(09-11-2014, 03:50 PM)Melkire Wrote: 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.
Quick off topic: It seems I may be in a minority in this view, but I've never seen Limsa as a place full of pirates and thieves. I've always seen it as a very controlling military dictatorship and the free spirit of pirates no more than a facade to keep the groups in line. Let them believe they have more freedom than they really do, because it's an easy way to maintain control. I feel like were any group to step out of line they would be crushed pretty quickly.
Back on topic: Most of the arguments against this I feel are less a problem with the class and more with the name. Does it really matter what Square wants to call it? You can just refer to it any way you want to, most people will understand what you mean in PVE and everybody will know what you mean in RP.
Do I think the reasons Square gave are silly? Yes. Absolutely, but I think the argument that it's tradition is equally as silly. Demanding something be added solely because it's tradition leads to stagnation. I realize that in this case it's harmless tradition, adding Thief just to please fans won't hurt the game, but it really doesn't add anything either since this game doesn't seem to have support classes or plan to. I'd rather they spend time working on other classes and content than making another DPS class that would very likely play the same as Rogue.
In short, call Rogue, Thief if you want to roleplay a thief. Both use knives.
