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

Myxie Tryxle · **09-11-2014, 04:48 PM**

As far as thieves' guilds being in the game, my understanding of the three city-states is thus:

Limsa is full of ex-pirates with a leader who is bribing them to walk the straight and narrow. There's a one-time opportunity for amnesty if you choose to become an upstanding citizen. Starting a thieves' guild means throwing that back in the Admiral's face, and you know she's going to answer that challenge.

Ul'dah already has an organized criminal element, the Syndicate. As far as thieves being heroes, there's plenty of opportunity here for the Robin Hood type of character, unlike in the other two city-states. The problem is the Syndicate would probably not support such a group, seeing them as competition, and I see no reason for the Flames to support them either, because how is a thieves' guild any better than the corporate thieves they're already dealing with (not to mention less legitimate)?

Gridania? No clue as it's my least favorite of the three city-states, but you've already got the Wood Wailers and the Godsbows, and I doubt either group would welcome a thieves' guild in Gridania.

And finally, who cares what they name the classes? A black mage can just as easily be called a wizard or sorcerer. A white mage could be a priest. A summoner could be a witch. A bard could be a hunter or ranger. You're free to improvise with the trappings of the game whatever you please as far as your character's RP goes, so long as it isn't so fantastically unbelievable that no one takes you seriously. I see no reason a rogue can't be a thief.

Verad · **09-11-2014, 04:51 PM**

(09-11-2014, 04:46 PM)undefined Wrote: 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.Â

I don't necessarily see it as lazy, but rather the way the devs want the setting to work. Their preference is to make sure that adventurers are seen as integrated and legitimate organization within the setting, and that even the "shady" ones have a sort of redeeming feature that grants them that legitimacy.

Rather than lazy, it's more like a clash of setting expectations. See also: every argument in World of Warcraft ever about the legal status of warlocks.

As for eliminating organized crime, I would applaud Merlwyb if she were able to do so in such a fashion. That's Vetinari levels of clever, right there, especially if she uses a similar system.

CrookedTarot · **09-11-2014, 04:51 PM**

(09-11-2014, 04:48 PM)Enteris Wrote: 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.

May I direct your attention to 'Fiddler on the Roof'?

'Tradition. Tradition. Because of our traditions, we have kept our balance for many, many years!'

The semantics are important in this case. It has always been a Thief. Square has never seen a reason to deviate from this, even when you could have easily called them a Rogue. They were a Thief in Game 1, they were a Thief in FF III (which is what 14 seems to be revolving around) and it's been Thief in title ever since then.

Drifter · **09-11-2014, 04:54 PM**

Only thing I have to add about how stupid it is that there is no thief (although I'm glad thief isn't a class, which still leaves the chance it could be added as a job) is the THF Moogle during the king mog fight. Clearly wearing the iconic THF hat. Clearly using a dagger and poison.

Enteris · **09-11-2014, 04:55 PM**

(09-11-2014, 04:51 PM)CrookedTarot Wrote: May I direct your attention to 'Fiddler on the Roof'?

'Tradition. Tradition. Because of our traditions, we have kept our balance for many, many years!'

The semantics are important in this case. It has always been a Thief. Square has never seen a reason to deviate from this, even when you could have easily called them a Rogue. They were a Thief in Game 1, they were a Thief in FF III (which is what 14 seems to be revolving around) and it's been Thief in title ever since then.

By that argument, Pugilist and Monk should be called black belt and master, but you don't take issue with that? Not that I would care either way as they're both classes/jobs/whatever that punch things in the face.

A name is a name... it shouldn't matter enough to make you change the way you play your character.

Kage · **09-11-2014, 04:56 PM**

Verad summed up my thoughts on the matter quite. To be honest, I see it as a non-issue. Honestly, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

It seems to work just like THF has, just... without the name.

Melkire · **09-11-2014, 05:00 PM**

My counter-argument to "semantics" and "non-issue" is that, if it truly doesn't matter... why aren't they calling it Thief?Â

I'd say it's because it does matter, and the distinction between the two, however seemingly minor, has a part in further developing the setting.

It's like WH40K fluff, in a way. Does it matter to the tabletop? No. Does it matter to the setting? Yes.

Oscare · **09-11-2014, 05:07 PM**

It seems to me that the developers would rather just call it rogue over thief, simply to prefer a more linear and direct, recognizable name. Sure, common sense dictates "oh, thief is just another name for rogue, which is a term I do recognize very often in the MMO universe", but I think they were more thinking "ah, that's rogue, a good old classic DoT based class". You also have to realize that this game is also going to OTHER countries, and who knows what THEIR input is on thieves as opposed to us who thinks "oh it's no big deal to call it thief".

I think I agree with Berrod most. If we just accept it as for what it is and with an open mind, we'll come to terms that it's not the end of the world over a silly name of a game class. Besides, when has OOC stuff ever stopped us roleplayers? Besides, you know, lore. Which isn't exactly OOC, kind of.

No matter what their reason is, there's nothing we can do to stop it. I may not agree with the name; but hey, as long as it's fun to play!

Kage · **09-11-2014, 05:12 PM**

I'm saying it's a non-issue to me. I could not care less about the name and I wholeheartedly accept Yoshi-p's explanation and lore for it.

I don't care that THF has been the iconic name for decades. FFXIV:ARR is not all of those FF games. I accept that according to Yoshi-p that all of the city states, who according to recent tidied up translations state that the Rogue guild would be present in all of them, would not want to officially promote a guild of Thieves. It's certainly not good for the merchants. They already got to deal with them pirates, who I remind you not -all- are allowed to rage rampart, or the Blades (some still face some type of retribution after all for being crooked. Some.)

I honestly see it as a nice way to roll and have fun. Back way alley of being supported officially in the cities but also stealin' it up.

**09-11-2014, 05:13 PM**

(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.

Kage · **09-11-2014, 05:18 PM**

(09-11-2014, 05:13 PM)Ragnar Wrote: 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.

Actually, I'm not good on Limsa lore and all that, but my understanding is that they were all a large crews separate and unorganized until they were essentially brought under one main banner. One example of a man being stamped on is the pirate in the Arcanist class quests. By all means he's a pirate and scoundrel, dealing with slaves and whatnot. He's still a "criminal and pirate." Some people seem to think this means that he could run rampant in Limsa but it's not the case and he's certainly on the wrong side of one authority.

I think their silly explanation for why there is no Thieve's Guild is just fine. They've basically said that the Rogue is Thief in all but name. I don't have an issue with their reasoning, though yes I do think it's "lazy" but eh. I also dislike a bunch of things.

Hiro · **09-11-2014, 05:39 PM**

Bilbo was more specifically titled a Burglar as he was hired to steal from the Dragon's Lair he himself opposed the title too. He accepted the term eventually, in fact he adopted Burglar which is a much more directed title, but honestly it could have easily been replaced with any relevant title: Rogue, Pick Pocket, Pilferer, Snitcher...

Robin Hood was also hailed much more as a Bandit type character than a Thief, the only thing being there was that Bandit is a much more menacing title than Thief especially in relation to his famed exploits.

I think people are a bit too focused on the title itself rather than the class. Which settles a bit odd to me given that Thief by definition applies to anyone who steals. Those who do not typically wear other titles. Rogue is a MUCH more encompassing word and, rather than being focused on a specific niche in the grayer areas of the moral/character compass, it allows for far more interpretations.

That being said, Rogue IMO is a far more negative as it is a pretty slanted towards a villainous or evil person(s), not really keeping to more romanticized terminology that (the Fantasy Genre) tends to associate with Scoundrel or Rogue. If we truly had to delve into accurate descriptors we'd probably be in line for: Knave or Rascal.

I see people shouting tradition, etc. However, a major piece of importance here: If they do not include the skills: Steal and/or Throw in very similar functions, it may as well not be a Thief by Final Fantasy "classic" standards, and honestly, I don't see either skill being remotely the same in FFXIV and staying true to the functionality they would otherwise have lead us to expect from them.

Melkire · **09-11-2014, 05:48 PM**

(09-11-2014, 05:39 PM)Hiro Wrote: If they do not include the skills: Steal and/or Throw in very similar functions, it may as well not be a Thief by Final Fantasy "classic" standards, and honestly, I don't see either skill being remotely the same in FFXIV and staying true to the functionality they would otherwise have lead us to expect from them.

As a side note to the overall discussion, Throw's been more of a Ninja skill than a Thief one, and it sorta-kinda already exists in XIV's PvP. =T

http://ffxiv.gamerescape.com/wiki/Weapon_Throw

CrookedTarot · **09-11-2014, 06:10 PM**

(09-11-2014, 04:55 PM)Enteris Wrote:
(09-11-2014, 04:51 PM)CrookedTarot Wrote: May I direct your attention to 'Fiddler on the Roof'?

'Tradition. Tradition. Because of our traditions, we have kept our balance for many, many years!'

The semantics are important in this case. It has always been a Thief. Square has never seen a reason to deviate from this, even when you could have easily called them a Rogue. They were a Thief in Game 1, they were a Thief in FF III (which is what 14 seems to be revolving around) and it's been Thief in title ever since then.

By that argument, Pugilist and Monk should be called black belt and master, but you don't take issue with that? Not that I would care either way as they're both classes/jobs/whatever that punch things in the face.

A name is a name... it shouldn't matter enough to make you change the way you play your character.

Pugilist is fine because it becomes Monk, a standard class name that has been around for a while. It was Monk in Final Fantasy I in most releases. It's been Monk in most every fantasy game. Pugilist is fine because it BECOMES the traditional class Monk. Just like Conjurer becomes White Mage and Thau becomes Black Mage.

Thief usually upgraded to Ninja. It's what it's always been.

So why is it not Rogue into Ninja with a promise, as good a promise as we can get that Rogue will NOT become Thief? And why shouldn't Thief be an advanced class? Monks are not some designated sect upheld by any given city beyond the destroyed one that for the time being holds no direct relevance to the plot? Monks are not some organized group in Ul'dah. They are rebels in and of themselves essentially.

So why can't Rogues become Thieves? Why can't there be an advanced class where the one who teaches you what you need is indeed a shady-shadester? Five letters, one title is not going to cause stagnation. If that's the case then White Mage should now be Cleric, Black Mage should be 'Sorcerer', Summoner should be Evoker and so on and so forth.

If it's good for the goose, why is it not good for the pick-pocketing gander?

What makes me so fussy about this is their logic. You know, sure, let's say 'It doesn't fit'. But don't give me some cock and bull story about how 'Thieves can't be heroes'. If assassins can be heroes then thieves can be too.

Tiergan · **09-11-2014, 06:40 PM**

I am in the "It's a non-issue" camp. While I would have personally liked to see them stick with Thief instead of Rogue in terms of naming scheme -- (I'm with Askier in that Rogue makes me think of WoW :V) I don't really see how the difference in name is really going to have that much of an impact on our RP, flavor-wise or not.

Like many people have said, we all know that Rogue is actually Thief just under a different name. There's very little stopping anyone from rolling up a rogue and just RPing them as a charming, sticky-handed thief. Anyone who would give you shit for it is likely someone you wouldn't want to RP with in the first place.

We'll never really know what Yoshi-P's true motivations were for deciding to go with the word Rogue. It could have been because he thought city-states wouldn't stand for a thieves' guild. Or because he felt the word rogue was more PC or maybe he looked at WoW and had a delusional moment where he thought the word rogue would be more popular with NA-audiences. At the end of the day, if your rogue character saunters up to me and acts like a thief, talks like a thief, and walks like a thief, I'm going to just accept that he or she is most likely a thief.

... and hug my gil purse closer to myself. :C

(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.

I feel like it's stretching things to say that suddenly Limsa is be much more dull, because due to Yoshi's comment, the city now has the manpower to shutdown a thieves guild that never existed in the first place. There are numerous quests in game that make it obvious that all the city-states, Limsa included, have a crime problem in one way or another. I don't think we should let what the city-states would have done in the hypothetical situation of a thieves guild existing dictate what our RP is like.

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