Okay, a more specific question for you guys.

Excluding Daedric artifacts and Vampirism, what do Molag Bal and Mehrunes Dagon reward there followers with, if anything? This is why I started this thread, I honestly don't think worshipers of these two Daedra will be rewarded in death. But that's my uneducated opinion.

Good point, but..... Malog Bal was not concerned with creating Mundus. Now he mirrors Nirn with his version of what it should be. He knows of CHIM. I think he doesn't mind taking away parts he does not like. He wants to control the dream the way he sees fit. If lucid dreaming I would change things to my liking as well.

Edit: In Anu's case it's "Cogito ergo sum et non sum"

The fact that there are other societies with other ideas of "good" and "evil" is evidence enough, I think. We can consider them evil as much as we want because they advocate social interactions that we disagree with, but since they're saying the same thing about us, and neither side has actual proof that the other is in the wrong, obviously our ideas of good and evil are not universal fact (because if they were, everyone would necessarily agree with them).

About child sacrifice: I am explaining that we view one society as villainous and another society as good, when in this instance both of them are guilty of effectively the same thing. I am pointing out that we have a very skewed idea of "good" and "evil" based on our personal preferences, which is also evidence for the notion that these terms are subjective catch-alls for "those we like" and "those we don't like." To suggest that I am somehow advocating child sacrifice, or claiming that murder is "good," is a complete misrepresentation--because after all, if I avoid the term "evil" as much as possible, don't you think I'd avoid the term "good" just as much?

Can we get back on topic please?

Well we don't really know since there is no recorded books that say what happens to champions of the respective daedra princes, but considering their personality I think they would make use of them in their realms the really good ones in my opinion. I mean Molag bal does not strike me as the kind of daedra that would create/invest a vampire lord/champion and then when they die just throw them into torture pens. I mean molag bal's other name is called the Lord of schemes he would make use of them in my opinion to help spread his influence. If the said champion knew anyone in life he could use this person to spread more corruption plus Molag bal tends to bring people back from the dead heck I think he is the only daedra we have seen bring people back from the dead.

Heck I mean going by molag bal's quest he does not pick champions often if they are not worth his time I mean if you pass/fail the conversation checks Logrolf is surprised or does not really believe you and thinks you are a simply messenger. XD

I mean who knows what happens when someone becomes truly connected with a daedra thanks to dragonborn we actually have a trait of daedra corruption and thats black eyes so in my opinion all daedra make use of their champions and creations in some way.

I mean Molag Bal seems like a daedra who keeps his end of the deals I mean he gives you a free house in skyrim just beating a guy to death and making him submit to him.

Well, our point of view is mortal, so...

I view both as villainous, so who's "we"? The same people that uphold or promote child sacrifice in the western world? I would not take their opinions as reasonable.

Lol, good point. But that's a can of worms we shouldn't open.

I wonder though, what use would a normal person be to Molag bal? Because he seems to only "care" for people with power...

Maybe he likes to have followers to fight off or mess with followers of boethiah?

Thats why Molag Bal rarely has mortal champions since he only picks those who he thinks are strong and interesting and being the lord of dominnation, corruption and schmes his requirements are going to be waaay up there compared to most daedric princes.

Plus I going off what Logrolf reaction and what serana says since as you said he is only interested in people who have the strength and the will to follow him. Plus he is also known as the lord of schemes so whenever he picks a champion I feel he has more in mind for them in death and life this is just my opinion. Plus at the end of his quest he says

Plus its more of the fact that we have barely any information on this area concerning bal hence why I am hoping that TESO will give more information on this.

Plus going by the voice actor reveal he is verbally destroying meridia which I think is awesome.

Huh, true and we never see followers of Molag bal (Unless you count the vamps as followers) so yea..we don't know much, perhaps like you said, TESO might shed some light on the king of swing.

What about Dagon? I never got into OB but I know the whole game is based on him coming to Mundus. Is there anything that he offers his followers?

Well we have camoran saying that they would be given paradise who knows if dagon will give it them to them I mean what they think is paradise would be completely different to what we think paradise is. I mean divayth fyr said in a book that dagon does not speak a falsehood so they may have got the paradise they wished.

That is interesting to know...I mean the guy who wrote the book could've been lying but I see no reason for dagon to do so. (But again, I'm not a lore master or anything so I could be wrong)

I do not. It is true, however that their spheres of representation may entertain ideas that are certainly usefull at times, but to that, we must consider not only theory, but practice of the malevolent two you have listed throughout history.

Firstly, most of the Daedric Princes represent a fairly absolute version of their sphere. I'd argue that any of the Deadric Princes in their extremes were evil, because such extremes generally are evil.

Pela, what about taboos that hold across multiple cultures?

As for the OP...

I think Molag Bal is the sort of Daedric Prince you follow if you don't plan to die at all. If you aspire to high vampirism, or just plain immortality, or even and especially CHIM . so why follow him? Because he's very powerful.

Dagon is a bit more complex, but I'd put the emphasis on change rather than destruction. I think a lot of people seeking to make a better world would try to make use of Dagon to destroy the old order. How successful they might be...

There are certain actions that would make it really, really hard to live with other people, obviously. I'm sure there are such taboos as you describe for that reason alone, since society literally depends on people living together in order to work (though if you're referring to something that isn't as central to keeping society together, I would have to know the specific taboo you mean before making a judgment). Does that mean that these things are "evil," though? Would they still be "evil" if a hermit living alone did them? (Obviously if these actions required a second person in order to do, a hermit living alone couldn't do them in the first place, but still...) My point is that these actions are looked down upon because they could damage society--it's a practical, not a moral problem.

If that is your definition of evil, then so be it, but the definition I have been taught and have been led to believe is that "evil" is a moral label, just as "good" is. On the other hand, practicality in terms of society is no more moral than it is in terms of anything else; it is, after all, more practical to park your car closer to the door of a supermarket than it is to park farther away because longer walks are more inconvenient, but that does not make longer walks morally bankrupt.

Again, Ruffly, if you're thinking of something that isn't as important to social cohesion, then please tell me.

This is an interesting point. I think we can clearly see the kind of societies these deities engender from the Savage Garden and Skyrim's Vampire Clan. One possesses a sort of honing of natural abilities (in theory) through constant conflict, and the fact no one is ever allowed to die (if one holds a Daedric view of the world, after all, death is a thoroughly temporary affair). The other rests on a sort of elitist, insider/outsider, predator/prey social order, in which the predators can actually be quite genial toward one another.

I'm not sure either of the examples of the societies that are created by the followers of Mehrunes and Molag are wholly evil per say. Pretty damn cruel, but there is a rational structure there, of a sort. Both are also very true to their respective masters' spheres.

Well Pela, I'm actually not sure. I figured you'd have a broader knowledge of such things. But unsanctioned murder, illigitimate overthrow of authority, [censored], violation of contract, theft...maybe canibalism?

What I mean is, let us take a positive thing, change. Generally change is good, and encourages health, but Dagon isn't just change, he is violent, turbulent extreme change. Now I still think his sphere has its place, after all, destruction has its place in the world...necessary evil is a term for a good reason, but the necessary part doesn't counter the evil...you follow me?

I expect that Molag Bal's followers often recruit by corrupting people until they can be bribed/blackmailed into serving them. In which case he wouldn't need to offer a very generous reward. Also Nightingales strike me as archetypal warlocks/witches going by Morrowind's class description. Other daedra princes, including these, may offer similar contracts.

Moral problems can be practical and in some ethical systems, are all practical, but doesn't mean that all practical problems are moral problems. Parking one's own car closer to the supermarket is convenient for the individual, not society.

Just to take the examples you provide:

Unsanctioned (what do you mean by this?) murder, especially murder that goes unpunished, discourages people from living together because they can never be sure that their neighbor isn't going to kill them for no reason. Society requires some level of trust between the people living in it.

Illegitimate overthrow of authority firstly needs to be defined. After all, the term "illegitimate" technically means "against the law," which is pretty much any overthrow of authority anyway (the authority being overthrown has written those laws, obviously). I imagine that the only people who have ever claimed that it is "legitimate" to overthrow any authority at all are the people attempting to do it, or those whose society has been formed by such an overthrow--and I have a sneaking suspicion that they are appealing to morality, rather than literal legality, when they claim that (obviously different people claim these things for different reasons, but I imagine that this is the norm). In that case, legitimacy and illegitimacy becomes something more akin to an opinion, which furthers my initial point.

Regardless of all that, and more important to your initial point (sorry for the tangent), overthrowing the authority that organizes (larger) societies invites a level of chaos that society as a whole is formed in order to stave off. Again, it's a practical matter (though in most cases, it's obviously more practical for the folks writing the laws than anything else; the prevention of chaos is just a side-benefit, assuming the people follow the laws being written. If they don't, then it's possible that any number of other laws and taboos are also being broken at the same time--such as murder, for instance).

[censored] is, again, a matter of violating trust. Assuming you live in a society where women are legally considered equals with men, the women themselves would like to trust their neighbors not to hurt them. In the case of living in a society where women are not treated as equals, their husbands would like to trust that their children are actually theirs (and considering the number of stories we hear on the news about women being [censored] and then blamed for it, sometimes with harsh legal penalties attached, the taboo in this case is aimed at protecting the male line, rather than the women themselves).

Violation of contract: Again, the issue at hand is trust. If you can't fulfill your promises, then what good are you to your neighbors?

Cannibalism is an interesting case because not every society considers it taboo. Certainly everyone seems to be a bit squeamish about eating people they know (and that might well be instinctive, because after all, considering your neighbor as a possible food source again leads to the question, "Can I trust you not to kill me (for food in this case, rather than for the lulz)?"). And most societies that I know of have certainly extended that squeamishness to include everyone in the human race. The fact that some societies have not, or at least did not do so before the missionaries came and forced them to, is telling, I think.

Molag Bal has his place, you're absolutely right. He plays a part in mortal lives, and they may not appreciate it or thank him for it, but it is a fact. To assign "good" or "evil" to that existence, regardless of the label "necessary" in front of it, is unnecessary opinion. At most, he is extremely inconvenient to the current order of society in Tamriel--but if that society were to change in a way that is more conducive to what Molag Bal represents, mortals would learn to value him more (as the Chimer learned to value the patron of assassination and the representation of overthrowing legitimate authority to the point of forging a functioning society that revolves around them). I feel that your point about Bal only supports my own.

I'm most interested in the bolded section here, because I'm not sure how you're defining "moral problems." If I may, I define "morality" as "a question of good and evil." And I have already explained that I believe "good" and "evil" are invented catch-all terms that people use to express approval or disapproval, while (especially in the latter case) refusing to see the other person's point of view--they are opinions to me. After all, even in my arguments about societal practicality, I have never claimed that society was a good thing. It is a means of people coming together for mutual aid and protection (which for me personally is convenient), but that does not mean that the person living on his own in the countryside, or being so intensely private that he interacts with no one else, is necessarily "evil" for doing so.

Unsanctioned murder would be that not done in times of war, as punishment for crimes, that sort of thing.
Overthrow of authority is the same, to use a fantasy troupe, overthrowing an evil king who abuses his people. The illegitimate example here is the Macbeth style murder of a good king for personal gain by bag guys.


So, then, can't severe violations of trust be termed evil? If they are generally universal condemnations by society

I disagree to say it is pointless opinion to term forces like Dagon and Bal as necessary evils. The distinction between forces for general good (such as trade, trials, justice, mercy) and ones that may result in good, but often manifest in bad forms (destruction, secret murder )
A good example to me would be the Dunmeri House of Troubles, they aren't considered good...but enduring them is considered a trial to make oneself better.
Now I may not agree with the Dunmer, but as I said, do you follow my argument?

I follow what you say, but the fact that your argument depends on terms that I find invalid anyway means that I can never agree with it.

Severe violations of trust are problematic, as I said, in terms of keeping society together. But as I also said, there is nothing that says that society itself is "good." And on a more personal level, violating someone's trust (such as in the case of breach of contract--I'm thinking in terms of basic promises, rather than a legal contract, which is governed by law rather than personal morality) might easily be considered "good" by outside judges when the contract or promise in question revolves around something illegal, and the person breaking the promise is the undercover officer attempting to bring down the trade.

Unsanctioned murder as you describe it is something that, again, is problematic for society; that said, in a personal situation, if you need to rob someone in order to survive, and that person is going to fight for his or her property (as he or she would be expected to do), killing that person is completely unsanctioned--yet, if it's necessary for your own survival, who is to say whether or not it is "evil"?

Going to your examples of overthrowing authority, the fantasy trope of overthrowing the evil king is known for making its villains one-dimensional, and therefore incompatible with real life. Why is the king "evil"? If he does something that the rest of the people don't like, in real life, there would be an actual reason for it. Whether or not that reason would hold water with the people who suffered his actions is debatable, and more than likely it wouldn't. Nonetheless, to judge those actions from only one side of the conflict is a mistake, in my opinion; the king's perspective must also be measured, with the understanding that (regardless of our own determination) the king himself believed that whatever he gained by his actions was worth the suffering of his people. From his perspective, whatever he did that we don't appreciate was still "good."

Your list of "forces for general good" include a few things that I have seen in history, and even in TES, being used for purposes that others have considered "evil." Trade is a weapon, in which more powerful and more productive societies enter smaller societies with resources (but no means of utilizing them) and proceed to dominate those underdeveloped societies. Justice is something that varies from culture to culture; the outcome of trials varies based on which law book is used, any of which is usually based also on the culture that produced it. Each culture has different mores, and those mores may or may not be considered "good" by other cultures.

Your last two sentences are telling, I think. You say that the Dunmeri House of Troubles aren't considered good, but nonetheless it is good to endure them (thus, using them as a tool in order to become better). You then say, "Now I may not agree with the Dunmer." You and I are on the exact same page: This is cultural relativism at work. The Dunmer do this; you do not, and do not agree with it. That does not make it any less relevant for the Dunmer, however, nor does it mean that the Dunmer are necessarily wrong. The nature of "good" and "evil" in this instance depends on who is being asked, you or the Dunmer.

Pelo you are bringing tears to my eyes with your posts.

It's interesting how instinctually uncomfortable moral relativism makes people.

Hold on Pela. I'd like to get a few things clear and see that we're on the same page. In advance; I don't mean to sound condescending, I'm trying to clarify things.

(1) Firstly, a pretty important distinction, are you under the impression that I am debating that morality and goodness are the judgments of certain people at certain times? Because I'd like to make it clear that I'm not. Well, here and now at least. I merely think that we can become concordant that, for example we both think that Dagon is evil (unlikely). Or, as you said to begin with, you think evil is something we all are a little bit of, and since Daedric Princes hold spheres that are particular aspects of people, it makes sense some would be evil...unless to cut it short...you think that Daedric Princes are all enough of the positive and negative traits that they balance?

Next, I entirely disagree about trade. PM me if you'd like, or make a "Daedric Princes, the Real World, and What Is Evil" thread and invite me and I'll be more than happy to debate it. Or we can return to it later in the thread.

(2a) Next, the reason I listed all these... and bear in mind that I pretty much flat out said I'm unsure what taboos hold across cultures and that you'd likely know more than I (History versus economics major, go figure) was to ask if something was universally condemned across cultures, would you consider that evil, and after brief discussion the prevalent element was things that violate our trust (or social contract).

Thus why I asked if that meant that things that did so were evil, and you're response, as best I can gather, is that society is not necessarily good and that actions have complex motivations, which is true and none of which I debate.

(2b) However, I think the Daedric Princes violate the spirit of what you are saying. They personify the element of, as I said, the Macbeth style murder of the King for personal gain. Or, to invoke Dagon (and some OP relevance!) if you're planning on killing your king, or advocating some change, you're not being terribly Dagonic, if you're planning on total revolution and bloody transformation, you're hitting the high notes. Do we disagree on this?

(3a)Now, next, you have to realize we are debating in multiple dimensions. The Elder Scrolls is a brilliant and complex world, but it is also entirely fictional, it is useful to examine it in the lens of both real world, and fantasy troupe lenses, as well as the world we interact with in-game. So for an example of why a king might be evil, well, as far as a king is concerned that would be if he placed his personal wellbeing above that, and to the detriment of, of his people. If he wasted money and lives on wars of adventure, or placed a heavy tax burden on the populace to build new palaces despite having them in abundance, or perhaps if he was ignorant and decided to close all the hospitals in his country because he figured that if people were going to die, it was in the lap of fate and so it wasn't worth investing dollars in healthcare. I am sure you understand the theme. There's also a margin of rationality, and for an action to be 'evil' rather than bad judgement it requires an element of extremity.
(3b) Which brings me to a timely question, would you consider Alduin as he is shown in Skyrim evil? How about Miraak or Harkon?

(5a) To return to some in-game material, and to focus on my original point, I think the Daedric Princes are evil because they are extreme. Their spheres are vast, but they often take the extreme and least socially positive aspect. Take Bal's quest in Skyrim, now Logrolf was not a good guy, but you beat him to death, resurrect him and do the same, all so he bows to Bal. I can't see that as anything but evil? What about a few other Daedric Quests?

(5b) Namira's quest, where you lure a man to a cave to be eaten by cannibals. Namira is the Lady of Decay, there's no need for murder and cannibalism. And, yet she takes it on.

(5c) Or Vaermina, who exists almost solely to torment mortals by plaguing them with ceaseless nightmares. Now, we know Daedra have no need of anything from mortals, so necessity is not (and actually, never is) a question that is present to them. It is never necessary for a Daedric Prince to murder someone because they are starving.

Awaiting your reply.

Pretty much right on, as far as Bal-inspired societies go.

I'm not sure if Dagon would lead himself to a particularly cohesive society though, considering his focus on both destruction and ambition, or at the very least a construct by Dagon would be much less stable than one by Bal (where strength and dominion go hand in hand)

Well with alduin they allude to that question anyway and in my opinion its neither bad or good its just how the world is and he was created to be like its his job to eat everything to usher in the new kalpa/world. To the normal human he would be a crazy "evil" horror but to the planet? It is something that must and will eventually occur to be reborn into the next Kalpa.

My opinion with Alduin? I would say no since its his job to do those things dominate and then proceed to eat everything so the world can be created anew thats how the the cycle works. The so called "good" god akatosh created him. Heck he is his avatar, now we also have to consider that akatosh is somewhat insane and schizophrenic so he chose/made a dragonborn so you could beat him because well reasons and being effected by human faith and all that. Well Alduin was kinda slacking so that might be another he is going to come back and do it again anyway we just delayed the inevitable.

Considering the general temperament of dragons they should be spawns of molag bal being dominating monsters and the strongest ruling and I just hope that someone does not try to connect akatosh with Bal. XD

Heck most heroes of tamriel were backstabbing bastards yet they are lorded as heroes by their people look at tiber septim/Talos and even vivec.