Does Scholar Really Use Magic? - Lore/RP

[MistakeNot]

Does Scholar Really Use Magic? see this translation (japanese):



So, this abilities do not seem to magic spell, but combat strategy.

in lore, does scholar use magic to heal or create shields?

how should we see (RP side) the use of these skills?

They use magic. ALL classes and jobs use aether (magic) in some form for at least some of their abilities. (Possible exception being the DoL classes.)

[Lambdafish]

They use magic. ALL classes and jobs use aether (magic) in some form for at least some of their abilities. (Possible exception being the DoL classes.)

Just because aether is used, doesn't mean that magic is used. My opinion is that magic is the channeling of aether through the body, which you are right, many more jobs than mages do this. PLD, DRK, WAR, NIN, DRG, and MNK all do this in various different forms, but MCH does not. MCH has an aetherotransformer on their belt, which uses your aether to power the weapon in the same way that garleans use ceruleum. MCH is a very artificial job, using technology over magic, and I would argue that they are where the line is drawn between aether and magic.

SCH totally channels aether through their bodies though, the nymian magic is just written as battle tactics.

[Risvertasashi]

Just because aether is used, doesn't mean that magic is used. My opinion is that magic is the channeling of aether through the body, which you are right, many more jobs than mages do this. PLD, DRK, WAR, NIN, DRG, and MNK all do this in various different forms, but MCH does not. MCH has an aetherotransformer on their belt, which uses your aether to power the weapon in the same way that garleans use ceruleum. MCH is a very artificial job, using technology over magic, and I would argue that they are where the line is drawn between aether and magic.

SCH totally channels aether through their bodies though, the nymian magic is just written as battle tactics.

Do you... really not see the contradictions in your own post?

Or perhaps it's better to ask... what is your definition of "magic"?

To most people, Aether = Magic. Saying Garleans cannot use aether (like in the post above yours) is equivalent to saying Garleans cannot use magic (and not strictly true if you include tool use). And using Aether through a tool is still using Aether (AKA magic).

Various mage classes has different 'sources' and ways of channeling aether but in the end they all use it, so saying "oh but this class's particular tool is a bit different" seems relatively meaningless and makes an unconvincing argument.

[Lambdafish]

Various mage classes has different 'sources' and ways of channeling aether but in the end they all use it, so saying "oh but this class's particular tool is a bit different" seems relatively meaningless and makes an unconvincing argument.

Thats my point though, does it or doesn't it matter? Because while you could well be right in that aether = magic, the use of an external tool is far more akin to garlean tech than actual magic. In the sightseeing log, we find the following passage: "To power their legions of war machina, the Garleans require a steady supply of the aether-based fuel known as ceruleum." What this tells us is that ceruleum is aether based, making magitek technology aetheric fueled. That gives us a huge link towards MCH, which also uses technology that is aetheric fueled.

My argument therefor is that MCH uses magitek, not magic. Garleans use magitek, not magic. Other jobs use magick because the aether is the source of the abilities, not just the fuel (and it is just fuel, the lorebook describes the process as "converting mana into lightning-aspected energy (or as well call it in the real world - electricity) to power the invention"). You could argue that it is semantics, but I think there is an important distinction.

[Risvertasashi]

Thats my point though, does it or doesn't it matter? Because while you could well be right in that aether = magic, the use of an external tool is far more akin to garlean tech than actual magic. In the sightseeing log, we find the following passage: "To power their legions of war machina, the Garleans require a steady supply of the aether-based fuel known as ceruleum." What this tells us is that ceruleum is aether based, making magitek technology aetheric fueled. That gives us a huge link towards MCH, which also uses technology that is aetheric fueled.

My argument therefor is that MCH uses magitek, not magic. Garleans use magitek, not magic. Other jobs use magick because the aether is the source of the abilities, not just the fuel. You could argue that it is semantics, but I think there is an important distinction.

It's an interesting distinction, yes, especially for lore discussions. But when it comes down to "does this class use aether", I don't think there is a distinction there. The answer is still yes.

There are other distinctions you can draw. For example, WHM/BLM draw on aether from their surroundings*, while RDM uses the caster's internal aether as a power source. A distinct difference, but in the end, using abilities fueled by aether/magic. So now magitek... similar deal. It's a tool/external source that grants it, but the abilities are ultimately still aether-driven.

Of course, I'd still peg SCH as one of the more traditional mages, and there's multiple in-game references to them as mages/users of nymnian magics, etc. I wouldn't go so far as to call melees or mch or similar "mages". But if a given ability uses 'aether' (vs pure martial skill/discipline/etc), I think to most, that would be magic. Regardless of the source.

*(Because I know someone will nitpick: Yes, it is indicated in questlines that CNJ/THM can self-power their abilities somewhat, but that this may not exactly lead to a long and healthy life.)

--

tl;dr: Unless we have definitions that specifically separate 'magic' and 'aether', distinctions in sources of aether are interesting to discuss in terms of lore... but in the end, it still all seems like "magic".

[Gemina]

But if a given ability uses 'aether' (vs pure martial skill/discipline/etc), I think to most, that would be magic. Regardless of the source.

tl;dr: Unless we have definitions that specifically separate 'magic' and 'aether', distinctions in sources of aether are interesting to discuss in terms of lore... but in the end, it still all seems like "magic".

That is pretty much my thought process on it. If the ability consumes MP, it's of a magical property. Semantics can intertwine aether and magic, but all we need to do is look to the lore where it specifically states that Garleans cannot use magic. This tells us the lore makes the two terms separate. Magic is the art of channeling aether through various means for a myriad of purposes. Eorzens use music, nature, written text, jutsu, and even the abyss to harness and wield the aether. Garleans are incapable of any of this. In short, if you could play a Garlean in FFXIV, you wouldn't have an MP gauge of any kind.

We also know that not all magic users are mages - another distinction. Mage in this game is synonymous with caster, hence how we got terms like Bow Mage and Gun Mage in earlier days. BRD, DRK, and PLD are clear magic users, but none of them are mages. Even though some of their abilities are classified as 'spells', we can't call any those melee jobs true mages.

In short; Eorzeans are magical badasses, and Garleans are just jelly.