Board Thread:Lore Discussion/@comment-97.81.240.58-20130603234626/@comment-13446185-20140321124007

Smoking.Chimp wrote: Dovahsebrom wrote: Smoking.Chimp wrote: Dovahsebrom wrote: Smoking.Chimp wrote: Actually, whether Talos, or any of the other "Divines", really are "Divines" is a non-issue because it is a matter of meagre status (i.e. the difference between a king and a highwayman - which, solely, boils down to posession of a crown or other perceived totem). At most, it is a question of language. How is a "Divine" defined and does Talos fit that definition?

As for the Thalmor being correct - their strategy worked and they successfully incited civil war in Skyrim by taking a non-issue and turning it into the most flimsy excuse possible to abuse the inalienable right of people to freedom of thought. Think spark + air/fuel vapour mixture.

Of course, never confuse being correct or even "right" with doing good. Talos is a god as he mantled Lorkhan. The Thalmor even recognize Talos as a god, they just say he isn't to weaken his influence in Mundus. Though the Thalmor probably have created the illusion among lesser AD associates that Talos is a "False-God", as the Thalmor end-game is quite brutal. The word Divine, when referring to the "Nine Divines" is a titular term at best. Basically all it says is that the god is worshiped in the "Nine Divines" pantheon, it's practically meaningless as the term could be used to refer to any god as long as the Empire wants to worship them in their pantheon. Yes, but the same argument that Talos is a "false-god" can be applied to any or all other gods in the pantheon - which is a matter of cosmological interpretation rather than fact. The "Divines" all have their powers and their associated mythology - as do the Daedra who take on a much more visible role in Tamriel. But do such things make them gods or just beings with better toys? In the worldview put forward by the cosmology this may be so, but it doesn't necessarily make it true that such beings are gods because the definition varies with culture, temperament and ideology. God itself is a word made by mortals, a title given to the super-entities they, or others, worship. Since Talos is certainly a super-being, and he is definitely worshiped; he is by defintion a god and the Thalmor have no right to say otherwise (that's why they lie and say he never ascended). However some would perceive the gods and daedra as being different rather than super beings whereas others would define gods as strictly non-corporeal phenomena such as force, energy, life or love - just to name a few - whereby sentience or 'being' would disqualify any potential candidate as evidence of corruption by anthropomorphism. But, getting back to the different versus super idea, the power of the gods does seem, based on how things unfold, as being constrained to their own domain which would make the question of who is more powerful into something that is more related to where that power would have to be exercised. Mehrunes Dagon, for example, is positively impotent in Skyrm and cannot do a thing about it if the Dragonborn refuses to kill for Mehrune's Razor. So much so, he departs in a rage and leaves the retribution in far more capable hands than his own - namely a couple of Dremora. So, there's a lot of room for variation based on circumstance and how different perspectives, attached to both player and actor roles, can colour the question of what does or does not constitute a god. Well I'm referring to god in more of a deity-like definition as gods seem to be presented in TES but I do see what you mean. Loveletter even refers to the One-God as being "love".

Mehrunes Dagon, for example, is positively impotent in Skyrm and cannot do a thing about it if the Dragonborn refuses to kill for Mehrune's Razor.

And for this reason I believe Herma Mora is the most powerful of the Daedra. Remember what happened to Septimus?