Talk:Gods

why weren't natla,qualopec and tihocan(from my original article) allowed to be on this one if they have already been proven to be gods?

I made some modifications cause I don't think Natla,Tihocan or qualopec should be removed from this article,as they are indeed gods so I hope you like

Thanks for your contribution. I'm afraid that by any normal definition of "gods", the Atlanteans do not count. Recent interviews with Eric Lindstrom (The “Eric Lindström” posts), who has worked closely with Toby Gard on the backstory of Tomb Raider, makes it clear that Natla is not immortal, and does not possess not magic powers. Her ability to fly, shoot fire balls and resist attacks by Lara are explained by Lindstrom as products of advance technology, not of divine power. You say that the Atlanteans have been "proven to be gods". I'm prepared to consider any evidence that you have, but in the absence of that evidence I have removed them from this article. They are not "gods" in the dictionary definition of the word. Ostercy, 7th February, 2009.

Thanks for your reply I meant that in underworld,Lara makes reference to Natla as a god. she says "I need Thor's belt to get his hammer,and I need the hammer to kill a god",and also "They are team of sorts now.Amanda and Natla,her pet atlantean god" also they are refered as the god kings that's why I say that they are gods I think Lindstrom was refering to Natla in the first continuity(Tomb Raider 1)because there she indeed was mortal and her powers came from the atlantean tecnology In anniversary and underworld her wings come from her own body,and when she cast fireballs and perform other spells there is no sign of any tecnological "device" that would allow her to perform such a thing,implying that her powers are her own,unlike in Tomb Raider 1,in which she clearly have a granade launcher device attached to her hand and that is why I think they should be considered gods because there is a lot of ingame references to this Thankfully,Darth max

It's probably worth reading what was written in the original Eric Lindstrom posts, if you can bear wading through them; they are mostly extremely boring, especially if you read the bits in between "Eric's" posts :). Eric was working on Underworld, not TR1, and the "Eric" in the posts was referring to Natla in Underworld when he made his remarks. As for taking what Lara has to say about Natla as a source of evidence, he also points out that not everything that Lara says should be taken literally - he cites as an example Lara's remark that she "only plays for sport" in TR1, and explains how that might not be literally true. As for the fireball launcher being attached to Natla's hand in TR1, even that is debatable, mostly due to the low quality of the graphics. I personally think that Natla fires fireballs from a launcher, but there are people who disagree. You may have a point about the Anniversary version of Natla, however, as Eric tells us that Anniversary was developed by a different team to Underworld. They perhaps toyed with the idea of making Natla "magical" for one game, but by Underworld this Disneyesque view had been ditched for the original conception as Natla as a technologically advanced being, as she was in TR1. Even if you believe that Natla has almost magical powers (which it seems that Eric does not), that does not make her a "god". Ostercy, 7th February, 2009.

alright then,lets leave this article only for real proven gods =).Anyway I still think that even if she isn't a god,her powers are her own and not tecnological(most of the atlantean's powers in the anniversary continuity seem rather magical than tecnological).But I guess even Lindstrom is confused about that =D