Too much speculation and personal opinion

@Mystickskye - Eh, you did say "If you really think that's important put it in Shakespeare's page". That is either a "it's better on his page" comment or "just anywhere but here" type of reaction, if you don't mind me saying so.

Back to the main point...I don't think I've overstepped the bounds of a single layer of interpretation? Correct me if I'm wrong or formed something inconclusively...

1. Marlowe claimed, Shakespeare has escaped Avon, and all the Gods are chasing him to recapture him.
2. Only Morrighan was known to chase Shakespeare - supplemented by her initial visions in G13, only Morrighan bringing in Grim Reaper, and Shakespeare specifying only Morrighan as the one he is fleeing from.
   • No new gods were introduced or mentioned in the recapturing of Shakespeare.
   • Gods already known to exist, such as Cichol and Neamhain, weren't even hinted at going after Shakespeare.
     • And before anyone says the Milletian shouldn't know about Cichol's revival or what Neamhain's been doing after her attack, the story has used third person anonymous view specifically for these hints, such as G12. Therefore, even if the Milletian remains unaware, the player can be informed.
3. So from this, we can say that no other god, beside Morrighan, has been chasing Shakespeare so far. This is significant, because it either:
   • Tells us that it's a gods' jobs to hunt down Shakespeare (which definitely should go into the known detail of a god), though "some of them are either purposely ignoring this or sleeping in".
   • Forms a contradiction ("hey, we accidentally told you before it's the gods' jobs to hunt down escapees, but we were, uh, kinda, wrong. Just thought you should know!") which is important to note here so that no one gets confused on which statement is true.
   • The game just haven't lived up to the claim yet, in which case it's still important to note so that no one gets confused on which statement is true.

So I think the only ways this statement can be false is if Grim Reaper or Bran themselves are gods. Which, while debatable and is definitely my intuition telling me this, I don't quite think so, and I don't think you do either.

Note that I'm saying we should put the statement and the observation in, and acknowledge them, not put in any of my three formed interpretations. That, the reader can do for his/her self.

As for Lugh, there's already a direct quote of Meven saying Lugh is a God of light, and he's the priest. Also, though this may be stretching a bit, but the very sheer fact that this is a game kinda limits the possibilities of Lugh getting mentioned - take Jeamiderark and Hymeriderark, for example (hope I spelled them right...). I believe they were only mentioned twice? Once by Meven and once by Endelyon? Yet there's no argument for them not being gods.

And...uh...I'm pretty sure that every god on this page is a derived conclusion, taken from words of NPCs or books. Unless we have a handbook that lists so, we can't exactly have concrete fact that any of them people listed here are gods. So...I don't think that argument stands? So long as [person] or [a book] said [being] is a god, it's going to have to be considered.

IRC...as for the comment thing, I'd think there's no problems if you only listed the comments relating to the article, not the comments relating to any person who's worked on this. And I'm not so much concerned about a penalty or shame for rewording something than the fact that by the time I do so, the specific topic may be several pages up and left behind, though I suppose that's only assuming if conversation goes as fast as I imagine. Maybe I'll drop by sometime and leave a window open just to accumulate the comments, though.

@Sledeau - Mmkay. Though, no offense, but you sound more like a commenter rather than a flamer; may I ask for your opinion on which parts need weeding, which conclusions are incorrectly formed, and which parts are just plain untrue, and why?

And, erm, I think they used a form of "deity" a few times in the game...but a distinction wasn't what I was aiming to achieve, it's just that the wikipedia page separated Gods and Deity into different definitions. I, myself, meant to use the term "deity" interchangeably with "gods" in context of Mabinogi - though it seems that wasn't implied strongly. Let me do a slight amendment, then...

“	A god is a recognized preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers.	„

Does this fit the context in Mabinogi better?

But they mention Lugh a lot more than the few contexts where the term god is ascribed. Many calling him Milletian. (And I don't think immortality makes him a god, as such, because all Milletians are immortal.) This is the major difference between him and Jeamiderark and Hymeriderark.

Were there any other mentions of Lugh being a Milletian outside of Tarlach's record? The person who argued against Lugh being a Milletian pointed out that multiple people in G3 refer to the player as "the Knight of Light" as opposed to just Lugh, whom never met Tarlach outside of Morgant form. Although, as I said, somebody calling something one thing and being contradicted later doesn't cancel it out, but earns both mentions a notation. Also, for perspective purposes: a Milletian/Mortal can still become a god... (Mari became a god, and Triona and the Player almost would've became one in G3 and G12.)

"Knight of Light" just means Paladin (in the real sense, as opposed to Emain's paladins). Lugh was simply the first Paladin, before your character even existed, so during G1-G2 that's the only person the NPCs know as the Knight of Light. It's not surprising that G3 would call you that, considering you're a Paladin, then.

And Tarlach's Record is from G3.

That would imply he wrote it before G3, in my mind, but I don't remember what he said about it. It's an irrelevant detail, anyway.

I totally misspelled Hymerark.

Eeh...for the frequency point...okay yeah, you got me there, I can't really draw that comparison between Lugh and Jeamiderark and Hymerark.

But I'm pretty sure I can draw a comparison between him and Nuadha. I think such instances where Lugh was mentioned was most frequently him as the Knight of Light. Assuming this is true, like Lugh, Nuadha had multiple accounts of people saying he is "King of the [humans]" and "fighting for the humans" in addition to being the "god-king". Of course, the difference between them is that Nuadha is also mentioned more frequently...so, I suppose, that's why I'm asking now whether three clear mentions of Lugh as a god is enough.

It's not so much the immortality, by itself, that may make Lugh the god - there's still the other parts of the definition of god to fulfill, which I think is mostly fulfilled. It's not like the label of Milletian means Lugh can't be a god, either - some Greek gods, for example, started as human, and in-game Mari was a human too before turning into a deity.

Its not necessary to define what a god is. This isn't wikipedia. The average person looking at the gods article is going to know what its about.

Er, I wasn't intending for that definition to be used in the article, either - just thought we would need a base definition of "god" to work with for this discussion.