I wondered about this a lot in the second half of the Auridon storyline. I guess it's something like, "I'll make a deal with the god of destruction and betrayal, because that'll end well." I wonder if it ever has, for anyone? We only really see the disasters.

Power. Men and mer in Tamriel will do pretty much anything for power. Some of them, anyway.

@starkerealm holy *** dude you are everywhere and know everything

They are "unquestionably evil?" By what standards? The standards of those who go on witch hunts? The standards of the uneducated peasant? The standards of hyoocrites who preach to the masses but do not follow their own teachings? Morality is such a fickle and subjective thing.

Now, do not misunderstand me. Daedra worship is just as petty as divine worship. The Daedra are a useful tool for extracting knowledge and power, however, so long as you have something they want in return.

starkerealm wrote: »

MythicEmperor wrote: »

They are "unquestionably evil?" By what standards? The standards of those who go on witch hunts? The standards of the uneducated peasant? The standards of hyoocrites who preach to the masses but do not follow their own teachings? Morality is such a fickle and subjective thing.

Now, do not misunderstand me. Daedra worship is just as petty as divine worship. The Daedra are a useful tool for extracting knowledge and power, however, so long as you have something they want in return.

Mythic, the dude, you know how Molag Bal creates vampires, right?

Vampires are great. I mean- er, what was that? I didn't say anything.

Nerouyn wrote: »

The answer is many different reasons.

Some people might be utter *** and the Aedra don't really cater to that. Several Daedra do.

Some people might just appreciate that the Daedra are more imminent. They can rock up, say hello, possibly even do you a favour... or gut you and knit a sock from your entrails. Depending on their mood. But either way you know they're aware of you and that could be nice.

MythicEmperor wrote: »

They are "unquestionably evil?" By what standards? The standards of those who go on witch hunts? The standards of the uneducated peasant? The standards of hyoocrites who preach to the masses but do not follow their own teachings? Morality is such a fickle and subjective thing.

Yes there's hypocritical morality. But there's also real morality.

Most of the Daedra either enjoy harming mortals or will do so very casually without caring in the slightest. That's evil.

Azura is an exception. Some would argue that both her cursing and then ending the Dunmer for their betrayal is evil. But there was a deal. That deal was broken in a manner which saw dangerous levels of power put into the hands of the betrayers. She sorted them out. Wasn't the first tribe of mer to fall into ruin. Won't be the last.

I regard Azura as good and kind but not a pushover.

Meridia might also be an exception. Prior to ESO she's represented more as morally neutral I think. She favours life but not necessarily in a caring or kind manner. In ESO she seems to be more kindly disposed. That may just be towards us though because we're sort of doing her bidding. So I'm not so sure about her.

There's a few that are... complicated. Meridia and Azura are both examples.

Nerouyn wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

There's a few that are... complicated. Meridia and Azura are both examples.

I'd say that's a point of view, depending on how you define morality.

Azura is clearly good to my eye. At least in how she's represented from Morrowind onwards. In earlier games she was more chaotic and callous like the other Daedra. I think Bethesda make a conscious decision to change her nature and have been consistent with her since then.

Well, so far as it goes, Meridia is an even better example of this. There's the whole, "enemy of the undead," thing, along with her enmity towards Molag Bal, but at the same time she signed off on the attacks on the chapels in Knights of the Nine. She's not, "good," just mostly aligned with your interests for the moment.

My impression of Azura is less that she's good and more that she's possessive. She takes care of her people because they're hers and not because they're people. Recall that she only helps save King Emeric to pay Vaermina back for messing around with her assets in Stormhaven.

So... this would be a bad time to point out that back in Daggerfall, Azura was actually allied with Molag Bal? To say nothing of the part where she cursed the entire Chimer race for the actions of three individuals?

Even her lore page on UESP pulls up the, "cruel but wise," line from her invocation.

One thing I can easily say is that Azura is more overt than most of the Daedric princes. She's also quite protective of her chosen, hence the creation of the Dunmer, and the quest with her oracles in ESO. Though, at that point, the same can really be said of Meridia as well, and even a few of the "evil daedra."

Nerouyn wrote: »

Yes Azura played a key role in ending their slave-keeping civilization. Hooray for Azura!

Slavery wasn't abolished in Morrowind until Hlaalu Helseth declared that "If there is to be a revolution, it is best done by a King," at the close of the third era. Even then, it is likely that after the Red Year and subsequent Argonian invasion, the scornful survivors would return to their traditional practices. This is especially probable considering the lack of Imperial occupation and the dismantling of House Hlaalu in this time. How does Azura relate to this?

Nerouyn wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

So... this would be a bad time to point out that back in Daggerfall, Azura was actually allied with Molag Bal?

You're not pointing out anything. As I've already said:

Nerouyn wrote: »

Azura is clearly good to my eye. At least in how she's represented from Morrowind onwards. In earlier games she was more chaotic and callous like the other Daedra. I think Bethesda make a conscious decision to change her nature and have been consistent with her since then.

Even in Morrowind and on, she's still fairly callous. While I get the desire to go, "yeah, but since then the lore is completely different," and there is some truth to that, it's not safe to scrub away everything that came before, as that information does have a way of leaking back in to future releases.

This also leads to the point where someone can say, "well, I'm going to exclude this one piece of critical information, because it contradicts my perceptions," and then completely ignore that Meridia signed off on attacking the Imperial chapels in Oblivion. "No, you don't understand, she'd never do that, she's a good daedra."

In the case of Morrowind, specifically, the player is (regardless of anything else) a chosen of Azura. That means they do enjoy a favored state when interacting with her. Now, she is very protective of her chosen, and at least appears to genuinely care about their well being, so it shouldn't be particularly surprising that the player gets an unusually positive view of her in Morrowind.

Nerouyn wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

To say nothing of the part where she cursed the entire Chimer race for the actions of three individuals?

Let's not lose all perspective. She turned them blue. It's not like she made all their *** fall off.

And also made them unusually susceptible to a number of skin conditions and some other ailments. There are, actually, other effects beyond that, but the major takeaway is still that they are cursed. She didn't wipe them out of existence, or transform them into orcs, but she did curse them.

Nerouyn wrote: »

Yes Azura played a key role in ending their slave-keeping civilization. Hooray for Azura!

Not so much, though. I mean, she played a key role in ending the Tribunal, but that's not the same thing as dealing with the Dunmer's fondness for slavery. That was left unimpeded, at least by her.

Nerouyn wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Even her lore page on UESP pulls up the, "cruel but wise," line from her invocation.

A document written by a dunmer who lump her in together with the buttheads Boethiah and Mephala as "good" daedra. Clearly the slave-keeping dunmer have a very different sense of what good means.

You can argue with @MythicEmperor on that point, if you really want to.

Nerouyn wrote: »

Calling her cruel in that context is probably intended as a compliment. The high priestess who called her cruel details the cruelty of other daedra she had followed but doesn't actually detail any cruelty for Azura.

I'd give you credit on this if the grammar didn't cut your legs out from under you. If "cruel," was meant as a positive trait, the phrase would have been, "cruel and wise," instead of what we get. "Cruel but wise," suggests one of these traits counters out the other, or at least helps to balance these factors.