Geomancer

[MirronTulaxia]

1. I wouldn't say they're arbitrary. Black Mages got the elements they did because of tradition. White Mages (presumably) got the elements they did to contrast Black Mages. They might not be groundbreaking or really of any import beyond tradition, but tradition is as valid a reason as any other in this instance.

2. I would say broadly the consistency with Black and White Magic isn't specific spells so much as the intent behind them. Black Mages have spells to kill enemies faster, White Mages help your party survive.

3. For a Healer I would agree that the difference is pretty much just aesthetics (though even then, they could certainly do something with elements for a Healer, I could come up with something where it's meaningful off the top of my head using Geomancer as a base, and likely other designs).

4. If you'd like to point out what specific logical fallacy it is feel free. Something tells me you're using logical fallacy as stand-in for "saying something I don't agree with".

5. I didn't say that they absolutely would use those elements for another healer, or even another job at all. Merely positing a theory that it would make sense if they did those changes because they had those plans, not saying those plans will happen.

6. In this instance I strongly doubt the developers don't want anyone to have wind/earth/water magic, especially as we already know Blue Mages still have those. Since we know that isn't the case then asking why they made those changes is at least somewhat important to investigate.

7. If you have any other theories on why they made that change that aren't simply "because they felt like it" feel free to throw them out there. So far the only answer you've given is "they don't want anyone to have that" which is not sensible. And yes, as always it could simply be arbitrary, I said as such in that post. All answers could be seemingly arbitrary or lack noteworthy meaning, but as that just squelches conversation without adding anything meaningful it's not really worthwhile to pursue. If that is the case then the answer is already had, so exploring alternative branches is better.

Edit: I'll clarify that last point a bit. Every possible change has a myriad of theoretical reasons behind them. One of those reasons, always, is something along the lines of "because they feel like it/it's arbitrary". That path isn't fruitful. It tells us nothing. There isn't really any evidence you can bring up to support or denounce it, unlike literally every other path. Because of that, to me, it's simply better to explore other possible answers to see what lines up and what doesn't.