|
Post by ashercrane on Mar 11, 2017 6:30:17 GMT
Another reason I never liked Know or Understand as a verb, and thus tried to get one like "guide" which somewhat implies knowledge (Since a guide without some kind of better knowledge is the blind leading the blind) is because it's such a passive verb, inherently. Both Theft and Destruction are active verbs in that something has actively been done to them. (In the case of destruction, said this is rendered useless, in theft, said thing has changed hands) but with understanding nothing is actively being done. It's like if you made "Holds" into a classpect verb. You can grab something and then be holding it, you can release it and stop holding it, but while it is being held, nothing changes.
|
|
|
Post by heirloomairloom on Mar 11, 2017 18:37:16 GMT
You've never heard of someone meeting their Doom before? Yes, the word doom can mean fate, but that doesn't imply that Doom necessarily includes fate any more than Blood includes literal blood. I question what fate would even be in Homestuck. The only time I can remember that fate is discussed as a separate concept from the guaranteed deterministic future of the alpha timeline is the exposition on troll ancestors. But I'm still not convinced there's enough evidence to claim that Paradox Space draws a distinction between "Terezi was fated to avenge Redglare's death by killing Mindfang's descendant" and "Luckily, Redglare's death would be avenged by Terezi killing Mindfang's descendant." There's also the concept that certain things are "doomed" to die for coming from beta timelines, although neither Sollux nor Mituna had to deal with that. I think it's reasonable that fate might exist distinct from luck in Homestuck, but I don't know that there's enough evidence to say it conclusively does. But like you've said, you need to add a special clarification to specify a timeline in order to make Sollux's prophecy true. In other words, while that one may have been technically accurate, it wasn't at all useful to anyone. Indeed 'X is going to die' is always a nebulous yet always true statement that doesn't actually bring any useful knowledge to the table. The point of a Knower Class isn't just to have info, it's to be able to properly apply that info in a useful way, and Sollux very much failed miserably at that. We can't conclusively say what Sollux did or did not do during his session. The only things Sollux is known to have done in the Medium up through the Black King's death were have "a series of important dreams that would prove essential in support of your teammates.", get revived by Feferi, and duel Eridan. Sollux could reasonably have done absolutely anything at all to Doom on the unaccounted for time. Another reason I never liked Know or Understand as a verb, and thus tried to get one like "guide" which somewhat implies knowledge (Since a guide without some kind of better knowledge is the blind leading the blind) is because it's such a passive verb, inherently. Both Theft and Destruction are active verbs in that something has actively been done to them. (In the case of destruction, said this is rendered useless, in theft, said thing has changed hands) but with understanding nothing is actively being done. It's like if you made "Holds" into a classpect verb. You can grab something and then be holding it, you can release it and stop holding it, but while it is being held, nothing changes. I believe this is consistent with how Terezi behaves. She applies her pre-existing knowledge of how people behave to make predictions about how Jack and Vriska will hurt the team. Guiding is an important part of what a passive Knower will do with their knowledge, but they are still defined by what they know. I think it is unlikely that Hussie would choose to use the extremely awkward sounding word "knower" unless he where giving us the class's actual definition. (That phrasing is so awkward, in fact, that Firefox is trying to insist to me that it isn't a word at all.)
|
|
|
Post by ashercrane on Mar 11, 2017 19:28:51 GMT
Another reason I never liked Know or Understand as a verb, and thus tried to get one like "guide" which somewhat implies knowledge (Since a guide without some kind of better knowledge is the blind leading the blind) is because it's such a passive verb, inherently. Both Theft and Destruction are active verbs in that something has actively been done to them. (In the case of destruction, said this is rendered useless, in theft, said thing has changed hands) but with understanding nothing is actively being done. It's like if you made "Holds" into a classpect verb. You can grab something and then be holding it, you can release it and stop holding it, but while it is being held, nothing changes. I believe this is consistent with how Terezi behaves. She applies her pre-existing knowledge of how people behave to make predictions about how Jack and Vriska will hurt the team. Guiding is an important part of what a passive Knower will do with their knowledge, but they are still defined by what they know. I think it is unlikely that Hussie would choose to use the extremely awkward sounding word "knower" unless he where giving us the class's actual definition. (That phrasing is so awkward, in fact, that Firefox is trying to insist to me that it isn't a word at all.) However, Hussie didn't say that. Aradia did, specifically saying "ARADIA: the seer class knows her aspect comprehensively ARADIA: as a knower of all fortune she can see the circuitous path that will lead to the most favorable outcome for everyone" Looking at that, it looks like she was just kind of taking the "know" idea and tacking an -er at the end of it as a universal sign for "one who x". Kind of like how people add -ish to just about any given word to indicate "this, but only somewhat". The other thing is, the only other way that could have been phrased is "as one who knows all fortune...". Assuming Andrew Hussie had at least the active classes phrased in wherever he kept them as "One who x aspect and x through aspect", that's as good as telling us she's an active knower, even though he has implied seers are passive. And that's kind of another reason. You have said that no ever passive class is defined as allows and invites, so how do you draw the line between active and passive understanding?
|
|
|
Post by heirloomairloom on Mar 12, 2017 15:27:41 GMT
Inspired by the discussion below, I realized I'd never updated my four point active/passive definition of classes to account for how my theories changed after Collide. I think that we can divide active and passive alignments into four sub-categories that encompass what might be used to differentiate a active class from a passive one. An active class will always fall under at least one of the four active categories, to which the passive class will fall into the corresponding passive category. However, it may be that both fall under the same category (both Bards and Princes are offensive, for example) and, strangely, two paired classes might actually fall under one of the opposite alignment's category. The categories are: Offensive vs Defensive: Active classes harm enemies and achieve goals. Passive classes keep the heroes from befalling harm and prevent the team from suffering setbacks. Proactive vs Receptive: Active classes perform their class verb. Passive classes have their class verb performed around them without working for it. Compare how the passive John inspires his team (creating Breath) just by being himself, to a hypothetical Maid of Breath who consciously makes an effort to keep her team moving forward. Self-Controlled vs Other-Controlled: Active classes perform their duties without input from others. Passive classes rely on the consent of others to perform their duties. Consider how Gamze invites destruction through Rage by making Nepeta angry. He can't force an enemy to destroy herself, he can only hope she takes the bait. The "other" here may be the Aspect itself, which makes decisions on the player's behalf, such as when the Breeze hid John's scent from Bec Noir without John knowing Bec Noir was trying to find him. Self-Oriented vs Team-Oriented: Active classes perform actions directly and benefit themselves. Passive classes perform actions through aiding other players and benefit the whole party. Note that while betraying others and self sacrifice fall under this, they are not required. SBURB is a cooperative game. Helping yourself helps the team by giving it a stronger member. Helping the team helps yourself, because if they win, you win. The classes break down as follows under this system: Witch/Slyph: Offensive Proactive Self-Controlled Team-Oriented Manipulator/Defensive Receptive Other-Controlled Team-Oriented Manipulator Thief/Rogue: Proactive Self-Controlled Self-Oriented Stealer/Proactive Self-Controlled Team-Oriented Stealer Maid/Heir: Proactive Self-Controlled Team-Oriented Maker/Receptive Other-Controlled Self-Oriented Maker Mage/Seer: Self-Controlled Self-Oriented Knower/Self-Controlled Team-Oriented Knower Knight/Page: Proactive? Self-Oriented ???er/Receptive? Self-Oriented ???er Prince/Bard: Offensive Proactive Self-Controlled Self-Oriented Destroyer/Offensive Receptive Other-Controlled Self-Oriented Destroyer Lord/Muse: Proactive Self-Oriented Master/Receptive Team-Oriented Master I believe this is consistent with how Terezi behaves. She applies her pre-existing knowledge of how people behave to make predictions about how Jack and Vriska will hurt the team. Guiding is an important part of what a passive Knower will do with their knowledge, but they are still defined by what they know. I think it is unlikely that Hussie would choose to use the extremely awkward sounding word "knower" unless he where giving us the class's actual definition. (That phrasing is so awkward, in fact, that Firefox is trying to insist to me that it isn't a word at all.) However, Hussie didn't say that. Aradia did, specifically saying "ARADIA: the seer class knows her aspect comprehensively ARADIA: as a knower of all fortune she can see the circuitous path that will lead to the most favorable outcome for everyone" Looking at that, it looks like she was just kind of taking the "know" idea and tacking an -er at the end of it as a universal sign for "one who x". Kind of like how people add -ish to just about any given word to indicate "this, but only somewhat". The other thing is, the only other way that could have been phrased is "as one who knows all fortune...". Assuming Andrew Hussie had at least the active classes phrased in wherever he kept them as "One who x aspect and x through aspect", that's as good as telling us she's an active knower, even though he has implied seers are passive. And that's kind of another reason. You have said that no ever passive class is defined as allows and invites, so how do you draw the line between active and passive understanding? I'm not sure exactly what you're claiming about which phrasing having to correspond to which alignment, but here's a quote from Calliope showing that "one who (verbs) (aspect)" can be a valid definition for both halves of a pair: UU: in this case, a rogUe or a thief is "one who steals." qUite simple, really! It appears that the Mage/Seer divide, like Thief/Rogue, depends on whether you're more self-oriented or team-oriented. Seers impart their knowledge to the rest of their party to help them play the game better, while the Mage's knowledge makes them an expert who takes direct action. Even taking into account how little we see of Mages, there doesn't seem much else that it could be based on. Rose worked quite hard to figure out how her team could win, so proactive vs. receptive is out, Seers impart their knowledge directly in easily understandable chunks of advice rather than requiring lengthy lessons that people can turn down, so it's not a self-controlled vs. outside control thing, and Seers aren't particularly defense oriented, so it's unlikely to be based on offense vs. defense.
|
|
|
Post by ashercrane on Mar 12, 2017 19:57:30 GMT
However, Hussie didn't say that. Aradia did, specifically saying "ARADIA: the seer class knows her aspect comprehensively ARADIA: as a knower of all fortune she can see the circuitous path that will lead to the most favorable outcome for everyone" Looking at that, it looks like she was just kind of taking the "know" idea and tacking an -er at the end of it as a universal sign for "one who x". Kind of like how people add -ish to just about any given word to indicate "this, but only somewhat". The other thing is, the only other way that could have been phrased is "as one who knows all fortune...". Assuming Andrew Hussie had at least the active classes phrased in wherever he kept them as "One who x aspect and x through aspect", that's as good as telling us she's an active knower, even though he has implied seers are passive. And that's kind of another reason. You have said that no ever passive class is defined as allows and invites, so how do you draw the line between active and passive understanding? I'm not sure exactly what you're claiming about which phrasing having to correspond to which alignment, but here's a quote from Calliope showing that "one who (verbs) (aspect)" can be a valid definition for both halves of a pair: UU: in this case, a rogUe or a thief is "one who steals." qUite simple, really! It appears that the Mage/Seer divide, like Thief/Rogue, depends on whether you're more self-oriented or team-oriented. Seers impart their knowledge to the rest of their party to help them play the game better, while the Mage's knowledge makes them an expert who takes direct action. Even taking into account how little we see of Mages, there doesn't seem much else that it could be based on. Rose worked quite hard to figure out how her team could win, so proactive vs. receptive is out, Seers impart their knowledge directly in easily understandable chunks of advice rather than requiring lengthy lessons that people can turn down, so it's not a self-controlled vs. outside control thing, and Seers aren't particularly defense oriented, so it's unlikely to be based on offense vs. defense. I didn't recall that specific sentence. I was digressing from my point about understanding or knowing being passive, anyway. If you look at Taking, or Destroying, something is actually being done, and the actions that are taken by the character reflects that. You say that guidance is an important part of what a passive knower would do... but the verb understand or know doesn't imply that like with Theft and Destruction. Theft and Destruction meant what they literally meant. Princes literally destroyed and destroyed through their aspect, yes, but at no real point was anything else implied in that description. Same with Thieves. They took their aspect, and took through it. It the pattern continues with Rogues and Bards. They did what was in their description. With a verb like understanding or knowing, in order to make it actually do something, one must work through implications and other things that they do to imply they possess the role. Understanding something is not an action that is taken. You can try to better understand something, you can try to learn something, but understanding in and of itself isn't an action. It's a state that one is either in, or not in. It's just... getting it. Any further implication such as Terezi making predictions about the future, or Rose using her aspect to direct the meteor shows the application of the the understanding, not the actual state of understanding itself. The other classes don't have this problem, because both of them are actual acts of application themselves.
|
|
|
Post by heirloomairloom on Mar 15, 2017 2:13:51 GMT
I'm not sure exactly what you're claiming about which phrasing having to correspond to which alignment, but here's a quote from Calliope showing that "one who (verbs) (aspect)" can be a valid definition for both halves of a pair: UU: in this case, a rogUe or a thief is "one who steals." qUite simple, really! It appears that the Mage/Seer divide, like Thief/Rogue, depends on whether you're more self-oriented or team-oriented. Seers impart their knowledge to the rest of their party to help them play the game better, while the Mage's knowledge makes them an expert who takes direct action. Even taking into account how little we see of Mages, there doesn't seem much else that it could be based on. Rose worked quite hard to figure out how her team could win, so proactive vs. receptive is out, Seers impart their knowledge directly in easily understandable chunks of advice rather than requiring lengthy lessons that people can turn down, so it's not a self-controlled vs. outside control thing, and Seers aren't particularly defense oriented, so it's unlikely to be based on offense vs. defense. I didn't recall that specific sentence. I was digressing from my point about understanding or knowing being passive, anyway. If you look at Taking, or Destroying, something is actually being done, and the actions that are taken by the character reflects that. You say that guidance is an important part of what a passive knower would do... but the verb understand or know doesn't imply that like with Theft and Destruction. Theft and Destruction meant what they literally meant. Princes literally destroyed and destroyed through their aspect, yes, but at no real point was anything else implied in that description. Same with Thieves. They took their aspect, and took through it. It the pattern continues with Rogues and Bards. They did what was in their description. With a verb like understanding or knowing, in order to make it actually do something, one must work through implications and other things that they do to imply they possess the role. Understanding something is not an action that is taken. You can try to better understand something, you can try to learn something, but understanding in and of itself isn't an action. It's a state that one is either in, or not in. It's just... getting it. Any further implication such as Terezi making predictions about the future, or Rose using her aspect to direct the meteor shows the application of the the understanding, not the actual state of understanding itself. The other classes don't have this problem, because both of them are actual acts of application themselves. I think that, if out of the four verbs that are confirmed or very heavily implied (Destroy, Steal, Master, Know/Understand), there is a pattern among three of them, we should accept the hints from the author and reject the pattern, rather than accept the pattern and try to explain away the exposition. Dirk has a power that causes souls to be destroyed. Terezi has a power that causes consequences to be understood. If the latter requires the player to do something else afterwords to be useful, I see no problem with that.
|
|
|
Post by ten 11 on Mar 20, 2017 3:31:09 GMT
This reminds me of that 8-bit theater strip, where Red Mage tries to convince Thief that he can do everything he already does (like bluff, stealth, and thievery knowledge) with just the Pickpocket skill, nothing else required.
That's how i feel it should work as well. What I mean is, even though each class has a single verb that defines what they can do, that verb can cover an area of things that you might not think of at first. So three people with the same classpect, could all have mildly different powers and session roles.
|
|
|
Post by ashercrane on Mar 20, 2017 18:21:28 GMT
So, here's an interesting thought...
If you could ask and have answered any 3 questions about classpecting to help you figure it out (apart from the obvious "what is X?", "is X _____?", and "Is my/bkew/_____'s theory right?") What would you ask?
|
|
|
Post by obsidalicious on Mar 20, 2017 21:39:48 GMT
So, here's an interesting thought... If you could ask and have answered any 3 questions about classpecting to help you figure it out (apart from the obvious "what is X?", "is X _____?", and "Is my/bkew/_____'s theory right?") What would you ask? I like this question because this totally seems like something Hussie* would do: A Q&A where he only answered questions that were sufficiently convoluted and roundabout. How about something like: How many Aspects have only been represented by Passive classes, and how many by Active Classes only? it would help figure out activities as say, under most models Time has had Active Classes only, but some people have the Maid as Passive, which would change the numbers if correct. Or maybe: How many Classes have names indicative of their function like Thief and Seer, and how many do not like the Bard? Even if Hussie just gave us a number of each category, that'd still help us out a little. And let's also try: Previously, softowl released comments about how Hussie derived the first four Aspects. What inspirations/sources, if any, are there for the other eight? Although it's not as big of an issue as the Classes, what every Aspect means is still a little ambiguous/debatable in some places. Plus, if we knew more about the more underrepresented Aspects, it'd help nail down the Classes of those heroes. *Or at least, 2011 Hussie
|
|
|
Post by heirloomairloom on Mar 20, 2017 22:35:17 GMT
"What powers would a Knight of Doom have if they unlocked all their classpect powers" , same question but for Rage, and "What precisely does it mean if one class is "more active" than another on the scale?"
The first two to gather evidence about the definitions of Knight, Doom, and Rage and the last to find out what the active/passive scale means. Unfortunately, I can't work in any questions to prove my classpect system is right, but that would be enough to let me solve the system to my own personal satisfaction.
|
|
|
Post by ashercrane on Mar 21, 2017 5:21:20 GMT
One of my questions would be "In that one tweet where you said 'Apart from the master classes, the most active class is female, and the most passive is female" Did you mean male and female exclusive?" It's kind of a side wind, but It automatically proves there's 3 exclusive classes each, thus potentially, through logic, burning the possible classpect pairs down to about 8. Only like, 3 of which most people would actually consider going with. It doesn't exactly disprove much (Apart from a smattering of Knight/Maid, Knight/Sylph, etc pairs) but if the answer's yes, it condenses down what's theoretically possible by a huge amount.
Still working on my other two.
Probably something to inadvertantly prove or disprove popular classpect theory.
|
|
|
Post by Light on Mar 21, 2017 5:31:43 GMT
"What powers would a Knight of Doom have if they unlocked all their classpect powers" , same question but for Rage, and "What precisely does it mean if one class is "more active" than another on the scale?"The first two to gather evidence about the definitions of Knight, Doom, and Rage and the last to find out what the active/passive scale means. Unfortunately, I can't work in any questions to prove my classpect system is right, but that would be enough to let me solve the system to my own personal satisfaction. To add my opinion to the matter, I think that to be “more active” or “more passive” on the scale delves into how one interacts with one’s aspect. (For the sake of standardisation and a basis of from where I am coming, I order the classes as: Witch, Prince, Thief, Knight, Maid, Mage | Seer, Sylph, Page, Rogue, Bard, Heir.) Now, what do I mean by the extent to which one interacts with the aspect? By this, I am saying how much control one exerts (active) over the aspect or how much one coaxes (passive) the aspect. This model obviously rejects the popular (?) idea that active classes utilise their abilities for themselves, whereas conversely passive classes use theirs for the greater good of the team. However more complex this perception of passive vs. active is, it very well explains what being more passive or more active actually means. To the point, what does being more active mean? In short, it would mean that one class directly controls one’s aspect to a greater extent than the other. Now, this would make sense from what we have seen in the comic. For example, Dave, a Knight, is, what most people define to be, an active class and Jade, a Witch, another active class. The scale, upon which I base my comparisons, places Jade as being more active than Dave, and honestly this makes sense. Jade is an extremely active manipulator of Space. She so actively interacts with her aspect that she literally reshapes the space of an object (all four of the planets, to be exact!) and we see a dramatic and concrete control over her aspect, Space. As for Dave, the Knight whose function is exploitation. He is seen to actively exploit time by him being the actual instrument of this exploitation and choosing when to do his time shenanigans. However, Dave merely exploits the existing timelines that paradox space has predestined and so we see that the Witch has more control over the aspect, thus more active. This is clearer when Dave is compared to Damara, another Hero of Time. As previously mentioned, the Knight is less active than the Witch because the Knight exploits his aspect, as it is already given, while the Witch manipulates the aspect however it wants. A Witch of Time would therefore be able to control time(lines) more and manipulate the timelines into producing the results that it wants on its whims. This is exactly what we see with Damara, the Witch of Time, “[Aranea:] 8y increasing her violent tendencies, instead of 8eing an asset in the game, she 8ecame a loose cannon, ar8itrarily showing up at key moments throughout the timeline to sa8otage us.” From Aranea, we learn that Damara manipulated the timelines into creating a disastrous session for everywhere, showing much more she interacts with Time than Dave. So, to come to a close, being more active (or passive) is in correlation with how much the player applies (or guides) his/her/their/etc. Aspect. (All of these thoughts are my speculations and are based off of assumptions that I have already made. I am no way enforcing these upon you, but my arguments necessarily need my beliefs to be built!)
|
|
|
Post by titanicNightfall on Mar 22, 2017 7:55:56 GMT
And now for something completely different...
I'm working on a fanventure (sort of - it's text only at the moment and might remain that way), and I have a classpect question and a couple of unrelated theories regarding the Bard and the Page that I'd just like to write down anyway.
Okay, so my Time player is a Thief, characterised initially by being a kleptomaniac and otherwise wasting other people's time. Stealing time from enemies is a given, but would it be within a Thief of Time's purview to steal another player out of a doomed timeline, or would that be more of a Rogue's thing? I've entered into the awkward situation where the Bard of Mind is always going to get hit by his meteor unless he uses info from the doomed timeline. I'm just not sure whether stealing FROM time should be what a Rogue's doing rather than a Thief, or if I'm going to have to be creative somehow.
As to the Bard and Page, I haven't read the whole thread but I'm leaving my two cents on them anyway...
Looking at the different theories on the wiki, it seems to me that the Page is "One who rediscovers their aspect". With the two Pages we know about, Tavros lost his freedom (as an analogue to Breath) when Vriska crippled him, only for him to rediscover it with a vengeance in the dream bubbles when he gathers the ghost army; Jake loses his Hope (both in the way of his Grandma and his dream self) before the session started, only to find Hope anew once everything got going. (Granted, Aranea accelerated that a bit.)
Where the Bard is concerned, we only have Gamzee to go on, but he's enough. Calliope tells us that the Bard "invites destruction through their aspect", and that is pretty much what Gamzee does: When his enemies rage, he destroys them. He killed Equius, who went with the intention of attacking him; Nepeta, who did attack him; and Game Over!Karkat, who also attacked him. In each case, he's letting his adversaries Rage first, and then using Rage Makes You Stupid to exploit and brutally dismantle them.
There we are, I've said my piece. Back to your usual programming.
|
|
|
Post by Light on Mar 23, 2017 15:46:39 GMT
Hi, it is yet again the anonymous Light! I do not see why stealing another player from a doomed timeline would be uncharacteristic of a Thief of Time. A Thief affects reality by stealing X or stealing with X. With this in mind, it is a certain that a Thief of Time would steal FROM Time. That would be in line with the function of its class "stealing Time." Remember that Rogues invite the theft of Time or invite theft through Time. Conversely, a Rogue would allow others to steal Time or steal though Time (this could be that it allows people to steal, or waste, its time). In this sense, while, yes, a Rogue would be the catalyst for a player to steal information from a doomed timeline, a Thief is the more blatant option for stealing something directly from time, as it would be stealing with Time (actually stealing something through the tangled mess of timelines). Maybe you are hung up on Calliope's explanation of the different between a Thief and a Rogue (Thieves steal for themselves, Rogues for the group). However, this is not a good definition of a class because Sburb no matter what is a game built upon the foundation of teamwork. Playing a session of just one player (an absence of teamwork entirely) results in Sburb auto-setting itself to Lunatic mode and creating a dead session, so that the player cannot even finish the game. Think of how this happened to Caliborn with his assigned denizen, Yaldabaoth, a denizen given to the players most in need of a challenge, which would give Caliborn a very punishing session of Sburb. Also, how he had a dead session from lacking a Space player to help seed the new universe. An active class can do something that results in the aid of its fellow co-players. The activity of a class merely describes how it interacts with its environment.
|
|
|
Post by obsidalicious on Mar 23, 2017 22:25:37 GMT
Since a Thief is a fairly high on the Activity scale, and thus is very self-focused. I imagine that if a Thief of Time were to take comrades from Doomed Timelines, it might just be in the name of using them as expendable backup in the alpha timeline, since they're doomed either way and might as well help the main cause.
Of course, said Thief may not be so explicit or openly exploitative about it, they may very well have the best intentions and are trying to save their alt!comrades, but the effect would end the same either way.
A particularly unscrupulous Thief of Time may even go out of their way to make some Doomed Timelines to supply the Alpha with more muscle. In that case, that could be yet another application of Thieving Time as their actions took the lifespan away from the now doomed selves and is instead using them to increase the survivability of the alpha crew.
|
|
|
Post by ten 11 on Apr 7, 2017 1:58:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Wessolf27 on Apr 8, 2017 1:41:47 GMT
...a lot of them are a little too small and hard to see...
|
|
|
Post by obsidalicious on Apr 8, 2017 3:12:44 GMT
It kind of looks like the Aspect symbols were just put into a Kaleidoscope. There doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason, the one thing I can pick out is that the Bard and Prince appear to have broken/shattered symbols, but otherwise I can't see any meaningful link between class and symbol.
If I was to try and invent symbols, I'd probably just go fairly literal and make the symbols reflect the unique elements of the outfits. So, for example, the knight might be a circle on a trapezium to represent the tight hood and cape. In fact I'd give them all a circle as a common element, so you can put the Aspect symbol in to make a composite title symbol
|
|
|
Post by ten 11 on Apr 8, 2017 11:14:13 GMT
|
|
axolotlSushi
Scampermaster
Hi, my name is That Bastard
Posts: 215
Pronouns: they/them/theirs
|
Post by axolotlSushi on May 19, 2017 18:09:53 GMT
Salutations everyone. I know this isn't really related, but I thought I'd put it out there anyways... I've been thinking about the Classpect system a lot lately, so I just started a Tumblr sideblog about Classpects. I don't have any posts yet, but if anyone is interested, here it is. thinkinginclasspects.tumblr.com/
|
|
|
Post by optimisticduelist on May 20, 2017 16:59:59 GMT
Someone convinced me it was worth posting this here, so I figure I will. So I'm gonna make a pretty outrageous claim: I'm pretty sure I found canonical evidence nailing down every element of the class system, what their key verbs are, and what the active/passive spectrum means. Curious to see if my views hold up, so I'll just drop the link to the masterpost here and check in later to see if anyone responds. I'd be more thorough but I'm on mobile. Anyway here you go: medium.com/@roseofnobility/force-and-flow-the-aspects-arent-the-only-existential-duality-at-play-in-classpects-fd1c3958314cMaybe I'll come back and pretty the link up/post the others in detail later too. Curious to hear your thoughts!
|
|
|
Post by obsidalicious on May 20, 2017 19:42:01 GMT
Someone convinced me it was worth posting this here, so I figure I will. So I'm gonna make a pretty outrageous claim: I'm pretty sure I found canonical evidence nailing down every element of the class system, what their key verbs are, and what the active/passive spectrum means. Curious to see if my views hold up, so I'll just drop the link to the masterpost here and check in later to see if anyone responds. I'd be more thorough but I'm on mobile. Anyway here you go: medium.com/@roseofnobility/force-and-flow-the-aspects-arent-the-only-existential-duality-at-play-in-classpects-fd1c3958314cMaybe I'll come back and pretty the link up/post the others in detail later too. Curious to hear your thoughts! Over the years, Hussie has said things about the Classpect system outside of Canon, some of which conflict with parts of your theory. In a Q&A on his old Tumblr ( archived here) He talks about how Rose and Dave were being Active in their Session while John and Jade were being Passive, he says that Rose and Jade then flipped their activity levels as they settled into their god tiered state. Since he didn't say the same for Dave and John, that implicitly suggests that they were already in line with their Class's Activity i.e. Knight is Active.(Ctrl-f for "What exactly determines whether a person is a Derse or Prospit dreamer? Or is it just random?" to see Hussie's full answer) He also once tweeted that, of the 12 standard classes, the most Active was female and the two most Passive were Male, which doesn't line up with your spectrum. Finally, though this doesn't necessarily conflict with your theory, softowl, who reportedly has access to Hussie's Classpect documentation, also used the terms 'inward focused' and 'outward focused' to describe Active and Passive Classes respectively(unfortunately, I can't cite this as it was lost with the old forums) So there's an extra dimension to the dichotomy to consider.
|
|
|
Post by Gab on May 20, 2017 22:30:14 GMT
Heyyy, glad to see you're here. This presents a pretty convenient opportunity to respond with some thoughts I've had on your posts. (So, to those reading, you might want to get caught up on his series. It's worth the time, in my humble opinion.) More or less, your class table makes a lot of sense to me. The evidence presented sells me on the descriptions you apply, and the way they're organized seems logical and elegant.
But there are one or two finer points I'd like to talk about, something I personally feel your theory doesn't address as much as it could have. Namely, the Active/Passive division. Even though you put quite a bit of work into describing how it works, shedding light on possibilities that hadn't really occurred to me before, I still find myself wondering about the logic behind it. It's taken me some time for certain things to click into place and better understand how it works. And I'll try to share that understanding here!
The descriptors you chose are really so perfect, they lend themselves to their order so nicely. It makes perfect sense that a God of Destruction or Creation would be the most active or passive, because there's just no way of doing that job subtly. By the same token, being a God of, say, Knowledge, just doesn't have the potential for those kinds of extremes.
That is, as long as that's your definition of Active and Passive. In the past I've thought being Passive meant being more of a background actor, such as a Seer. Under a different point of view, being extremely Passive would be pretty similar to being extremely Active, just with a different focus. Being outward-focused rather than inward-focused.
The terms for the classes also lend themselves to your theory of flipping between Active and Passive, which is also linked to flipping to the opposing class descriptor. (For example, if you're a Passive Serve class and flip to Active, it's about as extreme for them as flipping to a Steal class) Which explains why the more extreme classes suffer dire consequences the rare times it happens to them, but the Know and Change classes are much more comfortable flipping back and forth without it being as big a deal.
That has to do with the disparity in the linked ideologies, which suit themselves both to being opposed yet complementary and inseparable. This is demonstrated best with the Know/Change pair. The two concepts oppose one another, but also beget each other. The metaphor that helped me understand this of the scientific process. Through experimentation, controlled changes on reality and test subjects, to expand and update the catalogue of known information. A constant ebb and flow.
That pattern exists in the other classes too, in more extreme cases. Service and Steal mostly demonstrate the Selfish/Selfless angle. Basically, the two revolve around how you interface with society. Service is devotion to a system of rules or to an outside authority, theft revolves around self-interest at the expense of other peoples' desires. Yet the two can exist together, such as a thief that follows a strict code of ethics, or acting on the instruction of an employer or master.
Creation and Destruction exist together in reference to the grand cycle of existence. As we know, matter and energy can't actually be destroyed or created within the universe. All that is created forms from the remains of what was destroyed, and vice versa. One cannot exist without the other.
There is one more conceit to this table that I'm somewhat at odds with, but will nonetheless present my evidence for. That there are three descriptors that ultimately are more passive, and the other three complements more active. I think it's a fairly subtle thing, but enough to tip the scales slightly. To that end, I like to reorganize OD's list slightly, reversing the positions of Change and Know, and my reasoning revolves around yet another way to look at the dichotomy: short-term versus long-term.
The ideological core of Knowledge, in my opinion, is slanted towards the long-term, and vice versa for Change. Going back to the science analogy, that pattern displays itself in the artifacts we leave behind. Outdated (incorrect) knowledge is discarded; only that which is proven to be true gets to remain in public consciousness. But moments of change, significant events which revolutionized our culture, are immortalized forever, even if they grow to become rather quaint in retrospect.
The act of service can be something as simple as a quick favor, but the concept lends itself to the idea of an ongoing relationship. Serving as someone's assistant, working a job, examples of extended service. Thievery on the other hand lends itself more to the short term. One can of course make a life-long career as a thief, but such an individual's concern is always in the immediate future, the stability of their wellbeing and the risk of their next source of income. Because it's them against the world their situation is unstable and can fall apart at any moment-- their focus is always and permanently in the short term.
Creation/Destruction again extends that idea to increasingly abstract areas. But in the end, the act and nature of creation extends time and possibilities to those it affects, serving the long term. Destruction does just the opposite, taking away potential, emphasizing the short term.
Of course, none of that is end-all be-all, since every one has an active and passive version. Like I said, it's just a bit of a bias in the system.
But whether you believe all that or not it still doesn't answer why Sburb players actually go through these weird patterns. Other than the fact the system has a natural ebb and flow coded into it, I think that fluid nature exists in the players themselves. Their roles can put them at pretty extreme odds, and all active classes would seemingly be self-oriented, but all players are in the same boat, working together in a monumental act of creation. But the game ALSO caters to the individual needs of each player in their planets. There's just not one without the other, and like I keep saying, there's an ebb and flow. In the end it's a natural part of the process.
That's about as much as I have to say on it. In the end I think there could still be some more refining to this idea to make it make more sense but hopefully some people will get something out of all that.
|
|
|
Post by optimisticduelist on May 20, 2017 22:30:47 GMT
Someone convinced me it was worth posting this here, so I figure I will. So I'm gonna make a pretty outrageous claim: I'm pretty sure I found canonical evidence nailing down every element of the class system, what their key verbs are, and what the active/passive spectrum means. Curious to see if my views hold up, so I'll just drop the link to the masterpost here and check in later to see if anyone responds. I'd be more thorough but I'm on mobile. Anyway here you go: medium.com/@roseofnobility/force-and-flow-the-aspects-arent-the-only-existential-duality-at-play-in-classpects-fd1c3958314cMaybe I'll come back and pretty the link up/post the others in detail later too. Curious to hear your thoughts! Over the years, Hussie has said things about the Classpect system outside of Canon, some of which conflict with parts of your theory. In a Q&A on his old Tumblr ( archived here) He talks about how Rose and Dave were being Active in their Session while John and Jade were being Passive, he says that Rose and Jade then flipped their activity levels as they settled into their god tiered state. Since he didn't say the same for Dave and John, that implicitly suggests that they were already in line with their Class's Activity i.e. Knight is Active.(Ctrl-f for "What exactly determines whether a person is a Derse or Prospit dreamer? Or is it just random?" to see Hussie's full answer) He also once tweeted that, of the 12 standard classes, the most Active was female and the two most Passive were Male, which doesn't line up with your spectrum. Finally, though this doesn't necessarily conflict with your theory, softowl, who reportedly has access to Hussie's Classpect documentation, also used the terms 'inward focused' and 'outward focused' to describe Active and Passive Classes respectively(unfortunately, I can't cite this as it was lost with the old forums) So there's an extra dimension to the dichotomy to consider. I've seen the tweet before--I think it's likely Maid is the most active non-master class (Calliope refers to Lord and Muse as 'most active' and 'most passive' explicitly), and the most Passive could be Bard and Knight here. I think it's possible the Serve classes could have a slight predisposition to Passivity where the Steal classes may have a slight predisposition to Activity, and ditto Destroy/Create respectively. The rationale being it takes more effort to Create than to Destroy, and Stealing is more willful an act than what's implied by Service someone or being Served by them. I just don't have canonical evidence to account for that yet, so I haven't advanced it. This is all a work in progress imo. Of course, this is besides the fact that Hussie later decided the gender restrictions did not apply, and said Princes could be girls--thus overruling Calliope, and implying any Class can be any gender. As for this Hussie quote, that's actually really great and gives me a lot of nuance to work with, I'd lost hope of finding an archive for this stuff so thanks! But I'm not sure it's a conflict, exactly. Hussie seems to be talking primarily about the influence of Prospit and Derse, which I would definitely agree with, but since the Classes have intrinsic Passive/Active distinctions and do not directly correlate to how they're put on moons, the system seems to be more complicated. In this same section he says this: Further casting doubt on the idea that Knights are intrinsically Active--especially given that Dave, like Rose, seems to grow more Passive as he grows up post-Godtiering, even rejecting Time Travel entirely pre-retcon. I think Passive players can act Actively (that is to say, as Yang forces) and vice-versa. This is why I use the Self-Oriented vs. Group-Oriented mindstates as my primary point in drawing the Active/Passive distinction, rather than Exploit vs. Allow. Players on both ends of the scale regularly seem able to use both, as well as acting both Passively and Actively in personal activity senses of the term. EDIT: I thought I'd take the opportunity to link the rest of the essays, even though the Master Post already links them: [Destroy and Create][Steal and Serve][Know and Change]
|
|
|
Post by ashercrane on May 21, 2017 13:29:36 GMT
Of course, this is besides the fact that Hussie later decided the gender restrictions did not apply, and said Princes could be girls--thus overruling Calliope, and implying any Class can be any gender. This doesn't matter either way, anyway. The fact that he referenced it both in canon and out of canon (with the aforementioned tweet about passive males and active females), means he originally intended it to be there, and therefore designed the classpect system with it in mind, whatever you think his opinion of it is now.
|
|