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

[Kage]

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]

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]

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

[ZindelloTarantella]

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]

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

 

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.

[Kage]

Could someone give me a quote where "thieves can't be heroes" was said? Cause people keep saying it and I have seen nothing that says that is why Rogue is Rogue and not Thief.

[C'kayah Polaali]

I'm actually pretty happy with the idea that the Rogue class isn't going to turn into something called "thief", but not for YoshiP's reasons. He's got some strange unwillingness to cop to certain realities of his world, which leads him to not want to have something called a "thief" as canon. From my point of view, though, a thief isn't a class. It's an occupation.

 

C'kayah, for instance, is ICly a poor conjurer, a reasonable swordsman, and a decent archer. But he is also a thief.

 

Of course, when Rogue comes out, I'm jumping on it like a junkie on a fix. But don't worry, Madda. C's not going to be that kind of rogue. He's going to be this kind of rogue:

 

[Kellach Woods]

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.

And as Locke would tell you - HE'S A TREASURE HUNTER and not a thief.

 

Also, I think they wanted to avoid Thief because it's an actual job featured in the previous games, whereas Rogue isn't. Notice how far they went to differentiate the starting classes from the jobs that have far more traditional names as they're using those for jobs even if the jobs themselves are sometimes using features from other jobs. (I'd associate Warrior/Fighter with Berserker more than what it is!)

 

Like, the closest you can say would be Archer, and it's always been Ranger. I don't see anyone raising a stink about that.

 

Also, nobody's using Shaman so why wouldn't you not use Thief if you really wanted?

[Aldotsk]

I think Robin Hood is actually a good example of how a thief can be labeled as a hero. 

But honestly, I feel that rogues sound better than thieves because it has more wider option and perspective on what kind of occupation you'd have as a rogue.

 

You can be assassin rogue type, or stealing rogue type (in this case, it'd be thief. literally.) - Rogues can also be vigilantes easily comparing to pugilists, or archers (unless you want to be Green Arrow and like to shout "PLAYER, YOU HAVE FAILED THIS CITY") However, rogue type of characters were always the "hero" for locals and criminals, depending on what kind of path you choose. To be like Robin Hood, or become just a master thief, become Ezio Auditore, or just a scoundrel that likes to bully people. 

 

I am sure some RPers don't just want to be called thieves for their created characters, but rather "rebel" type, like rogue. For ninja and thief analogy, just because Goemon historically was a thief and a ninja, doesn't mean all ninjas are thieves. Ninjas were rather assassin type and spies. They would rather fit for Rogue type.

[Melkire]

Could someone give me a quote where "thieves can't be heroes" was said? Cause people keep saying it and I have seen nothing that says that is why Rogue is Rogue and not Thief.

 

That's the implied gist/connotation/whatever that was extrapolated from a statement that Yoshi made. Re: that statement, somehow no one thought this important enough to write down in their translations, instead summarizing Yoshi's exposition and leaving this bit out. >_>

 

Skip to approximately 23:00 in the video below.

 

"So you have the classes in FFXIV, they fit in with the story. Each class has their own guild and their own history. When we're thinking of creating a new class and a class that would have its own guild, you think thieves and that's more like petty thievery; you want something more solid."

 

 

 

People have been taking that, running with it, and I've been seeing/hearing arguments that go, "you can't have a thief in XIV, because thieving is bad!"

 

EDIT: Yes, I know that, not even a minute later, Yoshi goes on to state that rogues have evolved from thieves into this miniature society with a "thief history".