The themes of Pillars, religion, and Dostoevsky *spoilers*

[youturn]

I’m writing the following to gather my thoughts about the themes of Pillars of Eternity, and thought there might be a chance that others would be interested. Obviously, mega, mega spoilers.

 

Pillars of Eternity has two themes. The first, which is the focus of Acts I and II, relates to animancy, is a fantasy proxy for real world things like stem cell research or modifying the human genome. I guess one way to describe that theme is whether it’s right to research things that might potentially and quite fundamentally tamper with the human condition. I don’t have much to say about this, but RPS did quite a good overview: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/03/30/further-thoughts-on-pillars-of-eternity-animancy-faith.

 

The best way to describe the second theme, which is the focus of Acts III and IV, is how to live if atheism is true, that is, if there is no God. The most important influence, by far, on that theme as it appears in Pillars is Fyodor Dostoevsky’s The Grand Inquisitor. For those of you who don’t know what that is, it’s a story-within-a-story of what I think most people consider to be Dostoevsky’s greatest novel, The Brothers Karamazov. (There’s quite a good CliffsNotes summary at http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/b/the-brothers-karamazov/summary-and-analysis/part-2-book-v-chapter-5.) The referencing by Pillars to Dostoevsky is quite overt: it’s not an accident that Thaos, in the time of the PC’s former life with him, had the title of Grand Inquisitor (Iovara calls him that). And both Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor and Thaos are outwardly “religious” people, but really closet atheists (yes I know it’s complex for Thaos), who see their roles as to keep humanity in ignorant bliss from the truth. And both are very, very dissatisfied about the basic human nature they have to deal with.

 

But there are big differences between Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor and Thaos. In Dostoevsky’s story, at the risk of grotesque oversimplification, (the real) Jesus makes a visit to Earth in the 16^th century, but the Grand Inquisitor arrests him. The Grand Inquisitor’s problem with Jesus is that, while God is real, Christian freedom requires so much self-denial that only a very small and select part of humankind are capable of exercising that freedom so as to get into heaven. The vast majority of people are condemned. The Grand Inquisitor, out of benevolence to humankind, sides with the Devil, in that his plan is to let people be condemned but to live out their earthly existence happily, comfortably, and ignorant of their damnation.

 

In contrast, in the world of Eora in which Thaos lives, the starting point is that the gods aren’t real. (It’s a bit jarring that, although they obviously exist in that world, the line “the gods aren’t real” is used so many times at the end, but it makes sense if you think that it’s an attempt to explore a real philosophical question. That's also why there’s very little justification for why the Engwithans were so sure there were no real gods - justification would be beside the point for the thought experiment.) Thaos’ job is therefore to keep people ignorant of that fact, and to ensure that they have religious faith in order to maintain some semblance of order compared to the alternatives, namely, complete anarchy, either through having no god, or too many gods. So the Grand Inquisitor and Thaos are alike in a lot of ways, but polar opposites in others.

 

In any case, the point of the Grand Inquisitor references in Pillars is to reinforce the basic philosophical question: assume for the moment that there is no God and religion is a lie. How, then, should we live? The two broad possibilities the game contemplates are: (1) pretend that religion is true, because the idea that there’s no religion to give us meaning is too horrible to contemplate; and (2) roll with it, and impose your own meaning onto the world. (And Kana makes this circular by saying that there’s meaning in everyone’s collective struggle in creating meaning.) This second idea is all very existentialist (see, eg, Nietzsche, Sartre and Heidegger, and the list can easily be extended).

 

It seems to me that, while the game does try not to make up your mind on that question, the stronger authorial voice by far is in favour of (2).

 

To be clear, I profoundly disagree with part of the way the game treats the second theme, which reflects my own religious beliefs – though I still very much enjoyed thinking about the issues the game raised. But does what I’ve said above accurately capture what’s going on and what’s at stake?

[Tigranes]

Seems a pretty fair synopsis, especially the breakdown into (1) and (2) at the end. 

 

What I always wonder is whether, in a CRPG where player choice is paramount, we as an audience are capable of becoming biased on the side of religion, or even the side of obfuscation. We are so used to this idea that knowing is always better than not knowing, the 'objective truth' is always out there and should be found, that all stories can have closure, and individual choice can and will triumph over the machinations of the Gods. POE story has a lot of significant problems, but I love what it tries to do because it tries to directly address that in a way that almost no other game story ever has.

 

Look at all the people that complain, for example, that you don't get to tell everybody the gods are fake, or that the companion quests are anticlimactic because they don't get closure. Now sure, some of those complaints point out specific problems in a valid way. But on the whole, I think this reflects the fact that we are so used to all of our companions solving their psychological problems and becoming New and Better People, and our adventure resulting in magical solutions that make the Whole World Better as well. Is the Watcher meant to deus ex machina his powers so Sagani can talk to Persoq and Persoq can say "OMG wow your journey was totally worth it for me"? Is the Watcher suddenly meant to tell the whole world the gods are fake and they believe him? 

 

The fact that you can't do those things is where the theme you describe - how to live in a godless world - weaves in beautifully with what I personally consider the master narrative in POE1, summarised by Wael's scriptures in the game: what is an answer without a question? (And all the variants: what is a question without an answer, etc...) Literally every major character in the game struggles with a desire for knowledge, for truth, for clarity. And none of them ever get it 100%. Thaos, one of the most knowledgeable (semi)mortals in the setting, as you point out in the endgame dialogue, is plagued and dominated by doubt, and he has denied himself the chance of finding out what the consequences of truth would be. Iovara remains encased eternally waiting to know whether her Crusade was justified, hanging it all on your answer (an inadequate anchor in the first place), and then realises how little an answer can mean. The companions. Lady Webb. You. It's all about the question: if you don't find the answer you seek, what meaning did your journey have? (exemplary is Sagani) and if you will never find the full answer, how will you live now? (exemplary is Eder)

 

There are many big problems with the gods reveal and its delivery in the game. It's too late, it's too dumpy, it's too awkward. But I love it in principle because it is nuanced: it's not just full on "OMFG Thaos made up the Gods the Gods are fake OMFG". The counterargument emerges quite strongly. You say (2) seems much stronger than (1). I agree, but I think that has much to do with the awkward revelation and the biases of the audience as well. I do think that overall there is still a significant case made in the game for (1). 

[Rostere]

The fact that you can't do those things is where the theme you describe - how to live in a godless world - weaves in beautifully with what I personally consider the master narrative in POE1, summarised by Wael's scriptures in the game: what is an answer without a question? (And all the variants: what is a question without an answer, etc...) Literally every major character in the game struggles with a desire for knowledge, for truth, for clarity. And none of them ever get it 100%. Thaos, one of the most knowledgeable (semi)mortals in the setting, as you point out in the endgame dialogue, is plagued and dominated by doubt, and he has denied himself the chance of finding out what the consequences of truth would be. Iovara remains encased eternally waiting to know whether her Crusade was justified, hanging it all on your answer (an inadequate anchor in the first place), and then realises how little an answer can mean. The companions. Lady Webb. You. It's all about the question: if you don't find the answer you seek, what meaning did your journey have? (exemplary is Sagani) and if you will never find the full answer, how will you live now? (exemplary is Eder)

 

Pretty much this.

 

Although I would also contrast the story of PoE with Blade Runner. In Blade Runner, we are asked the question "if a synthetic being is sufficiently similar to a human, should it be treated exactly like a human?" (this theme is notably clearer in the book, though) while in PoE it is "if a synthetic being is sufficiently similar to a god, should it be treated exactly like a god?".

[gkathellar]

You summarize the core themes and influences quite nicely. I would add one thing:

 

I think animancy is not necessarily just a proxy for controversial technologies, but for the progress of science and technology in general. Scientific progress is haphazard, misunderstood, and often dangerous (for reasons that have more to do with human nature than the actual attributes of the technology in question). Animancy does present real hazards, but it poses far greater dangers in treading on "the domain of the gods," a domain that Thaos would rather not see trespassed or even known. Just as the work of Galileo or Darwin threatened the religious dogma of their days, animancers developing an understanding of the soul threaten to rediscover what the Engwithans found and worked so hard to conceal. As you say, Thaos is not so much a religious man as an elitist atheist who hates and fears anything even vaguely resembling atheism.

[Qbert]

Isn't 1 what Thaos is trying to do though, via atrocities like stealing unborn children's souls?  And the reason that option exists in this world is b/c he convinced an entire civilization to commit suicide?

 

Is that not then the evil path in the game? Atheism, scientific progress, and individuals giving their own meaning to life w/o divine interference is treated as good, religion, which is fake, holds up scientific progress, and dulls people's minds into merely following rote concepts is bad.  Fake religion is used as the method by which Thaos can control the masses - w/o the reality of gods watching over everything you do, he thinks people will devolve into anarchy.  So religion is the famous "opiate of the masses" through which the elite try to control the unwashed, ignorant peasants. 

[Tigranes]

I don't think it's so simple. The player rarely saw atrocities committed by the gods throughout the game - the gods tended to be pretty benign, Durance's ravings excepted. And Iovara gets a say, but Thaos is just as persuasive. The fact that your choices at the end are all given by the gods and you do not have the choice to oppose all of them entirely is indicative of this nuance. 

[Qbert]

And not indicative of the fact that they have so much power that they still hold the cards and want to maintain power, and so they certainly won't give you the option of ending all of them?

[Tigranes]

That's their motivation, which isn't what this is about. The fact that the game as a whole doesn't give you an option is a choice by the writers, which indicates that your story is not meant to be "I found out gods are not real, now I am free of them!!"

[Qbert]

That's true, but it certainly seems to be where the story is leading, and perhaps you merely are not strong enough yet to oppose the gods.  

 

The choice is continue to propagate a lie that is eventually destined to be exposed by science or cast people free from the shackles of that lie to forge their own destiny.  

 

My guess is that the expansion will lead us along that path.

 

It would be interesting if after that happens, proof was found of an actual non-synthetic deity, (maybe an evil deity) throwing everyone into chaos again.  Or maybe they try to make you their new god.

[tdphys]

There's a lot of interesting "what if's" left at the end of the game.  

 

1.  If a mortal race can create "immortal beings" using soul energy,  then why couldn't there be more of them, perhaps created by some more ancient civilization?  Interestingly enough, the beings aren't written as automata,  machines , but portrayed as thinking, scheming entities that are capable of self promotion,  but somehow are tied to an Ideal.    What happens when the Gods make Gods?    Is there a limited amount of souls on the wheel?   I'm feeling shades of terminator here,  soul skynet anyone?   

 

2.  Where does the "powers"  that exist  in Eora come from?  Faith, magic, soul-power, psionics... what kind of mechanics drive these powers ( I'm not asking for an answer, I like it when it's not necessarily cut and dried, don't really like Forgotten Realms view).  Is it going to be a purely "scientific-passive" system, like the inventions of midichlorians in the star-wars prequels... or is it going to stay a mystic/semi-intelligent view of things.   Atheism still needs a creation story, yo.

[kaiki]

I’m writing the following to gather my thoughts about the themes of Pillars of Eternity, and thought there might be a chance that others would be interested. Obviously, mega, mega spoilers.

 

Pillars of Eternity has two themes. The first, which is the focus of Acts I and II, relates to animancy, is a fantasy proxy for real world things like stem cell research or modifying the human genome. I guess one way to describe that theme is whether it’s right to research things that might potentially and quite fundamentally tamper with the human condition. I don’t have much to say about this, but RPS did quite a good overview: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/03/30/further-thoughts-on-pillars-of-eternity-animancy-faith.

 

The best way to describe the second theme, which is the focus of Acts III and IV, is how to live if atheism is true, that is, if there is no God. The most important influence, by far, on that theme as it appears in Pillars is Fyodor Dostoevsky’s The Grand Inquisitor. For those of you who don’t know what that is, it’s a story-within-a-story of what I think most people consider to be Dostoevsky’s greatest novel, The Brothers Karamazov. (There’s quite a good CliffsNotes summary at http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/b/the-brothers-karamazov/summary-and-analysis/part-2-book-v-chapter-5.) The referencing by Pillars to Dostoevsky is quite overt: it’s not an accident that Thaos, in the time of the PC’s former life with him, had the title of Grand Inquisitor (Iovara calls him that). And both Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor and Thaos are outwardly “religious” people, but really closet atheists (yes I know it’s complex for Thaos), who see their roles as to keep humanity in ignorant bliss from the truth. And both are very, very dissatisfied about the basic human nature they have to deal with.

 

But there are big differences between Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor and Thaos. In Dostoevsky’s story, at the risk of grotesque oversimplification, (the real) Jesus makes a visit to Earth in the 16^th century, but the Grand Inquisitor arrests him. The Grand Inquisitor’s problem with Jesus is that, while God is real, Christian freedom requires so much self-denial that only a very small and select part of humankind are capable of exercising that freedom so as to get into heaven. The vast majority of people are condemned. The Grand Inquisitor, out of benevolence to humankind, sides with the Devil, in that his plan is to let people be condemned but to live out their earthly existence happily, comfortably, and ignorant of their damnation.

 

In contrast, in the world of Eora in which Thaos lives, the starting point is that the gods aren’t real. (It’s a bit jarring that, although they obviously exist in that world, the line “the gods aren’t real” is used so many times at the end, but it makes sense if you think that it’s an attempt to explore a real philosophical question. That's also why there’s very little justification for why the Engwithans were so sure there were no real gods - justification would be beside the point for the thought experiment.) Thaos’ job is therefore to keep people ignorant of that fact, and to ensure that they have religious faith in order to maintain some semblance of order compared to the alternatives, namely, complete anarchy, either through having no god, or too many gods. So the Grand Inquisitor and Thaos are alike in a lot of ways, but polar opposites in others.

 

In any case, the point of the Grand Inquisitor references in Pillars is to reinforce the basic philosophical question: assume for the moment that there is no God and religion is a lie. How, then, should we live? The two broad possibilities the game contemplates are: (1) pretend that religion is true, because the idea that there’s no religion to give us meaning is too horrible to contemplate; and (2) roll with it, and impose your own meaning onto the world. (And Kana makes this circular by saying that there’s meaning in everyone’s collective struggle in creating meaning.) This second idea is all very existentialist (see, eg, Nietzsche, Sartre and Heidegger, and the list can easily be extended).

 

It seems to me that, while the game does try not to make up your mind on that question, the stronger authorial voice by far is in favour of (2).

 

To be clear, I profoundly disagree with part of the way the game treats the second theme, which reflects my own religious beliefs – though I still very much enjoyed thinking about the issues the game raised. But does what I’ve said above accurately capture what’s going on and what’s at stake?

 

I have a slight disagreement with your idea that Thaos is a reference to Dostoevsky as I believe both cases of the title "Grand Inquisitor" are references to the real life historical Grand Inquisitors, probably the Spanish Inquisition in particular. A minor point as it's still an insightful critique to compare the two works.

 

I'd also offer that there is more nuance to option (1) then the reality is Lovecraftian horror. I believe the way that Thaos describes "pre-god Eora" harkens to a Hobbsian "state of nature". Without the mortals of Eora believing in infallible perfect beings judging and guiding them throughout their lives all the horrors that were commonplace in that time of Eoran history would instantly return. Mortals need control in order to protect themselves from their own dark nature. That would be my take on (1).

[SlayerDorian]

The thing that threw me off was how pathetic everyone was.  The thought that they could only find purpose in their existance if there was some god(s) hanging around...  and that everyone was so stuck on it.  I kept thinking to myself, "What is wrong with these people?"

 

There was a shortage of rational NPCs in the game, I think.  If there were some dialogue options like this, it would be great.

 

1. [Rational] Smack this person upside their head to knock some sense into them.

[kaiki]

There isn't indication that existentialism or nihilism exists in this setting, other then Iovara, so I don't find it that surprising that mortals define themselves and their purpose through their relationship with their god(s).

[Katarack21]

I don't think it's so simple. The player rarely saw atrocities committed by the gods throughout the game - the gods tended to be pretty benign.

Within the actual game you are correct, but in the lore it makes it pretty clear about things like what an Effigy of Skaen will do, etc. Even the process to make an Effigy and get Skaen's attention is pretty horrific. I don't know how much difference that makes to you.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Katarack21

[Karkarov]

I think you are missing part of the point.  The question isn't "how do you go on living if the gods aren't real?" so much as it is "is belief in an ideal more important than whether or not the ideal is true?"

 

Eder is a great companion in this sense because his faith in what Eothas represents is never shaken, not even for a second.  When when he realizes his "god" might actually be dead and may never have been a god at all he still states that it doesn't matter.  What Eothas stood for and represented was worth believing in even if Eothas himself was a fake.  In many ways I think Eder is a cipher (lol) for the main character and that it is no coincidence that he is the first companion you meet.  His journey is the same as yours.  He has a question tearing him up inside and he needs to find out the truth.  Upon learning the truth though he realizes that in reality the truth might not have actually mattered and he would never find any answers looking outside himself.  He had to look to his own beliefs, values, and choices to find his meaning and if his beliefs told him following the ideals of Eothas was right then it didn't matter if Eothas was "fake".

 

It is also important to note that the "gods" are VERY real in Eora.  They just aren't classical all knowing and or existing since the beginning of time "gods".

Edited April 30, 2015 by Karkarov

[Katarack21]

They're "real" in the sense that they exist, but they aren't "real" in the sense of being gods in any way.

[kaiki]

They're "real" in the sense that they exist, but they aren't "real" in the sense of being gods in any way.

 

Depends on the definition of what a god is. The characteristics of the PoE gods are similar to pantheons found in Earth cultures. Limited in power, limited in knowledge and wisdom, able to be killed, etc.

[house2fly]

They're not real in the sense that they didn't actually create the universe and they don't maintain or even really affect the concepts they embody. There was entropy long before Rymrgand, war before Magran and redemption before (and now after) Eothas. All the gods are is a bunch of incredibly powerful beings who rule the world. Which is kind of more scary, in a way.

[Katarack21]

 

They're "real" in the sense that they exist, but they aren't "real" in the sense of being gods in any way.

 

Depends on the definition of what a god is. The characteristics of the PoE gods are similar to pantheons found in Earth cultures. Limited in power, limited in knowledge and wisdom, able to be killed, etc.

 

Right, the difference is the "gods" in PoE are *direct* human constructs. They're tools made by mortal hands to carry out a specific job. In classical mythology the "gods" were natural aspects of the universe who had form, sentience, and will. All religions that feature a god that I know of in the real world are pretty explicit in that those gods are either natural aspects of the world or the creators of the world, or both. Not something created by normal mortal beings to do their will.

[kaiki]

 

 

They're "real" in the sense that they exist, but they aren't "real" in the sense of being gods in any way.

 

Depends on the definition of what a god is. The characteristics of the PoE gods are similar to pantheons found in Earth cultures. Limited in power, limited in knowledge and wisdom, able to be killed, etc.

 

Right, the difference is the "gods" in PoE are *direct* human constructs. They're tools made by mortal hands to carry out a specific job. In classical mythology the "gods" were natural aspects of the universe who had form, sentience, and will. All religions that feature a god that I know of in the real world are pretty explicit in that those gods are either natural aspects of the world or the creators of the world, or both. Not something created by normal mortal beings to do their will.

 

 

In Chinese, as well as other Asian cultures, mythology human beings have become gods themselves. Similar stories are in classical mythology, though usually the subject is a demigod. That isn't too far of a difference with the PoE gods being, possibly, created from thousands of human souls. Granted the specifics of the PoE gods is unique, so far as I know, in regards to real life mythology there are similarities close enough that I think they could be considered proper gods.

[Katarack21]

 

 

 

They're "real" in the sense that they exist, but they aren't "real" in the sense of being gods in any way.

 

Depends on the definition of what a god is. The characteristics of the PoE gods are similar to pantheons found in Earth cultures. Limited in power, limited in knowledge and wisdom, able to be killed, etc.

 

Right, the difference is the "gods" in PoE are *direct* human constructs. They're tools made by mortal hands to carry out a specific job. In classical mythology the "gods" were natural aspects of the universe who had form, sentience, and will. All religions that feature a god that I know of in the real world are pretty explicit in that those gods are either natural aspects of the world or the creators of the world, or both. Not something created by normal mortal beings to do their will.

 

 

In Chinese, as well as other Asian cultures, mythology human beings have become gods themselves. Similar stories are in classical mythology, though usually the subject is a demigod. That isn't too far of a difference with the PoE gods being, possibly, created from thousands of human souls. Granted the specifics of the PoE gods is unique, so far as I know, in regards to real life mythology there are similarities close enough that I think they could be considered proper gods.

 

It's almost always demigods lifted up to Godhood, or sometimes a specific mortal is taken by the gods who then collectively decide to make him a god, or the original creator-god remakes a mortal into one of the gods. Never, ever, that I know of do *mortals create the gods*. That's the distinction--the "gods" in PoE are just tools made by mortals. Really advanced, really clever tools--the highest of automaton technology, but automatons nonetheless.

[kaiki]

 

 

 

 

They're "real" in the sense that they exist, but they aren't "real" in the sense of being gods in any way.

 

Depends on the definition of what a god is. The characteristics of the PoE gods are similar to pantheons found in Earth cultures. Limited in power, limited in knowledge and wisdom, able to be killed, etc.

 

Right, the difference is the "gods" in PoE are *direct* human constructs. They're tools made by mortal hands to carry out a specific job. In classical mythology the "gods" were natural aspects of the universe who had form, sentience, and will. All religions that feature a god that I know of in the real world are pretty explicit in that those gods are either natural aspects of the world or the creators of the world, or both. Not something created by normal mortal beings to do their will.

 

 

In Chinese, as well as other Asian cultures, mythology human beings have become gods themselves. Similar stories are in classical mythology, though usually the subject is a demigod. That isn't too far of a difference with the PoE gods being, possibly, created from thousands of human souls. Granted the specifics of the PoE gods is unique, so far as I know, in regards to real life mythology there are similarities close enough that I think they could be considered proper gods.

 

It's almost always demigods lifted up to Godhood, or sometimes a specific mortal is taken by the gods who then collectively decide to make him a god, or the original creator-god remakes a mortal into one of the gods. Never, ever, that I know of do *mortals create the gods*. That's the distinction--the "gods" in PoE are just tools made by mortals. Really advanced, really clever tools--the highest of automaton technology, but automatons nonetheless.

 

 

That would be an interesting idea for future games to play around with, if the gods of PoE are confined by their initial designs. I feel it would it's conjecture to say for certain either way. As the specifics of their creation is so vague. Though I feel this argument has reached the level of semantics. You say automaton, I say god. Either term describes the same fictional characters. Neither of us disagree as to what they are capable of. My last argument would be that if the gods of PoE, as made my mortal hands, would be indistinguishable from what they would have been if they had occurred naturally then the two sets are equivalent.

[Katarack21]

 

 

 

 

 

They're "real" in the sense that they exist, but they aren't "real" in the sense of being gods in any way.

 

Depends on the definition of what a god is. The characteristics of the PoE gods are similar to pantheons found in Earth cultures. Limited in power, limited in knowledge and wisdom, able to be killed, etc.

 

Right, the difference is the "gods" in PoE are *direct* human constructs. They're tools made by mortal hands to carry out a specific job. In classical mythology the "gods" were natural aspects of the universe who had form, sentience, and will. All religions that feature a god that I know of in the real world are pretty explicit in that those gods are either natural aspects of the world or the creators of the world, or both. Not something created by normal mortal beings to do their will.

 

 

In Chinese, as well as other Asian cultures, mythology human beings have become gods themselves. Similar stories are in classical mythology, though usually the subject is a demigod. That isn't too far of a difference with the PoE gods being, possibly, created from thousands of human souls. Granted the specifics of the PoE gods is unique, so far as I know, in regards to real life mythology there are similarities close enough that I think they could be considered proper gods.

 

It's almost always demigods lifted up to Godhood, or sometimes a specific mortal is taken by the gods who then collectively decide to make him a god, or the original creator-god remakes a mortal into one of the gods. Never, ever, that I know of do *mortals create the gods*. That's the distinction--the "gods" in PoE are just tools made by mortals. Really advanced, really clever tools--the highest of automaton technology, but automatons nonetheless.

 

 

That would be an interesting idea for future games to play around with, if the gods of PoE are confined by their initial designs. I feel it would it's conjecture to say for certain either way. As the specifics of their creation is so vague. Though I feel this argument has reached the level of semantics. You say automaton, I say god. Either term describes the same fictional characters. Neither of us disagree as to what they are capable of. My last argument would be that if the gods of PoE, as made my mortal hands, would be indistinguishable from what they would have been if they had occurred naturally then the two sets are equivalent.

 

I disagree; just because one may have power and ability equal to a god does not make one a god, IMHO.

[archangel979]

 

 

They're "real" in the sense that they exist, but they aren't "real" in the sense of being gods in any way.

 

Depends on the definition of what a god is. The characteristics of the PoE gods are similar to pantheons found in Earth cultures. Limited in power, limited in knowledge and wisdom, able to be killed, etc.

 

Right, the difference is the "gods" in PoE are *direct* human constructs. They're tools made by mortal hands to carry out a specific job. In classical mythology the "gods" were natural aspects of the universe who had form, sentience, and will. All religions that feature a god that I know of in the real world are pretty explicit in that those gods are either natural aspects of the world or the creators of the world, or both. Not something created by normal mortal beings to do their will.

 

One can argue that a Christian God is a human construct as well. Only difference is that Eora Gods are proven to exist while our Gods are just based on faith.

[gkathellar]

You say automaton, I say god. Either term describes the same fictional characters. Neither of us disagree as to what they are capable of. My last argument would be that if the gods of PoE, as made my mortal hands, would be indistinguishable from what they would have been if they had occurred naturally then the two sets are equivalent.

 

The word "god" is unhelpful in this context, because it doesn't seem to mean anything besides, "thing with superpowers."