Regarding the Classification of Magicka and Malviser's commentaries on Bero's SpeechEdit


Presented by Mattenne DuCanne on the 25th of Hearthfire, 4E202.


If any of you are familiarised with Malviser's invective counter argument to Berevar Bero's speech addressed to the Battlemages of the Empire, the issue of the legitimacy of Destruction as a practicing school of Magick comes to doubt, in which Malviser takes an extended amount of time insulting his opponent before presenting any counter evidence, which he eventually provides some.

What is called to the attention of this piece is the idea that Destruction is too narrow of a school to be considered, and it'a reversal which, raised an interesting question to me, how do we decide upon the arbitrary classifications of Magicka? Any literate person could give us a brief over view, but at which point is manipulating fire different from Alteration, or damaging the intellect of another differs from the draining of the same characteristic?

We are all scholars with a reasonable understanding of the mechanics of Magicka, why do we limit ourselves to the tools of an apprentice? I would like to propose we devote ourselves into the research of Magicka, not of the schools of Magicka.

After all, Magicka is a primal force, why would we attempt to force it into slots? Magicka is water, flowing and changing, while we try to treat it as a stone.

Notable CommentsEdit

Theodane BarnsmithEdit

I hadn't thought about it that way. Although, I feel it is much easier to tell somebody which school of magic you practice, rather than tell them each and every spell that you can cast.

Bargok gro-NagrobEdit

I am quite interested in the opinion which you hold, ma'am. But, I am a bit confused. Do you mean to say that we should dissolve the classifications of Magicks and begin to study all fields of magicka, or that we should not be limited by arbitrary and inconsequential boundaries?

If the latter, that we should be free to explore all forms and applications of magicka as we please without being bound by simple titles, is your opinion, then where do you propose we try to draw the line? Where do we say that we are studying too broadly, and that we need to narrow our focus to achieve what we seek?

Their discussion