This is a question I’ve had since I first came here, and it may be a stupid question but I figure I’ll see what insight y’all can lend. When I think of the three main necessary skills of a magus, I would have thought of the two listed here, soul travel and divination, but the third (actually frankly first) I’d have thought of would be enchantment rather than evocation.

Is it that evocation just tends to be much more powerful than the magician using his own power to enchant? Or that evocation at the end of the day does more to empower the magician altogether because of everything that can be learned and acquired from ancient and powerful spirits?

I mean, frankly I feel like I’ve answered my own question here, but I’m just wondering, should the importance of mastering personal spellcasting be considered ancillary to evocation since it’s just not as useful overall?

Well, it depends on your definition of course, but enchanting is generally considered relegated to creating magickal tools, so it’s a subset skill of general magickal practice/spellcasting. Around here, most of us call it charging or consecrating when we create or empower magickal tools, for reference.

Evocation can be used to duplicate the effects of most if not all spells, including enchantments. Evocation can also be used to learn how to perform said spells. Evocation also has the added bonus that it generally uses the power/energy of the entities, rather than your own power/energy, to create the desired effect, saving your resources for other matters.

So yes, evocation is greater than enchantment. In purpose, scope, and power.

Evocation, ultimately, is a direct way of harnessing power toward your goals - thus it’s place in the 3GP. Divination lets you KNOW anything, Soul Travel lets you BE anywhere, Evocation lets you DO anything.

I think I may gather from the poster’s use of the term “enchantment,” he meant general spellcasting. If I’m wrong, do correct me.

The question then is, how is evocation a more necessary - as well as more powerful - form of magick, as to be listed amongst the 3 Godlike Powers. Again, this is running on the above assumption of the definition of “enchantment.”

The real issue with spellcasting is that there is no one way to do it. It’s not a system and method on its own. In fact, you’ll notice that in most more potent forms of spellcasting, evocation is relied on heavily. Rather than just stabbing a clay figure, instead call on the Gatekeepers while you stab a clay figure. Rather than just lighting some candles, call the watchtowers before you do your spell. While these are not evocation proper, but more like simple salutations, they are not being performed as evocations because it’s never been made clear (until now) that these forces need to be evoked, and that that is what is meant by the word “called.”

Yea when I said enchantment I just meant general spellcasting. That’s what I’ve always thought the word meant.

Definition of enchantment
[mass noun]

1a feeling of great pleasure; delight:the enchantment of the mountains

2the state of being under a spell; magic:a world of mystery and enchantment

enchantment (n.) Look up enchantment at Dictionary.com
late 13c., from Old French encantement, from enchanter “bewitch, charm,” from Latin incantare, literally “enchant, cast a (magic) spell upon,” from in- “upon, into” (see in- (2)) + cantare “to sing” (see chant (v.)). Figurative sense of “alluring” is from 1670s. Cf. Old English galdor “song,” also “spell, enchantment,” from galan “to sing,” source of the second element in nightingale.

It seems to refer to the casting of a spell upon something. In other words, casting a spell to bring you money from the aether would not be an enchantment.