The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Yup. He doesn't know many spells, and you're using the same argument to say why the Dragonborn can't be an Arch Mage. You're saying -- if I'm reading it right and I'm almost positive I am, but I'm not trying to speak for you -- that the way a person played the game by not making a powerful mage -- their own personal gameplay -- makes the ability to be head of a school for mages a contradiction.
The same thing applies to Irving, as he isn't really a powerful mage. If you're using the gameplay of one game to make your point, then the gameplay of another game can apply as well.
Granted, Irving was able to resist mind control. That makes him a fairly strong mage as most people can't resist mind control. But the Dragonborn has a select gift that the majority of Tamriel doesn't. He can gather the souls of Dragons and use them to perform a very powerful and rare type of magic.
Someone could employ the idea you are suggesting and "assume" their PC is actually an accomplished Wizard, but keep in mind this mentality is far less applicable in a game where all your actions are made explicitly known to the player. In Skyrim, if you don't make the character sleep, then the character does not sleep. It's harder to justify that your character is a Master Wizard in a setting which places so much emphasis on your character's actual skills and abilities. The fact that your abilities increase according to usage itself makes gameplay-lore more difficult to justify in this case.
Your character is not simply choosing to avoid casting Alteration Spells; your character actively can't cast Alteration Spells. A similar scenario in DA:O isn't quite as applicable, because the PC's particular abilities aren't quite as vital to the role-playing experience as much as the dialogue is, in my opinion. Sure, Irving isn't able to cast Firestorm, but you're not confronted with that reality on the same level as Skyrim. Because Skyrim's gameplay isn't contingent upon the PC being in combat (you can use any spell whenever you'd like, unlike DA:O), it's bound by very different gameplay restrictions.
So he doesn't need to know the schools of magic taught at Winterhold's College to be the Arch Mage.
If you think about it, having a master of the Thu'un as the head of the college kinda might cast them in a better light.
Also, he's named Arch Mage for reasons I said a page or two ago. Traits he holds that have nothing to do with being a powerful mage.
But none of that is mentioned by anyone. We need an actual reason for them to make the PC Arch-Mage that is the result of something more than "you reached the end of the questline". From what we are given, there is no reason for your character, logistically speaking, to be made Arch-Mage upon conclusion of the quest-line, as explained. He has not necessarily demonstrated magical proficiency (and you don't even need to be acknowledged as the Dragonborn to join), administrative capabilities, or even have to express an interest in the role.
The other issue is that, even if we were to accept that Irving and Savos Aren are "weak" Arch-Mages, we don't necessarily know the circumstances of their appointments; which could simply make their circumstances acceptable. If Irving is a shrewd politician, we have our answer for how he was able to achieve his position, without supreme magical capabilities. We do know the exact circumstances of our own appointment however, which from what we are told doesn't hold the same level of validation. They basically tell you you're a good Arch-Mage because you are, which completely omits reason, especially in Tolfdir's case who has only ever seen you cast a ward. Remember, as the player, we're responsible for giving our own motivations, not the world's. If being Dragonborn is the reason for my appointment, I need to be told that, in some capacity.
Modifié par Il Divo, 13 janvier 2012 - 06:26 .
Retour en haut
