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.

This is also forgetting that there is no good or evil in the first place- it's a non-existent adjective created by humans and subject to personal and cultural bias. The only thing that makes itself confusing is that Chaos sometimes refers to itself as evil yet and times refutes such.

The only exception is Nurgle, who actively search the humans... and try to help them.

He tries to help them by infecting them with daemonic plagues that damn their souls to an eternity of service to him. You call that helpful?

 Psienesis wrote:

The only exception is Nurgle, who actively search the humans... and try to help them.

He tries to help them by infecting them with daemonic plagues that damn their souls to an eternity of service to him. You call that helpful?

The question isn't whether we think he's being helpful. The fact of the matter is he does, and so does think he is doing good. Ya'digg? That's not evil.

Intent should not be a condition for good or evil otherwise any action could just as easily be both. Also intent can be added or removed from any action and it wouldn't have a distinguishable effect on the vonsequence.

@ da001, sorry for taking so long to respond been busy and such, anyway:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Which turns us back to the "definition of evil" problem I am unable to understand how words like "good" or "evil" can be applied to something so alien we don´t even know how to properly describe it. And I don´t think the word evil should be applied to a wolf feeding on a human or a cow feeding on grass.

Also, what about you while eating a chicken? You are feeding on something like a Chaos God feeds on humans.

Everyone in this thread, yourself included, has been describing Chaos. It isn't indescribable, authors simply like to say something is "unknowable" but that's hardly the case, especially with the Chaos gods whose motives are made rather clear to us. If something were indescribable or unknowable well we wouldn't, couldn't, and shouldn't talk about them and such things may as well not exist because they would be irrelevant. The fact that we can talk about the gods and how evil or not evil they are shows they are understandable enough.

If me eating a chicken is to be classified as evil then so be it. I think its a small thing to allow for and all things considered not a big deal ( well maybe its a big one for the chicken, but to be frank I don't care).

It is still a prejudice, a derogatory, pejorative term applied to something that is not human and, actually, feed on humans. I don´t think is selfish to keep the word to humans. It is a human concept. The Ork concept of good or evil would probably be different.

I must admit I'm not sure what term you are referring to here, "evil"? All these things whether gods or aliens can be understood, talked about, and described. Anything that is intelligible to us isn't immune to our concepts or ideas. Heck people on this planet don't agree on good or evil but there's nothing wrong with applying these ideas to each other. And like I previously mentioned none of these things are "off limits" so to speak because they are inhuman, they are readily described and are understandable. Also I wouldn't think of human as just the race, but more like personhood or perhaps agency, something we can easily see in orks. In fact not much separates orks, eldar, necrons, humans, and so on except for certain dispositions. And even if such dispositions are very absurd in our world, that doesn't make it impossible to imagine them in any sort of being.

Which I find senseless. They have no soul. How they could be evil?
Yet it still depends, of course, of your definition of "soul".

 asimo77 wrote:
sorry for taking so long to respond been busy and such, anyway:

Worry not! Real Life keeps getting in the way of everyone.

Which turns us back to the "definition of evil" problem I am unable to understand how words like "good" or "evil" can be applied to something so alien we don´t even know how to properly describe it. And I don´t think the word evil should be applied to a wolf feeding on a human or a cow feeding on grass.

Also, what about you while eating a chicken? You are feeding on something like a Chaos God feeds on humans.

Everyone in this thread, yourself included, has been describing Chaos. It isn't indescribable, authors simply like to say something is "unknowable" but that's hardly the case, especially with the Chaos gods whose motives are made rather clear to us. If something were indescribable or unknowable well we wouldn't, couldn't, and shouldn't talk about them and such things may as well not exist because they would be irrelevant. The fact that we can talk about the gods and how evil or not evil they are shows they are understandable enough.

Describing something by saying that it cannot be described does not count as a description. All sentences quoted either drone on on how "unknowable" the gods are or try to describe them by comparing them to "whirlwinds made of raw emotion", "spiritual storms", half remembered dreams or something with a similar level of abstraction. After saying that Nurgle is made of a single emotion, the Codex dedicates two paragraphs to explain which is this emotion, because there is not a word for it.

More important, it fits the way the gods have been described in real life too. Legends, tales, metaphors... the gods (all of them) are by definition ineffable, indescribable, unfathomable entities, way beyond the understanding of a human mind. (I am not saying I believe in the gods, I am just pointing out how are they described).

However, I don´t think our disagreement is because of this.

If me eating a chicken is to be classified as evil then so be it. I think its a small thing to allow for and all things considered not a big deal ( well maybe its a big one for the chicken, but to be frank I don't care)

This! Here, here!
Your definition of "evil" is way too loose. I asked you before if an earthquake could be evil and you said "yes". But this is worst: you are evil if you eat a chicken or a banana? Eating is an evil act in itself? No way. I am forced to eat, everyone is. It is the way things are, for everyone, for everything. Even if someday we find a way to survive without eating, branding something evil because it eats is... too much to take in.

It makes no sense to define something if the definition serves no linguistic purpose. By your definition of evil, everything and everyone is evil. The word "evil" is here an adjective, and thus must describe a name, and by doing so it differentiates something from other things. By creating a definition of an adjective that is applied by the definition itself to any conceivable name, you have deprived the word of meaning. If everything is evil, then the word has no real meaning.

It is still a prejudice, a derogatory, pejorative term applied to something that is not human and, actually, feed on humans. I don´t think is selfish to keep the word to humans. It is a human concept. The Ork concept of good or evil would probably be different.

I must admit I'm not sure what term you are referring to here, "evil"? All these things whether gods or aliens can be understood, talked about, and described. Anything that is intelligible to us isn't immune to our concepts or ideas. Heck people on this planet don't agree on good or evil but there's nothing wrong with applying these ideas to each other.

Yes I was referring to "evil".

There is something really wrong is saying that someone or something is "evil", especially in real life. For most people, evil must be punished. For some, evil must be destroyed. Any single war ever waged, and most acts of violence, were justified by both sides by branding the enemy "evil". Like many words, it is powerful, and dangerous.

Well, in regards to the eating example, I think he more illustrated OP's position which is "Chaos not as evil as you think?"

Are you evil for eating living things? Yes. But HOW evil?

As a pagan (way to much information, but hear me out), I do not believe in Evil and Good the way many do; as something that can be defined inexorably and concretely. More accurately, those are simply elements that add detail to the decisions we make.

This is why intent is so important, and doubly so for a space like the Warp. If the Warp cannot be expressed or understood concretely, what chance does anyone have of expressing or explaining its denizens? Absolutely none. In fact, the nature of the Gods themselves is illusory to even them, exemplified by the fact that they represent a much larger and ambiguous section of the Warp besides just the bloated form of Nurgle or the writhing faces of Tzeentch.

I digress to my previous example in a real life scenario.

So the plucking of wildlife (plant or animal) is certainly considered evil, however this is off set by intention and equally as important; respect.

Talk to a Witch or Warlock in the Know and one of the first bonding Laws is the Rule of Three. You are free to do great good and evil in whatever ratio you feel you exemplify, but the Rule of Three ensures you pay for it either way. So when we're talking about food (let's just look at plants, for the sake of argument), a pagan knows evil must be done by robbing life from another, but can be offset by asking for its permission and being thankful for what gift is given to us. So in this you have an evil act, off set by three positive acts: The first is acknowledgment of life in another. The Second is asking for a bounty to sustain yourslef. And the Third is Honoring that Bounty by thanking it.

So Good and Evil is a lot more ambiguous than most choose to realize. It's just because we get caught up in these routines and habits of thinking that we just overlooking very simply issues. In that overlooking, we cast off more of our conscious responsibility for a pre-set order of rules that rarely apply.

In my studies, nothing is Absolute. If you think there is such a thing, I can provide ample examples of how such things are not as they seem. Going back to Good and Evil: Here is the apex for this example

Is stealing bad?
What about stealing for food?
What about stealing to feed yourself?
What about stealing to feed others?
What if you are stealing from a supermarket like Walmart that will be throwing away good food?
What if you are stealing from a supermarket like Walmart AFTER they've thrown all the food away (dumpster diving?)
Is it worse that the Manager at Walmart prosecutes the person dumpster diving or is it worse that the person is in their dumpster in the first place?

Here in America, we're having this same problem v. "Freedoms." Ex: If you have the freedom to horde, is that good?

But after thoroughly denouncing the ideas of good and evil, a better question to ask might be "Is it tolerable?" Maybe not in regards to the Chaos Gods directly, but in regards to the "Freedom to do whatever I want, including being a lying, glutonous, abusive and selfish f@wk."

Namaste~L.i.A.
One and All.

 TheRedWingArmada wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

The only exception is Nurgle, who actively search the humans... and try to help them.

He tries to help them by infecting them with daemonic plagues that damn their souls to an eternity of service to him. You call that helpful?

The question isn't whether we think he's being helpful. The fact of the matter is he does, and so does think he is doing good. Ya'digg? That's not evil.

If a child molester thinks he's being helpful by doing his illegal thing, does that make him not evil too?

It depends.

If the child molester conscious when he does that thing?

Is he intelligent or a barely sentient creature?

Will the child molester die of starvation is he stop, because he feeds on the child´s suffering?

If the child molester a man, or a completely alien thing that has no reason to do the child any good because, well, the child is food?

Key question: is he able to make a choice on the matter, or is he completely forced to do what he does?

My answer: if you are talking about a human, you are talking about someone who can make a choice between good and evil, and thus someone who can be evil. Your question makes sense! Let me think... for the look of it, he is insane, someone who would believe that doing that would help the child is clearly not in his mind. I will send him to an asylum or even kill him, but I will not brand him "evil", because, by your words, he is trying to do "good". He is deluded, a fool, an idiot or a madman, but not "evil". Evil implies causing harm on purpose. Not causing harm while desperately trying to help.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
@TheRedWingArmada: wow I just saw your post. Nice stuff

Is the "child molester" an 18 y'old "adult" eloping with a 17 y'old "child" who gets caught? Is it 40+ y'old father Randall diddling young choir boys?

Everything needs to be taken by a case by case basis with no immediate conclusion drawn based entirely on precedence. Though precedence certainly expedites measures, study of the subject itself is far more telling.

Here is an even better question:
Is me killing you bad?
Is me killing you because you killed my brother bad?
Is me killing you because you killed my brother because my brother slept with your sister bad?
Is me killing you because you killed my brother because my brother slept with your sister and he got her pregnant?

And killing is "bad."

In my home, we have 3 rules.

Tell no Lie. Be of Service. Do no Harm.

Simple, Easy, and Incontrovertible imo.

 da001 wrote:
It depends.

If the child molester conscious when he does that thing?

Is he intelligent or a barely sentient creature?

Will the child molester die of starvation is he stop, because he feeds on the child´s suffering?

If the child molester a man, or a completely alien thing that has no reason to do the child any good because, well, the child is food?

Key question: is he able to make a choice on the matter, or is he completely forced to do what he does?

My answer: if you are talking about a human, you are talking about someone who can make a choice between good and evil, and thus someone who can be evil. Your question makes sense! Let me think... for the look of it, he is insane, someone who would believe that doing that would help the child is clearly not in his mind. I will send him to an asylum or even kill him, but I will not brand him "evil", because, by your words, he is trying to do "good". He is deluded, a fool, an idiot or a madman, but not "evil". Evil implies causing harm on purpose. Not causing harm while desperately trying to help.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
@TheRedWingArmada: wow I just saw your post. Nice stuff

I'd point out however that morality itself does no exist. Rather than a supernatural force ordained by some entity to set right and wrongs (which itself would be false if so- simply because an entity we would label a god says something is 'good' does not make it right), morality is a flexible belief spawned by sentient social creatures. The culture you're raised in shapes your moral beliefs, as does your own life experiences. This is why morals change within different societies in reality, and why even individual moral beliefs held by people within the same culture and civilization are often unique. There is no universal will that ordains each action as right or wrong- someone from a society that utilizes slavery would be just as right and wrong as those that seek to abolish it. I personally loath slavery, and would never wish to see a fellow human enslaved. However, there is no force of good that makes this the correct opinion- my beliefs may be held by those across the planet, but were a species to originate elsewhere and live in a civilization where this was legal and widespread, his beliefs on slavery would be just as correct as mine. There is no good and evil. They're adjectives that we as humans use to describe and organize things we view. They are not and never have been universal values that decide whether or not someone is right or wrong. We simply use them to describe things on a personal and cultural level that can change between cultures and species.

Chaos, as eldritch entities similar to that of Lovecraft's Mythos, would have no reason to respect the lives of lesser sentient creatures, or view torture and destruction as bad- they are incarnates of such action and above the human level of life. Normally, one could simply write them off as having the classic Eldritch Abomination morality, which results from them being far more complex forms of life that are not even applicable to standard forms of human thinking. Their mere existence causes chaotic reactions. Their modus operandi is destruction and reformation, which we as humans, would label as evil.

So I wouldn't call Chaos evil. While as most humans we would see their actions as evil, considering how they normally attack human civilization- I'd simply leave it that Chaos has developed separately of humanity, is an entirely different kind of life in W40K, doesn't even live naturally in the materium, is chaotic in nature, and thus has developed its own eldritch morality that doesn't adhere at all to the wills or wishes of humans, let alone anything that isn't a warp entity. While the servants of Chaos might call it and themselves evil, it's likely their sanity deteriorating from prolonged exposure to things humans (even augmented post-humans), should never have extended contact with. Consorting with Daemons is likely to do terrible things to the sanity of one's mind.

Why am I seeing Eddie Murphy as Dracula "Evil,... is Good. Without Evil, there would be no such thing as Good...."?

 TheRedWingArmada wrote:

Talk to a Witch or Warlock in the Know and one of the first bonding Laws is the Rule of Three. You are free to do great good and evil in whatever ratio you feel you exemplify, but the Rule of Three ensures you pay for it either way. So when we're talking about food (let's just look at plants, for the sake of argument), a pagan knows evil must be done by robbing life from another, but can be offset by asking for its permission and being thankful for what gift is given to us. So in this you have an evil act, off set by three positive acts: The first is acknowledgment of life in another. The Second is asking for a bounty to sustain yourslef. And the Third is Honoring that Bounty by thanking it.

Your conclusions and most of your reasonings sounds good to me, but, at the cost of going off-topic, I must admit I don´t see the logic behind the Rule of Three. Perhaps it is the example given.

1: By claiming that doing this is needed in order to neutralize the "evil" of feeding, a Witch or Warlock in the Know would be claiming that the rest of the people, who do not do such things, are "evil", a pejorative term. Even more: he/she would be claiming that all animals are "evil" by default. Given that all living things feed on something, that could be summarized like this: "those in the Know are good, the rest of the creation is evil". It is funny how most religions end up there. But it is not correct: I am not evil because I ate a banana because eating is evil. I was made to eat.

2: The three positive acts are not that positive. All living things strive to life. Whichever living thing the Witch or Warlock is the Know is eating is not happy with the result. Asking for its permission only works because the living thing is unable to say NO. But it tries. To its possibilities, it fights back. Acknowledging your victim as a living thing, asking for permission you will never get and saying thanks after you have taken what you wanted by force does not compensate an evil act. Think of a rapist and his victim and apply the reasoning.

 Wyzilla wrote:

Chaos, as eldritch entities similar to that of Lovecraft's Mythos, would have no reason to respect the lives of lesser sentient creatures, or view torture and destruction as bad- they are incarnates of such action and above the human level of life. Normally, one could simply write them off as having the classic Eldritch Abomination morality, which results from them being far more complex forms of life that are not even applicable to standard forms of human thinking. Their mere existence causes chaotic reactions. Their modus operandi is destruction and reformation, which we as humans, would label as evil.

So I wouldn't call Chaos evil. While as most humans we would see their actions as evil, considering how they normally attack human civilization- I'd simply leave it that Chaos has developed separately of humanity, is an entirely different kind of life in W40K, doesn't even live naturally in the materium,

^This.

This'll be my last post on the subject because it is grossly off topic.

The Rule of Three is supreme karma. It means simply that whatever you put into something comes back to you three-fold. That goes for the good and the bad.

@1: The Truth of the Matter is far deeper than simply "They do not know, so they are not. But We Know they Are, for they Do not." It is that all things are capable of great good and great evil at any given time, and most experience both at some point in our lives. It is our matter of intention that determines exactly where our heart and allegiances align and at times our environment, from which we draw experience, can often times seem hostile or "against us" and alter our thinking accordingly to make obvious connections seem difficult to achieve.

@2: Once again, this is more complicated than simply, "It cannot say no." With a sense of nature, there are signs and signals given at a moments notice for us to pick up on that function as acts of "No." We have just dulled our senses so much, we rarely recognize them except in horror movies when we're saying "Don't go in the room!"

Example: You ask a rose if you may pick it, and when you reach out the thorns stick you and draw blood. That's a no.

Or if you ever tried to pull a leaf that just wouldn't come off? Nope.

When it comes to living things, this is a bit more complicated. "Honoring" the kill is important, and perhaps difficult to fully accomplish on levels mirroring the efficiency of the early Native Americans.

In both of these points, it's a case by case basis. Remember what I said about "the rapist" scenario too. Are we talking about a false-rape accusation? A statutory rape situation where both parties consented but were legally not of age? Jeffrey Dahmer, raping and eating his victims?

The more extreme the case, the easier to say, "Grossly Evil" or what-have-you.

A good rule of thumb to go by; "If you had to ask the questioning "Is this ok?" you already knew the answer and are looking for me to validate your behavior."