There again would you want to fight the Ordinators if you were a weakened Temple? Because that is what it would come down to. For that to work you would have to rope in another force to take their place - and Helseth aint the power-sharing type ...
True enough, but a weakened Temple would seek ways to replenish its power, and rallying the people against an already unpopular foe is one relatively dependable way of doing that. True, it can backfire. For instance, if one fails to make sufficient headway against the "enemy," then the people begin to see it as an unwarranted sacrifice, or if the "enemy" begins to gain some popular support (which was one of the problems with the Temple's earlier moves against the DP and the NC, which could well make them hesitant to simply set up and pursue another "enemy"), then the people begin to see it as unjust, and one ends up in an even worse position than one started in. But when it works, it works wonderfully-- the people rally to the cause, good triumphs over evil and all live happily ever after. For a few years at least.....
I'm not saying it would necessarily work-- merely that I think it's a tactic that the Temple would consider, and potentially follow.
Well I think you have answered that opening question of yours (emboldened) by the end of your post here = a lie by any other name. He is using part of the truth to mislead in the full knowledge that it will do so = another sort of lie. Call it prevarification or whatever. What it is really about is the intent to mislead. Well think of that as lying.
Well.... yes and no, but probably mostly yes. But then.....
I was fascinated by the (now closed before I could get in on it) thread about Vivec's potential "insanity." I think there's a lot there, and I'll just sort of hit the high points as they come to me, and maybe make some sort of sense of it later.
In the first place, I just don't think that we can apply our notions of truth, intentionality, causality, reality-- any of that-- to a god. Regardless of the details, it seems obvious that his perception of those things differs markedly from ours. As M'Aiq pointed out, his actions and statements could well be entirely explicable and straightforward from his own viewpoint, and merely inexplicable and devious from ours. As a matter of fact, it seems that they are such to him, in any event, though whether that's because of some true insanity (that is-- his misperception of his own reality), an appearance of insanity (that is--
our misperception of his reality) or simple duplicity on his part is not particularly clear, and, I would hazard, cannot be made clear. We have nothing to really measure it by-- we can't access his reality and compare his purported perception of it with the reality itself, so we can't know if his reports of his reality truly do differ from the reality itself, much less, if they do, whether that's through deliberate misrepresentation or inadvertent misperception.
Now-- it can certainly be said that he... let's say he
plays his cards close to his chest. He certainly seems to have more of an understanding of what he's doing and why than he chooses to share. I'm not even convinced though that that implies duplicity as we'd think of it. Though it's not (so far as I know) part of the ES lore, I'm reminded of the notion (best expressed by Douglas Adams) that the universe is purposely inexplicable-- that if anyone were to come to possess a complete understanding of the workings of the universe, that universe (or potentially simply their place in it-- the Dwemer?) would cease to exist. Maybe, from his viewpoint, he's protecting the universe by withholding a broader understanding of it, and of his role in it, from mere mortals.
Okay-- that last is pretty much pure supposition, but I at least can't discount it as a possibility. In any event, to go back and I guess wrap up, I think it's a mistake to try to apply our perception of reality to a god.
That said though, he was and is clearly presented as a character of superficially dubious trustworthiness, and it's only really the source of it and the potential significance of it that's at question. I'm not content with the simple notion that he lies not because I don't believe he does, but simply because we can't know that that which we see as untruth is such from his own inaccessible viewpoint.
And I think that about empties my brain on the subject, for the moment.....