Daedric Princes and morality

[Lachdonin]

OK, this was going to derail the other thread... So i thought we'd just take it asside.

 

The Daedric Princes. Paragons of evil, or forces of nature?

 

In an absolute sense, i say the later. Why? Because they are not free thinking, rational and understanding entities. They are isolated fragments of creation, representing a single aspect of reality. As said before, Dagon IS change through destruction. Mara IS love. Azura is prescience.

 

On the issue of rationality, yes, they can negotiate, they can reason, they can 'think', but their capabilities therin are based entirely within their nature. Dagon can no more think of a peaceful solution to a problem (or even conceptualise one if presented to him) than a canary can figure out how to make a nuclear weapon. It is simply beyond the scope of his mind. That's not to say Dagon isn't brilliant, but his brilliance is totally restricted by his intrinsic being. Because of this, he can no more be considered reasoning or rational than a wolf which eats an elk while it's still alive. A wolf doesn't understand the concept of 'humane' anymore than Dagon understands anything but destruction. Of course, to counter his destruction, Dagon is the fuel for new life. He destroys so that more can be created in its place.

 

At the same time, the Aedra are equally destructive. Love can turn to jelousy, the wildernes consume civilization, and in time all things fall to ruin. The gods, Aedra and Daedra both, are beyond the mortal concepts of morality. The doesn't mean they can't commit evil acts, but to BE evil, it requires a willingness to do evil deets. The Daedra are thus no more evil and a hurricane, or a wild animal. Cunning, even intelegent, but not evil.

[sgman1]

First off, this is the just the same old moral ambiguity dilemma. However, with that said, what should be more correct, that which is justifiable simply for the sake of justifying it or that which is in the best interest of everybody (i.e., long-lasting, prosperous, peaceful existence of civilization and general contentment of it's people)?

 

What you are doing is simple justifying the acts of the Daedra. To your specific example of Dagon causing destruction to give to new life, that is not mentioned anywhere as far as my knowledge goes. He simply lives for that purpose and no other. Your just giving him justification.

 

As far as the common man who would face the "destruction of Dagon for new life" is concerned, Dagon is no less evil than the hulking orc bandit who's looking to kill him, pillage his home, rape his wife and eat his children.

 

The previous few paragraphs are probably not the most coherent, so let's break down OP's post piece by piece:

 

The Daedric Princes. Paragons of evil, or forces of nature?

 

In an absolute sense, i say the later. Why? Because they are not free thinking, rational and understanding entities. They are isolated fragments of creation, representing a single aspect of reality. As said before, Dagon IS change through destruction. Mara IS love. Azura is prescience.

 

Okay, fair enough. But then tell me how are they any different from the so many people one meets on a regular basis that are limited by their personality to not accepting certain viewpoints despite the complete logical dominance of a certain idea?

 

On the issue of rationality, yes, they can negotiate, they can reason, they can 'think', but their capabilities therin are based entirely within their nature. Dagon can no more think of a peaceful solution to a problem (or even conceptualise one if presented to him) than a canary can figure out how to make a nuclear weapon. It is simply beyond the scope of his mind. That's not to say Dagon isn't brilliant, but his brilliance is totally restricted by his intrinsic being. Because of this, he can no more be considered reasoning or rational than a wolf which eats an elk while it's still alive. A wolf doesn't understand the concept of 'humane' anymore than Dagon understands anything but destruction. Of course, to counter his destruction, Dagon is the fuel for new life. He destroys so that more can be created in its place.

 

First, to your example, there is no comparison. The wolf kills the elk to feed. It's a natural cycle. And it doesn't kill wantonly. Only when it actually needs to feed. I suppose you could make the same argument for what has been ordained as correct from a god-like being and one who is compelled by his sphere but, then again, it isn't one or two beings that are affected by Dagon's actions. It's entire populations as a whole. You have to consider that before justifying the actions of Dagon.

 

Furthermore, as I hinted before, there is no difference between Dagon and a bully who will f*** up anyone in anyway as he desires simply because it pleases him as a part of his personality. It is the reason why conflict exists and why one would fight back instead of say, "Gee, he's a god. Gotta do what he says instead of using my brains." Besides, say who, for example, would do as god commands if their dearest ones are at stake. It isn't something that is just done at the snap of fingers.

 

And also, wasn't that the whole point that Paarthurnax argued with the Dragonborn. Alduin was like a god and actually going to destroy the world to make way for a new one. Did the Dragonborn simply sit on his laurels and say, "Yeah, you're right. I guess I'll just let him burn s*** up."? No. He got up and said that he cared for the world and it doesn't matter if there was a new world waiting. He would protect this one simply because it would be stupid to let the ENTIRE world just get destroyed just because a god said so. It's as idiotic as doing what one's elder sibling would say, simply because they are the elder and somehow magically have infallible judgement.

 

At the same time, the Aedra are equally destructive. Love can turn to jelousy, the wildernes consume civilization, and in time all things fall to ruin. The gods, Aedra and Daedra both, are beyond the mortal concepts of morality. The doesn't mean they can't commit evil acts, but to BE evil, it requires a willingness to do evil deets. The Daedra are thus no more evil and a hurricane, or a wild animal. Cunning, even intelegent, but not evil.

 

I have to disagree with the equally destructive stuff. Especially on the merit of the examples you used for the Daedra as opposed to the ones you used for the Aedra. As I said before, Daedra in general, especially your example of Dagon affect large populations. Tell me how love turning to jealousy can affect large number of people?

And as for wilderness consuming civilization, I'm not sure about this but are you referring to Kynareth? Doesn't she also bless hunters as well? I thought she only hated those who were indiscriminate and unjust with nature.

 

Anyhow, you can't just say that to be evil it requires willingness to do evil. Does doing something wrong but not wanting to do it make it any less wrong? And if one has the power to decide otherwise, shouldn't they do so? I suppose in the case of the Aedra and Daedra, they are bound by their sphere to do what they will according to it. But that doesn't make it automatically right.

 

If you want to go the route of natural happenings, tell me this; Does anyone have a natural disaster occur to them and the people around them and automatically say, "that's life." Very few I would think. Most would still ask god, if they are religious, why he has done this and why did they have to suffer. The not so religious would still unconsciously question the universe for their suffering.

 

See that's the thing, thing's just don't become right because they are labelled as something that had to be done. Especially, from our mortal point of view, who's to say there never was and never would have been any other way?

Edited December 7, 2012 by sgman1

[Lachdonin]

Ok, first, the wolf example. I was endevouring to use an example of a a deed which has a better outcome. Wolves are want to take down Elk, and begin eating them before the elk actually dies. They literally eat the thing alive. Yes, the wolves need to eat, and yes, the elk will die eventually, but it is means by which both outcomes are realised which makes it a natural evil. However, it still doesn't make the Wolves evil, regardless of how cruel our outside perspective deems it.

 

In the same way, cities will fall, people will die, and eventually the world will end, and from all that a new world will ultimately begin. Dagon is the manifestation of that, but because of the nature of his being, he is a realised expression of the future potential. He is just as much the fire its self as the guy who lights it. Destruction is his intrinsic function in reality, and absolute expression of a concept regardless of the consequences of its existance.

 

Take, for instance, Sheogorath and Jyggalag. Both dispise eachother, despite occuyping the same form, but Jyggalag, the first, is totally unable to act against Sheogorath. Why? Because the cycle between the two is part of the absolute order which Jyggalag embodies. He can no more break the cycle than Dagon can not incinerate a kitten (which is the beauty of the curse which made him into Sheogorath). But Sheogorath, being the absolute nutball that he is, is fully capable of breaking that cycle, by interjecting his own wildcard. What happened in the Shivering Isles is the triumph of Madness over Order, in a literal and figurative sense. Order was unable to break the cycle, because the cycle its self represented order, but Madness eventually makes a mockery of all cycles.

 

Another thing to remember is that Aedra and Daedra are purely relativistic terms. Aedra participated in the creation of Nirn, Daedra did not. Nothing about the distinction carries with it any moral compass. Lorkhan, an Aedra, is quite possibly responsible for more death in Nirns history than any of the Daedra. Akatosh certianly is (the pesky mortality vs Time thing). If causing death is evil, then Akatosh trumps all the Daedra combined.

 

I am not in any way justifying the actions of Dagon, or Molag, or any of the other Daedra. However, evil in an absolute sense requires a willing choice to do different. Killing is not evil, unless you could have not done it. The Daedra are incapable of acting beyond their spheres.To be evil requires more than just ethical causailty, it requires ethical responsibility, and by their very existance the Et'ada we know as Aedra and Daedra are incapable of having the latter. Dagon cannot NOT destroy, Molag cannot NOT enslave, Malakath cannot NOT spurn or demand others prove themselves. In the same way, Mara would be totally incapable of not loving someone, and Stendarr is incaple of refusing mercy. Mara's love may bring down Emperors (Barenziah's relationship with Tiber Septim, for instance) and Stendarr's mercy may allow murders to escape punishment, but they cannot be held responsible for those actions, regardless of the outcome, because they have no choice in the matter.

 

And scope, is an irrelivent consideration when trying to determine the nature of evil. A man who sets off a bomb and kills hundreds is not instantly more evil than one who tortures and murders 6 children. To be truely evil, one must willfully commit evil acts in dissregard of the alternatives, and delight in them. With the exception of Mortals, nothing in the TES universe has the potential. Hell, thats the whole REASON Nirn exists, to give greater choice (and thus greater descovery) to those on it than they would have had as their divine pre-selves.

[UrgeNexus]

In the eyes of the Daedra, we are like ants. You step on hundreds, if not thousands of ants on a regular basis. You don't care, it doesn't cross your mind, the ants are beneath your notice. One could argue that you are a mass murderer for your insectoid genocide, but nobody does. You don't think of it as evil to kill a mosquito or knock down the nest of the wasps who have taken a liking to your roof.

 

If the Daedra could choose to act against their nature, which they can not, it's unlikely they would do anything differently. Mortals don't matter to the Daedra or the Aedra unless they want something, even then we are nothing but tools to be used and discarded once we have served our purpose. Returning to my previous argument, you wouldn't think of yourself as evil for killing a fly, why then should the Daedra be labeled as such for killing you?

 

In the end, the Daedra are not good or evil, they simply are. They are forces of nature, no different from the wind (Kynareth) or an earthquake (Mehrunes Dagon).

[CasperTheLich]

a few things i'd like to add here.

 

akatosh doesn't cause death, he isn't some hooded figure with a scythe chopping off heads. just because people grow older doesn't mean time itself kills them. Akatosh gives order to death, not even that; it's more like he guides the dead, he doesn’t make them that way. (at least as far as i can tell, religious texts are among the things i have trouble recalling)

 

love & jealousy don’t go hand in hand, and jealousy is more the realm of mephala anyway.

 

beings are not simple tools, a sword kills because it doesn't have the ability known as choice, free or otherwise; a blade can't pull itself willingly from its wielder's hand to avoid a fatal blow. a daedra can if it wished to.

[UrgeNexus]

a few things i'd like to add here.

 

akatosh doesn't cause death, he isn't some hooded figure with a scythe chopping off heads. just because people grow older doesn't mean time itself kills them. Akatosh gives order to death, not even that; it's more like he guides the dead, he doesn’t make them that way. (at least as far as i can tell, religious texts are among the things i have trouble recalling)

 

love & jealousy don’t go hand in hand, and jealousy is more the realm of mephala anyway.

 

beings are not simple tools, a sword kills because it doesn't have the ability known as choice, free or otherwise; a blade can't pull itself willingly from its wielder's hand to avoid a fatal blow. a daedra can if it wished to.

Some blades can, but let's not get derailed by magical artifacts, those things are all kinds of crazy.

 

Here's the thing about the Daedra (And Aedra) they don't really have the ability to choose. Or rather, they can not choose to do anything that goes outside the bounds of their spheres.

 

An example was raised earlier in the thread that spawned this one, about the quest for Mehrunes razor in Skyrim. It was said, that Mehrunes chose to kill you if you disobeyed him, and impied that this meant Dagon could choose not to kill you if he wanted to. The flaw in this argument is that if you do exactly as he says, to the letter, he still sends a couple of angry Dremora your way. No matter what you do, you'll have to fight for your life, for Dagon destroys.

 

So while Dagon can choose what to do, he can not choose not to destroy you (or try to anyway), wether it is to punish you or to test you, the result is the same, something gets destroyed.

 

And that is the essence of my argument, choice is not the same as free reign to do anything. The Daedra have choices but limited options of which to choose from. That's why I don't consider Dagon to be "Evil", because he doesn't have the ability to do anything other than what his sphere encompasses. I'm not saying what he does is a good thing (Allthough it can be), I'm saying that he is no more evil than an earthquake, neither of them can choose to do anything else.

 

I may not be able to argue my point as well as I would like (English is not my native language, it's a poor excuse but there you have it.) but I stand by it.

[CasperTheLich]

a few things i'd like to add here.

 

akatosh doesn't cause death, he isn't some hooded figure with a scythe chopping off heads. just because people grow older doesn't mean time itself kills them. Akatosh gives order to death, not even that; it's more like he guides the dead, he doesn’t make them that way. (at least as far as i can tell, religious texts are among the things i have trouble recalling)

 

love & jealousy don’t go hand in hand, and jealousy is more the realm of mephala anyway.

 

beings are not simple tools, a sword kills because it doesn't have the ability known as choice, free or otherwise; a blade can't pull itself willingly from its wielder's hand to avoid a fatal blow. a daedra can if it wished to.

Some blades can, but let's not get derailed by magical artifacts, those things are all kinds of crazy.

 

Here's the thing about the Daedra (And Aedra) they don't really have the ability to choose. Or rather, they can not choose to do anything that goes outside the bounds of their spheres.

 

An example was raised earlier in the thread that spawned this one, about the quest for Mehrunes razor in Skyrim. It was said, that Mehrunes chose to kill you if you disobeyed him, and impied that this meant Dagon could choose not to kill you if he wanted to. The flaw in this argument is that if you do exactly as he says, to the letter, he still sends a couple of angry Dremora your way. No matter what you do, you'll have to fight for your life, for Dagon destroys.

 

So while Dagon can choose what to do, he can not choose not to destroy you (or try to anyway), wether it is to punish you or to test you, the result is the same, something gets destroyed.

 

And that is the essence of my argument, choice is not the same as free reign to do anything. The Daedra have choices but limited options of which to choose from. That's why I don't consider Dagon to be "Evil", because he doesn't have the ability to do anything other than what his sphere encompasses. I'm not saying what he does is a good thing (Allthough it can be), I'm saying that he is no more evil than an earthquake, neither of them can choose to do anything else.

 

I may not be able to argue my point as well as I would like (English is not my native language, it's a poor excuse but there you have it.) but I stand by it.

 

i don't think i can agree with that; however, you write & express yourself quite well. And I’ve said my piece. I’ll end it here.

[UrgeNexus]

a few things i'd like to add here.

 

akatosh doesn't cause death, he isn't some hooded figure with a scythe chopping off heads. just because people grow older doesn't mean time itself kills them. Akatosh gives order to death, not even that; it's more like he guides the dead, he doesn’t make them that way. (at least as far as i can tell, religious texts are among the things i have trouble recalling)

 

love & jealousy don’t go hand in hand, and jealousy is more the realm of mephala anyway.

 

beings are not simple tools, a sword kills because it doesn't have the ability known as choice, free or otherwise; a blade can't pull itself willingly from its wielder's hand to avoid a fatal blow. a daedra can if it wished to.

Some blades can, but let's not get derailed by magical artifacts, those things are all kinds of crazy.

 

Here's the thing about the Daedra (And Aedra) they don't really have the ability to choose. Or rather, they can not choose to do anything that goes outside the bounds of their spheres.

 

An example was raised earlier in the thread that spawned this one, about the quest for Mehrunes razor in Skyrim. It was said, that Mehrunes chose to kill you if you disobeyed him, and impied that this meant Dagon could choose not to kill you if he wanted to. The flaw in this argument is that if you do exactly as he says, to the letter, he still sends a couple of angry Dremora your way. No matter what you do, you'll have to fight for your life, for Dagon destroys.

 

So while Dagon can choose what to do, he can not choose not to destroy you (or try to anyway), wether it is to punish you or to test you, the result is the same, something gets destroyed.

 

And that is the essence of my argument, choice is not the same as free reign to do anything. The Daedra have choices but limited options of which to choose from. That's why I don't consider Dagon to be "Evil", because he doesn't have the ability to do anything other than what his sphere encompasses. I'm not saying what he does is a good thing (Allthough it can be), I'm saying that he is no more evil than an earthquake, neither of them can choose to do anything else.

 

I may not be able to argue my point as well as I would like (English is not my native language, it's a poor excuse but there you have it.) but I stand by it.

 

i don't think i can agree with that; however, you write & express yourself quite well. And I’ve said my piece. I’ll end it here.

And you don't have to. I've said about as much as I can say on this matter so I'll follow your lead and take my ramblings elsewhere.

[sgman1]

Ok, first, the wolf example. I was endevouring to use an example of a a deed which has a better outcome. Wolves are want to take down Elk, and begin eating them before the elk actually dies. They literally eat the thing alive. Yes, the wolves need to eat, and yes, the elk will die eventually, but it is means by which both outcomes are realised which makes it a natural evil. However, it still doesn't make the Wolves evil, regardless of how cruel our outside perspective deems it.

 

Okay, I understand. Morals are subjective. Natural evils, blah, blah. Great. Now let me put it this way; we both would be mortals in the TES universe and are even in the real world due to our limited life span. Say we were there and I'm not religious. Would what they want concern me or what I want concern me? Why should I just let some demon god wipe his ass from paper made of me and my buds because he is compelled to?

 

In the same way, cities will fall, people will die, and eventually the world will end, and from all that a new world will ultimately begin. Dagon is the manifestation of that, but because of the nature of his being, he is a realised expression of the future potential. He is just as much the fire its self as the guy who lights it. Destruction is his intrinsic function in reality, and absolute expression of a concept regardless of the consequences of its existance.

 

'Kay bud. Before we move on you have definitely got to clear somethings up first. Where exactly was it said that he clears life so life may begin anew? Daedra represent change and Dagon is the lord of natural large scale destruction. Change can be brought about by destruction but that doesn't necessarily mean that once everything has been said and done there will be new life or, for that matter, that he will even allow it.

 

Another thing to remember is that Aedra and Daedra are purely relativistic terms. Aedra participated in the creation of Nirn, Daedra did not. Nothing about the distinction carries with it any moral compass. Lorkhan, an Aedra, is quite possibly responsible for more death in Nirns history than any of the Daedra. Akatosh certianly is (the pesky mortality vs Time thing). If causing death is evil, then Akatosh trumps all the Daedra combined.

 

How did Lorkhan kill more people and Akatosh kill more people by controlling their spheres? You really need to tell me.

 

I am not in any way justifying the actions of Dagon, or Molag, or any of the other Daedra. However, evil in an absolute sense requires a willing choice to do different. Killing is not evil, unless you could have not done it. The Daedra are incapable of acting beyond their spheres.To be evil requires more than just ethical causailty, it requires ethical responsibility, and by their very existance the Et'ada we know as Aedra and Daedra are incapable of having the latter. Dagon cannot NOT destroy, Molag cannot NOT enslave, Malakath cannot NOT spurn or demand others prove themselves. In the same way, Mara would be totally incapable of not loving someone, and Stendarr is incaple of refusing mercy. Mara's love may bring down Emperors (Barenziah's relationship with Tiber Septim, for instance) and Stendarr's mercy may allow murders to escape punishment, but they cannot be held responsible for those actions, regardless of the outcome, because they have no choice in the matter.

 

And scope, is an irrelivent consideration when trying to determine the nature of evil. A man who sets off a bomb and kills hundreds is not instantly more evil than one who tortures and murders 6 children. To be truely evil, one must willfully commit evil acts in dissregard of the alternatives, and delight in them. With the exception of Mortals, nothing in the TES universe has the potential. Hell, thats the whole REASON Nirn exists, to give greater choice (and thus greater descovery) to those on it than they would have had as their divine pre-selves.

 

As I said, my suffering wouldn't be less if I lost my home in a tornado despite the fact that it's a natural event. The difference between this and the Daedra is that there is somewhere to point a finger and a sapient mind, no matter how bound against it's will, was behind such an event. That's one problem. The Et'ada are bound to their spheres yet we know that there is no one absolute way in which a sapient mind is supposed to think. Why can't Dagon occasionally rain hell fire on a bandit camp? Why can't Boethiah or Mephala be concerned with a collection of insidious individuals rather than one such individual amongst dozens with less malevolent intent?

 

Finally, you say what are the Daedra in the absolute sense. The biggest problem is THERE IS NONE BECAUSE OF ALL THE MORAL SUBJECTIVITY concerning sapient minds whether they hold the views of gods or mortals. Therefore, you say that they are forces of nature. Yet without taking morals into consideration, what would concern mortals is mortals alone and their survival to which the Daedra are in general a detriment which is why they are viewed as evil.

 

Maybe, if they laid off every once in a while and took a break for a century or two, I'd be more inclined towards your viewpoint.

 

In the eyes of the Daedra, we are like ants. You step on hundreds, if not thousands of ants on a regular basis. You don't care, it doesn't cross your mind, the ants are beneath your notice. One could argue that you are a mass murderer for your insectoid genocide, but nobody does. You don't think of it as evil to kill a mosquito or knock down the nest of the wasps who have taken a liking to your roof.

 

If the Daedra could choose to act against their nature, which they can not, it's unlikely they would do anything differently. Mortals don't matter to the Daedra or the Aedra unless they want something, even then we are nothing but tools to be used and discarded once we have served our purpose. Returning to my previous argument, you wouldn't think of yourself as evil for killing a fly, why then should the Daedra be labeled as such for killing you?

 

In the end, the Daedra are not good or evil, they simply are. They are forces of nature, no different from the wind (Kynareth) or an earthquake (Mehrunes Dagon).

 

 

You know it's funny how you compare us and ants to Daedra and mortals and yet there is the clear distinction that the, on the contrary, Et'ada do treat mortals with more significance than that considering how they would like mortals to worship them and several would punish with extreme prejudice any who would so much as speak inappropriately about them.

 

I've killed ants just like in your example but I've never had the honor of being worshiped by them in return for watching out for them or smashed one just because it's antennae looked suggestive to me.

 

a few things i'd like to add here.

 

akatosh doesn't cause death, he isn't some hooded figure with a scythe chopping off heads. just because people grow older doesn't mean time itself kills them. Akatosh gives order to death, not even that; it's more like he guides the dead, he doesn’t make them that way. (at least as far as i can tell, religious texts are among the things i have trouble recalling)

 

love & jealousy don’t go hand in hand, and jealousy is more the realm of mephala anyway.

 

beings are not simple tools, a sword kills because it doesn't have the ability known as choice, free or otherwise; a blade can't pull itself willingly from its wielder's hand to avoid a fatal blow. a daedra can if it wished to.

Some blades can, but let's not get derailed by magical artifacts, those things are all kinds of crazy.

 

Here's the thing about the Daedra (And Aedra) they don't really have the ability to choose. Or rather, they can not choose to do anything that goes outside the bounds of their spheres.

 

An example was raised earlier in the thread that spawned this one, about the quest for Mehrunes razor in Skyrim. It was said, that Mehrunes chose to kill you if you disobeyed him, and impied that this meant Dagon could choose not to kill you if he wanted to. The flaw in this argument is that if you do exactly as he says, to the letter, he still sends a couple of angry Dremora your way. No matter what you do, you'll have to fight for your life, for Dagon destroys.

 

So while Dagon can choose what to do, he can not choose not to destroy you (or try to anyway), wether it is to punish you or to test you, the result is the same, something gets destroyed.

 

And that is the essence of my argument, choice is not the same as free reign to do anything. The Daedra have choices but limited options of which to choose from. That's why I don't consider Dagon to be "Evil", because he doesn't have the ability to do anything other than what his sphere encompasses. I'm not saying what he does is a good thing (Allthough it can be), I'm saying that he is no more evil than an earthquake, neither of them can choose to do anything else.

 

I may not be able to argue my point as well as I would like (English is not my native language, it's a poor excuse but there you have it.) but I stand by it.

 

You'd think Dagon would have some destruction and call it a day. But NOOOO. Having his champion kill a poor f*** and some others along the way just wasn't enough. He had to try and kill him too or watch his Dremora be sliced to ribbons just for the hell of it.