Forum:Classes - Part 2

OK I am making a new thread because the old one has gotten clunky and such (especially since it pre-dates the revelation of the Bard/Prince pairing). So starting off, all known information wrapped up in a nice set of tables.

Information
Key for unknowns (F) - Unknown female alignment, presumed to be female exclusive. (f) - Unknown bias, the biased is presumed to be female. (M) - Unknown male alignment, presumed to be male exclusive (none included on table). (m) - Unknown bias, the biased is presumed to be male. (*) - Page and Heir, unknown male alignment. Due to a HS 6414 (statement by Calliope) (the number of exclusive female classes = the number of exclusive male classes), one must be male biased and the other must be male exclusive, they cannot both be the same. **
 * ** They can both be male biased if one of the classes speculated to be female exclusive (F) is only female biased (f).

Information about the passive/active scale.

A table of all possible pairings with self/self pairings and duplicates blocked out, leaving 28 possible pairings (of which only four are correct).

So that should be everything. So let the speculation re-start! - The Light6 (talk) 04:29, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
Well first off, I think you should clarify what statement you're referring to in regards to the Heir and Page bias/exclusivity, because there is a lot of information on that page. Also, suggestion to add more connections under Mage/Seer, as there's the clarity of Exile commands as well. I would also be suggesting "HS 7463 (The heiress is the Maid.") under Heir/Maid, but I do understand how that statement (while in my view a massive hint) can be seen as not strong enough or clear enough evidence. Aepokk Venset 04:54, January 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * Clarified the Heir/Page thing. Also the pairing table really isn't for evidence, more just a quick explanation of what that pairing could be. For example Mages and Seers both hearing the Exiles clearly might be from their "understanding". - The Light6 (talk) 05:05, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Alright, to kick off this discussion, here's a table made by Sorceror Nobody, modified to my personal ideas with actives listed first in each paring. Also added Lord/Muse. I'm not sure if this is how we wanted to start the conversation, but here's my opinion on the pairings regardless. I haven't formed an opinion of how they fall on the scale just yet, and I also want to STRONGLY SUGGEST (though I doubt it would've come up anyway) that we try to avoid discussing Inversion unless it becomes a canon concept. Aepokk Venset 05:57, January 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well inversion is currently a quasi-canon concept.
 * [snop]
 * Basically, we know Light has to do with knowledge, while Void has to do with hiding it. Void players have been surrounded by a "black-out", when Rose went grimdark she also acquired the same black-out. Post-Scratch Rose also had it. In the context of the conversation, Calliope was telling Roxy that related players may have common ground with their aspects Rose and Roxy of course having aspects that are apparently opposites. Calliope then proceeds to say that if a person is resistant to their title or corrupted (like Rose) their powers and abilities can manifest in a way opposing what they are supposed to be. Rose was a Light player, became corrupted, and gained a very Void-like trait.
 * Likewise Hussie himself has said that Rose, prior to ascension, was acting in a very active way as opposed to passive nature of the Seer class. Also during Act 5, Rose while calling prey to her corruption was called on multiple occasions, a Witch and even at one point a "fake Witch" (by Eridan I think). Witches are of course an active class.
 * I mean most inversion theories basically take Rose as a starting point and extrapolate it to many other characters and actions. So while it does have a canonical basis, we have no idea if there is a pattern or system to inversions, among other things. - The Light6 (talk) 06:20, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * Likewise Hussie himself has said that Rose, prior to ascension, was acting in a very active way as opposed to passive nature of the Seer class. Also during Act 5, Rose while calling prey to her corruption was called on multiple occasions, a Witch and even at one point a "fake Witch" (by Eridan I think). Witches are of course an active class.
 * I mean most inversion theories basically take Rose as a starting point and extrapolate it to many other characters and actions. So while it does have a canonical basis, we have no idea if there is a pattern or system to inversions, among other things. - The Light6 (talk) 06:20, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, certainly! I've read BladekindEyewear's inversion theories and I fully agree with the concept (though not all of his class pairings). I was just placing that precaution there because I wasn't sure if you would consider it appropriate to discuss concepts that are not entirely canon. But hey if the case is that we can in fact discuss it, then here's my table: I'm still uncertain as to whether Maid or Heir is the active class, but I've sorted them in accordance with the other table I posted above, which creates a nicely balanced layout. If I switched them, they would be in the Mage/Seer box, which would still be balanced, although it would make the table not "fully representative" (taking into account that Active female exclusive / Passive male exclusive is not possible with the existing classes and canonically confirmed pairings.) Anyway, I do believe that's all I have to contribute until somebody else joins the discussion. Aepokk Venset 07:10, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Basically, I was thinking about it, and I wanted to run this idea/explanation by others first. I think Mages/Seers could be explained best with the definitions of "knows their aspect and gains experience(further knowledge?) personally", and "knows their aspect and gains experience from others", respectively.

If we use Sollux and Rose as examples, Sollux was on the forefront of causing the end of their world, and he "gained knowledge of Doom" personally by dying to various degrees. Rose on the other hand gains some of her knowledge from other people; she gets her information from the Horrorterrors, from Doc Scratch, and from the game itself by tearing apart her world.

Any thoughts/opinions? BooleanGargoyle (talk) 19:45, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the active/passive scale, I'm thinking it may very well be asymmetrical and more vague than the current numbered line idea. Something akin to: Genders merely indicate bias. Could be gender-exclusive, biased or neutral. Added bonus, master classes aside, it's ==> shaped. How can it be so delicious ? 86.201.127.173 14:41, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

98.225.59.217's theories
I believe I have solved the puzzle. When placed in the following format, there are quite a lot of amazing things that become true. Here is my table: {|style="text-align: left; float: left;"

Explanations:

Muse, Lord - influences x. This is given, but note that a muse entertains a lord.

Heir, Maid - becomes or has an extreme supply of x. My first instinct was that since passive classes seem to serve actives, a maid would be a lowly passive class. However, hints like "the heiress is the Maid" and other hints made me realize the maid can be considered a maiden, a princess, if you will. This makes the pairing instinctive: the fair maided is suited by the heir.

Bard, Prince - destruction of x. This is given, but note bards serve princes.

Sylph, Witch - source of x or benefactor via x. The 4 magic themed classes are tricky, but this pairing gives the best results, which I will detail in a minute. Certain definitions of sylph and witch are exceedingly similar. Note that Kanaya said that sylphs were like witches but more magical. Hussie has repeatedly said magic is fake, and Kanaya has a natural pro-sylph bias, supporting their pairing.

Page, Knight - equips (others/themselves) with x. Pages are servants that serve knights. This fact alone makes this particular pairing nigh undenyable.

Rogue, Thief - given, but note rogues and thieves are often interchangeable words

Seer, Mage - understands x, learns via x. These are the other 4 magic classes. While mage may seem to pair with witch, there is so much evidence that mages and seers are paired, and the sylph-witch pairing works so well that I paired them like this.

When you lay them out as I have above some very amazing things happen. Firstly, Hussie's hint holds true, in fact it was critical in my chart's derivation. Second, notice that the more extreme one goes, the more controlling over the aspect the class is (influencing, being, destroying, giving, equipping, taking, knowing). Thirdly, if you say levels 4-7 are gender exclusive, there are the same quantity of gender exclusive classes for each gender. In addition, note the same number of each gender is active and passive. These facts reinforce the spectrum as it is.

Speculation of observations: Another interesting observation: in the A1,A2, and B1 sessions, the sum of the scores are 0. All of these sessions are "normal" sessions; even though B1 and A1 are null sessions, it is stated that null sessions are just normal sessions destined to fail. However, in B2, the total of scores is -6, and the session is void. This offset is through no fault of their own. Rather, it is as if the session will fail because Sburb forgot to balance the classes and include the appropriate aspects. When Caliborn killed Calliope, he turned a 0 session, a null session with the bare minimum aspect requirements, into a -7 session that did not meet the time and space requirements, and it thus became a dead session. Food for thought. Anyone have any comments?--98.225.59.217 04:05, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

MonadicYawn's theories
( + )                      ( - )

Muse (female) - 7 - Lord (male)

Page (male) - 6 - Maid (female)

Bard (male) - 5 - Prince (male)

Sylph (female) - 4 - Witch (female)

 Rogue - 3 - Thief

Heir - 2 - Knight

 Seer - 1 - Mage

I have put lots of thought into the class pairings and using the confirmed gender roles on 'the scale' I found what I think is right. Here's my scale

( + )                      ( - )

7 - Muse (female)      7 - Lord (male)

^ is confirmed.

6 - Page (male)            6 - Maid (female)

^ While not much can be said about these two, especially Pages, we can still know that Pages are traditionally male. Although the apprentice Knight theory makes sense I think that the jump between an apprentice knight and a young page is a bit big and if a young Page is trying to be a Knight - Why would one be passive and one be active?

While Maids are traditionally female, as counterparts it makes sense as they are both clearly defined as servants; and by looking at the wiki's scale we can only assume that the page is male and the maid is female - as for active/passive pairing, again, I'm following the wiki page.

5 - Bard (male)           5 - Prince (male)

^ Is confirmed.

4 - Sylph (female)         4 - Witch (female)

^ A witch is the female counterpart to a warlock. Sylph has been compared to the Witch although it's not hard evidence.

It is easy to assume that this active and passive pairing would both be female. This is the final pair of classes assigned to 'strict gender rules'. With these, the quantity of female-strict and male-strict classes on each end of the scale is balanced and we don't have any unisex classes paired with monosex classes because, frankly, that's stupid and doesn't keep too much in balance.Not only is it balanced on both sides of the active/passive scale, but it's also balanced evenly between 6 monosex classes and 6 unisex classes EXCLUDING the master classes.

'''From this point on the number classifications(3, 2, & 1) are interchangeable, without strict female or male guidelines we can only assume that the lower side of the scale is left to the more unspecific roles. Also, since the Seer and Knight classes are mandatory, I don't think they would be too close to the master classes which is why I place the rogue/thief pairing as 'level 3

<p style="text-align: center;">3 - Rogue                   3 - Thief

<p style="text-align: center;">^ Is confirmed

<p style="text-align: center;">2 - Heir                   2 - Knight

<p style="text-align: center;">1 - Seer                    1 - Mage

I originally thought that Heir would be on the 6 of the scale but I misunderstood the meaning of John having one of the most powerful class/aspect combinations.

I could go on more but I'll spare the forum. I do think that this is, more or less, going to be the final outcome and I am confident that from level 4 and up, it's correct.

MonadicYawn (talk) 05:36, February 11, 2013 (UTC)monadicYawn


 * I just want to point out that Hussie, and the whole "defending" theme for Knights is an entirely fanonized concept, it was only ever said that they're weaponizers. And furthermore, I don't think it was ever said that Knights and Seers are session constants? Aepokk Venset 07:06, February 11, 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe the Heir is paired with the Witch and the Knight with the Seer. If you look at the sessions each one with a Heir had a Witch: John/Jade, Equius/Feferi, and Mituna/Damara. You can see the same with the Knight and Seer: Dave/Rose, Karkat/Terezi, and Latula/Kankri. Another guess I have is the Sylph and Mage being paired since there was only two of each and only in the Troll's session: Kanaya/Sollux and Aranea/Meulin. --BloodSoul (talk) 17:42, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

BloodSoul's theories
I have a speculation/theory on the page class. So far we have seen three pages: Jake, Tavros, and Horuss. We have seen how Tavros played/acted which was in a very passive manner whereas Jake played a more slightly active role. I would also like to mention that the page has the possibility to become the strongest class/player in the whole game. One theory I have is that the page does not necessarily fall into the active/passive side of the class scale but in the middle, being a 0 on the scale. --BloodSoul (talk) 13:15, May 16, 2013 (UTC)


 * While I do not oppose the idea of a so called 0-class, I don't think Page is it. If it were such a class, and we assume Tavros and Jake both succeeded in being Pages, then the cumulation of their actions should have both be ambiguous about whether they were passive or active, not both having two different results. That being said, the a large issue with 0-classes is that all classes according to Calliope fit into either active or passive, for a 0-class this can be resolved by it being defined by its counterpart, but ultimately it leads to the conclusion that either Tavros or Jake was a bad Page and their actions don't say much about how the class should be played. - The Light6 (talk) 15:49, May 16, 2013 (UTC)


 * We still do not know much about this class but one thing I found is that each session that had a Page also had a Maid. Horuss/Porrim, Tavros/Aradia, and Jake/Jane. I feel that in order for the young Page to reach his full potential he requires help from his female counterpart the Maid(I could be wrong). If we pair both of these classes with one another we could say that their being a 0-class is a possibility.--BloodSoul (talk) 16:19, May 16, 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem is, the "0 slot" doesn't really exist: it's just a quirk of how the chart's labelled. Imagine if all the classes were instead labelled 1-14 from most active to most passive, were the first half are considered "active classes" while the second half are "passive classes". There's no "7.5 slot" to be in. 67.176.198.143 17:41, June 25, 2013 (UTC)


 * But if there were a 0 slot, it would be a 15th class. So by your example, it'd be in the 8th position. An absolute zero neutral class is pretty unlikely, but it's neither proven nor disproven. Aepokk Venset 22:09, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

I have yet another theory. This one is more towards the classes in general. I have an idea on how the classes work but am not sure.
 * Page: Learns to use aspect;
 * Maid: Serves aspect;
 * Rogue: Steals aspect for team;
 * Thief: Steals aspect for self;
 * Seer: Sees using aspect;
 * Mage: Sees ?through? aspect;
 * Sylph: Heals aspect;
 * Witch: Manipulates aspect;
 * Prince:Destroys using aspect;
 * Bard: Destroys through aspect;
 * Hier: Inherits/becomes aspect;
 * Knight: Wields aspect;
 * Muse/Lord: Full control

--BloodSoul (talk) 22:57, June 29, 2013 (UTC)


 * Sylph is directly confirmed to be a healer class, just making note of that. Also, I feel a nuance is being missed in the Prince and Bard descriptions there, but I can't quite pin it down. Aepokk Venset 06:50, June 30, 2013 (UTC)


 * I thank you for clarifying the Sylph that one always slips my mind. As for the Prince and Bard. The Prince technically destroys their aspect while the Bard use their aspect to make others destroy. Is this what you meant?--BloodSoul (talk) 21:43, July 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah! I wasn't quite sure how to word it myself, but I think you handled that challenge masterfully. Aepokk Venset 05:54, July 2, 2013 (UTC)