Thanks, that would be interesting. I'll be willing to change my mind if there's enough evidence that special talents for magic aren't needed and/or guilds aren't protecting their privileges.MrFlibble wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 9:13 pm Just as an aside, I re-read your previous comments about magic being limited to the select few in the earlier games, and I'm not really sure if this was actually what the developers intended to convey, and not what the player might infer from how the game mechanics are designed.
If you look into the various in-game books, there are examples which contradict the notion of magic being limited, arcane knowledge. In The Real Barenziah, the future queen is taught some magic, including an invisibility spell, by a smith's wife who has no social standing and certainly not a member of the Mages Guild. She "had a gift for certain kinds of magic", and that is assumed to be enough to not only use it herself, but to teach it to others who are also magically inclined. I can't think of other prominent examples from books at this moment, but I can look up when I have the time.
I didn't remember well the contents of The Real Barenziah at the moment honestly, but I wouldn't infere a lot from these words. I would say that the "real life" guilds also set a monopoly on certain craft only in their reach. So independent magicians - hermits or 'rural' mages - should be possible. There are semi-legal magic-related factions, such as witch covens, after all. And a person who has a talent for magic can teach another person who has a certain talent for it ('magically inclined') too, as is written in the book.
I'm hesitant about the monopoly of magical services hypothesis myself, but 'obligatory' magic-related talents seem to be almost out of the question.
Potions would look appropriate in the Mages Guild, but if they would also be available only upon reaching a higher rank, it would be consistent with my vision.nicksta1310 wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 3:10 am The biography of the Mages Guild founder, Galerion the Mystic (yes, you can read this book in Daggerfall), makes it abundantly clear that the developers intended for magic knowledge to be widely available.
You don't even have to be a member to buy spells that intentionally set people on fire. Peasants don't do that, because daggers are cheaper and they don't need high spell points or Destruction skill to keep using them.
I dare say that potions would have also been available in the Mages Guild if the developers had more time, unless they changed their minds halfway through development and never got around to changing the promotion messages from the temple factions that clearly imply the Mages Guild provides potions.
Perhaps you're right, although I am not really sure what you are referring to in Galerion the Mystic. If you mean that Mages guild is quite democratic and seeks to spread magical knowledge ('his philosophy of sharing knowledge.'), it can be understood in many ways.
My own interpretation is as follows. On the one hand, in Daggerfall NPCs tell you that prior to Mages guild, mages preferred a solitary lifestyle. On the other, I think there is still a clear evidence that magic is dangerous for unitiated, at least. In Skyrim we see four apprentices who died through experimenting with spells. I remember that in Morrowind it have been implied that cast failure suggests a chance for injury to the caster, but this was removed from the gameplay for the sake of simplicity (I can't find the proof right now for the latter though, so I can be wrong).
Therefore, I would read 'sharing knowledge' as implying to share it among solitary and self-taught mages themselves, to make magic more controllable, less destructive, and institutionalized.
I agree in advance that my reasoning here is rather speculative and requires further study. But it's good to remember that TES series are known for how the content of the books diverges from reality sometimes (don't forget about the presence of heresies and so on). The author of the book can embellish reality and present state of things in the better light. Just as in Antiquity freedom was extended only to citizens, and not to slaves. Perhaps mere peasants are not even taken into account?
I won't be surprised if there is a general unintentional inconsistency in the game, because developers might not think too much about it, while I tend to overthink it myself. On the one hand, developers apparently want to reproduce the world close enough to our everyday experience (therefore people cook food on a fire, and not with destruction fire magic), on the other hand, they want to add a lot of magic there, and this does not always fit perfectly together.