Unifying Myths: Thief/Rogue – Pirates & Outlaws

image

For the time being, I think Thieves and Rogues are better fleshed out than Princes and Bards, and the imagery surrounding them is quite a bit clearer.
So this is going to be a shorter post, but I still think we’ll cover some interesting consistent elements to Thief and Rogue players. And maybe a bit more?

And as with our post on Royalty, we’ll start with a case of Roleplay rather than focusing on the classes themselves. Specifically, I want to look at Aranea’s mad power grab, because it tells us some interesting stuff about how ancestral figures work. 

image
image


Namely, that it seems to have as much to do with the consumers’ interpretation as anything inherent to the mythic figure. To Vriska–a Thief–, emulating Mindfang seems to mean emulating a Fairy–in other words, being more like Aranea.

But to Aranea–who is already a Sylph– emulating Mindfang means emulating a Pirate, while striving to take control from the session by making herself the most relevant and powerful party in it. In other words, she’s trying to be more like Vriska.

image

This doesn’t go any better for Aranea than it went for Vriska, of course.
The consistent underlying theme with roleplay seems to be that, while taking inspiration and influence from role models can be a source of strength, taking it too far and trying to be someone you’re not usually won’t end well.

image
image

Roxy is also linked to Piracy. Roxy’s relationship with internet piracy and hacking is a modernized take on piracy–casting her as an internet pirate of sorts. 

Several of Grandpa’s mummies in both Homestuck and Hiveswap are dressed up as pirates, linking Roxy to the archetype in his memory. Alpha Dirk, the specific Dirk dating Jake, is similarly remembered for his class roleplay–Grandpa remembers him as a knight rather than as a Prince.

image

But Roxy is also linked to Robin Hood, who was not a Pirate but rather part of a wider band of individuals that certainly includes them: The myth of the Outlaw.

image

Historically, the title of Outlaw was a legal punishment that declared the individual outside the protection of the law. In general, it means that the individual was pushed out of society and could be killed with no legal consequences.

And it’s this myth that unifies the rest of the Thief/Rogue players, because all of these players share common themes of fleeing their respective societies, and existing beyond the boundaries of the law.

image
image

Nepeta and Roxy qualify almost by default. Nepeta lives in a cave and hunts wild animals for food, and is alienated by what blood colors mean in her society’s brutally repressive hemospectrum.

Roxy, of course, doesn’t really HAVE a society anymore. But even so, she’s paranoid and suspicious of the Condesce’s plans, viewing herself as a whistleblower speaking the truth about a massive corrupt scheme.

image
image

But both Meenah and Rufioh fit the bill as well. Meenah runs from her society entirely, retreating to seclusion on the moon. And Rufioh escapes to a forest, living in the wilderness away from Beforus’ standard social system.

image
image

All this focus on sitting outside the boundaries of society sets up a fascinating parallel for the Steal classes and their dichotomous pair: The Warrior classes, Knight and Page, who operate off the verb Serve.

(Credit for this wrinkle goes to @grippingtraverse and @the-null-hypothesis77, who came up with a model for understanding all twelve classes that we’re still exploring as a whole. The Serve and Steal classes present the clearest and most inarguable part of this argument, enough so that I thought it worth presenting it here.)

Serve can mean to ‘Give’, an easy counterpoint to the Outlaw’s ‘Take’. But Serve can also entail providing service–to one’s friends or to one’s society.

As such, the Servers have a consistent law enforcement motif that often brings them into conflict with other players– particularly with Thieves, who tend to steal for selfish reasons and so often transgress the social contracts of their groups.

image
image

Both Dave and Karkat respond to their friends being hurt with a desire to hunt down and punish wrongdoers–at various points, Terezi and Jack Noir are such targets for Dave, and Eridan and Gamzee are for Karkat.

image

And discovering Vriska’s elaborate gambit to create Bec Noir is what incites Tavros into finally confronting her–reasoning that she is now a Bad Guy by association, and thus deserves to be stopped.

image
image

It’s worth noting that this pursuit of wrongdoers is often based on a nebulous and personal understanding of “Justice” that has as much to do with the Server’s feelings and opinions as anything objective. 

This is particularly obvious with Jake–a Page–in his conflict with a Thief in Meenah. Here Jake uses justice as a pretense for indulging his personal hero fantasy at the expense of facts or context. This trend doesn’t particularly flesh out Thieves and Rogues more, except that it puts them into a thematic context with their “rival” classes. 

It also suggests that the other quartets of classes with contrasting verbs could well have their own recurring motifs. Fairies and Royalty both being linked to Courts and Prophets and Magicians both being linked to the scientific process does seem to point to the idea. 

But I don’t think I’ve found canonical links as clear-cut and coherent as those for the Serve and Steal classes, so I just wanted to throw this out there for now!

Now that the Outlaw myth has been established, that completes the set! I hope this helps us all take Classpect thought and analysis to a new level.
For my part, I have been hard at work on the scripts for the next round of videos on both Homestuck and Hiveswap, including a post outlining Classpects to a broader audience.

I hope you all look forward to it. For now,

Keep Rising!

[Patreon] [Hiveswap Discord]

ymawgat:

(@revolutionaryduelist I’m starting a new post cause the last one was getting a bit long)

For now I’d just be curious to know: In what way would you say Karkat “exploits” Blood? He’s not really cognizant of where his strengths lie even by the end, and yet he routinely solves conflicts by establishing bonds almost magically.

And what about Jake in the Masterpiece? There might be ambiguity to Karkat and Tavros (I’d argue Tavros’ behavior is much more in line with exploitation, but I already did so I won’t here), but Jake’s final act in the story is wielding his gay hope bubble against Caliborn as a weapon, which he does specifically because he, himself, decides he wants to save Dirk.

That seems much more in line with exploitation than with allowance to me–it’s willful, conscious and pre-determined.

Keep reading

real quick cuz today’s a busy day but 

1) Karkat is also difficult to comment on, since we can’t know what’s going through his head at the points where he ends the fights with Slick, Gamzee and Clover.

I will say however, that whether or not he cognizant of what he’s doing isn’t the only element of whether or not he “exploits” Blood? As in, he might not be directly aware of what he’s doing, but could still be using Blood in a way that it “shouldn’t” be used?

Hmm. I’m not sure what definition of Exploit and Allow you’re using–I don’t remember Exploit ever being clearly delineated as the Aspect being used in a way that it “shouldn’t” be used or doesn’t want to be used. 

I’m using the dictionary definitions of the terms Exploit and Allow:

ex·ploit

  1. make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource).

al·low

  1. give (someone) permission to do something.

Retooled slightly to reflect Aspects, of course. Basically, if a character is knowingly using their Aspect and thinking about their connection to the Aspect as a means to achieve a goal, I consider it exploitation. The aspect is “being used”, and the Player’s will is the Yang force on that use. 

If a character is unaware of what they’re causing but their actions lead to a manifestation of the Aspect, then I count it as allowance. The player is “being used”, and the Aspect’s will is the Yang force on the player. 

Ergo, Karkat dropping Sollux down the stairs is allowance–he isn’t aware of what he’s doing, didn’t want to drop Sollux down the stairs, and it ultimately benefits Sollux. 

That seems pretty in line with “The will of the Aspect” to me–Karkat achieved Blood-y ends, but it wasn’t Karkat’s will that solved a problem Sollux never told him about or even realized he wanted solved. Blood just happened to do that through Karkat. 

Dave being presented with time loops he has to comply with is also allowance, because he finds himself dancing to the predetermined loops Time presents him with in the first place. 

As such, I think we can say that Karkat establishing relationships as a method of winning fights is more often than not Allowance.

Slick and Gamzee might be questionable, but Clover really isn’t–even if Karkat were aware of what he’s doing, he doesn’t seem to have a clue Clover wants a relationship with him, and the Felt’s romantic practices are unrecognizable to him anyway.

Karkat’s never met the Felt, and doesn’t know about Clover’s massive luck attribute. As far as he knows, he beat the leprechaun by tying him up. Karkat knowing more than that would require exposition that isn’t given, so for now counting it as allowance seems like by far the most elegant solution.

As for Jake’s hope bubble in the masterpiece, this is why I feel it isn’t a Passive activity. It’s not Hope’s will at play here–It’s Jake’s. The narrative makes a big deal of *Jake* wanting to save Dirk here, *Jake* getting mad, *Jake* having a goal in mind that he achieves through Hope.

If he can’t control all of the specifics of it, well, sure–but Dirk can’t control how AR behaves all the time, either, and he doesn’t seem able to control BGD at all. Roxy, meanwhile, literally trains into being able to control Void to a staggering degree.

I still think that Jake making brain-ghost Dirk real was an example of him allowing/inviting others to fight through hope, and that Tavros’ army is an example of the same thing (Brain-ghost-Dirk especially I think is due to Dirk’s own will rather than anyone else’s) but you’ve explained it explicitly enough that I think our disagreements are pretty subjective now.

Jake is definitely Allowing Hope to benefit him in the case of Brain Ghost Dirk, but that’s the point–Jake wants to benefit himself, and Brain Ghost Dirk is an extension of his will in that regard. 

I’m not sure how Dirk’s will comes into BGD, since Dirk scarcely seems aware of the Brain Ghost, doesn’t react at all when BGD is summoned, and is completely unaware of Aranea or the position Jake is in or anything. 

Especially given that by this point, Dirk thinks of himself as a toxic element in Jake’s life and they’re technically broken up. Whilst the Brain Ghost is proudly declaring himself Jake’s boyfriend.

There’s a cognitive dissonance between them that can only be solved in two ways, as far as I can tell:

You either assume bad/unclear writing, or you assume this is Jake’s will manifesting through Brain Ghost Dirk, which lines up with all of the themes built up between Jake and Dirk up to this point. 

It also means Dirk and Jake’s relationship got an actual conclusion, because we know Dirk still has feelings for Jake, and BGD gives us Jake’s actual answer and a clear view into what Jake actually wanted. 

I’d be curious to hear your interpretation, of course. This is just how it looks to me right now. 

2)  Also like, Aradia says that Knights exploit their aspect?

She does! But Calliope also says that her definitions are just starting points, and that the system is much more complicated than what she describes. And there are clear examples of “Passive” classes exploiting (Roxy’s matriorb is as exploitative as it gets), and “Active” classes allowing. 

My argument isn’t that Knights don’t exploit their Aspect at all, but rather that both Knights and Pages can make use of the “Exploit” and “Allow” uses–the determining factor is whether classes use their influence primarily for the benefit of “others” or for “themselves”.

3) One thing I would still like to challenge you on though, is that I still can’t see Thieves and Rogues being the opposites to Knights and Pages? Like Vriska literally says she weaponizes her aspect?

Like with the Aspects, I’m taking to viewing the Classes as complements, not opposites. And I don’t remember Vriska saying she weaponizes her Aspect.
I don’t necessarily doubt it, but I feel it only backs up my point? 

It would mean that Thieves/Rogues and Knights/Pages have a common underlying motif, tying them all together. Seers/Mages and Heirs/Witches have a similar underlying motif as I see it, so I wouldn’t be shocked to hear it honestly.

In my opinion, Weaponizing isn’t the most important thing Pages do–the Serve verb includes that connotation, but the most obvious way it’s dichotomous with Steal is the simple contrast of Give/Take.  

Also I’m definitely interested in hearing your take on the contrast between Seer/Mages and Knights/Pages! I should be clear that I think the Classes, like the Aspects, can resonate in all kinds of different ways. 

I really don’t think the nuance ends at what classes are Active/Passive pairs, or what the key verbs are. So i’m always interested in hearing people’s takes on how they’re connected, regardless of disagreement over the pairings I think they’re still relevant and interesting. 

Force and Flow — Steal and Serve – optimisticDuelist – Medium

Here’s the second of the class essays, covering the Steal and Serve pair, the four classes that take up the middle of the spectrum:

Thief & Rogue and Page & Knight. 

The next essay–on the Change & Know pair–is available in it’s entirety for my Patrons, so if you can spare me a buck a month you can get it and more content early if you decide you like it enough. Higher reward tiers will let you invite friends to the Discord so they can access this stuff and talk about it, too! 

Feel free to @ me, reblog or send me an ask with your thoughts on these first two essays. There may be some things I can’t answer as they will be answered in later posts, but I might use those as inspiration for what teasers to release from sections of the next two essays over the course of the week.

You can also feel free to talk to me in the Hiveswap Discord where I moderate and cry about Homestuck. I’m very interested in seeing how my thoughts stand up to scrutiny, so don’t be shy!

Keep Rising.

[Youtube] [Patreon] [Hiveswap Discord]

[Active/Passive Masterpost] [Destroy and Create] [Know and Change]

(PS: Special thanks to @theworstpersonintheworld for informing me about the Serve verb. Still misleadingly titled, still owe ya a life debt. Thanks!)

Force and Flow — Steal and Serve – optimisticDuelist – Medium

So I read the two classpect posts that you’ve posted on medium, and while I don’t agree with all of your class system, the posts are undoubtedly really well written and highlighted things I hadn’t noticed before…. one thing I would like to point out however, is that “fairy-like” isn’t a very strong unifying myth with which to connect Maids and Sylphs, since Vriska (a Thief) references the motif/myth as much as any Maid and Sylph, if not more?

Hey! So, this is a really good point (and is leading me to thinking about Vriska in some interesting new Lights…)

What I will point out is this: I looked it over, and pretty much every time Vriska is referenced as a fairy, it either directly concerns or surrounds a pivotal moment in her arc with Tavros specifically. After [S] Wake, Vriska is never referenced as a Fairy again. 

Vriska also at least somewhat admired two Fairy figures–she thought Kanaya’s lusus was the coolest of all of them, and she literally crafted herself in the image of Mindfang–a Sylph of Light herself.
This is not the only instance of a character from one mythological role actively trying to fit into the context of another. I’ll be going into at least some others–but not all–in the next two posts.
One thing I’m noticing more and more now that I have the understanding I do is that the way these mythological motifs affect different classes is complicated, and that this system has kind of essentially infinite depth. There’s a lot in this story for us to reconsider and rediscover, and I’m very excited about sharing it with you guys. 

Stay tuned 😉 

PS: As I release these essays, I’ll begin tagging posts concerning these mythological figures with their tags instead of going for the more awkward Active/Passive setup. I just think it’ll be more elegant that way, though I might have to think up terms for Prince/Bard and Thief/Rogue, who don’t seem to get them (as far as I can tell right now) because they’re freebies from Calliope.