What specific process did the Engwithans use to create the Gods?

[Stardusk78]

The gods are obviously powerful, if artificial, far more powerful than mortals are and so, in case I have missed it, what specific process did the Engwithans use to create them? Did they sacrifice millions of souls, thousands? It seems that that would be the minimal requirement to create sentient, god-like beings. Also, has there ever been a clue as to what might have existed prior to the creation of the gods?

[Guest]

The description at the end of Pillars 1 made it sound as though a great many (maybe hundreds?) were needed for the creation of a single god (in that case, Woedica).

 

As for the last question, an island of relativity advanced people surrounded by an ocean of barbaric superstition (see Cliaban Rilag).

[gkathellar]

We don't have a specific number. They had a Biawac machine, and it sucked out a whole lot of souls and made a god. Probably thousands at the very least, given how big Sun In Shadow was.

 

As for the last question, an island of relativity advanced people surrounded by an ocean of barbaric superstition (see Cliaban Rilag).

 

Well, at least that's how the Engwithans saw it - but then, a cursory glance through Engwithan ruins and the Endless Paths is more than enough to suggest that the Engwithans were violent, abusive monsters with little or not regard for the value of life. And while Thaos went on about the horrors perpetrated by people who had religious views different then his, he seemed remarkably disinterested in the atrocities committed by people with the same views (read: Thaos was a psychopathic cultural imperialist, an intellectually dishonest apologist, and one of the least reliable narrators imaginable with regards to value judgments).

 

We also know that the Engwithans were technologically backwards in a number of respects (hence why their animats were basically decked out in garbage), and were mainly ahead of their time in the study of animancy.

[uuuhhii]

We don't have a specific number. They had a Biawac machine, and it sucked out a whole lot of souls and made a god. Probably thousands at the very least, given how big Sun In Shadow was.

 

As for the last question, an island of relativity advanced people surrounded by an ocean of barbaric superstition (see Cliaban Rilag).

 

Well, at least that's how the Engwithans saw it - but then, a cursory glance through Engwithan ruins and the Endless Paths is more than enough to suggest that the Engwithans were violent, abusive monsters with little or not regard for the value of life. And while Thaos went on about the horrors perpetrated by people who had religious views different then his, he seemed remarkably disinterested in the atrocities committed by people with the same views (read: Thaos was a psychopathic cultural imperialist, an intellectually dishonest apologist, and one of the least reliable narrators imaginable with regards to value judgments).

 

We also know that the Engwithans were technologically backwards in a number of respects (hence why their animats were basically decked out in garbage), and were mainly ahead of their time in the study of animancy.

od nua are clearly unpopular among engwithan

and likely decades or centuries before gods creation

unlikely be recognized as example of engwithan by thaos

but fall of ukaizo are the same era

Edited July 17, 2018 by uuuhhii

[Verde]

Prob the siphoning of thousands of souls to and or from adra to create this brings. But as for their actual forms and location I'm still confused haha. If they exist everywhere like Gods how are they not Gods then?

[AndreaColombo]

They are not divine in nature. They are not eternal beings who existed before time. They know a lot, but they are not omniscient; they can a lot, but are not almighty.

 

Their knowledge and power are generally vast enough to make no difference for 99.9% of the population of Eora, but I can see how people could be disappointed in learning their values were man-made as opposed to natural and timeless.

[Guest]

Prob the siphoning of thousands of souls to and or from adra to create this brings. But as for their actual forms and location I'm still confused haha. If they exist everywhere like Gods how are they not Gods then?

What is a god? Does the perceived authority of a god stem from it being really powerful (i.e. might makes right) or does it stem from its divinity? If the former is enough for you, then I suppose they are “real gods”. If the latter is what you expect then clearly they cannot be.

[gkathellar]

Prob the siphoning of thousands of souls to and or from adra to create this brings. But as for their actual forms and location I'm still confused haha. If they exist everywhere like Gods how are they not Gods then?

 

In the sense that a god is a sky wizard who goes pew pew and woosh woosh and fwoom fwoom and demands you worship it and can exert vast personal influence over the natural world, they're totally gods. Argumentum ad baculum and so forth, throw the moon at people if they disagree. Pew pew.

 

In the sense that a god is the mind of the world (or a part of the world), a being of unchanging, timeless perfection that has existed since the world's dawning epoch and whose will is in some sense basically defacto Right and Good, they are nothing of the sort. They are sentient, persistent spell effects manufactured with a big swirly biawac machine by a bunch of jerks to represent a very particular set of cultural ideals and beliefs about the workings of the universe.

 

Just a question of definitions.

[Stardusk78]

So, if they had always been around but fundamentally not been different, they would be ok?

[AndreaColombo]

They would not be frauds. Whether or not they’d be OK is a different matter—Engwithan gods strike me as a bunch of entitled, childish pricks. Millennials, even. Not exactly the definition of OK (we’re talking gods who solve their problems by pulling moons against planets.)

[Verde]

Well since we can't prove the existence of "divine" Gods, I don't think it's a fair differentiation. Divine Gods are "there" because someone told us and or we believe. At least here they have physical manifestations. So how are they less than real Gods? What is a "real" God if it can't be proven?

Edited July 18, 2018 by Verde

[AndreaColombo]

If these gods are man-made, then believing in them = believing in the men who created them. But they were just men, advanced though their animancy might have been. They weren’t better than anyone else in principle (and were possibly worse than many in practice), so they had no right to dictate anything to anyone. Their values were arbitrary because they came from mortal men, not from an eternal, divine god who knows right from wrong. If one has to believe in something arbitrary, might as well choose by oneself; no need for the Engwithans to tell them.

 

If there’s no divine god, so be it. Engwithan still had no right to impose their arbitrary values on anybody.

Edited July 18, 2018 by AndreaColombo

[house2fly]

If you don't see how being created makes the Engwithan Gods "not gods" then a better question might be: what is a god, and how should people react to its existence? Worship? Why?

[Incendax]

What did they use specifically? Deus Ex Machina.

*Ba-Dum-Tish*

 

But on a more serious note, plenty of gods were once mortals that were created the normal squishy way. Over time their stories change and evolve until we see them as more symbolic and flanderized versions of themselves. The Engwithans basically did the whole process from mortals to flanders with the flick of a button.

Edited July 18, 2018 by Incendax

[Guest]

So how are they less than real Gods?

What makes a “real god” real? If I imbue my toaster with god-like powers, people may decide to worship my toaster, but does that make it a god? If they approach my toaster seeking answers to moral or ethical questions, aren’t they more or less asking me?

[Incendax]

 

So how are they less than real Gods?

What makes a “real god” real? If I imbue my toaster with god-like powers, people may decide to worship my toaster, but does that make it a god? If they approach my toaster seeking answers to moral or ethical questions, aren’t they more or less asking me?

Wait. Do the godlike powers of your toaster include speech and the ability to create floods or other major natural disasters? That has a pretty profound impact on our answer. =D

[AndreaColombo]

Is this toaster of which you speak the mental equivalent of a spoiled 5-yr-old who’ll use this ability to create natural disaster as vengeance if we don’t worship it?

[Verde]

Exactly what makes a real God real...that's the question in all this.

[AndreaColombo]

Exactly what makes a real God real...that's the question in all this.

 

IMO, a "real" god needs to be eternal, omniscient, and almighty—three things the gods in Eora are not.

 

In the traditional sense, a "real" god is also often identified with the ultimate moral truth, something the Eoran pantheon are once again in no position to claim.

[Guest]

 

 

So how are they less than real Gods?

What makes a “real god” real? If I imbue my toaster with god-like powers, people may decide to worship my toaster, but does that make it a god? If they approach my toaster seeking answers to moral or ethical questions, aren’t they more or less asking me?

Wait. Do the godlike powers of your toaster include speech and the ability to create floods or other major natural disasters? That has a pretty profound impact on our answer. =D

It does, but I don’t know that I agree that it should have an impact on your answer. Anything that should be deferred to should be “better” than a kith, not just “more powerful”.

[house2fly]

Exactly what makes a real God real...that's the question in all this.

The real question is how relevant the gods' existence or not is to the average person. If they're not relevant, what's the point of having them? If they are relevant, why do they deserve that relevance?

 

So actually i guess the real question is "what's the point of gods?"

[Guest]

Thaos tackles this in the first game. His take: kith aren’t capable of being good without the fear of a higher power.

[Tick]

I think writing off how they became gods kind of oversimplifies the topic (though the game does give that perspective as an option). Yes, they're *virtually * like gods, but the more you see and know, the more the cracks in that myth shows. They're not truly omnipotent or omniscient and they're very flawed (both as gods and individuals), and the *way * they actually represent (or don't represent) their ideals is extremely telling of both the kind of people that created them and their own biases and self interest. Skaen is probably the best example of that.

 

The fact that they get the same treatment as if they were true to expectations or legitimate deities is pretty messed up, and the fact that they have unchecked power on beings that they had no part in creating and whom did not agree to this contract is much worse. It's just the Engwithins forcibly imposing themselves on the rest of the world. Again.

 

Thaos tackles this in the first game. His take: kith aren’t capable of being good without the fear of a higher power.

I think there were other things too, right? That the world has no meaning or sense of order without them or something like that?

 

It's been forever since I've played that part of the game.

[Guest]

I think there were other things too, right? That the world has no meaning or sense of order without them or something like that?

It was all variation on a theme: kith need gods to keep them in line. To not murder their neighbors, value the right things, and so on.

[Verde]

 

Exactly what makes a real God real...that's the question in all this.

IMO, a "real" god needs to be eternal, omniscient, and almighty—three things the gods in Eora are not.

 

In the traditional sense, a "real" god is also often identified with the ultimate moral truth, something the Eoran pantheon are once again in no position to claim.

Interesting thought about them being omnipotent...wonder to what extent that is true or not true. But raises a good pt.

 

You could also argue what is moral truth but it's a fair pt too.