axolotlSushi
Scampermaster
Hi, my name is That Bastard
Posts: 215
Pronouns: they/them/theirs
|
Post by axolotlSushi on May 19, 2016 13:08:59 GMT
Should you have any further questions, feel free to ask. Thank you so much! This is amazing. Though, as an afterthought, I was wondering if my zodiac (Virgo/Libra cusp) and/or my patron troll (Gamzee) might have any influence on the matter as well?
|
|
|
Post by amiabletemplar on May 19, 2016 17:09:13 GMT
Thank you so much! This is amazing. Though, as an afterthought, I was wondering if my zodiac (Virgo/Libra cusp) and/or my patron troll (Gamzee) might have any influence on the matter as well? Unfortunately, I have done little to no analysis of this sort of thing--I don't think much about horoscopes (religious reasons) and don't generally take "patron troll" stuff into account for theorizing. It is still a fair question, though, so I'll give you what I can. Although I put no stock in horoscopes myself, you may be interested to know that I am also a Virgo/Libra cusp (I think? Or maybe I'm just a little too late, I don't recall the details). If we look purely at the Homestuck significance of those signs, you're talking about Kanaya and Terezi. The former is relatively warm and friendly--caregiving--for an Alternian (presumably a Sylph thing), but must endure isolation and being "different" from others of her kind (a Space thing) while being prepared to serve the Mother Grub in the brooding caverns (procreation, also a Space thing). Terezi I've already discussed previously: tactician, manipulator, and...for lack of a better term "forecaster." The Seer influence would almost certainly be most prominent there. So, from the troll-sign associations? I'd assume this would focus your talents--foreseeing the "direction" of others' lives, foreknowing where a particular trajectory will end up--would probably take a form more like a parent guiding a child. But this carries with it a lesson and a warning. For the lesson: most of those you will guide with your Sight are your peers, not your children--talking down to them or hiding information "they don't need to know" would likely be your downfall. For the warning: never forget that, even though you may feel a parental instinct to protect your allies, parents are also mortals, and can make mistakes. Just as you must make sure to check yourself before you start posturing as better or more mature than your peers, you must also remember that you don't need to be perfect. Being a Seer does have responsibilities, but it doesn't make you culpable for the actions of others. I don't truly know what significance "patron trolls" have, but I suspect that (perhaps ironically) in this case the influence of Gamzee would actually be a positive. His happy-go-lucky, easygoing side encourages you to let go now and then--to stop expecting yourself to always be the Mature Adult, to stop shouldering the burden of everyone else's mistakes. His rage-vengeance side, on the other hand, is precisely what a Seer of Doom should be best at averting. Your Sight gives you a window into the eventual Fate things will have; nudging Gamzee's fate into a more healthy, group-assisting situation is right up your alley. Edit: Also, thank you for your kind words--and sorry I didn't say so to begin with! I enjoy this stuff, so it's always a pleasure to help people out, if they're willing to listen. Too many come to the discussion purely looking for validation and agreement, rather than information and analysis, which can often be critical of things people have identified with.
|
|
axolotlSushi
Scampermaster
Hi, my name is That Bastard
Posts: 215
Pronouns: they/them/theirs
|
Post by axolotlSushi on May 19, 2016 23:15:19 GMT
I don't truly know what significance "patron trolls" have, but I suspect that (perhaps ironically) in this case the influence of Gamzee would actually be a positive. His happy-go-lucky, easygoing side encourages you to let go now and then--to stop expecting yourself to always be the Mature Adult, to stop shouldering the burden of everyone else's mistakes. His rage-vengeance side, on the other hand, is precisely what a Seer of Doom should be best at averting. Your Sight gives you a window into the eventual Fate things will have; nudging Gamzee's fate into a more healthy, group-assisting situation is right up your alley. That sounds a lot like me, actually! I typically have a tendency to look on the bright side of a situation, and even if I feel like I am the "Mature Adult", I try not to let the responsibility get to me. Though on the other side of the spectrum, I'd imagine I have fair potential to go GrimDark too, because I sometimes go to the pessimism side, getting fed up with everyone around me. One more thing though, if you don't mind too much- I'm kind of curious for a more in depth explanation about what my powers would be, and how I could use them to my advantage? ^.^ Again, thank you so much!
|
|
|
Post by legendary on May 19, 2016 23:49:14 GMT
I think AT's last paragraph covered as much as we can really get at. The Seer of Doom is one who sees the destination of things - though I think that just as Rose can parse out less fortunate paths and Terezi can see the various results of choices, I expect a Seer of Doom can see *potential* demises as well. A fully-realized Seer, focused on John at the beginning of Homestuck, would see his death in the Davesprite timeline, his demise on his Quest Bed, his demise on the Skaian castle, and even perhaps Typheus slaying him and Davesprite in the retconned timeline, along with John's ultimate death (whenever that comes). Possibly they would even see his becoming Homestuck, but maybe that's not deathy enough to count. For their friends, a Seer of Doom's powers are grim indeed - dire warnings not to turn your back on the body and to definitely not look too closely at that puppet. Against enemies, a Seer of Doom is a great boon - even the most invincible-seeming threats must die, and if a Seer's allies have the capacity to bring about such a death, the Seer can see it (though maneuvering everyone to that point is a challenge.) On the whole, I think that Seers of Doom are going to be even more forward-thinking than most Seers, but I think that such things are probably necessary for their circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by heirloomairloom on May 20, 2016 12:12:06 GMT
One more thing though, if you don't mind too much- I'm kind of curious for a more in depth explanation about what my powers would be, and how I could use them to my advantage? ^.^ Again, thank you so much! I would guess that a Seer of Doom would have visions related to how to kill the various enemies in the game. Like how Rose has a strategy guide for the game's main quest in her head, you'd have a boss strategy guide telling you the exact way to defeat all your enemies. 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? It was meant as a ridiculous example, not a serious theory. If we agree that those exact phrases aren't supposed to be universal, how do you know that every class has two clauses that include doing something to the Aspect and doing something with the Aspect, instead of literally just the first clause plus whatever second clause you want (as in my obviously untrue assertion) or just any two clauses or any other random quality of the Prince/Bard definition you care to impose? But healing is not a subset of creation. Some things are healing despite being outright destructive, like chemotherapy. Now, some acts of passive creation are healing, and it's trivial to simply declare that the passive creators will be restricted as such, but the same could be said of manipulation or a lot of other verbs. I don't think it would have mattered to Hussie that manipulate could have been taken another way, as he would have been choosing it when writing the full definitions of the classes that remove any ambiguity. Classes are defined by their definitions and only categorized by their verbs. I don't see how it's circular. I find a hint that Witch's verb is manipulate, ask myself it it is possible to form a pair of classes with that verb, and find that, yes, there is one that fits the bill. Since we may say that a verb must be wrong if no other class shares it, showing how another class can share the verb strengthens the argument by answering that particular objection to it. I prefer "manipulate" to "heal" because a manipulator can be restricted into a healer but not the other way around. I wouldn't call Brain Ghost Dirk a belief. He's a splinter of Dirk's soul living in Jake's head. A manipulator of belief should be changing what people believe without utterly disillusioning them to the point that it verges into destruction of beliefs. "Manipulating" something to make it real is no different than "manipulating" it to be unreal. Those are creation and destruction, not manipulation. I meant the stronger hints for other things (like Seer's verb or Heir being passive), compared to which the Heir/Maid hints are somewhat weaker. Jane never actually tried to accomplish anything related to using her position and never made any progress on rescuing her dad. The romance stuff could work, but I can't off the top of my head remember any theories that explain her actions surrounding her crush on Jake as (Maid's verb)ing (concept that belongs to Life) in a way that affected the story. It does. Equally important are all the instances of Aradia creating time for others in a way that has nothing to do with healing and Feferi also healing. This means that the Maids are tied together by the creation of their Aspect, regardless of the fact that Jane and Aradia happenned to act, respectively, as a healer and a meat shield. I agree completely. Talking some Cthulhus into doing you a favor or sabotaging your own team aren't acts of bending reality, except in the most degenerate sense that anyone who accomplishes anything is changing reality. If time traveling (something so mundane that even Vriska and Gamzee can do it) around to make sure your session goes the way you want it to qualifies as reality bending, where does that leave Aradia, who did the exact same thing?
|
|
|
Post by ashercrane on May 20, 2016 12:33:56 GMT
I wouldn't call Brain Ghost Dirk a belief. He's a splinter of Dirk's soul living in Jake's head. A manipulator of belief should be changing what people believe without utterly disillusioning them to the point that it verges into destruction of beliefs. "Manipulating" something to make it real is no different than "manipulating" it to be unreal. Those are creation and destruction, not manipulation. Yet, it was said to have been only specifically made more real to Jake because he was a hope player (or something to that effect), as opposed to others, who basically just had their impression of him. So, while BG!Dirk was a splinter of Dirk's soul, he was also only there due to Jake's belief in him. There is a part during where they are all talking inside Derse and Prospit where Jane is lamenting the fact that she revolved her "life" around Jake, so I do believe that is pertinent. EDIT: Geeze, I straight up murdered the thread. '
|
|
|
Post by vaiyt on Jun 6, 2016 14:39:22 GMT
Well, here is my attempt at Classpect distribution. I do not think it's canon, so this is not really a theory per se, but it's one arrangement I'm satisfied with. If I find myself in the position of making an RP or fancomic I might just use it.
The pairs I came up with are:
Witch and Mage - the Witch changes their aspect/causes change with their aspect, and the Mage is changed by their aspect or allows their aspect to cause change through them. Knight and Maid - they're preserving classes; the Knight defends their aspect and uses their aspect to defend others, and the Maid maintains/fixes their aspect or maintains/fixes things through their aspect. Page and Heir are classes that receive their aspect - the Heir, being the passive class, is just given the tools to develop their potential, while the Page starts with none of it and has to seek it out, proving himself worthy through a long and difficult personal quest. Thief and Rogue, steal/redistribute, blah blah. They're on the opposite side of the spectrum as the "take" classes. Prince and Bard, this one is pretty set in canon too. Sylph and Seer end up as the "know" classes. The Seer has passive knowledge, receiving visions and having a grasp of their aspect on a purely intellectual level. Sylphs have more practical knowledge which begs them to be used to meddle in a more hands-on way. Lord - rules their aspect or through their aspect, their aspect being their kingdom that serves them and ultimately answers to them. Muse - inspires their aspect or through their aspect, influencing things far beyond their personal involvement as their mere concept is able to drive events or people.
I know some of you can easily pick holes on this arrangement, but I'd like to point out that we just haven't seen enough evidence on how some classes act to even decide one way or the other. One of the things that make me think it's not the canon is that it's so close to actually be symmetrical on the male-female arrangement but it's not - I don't think AH would be content with that. Also, the placement of the Sylph stretches the definition of "practical knowledge" quite a lot, especially taking Aranea's very-easy-to-be-interpreted-as-healing powers into account. =P
|
|
|
Post by obsidalicious on Jun 6, 2016 22:49:50 GMT
Well, here is my attempt at Classpect distribution. I do not think it's canon, so this is not really a theory per se, but it's one arrangement I'm satisfied with. If I find myself in the position of making an RP or fancomic I might just use it. The pairs I came up with are: -Snip- I know some of you can easily pick holes on this arrangement, but I'd like to point out that we just haven't seen enough evidence on how some classes act to even decide one way or the other. One of the things that make me think it's not the canon is that it's so close to actually be symmetrical on the male-female arrangement but it's not - I don't think AH would be content with that. Also, the placement of the Sylph stretches the definition of "practical knowledge" quite a lot, especially taking Aranea's very-easy-to-be-interpreted-as-healing powers into account. =P What I find most interesting about your model is how divergent it is from the general consensus on which Classes are Active and Passive. While there is still some debate, the majority opinion is that Witch, Knight, Maid and Mage are Active while Page, Heir and Sylph are passive. While in your model you have Mage and Maid as Passive and Page and Sylph as Active. I'd be very interested to hear your interpretation of the Active/Passive system.
|
|
|
Post by Neptz on Jun 6, 2016 23:47:25 GMT
I don't truly know what significance "patron trolls" have, but I suspect that (perhaps ironically) in this case the influence of Gamzee would actually be a positive. His happy-go-lucky, easygoing side encourages you to let go now and then--to stop expecting yourself to always be the Mature Adult, to stop shouldering the burden of everyone else's mistakes. His rage-vengeance side, on the other hand, is precisely what a Seer of Doom should be best at averting. Your Sight gives you a window into the eventual Fate things will have; nudging Gamzee's fate into a more healthy, group-assisting situation is right up your alley. That sounds a lot like me, actually! I typically have a tendency to look on the bright side of a situation, and even if I feel like I am the "Mature Adult", I try not to let the responsibility get to me. Though on the other side of the spectrum, I'd imagine I have fair potential to go GrimDark too, because I sometimes go to the pessimism side, getting fed up with everyone around me. One more thing though, if you don't mind too much- I'm kind of curious for a more in depth explanation about what my powers would be, and how I could use them to my advantage? ^.^ Again, thank you so much! Female Seer, huh? Guess we're two sides of the same coin. I am a horrifically negative and unlikeable person. On these forums, I act formal, but if you approach me privately, get ready to not be my friend. I am somewhat impatient and like rushing through games. I generally don't initiate things. I generally consider myself to be... decently mature, but this might not be the case. When I was younger, I was much more positive and kind. Nowadays, sort of everything just... tends to annoy me. The worst thing is that Sollux is practically a carbon copy of me, and I hated him for a while because it made me feel disgusting. I do like him now, a little bit, but not as much as I like Aradia. Interestingly enough, I am completely a Aries, no combo of anything, but I don't like astrology simply because it is too much superstition and not fact.
|
|
|
Post by amiabletemplar on Jun 7, 2016 9:23:19 GMT
Well, here is my attempt at Classpect distribution. I do not think it's canon, so this is not really a theory per se, but it's one arrangement I'm satisfied with. If I find myself in the position of making an RP or fancomic I might just use it. The pairs I came up with are: Witch and Mage - the Witch changes their aspect/causes change with their aspect, and the Mage is changed by their aspect or allows their aspect to cause change through them. Knight and Maid - they're preserving classes; the Knight defends their aspect and uses their aspect to defend others, and the Maid maintains/fixes their aspect or maintains/fixes things through their aspect. Page and Heir are classes that receive their aspect - the Heir, being the passive class, is just given the tools to develop their potential, while the Page starts with none of it and has to seek it out, proving himself worthy through a long and difficult personal quest. Thief and Rogue, steal/redistribute, blah blah. They're on the opposite side of the spectrum as the "take" classes. Prince and Bard, this one is pretty set in canon too. Sylph and Seer end up as the "know" classes. The Seer has passive knowledge, receiving visions and having a grasp of their aspect on a purely intellectual level. Sylphs have more practical knowledge which begs them to be used to meddle in a more hands-on way. Lord - rules their aspect or through their aspect, their aspect being their kingdom that serves them and ultimately answers to them. Muse - inspires their aspect or through their aspect, influencing things far beyond their personal involvement as their mere concept is able to drive events or people. I know some of you can easily pick holes on this arrangement, but I'd like to point out that we just haven't seen enough evidence on how some classes act to even decide one way or the other. One of the things that make me think it's not the canon is that it's so close to actually be symmetrical on the male-female arrangement but it's not - I don't think AH would be content with that. Also, the placement of the Sylph stretches the definition of "practical knowledge" quite a lot, especially taking Aranea's very-easy-to-be-interpreted-as-healing powers into account. =P Echoing Obsid's thoughts, I'm curious as to why you would classify Mage and Maid as passive classes, and Page and Sylph as active classes. I'm also curious as to how you parse most of these things as verbs. Because "change" is an incredibly hard sell. Don't all classes, necessarily, need to cause change with or to their aspects in order to do anything with them? Wouldn't having "change" as a class-pair verb make that pair capable of duplicating literally everything any other class could do, plus more stuff as well? By your own admission, there's the issue with "healing," but it's not just that Aranea's powers can be viewed that way--she explicitly calls herself a healer, several times, and highlights how Light was useful to her "as a healer." Shouldn't Sylphs have something to do with healing, rather than knowing? I mean, sure, knowledge is beneficial if you want to do healing stuff, but then it's starting to sound like "know" isn't actually a thing Sylphs do, it's just the tool which enables them to do whatever the heck they want, which...well, seems to stumble into similar problems as "change." Not the same problem, just similar--if "know" is an acceptable verb because it acts as a stepping stone to other actions, doesn't that mean if you have enough knowing, you can use it as a stepping stone to doing literally anything? You're absolutely right that we don't have enough information to make hard-and-fast determinations. However, I do think we can make some strong, solid assumptions which help to shape and focus the discussion, forestalling flawed arguments and fostering robust ones. Here are a few of those assumptions: 1. Verbs are never omni-capable. I mean that there should never be a verb for which the natural interpretation would allow it to copy many other class's actions exactly as that class performs them. So, a Prince might deprive the enemy of something by destroying that thing, while a Rogue might do so by stealing it. Both achieve the end of depriving their enemies of resources, but do so through clearly different means. However, a class that can "change" their aspect could "change" it by elimination, or by extraction; both of these are types of change, yet the former is identical to destruction, while the latter is identical to theft. Similar arguments can apply to other commonly-used verbs, like "exploit" and "utilize," which are just fancy ways of saying "use," and everyone needs to be able to use their aspect in order to do things, that's what having a class means. 2. Verbs are never hyper-specific. This is the flipside of the previous point. So, one could parse the Seer (for example) as providing "updates" to their friends' knowledge, and thus argue that Seers are "updaters." But "update" is so specific, it could only work to do that one single thing, making something (information, specifically) accurate to its most recent form. That's so specific, it would prevent Seers from being useful in a wide variety of contexts, which makes no sense for a game that may assign such a class to its players. 3. "Standard" classes equally distribute active/passive to females/males. That is, there should be equal numbers of passive female and male classes, as well as equal numbers of active female and male classes, if we ignore Lord/Muse. Hussie has said the system is "overall quite balanced." This implies that either the number, or the relative "strength," of activity/passivity is very close to equal; it "shades slightly male/active, female/passive," but only slightly. If we do factor in Lord/Muse, we get exactly that from raw number: 4 active males, 3 passive males, 3 active females, 4 passive females. The system is as close as it can be to "balanced" while having an odd number of "male" classes and "female" classes. 4. Aspects should never be useless. This is pretty straightforward, but it's surprising how easily people fall into traps with it. Void is often misunderstood as the aspect of "nothing," as in "no things whatsoever," and thus people get silly interpretations like "haha, you're the Seer of Void, you must be unable to see anything!" or "wowie zowie, Prince of Void...I get the ability to destroy...nothing..." In my opinion, these interpretations are suffering from a profound lack of imagination. As Roxy shows, Void can in fact be a powerful aspect that can do a great many things--just as the number 0 can be powerful in the right contexts, and dismissing it as producing "trivial" results from common things (e.g. x+0=x) simply shows a lack of appreciation for what it can do. (It would not be inaccurate to say that the vast majority of modern mathematics wouldn't exist without the concept of 0.) With the above in mind, here are my own pairings and explanations. Note that some of the verbs are still provisional--I haven't found ones that perfectly satisfy me, so those that I'm not sure about will get asterisks. Listed Active/Passive. Prince/Bard: As canon. Male-exclusive Destroyers. Thief/Rogue: As canon. Female-leaning Stealers. Knight/Seer: Gender-leaning (Knight is male, Seer is female) Watchers. Seer is known to be passive, Knight is implied to be active (from "Reddit or Not, Here We Dumb"). I really like "watch" as a verb, because it covers both observation (Seer) and guarding (Knight), with each being the natural passive or active interpretation of "watch." Mage/Page: Male-leaning Servers.* Page appears strongly passive (to me), as it acts mostly by enabling others. Mage is ambiguous, but small implications give a general active appearance (as well as my memory of a Forumspring post that I now cannot find, which is frustrating to no end). Maid/Sylph: Female-exclusive Restorers.* Sylph is known as a "healer" class, and Aradia spent many many lives 'maintaining' her session. Every time Aranea discusses her powers, it is with passive structures ("And if luck should conspire to make it a draw?" "...certain outcomes will 8e prone to 8r8king in my favor." etc.) Witch/Heir: Gender-exclusive Converters.* Heir is implied to be passive and Witch strongly implied to be active (from "Reddit or Not, Here We dumb"). Powers are eclectic and difficult to classify. "Convert" is iffy--it's veeeeery close to "change," and I've already said why I don't like change, but I feel it's just specific enough to get by. Note that this gives three active females (Witch, Maid, Thief), three passive females (Sylph, Seer, Rogue), three active males (Prince, Knight, Mage), and three passive males (Bard, Page, Heir). It also provides every "same-exclusivity" pairing possible: M/M (Prince/Bard), m/m (Mage/Page), m/f (Knight/Seer), M/F (Witch/Heir), f/f (Thief/Rogue), F/F (Maid/Sylph). People may balk at the idea that Page could be female, since it's (clearly) based on the Robin character--but one must remember that there have been female Robins! They're just in the minority. As a small added bonus, this setup makes the classes in B1 paired up moon-wise, while the classes in B2 are completely distinct. I do not intentionally make any specific pair of paired classes associated with each other, because I don't really take "inversion" theory very seriously. If I absolutely had to, though, it would probably be (Prince/Bard)|(Maid/Sylph), (Thief/Rogue)|(Mage/Page), and (Knight/Seer)|(Witch/Heir).
|
|
|
Post by vaiyt on Jun 7, 2016 10:08:15 GMT
Well, here is my attempt at Classpect distribution. I do not think it's canon, so this is not really a theory per se, but it's one arrangement I'm satisfied with. If I find myself in the position of making an RP or fancomic I might just use it. The pairs I came up with are: Witch and Mage - the Witch changes their aspect/causes change with their aspect, and the Mage is changed by their aspect or allows their aspect to cause change through them. Knight and Maid - they're preserving classes; the Knight defends their aspect and uses their aspect to defend others, and the Maid maintains/fixes their aspect or maintains/fixes things through their aspect. Page and Heir are classes that receive their aspect - the Heir, being the passive class, is just given the tools to develop their potential, while the Page starts with none of it and has to seek it out, proving himself worthy through a long and difficult personal quest. Thief and Rogue, steal/redistribute, blah blah. They're on the opposite side of the spectrum as the "take" classes. Prince and Bard, this one is pretty set in canon too. Sylph and Seer end up as the "know" classes. The Seer has passive knowledge, receiving visions and having a grasp of their aspect on a purely intellectual level. Sylphs have more practical knowledge which begs them to be used to meddle in a more hands-on way. Lord - rules their aspect or through their aspect, their aspect being their kingdom that serves them and ultimately answers to them. Muse - inspires their aspect or through their aspect, influencing things far beyond their personal involvement as their mere concept is able to drive events or people. I know some of you can easily pick holes on this arrangement, but I'd like to point out that we just haven't seen enough evidence on how some classes act to even decide one way or the other. One of the things that make me think it's not the canon is that it's so close to actually be symmetrical on the male-female arrangement but it's not - I don't think AH would be content with that. Also, the placement of the Sylph stretches the definition of "practical knowledge" quite a lot, especially taking Aranea's very-easy-to-be-interpreted-as-healing powers into account. =P Echoing Obsid's thoughts, I'm curious as to why you would classify Mage and Maid as passive classes, and Page and Sylph as active classes. I'm also curious as to how you parse most of these things as verbs. Because "change" is an incredibly hard sell. Don't all classes, necessarily, need to cause change with or to their aspects in order to do anything with them? Wouldn't having "change" as a class-pair verb make that pair capable of duplicating literally everything any other class could do, plus more stuff as well? First question: The one Sylph we see doing things with her powers looked pretty active to me, and besides I paired it with the Seer, one of the most passive classes. It was, admittedly, the most difficult class to place, and I mostly based it on Aranea - using her extensive knowledge of Caliborn's story to make happen just what needed to happen in order to doom his timeline (or so she thought). My reasons to define the Page as active are in my previous post - just because they start out powerless (with very little capacity to act) it doesn't mean they're destined to a passive role. The way I see it, their slow, excruciating growth necessitates that they step into a more active role to accomplish something. At least it's one possible interpretation. =) Mages don't DO much of anything with their abilities for me to figure out what kind of class they're even supposed to be - but I see Sollux and Meulin as characters that seem to be affected much more BY their aspect than they affect others. The rest fell into place after that. I liked someone else's interpretation of the Maid as a maintainer, and looking around the other classes I saw the Knight as the ideal pair - the Knight protects things from harm, the Maid keeps things functioning so they don't break. Second question: I didn't think of them as verbs, really. I just went with the descriptions that would make the idea clearer (in case the different "verbs" for Knight and Maid didn't tip you off). I didn't mean "change" as in "cause any state to become any other state" but specifically "alter the properties of". Think of a chemical reaction - everything you start with has to go somewhere, molecules, atoms and energy can't just be gone or appear ex nihilo. The Witch/Mage, in this scenario, would cause things to become different, leaving the destruction and creation roles to others. Narratively, they're the plot twist - move the story in a different direction but not necessarily advance or end it.
|
|
|
Post by obsidalicious on Jun 7, 2016 10:43:48 GMT
First question: The one Sylph we see doing things with her powers looked pretty active to me, and besides I paired it with the Seer, one of the most passive classes. It was, admittedly, the most difficult class to place, and I mostly based it on Aranea - using her extensive knowledge of Caliborn's story to make happen just what needed to happen in order to doom his timeline (or so she thought). Could it not be the case that it is the Light Aspect that deals with Knowledge? We do see all three Heroes of Light doing a fair amount of Expositioning. Vriska even says: VRISKA: 8etween your nerdish o8session over the knowledge granted 8y our aspect, and my unprecedented a8ility to weaponize said knowledge with ruthless gamesmanship, we are dou8le-handedly saving the asses of everyone on this team.Not to mention that Kanaya isn't really related to Knowledge in any meaningful way, but can be linked to healing. As for Active/Passive with this class, this one is the most contentious. But I would point out that while Aranea was being rather active during Game Over, she collosally failed while doing so, while both she and Kanaya had far more productive contributions to everything while being more Passive. And of course, there's what amiable Templar said about Aranea always describing her powers in a Passive sense. Be careful not to conflate powers being Flashy and Overt with them being Active. As good an argument as any for an Active Page, but note that with both Jake and Tavros, as close to fully realised Pages as we'll get, their powers and Contributions were very heavily focused on Others, Tavros uniting and inspiring all the people around him, and Jake's Hopesplosion, while visually impressive on its own, contributed mostly through the secondary effects it had on/with other people. Alternatively, it could be said that the Mage's focus on themselves indicates the "For Self" facet of the Active side. Maid is also somewhat debated for its Active/Passive alignment. But regardless of whether it ends up being Active or Passive, I feel that the Sylph is the best pairing for it as, in my opinion, nothing else really matches the healing/restoration/nurturing theme of the Sylphs. The Knights meanwhile have a number of alternative descriptions available such as a Warrior, a Knower a Server, all of which present other paring options. All the Classes we've gotten good descriptions on(Prince, Bard, Thief, Rogue and Seer) we all very short and simple. While we can't say for sure that this is true for all classes, I personally feel that if a Class's descriptions requires paragraphs of elaboration and context-specific definitions, then it probably pays to reconsider.
|
|
|
Post by heirloomairloom on Jun 7, 2016 11:48:01 GMT
Witch and Mage - the Witch changes their aspect/causes change with their aspect, and the Mage is changed by their aspect or allows their aspect to cause change through them. Knight and Maid - they're preserving classes; the Knight defends their aspect and uses their aspect to defend others, and the Maid maintains/fixes their aspect or maintains/fixes things through their aspect. Page and Heir are classes that receive their aspect - the Heir, being the passive class, is just given the tools to develop their potential, while the Page starts with none of it and has to seek it out, proving himself worthy through a long and difficult personal quest. Thief and Rogue, steal/redistribute, blah blah. They're on the opposite side of the spectrum as the "take" classes. Prince and Bard, this one is pretty set in canon too. Sylph and Seer end up as the "know" classes. The Seer has passive knowledge, receiving visions and having a grasp of their aspect on a purely intellectual level. Sylphs have more practical knowledge which begs them to be used to meddle in a more hands-on way. Lord - rules their aspect or through their aspect, their aspect being their kingdom that serves them and ultimately answers to them. Muse - inspires their aspect or through their aspect, influencing things far beyond their personal involvement as their mere concept is able to drive events or people. There should be a female exclusive pair of classes to balance out the male exclusive Prince/Bard, but with these pairings that is impossible. The only three female exclusive candidates are Maid, Sylph, and Witch, and you've paired all of them with other classes. Mage/Page: Male-leaning Servers.* Page appears strongly passive (to me), as it acts mostly by enabling others. Mage is ambiguous, but small implications give a general active appearance (as well as my memory of a Forumspring post that I now cannot find, which is frustrating to no end). I don't remember any forumspring posts about Mages, but Hussie's explanation about the troll session dream planets does imply it. He only calls out Karkat (Knight) and Vriska (Thief) as acting active despite being Prospit dreamers, implying that the session's other four Prospit classes (Bard, Seer, Page, and Sylph) are passive and thus that Maid and Mage (both Derse dreamers) are active.
|
|
|
Post by vaiyt on Jun 7, 2016 14:57:52 GMT
First question: The one Sylph we see doing things with her powers looked pretty active to me, and besides I paired it with the Seer, one of the most passive classes. It was, admittedly, the most difficult class to place, and I mostly based it on Aranea - using her extensive knowledge of Caliborn's story to make happen just what needed to happen in order to doom his timeline (or so she thought). Could it not be the case that it is the Light Aspect that deals with Knowledge? Sure, but then again there is some redundancy in aspect and class combinations sometimes - like how any active Doom (and maybe Time) players may look like destructor classes because of the nature of their aspect, or how Void makes some classes do the opposite of what they should do (void stealers make things appear by stealing from non-existence, and it seems that void pages have to stop trying to do everything in order to actually grow within their role). The precious little scraps of evidence we've been given about the classes just isn't enough to close the picture. I'm pretty sure I'm wrong - but nobody can really claim to be right.
|
|
|
Post by vaiyt on Jun 7, 2016 15:02:35 GMT
There should be a female exclusive pair of classes to balance out the male exclusive Prince/Bard, but with these pairings that is impossible. The only three female exclusive candidates are Maid, Sylph, and Witch, and you've paired all of them with other classes. One of the things that make me think it's not the canon is that it's so close to actually be symmetrical on the male-female arrangement but it's not
|
|
|
Post by obsidalicious on Jun 7, 2016 22:37:32 GMT
Sure, but then again there is some redundancy in aspect and class combinations sometimes - like how any active Doom (and maybe Time) players may look like destructor classes because of the nature of their aspect, or how Void makes some classes do the opposite of what they should do (void stealers make things appear by stealing from non-existence, and it seems that void pages have to stop trying to do everything in order to actually grow within their role). My point is that there's a very plausible reason for Aranea's emphasis on Knowledge that isn't based on her Class, and thus trying to fit Knowledge into the Sylph's definition isn't necessary, which just leaves us with the much more prominent Healing theme of theirs, which makes them a wholly inappropriate pairing for the Seer.
|
|
|
Post by silavor on Jun 7, 2016 22:47:20 GMT
My problem with Knight/Seer and Witch/Heir is a meta thing. We know from Hussie's tumblr posts that the active/passive pairings were some of the last parts of the Classpect system that he made, but our beta kids had their classpects from very early on in the story. It just seems like it would be simpler to make new classes to pair with the beta kids and give them to the other not-named-at-the-time trolls, rather than try to squeeze the beta kids into class pairs that they weren't originally designed for.
|
|
|
Post by heirloomairloom on Jun 8, 2016 0:17:49 GMT
My problem with Knight/Seer and Witch/Heir is a meta thing. We know from Hussie's tumblr posts that the active/passive pairings were some of the last parts of the Classpect system that he made, but our beta kids had their classpects from very early on in the story. It just seems like it would be simpler to make new classes to pair with the beta kids and give them to the other not-named-at-the-time trolls, rather than try to squeeze the beta kids into class pairs that they weren't originally designed for. The actual quote was "God tier stuff was not conceived early on, and so neither was the active/passive stuff," in response to someone asking specifically about Acts 1 and 2. Also note that Hussie usually uses "god tier" to where fans would say "classpect." So he would have had plenty of time to come up with class definitions that were paired with each other if that's the route he wanted to go.
|
|
|
Post by amiabletemplar on Jun 8, 2016 6:09:02 GMT
My problem with Knight/Seer and Witch/Heir is a meta thing. We know from Hussie's tumblr posts that the active/passive pairings were some of the last parts of the Classpect system that he made, but our beta kids had their classpects from very early on in the story. It just seems like it would be simpler to make new classes to pair with the beta kids and give them to the other not-named-at-the-time trolls, rather than try to squeeze the beta kids into class pairs that they weren't originally designed for. Whereas to me, it seems simpler that the original concepts were intentionally designed to be foils to each other in various ways, and therefore because of their natural associations with each other, Hussie hit upon the idea of having "active" and "passive" classes that could be descriptively paired. From there, he added as many pairs as he felt appropriate, ending with 12 because there were 12 two-letter genetic permutations left unused (after accounting for John's gT->eB switch). More simply put: I think it was because of Hussie designing these characters before the idea of discrete classes and aspects, that the whole system of classes and aspects came about. Thus, many features that became important and prominent originated in the "core four"--potentially including the idea of classes paired by a verb descriptor. It also doesn't hurt my position one bit that Seer of Light can be (not has to be, but can be) parsed as literally "seer of sight," and Knight of Time (under my chosen verb) is a literal Watch Man in both senses of the term (that is, both verb and noun--to guard, and the item that keeps track of time).
|
|
|
Post by heirloomairloom on Jun 8, 2016 11:50:18 GMT
Whereas to me, it seems simpler that the original concepts were intentionally designed to be foils to each other in various ways, and therefore because of their natural associations with each other, Hussie hit upon the idea of having "active" and "passive" classes that could be descriptively paired. From there, he added as many pairs as he felt appropriate, ending with 12 because there were 12 two-letter genetic permutations left unused (after accounting for John's gT->eB switch). More simply put: I think it was because of Hussie designing these characters before the idea of discrete classes and aspects, that the whole system of classes and aspects came about. Thus, many features that became important and prominent originated in the "core four"--potentially including the idea of classes paired by a verb descriptor. It also doesn't hurt my position one bit that Seer of Light can be (not has to be, but can be) parsed as literally "seer of sight," and Knight of Time (under my chosen verb) is a literal Watch Man in both senses of the term (that is, both verb and noun--to guard, and the item that keeps track of time). I think we can look to original four Aspects for insight here. Of those, Space and Time are a pair but Breath and Light aren't. So we can see that while Hussie isn't adverse to taking pre-existing parts of the system and pairing them off, he's not married to the idea either. (Alternatively, Aspect pairings could have been planned from the start, with him originally intending for Breath to represent what Void does now. The conclusion remains the same though.)
|
|
|
Post by obsidalicious on Jun 8, 2016 21:16:51 GMT
I think we can look to original four Aspects for insight here. Of those, Space and Time are a pair but Breath and Light aren't. So we can see that while Hussie isn't adverse to taking pre-existing parts of the system and pairing them off, he's not married to the idea either. (Alternatively, Aspect pairings could have been planned from the start, with him originally intending for Breath to represent what Void does now. The conclusion remains the same though.) There is a talk on how Hussie arrived at those Aspects. He was looking for building blocks of reality, and on the physical, literal side he came up with Space and Time, nothing too unusual there, and the other two he got from Abrahamic Creation Myths, in particular how God said "Let there be Light" and how he Breathed life into the first people. At the time he obviously wasn't going for pairing, and when he got around to pairing, there's really no good way to relate Light and Breath together while Space and Time intuitively go together as physical dimensions. As for your second point, looking at the origins of Breath, it's more conceivable to me that, if anything, Breath was originally going to be more to do with Spirit and/or Life, both of which later got filled by Heart and Life. This doesn't prove or disprove your point, just putting the info out there.
|
|
|
Post by amiabletemplar on Jun 9, 2016 0:25:49 GMT
Whereas to me, it seems simpler that the original concepts were intentionally designed to be foils to each other in various ways, and therefore because of their natural associations with each other, Hussie hit upon the idea of having "active" and "passive" classes that could be descriptively paired. From there, he added as many pairs as he felt appropriate, ending with 12 because there were 12 two-letter genetic permutations left unused (after accounting for John's gT->eB switch). More simply put: I think it was because of Hussie designing these characters before the idea of discrete classes and aspects, that the whole system of classes and aspects came about. Thus, many features that became important and prominent originated in the "core four"--potentially including the idea of classes paired by a verb descriptor. It also doesn't hurt my position one bit that Seer of Light can be (not has to be, but can be) parsed as literally "seer of sight," and Knight of Time (under my chosen verb) is a literal Watch Man in both senses of the term (that is, both verb and noun--to guard, and the item that keeps track of time). I think we can look to original four Aspects for insight here. Of those, Space and Time are a pair but Breath and Light aren't. So we can see that while Hussie isn't adverse to taking pre-existing parts of the system and pairing them off, he's not married to the idea either. (Alternatively, Aspect pairings could have been planned from the start, with him originally intending for Breath to represent what Void does now. The conclusion remains the same though.) Fully agreed--I had even considered making the point myself, but thought it might be excessive. Despite my wordiness, I give at least a little effort to being more concise! We can draw a similar analogy to the 'thematic name' discussion. Thief/Rogue is very clearly a thematic name pairing, which shows that such pairings are possible. But Lord/Muse and Prince/Bard are nothing like that--they're certainly not synonyms the way Thief and Rogue are, and any connection between the members of each pair is tenuous and debatable, exactly the opposite of the clear, obvious Thief/Rogue pairing. (The further absence of the most rational pair other than Thief/Rogue, namely Prince/Heir, is also a major problem.) Thus, it is fair to conclude that, while such word-thematic pairings are possible, they are not required, either. Using the name-meaning of a class is unreliable in both directions, because it doesn't guarantee that two classes are paired, but it doesn't guarantee they're not paired, either. In the "pair by meaning" discussion, I'm on the opposite side; I think name meaning is worthless as a guide, partially because of what Calliope told us (emphasis added):
However, there's a very important distinction between the two things. With the "pair by name meaning" thing, I am opposed to the position that meaning is definitive evidence of a pairing. I have absolutely nothing against it happening to be the case that a valid pair is also a pair where the word-meanings are closely linked--I just don't think anyone should be faulted for not using name-meaning as a key element of analysis. Contrariwise, on the "pairing of B1 classes" thing, I am constantly confronted by people who assert that they absolutely cannot be paired, because their titles pre-dated some or all of the systematic class-aspect...thing. All I am arguing for is that there is nothing wrong with pairing B1 classes, that it is a convenient result, a nice "perk" rather than solid "evidence" of pairing. Meaning, again, I don't think anyone should be faulted for doing it. I don't see "they were present in B1 together" as proof of pairing, but I don't see it as even a vaguely helpful disproof of pairing, either.
|
|
|
Post by Neptz on Jun 9, 2016 0:35:22 GMT
I always wondered why the classes and aspects can't be literal (well, aspects can be literal in powers). Although, thinking it over, some classes would be weird if taken literally.
|
|
|
Post by obsidalicious on Jun 9, 2016 4:03:59 GMT
I always wondered why the classes and aspects can't be literal (well, aspects can be literal in powers). Although, thinking it over, some classes would be weird if taken literally. For the Classes, we already know that it's not the case, as the Bard is nothing like a bard in function. Aspects tend to be a little more literal/straightforward, but I think Breath probably entails a little more than just the aerobic respiration of organic lifeforms.
|
|
|
Post by amiabletemplar on Jun 9, 2016 11:01:26 GMT
I always wondered why the classes and aspects can't be literal (well, aspects can be literal in powers). Although, thinking it over, some classes would be weird if taken literally. Trying to be succinct: They can be literal, but aren't limited to literal. "Literal" is also sort of a vague concept, here. "Literal" Breath is "air going into or out of the lungs of a living creature." "Literal" Blood is stuff flowing in a creature's circulatory system. "Literal" Light is made of up many quanta of electromagnetic radiation. Etc. If we restricted things just to the most scrupulously, perfectly "literal" things, the aspects would mostly be worthless. The way I see it, classes, aspects, and all of that stuff...they exist as symbols, as bundles of literary concepts. Roles...archetypes...mythic concepts...all of these things are the "stuff" of which classes and aspects are made. Classes have an additional layer, in that they need to have game mechanics in addition to simply having conceptual associations. But because both classes and aspects deal heavily in symbolism and story, they really can't be strictly literal things--because symbols are almost never literal, and stories are only slightly less literal, on the whole. Metaphor, substitution, and allegory are extremely important elements of symbolism and story, and every single one is a non-literal association.
|
|