Talk:Magic

Rewriting using cite.php

I'd like to rewrite this article and add citations using cite.php, are there any objections? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes.

Honestly, I would be happier if you kept the cite.php extension to pages that really need it, like this. NuVII 10:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said on Dhuum talk page, I think we should reserve this for the large articles (not Movement of the World as that is a source itself). Articles such as Lore, Gods of Tyria, Tyria (world), and this page I'm working on slowly. Besides, this article has 3 sources only: History of Tyria, An Empire Divided, and the lore on Abaddon being the one who gave out magic (I forgot where that came from... an Asia-only article or something I think... - which, if so, would be hard to link unless we have a translation of said article). We might as well just cite like this page - i.e., just list the sources on the bottom without the cite.php. Reason why this would be better is that there is no need to footnote every entry from said sources.

In short: The longer the article, and the more text (not lists or tables), then sure. We should set up two (at least) requirements for using the cite.php:

1. Long articles (Special:LongPages)
2. More than a certain number (I think 5) sources, which can include: Manuals, articles, individual quests, dialogues, etc.

But before we look for which articles to use the cite.php and which not to, I think we should try to expand the lore of articles (and take care of stubs). But that's just me... -- Konig/talk 22:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It's also missing information, an excerpt from the Scriptures of Melandru, dated 48 BE, includes a reference to magic, an excerpt from the Scriptures of Grenth imply that Desmina was promised magic, and the Keeper of the Elements implies that he had magic long before humans arrived in Elona. Also, The Ecology of the Charr contradicts Thadeus Lamount's History of Tyria, stating that the Charr weren't given magic along with the other races. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If we include Melandru's scriptures, then we need to include the different kinds (as those scriptures only reference the gods' magic - not magic used by mortals, which seem to be as different as Ritualists' original magic and the common magic). As for the Ecology of the Charr, that may be propaganda of the Charr - reason I say this is because why would the Charr be the only exception? And by the sounds of it, Charr shamans - i.e., their casters and some of the highest Charr in the Legions - existed prior to the Titans. I say this because the shamans not in the Flame Legion gathered and the Shaman Caste (the whole of all the shamans) are seemingly the spell casters of the Charr - which is why they were left alive after the event with Kalla. Though there is a line saying the Charr were given magic by the Titans, more support is there saying that the Charr always had magic. It may be that the Ecology of the Charr actually means the Cauldron of Cataclysm when it says "the Charr at last learned new magic; a new means of destroying their human enemies south of the Wall." -- Konig/talk 01:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Abaddon

Errm, where in the lore does it say that Abaddon is the one that gave magic to the races? I know he gave magic to the Margonites, but I remember reading that it was just "the gods" that gave magic to all races. What am I missing? --Bloodvayne 15:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It was pre-NF lore given on the Taiwan GW site. -- Konig/talk 16:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Link? --Bloodvayne 16:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A translation can be found here (first comment in the section only - rest is a discussion on the translation). -- Konig/talk 18:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Monk skills not really magic???

Isn't monk skills, that deal holy damage, heal, protect etc. something monks cast by initiative and power from the Goddess of Dwayna or both Dwayna and Balthazar? --Enola 11:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Whatever said it wasn't? In fact, the article rather explicitly mentions monks as using magic: "Magic is made up of four principle schools: Preservation, Destruction, Aggression, and Denial. These, in turn, are linked to the four core caster professions: Monk, Elementalist, Necromancer, and Mesmer respectively." Konig/talk 17:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Linking Professions to the bloodstone

What is the source that verifies that the schools of magic the bloodstone created (aggression, denial, preservation, and destruction) to the core caster professions? Such an assertion needs to have a source. if there is no source the line "Magic is made up of four principle schools: Preservation, Destruction, Aggression, and Denial. These, in turn, are linked to the four core caster professions: Monk, Elementalist, Necromancer, and Mesmer respectively." needs to be removed --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.243.12.215 (talk).

The source is observation, fact, and logic. It's not stated in writing anywhere, but it doesn't half to be. History of Tyria states that no individual can wield all four schools of magic this means that, when combined with the fact that there are secondary professions, no profession can wield 3 or 4 schools and no more than 1 profession can wield 2 schools. Rituals bypass this via their spirits, but no other can or does. Dervish is the best candidate for any "more than one school" profession, though it can still be put as one school.

As to which profession is which school, its pure observation. Monks heal and thus preservation; Mesmers prevent action thus denial; necromancers' skill focus on those who act (either through benefits or harm, almost all hexes trigger on action), thus aggression; elementalists either use magic to do harm directly (fire and air, and some earth and water), indirectly (water), or to protect (earth).

The best counter to this is monks via smiting prayers but that can be explained in two ways - god intervention or, my personal favorite theory, preservation purified to a harmful form (preserving too much can turn into lack of progression, such as petrification).

The expansion professions can also be tied to a single school; assassins to denial, for instance. Rituals and dervish are trickery, but I'd say destruction to them both, but that's pure theorycrafting.

Point is, the "source" is via observation of what the professions do. What is interesting to note is that all professions seem to utilize preservation magic in gw2, so that could be why secondary professions don't exist from a lore standpoint.Konig/talk 16:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Until such a time that one can provide an actual official source, be it stated explicitly by ArenaNet themselves or something of equivalent truth value, it remains purely speculation and I have adjusted the article to reflect just that. You can not claim that something is factual based on simple subjective conclusions of observation. As you have said yourself, it has not been stated in writing, or in any form for that matter, anywhere. Therefore, there is no source and we can not say whether or not it is true.

Additionally, on June 14, 2009 at the time of the edit declaring that the four bloodstones directly correspond to the four core caster professions, there was no announcement or discovery relating to this lore, or any time around that date. Therefore, I do not believe this has any basis, again, besides pure speculation.---Rynxx

You don't need Word of God to figure something out. And the observation isn't subjective, but objective, as well as the use of logic.

1. No one person can use all four schools, therefore to prevent using all four schools via the dual profession system, a single profession must be tied to one school with the possible exception of one singular profession.
2. If it is one-school-per-profession, then a single profession links to a single bloodstone since it's also one-school-per-bloodstone. The wording is misleading in claiming that it's bloodstone to profession, when its the other way around (a profession is linked to a single bloodstone).
3. We can tell what school certain professions are linked to based on what their skills do - again, mesmer to denial, monk to preservation, necromancer to aggression, which leaves elementalist to having destruction. Ritualists and dervishes also use magic (though it's unknown if the other three do or not, and if so to what extent), but they are, as said, harder to link to a school.

Either way, I am rewording it to be more accurate and hopefully fix the whole situation. Either way, we do not ever have speculation on the main page, so rewording to say "this is speculation" is just as fallacious. Konig/talk 16:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Move

Same as Timeline being moved, there was no reason for this article's name change. Suggest moving it back. 71.30.245.171 08:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

We should remember that from the perspective of GW1, magic is Magic. There is no concept that it could exist otherwise, or would somehow be different somewhere else. Adding the "of Tyria" implies to the reader that there is different magic elsewhere.

We also have to make sure that GW2 concepts don't creep into GW1. If things are ret-conned or better described in GW2, we don't care. They describe what they see, we describe what we see, and we pretend to be none-the-wiser ; ) G R E E N E R 08:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)