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.

thenoobbomb wrote:It does exist in WHFB.

In Khorne himself or in some of his followers?

That is a very, very important difference. As mentioned before, I'm fairly sure there are some "noble" Khornates in 40k as well. "Noble" just like that Champion that MeanGreenStompa mentioned, who also doesn't tell us anything at all about how his god actually feels about the subject.

Lynata wrote:

thenoobbomb wrote:It does exist in WHFB.

In Khorne himself or in some of his followers?

That is a very, very important difference. As mentioned before, I'm fairly sure there are some "noble" Khornates in 40k as well. "Noble" just like that Champion that MeanGreenStompa mentioned, who also doesn't tell us anything at all about how his god actually feels about the subject.

In Khorne (and his daemons) himself.
Khorne feeds upon honour too.

If that were true, then all the Empire's knights, the Griffon Knights of Brettonia, the.... I forget what the High Elves call their knights.... and basically every knightly order everywhere are subject to the influence of Khorne pretty much all the time. That makes no narrative sense, and honor and martial pride are not the same thing. It also contraindicates the statement "Khorne cares not from whence the blood flows".

Psienesis wrote:If that were true, then all the Empire's knights, the Griffon Knights of Brettonia, the.... I forget what the High Elves call their knights.... and basically every knightly order everywhere are subject to the influence of Khorne pretty much all the time. That makes no narrative sense, and honor and martial pride are not the same thing. It also contraindicates the statement "Khorne cares not from whence the blood flows".

Aye, but its GW.

thenoobbomb wrote:Khorne feeds upon honour too.

I don't recall ever reading this, ever ... then again, the only book I have from WHFB is the non-GW Tome of Corruption, which I purchased for a WFRP campaign (ToC had rules for Norscan characters ).

Weird that Khorne would differ so much from one setting to another.

I think there is a difference between the "noble aspects of Khorne" and those of "Khorne followers".

Khorne, 100% undiluted, likely has no noble or redeeming aspects as far as I am aware.

But 99,9% of Khorne's followers are not "fully" Khorne yet (Kharn being the possible exception). Most followers of Khorne start their worship at some point of being a warrior or soldier, bound to some tradition, code, military rule or another. And as both individual warriors and/or entire warrior/army-organisations slowly drift towards Khorne, you will find alot of "hybrid"-beliefs that mix the various elements of martial and warrior-traditions with the extremes of "blood for the blood-god".

It is the same for the other Chaos Gods too. Not ever follower will just switch from "zero" to "full-fledge, uncompromising extremist". For all the "vices" that lure them in, self-justification with some real or imagined "noble" or "greater" purpose is likely one of the last things a Chaos-follower wipes from his self-perception.

Hell, even most Berzerkers/World Eaters wont go quite as far as Kharn and slaughter their own brothers. They (mostly) cling on to remnants of loyalty and restraint in facing their brethren. Which is why only Kharn is the "truest" and "purest" servant of Khorne. He truly does not care where the blood comes from. But these last remnants of loyalty are not part of "Khorne". They are those last few parts that are not fully Khorne yet.

Lynata wrote:

thenoobbomb wrote:Khorne feeds upon honour too.

I don't recall ever reading this, ever ... then again, the only book I have from WHFB is the non-GW Tome of Corruption, which I purchased for a WFRP campaign (ToC had rules for Norscan characters ).

Weird that Khorne would differ so much from one setting to another.

Ever wondered why Khorne's biggest enemy is Slaanesh?
Slaanesh has no honour. Tzeentch neither, but SLaanesh is worse.

thenoobbomb wrote:Ever wondered why Khorne's biggest enemy is Slaanesh?
Slaanesh has no honour. Tzeentch neither, but SLaanesh is worse.

I thought it had more to do with their agenda being at odds with each other, rather than the way they go about it.

Khorne wants as much slaughter as possible - Slaanesh wants as much experience as possible. I can easily see Slaaneshi orgies ending in kills (not to mention the instances where slaves are pulverised to make for drugs), but obviously the whole process is extremely dragged out. Where Khorne would wish a bunch of slaves to be murdered and sacrificed asap, Slaanesh would want to have them abused or perhaps even turned just for giggles, the longer the better.

The aspect of seeking worthy foes as offerings to Khorne has always been in the fluff, but has fallen to the wayside in recent years. Sure Khornites will kill unarmed villagers, but that's merely because they're in the way. If given the chance a Khornite champion would turn from senseless slaughter to prove himself better than another skillful warrior. If he wins in combat, he's proven himself and Khorne is happy; if he loses, Khorne is still happy. -That- is what the famous line, "Khorne cares not from where the blood flows, as long as it does" means. It doesn't mean to seek favor by killing the weak, huddled masses. It means that Khorne is happy if you win a big fight or lose.

There's also honor in the way Khornites do battle in both WHFB and 40k. While they are vicious, unrelenting killers, they do not fight dirty. They stand up to their enemy and fight them eye to eye. They are not underhanded, they don't rely on sorcery or plotting to win. They march on and prove themselves better warriors than those in their way or die trying with nothing but their skill and strength of arms.

There's no denying that unarmed villagers won't be cut down if they're caught in the warpath. They're weak and the followers of Khorne will prove that to them. Are they a worthy offering to the Blood God? Well, that's up to the big guy himself to decide, but like I said in my first paragraph, there are better offerings and better ways to prove your might than senseless slaughter.

Haunter! wrote:The aspect of seeking worthy foes as offerings to Khorne has always been in the fluff, but has fallen to the wayside in recent years. Sure Khornites will kill unarmed villagers, but that's merely because they're in the way. If given the chance a Khornite champion would turn from senseless slaughter to prove himself better than another skillful warrior. If he wins in combat, he's proven himself and Khorne is happy; if he loses, Khorne is still happy. -That- is what the famous line, "Khorne cares not from where the blood flows, as long as it does" means. It doesn't mean to seek favor by killing the weak, huddled masses. It means that Khorne is happy if you win a big fight or lose.

There's also honor in the way Khornites do battle in both WHFB and 40k. While they are vicious, unrelenting killers, they do not fight dirty. They stand up to their enemy and fight them eye to eye. They are not underhanded, they don't rely on sorcery or plotting to win. They march on and prove themselves better warriors than those in their way or die trying with nothing but their skill and strength of arms.

There's no denying that unarmed villagers won't be cut down if they're caught in the warpath. They're weak and the followers of Khorne will prove that to them. Are they a worthy offering to the Blood God? Well, that's up to the big guy himself to decide, but like I said in my first paragraph, there are better offerings and better ways to prove your might than senseless slaughter.

Great 1st post and the best answer to the OP I've seen.

Just Dave wrote:

Haunter! wrote:The aspect of seeking worthy foes as offerings to Khorne has always been in the fluff, but has fallen to the wayside in recent years. Sure Khornites will kill unarmed villagers, but that's merely because they're in the way. If given the chance a Khornite champion would turn from senseless slaughter to prove himself better than another skillful warrior. If he wins in combat, he's proven himself and Khorne is happy; if he loses, Khorne is still happy. -That- is what the famous line, "Khorne cares not from where the blood flows, as long as it does" means. It doesn't mean to seek favor by killing the weak, huddled masses. It means that Khorne is happy if you win a big fight or lose.

There's also honor in the way Khornites do battle in both WHFB and 40k. While they are vicious, unrelenting killers, they do not fight dirty. They stand up to their enemy and fight them eye to eye. They are not underhanded, they don't rely on sorcery or plotting to win. They march on and prove themselves better warriors than those in their way or die trying with nothing but their skill and strength of arms.

There's no denying that unarmed villagers won't be cut down if they're caught in the warpath. They're weak and the followers of Khorne will prove that to them. Are they a worthy offering to the Blood God? Well, that's up to the big guy himself to decide, but like I said in my first paragraph, there are better offerings and better ways to prove your might than senseless slaughter.

Great 1st post and the best answer to the OP I've seen.

And exactly what I wanted to say, but did not know how to.

So basically it comes down do:
- some people think that innocents being killed is just a follower-induced byproduct of some versions of Khornate worship, whereas the God himself doesn't care about it
and
- some people think that noble behaviour is just a follower-induced byproduct of some versions of Khornate worship, whereas the God himself doesn't care about it

A good example for how interpretations of 40k fluff can vary, I suppose.

I think the mistake here is talking about a Chaos God as if it is just another discrete character in the setting, like Marneus Calgar or Eldrad. Khorne is a god known to mortals indirectly by mystical experiences and, in exceedingly rare examples, the presence of Khornate daemons -- who are themselves so utterly alien to the material universe much less the human conception of morality that our qualification of their motives, desires, and attitudes will be insufficient as a matter of course. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that some worshipers of Khorne would emphasize ritualized but straight-foward "honorable" combat (a la Skulltaker itself) and others would emphasize unmitigated violence in any direct form. In other words, this is not merely a matter of different readers interpreting the fluff differently in the context of the real world but of different fictional characters interpreting their own fictional world differently. From a daemon's own perspective, there may be no difference at all between these attitudes.

Haunter! wrote:There's no denying that unarmed villagers won't be cut down if they're caught in the warpath. They're weak and the followers of Khorne will prove that to them. Are they a worthy offering to the Blood God? Well, that's up to the big guy himself to decide, but like I said in my first paragraph, there are better offerings and better ways to prove your might than senseless slaughter.

Excellent point. I think of it like this:

A Khornate warrior makes planetfall on some peaceful agriworld. Twenty clicks to the west of his landing zone is a defenseless colony of thousands of agriworkers. Twenty clicks to the south is a tactical squad of Astartes. It's not really as simple as the difference between thousands of skulls to the west and ten skulls to the south.

Manchu wrote:In other words, this is not merely a matter of different readers interpreting the fluff differently in the context of the real world but of different fictional characters interpreting their own fictional world differently. From a daemon's own perspective, there may be no difference at all between these attitudes.

Exactly. The tricky thing about the question is that people were asking about Khorne himself - not just his followers.
Are there more examples of how Khorne's demons actually act? That might present a more accurate glimpse of what Khorne himself "thinks", rather than relying on the personal style of some select followers.

I think we can all agree that there are many forms his worship might take, though.

I was pretty shocked no one had brought up Skulltaker yet. Here is a daemon that, when the crowd of Bloodletters parts, is stalking around a makeshift arena, calling out the best and bravest to go mano-a-mano. He apparently earned Khorne's particular favor after taking 888 skulls. So yeah, that's lucky eight and all but it's also a pretty tiny number for a functionally immortal being. So my impression is Khorne gets more jollies from good fights than just any old violence.

Also consider this: If a berserker makes a kill, who's pleased? Well, Khorne obviously. If a Black Templar Marshal takes down an enemy champion in honorable, single combat, who's pleased? Khorne, of course. As long as there's bloodshed and conflict, He is pleased. He cares not for who claims victory, for those are the concerns of mortal men. Just as long as those that make war do so until their last breath is drawn on the battlefield, Khorne is as content as the embodiment of warfare and wrath can be.

Lynata wrote:So basically it comes down do:
- some people think that innocents being killed is just a follower-induced byproduct of some versions of Khornate worship, whereas the God himself doesn't care about it
and
- some people think that noble behaviour is just a follower-induced byproduct of some versions of Khornate worship, whereas the God himself doesn't care about it

A good example for how interpretations of 40k fluff can vary, I suppose.

It would be wrong to say that He wouldn't care about the skulls of the weak. Bloodshed is bloodshed after all. It is safe to say that killing another warrior wold gain you more favor with him, however. His church is the battlefield, his sacrament blood, his communion skulls. Who's blood and skulls offered has been seen to effect favor gained. Do you think Skulltaker gained his position from the slaughter of 888 townsfolk? Possibly, but given his background I'm more inclined to believe he killed other warriors.

As I said before, a Khornite warrior may be vicious and violent in their aims, but they are noble in their methods. They forgo the underhanded methods of sorcery and misdirection to march directly to their foes and offer them a chance to defend themselves.

Haunter! wrote:It would be wrong to say that He wouldn't care about the skulls of the weak. Bloodshed is bloodshed after all. It is safe to say that killing another warrior wold gain you more favor with him, however.

See, that I can absolutely agree on. The more challenging a fight, the better for Khorne. It just sounded as if some people here would suggest that Khorne would spare those that aren't ... well, challenging. Manchu's reference, for example, omits that the Skulltaker simply kills those who refuse anyways.
Ultimately, bloodshed is bloodshed, as you say. If Khorne's Legion would conquer a world, everyone would be slain - the men, the women, the elderly and the children. It's just that most of his daemons will go for the warriors first, resorting to kill the defenseless only when there's no-one else left.

"Under Khorne's urgings, his endless tide of soldiers are whipped into a blood frenzy, and will fall upon each other in their desire to spill blood if no other foe can be found. For it is war - constant, mindless bloodletting and destruction - that is all Khorne cares for. He cares not who is victorious and who is slain, just that they fight until they can fight no more. All that Khorne exists for, all that his entire being is bent towards, is the flow of blood from fresh wounds and the taking of skulls."
4E C:CD p10

I suppose that foregoing sorcery and misdirection can be called a form of nobility, but it does not extend to some form of compassion against the weak. To suggest otherwise is, imo, just an attempt to twist the Chaos Gods towards some "moral grey area" (possibly to excuse the CSM as misunderstood liberators, for I've seen that argument to be made for the Black Crusade RPG) when it's clear that Chaos truly is meant to be the cliché Evil with a capital E.
As mentioned before, however, the followers of the Chaos Gods are a diverse breed, and there one might indeed find various misled and more noble individuals - such as the aforementioned "blood knight" concept.

Maybe in the case of individuals like Skulltaker his 888 skulls aren't skulls but Skulls, as we've noted previously in the thread the quality of the sacrifice and the fight leading up to it can effect the quality of favor gained from khorne (taking your girlfriend to McDonalds vs a fine restraunt as a silly comparison) So the Skulltaker's taken 888 WORTHY skulls for Khorne in duels that have been good enough that it caught the god's eye and pleased him.

Even with Warrior Codes though you can find plenty of cracks to slip through towards the "Blood for the blood god" methodology. So let's take a standard warrior. You live for the challenge, leading your force in search of worthy opponents and conflicts. When you arrive somewhere you are seeking their best, giving everyone in/on the planet/city/whatever a chance to fight and die with honor BUT the civilians are fleeing! Cowardice! It's... it's revolting! Disgusting! They shall PAY for their filth! As a man who lives by a warrior code and has done time in a military branch where they do uphold a very strong sense of warrior pride and honor I can confirm emotions like that in /this/ century. Not to the extreme above of being disgusted to the point of slaughter of civilians. But being disgusted by an enemy who behaves in a cowardly manner or a fellow Marine/solider who is a coward

KalashnikovMarine wrote:Maybe in the case of individuals like Skulltaker his 888 skulls aren't skulls but Skulls, as we've noted previously in the thread the quality of the sacrifice and the fight leading up to it can effect the quality of favor gained from khorne (taking your girlfriend to McDonalds vs a fine restraunt as a silly comparison) So the Skulltaker's taken 888 WORTHY skulls for Khorne in duels that have been good enough that it caught the god's eye and pleased him.

Close!
It's really "just" 888 any skulls - but the Skulltaker has killed many more foes since then. The 888 was just when he finally gained the attention of his god.
The Codex notes that Khorne now keeps most skulls of the Skulltaker's victims ... but allows him to keep "the few that posed a real challenge."

I actualy would like it better if they brought back the old Karnath and showd all of the Emotions that the Chaos Gods portray not just the negative ones

Lynata wrote:\Manchu's reference, for example, omits that the Skulltaker simply kills those who refuse anyways.

Aye but those skulls are ne woven into his cloak of trophies. You're so hasty to paint me as dismissive that you end up being the one who's dismissive.

Manchu wrote:Aye but those skulls are ne woven into his cloak of trophies. You're so hasty to paint me as dismissive that you end up being the one who's dismissive.

I actually mentioned that as I answered KalashnikovMarine's post.
And I wouldn't have tried "painting" you as "dismissive" - but I did think that you were (perhaps unintentionally) trying to twist that character, or Khorne in general, into appearing more "noble" than they actually are.
You've got to admit, presenting a Chaos demon and pointing out how he challenges individual enemies to a duel, yet not mentioning how those that decline are killed anyways does appear a tad selective.

I think it bears pointing out that perhaps Khorne values certain aspects of "honor"... in the way that his followers march straight into battle, give no quarter, expect none, and fight a straight-up, stand-up battle with their targets.... but not the codes of honor that center around chivalry, the defense of the weak, protection of the innocent, etc etc etc.

Honor is a tricky thing, and most codes of honor that have existed in Earth's history covered a very wide range of topics, not just battlefield behavior.

Lynata wrote:You've got to admit, presenting a Chaos demon and pointing out how he challenges individual enemies to a duel, yet not mentioning how those that decline are killed anyways does appear a tad selective.

Not at all. Slaying the cowardly doesn't seem contrary to the point I was making at all ...

Lynata wrote:I suppose that foregoing sorcery and misdirection can be called a form of nobility, but it does not extend to some form of compassion against the weak.

Honor and compassion are not synonymous, neither is nobility. It's a great misconception people seem to be having in this thread. Khorne's realm has never extended toward nobility, but has extended towards honor in combat.

To suggest otherwise is, imo, just an attempt to twist the Chaos Gods towards some "moral grey area" (possibly to excuse the CSM as misunderstood liberators, for I've seen that argument to be made for the Black Crusade RPG) when it's clear that Chaos truly is meant to be the cliché Evil with a capital E.
As mentioned before, however, the followers of the Chaos Gods are a diverse breed, and there one might indeed find various misled and more noble individuals - such as the aforementioned "blood knight" concept.

That's the thing about Chaos, it isn't "good" or "bad," it simply is. Chaos is the amoral nature of the cosmos, spreading in every direction for no real reason other than to do so. It cannot be quantified by human morals.

Chaos is just raw emotions.

Haunter! wrote:Honor and compassion are not synonymous, neither is nobility. It's a great misconception people seem to be having in this thread. Khorne's realm has never extended toward nobility, but has extended towards honor in combat.

That's why I was asking people to clarify what they mean when they talk about "noble behaviour" earlier.
Maybe it was a misconception, but to me it sounded like a lot of people were going on about how "unworthy" opponents would be spared; "noble behaviour" in this case apparently referring to killing only those who actually have a chance at defending themselves.

Haunter! wrote:That's the thing about Chaos, it isn't "good" or "bad," it simply is. Chaos is the amoral nature of the cosmos, spreading in every direction for no real reason other than to do so. It cannot be quantified by human morals.

A matter of semantics. What I'm saying is that to us human beings, Chaos is obviously evil, and as such it should be natural to name it so - otherwise you may as well go on about "good" or "bad" do not exist anywhere and are just abstract constructs of the dominant society.
I also think that the truly amoral nature of the cosmos is the Warp, and the four Chaos Gods we know are but aspects of it. There are some theories that the Emperor himself might be another. And then there are (possibly) the Eldar gods and the Living Saints, as well as countless other thoughts and emotions that were given form within the Warp.

Perhaps the idea of honor through strength of arms is simply not accessible enough to modern minds to be precisely defined. I have an inkling of: the notion that combat against a worthy opponent is an honorable thing, whether good or bad in the (let's face it) Christian sense aside, and that victory against such a foe is a great source of honor. The idea that honor makes one noble may be similarly inaccessible but it seems at least familiar if one considers the feudal world -- i.e., a world in which Khornate combat was the dominant expression of social power. Reckless slaughter of the cowardly weak seems like the "dirty work" of Khorne. So when Skulltaker must slay a craven who refuses his challenge, he is ill-pleased and considers himself robbed of the chance to vanquish a mighty foe. In other words, the lack of honor of the challenged party is a theft of honor of the challenger.

Honor through strength of arms is perfectly accessible in the modern world, you just have to be in a position and culture where honor through strength of arms continues to be taught, which is significantly rarer then ancient times.

Honor itself is a very unique and personal concept even when it's got a wider cultural definition such as bushido or chivalry, those cultural definitions also vary and evolve drastically as time goes on. To compare east and west in very general terms. If you're a knight and you lose a fight and live the worst that's going to happen to you is you'll be stripped of your position, most likely you'll just be made fun of over beers. In the samurai culture if you're defeated and live you're dishonored twice. Once your losing and a second time for A. not dying well and B. not having the courage to immediately commit seppuku.

So with the vast cultural definition differences, you can imagine it gets even worse down to a personal level. Does honor come from killing the enemy? Dying well? Defending the weak? Is there a certain mode of behavior required to live honorably out of combat?

That's what we're facing now with the Khornate worshipers because ALL of the above can and does serve Khorne, and Khorne himself really doesn't give a damn about any of it "Khorne cares not from where the blood flows..." Khorne accepts honor and the like because it's another reason for warriors to fight, bleed and die and those three things please him. Not the "honor" gained from those three things.

I don't think the meaning of honor is a unique to a given person. If that was the case, then the concept would have little social value. Perhaps honor is this unique sort of thing today because it is basically irrelevant in our modern society. But in cultures where honor is relevant, people know what it means, they know when they have it or not, they know when others lose it, and they know when someone is impinging upon theirs.

Further, it seems to me that Skulltaker is pretty good example of Khorne actually caring from whence the blood flows. Yes, in the grand scope of things, blood is blood and skulls are skulls. More of each is always appreciated. But the blood of the mighty, the skulls of heroes -- those are the ones Khorne values best and rewards those who can lay them before his throne.