Actually they do plenty. Smaug battled Dagon. http://www.imperial-library.info/nine_divines/wulf.jpg, http://www.imperial-library.info/nine_divines/jon_hawker.jpg, and http://www.imperial-library.info/nine_divines/ama_nin.jpg appeared in the flesh to talk to the Nerevarine. And they oblviously influence and bless people every day when prayed to.

It's just they have way more subtlety than the Daedroth.

Ehrm, you just used "Daedroth" incorrectly, you know? Daedroth is singular, so you just should've said Daedra.

He has other spheres too-natural Disasters and Revolution.

They're all the same thing!

Indeed. I'm a bit confused on why it was even brought up....

Yeah, your right I was typing while reading something else and it slipped.

Actually, they both can, and are, used interchangeably, in regard to singulars or plurals.

For all intents and purposes, 'dawn' means 'nonlinear time.' A Dragon Break is a paranthesis in the flow of the most important Earthbone, time. Hence 'middle.' The MD weren't seeking an interlude, they wanted the artificial constructs of the aedra gone from Nirn. So the nonlinearity of time would return for good.

It's frustrating, but the mythic era is actually the merethic era, when time was linear. But it is the dawn where myths are made and played out so dynamically, so mythic is a good word.

"Contrary to popular belief, the words "Daedra" and "Aedra" are plural. It was initially meant to denote the whole kind, not a single creature. The singular form of "Daedra" would be "Daedroth", but very few known texts ever use it. In the written tradition, the word "Daedra" has somehow evolved to mean "a single specimen". I will not break this tradition here for clarity's sake, but one amendment has to be made. The word "Daedras" is essentially wrong, and I will never use it. Instead, here I will use "Daedra" for both singular and plural. You will have to do some guessing by the context. Thank you for not corrupting the Aldmeris (Elven) language!"
http://www.imperial-library.info/book_daedra/

"Sinder Velvin:
Very interesting information, Mr. Ted Peterson. Thank you. And now, a question about the words "Daedroth" and "Daedra". A Dark Elf with the profession of Savant would be called a "Dark Elf Savant", and not a "Dark Elves Savant". We use the singular "Dark Elf", not the plural "Dark Elves", in this situation. The singular of "Daedra" is "Daedroth", and yet the Princes of Oblivion are called "Daedra Princes", and not "Daedroth Princes". Is it incorrect to call the Princes of Oblivion "Daedra Princes"? Or is it incorrect to call them "Daedroth Princes"? Or are they both correct?

Ted Peterson:
Ah, the world of semantics. Short answer: Daedra is plural, Daedroth is singular. Long answer: Almost no one uses these terms correctly in Tamriel. Why? Because, just like in our own world, words change meanings out of popular usage. There is a creature simply called a Daedroth, after all: those big, bipedal, reptilian beasts that are the terror of the four corners of Tamriel. Somehow, in ages past, they were given this confusing name, probably by someone who, when asked what that creature was, gave a generic answer which was taken to be a specific one. "
http://www.imperial-library.info/interviews/tedpeterson.shtml

So officially Daedra is plural and Daedroth is singular its just most people get it wrong and the second quote is actually what I was reading when I wrote that mistake in my post. Irony. =]

Was looking at that jumpin demon stuff:


Assumin this and the followin bits is Lore - then it is not all the mundus - just those bits that time did not swallow up = the bits Dagon and (dare we suggest it) Lorkhan 'stole' aand returned. Are they bits that they stuck back in the mundus, or bits that they took to Oblivion with them like the Green Glass Shrine/village? What other bits could they be? Are they the Towers - or the Daedric Shrines or what? Could it be that it actually refers to the inhabitants = the mer, humans etc? What? This being Lore I would think a correct answer might be seminal.

Worth a new thread? or is it on-topic?

So where does this turnup go? The suggestion that the goal is total annihilation as opposed to war must refer to certain specifics. Maybe we can assume that War is only one of His tools? That he has to target certain things ... and ofc - Daedra reform so what did he lose? So maybe he achieved his current goals. That would seem to fit better with the idea that he only has to destroy certain things ... so the Gates were an invasion that was a battle rather than the war. He won that battle/skirmish because he achieved his goals and The Imperials are celebrating their loss as a victory to bolster their courage and try to keep the Empire together. - now we only have to worry about Dagon's next targets ...

I think of dagon's plot like this, the rule of probability say that eventually he is going to achieve his ultimate goal, whatever that may be. Why? Simple, dagon is daedra, and so are all of his minions. As daedra they can never be killed in any permanent sense. His enemies are mortals, they die so fast. Worse yet, they tend to forget their past, and will ultimately forget the knowlege their ancestors gained while fighting daedra. Dagon will not, he remembers. So you see, all Dagon must do to win is to try and try, because he cant ever be defeated, just set back a bit.

The only hope that he wont win is that the dragon will keep showing up just in time. But lets look once, doesnt probability say that eventually he's gonna get tricked out of saving Nirn again? Or somehow that he will eventually lose? This is my opinion. In a sense, I am rooting for Dagon because he is both the underdof and the probable victor, and those look like pretty good odds to me.

Does this mean I like Dagon, No, not at all. (I do, of course, realize that he is completely fictional and that any like/dislike can therefore be purely superficial) I think dagon's sphere makes him a really bad guy. But you know what, if he does win, and that means him returning to his state of jolly leaper demon king, then I think that is a good thing in the long run.

Once again, this is all opinion, and I hope someone disagrees! (Debate is so much fun, and after all isn't that why we're all on these forums anyway? TO learn and to debate, which is a great way to learn more yet!)

Hooray! I disagree!

Since our only source on Dagon's nature in this matter is the Aldugagga, we see from the fights that Akatosh always wins, no matter what. Why? Because that's what he does. Things might be different because this kalpa is made of earth stolen from earlier cycles, but that is debatable.

You know, everything we've read says that. But I'm almost willing to bet that somewhere out there is a way to destroy a Daedroth (used it correctly that time) permanently or at least a way to end their seemingly endless cycle.

I mean I have no doubt that a Daedra couldn't be permanently removed from any sort of anything by a mortal but there is an exception to almost all rules in the ES universe.

Sorry this is a complete derailing here just a random thought.. but what if it isn't the Daedra that are eternal but their plane? All Daedra are banished to their "plane" but what if it no longer existed?
I know I have nothing to go on it's just something that seems odd to me.

What gives the Daedra strength? They are only important because they embody concepts that are relevant and universal on Nirn. So if all of a sudden lies, six, and murder where gone from the Mundus, Mephala would cease to exist. Ok, she wouldn't actually disappear, but mortals would be incapable of fathoming her existence. She would be invisible, locked out of the plane like the Mnemolia except during Dragon Breaks.

Is that why we don't hear from the daedra lord of circumcision and flatulence very often? But wait, would those concepts you mentioned be gone if the other daedra lords were still there? Mephala ceasing to exist and therefore stopping six would eliminate a good portion of what the King of [censored] does, or does it work more like a three legged race? Is there an agreement between the lords that you know of that they willingly restrict themselves to such limited means?

If course I prefer the view of the daedra provided by Clavicus Vile in the game Redguard.

The Prince of Pointlessly Irritating Rebuttals would involve even more sphere-overlap, don't you think?

Who named the spheres? If the mortals did, then it was imperfect, arbitrary nomenclature. If the Princes claim their own spheres, then we have only their word. They each stand for Something, but we have no way of knowing what, because we can't fathom most of it. We can only recognize the more familiar facets of Something. Hermaeus Mora can do whatever he wants to do (yes, improving the character of mortals) so long as he does things that mortals can fathom and attribute to his nature, it all fits in, and he has power because of it. The more nuanced interpretations of the sphere (violent overthrow of authority?) are mostly decoration and needlessly specific descriptions for fundamental things, I should think.

If the Aedra and Daedra do indeed predate the races They are worshipped by then what are the real bottom lines? Likely very different to whatever just suggested above. Their environment might be the Monomythic type fundamentals or they might be formed by something totally different, but if they are from before then they are certainly playing games with mortal minds and beliefs one way or the other and unlikely bound to mortal perception except insofar as they find it useful/amusing to adapt themselves to manipulate mortals - perhaps according to the rules of a game they play among themselves.

For the 'gods' to be so controlled by mortal thought that a loss of belief and such would destroy them, mortal thought would have to be their environment = the place of their genesis. So if the Aedra and Daedra are the spiritual creations of the races they worship then paw-prints-in-the-mud, your argument wins in part.

I'll try to read that. For starters, of course the Aedra and Daedra predate mortals and creation. But that doesn't mean that the rest is completely wrong. Worship and divine creation, the whole relationship between gods and mortals is a feedback loop, and depending how you look at it, seemingly opposite viewpoints can exist at the same time- with qualifications of course. MK did say "it is we who are the gods' true parents," and that doesn't really compute until you look at it right.