RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes

Melkire · **09-11-2014, 03:50 PM**

So by now everyone in this community is (or ought to be) aware that the FFXIV development team is coming out with the Rogue class and the advanced Ninja job.

Unfortunately, there was developer commentary, relayed by Yoshi P, no less, that heavily implied that thieves, as opposed to rogues, won't work in a setting like XIV's.Â Some folks, myself included, find this commentaryÂ disconcerting, not only because Thief is a staple of Final Fantasy (been around since the first game, pops up repeatedly, nearly as iconic as WHM/BLM) but because of the resulting impact on flavor and consequently on roleplay in this setting.

TheÂ disconnect between thieves and the XIV setting, as I understand it (and I am paraphrasing) seems to come down to two concepts:

1.Â Thieves cannot be heroes.
2. The city-states of Eorzea would not tolerate a thieves' guild.

The first is a common enough extrapolation from commentary (if someone could find me the relevant video of the E3 interview, I would appreciate it; it seems to have not made the transition from livestream to recorded video, or else I can't find it) that thieves are somehow not heroic; why would anyone choose to be a thief when they are the main character, the hero? This comes back around to XIV'sÂ "Chosen Hero"Â narrative. It's an understandable stance to take given that choice of narrative, even if it's dismissive and a case of painting with broad strokes: thieves have, on numerous occasions including within the FF series, been romanticized as heroes. To throw out the entire robbery aspect implies that stealing and heroism are somehow mutually exclusive.

The second isÂ so mind-bogglingly narrow a view that I, personally, can't comprehend how they came to such a conclusion. True, the city-states of Limsa Lominsa, Ul'dah, and Gridania would never stand for an officially sanctioned thieves' guild... but who said it had to be officially sanctioned? In the vast majority of fantasy settings, thieves, when they've banded together in some semblance of organization, have been at odds with the authorities of their place of residence. Their guilds, gangs, whatever - they move about. They hide, and then they either keep moving or else they keep to their hidey-holes until they're forced to move. It's disheartening to think that the XIV developers don't believeÂ they could have gone with an unofficial, unsanctioned thieves' guild. It robs the cities of flavor and does the setting a disservice by shrinking the world further, because the argument eventually comes back around to, "oh, well, they wouldn't stand for it, so they'd stomp them out"... which implies that the cities are small enough andÂ the authorities well-manned enough to enforce order on such a large scale.

The impact that this implication has on the setting is pervasive: Limsa, for example, is suddenly as small as it now appears to be in 2.x, and the Maelstrom and Yellowjackets have the manpower to shut down any such scandalous activity. So: no pirates, no thieves, etc. Suddenly Limsa is a duller place, as opposed to how it's seen by the roleplayers who've given it so much more character on top of the foundation that Square Enix laid down.

There's some hope in the possibility that Thief might be a secondary Job for Rogue, further down the line. Given that it's an iconic staple, this would fit in well with WHM, BLM, WAR (Fighter), PLD (Knight), BRD, NIN, etc. That said, given that NIN is going to be a DPS role, I personally can't see them adding to a class a second Job that will occupy the same role and creative space as the first Job.

Thoughts? Opinions? Rebuttals?

Askier · **09-11-2014, 03:57 PM**

Bilbo Baggins was a burglar. Â He stole stole things. He was a hero.

Robin Hood. Stole things. Prince of Thieves. Was a hero.

I could keep going but I find this silly. Thieves can be heroes. It should be thief because its Final Fantasy. I dont get how this is a problem. Thieves arent okay but ninjas that sneak into houses and murder innocent people are somehow heroic. . . Did I miss something here?

Besides when I hear rogue all I think is World of Warcraft . . .

Coatleque · **09-11-2014, 04:01 PM**

(09-11-2014, 03:57 PM)Askier Wrote: Besides when I hear rogue all I think is World of Warcraft . . .

The original concept class was "Thief" in just about every RPG on the market. But that name has the negative connotation of someone who steals private property. Obviously a bad thing in a capitalistic society.

Therefore the Politically Correct term is now "Rogue" which is more of a scoundrel and less of an out-right criminal.

Melkire · **09-11-2014, 04:04 PM**

(09-11-2014, 04:01 PM)Coatleque Wrote:
(09-11-2014, 03:57 PM)Askier Wrote: Besides when I hear rogue all I think is World of Warcraft . . .

The original concept class was "Thief" in just about every RPG on the market. Â But that name has the negative connotation of someone who steals private property. Â Obviously a bad thing in a capitalistic society.

Therefore the Politically Correct term is now "Rogue" which is more of a scoundrel and less of an out-right criminal.

Political correctness is a pox on today's society, especially when it starts negatively impacting something as harmless as entertainment.

inb4 someone brings up the Columbine/Doom incident and I tear that decades-old fallacious argument into shreds.

Berrod Armstrong · **09-11-2014, 04:06 PM**

(09-11-2014, 04:01 PM)Coatleque Wrote:
(09-11-2014, 03:57 PM)Askier Wrote: Besides when I hear rogue all I think is World of Warcraft . . .

The original concept class was "Thief" in just about every RPG on the market. Â But that name has the negative connotation of someone who steals private property. Â Obviously a bad thing in a capitalistic society.

Therefore the Politically Correct term is now "Rogue" which is more of a scoundrel and less of an out-right criminal.

It's just something they decided to weave into the setting really. Things change -- it may not be the change we envision or find ideal, but as creative people we can always find ways to work with it.

It's true that all the other FF games have featured thief in some form or the other -- but the rogue is just this world's form. Doing it differently for once doesn't mean they're doing it wrong, even if it doesn't match up to our expectations and logic. They write the world, their word is law. Who knows, there may be some cultural reason they can't do it this time around and are using an in-universe reason as an excuse.

I think it'd be wise for us to lay down our expectations and go forward with an open mind. That way, we can truly enjoy whatever they bring us!

Oscare · **09-11-2014, 04:06 PM**

I'm going to have to agree with Askier. Throughout history AND in folklores, there are several instances of thieves being heroes, hell, it even happened in Final Fantasy VI with Locke who stole for the better good rather than pillage and kill out of hunger.Â

Now I do remember hearing that the three city states do frown upon thinking their city now has a "Thief's Guild", that's something on a moral ground. However, I think if we're morally speaking, only Ul'dah and Gridania would really care. Ul'dah have paladins, who I'm positive wouldn't appreciate a guild specialized in people trained in picking locks and robbing people blind is right around the corner. But look at Limsa Lominsa.

They're mother fucking PIRATES. I'm pretty sure pirates steal and don't even give it a second thought. And the Arcanists wouldn't care either, much less the Marauders.Â

I dunno, I'm kind of peeved about their choice of rogue-ninja instead of thief-ninja.

Pumpkinweed · **09-11-2014, 04:10 PM**

I thought I heard that the guild for learning to be a rogue/ninja was kind of conspicuous in its operation?

Therefore, if it's say... a hunting clan's headquarters on paper - but they are training thieves, then so long as it's kept under wraps, it can officially exist.

And the first rule I think for usually any person who steals is to not promote that they are a thief. Most of the time, heroes in this role call themselves 'treasure hunter' or even 'burglar' like Bilbo. Conan is also a prime example, but he was so awesome that he could go around calling himself the king of thieves.

I dunno. I think anyone has the capacity to be a hero, especially thieves. Just be quiet about what you do.Â Tongue

Coatleque · **09-11-2014, 04:13 PM**

(09-11-2014, 04:04 PM)Melkire Wrote: Political correctness is a pox on today's society...

Eh, I was merely extrapolating the why of it. Not saying I agree. For my part I do hope I see a lot of thieves being role-played. I don't typically play that class myself.

Also, the term "rogue" already encompasses "pirate" within its meaning. But now that there will be a ninja class and it is established that there are pirates in Limsa, I foresee a "ninja vs pirate" battle in the future.

Oscare · **09-11-2014, 04:17 PM**

Honestly, I do plan on having Oscare be a rogue, but I'm probably going to write him more of a hunter (as per usual), not a rogue. Probably closer to a thief. I also want to see their gear.

I'm hoping to see more of like, Locke type stuff from FF6. But with ninja, I think we can expect more of glossy, reflective skintight suits. Stuff like, scarves, bandannas, leather garbs/jackets. But I'm probably too hopeful.

CrookedTarot · **09-11-2014, 04:32 PM**

About why Ninjas (which yes, are spies and assassins) are 'OK' is because the game is made by SquareEnix.

What is SquareEnix? A JAPANESE based company.

Where did Ninjas originate from?

That's right. BELGIUM. Obviously we are seeing SquareEnix doing that gushing that all companies do about the glories of the Belgian ninjas and their mark on history.

No, but seriously, that is why ninjas are a-okay. Because it's a cultural thing. It's like expecting an MMO made by Americans, set in a modern setting to NOT have a 'soldier' class or a 'commando'.

But let's look at this 'open-mind' thing. Yes. I will accept whatever is given to me and yes 'Rogue' is a polite term for 'Thief'. but you know that 'rogue' is still more or less associated with someone who skirts the law and does what they please. There's a reason why rogues in D&D (until recently) were never allowed to be Lawful. Rogues are not associated, simply put, with being people who follow they law.

As said before, Final Fantasy has a rich tradition of thieves. Zidane Tribal didn't even bother to call himself a 'treasure hunter'. He was a thief and a kidnapper. Granted, again, he did it for 'good' reasons but the fact remains he was breaking the law and took things that didn't belong to him.

Yes, it's nice to see their 'own take on it' but the fact remains that this is a series with a tradition. We're not talking about turning dragoons from being lancers into men and women that use flails and maces. We are talking about something as simple as five letters.

Five letters separates us from a proud legacy of characters and lore that we, the players have loved and expected from the beginning.

Yuffie was a thief AND a ninja.

Rikku was a Mechanist and a thief.

Hell just about ANYONE could be a Thief in any of the free-form class choosing games.

So why here? Why now? Why, after twenty-something years are they NOW putting down their foot on what is arguably their most ambitious world-building project?

And on a personal note, though obviously this has nothing to do with the creators, Tarot is not a rogue. He's not a (well not entirely) a treasure hunter.

He's a Thief. He's a scoundrel that takes things that don't belong to him for his own reasons. He may be a roguish knave, but he is NOT a Rogue.

Madda · **09-11-2014, 04:35 PM**

Rogues / Thief classes don't always have to be evil or pickpockets. Madda knows a Rogue in WoW who started as an orphan (generic) who found he was best suited for daggers and then learned how to fight in this order, using quick movements and stealth to help him fight.

But Thieves can be heroes, as most of anyone. It's just a matter of perspective.

But Madda will avoid you 24/7 if you make your ninja this guy:

[Image: UZUMAKI_NARUTO_RENDER_0030.png]

Verad · **09-11-2014, 04:38 PM**

(09-11-2014, 03:50 PM)undefined Wrote: The second isÂ so mind-bogglingly narrow a view that I, personally, can't comprehend how they came to such a conclusion. True, the city-states of Limsa Lominsa, Ul'dah, and Gridania would never stand for an officially sanctioned thieves' guild... but who said it had to be officially sanctioned? In the vast majority of fantasy settings, thieves, when they've banded together in some semblance of organization, have been at odds with the authorities of their place of residence. Their guilds, gangs, whatever - they move about. They hide, and then they either keep moving or else they keep to their hidey-holes until they're forced to move. It's disheartening to think that the XIV developers don't believeÂ they could have gone with an unofficial, unsanctioned thieves' guild. It robs the cities of flavor and does the setting a disservice by shrinking the world further, because the argument eventually comes back around to, "oh, well, they wouldn't stand for it, so they'd stomp them out"... which implies that the cities are small enough andÂ the authorities well-manned enough to enforce order on such a large scale.

The impact that this implication has on the setting is pervasive: Limsa, for example, is suddenly as small as it now appears to be in 2.x, and the Maelstrom and Yellowjackets have the manpower to shut down any such scandalous activity. So: no pirates, no thieves, etc. Suddenly Limsa is a duller place, as opposed to how it's seen by the roleplayers who've given it so much more character on top of the foundation that Square Enix laid down.Â

I feel like this is perhaps exaggerating the impact of the second claim. You are correct that a thieves' guild needn't be officially sanctioned, but you ignore your prior understanding that the developers have a specific type of narrative in mind for the setting, however dismissive you may find that.

Part of that narrative is that the adventurer's guilds are legitimate organizations, and the various Disciple classes products of officially sanctioned, legitimate enterprises. That the city-states wouldn't tolerate an unofficial thieves' guild says nothing about their manpower or ability to stamp out such groups. What it does say is that unofficial guilds would be unlikely to have doors open to the public, street signs advertising their location, and receptionists around to tell you about the nature of the guild and give you the option to join. This makes it difficult for such a guild to maintain the same structure and image provided by, well, every other guild in the game.

Perhaps the city-states have that manpower, but perhaps they do not. Perhaps they only have enough to make it that such a guild would be forced underground, as it likely would be anyways. This would still mean that such a guild could exist, but it would deviate from the aforementioned structure above. Thus, it doesn't get included, and the statement about not "standing" for something is an IC fig-leaf, and not indicative of actual ability to shut such a thing down.

I just don't think this narrows the setting in the way you're describing, and that you're drawing conclusions from it that are a bit of a leap.

Sophia_Grave · **09-11-2014, 04:41 PM**

I've always figured it was just a poor excuse for not having Thieves, because it pretty much is. The real reason is probably something more game-y. Personally, I feel there'd be a lot of overlap between Ninja and Thief in the current game. SE has already said a few times they aren't interested in support jobs, and supportive threat management is what differentiates them the most from something like a Rogue.

I didn't play too much of 11, but what is thief without its threat management skills? Just a ninja without magic, basically, no?

Melkire · **09-11-2014, 04:46 PM**

(09-11-2014, 04:38 PM)Verad Wrote: I feel like this is perhaps exaggerating the impact of the second claim.

Maybe. That's why I wanted others' input. I'm partial, so my viewpoint is skewed due to bias.

(09-11-2014, 04:38 PM)Verad Wrote: Part of that narrative is that the adventurer's guilds are legitimate organizations, and the various Disciple classes products of officially sanctioned, legitimate enterprises. That the city-states wouldn't tolerate an unofficial thieves' guild says nothing about their manpower or ability to stamp out such groups. What it does say is that unofficial guilds would be unlikely to have doors open to the public, street signs advertising their location, and receptionists around to tell you about the nature of the guild and give you the option to join. This makes it difficult for such a guild to maintain the same structure and image provided by, well, every other guild in the game.

Perhaps the city-states have that manpower, but perhaps they do not. Perhaps they only have enough to make it that such a guild would be forced underground, as it likely would be anyways. This would still mean that such a guild could exist, but it would deviate from the aforementioned structure above. Thus, it doesn't get included, and the statement about not "standing" for something is an IC fig-leaf, and not indicative of actual ability to shut such a thing down.

In other words, because such a guild would deviate from the same newcomer-friendly and readily-found structure that, OoC, allows for players to easily locate them, sign up, etc. ... then the developers won't bother?

That's understandable, if lazy. Then again, many a development team prove lazy these days... not that the XIV team is necessarily that. Just... wait, do they even have a lore department? They do, right?

(09-11-2014, 04:38 PM)Verad Wrote: I just don't think this narrows the setting in the way you're describing, and that you're drawing conclusions from it that are a bit of a leap.

Lore-wise, the existence of an officially sanctioned rogue's guild could possibly come, in time, to obviate any semblance of organized crime. Wouldn't take more than a few sentences from someone like Merlwyb to establish that as canon.

Not that those of us who're adamant on roleplaying thieves will care. It's just... irritating? Irritating.

Enteris · **09-11-2014, 04:48 PM**

I'm not really seeing an issue here. Are you upset simply because the name isn't thief? The rogue, mechanics-wise, seems to play pretty much how a thief would/did in every iteration of Final Fantasy that they existed within.

The rogue, for all intents and purposes, is a thief. The only difference is in the name. Â Perhaps the word "thief" has a more criminal connotation to it than "rogue" does, but as a roleplayer... does that matter? Can you not play a rogue and claim to be a thief? Is it truly necessary to have that THF tag on your character sheet?

(09-11-2014, 03:50 PM)Melkire Wrote: The second is so mind-bogglingly narrow a view that I, personally, can't comprehend how they came to such a conclusion. True, the city-states of Limsa Lominsa, Ul'dah, and Gridania would never stand for an officially sanctioned thieves' guild... but who said it had to be officially sanctioned? In the vast majority of fantasy settings, thieves, when they've banded together in some semblance of organization, have been at odds with the authorities of their place of residence. Their guilds, gangs, whatever - they move about. They hide, and then they either keep moving or else they keep to their hidey-holes until they're forced to move. It's disheartening to think that the XIV developers don't believe they could have gone with an unofficial, unsanctioned thieves' guild. It robs the cities of flavor and does the setting a disservice by shrinking the world further, because the argument eventually comes back around to, "oh, well, they wouldn't stand for it, so they'd stomp them out"... which implies that the cities are small enough and the authorities well-manned enough to enforce order on such a large scale.

The impact that this implication has on the setting is pervasive: Limsa, for example, is suddenly as small as it now appears to be in 2.x, and the Maelstrom and Yellowjackets have the manpower to shut down any such scandalous activity. So: no pirates, no thieves, etc. Suddenly Limsa is a duller place, as opposed to how it's seen by the roleplayers who've given it so much more character on top of the foundation that Square Enix laid down.

The one point I can agree with, to an extent, is the impact on the cities themselves. That being said, there will still be a rogue's guild... and, short of the in game lore stating otherwise, one can easily roleplay that there is a shadier, seedier underside to the guild that focuses more on criminal activity.Â

TL; DR: It seems you have an issue of semantics when, at least to me, it seems this class is essentially going to play like a thief would, it's just being called a rogue (same as Knight turning into Paladin as you pointed out as well). The guild impact that you worry about may exist, but as roleplayers... there shouldn't be too much issue to work around there, either.

« Next Oldest \| Next Newest »
Pages (3): 1 2 3 Next »

Rogues as Opposed to Thieves: Impact on Flavor and Tangential Impact on RP

RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes