Hitler never incorperated mass dreaming into his schemes, nor did he have his soldiers walk around with giant flutes attached to their helmets. Even more, the only relation between Hitler and Dagoth Ur is that they were both racist and considered the bad guy...

:turtle:

I think what you mean is evil that seems to be good. Keeping a dog alive is good, but if that dog eats a child every day...

to WK: =/ right over your head...

To expand that is like saying Stalin and Hitler are nothing alike because they targeted different people and spoke different languages. I didn't say what they both (Hitler, Dagoth Ur) used methods of, but their intentions.

Good and evil are merely words we use in the english language to define concepts that are subject to our rapidly changing opinions. A few examples:

In general we consider killing evil. If I were to walk up to a man and shoot him in the head that would be an act of evil. However, if public opinion were to change, such as in war, then it would be an act of good. So gunning someone down in everyday life in the middle of the street is evil, but a soldier gunning down an enemy soldier in identical circumstances (same gun, same street, etc.) in the middle of wartime would be good, even honorable.

In general we in America consider drugs to be evil. If I were to take a barbiturate for my own pleasure that would be evil. However, if someone were to use a barbiturate on a suspect in an interrogation that could be considered good, even if it were not wartime.

In general we consider kidnap to be evil. If I were to kidnap a man that would be considered an act of evil. However, if the CIA or NSA were to employ the use of a spy or splinter agent to kidnap a suspected terrorist that could be considered an act of good.

Not only that, but the other side almost always accepts your side's opinion as wrong and their own as correct. So in all of the circumstances we'd be doing the opposite in their eyes. Our friendly soldier would be evil for gunning down their friendly soldier. Our police/government agency would be evil for using "mind-control" agents on their comrade. Our government would be evil for kidnapping and/or defiling their holy-man.

Furthermore, individual groups inside of the general opinion form their own opinions. For example we have vegetarians. There are those who believe that killing an animal to feed yourself is evil. Then there are those who consider that killing to eat is wrong, but using by-products, such as milk or eggs, is right, there are even those who eat fish, which are animals also, but refuse to eat a cow even though the life a fish has could be considered no less important than that of the cow. Then you have zealots who believe that using anything from an animal is wrong and will only eat plant matter; furthermore, there are those in THAT group who could be considered hypocrites because they support that killing in any sense of the word is wrong, but will feed themselves with living plant matter even though the life of the plant could be considered no less important than that of the fish or the cow.

I could go on, unhindered by anything at all, for hours and hours; however, I do not believe anyone would read a post of any length greater than that of two or three sentences unless they were dedicated to knowledge and reason. Unfortunately those who are defined by such a virtue must have already considered this and more.

Ultimately there are too many layers and complexities to be had. It is fool's work to label things "Good" or "Evil" or "Right" or "Wrong" because no one can consider all the information and report there is to make an accurate or even semi-accurate judgement. People, namely politicians, will label things as "Good" or "Evil" in an attempt to stoke the people's fire and gain popularity and support. They are the greatest fools of all. Anyone who works to manipulate the crowd and lose sight of truth and wisdom should never be put in a place of power, for what is there to be gained for the people? Surely a person would only work in his/her own favor?

I believe that last statement outlines Dagoth Ur in a lot of ways. However, I would never surmise so much due to the definition of my carefully selected word "surmise", I do not have enough evidence or the knowledge and wisdom to process it all to make an accurate judgement.

I do not tell you this to force you into a neutral stance. Nor do I tell you this to gain reason or favor in your mind. I post this... ,let's call it a theory, theory to free you from such binding words. "Good" and "Evil" are horrible words that bind us to a purpose. They drive us so that we act in another's favor.

More maybe later...

- DJ

*Looks up and around up in the sky, behind and everywhere he can that is over his head*

"I don't see it..."

*Looks around some more, happens to look down at the ground about six feet in front of him*

"Oh, there it is..."

-----------------
The bird and the maiden may both be intent on singing, but that doesn't make them relatable in the slightest.

:turtle:

But you are comparing two different things right from the start. Killing someone in the street randomly is not the same as shooting an enemy soldier. Sure they both have a dead human in the end, but everything else around that is different.

This is something that really makes me wonder about people, when they can have a logic like that and say two things that aren't the same, are.

The biggest problem with Dagoth Ur is that he did everything to gratify himself. So did Almalexia to an extent (though you can argue this.) Vivec actually wanted to help the Dunmer, Sotha Sil seemed to be too much of a book worm over all, but Dagoth Ur just wanted to play hero. "Im doing it for the people" as a dictator will triumphantly say.




My point was to relate their intentions. Both had good intentions, neither went on about it the right way.

Yup. Only shades of Grey, don't let Athesdas fool you with his extremist examples. He's a bit 'passionate' when it comes to this topic.

lol Now you see Extremist is actually a relative word. Anyway why are you telling him not to listen to me instead of making a counter point. :0

And passionate is a bit over the top. It is just interesting to see how people think. "If i think it is okay, then it's okay."

Edit: Though I don't deny there is grey don't get me wrong.

Evil is just a title bestowed upon the loser of a conflict in order to justify the winners actions.

During the conflict good and evil is relevant to which side you happen to be on.

Unless you've got some major moral dilemma with certain acts, in which case you change sides.

So if Hitler would have won WW2 he would have been good?

If Dagoth Ur would have done what he planned to do he would have been good?

People are stupid. Did everyone in Germany during WW2 think that they were evil? Hitler gave them reasons to think that they were the good guys, and that they were just being oppressed by the Allies. If Hitler won everyone born after WW2 would almost be brainwashed to see his point of view and so from their perspective he would have been good, and would have done everything for the right reasons. It's not like absolutely everyone in the world thinks that the Allies are good.

It's the same if Dagoth Ur had won, everyone would think he was good because he drove away the n'wah, and everyone is told that are n'wah are bad and everyone is better off with Dagoth Ur in charge.

History favours the victor.

But does it change truth? What actually happened?

How do you know Hitler would brainwash people. Maybe you are brainwashed by evil western capitalism and you are a slave of the collective buyers that make up the western world.

Well only the people that favored Dagoth Ur would be left alive, so ofcourse they would view him as a god.

Exactly, maybe we are evil and just don't know it. Some people do view the Western world as evil. History is written by the survivors, the people who win and so there is always going to be bias towards the victors.

It's the same with Dagoth Ur, only his supporters are left alive so they are the only ones to write the history books. If you grow up in a world were every book you read talks about how awesome Dagoth Ur is and how bad it was living with the n'wah then you're going to think that Dagoth Ur is top bloke because you don't know any better.

Now do you see the difference between truth and perception?

Unfortunately you've just proven that you lack the subtlety to understand any of my logic and my reasons by stating "they both have a dead human in the end." I never stated that the man I shot was at random, that was your own assumption. I could have been planning to shoot the man. In any case they were both malevolent acts. The killer in either case shot the victim of their own free will. In a neutral court they could both be considered equally guilty.

I am not trying to insult you by saying you lack subtlety, but I do want you to realize that my logic has many, many layers to it. It's more than just "shoot a bullet kill a man".



:lol: Well when you feel you have a point to prove...

By the way, this is the first time Proweler has ever agreed with me. Truly a post to remember! (I'm also Krimson Draegon and Mr. Draegon and he's never agreed with me under those aliases, I'm not talking about just this account).



That's his point. From a certain point of view the assumption he made was correct.

- DJ

Ummm....You just said if you walk up to a man and shoot him in the head that it is evil but may not be evil it he was an enemy soldier in war time, more or less.

Yea...so you either forgot what you wrote, or you meant to write something else.

Dagoth Ur committed evil-seeming actions to achieve other goals of his in which he viewed his intentions as good. Anyone who played TES 3 and spoke with Dagoth Ur before they fought knows that Dagoth Ur (whether he really was crazy or not) acted humane and courteous while conversing with the Nearaverine.

To best describe it would be to quote Voryn's exact words on the subject:






-DL :chaos:

But rarely are we presented with the whole truth. That's why millions worshipped Stalin while he had their parents killed.

It's easier for us because we are outside the game and aren't as influenced by opinion and bias, we can take in all the details. But there is still a fair amount of bias, we are forced to play with Dagoth Ur as the 'bad guy' and the bad guy is always evil. It takes us a while to think "Hmmm... Dagoth Ur wasn't so bad, he was doing some stuff for the greater good I suppose." But many people think the same thing about Hitler.

If the game forced us to play from Dagoth Ur's side and we had to help him drive out the n'wah and outlanders then we would see Dagoth Ur as the good guy.

A better question would be "Is Vivec really evil?"

I agree, but truth is not changed by perception.

It might have been interesting to be able to play from Dagoth Ur's side.

Vivec evil? His methods where more subtle then Dagoth Ur (no corpses) and he seemed to really love his people. He started out petty and childish but it seemed he grew out of that and really wanted to help the Dunmer.

Now you are nitpicking. You make yourself and your platform less attractive with every single post.



:rofl:

- DJ

But then there's the whole 'What really happened at Red Mountain?' 'Who killed Nervar?' 'Should Vivec have made himself a god?' 'Did Vivec betray the Dunmer by letting all the Imperials in?' line of arguement, so you can see that he could be evil if you argued it right. Especially from Dagoth Ur's perspective.

I'm not knit picking. It's what you said. You can call my platform less attractive and laugh all you want. It doesn't make your point any more viable by taking that course of action. I take it you have no other point.





Good people (er god kings or what not) can do evil things and still be good and evil ones can do good things and still be evil. Good comparisant between Vivec and Ur IMO.

The problem is we can not for sure determine if his acts and intentions were good or not, only within our perspective and by our individual definitions of such concepts and even then we may not have the whole truth.

Oh no, someone having a different sort of logic then you, the horror!

The situations were indeed different, but the act was the same. Now, the question is does it matter that the situations were different? Should some (or even all) "moral laws" apply in all situations or are they are flexible? Some people would, logically, like you, decide that the situation does matter, while other would, logically, decide that it doesn't.

In the sense that "history is written by the winner," yes, or at least the general populace's perceptions would be far different.

As far as in actuality, how could I or anyone else perceive the truth, if there is indeed one at all?

What is so often frustrating about you, Athesdas, is that you give the impression that you believe you perceive the truth more clearly than us lesser mortals who are subject to our own flaws, imperfecations, failures, biases, emotions, and incorrect perceptions and senses. Just pointing that out.

Yet he had Dissident Priests, followers of the Nerevarine prophecies, and others imprisoned and killed, merely because he thought they may be a threat to his power. I think that is evil. At least the act, as for the individual I have a tendency to hate to label a person as entirely good or evil, though I still do it anyways, sometimes. In truth, though, I believe that we all have flaws and "evil" within us as well as good, so such grand generalizations are often not fair.

All very well put, BTW.

He wanted to do it for the better of Morrowind. He was just in the way of the Nerevarine because killing him was part of the prophicies. In turn the Nerevarine was just a pawn of Azura.

He really was a good guy and he'll be missed.

Vivec was a liar, very potentially a traitor and murderer. He didn't release a plague, didn't destroy people's personalities and pervert their bodies. There's a difference between a few evil deeds on a small scale which have been mitigated over time and ethnic-cleansing.

I mean, I agree that things are not so easy to slice most of time. I don't know exactly where I'd draw the line between "I find that morally reprehensible" and "that's evil", but I sure as hell know that what Dagoth Ur was doing was well over that line.

I'm not exactly fond of Vivec, but you just can't place conspiracy and lies in the same category with mass-murder. You just... can't.

Lorus it isn't that I think someone having a different logic then me is bad. Where did I ever state that? That is your assumption. I simply stated that it is something to note that some people think "as long as I think it is okay, then it is." This goes for anyone, even a KKK member for example. Just because they think killing black people is ok, doesn't make it so regardless if the whole world agreed.

The thing is that killing someone because you want to and killing someone i defense are not the same thing. I had several pastors try to push that on me and it isn't the case. They are two different things regardless of what they may look like.

Winners do write the history, but they do not write truth regardless of our ability or inability to see it as such.

I have a question for you Lorus. How dare you assume that I think I know truth better then anyone else? Who gave you the right to tell me that I think I am better then everyone else? I'm sorry you think feel that, but that isn't how i feel.

Actually I don't think it was Vivec who ordered the Dissident priests killed. That was the Temple. (Correct me If i am wrong, with a source please.)