Lore talk:Magic

Under spell casting should we link to spells like Destruction effects, or dont bother. I think Its a good idea so Im going to do it, any objections? --J'ZhirrthePriest 16:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Alteration vs Mysticism vs IllusionEdit

What do we do with spell effects like detect life and telekinesis? Skyrim kinda messed it all up--J'ZhirrthePriest 17:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Bump--J'ZhirrthePriest 23:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The article already mentions that Mysticism was absorbed by other schools, like Thaumaturgy previously. I don't see the need for any editions to this article to make this clearer. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 00:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

What about paralysis? --J'ZhirrthePriest 23:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

We could always mention that some spells shifted schools, and leave them out of any spell lists pertaining to a specific school of magic. Wolok gro-Barok 18:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay I like that, but then would we list all the spells that shifted schools or would that be too much?--J'ZhirrthePriest 21:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Blood Magic?Edit

It is implied in Skyrim:Dawnguard that Blood Magic is a magical school, but this isn't proven. Should it be added to here, but not as a school? Maybe give it it's own category, like Necromancy and the Th'uum? — Unsigned comment by 109.79.23.169 (talk) at 13:10 on 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It's noteworthy, but I don't think there's enough information to warrant a separate article. Maybe it could be included on Lore:Necromancy, or on an article detailing more primal magic (witchcraft, Old Gods magic, etc). —Legoless (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2012 (EDT)

Sword-SingingEdit

Wouldn't sword singing be considered a form of magic? Shouldn't we add that? ChildofKyne (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

It gets a passing mention by its proper name in the History section at the moment. We could expand the coverage of these cultural magic forms on this page and transclude article intros, like what is already done for the schools of magic, if people thinks that would be more appropriate. There are at least a couple forms of magic about which we have very little info, though. Insignificant Revisions^{Threats•Evidence} 22:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Gonna throw my support behind it too. —Legoless (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

A lot of the Redguard concepts could be properly distinguished, instead of just redirecting to the sword-singer page (assuming they can be). But I'm fairly busy with ESO for the time being. Insignificant Revisions^{Threats•Evidence} 22:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd certainly consider it a form of magic. Some even speculate its a lesser form of Tonal Architecture, in that it tinkers with the fabric of reality - much like the Thu'um does. However some parts go into OOG territory, such as Music being the basis for the Aubris, but there are some canon allusions (Secret Dwemer Origins book, The Marukhati Dance, etc) --Jimeee (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Dwemer stuff is magic?Edit

Erasmo's dialogue in Redguard claims "the Dwarves didn't believe in magic". Is there a citation for Dwemer stuff being identified as magic? Erasmo isn't exactly the most stable scholar, and Redguard is fairly old lore, so it could have been overwritten, I'm just not aware where. --Agiletek (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Given the source, Its not really creditable, and there is a lot more lore evidence that goes into Dwemer using magic and stuff. Dwemer powered their devices by using technology but also magic itself. They used soul gems to power their devices and those require the use of magic to entrap the souls of creatures. The guy was insane by the looks of it. So not someone I would see as a creditable source of info. At best it should be noted on the Dwemer race page as a note. But otherwise, there is no evidence to suggest the Dwemer didn't believe in magic as they clearly still used it.TheVampKnight (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the meaning is perhaps that they view it as a science rather than "magic". —⁠Legoless (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Re-Ordering SuggestionEdit

At the moment, the article is a bit inconsistent in its sectioning hierarchy. Conjuration is just given a listing entry under "Spellcasting", but the sub-school of Conjuration that is Necromancy gets its own section? I would suggest, instead of having separate sections for each "weird" kind of magic mentioned like once or twice, to treat them, unless we have evidence to the contrary, just as sub-schools of normal Spellcasting. And if the Player Character can perform this magic like one of the main schools, that is, via quick animation and spending magica, then it is Spellcasting, period. That means the following just get turned into bullet points, instead of getting their own sections: Auramancy, Dark Magic, Necromancy, Blood Magic, Flesh Magic, Shadow Magic (how did that one get lost?), Soul Magic, Time Magic, Weather Magic. Leftover will be Sight (there is an arguable overlap with Illusion due to Skyrim's Claivoyance, but it doesn't seem like enough), Thu'um (no argument there), Shehai (also not in question) and Thaumavocalism (Information is thin, but it does paint it as a different delivery method of magical effects, instead of just a class of effects, so I'd say it gets to stay) besides the main three.--176.52.202.190 10:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Notable Mages ExclusivityEdit

So far, I've personally just been listing the mages that would have immense power and a "long Aetherial Shadow", as Lilatha says. For example:

Divayth Fyr's near-divine power was immediately sensed by Nocturnal in the Evergloam and sensed in Mournhold by Lilatha in Auridon, and he was nearly an equal of Sotha Sil. He also "cured" the Nerevarine of Corprus, helped save Sotha Sil's life, and was the foremost knowledge on the realms of Oblivion.

Vanus Galerion could power the Great Shackle in just hours instead of months, just his magicka could power the Black Forge, he eventually destroyed the Great Shackle entirely and created the Planar Vortex, and he defeated Mannimarco. He also founded the Mages Guild and created numerous laws of magic.

Iachesis was said to rival the living god Sotha Sil in wisdom if not power, and resisted two Daedric Princes ripping him apart. He was also the leader of the Psijic Order for thousands of years.

Shalidor stole Glamoril from Akatosh and could fight the Rourken Clan singlehandedly. He also created the Labyrinthian and the College of Winterhold.

Zurin Arctus as the Underking was called the most powerful mage who ever lived and singlehandedly destroyed the Numidium. He was also greatly influential in the Tiber Wars as a whole, created the Dragonbone Mail and the Totem of Tiber Septim, wrote the Art of War Magic, and eventually played a part in the events of Daggerfall.

Would you guys agree with this idea of limiting the list to just the best of the best like we sort of have now? Or should we include mages like Hannibal Traven, Morian Zenas, Chimere Graegyn, Ahzidal and the Dragon Priests, some of the Direnni, Azandar al-Cybiades, High Lord Torinaan, and Neloth, who still had considerable power and influence but far less so than the mages listed above (except maybe Torinaan)? BananaKing5 (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I am rather neutral on that topic, but if we were to include more mages perhaps the similar format to the one used in list of notable staves could be used rather than one currently employed. This way the list would take far less space while being as functional as it is now.Tyrvarion (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Whatever about the length of the potential list, I think it is excessive to have a gallery for this section. This page deals with magic as a general topic, it does not need so much space taken up by images of specific mages. —⁠Legoless (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the issue with exclusivity is that the notability, skill, and power of mages is… subjective. There's too much room for arguing over who is notable enough and who isn't. As it stands, any mage with a lorepage is arguably notable enough to go into this section.

If it was for a specific type of magic, I could see it. Like Azra Nightwielder as a notable Shadow Mage, Maelmoth as a notable Illusion mage, etc, we have an easier way of gauging their skill level as its in a certain field. But magic as a whole varies far too much for any measure of determining exclusive notability to be worth anything, there's too many types of magic, and one mage excelling in one field does not mean they'd be good at the rest. Mannimarco is an excellent Necromancer, but that doesn't mean he has anywhere near the skill level of Maelmoth does in Illusion, and vice versa. The subjectivity is too variable to be worth arguing over. As for images, I guess we could limit the gallery down to about 5 images, preferably of powerful mages practicing magic. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a good point. I think some mages like Vanus Galerion, Divayth Fyr, and Shalidor are written to be on a level unto themselves, and others are directly comparable with them like Sotha Sil, Iachesis, and Mannimarco, but trying to find the cutoff point is really murky. Unless some objective metric can be found, I think you're right about exlusivity being too subjective to try and enforce. And I agree with the idea of limiting the gallery to about 5, just enough to show some mages doing great things to justify this section, but not enough to take away from this being a general magic article like Legoless said. BananaKing5 (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, the section is called Notable Mages, not Most Powerful Mages. I figured it was about historical significance, hence my addition of Jagar Tharn. Mindtrait0r (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd also add a note that while I agree its about their notability rather than power, I'd say some characters are notable and mages, but not for being mages - Madanach, Estre and Maven Black Briar for example are all mages - mediocre mages at best but are quite notable for other things. Those should not be included.Tyrvarion (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

(←) Agreed. The list should, in my opinion, be comprised of mages who are both historically notable for their magic and powerful in their own right. With this in mind, I think the current list is good, though Vastarie, Azra, and Verandis may not be as historically impactful as the others. Mindtrait0r (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that both power and historical significance should be kept in mind. For instance, mages like Belaigh, the druid that defeated the Molmor and turned it into an island, or Luciana Pullo, the battlemage that burned an army of Tsaesci at Pale Pass and helped save Sotha Sil in ESO, are very powerful but not significant enough to be mentioned. On the other hand are the influential but weaker mages like Hannibal Traven and Neloth who aren't quite powerful enough (and their significance alone isn't quite enough to merit inclusion either, unlike Jagar Tharn). I figure the list should be like a Greatest Mages Hall of Fame, notable enough in power and fame where if someone looked up "Elder Scrolls mages in lore", those names would pop up (funnily enough, our list is indeed similar to the current top result for such a search, despite a few differences). Similarly, I think if someone in-universe were to look through tomes on famous mages, they should see these same names. I agree that the current list is about right for that. BananaKing5 (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)