Is Azura Evil?

[chanchan05]

I actually can't remember if that was Meridia or a different Daedra.

[glowbow11]

 

 

Remember that Azura cursed the whole Dunmer race for what their ancestors did by following the Tribunal.

 

She actually cursed them for what the Tribunal did, not because their ancestors followed them. So yeah, she cursed an entire race for the actions of 3 of its leaders.

 

That said, none of the Daedra are evil. They fall on the Blue-Orange morality scale, and are totally above the concepts of good and evil. Dagon may seem evil to mortals, but you can't objectively judge him because he IS destruction. He can do nothing else, he can think nothing else, he IS nothing else.

 

Azura may be selfish, judgmental and over-bearing, but shes not evil. None of the Daedra are.

 

exactly

[notmyhome]

Argh, THAT discussion again.

So, just to throw in my 50Cents one more time:

 

As a (mostly) mentally sane morthal, I find it quite easy to classify "good" and "evil", at least within certain limitations:

"Good" would be what helps Sentient Life to be sustained. "Evil" is anything that threatens this.

Setting this as an absolute, we can draw some interesting conclusions which probably were already drawn by far more intelligent people than me several times already, so if anyone has amendmends/objections to one of my postulates, do point them out.

1. From agriculture comes the knowledge that monocultures are prone to diseases and plague. Therefore, Plurality of Sentient Life can be classified as a second-most important goal.

2. There are certain actions that would deprave Sentient Life of their sanity and as such, render them Unsentien. Such actions cannot be demanded, not even in order to save Sentient Life itself.

Judgin the Daedra by this, it is easy to see that most of them are evil. Even Azura threatens Plurality, as she seeks to eradicate the Vampires, who are by any standards still Sentient.

 

To the Daedra affair:

They are Sentient beings themselves, not pure forces of nature! While still predictable to some degree, they all are subject to personal feelings as well as able to reason.

Being as powerful as they are, it might seem foolish to try and judge them by human standards. But as they affect human lives on a regular base, we do not have any choice but to judge them, to try and descry their ways, to categorize and label them!

[Hashar]

What amuses me is that, when superior beings that are "above good and evil" basically act like evil characters (destroy, kill, corrupt etc), many fans justify them by saying they are "outside any morality" and therefore are mysterious, complicated and interesting characters. When they act like "good guys" instead, then people say they are "boring" and "primitive" characters.

 

There is only one way to meet the requirements of what is currently considered moral, yet there is an infinite number of ways to act against them. If a superior being fully complies with such a transient and biased thing as the contemporary moral standards, then this being is either strongly dependent on humans and their beliefs or described in a very primitive and shallow way. Usually it's the latter.

[Dwalin2012]

 

If a superior being fully complies with such a transient and biased thing as the contemporary moral standards, then this being is either strongly dependent on humans and their beliefs or described in a very primitive and shallow way. Usually it's the latter.

 

It can also be the other way around: mortals and their morality are just "reflections" of the morality of the superior benevolent beings. If a superior being is benevolent, that doesn't make it less important or dependent on humans, imho.

[Hashar]

It can also be the other way around: mortals and their morality are just "reflections" of the morality of the superior benevolent beings. If a superior being is benevolent, that doesn't make it less important or dependent on humans, imho.

 

 

True, but a society which is completely based around beliefs of an actually present benevolent higher being is also rarely seen in games or even books.

Plus, it is most likely that the morality of such a being, although good-willed, would still be different from what the author and his/her readers consider to be ethical. Moreover, if the being in question is truly superior to mortals, it cannot fully share their fears, hopes, and desires, because it is free from mortal limitations and needs. Even in real life people neuter or euthanize their pets despite loving them, and the difference between a human and a pet is far less than the difference between a mortal and a god.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the idea of a superior being who is kind and merciful. I only wanted to point out that most fiction writers substitute their own generalized opinions for actual (and inhuman) kindness thus robbing such characters of any depth.

[Rennn]

 

 

Remember that Azura cursed the whole Dunmer race for what their ancestors did by following the Tribunal.

 

She actually cursed them for what the Tribunal did, not because their ancestors followed them. So yeah, she cursed an entire race for the actions of 3 of its leaders.

 

That said, none of the Daedra are evil. They fall on the Blue-Orange morality scale, and are totally above the concepts of good and evil. Dagon may seem evil to mortals, but you can't objectively judge him because he IS destruction. He can do nothing else, he can think nothing else, he IS nothing else.

 

Azura may be selfish, judgmental and over-bearing, but shes not evil. None of the Daedra are.

 

 

This. Exactly. You can't blame a shark for eating fish... Mehrunes Dagon is the shark of all of Tamriel, he's the incarnation of Destruction and couldn't possibly do anything else, despite the fact that to an organized society, destruction looks like a bad thing. Each Daedric Lord's sphere is perfectly moral... to that specific Daedric Lord and his/her followers. Calling deities good or evil is like an ant calling a human evil for stepping on its anthill.