Hello!!! : D I’d like to start off by saying I’m loving your character analyses so far!!! They’re extremely interesting and you make a ton of good points. ^u^ I was thinking, maybe it’s symbolic of the fact that Jane and Roxy were unable to form romantic bonds with Jake and Dirk ((not just bonds in general)), whereas Jake and Dirk entered a relationship with one another??
And I’ve always figured that the active/passive classes had to do with the way they interact with their aspects. So someone with an active class would have direct control over their aspect while a passive player would have indirect control over their aspect- their aspect is affecting them rather than being affected by them. I don’t think knights are a passive class because that would throw off the balance of the beta session. According to the general consensus, witches are active, seers are passive, and heirs are passive as well.
The session would most likely have two of each, just as there are equal gender ratios in each session. The cherub session and both of the troll sessions have equal numbers of passive and active players, as well. If we keep the “pages are passive” idea, the alpha session is balanced as well, with a passive player of each gender and an active player of each gender, like the beta session. Not sure if my views on the passive and active classes are true, of course, that’s just how I’ve always seen them. ^u^
Heya! First off, thanks a ton for the messages and sorry it took me so long–it’s been a busy couple days. That’s an interesting point with regards to Jake and Dirk and I’m inclined to accept it if for no other reason than….im gay.
As to Classpects: For the longest time, I felt that way too. The problem with the view as I see it is basically that I don’t really see how it makes sense with Pages–they clearly have control over their Aspect, and in fact only really seem to pull things off when they operate on their own WILLS as well as their control.
I’m about to post an updated and fleshed out version of the Knights vs. Pages argument as part of reposting Love, Faith and Fantasy as a shorter series, so I won’t get into it too much–but basically, the view doesn’t really square with Pages for me, nor necessarily Passive classes as a rule, at least not in all cases.
Aranea lit him up, but she didn’t ask for a Brain Ghost Dirk–that was all Jake, and it was what Jake wanted to do specifically. Jake activates his powers willingly to face Caliborn, too. Tavros communes with his own knowledge and awareness and wins over trolls the same way.
It’s arguably Karkat who just so happens to form relationships with people without even being aware he’s doing it–as with his incredibly implausible victory against Clover.
But basically, I don’t think the Aspect acting “through” the player is the most important criteria for determining whether a class is Active or Passive. I think the description Calliope gives about thieves/rogues acting “for themselves” or “for others” is much more important, and even there Calliope says the situation is much more complicated than it seems at first glance.
Using that core definition, I say Knights act “for others” and Pages act “for themselves”, and that’s really the whole of my argument. As for it destablizing the active/passive ratios, I agree that that bothered me too…until I realized the WAY it destablizes them means each Sburb session challenges it’s group of players in the most unfair way.
The session that calls for constant action and frenetic pace gets three passive players. The session that calls for patience, no activity, and thinking about your co-players and forming stable bonds gets three active players. Seems to me like that’s in line with Sburb’s sometimes unfair sense of humor, especially given it’s something they’re meant to rise above, not fall prey to.
Like I said though, I’m making a post about this that should make this case much more strongly. I hope I’ll be able to hear what you have to say then once again. Thanks! 🙂
Flying through Storytelling 