Everyone is aware that the Daedra often require you to do terrible things in order to be rewarded.

But there are a few artifacts that can be obtained without harming innocents, and that's what I want to talk about.

In those cases, is it still morally wrong simply for the fact that you're associating yourself with a Daedric Prince? Of course, some would claim that morals are relative but I'm asking for your personal view.

Even if you weren't asked to do anything particularly bad, the one you're accepting a gift from makes a habit of ruining people's lives or even killing them.

That's why I'd say that even having anything to do with a Daedric Prince already is morally questionable.

There is no morality in that universe.

Never got that vibe from TES. It seems pretty black and white in most of the time.

If I inserted my own personal morals into this game, I wouldn't be doing anything other than harvesting ingredients and working on a farm or in a tavern, far away from any stupid conflict that may be going on. I think it's important to just play the game and have fun.

Not every Daedra fits into our image of evil. Namely Azura, Meridia, and Malacath. And then there's the issue of what you use the artifact for. If a Daedra gives you an artifact and tells you to use it to kill in its name, and you don't, that's actually an act of good. The artifact is going to exist either way, and could have fallen into the hands of someone evil but didn't.

I meant personal as in your view on the subject. We're talking about the TES world rather than ours.

There is Goldbrand, which you obtain by defeating combatants competing for the reward. I used it to finish Oblivion's main quest, but it was given by a particularly cruel Daedric Lord like Boethiah. See the paradox?

And it does send him souls. "Take Goldbrand, sheathe it in your enemies, and offer their souls as praise to me."

Being able to defy that spiteful ***** Azura was one of the best parts of the game.

Elaborate, please.

Like a lot of things in the Elder Scrolls universe, Daedric Princes don't really fit into our standards of good and evil. None of the Daedric Princes--or any of the gods really--can be described as wholly good or evil. 'Course there are some, like Molag Bal for example, that can be seen as mostly evil from most points of view. Now, can we say that most Daedric Princes are cruel and egotistical? Yep, pretty much.

Either way, unless they're designed to directly cause suffering I don't see why you should consider yourself evil for using a Daedric Artifact (especially ones like Azura's Star, the Ring of Khajiit, Spellbreaker, Dawnbreaker, etc.). Even then, maybe you're doing the world a favor by getting rid of the weak that probably wouldn't have made much out of their existence on Nirn? But maybe you're denying them another chance to do so in their next life?

Boethiah is simply one of the posts of the Invisible Gate, along with Azura. The dual aspects of six and murder, which Mephala transforms from instinct into art. Remember that to the Dunmer, these three and what they represented were once the chief gods, before the faces of six and murder were changed into the Tribunal. The Daedra are the radical critique of the Aurbis, and are therefore needed, even in their less pleasant aspects. "'But then why, you ask, do the Daedra wish to meddle with the Aurbis? It is because they are the radical critique, essential as all martyrs. That some are more evil than others in not an illusion. Or rather, it is a necessary illusion.' - 36 lessons, sermon 32, The Scripture of the mace.

While we're on the subject of the cruelty of gods, the supposedly good Aedra did, after giving up chunks of themselves, betray, murder, dismember and in some cases eat parts of Lorkhan.

Associating yourself with a god in the sense of old-timey pagan style mythology (which TES is built on) is associating yourself with a being who, it can be safely assumed, considers humans at best a toy to be cast off when bored of it or at worst an ant to burn the legs off of for amusemant. Only Lorkhan seems any different, having created a mud-cage for mortals out of love, and he is often a battle-god and blood-starved depending on the local flavor of his worshippers.

tl;dr: the OP is oversimplifying the morality of a series that only fell back on whitehat gods vs. blackhat demons in its weakest installment, and in many mythologies gods are by nature cruel.

I was referring to the fact that there are universally frowned upon deeds in TES. Not literally everyone, but the majority across the provinces.

-Praying to the Night Mother

- Being a member of the Dark Brotherhood

-Daedric Worship

-Murdering an innocent.

-Necromancy

I don't see a lot of moral relativism there.

I think it really depends on what Daedric Prince your associating with, and two quests come to mind when confronted with this question: The Only Cure, given by Peryite, and The Break Of Dawn, given by Meridia.

In the quest The Only Cure, Peryite has tasked you with finding a follower of his that has gone rogue, who is leading a band of people who have been afflicted with a plague that Peryite himself created, and eliminate him, along with the victims. At the conclusion of the quest, I seem to recall you can essentially tell Peryite to take a hike when he tells you your his new champion, I forget. Your reward for the quest is SpellBreaker, a Dwemer/Daedric artifact.

In the quest The Break Of Dawn, Meridia has tasked you with removing a Necromancer, and his followers from her temple. Clearing out the temple nets you DawnBreaker, a Daedric artifacte

The differences there are that Peryite created the situation that you have to clean up, whereas the Necromancer is a threat that just decided to move into Meridia's temple.

Refer to TengenToppa's post.

Could be that you're relying too much on an Imperial perspective. That'll happen when the more recent games have been set in human provinces. You have government sanctioned murders, full-on daedra worship, and religious necromancy(as much as the Dunmer like to deny it, it's the same thing) in Morrowind. In High Rock you have the Daedric Princes being summoned in the temples to the Divines themselves as part of the services available to certain members. And like in Cyrodiil necromancy is at least legal. Quite a few races have even made slaves of the other races and it had been accepted by the majority for a long time.

Oh, right, and let's not forget the "Divines" tend to be just as cruel as the Daedra for no good reason as well. I thought the Nights of the Nine expansion would make that at least a little obvious. Not to mention all the genocidally-racist jerks that are considered heroes in the setting.

As a few replies above me have already kindly elaborated on the issue of grey morality in TES, I will only add my weight to their points with this vague statement of opinion: Daedra are not inherently evil nor good. In fact, there's not a true distinction between Aedra and Daedra.

Also, I hope that you haven't somehow had your perception of Daedra swayed by the Vigilants of Stendarr found wandering throughout the snowy hills of Skyrim. Those guys are boobs, persecuting Daedra worshipers without bias. They are hardly paragons of righteousness.

Not Imperial so much. Redguards and Nords also aren't too fond of those. The Dunmer are open to almost anything, though. Elven races in general anyhow.

I think the idea that Daedric Princes are neither good or evil is the fans perception alone. The franchise doesn't seem to do much to support this notion. The Dragonborn DLC's questline basically is about how the Daedra often ruin people's lives. And Mehrunes Dagon was behind two major events Tamriel will only remember with dread.

If you're referring to Kellen's family curse, it was a result from the actions of his ancestor. Other than that, the Aedra aren't very similar to their counterparts. A Dunmer painter was given a special brush from Dibella in Oblivion, and she didn't demand anything in return.

Meridia and Azura seem pretty decent. The rest of the Daedra are either wholly evil or love to mess with mortals for laughs. Molag Bal seems to care a lot for his followers, unlike some Daedra, but the rest of the mortals are fair game.

When I play a character, I usually treat it as myself. As such, I don't usually use daedric artifacts to avoid involvement with the daedra's infamy. That's merely my thoughts on the matter.

When playing to simply mess around, I'll pick up the artifacts and go crazy.

Azura. Meridia. Namira. Nocturnal. Peryite. Sanguine. Hircine. Malacath.

Really only a handful of Daedric Princes are more "evil" than not. Even then, they're more of a necessary type of evil. Worshiping a prince would be like worshiping a volcano. Yes, it'll destroy things if its active, but it also produces very fertile soil. Oh, and the volcano would be self-aware. Calling the Princes evil would be like calling a volcano evil.

What fertile soil has any of these Daedric Princes ever produced? where's the necessity in them?

and where's the source that describes them as un-sentient / inanimate beings that have no more choice than a rock?

Mehrunes Dagon is also the prince of Ambition. Ambition is needed for social mobility, invention, and creativity.

And mythology describes them as un-sentient. Sort of. It's not uncommon for gods and powerful spirits to be anthropomorphic personifications of natural forces.

Malacath is the protector of the spurned. Or is it better that those who are spurned have no help or comfort? Azura helped to destroy Morrowind, which was needed so it could be reborn. Would it be better if men died of starvation in ancient times rather than hunt? Because without Hircine, there is no hunting. On account of he is hunting.

The mythology of our world? it isn't quite the Aedra and Daedra, also only one of few religions that describe their god / gods as un-sentient.

and don't you mean it's not an uncommon description for gods and powerful spirits? We don't really interact with Gods in our world to factually state that they are commonly un-sentient.

While some of these seem necessary, how does this do anything but describe them as sentient? Most of everything a Daedric prince does and says all falls back on how they feel, or perceive things, they seem to have a common opinion on which to judge others by.

Malacath, he has compassion for the unfortunate, the spurned right? How can he feel compassionate if he can't feel? Not to mention Malacath wasn't even always a daedric prince, Trinimac the Aldmer Hero doesn't seem to lose sentience as Boethia craps him out.

Azura cares for her followers,

Sheogorath has an opinion on his favorite septims (Pelagius and Martin).

That said, it brings up another interesting concept.

If the Daedra and Aedra are un-sentient, how does a mortal mantle them? Get rid of your sentience of course!

But with monkeymoness's logic, a mortal could also mantle a volcano, or any inanimate object.

Or, there's a bit of a connection between these mortals and Daedra / Aedra. perhaps they're both sentient, in that they walk a specific way, and a mortal can walk like them until they walk the mortal.

I just don't see "Walk like a volcano until the volcano walks like you" adding up well.

I was comparing them to a force of nature/natural law(which they are, like all "divines"), not an object.

I went with volcano because it was the most obviously good+bad thing I could think of.

I doubt that. The daedra weren't the ones made Mundus. Malacath didn't invent protection of the spurned, he's just part of the remains of Trinimac who continues to patronise his now spurned followers. Some mortals on Nirn may attribute spheres to the daedra princes, but that doesn't make them true.

Still, anything with sentience can be classified under a certain system of morality.