Why do people worship daedra?

Dustfinger81

starkerealm wrote: »

So, with all the mentions of Meridia in the thread, no one's going to look back at Exegesis of Merid-Nunda, and realize that, maybe, just kinda, she's almost not really a Daedra at all, sometimes?

The line between Daedra and Aedra is very sketchy at times. I usually abstract it as a political or philosophical difference between the two groups, which is a little oversimplified. There are concrete distinctions, but they're, at least in some cases, permeable. Meridia is the most obvious example.

Now, granted, we're getting into some extremely esoteric parts of the lore, here.

The very short answer to, "why do people pray to the daedric princes?" is the same reason people pray to the divines. They are looking for a frame of reference to understand and explain the world, and in so doing, they seek to align themselves with powers that they hope will better their existence.

Not quite. The line between Aedra and Daedra is clearly defined.

The Aedra and the Daedra were all the same types of spirit creatures. But, like humans, they had different personalities and strengths. Lorkhan tricked some of these spirits into creating the world. The 8 most powerful that participated ended up permanantly giving up a portion of their power to do so. While several weaker spirits either were absorbed into stabilizing elements of the new world known as "earthbones" or degenerated into mortal life.

This is what seperates Aedra from Daedra. The Aedra are the ones who gave up power to create the world but still exist. As part of the contract of creation, they can now be killed but they have the power to create. The Daedra are the spirit beings that took no part in the creation of the world. They gave up no power. Because they didn't taker part in the creation contract, they can't create anything. They can only change things that already exist. But, they also can't be killed. Only banished. The most powerful of these are Daedric Princes.

Judas Helviaryn

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Tyrobag wrote: »

In addition to many of the above reasons: Many people respect different traits, one man may respect mercy so he would follow Stenarr; another may respect love, and thus follow Mara; yet another person could respect ambition above all else, so they would instead follow Mehrunes Dagon. Generally the reason a mortal chooses to worship a god, whether Aedra or Daedra, is because that god's sphere of influence overlaps with their own morals and desires. I'm sure plenty of people would follow Sanguine.

But "failing" Dagon results in eternal torture. That seems like a pretty strong deterrent not to worship him. Daedra have super strict rules about worship that are easy to fail, while aedra don't care.

The thing about ambition.. The true follower doesn't consider failing. The true follower of Dagon, who embodies and internalizes his values? All they must simply do, is not fail. Easy enough for someone with that mindset. =P

starkerealm

Dustfinger81 wrote: »

Not quite. The line between Aedra and Daedra is clearly defined.

As I've said elsewhere, the delineating factors are slightly more permeable than it initially appears. The big example is Meridia. I know I've gone into detail on this already, just not in this thread, apparently. At a very reductive level, it's a philosophical difference. There are other factors, I'm aware, and most people in the setting use very hard and fast lines to say, "this is a daedra, that's a divine," but the setting's metaphysics are a bit murkier.

MLGProPlayer

starkerealm wrote: »

Dustfinger81 wrote: »

Not quite. The line between Aedra and Daedra is clearly defined.

As I've said elsewhere, the delineating factors are slightly more permeable than it initially appears. The big example is Meridia. I know I've gone into detail on this already, just not in this thread, apparently. At a very reductive level, it's a philosophical difference. There are other factors, I'm aware, and most people in the setting use very hard and fast lines to say, "this is a daedra, that's a divine," but the setting's metaphysics are a bit murkier.

But Meridia isn't well liked by the other daedra (in fact, she actively opposes a lot of them).

She was an aedra (or magna-ge, or whatever, basically a "good" god), was voted off the island for trying to be rational, and so she became a daedra so she can retain her powers.

She's the only ambiguous case; the only daedra without an explicitly "evil" ulterior motive. She's pretty much a daedra in name only. Her actions and motives are a lot more "god" than "demon".

MUSTACHMAN654

People worship daedra for multiple reasons. For example, there are those who worship to obtain power (such as Lord Harkon, who worshipped Molag Bal in order to turn himself, and his family into pure blooded vampires). People also worship them as deities, such as the Dunmer (Azura) and the Argonians (Sithis). Furthermore there are those such as the Dark Brotherhood, who worship Daedra because they think they are doing a noble deed.
(Just to note before the lore jockeys get on my case, is that labeling Sithis a daedra is controversial, though I am just doing so because many people in the elder scrolls universe believe that Sithis is horrible).

starkerealm

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

She's the only ambiguous case...

Trinimac/Malacath.

I mean, I get the statement, and you're not completely wrong. But, at the same time, it is more complex than just, here are two completely different kinds of beings that operate under different rules.

It's an element of the setting that is kinda murky. I don't mean that in the sense that there aren't any clear answers, more that there are some very clear answers which only function conditionally, and the ideal goal is to look for definitions that are non-conditional.

MLGProPlayer

starkerealm wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

She's the only ambiguous case...

Trinimac/Malacath.

I mean, I get the statement, and you're not completely wrong. But, at the same time, it is more complex than just, here are two completely different kinds of beings that operate under different rules.

It's an element of the setting that is kinda murky. I don't mean that in the sense that there aren't any clear answers, more that there are some very clear answers which only function conditionally, and the ideal goal is to look for definitions that are non-conditional.

Malacath is an entirely different entity with a new consciousness and new values.

starkerealm

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

She's the only ambiguous case...

Trinimac/Malacath.

I mean, I get the statement, and you're not completely wrong. But, at the same time, it is more complex than just, here are two completely different kinds of beings that operate under different rules.

It's an element of the setting that is kinda murky. I don't mean that in the sense that there aren't any clear answers, more that there are some very clear answers which only function conditionally, and the ideal goal is to look for definitions that are non-conditional.

Malacath is an entirely different entity with a new consciousness and new values.

Yep. Made out of one Trinimac smoothie.

MUSTACHMAN654

Didn't Boethia consume Trinimac, and when she excreted him, he was Malacath?

Tornaad

With all of the data we have on dangers of smoking why do people in real life smoke?
The answer to both questions are likely very similar.

starkerealm

Zuboko wrote: »

With all of the data we have on dangers of smoking why do people in real life smoke?
The answer to both questions are likely very similar.

People smoke to gain cosmic power? Damn. I must have picked the wrong brand of cigarettes.

starkerealm

MUSTACHMAN654 wrote: »

Didn't Boethia consume Trinimac, and when she excreted him, he was Malacath?

Yeah, that's the smoothie joke. Though there is, at least some, continuity between Trinimac and Malacath. It's not entirely clear if that continuity is just mortal worshipers going, "no, my god's not really dead, see?" Or if Malacath is just a warped version of Trinimac, which sometimes gets suggested.

The issue here, and I said it earlier, is that this part of The Elder Scrolls's metaphysics are kind of murky. There are a lot of people in the setting with a very concrete idea of how this works, but very few actually know. They're often espousing religious doctrine as if it's fact.

That's kinda why the Meridia comment is so important. It's someone saying, "wait, these are more permiable," and while Phrastus is kind of a derp, he does illustrate that there's more going on here than is immediately apparent.

If you'd asked me six or seven years ago, yeah, I would have said, "hard line, different things, same original beings," now, I'm honestly not so sure.

There are concrete differences. The divines are attuned to Nirn (or however you want to phrase it), and the Daedra aren't. Which is why the Daedra are restricted from creating things, but can change them, while the divines can actually make new stuff.

When you read the introductory material, it's all very cut and dried, when you really start digging into this part of the metaphysics, the wheels come off and everything gets weird.

SilverIce58

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Deadra are unquestionably evil (except maybe Meridia). Even the "benevolent" daedra have ulterior motives. So why do people worship them? They never gain anything from it, and almost always end up getting screwed over (with your character being left to clean up the mess).

The only one that made sense was Manimarco because he actually had an ulterior motive himself.

@MLGProPlayer
http://en.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Else_God-Hater
She was a Mythic Dawn initiate, but potato potahto.

http://en.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Ulene_Hlervu
She doesn't "believe" in the 9 divines either.

Some npcs don't believe the 9 Divines actually do anything, but most do. It's because Daedric Princes, and Daedra in general make themselves known and show off their power, while the 9 are all dead and drained of their power from making Nirn (except Talos bc he achieved CHIM in the end of the 2nd Era.)

Edit: I have a bad habit of not reading threads b4 I comment so I didn't know some of this was told.

CrisXD

...Because they can

Tryxus

starkerealm wrote: »

Zuboko wrote: »

With all of the data we have on dangers of smoking why do people in real life smoke?
The answer to both questions are likely very similar.

People smoke to gain cosmic power? Damn. I must have picked the wrong brand of cigarettes.

Try Ayahuasca

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Dustfinger81 wrote: »

Not quite. The line between Aedra and Daedra is clearly defined.

As I've said elsewhere, the delineating factors are slightly more permeable than it initially appears. The big example is Meridia. I know I've gone into detail on this already, just not in this thread, apparently. At a very reductive level, it's a philosophical difference. There are other factors, I'm aware, and most people in the setting use very hard and fast lines to say, "this is a daedra, that's a divine," but the setting's metaphysics are a bit murkier.

But Meridia isn't well liked by the other daedra (in fact, she actively opposes a lot of them).

She was an aedra (or magna-ge, or whatever, basically a "good" god), was voted off the island for trying to be rational, and so she became a daedra so she can retain her powers.

She's the only ambiguous case; the only daedra without an explicitly "evil" ulterior motive. She's pretty much a daedra in name only. Her actions and motives are a lot more "god" than "demon".

Meridia was Merid-Nunda originally, a Magna-Ge or disciple of Magnus who fled creation. She was cast down after consorting with Daedra and eventually took on the mantle of a Daedric Prince herself.

She does seem like a good Prince, even though such terms can't really be applied to them. There's also Azura and Nocturnal, 2 other princes who seem to care for their followers (on a personal level even according to Invocation of Azura).

Though Azura may be an ambiguous case too, as she still represents vanity somewhat. So she may be "collecting" followers to revel in their adoration and worship for her, or she may truly care for them.

Minyassa

People have an infinite capacity for selective belief based on what they want. For someone who is desperate for something that they either lack the initiative for or have been unsuccessful in obtaining through effort, the lure of a quick fix is hard to resist, and when people WANT to do something they know is a bad idea, there is a part of the mind that kicks in to try to rationalize it. It's like talking yourself into cheating on diet but on a bigger scale. People will find a way to convince themselves that what they've heard about how bad a Daedric Prince is could only be propoganda, it's ridiculous, they're just saying that because they don't want me to have power, they're deluded sheeple, etc. So honestly I would think that the majority of Daedra worshippers have convinced themselves that the information they have that might point them away from it is just flat wrong, because they want to believe that.

starkerealm

Tryxus wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Zuboko wrote: »

With all of the data we have on dangers of smoking why do people in real life smoke?
The answer to both questions are likely very similar.

People smoke to gain cosmic power? Damn. I must have picked the wrong brand of cigarettes.

Try Ayahuasca

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Dustfinger81 wrote: »

Not quite. The line between Aedra and Daedra is clearly defined.

As I've said elsewhere, the delineating factors are slightly more permeable than it initially appears. The big example is Meridia. I know I've gone into detail on this already, just not in this thread, apparently. At a very reductive level, it's a philosophical difference. There are other factors, I'm aware, and most people in the setting use very hard and fast lines to say, "this is a daedra, that's a divine," but the setting's metaphysics are a bit murkier.

But Meridia isn't well liked by the other daedra (in fact, she actively opposes a lot of them).

She was an aedra (or magna-ge, or whatever, basically a "good" god), was voted off the island for trying to be rational, and so she became a daedra so she can retain her powers.

She's the only ambiguous case; the only daedra without an explicitly "evil" ulterior motive. She's pretty much a daedra in name only. Her actions and motives are a lot more "god" than "demon".

Meridia was Merid-Nunda originally, a Magna-Ge or disciple of Magnus who fled creation. She was cast down after consorting with Daedra and eventually took on the mantle of a Daedric Prince herself.

She does seem like a good Prince, even though such terms can't really be applied to them. There's also Azura and Nocturnal, 2 other princes who seem to care for their followers (on a personal level even according to Invocation of Azura).

Though Azura may be an ambiguous case too, as she still represents vanity somewhat. So she may be "collecting" followers to revel in their adoration and worship for her, or she may truly care for them.

The point where all this turns sideways is when you realize a number of the princes seem to genuinely care about their followers, but have... let's say, "alien," perceptions of how to express that.

Off-hand, Boethia, Mephala, Malacath, Hircine, Hermaeus Mora and Sheogorath all seem to actually care about their followers. The problem is that their baseline is so warped off reality. You even see some of this from Molag Bal's comments directed at you during Anchor fights. Granted, some princes, including Boethia, Mephala, Malacath, Hircine, Hermaeus Mora, Sheogorath, and Meridia are incredibly fickle when it comes to followers who have failed them.

Volsera

If I know one thing about Tamriel's people it's that they ALWAYS want power, sometimes for very stupid reasons. The reason people worship Daedra is probably because they gain things very quickly and easy and just as with genies in known fairytales, they don't know they are getting screwed over until later so it looks like a good deal at first, but it backfires later.

starkerealm

Volsera wrote: »

If I know one thing about Tamriel's people it's that they ALWAYS want power, sometimes for very stupid reasons. The reason people worship Daedra is probably because they gain things very quickly and easy and just as with genies in known fairytales, they don't know they are getting screwed over until later so it looks like a good deal at first, but it backfires later.

In point of fact, that's explicitly Clavicus Vile's schtick, and yet people keep coming to him and asking for a favor.

PrayingSeraph

In regards to OP's question, the Daedra are gods just like the Divines/Aedra, and their sphere of influences can be attractive to certain individuals. People need to keep in mind that many pagan gods throughout history were like Daedra, having huge variance in morals, yet empires worshipped them. You also have people like Mankar Camoran writing books and preaching great things about their gods.

It's important not to classify Aedra and Daedra as "Gods and Demons". They are all et'ada and are all gods, and even then not all gods need to be et'ada(See Talos).

As per the discussion above about what is and isn't daedra, the lines are definitely blurred. In fact , daedra merely means "not our ancestor", but lines are always fuzzy. After all, is Talos a Daedra because he isn't an aedra? He is a new god and is not an ancestor. By the simple definition of daedra, he would be included as one. You then have the distinction et'ada who are Anuic and Padomaic. Several daedric lords are Anuic, like Meridia and Jyggalag, and others Padomaic like Mehrunes Dagon and Molag Bal.

Also, wanted to bring up Malacath. Some people suggest Malacath is a new entity altogether when Boethiah consumed Trinimac and created Malacath, but I remember reading something in the lore about a beautiful garden hidden in Malacath's realm of Oblivion which he cherishes as something "that once was" or something of that sort. Heavily implied to be his life as Trinimac. With this, I see Malacath as a conversion from Aedra to Daedra, not a whole new being altogether. Just as the Orsimer where a conversion of their previous (Altmer?) selves.

starkerealm

PrayingSeraph wrote: »

In fact , daedra merely means "not our ancestor", but lines are always fuzzy. After all, is Talos a Daedra because he isn't an aedra? He is a new god and is not an ancestor.

The only thing I'd caution against here is reading too much in to the literal meaning of "daedra" and "aedra."

For example: the phrase, "deus ex machina," literally means, "god from the machine," and referred to the practice of raising or lowering an actor playing one of the gods onto the stage during a Greek play via a mechanical platform. However, the term has a far more symbolic meaning now, referring to the use a previously undisclosed plot device to resolve an otherwise irreconcilable dilemma in a story. It is true to the original meaning, but the name comes from the technical implementation of that.

So, while Daedra and Aedra are literally, "not our ancestors," and, "our ancestors," that's not really a mark against Talos's claim to being an Aedra. The terms represent, for lack of a better definition, a political and philosophical affiliation, more than literal genealogy. (Even if some Altmer would very much like it to be just literal genealogy.)

PrayingSeraph

starkerealm wrote: »

PrayingSeraph wrote: »

In fact , daedra merely means "not our ancestor", but lines are always fuzzy. After all, is Talos a Daedra because he isn't an aedra? He is a new god and is not an ancestor.

So, while Daedra and Aedra are literally, "not our ancestors," and, "our ancestors," that's not really a mark against Talos's claim to being an Aedra. The terms represent, for lack of a better definition, a political and philosophical affiliation, more than literal genealogy. (Even if some Altmer would very much like it to be just literal genealogy.)

I do disagree here, there is a very defined meaning to "Aedra" and "Deadra" and Talos does not fit Aedra's. Talos is a Divine, but not an Aedra. If we were to classify Aedra as a set of deities with spheres of influence or alignment that are similar to eachother like we see with the Nine Divines, Meridia would have just as much claim to the term Aedra as Talos, if not more.

starkerealm

PrayingSeraph wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

PrayingSeraph wrote: »

In fact , daedra merely means "not our ancestor", but lines are always fuzzy. After all, is Talos a Daedra because he isn't an aedra? He is a new god and is not an ancestor.

So, while Daedra and Aedra are literally, "not our ancestors," and, "our ancestors," that's not really a mark against Talos's claim to being an Aedra. The terms represent, for lack of a better definition, a political and philosophical affiliation, more than literal genealogy. (Even if some Altmer would very much like it to be just literal genealogy.)

I do disagree here, there is a very defined meaning to "Aedra" and "Deadra" and Talos does not fit Aedra's. Talos is a Divine, but not an Aedra. If we were to classify Aedra as a set of deities with spheres of influence or alignment that are similar to eachother like we see with the Nine Divines, Meridia would have just as much claim to the term Aedra as Talos, if not more.

The point I was making, which I think you missed, is that language is chimerical. It changes over times. Words are selected to convey concepts. At that point the etymology of a term can be important to understanding it, but actual usage is far more important.

The lingual origin of "Aedra" is "our ancestors," with "Daedra" being a negation of that. But, the common usage of the term by the second era refers to the Divines. Which is why Meridia and Malacath are referred to as a Daedric Princes, and not as Aedric entities. (Regardless how you feel about the Trinimac/Malacath thing.)

Beyond that, Tiber Septum is the founding force behind the third era Cryodiilic Empire, so... yeah, that would make him an "ancestor," of modern Tamerilic culture. A more recent one, but an ancestor the same.

Taking an overly literal approach to the original meaning of the term also creates all sorts of problems. Do we classify the Tribunal as Aedra? They're the ancestors of modern Morrowind, and even drew their power from derping around with Lorkhan's heart. Consensus is, "no," even though they fit that bill.

Or are we only looking at genetic ancestors, which makes all kinds of problems when you step back and look at the various races. This would mean that the Divines are not the ancestors of the Argonians, and instead the only Aedra they can worship is Sithis.

So, no, it's a generalized term used to refer to the divines, which do change depending on your character's cultural background.

It has a specific, technical, meaning buried in the original language that does not apply in the Second Era (or later).

And, really, this is something we see in the real world. Show of hands, who knows the technical definition of "decimation" in Latin?

PrayingSeraph

Except I don't agree with your premise. Unlike Deus Ex Machina, I fail to see when and where the definitions changed. You assert it, but I have not seen anything else to indicate it. As far as I am aware, "Aedra" still means "Our ancestors" in the 4th era. By all means I could be wrong, but I need more than an assertion. I also think that applying the term Aedra to "cultural ancestors" rather than et'ada as an arguement for Talos being Aedra is flawed, as if building a culture is the criteria to be considered Aedra, Reman and Alessia should be called it as well. You mention both Talos and the Tribunal as having the same criteria, both cultural builders that became gods, yet you classify them differently. As it stands, I don't think the word "Aedra" has any meaning in your eyes, as you have given no definition and picked and chose who gets called Aedra or not such as with Talos and Tribunal despite both meeting your ancestor criteria. There is no common denominator with what you said. Sure words can change meaning over time, but concepts often don't. Even if we discard the word "Aedra" or change it to mean something else, the original concept remains as a group of et'ada who gave themselves up to create Nirn and its races. This group of et'ada play a huge part in the ideology of the Aldmeri Dominion in the 4th era.

Though you are correct than many cultures have atleast somewhat changed the meaning of Deadra through lack of application of the word to Talos. At the very least inconsistent with the term. Talos isn't called a deadra despite fitting the definition, but I am unaware of him being called Aedra too. Rather, cultures of man carry over only certains parts of the Elvish words Aedra and Deadra. Generally, you just have "Divines and Deadra". To clarify, its not that I disagree with the lines sometimes being blurred, but rather I reject Talos being called Aedra.

starkerealm

PrayingSeraph wrote: »

Except I don't agree with your premise. Unlike Deus Ex Machina, I fail to see when and where the definitions changed. You assert it, but I have not seen anything else to indicate it. As far as I am aware, "Aedra" still means "Our ancestors" in the 4th era. By all means I could be wrong, but I need more than an assertion.

From the book Aedra and Daedra:

The designations of Gods, Demons, Aedra, and Daedra, are universally confusing to the layman. They are often used interchangeably.

"Aedra" and "Daedra" are not relative terms. They are Elvish and exact. Azura is a Daedra both in Skyrim and Morrowind. "Aedra" is usually translated as "ancestor," which is as close as Cyrodilic can come to this Elven concept. "Daedra" means, roughly, "not our ancestors." This distinction was crucial to the Dunmer, whose fundamental split in ideology is represented in their mythical genealogy.

Aedra are associated with stasis. Daedra represent change.

Aedra created the mortal world and are bound to the Earth Bones. Daedra, who cannot create, have the power to change.

As part of the divine contract of creation, the Aedra can be killed. Witness Lorkhan and the moons.

The protean Daedra, for whom the rules do not apply, can only be banished.

Emphasis added.

In this case, the term being translated into English (or in the case of in universe, Cyrodilic) is imprecise.

From The Monomyth:

Simply put, the schism in the Human/Aldmeri worldview is the mortal's relationship to the divine. Humans take the humble path that they were created by the immortal forces, while the Aldmer claim descent from them. It doesn't seem like much, but it is a distinction that colors the rest of their diverging mythologies.

Remember for a moment that the terminology, "aedra," and "daedra" are inherently Aldmeri terms. But, this steps further out from that. The elves (specifically the high elves and dark elves) claim to be descendants of the gods. As in, they view their position in the universe as the, literal, children of the gods. While the human races have a more traditional, created by the gods, creation myth.

Further in:

In any case, from these two beings spring the et'Ada, or Original Spirits. To humans these et'Ada are the Gods and Demons; to the Aldmer, the Aedra/Daedra, or the 'Ancestors'. All of the Tamrielic pantheons fill their rosters from these et'Ada, though divine membership often differs from culture to culture. Like Anu and Padomay, though, every one of these pantheons contains the archetypes of the Dragon God and the Missing God.

Note the context shift. To the elves, the aedra and daedra are ancestors or not, but to the human races it's a divide between gods and demons. That is, pretty much, the definition of an alternate meaning.

PrayingSeraph wrote: »

I also think that applying the term Aedra to "cultural ancestors" rather than et'ada as an arguement for Talos being Aedra is flawed, as if building a culture is the criteria to be considered Aedra, Reman and Alessia should be called it as well.

Alessia is probably a more legitimate suggestion if that was the intended course. It's not. It's a response to the idea that Aedra must, explicitly refer to ancestors, direct ancestors.

PrayingSeraph wrote: »

You mention both Talos and the Tribunal as having the same criteria, both cultural builders that became gods, yet you classify them differently.

In point of fact, the Tribunal are, explicitly, false gods, who replace specific Daedric members of their Velothi pantheon. Specifically, they act as "the anticipations," of Mephala, Boethia, and Azura.

PrayingSeraph wrote: »

As it stands, I don't think the word "Aedra" has any meaning in your eyes...

In an external concept? No. It's a fictional term created for a fictional universe. However, I do understand what the term actually means within that setting, including some of the metaphysics.

PrayingSeraph wrote: »

...as you have given no definition and picked and chose who gets called Aedra or not such as with Talos and Tribunal despite both meeting your ancestor criteria.

In point of fact, the Tribunal do not fit the definition. The general understanding seems to be that Talos ascended to godhood through the process of Mantling. There's not a lot of information on the concept, or exactly how he did this. The alternative is to assume that it has something to do with him reaching a state of CHIM, but, that's still veering off into territory that is not clearly, or extensively, explored.

PrayingSeraph wrote: »

There is no common denominator with what you said.

There is one common denominator, it was in the original post.

starkerealm wrote: »

The only thing I'd caution against here is reading too much in to the literal meaning of "daedra" and "aedra."

Again, the High Elves in particular see themselves as directly descended from the gods. It is the ideology they use to justify their radical xenophobia in TES5.

However, reading into the English equivalents to the terms can lead to serious confusion.

PrayingSeraph wrote: »

Sure words can change meaning over time, but concepts often don't.

Concepts often do. The example I gave at the beginning has. Originally deus ex machina referred to a specific theatrical sequence, now it refers to a writing technique. While there is continuity between these two, one is not equivalent to the other.

PrayingSeraph wrote: »

Even if we discard the word "Aedra" or change it to mean something else, the original concept remains as a group of et'ada who gave themselves up to create Nirn and its races.

Only in the Altmer definition of the term.

PrayingSeraph wrote: »

This group of et'ada play a huge part in the ideology of the Aldmeri Dominion in the 4th era.

Yeah, see, here is your big problem. The second Aldmeri Dominion is a genocidal group, hell bent on destroying the universe and remaking it to fit their own model for how they want it to be. They justify this by saying they're decedents of the gods, and that this makes them justified in their actions.

Which doesn't make any of it so. Many cultures, in the real world, have taken "divine right" as a justification to do whatever they want to whomever they want, on the auspices of being anointed by higher powers.

In that sense, TES's second Dominion is no different, and no more justified in their position. If anything, the ascension of Talos, and the existence of Akatosh are pretty good pieces of evidence that the High Elven creation myth is just that, a myth.

And, before you go and say, "but, Talos is a lie," remember that shrines to Talos in Oblivion, Skyrim, and Daggerfall function mechanically the same as shrines to Mara, Akatosh, Debella, and every other divine. Each one has a unique buff associated with them in Skryim, (less so in Oblivion), but they do function.

Another thing to remember, before you wander off is that the official position, from the Altmer, was that Alduin was the Nordic version of Akatosh. Not, a different entity. Well, they went and derped that up, but something good, didn't they?

PrayingSeraph wrote: »

Though you are correct than many cultures have atleast somewhat changed the meaning of Deadra through lack of application of the word to Talos. At the very least inconsistent with the term. Talos isn't called a deadra despite fitting the definition, but I am unaware of him being called Aedra too. Rather, cultures of man carry over only certains parts of the Elvish words Aedra and Deadra. Generally, you just have "Divines and Deadra".

He is actually referred to as a Divine (so, close enough), in Oblivion. In fact, Talos being one of the Divines is a critical plot point during that game. To retroactively say, "no, he's not, that's some foolish man-myth," is complete nonsense. If Tiber Septum had not ascended to godhood, Martin's spell would have simply failed.

It's one of the critical misunderstandings you see from players who missed earlier games in the series. From Arena through Oblivion, there is absolutely no question that Talos is one of The Nine Divines, an Aedra, and just as active, if not more so, than the other eight members of the Imperial pantheon.

However, if your first stop in Tamriel was the headsman's axe in Helgan, it's easy to look at this as a controversial position. Compounded by the fact that ESO takes place 1k years before the events of Skyrim, and roughly 400 before Tiber Septum begins reunifying Tamriel.

If you missed out on the previous games, you never saw the unified Empire that was built, and probably have no idea why people will pull so hard for the Empire in discussions, even in the face of all its flaws in Skyrim.

starkerealm

@PrayingSeraph, the very short answer to your initial question would be that Talos is attuned to the earth bones, for whatever reason. With the caveat that it really doesn't matter what the earth bones are, in this context. This is the fundamental difference between the aedra and the daedra.

KeiruNicrom

PrayingSeraph wrote: »

Just as the Orsimer where a conversion of their previous (Altmer?) selves.

Aldmer actually. This was before the aldmer changed and degraded to the altmer we know today

tplink3r1

It was supposed to be a simple discussion about daedra worship in TES world but the amount of relativism here is depressing...

Tucker3711

Because they are awesome!

Chrlynsch

"Hircine grant the pack the speed and strength to bring down our prey. Werewolf Wednesday approaches, and Cyrodiil is our hunting ground."

-Caius Whitefang, Pack Leader of Scourge Alliance