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.

Asherian Command wrote:
War is to have a honorable death. That's why most go to war.

That's a new one on me.

Think out your logic man!
I agree with Canuck on this count

And the emperor really is a bad guy

Yeah, but you're Chaos. So that's a biased opinion.

This is a deep question. It is more a question, is that any kind of single minded rule ever can be considered good? As one persons will be pushed onto another can never benefit everyone. What a good person can try to do is benefit the majority but this still neglects the fact that the minority will still suffer. Can you put the minority above the majority?

In truth then anarchy (i.e. chaos) is the only true good. Basically anarchy promotes personal freedom. This is beneficial to everyone, as no one can be seen to be in power or holding order over anyone else. At the same time that promotes personal interests and if you are not a strong person, unable to compete then you may find yourself shelved in a society that promotes a dog eat dog style of thinking.

So is the Emperor good, thats a question of personal preference. Depends if you like order and control. If you like to be told what to do, or if you like to live as you want to live.

The Emperor is Chuck Norris.

'nuff said.

Teeffless wrote:The Emperor is Chuck Norris.

'nuff said.

The Emperor is a Birther?

More importantly, the Emperor can Roundhouse Kick?

Without the emporer the whole Imperium would be destroyed by daemons and the chaos gods, the entire universe would perhaps even colapse.

ceorron wrote:This is a deep question. It is more a question, is that any kind of single minded rule ever can be considered good? As one persons will be pushed onto another can never benefit everyone. What a good person can try to do is benefit the majority but this still neglects the fact that the minority will still suffer. Can you put the minority above the majority?

In truth then anarchy (i.e. chaos) is the only true good. Basically anarchy promotes personal freedom. This is beneficial to everyone, as no one can be seen to be in power or holding order over anyone else. At the same time that promotes personal interests and if you are not a strong person, unable to compete then you may find yourself shelved in a society that promotes a dog eat dog style of thinking.

So is the Emperor good, thats a question of personal preference. Depends if you like order and control. If you like to be told what to do, or if you like to live as you want to live.

In real life perhaps. But this is a universe were fictional super-human-genius-omniscient people exist and having one as an absolute ruler isn't so bad.

I would say living in an anarchy isn't really that good. Somalia is an example of a true anarchy and quite frankly it totally sucks there. Rule of law is observed in all first world and high quality of life nations.

Anarchy is a temporary transition. In a society without rules or law, these things begin to develop by themselves. Describing Somalia as a true anarchy is incorrect, Somalia has a tribal mentality where your treatment and place in society is decided by your family and lineage. It is divisive in nature and all around a rather gakky place to live, but it is not a true anarchy.

I don't think there's an unbiased answer, honeslty.

Fine. Time not to be a Chaos Nut (which are so much cooler than pistachios nuts). Back to my utilitarian beliefs. The Emperor killed millions of those who didn't acede to his beliefs or his way of life, and as such he can be viewed as evil. This is further reinforced by the fact that he has a rather alarming appetite, being in the region of 1000 Psykers a day, though I may be mistaken on this account. However, whilst these facts are a possible cause for one to believe that the emperor is in fact, inheritantly evil (I've spelt that wrong methinks) these are far outweighed when other factors are brough into light, such as the FACT THAT HE IS STOPPING THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE FROM BEING
OM
NOMED
NOMED
BY THE MAJESTY OF CHAOS!
Nuttines over.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Anarchy is a temporary transition. In a society without rules or law, these things begin to develop by themselves. Describing Somalia as a true anarchy is incorrect, Somalia has a tribal mentality where your treatment and place in society is decided by your family and lineage. It is divisive in nature and all around a rather gakky place to live, but it is not a true anarchy.

That's still an anarchy. I'm going by the definition of a place with no goverment or law. Somalia fits that bill.

Necanor wrote:Without the emporer the whole Imperium would be destroyed by daemons and the chaos gods, the entire universe would perhaps even colapse.

Without the Necrons, the Immaterium would spill into the mortal realm, thus overrunnning it with the forces of Chaos...

Are the Necrons suddenly good guys?

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

Necanor wrote:Without the emporer the whole Imperium would be destroyed by daemons and the chaos gods, the entire universe would perhaps even colapse.

Without the Necrons, the Immaterium would spill into the mortal realm, thus overrunnning it with the forces of Chaos...

quote]

How do ya figure?

Read up on it, Necron technology holds the warp togeather... it was done to prevent the C'tan from being eaten by Daemons and Old Ones.

. They burst into and destroyed the Webways discovered by the Old Ones. Without these portals, the Old Ones were unable to move troops throughout the galaxy. With the new races using so much Warp power for the purposes of killing, the benign creatures in the Warp mutated into the evil creatures they are today. At the precipice of victory, the Enslavers emerged from the now-tumultuous Warp and forced the C'tan and their slaves back with their psychic powers, the weakness of the Star Gods. The Enslavers killed many of the C'tan, leaving the Necrons in disarray and without figureheads to lead them and forcing the C'tan away from the forefront. As the Enslaver plague expanded sections of the galaxy, the four remaining C'tan went into stasis to avoid the onslaught and allow the galaxy to repopulate without the psychic swarm so they could emerge and reconquer their empire. However, this kindled a single-minded determination in the C'tan to eliminate the only threat to their conquest, the Warp. Thus began the Great Work, the severing of the Materium and Immaterium so that the C'tan would go unchallenged once again.1 -Lexicanum

Thus began their great work. I think they're still working on it as Warp creatues constantly invade the galaxy.

C'tan stopped Cadia from being eaten by the Warp I'll give em credit for that but basically the C'tan's plan for quieting the imaterium is to kill everything in the material world.

I have to say that I have been love the tau references after going to a uk league and having a Q&A with their guy who's job it is to know all the history seeing as one of the races he covered the history in the time available was the Tau and they basically did the same thing as the Emperor on a smaller scale joineth us or thou shalt be blown to little bits. I't just that the initial stimulus was different (for tau it was an imperium probe landing on their planet and analysed a member of the population by tearing him to bits and weighing each bit (warning:process vastly simplified)and they were eventually unified for the "greater good" aka survival of the tau) so it's the same thing just on different scales.

In the end of the day it is all perspective based and you can say about people being good or evil but there is only grey based on perspective. In the eyes of humanity the emperor is supposed to seem good for obvious reasons but if you took it from the view of a different species he could seem the most tyrannical being in the universe.

the only races I can see as not being grey are the Nids (because they destroy to survive) and the Orks (because that's their genetic hard-coding)

And you can look around the world right now. Zoom out to a global level. Tons of food is thrown out every day because we produce more than we need but if you look somewhere else people are starving. the only reason for this sort of thing is to make sure countries that have power keep that power. It is very easy to get a dictator in charge of a country if you back him up with the required resources.

KamikazeCanuck wrote: C'tan's plan for quieting the imaterium is to kill everything in the material world.

But then you would be submitting to relativism, as the action of quelling the immaterium would be considered an act of good, but due to the C'tans personal implication of this "normally good act" you are claiming their actions are evil...

KamikazeCanuck wrote:In absolutism killing a person is always wrong. One could argue killing in self-defense or the defense of others is not.
Killing cuz its your job isn't not one of the better reasons.

This goes both ways,

Either calming the storm-that-is-the-warp is an act of good, or it is an act of evil. One could argue that the reasons for stopping the warp are evil so that would make the act of sealing the Great Ocean an evil act, but just as killing a person as it is your job is not valid in absolution, (doing evil for good) so should the concept of commiting great acts of benevolence with a fel intent (doing good for evil). Would you not agree that the ethical questions in Absolutism (your school of thought) would focus more on the Doing X as opposed to the For Y (for in absolutism, is it not the means that defies the end and not the other way around?)

something to consider.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote: C'tan's plan for quieting the imaterium is to kill everything in the material world.

But then you would be submitting to relativism, as the action of quelling the immaterium would be considered an act of good, but due to the C'tans personal implication of this "normally good act" you are claiming their actions are evil...

KamikazeCanuck wrote:In absolutism killing a person is always wrong. One could argue killing in self-defense or the defense of others is not.
Killing cuz its your job isn't not one of the better reasons.

This goes both ways,

Either calming the storm-that-is-the-warp is an act of good, or it is an act of evil. One could argue that the reasons for stopping the warp are evil so that would make the act of sealing the Great Ocean an evil act, but just as killing a person as it is your job is not valid in absolution, (doing evil for good) so should the concept of commiting great acts of benevolence with a fel intent (doing good for evil). Would you not agree that the ethical questions in Absolutism (your school of thought) would focus more on the Doing X as opposed to the For Y (for in absolutism, is it not the means that defies the end and not the other way around?)

something to consider.

I did not say what the Necrons were doing was good or bad. I was just saying what their plan is. Way to "get me" though. Anyways, now that you've not asked I would put Destruction of all life in Galaxy in the 'Bad" column.

In Absolutism the ends never justify the means. In fact I honestly don't know what your saying in your last paragraph but basically to try to answer: the ends are never taken into account when trying to qualify the absolute of a deed. If killing is evil then killing is evil.