Dwemer!


http://www.imperial-library.info/obbooks/marobar.shtml#11 - did someone already say this?

No, but coming as it does from Marobar Sul, and the thrust of the story seems didactic rather than historical, I don't think we can rely on it too much.

When making a claim such as that you have to explain. Or else I can say you're statement is faulty and walk away too. But no one would respect it because I have not backed it up.



Opinions either way. I just don't think Azura really has that much power or else she would have used it in other situations. But that is my opinion too.



Self fullfilled prophecies lack that magic of real ones in my opinion. It either is a complete prophecy or it is nothing but a dart game.



Perhaps he did submit for those reasons but I think if he really did have the power to flood nations, he could have done it in the numerous battles he was in before hand. 80 years of war and never did he consider it? I think just like in our world, myths are created by people concerning people they see as great.



I don't disagree because this supports my point that they "gods" aren't as strong as they say they are.



Yes actually. Strong evidence too.

I did explain, that's kinda what the entire rest of my post was; a breakdown of those faulty reasons... I like to break down points one at a time (meaning I quote each) so as not to come away with just a big block of text...

I already explained why Azura does not have 'that much power' on Nirn, there are things stopping the Daedra from exercising full influence there. It doesn't mean that they don't have the power, just that there are things stopping them from using it in places other than their realm...

Then for no other reason than that nobody likes pulling the same trick twice (even if the Akaviri did invade after Septim)... And the thing is, that in the TES world, that myths really are created by the people concerning people they see as great, but the difference that in TES those myths tend to start becoming realities if enough people believe them; that's where the Aedra in the current form come from (unless you follow that they're the Maruhkati, but still)...

They don't actually say much. This should really read "not as strong as other people say they are", presumably. Or even better, "not as strong as you think they should be", since you're talking about what Vivec should have done. But that doesn't stop them from being gods. You really need to give some criteria on how you define god before we can go anywhere with this.


No more than a fairy tale. As I said above your post: "coming as it does from Marobar Sul, and the thrust of the story seems didactic rather than historical, I don't think we can rely on it too much."

It's pretty clearly a story enshrining cultural virtues.

Ah my mistake. I thought you would speak about what you quoted first. But I see. In any case I replied to those points. Thanks for the clarification.



I know this but there are those within TES who consider the daedra all powerful beings almost. Affecting an entire race is a great power, depending on how you gauge it. Maybe she had something to do to it but I don't really see her doing it herself. I don't think she would have that much control for the reasons you stated. Again just my opinion.



Well thats the thing, they invaded afterward. But again I was refering to the 80 year war. I think that was Reman dynasty? Vivec is a flawed demi god at best. Honestly he just comes off as a childish petty little kid weilding a large magnifying glass over some ants. Azura and Vivec deserve to annoy each other.



Well people say he flooded Morrowind, yet when the rubber really hit the road he did not and instead fought for 80 years as a powerful battlemage at best.

That's the thing. My point is there is no criteria for a god, it is relative. So there is no absolute way to define a god. Relative things are like shadows, and in this case we can't even see what is making the shadow.



Maybe it is true maybe it is not, but then in the same breath we must say that all of the things Vivec says he can do or others say he can do may also be stories to enshrine some virtue. Such as the sermons.

So are you a person of faith or aren't you? What you seem to be overlooking is that this also applies to the real world. But the fact that beauty is nearly impossible to define doesn't mean that there isn't a thing called beauty or that we don't have a rough definition of it, and the same applies to gods.

So we go to the Oxford Dictionary:

God

? noun 2 (god) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature and human fortunes.

Or the American Heritage:

A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

Wiktionary has more suitable definitions:

Noun
god (plural gods)

A deity:
A supernatural, typically immortal being with superior powers.
A deity personifying or in charge of a specific matter.

They certanly fulfill either of those two criteria without breaking any rules.

I suggest you continue reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gods.


Then we'd have to look at it on its own merits. If you read the Sermons, you'll find out they aren't really cultural parables. They're didactic, though, but not in that way. If anything, I'd call them esoteric scripture or revelation literature. Something like a cross between Whitman's Song of Myself and gnostic scripture, which only occasionally deals with historical matters. But I'm happy to throw out the Sermons for the consideration of this matter, because it's really irrelevant. Most Dunmer wouldn't be familiar with the contents either. The bit about flooding Morrowind wasn't there, by the way, but in Varieties of Faith, which is a product of Imperial scholarship.

I must refrain from speaking about God here.

Now for the rest:

My only point was that it was relative. So with the right relativity there are no gods. Just really strong beings.

I must refrain from speaking about God here.

Now for the rest:

My only point was that it was relative. So with the right relativity there are no gods. Just really strong beings.

I agree with 'There are no gods'. For some reason, this is the thing I like about the Elder Scrolls' lore: it's as believable as your everyday medieval mythology, in a good way. It all really sounds like things that once really happened and are heavily exaggerated, and their idea of cosmology really sounds like a society without sufficient technology to do so properly trying to find their place in the Everything. They, of course, horribly fail so, resorting to stuff like finite infinite spheres, and mortal stress, and Dragon Breaks.

(Or, as I once stated in my signature, all people of Tamriel are medieval morons, in a good way.)

Of course, there's the odd researcher (or race *coughDwemercough*) who sees all through this, but of course he/they'll be executed/cursed/disappeared suddenly in a few (insert timespan).

The religion ban is in place because it's controversial and tends to result in arguments. Explaining what you believe shouldn't, though, because it relates to the topic. Still, it's entirely up to you.


I don't think you're getting it. Put it this way; if a god is defined as a supernatural being with worshippers, then it isn't a relative term. Just a very inaccurate one. The same goes for "really strong beings" if that's your criteria for godhood. And that's not very good criteria. Actually, it's completely terrible.

Edit: Actually, judging from previous comments, this terrible criteria is what seems to be the problem more than anything else, since you seem to be debating that the gods aren't gods because they aren't powerful enough.


Most of the above (dragon breaks, gods walking, mortal mental stress) is true, though, and the Dwemer were more irrational than the whole lot. "In Tamriel, and specifically the Dwarves, that aspect is what I can only call Heroic Abrogation of Everything, a complete and utter refusal to accept what everyone else experiences as the real...They were atheists on a world where gods exist."

Immortalblood said that the gods are not as powerful as they seem to be, because sometimes they refuse to act. Vivec flooded an entire nation to destroy the Akaviri invaders, yet later on in the Reman war he was little more then a general.

My response to this is a qoute from "An Overview of Gods and Worship"



I think the last sentence sums up my point nicely. The gods are far more complex then a simple mortal. Are we truly capable enough to truly understand them? Is trying to understand the motives of a god as futile an ant trying to understand the motives of an elf/human?

@Immortal Blood

from what I understand your agrument basicly comes down to the following, you defina a God as being all powerfull,
then you see that a God in TES is limited in his actions by certain factors and doesn't always act when we expect he/she/it would.
from this you conclude that he doesn't act because he can't, and this implies he does not meet above stated definition of a God and that they can be reduced to powerfull mortals at best.

This argument is right except for the narrow mindness of it. As stated before the dwemer shared your atheistic view on things. however one has to stand open for other opininions like this one that Gods in TES are what they are. In my view on things they are personifications of certain ideas or concepts (like time, justice or destruction for the matter) that can act as tough they ARE their aspects. anyway thats' just my 2 ct

What is important to note here is that Aedra and Daedra both are completely within the construct of Aurbis, they are governed by the same basic laws. Moreso, they are trapped in it. To paraphrase Vivec: "The Aedra are the walls of the prison and the Daedra are the jailers."

As for me, I call them both gods because this is a convenient and sufficiently accurate term. That, though, didn't keep me from dancing with Mara, fooling around with Sheogorath or having Julianos do my bidding. In a very literal sense, the gods don't play with me, but I play with the gods.

The implication here is that it has some relevance in deciding whether they're a god or not. Aurbis being the universe, this is still completely in accord with ordinary definitions of god. Some have impersonal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_%28religion%29 gods, who exist outside of the universe, others have more approachable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanence gods who dwell within the universe.

Still, there's a separation between the mundane world and the "divine" or supernatural world. This not only pops up in Altmer theology, but also is implied by terms like "Heaven" and the existence of barriers between the mortal world and Oblivion. These barriers might seem a bit flimsy to a western understanding where heaven and hell are like whole other dimensions, but for some religions, heaven was a mountain or hell was a hole in the ground. They were no less extra-mundane for it.

Mankar's rant introduces other complications, though, since if one accepts that the world is really just a special extension of hell, the perspective on cosmology shifts somewhat.

So, "anyone can become a god" but "gods don't exist"?

If "gods don't exist" then logically, nobody became a god.

If nobody ever became a god, then those that are gods -- aedra and daedra -- are divine by their very nature.

See all the circular reasoning you can do from your own contradiction.

When talking about Daedra Princes, this is not because they are unable to do so themselves most of the time. They let mortals do their bidding mainly for their own entertainment.

Take Sheogorath for example, i bet he was laughing his ass off when you were doing his little errand.

"Any sufficiently advanced alien is indistinguishable from a god. "
-Arthur C. Clarke

I think the same goes for a sufficiently powerfull ethereal being

So, there are gods then.

Often, gods are considered "gods" in the technical sense by the powers they have. Mannimarco had the Necromancer's Moon. Numidium had powers over time. Vehk had CHIM.

I rather not get the topic locked. It seems interesting to me.

We can look at the power gap between Aedra and Daedra, the former being limited greatly.

I think the Dwemer saw it in a very logical way. They didn't call Daedra gods and just strong beings because that is what they were to them. Why worship them? Worshipping them would be no different the kissing up to a lord or noble so that they may bestow something on you.

My point wasn't that gods aren't gods because they aren't powerful enough. My point is that a "god" is such a relative term that anyone or anything can be what one would call a god. My other point was that those who do call themselves gods exagirate about their personal power.




But here is where we really hit a wall. The gods in TES are made up by people so their minds are as limited as the people who write their action. We can say that their knowledge goes beyond this and that, but in all honesty that's just pretending and make believe (as ironic as that sounds). There are no "mystical" reasons for not flooding the Imperial army by Vivec. And understanding daedra isn't futile because their mentality goes as far as the people who write them. Only an infinate being fits the role you are suggesting. None of which exists in the elder scrolls storyline.




Wrong. I did not define a god in TES as being all powerful. I did mention that there are those who define daedra as all powerful such as the flower/box story with Azura. My conclusion that they can't act because they don't when they should was a challenge purely to the potential of their power and though it possibly relates to what may be a god, or better what may motivate those to percieve one as a god, it is not a criteria for being a god, or at least I am not using it. I did say that to those who follow a religion in TES the criteria seemed to be some level of power.

I don't think it is my narrow mindedness as much as it is you're lack of comprehension or my lack of ability to explain. Perhaps a combination of both, maybe just one or the other.



You are using too few words to narrow down too big of an idea.

I said anyone can become a "god". The quotes are there because I am using a word which I believe is simply a perspective within a context. If Joe Imperial worships Fred the god because Fred the god is powerful, has some sort of knowledge and is immortal, then by that criteria Donny Mage can become a god within Joe Imperial's notion of what he should worship. Donny mage can become powerful, can gain some sort of knowledge and make himself immortal.

I don't think it is my circular reasoning as much as it is a confusion of terms.

Does Fred even need to be powerful, knowledgeable and immortal? Why couldn't a god be weak, ignorant, and mortal?

oooooooh, what fun I really intend to read all the rest of this thread, but I want to add something of my own that comes from me to start.

What is a God? Does this mean a God is What? Heh, semantic cheatings.

As far as I have read only one person hit this point in RL terms when mentioning the Abrahamic Tradition. But we have modern theories that state that the Jewish religion only turned to the One God thing with the influence of Akhenahten and helped along by Moses - along with some influence that arrived in Palestine/Israel from further east.

But what we have in ES is more Romanic than Judo-Islamic-Christian

And more Icelandic/Nordic in my opinion than all of those put together.

- It does start out with a sort of 'divine' Principal - the beginning of things. See Norse
- That splits - and seen as through a glass darkly we also have the antithesis of the Gods - Daedra/Frost Giants/Devil and fallen angels etc ... see various plus Norse
- and then we have the family/Enki thing later taken up by the Greeks, Romans and Catholics also Norse
- and then that not only gets buried in the numbers - see the Norse Myths and legends where there are a whole lot of gods that are not obviously direct family so much as members of the tribe of Asgardians and hardly mentioned nowadays as well as the naughty guys.

Note that various 'Gods' of Tamriel are held to represent various aspects of things - not just of nature, but also human/mer/mortals striving / attempting to identify what is a bit beyond them with something on their level so they can relate to it.

So we get back to what a God is. Is a God for example the actual essence of a force of nature or something aware but so powerful and so far beyond the abilities of the peoples of that time that they attribute a force of nature to it?

In Morrowind it was possible to get close to God-like power as a player - but it was a very finite power. You could raise your stats to the thousands using alchemy and get increasing effects, but you still could not destroy a small building?

Likewise you could permanently raise your skills to the thousands, but there was no mechanism that would raise the effects of those skills past a certain point on or near the one hundred.

The Tribunal's source of power appeared to be both mechanically drawn from the Heart and (my speculation) via the shrines from the belief of the people. And it seemed the shrines also gave back some of that belief transformed to spell power.

And here we fullfil the circle/spiral:
So as beauty is in the eye of the beholder we can also say that Godhood is in the belief of the worshipper. Therefore it does exist so long as that belief exists. But also that in Tamriel there is something measurable that exists beyond that and has its own reality and is simply known as mana and power that can be accessed in vast quantity according to the nature of the accessor. But how can we measure the thought processses of Gods - the extent of their comprehension? That was one thing the Tribunal in their flawed way attempted to explicate and exploit.

It is up to you whether you define a certain level as Godhood, but the force of it is quite possibly immortal and definitely has reality.

It also appears that such levels of power can be arrived at in different ways, and that many such focii/gods/immortals/saints/daedra are uhokerrable ancient (perhaps from the creation of the Nirnian Universe) and maybe were spontaneously/naturally generated in their known form and others more modern arrived at their form by a consciously devised process that started with them being of mortal kind.

It is notable that the Daedra do not denigrate any attempts to achieve this godhood other than the route that the Dwemer, Dagoth Ur and the Tribunal took = through the constraining through a process of order the immortal heart of an ancient and reputedly at least partially chaotic being.

Let me suggest something new here at the risk of the literary/mystical equivalent of anthopomorphisising:

What if the Daedra themselves are actually formed of the belief of the souls/spirits that inhabit their realms in Oblivion? Or possible from the actions/beliefs of a now extinct race and that as their source of being now lies immutable in the deepest past it can no longer be destroyed and so they can no longer be destroyed by direct means?

However this suggests that the reason for their disgust and possibly fear at the methods of the Dwemer, and the actions of the Tribunal and Dagoth Ur was that they were intercepting the stream of power from to or from the Heart of a chaotic Spirit - remember that the knife is used to sever in the ritual? Maybe that way a Prince of the Daedra can be forever enslaved or even be destroyed? Who knows?

Please also consider that the Empire had been acquiring the technology of the Dwemer ... and that the Emperor was responsible for certain projects that emulated the Dwemer ... Numidium

It seems that the people of Tamriel prefer to worship the former rather then the latter. But in theory a "god" is anything anyone makes them out to be.

Hope you have read my splurge now - that belief is in the mind of the beholder