There's always a question with the Princes of Oblivion, whether they can be counted as "good" or not. With the likes of Molag Bal, Mehrunes Dagon, and the like, the answer is clear on the side of "bad daedra". Sheggy and Malacath, though officially labeled "bad daedra" in Morrowind, are often recognized by us as more "alien", "outside good and evil" or what have you.

Then there's Meridia: shining light against the undead. A clear example of "good daedra", is she not? Bringing the light of holy vengeance against abominations of darkness, you might think of her followers as natural allies of the followers of Arkay, in particular (and also Stendarr, as seen in Skyrim).

But the thing I only just realized about Meridia is that she's not good, not really. Sure, her actions are usually beneficial to the living... but do we not regularly have debates over whether, for example, Vampires can be considered "always evil"? For example: consider Janus Hasildor, who has long and ably ruled Skingrad. While others might consider him eligible for an exception, not Meridia. For Meridia, he isn't the exception to the rule; he's the PURPOSE of the rule.

For the Daedra are always, in the final anolysis, more aligned to Padhomay than Anu, and Meridia is no different. Vampires like Count Hasildor are very much like those selfish few among the original spirits who were not content to appear, live for a time, and then return to the flux of the void, but rather continued their present existence at the expense of the future, ruling over and absorbing others of the original spirits.

So whether you have a society that is terrorized by undead, or a well ordered society ruled by a cabal of mostly benevolent vampires (who actually do a better than average job ordering society and upholding justice, and who do an excellent job regulating vampirism in their area), Meridia doesn't care. She's there to destroy abominations, not engage in philosophical discussion.

Daedra and evil is always a fascinating subject. Thanks for bringing this up, and I think that the hypothetical dangers Meridia poses are a fairly new perspective.

A useful quote from the 36 Lessons:

The comparison of alternate demons, I think Vivec is suggesting, forms an essential part of forming beliefs. Meridia is evil to some, good to others: the evaluation of the extra-mundrial spirits enables the criticism of our own values. The fact that the Daedra take part in the Aurbis - and become "martyrs" - is all about them being rendered into the "simplified model" of religion, where spirits in fact beyond the full comprehension of mere mortals are appeased, and subjected to rules, in order to "teach" the mortal world according to their own strange schemes.

The "necessary illusion" of evil and good spirits, that function on apparently different reasoning to the inhabitants of Nirn, is the ability of mortals to swallow such confusing concepts as absolute truth, morality, justice, meaning and so on that really offer no definite answers but instead we are perfectly capable of functioning on assumptions of veracity about. Is Meridia evil? No correct answer, but given your situation, if you were an inhabitant of Mundus, you would have to have some answer. Is Molag Bal, for instance, evil? I very much hope you'd say yes, but if you were to say no, you could work with that as your defining rule. And just like that, you have "martyred" the spirit into something simpler: and you have defined a belief system for yourself. There is a theme throughout Vivec's teaching that the eternal, transcendent mysteries, when fixed or written, are somehow diminished, slain; and that the magic word is maybe, admitting the possibility of something beyond absolutes.

Also, on the subject of Meridia, who is apparently more than just a Daedra but some sort of fallen Star Orphan, you may be interested in this answer Michael Kirkbride gave in a http://www.imperial-library.info/content/michael-kirkbride-irc-qa-sessions last year:

Whether Meridia is good or evil, we are nonetheless to consider the possibility that her relation to Magnus, the Mundus, and memory indicates that she is sympathetic.

I think "sympathetic" is a better word than "good" or "evil," really, and I thank you for bringing it up. Meridia's goals often fall in line with our own, so we're more willing to look well on her than we are on other Daedric Princes. At the same time, though, as you point out, Meridia has not always stood with our sympathies: Umaril was her champion, and her minions fought on behalf of the Ayleids who (we are led to understand) were particularly "evil" from the perspective of Men. Meridia is not only like every Prince, but every sentient being, in that she has her own agenda; as a Prince, though, she is free to consider that agenda more important than the concerns of the mortals whose lives are involved in it. When mortals have this mindset, people don't usually like them; when gods have this mindset, people usually put up with it.

My opinion on "good" and "evil" as terms of conversation has been stated elsewhere, and if only I knew where to find those discussions, I would link them here. I will let it suffice that I do not believe they are useful, as one person's "good" is another person's "evil," and to claim that something is "good" or "evil" usually implies an objective state of "good" or "evil" that simply doesn't exist. As I say above, I think "sympathetic" is a better term, and even then there is no objective standard for what literally everyone should sympathize with or not; however, usually the term "sympathetic" is considered more easily debatable, and not seen in such black-and-white terms. I believe it will be more useful to the current topic.

This is an excellent point, and I thank you for bringing it up.

I agree with you on this. "Good" and "evil" are not objective qualities, they are relative. There are choices that people can make which bring evil on both the victim in the short term, and the perpetrator in the long term (and/or his progeny), but "good" and "evil" are categories of consequences. There are no evil people, or even evil acts... only evil consequences. We describe that as evil that which brings evil upon ourselves.

Nature provides the perfect example of the balance good and evil. When a predator goes to hunt, if he is successful, that is good for the predator, but evil for the prey... and vice versa. The prey would describe the predator as evil. The predator's cubs would not.

I only want to say that what people for thousands of years have been calling "good" and "evil" is almost certainly more complicated than "favorable" or "unfavorable". At least, it warrants a more complex approach than a watered-down relativism. I think we can acknowledge the subjectivity of individual perspective without pretending to a theoretical relativism that will almost always fall apart when the rubber hits the road.

You're going to have to explain how my opinion above is "watered-down" or will "fall apart" when put to the test. This is my view of the world on a day-to-day basis, and it has yet to fail me.

Sorry - I didn't mean that as a personal attack.

Moral relativism is very attractive, no doubt in part because it allows us to sidestep uncomfortable debates. If there's no objective good or evil, there can be a sense that any opinion or action is OK, depending on the perspective. And of course people often have different opinions on things. But my issue with relativism is that it more often than not allows us to hand-wave important discussions because "anyone has their own opinion", the corrollary to which is often that any opinion is valid.

But think of real-world examples. Is it good or bad to decide, as a society, that women shouldn't be allowed access to education? A philosophically consistent cultural relativist will say, "We can't judge that society by our own standards." Consistent relativism can be paralyzing.

Recognizing difference is important, but too often I see (especially in my students) a readiness to abandon moral debates in the name of relativism rather than engaging in them.

I would argue instead that relativism, or at least my personal brand of it, allows for more in-depth understanding (though perhaps not debate) because it aims to specify the individuals and the groups who are being affected by these decisions and policies. In your example of women's education, for instance, instead of debating whether it is right or wrong, I am much more interested in learning of the reasons for the policy's implementation, the benefits that the society (and all of its constituent groups and individuals) will see or expect to see from the policy, and the problems that the society (and all of its constituent groups or individuals) will see or expect to see from the policy. Claiming that this policy is "right" or "wrong" is superfluous, really, because no matter which position you choose, someone is bound to disagree with you (otherwise this would not be such a well-known example in the world today), which on its own proves that matters of "right" or "wrong" are opinions rather than facts, and are (as far as I can tell) largely defined by individual or societal perspective.

So you argue that relativism is more practical as it gives us less reasons to destroy each other? This speaks to me about the "Arena" of Tamriel. I've yet to see any Tamrielic race that encodes into its "morality" the practice of living inside another's perspective and judgement rather than triumphing over it (except, perhaps, the Hist - it's hard to tell in this case). Sorry if this is off-topic, I'm just as interested in the non-TES version of this debate as its lore rendering.

Well, this thread has rather quickly gotten 'off-topic' from the OP in any case!

Peloponnese, all the things you mention are quite reasonable things to consider as part of a debate on that particular issue. I hope that anyone considering such an issue would examine as many aspects as possible before coming to a hasty conclusion - but the conclusion is the very thing that is missing in your anolysis: a practical application, a decision. Once you have learned the reasons behind the policy, the benefits and risks and so on, you would likely arrive at a decision, pro or con: "right" or "wrong". I'm not sure what you mean by such a claim being superfluous - surely it's not superfluous to the people who are affected by such a policy? I guess it would be superfluous if the debate were entirely academic, as it is here.

People disagree about a given issue. Each of us, after all sides have been examined, would likely come to a point of agreeing with one side or the other (to a greater or lesser degree), or else choosing to remain in a limbo of non-decision. I certainly wouldn't consider myself an "action without thought" kind of guy, but thought without action can be just as problematic. And in order to get to a point of action, moral decisions must be made.

There are no good or bad Daedra. If there was Meridia would certainly not be good.