Originally Posted by
Leftovers
Describing the magus archetype through protagonistic characters who for whatever reason don't meet its qualifications (Touko, whose mindset has "degenerated", and Rin, whose has inherited the principles but doesn't fully practice them) and superimposing it on antagonists who display some of those traits in a one-dimensionally depicted role (Araya, Zouken, the nebulous sketch of the Clock Tower in F/SN), and incarnating that archetype in a character on whose thoughts we are fully informed ie. casting a "proper magus" in a role in which their sociopathic and monomaniacal traits aren't just manifestations of villainy but facets of a complex character and ideology, are two very different things.
Not least because the effort a writer needs to go through to explore the magus' personhood and how what seems to go against conventional notions of "humanness" is a product of culture and nurture and no less "human" than an immediately understandable/relatable/likable character who is identified as a magus by their knowledge and abilities and whose otherness is usually communicated either through comic behavioural quirks or morally reprehensible antagonism, goes against the discourse of the setting and the expectations of the audience.
It can be said the the former is the "unlikable edgy meanie" and the other is an anime character, but the truth is that the dictionary definition of a magus does not easily translate to a fully-realised character, and it is easier and more convenient for the narrative that magi are likable people with interesting powers and relatable motivations. In the first place, the early works featured active, sociable, mentally adjacent magi because focusing on the exceptions to the perceived norm allowed Nasu to demonstrate the archetype without going the pain in the ass that is writing it.