Originally posted by Xexv

Slightly off-topic but still related, fyi.

I find this debate interesting but won't weigh in as I didn't play GW and have not a single clue about the lore.

I plan on playing GW2 - would people advise that I read up as much as I can on GW lore before the game launches or that I go in completely blind? Do we know yet if GW2 actually introduces it all to people new to the scene or will it be assumed that everyone has a working knowledge of it already?

I'm kinda torn.

You could do either. I'm certain the game will introduce you to the lore as you play. The developers have assumed from the idea's inception that they will be bringing in a lot of players who never touched the original. That being said, it may make the experience slightly more enjoyable if you come in with a working knowledge of what came before.

Originally posted by Diovidius

Originally posted by Tekaelon

Regardless of what you choose to call the gods of GW2,  they obviously exist on a higher level of life.

Criteria for godhood

Total or partial omnicience (having very great or seemingly unlimited knowledge )

Total or parial omnipreence (present in all places at the same time)

Divine willl (A determined path for life )

Divine power (Focus of power through followers)

All 6 deities from the original guild wars lore demonstrated each aspect of the above. This is unlike the Marsat who were just a powerful race of beings who tried to dominate the world. In fact there downfall was propagated by the GW gods.

Why are those criteria for godhood? What is godhood exactly? What makes you say the human gods have total or partial omniscience and omniprescence? How is the power of the human gods tied to their followers? And what do you mean by 'a determined path for life'? You say those aspects are demonstrated in lore, demonstrate them. And in such a way that it can't be applied to powerful spellcasters.

Well I did leave out one very important aspect of godhood, creation. It is assumed that any being with a designation of god created the world and its inhabitance. Just as in mythology the gods created life,  then provide guidence to faciliate growth and prosperity. It is the nature of a god to create, then foster that creation. Omniscience is demonstrated in that a plan of salvation was provided for the people of Tyria well before they were even aware of the threat. Ascension, infusion, and unnatural ability were all provided to allow the gods creation to defeat the evil that threatened them, and still not break the mandate of individual free will and self determination. That provision of a path to salvation demonstrates omnipresence, seeing things on a greater depth of scope and understanding.

Divine power directly related to the names of skills from the original guild wars, for example Dwayna's Kiss, and Balthazar Aura. A monk is a servant of Dwayna/Balthazar. Their power was channeled directly from their gods, as it is in all games with this kind of lore. All magical classes except elementalist, elemental magic, conveyed some aspect of a peticular god. Granted you could argue that these abilities are inate attributes to the world, but that brings us full circle back to the question of creation.

Ultimately lore should not have to provide fringe gameplay elements. That is like providing a scientific explaination for using magic. When I read a book it never occurs to me to buck the authors established lore because it does not suite my personal beliefs or lack of belief. I simply ingrose myself in the setting and enjoy the ride.

Personally I would rather than see the dev team spend more time on WvW. :) 

Thanks for the quick replies guys I'll probably have a light look at the wiki entries with my eyes squinted or something =)

Anyway back to the discussion at hand, etc.

Originally posted by Tekaelon

Originally posted by Diovidius

Originally posted by Tekaelon

Regardless of what you choose to call the gods of GW2,  they obviously exist on a higher level of life.

Criteria for godhood

Total or partial omnicience (having very great or seemingly unlimited knowledge )

Total or parial omnipreence (present in all places at the same time)

Divine willl (A determined path for life )

Divine power (Focus of power through followers)

All 6 deities from the original guild wars lore demonstrated each aspect of the above. This is unlike the Marsat who were just a powerful race of beings who tried to dominate the world. In fact there downfall was propagated by the GW gods.

Why are those criteria for godhood? What is godhood exactly? What makes you say the human gods have total or partial omniscience and omniprescence? How is the power of the human gods tied to their followers? And what do you mean by 'a determined path for life'? You say those aspects are demonstrated in lore, demonstrate them. And in such a way that it can't be applied to powerful spellcasters.

Well I did leave out one very important aspect of godhood, creation. It is assumed that any being with a designation of god created the world and its inhabitance. Just as in mythology the gods created life,  then provide guidence to faciliate growth and prosperity. It is the nature of a god to create, then foster that creation. Omniscience is demonstrated in that a plan of salvation was provided for the people of Tyria well before they were even aware of the threat. Ascension, infusion, and unnatural ability were all provided to allow the gods creation to defeat the evil that threatened them, and still not break the mandate of individual free will and self determination. That provision of a path to salvation demonstrates omnipresence, seeing things on a greater depth of scope and understanding.

Divine power directly related to the names of skills from the original guild wars, for example Dwayna's Kiss, and Balthazar Aura. A monk is a servant of Dwayna/Balthazar. Their power was channeled directly from their gods, as it is in all games with this kind of lore. All magical classes except elementalist, elemental magic, conveyed some aspect of a peticular god. Granted you could argue that these abilities are inate attributes to the world, but that brings us full circle back to the question of creation.

Ultimately lore should not have to provide fringe gameplay elements. That is like providing a scientific explaination for using magic. When I read a book it never occurs to me to buck the authors established lore because it does not suite my personal beliefs or lack of belief. I simply ingrose myself in the setting and enjoy the ride.

Personally I would rather than see the dev team spend more time on WvW. :) 

A couple of mistakes. The gods did not create Tyria, nor did they create humanity. They only found Tyria and brought humanity there. What you cite as omniscience is just 'more knowledge than others', knowledge that Glint also had for example.

What we know about magic goes against your monk example. All magic is just there in the world, filtered by the bloodstones. Human Monks may be pious and may call the magic they use prayers and may name specific spells after the gods but the actual magic does not come from the gods. Why else would there be charr monks or mursaat monks or even non-sentient monks? A part of the magic that exists in the world may originally come from the gods but after that gift they no longer controlled magic. Besides there was magic before the gods gave magic to the world (as can been seen from the mursaat, the elder dragons and the ritualist).

Originally posted by Xexv

Slightly off-topic but still related, fyi.

I find this debate interesting but won't weigh in as I didn't play GW and have not a single clue about the lore.

I plan on playing GW2 - would people advise that I read up as much as I can on GW lore before the game launches or that I go in completely blind? Do we know yet if GW2 actually introduces it all to people new to the scene or will it be assumed that everyone has a working knowledge of it already?

I'm kinda torn.

It looks like the lore will be explained to you as you go as evidenced by the sequence preceeding the Ascalon dungeon.  There's a short clip that gives you the history of Ascalon and provides a bit of context for the dungeon.  But to be honest, those familiar with the lore, especially from playing GW1 already, will probably get more of a kick out of it.  There are many threadlines from the past that I think existing lorehounds will find rewarding once uncovered, beyond just the present context.  Places and events will have a greater impact if you know what really happened there because you were actually there to witness it.

I'm not trying to dissuade you from GW2 in any way, though.  It looks to be a stellar game no matter what.  But for the sake of honesty, I think having a personal connection with the history after playing through it, will make it that much more meaningful.

I'm not someone that would dislike religions to be a big part of their mmo, quiet the contrary, flame bait or not. It encourage communication, i just love talking about religion with my friends and girlfriend, and i don't see why it would be a problem in a game. Sure it can be hot sometime, but heck we have seen more dangerous situation than forum fights ;p

Also i understood pretty much nothing about the OP since i didn't played GW. But Gods are cool, even the most selfish and evilish one. If you don't want to follow any of them, just do so. But you jut better begin a new cult imo, maybe you can get some ingame donation for that

Originally posted by Tekaelon 

Well I did leave out one very important aspect of godhood, creation. It is assumed that any being with a designation of god created the world and its inhabitance. Just as in mythology the gods created life,  then provide guidence to faciliate growth and prosperity. It is the nature of a god to create, then foster that creation.  Omniscience is demonstrated in that a plan of salvation was provided for the people of Tyria well before they were even aware of the threat. Ascension, infusion, and unnatural ability were all provided to allow the gods creation to defeat the evil that threatened them, and still not break the mandate of individual free will and self determination. That provision of a path to salvation demonstrates omnipresence, seeing things on a greater depth of scope and understanding.

Divine power directly related to the names of skills from the original guild wars, for example Dwayna's Kiss, and Balthazar Aura. A monk is a servant of Dwayna/Balthazar. Their power was channeled directly from their gods, as it is in all games with this kind of lore. All magical classes except elementalist, elemental magic, conveyed some aspect of a peticular god. Granted you could argue that these abilities are inate attributes to the world, but that brings us full circle back to the question of creation.

Ultimately lore should not have to provide fringe gameplay elements. That is like providing a scientific explaination for using magic. When I read a book it never occurs to me to buck the authors established lore because it does not suite my personal beliefs or lack of belief. I simply ingrose myself in the setting and enjoy the ride.

Personally I would rather than see the dev team spend more time on WvW. :) 

If you read about the Greek creation myth, you'll realize that only some of the gods had a hand in the ordering of the universe, and not even the principle gods at that. Zeus and the rest of the Olympians were primarily children of the Titans, who themselves were created beings. In Norse mythology, it is the Giant Ymir, not the gods at all, who is primarily responsible for creating the world as we know it. And the principle gods such as Odin are in fact his descendants (Sort of).

And once again, there is no evidence of an overriding divine plan in either of these pantheons. The gods merely do whatever strikes their fancy. It is only in monotheism that any kind of meta-narrative is being worked out.

Originally posted by Diovidius

Originally posted by Exilor

Originally posted by Diovidius

Originally posted by Exilor

Originally posted by Diovidius

Originally posted by Exilor

It doesn't matter. Gods in a work of fiction don't have to conform to his or your criteria. ArenaNet made the gods of Tyria, and unless they reveal that it was a lie all along people can only change that in their own personal canon.

It does matter. Anet never stated the human gods are gods from an objective point of view, Anet only stated that the humans view them as gods (and a few other races).

http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/races/human/

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Gods_of_tyria

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Gods_of_Tyria

Look for your statement that says that "humans view them as gods". The phrase itself insinuates that they are not. But it doesn't say that, anywhere. They are described as the gods of the humans, the group of dieties worshipped by humans. Not powerful beings which humans believe to be gods.

You do know that pretty much everything we know about the gods either comes from things said or written by humans or what was said by the gods (or their avatars) themselves right? Lore articles, dialogue, timelines it's all from a human point of view, GW1 in it's entirety was a human thing. As Ghosts of Ascalon shows in it's tale of the Foefire it matters a great deal who tells the story.

And do you consider the Charr to be wrong in their assumption of the non-divinity of the gods? Grenth defeated a god without being a god himself. The players in GW1 defeated a god without being gods themselves (although it was a chained and weakened god and the players were blessed by other gods). Abbadon presumebly defeated a god without being a god himself. The Elder Dragons rival the power of the gods. In fact, Abbadon thought he could harm the other gods by bringing mortals (margonites) to their realm (a similar thing to what Dhuum and Menzies are doing in GW1).

1. The wikis and the official website aren't quotes from human npcs.

2. The charr do believe the human gods are gods. They want them destroyed anyway.

3. Again, osiris in egyptian mythology was killed. Not all religions, in works of fiction or otherwise, have to be abrahamic-like just because it's more prevalent in our cultures.

1. Read again, I wasn't just talking about quotes.

2. So the charr do not consider them worthy of worship and think they can kill them but still view them as gods? As far as I know the charr always talk about the gods as the 'human gods' just like we can talk about a 'greek gods' without believing said gods exist.

3. If your definition of gods stretches that far in a fantasy world where mortals can bend the very fabric of space (Lord Odran for example), then again I ask, what is the difference between powerful spellcasters and gods?

1. I can't read what you didn't write. Please do.

2.  Yes they do, precisely as you said. And they do believe the tyrian gods exist. That's what drove them to worship the titans, that they didn't have gods to call their own and humans did. Then, after the the fall of the shaman caste, they swore to never worship anyone again.

3. I don't have to provide the diference. The very magic Lord Odran wielded was a gift from the gods, handed by Abaddon 1 year before the exile of the gods. The sentient races of tyria can only use magic because the gods felt inclined to give it to them.

Sounds like the entire Defiant faction in Rift.

As shown on the OP's signature, the source of power for humans is "Divine"....as in "from the gods".  

Originally posted by evolver1972

As shown on the OP's signature, the source of power for humans is "Divine"....as in "from the gods".  

 

Just to recap, the sources of power of Guild Wars 2's races are:

Norn: Shamanism
Charr: Technology
Asura: Magic
Human: Divine
Sylvari: Nature

 

If the source of power for humans comes from the gods, then how can a human be a Naytheist?  They can't deny the gods' existence - to do so would negate the source of their own power.  And they can't fight against or slur the gods or else then they would be left without power.

 

So, that would mean that the only professions the humans could be are the non-magical ones:  Warrior, Ranger, Thief, Engineer.  And they wouldn't be able to use any abilities from those 4 professions that would derive their power from the divine source, which would render then pretty weak when compared to the other races.

 

On top of all that, I'm sure the devs don't have the time or inclination to ensure that a human character who wants to deny their source of power can only use classes, weapons, skills, etc. that use no divine power.   IMO it wouldn't make sense to allow human players to not automatically revere their gods since that is where they get their power.

That's not 100% correct. The charr can also use magic without worshipping any god, and so can the asura, the sylvari, even the krait. The charr don't use technology-powered magic, or the sylvari with nature-powered magic. Magic is magic, it belongs to any  (even remotely) sentient creature ever since the gods gifted them all with it.

Originally posted by Diovidius

Originally posted by Tekaelon

Originally posted by Diovidius

Originally posted by Tekaelon

Regardless of what you choose to call the gods of GW2,  they obviously exist on a higher level of life.

Criteria for godhood

Total or partial omnicience (having very great or seemingly unlimited knowledge )

Total or parial omnipreence (present in all places at the same time)

Divine willl (A determined path for life )

Divine power (Focus of power through followers)

All 6 deities from the original guild wars lore demonstrated each aspect of the above. This is unlike the Marsat who were just a powerful race of beings who tried to dominate the world. In fact there downfall was propagated by the GW gods.

Why are those criteria for godhood? What is godhood exactly? What makes you say the human gods have total or partial omniscience and omniprescence? How is the power of the human gods tied to their followers? And what do you mean by 'a determined path for life'? You say those aspects are demonstrated in lore, demonstrate them. And in such a way that it can't be applied to powerful spellcasters.

Well I did leave out one very important aspect of godhood, creation. It is assumed that any being with a designation of god created the world and its inhabitance. Just as in mythology the gods created life,  then provide guidence to faciliate growth and prosperity. It is the nature of a god to create, then foster that creation. Omniscience is demonstrated in that a plan of salvation was provided for the people of Tyria well before they were even aware of the threat. Ascension, infusion, and unnatural ability were all provided to allow the gods creation to defeat the evil that threatened them, and still not break the mandate of individual free will and self determination. That provision of a path to salvation demonstrates omnipresence, seeing things on a greater depth of scope and understanding.

Divine power directly related to the names of skills from the original guild wars, for example Dwayna's Kiss, and Balthazar Aura. A monk is a servant of Dwayna/Balthazar. Their power was channeled directly from their gods, as it is in all games with this kind of lore. All magical classes except elementalist, elemental magic, conveyed some aspect of a peticular god. Granted you could argue that these abilities are inate attributes to the world, but that brings us full circle back to the question of creation.

Ultimately lore should not have to provide fringe gameplay elements. That is like providing a scientific explaination for using magic. When I read a book it never occurs to me to buck the authors established lore because it does not suite my personal beliefs or lack of belief. I simply ingrose myself in the setting and enjoy the ride.

Personally I would rather than see the dev team spend more time on WvW. :) 

A couple of mistakes. The gods did not create Tyria, nor did they create humanity. They only found Tyria and brought humanity there. What you cite as omniscience is just 'more knowledge than others', knowledge that Glint also had for example.

What we know about magic goes against your monk example. All magic is just there in the world, filtered by the bloodstones. Human Monks may be pious and may call the magic they use prayers and may name specific spells after the gods but the actual magic does not come from the gods. Why else would there be charr monks or mursaat monks or even non-sentient monks? A part of the magic that exists in the world may originally come from the gods but after that gift they no longer controlled magic. Besides there was magic before the gods gave magic to the world (as can been seen from the mursaat, the elder dragons and the ritualist).

I stand corrected on GW lore. :) Regardless I suppose my point is about an ordering of events guided by a higher power. Magic is a bit confusing to me as a force that can perform unatural effects on the natural world. That's why its magic I suppose. :)

I think I've been misunderstood by some and demonised (thanks, Exilor) by others, here.

It's easy to demonise someone who shares an opposing opinion rather than dealing with the opinion, isn't it? Sigh. Okay, anyway... some of you understood what I was getting at.

Without demonising me, can we at least acknowledge the following?

• In the intro, the human you play wails on aout the missing gods and how they still believe in them.
• In the biography, you must choose to havee been blessed by a particular god.

I think this is kind of a cool idea. It makes sense in context of the lore. If this was to be done, though, they'd need some type of elite skill to make up for it. I don't think players would enjoy forsaking the gods, and then finding out they don't have a racial elite as a result of this.

Originally posted by Exilor

Originally posted by Diovidius

Originally posted by Exilor

Originally posted by Diovidius

Originally posted by Exilor

Originally posted by Diovidius

Originally posted by Exilor

It doesn't matter. Gods in a work of fiction don't have to conform to his or your criteria. ArenaNet made the gods of Tyria, and unless they reveal that it was a lie all along people can only change that in their own personal canon.

It does matter. Anet never stated the human gods are gods from an objective point of view, Anet only stated that the humans view them as gods (and a few other races).

http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/races/human/

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Gods_of_tyria

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Gods_of_Tyria

Look for your statement that says that "humans view them as gods". The phrase itself insinuates that they are not. But it doesn't say that, anywhere. They are described as the gods of the humans, the group of dieties worshipped by humans. Not powerful beings which humans believe to be gods.

You do know that pretty much everything we know about the gods either comes from things said or written by humans or what was said by the gods (or their avatars) themselves right? Lore articles, dialogue, timelines it's all from a human point of view, GW1 in it's entirety was a human thing. As Ghosts of Ascalon shows in it's tale of the Foefire it matters a great deal who tells the story.

And do you consider the Charr to be wrong in their assumption of the non-divinity of the gods? Grenth defeated a god without being a god himself. The players in GW1 defeated a god without being gods themselves (although it was a chained and weakened god and the players were blessed by other gods). Abbadon presumebly defeated a god without being a god himself. The Elder Dragons rival the power of the gods. In fact, Abbadon thought he could harm the other gods by bringing mortals (margonites) to their realm (a similar thing to what Dhuum and Menzies are doing in GW1).

1. The wikis and the official website aren't quotes from human npcs.

2. The charr do believe the human gods are gods. They want them destroyed anyway.

3. Again, osiris in egyptian mythology was killed. Not all religions, in works of fiction or otherwise, have to be abrahamic-like just because it's more prevalent in our cultures.

1. Read again, I wasn't just talking about quotes.

2. So the charr do not consider them worthy of worship and think they can kill them but still view them as gods? As far as I know the charr always talk about the gods as the 'human gods' just like we can talk about a 'greek gods' without believing said gods exist.

3. If your definition of gods stretches that far in a fantasy world where mortals can bend the very fabric of space (Lord Odran for example), then again I ask, what is the difference between powerful spellcasters and gods?

1. I can't read what you didn't write. Please do.

2.  Yes they do, precisely as you said. And they do believe the tyrian gods exist. That's what drove them to worship the titans, that they didn't have gods to call their own and humans did. Then, after the the fall of the shaman caste, they swore to never worship anyone again.

3. I don't have to provide the diference. The very magic Lord Odran wielded was a gift from the gods, handed by Abaddon 1 year before the exile of the gods. The sentient races of tyria can only use magic because the gods felt inclined to give it to them.

1. I wrote: You do know that pretty much everything we know about the gods either comes from things said or written by humans or what was said by the gods (or their avatars) themselves right? Lore articles, dialogue, timelines it's all from a human point of view, GW1 in it's entirety was a human thing. As Ghosts of Ascalon shows in it's tale of the Foefire it matters a great deal who tells the story.

2. And how is believing in their existance and their power the same as believing that they are gods?

3. Then explain ritualist magic or mursaat magic (and Elder Dragon magic), both existed before the gift of magic .

Originally posted by Dream_Chaser

I think I've been misunderstood by some and demonised (thanks, Exilor) by others, here.

It's easy to demonise someone who shares an opposing opinion rather than dealing with the opinion, isn't it? Sigh. Okay, anyway... some of you understood what I was getting at.

Without demonising me, can we at least acknowledge the following?

• In the intro, the human you play wails on aout the missing gods and how they still believe in them.
• In the biography, you must choose to havee been blessed by a particular god.

Both of these things strongly imply that humans are forced to have faith in the gods in their personal storyline. What I was saying is that it's my position that if a person wants to have a personal storyline as a human that precludes the gods, then they should have that option. Or if it must include the gods, then it should include the option to spurn them. My worry is that ArenaNet aren't considering this choice for human characters.

 

All I was positing is that there should be the option for people to choose. If you want to be faithful or if you want to e a "Naytheist."

 

What is a Naytheist? Well, Diovidius got this. It's someone who understands that powerful beings exist, but that powerful beings exist everywhere, and that anyone stronger than oneself is a powerful being. But that doesn't mean that we should bow down to them, or worship them, or accept their word as law. It doesn't mean that we should accept them as superior beings, either, but rather simply more powerful. And it doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to become more powerful by our own merits in order to challenge them.

 

I believe that these should be options available to human characters.

 

With it laid out so plainly I don't see how anyone could demonise me for thinking this, but hey, I'm sure some will try.

My main concern is how closely tied the gods are to the human cultural identity. All of the human racial abilities are linked to the gods. Also, it seems that by this logic, charr should be allowed to worship the human gods, the asura should be allowed to venerate nature spirits, and the norn should be able to tap into the eternal alchemy. These and all possible related combinations should be made available by the same argument. So, application of your philosophy would be great in any other game, but I just can't see it working in this one.

Its pretty much impossible to deny that the Gods of the humans excist in the game world. Even the other races admit to their excistance. To deny that the Gods excist is like denying your entire heritage (which is deeply rooted for the humans), but its good to note that there are a fair number of humans who beleive the Gods have abandoned them in the last 250 years; the proof of this was in human week in which they described the current culture of the humans. While the number of humans who still have faith that the Gods are with them are in the majority, more and more and starting to feel frustrated with the current silence of the Gods and their servents. 

Originally posted by Diovidius

Originally posted by Exilor

Originally posted by Diovidius

Originally posted by Exilor

Originally posted by Diovidius

Originally posted by Exilor

Originally posted by Diovidius

Originally posted by Exilor

It doesn't matter. Gods in a work of fiction don't have to conform to his or your criteria. ArenaNet made the gods of Tyria, and unless they reveal that it was a lie all along people can only change that in their own personal canon.

It does matter. Anet never stated the human gods are gods from an objective point of view, Anet only stated that the humans view them as gods (and a few other races).

http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/races/human/

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Gods_of_tyria

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Gods_of_Tyria

Look for your statement that says that "humans view them as gods". The phrase itself insinuates that they are not. But it doesn't say that, anywhere. They are described as the gods of the humans, the group of dieties worshipped by humans. Not powerful beings which humans believe to be gods.

You do know that pretty much everything we know about the gods either comes from things said or written by humans or what was said by the gods (or their avatars) themselves right? Lore articles, dialogue, timelines it's all from a human point of view, GW1 in it's entirety was a human thing. As Ghosts of Ascalon shows in it's tale of the Foefire it matters a great deal who tells the story.

And do you consider the Charr to be wrong in their assumption of the non-divinity of the gods? Grenth defeated a god without being a god himself. The players in GW1 defeated a god without being gods themselves (although it was a chained and weakened god and the players were blessed by other gods). Abbadon presumebly defeated a god without being a god himself. The Elder Dragons rival the power of the gods. In fact, Abbadon thought he could harm the other gods by bringing mortals (margonites) to their realm (a similar thing to what Dhuum and Menzies are doing in GW1).

1. The wikis and the official website aren't quotes from human npcs.

2. The charr do believe the human gods are gods. They want them destroyed anyway.

3. Again, osiris in egyptian mythology was killed. Not all religions, in works of fiction or otherwise, have to be abrahamic-like just because it's more prevalent in our cultures.

1. Read again, I wasn't just talking about quotes.

2. So the charr do not consider them worthy of worship and think they can kill them but still view them as gods? As far as I know the charr always talk about the gods as the 'human gods' just like we can talk about a 'greek gods' without believing said gods exist.

3. If your definition of gods stretches that far in a fantasy world where mortals can bend the very fabric of space (Lord Odran for example), then again I ask, what is the difference between powerful spellcasters and gods?

1. I can't read what you didn't write. Please do.

2.  Yes they do, precisely as you said. And they do believe the tyrian gods exist. That's what drove them to worship the titans, that they didn't have gods to call their own and humans did. Then, after the the fall of the shaman caste, they swore to never worship anyone again.

3. I don't have to provide the diference. The very magic Lord Odran wielded was a gift from the gods, handed by Abaddon 1 year before the exile of the gods. The sentient races of tyria can only use magic because the gods felt inclined to give it to them.

1. I wrote: You do know that pretty much everything we know about the gods either comes from things said or written by humans or what was said by the gods (or their avatars) themselves right? Lore articles, dialogue, timelines it's all from a human point of view, GW1 in it's entirety was a human thing. As Ghosts of Ascalon shows in it's tale of the Foefire it matters a great deal who tells the story.

2. And how is believing in their existance and their power the same as believing that they are gods?

3. Then explain ritualist magic or mursaat magic (and Elder Dragon magic), both existed before the gift of magic .

Read the history section http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Gods_of_tyria

1. The human point of view is that the gods created tyria and humans themselves. Out of the game, in the official wiki, the gods are revealed to not have created tyria, they simply brought humanity there from some other world. The wiki is not the human point of view. It's not some human story, the wiki tells of humanity's version and the actual reality of the game. And since it's the official wiki, it's canon

In the same wiki, the article concerning the word itself (http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Tyria_(world)) it's not said that the gods created it, because they actually didn't. The wiki is not humanity's mouthpiece, it's objective, canon information about the game world. Still, they are referred to as gods.They're a category of being called gods. They might not be bible gods, they're Guild Wars gods.

2. The Charr saw unfair that humans had gods, who they blamed for their defeat at human hands. So they sought gods of their own so that they might also had that advantage. The shaman caste found a titan in a volcano and brought it to be worshipped as a god by the other charr. In turn, the titans provided them with the power to cause the Searing.

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Charr

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Titan

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Shaman_caste

I do not know if the shamans themselves thought the titans to be gods, but the rest of the charr (except bathea havocbringer who refused to worship them and was executed) believed so.

Basically: Oh the humans have gods and that's why they defeated us. Let us find gods of our own. Great, now we have gods, let's take back our land.

They do believe the tyrian gods to be really gods. That doesn't mean they worship them or anything, in fact they want to destroy them (and become gods themselves? I didn't think about that but they might like the idea...). They refused to bow to anyone, god or otherwise.

3. http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Magic

"Despite the fact that magic was not given to the races of Tyria on a whole until just before the Exodus, there are cases where magic was used before such time. Those cases are based on two cases - the chosen of the gods and the Ritualist profession. Before magic was given to the races, the Canthan Ritualists were able to call upon their ancestors for use in magic. With the introduction of magic, the Ritualist profession became even stronger - in both the old ways, and new."

There is no record of the Mursaat using magic before the gods gifted the races of tyria with it.

The Elder Dragons predate the gods and have their own powers, true. The safest thing to assume is that they were born from the mists, like everything in the world of Guild Wars including the gods, the stars, and any power was. They're born from the same place the gods (or the original wielder of their powers) were.  

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/The_mists

I'm an atheist in RL and if there gods were ever proven to exist I would very much be a naytheist so to that I say YES.

Originally posted by MannyMana

I'm an atheist in RL and if there gods were ever proven to exist I would very much be a naytheist so to that I say YES.

Next?