Fuck I had a realization
I was reminded last night that Calliope had referred to passive/active classes with a +/- designation– passive is +, active is -. I think this has been a kind of enduring fandom mystery, as to why she chose + for passive and – for active, rather than, say, the other way around? Or why use +/- for this concept at all??
But I was thinking about this question and it hit me like a fucking thunderstroke.
Batteries.
Batteries!!!!
A battery is composed of, and I am likely simplifying this greatly due to my limited understanding but stick with me here, an anode with a negative charge (-) and a cathode with a positive charge (+). The anode has an excess of electrons, which creates an imbalance in a system that really really wants to be balanced. The cathode has relatively few electrons, which makes it the perfect place for all those excess electrons in the anode to go so they can correct the imbalance. When the anode and the cathode are connected, the electrons flow from the anode to the cathode, creating a circuit– and that’s the magic that makes batteries work!
Active and passive classes are distinguished in a number of possible ways, but to my understanding, they can by and large be explained this way: active classes act, passive classes react. Active classes are the source from which most of the action flows, but passive classes facilitate and allow the action to be. In this way, they’re a lot like the anode and the cathode– one being the font of influence, the other being its conduit.
I would super love if dyed-in-the-wool classpect theorycrafters could tell me what they think of this idea, because I mostly just read and very rarely contribute to this sort of discussion. But I THINK I’m on to something here.
Huh, that makes sense.
Good observation. It kind of bashes the theory that active classes are inherently self-aggrandizing and all the actions are directed towards the self and that passive classes are directed toward others as support. Good job!
Well, that certainly wasn’t my intent. My hope was that it could be largely compatible with other passive/active theorizing I had been reading, including that one, but particularly with the Daoist reading– passive/+ as yin and active/- as yang– which was a major inspiration for this post and totally dovetails with the battery metaphor imo. (i am basically indirectly @’ing @revolutionaryduelist here so i may as well @ them directly– this idea came to me while reading up on their classpect writing.)
There’s a decent amount of wiggle room here, I think, so there’s no need to define these terms too strictly. I vastly prefer viewing these sorts of things cooperatively versus competitively. 😀
I’m inclined to agree with this completely. I think someone once told me something similar but I didn’t quite get it at the time, actually? But yeah this seems like it makes sense to me, thanks for bringing it up!
It doesn’t really conflict with the selfish/selfless readings for me, either.
Calliope says the active/passive dichotomy is complex and can mean many different things, and I regard the selfish/selfless thing as being indicative of a broad trend or a habitual default for the character, not a hard rule.
Another way to understand the division is that Active classes are simply more self-defined and self-focused, so their impacts on reality emerge much more from within themselves and their willingness to force reality into their ideal shape.
Passive classes tend to conform more to the status quo and tend to act to return stability to a disturbed/unbalanced system, so they’re more sensitive to the influences and nuances of the world around them.
It’s also worth noting that both the Selfish and Selfless extremes are just indicative of trends, in my view. A healthy example of any kind of player will ultimately just come to understand their own thought patterns and reach a balance that works for them & those around them, not just blindly revel in the satisfaction of their natural affinity.
This is worth clearing up for me since apparently I’ve given some the impression that, like, Jake being a selfish jerk to Dirk is perfectly ok because thats just his Class? So it’s worth clarifying that I just think it’s understandable, rooted in actual desire for Dirk and his company, and is a problem they can both work out over time.
This turned into talking about dirkjake again of course so im gonna stop here but bottom line is: good post op i dig this
Flying through Storytelling 