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.

Keeping in mind that D&D alignment isn't great for 40k . . . and taking the game from it's own perspective (even in the Grim Dark, GW allows that there are good guys)

LG: Imperium at its best (so most SM, esp UM); Tau in their own minds
NG: Eldar (the Path is disciplined no doubt but the discipline itself is not what is valued); Salamanders; BA
CG: Gregor Eisenhorn; Caiphas Cain to a point; the SW

LN: Imperium in general; Tau from a more objective viewpoint; Mechanicum; Iron Hands
N: Harlequins; Tyranids (spot on, Da Boss; Cheese is correct--their alignment does not indicate that they are insensate)
CN: Orks

LE: Imperium at its worst; DE toward their peers and superiors
NE: DE toward non-DE or subordinates; Necron
CE: Chaos Space Marines/Daemons

I'd say there are a couple of in-betweeners: DA hover between LG and LN, leaning pretty heavily toward neutral. Thousand Sons are somewhere between N and NE. I think rubrics are pretty much N by default.

Aren't Sisters more of a Chaotic Neutral?

What makes you say that???

Sisters of Battle strike me as Lawful Neutral. They don't kill people out of malice, they kill people because the Ecclesiarchy tells them to. They dispense Holy Justice, that's all.

I don't think you can pin neutral on the Sisters so easily. Celestine and others like her are certainly "good" (in the only possible sense allowed by the GrimDark). The rest don't kill simply because they are told to do so. It is more complicated than that. They believe that it is right and proper and utterly moral to do so.

I have to agree with Halsfield. In the end, Good and Evil always come down to PERSPECTIVE. Whoever's side you fight for (willingly) you will see as good, and your enemies become evil. Though I have played D&D for many years (and will continue to curse 4th ED) I believe its morality system should stay where it was designed for, in D&D.

Fl@nked wrote:I have to agree with Halsfield. In the end, Good and Evil always come down to PERSPECTIVE.

Yes, in this case, OUR perspective. This thread is about what *we* think.

Good point Cheese Elemental. I stand corrected.

Manchu wrote:What makes you say that???

Well, I've not read any fluff about the sisters, so all I have to go on is Soulstorm (which I assume exaggerates), but a bunch of fanatics obsessed with fire kind of makes me think about them seeing heretics everywhere... A tad chaotic, no?

I'm not seeing that as chaotic in the slightest. But may I ask what you mean by chaotic? We are talking about the D&D version of "chaotic", right?

The Imperium: Lawful Neutral
Eldar: Neutral
Dark Eldar: Neutral Evil
Orks: Chaotic Evil
Tau: Lawful Neutral
Necrons: Lawful Evil
Chaos: Chaotic Evil
Tyranids: Neutral
Grot Rebelz: Chaotic Good

Why Chaotic Evil for Orks? Loving violence for its own sake is not evil by 40k standards.

I thought this was by our standards?

As it is, I pretty much agree with your entire list up there Manchu, except for Harlequins. I'm more inclined to place them under Chaotic Good.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I thought this was by our standards?

As it is, I pretty much agree with your entire list up there Manchu, except for Harlequins. I'm more inclined to place them under Chaotic Good.

Hell, if this was by our standards, no one would be any higher than an evil status. Tau? Our 'lawful good' race, they've got concentration camps, sterilization camps, re-education camps, that sounds alot like hitler's germany, doesn't it? Lawful Evil. Space Marines? They usually kill civillians. They'll bomb a planet apart before it falls to someone else. Evil. (also all of the 'purge the alien, burn the heretic...') Orks are the closest to neutral as it gets, same as the Tyranids. Everything else is evil, evil, evil by our standards.

Manchu wrote:Why Chaotic Evil for Orks? Loving violence for its own sake is not evil by 40k standards.

But I'd say it is by D&D standards.

Teh Wiki wrote:Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient or if it can be set up. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some malevolent deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Orks definitely do not have any compunction against killing others, even others of their race. Nor do they have any problem with permanently enslaving an entire race, and enslaving others they come across, which doesn't mesh well with traditional Chaotic Neutrality. The Tau, Imperium, and Eldar certainly have their evil streaks, but for the most part they do what is necessary for their own survival. An inquisitor who kills a billion people is rarely doing so for selfish reasons, and with what the eldar are trying to avoid it's hard to call what they do "evil". The Grots are good, because they are hard workers and decent people who only fight because they want to liberate the galaxy from orkish oppression, naturally.

But orks do everything they do in the spirit of utility . . .

I'll admit, from the parameters of D&D's way of talking about itself, you have a solid case:

SRD wrote:A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him. [source]

That sounds right on the money.

BUT keep in mind that chaotic evil qua D&D is not really up to describing a "middle ground" race like the Orks who do not kill out of anything like a human sense of greed much less malice. Killing isn't really even the point of fighting for Orks. The fighting is itself the point--not that ultimately killing the enemy is somehow unsatisfying to them. But as soon as one enemy is dead, it's forgotten and the Ork is already fighting the next enemy. Also, Orks are not committed to the spread of evil and chaos (much less Chaos). They're not really committed to the spread of anything except carnage, which is neutral in and of itself in the GrimDark. Even the propagation of their species is an incidental byproduct of this carnage. Which is why I think that Chaotic Neutral, adjusted to the GrimDark spectrum (everything moves one step toward evil), is a better fit for the greenskins:

SRD wrote:A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it. [same source as above]

If you're going to assume that that the chart should be used in a semi-balanced way, I agree. Although in doing so I would probably bump the Imperium up to Lawful Good as well. The survival of the human race is pretty good, I should think, even if the costs are steep.

I would also say some Orks would fall under Chaotic Neutral in either case; Flash Gits and Freebootas, for instance, fit the CN description better.

I have the Imperium under all three categories of lawful but would say the bulk of it fits--as you suggested--under lawful neutral.

Cheese Elemental wrote:

Fl@nked wrote:I have to agree with Halsfield. In the end, Good and Evil always come down to PERSPECTIVE.

Yes, in this case, OUR perspective. This thread is about what *we* think.

Right, this is about our opinions, but without stating what your chosen perspective is (ie you seeing things from the emperor's perspective) saying something is good or evil is pointless. If there is no clear good or evil then the neutral alignments become just as pointless. Most of the discussion/arguments so far have been because people are seeing things from the perspective of different armies/factions in the 40k universe and this is where I'm trying to shed some light.

Traitor legions often believe themselves to be working for the good of mankind against the "traitor" loyalists that worship the corpse-god and endanger mankind by allowing xenos/mutants/weak to live. The tyranid hive mind may simply be attempting to feed its brood and wipe out potential threats to its family and how is that good or evil from that perspective? To an IG they are evil creatures bent only on their destruction that have nothing like compassion or empathy.

There also cannot be a simple lumping of all armies as a single alignment. For instance chaos space marines are not all one alignment. Tyranids are not all controlled by the hive mind and some are little more than animals feeding and hunting as they need.

Halsfield wrote:Most of the discussion/arguments so far have been because people are seeing things from the perspective of different armies/factions in the 40k universe and this is where I'm trying to shed some light.

Not really. The perspective most people are trying to use is that of 40k itself as a game--which is obviously Imperial. In this perspective, humans are in fact the "good guys."

Traitor legions often believe themselves to be working for the good of mankind against the "traitor" loyalists that worship the corpse-god and endanger mankind by allowing xenos/mutants/weak to live.

What?

The tyranid hive mind may simply be attempting to feed its brood and wipe out potential threats to its family and how is that good or evil from that perspective? To an IG they are evil creatures bent only on their destruction that have nothing like compassion or empathy.

. . . which is why true neutral makes sense as their alignment . . .

There also cannot be a simple lumping of all armies as a single alignment. For instance chaos space marines are not all one alignment.

Yeah . . . they pretty much are. Chaotic evil. Don't let the similarity of the terms "Chaos" and "chaotic" send you into an overcorrection. Even the Word Bearers are chaotic evil. The only ones that possible are not are 1kSons rubrics--assuming they are barely sentient automatons.

Tyranids are not all controlled by the hive mind and some are little more than animals feeding and hunting as they need.

. . . which is why true neutral makes sense as their alignment . . .

Really? I'm still thinking Evil Neutral for 'nids but I'm so confused as to what point of view we're taking here...

Emperors Faithful wrote:Really? I'm still thinking Evil Neutral for 'nids but I'm so confused as to what point of view we're taking here...

Well, no. If they were evil neutral, than you would be to for eating meat. This isn't the case, despite what PETA might try to tell you.

Hey, theres 9 chaos leigions, right? Wheeeeeee!
Lawful good, Alpha leigion. (Possibly good, and definetly plans)
Neutral Good, Death Guard, Papa Nurgle loves his children equally
Lawfull evil Night Lords, terror tactics, and the whole pre-heresy Night Haunter=Batman thing
Chaotic Evil, Word Bearers, doing evil things for dark gods
Netural Evil, Emperor's Children, utterly self centered
Lawfull Netural, Iron Warriors, Hey you kids, get off my fortress world!
Chaotic Neutral, World Eaters. MAIM KILL BURN!!! (basically trashing everything, even if it helps, especially if it doesn't)

True Neutral, Thousand Sons. Just as planned.

Yeah, that's taking the argument to the extreme.

To be fair manchu, 40k is taking the argument to the extreme for EVERYTHING

I once saw it described as "about as dark and edgey as the event horizon of a black hole".

That's why I suggested in the 40k version of D&D alignment, we begin with every category taking (at least) one step toward evil.

So then who, in your opinion, would be fitting the category of lawful good?

See the top of this page.

But...didn't you just say that everyone has to take step toward evil?

I meant conceptually. "Lawful Good" in 40k would be Neutral Good in the Forgotten Realms or Eberron.