Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Deleted by Bascilica: Double Post.

If i had an intergalactic enemy, I'd want it to be the Tau. i have maximum chance of victory and if i dont, i can still ask to join in. I think they're neutral/good. Better than the imerium atleast.

THE GREATER GAK








MWUAHAHAHAHA CANT CACH MEEE

Kilkrazy wrote:Why would the Eldar keep it a secret?

Because it's part of a plan.

I haven't read any fluff indicating the Tau had attacked Craftworlds or exodites. Is it in some of the novels?

The Tau actually believe it is their destiny to unite the whole galaxy under the principle of The Greater Good.

In a white dwarf there was a games day cityfight event where the Tau invaded a craftworld. I didn’t attend; I just read the little story about the tau invasion in the magazine. There are some exodite worlds to the galactic north of the tau empire that I believe I read about them having conflicts - could be a simple battle map. Sorry if this is fairly weak, but I tend to remember the information and not were I picked it up.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I believe that Games Workshop has officially stated that they're not the same universe; they have a lot of (obvious) parallels, but you can't guarantee that anything will be consistent (which is pretty consistent with their fear of being beholden to any particular rules when it comes to their background). The pretty significant physiological difference between the Orks/Orcs and Elves/Eldar seems to back this up a little; I think the crossovers have pretty much died down, and are pretty much just easter eggs when they appear.

Well that pretty much tanks about 90% of the evidence I had going for that theory. How sure are you about this, as the Liber Chaotica had a lot of 40K visions and equipment displayed within it, not just easter egg level either, but paragraphs dedicated to the chaos legions and daemon prince primarchs envisioned by fantasy seers. It was also a fairly recent publishment. I would argue that the old ones made the elves with the eldar in mind but resorted to modifying humans as a base genesis. The lizardman armybook says that orcs were regarded by the old ones as an undesired contamination to the planet and engaged in one of the largest campaigns the planet has ever seen to exterminate them, but were unsuccessful. Perhaps the orks lost their odd boys due to the culling and became fantasy orcs. Considering how the old ones where altering the planet and developing the elves, dwarfs and humans, how does an unwanted race just show up on your world? I betting on ork spores hit the planet from space junk and messed up the old ones plans.

I've just heard it's their official statement. I don't know that it means they couldn't intersect, just that they're not going to consider themselves beholden to the idea. Games Workshop is very loose with what's considered "canon" at any rate, I hardly think they'd make themselves opposed to the position.

Since the warp touches multiple realities, there's always the possibility that the two universes exist parallel to each other as well, and that the Chaos Gods (existing in the Warp) are formed from both universes.

I think the tau are too good. "nothing can stand in the way of the greater good" except maybe cato sicarius and the 2nd company of ultreamarines. boom!!

I think tau are good for the most part but the greater good could mean anything like killing a colony of humans so a couple fire warriors couldd survive.

Kilkrazy wrote:Hitler = Good it it brings the war to an early end. Benthamite principle of greatest good for the greatest number.
Rapist = Bad. It is a lesser crime than murder and they can be punished another way.
Paedophiles = Ditto.
CEOs of Enron = Ditto.

Helping suicide can be good depending on circumstances.
Helping people do wrong is clearly wrong since you become an agent in their crime.
I don't understand the idea about the illogical government agent.

When you make up this kind of thought experiment you are rehearsing the kind of moral questions that everyone faces every day and solves for themselves, usually on a smaller scale.

You see, this is where a LOT of people would greatly disagree. Or at least come with caveats. For instance, most people in studies would say:
Kill them all.
And that is considered "good."
Just so you know, scientifically, rapists and pedophiles are chronic. They will never stop being rapists and pedophiles, they will always look for ways of getting away with their crimes unless they are completely isolated. In my book, that sort of thing deserves death.

Enron CEOs? They actually caused the premature death of dozens, if not hundreds, of people. Elderly folk who depended on their pensions to pay for health care. Not to mention the thousands of people who built their lives around their pensions and investments. The "evil" quotient accumulates to some point where death is deserved.

Here is something to consider. If the Enron CEOs never actually killed anyone with their actions (they never took a gun and shot someone), and neither did Hitler. What is the difference? Hitler signed the death warrants for millions of people, but the Enron CEOs signed the death warrants for a (not small) number of people as well, just not so directly, but they still did it and knew the consequences.

Intention is the main separation here. Hitler intended to kill people, Enron didn’t. They just lied about their business successes and hoped to recover later, but ended up digging a bigger hole. Then they took care of themselves and left the shareholders to rot.

Here’s a some food for thought. A person while driving drunk slams into someone and kills them. Another drunk slams into a power cable and causes a large blackout that cost the lives of 6 people who relied on the electricity to maintain their lives. The first would be charge more seriously than the second. People are charged with the direct consequences of their actions rather then the indirect typically. There are laws in america that state that while committing a felony you are responsible for all consequences. If you point a gun at someone and they have a fatal heart attack you just committed murder. Three man tried to rob a store, but the clerk had a gun a managed to shoot down one. The other two ran away and while the wounded man was on the floor the clerk shoot him again. The clerk was charged with murder as were the two other robbers.

A while ago someone cut in front of a tracker trailer on a bridge belonging to a major highway. The trailer flipped and burned down the bridge – thankfully no lives where lost. The damage was in the billions and the shutdown of the highway for an extended repair period that inconvenienced millions for months– the lady only received a 300-dollar ticket for reckless driving.

I never really accepted that attempted murder was seen as less of a crime than actual murder. If a man shoots someone in the chest and then due to the victims will power and the doctors’ skill he manages to survive how is that a lesser crime than how the outcome would have been if the doctor had an off day? Here is an another interesting news story I read a while ago. A man served out a 15-year jail term for shooting a man. His victim survived, but suffered severe health issues including being paralyzed. A week after the man was released his victim died, the doctors ruled that it was due to the health issues that arisen from being shot 15 years ago. The police picked up the newly released man and put him on trial for murder.

Good and Evil are largely social constructs based on morality and ethics. An American who celebrates freedom of speech, association, and beliefs would have a different notion of the tau then a pro-Chavez Venezuelan. It really comes down to personal priorities.

Skinnattittar wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Hitler = Good it it brings the war to an early end. Benthamite principle of greatest good for the greatest number.
Rapist = Bad. It is a lesser crime than murder and they can be punished another way.
Paedophiles = Ditto.
CEOs of Enron = Ditto.

Helping suicide can be good depending on circumstances.
Helping people do wrong is clearly wrong since you become an agent in their crime.
I don't understand the idea about the illogical government agent.

When you make up this kind of thought experiment you are rehearsing the kind of moral questions that everyone faces every day and solves for themselves, usually on a smaller scale.

You see, this is where a LOT of people would greatly disagree. Or at least come with caveats. For instance, most people in studies would say:
Kill them all.
And that is considered "good."
Just so you know, scientifically, rapists and pedophiles are chronic. They will never stop being rapists and pedophiles, they will always look for ways of getting away with their crimes unless they are completely isolated. In my book, that sort of thing deserves death.

Enron CEOs? They actually caused the premature death of dozens, if not hundreds, of people. Elderly folk who depended on their pensions to pay for health care. Not to mention the thousands of people who built their lives around their pensions and investments. The "evil" quotient accumulates to some point where death is deserved.

Here is something to consider. If the Enron CEOs never actually killed anyone with their actions (they never took a gun and shot someone), and neither did Hitler. What is the difference? Hitler signed the death warrants for millions of people, but the Enron CEOs signed the death warrants for a (not small) number of people as well, just not so directly, but they still did it and knew the consequences.

Did you know ethical development can be mathematically tested?

Grunt13 wrote:Intention is the main separation here. Hitler intended to kill people, Enron didn’t. They just lied about their business successes and hoped to recover later, but ended up digging a bigger hole. Then they took care of themselves and left the shareholders to rot.
Here’s a some food for thought. A person while driving drunk slams into someone and kills them. Another drunk slams into a power cable and causes a large blackout that cost the lives of 6 people who relied on the electricity to maintain their lives. The first would be charge more seriously than the second. People are charged with the direct consequences of their actions rather then the indirect typically. There are laws in america that state that while committing a felony you are responsible for all consequences. If you point a gun at someone and they have a fatal heart attack you just committed murder. Three man tried to rob a store, but the clerk had a gun a managed to shoot down one. The other two ran away and while the wounded man was on the floor the clerk shoot him again. The clerk was charged with murder as were the two other robbers.
A while ago someone cut in front of a tracker trailer on a bridge belonging to a major highway. The trailer flipped and burned down the bridge – thankfully no lives where lost. The damage was in the billions and the shutdown of the highway for an extended repair period that inconvenienced millions for months– the lady only received a 300-dollar ticket for reckless driving.
I never really accepted that attempted murder was seen as less of a crime than actual murder. If a man shoots someone in the chest and then due to the victims will power and the doctors’ skill he manages to survive how is that a lesser crime than how the outcome would have been if the doctor had an off day? Here is an another interesting news story I read a while ago. A man served out a 15-year jail term for shooting a man. His victim survived, but suffered severe health issues including being paralyzed. A week after the man was released his victim died, the doctors ruled that it was due to the health issues that arisen from being shot 15 years ago. The police picked up the newly released man and put him on trial for murder.
Good and Evil are largely social constructs based on morality and ethics. An American who celebrates freedom of speech, association, and beliefs would have a different notion of the tau then a pro-Chavez Venezuelan. It really comes down to personal priorities.

There is a slight difference between intentionally ruining people's retirement funds and ramming into a power pole because you are drunk. One is intentional and thus premeditated while the other is due to poor decision making. If a doctor decides to cut too far into a heart during an operation to cause complications so that they can get paid for more surgeries which eventually leads to the patient's premature death, that is one thing. If the doctor is poorly trained/practiced because they were drunk during their training and slips up, that is another.

The Enron CEOs knew what they were doing and knew who it was going to affect. Whether or not they knew it would lead to premature deaths or suffering, what they did directly lead to it, and they should have thought ahead for that. In that example the chain is very short: Steal retiree's pension - Retiree loses health benefits due to stolen money - Retiree dies early due to untreated but treatable health issues. The chain for the drunk driver is longer, and the possible results are not definite: Drives drunk - hits power pole - power lost to hospital - hospital has patients reliant on electrical systems who die. At any one point that those chains are broken, the end result does not occur.

With retired people, you know they will have health problems, it is generally inevitable that with age comes illness.

Driving drunk does not always mean you will have an accident. Having an accident does not always mean you will hit a power pole. Hitting a power pole does not always mean you will knock out power. Knocking out power does not always mean you will kill people.

Person drives drunk - hits a pedestrian, killing them upon impact. Very short chain and the only way to break it is to either not driver drunk or not hit a pedestrian while driving drunk.

Though I completely agree that "good" and "evil" can be assessed by priorities as well.

Kilkrazy wrote:Did you know ethical development can be mathematically tested?

Yes, and I have read several methods of doing this and it usually boils down to starting with subjective declarations early on and subjective decisions on the input. Those methods I read were intended to be used to make consistent and scalar decisions/determinations from an already established system.

Stealing is not quite the proper word, not that I am defending them. Enron lied about their success, which caused people to purchase their stock at an improper value. Doing this creates a situation were the company is playing catch up to reach the levels that they stated to the shareholders. This practice can end with people digging a bigger and bigger hole as the lying continues to cover for the initial(s) falsehood. After a time when the truth comes out, the stock tanks. I have to believe that the end game for the conspirators was not to destroy the stock value and sink the company but use the speculation to boost stock prices/ maintain their competency and eventually cover the difference in time. What happened with Enron is when it was clear that the company could not recover they made sure they were taken care of at the cost of the stock holders. The best analogy that I could think of is a ship’s captain aboard a sinking ship lying to the crew so he could get to the lifeboat first; I don’t really think it was the plan all along to sink the ship. If it worked out the way they initially intended, Enron would continue to prosper, the shareholders would benefit, and no one would ever be the wiser that the company fudged the numbers.

Grunt13 wrote:Stealing is not quite the proper word, not that I am defending them. Enron lied about their success, which caused people to purchase their stock at an improper value. Doing this creates a situation were the company is playing catch up to reach the levels that they stated to the shareholders. This practice can end with people digging a bigger and bigger hole as the lying continues to cover for the initial(s) falsehood. After a time when the truth comes out, the stock tanks. I have to believe that the end game for the conspirators was not to destroy the stock value and sink the company but use the speculation to boost stock prices/ maintain their competency and eventually cover the difference in time. What happened with Enron is when it was clear that the company could not recover they made sure they were taken care of at the cost of the stock holders. The best analogy that I could think of is a ship’s captain aboard a sinking ship lying to the crew so he could get to the lifeboat first; I don’t really think it was the plan all along to sink the ship. If it worked out the way they initially intended, Enron would continue to prosper, the shareholders would benefit, and no one would ever be the wiser that the company fudged the numbers.

This is not the thread you are looking for.

Ironically, to your analogy, there is a general maritime "law" that if a captain tries to leave a ship before ensuring the safety of passengers and crew (within a level of reason), they may be tried for delinquency and executed! Even if all ends up peaches and cream! Last I heard it coming up though was in the 70's or 80's when a Greek cruise ship captain abandoned ship with most of the crew and leaving the passengers to die! The little nicker didn't even have the courtesy to notify officials when he got to land! I forget what happened to him, but he wasn't executed, though it did come up. But nobody got hurt in the end.

Skinnattittar wrote:Enron CEOs? They actually caused the premature death of dozens, if not hundreds, of people. Elderly folk who depended on their pensions to pay for health care. Not to mention the thousands of people who built their lives around their pensions and investments. The "evil" quotient accumulates to some point where death is deserved.

Here is something to consider. If the Enron CEOs never actually killed anyone with their actions (they never took a gun and shot someone), and neither did Hitler. What is the difference? Hitler signed the death warrants for millions of people, but the Enron CEOs signed the death warrants for a (not small) number of people as well, just not so directly, but they still did it and knew the consequences.

Skinnattittar wrote:
The Enron CEOs knew what they were doing and knew who it was going to affect. Whether or not they knew it would lead to premature deaths or suffering, what they did directly lead to it, and they should have thought ahead for that. In that example the chain is very short: Steal retiree's pension - Retiree loses health benefits due to stolen money - Retiree dies early due to untreated but treatable health issues. The chain for the drunk driver is longer, and the possible results are not definite: Drives drunk - hits power pole - power lost to hospital - hospital has patients reliant on electrical systems who die. At any one point that those chains are broken, the end result does not occur.

Skinnattittar wrote:

Grunt13 wrote:Stealing is not quite the proper word, not that I am defending them. Enron lied about their success, which caused people to purchase their stock at an improper value. Doing this creates a situation were the company is playing catch up to reach the levels that they stated to the shareholders. This practice can end with people digging a bigger and bigger hole as the lying continues to cover for the initial(s) falsehood. After a time when the truth comes out, the stock tanks. I have to believe that the end game for the conspirators was not to destroy the stock value and sink the company but use the speculation to boost stock prices/ maintain their competency and eventually cover the difference in time. What happened with Enron is when it was clear that the company could not recover they made sure they were taken care of at the cost of the stock holders. The best analogy that I could think of is a ship’s captain aboard a sinking ship lying to the crew so he could get to the lifeboat first; I don’t really think it was the plan all along to sink the ship. If it worked out the way they initially intended, Enron would continue to prosper, the shareholders would benefit, and no one would ever be the wiser that the company fudged the numbers.

This is not the thread you are looking for.

How so?

6 posts were placed discussing Enron, 3 of which were posted by you. I gave a statement that may have contradicted your argument, but I fail to see why it doesn’t belong in this thread any less so then the threads you placed yourself. You made reference to the Enron deliberately robbing investors and went so far as to compare them to Hitler; I saw this as a misconception to be corrected. Enron fixed up their reports to give false impressions. It was very unlikely that the conspirers planned to tank their stocks and cause the company’s collapse, which is what trashed people’s savings. Like my example of the reckless woman cutting in front of a tanker trailer and causing billions of dollars worth of damage, Enron didn’t grasp the level of damage their criminal actions would cause and didn't intend to destroy the company anymore then the woman intended to destroy the bridge. My analogy of a captain was made to illustrate intent. It wasn’t the captain’s goal to sink his ship and drown his passengers, as it wasn’t Enron CEO’s goal to sink their company. Expanding my analogy to maritime law doesn’t void its original design which was to clarify the Enron scandal.

Glammering up reports is a somewhat common practice. Companies use the best possible data to argue their success, some might be misleading or even fraudulent. Enron used odd accounting practices to appear more successful, when that fell through the top guys performed insider trading to cash their stocks before anyone else caught on; this is what really caught them, the blatant insider trading and conspiracies that took place when it was obvious to them that the company was slipping and the stock was about to fall.

I am severing myself from this ridiculous argument about the Enron CEOs. It has very little to do with what I was trying to embody. Grunt13, you have missed the point entirely and are trying to have your fun by flaunting relatively pointless trivia about the subject. I very well could have described a much better analogy but the Enron CEOs fit it well generally. If you want to show off your knowledge about the specifics that happened, there are better forums than here. But I will try to minimze the clutter. Further insight you may want to depart upon me, send me a PM, but I don't particularly care and I would kindly ask that we make better use of our time.

The Tau are very communist, and wherever there is communism there is someone pulling the strings. But the idea of what the Tau strive for is good.
Perhaps the Space Pope is pulling the strings.

Skinnattittar wrote:I am severing myself from this ridiculous argument about the Enron CEOs. It has very little to do with what I was trying to embody. Grunt13, you have missed the point entirely and are trying to have your fun by flaunting relatively pointless trivia about the subject. I very well could have described a much better analogy but the Enron CEOs fit it well generally. If you want to show off your knowledge about the specifics that happened, there are better forums than here. But I will try to minimze the clutter. Further insight you may want to depart upon me, send me a PM, but I don't particularly care and I would kindly ask that we make better use of our time.

I am sorry I ruined your rant with reason and facts. You were obviously making a point that was so far past my understanding that I shouldn’t even have attempted to involve myself in the discussion. I should have taken my cue when you waved your hand and dismissed my initial post with the statement, “This is not the thread you are looking for”, like a good little peon. Next time I will remember to bite my tongue and dare not to use “ridiculous” facts to respond to your statements.

Grunt13 wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:I am severing myself from this ridiculous argument about the Enron CEOs. It has very little to do with what I was trying to embody. Grunt13, you have missed the point entirely and are trying to have your fun by flaunting relatively pointless trivia about the subject. I very well could have described a much better analogy but the Enron CEOs fit it well generally. If you want to show off your knowledge about the specifics that happened, there are better forums than here. But I will try to minimze the clutter. Further insight you may want to depart upon me, send me a PM, but I don't particularly care and I would kindly ask that we make better use of our time.

I am sorry I ruined your rant with reason and facts. You were obviously making a point that was so far past my understanding that I shouldn’t even have attempted to involve myself in the discussion. I should have taken my cue when you waved your hand and dismissed my initial post with the statement, “This is not the thread you are looking for”, like a good little peon. Next time I will remember to bite my tongue and dare not to use “ridiculous” facts to respond to your statements.

You indiscretion will be forgiven. Soft hints are small graces.

Witzkatz wrote: The Imperium uses religion, okay, but we HAVE a (semi)living god-emperor, for feth's sake! Strongest psyker in the galaxy!

and soon he will die completely

shas'o vera wrote:

Witzkatz wrote: The Imperium uses religion, okay, but we HAVE a (semi)living god-emperor, for feth's sake! Strongest psyker in the galaxy!

and soon he will die completely

And then (possibly) reborn even more powerful than before!

thats about as likely as the orks becoming smart

I think the Emperor will come back and make peace with the Tau, and let them ally with a liberalised Imperium so that numbers and technology can be combined to rid the Galaxy of Nids, Necrons and Orks.

Kilkrazy wrote:I think the Emperor will come back and make peace with the Tau, and let them ally with a liberalised Imperium so that numbers and technology can be combined to rid the Galaxy of Nids, Necrons and Orks.

Probably unlikely. During His reign, He was very clear about NOT adopting alien technology and ridding them from the galaxy by reason of manifest destiny (the galaxy is fated to belong to humans).

The better odds are that resistance against the Tau, and all xenos scum, will be re-enforced. The Imperium will hopefully not rip asunder in civil war, if it doesn't it will become the solid hammer it once was and sweep aside all resistance in a new Great Crusade!

Kilkrazy wrote:I think the Emperor will come back and make peace with the Tau,

Rather grant them eternal peace. Delivered as "Rest in peace"

Skinnattittar is right, next great crusade will cleanse and purify. You may find this in the book of rulez, page 116.

Personaly there are no good or evil army as it from what point you stand take choas mostly seen as evil but they are just trying to plaese there gods like a space marine is trying to plaese the emperor so are they evil cos i don't see that as evil so they are all shades of grades but some are much darker then others and tau are properly the lightess

next when the emperor gets up (if he does or just reborn) he will try to kill the other race's like before but he will fail like before inless he gets help to kill the xeno like the eldar so he properly go to the tau "i won't kill you if you give me techogly and be my slave for the army" BUT he will kill the guy on the chair and there fellowors

It's more of an Order/Disorder than Good/Evil. In that regard, the Tau would be considered 'good'(fostering order).

The main thing that irks about the Tau is their rigid social structure and general anti-individualism.

And as far as my personal "affinity ratings":

Good
Tau
Imperium
Craftworld Eldar, Exodites, and Harlequins

Neutral
Orks
Tyranids
Eldar Raiders/Pirates

Evil
Dark Eldar
Necrons
Forces of Chaos

Skinnattittar wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I think the Emperor will come back and make peace with the Tau, and let them ally with a liberalised Imperium so that numbers and technology can be combined to rid the Galaxy of Nids, Necrons and Orks.

Probably unlikely. During His reign, He was very clear about NOT adopting alien technology and ridding them from the galaxy by reason of manifest destiny (the galaxy is fated to belong to humans).

The better odds are that resistance against the Tau, and all xenos scum, will be re-enforced. The Imperium will hopefully not rip asunder in civil war, if it doesn't it will become the solid hammer it once was and sweep aside all resistance in a new Great Crusade!

That is just propaganda made up by the High Lords of Terra to justify their repressive regime.

TAU [t'ou]

Noun (plural): See xenos scum

"I don't care if they are fighting each other, they're still xenos scum! Fire at will!"

Verdict: Evil

Kilkrazy wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I think the Emperor will come back and make peace with the Tau, and let them ally with a liberalised Imperium so that numbers and technology can be combined to rid the Galaxy of Nids, Necrons and Orks.

Probably unlikely. During His reign, He was very clear about NOT adopting alien technology and ridding them from the galaxy by reason of manifest destiny (the galaxy is fated to belong to humans).
The better odds are that resistance against the Tau, and all xenos scum, will be re-enforced. The Imperium will hopefully not rip asunder in civil war, if it doesn't it will become the solid hammer it once was and sweep aside all resistance in a new Great Crusade!

That is just propaganda made up by the High Lords of Terra to justify their repressive regime.

Ah yes, and the Tyranid Threat is actually just a big mis-understanding perpetrated by the Necrons, who are just lonely and in need of a hug. Tyranids are actually really nice and don't want to eat your face at all!

Skinnattittar wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I think the Emperor will come back and make peace with the Tau, and let them ally with a liberalised Imperium so that numbers and technology can be combined to rid the Galaxy of Nids, Necrons and Orks.

Probably unlikely. During His reign, He was very clear about NOT adopting alien technology and ridding them from the galaxy by reason of manifest destiny (the galaxy is fated to belong to humans).
The better odds are that resistance against the Tau, and all xenos scum, will be re-enforced. The Imperium will hopefully not rip asunder in civil war, if it doesn't it will become the solid hammer it once was and sweep aside all resistance in a new Great Crusade!

That is just propaganda made up by the High Lords of Terra to justify their repressive regime.

Ah yes, and the Tyranid Threat is actually just a big mis-understanding perpetrated by the Necrons, who are just lonely and in need of a hug. Tyranids are actually really nice and don't want to eat your face at all!

The Tyranids don't have anything to do with the Tau.