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.

Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
And I have been their, and given lectures at a precinct there, and corrupt was minimal.

You do realize that even in a city with absurd levels of police corruption, it's not going to be even across all precincts, right?

ZSO SAHALL wrote:In the US we have problems with cops selling drugs and torturing people, stop talking about canada, your the only one here from disneyland.

1 Canadian on 3 commits fraud every year. Last year, in Quebec City (voted top 5 best cities worlwide to raise a kid in an european education magasine 2-3 years ago), 5 cops were arrested for setting up a gun black market with confiscated weaponry. You seem to have a very adolescent view on authority. Things aren't as bad in the US as you claim, just like they aren't as bright as you interpret them to be from Je suis2 au hazard's account in Canada.

You can't really view this from a government point of view either. Citie's corruption varies completly from one another, and from the general level of corruption of a country. Montreal's bureaucracy is probably on of the most corrupt in North America, and yet it's located in one of the the province with the lowest crime rate.

BaronIveagh wrote:Ah. My experience during my six year career busting politicians for corruption was that if you point to a random hole in the ground, you'll probably find where they tried to bury their vacation to Bermuda on the tax payers dime, their ties to a major corporation where they tried to bypass bribery laws by having a family member receive the 'gift' or some other compensation, or their ties to organized crime.

Probably isn't worse than the ''1 canadian on 3 commits tax fraud''. 1 politician on 3 commits tax fraud.

Je suis2 wrote:OMG HOW EVIL. Plus, how was he not made to answer? He was executed...also, he was "a capable articulator of the beliefs of the bourgeoisie (working man/middle class)" which is quite contrary to what you have said earlier this article in regards to the governement-people relation. Quite an odd example.

Well you would have been much safer saying that there's hasn't been any leader with complete freedom of agency since we came unto a Rule of Law system (so last century), that would have been much more accurate (and you should also restrict it to western civilization, but that's often assumed on these forums anyway)

So now apathy is evil? Not caring is evil? It is evil to have priorities that do not consign to someone else's biased view of morality? No, evil is a conscient and deliberate wrongdoing,

Yes it's evil. Legally, apathy is a complete mens rea for a large number of crimes. It is so because inaction, in a large number of cases, is either a form of guilty action, or a reprehensible absence of moral sensibility.

Anyways, good is both non-existant and childish. It is amongst the MOST childish things, in fact. The whole concept, the belief in something unfailingly evil...hogwash.

Weren't you the one attacking the other post for ridiculous claims without any support to them? Because saying that an entire category of human experience is a childish illusion, well, that's the kind of stuff I would flunk you for...

Yes it's evil. Legally, apathy is a complete mens rea for a large number of crimes. It is so because inaction, in a large number of cases, is either a form of guilty action, or a reprehensible absence of moral sensibility.

No, it isn't. lack of goodness =/= presence of foulness. If there is any motive, any at all, other than the infliction of pain, there is no evil present. Bullies are not evil, because their driving reason is not simply wishing to inflict suffering, it is to make themselves feel bigger. It doesn't make it excusable by any means, but it means that it isn't evil. Nothing in the world fits into that category. Nothing causes suffering for no reason other than the suffering in and of itself. The only time you would ever see that is in someone with severe mental instability, but in their warped mind, it may very well not be evil. You cannot ever judge someone else as being evil, because their circumstance, thoughts, motives, beliefs etc. will forever remain a mystery. Even if they tell you their motives, not everything can be conveyed by language. So not being able to judge others as evil leaves only judging yourself as evil, right? Wrong. Anyone with the meta-awareness and desire to question their own morality is not evil, because someone "evil" would not do that.

And that, my friend, is why evil does not exist.

*looks at the thread title and what is being discuss*
Umm. guys and girls, can we get back to space wolves instead of talking about North America Corruption.

Necrosis wrote:*looks at the thread title and what is being discuss*
Umm. guys and girls, can we get back to space wolves instead of talking about North America Corruption.

EXALT EXALT EXALT.

Necrosis wrote:*looks at the thread title and what is being discuss*
Umm. guys and girls, can we get back to space wolves instead of talking about North America Corruption.

If the question is ''Is X the only good protagonist in this setting'', then defining what is ''good'' in that setting is completely on topic. Furthermore, drawing comparison to OUR setting is the only proper way we have of doing this.

If you cannot draw inferences properly, at least don't restrict those who can.

Je suis2 wrote:
No, it isn't. lack of goodness =/= presence of foulness.

Not necessarily, it depends on the actual topic. Not caring about your neighbor's tax evasion fraud is definitely not as perverted as not caring about a murder being committed in front of you. But that's only because we don't think it's reasonable to draw empathy on small actions of which the consequences are not seen. A lack of goodness in regards to the normal empathy reserved toward human beings directly present to your perception? Evil.

If there is any motive, any at all, other than the infliction of pain, there is no evil present [....] And that, my friend, is why evil does not exist.

That's a ridiculously restrictive use of the word 'evil'. You erase all proper meaning of the word by attaching it the necessity of intent. It isn't this simple. While humans are submitted up to a level to causality, they are still autonomous beings. Will can become an causal event, which reintroduce, to a limited degree, the idea of free will. The foundation of morals by Schopenhauer is a very quick, very good read on the subject.

Anyone with the meta-awareness and desire to question their own morality is not evil, because someone "evil" would not do that.

I wouldn't use the word evil to qualify a person, unless it's to play caricaturist. A specific act, in specific circumstances, become evil because they contradict both natural and artificial norms. A person can and will perform ridiculous cognitive gymnastics to justify evil actions, of which they are perfectly aware of the consequences and the applicable norms. Unfortunately,the phenomena, known as acrasia (like most other psychological problems) has been horribly represented by philosophers prior to the 18-19th century.

Not necessarily, it depends on the actual topic. Not caring about your neighbor's tax evasion fraud is definitely not as perverted as not caring about a murder being committed in front of you. But that's only because we don't think it's reasonable to draw empathy on small actions of which the consequences are not seen. A lack of goodness in regards to the normal empathy reserved toward human beings directly present to your perception? Evil.

interesting that you brought up free will (later in your post) because that is what this is. YOU choose not to help. Unless they are forcing you too help? taking away your free will and individuality? Is everyone who's different therefore inherently evil? No? That this does not apply.

That's a ridiculously restrictive use of the word 'evil'. You erase all proper meaning of the word by attaching it the necessity of intent. It isn't this simple. While humans are submitted up to a level to causality, they are still autonomous beings. Will can become an causal event, which reintroduce, to a limited degree, the idea of free will. The foundation of morals by Schopenhauer is a very quick, very good read on the subject.

No, that's a proper use of the word evil. People having motives that don't coincide with yours does not make them an intrinsically negative force. By your logic, every person is evil, because every sin makes you evil, because being greedy rather than helpful makes you evil, again, according to your line of reasoning. Does that mean slothful people are evil too?

This is getting ridiculous, I'm unsubscribing to this thread.

This is getting ridiculous, I'm unsubscribing to this thread.

I don't see what's ridiculous here. Again, I'm spending my Friday night on the OT forum of a site about toy soldiers...
Well at least allow me this reply.

interesting that you brought up free will (later in your post) because that is what this is. YOU choose not to help.

Not necessarily. I mean, it's possible for a person to be completely aware of another's distress, of her possibility to help, and then to decide willfully not to help. This is clearly an evil 'action' (act of restraint) and is punished by laws, depending on the consequences of the inaction. But most of the time, that isn't what happens. Someone is afraid of putting herself in danger, or they do not realize the distress. True moral apathy (the aforementioned ''acrasia'') is another different case, where one as a complete realization of the reason behind the immorality of the act, but has a willing incapacity to avoid committing it. It's also considered an element of mens rea, which constitutes the intentional part of a criminal action.

Hence why a lack of intent can make an act evil.

Unless they are forcing you too help?

Not they, the event. Our moral self requires of us that we help those in which it is our power to help.

Is everyone who's different therefore inherently evil? No? That this does not apply.

Having empathy is pretty universal to humankind. The higher specifics may differ, due to cultural differentiation, but the basis is pretty much universal.

People having motives that don't coincide with yours does not make them an intrinsically negative force.

Never said that. I specified it wasn't the person, but the act that was to be qualified. Hence why the intent is not actually that important. It's important for knowing the degree of responsibility of the actor.

By your logic, every person is evil, because every sin makes you evil, because being greedy rather than helpful makes you evil, again, according to your line of reasoning. Does that mean slothful people are evil too?

No. The artificial norms of modern society are very permissive (as it should) toward sloth. But put yourself back into 2000 B.C. China, and they will pretty much match the natural norms, which would view slothfulness as much worse than, let's say, incest.

Je suis2 au hazard wrote: If there is any motive, any at all, other than the infliction of pain, there is no evil present.

Oh, I know it was a violent, evil, act, but to this day, the mental image of that guy realizing I just shoved red hot metal into his hands brings a smile to my face. Inflicting pain itself was the point, but his expression was just so comical.

ZSO SAHALL wrote:

the Talonmaster was both a traitor and a coward

I'm guessing you did'nt read Lord of the Night, were he was imprisoned by the Eldar for 10,000 years. His obsession with the corona nox stemed from the fact that it had the power to remove the taint of chaos from the Night Lords Legion.

That's what the rest of the Night Lords legion viewed your supposed savior.

But nice of you to disregard the rest of my post that shows your fanboy interpretation to be woefully out of sync with the actual text.

How the hell did this thread start on Space Wolves and end with an argument on the subjectiveness of good and evil and police corruption in North America?
I don't quite get that...Does anyone know what is actually being argued anymore?

Well, until you, nothing anymore. I'll still maintain that it was perfectly on topic, if a little pushed for the actual context.
Is a corrupt government an evil one?
Are you justified in violent defiance against a corrupt government, even if it is the last standing force separating your kind from extinction?
Does good and evil actually exist?

That all matters on the question.

I argued against the finer philosophical points brought up here because that's what interest me. On the question? 40K is GrimDark in part because ''good'' can't really be applied to any recognizable group. Individuals can be good, and they serve as focal point for us to relate to, and feel horrified about the violence of that universe. On an individual basis, I think there is probably even a few 'good' Chaos Marines (admittedly, they probably don't stay 'good' for long).

Kovnik Obama wrote:Does good and evil actually exist?

Let just use this chart:

FifteenHours wrote:How the hell did this thread start on Space Wolves and end with an argument on the subjectiveness of good and evil and police corruption in North America?
I don't quite get that...Does anyone know what is actually being argued anymore?

Personally I was waiting for someone to ask me to explain my last post. It's really a funny story, actually.

Necrosis wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:Does good and evil actually exist?

Let just use this chart:

Spoiler:

Amusing, but the Tau are definitely not Lawful Good, lol. Kinda hard to do when you run an oppressive, carefully manipulated society based on caste based power consolidation, aggressive expansionism, subtle mind control, and pervasive propaganda. The average Tau is probably lawful neutral, simply because they aren't even aware of the level to which they are controlled and manipulated. But the Ethereals are definitely Lawful Evil. Calling it "The Greater Good" is a great way to inspire patriotism by giving a cohesive vision to a social group, but there's nothing "Good" about it.

I meant for defining what good is, the pictures for the chart are all jokes.

Oh, I've seen the picture before. The topic just came up recently, and reminded me of someone who couldn't figure out that the whole concept for the Tau had been lifted right out of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Oh, I've seen the picture before. The topic just came up recently, and reminded me of someone who couldn't figure out that the whole concept for the Tau had been lifted right out of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.

There's a reason the player's ship is named the Fountainhead. Though they haven't caught on yet...

Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Necrosis wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:Does good and evil actually exist?

Let just use this chart:

Spoiler:

Amusing, but the Tau are definitely not Lawful Good, lol. Kinda hard to do when you run an oppressive, carefully manipulated society based on caste based power consolidation, aggressive expansionism, subtle mind control, and pervasive propaganda. The average Tau is probably lawful neutral, simply because they aren't even aware of the level to which they are controlled and manipulated. But the Ethereals are definitely Lawful Evil. Calling it "The Greater Good" is a great way to inspire patriotism by giving a cohesive vision to a social group, but there's nothing "Good" about it.

You really seem to hate the Tau. They do not use mind control - no where has said they have it. There has been speculation, but that's it. If somewhere has, please tell me exactly where it is - the Ethereals Calming influence does not count.

The Caste system is because they are each COMPLETELY different from each other and adapted for different purposes. That does not make them bad at all.

They are not aggressive expansionists - they expand in phases, and do not take planets by force all the time. As an example, read the Ciaphas Cain novel "For the Emperor"

Mentlegen324 wrote:

Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Necrosis wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:Does good and evil actually exist?

Let just use this chart:

Spoiler:

Amusing, but the Tau are definitely not Lawful Good, lol. Kinda hard to do when you run an oppressive, carefully manipulated society based on caste based power consolidation, aggressive expansionism, subtle mind control, and pervasive propaganda. The average Tau is probably lawful neutral, simply because they aren't even aware of the level to which they are controlled and manipulated. But the Ethereals are definitely Lawful Evil. Calling it "The Greater Good" is a great way to inspire patriotism by giving a cohesive vision to a social group, but there's nothing "Good" about it.

You really seem to hate the Tau. They do not use mind control - no where has said they have it. There has been speculation, but that's it. If somewhere has, please tell me exactly where it is - the Ethereals Calming influence does not count.

The Caste system is because they are each COMPLETELY different from each other and adapted for different purposes. That does not make them bad at all.

They are not aggressive expansionists - they expand in phases, and do not take planets by force all the time. As an example, read the Ciaphas Cain novel "For the Emperor"

I wouldn't say his statements are ENTIRELY unfounded, but he's definitely prescribing to the most grimdark side of the fluff.

That said, you're still not seeing the big picture. This is a world where humanity undertakes regular genocide on a planetary scale, as a matter of cold protocol. Where a dying race will send millions to the slaughter to save a handful of their kin. Where a race of machine-warriors have declared holocaust on ALL ORGANIC LIFE. A universe where ones vices fuel an alternate reality, where they take shape as malevolent entities who will either slaughter them mercilessly, use them as pawns on an inter-spatial chessboard, condemn them to lives as eternal pleasure/torture slaves, or turn them into walking plague-carriers. Tribes of great-green football brawlers are going around on simultaneous mixes of pub-crawls, soccer riots, and genocide, for the sake of a good time.

Compared to that, even from the darkest lense, the Tau and their colonies have it pretty good. For starters, you can peacefully submit and still live a fairly normal life. That alone is a leg up on basically everyone else ever in the 40k universe. On top of that, once they have mind-controlled/brainwashed/orbitally bombarded you into submission, and have placed you within their caste system, you're still far better off than you EVER possibly could be within the Imperium, unless you are part of the blessed 99.99999%.

So, over all, you're not giving the Tau their due.

There are good guys in 40k? Why wasn't I aware of this?

Yori wrote:There are good guys in 40k? Why wasn't I aware of this?

Read above. Good is relative in 40k.

Necrosis wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:Does good and evil actually exist?

Let just use this chart:

Spoiler:

That picture is stupid. By the D&D 3.5 Alignment Chart, there are no good guys in 40k. There might be a few neutral guys, but that's it.

EDIT: Also, it says Chaos is Neutral Evil. WTF? As far as I was aware, chaos was chaos. They want to tear down order and create a society where people just follow their impulses, damn the consequences. That sounds pretty chaotic to me.

TermiesInARaider wrote:

Mentlegen324 wrote:

Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Necrosis wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:Does good and evil actually exist?

Let just use this chart:

Spoiler:

Amusing, but the Tau are definitely not Lawful Good, lol. Kinda hard to do when you run an oppressive, carefully manipulated society based on caste based power consolidation, aggressive expansionism, subtle mind control, and pervasive propaganda. The average Tau is probably lawful neutral, simply because they aren't even aware of the level to which they are controlled and manipulated. But the Ethereals are definitely Lawful Evil. Calling it "The Greater Good" is a great way to inspire patriotism by giving a cohesive vision to a social group, but there's nothing "Good" about it.

You really seem to hate the Tau. They do not use mind control - no where has said they have it. There has been speculation, but that's it. If somewhere has, please tell me exactly where it is - the Ethereals Calming influence does not count.

The Caste system is because they are each COMPLETELY different from each other and adapted for different purposes. That does not make them bad at all.

They are not aggressive expansionists - they expand in phases, and do not take planets by force all the time. As an example, read the Ciaphas Cain novel "For the Emperor"

I wouldn't say his statements are ENTIRELY unfounded, but he's definitely prescribing to the most grimdark side of the fluff.

That said, you're still not seeing the big picture. This is a world where humanity undertakes regular genocide on a planetary scale, as a matter of cold protocol. Where a dying race will send millions to the slaughter to save a handful of their kin. Where a race of machine-warriors have declared holocaust on ALL ORGANIC LIFE. A universe where ones vices fuel an alternate reality, where they take shape as malevolent entities who will either slaughter them mercilessly, use them as pawns on an inter-spatial chessboard, condemn them to lives as eternal pleasure/torture slaves, or turn them into walking plague-carriers. Tribes of great-green football brawlers are going around on simultaneous mixes of pub-crawls, soccer riots, and genocide, for the sake of a good time.

Compared to that, even from the darkest lense, the Tau and their colonies have it pretty good. For starters, you can peacefully submit and still live a fairly normal life. That alone is a leg up on basically everyone else ever in the 40k universe. On top of that, once they have mind-controlled/brainwashed/orbitally bombarded you into submission, and have placed you within their caste system, you're still far better off than you EVER possibly could be within the Imperium, unless you are part of the blessed 99.99999%.

So, over all, you're not giving the Tau their due.

Has it actually been said non-Tau are placed within the caste system? Haven't heard that mentioned before.

Still, i haven't seen any evidance of Mind-control or brainwashing (other than propaganda) anywhere, where has it actually (as in definitely, not speculation) been said?. The Ethereals Calming Influence doesn't count as mind-control. Either way though, the Tau are one of the better choices available.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Necrosis wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:Does good and evil actually exist?

Let just use this chart:

Spoiler:

Amusing, but the Tau are definitely not Lawful Good, lol. Kinda hard to do when you run an oppressive, carefully manipulated society based on caste based power consolidation, aggressive expansionism, subtle mind control, and pervasive propaganda. The average Tau is probably lawful neutral, simply because they aren't even aware of the level to which they are controlled and manipulated. But the Ethereals are definitely Lawful Evil. Calling it "The Greater Good" is a great way to inspire patriotism by giving a cohesive vision to a social group, but there's nothing "Good" about it.

The mind control and propaganda are supposition/rumour on the part of an imperial observer, meaning it holds no more weight than what my suppositions are.

It is separated into castes because each caste is a different species. I agree that if they were all physiologically/anatomically the same, like humans, and sorted into castes it would be bad. They expand because, other than the Mon'tau, the greatest fear of the tau is having a tiny kingdom that can be wiped out in a nanosecond. This is what originally prompted the tau to leave their homeworld: a single stellar radiation pulse of significant size could destroy everything they have created. This is how the tau mind works. So, they expand. The fire caste are naturally aggressive hunters, but they reign themselves in and are perfectly lawful. In fact, I cannot even picture tau crime. Not being space hippies hardly makes them bad.

They are simply the most forgiving faction. They offer you a good, full life as a member of their empire if you surrender and join. They do not employ brutal battle tactics (the koloth gorge massacre ended with the censorship of the errant commander Brightsword), their first priority is evacuating civilians (source: Savage Scars, note this is not a trait displayed by imperials) and their entire battle plan on tau owned worlds revolves around slowing and weakening the attackers so that they have more time for this evacuation. They do not slaughter entire worlds of theirs simply because they can (see: inquisition) They do not massacre enemy citizens...They really are the good guys.

Before anyone starts with the usual counter points:

They do not sterilize the human populations of their worlds. This was a proposed answer to a fact hinted at in the non-canonical ending of a video-game. They also stated that males and females were separated into separate camps. Maybe THAT had something to do with the human population dwindling?

They do not mind control the vespid. The helmets are purely for communication. Obeying/joining readily does not mean you are being made into a puppet. Several of the primarchs joined the emperor as soon as they saw him, does that mean he gave them hypno-helmets? No? The helmets are necessary because vespid mouths are so different, no tau would ever be able to speak their language and vice-versa and a tau jaw would not be able to handle the words formed by the insectile mandibles.

Ethereals do not use mind control pheromones. If that were true, there would have to be 1 ethereal per tau on every tau world, because they'd have to follow them around, because pheromones cannot cover an entire world. Tau are not constantly around these leaders, and so they would either have every world rebelling on a regular basis, or the ethereals don't use any pheromones.

They do not use kroot for meat grinder tactics. Even in the tau codex (which is upstairs so I won't quote directly) it says that fire caste doctrine does not recognize the concept of expendable troops, and in the rare, specific scenario where there is literally no option but to use a frontal assault, they are supported by marksmen, and the safety of the troops is entrusted to them. Also, most cadres don't even allow kroot to do this as they see it as a high honour


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Has it actually been said non-Tau are placed within the caste system?

Well I have seen

Gue'vesa'saal

Gue'vesa'la

and

Gue'vesa'ui

multiple times, and those are caste ranks, so I would assume that humans are treated as their own caste, albeit with rank limitations since I've seen no Gue'vesa'vre or higher.

"The mind control and propaganda are supposition/rumour on the part of an imperial observer"

Numerous Imperial observers and a few non-Imperial ones as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LoneLictor wrote:Let just use this chart:

Spoiler:

Ugh, that.

Tau would be lawful neutral, as would the Imperium as a whole (with some good and some evil people in them, though the most dedicated heroes of the Imperium tend to be decidedly good), including Space Marines who as a whole can't honestly be put as either good nor evil. Chaos would be Chaotic Neutral leaning towards evil, but there are heroes within Chaos just as there are villains within the Imperium (though the most dedicated heroes of Chaos tend to be decidedly evil).

Orks are Warlike Green, because they have no concept of good or evil even within their own society-- there's only "orky" and "unorky", and "a good waaagh!" or "mucking about" (see here, but if they had to be classified, I'd say chaotic neutral is best, as they're not out to commit evil, so much as they just want a good fight-- something that also happens within good aligned beings in the dnd system, so it isn't a uniquely evil thing. Tyranids are either neutral evil or true neutral by the DnD scale, depending on if one sees the Hive Mind as a malicious devourer of all it sees or simply as an animal seeking to find its next meal. It is neither bound by chaotic nor lawful tendencies. Eldar are definitely Lawful Arrogant, while Dark Eldar are probably Neutral Donkeycave. And Necrons... feth, I have no clue where to place them in the new fluff for them.

No. One imperial observer and no others. His name is Zachariah Santiago, and I want him to be retconned out of existence.

Melissia wrote:Tau would be lawful neutral, as would the Imperium as a whole (with some good and some evil people in them, though the most dedicated heroes of the Imperium tend to be decidedly good), including Space Marines who as a whole can't honestly be put as either good nor evil. Chaos would be Chaotic Neutral leaning towards evil, but there are heroes within Chaos just as there are villains within the Imperium (though the most dedicated heroes of Chaos tend to be decidedly evil).

Out of curiosity, who are those heroes? I'm wracking my brain trying to think of some "good" Chaos heroes, but the only ones that come to mind are merely charismatic/sympathetic villains (Talos, Huron, maybe even Honsou and Marduk).

Low level non-Astartes ones mostly, the ones that are rebelling against the Imperium's injustices for example.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Je suis2 au hazard wrote:No. One imperial observer and no others

I can think of at least three Imperial sources and one "omniscient narrator" source, myself.

Melissia wrote:Chaos would be Chaotic Neutral leaning towards evil, but there are heroes within Chaos just as there are villains within the Imperium (though the most dedicated heroes of Chaos tend to be decidedly evil).

Wow, Wittgenstein is ringing in my ear right about now.

I think people are investing a little too much into the word "Chaos."

Admittedly, WH40K stole Michael Moorcock's version of Chaos vs. Law which doesn't overlay so well with the Alignment system from D&D as it has developed (funny given that Moorcock's writings also inspired it as well).


Chaotic Neutral has often been interpreted at least a mix of whimsy, mirth, randomness, individuality, self-centeredness, and unreliability. "Roguish" behavior if i need to reach for a generalized catch all term.

That isn't quite Moorcock's take on Chaos - which has a much more biting and dark overtone - as well as partaking of imagery and themes that under other systems of measurement are reserved for "evil."


Its that version/interpretation of Chaos which partakes more of the great big Venn Diagram that is supposed to characterize the faction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just to drive home a point - has anyone ever heard of Monte Cook? He was one of the 2nd Gen big name game designers associated with D&D during its "AD&D to D&D 3.5" era.

When he went off to make the award winning campaign world, Ptolus, he decided to re-introduce the Moorcockian version of Chaos to D&D players via a lovely supplement entitled Chaositech.

However by that time Chaos as an alignment had essentially been identified with personal freedom - he had to devote sections of his sourcebook to explain what "True Chaos" really was...

A group of children playing can be called “chaotic.” One might very well know a person about whom one could say, “He is chaotic.” A creature, such as a storm giant, can have an alignment of chaotic good. But from a cultist’s point of view, chaos is far more than an interest in individuality or personal freedom.

These things are not of chaos—not according to such texts as the Book of Faceless Hate, a key tome in the religion of deep chaos. Deep chaos is based on the fundamental aspects of hate, destruction, death, and dissolution. In terms of alignment, most adherents of the religion are evil as well as chaotic, although a few are chaotic neutral. Members are never chaotic good, because there is nothing “good” about
this faith. From the chaos cultists’ perspective, “good” is destruction, mayhem, disaster, and slaughter.

Yadda yadda. He had to keep hammering home to the average D&D player reading the book that what they mean by "Chaotic Neutral" in its mainstream/generalized sense doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what True Chaos really is...