Jump to content
模组网
icedream

【书籍搬运】Response to Bero's Speech 对贝罗演讲的回应

Recommended Posts

原文地址

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Response_to_Bero%27s_Speech

对贝罗演讲的回应

战法师,马维泽

 在末种月第14日,一个叫做贝热瓦·贝罗的幻术师在帝都的尤里安诺斯教团发表了一次非常无知的演讲。因为无知的演讲屡见不鲜,本并不需要做出回应。不幸的是,他私下将讲演印刷成“贝罗对战斗法师的演讲”,并且还在学术界获得了一些小范围的,不应该获得的注意。让我们终结他的错误想法吧。

 贝罗以对包括祖林·阿克图斯这位泰伯·塞普汀的皇家战斗法师,以至于贾加·萨恩——尤利尔·塞普汀七世的帝国法师在内的著名战斗法师们的偶然事件的描述作为他讲演的开始。他的意图是想说明当需要时,战斗法师会依靠其他系别的魔法,而不是本应作为战斗法师特殊专长的毁灭系法术。首先请允许我对这些所谓的史实提出质疑。

 

 祖林·阿克图斯并不像贝罗宣称的那样用神秘系法术和召唤系法术创造出了纳米迪安傀儡。真相是,在对那些字元的传统判断标准下,我们并不知道纳米迪安是怎么产生的,甚至不知道它是不是一个傀儡或者是不是一个元素人。尤利尔五世的所谓战斗法师海瑟斯,严格来说并不是一名皇家战斗法师——他仅仅是一个受雇于帝国的法师,因此他在阿卡维尔的各种战场上施放的是哪种法术就无关紧要了,更不必说那些谣言了。贝罗把穆里赫塔女皇的战斗法师维洛克称作“一位有造诣的外交官”而不是“一位毁灭系的优秀学生”。我首先祝贺贝罗终于能正确的辨别出一位皇家战斗法师,然而有不少书面的例子证实了维洛克的毁灭系技艺。例如,贤者切拉鲁斯,大篇阐述了关于维洛克对黑蔷薇的反叛军施放吸收之云,导致他们的力量和技能被传递给他们对手的事迹。这是什么,难道不是一个令人印象深刻的毁灭系例子吗?

 

 贝罗颇为乏味的在他列出的技艺欠佳战斗法师名单中涵盖了贾加·萨恩。将一个发疯的叛徒作为理性行为的范例,这样的立场是站不住脚的。贝罗想要怎么样?让贾加透过更传统的途径使用毁灭系法术来毁灭泰姆瑞尔吗?

 

 贝罗用他对历史的歪曲作为他论点的基础。即使他真的已经找到了四个历史中战斗法师施放其他系法术的极佳例子——事实上他没有——他只有一些道听涂说的证据,这不足以支撑一个论点。我可以轻易找到四个幻术师施放治疗法术,或者夜刃传送的例子。任何事都取决于特定的情况和位置。

 

 贝罗那建立在脆弱基础之上的论据,宣称毁灭系不是一个真正的派系。他称它“短浅”不足以作为学科的一门分支,认为它的学生们没有耐心,并且有自负倾向。这要如何做出回应?一个对施放毁灭系法术一无所知的人批判该系太过简单?把毁灭系总结为学习如何在“最短时间内造成最大伤害”显然是荒谬的,并且他透过他自己的幻术系研究罗列出的所有复杂因素更加加深了他的不学无术。

 

 作为回应请允许我罗列出毁灭系研究出的因素。在毁灭系中释放法术的方法要比在其他任何系中更加重要,不管是近距离施法,远距离施法,范围法术,还是触发型法术都是如此。必须支配哪种力量来施放法术:火焰、闪电,还是寒霜?每一种的优势和威胁是什么?不同目标对不同毁灭系法术袭击的反应如何?可能遭遇到的防御措施有哪些?它们如何被击破?必须考虑什么环境因素?延时伤害性法术的优点是什么?贝罗暗示说毁灭系法术不够隐蔽,但是他忘记了所有受到该系法术侵蚀的那些祸害,有时能以隐蔽至极端的方法影响一代又一代。

 

 变换系不同于毁灭系,是一个独特且有区别的实体,贝罗认为他们应该被并为一系的论点显然是荒唐的。他又一次主张——一个对变换系和毁灭系一无所知的人,这样“主张”——“伤害”属于被变换系法术作用使现实出现的变化中的一部分。言外之意则是说浮空术这个变换系法术是毁灭系法术雷暴术的近亲。这就和声明关于改变现实的变换系,应该向关于改变表像的幻术系学习一样。

 

 一位幻术系大师对毁灭系进行这种抨击肯定不是一个巧合。毕竟,幻术,就是用来掩盖真相的嘛。

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Response to Bero's Speech
by Malviser, Battlemage
Commentaries of "Bero's Speech to the Battlemages" book

 On the 14th of Last Seed, an illusionist by the name of Berevar Bero gave a very ignorant speech at the Chantry of Julianos in the Imperial City. As ignorant speeches are hardly uncommon, there was no reason to respond to it. Unfortunately, he has since had the speech privately printed as "Bero's Speech to the Battlemages," and it's received some small, undeserved attention in academic circles. Let us put his misconceptions to rest.
Bero began his lecture with an occasionally factual account of famous Battlemages from Zurin ArctusTiber Septim's Imperial Battlemage, to Jagar TharnUriel Septim VII's Imperial Battlemage. His intent was to show that where it matters, the Battlemage relies on other Schools of Magicka, not the School of Destruction which is supposedly a Battlemage's particular forte. Allow me first to dispute these so-called historical facts.
Zurin Arctus did not create the golem Numidium by spells of Mysticism and Conjuration as Bero alleges. The truth is that we don't know how Numidium was created or if it was a golem or atronachin any traditional sense of those words. Uriel V's Battlemage Hethoth was not an Imperial Battlemage — he was simply a sorcerer in the employ of the Empire, thus which spells he cast in the various battles on Akavir are irrelevant, not to mention heresay [sic]. Bero calls EmpressMorihatha's Battlemage Welloc "an accomplished diplomat" but not "a powerful student of the School of Destruction." I congratulate Bero on correctly identifying an Imperial Battlemage, but there are many written examples of Welloc's skill in the School of Destruction. The sage Celarus, for example, wrote extensively about Welloc casting the Vampiric Cloud on the rebellious army ofBlackrose, causing their strength and skill to pass on to their opponents. What is this, but an impressive example of the School of Destruction?
Bero rather pathetically includes Jagar Tharn in his list of underachieving Battlemages. To use an insane traitor as example of rational behavior is an untenable position. What would Bero prefer? That Tharn used the School of Destruction to destroy Tamriel by a more traditional means?
Bero uses his misrepresentation of history as the basis for his argument. Even if he had found four excellent examples from history of Battlemages casting spells outside their School — and he didn't — he would only have anecdotal evidence, which isn't enough to support an argument. I could easily find four examples of illusionists casting healing spells, or nightblades teleporting. There is a time and a place for everything.
Bero's argument, built on this shaky ground, is that the School of Destruction is not a true school. He calls it "narrow and shallow" as an avenue of study, and its students impatient, with megalomaniac tendencies. How can one respond to this? Someone who knows nothing about casting a spell of Destruction criticizing the School for being too simple? Summarizing the School of Destruction as learning how to do the "maximum amount of damage in the minimum amount of time" is clearly absurd, and he expounds on his ignorance by listing all the complicated factors studied in his own School of Illusion.
Allow me in response to list the factors studied in the School of Destruction. The means of delivering the spell matters more in the School of Destruction than any other school, whether it is cast at a touch, at a range, in concentric circles, or cast once to be triggered later. What forces must be reigned in to cast the spell: fire, lightning, or frost? And what are the advantages and dangers of each? What are the responses from different targets from the assault of different spells of destruction? What are the possible defenses and how may they be assailed? What environmental factors must be taken into consideration? What are the advantages of a spell of delayed damage? Bero suggests that the School of Destruction cannot be subtle, yet he forgets about all the Curses that fall under the mantle of the school, sometimes affecting generation after generation in subtle yet sublime ways.
The School of Alteration is a distinct and separate entity from the School of Destruction, and Bero's argument that they should be merged into one is patently ludicrous. He insists — again, a man who knows nothing about the Schools of Alteration and Destruction, is the one insisting this — that "damage" is part of the changing of reality dealt with by the spells of Alteration. The implication is that Levitation, to list a spell of Alteration, is a close cousin of Shock Bolt, a spell of Destruction. It would make as much sense to say that the School of Alteration, being all about the actuality of change, should absorb the School of Illusion, being all about the appearance of change.
It certainly isn't a coincidence that a master of the School of Illusion cast this attack on the School of Destruction. Illusion is, after all, all about masking the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...