I wondered this after reading another thread about the Nords teaming up with Mehrunes Dagon, and I really don't understand. I know that Dagon is the Prince of Destruction and the Scourge and works through natural disasters and all that, but he's also the Prince of Revolution and Ambition, two concepts that are usually not viewed in a negative light. In fact, they're both usually seen as positive concepts.

So why is he shown in the games as this giant mindless evil destroyer of worlds who would like nothing more than to invade Tamriel and take it for his own? From what I understand of his realm, it seems that Mankar Camoran's speech about why Dagon should come back and take what back what is rightfully is makes a lot of sense.

If Oblivion wanted a Daedric Prince that could be considered as evil and would stop at nothing to destroy the world, why not use Namira or Vaermina or Peryite? They may not be as powerful, but what they stand for makes more sense than Dagon being a mindless villain.

People tend to get rather attached to the general concept of their houses and loved ones Not-Being-On-Fire.

Also, Tornadoes. People hate tornadoes.

I guess I should clear up what I mean. I'm not talking about why the people of Tamriel see him in a negative light, but I'm talking about why the game developers themselves choose to show Mehrunes Dagon as this giant demon.

Dagon chooses his skin at his own leisure.

So, think: why would the Lord of Ambition and Destruction choose such a visage?

Oh right I forgot about that.

Makes sense I suppose.

Still believe that another Daedra would have suited the whole world ending thing a bit better.

It's also important to note that destruction and revolution aren't concepts that would go hand in hand with each other. Revolutions are performed in order to change what is there. Destruction would seek nothing more than to wipe out everything.

Revolutions arent always good even when they are needed. Or to say, they dont always end up for the better, like the French Revolution. Revolution and destruction do go hand in hand. For instance there are groups in the Middle East that want revolution and they use destruction to get there and/or convey a message. Like the movie V for Vendetta, revolution was needed and V used destruction and enlightenment to get his point across. He had ambition. Started a revolution. That led to destruction. That lead to liberation. But I see what you mean. These arent always evil concepts. In truth it isnt so simple. Even destruction is not always bad, when the goal is positive and its the only way (though that is subject to your philosophy and interpretation of events). Dagon, I believe represents the dark side of these concepts. There is good and bad in most things. It depends on the person, in this case Dagon. I'm sure he is subject to change as Haute described. It's complicated like the Stormcloak and Empire controversy. Where most see the empire as good, yet the empire conquered many lands and forced those lands under its laws in the past. The Stormcloaks may be right about Skyrim deserving to be free, but the way they go about it is wrong and Ulfric isnt the best man for it. It adds to the complexity of the series. It's like how some NPCs explain prophecy in the game. That just because you can do something, doesnt always mean you should.- Paarthanax. Bethesda did a really good job conveying the complexity of concepts like good and evil. Thanks for bringing this up.

Because he IS a giant evil demon. Sure, he's associated with certain things that might serve as saving graces, but ultimately he's a greedy malevolent being who likes to kill stuff and kick puppies.

He's certainly not unique; most daedra are self-serving and destructive in some way shape or form. Even Azura, who is considered to be a "good" (by mortal standards, anyway) daedra is a conniving [censored]. She created the Neravarine Prophecy and destroyed the Tribunal, which ultimately ended in the destruction of her chosen people's homeland, because of a dumb millenia-old grudge.

I guess you have to look at it objectively to understand it.

He only supports revolution as a route to destruction. He is certainly no god of freedom, since his Dremora are extremely hierarchical.
Stupidity is also one of his established traits. Haskill remarks that he is the dupe of every schemer in Oblivion, and a wizard (Divayth Fyr IIRC) says that he understands little but communicates directly.

The objective truth of the very first thing he did when he physically set foot in Nirn - which was to begin destroying buildings and killing people - tells me all I need to know.

There isn't really much objectivity to it. Hell, it isn't even a matter of interpertation. Hes the Prince of Bloody revolution and destruction. We've seen and heard tales about him going about smashy smashy thrice over now, and who knows how many times before that. He wiped out Mournhold, attacked the Battlespire, and decided to crush those poor offish guards during Oblivion.

I'm sure Mehrunes Dagon has a nice, warm, puppy side that's just begging to be loved.

I do wonder if Dagon has his own steward, like Haskill to Sheogorath. I'd imagine it isn't a very popular position in the Deadlands.

It'd be better than Molag's Steward.