described as such in the story. A role(in this context) is what particular position you take in a team, or what you do with your life. The position in the team that Jane took up is that of a Healer/Ressurector. Therefore Jane's role is Healer. Titles indicate Roles, therefore 'Maid of Life' indicates the powers/behaviours etc. of a healer. You missed my point. You may have defined them in such a way as to involve the same root word. But I'm talking about the actual results; the actual role they take in the team. One is a powerful reality bender, and one is a Healer. These two things are extremely different, in contrast to the other known pairs where, despite taking unique approaches, are both very clearly Stealers/Destroyers.
|
|
axolotlSushi
Scampermaster
Hi, my name is That Bastard
Posts: 215
Pronouns: they/them/theirs
|
Post by axolotlSushi on May 19, 2016 0:14:53 GMT
Alright, I'm pretty new to all of this so forgive me for being a complete noob in all meanings of the word, but I'm a Seer of Doom, and I'd like to know more about that? ^.^
|
|
|
Post by heirloomairloom on May 19, 2016 3:06:47 GMT
You're fogetting that the Active/Passive scale is multi-faceted. While in some contexts the Passive Class may take the 'inviting' approach, other Classes, in other contexts may take the 'for others' approach, as we saw with Roxy. But under the Class Verb, and under the Passive modifiers that same basic clasue is there; in which the Hero uses the Aspect as the means of their action, rather than the subject. If the whole of the phrase doesn't apply universally, why should any arbitrary part of it? I could just as easily claim that the first of the two clauses is always true, and every class has a unique second clause. (In Rogue's case, it's "one who allows __ to be stolen or who steals ___ for others.") But of course it violates parsimony to assert that there's some extra part to their definition when Thieves and Rogues are always described as stealing and all their powers always center around either taking their Aspect or using the Aspect they've stolen on someone. You've previously been arguing the opposite, so which is it? Is "one who manipulates her Aspect" so broad it covers everything or is it so narrow that it can't accomplish anything? Teleportation is a First Gaurdian power, not a Witch of Space one, which is why she can't use it when cut off from the Green Sun. Though regardless, you can't require that someone's powers never indirectly cause them to perform some act that could hypothetically have been part of your class's definition but isn't. Eridan, for example, uses his hope lasers to destroy hope for himself, despite "one who destroys ___ for himself" not being part of Princes definition. Because there is no other class that could use "heal" as a verb. The closest we can come is Maid/Sylph as Maintainers, but then only by relying on the fact that Aradia's time stop ability can be related to healing by both enforcing the status quo. But healing can equally well be connected to Witches' focus on adjusting their Aspect's condition, so we're right back to square one. Jake isn't really doing anything to it though, it's just emptying naturally as he fails to keep Dirk real, no different than Eridan "manipulating" it by causing damage. (I'd theorize Feferi could probably manipulate it directly, by making it longer or shorter (based on video game abilities that give you temporary HP or permanently lower an enemy's max HP, but that's neither here nor there.)) Would you think it was a better pairing if I were using something like "adjust" or "modify", that makes clear I'm comparing them explicitly on making changes to their Aspect? But that's because the Condesce has connections to both the Witch class (from being a Witch's role model figure) and the Thief class (from being an alternate universe incarnation of someone who was a Thief in her session.) I don't remember Jade being compared to a thief. Maybe from stealing the fourth fenstrated wall? But that's no different than Grandpa Harley or tons of other people who stole things over the comic. What connection does Jane have to the Heir class? She's basically a female John, so that's one explanation. It could be that it's just there for the John/Jane parallelism, true, and this alternate explanation does weaken it somewhat in comparison to other, more direct hints. Rose has done things other than go Grimdark. What has Jane done other than start the trickster arc? Finish her planet quest? While I agree that was a Maid of Life thing, it's a stark contrast with how most of the other main characters actually carry out their titles for reasons other than mere predestination. Tavros is strongly predisposed towards surrounding himself with armies of allies. Vriska is all about cheating. Terezi and Rose use their knowledge to guide their parties. Certainly, Sburb may push people into the roles it has in mind for them, but we can at least say it's plausible that Eridan might have turned on the others without influence from his Land. Jane would be alone in having nothing to do with her title beyond things assigned to her by the game itself. It could have just as easily given her a Land fit for a Page of Rage and relied on the fact that her use of her Page of Rage powers prove she deserves to be a Page of Rage. It could have done this with any classpect at all, so why Maid of Life in particular? Jane is a healer, but so is Feferi, while neither Aradia nor Jade noticeably are. The commonality here is their aspect and not their classes, and so these things are telling us about Life instead of Maids or Witches, for which we'd have to look at what they have in common with Aradia or Jade instead. You could say the exact same thing about Jade and Feferi, one reality bender and one healer. You have to be able to reconcile that disparity just to explain Witch all by itself, regardless of what you pair it with.
|
|
|
Post by amiabletemplar on May 19, 2016 3:38:28 GMT
Alright, I'm pretty new to all of this so forgive me for being a complete noob in all meanings of the word, but I'm a Seer of Doom, and I'd like to know more about that? ^.^ No forgiveness is needed--all are new at some point. It's good to have you with us. Your title is an interesting one, as it is half very well-described, and half almost unknown. That is, we know quite a bit canonically about Seers, but who they're paired with is a mystery, and Doom is a double mystery dipped in an enigma with a sprinkle of open questions and a delicious puzzle filling. Some of the statements I will make are going to be controversial. This is a thing you'll have to get used to in Classpect discussion, since personal standards and levels of analysis vary wildly across just our little group, to say nothing of the wider Homestuck community. However, I'm getting off track from answering your question. Seers are said to "understand their aspect comprehensively," and in general appear to be very tactically oriented. They do have some level of battle prowess, but their greater skills lie in watching their world, marshalling their allies to a distant goal, cleverly outfoxing their opponents, and foreseeing (and thereby forestalling) problems the group may encounter. Seers are one of the few classes explicitly known to be Passive, and the only class which Hussie himself has explicitly and unequivocally stated to be passive (all others are either said by a character in the comic, or only said as an implication by Hussie). Terezi, the Seer of Mind, could "sift through dross of her comrades' poor tactical inclinations and examine the grim consequences"--she was a master manipulator, strategist, and plan architect, and (in)famous at least among her friends for being able to get people to behave the way she wanted them to behave without mind control (something that annoyed Vriska, who had to resort to more brute-force methods). Rose, the Seer of Light, was able to anticipate future outcomes and track the path which would reap the most benefits for the most people; she also showed great proficiency with "spells" (of a lasery variety) that could do significant damage. Kankri, Seer of Blood, wasn't a particularly great example of his title, but both versions (pre- and post-scratch) showed some of it. Young Kankri was able to identify a myriad of social issues and speak, perhaps not as an expert, but at least with awareness; he tried to use his understanding to inform others, but it mostly came across as annoying posturing rather than being genuinely informative. The Sufferer, post-scratch Kankri, was able to see not just how his society was organized (brutal, violent, enslaving, cutthroat), but how it could have been organized--a world where all castes were valued and shared a united spirit of brotherhood; he was also a master at avoiding unwanted attention while disseminating his message, if his ability to avoid detection by the Condesce's regime is even slightly true. Each of them applied their particular awareness differently, but strong parallels come out. Doom, unfortunately, has almost no evidence. We never see a single Doom power in action; we have only two Doom characters, both of whom are very minor in the grand scheme and who had most of their story occur "off-camera." They were also both the only examples of a particular caste, known to have substantial psionic ability, which makes distinguishing their powers as psionic trolls difficult if not impossible to separate from their powers as Heroes of Doom. For example, many focus a lot on their ability to hear the voices of the "imminently deceased," but Aradia also had the ability to hear voices (of the already deceased) and no one claims that Dave, as a fellow Hero of Time, should hear such voices--so it's ambiguous. He might have developed that power because he's a Hero of Doom, or he might be a Hero of Doom because he had that power already, and we'll never know for sure which is which. However, there are some scattered and weak clues we can try to use to examine Doom. For one, the Captors have a theme of dualism and dying (many, many times over--more "alpha timeline" deaths than anyone else). Furthering the association with death, Sollux is something of a "wizard" at ~ATH (note that this is read "tilde ATH," aka "til death"), though not always aware of the consequences of the programs he creates (e.g. he fully believed Sburb would save the troll race, and not be the source of meteors that eliminated it). Further, despite being told that he has a "bipolar" personality, we almost always see him on the depression side of the scale; he's almost always a glass-half-empty kind of person, tends to assume the worst of everything, and only really appears "happy" after a horrible trauma has been inflicted on him (his blindness). Further, we have been told (by Calliope) that Life and Doom are "as different as can be," which (by God Tier Calliope's later affirmation) indicates that they are opposed, paired aspects, in the same way that Space and Time are an opposed pair. So, the two should be linked, and should be similar in a certain sense (just as space and time are similar in some respects), while generally antithetical in outlook. Heroes of Life are, if you'll pardon the obvious term, "vivacious," energetic; they want to get their way, and may even be "demanding," but seem to often have revolution or at least radical change in mind. They don't take no for an answer and will upturn the world if they have to in order to achieve their goals. By contrast, from what little we can see of Doom, it seems to be a fairly "negative" aspect--its heroes make great and terrible sacrifices, shoulder heavy burdens, and seem to overcome obstacles by accepting them and working through or around them, rather than saying "I'll do it my way and DAMN the consequences!" Thus, I tend to think of Doom and Life as the aspects of determination. Life is the determination of Willpower, the mighty struggle against long odds, the aspect of the classic Greek hero, who is driven by an internal need that makes them a cut above the rest. Doom is the determination of Fate, of destiny--or, perhaps more accurately, destination. There's always somewhere you're going--even if it's "closer to the grave"--and Doom is about making the journey count, about accepting that the world is a particular way, and in so doing, gaining power over that thing. Just as there is power in rebellion, there is power in acceptance, when wielded shrewdly. So how do those combine? One could say a Seer of Doom is one who sees the destination of things. Unlike Terezi, you wouldn't see the specific consequences of actions; unlike Rose, you wouldn't see the path that led to the most fortunate outcome. Instead, you'd be a bit more like a classic Oracle; you would see, not what definitely will be, but rather what the path would be given a particular goal or finishing point. You'd see not merely a scripted Fate, but what will await a person should their path remain unchanged. Likely, this would mean having a clear awareness of the Alpha Timeline, especially when it comes to those parts of the Alpha that will (or must) come from doomed offshoots. The whole breadth of all possible inevitabilities probably wouldn't be at your grasp (that's more Seer of Time), but rather I imagine you would aid your allies with cryptic instructions that allow them to reap the rewards that can be squeezed from alternate timelines. Your powers might be more subtle than Rose's--"spells" that push enemies into creating their own Doom, for example. (Powers in general are hard, especially for inscrutable aspects like Doom.) Should you have any further questions, feel free to ask.
|
|
|
Post by obsidalicious on May 19, 2016 4:36:01 GMT
If the whole of the phrase doesn't apply universally, why should any arbitrary part of it? I could just as easily claim that the first of the two clauses is always true, and every class has a unique second clause. (In Rogue's case, it's "one who allows __ to be stolen or who steals ___ for others.") But of course it violates parsimony to assert that there's some extra part to their definition when Thieves and Rogues are always described as stealing and all their powers always center around either taking their Aspect or using the Aspect they've stolen on someone. But you've just given the two clause definition yourself. You've described the Thieves and Rogues as stealing, which is indeed how the canon put it as "One who Steals", then you've elaborated by saying that, in practice, we see this as them both Stealing their Aspect and using their Aspect in the act of Stealing. But you're still saying that only the first clause is justified and supported? That's my point. 'Manipulation' as a verb is problematic in that there doesn't seem to be a way to satisfyingly define it to encompass a particular Active Class and a particular Passive Class neatly without dragging other Classes along for the ride. While the First Guardian powers may not have been granted by Skaia, that doesn't make them irrelevant to her Title. If that were the case then we'd have to drop the point about Jane's Trickster shenanigans. But your right, we could never define a Class that way, which is why I don't think your First-Clause-Only approach works. A Title isn't just about the powers, it's about what they choose to do with each and every asset to their name, which includes anything they do as an indirect or secondary consequence of another action. And in that case, a Title defined by 'manipulation' comes to mean practically everything. That's why I don't personally use 'Heal' as is. I find that Healing can satisfactorily be described as a particular subset of Passive Creation through the concepts of Nurturing and Allowing Creation etc. But since you're methodology is to start with whatever word Canon uses, I'm just trying to determine why you figured that the Witch's 'Manipulate' was a better starting place than the Sylph's 'Heal'. If in your model these two were put together as the last two left, then I'd kinda accept that. But you've agreed with me that the particular definition of "Manipulate" you use is somewhat arbitrary, yet earlier you also said that the Sylph was the first and most obvious pair for the Witch under this definition. So it seems to me that there's a bit of circular reasoning in which you've picked a particular definition, found the Passive Class it worked for, then argued that this must be the pairing because it's the only one that works for this definition and then justified the definition with this connection. I'm referring to when he made Brain Ghost Dirk Real in the first place. Jake's own Hope Powers modified the condition of an instance of his Aspect(i.e. BGD is a Belief, which is typically described as one of Hope's precepts), as per your definition of 'Manipulate' It'd be slightly better, but I'd still feel that they were still a bit too broad. There are other more direct hints of Maid/Heir? Please do divulge. There's plenty to the character of Jane that could be indicative of her Title. For one thing, there's her initial ambition to use her Crocker Corp inheritance to aid others. Her quest to rescue her Father could potentially be relevant. Her place in the teenage-romance clusterfuck could also be relevant, after all from it we see Dirk's domineering, oppressive tendencies as a Prince of Heart. But most importantly, there's everything she did after God Tiering which includes, but is not limited to, the very literal Creation/Restoration of Life. Still not sure why all of that doesn't matter to you. Jane isn't just a Healer though. She resurrects, that is she conjures up a whole new Life for those totally devoid of it. This is very much in line with the Creator idea that Aradia and Porrim also fit well into. Feferi isn't just a healer either. Since you reckon that their non-power actions are most important, what about the time where she negotiated with the HorrorTerrors to effectively make the very concept of Death irrelevant? That sounds a lot closer to 'reality bending' than 'healing' to me. Same goes for Damara; her contribution to her Session was to just wreck havoc with all the Timelines, going where and whenever she wanted to bring about all sorts of failure and chaos.
|
|