Those "What have I done?" Moments

[FennecFyre]

Here's another emotion-jerker moment: Mistwatch Keep. Went in, decided to help Christer. Doo-dee-doo, killing bandits, hey look, a lady. WTF YOU'RE FJOLA. I don't regret killing a bandit chief who makes a living off kidnapping and ransom, but I do feel shaken when said bandit is given a name and a backstory, and her ex tries to punch me to death and won't listen. Managed to Calm him and left, but I still felt like a major Dovahjerk.

[Relativelybest]

Dagon possesses agency, yes, but not reason. Again, he can no more decide not to destroy than a fire can decide not to light a piece of paper.

 

Ha! Balderdash.

 

Dagon totally has the ability to reason because if he didn't, it would be impossible to bargain with him. And yet, after he asked me to be his champion and I told him exactly where he could shove that dagger of his, he very clearly went from wanting me alive to wanting me dead. In other words, he made a choice based on reason .

 

So, yeah, I don't buy it. Dagon can pretty much choose what to destroy and what not to destroy.

 

At any rate, my point was this: it's meaningless to classify Daedra as good or evil, you have to look at their spheres and recognise that their spheres are what they are.

 

It's not at all meaningless, because "good" and "evil" are words humans use to evaluate certain types of behavior in relation to human standards. Being evil doesn't require the capacity to be good, it just requires the capacity to be evil.

 

Just like Mara embodies the concept of Love, so does Sheogorath embody Madness. Mara is love, Sheogorath is madness.

 

Ah, but by your own logic, one can argue that calling Sheogorath mad is meaningless, since his madness is inherent to his nature? Nevermind that everyone agrees that he is mad, up to and including Sheogorath himself. Because apparently words do not apply to you as long as they are intrinsic to your existance. Likewise, Mara cannot possess "love" because she cannot chose not to.

 

Indeed, I could argue that I am not really a human - since I cannot not be a human, the word "human" is meaningless and doesn't apply to me.

 

Also, my cat is not a cat, because she can't not be a cat.

 

Do you see? When you reason like this, words start losing their meaning.

 

What mortals think doesn't matter,

 

It damn well matters to the mortals. When you are leading an unwitting companion to a sacrifical pole on a mountain because a god told you to, asking yourself if this god might qualify as evil can very well turn out to be a major turning point in your life.

 

it doesn't change anything about the how the Daedra, or Aedra for that matter, act. They are what they are, they will not change,

 

And who ever said that was a necessary trait for defining evil?

 

for all intents and purposes they are forces of nature.

 

Oh, really? So, for the intents and purposes of, say, a human sacrifice... then the living, thinking force of nature who just ordered you in plain English to stab an innocent man to death, with an added heavily implied threat of violent retribution should you refuse, is in no way to blame for any stabbings that might occur?

 

I'm not saying that the Oblivion crisis wasn't bad, I'm saying that Mehrunes Dagon did it because that is what he does.

 

Yes, and what he does is kinda evil by... pretty much any standards, really.

 

On the subject of his realm, the Deadlands, I don't see how it matters that it looks like our idea of hell.

 

It matters in a meta sort of way, in that Bethesda clearly wanted us to associate him with that particular kind of imagery. He is obviously meant to come across as evil.

 

I guess in the end, it largely comes down to your definition of the word evil.

 

No kidding?

 

I don't consider a being acting in the only way it can act to be evil. To me, evil is a deliberate act of cruelty for no other reason than to cause suffering and misery.

 

First of all: No other reason? So, as far as you're concerned, a man who does a deliberate act of cruelty for reasons other than pure sadism - for example greed or to achieve a particular goal while not really caring who he has to hurt - should not be defined as evil?

 

Second: "Deliberate" means that you want to do something and have put a bit of planning into it. That was is exactly what Dagon did with the Oblivion crisis - he wanted to invade Tamriel and laid conscious, curiously constructive plans towards achieving that. It didn't just spontaniously happen because That Is The Nature Of Destruction!

 

Some other examples for illustrative purposes:

 

You can say Boethia is evil, but without Boethia, there would be no Chimer. Most people consider Azura good, but without Azura, they would not be the cursed Dunmer.

 

So Boethia and Azura are not entirely evil nor entirely good, respectively, but both are measurably less evil than Mehrunes Dagon. What is your point?

 

Meridia is often called good because she hates the Undead. On the other hand, she also gave signifigant power to Umaril, who most would consider abhorrent.

 

So she's kinda ambiguous. I still don't see how this is supposed to make me sympathetic towards Dagon. Or, for that matter, any other obviously malicious daedra like, say, Molag Bal.

 

No Daedra is inherently good or evil. They simply are.

 

Do you remember what I said about words losing their meaning if you abuse them enough? This is a good example: "Inherent" means "a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute", that is to say something you have wether you want it or not.

 

So you basically just said that all daedra are free to decide to be good or evil if they feel like it, which kinda the direct opposite of what you have been trying to argue here.

 

Now, I know that's not what you meant, but it also indicates that you're throwing around words like "inherent" or "intrinsic" without giving much tought to what they mean. For crying out loud, your own definition of evil is that it cannot be inherent. This rather makes me question if you even know what you are talking about.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Relativelybest

[MelvinDark]

When the markarth guards framed me for the first time, I thought "F*ck you i'll just exterminate you pests and be on my way." ...Didn't turn out like that... Ended up with a five-digit bounty on my head x.x I did, however, enjoy slaughtering them thouroghly(ik I spelled that wrong).

[kradus]

The only thing I recall was the Molag ball quest, because bethesda didn't give us an alternative to killing the priest.

[Kayyyleb]

The only thing I recall was the Molag ball quest, because bethesda didn't give us an alternative to killing the priest.

I always found the Vigilants to be disgustingly self-righteous which gives me little problem with putting them in their place.

 

For me it was killing Nilsine Shatter-Shield. It was like the crushing blow for that poor bastard Torbjorn whose suffered both his daughters murders then his wife commits suicide...fate seems to hate that family.

[kradus]

 

The only thing I recall was the Molag ball quest, because bethesda didn't give us an alternative to killing the priest.

I always found the Vigilants to be disgustingly self-righteous which gives me little problem with putting them in their place.

 

No, I meant the priest of boethiah. It's not that I particulary like the guy, but being forced to kill a caged defenceless old man goes against my main's nature. Bethesda should have added an alternative to that. Usually we get a chance to challenge the daedric lords, but not in that one.

[JonarusDrakus]

I can only recall one moment... When I first became a wherewolf, and was 'spawned' outside the ubderforge, inside the city... Fortunately this was the moment I paused and thought 'hang on, this isn't right' - My charcter is based on the idea of superior self-control, never letting 'base' instinct or fleeting Emotions direct her actions (A standard I try to hold myself to in real life).

 

I found myself thinking: "Sure, I've turned into a hungry wolf-beast monstrosity... But does that mean I loose ALL control? Would I really just go rampaging through town killing randomly just because I can? No! What little control I still hold will be used to direct myself away from this city, and out into the wilds where I can indulge this form with far less risk" - So thats what I did, I went back into the Underforge and used the Alternate exit to leave the city all together (I wound up at the Stormcloak camp to the SE, killed most of them...)

 

 

Now on to a more vague matter...

 

 

I've seen a LOT of people throwing around the (entirely ssubjective) term "evil" to try to define things, beings, actions, etc... Niether *I* nor my character believe that such terms have and place in the real world...

 

"Any action that is directed towards a goal, is tailored to the conditions/circumstances (and is successful), is clearly the correct action - the "right" thing to do"

~ Svenja Raven-Born (My "main" character)

 

To put it in D&D terms - I am "Lawful Neutral", an honest mercinacry who will work for pretty much any cause so long as there is a definite goal, and I will remain loyal to that cause until the goal is achieved or I am dead. "Rules/Laws" may also be subjective to a degree, but the structure and discipline are neccisary to be able to SET goals, let alone achieve them.

 

To put it in even simpler terms - "There is not "true" black or white (in reality), only varying shades of grey"

Something may be so close to one extreme or the other as to be indistinguishable from said extreme, but the difference still exists - and weather we can see them or not is dependent on or view (our perception) of the world around us...

 

~JD

[blackninja50]

@jonarus_drakus So your saying that the Nazi death camps, Japaneses death camps, Communist death camps, Catholic inquisition and The first crusade where the right thing to do? Simply because they where tailored to the conditions/circumstances and where successful dissipate being some of the worst horrors ever commuted by man? That's down right twisted.

 

Evil is NOT at all subjective, evil is willfully harming or trying to harm another (the only possible exaction is self defense) this has been a recognized fact throwout all know history even children know this. The only "subjective" thing about evil is how evil a given action is. Evil has a VARY big place in the real world and is a vary real thing.

[Kayyyleb]

@jonarus_drakus So your saying that the Nazi death camps, Japaneses death camps, Communist death camps, Catholic inquisition and The first crusade where the right thing to do? Simply because they where tailored to the conditions/circumstances and where successful dissipate being some of the worst horrors ever commuted by man? That's down right twisted.

 

Evil is NOT at all subjective, evil is willfully harming or trying to harm another (the only possible exaction is self defense) this has been a recognized fact throwout all know history even children know this. The only "subjective" thing about evil is how evil a given action is. Evil has a VARY big place in the real world and is a vary real thing.

All morality is subjective. Always has been. Nothing is black and white. Everything is a shade of grey.

[blackninja50]

@Kayyyleb REALLY? Then how is it murder and stilling are crimes in every country on the world? How is it people that never had anything to do with each other can agree that harming another person unprovoked is wrong? Well? Simple, there's a universal standard of morality that all humans instinctively have (I did not com up with this).

 

Personal question: Do you think the mass murder of millions of civilians (who have done nothing to you) for a political ideal is justifiable?