“Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope.” ~Robert Ingersoll
It’s interesting to me how many novels, plays, poems (and even, dare I say, religions) deal with immortality without really dealing with immortality, i.e. immortality is automatically assumed, more understood than explored. In our concept, gods are immortal. In fact, immortality is usually a qualifying aspect to being considered a god.
In my experience, even when an author writes from the viewpoint of a god, often the god’s perspective has been tainted by humanist ideas. Gods in literature are represented as having human emotions, human failings, even what might be considered mortal goals. In general, we don’t just anthropomorphize their forms, we anthropomorphize their viewpoints as well.
The gods of the ancient Greeks were lustful, meddlesome, fractious and belligerent—much like the Greek states. The Sumerian and Hindu gods in early writings were considered the rulers of earth, benevolent guides to a wayward humanity. They concerned themselves with instructing the race, that we might improve ourselves. Even in our deepest channels of faith dealing with the souls and spirituality of man, our gods are represented as having undeniably human characteristics—compassion, mercy, intolerance, patience, wrath.
Gods are often shown similarly in fantasy. Sometimes the gods are merely forces of ultimate good or evil (Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time, or Ursula LeGuin’s Earthsea). In other works, the author may have given the gods human bodies (Jennifer Fallon’s Gods of Amyrantha, David Eddings’ The Belgariad, or N.K. Jemison’s The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms). Whether or not they appear in the story, are represented by advocates, or are merely forces for good or evil, fantasy gods are quite often ascribed undeniably mortal viewpoints (although N.K. Jemison makes strides in giving Nahadoth a broader perspective).
Yet I have to wonder how many of us have really looked at what it would mean to be truly immortal?
So often when we think of gods, our viewpoint is colored by concepts long ago set down by earth’s religions. Gods must be as the sacred writings describe Brahman, Zeus, Ea, Yaweh, Allah…and so do our fantasy gods often follow in the footsteps of these preestablished characterizations.
The word ‘god’ for much of humanity carries a connotation of a being who is concerned with or connected to the human race in some way, whether that’s with benevolence or resentment, adoration or lust. But what of an immortal who has the abilities of a god but no inherent connection to man, who is as alien to us as human bodies are to immortality? I describe here godlike beings not of our world, unrestricted and undefined by preconceptions associated with the gods of earth’s religions. What would that kind of immortal be like?
I’ve had to take a good look at this, because four of the immortals in my series are nearly omnipotent (though not omniscient). Taking on their viewpoint in writing Kingdom Blades has required me to dive in and inspect what godlike beings (i.e. with the creative and destructive power of a god) would really be like. What would they think like? What sort of viewpoints and attitudes would guide their decisions?
1. To start with, time would have no meaning to them. The ages would not lengthen before or behind them (as we often see with many immortal beings represented in fantasy, from Vampires to the Fae). But true immortals would have no concept of time. They would be eternal. Conversely, think how many of our decisions are prisoners to time (“never have enough time,” “need more time,” “time is always against me” “if only I was older/younger”).
2. Bodies would be inconsequential to them. Beings with godlike power can create bodies at will. As mortals, most of our critical decisions concern avoiding bodily harm. Immortals of the nature I’m speaking of wouldn’t consider this a reasonable rationale for any decision.
3. They would have zero concept of right and wrong as humanity views these terms. Right and wrong would be completely meaningless to them, because right and wrong are survival concepts. In the simplest terms, an action is deemed right when it takes one towards a survival end, wrong when it results in something non-survival for the individual, the group, the race, etc. But right, wrong and survival are equally meaningless terms to a true immortal. Their survival could never be in question. Therefore, none of their decisions would take survival concepts into account (whereas nearly all of ours do).
4. With an infinite ability to create, a true immortal would have little, if any, concept of loss. Loss is only experienced when someone fears they cannot now have something that they once had. But if a being can create anything at will, over and over again as many times as desired, when would they ever have experienced loss? Yet for humanity, loss is a very real threat and the fear of loss an effective deterrent against all manner of action.
Perhaps you see just from these points how differently a true immortal would think from us.
Which begs the question, what would such immortals base their decisions upon? What attitudes would frame their viewpoints of existence? What rationale would drive them?
I think three things, simply: Interest. Purpose. And the playing of a game.
Interest precedes action. It also precedes purpose. A being has to be interested in something to find a purpose surrounding or involving it. But once interest is established, purpose would drive them. That purpose could be as simple as achieving the goal of a game. But a game for an immortal…my, the scope of that game, that goal, that purpose, could be truly immense, for time wouldn’t factor in it. Neither would survival, nor a fear of loss. Infinite capacity for creation means a purpose, goal, and game on a cosmic scale.
Which brings us full circle, because ultimately that is the game we’ve ascribed to our gods—the creation of this world, this universe, and all of us.
I would love to hear any thoughts you have on immortality and gods in fantasy. Share them below.
This is fascinating – and it all makes sense to me!
As always, thank you for getting me to explore more deeply topics which I wouldn’t have otherwise explored.
I agree – I like to think that Neil Gaiman had it right in Sandman. His Fairy Court were all about the Game, with no regard to human concepts of right, wrong, time, or compassion.
You’re spot-on with Gaiman’s Sandman, Christy. The Fae are probably one of the few immortal races that maintain a consistent disconnect from humanity in a way that seems appropriate and true – if there were such things as true immortals. Thanks for reminding me of Gaiman’s work there.
Very well written, Melissa. However, I have to disagree that right and wrong are only survival concepts. I feel that right and wrong comes from the conscience and I find it hard to believe that an immortal being would have no conscience. Morality doesn’t only exist within the context of extremes like death. I don’t quite understand where my feeling of right and wrong comes from, but there are many times during a normal day that I make these decisions without the notion of me dying or killing someone. 🙂
Also, I feel an immortal being would understand the concept of time with respect to those bound to it. If an immortal being is expecting a non-immortal being to do something, they would have to wait (Bjorn’s favorite past time). Time may not be important in terms of them running out of it, but the concept is still there, and they still have to wait for what they want if it’s not something they can do themselves — i.e. wanting someone to love them. Without getting too philosophical–theoretically, time allows for us to carry out our actions as well (immortal or not). Would an immortal be able to travel backwards in time? If not, then they are indeed limited by it and will definitely have a concept of this. And for #4 — without free will, love does not exist. If an immortal can control/create everything it desired, it would exist in a world of no love. Existence wouldn’t have no meaning. Then again, this could just be the limitations of my mortal aspect of my soul speaking. 🙂 Thank you for writing this — you have definitely opened my mind to thinking about this. Sorry for the run-on sentences. I was just writing while thinking.
Great points, John! I agree that conscience must surely exist regardless of mortality. I feel that the higher a being strives towards immortality, the more his conscience evolves from morality to ethicality, the more personal becomes his sense of the ethical right. An immortal would probably still have his own sense of right and wrong, but that sense wouldn’t necessarily connect with what humanity feels is right and wrong, because our right and wrongs are typically and in some way determined by whether or not the action brings about a greater degree of survival for ourselves, our families, groups, race, etc. If you can think of an action that your conscience deems to be right that in some way does not relate to survival, I want to hear it! 🙂
Nice points on time. I love the perspective you shared.
On point four…I was thinking of it more in a vacuum – an immortal without connection to others. I agree, as soon as you bring another being (even another immortal) into the picture, the entire playing field changes in terms of games, goals and the potential for loss (if only of that other being).
That a moral decision can be made without consciously invoking something specific to life or death doesn’t preclude them being evolved traits (and here I’m referring specifically to evolution as the changing of things over time that alter the relative ability of a species or subspecies to survive). I don’t think it very likely that a bird flies south when winter arrives because they consciously make a decision based on the notion that it’s summer down south and so they’re more likely to live if they fly there. Generally, such things would be termed instinct, but those are ultimately just evolved behaviours that added to the relative ability to survive and therefore have persisted. Survival is not limited to immediate consequences or even to life or death. Survival goes right down to what makes my living (and presumably reproducing) more likely than someone else’s. The sorts of moral choices that affect life and death then trickle down to things that are not immediately life or death, such as the idea that it’s morally wrong to hijack your neighbour’s cable connection. Some morals are obviously taught directly. Religions in particular attempt to force a limited set of morals on followers. However, that need not be the case for all morals and there are those who have crises of faith when those sets of morals conflict with one’s internal moral compass.
Whether conscience informs morals or vice versa is perhaps a chicken and egg argument. Either conscience gives rise to morals and then jabs us when we go against those morals or we are aware of having gone against our morals and the conscience reacts to give us a jab.
I don’t see any reason for an immortal being to have a conscience. There are mortals with no discernible conscience, so why not immortals with no discernible conscience? Even if an immortal has a conscience, the effect of having a conscience is relative. How a decision is perceived morally depends on the decision being made and who/what else is involved. Without anything to drive the construction of a conscience, it’s entirely possible that none would ever arise.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding the definition of survival. I don’t hit my children because I don’t feel it’s the right thing to do, but they will survive if I do. 🙂 I also do not call them names or poison their minds with negativity — or any other child that is not mine. It just doesn’t feel right. I don’t know where survival comes into play here. I guess it boils down to the definition of life. We all know it has far more color than physically dead or alive. Time to start reading my ethics books again. 😀
LOL, yes I’m talking from the philosophical usage of survival, not an existential one. Survival from the view of the “greatest good for the greatest number” instead of a “life or death” aspect. We’re probably communicating from the same place, just with different definitions. 🙂
Ahhh, I had a feeling definition was the problem. 🙂
Melissa,
I’ve taken some time to think about the questions you pose. In general many of the observations you make would be true in the abstract or in a vacuum but once these beings come in contact or in some cases even aware of other beings, their existence outside of time and awareness ends.
I’m assuming none of these beings will exist in a vacuum.
1. Time- In absolute abstract I agree with you, in the absence of awareness or stimulus the concept of time would not exist. But once they come in contact with anything affected by time even if simply through observation their existence outside of time would end. They would continue to experience time in unlimited volume with but once any interaction takes place they exist on the time line, an infinite time line but a timeline just the same.
2. Bodies- As a bag of flesh I agree but the simple act of taking human form proves they mean more. They are an expression of their will and often a mirror to how they perceive themselves. Its their representation and used to define their interactions within the world. An example from the book might be Rinokh, he had no particular affinity for the flesh of his body but it did represent an extension of his will in the world. Another example might be any of the Adepts, their bodies are meaningless, if their bodies are destroyed they will be reborn. Even without fear of survival their bodies matter, they are their representation and means of action and how they express intent within the world they live. Their bodies matter not because of the flesh but because they allow them to express themselves beyond the limitations of words. The fact that immortals choose to take human form when they could exist outside of form suggest that while not defining, they do value their bodies on some level.
3. I disagree with your conclusion, survival is a basis for ideas of right and wrong not the only basis. It would like saying because they have no context of survival there would be no sex. Sex at it’s basic form is about procreation which is the means by which a species survives, yet sex takes place without an imperative for procreation. Pelas- I was that monster demonstrates learning right from wrong without survival as a necessity.
4. This might be the most provocative question. I’ll start by saying I don’t believe this question applies to your story but the difference between omnipotent and nearly omnipotent is like the difference between being pregnant and nearly pregnant, either you are or your not. Nearly omnipotent beings by definition have limitations and as a result will always have something out of reach or at risk of loss.
Omnipotent isn’t very fun, ever notice how few lines of what God does are written in the bible compared to what he says or wants?
Wonderful points, Bill!
I think the sort of “ultimate” or “absolute” (in the vacuum) viewpoint the immortals upheld in the Void would continue to color their perspective once they come into the world, but they certainly have to adapt their viewpoints based on their interactions and experiences in it. I don’t know how far from that “ultimate” view these changed viewpoints will fall. It’s actually a big part of what I’m looking at as I’m writing from the perspective of these immortals.
You’re absolutely right about omnipotent. Either they are or they’re not.
Melissa
I agree 100% their time in the void would be the starting point for each. As each are individuals, how far they evolve would depend on their individual experiences and unique attributes. An immortal with a high level of intellectual curiosity and joy of exploration would experience the world entirely differently than one who was quietly contemplative.
As such, I don’t believe there is a set of rules to apply, each is unique.
And here is the kicker
Powerless ;>>Powerful>>Near Ominpotent>>|| Omnipotent
Until a being passes the rubicon to omnipotent, whatever is out of reach of they fear losing has the same relative impact, it becomes a need no matter what else they have.
Think Darshan.
Would sex evolve without the need to procreate? That we can engage in sex without the end desire being procreation is not the same as saying that sex would exist without the need to procreate. Are there creatures that can engage in sex, but procreate in another way?
The Abrahamic religions specifically separate morality from survival, the former being lain down as a set of immutable laws given by an immortal. Arguably one could learn them without having evolved them. Psychopaths are able to learn what behaviours are considered right and wrong and apply the appropriate behaviours at the appropriate times. That doesn’t make them moral.
Really interesting ideas, Craig. Thank you so much for sharing them.
Your comment opens me to the idea of separating out morality from ethicality, an informed or enforced code of conduct from an innate sense of conscience. I believe that ethics is a personal thing and absolutely reflects conscience, that inner voice, one’s own sense of wholeness and integrity about a choice. The moment you try to enforce an ethical code, it diminishes that code and lowers it to the level of a moral code. Morals exist as a code of conduct set down by the group (as opposed to the individual’s own determined sense of rationality and right and wrong), and as you pointed out, moral codes can very radically from one group (or even one religion) to the next.
I do believe an immortal as we’re speaking of them here would have a sense of conscience, but I’m not sure his conscience would speak to him about the same things that ours speak to us about. It’s the difference between human morality and an immortal’s sense of morality. They might actually conflict at times.
It comes down actually to agreement. Once the immortal begins to interact with another, or with mortals within the world, his viewpoints may shift as a result of forming new agreements about reality or actuality. But in the vacuum of his own universe, his will would be absolute – i.e. he might have no need for conscience as we think of it at all.
All of these viewpoints are especially helpful to me as I’m weaving through the perspectives of my immortal characters and trying to put context to their thoughts for the reader. Thank you so much!
Craig,
Good points all. I guess I was looking at things in too narrow a context, the book.
In the book the immortals participate in sex with no context or need for procreation. In Darshan’s case hiis search for some version of love or connectedness and in Pelas case enjoyment and hunger.
So in their case, sex can and does exist without any context to reproduction.
“Interest. Purpose. And the playing of a game.” That is a perfect description of what makes sociopaths tick, why they do what they do. Also very reminiscent of the Greek Pantheon. Greek Gods were not so much idealized as they were extremes of human behavior– exemplars of anti-social behavior. Gods of any origin are kind of insane if you look at them closely. Brings me to the novel I’m doing now. Rather than gods I work with god like aliens, only god-like from the human perspective perhaps, but they don’t see themselves that way. My protagonist is human, idealized in that he is fixed in the hippy mind set. Each accidental death for him is a reset button–he wakes up without a memory. What happens when he lives too long? He goes nuts. Of course I have the mechanics of a pseudo science running the background, but I imagined if a person can’t die he will lose his mind.. but not his idealized humanity. That nugget remains intact as seedstock to rebuild a blank slate.
Gods are, in reality, simply personifications of human ideas, fears and social concepts. In fiction I use them as what they have always been; literary devices to serve a human story.
I love your ideas of alien immortals, Rachel. Definitely some similarities to what I’m exploring with my series. But what an interesting perspective to assume from your human – that he goes insane if he lives too long, yet his ideals (inherent goals?) never change. Fascinating! Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.
Thoughts on immortality:
Time: In one sense I think you are right and time would no mean much. I another sense I think you missed it. An immortal’s biggest enemy is boredom. If you live forever, you’ve already seen everything. One of my favorite authors, Michelle Sagara, has written an episodic series where some of the characters are immortal and some are not. The immortal races are frequently focused on trying to find activities that allieviate their boredom. Think of all the people who retire and can’t seem to find enough stuff to fill their day.
As many other responders have said, I don’t think immortality precludes morality. In fact I think that morality might be the basis for sanity for a being that lives forever. It may not be western morality, it may not even be human morality but I think that some sort of moral code is necessary to anchor an immortal being in sanity.
Loss: Immortals have to suffer loss. The law of entropy says that everything eventually returns to it’s most basic state. If you have a favorite sweater, bike, sword, castle etc, it is eventually going to crumble into dust. The loss would be even greater if the immortal formed a relationship with a mortal. It may even be an adversarial relationship. But whatever the relationship; when the mortal being dies I think there would be a sense of loss.
Bodies: If an immortal can fashion any kind of body it wants, I think they would be genderless, or at the very least gender indifferent. Unless they are attracted to sex as a means of allieviating the boredom I talk about above, I can’t see them being terribly interested in a gendered form. Unless they are interacting in a culture where one gender gives one an advantage, I can’t see them caring one way or another what gender they choose.
Peter, thank you for sharing your ideas. What great perspective!
I totally agree with you about time in the sense that an immortal would have to have a game in order to maintain his interest in living. I do think that their idea of time would be different from ours. A hundred years or a thousand might feel the same to them. I think it depends on where they’re spending eternity. If they’re in space or in the nothingness of Shadow (as in my series), where there is little else around them to show a rate of change, then time really could pass by the ages without their really noticing. If they’re in the world, where things change moment by moment, then they might have more of a concept of time, since it’s really just that: a measurement of the rate of change.
I completely agree with you on morality being a basis for sanity. Such an important concept to have voiced.
Thank you for sharing your ideas and viewpoints with me. Every different perspective is beneficial and valuable.
Comment from James Wright transferred from Facebook:
So I don’t know if I have anything to offer in terms of answers or opinions to this blog post, but here goes…
The maker created Pelas and his brothers to keep balance, right???? Now in basic terms if good vs bad, these guys were bad.
But Pelas experienced good in the form of Tanis, and his mother Isabel. This leads me to believe that the Maker created all his demigods/angels if you will (drachwyr, zanthyrs, Malorin’athgul) with the ability to make up their own minds (free will). This has made Pelas challenge the whole concept of his nature, and lead him to the light (or so it would seem).
So what is the Maker’s intention? Is it that he wants to see if good prevails over bad (or vice versa)?
1) If so, does the Maker wish good, but is allowing evil to be present, like some test for the mortals to decide a path?
Or 2) Is it indeed a game of curiosity, in which the Maker wants to see whether mortals choose one side or the other?
Like mentioned in your blog, its hard for us to comprehend gods any other way than we already do. If point 1 is the Maker’s intention, then the story is close to what can be learned from old/new testament bibles. Alternatively, point 2 more sides with the Greek mythology also mentioned in your blog.
With regards to the four points you make in your blog, I think its your story to tell. No one can ever understand a god’s intentions or thoughts unless the god makes it known to them. So as an author you can tell any story, or make any reason for the way they think and act as you will it to be read. No one can challenge that because its yours to tell.
But here goes…
1) time may not matter to them, other than they have plenty of it to bend the world to their purpose. Because of immortality they have as much time as they need to slowly plan their goals….the more time, the more intricate their plans can be.
2) their bodies should matter to them. If it is destroyed in this world then they are banished from it (Rinokh) with no immediate return (as far as book 3 has told at least) so keeping their earthly form is important if they wish their end goal to come to fruition.
3) if the maker created his immortal children (good and bad) to keep balance, then they would each have their own perception of right from wrong. The Malorin’athgul were created dark, so right for them is to destroy the world, and wrong would be to follow along the lines of Pelas’ journey. This is interesting in that Pelas goes against his instincts. (At least thus far) So in contrast the drachwyr (seemingly created in the light, or for good) would be instinctively wrong to fight on the side of Shail and his two brothers…but right for them is to be on the side of Bjorn.
I hope my ramblings here are comprehendible? I lose myself sometimes – LOL
4) I can see your thinking here, but if I may add my own thoughts. I think they will feel loss…and in fact your story already implies it. If Pelas were to lose Tanis I get the feeling he would feel great loss (remember how distraught he was when the darkness took him in the caves when he hurt Tanis). A drachwyr would equally feel loss if anything were to happen to Bjorn, Ean, Trell etc because they are in essence good, and fight in that cause. I know you explain that a drachwyr feels no loss after the death of someone in book 3, but there is also a sense of mourning prior to that. Is that not an inkling of loss? But in the big picture they are helping the cause of Bjorn… Surely if they didn’t care about loss, they would just observe without helping?
Whichever side of the coin the immortals in your story sit, they are written to be playing a game, or serving a purpose to which they were created. So surely they will feel loss if they fail?
I know my explanation of point 4 is very debatable, but its my own thoughts from reading the book and not necessarily correct.
It’s interesting that you bring up the point of the Maker’s purpose for creating the Malorin’athgul, James. It’s one of the topics we’ll find out more about in the last two books, specifically: did he give them free will? Can they change their inherent purpose? What will happen to the Balance if they do change that purpose? And what will happen to Alorin if they choose to stay in the realm? Is it their intention that makes their presence antithetical or their actual physical presence? These are all things we’ll be delving into more deeply (these and many more).
One of the things I’m seeing through comments and interaction on this subject (and thank you to everyone who has offered perspectives – I so appreciate all of them!) is the need to differentiate between immortals “in the void” or in a vacuum versus immortals who have come into the world and come into contact with mortals. I think the Malorin’athgul when in the void would have a different view of things, a more disassociated view, than they would once they come into the world. Contact with mortality would necessarily change their perspective. It was important to me to establish their view in the void first, however, as this becomes a fundamental truth upon which their other views are predicated or around which new viewpoints swing.
There are also other immortals introduced in the last two books who my readers know very little about but who also wield a godlike power in their own realm. So there’s lots of exploration going on, both from the “in a vacuum” sort of view and then, as so many have helped explore in their comments, how the immortals must be forced to change those foundational views once they come into contact with a world that is meant to endure and the mortal beings who inhabit it.
You make a good point about loss associated with the failure in whatever game they’re playing. Thank you! I hadn’t really looked at it that way, but of course they would have some harmonic of loss in that respect, even while in the void.
I entirely agree that immortals MUST have an inherent concept of right and wrong. I’m just not sure that their moral compass would point anywhere near our true North.
Hello Ms. Melissa Mcphail
First , I want to thank you so much for your wonderful books (I am halfway through Cephrael’s Hand) and read it on my way to work and back, when I am eating my breakfast, lunch and dinner and before I sleep (These are my free times when I can be alone) and I treasure every moment of them,for an author’s first book, it is really excellent , I love that you included Farsi language and Arabic cultures ( I have a mixed heritage of both 🙂 )
The only sad thing is that this series is not finished yet, and the wait is terrible for a new book.
By the way, I love the covers so much, but was wondering, what real-life people you think (envisioned) Ean,Trell, Tanis and well, every major character look like? I like to have a picture of these characters when I’m reading , if you won’t answer, its fine.
The wait will be unbearable but I know for sure the rest of your books will be so totally worth it.
Thank you so much for your kind words about Cephrael’s Hand, Rose. I’m so glad you’re enjoying the series so far. I have a deep love for the persian culture, and I hope it is well reflected in the series.
I do understand about the waiting for an unfinished series. I’m working on book 4, Kingdom Blades, as fast as I can in consideration of that very point. 🙂
One day I’ll do a blog post about the characters, but for now you can see my picks (as close as I can find to how I see them in my mind) on my Pinterest page.
Thank you for reading!
wow, Thank you so much Ms. Mcphail for your answer.
I am sorry if I sounded whiny back there, I know you are working hard on your books and they are amazing really.
Don’t worry, the culture is reflected but still seems original.
Also, Can you one day do a blog with all the races?There are many of them and did you consider collaberating with one of the artists from Deviant Art for some artwork ?
Love LOVE This series so far and somehow, I am invisioning Fynn as (Inigo Montoya) Mandy Patinkin 😀
wow, so I am currently writting a fantasy with gods as the ‘central idea’ I suppose you could say, and I stumbled across this and I just want to say that this has really opened my eyes to the ideas of gods and how they exist. Thank you so much for creating this, it has totally changed things and really helped!!
That’s wonderful to hear, Angel. I’m so happy my thoughts on this topic could help with your own creation. Let me know how it goes. 🙂
A lot of the discussion here centers around groups or ancestries that are immortal or very long lived and the effect such would have on their point of view and morality. It may have been in the discussion but I don’t recall seeing it but one of the first stories in human history involves the quest for and failure to achieve immortality by a human being.
Given that I am not sure I follow that being immortal in itself would have these effects on an immortal human. In a lot of fantasy the things that someone is required to do to become immortal would definitely effects ones morality or humanity as a contrast. Not that it matters more then anyone else’s opinion but I think being mortal and knowing that you are going to die is part of what makes humans have humanity/morality, that being said if a human were to become immortal I don’t think this would change them much as to how they see the world as they still had the experience of being mortal. In the case of the Fae mentioned above they have never experienced mortality and so do not have that perspective, an immortal human having once been mortal has that perspective and I think this would continue to cause them to have empathy at least on some level for mortals.
I 100% agree with you, Bryan. The viewpoint of someone who was once mortal, I think, would be forever sculpted by that experience/knowledge of impending death. Whereas someone who never had to deal with the idea of mortality might not comprehend some of the same concerns. It’s such an interesting area to explore! So many different views possible. Thanks for adding your thoughts to the pot.