Are the "Good" daedra too nice? ***potential spoilers in discussion***

andre.roques.3b14_ESO

I guess I have occasionally RP'ed the uber goody goody type in something like Skyrim to which all daedra are bad. Even Maridia in skyrim was rather dickish...spread her glory using her weapon, blah, blah. Basically even Malacath seemed more neutralish/good as he was just about strength and survival over all other aspects.

I just expect daedra to be self centered a-holes to everyone unless they are being worshiped and their personal agenda is of concern.

The ESO 'good' daedra to be lacking in this ambiguity...they genuinely seem too nice.

Thoughts?

BBSooner

But ..

Didnt Meridia command Sees-all-colors to foil molag bals plot within the fighters guilds by any means possible - which resulted in a (probably Meridia approved) murder of Jofnir (spelling?) even though he was a completely good/respectable leader?

traigusb14_ESO2

As is stated by a lot of the major players in ESO. There are levels of the conflict way above mortals.

For all we know Molag bal is toughening us up, for when Meridia pulls the rug out from under the world suddenly in 3000 years.

For example, for all we know Caldwell is Uncle Shel, Molag Bal, or even Meridia... or nearly anyone else.

Hell, Meridia could be trapped someplace, and the Meridia we see could be someone else.

Mostly it all depends on how much the writers drink and how much they hate us

forbarcusb16_ESO

Well, you never know, Molag Bal is the Lord of Brutality but he is also labelled as "The God of Schemes". He could be working WITH Meridia in order to unveil a larger scheme, or he might be working with The Prophet/

Varen Aquilarios

. We can never know, after all he is the God of Schemes...

LariahHunding

After listening to the comments of Molag Bal after destroying anchors, I told a guildmate that will work with/for Molag Bal down the road somewhere.

Almost like a Dumbledore/Potter situation, putting you through this cause I have a use for you down the road.

andre.roques.3b14_ESO

Turning the player character into a weapon of brutality...like running around Nirn killing zillions of people (NPCs)...interesting take.

***shakes fist angrily @ creative writers***

kieso

I think its still somewhat ambiguus Meridia herself still says things that make you go "wait what?" and at the end of the solo story Molag Bal is pretty ambiguus when you speak to him.

gurluasb16_ESO

Daedra aren't evil. Some are considered evil because they do dark acts towards us. Also Meridia is not even a Daedra. She's actually an Aedra as she participated in the creation of Mundus and left alongside Magnus, she's spawned from Anu, not Padomay like most Daedra we know. (Most Anuic spirits who did not sacrifice themselves in Mundus went to Aetherius, while Padomaic spirits are in Oblivion)

But she carved her own realm of light within Oblivion.

kieso

gurluasb16_ESO wrote: »

Daedra aren't evil. Some are considered evil because they do dark acts towards us. Also Meridia is not even a Daedra. She's actually an Aedra as she participated in the creation of Mundus and left alongside Magnus, she's spawned from Anu, not Padomay like most Daedra we know. (Most Anuic spirits who did not sacrifice themselves in Mundus went to Aetherius, while Padomaic spirits are in Oblivion)

But she carved her own realm of light within Oblivion.

feh, cursed creature of light and fire!

Armitas

One interesting thought is that we have to inject things like "good" or "evil" into Tamriel because within Tamriel there is no foundation with which good or evil can objectively adhere too. All the Aedra of Tamriel would be caught up in the Euthyphro dilemma. As such both good and evil is ambiguous within Tamriel.

It's only by the strength of the permeating moralistic paradigm in the real world, that we become confused over the actions of these aedra or daedra labeled good or bad.

andre.roques.3b14_ESO

No, pretty sure I am able to label good and evil using my own moral compass. In that regard, I was simply commenting that Azura and Meridia in ESO, seemed to be played up as a little too good. I have no doubt that even the most reviled Daedra wouldn't willful destroy the world at least because that would mean they have no more toys to play with.

Molag Bal is definitely presented as the "Devil you know" by the end. Or at least the ideas that there is much worse to come.

Armitas

andre.roques.3b14_ESO wrote: »

No, pretty sure I am able to label good and evil using my own moral compass.

Right the only way is to inject it externally. Tamriel doesn't provide an internal non ambiguous foundation for good or evil. It's the combination of external morality with the internal labels of good or bad that is confusing.

When I play I remove those preplaced labels of good or bad, aedra or daedra and qualify them myself.

Zorrashi

Though I do agree that it is ludicrous to apply concepts like "good" and "bad" to daedra, who are beyond normal concepts, I do believe the 'good daedra' were specifically polished with that "nice-streak shine" in order to appeal to certain players.

Some players hate ambiguity. Other don't so much hate that ambiguous quality as much as they just prefer black vs. white perceptions. Some people distinctly like being 'bad' while others distinctly like being 'good', they likely won't take well to an ambiguous daedra master who may clash with their personal interest in morality.

BBSooner

Armitas wrote: »

andre.roques.3b14_ESO wrote: »

No, pretty sure I am able to label good and evil using my own moral compass.

Right the only way is to inject it externally. Tamriel doesn't provide an internal non ambiguous foundation for good or evil.

There is tons of recognition for good and evil in TES, it's just that the way all beings are written there are no pure sources of either. However acts for any degree of morality can be cited and recognized by NPCs as that degree.

Armitas

BBSooner wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

andre.roques.3b14_ESO wrote: »

No, pretty sure I am able to label good and evil using my own moral compass.

Right the only way is to inject it externally. Tamriel doesn't provide an internal non ambiguous foundation for good or evil.

There is tons of recognition for good and evil in TES, it's just that the way all beings are written there are no pure sources of either. However acts for any degree of morality can be cited and recognized by NPCs as that degree.

It's cited, but what is good or evil is ambiguous because those aedra are caught up in the Euthyphro dilemma.

Zorrashi

Armitas wrote: »

BBSooner wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

andre.roques.3b14_ESO wrote: »

No, pretty sure I am able to label good and evil using my own moral compass.

Right the only way is to inject it externally. Tamriel doesn't provide an internal non ambiguous foundation for good or evil.

There is tons of recognition for good and evil in TES, it's just that the way all beings are written there are no pure sources of either. However acts for any degree of morality can be cited and recognized by NPCs as that degree.

It's cited, but what is good or evil is ambiguous because those aedra are caught up in the Euthyphro dilemma.

No no no, you are talking like an expert here....the mer/men/man-beasts of tamriel are largely average in intelligence at best, and all are distinctly mortal with their own set of principles. Sure, the concepts of good and bad may change upon culture to culture, but there is certainly enough of it so as to give a general basis.

andre.roques.3b14_ESO

My other take is if some being treats me like a piñata...smacking me around until something cool pops out...I'm not really keen on calling that person nice or good. And my take is that all the daedra are basically doing that, in the end.

Armitas

Zorrashi wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

BBSooner wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

andre.roques.3b14_ESO wrote: »

No, pretty sure I am able to label good and evil using my own moral compass.

Right the only way is to inject it externally. Tamriel doesn't provide an internal non ambiguous foundation for good or evil.

There is tons of recognition for good and evil in TES, it's just that the way all beings are written there are no pure sources of either. However acts for any degree of morality can be cited and recognized by NPCs as that degree.

It's cited, but what is good or evil is ambiguous because those aedra are caught up in the Euthyphro dilemma.

No no no, you are talking like an expert here....the mer/men/man-beasts of tamriel are largely average in intelligence at best, and all are distinctly mortal with their own set of principles. Sure, the concepts of good and bad may change upon culture to culture, but there is certainly enough of it so as to give a general basis.

Then what is it's foundation? How does it overcome the dilemma? (within Tamriel)

isengrimb16_ESO

Daedra consider themselves higher beings, and don't think that mortals are worthy of any kind of ethical concern.

Putting aside the food issue for a moment (farming on any scale, and honest-to-goodness stone-age subsistence hunting) .. this is exactly the way humans think about anything that isn't marked "human". In the eyes of many species, we'd be bloody devils - killing for fun, skinning them when we don't have to (we can keep warm other ways nowadays) because "people can make money from it", doing experiments on them for cosmetics or even just so humans don't have to learn to keep their pants up and keep various unhealthy/dangerous habits (there was a time in the 1980s when it was discovered GM used live pigs-as well as dummies - in car crash tests. I doubt they do this any more, at least I hope not). There was also a time when movies used to actually kill animals for scenes (Apocalypse Now being a recent example).

Yet there are humans who work against the usual attitude - and they're hated to pieces (even when they're not as extreme as the PETA types; but then, keep in mind, all groups go corrupt over time, even those Beggars for Africa are bloody corrupt; no charity/special interest group wants to fold because the problems they were originally meants to solve got solved, because they have leaders who get paid well.)

Humans act every bit as bad as most Daedra do - yet there are the rare few (rarer the further you get from Western culture; many other peoples think we're nuts even setting aside national parks with untouchable wildlife) who do good towards those who are not human.

Meridia and Azura might just be the Daedric equivalent of PETA people. I don't think most Daedra think mortals need rights, and the idea would be damn silly to them.

BBSooner

Armitas wrote: »

BBSooner wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

andre.roques.3b14_ESO wrote: »

No, pretty sure I am able to label good and evil using my own moral compass.

Right the only way is to inject it externally. Tamriel doesn't provide an internal non ambiguous foundation for good or evil.

There is tons of recognition for good and evil in TES, it's just that the way all beings are written there are no pure sources of either. However acts for any degree of morality can be cited and recognized by NPCs as that degree.

It's cited, but what is good or evil is ambiguous because those aedra are caught up in the Euthyphro dilemma.

I would agree if the Aedra were considered a pure source of good, but even they have had bickering and sought revenge, which is morally ambiguous. So its less about example and more about the people acknowledging good and evil.

gurluasb16_ESO

Order and Chaos is not good or evil.
Padomay was Chaos, Anu was Order.

Or also Stasis and Change, but ultimately it is the same.
They both have the option to be good or evil.

As an example.. Meridia is orderly, but remember how she, for the greater good, basically forced the entire population of a city into Coldharbour, people who may not have wanted to end up there. And many of those people were either killed or turned into Soul-shriven.
Azura has also done some pretty dark acts, especially against the Dwemer, or how she turned early Aldmer into Khajit, and Chimer into Dunmer.

Still, both Meridia and Azura DO care about their followers though.
Meridia took care of the humans in Coldharbour in the guise of the caretaker, and did her best to create order for them out of the chaos.
While Azura treats her followers well, such as the Ashlanders, and the Pariah Abbey.

Others like Hermaeous Mora, Molag Bal, and Mehrunes Dagon just see them as tools. While others like Clavicus Vile seems them as a source for amusement at their expense.

Armitas

BBSooner wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

BBSooner wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

andre.roques.3b14_ESO wrote: »

No, pretty sure I am able to label good and evil using my own moral compass.

Right the only way is to inject it externally. Tamriel doesn't provide an internal non ambiguous foundation for good or evil.

There is tons of recognition for good and evil in TES, it's just that the way all beings are written there are no pure sources of either. However acts for any degree of morality can be cited and recognized by NPCs as that degree.

It's cited, but what is good or evil is ambiguous because those aedra are caught up in the Euthyphro dilemma.

I would agree if the Aedra were considered a pure source of good, but even they have had bickering and sought revenge, which is morally ambiguous. So its less about example and more about the people acknowledging good and evil.

If there are no pure sources then what does good/evil refer to? What is it's foundation? (in tamriel)

isengrimb16_ESO

Armitas wrote: »

BBSooner wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

BBSooner wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

andre.roques.3b14_ESO wrote: »

No, pretty sure I am able to label good and evil using my own moral compass.

Right the only way is to inject it externally. Tamriel doesn't provide an internal non ambiguous foundation for good or evil.

There is tons of recognition for good and evil in TES, it's just that the way all beings are written there are no pure sources of either. However acts for any degree of morality can be cited and recognized by NPCs as that degree.

It's cited, but what is good or evil is ambiguous because those aedra are caught up in the Euthyphro dilemma.

I would agree if the Aedra were considered a pure source of good, but even they have had bickering and sought revenge, which is morally ambiguous. So its less about example and more about the people acknowledging good and evil.

If there are no pure sources then what does good/evil refer to? What is it's foundation?

Personal ethics as opposed to .. religious morals (and religious morals are just as variable as ethics are, because not all religions share the same morals. And hell, people WITHIN a religion, or even within a sect, may interpret those morals differently.)

Armitas

isengrimb16_ESO wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

BBSooner wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

BBSooner wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

andre.roques.3b14_ESO wrote: »

No, pretty sure I am able to label good and evil using my own moral compass.

Right the only way is to inject it externally. Tamriel doesn't provide an internal non ambiguous foundation for good or evil.

There is tons of recognition for good and evil in TES, it's just that the way all beings are written there are no pure sources of either. However acts for any degree of morality can be cited and recognized by NPCs as that degree.

It's cited, but what is good or evil is ambiguous because those aedra are caught up in the Euthyphro dilemma.

I would agree if the Aedra were considered a pure source of good, but even they have had bickering and sought revenge, which is morally ambiguous. So its less about example and more about the people acknowledging good and evil.

If there are no pure sources then what does good/evil refer to? What is it's foundation?

Personal ethics as opposed to .. religious morals (and religious morals are just as variable as ethics are, because not all religions share the same morals. And hell, people WITHIN a religion, or even within a sect, may interpret those morals differently.)

I agree that in that case they would either be from personal ethics, and so ambiguous/subjective or heavily platonic but non prescriptive.

Thats why I always bring the real world to fill that part. There is just not enough within Tamriel to make sense of real moral alignment.

isengrimb16_ESO

Armitas wrote: »

isengrimb16_ESO wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

BBSooner wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

BBSooner wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

andre.roques.3b14_ESO wrote: »

No, pretty sure I am able to label good and evil using my own moral compass.

Right the only way is to inject it externally. Tamriel doesn't provide an internal non ambiguous foundation for good or evil.

There is tons of recognition for good and evil in TES, it's just that the way all beings are written there are no pure sources of either. However acts for any degree of morality can be cited and recognized by NPCs as that degree.

It's cited, but what is good or evil is ambiguous because those aedra are caught up in the Euthyphro dilemma.

I would agree if the Aedra were considered a pure source of good, but even they have had bickering and sought revenge, which is morally ambiguous. So its less about example and more about the people acknowledging good and evil.

If there are no pure sources then what does good/evil refer to? What is it's foundation?

Personal ethics as opposed to .. religious morals (and religious morals are just as variable as ethics are, because not all religions share the same morals. And hell, people WITHIN a religion, or even within a sect, may interpret those morals differently.)

I agree that in that case they would either be from personal ethics, and ambiguous/subjective or heavily platonic but non prescriptive.

Yes, I've noticed a real grab-bag of ethics from many NPCs involved in quests, and many times we're asked to call upon our own to make a decision. Phaer, for instance.

Or the newly freed Argonian slaves who weren't happy with just being freed, they had to take vengeance, too. That smacks really closely of actual historical instances, that I guess we can't go into, but let's just say that similar behaviour on the part of freed slaves caused the creation of a group that is still around and very, very unpopular and highly disliked, whose purpose probably ran its course ages ago - but again, that's a matter of opinion and ethics.)

Sometimes it's hard to tell whether you made the right decision in letting someone go, or not.

Nestor

andre.roques.3b14_ESO wrote: »

I just expect daedra to be self centered a-holes to everyone unless they are being worshiped and their personal agenda is of concern.

Daedric Princes are Ammoral, in that they have no morals. They are not bad, they are not good, they are what they are. They do not see what they do with regards to impacts and consequences. To that regard, they are the perfect psychopath.

Humans can view what the daedric princes do as good or evil, but the Daedra do not see it that way. So, a Daedra can be evil to one person and nice to another. Sure, their aspect makes their actions tend to be more evil or more good or more neutral, but that is only in relation to humans and mer.

AlexDougherty

As others have said it isn't as simple as Daedra = Evil and Aedra = Good.

Aedra were involved in creating Nirn, and because they imbued part of their strength into the world can be killed.

Daedra were not involved in creating Nirn, never surrender any of their strength and are therefore still immortal.

That's the only difference. Oh that and the weaker Aedra became the mortals (elves mostly).

There are good, bad, and neutral members of both groups.

AlexDougherty

gurluasb16_ESO wrote: »

Daedra aren't evil. Some are considered evil because they do dark acts towards us. Also Meridia is not even a Daedra. She's actually an Aedra as she participated in the creation of Mundus and left alongside Magnus, she's spawned from Anu, not Padomay like most Daedra we know. (Most Anuic spirits who did not sacrifice themselves in Mundus went to Aetherius, while Padomaic spirits are in Oblivion)

But she carved her own realm of light within Oblivion.

Mauloch (aka Malacanth) isn't a Daedra either, he's the corrupted remains of an Aedra (Trinimac) who got devoured by Boethia.

Not sure if this disqualifies him as an Aedra.

Armitas

isengrimb16_ESO wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

isengrimb16_ESO wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

BBSooner wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

BBSooner wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

andre.roques.3b14_ESO wrote: »

No, pretty sure I am able to label good and evil using my own moral compass.

Right the only way is to inject it externally. Tamriel doesn't provide an internal non ambiguous foundation for good or evil.

There is tons of recognition for good and evil in TES, it's just that the way all beings are written there are no pure sources of either. However acts for any degree of morality can be cited and recognized by NPCs as that degree.

It's cited, but what is good or evil is ambiguous because those aedra are caught up in the Euthyphro dilemma.

I would agree if the Aedra were considered a pure source of good, but even they have had bickering and sought revenge, which is morally ambiguous. So its less about example and more about the people acknowledging good and evil.

If there are no pure sources then what does good/evil refer to? What is it's foundation?

Personal ethics as opposed to .. religious morals (and religious morals are just as variable as ethics are, because not all religions share the same morals. And hell, people WITHIN a religion, or even within a sect, may interpret those morals differently.)

I agree that in that case they would either be from personal ethics, and ambiguous/subjective or heavily platonic but non prescriptive.

Yes, I've noticed a real grab-bag of ethics from many NPCs involved in quests, and many times we're asked to call upon our own to make a decision. Phaer, for instance.

Or the newly freed Argonian slaves who weren't happy with just being freed, they had to take vengeance, too. That smacks really closely of actual historical instances, that I guess we can't go into, but let's just say that similar behaviour on the part of freed slaves caused the creation of a group that is still around and very, very unpopular and highly disliked, whose purpose probably ran its course ages ago - but again, that's a matter of opinion and ethics.)

Yeah I remember reading and thinking for hours over some of the deadric quests trying to remain on the "good" side and it seemed the only way to do that was to remove the idea of any daedra and aedra having any real alignment. I felt more like I was choosing upon their current inclinations rather than their ascribed alignment. It seems like the aedra and deadra have both evil and good inclinations. In one game their inclinations might result in good and the next game their inclination would result in evil. It seems to really choose the good or bad path you have to sort the good from the evil by the current inclination rather than their label.

I like it this way because it is similar to the real world. Just because someone says they are aligned a certain way doesn't mean they are anything of the sort.

smeeprocketnub19_ESO

isengrimb16_ESO wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

isengrimb16_ESO wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

BBSooner wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

BBSooner wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

andre.roques.3b14_ESO wrote: »

No, pretty sure I am able to label good and evil using my own moral compass.

Right the only way is to inject it externally. Tamriel doesn't provide an internal non ambiguous foundation for good or evil.

There is tons of recognition for good and evil in TES, it's just that the way all beings are written there are no pure sources of either. However acts for any degree of morality can be cited and recognized by NPCs as that degree.

It's cited, but what is good or evil is ambiguous because those aedra are caught up in the Euthyphro dilemma.

I would agree if the Aedra were considered a pure source of good, but even they have had bickering and sought revenge, which is morally ambiguous. So its less about example and more about the people acknowledging good and evil.

If there are no pure sources then what does good/evil refer to? What is it's foundation?

Personal ethics as opposed to .. religious morals (and religious morals are just as variable as ethics are, because not all religions share the same morals. And hell, people WITHIN a religion, or even within a sect, may interpret those morals differently.)

I agree that in that case they would either be from personal ethics, and ambiguous/subjective or heavily platonic but non prescriptive.

Yes, I've noticed a real grab-bag of ethics from many NPCs involved in quests, and many times we're asked to call upon our own to make a decision. Phaer, for instance.

Or the newly freed Argonian slaves who weren't happy with just being freed, they had to take vengeance, too. That smacks really closely of actual historical instances, that I guess we can't go into, but let's just say that similar behaviour on the part of freed slaves caused the creation of a group that is still around and very, very unpopular and highly disliked, whose purpose probably ran its course ages ago - but again, that's a matter of opinion and ethics.)

Sometimes it's hard to tell whether you made the right decision in letting someone go, or not.

Whatever you're hinting at sounds more than a little racist. Sometimes it's better not to make these kinds of comments at all.

The Aedra and Daedra have their own morality. Not quite Eldritch Being/Cthulhian thought processes, but in that direction.

Anvos

Getting away from the may or may not be true creation myths the answer is simply there are no "good deadra" only deadra that wear the façade of good since their methods aren't as brute forces as deadra such as Molag Bal and Mehrunes Dagon.