This somewhat jeopardizes the statement "There are no gods."

I don't think so. It simply lowers the meaning and awe of what a god is IMO. So in changing the meaning it changes what it is.

I do not think you can "lower the meaning and awe" of any god in TES.

Saying that simply the Dragon of Akatosh is simply a powerleveled spirit dosen't take away the fact that is was pretty awe-full.

How so? They are still insanely powerful, immortal beings. The fact that others can reach that level doesn't change the fact. The fact that anyone can become the President of the United States, the most powerful person in the world, doesn't make me less in awe in him. In fact, it makes me more in awe of them.

The awe aspect isn't the only thing that makes one to be considered a "god" by those in Tamriel.




Same point.

the former you referred to could be subjective; enter Talos, who has "many heads" and actually may not be Tiber Septim at all. It could be Zurin Arctus, the Daggerfall Underking who could have ascended with the Mantella, it could have been an "earlier" Tiber who took the "first's" place after he died, or hell, it could even be some random guard who survived the Wulfharth-Arctus scuffle. It may even be one or all of them.

To the second statement, not necessarily. One of the best ways to define a god in TES, I feel, is by which set of et'Ada influenced which set of mortals the most. There aren't and there are gods: there "aren't" because separate pantheons exist that exclude some et'Ada and ascended beings and there "are" gods because, as stated above, some et'Ada had a godlike influence over some men and mer. In some cases, the gods grow an affinity for their worshippers, e.g. Malacath, Azura, Akatosh, V'vehk and Lorkhan (both schizo-wise and in the Nordic Shor-always-comes-and-helps-us way).

That said, you've had to have done some BOMBASTIC type of crap for anyone to give a crap enough about you to "give" you godhood, which requires either one of the six paths to heaven by violence or by being an influential et'Ada on the Aurbis. Neither of which are easy means.

I can't say anything about this because we never see the Aedra act. They're more impersonal than the daedra.


No, it isn't. Because a lord or noble isn't the personification of an impersonal force, like Aedra, Daedra and many pagan gods in our own world. A lord or noble isn't a precursor to mortal man, in the way of god-as-creator or god-as-archetype, again like many pagan gods. A lord or noble isn't typically divine, or existing outside the boundaries of the mortal world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliade#Sacred_and_profane, again, as are the Aedra, Daedra and many pagan gods.

So simple question. What makes the aedra and daedra different to the pagan gods? Why is the term god no less inaccurate for the Romans or the Greeks or the Sumerians or the Egyptians or the Hurrians than it is for the daedra?

That covers the Aedra and Daedra, but what about the culture-god-heroes? Beings like Vivec exemplify cultural values, are of a supernatural nature, or partake of a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demigod. People like Tiber Septim and Julius Caesar are apotheosised. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apotheosis. Tiber Septim now has his own sphere, like an aedra. Now explain to me why real-world terms like apotheosis that I linked to above are meaningless in TES when, if anything, they're actually rendered effectual.

And, most importantly, both gods and god-heroes are worshipped.

Really, I don't mean to sound rude, but I think you should look beyond what I assume to be a modern western outlook to gods. Because it seems I keep giving definitions that entirely fit what the Aedra and Daedra are and you keep going back to the irrelevant power thing.

Wasn't Tiber apotheosized untill after his death? Not untill after the Numidum went boom and all. And, have any other emperors been godlified? I guess that the "thousand" cults of the Imperial City boast a menagerie of emperors to choose from though.

I didn't see what was so cultic about the Imperial Cult in Morrowind though. You could play through the entire faction and gain only some vague understanding a deontology concerned with doing the will of the divines and thinly this being connected to the emperor. In Oblivion, all you understand is that Tiber Septim, once an emperor, now a god.

Though, it would've been much more interesting if the Imperials followed the Roman's example of apotheosizing their emperors in life.

Yes, after his death, but the apotheosis of Tiber Septim tends to be glossed over. Sources also hint that he achieved CHIM and how this fits into his biography, I don't know.

The Imperial Cult in Morrowind was more a missionary offshoot of the official Cyrodilic church, though.


This happened very, very rarely. Most of the time it was after their death.

Bad syntax for me then.

Three empires past, and only 1 god-emperor in the pantheon? Someone get those priests moving!

The difference is the relationship between the followed ("gods") and followers which in TES in theory can change places. In Greek/Roman mythology they could not.

It's kind of like being in first place in a contest. If everyone is in first place, it's meaningless.

Daedra/Aedra are personifications of impersonal aspects, but when mortals can become just that (Arkay, Tiber, Tribunal) and in theory the reverse, it makes me take a much more Dwemer approach to the whole notion of "gods".

Wrong. Where is Zeus today? He's defunct, and that goes even according to the mythology itself. The Olympians wrested power from the Titans by brute, even profane force, and they lose their hegemony in perhaps the same way, subject to the same ravages that dog mortals.

They are much less pristine than the gods of Nirn.

No correct. Because you simply saying where is Zeus today isn't a point. It's a fallacy of circumstance.

Within the lore of the mythology no mortal could become a god, while in TES it is possible to become a "god".

There are no gods.

There are the strong.

There are the weak.

Simple as that.

That just seems oversimplified, one for a video game and two for TES; godhood is just more accessible in this universe.

No, I'm saying that the fall of Zeus and the others was part of the mythology and religion. So it's a fallacy of knowledge on your part.

The Titans were the strong who became weak when the Olympians became stronger. Much simpler than Nirn. Strength counts for nothing there. An ounce of playacting is worth a vast mythopeic force that no amount of hit points and stat boosts can equal. But playacting isn't always enough, because the actors are choosen by rebounding echoes and happenstance. The universe chooses the gods of Nirn. And it's not simple at all.

Paw-prints covered this already. The Olympian gods achieved their status by defeating their titan overlords. Some were mortal and gained it by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrosia (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eros_and_Psyche), or were just plain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asclepius. Furthermore, the terms Aedra and Daedra ae fixed. They are the et'ada, or original spirits. A man cannot become such a thing, unless by seemingly occupying the same place and becoming the living aspect of the represented sphere, as in the Shivering Isles.


Come on. You didn't even bother to read what I wrote or linked to. Search for info on Arkay on the forums and you'll find that touching fable has been discounted. Tiber I linked you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apotheosis, the real world practice of deifying mortals and for the Tribunal, who took the power of a god, I linked you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demi-god, which not only shows that one can be partially divine, but that divinity can be considered an attribute; something which the dictionary definitions fail to convey.


And for this, I link you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar, and the long history of gods taking on usually shabby mortal forms only to reveal themselves at the final moment and scare mortals out of their wits.

Not technically true. Both the Greek/Roman mythology and Nordic mythology had a place for the god/hero such as Hercules, Archilles, Odysseus, Jason and many more. So does Christian mythology in the form of the Saints. Us Catholics pray to the Saints, heros that gained some sort of divinity.

Again, how so? How many mortals have taken the place of gods? Everyone isn't getting first place. A few very powerful people becoming so great that they become gods does not equate every one getting first place.


Why? Are they less worthy of worship because they worked their way up? They are like the Christian version of the saints, especially Arkay. The Dwemer rejected them all, including the Daedra and Aedra, even going against evidence, which led to their downfall. The Dwemer were fanatic, and it is not a good idea to follow their views completely.

IMO, all talk of religion, and science for that matter, is building http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_reality: "reality is either what exists, or what we can agree by consensus seems to exist." The big difference between our world and Tamriel is that in Tamriel, supernatural things clearly happen on which you can base belief.

Zues fell? And if he did what of it?



Titans were always stronger. The Olympians were simply more. Sorry but TES fails greatly concenring play acting when compared to Greek/Roman/Thracian mythology.



Status as in rank or status as in ability?

Psyche was made immortal, not a god.

Don't all the beings in TES derive from an original source anyway? At least the Altmer believe this right? I may be wrong.



Yes but the fact that the story of Arkay is there and it is percieved by those in Tamriel as truth, at least by some means that in theory a mortal can be "+ enough" to be a "god".



Was just suggesting a possibility. None of those examples took shabby forms. They can be percieved that way I am sure but they never lost their god-hood.



But they're not gods.



But the potential is there. Since you are Catholic ask yourself this. If Lucifer really did have a chance to become equal or better then God, would God still be God?

If A = perfection and B = less then perfection, B can not equal A.

If B = less then perefction and A = B then A = less then perfection as well.



I didn't say they were less worthy. Simply that they are all unworthy.

Dwemer rejected that there was any good reason to worship beings that cared for themselves most and foremost. You think Azura cares about Dunmer? Or she cares about being loved by Dunmer? Equate any "god" into that and ask yourself the same question.

Even the stuff in Oblivion i'd be willing to go ahead and say the "Aedra" only helped to maintain what they've created, to keep what they see as their status quo.

Petty children with an ant farm.

Your initial anology of Lucifer and God is faulty in the TES universe because that type of God is nowhere present here. That God's definition must include the omnipototent etc, and so Lucifer must therefore not be able to have power, or else it eliminates the aforementioned criteria; since TES gods (even if mortals couldn't become them) don't have these same stipulations you can't use this anolysis.

Who says a god has to be perfect, or that they have to be all-powerful everywhere, or that mortals shouldn't be able to become gods? Greek gods weren't perfect, in fact they all had human characteristics to them, yet they were still gods. If your only definition or reference for what it is to be a god is the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient god, then of course all TES gods are going to fall short; however, don't let the biases of our own world's beliefs become constricts in the TES world.

Potential is not the same as a chance in hell, for the vast majority of the folks on Nirn, they're not going to become gods and for all intents and purposes have absolutely no potential whatsoever. It's sorta like saying that a country has equality of opportunity, but in reality some have considerably more opportunity than others (lets face it, without a divine intervention a homeless guy with no education is not going to become the President, regardless of 'potential' or 'opportunity'). TES beings derive from the original source yes, but they're on a completely different subgradient (a critical separation between mortals and the gods for one, mortals may get powerful, but chances are they're not going up a subgradient). Without some major magick going on, mortals can't become like the original sources, and since most mortals aren't capable of that type of magick, then most mortals don't have the potential to become gods (meaning everybody can't be gods). As for Aedra and Daedra, they're more or less permanent, unless a mortal assumes their role (in which case the mortal is no longer mortal), then mortals cannot reach their power level (meaning that the Daedra will still be the most powerful). As for Arkay, he was around before as a god, he just wasn't called Arkay...

How about new formulas (and we'll even use 'perfection' to suite you):
If A = perfection and B = less then perfection, B can not equal A.
If B = less then perfection but becomes perfected, then B becomes A & A = still perfect & B = still less then perfect.
Still, perfect is not the right word in the TES sense, but I think you might get the idea...

I was just entertaining his example. The AB model didn't really have anything to do with TES directly.

I don't think perfection is my criteria either for TES "gods".

I personally don't care one way or another, i'm using the mentality of an RP character of mine here to be honest.

You are just using a few mythos. What about the Egyptian and Nordic pantheons, when heros became gods many times, and gods descend into mortality as well? Do you think that the Nords or the Egyptians gods were less worthy of worship than less worthy of worship than the Greek gods, or the even the monotheistic God, because of their more obvious flaws, and the fact that mortals were at times deemed worthy to join the pantheon. It didn't seem to lower the respective cultures reverance of said gods, so why should it in Tamriel?

Sort of. They all derive from the Et'Ada and all men and mer are descended from the Aedra ("ancestors") and the Daedra are the Et'Ada that didn't sacrifice themselves and keep their power, but aren't directly related to NIRN.

And is this bad?

That could be argued, but not here as it is a theistic debate, which aren't allowed.

They aren't gods, because they are part of a monotheistic religion. But they share many of the qualities of polytheistic gods. Just the name changes, as the fundamental base of the religion they are part of changes.

Again, not something I'm going to debate. A lot of us believe that even Lucifer fits into God's plan, as God is omnipotent, but that is neither here or there/

I still don't understand this. The gods of TES are all extremely powerful, and that makes them worthy as it is. A being that is suffiently powerful and knowledgable enough is really unworthy of admiration? I disagree.

Azura seemed to care a lot about being loved by the Dunmer. Enough to show her full power, and even if you don't believe that, enough to obsess for over 4000 years. She might not have cared about them, but she did care about their love. Same with Almalexia. What about Vivec? He was willing to sacrifice a lot of power and become mortal again for the sake of his people. Do you really think that he did not love and care for his people. And the Dwemer were better? They were willing to sacrifice themselves and everything to make sure that their were no gods. They were just as selfish, and genocidal.


Isn't that what all gods are? That is what the Greek gods were, what the Nordic gods were, what the Hindi gods were, what Egyptian gods were and what many of the Amerindian gods were. Why would TES gods be any different? People worshipped because they feared them, and that is a valid reason. They felt that the elements were against them, but that they were also very beneficial. The same goes for TES. Also remember that the Dwemer made one of the beings that the believed that wasn't worthy of worship, and she was responsible for the complete annihilation of their race. I'd say that pretty much screws their little theory up.

Status as the dominant pantheon in Greek religion. It's believed by historians that the Titans were a group of gods predating the Olympians. The overthrow of the Titans was both mythological and cultural. A similar idea exists about the warlike Aesir superseding the fertility group Vanir.


Psyche is widely understood to be the name of the http://www.theoi.com/Ouranios/Psykhe.html. It's no accident her name means soul or mind and coupled with the god of sixual love. It's irrelevant, since I've got better examples of mortals becoming gods that you chose to overlook.


This is correct. Which again makes it no different to any other creation myth (Geek gods and Titans also had a common origin according to the Orphic myth.) As did Egyptian gods as a series of emanations from one god. As did Sumerian gods, coming from the admixture of the clean purifying fresh water with the salt water of chaos.


We know this. And it's not new to TES. Hence why the words "deification" and "apotheosis" didn't need to be newly invented.


I didn't say those examples did, though Jesus certainly didn't dress in the pristine white and red robes in which he was so often depicted in my childhood books.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guan_yu, general during the Three Kingdoms era of China, still sometimes worshipped as a minor war god.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharaoh illustrates the idea of mortal as divinity, that it's possible to be a living god without miraculous qualifying deeds, and that the sacred can be an attribute, as I wrote earlier. Or, for that matter, the whole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godking.

Flicking through my copy of the Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt (Thames & Hudson) I also see a reference to Amenophis son of Hapu, who was the master architect of Amenophis III and was deified and worshipped in Thebes for his wisdom and healing powers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammuz_%28deity%29, also believed to have been an early king later deified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulus_and_Remus#Iconography, legendary founder of Rome, raised by wolves, said to have ascended to heaven. Statuettes of the twin brothers are still common amongst Italians, though Romulus is no longer worshipped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haile_Selassie_I_of_Ethiopia, seen as God incarnate by the Rastafarians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asclepius was born a physican and became god of medicine and healing after his death.

Just some that I can think of.

There's a funny thing here - you are all saying stuff like: so and so is a personification of such and such - there being an insistance that in the TES Universe because you have read it in a book there it MUST be so?

Sort of a lack of intellectual caution there for all the precision that you bring to bear on the subject with your maths.

To reiterate it is fair to say that Azura has been described and worshipped as the Daedra of Dawn and Dusk, Love and Sanity etc ... but despite the reams of info we are compiling we do not as yet have total proof either way that this is what SHE is. only that She associates herself with and responds to these things and in terms of these things.

This neither confirms nor denies that She is powerful/a god/ess / god-like etc, nor is it a measure of the actual extent of her power. What we can say is that so far we have actual experience in-game of certain things and that various people have said certain things and we have read certain things. But we are all aware that there is likely to be more to Her.

It's fair to say that some of us accept that there are a variety of different levels/types of what we are pleased to call godhood and others of us deny and reject this as reasonable definition. I can understand why the accepting people do so, or keep an open mind about it, but not why the deniers do so in a universe where virtually all the evidence and actual first-hand experience tends to support the existance of vastly-powered beings whatever they are called, and that since they are called Gods ... why not call them Gods? It is not as though the denying them conveys and power or advantage? Unless the purpose is in gaining satisfaction or power over others through the act of denial.

I think you'll find that we take into account the validity of sources and their would-be biases in the game-world; however when multiple texts say the same thing about something, then its more than likely that those texts are right... The texts that we base these ideas off of are not those written by your average Joe-Dunmer living in a shell down by the river, but rather the most elite scholars and mages in Tamriel (Temple Zero Society, the Imperial University, Imperial Geographical Society, living gods etc). Its generally safe to assume that they know what they're talking about...