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

[Melkire]

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. Some folks, myself included, find this commentary 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.

 

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

 

1. 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's "Chosen Hero" 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 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.

 

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]

Bilbo Baggins was a burglar.  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]

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]

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.

 

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]

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.

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]

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. 

 

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. 

 

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

[Pumpkinweed]

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. 

[Coatleque]

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]

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.

[ZindelloTarantella]

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]

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:

 

[Verad]

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. 

 

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]

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]

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.

 

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?

 

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]

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.  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?

 

 

 

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. 

 

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.

[Myxie Tryxle]

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]

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. 

 

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.

[ZindelloTarantella]

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.  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?

 

 

 

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. 

 

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

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]

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]

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.

[Guest Ragnar]

 

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.