Is a wolf eating a sheep evil? No, it's his nature.

There's a book ingame (I don't remember the name) explaining why Daedra escape the definition of good or evil. You can read more on the subject at the Imperial Library

Is it evil when an earthquake kills hundreds or thousands? I'd say so. The fact it is its nature doesn't change it one bit. It's also evil when a someone with a serial killer kills someone, even if that's their nature too.

And I'm sure that book is full of crap.* The fact is the Daedra as a whole intend to do evil things and then do those evil things. That makes them evil. It doesn't matter if that's their nature or not -- all that would mean is that it is their nature to be evil. I believe that's what we mean when we say something is "evil"; that it is in their nature to do evil things.

If you prefer the word "bad" here, I understand. It's bad when an Earthquake kills people. It's bad when a serial killer does it. It's bad when Daedra does it.

Newsflash, by the way, not caring about morality doesn't mean your actions and thought can't be judged on moral by others. Being apathetic doesn't invalidate that judgment.

*Sounds like it has the standard religious claptrap about how cosmic beings are unknowable....as if you can't tell they are doing evil when they go about killing people or trying to end the world.

An earthquake can't be evil as it is not a living being... Evil/good depends on your morality and that is something that animals and in this case Daedras do not have. Even in our world there have been moral differences between different societies since the beginning. For example ritualistic cannibalism was practiced by different cultures throughout history yet it wasn't evil to them.

Actually, it was the same Sheogorath. The Host of Sheogorath is different, but Sheogorath is the same aspect of Chaos.

You're using an EXTREMELY moral relativist point of view. It's not very helpful. By that measure a serial killer doesn't do anything evil if he doesn't personally consider it evil. [censored] and the most brutal of slavery wouldn't be evil if the people performing those acts didn't consider them evil. No offense, but it's a worthless perspective, because it essentially is just saying you can't really judge any acts or person in ethical terms. (And no, there's no logical reason why you'd draw the line at societies and not the individual -- and of course an individual's views on morality might change over time, might not be consistent, or might not exist).

If you judge morality based on the results of actions, then an Earthquake can quite easily be evil. If it kills people, and killing people is bad, then it was evil. Same with a plague or anything else. This framework for judging morality doesn't care about whether something is thinking or not in determining the morality of a given event. I find this the most useful way to look at morality.

If you judge something based on the motives or other cognitive processes, then it is true that you can't judge an earthquake as evil. However, daedra DO have motives and thoughts and you could certainly judge them. A daedra obsessed with destruction and misery would be quite fair to call evil. That said, while this also is a very old school of thought, I don't find it that helpful. Determining motives isn't easy, and I feel it really misses something when someone has good motives but is incompetent (and therefore causes great harm) or bad motives and incompetent (managing to do great good) -- the latter is something a results-based perspective can more easily accomodate, imho.

For the sake of clarity, I suppose you'd say that a sociopath isn't good or evil either then, yes?

As for the historical argument. Shall you next argue that we haven't progressed technologically either? We just have different ways of doing things than people 10,000 years ago and they are both just as good? Way to ignore the Zeitgeist.

I assume you were reading the Anticipations. That was originally a religious book of the now defunct Tribunal Temple (from TES3: Morrowind), which listed those three as major deities in their religion (the "Anticipations" of the Tribunal). Boethiah in particular was the one who inspired the Velothi Exodus that broke the Chimer/Dunmer off from the original Aldmer. The Dunmer have traditionally been Daedra worshippers, and those three Princes were especially sacred to them.


It's highly subjective because while many groups consider Boethiah's credo to be malicious and destructive, others revere her as a patron goddess. Same with other Princes.


Meridia has always been around, being the Daedric Prince of Light. Like Arkay and Stendarr, she's not a fan of the undead. The only reason she's not more popular in the Empire is likely due to the fact she was a patron deity of some Ayleid city-states way back when (so not exactly on good terms with Cyrodiils).

In terms of morality, the daedric princes have it in a black-grey variety. Either they are cruel killing beasts like Dagon, who love the killing and destruction of the mortal world, or they are relatively in between like Azura was. The Daedric princes' realms as they are listed in the UESP wiki show who is worse than the others.

Yeah, but she cursed them for betraying their king Lord Indoril Nerevar, and the oath they swore. It's not like she just woke up one day and thought it would be fun to curse the Chimer.


*shrugs* Yahweh did it, and he's referred to as all-loving, merciful, perfect, and the pinnacle of all that is good. So apparently yes, cursing an entire race for the actions of a few is perfectly good. His curse was a hell of a lot worse than a change in skin pigmentation and eye color as well.


But under their Chimer article it also says:

" They followed the prophet Veloth, who spoke to them on behalf of Boethiah, Prince of Plots, and two other Good Daedra."

" The exiles settled there and flourished, developing what is now known as Velothi High Culture, based on their worship of the three Good Daedra and respect for the House of Troubles."

I refer you to the Socratic Dialogues on this general topic.

These: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_dialogue ?

There are a lot there, which one is on this general topic?

Yes, and the one in particular I am referring to is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro It's gets into whether something is good because a god does it or likes it, or whether things are good for independent reasons and that's why a good deity would like it.

This rings very true to me. Just because Daedra don't undestand good and evil doesn't mean their actions can't be judged so. 've learned similar things in several philosophy courses.

I should have made myself a bit clearer. I draw a line between knowing what you do is wrong and simply not knowing. You can't be evil or good if you lack the ability to distinguish what evil/good means. There is a big difference between not knowing and ignoring. Your actions, however, can and will be judged by your surroundings. You said yourself you think the most useful way of looking at morality is to look at the outcome of ones actions. And that is the point where we both disagree. A woman who kills the killer of her son, is she evil? Is the son's killer evil or is he just a victim of a psychic disorder and therefore the inability to distinguish between good/evil? Both killed somebody but that doesn't make them both necessarily evil, at least in my opinion.
And about the historical example: No one is ignoring the Zeitgeist. Maybe I should have picked a better one.

To get back to topic:
Daedra lack the ability to distinguish between good and evil. They simply do as they please, neither questioning their motives nor the outcome of their actions. That's why they are not evil per sé. Each Prince's action will mostly be perceived as evil or good by mortals depending on the Prince's nature making them "more good" and "more evil".

It's a matter of how you look at the world, this world is not that world. We are not them. Just because there are humans there doesn't mean they are humans like us. We have been shaped by our past, our personal past, the past of our countries, the past of our cultures etc etc.

For all we know some aliens are looking down on us from on high saying imprisoning people against their will is barbaric and cruel and that we should just kill all criminals. Just to pick something. To us it might seem just and right and merciful but that is because of the way our society is shaped.

It's a different world and a different culture with different rules, and a different outlook,

But in the end it's a game and a story and the people that made it can say serial killers are heros and people of peace are criminals if they want.

But that is just my opinion on the matter. =)

Good and evil are subjective to a certain degree. A nice example is the Molag Bal quest in Skyrim. Usually nobody would think twice in a RPG when he is told to execute a devious murderer (aka high-ranking priest of Boethiah) and blasphemer (who defiled Molag Bal's shrine). Why is it suddenly evil when the one who gives the order is the god of domination?

The Daedric Princes are like the ancient gods of greek, roman or germanic mythology. Petty minded meddlers, that play games using mortals as pawns. Even a god of pestilence may not neccessary be considered evil as long as his diseases carry off your enemies, and thus save countless lives on your side. Actually, even from our modern point of view, one could argue that such a god isn't any more malicious than a virus. It is simply his nature to cause diseases.

That is something that I can agree with right there, wholeheartedly. Molag Bal's quest is not really that bad compared to other's quests. Think if Azura had you killing an orphanage full of children who worship her, now that would be bad given Azura's kind reputation. Molag Bal's quest... he's not a nice guy, Lord of Domination and all that, And you can't really expect anything different from him.

Governments exist only because the people they rule legitimize their government. Sure, totalitarian regimes can make it difficult for people to change the government, but ultimately, the people will prevail over the government, if they are motivated enough. So, to that end, punishing the people for allowing their leaders to get them in that mess is understandable.