meulinstuck replied to your post: xeshiremfumus000 replied to your post: wow ok i...
o i thought rogues stole their aspect for others/their team like robin hood and thieves stole their aspect for themselves
well that was roxy's initial interpretation, but it seems a bit narrow. the bits of presumably official description we got from calliope were that rogue is the passive version of "one who steals," and passive classes were described in that log as classes that (roughly) "allow their aspect to benefit others." later, the bard (another passive class) is defined by calliope as "'one who allows x to be destroyed, or invites destrUction throUgh x,' as if by the will of the aspect." it seems like that could pretty easily apply to any passive class, just with "destroy" switched out with the other keyword, in this case "steal" (and "theft" for "destruction"). so that's where i got all that from. this seems to work in capturing most of what a class can do.
being a robin hood of void is an effect you can get from one who allows void to benefit others through theft and who allows void to be stolen, though. you steal the aspect and then allow your allies to steal it from you. but it doesn't have to work just that way: roxy in this update isn't necessarily taking the void from the perfectly generic object and giving it to others, she's just stealing void to benefit others.
(which doesn't seem very different from destroying void, and i'm curious whether roxy's redistribution-focused class will require her to take on some insignificance or obfuscation when she steals nonexistence - but it's possible that since it's only nothing, it just sort of dissipates once she removes it from a concept).
...this was in my drafts, sorry for the late response i was too tired to answer last night but i wanted to, and then i didn't really have time to sit down and write this today