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.

Going over the many information dumps on both fantasy and 40k it seems that Tzeentch is more of a neutral force of balance than a "evil" Chaotic god. If the Imperium wins, chaos gets defeated and his game ends. If Chaos wins they destory themselves and his game ends. if he maintains a constant balance between the main factions His game goes on for eternity.

so dakka, where do you put Tzeentch?

Tzeentch is evil by our standards because of all the absolutely abhorrent things he does for what can only be described as "lulz." But whether human standards can really apply to an omniscient mass of hope, ambition, knowledge, and magic? That's something entirely up in the air.

He's no more "evil" than any of the chaos gods.

Khorne likes fighting, Nurgle likes giving gifts to his followers (he has terrible taste in gifts though), and Slaanesh likes perfection in whatever you're trying to do.

Chaos gods aren't so much "evil" as it is "incompatible with human existence".

 dementedwombat wrote:
Chaos gods aren't so much "evil" as it is "incompatible with human existence".

Expanding on this, it's relevant to point out that the Chaos gods are manifestations of emotions. One could argue that they themselves are no more evil than the emotions themselves.

Of course, their actions are pretty evil, but I'm talking at a fundamental level here. Like you wouldn't call a toddler evil for knocking something over in a huff.

Think of evil as toxic.

Anything in large enough amounts can be toxic.

Each of those gods represent a single aspect concentrated without balance.

It all goes wrong when you approach all things from a single viewpoint.

 Talizvar wrote:
Think of evil as toxic.

Anything in large enough amounts can be toxic.

Each of those gods represent a single aspect concentrated without balance.

It all goes wrong when you approach all things from a single viewpoint.

They're not completely without balance. Khorne has martial honour (if the writers remember), Slannesh likes creativity and Nurgle is joval towards and accepting of his followers. Not sure what Tzeentch's upside is.

Also, not sure your definition of evil is quite correct. A large amount of something does not necessarily equate to evil. A large amount of good deeds or love, for example, would probably not be considered evil.

evil and good is really just a perspective of things, two can look at the same thing and have a different opinion on it.

 Troike wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Think of evil as toxic.

Anything in large enough amounts can be toxic.

Each of those gods represent a single aspect concentrated without balance.

It all goes wrong when you approach all things from a single viewpoint.

They're not completely without balance. Khorne has martial honour (if the writers remember), Slannesh likes creativity and Nurgle is joval towards and accepting of his followers. Not sure what Tzeentch's upside is.

Also, not sure your definition of evil is quite correct. A large amount of something does not necessarily equate to evil. A large amount of good deeds or love, for example, would probably not be considered evil.

Tzeentch is hope.

 Troike wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Think of evil as toxic.

Anything in large enough amounts can be toxic.

Each of those gods represent a single aspect concentrated without balance.

It all goes wrong when you approach all things from a single viewpoint.

They're not completely without balance. Khorne has martial honour (if the writers remember), Slannesh likes creativity and Nurgle is joval towards and accepting of his followers. Not sure what Tzeentch's upside is.

Also, not sure your definition of evil is quite correct. A large amount of something does not necessarily equate to evil. A large amount of good deeds or love, for example, would probably not be considered evil.

Until you start purging those who do not commit sufficient amounts of good deeds. Or if your love turns to obsession and stalker behavior. Or if your love goes unrequited and you kill the object of your obsession.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Think of evil as toxic.

Anything in large enough amounts can be toxic.

Each of those gods represent a single aspect concentrated without balance.

It all goes wrong when you approach all things from a single viewpoint.

They're not completely without balance. Khorne has martial honour (if the writers remember), Slannesh likes creativity and Nurgle is joval towards and accepting of his followers. Not sure what Tzeentch's upside is.

Also, not sure your definition of evil is quite correct. A large amount of something does not necessarily equate to evil. A large amount of good deeds or love, for example, would probably not be considered evil.

Until you start purging those who do not commit sufficient amounts of good deeds. Or if your love turns to obsession and stalker behavior. Or if your love goes unrequited and you kill the object of your obsession.

But those things would not the be the inevitable outcomes. Love may not be rejected, nor necessarily even be romantic in nature. And when I said good deeds, I meant performing the deeds yourself, not regulating the deeds of others.

 Troike wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Think of evil as toxic.

Anything in large enough amounts can be toxic.

Each of those gods represent a single aspect concentrated without balance.

It all goes wrong when you approach all things from a single viewpoint.

They're not completely without balance. Khorne has martial honour (if the writers remember), Slannesh likes creativity and Nurgle is joval towards and accepting of his followers. Not sure what Tzeentch's upside is.

Also, not sure your definition of evil is quite correct. A large amount of something does not necessarily equate to evil. A large amount of good deeds or love, for example, would probably not be considered evil.

Until you start purging those who do not commit sufficient amounts of good deeds. Or if your love turns to obsession and stalker behavior. Or if your love goes unrequited and you kill the object of your obsession.

But those things would not the be the Inevitable outcomes. Love may not be rejected, nor necessarily even be romantic in nature. And when I said good deeds, I meant performing the deeds yourself, not regulating the deeds of others.

When was the last time you ever saw a Khornate Bezerker not massacre the foes of the blood god in a fantastic spray of blood? Or a Noise Marine do the unspeakable to the weak and defenseless just to get some kicks? Or a Plague Marine not spread decay and despair wherever they go to the foes of the plague god? Or Rubric marines changing everything for the worse for anyone who has the enmity of Tzeentch?

 Kain wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Think of evil as toxic.

Anything in large enough amounts can be toxic.

Each of those gods represent a single aspect concentrated without balance.

It all goes wrong when you approach all things from a single viewpoint.

They're not completely without balance. Khorne has martial honour (if the writers remember), Slannesh likes creativity and Nurgle is joval towards and accepting of his followers. Not sure what Tzeentch's upside is.

Also, not sure your definition of evil is quite correct. A large amount of something does not necessarily equate to evil. A large amount of good deeds or love, for example, would probably not be considered evil.

Until you start purging those who do not commit sufficient amounts of good deeds. Or if your love turns to obsession and stalker behavior. Or if your love goes unrequited and you kill the object of your obsession.

But those things would not the be the Inevitable outcomes. Love may not be rejected, nor necessarily even be romantic in nature. And when I said good deeds, I meant performing the deeds yourself, not regulating the deeds of others.

When was the last time you ever saw a Khornate Bezerker not massacre the foes of the blood god in a fantastic spray of blood? Or a Noise Marine do the unspeakable to the weak and defenseless just to get some kicks? Or a Plague Marine not spread decay and despair wherever they go to the foes of the plague god? Or Rubric marines changing everything for the worse for anyone who has the enmity of Tzeentch?

We're discussing the gods, not their followers.

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.

Tzeentch is the God of Hope. He's neither good nor evil, simply hopeful.

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.

 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.

Tzeentche is the god of ambition, and plots that come along with too much ambition. Tzeentche is plotting, backstabbing and manipulation. I'd call those traits evil.

 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.

You can't objectively measure innate nature. You can objectively quantify the effects of one's deeds and actions. A baby crying is not evil because the suffering it causes is minimal and is done to get attention to a pressing need the baby has. The gods of chaos on the other hand cause maximum suffering for a maximal number of people because they can and generally find it funny to watch the people in the materium squirm.

 Kain wrote:

 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.

You can't objectively measure innate nature. You can objectively quantify the effects of one's deeds and actions. A baby crying is not evil because the suffering it causes is minimal and is done to get attention to a pressing need the baby has. The gods of chaos on the other hand cause maximum suffering for a maximal number of people because they can and generally find it funny to watch the people in the materium squirm.

But we actually can measure their innate nature, in this case: the emotions that formed them.

What I'm saying is that they're sorta like forces of nature.

 Troike wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 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.

You can't objectively measure innate nature. You can objectively quantify the effects of one's deeds and actions. A baby crying is not evil because the suffering it causes is minimal and is done to get attention to a pressing need the baby has. The gods of chaos on the other hand cause maximum suffering for a maximal number of people because they can and generally find it funny to watch the people in the materium squirm.

But we actually can measure their innate nature, in this case: the emotions that formed them.

What I'm saying is that they're sorta like forces of nature.

And they still derive enjoyment from mortal suffering. The fact that the Dark Eldar need to torture other sapients to death to survive doesn't make them any less evil.

Tzeentch is too random to be constrained by any moral definition.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Tzeentch is too random to be constrained by any moral definition.

A man murders a million orphans by slowly stabbing them to death. He then gives another million orphans a million dollars each and helps them get a good life.

Is the man evil or good?

 Kain wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 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.

You can't objectively measure innate nature. You can objectively quantify the effects of one's deeds and actions. A baby crying is not evil because the suffering it causes is minimal and is done to get attention to a pressing need the baby has. The gods of chaos on the other hand cause maximum suffering for a maximal number of people because they can and generally find it funny to watch the people in the materium squirm.

But we actually can measure their innate nature, in this case: the emotions that formed them.

What I'm saying is that they're sorta like forces of nature.

And they still derive enjoyment from mortal suffering. The fact that the Dark Eldar need to torture other sapients to death to survive doesn't make them any less evil.

But what else would they derive enjoyment from? They're just acting in lone with the emotions that formed them in the first place.

 Troike wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 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.

You can't objectively measure innate nature. You can objectively quantify the effects of one's deeds and actions. A baby crying is not evil because the suffering it causes is minimal and is done to get attention to a pressing need the baby has. The gods of chaos on the other hand cause maximum suffering for a maximal number of people because they can and generally find it funny to watch the people in the materium squirm.

But we actually can measure their innate nature, in this case: the emotions that formed them.

What I'm saying is that they're sorta like forces of nature.

And they still derive enjoyment from mortal suffering. The fact that the Dark Eldar need to torture other sapients to death to survive doesn't make them any less evil.

But what else would they derive enjoyment from? They're just acting in lone with the emotions that formed them in the first place.

You are in a room with nothing but a small child isolated from you save for a torture device. The only method of enjoyment you can get is using said device on the child.

You are still a bad person if you use the device.

All four chaos gods are evil in the sense that they act without any moral boundaries. If I recall correctly, one of the core tenets of Chaos' philosophy is that morality itself is an illusion. (at the very least, that's the philosophy corrupted Fulgrim espoused, though I could have sworn other followers of Chaos in various works said the same)

The other three gods are rather obvious in how this applies. Nurgle is "evil" because he has no moral guidelines or qualms with the effects his gifts have on others. If they die, oh well. Everything dies eventually. Slaanesh is evil because s/he has no moral qualms on the effects his/her pursuit of pleasure has on others. Are others miserable because you devoured everything for your own perfection and pleasure? Oh well. Of the four gods, Khorne is ironically the only one that has a sense of morality (in fact, in my opinion, Khorne is in fact the god of morality and justice. No other god bothers with enforcing a moral code on their followers like Khorne does). Unfortunately, combine morality with nothing but hatred and wrath without any love and empathy, and you basically end up with "everyone who doesn't follow my code of morality must die." (Khorne isn't picky with the blood, but it's quite clear that those who don't follow his code of honour incur his wrath more than those that do) and a "moral code" that doesn't include empathic things like "Give to the poor" because hate can not have a moral code like that. Which is, of course, quite "evil" by most standards.

In Tzeentch's case, you get what happens when you have hope and ambition without any moral boundaries. Tzeentch doesn't care how much pain, suffering, or sadness happens as long as the hoping and dreaming and plotting and scheming continues. If he is purposefully keeping the imperium alive (If. Honestly I don't believe I've seen that canonically stated anywhere, and it's mostly just speculation by people due to Tzeentch's manipulative deceitful nature and that endless hope isn't supposed to have an end goal, but honestly, the story for Chaos can continue just fine after the Imperium goes down in my opinion but anyways...), he's doing so without caring how much pain and suffering is going on in the Imperium as long as the story, hoping, and dreaming continues.

The four gods generally don't actively take joy in the evil they do (except Slaanesh, who's supposed to take joy in things), but that they completely ignore the terrible consequences of their actions on others. That's evil enough by most standards, I think.

Again, it's not like the chaos gods aren't aware of this. It's just that, far as we know from some of their followers, they argue that there's no such thing as good and evil in the first place.

 Kain wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 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.

You can't objectively measure innate nature. You can objectively quantify the effects of one's deeds and actions. A baby crying is not evil because the suffering it causes is minimal and is done to get attention to a pressing need the baby has. The gods of chaos on the other hand cause maximum suffering for a maximal number of people because they can and generally find it funny to watch the people in the materium squirm.

But we actually can measure their innate nature, in this case: the emotions that formed them.

What I'm saying is that they're sorta like forces of nature.

And they still derive enjoyment from mortal suffering. The fact that the Dark Eldar need to torture other sapients to death to survive doesn't make them any less evil.

But what else would they derive enjoyment from? They're just acting in lone with the emotions that formed them in the first place.

You are in a room with nothing but a small child isolated from you save for a torture device. The only method of enjoyment you can get is using said device on the child.

You are still a bad person if you use the device.

But what if a person knew nothing else but the room? Is a leech evil if it sucks your blood?

 Kain wrote:

A man murders a million orphans by slowly stabbing them to death. He then gives another million orphans a million dollars each and helps them get a good life.

Is the man evil or good?

Nice try, but two examples of hugely ludicrous extremes don't actually do justice to something that's very purview is randomness, change, and mutation.

 Troike wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 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.

You can't objectively measure innate nature. You can objectively quantify the effects of one's deeds and actions. A baby crying is not evil because the suffering it causes is minimal and is done to get attention to a pressing need the baby has. The gods of chaos on the other hand cause maximum suffering for a maximal number of people because they can and generally find it funny to watch the people in the materium squirm.

But we actually can measure their innate nature, in this case: the emotions that formed them.

What I'm saying is that they're sorta like forces of nature.

And they still derive enjoyment from mortal suffering. The fact that the Dark Eldar need to torture other sapients to death to survive doesn't make them any less evil.

But what else would they derive enjoyment from? They're just acting in lone with the emotions that formed them in the first place.

You are in a room with nothing but a small child isolated from you save for a torture device. The only method of enjoyment you can get is using said device on the child.

You are still a bad person if you use the device.

But what if a person knew nothing else but the room? Is a leech evil if it sucks your blood?

Tzeentch is explicitly omniscient or so close to it that it doesn't matter anyway. Saying that Tzeentch doesn't know what he's doing is considered heinous to mortals is absurd.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 Kain wrote:

A man murders a million orphans by slowly stabbing them to death. He then gives another million orphans a million dollars each and helps them get a good life.

Is the man evil or good?

Nice try, but two examples of hugely ludicrous extremes don't actually do justice to something that's very purview is randomness, change, and mutation.

As morality is a human invention, and humans generally weight negative attributes more than positive, any good Tzeentch does is outweighed by the evil he does in the eyes of humans. Ergo he is evil to us, which is all that really matters.

 Troike wrote:

But what if a person knew nothing else but the room? Is a leech evil if it sucks your blood?

Leeches aren't sentient. Also, it's only doing what it needs to survive. The chaos gods meanwhile force their emotions into the world to grow more powerful (they'd SURVIVE just fine without doing anything, really. But well, for them, that'd be boring as hell for Slaanesh, against Tzeenctch's desire to proactively change things, too good for everyone for Khorne since he hates everyone, and denying them the wonderful blessings of Nurgle).

The question is whether or not the chaos gods are sentient. Honestly I think at this point they are. They just believe that there's no such thing as morality in the first place. Which is kinda understandable when you're a god stretched across the galaxy that's seen countless hypocritical societies rise and fal, each with their own moral codes which were arbitrarily devised by silly people in the first place. But that still makes them evil by most moral codes, arbitrarily devised by silly people as they are.

 Kain wrote:

As morality is a human invention, and humans generally weight negative attributes more than positive, any good Tzeentch does is outweighed by the evil he does in the eyes of humans. Ergo he is evil to us, which is all that really matters.

So you believe a hurricane to be a force of evil then? Or perhaps a supernova?

 Kain wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 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.

You can't objectively measure innate nature. You can objectively quantify the effects of one's deeds and actions. A baby crying is not evil because the suffering it causes is minimal and is done to get attention to a pressing need the baby has. The gods of chaos on the other hand cause maximum suffering for a maximal number of people because they can and generally find it funny to watch the people in the materium squirm.

But we actually can measure their innate nature, in this case: the emotions that formed them.

What I'm saying is that they're sorta like forces of nature.

And they still derive enjoyment from mortal suffering. The fact that the Dark Eldar need to torture other sapients to death to survive doesn't make them any less evil.

But what else would they derive enjoyment from? They're just acting in lone with the emotions that formed them in the first place.

You are in a room with nothing but a small child isolated from you save for a torture device. The only method of enjoyment you can get is using said device on the child.

You are still a bad person if you use the device.

But what if a person knew nothing else but the room? Is a leech evil if it sucks your blood?

Tzeentch is explicitly omniscient or so close to it that it doesn't matter anyway. Saying that Tzeentch doesn't know what he's doing is considered heinous to mortals is absurd.
Yet he is no less a slave to what he's made of (emotions) than any of the others.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 Kain wrote:

A man murders a million orphans by slowly stabbing them to death. He then gives another million orphans a million dollars each and helps them get a good life.

Is the man evil or good?

Nice try, but two examples of hugely ludicrous extremes don't actually do justice to something that's very purview is randomness, change, and mutation.

As morality is a human invention, and humans generally weight negative attributes more than positive, any good Tzeentch does is outweighed by the evil he does in the eyes of humans. Ergo he is evil to us, which is all that really matters.

Not necessarily. Yes it's a human invention, but that doesn't mean that we can only measure it by its effect on us, or our opinion of it.

I'd say that it's important to remember that these things are literally constructs made out of emotion. They cannot defy what they are made of, and thus could not behave any other way. Their deeds may be evil to us, but they themselves are fundamentally just beings made of emotions.

TiamatRoar wrote:

 Troike wrote:

But what if a person knew nothing else but the room? Is a leech evil if it sucks your blood?

Leeches aren't sentient. Also, it's only doing what it needs to survive. The chaos gods meanwhile force their emotions into the world to grow more powerful (they'd SURVIVE just fine without doing anything, really. But well, for them, that'd be boring as hell for Slaanesh, against Tzeenctch's desire to proactively change things, too good for everyone for Khorne since he hates everyone, and denying them the wonderful blessings of Nurgle).

The question is whether or not the chaos gods are sentient. Honestly I think at this point they are. They just believe that there's no such thing as morality in the first place. Which is kinda understandable when you're a god stretched across the galaxy that's seen countless hypocritical societies rise and fal, each with their own moral codes which were arbitrarily devised by silly people in the first place. But that still makes them evil by most moral codes, arbitrarily devised by silly people as they are.

But like the leech, the chaos gods could not behave in any other way. It's their nature, it's all that they know and all that they are.

Yes they're sentient, but they're still defined by the emotions that they are made up of.