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.

Thoughts such as good and evil hardly cross the mind of a DE. The only measurement we CAN give them is by our own standards.

(PS Relatively speaking, the rapist is the goodie and the victim was asking for it. Relatively speaking, people can/should do whatever they want. The theory can kiss my ass in a relative manner. END RANT)

kuro_khan wrote:

Drk_Oblitr8r wrote:Dark Eldar Codex, page 2, under the heading "Introduction"

"- capture new victims to be taken back to Commorragh. What happens to them once they arrive is best not contemplated, for if anybody in the Warhammer 40000 universe could be called properly evil, it is the Dark Eldar"

Written from the perspective of the Imperium, or humans... same thing really.

My point I should have stated in hindsight is that it's written by JJ & Gavin Thorpe for GW.

GW made 40k, so if they say Dark Eldar are evil, I have to believe them. They created them, they should know.

HOWEVER, I do see the point, the DE, to them, they can do what they do because they are better than everyone else. We humans do that ourselves, we kill things for fun, and because we find them annoying.

But DE tend to stretch out killing things, torturing them, and laugh while doing it. This is why they are evil. If a person tortures and kills anything, they find themselves with jail time at the very least, and we call them evil. Which in this case, make evil an adjective.
Evil (meanins from dictionary.com)
–adjective
1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2. harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.

DE fill ALL of these deffinitions.

How did this get from Birthrate to Moral High Ground....?

...don't answer that!

On Topic. Come on, what Evil Boss doesn't give their son a promotion for absolutely NO reason? Evil people dote on their kids, the kids then grow up to be totally spoiled and they eventually backstab their siblings or send them off to be gladiators so they can take over the family business of enslaving everything in sight.

They make babies quicker....

I imagine that (being the decadent, pleasure seeking race they are) birth rates are not much of a problem. Life would be harsh for these fellas though...

Drk_Oblitr8r wrote:

kuro_khan wrote:

Drk_Oblitr8r wrote:Dark Eldar Codex, page 2, under the heading "Introduction"

"- capture new victims to be taken back to Commorragh. What happens to them once they arrive is best not contemplated, for if anybody in the Warhammer 40000 universe could be called properly evil, it is the Dark Eldar"

Written from the perspective of the Imperium, or humans... same thing really.

My point I should have stated in hindsight is that it's written by JJ & Gavin Thorpe for GW.

GW made 40k, so if they say Dark Eldar are evil, I have to believe them. They created them, they should know.

HOWEVER, I do see the point, the DE, to them, they can do what they do because they are better than everyone else. We humans do that ourselves, we kill things for fun, and because we find them annoying.

But DE tend to stretch out killing things, torturing them, and laugh while doing it. This is why they are evil. If a person tortures and kills anything, they find themselves with jail time at the very least, and we call them evil. Which in this case, make evil an adjective.
Evil (meanins from dictionary.com)
–adjective
1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2. harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.

DE fill ALL of these deffinitions.

One word...


Veal

meh? ._.'

Oookay, a little Eldar background first. I'll probably tread some fairly familiar background here, but I should get most of it right.

Long time ago, the Eldar race pretty much ruled the cosmos. But because the Eldar as a race possess that much more psychic potency than humanity, the state of their minds and emotions have a much greater impact on the warp. As they are also that much more sensually acute than humans, they can experience a level of pleasure unimaginable to a human.

Since there were no natural predators about(so to speak), the Eldar race became more and more decadent. Their society became hedonistic, and morally corrupt, where everything any Eldar did was only given over to pursuit of greater stimulation(of whatever kind). Some Eldar, disgusted by this moral decay, went off to live simple lives on planets at the edge of the galaxy. They later became known as the Exodites. Slightly later, all the remaining Eldar that weren't completely given over to self-gratification built the giant craftworlds, and sailed off into space.

Then came what was known as The Fall. All the souls of the remaining Eldar, due to their high psychic potency, began to coalesce in the Warp into the entity known as Slaanesh. In the moment of his birth, Slaanesh drained the souls from all the Eldar at the Eldar Home Worlds, and the area of space known as the Eye of Terror was born there. But it wasn't just limited to there. Slaanesh spread outward briefly, draining the souls from Eldar further, and further away. Some Exodite worlds, and many craftworlds who had not yet fled far enough away were also engulfed.

I'm not too sure how the Dark Eldar survived. But the Dark City of Commorragh is located deep within the Webway itself. As the Webway is outside the physical universe, and safe within the warp, Slaanesh's predations and influence are somewhat weakened there. What was left over from that original decadent population of Eldar inhabited it. However, occupying this new realm did not completely protect them from Slaanesh.

As I've already mentioned, an Eldars soul is that much stronger and more resilient than a humans. When a human dies, their sould folds back into the warp without a murmur, with no consciousness remaining. However, an Eldar soul retains its sentience after death. And these conscious souls are fed upon by Slaanesh, which is truely the ultimate torment for an Eldar. The Eldar, in order to avoid this, carry spirit stones, which absorb their souls after death. The Spirit stones are then placed so as to merge with the infrastructure of a craftworld, so they exist forever in a shadowy half dead existence. However, this is seen as infinitely preferable to being devoured by Slaanesh. I'm not too sure how the Exodites avoid Slaanesh.

The remaining Eldar in Commorragh found an alternative way however. They discovered that by absorbing the souls of others, they could extend their own lives, and thus, not have to die and go to Slaanesh. However, there was a downside to this. The more souls one absorbs, the more one craves souls. Think of it as the most addictive drug in the world. This is known as the Thirst.

'You need to rule? What do you know of needs? You are young, the Thirst has a shallow hold on you. I will tell you of need; a deep unfaltering emptiness that grows larger and more demanding with every passing of the night. You have heard tales of how I consume a hundred souls a day. That is but a morsel to whet my appetite. A hundred times that number die every day to quench my desire, my need. Spirits unnumbered are distilled in agony and torture to the peak of exquisite taste, to fill the chasm of my soul. Do not confuse needs with ambitions'.

To the Dark Eldar, souls have different flavours, and strengths, depending on their lifestyle. A psychically powerful soul will enable them to go longer between needing another, as well as tasting that much better. That's why the Haemonculi exist. By torturing and drugging their victims, they can make ever more flavoursome souls for the more powerful Archons.Other Eldar souls, being that much more potent, are also better 'tasting'. When a powerful Eldar dies in Commorragh, other Dark Eldar quickly absorb what they can of his essence, as it will be richer and more flavoursome than any of the thin souls taken from slaves.

'Many die, and when one of the Masters dies, others quickly gather to feed upon the escaping soul. They fight each other, bite and claw if they have now wepaons, to partake of that precious essence'.

This is why the slave raids are necessary. In order to quench the Thirst, the Dark Eldar NEED fresh souls. They could not survive without them. And the torture is only to make them more palatable.

The way Dark Eldar society is structured is down to the way that the Eldar were before the Fall. They look upon the more primitive races as sub-human, only worthy of amusing them. They are hedonistic and decadent to a T. However, like Slaaneshi cultists, the same sensation, if experienced too much, is dull, and bland. The senses become acclimatised. So they are forced to greater and greater depravities, in order to seek greater stimulation. This is why they are often confused for Slaaneshi worshippers. In reality, they are completely separate, and avoid Slaanesh's attention.

The gladiator arenas are simply an evolution of of the slave trade. The two usually go hand in hand. It's simply lesser races battling for their amusement. There are rarely a lack of Dark Eldar around, if anything, the birthrate is exceptionally high. This is no doubt due to certan 'depravities', that one needs not go into too much detail on.

The Dark Eldar society, whilst cruel, callous, and self-indulgent, actually does have certain rules. 'Assasination, murder, and double dealing are established ways of life to these decadents'. For example, the Incubi are the ultimate bodyguards. They do not change allegiance, cannot be bribed. However, they will inflict whatever cruelties their lord demands. The Cabals themselves are always lead by the most ruthless of individuals, however,a certain amount of tolerance is given to other Eldar(Dark, exodite, regular, or Harlequin). For example, in the Ultramarines trilogy, the leader of the Dark Eldar cabal that was ousted by Asrubael Vect was, after a small amount of torture, released in a spaceship with the remainder of his followers. The Dark Eldar and Eldar will occasionally combine against a threat to them both, and the Dark Eldar regularly get along with Harlequins.

The Dark Eldar society is nothing more than a natural evolution of that society which existed before the fall, only altered by their need to continue taking souls in order to extend their own existence. You could say that it is the ultimately selfish existence, the taking of others lives to extend your own, but it is, at the end of the day, understandable.

Disclaimer: You are all entitled to your own opinions. I may disagree with your opinion but i still respect your right to have one differing from mine. My opinions are usually radical and not poitically correct. Ask your doctor before consuming Norwulf's opinions with your brain thingy. Side effects may include: anger, nausea, vomiting, broken keyboards, and violent spams. Norwulf's opinions are'nt for everyone, consult your doctor on which opinon is right for you.

This is a stab in the dark, and if im wrong, im sorry i dont want to offend you guys. but im guessing Thor665 and Spleenstabba are atheists.

You guys are right for the most part good and evil are kind of subjective. Everyone has their own deffinition of good and evil, usually biased, feeling that they themselves are good, or good enough. And it seems to stem from what ideals they hold and what they believe in.(why does this arguement always pop up on the forums i hang out in?) however, I think it's safe to say that if the majority of observers can look at something and say: "yeah thats evil", then its evil. From most perspectives, (the majority of) the dark eldar are evil. They torture people, steal stuff, murder, rape, destroy, and overall arent very nice. So i think you can stick them in that category.
@thor, ive been around lots of animals and killed a few (I am an avid hunter). Not because im sadistic or cruel but because its a useful survival tool, and I like fresh, tasty meat. I've yet to encounter a non-human creature i could call "sentient". I've seen some really intelligent animals, dolphins, dogs pigs etc. But i dont see any evidence that suggests they think of much beyond, eating,sleeping,reproducing, playing etc. Where as people think of all kinds of abstract things. Ideals, politics, art,warhammer 40k music, religion, etc. things that are'nt tangible or real.

Finally back to topic, (sorry for the rant guys) the dark eldar are dark, and live in the warp. Where the rules of reality err, unreality are different. My guess is they're into some kind of necromancy thing that they use to keep their numbers up. Like infusing captive's souls into dead DE to bring them back.

Norwulf wrote:Disclaimer: You are all entitled to your own opinions. I may disagree with your opinion but i still respect your right to have one differing from mine. My opinions are usually radical and not poitically correct. Ask your doctor before consuming Norwulf's opinions with your brain thingy. Side effects may include: anger, nausea, vomiting, broken keyboards, and violent spams. Norwulf's opinions are'nt for everyone, consult your doctor on which opinon is right for you.

This is a stab in the dark, and if im wrong, im sorry i dont want to offend you guys. but im guessing Thor665 and Spleenstabba are atheists.

You guys are right for the most part good and evil are kind of subjective. Everyone has their own deffinition of good and evil, usually biased, feeling that they themselves are good, or good enough. And it seems to stem from what ideals they hold and what they believe in.(why does this arguement always pop up on the forums i hang out in?) however, I think it's safe to say that if the majority of observers can look at something and say: "yeah thats evil", then its evil. From most perspectives, (the majority of) the dark eldar are evil. They torture people, steal stuff, murder, rape, destroy, and overall arent very nice. So i think you can stick them in that category.
@thor, ive been around lots of animals and killed a few (I am an avid hunter). Not because im sadistic or cruel but because its a useful survival tool, and I like fresh, tasty meat. I've yet to encounter a non-human creature i could call "sentient". I've seen some really intelligent animals, dolphins, dogs pigs etc. But i dont see any evidence that suggests they think of much beyond, eating,sleeping,reproducing, playing etc. Where as people think of all kinds of abstract things. Ideals, politics, art,warhammer 40k music, religion, etc. things that are'nt tangible or real.

Finally back to topic, (sorry for the rant guys) the dark eldar are dark, and live in the warp. Where the rules of reality err, unreality are different. My guess is they're into some kind of necromancy thing that they use to keep their numbers up. Like infusing captive's souls into dead DE to bring them back.

This isnt a nag/ me having ago at you but for the sake of discussion, wouldnt they rather just devour the captives souls? Just a thought

Well from what Ketara just said, (ninja'd me, damn that sharinghan eye!) your probably right.

They could make a cool model around the soul infusing idea though. Did you hear that GW? *hint hint

kuro_khan wrote:

Drk_Oblitr8r wrote:

kuro_khan wrote:

Drk_Oblitr8r wrote:Dark Eldar Codex, page 2, under the heading "Introduction"

"- capture new victims to be taken back to Commorragh. What happens to them once they arrive is best not contemplated, for if anybody in the Warhammer 40000 universe could be called properly evil, it is the Dark Eldar"

Written from the perspective of the Imperium, or humans... same thing really.

My point I should have stated in hindsight is that it's written by JJ & Gavin Thorpe for GW.

GW made 40k, so if they say Dark Eldar are evil, I have to believe them. They created them, they should know.

HOWEVER, I do see the point, the DE, to them, they can do what they do because they are better than everyone else. We humans do that ourselves, we kill things for fun, and because we find them annoying.

But DE tend to stretch out killing things, torturing them, and laugh while doing it. This is why they are evil. If a person tortures and kills anything, they find themselves with jail time at the very least, and we call them evil. Which in this case, make evil an adjective.
Evil (meanins from dictionary.com)
–adjective
1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2. harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.

DE fill ALL of these deffinitions.

One word...


Veal

Yes, killing life that has only just started is evil. But how does that link to Dark Eldar? Besides the two being evil?
Dark Eldar have loads of babies, but I don't think they know their parents at all.

Norwulf wrote:This is a stab in the dark, and if im wrong, im sorry i dont want to offend you guys. but im guessing Thor665 and Spleenstabba are atheists.

I cannot speak for he who stabs spleens for a living - but I currently frame myself as agnostic.

You guys are right for the most part good and evil are kind of subjective. Everyone has their own deffinition of good and evil, usually biased, feeling that they themselves are good, or good enough. And it seems to stem from what ideals they hold and what they believe in.(why does this arguement always pop up on the forums i hang out in?)

I absolutely agree and you mirror what I am saying. (it pops up because I presume it's a basic fundamental question of the place of humanity in the universe as a moral judge, which is a fascinating conversation)

however, I think it's safe to say that if the majority of observers can look at something and say: "yeah thats evil", then its evil. From most perspectives, (the majority of) the dark eldar are evil. They torture people, steal stuff, murder, rape, destroy, and overall arent very nice. So i think you can stick them in that category.

I agree here too - it's just you need to quantify by what majority you are developing the standard. For instance - if I were to go back in time and gather up a huge pile of Aztecs I could get them to agree that human sacrifice and cannibalism were "good" and should be done. If I were to go back in time to ye bonny England or Spain I could find a time when torture was "good" because it could purge people of the workings of the Devil. I am always mindful of how I choose to define good and evil because in another hundred years or so I could be the one who appears quite silly to the new modern perspective of it. That's why I am so cautious about saying what qualifies as good and/or evil.

{please note this is not to say I condone a given act because it is possible to define it as 'good' or at least morally just. I do have a very strong concept of good and evil within my own life and I do apply it. I just don't accept my (or any other) belief system as a legitimate definition of good and evil and choose the philosophical definition instead.)

@thor, ive been around lots of animals and killed a few (I am an avid hunter). Not because im sadistic or cruel but because its a useful survival tool, and I like fresh, tasty meat. I've yet to encounter a non-human creature i could call "sentient". I've seen some really intelligent animals, dolphins, dogs pigs etc. But i dont see any evidence that suggests they think of much beyond, eating,sleeping,reproducing, playing etc. Where as people think of all kinds of abstract things. Ideals, politics, art,warhammer 40k music, religion, etc. things that are'nt tangible or real.

As I said to the last poster who questioned this - it's fine that you don't want to call them sentient depending upon your definition of sentience. My definition is quite functional and accepted by many philosophical schools of thought. Animals are capable of pleasure, pain, happiness, and sadness, and thus are sentient by multiple definitions. Humans are the only species on the planet (toi the best of my awareness) capable of the higher cognition you described (though it brings in some interesting questions as to what time specifically babies become capable of higher cognition). If you choose to define higher cognition as synonymous with sentience then I would agree with you that animals are not sentient using that definition. That is not the definition I use.

This is not a passing of judgment from me towards those who kill/butcher/whatever animals. I used it as an example to show how a species could decide for survival/practice/desire that they could raise and butcher a supposed 'lesser' species and not necessarily be called 'evil' for doing it in their own definition. Ergo Earthlings are to cows as Dark Eldar are to Earthlings and thus they are not evil unless defined through Earthling perspective.

Hmmm... you give my mind much to chew on.

The sentience arguement is one i have almost weekly with my friends, It's a never ending source of entertainment/arguement, (samething sometimes lol) It seems like everyone has a different definition of sentience.

also, you make a killer point about the aztecs, (forgot about them) by alot of people's standards they were quite evil, where as they considered human sacrifice sacred/ necessary, (i think).

It was religious as the sacrifices were sent to communicate with their gods (if I recall correctly) and was deemed important when they needed to ask for rain or blessings in battle, so it certainly was held as highly important to their survival.

Sentience is, much like good and evil, a philosophical concept at its heart and thus a little hard to quantize. Yes, there are quite a few different schools of thought as to how to define it within philosophical schools. In its most basic scientific sense it simply requires the experience of qualia.

You appear to define it as higher cognition which, while functional, is not a standard definition of any stripe in an absolute sense (one would argue you're discussing shades of consciousness). I'll spare you babble on the mirror test and other such stuff - but it is certainly a fascinating subject. The weekly debates with friends can be quite interesting, I have a couple running with my crowd and you're right, it's always good for heated debate and laughs, and sometimes both at the same time.

The most basic definition of sentience ive heard is: "being able to produce abstract thought, thinking of something beyond survival, or something that builds survival skills." Still that doesnt really fully cover it eh? A complicated subject indeed! In my opinion Humans are the only corporeal beings who can possess sentience. Possibly aliens but i've yet to see any. My opinion is based on my faith rather than anything I can prove. I can kind of see dolphins being sentient, maybe. "So long, and thanks for all the fish." lol

Back to original subject: It seems to me that the DE are'nt exactly abundant in numbers, compared to races like orks, nids tau, humans. Like the eldar they seem to be dying off slowly. Are eldar still propagating? If so probably not as fast as Dark eldar. Do you guys think they're adequately representing it on the tabletop? I've seen some fairly big eldar armies, I havent got to play against DE though, I've only seen one guy bring one into my FLGS.

I play DE fairly frequently and it is certainly possible to field a fairly "swarmy" DE list. (I've even had a discussion with a particularly heretical fellow who uses footsloggin' DE!)

Most classic DE lists tend to involve either a Web Way Portal and/or a lot of Fast Transport vehicles - which I feel adequately showcases their fluff as raiders and surprise attackers.

As some of Gwar!'s lists have shown - a fluffy position as a numerous race does not necessarily translate into a large pile of models upon the table. Overall though I feel the fluff is reasonably supported in the codices and the army builds they create.

Here's something I wrote a while back on the topic....

If morality is objective, that means it has to exist independant of humanity. Therefore you have to say that if all of humanity engaged in nuclear war tomorrow, and wiped ourselves out, morality would still exist. If a race of crab people evolved in a million years from a radioactive wasteland, they would still be bound by the same morals as us.
Once you take the stance that morals are objective though, you make yourself vulnerable to many questions.

For example. If these morals exist objectively, and independantly of humanity, where are they? Morality has no more physical substance than honour, or dignity. The person who believes they are objective must say they are intangible, immaterial, incorporeal. Often, they'll be linked to God. Because God is supposedly infinite, morals must be too. However, since the God of classical theism is a proven logical impossibility, if you tie your idea of morality to him, your argument for objective morality fails along with him.
Plato attempted to tie morality to his idea of the 'Forms', intangible things that could only be perceived by those of great intelligence. However, he failed at the same question as pretty much all objective morality theories.

The question being, 'If it's intangible, prove it's there'.

Just because morality is subjective does not mean a larger system of morality does not exist. Morality evolves from culture, hence you encounter different opinions on areas of morality across the world. However, globalisation, and the steady amalgamation of most human cultures means that the perceived ideas of 'right' and 'wrong' are becoming closer and closer across the world. This steady process has been increased by the domination of certain cultures. When a specific culture dominates a large area of the world, they impose their ideas of morality on it. For example, the Roman Empire pacified and brought order to the territories under it's control, it imposed a system of laws in order to enforce it's morality. Those moralities slowly began to seep into the conquered areas as the norm.

As such, law is taken a general indicator of a larger system of morality. However, not all laws are necessarily formed with morality in mind, and many people will disagree with the specifics, whilst agreeing with the generalities. The generalities in this case being things like, 'you shouldn't hijack cars, or murder people'. The driver doing an extra 5mph over the speed limit on a clear motorway does not consider himself a criminal, although he technically is. He certainly doesn't consider himself in the same boat as a rapist. He knows the difference between doing something he considers to be morally wrong, and breaking the law. The two are not inextricably linked.

As such, law is a general indicator of the morality of a given culture, but it does not dictate the specifics. Those will vary from person to person, and are subjective. As has been seen in this debate thus far already, in the eyes of some, whilst illegal, personal recasting is seen as morally acceptable. In the view of other people, it makes them a criminal. The fact that there are many different views on both sides should in itself, mean that personal recasting is not accepted as one of the generalities, like killing, rape, and shoplifting (all of which just about everyone here seems to agree are reprehensible activities). It seems to fall more into the category of the specific, like doing 5mph over the speed limit, or protesting in Parliament Square.

This larger framework of morality is not objective in itself, it is still subjective. It is decided by the generally accepted consensus of thought by the overwhelming majority, but is still subject to change. For example, apartheid is now agreed upon as being wrong, but head to South Africa, a hundred years ago, and the general consensus would have been that it was the right thing. No part of the system of morality, be it the larger framework, or the smaller specifics is not subject to change. For example, we have soldiers fighting in Afghanistan. Many people now see war as being wrong, and nothing more than mass state sanctioned assassinations. At present, those people are in the minority. In two hundred years, it may be the case that war is seen as barbaric, and morally wrong under any circumstances, as those people in the majority. That's just how the system of morality evolves.

There is no ultimate right or wrong. If you disagree with the generalities of morality, and go around killing people in Los Angeles, the fact is, the majority of people disagree with you, and will enforce their belief on you(in this case, that murderers deserve state execution). What gives them the right to make that decision regarding you? The fact that there are more of them, and they're capable of doing it.

Ketara wrote:However, since the God of classical theism is a proven logical impossibility, if you tie your idea of morality to him, your argument for objective morality fails along with him.

I respectfully disagree. Strongly.
If God is logically impossiple, then what force Holds matter together? How and Who disproved His existance? How did life begin? Where did the gas and energy required for the "big bang" come from? etc. (these are all rhetorical questions, I dont really want to further hijack this thread and get into it).
Since God is thought of to be an intangible being that exists outside of time and space, (much like a being of the warp). His existance cant be disproven, or proven for that matter.

Once someone creates life in a lab, with amino acids, and whatever other chemicals are said to be required. That'll disprove God for me. Until then I hold my ground. You are entitled to believe what you choose however.

back to subject:
so are the Dark eldar slowly going into extinction? It was my understanding that eldar of all types are an endangered species. That seems to indicate a fluff-gameplay contridiction. It would make more sense for eldar and DE to be low model count armies.

THRED EXPLODING SOON HO GAWD.

Can we please get back on topic...

what the hell was the topic again?

Edit: actually, this makes sense now that I think about it

OP wrote:To make up for this, they would require an enormous birthrate and somehow I can't see them staying home to raise the kids.

Well, of course not? Why do you think the kids turned out to be soul drinking drug abusing homocidal maniacs! Its because their parents don't love them!

Norwulf wrote:

Ketara wrote:However, since the God of classical theism is a proven logical impossibility, if you tie your idea of morality to him, your argument for objective morality fails along with him.

I respectfully disagree. Strongly.
If God is logically impossiple, then what force Holds matter together? How and Who disproved His existance? How did life begin? Where did the gas and energy required for the "big bang" come from? etc. (these are all rhetorical questions, I dont really want to further hijack this thread and get into it).
Since God is thought of to be an intangible being that exists outside of time and space, (much like a being of the warp). His existance cant be disproven, or proven for that matter.

Once someone creates life in a lab, with amino acids, and whatever other chemicals are said to be required. That'll disprove God for me. Until then I hold my ground. You are entitled to believe what you choose however.

I'm of the opinion that you're not actually in the know as to what the God of classical thiesm consists of. The God of classical theism is a term that refers to the God who is regarded to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. The points you've raised above are irrelevant, when considering the attributes of the God of Classical Theism.

As to who disproved the God of Classsical Theism being logically impossible, I can do that right here and now. Can the God of classical Theism make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it? Answer: He cannot, as either yes or no results in him being unable to do something, and therefore, not being omnipotent(all powerful). This is just one of countless dozens of similar paradoxes.

I am not advocating for or against the existence of God as per se, but the God of Classical Theism, with those three attributes is a logical impossibility. This is a fact.

That's not to say a multi-dimensional entity who seems all powerful from our perspective does not exist. Just the God of Classical Theism.

But here's a tip(friendly-like). When arguing for the existance of God , don't say that it cannot be disproven, as any canny verbal opponent will seize on that as a chance to say something like, 'Ah, but you cannot disprove Digimon, or dragons exist! That means that they MUST exist by your logic!'

On topic: The Dark Eldar do not appear to be going into extinction. Whatever losses they take from their own society, raids, and battles seem to be imperceptible, so based on the data available, I would say that their society is remarkably fecund. This could be due to the fact that unlike the Eldar, the Dark Eldar do not represent large slow moving targets(the craftworlds) and are impossible to actually attack. As such, whilst the Eldar lose many soldiers and civilians in running battles trying to defend themselves or alter the future, the only losses the Dark Eldar take are in battles of their choosing. Not only that, but the Dark Eldar abhor large scale engagements, and when faced with stiff opposition, prefer to melt away and attack an easier target. Because they don't lose so many troops, that leaves more Dark Eldar to sire new offspring, meaning that their population should only continue to grow.

Ketara, your starting to sound like Gwar, only with Logic instead of RAW.

Back on topic. (please let it stay there) I'd rather think that population is kind of not really discussed for most of the races, and it isn't really set in stone by the fluff, that way the insane amount of (lets take for example) Tau arimes rolling around in RTTs can be explained....because Tau population is not set in stone. Same for the Dark Eldar. Who's to say Commorragh is their ONLY city?

Because every other Eldar city was obliterated in the Fall. There's only one city in the webway, and that's Commorragh. However, no mention is ever made as to the size of the place. It could be the size of a Hive City, the size of a Space Hulk, or the size of a solar system. Take your pick.

And I'll choose to take that as a compliment.

Ketara wrote:I'm of the opinion that you're not actually in the know as to what the God of classical thiesm consists of. The God of classical theism is a term that refers to the God who is regarded to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. The points you've raised above are irrelevant, when considering the attributes of the God of Classical Theism.
As to who disproved the God of Classsical Theism being logically impossible, I can do that right here and now. Can the God of classical Theism make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it? Answer: He cannot, as either yes or no results in him being unable to do something, and therefore, not being omnipotent(all powerful). This is just one of countless dozens of similar paradoxes.

Ya know, I'm not sure, but could'nt one argue that paradoxes only apply in our finite universe. Perhaps there are alternate universes where paradoxes and impossibility are inescapable laws, as physics are for us. Idk that was a good answer on your part. Frankly im stumped by that.

Ketara wrote:On topic: The Dark Eldar do not appear to be going into extinction. Whatever losses they take from their own society, raids, and battles seem to be imperceptible, so based on the data available, I would say that their society is remarkably fecund. This could be due to the fact that unlike the Eldar, the Dark Eldar do not represent large slow moving targets(the craftworlds) and are impossible to actually attack. As such, whilst the Eldar lose many soldiers and civilians in running battles trying to defend themselves or alter the future, the only losses the Dark Eldar take are in battles of their choosing. Not only that, but the Dark Eldar abhor large scale engagements, and when faced with stiff opposition, prefer to melt away and attack an easier target. Because they don't lose so many troops, that leaves more Dark Eldar to sire new offspring, meaning that their population should only continue to grow.

Ok, this helps me understand much better. From what I understand of what you just said here, the DE can reproduce and survive much easier, due to their overall approach to waging war. By fighting only on their own terms and using guerilla hit and run tactics, they can reduce casualties severely! Unless they get caught up in a fight that is overwhelmingly in their opponent's favor. Which it sounds like the dark eldar are fairly good at avoiding these scenarios. hmmm. Maybe the Eldar should take a note from their darker kin's playbook. It sounds like their approach is less efficient. Which to my understanding is more focused on subtley, and manipulation.

Still though, it would make more sense to me if eldar were a low model count army if not DE. They seem to really hurt from each casualty fluff-wise. They're referred to as "the dying" in the 4th e BRB.

How do i fix this quote mess i got goin on here?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

starbomber109 wrote:Ketara, your starting to sound like Gwar, only with Logic instead of RAW.

Back on topic. (please let it stay there) I'd rather think that population is kind of not really discussed for most of the races, and it isn't really set in stone by the fluff, that way the insane amount of (lets take for example) Tau arimes rolling around in RTTs can be explained....because Tau population is not set in stone. Same for the Dark Eldar. Who's to say Commorragh is their ONLY city?

fluff does at least hint towards population sometimes tho, the eldar (not DE ketara just explained that) are dying off, trading millions of "lesser" lives for a handful of theiir own. Tyranids are basically without number and inexhaustable, orks are close to nids on the scale, humans number in the billions where as SM and GK are somewhat rare. Necrons, tau and DE are a little more ambiguous. Finally squats are pretty much extinct. lol had to mention the poor squats.

Even relatively speaking one would have to say that the DE are evil. They are a minority in the galaxy. Imperium considers them evil, Eldar consider them evil (mabye), Tau would probably consider them evil, in fact most races could consider them to be evil.

When you made that reference to the murderer in LA, could the same thing be applied to the DE?

Ya know, I'm not sure, but could'nt one argue that paradoxes only apply in our finite universe. Perhaps there are alternate universes where paradoxes and impossibility are inescapable laws, as physics are for us. Idk that was a good answer on your part. Frankly im stumped by that.

As I said, I'm not ruling the possibility of a multi-dimensional entity who seems omnipotent. Just that a God with those attributes actually existing is a paradox. And thank you for the compliment.

Ok, this helps me understand much better. From what I understand of what you just said here, the DE can reproduce and survive much easier, due to their overall approach to waging war. By fighting only on their own terms and using guerilla hit and run tactics, they can reduce casualties severely! Unless they get caught up in a fight that is overwhelmingly in their opponent's favor. Which it sounds like the dark eldar are fairly good at avoiding these scenarios. hmmm. Maybe the Eldar should take a note from their darker kin's playbook. It sounds like their approach is less efficient. Which to my understanding is more focused on subtley, and manipulation.

The Dark Eldar use incredibly fast spaceships to avoid those of other races, and are capable of establishing on site temporary webway gates to make their escape. The Eldar thus far seem to lack that technology(not the spaceships, the gates). The Dark Eldars style is essentially that of a raider. Because they never fight campaigns in the traditional sense, they escape the 'meat grinder'. They take ground and lose it as it suits them, and have an impregnable stronghold to retreat to. The regular Eldar are constricted by the need to wage more traditional warfare over the maiden worlds, craftworlds, etc. They are not less efficent, it's just that the Eldar, due to their own philosophies and culture, are forced to fight wars on the same ground as the lesser races. The Dark Eldar are bound to no such style.

fluff does at least hint towards population sometimes tho, the eldar (not DE ketara just explained that) are dying off, trading millions of "lesser" lives for a handful of theiir own. Tyranids are basically without number and inexhaustable, orks are close to nids on the scale, humans number in the billions where as SM and GK are somewhat rare. Necrons, tau and DE are a little more ambiguous. Finally squats are pretty much extinct. lol had to mention the poor squats.

Population figures are usually written from the Imperial perspective, and as such, all civilised contact is had with Craftworld Eldar. The Exodite and Dark Eldar population figures cannot be estimated, as no human envoy has ever successfully approached Commorragh, and there are too many far flung and unknown Exodite worlds.

For some reason I keep getting reminded of these quotes. (and I paraphrase)

An infamous pirate wrote:If you go to the cove you will find it a fortress that is nigh impregnable and with ample provisions for a siege. And then you will be sitting in the water outside it going "Oh, if only there was someone here whom I had not killed who could go in there and make the pirates come out"

so it would seem to hold true for the dark eldar, if pressed they can just retreat into their webway and nothing can get to them...

but then again, they are pirates, raiders.

same pirate wrote:Let us consider friends, the cuttlefish....flippacanourious little sausages. Put enough of them together in a tank and they will devour each other without a second thought. So, we could go out there and fight, and maybe a few of us will die, or we could stay here, and half of us will be dead in a month

The dark eldar seem to operate similar to the vikings of old. What i ment by the eldar being less efficient, is that if they were to abandon their style of warfare for one more similar to DE, they could receive less casualties. Although as you pointed out, technology and lack of an impenetrable fortress/city thingy, seriously dampens that idea. Sorry eldar looks like you gotta keep makin sacrifces. Hey has anyone ever made an exodite themed army before? or is that basically just biel-tan?

@Ketara specifically: normally i love the challenge of arguing about intangible, unprovable things. But you sir (or maam, dunno) are a Master-debater! all i got to throw at you is blind faith, which normally i can save that for when things get really heated/emotional and begin to quickly devolve into a fist-fight. I salute you sir (or Maam possibly),

Word of the day: "Snackrifice"

I think Thor and Ketara have this right.

@Norwulf

1st I'm not an atheist, far from it in fact, but it's ok as most people assume at I am either an atheist or an agnostic as they assume well if it's not one of these it must be none of these this assumption like most assumptions is not correct but if I must conform to the the unquenchable desire of human nature to simplify, categorize, and classify then I suppose I would say that I am a-religious but rather spiritual, perhaps some form of a gnostic (which is very different from an agnostic deriving from the greek gnosis meaning knowledge so a-gnosis is without knowledge and gnosis is with knowledge) so the only definite term I could classify, simplify, or categorize my self as is a philosopher.

2nd In regards to sentience if you classify, romance, music, religion, language, 40k, building sky scrapers, interacting with one another beyond what is necessary for survival, that this qualifies humans as sentient and other animals as not, what about bower birds who collect blue objects such as glass, paper, feathers and anything else they can find and weave it into an arch used solely for the courtship females, is this so different from getting down on one knee and offering a wedding ring of molded metal and cut stone, for some eagles to mate for life while humans get divorces, some animals to care for their young, where some species of wolf spiders eat their young, just as some humans care for their young, while others drown them one by one in a bath tub. Look at any number of symbiotic relationships in nature, clown fish and sea anemone, certain species of shrimp and fish, cleaning fish and groupers, certain species of birds and wild buffalo, the list of examples goes on and on and I would suggest looking beyond the simple view of the twice aforementioned bottle-nose dolphin. And just b/c they do not emanate human characteristics does not mean they are not sentient. humans try to anthropomorphize everything from god to animals (such as Kermit the frog or characters of the upcoming Fantastic Mr. Fox film) out of fear of that which is different and other.

3rd I believe Dark Eldar are evil, but I am not going to say that "Dark Eldar are evil," all I am saying is that there is a difference. One is an opinion based on a relative term the other is a false statement of fact. Personally I believe that Dark Eldar are evil and they are one of my least favorite races in the game due in part to their to what I deem (and possibly many others) to be evil but that doesn't mean they are.

4th Though I don't necessarily or entirely agree with Ketara's statement of "the God of classical theism is a proven logical impossibility" I believe you contorted his statement when you say "If God is logically impossiple, then what force Holds matter together?" as you missed the very important words: "of classical theism" and not his view or your view of God unless you do subscribe to that of classical theism in which case again there's not much I can say about that.

And just b/c the majority say something doesn't mean it is fact. As it was plainly seen when years ago everyone believe that the sun revolved around the earth and killed Galileo for his idea of a heliocentric universe as they deemed it "evil", but now we can see that a geocentric universe isn't fact even though the majority belived so and that Galileo wasn't evil.

(scratch that, it was a stupid question)