I dont understand how you guys can sit there, and be so literal about 1 way Skyrim words something, like alchemy creating potions with magical effects, therfore its magical (your view).. But Enchanting is breaking of an object, and learning the magical property, but its not magical.. Are we abiding by pure skyrim rules here, or not.. You seem to be floating to whatever rule, favors your current statement!

One could argue only warrs can use Smithing, Thiefs alchemy, and mages enchanting, since thats what the stones say!

No one is saying that enchanting is not magical.

We (at least what I'm trying to get at) are saying that both Alchemy and Enchanting are rooted in magic. This is according to TES lore as well as in-game descriptions/mechanics. The fact that real-world alchemy is not like the Alchemy skill in TES is meaningless since there is also no magic in the real world.

The whole discussion is over the word pure. I posit that if you're going to exclude Enchanting, you have to exclude Alchemy. The idea that if you hone your weapon, then add a personalized enchantment to it and use no other magical abilities, you are not considered "pure" warrior to be laughable.

Its been mentioned by various forum members that ES lore, or the "rules" put in this game is the limitation of the writers imagination and the devs code. How its used by the player is open to interpretation and I am inclined to agree with them, but some on here just don't get it or don't want to get it for whatever reasons they have.

Just having read some of the comments from the previous "Pure Warrior" thread spells this out in no uncertain terms.

Because someone sees it one way does not mean it is the unbreakable rock solid "truth" Its just there perception of this gaming world.

Check out any other open world single player game forum and you see similar patterns of topic discussion. Its endless and probabaly always will be..

Thanks for continuing, tis an interesting subject to see how others perceive the pure/proud thing and also the Alchemy/Enchanting debate.

I'd like to continue the discussion I was having with the Colonel near the end before I was locked blocked.

Archery is 1 of the warrior skills so it's acceptable to use a bow in battle but in my book only an Archer should use a bow for battle as it all boils down to the pure/proud way I play my warriors...I see it as a cowardly thing to use a distance weapon against someone trying to fight you if you claim the name "warrior"; Archers on the other hand use range in war like Snipers do so that svcks for the warrior/soldier who encounters 1 in battle
Since we're debating fantasy ideals, ever see the movie 300? When the Persians unleashed their arrow storm, King Leonidas called them "Persian Cowards" in disgust and I feel the same way about ranged combat (magical or otherwise) when I get in character with my warriors. My warriors only use a bow to hunt meat, my assassin uses it to hunt people.

As for the edit comment where you're trying to crack on my opinions, I already mentioned that my Barbarian warrior wore no armor so I give him the title of "Barbarian" for that reason and several others. No weapons is sadly not an option without a proper Unarmed skill or else I would've made a Barbaric Brawler long ago

EDIT: I'm mistaken, Archery isn't a "Warrior" skill in Skyrim so warriors should avoid it for war

Oh and as it was said, a resourceful warrior will use whatever to win a war but that's where the pure/proud thing comes into play.

And thats all i was trying to get at.. I use whatever perk i wish.. I understand the universal "pure warr" however, is basically a master at arms.. Master with all weapons, and heavy armor...Not really magic.. I guess i got too wrapped up in the argument at hand, but yea.. the "pure warr" is really described as master at arms... I personally woldnt consider any magic abilities t be utilized by that class..

That said, its been stepped on, and reworded so much over the years, who knows.. Im willing to bet that the ones that argued the pure warr wouldnt use said magic were 25+ years of age, whereas those who were, are younger.. Just a guess, not intended as judgment/criticism.. We may hold onto our older views of how it "was"..That argument started as what the definition of pure warr was, then turned into how TES describes various skills... Since TES has no "Classes" the entire argument was moot..

I was personally looking at it from the games standpoint, AND actual history, but others werent so it ended up being a situation where we agree to disagree i guess...

I cannot find the definitions, or Bethesdas wording on Alchemy, or enchanting anywhere, (i got home from work when i started this new thread) so if someone could post it, id be greatful...If were ging by bethesda though, id think that the Stones say it all..You can be a warrior class, and use enchanting.. But the "pure-warr", and i think many would agree, is an armsman.. There fr the physical combnat.. Then again.. TES defines Alch,Enchant, and smithing as "Skills", and not abilities, like flames..

This argument, is open to too much interpretation...

Thief stone- Archery, sneak, alchemy, light armor, lockpicking, pickpocketing

Warrior Stone- 1Hand, 2Hand, Heavy Armor, Block, Smithing, speech

Mage Stone- Enchanting, Illusion, Destruction, Conjuration, Restoration, ALteration,

Each has 6..

This has way too many examples to accurately continue off of. Honor has nothing to do with what is a warrior. "Pure" in this sense isn't a replacement for "true". It's mixed partly with gameplay logic, which by the way, archery is a combat skill in Skyrim:

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Archery

mixed with rp logic, mixed with movie and fantasy logic, all of which have their own arbitrary rules and regulations. This is a roleplaying game first and foremost. This from the last thread shows how The Elder Scrolls is different from other series':

http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1477784-the-so-called-warriors/?p=23116940

(To everyone in the thread)

This game is not like other games, and this discussion is filled with contradictions upon contradictions. Some people say enchanting is a magical skill, and it is, but so is alchemy. And none of them require any magical output from you. Enchanting likely only requires a mental connection to the maker of whatever it is, which is why only the knowledge of an effect is required to make it. With alchemy, you learn effects by eating the herb. This all involves magic, but not from you as a physical force from your body. Not sure how enchanting works for other games, but that's how it is here. It is interesting to note that in Dragon age, mages can't even enchant, since people wish to use other games as examples for whatever reason.

But enough rambling. Bottom line. Alchemy IS a magic skill lorewise. So if a warrior can be a warrior and an alchemist, so to can he be a warrior and an enchanter. Is a soldier not a soldier because he's also an engineer?

And if you say that a warrior can't be an alchemist...well

I invite all of you to punch snow.

And I'll leave it at that.

My mind works in mysterious ways, it has taken the original debate of what a warrior is in game and has worked into it what a warrior is in my heart

Let's just leave it at that we both have our own idea of what a warrior is in Skyrim as without an official class then that's all we really have to go by...still say a warrior has no business dealing with fancy magic tricks though but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

I don't think you're the only one doing that, and it's easy to do when we're dealing with a word with such a broad definition and so many things saying what it is. Another reason why to me "pure warrior" is a silly term. But that's just me. If we were talking about it the way you meant, then I'd agree, as far as what the Nords of Skyrim and so on would say, even though Tsun and those in Sovngarde would clearly disagree. My roleplay character you see in my avatar wouldn't be learning enchanting and such, although he'd gladly read of it. (no he doesn't wear sunglasses, lol).

Between my dragonborn and my roleplay character outside the game, I favor the roleplay one.

Now when i used real life instance in the previous thread, it wasnt ok, and were strictly using TES rules.. Now, once again, to benefit your sentence, you change the logic, and now its ok to use movies, other rp lore, etc.. Its not possible to have an open debate, when the "rules" are made by, and to benefit you, to change on your every whim...

Samurai used bows. European knights did not. Take it as you will. The idea is not so much to argue about it on a firum but rather to make a character that YOU want and stay true to it.

For me, if I was doing a heavy armor warrior modeled on a knight I would not use anything but:

One handed

Two handed

Heavy armor

Block

Smithing would be beneath me. Bows would be cowardly. Enchanting would be rubbish. Alchemists are poisoners. One does not sneak. Mercantilism is for the low born.

But that is one character. Pick another and your mileage varies.

Did you read my post? I'm not using movie logic and so on. I pointed out everyone else was using so many rules from so many things that its impossible to really follow. My stance has never switched or changed.

I may have used a real life example, but the logic I used is exactly the same.

I hear you that's why I've taken a liking to calling them "proud" instead of "pure" as it seems to me that pride not purity would cause a warrior not to use everything available to win the war. I agree about preferring the RP over the gameplay, I just couldn't help but heed the call of a true warrior debate

Speaking of your avatar, did you paint that?

That's almost sig worthy

Ha! I wish. No, Galagraphia did. Its a commission of a friend of mine's in our roleplay with her character and mine. Here's the original:

http://galagraphia.deviantart.com/art/We-are-going-to-Atmora-391903730

And my altered version for the avatar up close:

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-XA4FFKOsGZA/Un0MQj31ueI/AAAAAAAABJo/UAuUEQigVSg/w305-h313-no/WxgkyDq.jpg

Colonel is pretty much the only one trying to keep this discussion in the game world and not in someone's head. Alchemy is like chemistry in the real world! Except it isn't....it's alchemy and it's in Tamriel, and it is combining ingredients to achieve a magical effect.

Enchanting is simply a means of getting the best armor/weapons available. Since when has this trait not been ascribed to warriors(even "pure" ones....)? It seems a little nitpicky, especially when you can't get a mage to enchant your gear(even though it's supposed to be magic, right????). The gameplay just does not support these distinctions, at least definitively. All that's left are the roleplaying restrictions that you put on yourself(not others)

The real issue is people trying to pass off their RP as some sort of canon

I don't think it comes entirely from headcanon as it used to be that way in the past games before it was retconed for easier gameplay in Skyrim. Or rather, before the "advances in magical science," if I were to be nicer about it.

Right, but we're talking about Skyrim, aren't we?

Aren't characters in previous games blessed with the ability to cast magic spells right out of the gate, anyway? So everyone is a mage then, or do these distinctions make little sense?

What cracks me up is that the last thread started with an OP that was way off the mark. If anyone was to say "warriors are strong and mages are weak", they are no doubt referring to the damage imbalance between physical weapons and destruction magic damage(all crafting skills considered). Anyone who has actually used conjuration or illusion knows there is nothing "weak" about those schools. In fact, they might be overpowered

Yes, we are.

I never said that it's a skill that is limited to magi, though, just that it's a magical skill.

By the way, I thought this was resolved in the past thread.

When I play a warrior character, I don't use potions, magic, sneaking, and I only use bows against targets I cannot reach through normal sword/shield means.

I make up for the lack of self-healing through a lot of waiting. Not sitting down and/or goofing off until my health pool is back up to 100%, I actually use the wait feature.

During the heavy battles that would otherwise kill me, I feel no shame in turning my back and running for my life out of the area. If I'm stuck on a boss, I will run away, make a note of that area, and come back to it when I become more powerful.

While it is so tempting to use healing potions and spells, being a "true" warrior requires a lot of discipline and patience. However, the game is based on how you want to play.

If people want to use a sword with the occasional spell and potion and consider themselves a warrior, so be it. In addition, someone who uses heavy armor and a sword while blasting spells in the offhand who wishes to be a wizard, is also okay in my book.

We spend too much time trying to define what something is, rather than just accepting it for what it is.

The discussion leaves the game world when someone tries to justify the use of Enchanting for a pure warrior.

And yes... Alchemy is chemistry. Nothing made up or grossly misinterpreted about that.

Nice, I need to find me a nice artsy friend with the skill and desire to paint my characters tale

I'm not a member on there so tell her Haggar from the forums likes her work

I think this is 1 of those things that's purely for gameplay purposes so someone who wants to start out as a mage can use a spell or 2 right from the beginning...can't remember if Oblivion had starter spells like Skyrim does though. It sometimes gets tricky to separate something that's purely a gameplay element from something that's a gameplay element yet has a deeper lore related purpose.

It is for gameplay purposes. This was carried over from Oblivion, where all characters would start with Flare & Heal Minor Wounds -I also seem to remember using at least a healing spell, when I tried Morrowind out.