Extract from the forums of planescry’gld:
----------------------------------------
TheChronicler17
So given the extreme amount of debate that’s been going around our community these past few weeks about whether or not Gizzel Fillar truly could be considered a Shaman, I figured it would be worth taking a look at the different titles that mages have historically been awarded, and try to piece together whether any of his claims have any basis in history.
You can find a full list of my sources, and the logic used to determine my summaries here and here.
Arcanist: Often considered Warlocks, yet decidedly not, Arcanists were Mages that did not require an external focus and were instead capable of casting a full spell or even ritual in a roughly-equivalent time to a standard Mage with a full set of tools.
Artificer: A mage capable of creating an independently magical item (that is, not merely a focus). I will explain my reasoning a bit more to preclude the inevitable rebuttal, and yes, while etifikars, in the oldest usage of the word, were those who created magical foci, the term changed to refer to those who created magical objects almost as soon as the first Warlock did so.
Battlemage: The Mage equivalent of a career warrior, a Battlemage, sometimes also known as a Warmage specializes in combat magic, and is able to cast spells and even rituals in a timeframe relevant in an actual fight. Note that this does not include Siege magics, as any mage was expected to contribute to Siege-Mage tactics should their country go to war.
Binder: Then as now, any Mage capable of Fatebinding was considered a Binder, but then the definition also included those simply versed in mere contract magics, and even restraining magics in some cases. In truth, any magic capable of restricting action was considered Binding magic, the distinctions which set Fatebinding apart not widely known enough.
Cleric: A religious mage, part of the clergy for the temple. No additional prowess was required, simply an association with the church, but there was usually an expectation that they would be at least moderately proficient in blessings. Their association with healing magics were the result of divine foci and training, but were not inherently connected to life (as can be easily evidenced by priests of the Crow).
Druids: Mages which did not rely on their own mana to cast rituals, but instead used minor spells in conjunction with nearby ley lines to leverage the Manic field itself to accomplish grand ‘natural’ feats of magic.
Elementalist: Similar to a sorcerer, an Elementalist specializes in a single element, but an Elementalist takes this to the next level, their natural magics by default materializing in their element instead of a standard Flare.
Enchanter: The modern word ‘Enchanter’ could be feasibly traced back to etificar or sechetes, which are likewise early terms for ‘Artificer’ or ‘Psychic,’ making this an annoying title to try and track down. Sources used Enchanter for either one who enchanted magical items, as an Artificer, or those who enchanted individuals, as a Psychic. Accordingly, either usage is historically accurate.
Envoy/Bestowed/Blessed/Damned: One chosen to carry a divine Bestowal, back when that meant something. All four names referred to essentially the same group, with Blessed/Damned mostly serving as political terms for whether or not the Envoy was considered to be ‘approved’ by the temple of the time and place they were active.
Invokers: Invokers relied primarily upon Invoking magics, utilizing their voice as their primary spellcasting tool. This didn’t technically include Songmages, as they weren’t properly developed until centuries after the first Invokers.
Mage: A formally schooled mage, one who underwent the time’s full education course to become proficient in the foremost branch of magic of the day.
Magus: A mage-scholar, often one willing to share their findings with others. A Magi is interested for personal reasons in the fundamental structure of magic. They were predominantly diviners and devoted much of their time to attempting to understand the Manic Field.
Muse: Muses were mages whose primary focus was upon empowering others, usually through enhancement spells, created Enhanced as their primary specialty. Some also taught their Musees about magic, but this was far from a requirement. The very first Muse actually used their slaves as their targets, utilizing them for relatively menial tasks.
Mystic: Mystics turned the majority of their magics inwards, imbuing their own bodies with exceptional magical might. This is distinct from a simple enhanced because a Mystic specifically empowers themselves, rather than relying upon alchemical and external rituals to strengthen their body.
Psychic: Broadly, any mage capable of controlling or reading the mind of another was considered a Psychic, as were any able to use Flare with out gesture, chant, or focus. The conceptualization was that any mage capable of casting with only their mind, or upon the mind of another, was special in some way.
Seer/Augur/Diviner: Other than the distinction that Seers predominantly looked at the present, and Augurs into the future, with Diviner being the generic term for each, all three were those specializing in scrying, detection, and other divination-type magics. They had a reputation for being all-knowing, but any mage capable of reliable mage sight was considered a Diviner.
Summoner/Caller: Often associated with Warlocks, a Summoner was simply a mage capable of summoning a ‘spirit,’ which included any non-Mortal being, as well as Fae and Shadelings.
Shaman: Similar to an Arcanist, Shamans did not require ritual foci, but instead of simply direct-casting the required spells, they built up a collection of ‘spirits,’ animate spells similar to a proto-familiar, capable of handling some of the difficulties of casting autonomously. For them, all rituals they performed were connected.
Shaper/Adept/Weaver: A mage specializing in crafting, usually nonmagical. Technically, Artificers are also Shapers/Adepts/Weavers, but the lesser title was rarely used in conjunction with Artificer barring very particular circumstances, the most common of which being considered an Archadept, Archshaper, or Archweaver.
Stolen from its original source, this story is not meant to be on Amazon; report any sightings.
Sorcerer: A specialist in a specific element. This title seems to often be given only to those who possess a natural aptitude for the element, but is also given on occasion to those who mastered usage of the element with extensive practice. There is also some connotation of only being good at the one element, but that seems to be predominantly based on the fact it is very difficult to be considered an ‘expert’ in one element, let alone multiple
Thaumaturge: An individual, mage or not, who had served as the channel for a divine working at least once. Note that while all Envoys were Thaumaturges, not all Thaumaturges were Envoys, but Clerics were the most likely to be a Thaumaturge. Of all the titles I looked at, Thaumaturge was the one most liable to be used in political maneuvering, granting the distinction to Clerics whose ‘divine workings’ were suspect at best.
Transmuter: In an unusual bout of simplicity, a Transmuter was any mage capable of Ritual Transmutation, wholly transforming a substance into another while using no alchemy.
Warlock: One who broke a law of magic. Yes, originally Warlock was if not complimentary, at least something intended to convey awe or mystery. Practitioners of other ‘contradictory’ magical disciplines, or simply those who first encountered a breakthrough in magical spells would be considered Warlocks.
Witch: Mages which didn’t undergo formal schooling, but instead focused on learning minor spells generally useful in day-to-day life. Some used rituals, but predominantly relied on alchemy for anything complex. Housewitch was a common role in older societies, mothers teaching their daughters a few spells, who would then teach their children, and so forth. All informal schooling, nothing formal or structured.
Wizard: Not the ‘jack of all trades,’ commonly associated with them but rather a mage who could be reasonably expected to deal with any magical problem presented. Whether this was done with a single, exceptionally broad spell or ritual, or by knowing a multitude of unique rituals and the ability to quickly learn or develop a new one should the need arise was irrelevant to the title, though definitely trends to the latter meaning.
So there you go. If this gets popular enough, maybe I’ll look at some of the… modifiers, whatever the word is. Like arch- and hedge-. But for now, this already got way out of hand for what was going to just be a post about the history of Shamans, and I’m not sure I even really managed that.
----------------------------------------
coremagicsfireball
oh **** off, warl*ck hasn’t meant ‘genius’ in centuries
----------------------------------------
billtme
Yeah no Guzzle Flounder is totally not a shaman don’t care how you wanna twist the definition.
----------------------------------------
TheChronicler17
@coremagicsfireball I feel as though it’s only fair to utilize the original definitions when trying to determine the proper title for a proper Mage, or at least try to. Yes, I know that as often as not they were political titles but that’s not really what’s being discussed these days. I really would prefer leaving that kind of discussion for the other thread, though, and keep this one focused more on the classical definitions of the titles, if you wouldn’t mind.
----------------------------------------
GiarrBestMage
@TheChronicler17 Let’s not kid ourselves, Warlock never meant ‘magical revolutionary,’ it was always a mage that broke a social law and so was an outcast. That cut them off from the support networks vital for a mage and so needed to use unconventional magics, not unlike a witch, but with way more power and sophistication. That they tended to have really impressive and off-the-wall magic was because they would kidnap people for blood sacrifices and contract demons for powers most people weren’t familiar with, not because they were smarter or whatever.
----------------------------------------
TheChronicler17
@GiarrBestMage This really should be going in the other thread but… Warlock definitely was used like that, yes, but if we look at some of Oril’s works, she used ‘warlock’ (well, technically ‘waerlaga’) in the context of foreign mages, using magics they were unfamiliar with. It’s closer to ‘barbarian’ in that respect, simply an outsider. Gallas’ work also has that same usage, predating Istai’s writings by at least two centuries, to describe ‘a worker of new or unknown magic’ rather than ‘an unknown worker of magic.’
----------------------------------------
MaxTheEternal
@TheChronicler17 why did you say that mages were expected to contribute to siege magics? if were talking about the old use of the words, siege magic wasnt a thing until the time of the violet emperor, centuries past the first warmages so they wouldnt have that distinction
----------------------------------------
ImMagical
Elementalist wasn’t a thing for at least a thousand years after the rest of the terms you use came about?
----------------------------------------
TheChronicler17
@MaxTheEternal You’re right, in that they wouldn’t have had that distinction, I simply included that disclaimer for the modern audience, to draw the distinction between group siege rituals and genuine individual combat prowess.
@ImMagical Technically true, but there was a conceptualization of the Elementalist as a distinct entity from ‘normal’ sorcerers, sometimes called ‘True’ or ‘Born’ sorcerers. I just called them the Elementalist for the sake of understanding.
----------------------------------------
ImMagical
But isn’t this whole thing about using the old names for mage types?
----------------------------------------
TooCooFooNoo
[Removed by Moderator]
----------------------------------------
PhilosopherStoned
‘Transmuter’ is definitely more complex than you’re giving it credit for Early transmutation rituals required at least some amount of alchemical potion as a focus or material, so there wasn’t really such thing as an ‘alchemy-free transmutation’ given alchemical transmutation also required a ritual
----------------------------------------
kittyycatt
You missed so much, what about spellweavers, mesmerists, beguilers, paragons, paladins, aegises, evokers, warders?
----------------------------------------
TheFiveAndOnly
What a bunch of utter *****
----------------------------------------
TheChronicler17
@kittyycatt Ugh, I can’t believe I forgot Warders. Tell you what, maybe I’ll do a part 2 if this gets enough attention, and make sure I get some of the ones I missed, alongside the modifiers? So if you want me to cover it, share and pass it along.
----------------------------------------
TOMysElf
sparks this is cool
good job!
----------------------------------------
gotchuuuuuuuu
first
----------------------------------------
VoriTell
Caller and Summoner are not the same thing, come on, if it’s a fae or shadowling, it’s not a non-Mortal summoning so it’s a Call. This is basic stuff.
----------------------------------------
ScratchALitch
@gotchuuuuuuuu shut up
----------------------------------------
godsbiggestfanny
@VoriTell that’s what it became. What @TheChronicler17 is talking about is the original use of the words, when they didn’t know that fae and shadelings were Mortal.
----------------------------------------
TheChronicler17
What @godsbiggestfanny said
----------------------------------------
VoriTell
Except Caller wasn’t used until there was a need to distinguish between Summoners and Callers, so Callers were always in reference to the other Mortal creatures.
----------------------------------------
gotchuuuuuuuu
@ScratchALitch no you shut up
----------------------------------------
TheChronicler17
@VoriTell no, the word used can be translated into either Caller or Summoner, it’s just with modern reexaminations that people are putting the idea that they weren’t used interchangeably forward, which I explained more in my Reasonings document.
----------------------------------------
whatmyelffingerstype
No mention of Changers?
----------------------------------------
TheChronicler17
@whatmyelffingerstype As I mentioned to @kittyycatt, there were a bunch of really stupid omissions that I might cover in a part 2 depending on how well this is received.
----------------------------------------
ScratchALitch
@gotchuuuuuuuu go home and play with your dolls if you can’t be mature enough to take this seriously
----------------------------------------
tossoff59817a
Wait there are people defending Gizzel?
----------------------------------------
pinkhairblackskin
@coremagicsfireball oh don’t be sutch a pain, Warlock’s a long-storied title
----------------------------------------
GreenheartTheGrandFan
@TheChronicler17 this is so cool!
----------------------------------------
(1-30 of 3,018. Next. Last. 1 2 3 4 … 99 100 101)