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.

If a serial killer has a genetic certainty to be a serial killer he is still evil regardless of his excuse and should be put away. Your nature does not excuse your actions. I don't care if the Nazis had a genetic fluke that made them slaughter forty to fifty million people, they were still the most heinous scum to have ever blackened Europe, and Chaos is far, far worse than the third reich.

 Kain wrote:
If a serial killer has a genetic certainty to be a serial killer he is still evil regardless of his excuse and should be put away. Your nature does not excuse your actions. I don't care if the Nazis had a genetic fluke that made them slaughter forty to fifty million people, they were still the most heinous scum to have ever blackened Europe, and Chaos is far, far worse than the third reich.

Nobody said that it was an excuse. Where'd you get that from?

 Troike wrote:

 Kain wrote:
If a serial killer has a genetic certainty to be a serial killer he is still evil regardless of his excuse and should be put away. Your nature does not excuse your actions. I don't care if the Nazis had a genetic fluke that made them slaughter forty to fifty million people, they were still the most heinous scum to have ever blackened Europe, and Chaos is far, far worse than the third reich.

Nobody said that it was an excuse. Where'd you get that from?

You seem to be arguing that Chaos gets a free pass because of it's nature. I'm saying that it's nature doesn't matter one red cent, it's actions are all that matter and it's actions are second only to the Dark Eldar in sheer evil.

 Kain wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 Kain wrote:
If a serial killer has a genetic certainty to be a serial killer he is still evil regardless of his excuse and should be put away. Your nature does not excuse your actions. I don't care if the Nazis had a genetic fluke that made them slaughter forty to fifty million people, they were still the most heinous scum to have ever blackened Europe, and Chaos is far, far worse than the third reich.

Nobody said that it was an excuse. Where'd you get that from?

You seem to be arguing that Chaos gets a free pass because of it's nature. I'm saying that it's nature doesn't matter one red cent, it's actions are all that matter and it's actions are second only to the Dark Eldar in sheer evil.

But I'm not arguing whether what they're doing is acceptable or not, or whether we should "give them a free pass". My point is that, as constructs of emotion, it can be argued that they do not truly fit the concept of evil. Similar to how a natural disaster wouldn't be considered to be an evil entity, becuase what else can it do?

 Troike wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 Kain wrote:
If a serial killer has a genetic certainty to be a serial killer he is still evil regardless of his excuse and should be put away. Your nature does not excuse your actions. I don't care if the Nazis had a genetic fluke that made them slaughter forty to fifty million people, they were still the most heinous scum to have ever blackened Europe, and Chaos is far, far worse than the third reich.

Nobody said that it was an excuse. Where'd you get that from?

You seem to be arguing that Chaos gets a free pass because of it's nature. I'm saying that it's nature doesn't matter one red cent, it's actions are all that matter and it's actions are second only to the Dark Eldar in sheer evil.

But I'm not arguing whether what they're doing is acceptable or not, or whether we should "give them a free pass". My point is that, as constructs of emotion, it can be argued that they do not truly fit the concept of evil. Similar to how a natural disaster wouldn't be considered to be an evil entity, becuase what else can it do?

Except a disaster can't consider the consequences of it's actions, being a nonsapient entity. The Chaos Gods know what they do is seen as abhorrent and revel in being evil. "Kill for the sake of killing. Evil for the sake of evil" and all that are common sayings amongst them, their minions, and their pawns.

Prove that the Chaos Gods know what they do is evil.

Using the words of those that serve them is not proof of what the Dark Gods themselves are or believe.

All the chaos god's besides khorne can be made viewed as good or evil, depending on the perspective, and the opportunity. Even so, Khorne is only "Evil", because he is empowered by the violence, rage, and bloodlust of others, and could not exist if the universe were made peacefull, where the other 3 god's potentially could.

Remember that almost all of the fluff is written from the Imperial perspective and is thus most likely gonna be biased to make the Chaos Gods look as evil as they can.

Even then, "evil" and "good" is all about perspective as well. Since the Nazis were referenced earlier, let me use that as an example. To us, what they did was pretty much the worst thing that happened to Europe (some will argue Stalin was much worse, but that's a whole different discussion). To them, what they were doing was for the best and was overall a very good thing. The Chaos gods are only doing what they see as a good thing, because that's what they are. They are manifestations of those "emotions" and beliefs.

We can also assume that the followers of the Gods exaggerate what the Gods really want as Void_Dragon said. A real life example, the Crusades. I'm sure the Christian Crusaders believed wholeheartedly that God wanted them to sack the Middle East and kill Muslims, but I'm almost certain that the God they fought for didn't quite mean it like that.

As with any religion and belief there are extremists, and the cults and cult Marines we see in 40k are the extremists for the Chaos gods. Extremists have a tendency to twist the words their Gods give them in order to justify their actions.

EDIT: I'm not trying to target any religion or belief with this, that is not my intention, I only mean to use some examples that I know from history to try and relate the point. I myself am a Germanic Neopaganist, so I have no real argument with anything in particular

 Kain wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 Kain wrote:
If a serial killer has a genetic certainty to be a serial killer he is still evil regardless of his excuse and should be put away. Your nature does not excuse your actions. I don't care if the Nazis had a genetic fluke that made them slaughter forty to fifty million people, they were still the most heinous scum to have ever blackened Europe, and Chaos is far, far worse than the third reich.

Nobody said that it was an excuse. Where'd you get that from?

You seem to be arguing that Chaos gets a free pass because of it's nature. I'm saying that it's nature doesn't matter one red cent, it's actions are all that matter and it's actions are second only to the Dark Eldar in sheer evil.

But I'm not arguing whether what they're doing is acceptable or not, or whether we should "give them a free pass". My point is that, as constructs of emotion, it can be argued that they do not truly fit the concept of evil. Similar to how a natural disaster wouldn't be considered to be an evil entity, becuase what else can it do?

Except a disaster can't consider the consequences of it's actions, being a nonsapient entity. The Chaos Gods know what they do is seen as abhorrent and revel in being evil. "Kill for the sake of killing. Evil for the sake of evil" and all that are common sayings amongst them, their minions, and their pawns.

Neither can the god concieve of acting differently than the emotions that make it.

Also, what their actions are "seen" as are irrelevant. It's a whole other issue to whether they are evil or not.

 Troike wrote:

 Kain wrote:
You are defined by your actions and influence, not your innate nature. And the actions of the ruinous powers are evil to the point that Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan would gak themselves in horror at the sight of them.

So your innate nature has no part in defining who you are? Also, the things you mentioned very much define how others see you, not what you actually are.

Going back to my infant analogy, you wouldn't call a baby evil because it cries loudly. It may be a horrible noise, but the baby can't help it. It's just its nature.

I would most certainly call it evil and punch it in the face!

 Evileyes wrote:
All the chaos god's besides khorne can be made viewed as good or evil, depending on the perspective, and the opportunity.

He does also have an element of martial honour to him, though. He could be viewed as good were he to spare some helpless babies, for example.

 Evileyes wrote:
Even so, Khorne is only "Evil", because he is empowered by the violence, rage, and bloodlust of others, and could not exist if the universe were made peacefull, where the other 3 god's potentially could.

But is rage an inherently evil thing? It's the actions that it can result in that we would term evil, not the emotion itself.

Also, Khorne is also powered by violent events such as a planet breaking up, not just violence commited by living things. He could still exist if the galaxy were at peace (lol), albiet in a much weakened form.

 Kain wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 Kain wrote:
If a serial killer has a genetic certainty to be a serial killer he is still evil regardless of his excuse and should be put away. Your nature does not excuse your actions. I don't care if the Nazis had a genetic fluke that made them slaughter forty to fifty million people, they were still the most heinous scum to have ever blackened Europe, and Chaos is far, far worse than the third reich.

Nobody said that it was an excuse. Where'd you get that from?

You seem to be arguing that Chaos gets a free pass because of it's nature. I'm saying that it's nature doesn't matter one red cent, it's actions are all that matter and it's actions are second only to the Dark Eldar in sheer evil.

But I'm not arguing whether what they're doing is acceptable or not, or whether we should "give them a free pass". My point is that, as constructs of emotion, it can be argued that they do not truly fit the concept of evil. Similar to how a natural disaster wouldn't be considered to be an evil entity, becuase what else can it do?

Except a disaster can't consider the consequences of it's actions, being a nonsapient entity. The Chaos Gods know what they do is seen as abhorrent and revel in being evil. "Kill for the sake of killing. Evil for the sake of evil" and all that are common sayings amongst them, their minions, and their pawns.

This is somewhat in error, because the Chaos Gods absolutely do not exist apart from or separate from the emotions they represent. Khorne is the Blood God, the bloody-handed god of carnage and slaughter. Without warfare, carnage and slaughter, Khorne *would not exist*. Same goes for the rest of the Ruinous Powers and their portfolios.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Prove that the Chaos Gods know what they do is evil.

The vast majority of "evil" villains in a story or in real life do not see what they do as evil. A better gauge is whether or not the chaos gods know what evil is in the first place.

To this, I'd say that at the very least, Khorne. knows. The act of understanding good and evil is the act of understanding that there is an arbitrary set of rules and morales to follow. After all, "good and evil" are entirely made up concepts by sentient beings that one should follow despite their nature.

In Khorne's case, Khorne himself has a code of ethics. Don't be a coward or he'll kill you (even more worse than before). Don't abandon your brothers in arms or he'll sick his hounds on you. Don't rely on psychic magic, etc. Khorne, being the epitome of hate, hates everything, but he clearly hates these things MORE (psykers that beseechs him for aid are said to be met with instant anhilation. ....yes, I know the fluff isn't always consistent, but that's the fault of the authors I think). Anyone who disobeys Khorne's arbitrary ideas of what's right and wrong will suffer his wrath to degrees more horrible than his wrath normally is. And they ARE arbitrary. There is nothing that says the epitome of hate naturally has to hate certain things MORE. If Khorne were truly JUST the epitome of hate without the ability to distinguish right from wrong, he wouldn't hate others even more than usual for not doing what he believes is right or wrong.

Thus, we know at the very least that Khorne understands good and evil. Obviously, he doesn't believe he himself is evil (...or maybe he does but doesn't care. Actually no way to prove either way). Maybe Khorne sees himself as quite righteous, destroying all those cowards who totally deserved to die for being cowards. Of course, he also hates everyone else so he wants to kill them, but eh, his own moral code of ethics probably doesn't include things like "Killing people just because you hate them is wrong.". However, that only makes him not evil by his own standards. By most other society's moral standards, killing everyone just because you hate them is very evil..

Of course, there's always the oft-chance that Khorne knows/views killing others just because you hate them as evil too and just doesn't care, but there isn't any way to really prove tha. Regardless, he does understand that there is such a thing as good and evil. Otherwise he wouldn't be killing people (even more than usual) just because of an arbitrary set of morals.

Getting back to Tzeentch, then, it is likely that Tzeentch understands good and evil too. Because you'd think Tzeentch, in all his genius, would at least be able to comprehend as much as Khorne does. However, I do admit that Tzeentch is kinda a whacko even by the other Chaos' gods' standards, so there is a chance that even if the other three gods understood what good and evil is (hypothetically speaking), Tzeentch might not because he's a wierdo amongst the other gods.

The Gods have their own concepts of good and evil. Each God has a simple psyche and simple concepts of morality because each one is only a faction of the human psyche, rather than a whole being.

To Khorne, lust and happiness are evil, and wrath is good. His followers might try to come up with reasons to justify this ("Pleasure is selfish" or "Justice is impossible without wrath) but really to Khorne its just as simple as lust=bad and anger=good. Its the same way we think of murder as bad.

To Slaanesh, anger is evil, and lust is good. Again, followers might try to justify this ("Lust makes people happy" or "Rage causes suffering") but to Slaanesh its as simple as that. Slaanesh is only ever capable of lust. It thinks of itself and its followers as good, and its enemies as evil.

Now, Tzeentch is the God of Hope and consequently the desire for change. What is hope, if not believing good change is coming? His opposite is Nurgle, the God of Pessimism and Cynicism. To Tzeentch, hope and change are good, and fear and despair are bad. It doesn't get more complicated than that.

Tzeentch's followers could try to justify what Tzeentch does. Without change and hope, human civilization would be impossible. We would all just lie down and die. Really though, Tzeentch doesn't need to justify what he does, the same way you don't have to justify not being a murderer. Its innately good.

By your moral standards, Tzeentch might be evil. He inflicts horrible mutations and incomprehensible pain. He wages brutal and bloody war for sometimes no reason at all. He is the architect of a thousand different massacres and genocides on a thousand different worlds.

By Tzeentch's moral standards, you might be evil. Maybe you try to live as successful a life as possible, so that after you die your time on earth won't have been wasted. Well, to most people that's not morally wrong. But to Tzeentch it is, because its motivated by pessimism and not hope. Tzeentch would consider that evil, even though it isn't hurting anyone.

By definition Tzeenitch would best be considered the god of "chaos".

Where there is sufficient disorder or the "structure" is so advanced it defies comprehension.

Chaos of itself is not evil, but it is pretty darn uncaring. He could just be a god lashing out at those that try to constrain with laws and controls.

A "freedom fighter" to some or "terrorist" to others...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Troike wrote:
***snip***The point I'm making is that, as constructs of emotions, the gods themselves are not technically "evil", though lots of the actions they carry out and influence could be considered to be evil.

Wiki quote: Elements that are commonly associated with evil involve unbalanced behavior involving expediency, selfishness, ignorance, or neglect.

This truly becomes a religious / philosophy question, you could ask a Buddhist about "evil" and they would say it does not exist it is just another aspect of our nature to be accepted as part of us and to help us reach balance.
Using the Wiki quote as a guide, the unbalance as I stated earlier is a key factor.

Tzeenitch specifically for the other elements would be less "guilty"; expediency = possibly, but seems to enjoy complex plans so it would seem more like cheating, selfishness = possibly, but seemed more interested in the pure ability to manipulate, ignorance = has a little more knowledge than most in order to properly make plans so not likely, neglect: ah no, loves the details would not want to neglect anything.

He would be the least evil of the four but still meets the definition. Maybe it is part of his plan to keep you guessing on he is evil??

I think we should make a differentiation, even if it is based on semantics. The Chaos gods, while defined by the emotions they are composed of, are, in the context of this discussion, limited by the emotions they are composed of. Their perceptions of events are limited by the emotions from which they are derived, which in turn means that they go about achieving their respective goals based on nothing more than the emotions from which they are derived compelling them to do so. They are masses of emotions, lumped together to such a point as to form sentience. Yet that sentience is limited in the ends it (they) seek by the original constraints of the emotions which contributed to its formation in the first place. Simply stated, they are self aware, but limited in their perceptive scope by that which gave birth to said sentience. We simply wish to define them by our own moral standards in an effort to make sense of the abstract. To make sense of the concept of a coalescence of pure emotion, which is what the Chaos gods are.

The thing is, while the chaos gods are supposed to be limited by their emotion, they and their daemons (which are created by their essence, and thus should be limited to the same emotions their patron god is) clearly exhibit the ability to dip into other emotions here and there, even if to much more limited extent. Slaanesh is stated that ANY daemon would fall to it should it view Slaanesh, for example. And Slaanesh, who's supposed to be the opposite of Khorne, clearly has the ability to get REALLY PISSED OFF if the Masque's fate is any indication (Slaaneshi daemons also have a tendency to flip their lids when things don't go their way). Even Nurgle, god of acceptance, generosity, and tolerance, has his nurglings be VERY careful around him or his greater daemons when they're serious about something (Epidemous' nurglings are careful to be very quiet when they're working about because they don't want to get Epidermus mad. Or Epidermus doesn't want to get Nurgle mad. One or the other). It doesn't necessarily just apply to the gods getting angry (although for the most part, the gods seem to have quite a temper). Khorne is stated to be "pleased" by actions in several fluff pieces, though admittingly that might just be a slip of wording. Really, if those authors were treating Khorne as a being incapable of PLEASure, they would have used the word "impressed" or something like that.

My own theory is that this is because the chaos gods aren't singular beings but are infact the coalescance of emotions that are so similar to each other that they flow into and stick to each other. But since the gods aren't actually singular beings, these emotions can flow in and out, which enables the gods to feel the other emotions every once in a while. ...either that or fluff writers are just sloppy.

Tzeentch is sociopathic and psychopathic, completely and utterly insane-- it plots and schemes purely for the sake of plotting and scheming.

In that sense, it's just as evil as a serial murder, who does horrible things because they have no empathy for other people.

 Melissia wrote:
Tzeentch is sociopathic and psychopathic, completely and utterly insane-- it plots and schemes purely for the sake of plotting and scheming.
In that sense, it's just as evil as a serial murder, who does horrible things because they have no empathy for other people.

From personal experience a complete lack of empathy or "put yourself in that person's shoes" or "treat others as you would yourself" is the main acid test.
The second is to respect a person's wishes rather than ignore them.
The two combined is killer (almost literal).

In the end of it all, you can really only describe good or evil from a particular point of perspective. Objectively, good and evil simply don't exist. They are not universal constants.

 Psienesis wrote:
In the end of it all, you can really only describe good or evil from a particular point of perspective. Objectively, good and evil simply don't exist. They are not universal constants.

That's actually the stance Chaos officially takes (well, Fulgrim and some others). You can't be sure if it's the one the chaos gods themselves have, but considering the sheer scale the gods exist on, it wouldn't be surprising if they held that same point of view.

If you define 'Good' as 'Things which benefit others' and 'Evil' as 'Things which benefit myself at the expense of others', then Tzeentch is not wholly evil because he does as much to benefit others as he does to inadvertently harm them.

Each thing can only act in accordance with its nature. Another definition of 'evil' would be to say that it is acting against one's own nature. A snake is not evil for eating babies. A dog is not evil for chasing rabbits. A human is not evil for making friends. A snake is not evil for shedding its skin, a dog is not evil for protecting its master, and a human is not evil for sacrificing its friends.

Tzeentch is not evil for changing things. Nurgle is not evil for keeping things the same. Khorne is not evil for destroying things. Slaanesh is not evil for enjoying itself.

Tzeentch would be evil to keep things the same. Nurgle would be evil to change things. Khorne would be evil to create things, and Slaanesh would be evil to spread misery.

Another way to look at the Chaos Gods is as agents of a cycle. Tzeentch is birth, Slaanesh is childhood, Nurgle is old age, and Khorne is death. Potential, development, decay, ending. To have a beginning, to have potential, something else must end first and give up its energy. That's entropy.

I'd have to disagree with that. Sentient beings, such as humanity, are capable of transcending their genetic code and becoming greater than mere biology-- not only technologically, but also morally.

One could argue that the four dark powers aren't truly sentient, though.

Again, I think Martial Honour (and thus, Khorne) at the very least by definition is sentient. When was the last time you saw a nonsentient being give a crap about whether or not its foe was honourable? The whole concept of honour in general requires sentience, since honour itself doesn't objectively exist, just like good and evil.

About the same time I saw Khorne as having any martial honor (which is never).

After reading "The Lives of Ferag Lion-Wolf" by Barrington J Bayley, I came to the conclusion that not only was Tzeentch evil, he was without a doubt the most evil of the Chaos gods.

Mwahahaha..... just as planned...

Personally I don't really regard any as evil so much as an embodiment of all the emotions in the galaxy combined. They represent from good to terrible. In the world of 40k, where there is only war. Chaos grows to reflect that and so being regurgitates malice and daemonic monstrosities that further continue the cycle of chaos. Granted this is probably entirely wrong he he. Just find it a more fascinating way.

Define "evil" as you're attempting to use it and I'll get back to you with an answer.

If we're using the classic Dungeons and Dragons alignment definitions, Tzeentch is Chaotic Neutral; he does whatever he feels like for gaks and giggles.

There is no good in 40k! Only Neutral and Chaotic xD

 Melissia wrote:
About the same time I saw Khorne as having any martial honor (which is never).

He used to but they ditched it, and then they brought it back in some small ways. If you offer him the skulls of the unworthy (I.E hapless civilians) as a sacrifice he sends flesh hounds to eat you.