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.

Oh I forgot the moment I saw the thread title, I thought of this. Might lighten the mood a bit:

http://www.snotr.com/video/3167/Are_we_the_baddies

Nivek5150 wrote:
40k is not a battle of good vs evil. It's a battle of Order vs Chaos.

More like bad vs. worse.

Why has no one realized the three most morally good races are the DE, orks, and tyranids altogether hedonistic

@Jape - You can't go wrong with Mitchell and Webb

@Admiral Valerian - Or a battle of Chaos... vs. Chaos. I've always defended that the Imperium is tainted by design. The Emperor found a way around this, by uniting all mankind then cutting it off from the war, but his plans were violently put to a halt. By the 41st millenium, the Emperor's project is all but forgotten, replaced in turn by a convoluted, decadent mess.

Constant war, civilizations razed, worlds scorched... Khorne should be pleased by the rampant destruction the Imperium leaves in its wake. So should be Nurgle, watching the Imperium succumb to inertia, sloth and forgetfulness, its population indoctrinated to endure whatever pains and ailments inflicted upon them. As for Tzeentch, it has more than enough to feed upon: The Imperium itself is rooted in a massive lie, a denial of factual reality of cosmic proportions, that has evolved to become an ochlocracy supported by a labyrinthine bureaucratic system overlapping with a shadowy religious organization.

Poor Slaanesh is left out of the feast, though, as the Imperium seems willing to go great lenghts to deprive its citizens of all sorts of sensory pleasures. But hey, he/she/it just devoured an entire civilization all by him/her/itself, so it's ok if he/she/it just gets the scraps - Let's assume for a moment that someone amongst the untold billions of Imperial citizens is not intimidated or horrified by the pervasive, state-endorsed Baroque/Gothic-nouveau art style, but actually enjoys it. All yours to take, Slaanesh

@Guardslayer - I don't think there's anything sensual in the Tyranids' apparent gluttony. They just crave for biomass like our society craves for petroleum...

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU

Very vulgar summation of the relative moral standing of the races of 40k.

Nivek5150 wrote:40k is not a battle of good vs evil. It's a battle of Order vs Chaos.

The line of which is blurry for the IOM...

Selym wrote:On a side note to this discussion, though still relevant, thinking through this has pointed out to me the incredible interplay the different races have on the setting of the 40k universe.
For example, most people like to side with either a good guy, or a bad guy, because they can identify with them. This idea of "good and evil" is severely tested in this universe, it's always asking "what is good?" or "what is evil?" and "How far can you take this without corrupting your soul and going to hell?".

Basic definitions for "the forces of good" bring us:
1) Righteous
2) Order
3) Fighting in defence
4) Fighting for peace
5) Helping each other and outsiders (charity)
6) Fighting for survival
7) Directly opposing what you perceive to be evil

And definitions of evil can get us:
1) Mass-murder (or any murder')
2) Wanton death and destruction
3) Disorder (or chaos)
4) Directly opposing what you perceive to be good

But here's where morality gets confusing...

Factions that can be defined as good under the above definitions:
1) IOM, Chaos [from some perspectives], Orks [Theirs is a holy war crossed with a pub crawl]
2) IOM [Highly debatable], Necrons [Closing off the warp], Tyranids [Exterminating the warp's fuel (read: all creatures with souls)], Tau, Eldar [ish?]
3) All of them, except Tyranids
4) Tau [probably], Eldar [possibly], IOM [again, highly debatable]
5) Tau. [correct me if i'm wrong]
6) All of them.
7) Again, all of them.

Factions that can be defined as evil under the above definitions:
1) All of them. [Yes, even Tau]
2) Chaos, Orks, IOM [sometimes], Dark Eldar
3) Chaos, Orks, IOM [partially/sometimes]
4) All of them.

They all fit into both categories quite happily, and I for one am impressed at the level of morality confusion GW has created here.

There are no morals when it comes to ensuring the survival of your species, mercy is a sign of weakness that can and will be exploited. 40k is basically nature with a gakload of archaic tech, ignorance and daemonic powers

 sierra 1247 wrote:
There are no morals when it comes to ensuring the survival of your species, mercy is a sign of weakness that can and will be exploited. 40k is basically nature with a gakload of archaic tech, ignorance and daemonic powers

If nature were half as dysfunctional as the 40k universe, nature would have died out on this planet eons ago!

After all, if morals did not help ensure the survival of the species, we never would have evolved them.

 Hollowman wrote:

After all, if morals did not help ensure the survival of the species, we never would have evolved them.

Incorrect, we didn't evolve morals. We made/defined them. Therefore, we can also re-make/re-define them however we see fit.

 Admiral Valerian wrote:

 Hollowman wrote:

After all, if morals did not help ensure the survival of the species, we never would have evolved them.

Incorrect, we didn't evolve morals. We made/defined them. Therefore, we can also re-make/re-define them however we see fit.

That's a very bold statement to make. I'd like to see your evidence for that. Good luck finding anything to prove your point.

 Griddlelol wrote:

 Admiral Valerian wrote:

 Hollowman wrote:

After all, if morals did not help ensure the survival of the species, we never would have evolved them.

Incorrect, we didn't evolve morals. We made/defined them. Therefore, we can also re-make/re-define them however we see fit.

That's a very bold statement to make. I'd like to see your evidence for that. Good luck finding anything to prove your point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip#Capture_and_detention

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731#Surrender_and_immunity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan#Morality

The above proves morality isn't as absolute as you think it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmicism

Makes sense to me.

 Admiral Valerian wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmicism

Makes sense to me.

I see we're talking about very different things. As neither philosophy, nor evolutionary biology are my specialist areas, I'll leave it there.

Edit: When morality was referred to, this is more along the lines of what I was thinking of: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-biology/#EmpNorSenMor
Not a whimsy "people can do bad things in certain times" but more of a empirical definition of morality in an evolutionary context.

 Griddlelol wrote:

 Admiral Valerian wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmicism

Makes sense to me.

I see we're talking about very different things. As neither philosophy, nor evolutionary biology are my specialist areas, I'll leave it there.

Edit: When morality was referred to, this is more along the lines of what I was thinking of: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-biology/#EmpNorSenMor
Not a whimsy "people can do bad things in certain times" but more of a empirical definition of morality in an evolutionary context.

As you wish

A person's morality is based on his/her philosophy on how the world works. they are the same thing. British and US laws are based primarily on christian philosophy and ideals. Things such as human rights exist there, because these countries overall agree that people have an inherent value, if not to the country, then to some other higher purpose, usually "God".

In Britain and the US, it is law that if someone has to die it must be done as humanely as possible (quick and painless), but in Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq and Iran, executions are carried out by throwing stones at the person. Britain and the US would not consider this to be morally right, but in those countires their morals are based on different philosophies, different religions.

Morality is just about as set as GW's fluff.

Linking this to 40k, whatever the Imperial Creed says is right becomes right. By that definition, humans are always the good guys, regardless of what they do.

Most of those concepts and ideals predate Christianity, Selym. Go back to the ancient Greeks (who invented the Golden Rule, for example), or various other pre-Christian socieities, and you'll see many similar concepts. British and US laws are based primarily on British Common Law, which is a body of laws and customs which have developed over many centuries and are quite clearly distinct from church doctrine and law.

Morality is judged by the observer. From the perspective of a modern, 21st century human, no one in 40k is a good guy, really.

Folks should also bear in mind that "human rights" are logically and appropriately applied to any sentient creature with which we can communicate and which demonstrates the capability to respect ours in turn. The idea of "sentient rights" or alien "humans" for the purpose of rights is a very old concept, and has been handled in science fiction for decades. Acting like human rights can only apply to biological humans is silly and ignores a massive body of science fiction and of moral philosophy.

Or easier still, survive at all costs, our main goal in life is to ensure the survival of our species. No matter the cost humanity must survive, if some diddy xenos civilisations happen to get in the way of us surviving then good luck to them....

Survival at all costs is definitely a central theme of GrimDarkness, but also clearly antithetical to most folks' ideas of heroism and morality. Part of the point of having ethics and morals is being willing to suffer negative consequences if that's the cost of doing the right thing.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Survival at all costs is definitely a central theme of GrimDarkness, but also clearly antithetical to most folks' ideas of heroism and morality. Part of the point of having ethics and morals is being willing to suffer negative consequences if that's the cost of doing the right thing.

He has a point

 Admiral Valerian wrote:
Incorrect, we didn't evolve morals. We made/defined them. Therefore, we can also re-make/re-define them however we see fit.

Incorrect - more on the latter part than the former. Obviously some morals are made and defined, changing over time - however, all human moral behavior is contained within a very constrained set of parameters, and are based on evolved traits. There is nothing learned or made up about the social instincts and emotional responses that shape human behavior. Across all cultures and groups people have the same root moral code, and no society has ever deviated from them. Indeed, chimps, wolves, hyena and other social animals replicate much of our morality as well.

While "don't eat ham" is nothing but a social construct, "do not kill within your in group" is an instinct that long predates any human version of the rule, and the only humans who violate it without being under extreme duress are sociopaths... a group of people noteworthy mostly for lacking the instinctive reactions (chiefly emotions) that shape normal human behavior.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Selym wrote:
A person's morality is based on his/her philosophy on how the world works. they are the same thing. British and US laws are based primarily on christian philosophy and ideals. Things such as human rights exist there, because these countries overall agree that people have an inherent value, if not to the country, then to some other higher purpose, usually "God".

In Britain and the US, it is law that if someone has to die it must be done as humanely as possible (quick and painless), but in Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq and Iran, executions are carried out by throwing stones at the person. Britain and the US would not consider this to be morally right, but in those countires their morals are based on different philosophies, different religions.

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him.
-Leviticus 24:16

Christians have no problem killing people with stones - nor is the christian nation of Rwanda any safer than Somalia. Humanity is a whole is entirely capable of torture, brutal killing and terrible violence to anyone who is part of another tribe/nation/religion/race/whatever. Always have been, always will be - that is as innate as treating our family well. The entire act of warfare depends on our ability to set aside other humans as "not us" and then treat them in ways we would never treat "us". That is as true of tribal warfare in Africa as it is among the US military. It's true of chimps too, for that matter.

What makes western nations as a whole less dangerous to their neighbors is not a religious edict (see how well those held up during the crusades) but a distinctly philosophical notion... the idea that all men, even those who follow other gods or ways of living, are brothers. Insofar as we can believe it, we are quite peaceful; as it has never been an evolutionary advantage to cause violent discord among one's own pack. When we don't believe it, we treat people as chimps treat members of rival groups - we harass, beat, mistreat, steal from, drive away and occasionally kill them.

 Hollowman wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Selym wrote:
A person's morality is based on his/her philosophy on how the world works. they are the same thing. British and US laws are based primarily on christian philosophy and ideals. Things such as human rights exist there, because these countries overall agree that people have an inherent value, if not to the country, then to some other higher purpose, usually "God".

In Britain and the US, it is law that if someone has to die it must be done as humanely as possible (quick and painless), but in Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq and Iran, executions are carried out by throwing stones at the person. Britain and the US would not consider this to be morally right, but in those countires their morals are based on different philosophies, different religions.

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him.
-Leviticus 24:16

Christians have no problem killing people with stones - nor is the christian nation of Rwanda any safer than Somalia. Humanity is a whole is entirely capable of torture, brutal killing and terrible violence to anyone who is part of another tribe/nation/religion/race/whatever. Always have been, always will be - that is as innate as treating our family well. The entire act of warfare depends on our ability to set aside other humans as "not us" and then treat them in ways we would never treat "us". That is as true of tribal warfare in Africa as it is among the US military. It's true of chimps too, for that matter.

Fair enough, I concede the point.

The song rule Britannia describes Imperium and Humanity beautifully, just swap few words and you get:

"Rule Imperium, Imperium rule the stars.
Humans never, never, never shall be slaves."

In the grim darkness of the far future forget 21'st century morals, rights, etnics and everything. You cannot reason with the Ork not to chop you, you cannot reason with the Tyranid not to eat you, you cannot reason with the Necro nnot to flay you alive, you cannot reason with the Eldar to respect you, you cannot reason with the Dark Eldar to not torture you, you cannot reason with the Tau to share power together, you Cannot reason with Chaos god not to turn you into something nasty... So before people turjning and blaming everything on Humanity and calling Emperor and his Imeprium evil people should look at aliens instead. Their actions are waht made Mankind in what is today - totalitarian, xenophobic and concentric society. And I do not blame them, after so many millennial of being under constant attack from literally everything the galaxy has to throw on them can you really blame them for shooting first then asking question later every time a new alien race emerge on the galactic map?
Imperium, as it is, is not at all perfect empire. It is filled with corrupted officials and slowed Governors while noble warriors of Guard, Sisterhood and Astartes are giving their lives to protect Mankind who then must live under those retards. But Imperium as it is represents the best hope Mankind has in surviving at all. Like it was stated million times in the fluff: "Without the protection of the Imperium, Mankind would fall prey to the countless perils that threaten it."

Tau might be the only "good" in the universe, not because of being inherently good, but because they are not considered inherently evil in the eyes of our moral system. Alot of the bad stuff said about them are from the point of view of imperialists.
Imperium purge everyone that might threaten our survival in 2000 years
Eldar(grey area) same as imperium but they can actually predict the real threats
Dark Eldar KILL TORTURE
Orks WAAAAGGHHHH
Tyranids MUNCHIES
Chaos distort, destroy
Necrons- fueled by hate

The tau think" all other systems are evil, liberation is the only way"
While this seems very close minded, remember, all other systems in the galaxy ARE inherently evil, to some degree.

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:
Tau might be the only "good" in the universe, not because of being inherently good, but because they are not considered inherently evil in the eyes of our moral system.

No offense, but I equate Tau with Batarians.

Are we the baddies?

 sierra 1247 wrote:
Are we the baddies?

No. I equate the Imperium to the Protheans, with a strong belief in unity, military might, fear and hate of AIs. The Reapers are equated with Necrons (with traits from both oldcrons and newcrons), Orks with Krogan (duh!), Craftworld Eldar with Quarians (though the Quarians are nicer), Dark Eldar with Terminus slavers/pirates (though Dark Eldar are worse), and Chaos...I got nothing.

Good, and bad, are merely perspectives. To the marines, the marines are the most goodly and honerable warriors in the universe.

But heck, I play chaos Daemons, and the chaos god Nurgle, beleives himself to be a benevolent and loving god, and most of his followers agree. He gives people eternal life, and takes away all pain and suffering. All he asks in return, is that you help spread his "gifts", so that more people can be welcomed into his fatherly embrace.

And in honesty, compared to a lot of other things in the 40k universe, I would have to say nurgle -is- the closest thing to a benevolent god xD

Nurgle doesn't ask for 1000 innocent human sacrifices a day just to sustain himself, like the false emperor -.-

Evileyes wrote:


And in honesty, compared to a lot of other things in the 40k universe, I would have to say nurgle -is- the closest thing to a benevolent god xD

Wrong. Isha is nicer and more benevolent. She doesn't ask for compensation or help to be freed from Nurgle, but willingly gives mortals insider knowledge about Nurgle's work.

 Admiral Valerian wrote:

Evileyes wrote:


And in honesty, compared to a lot of other things in the 40k universe, I would have to say nurgle -is- the closest thing to a benevolent god xD

Wrong. Isha is nicer and more benevolent. She doesn't ask for compensation or help to be freed from Nurgle, but willingly gives mortals insider knowledge about Nurgle's work.

Psh, Isha is the antichrist of nurgle. Trying to ruin his divine plan to save the universe with his glorious plagues.

Selym wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well, its more like the Imperium is the good guys because they're human. And we here on Earth are humans. So naturally we root for our species.

When extinction is on the line, you gotta go with your species. And its your duty to make sure your species continues

I challenge that!

I may be on the side of humans, but there are many human factions.
The IG represent the common man - these are the general good guys. And they get stomped. A lot. Even by their own kind. Because that's what happens to good guys.

Except that they tend to win, with relatively light casualties at that. Except of course for IA and its "have them do the absolute worst thing they possibly could in given situation, without regard to the resources at their disposal or established strategic doctrine, to make the Tau look better or the Tyranids scarier or just because".

The SM are the superheroes - but will happily wipe out the common man for very little reason, and when you get down to it, they're all very close to being the supervillans. This is because they have a very nazi ideal as to what a human is - if you're not the perfect man, they won't give two sh*ts about you.

Space Marines aren't superheroes, they are, specifically, Batman; individually powerful, but not magic, and equipped with impractically complicated and expensive themed weaponry, but ultimately far too few to meaningfully impact events.

The sisters of battle can only be seen as "good" if you subscribe to their religion, and if you don't, they're just as bad a[s the SM.

The SoB are ceremonial honour guards for holy sites. You might as well question the morality of the Swiss Guard.

Same goes for the Inquisition. And GK.

The Inquisition "persecutes": a) daemons, otherworldly atrocities who want to eat you because "lol", b) people who worship daemons and try to summon them (see point 'a'), c) people who are walking conduits for daemons and who are, if not insane or too weak to survive their own powers, trained to do useful things like not exploding into daemons, d) aliens that want to eat and or enslave you, usually because "lol", benign aliens are more generally ignored, if for no other reason than being less important than the ones who are actively trying to kill you. The Inquisition has far too large a task, and far too few resources, to attack anything but the largest problems.

Then we have the forces of chaos (traitor marines and humans, not the daemons). All they want iss to free you to be able to do whatever you want. You will only be punished if someone decides you are in their way of having fun. They promote freedom (sort of). These are the REAL good guys, and yet somehow with a dark undertone of depraved evil.

Except that Imperial citizens are free to act as they wish, so far as the Imperium as an entity is concerned, provided they don't endanger the Imperium or impede/subvert the warmachine it needs to fend off the myriad existential threats it routinely trounces. The local government might not always be so kind, but that's hardly the Imperium's fault, they just afford the planet as much freedom as they do any citizen: "do what you will, but pay your taxes and don't traffic with daemons or aliens".


The problem with comparing the Imperium to the Nazis boils down to correctness or the lack thereof: the Imperium brutally deals with existential threats that objectively exist, whereas the Nazis brutally dealt with imaginary threats/problems percieved by an ideology that can only be described as gibbering lunacy.

To draw another historical example to illustrate the distinction, let's look at witch hunts: in our world we can say that this is objectively wrong, becauses magic and daemons aren't actually real things, therefor trying to persecute people who deal with them is necessarily an exercise in lunacy. If, however, they were real, and in fact posed a grave existential threat to humanity, it would be absolutely inexcusable to leave them alone out of some misguided belief in tolerance.