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.

So like Chaos is trying to destroy everything and stuff, sure, but let's think about it for a second. Chaos Gods rely (mostly) on mankind to sustain themselves. Yet at the same time they are trying to destroy humanity. So, if they succeed, the Chaos will destroy the only way for it to sustain itself. imperium loses = no more Chaos. So, the only way to win... is to lose? Doesn't that mean that Chaos worshipers actually indirectly work towards the destruction of Chaos, while the Imperium only prolongs its own agony?

So doesn't that mean Chaos are the good guys?

This is literally the whole convoluted HH plot involving The Cabal that spawned a thousand terrible Alpha Legion memes.

this is only the case if you assume chaos wants humanity destroyed

Chaos doesn't want humanity destroyed any more than you want your dinner destroyed. Want you don't want is a super-psychic french fry organising all the other food into a monolithic Imperium that actively tries to starve you. You just want to feed whenever you are hungry.

shyzo wrote:
Chaos Gods rely (mostly) on mankind to sustain themselves.

Not really, they still have thousands of client xeno races (which is why Cabal plot was dumb and/or racist). Also, even if CSM tried that to spite gods, it's not a given these clowns wouldn't just fail once again and be offed like broken toy that is no longer useful.

One thing to consider is the chaos gods by their very nature are not exactly rational actors. They are raw emotion and passion, and have an endless hunger for more. I think the best way GW was able to express this was tzeentch who is noted that if he every got all his schemes to align into the perfect plot would essentially blip himself out of existence since there would be nothing left to change.

Your thread may better represent by another name as it brings back from that daed another recent one about chaos willingly not winning. Look for "An eternal stalemate?" so you can read it as well, if you feel interested.

In anycase, you cannot really see chaos according to imperium logic. Firstly, in their current state in 40k they do are evil, because the comply to their nature that is formed of evil or damageful emotions felt by sentient species across the galaxy. However, if for example the starchild did gain "consciensness", it would technically be a benevolent chaos deity, as it'd be made from raw warp stuff and benevolent feelings.

Secondly, (which is manyfold stated), chaos is not rational, only tzeench actually schemes, albeit only for the very sake of having things change in whichever manner. Khorne is the best example. He is made of violence and war, and do in turn spreads violence and war that could engulf mankind but doesn't plot: he keeps doing it as long as he is fed emotions to continue on, not necesseraly paying attention to his depleting his ressources.

Finally, although mere anecdote as it's been dismissed, don't forget Malal. He is a very interesting character that was built around the paradox of being the anti chaos chaos god, seeking to destroy what creates him in the forst place. He is the perfect embodiement of the irrational, self destructive aspect of chaos quoted above regarding tzeench's mad plans that would end up eradicating himself.

You see, the selfdestructive tendencies of Chaos, had once a manifestation but due to GW beeing morons in the legal department the chaos god of anarchy and selfdestruction does not really anymore exist, altough Malice as he is now called stems from malal.

Btw, they have quite a nice paintscheme.

How sad that they simply cancelled that great piece of lore, especially since it's somehow 40k-typical as gak in my opinion.

I'd argue notions of 'good' are relative in 40k.

Of course the Chaos guys are the good guys.

The Khorne Chaos guys are good because they retrieve all those skulls. The Nurgle Chaos guys are good because they spread all those plagues. The Tzeentch Chaos guys are good because they do all that sorcery. The Slaanesh Chaos guys are good because they do drugs.

But the IoM would argue they are all awful heretics that need to be destroyed. The Necrons would argue they are living beings and all life must be purged. The Eldar would argue they are abominations that threaten the Galaxy and must be eliminated. The Orks think they are cool, the Tau don't care and the Tyranids only care about the meat.

So who's opinion matters?

There are no "good guys" in 40k, that's kind of the rule of grimdark.
The Imperium is riddled with corruption and hypocrisy is the most common language.
The T'au Greater Good is only good for the T'au, everyone else is a pawn at best and a meatshield at worst.
Proper Necrons have no opinion, nor do Tyrannids.
The universe is at war and Chaos encourage it to feed off it.
The outliers are the Eldar. Dark Eldar contribute to the Chaos so ignore them but Craftworld Eldar and Harlequins are in a weird state of actively doing something about it and actively doing nothing about it for fear of making it worse.

The closest to actual good guys are Tyranids and Orks. Even then they're pretty horrible but can't really understand doing things differently.

shyzo wrote:
So like Chaos is trying to destroy everything and stuff, sure, but let's think about it for a second. Chaos Gods rely (mostly) on mankind to sustain themselves. Yet at the same time they are trying to destroy humanity.

Citation needed.

Horus was trying to take over the Imperium. Much of the efforts of CSM is to spread Chaos Worship and take over worlds, not destroy them. As for the gods themselves, as others have pointed out they often act irrationally, but there are worlds full of humans in the Eye of Terror devoted to the Chaos Gods - even worlds ruled over by Khorne and Nurgle worshipers that manage to be functional, if in bizarre and terrible ways.

The chaos gods want to enslave humanity as a worship food source. Without beings to worship and feed them, they cease to exist.

The Emperor *originally* wanted to help humanity transcend in a weird Eugenics experiment to conquer the galaxy, united under his rule and guidance. The pre-heresy imperium was nothing like the bloated corpse of a kingdom he rules over now.

 iGuy91 wrote:
The chaos gods want to enslave humanity as a worship food source. Without beings to worship and feed them, they cease to exist.

The Emperor *originally* wanted to help humanity transcend in a weird Eugenics experiment to conquer the galaxy, united under his rule and guidance. The pre-heresy imperium was nothing like the bloated corpse of a kingdom he rules over now.

I'd like to highlight one thing by the way, in that topic: to me what makes chaos truly grimdark over mutations and being bad in general, it is the paradoxal and foolish nature of both the gods and the servants: they are powerful indeed, but it is all illusion: the gods need other beings to worship them so as to even only exist, and act only avcording to what emotions they are made of: if you think of ot that way, they look fragile and limited behind their power.

The servants are too very "40k" in that they forstly believe in their gods power (well apart from atheistic ones), which is foolish in my reasonning (see above). Plus they are convinced of their freedom, when in reality they have become slaves to the dark gods and fulfill their interests, those champions power is only lent and quickly dispatched when their purpose has been completed.

Even the greatest don't escape that - Horus has even been manipulated with a chaos tainted sword throwing it into a chaos tainted witch-houde rendering it chaos tainted in turn, instead of actually and willingly doing so, so as to neutralise the threat the emperor posed to chaos' glorified dinner. He didn't need to build an empire of chaos and be the chose one of the gods - and was obliterated shortly after wounding the emperor enough with not the slightest aid from his new masters.

Sorry for the ecrutiating long post. I don't know if anyone agrees or disagrees and wishes pe dead and utterly debunked and purge anycase feel free to do so

Chaos followers are free in the sense that a Model T Ford customer that wants a black car is free to pick any colour.

Chaos doesn't want to destroy humanity. They just don't want the Emperor around anymore. He made a deal with them and then reneged on that deal. I think the Chaos gods would be happy as can be lording around over a bunch of horrible Chaos cults who constantly bicker, fight and otherwise interact with each other.

I the nineteen eighties, when chaos and the Imperium/fanstasy empire were created, would you say that the Irish Republican Army were the good or the bad guys? The Soviet Union? The Thatcherite British state? The US?

Citadel miniatures was in the north of England. The mines were being closed down and people had several waves of strikes and impoverishment, in the seventies when they were children as well as at that time in the eighties, and going back to Churchill sending armored cars to crush strikes. The were under no illusion that the British state was there to be their friend and patron.

There were also IRA bombings in England, and that’s fairly terrifying, but it also didn’t seem like liberation for the Irish was particularly evil, and perhaps the government was fairly villainous.

On the other hand the British state was engaged in some kind of struggle with a mysterious evil empire that might annihilate Nottingham and the rest of the anglosphere with nuclear weapons. But what has that to do with people playing games at a humble miniature company?

No you’re not allowed to know who the bad guys are you have to be nervous all the time. Because while your government is the bad guys then the good guys are still trying to kill you, and they’re probably not that good after all.

pelicaniforce wrote:
No you’re not allowed to know who the bad guys are you have to be nervous all the time. Because while your government is the bad guys then the good guys are still trying to kill you, and they’re probably not that good after all.

Right, I mean, part of the notion of "grimdark" is a refusal of what one could classify as the "fantastic" moral clarity. In Lord of the Rings, it's really not made unclear who the "good guys" and who the "bad guys" are. Of course, one can quibble on anything, but the work itself is not really aimed at complicating the notion of moral clarity.

On the other hand, when done "right" this sort of "grimdark" notion doesn't give you that moral clarity. The Imperium is terrible, except when presented as with the seeming alternatives. Chaos also seems terrible but compared to the systematic oppression given in the Imperium, it offers notional "freedom."

Survival, in 40k, necessitates atrocity. You just get to pick the flavor of atrocity you "like."

So, yes, Chaos are the good guys, except they are just as terrible as everyone else, or maybe even more.


P.S. Death to the False Emperor.

Almost every faction in the setting wants to either kill, eat or enslave the others, even if some may pretend otherwise.
The closest thing to good guys would be the Exodites and that's only because they are fiercely isolationists; you don't have to worry about the redneck eldars coming to pillage or invade your home. That's pretty much the only "good" thing about them but in the grim dark future, that's enough to put them in a different category from everyone else.

Chaos was/is neutral, however cause the 40k verse is in such a miserable state, chaos has become a terrible galactic cancer.

The warp being the Soul Realm effected by all the emotions of living entities.

Chaos is not neutral. And the Imperium of Man is not the only entity that considers it the greatest threat to the galaxy - the Eldar also do.

That even Orks and men would align to fight Chaos, speaks volumes.

Chaos does not seek the destruction of humanity, but the destruction of order. Everything in the material realm affects the Immaterium. Chaos is the manifestation of all that is evil in the material realm.

 Darian Aarush wrote:
Chaos is not neutral. And the Imperium of Man is not the only entity that considers it the greatest threat to the galaxy - the Eldar also do.

That even Orks and men would align to fight Chaos, speaks volumes.

Chaos does not seek the destruction of humanity, but the destruction of order. Everything in the material realm affects the Immaterium.

I would agree with this, at least generally. No one is actually neutral in 40k. Because survival is predicated on violence in the setting. So, there isn't actually a way to just be, without that being some manner of "violence" against something else. It's rather Schopenhauer-eque, for example:

Kant maintains in the Critique of Pure Reason that we create the laws of nature (CPR, A125). Adding to this, Schopenhauer maintains in The World as Will and Representation that we create the violent state of nature, for his view is that the individuation we impose upon things, is imposed upon a blind striving energy that, once it becomes individuated and objectified, turns against itself, consumes itself, and does violence to itself. His paradigm image is of the bulldog-ant of Australia, that when cut in half, struggles in a battle to the death between its head and tail. Our very quest for scientific and practical knowledge creates — for Schopenhauer sinfully and repulsively — a world that feasts nightmarishly upon itself.

This marks the origin of Schopenhauer’s renowned pessimism: he claims that as individuals, we are the anguished products of our own epistemological making, and that within the world of appearances that we structure, we are fated to fight with other individuals, and to want more than we can ever have. On Schopenhauer’s view, the world of daily life is essentially violent and frustrating; it is a world that, as long as our consciousness remains at that level where the principle of sufficient reason applies in its fourfold root, will never resolve itself into a condition of greater tranquillity. As he explicitly states, daily life “is suffering” (WWR, Section 56) and to express this, he employs images of frustration taken from classical Greek mythology, such as those of Tantalus and the Danaids, along with the suffering of Ixion on the ever-spinning wheel of fire. The image of Sisyphus expresses the same frustrated spirit.

So, to live individually is to live in violence, violence against itself, that is, against individual life. So, Chaos is simply the "tail" (or head, if you please) of a sort of ourborean coin, both endlessly set to try to devour the other. Chaos isn't much different than the Imperium, or any other "side," it is simply the "balancing" factor, where the Imperium is overwhelming Order, Chaos is overwhelming, well, chaos (entropy).

That Orks, or Eldar, do not "like" this, really does nothing, to me, to "prove" that Chaos is "evil." Eldar, or Necrons, or Tyranids, are just different flavors of Order, not "objective" measures of anything, to me.

 Darian Aarush wrote:
Chaos is the manifestation of all that is evil in the material realm.

This is where I think you make a logical leap that is somewhat unfounded, to me.

Chaos simply is, in a way, the "equal and opposite" reaction to the force of "universal Order." One could liken it a "balancing principle," if you will. Overwhelming Order is "just as" horrifying as overwhelming Chaos, just in a "different" way. Which is why I had said above, that Chaos is only the "good guys" if you realize they are just are horrific or worse than everyone else.

Basically, you can rephrase Zizek's usual Radio Yerevan joke with respect to Chaos:
Ask “Is it true that Rabinovitch won a new car on lottery?”, and the radio answers: “In principle yes, it’s true, only it wasn’t a new car but an old bicycle, and he didn’t win it but it was stolen from him.”

Becomes:
Ask “Is it true that Chaos stands for freedom?”, and the radio answers: “In principle yes, it’s true, only it wasn’t freedom but a different sort of oppression, and Chaos didn’t stand for it it but rather murdered for it.”

I take your point (sorry I haven't learned to quote yet, I'm still fairly new - tried using the quote button, but didn't quite work how I wanted it to).

I think although in our understanding of chaos and order, you are probably more correct than me, in the 40k universe, it's a little different.

Remember that prior to the Horus Heresy, the Imperium was a very different kettle of fish with very different guiding principles. While it's true that it expanded and conquered with violence, there was, at least, the aim and promise of peace.

It was only after the tumult of the Heresy that things became so extreme.

 Darian Aarush wrote:
I take your point (sorry I haven't learned to quote yet, I'm still fairly new - tried using the quote button, but didn't quite work how I wanted it to).

I think although in our understanding of chaos and order, you are probably more correct than me, in the 40k universe, it's a little different.

Remember that prior to the Horus Heresy, the Imperium was a very different kettle of fish with very different guiding principles. While it's true that it expanded and conquered with violence, there was, at least, the aim and promise of peace.

It was only after the tumult of the Heresy that things became so extreme.

Don't worry, the quote system is tricky, it's only that I've been fighting BBCode monsters for many years now that I can grapple the beast,

Well, I am not a canonist on 40k lore. Mainly because I find it too difficult to slog through the mish-mish of lore we are often presented, in, to me, what I find to be often poorly thought out and poorly presented form. So, I usually only try to speak to the general, most broad, "fact-seeming" elements (even though there are no "facts of the matter" on any of it). In the end, there is nothing really like a principle of "sufficient reason" in the lore, there is only elements of narrative necessity. So, all that happens is what serves the narrative purpose, whatever that is. From writer to writer, this varys. From release, to release, it varies. From narrative to narrative, it varies. So, it is hard to say just what the Imperium in-itself, or Chaos in-itself, actually is interpretively, let alone as a matter of facts.

What I would instead do, or at least, imagine that I am trying to do, is think about things in broad terms, relationally. So, what it the seeming relationship between Order and Chaos in 40k? Indeed, it seems that during the Heresy, both the Imperium and Chaos were notionally different. Even so, it strike me, personally, as not every interesting to consider Chaos only as "strictly evil" and the Imperium as "strictly good." That is a personal bias, but one that I think "holds water" from a view of examining "complicated morality." If we wanted "simple" morality, well, we can make the claim to the "fantastic moral clarity" of something like Lord of the Rings, where this is no real attempt made, and little evidence of, any moral "extenuating" factors. That, however, to me, is the antithesis of what "grimdark" is, or should be.

So, from that point, I do want to "morally complicate" the relation between Order and Chaos. I want Chaos to not be just hand-wringing, mustache twirling, "it's fun to do bad things" evil. And I don't want the Imperium, or any "Order" to just be noble, bright, Mary-Sue/Gary-Stu heros who, categorically, do no wrong. Is that what they are in the canon Lore? Maybe, sometimes, I honestly don't know. But my interpretive schema will always be to try to make it more interesting to me, personally.

No one is "required" to agree with me, it's just my personally interpretation, which makes things more interesting to me, personally.

 H wrote:

What I would instead do, or at least, imagine that I am trying to do, is think about things in broad terms, relationally. So, what it the seeming relationship between Order and Chaos in 40k? Indeed, it seems that during the Heresy, both the Imperium and Chaos were notionally different. Even so, it strike me, personally, as not every interesting to consider Chaos only as "strictly evil" and the Imperium as "strictly good." That is a personal bias, but one that I think "holds water" from a view of examining "complicated morality." If we wanted "simple" morality, well, we can make the claim to the "fantastic moral clarity" of something like Lord of the Rings, where this is no real attempt made, and little evidence of, any moral "extenuating" factors. That, however, to me, is the antithesis of what "grimdark" is, or should be.

So, from that point, I do want to "morally complicate" the relation between Order and Chaos. I want Chaos to not be just hand-wringing, mustache twirling, "it's fun to do bad things" evil. And I don't want the Imperium, or any "Order" to just be noble, bright, Mary-Sue/Gary-Stu heros who, categorically, do no wrong. Is that what they are in the canon Lore? Maybe, sometimes, I honestly don't know. But my interpretive schema will always be to try to make it more interesting to me, personally.

If you try to ask about "canon lore", you've got to remember that there's twenty five years of material, and it varies both by author and time period.

In the beginning, there were lots of portrayals of the Imperium as the bloated, ossifying, and dieing corpse of Human bureaucracy. The mortal followers of Chaos were at best fools lured to their doom by their desires, often dooming others along the way. Especially since the elements of chaos were deliberately described as having enough positive aspects that you could understand someone getting led into them for various reasons, before they either lose sight of their original goals, become corrupted, etc.

Seriously, back when Dragon magazine and TSR existed, there was an article in Dragon comparing the Imperium to the Empire in Star Wars.

Chaos is canonically is tied to Aid, 40k, Bloodbowl (which is a separate universe) and countless other realities. They coyld drain the 40k universe dry of all souls and still not even fill the gaps in their teeth.

 solkan wrote:
If you try to ask about "canon lore", you've got to remember that there's twenty five years of material, and it varies both by author and time period.

In the beginning, there were lots of portrayals of the Imperium as the bloated, ossifying, and dieing corpse of Human bureaucracy. The mortal followers of Chaos were at best fools lured to their doom by their desires, often dooming others along the way. Especially since the elements of chaos were deliberately described as having enough positive aspects that you could understand someone getting led into them for various reasons, before they either lose sight of their original goals, become corrupted, etc.

Seriously, back when Dragon magazine and TSR existed, there was an article in Dragon comparing the Imperium to the Empire in Star Wars.

Right, I actually don't really feel that "inherent inaccuracy" to the canon lore is a detriment. Actually, that aspect is more like a positive to me, displaying how the perspective of the (in world) deliverer changes what would be regarded as a "fact." It seems to me though that lately, this "morally complex" aspect is falling by the wayside, more and more. Perhaps that is not actually what is happening, as I said, it's just, unfortunately, not in me to try to keep up on the lore, mostly due to what I personally see as "quality issues" aside the actual narrative choices.

Even so, the relatively "recent" changes to Necrons, for example, smacks of nonsense to me, from multiple levels (not the least of which is related to somelike like "locus of control"). But this is really aside the issue here. In any case, my personal head-canon, I don't want "good guys" or "bad guys." Every faction is terrible, from the view of the other. Even the Tau, with their pragmatic notion of the "Greater Good" should be something like a caution to the application of a Utilitarian ideal.

In reality, as a pseudo-idiot-armchair philosopher, to me, each "faction" should encompass, in theory, some aspect of ethics/morality taken to something like "an extreme." Tyranids to a sort Hobbesian "State of Nature" nightmare, Necrons as caution to the "at any cost" sort of mentality, Chaos as the oppression of notional freedom, the Imperium as the danger of over-the-top order and so on. Lately though, this seems, to me, to be either lost, or just so watered down as to not even apply. But like I said, could just be my "incorrect" interpretive lense at work.

 H wrote:

 solkan wrote:
If you try to ask about "canon lore", you've got to remember that there's twenty five years of material, and it varies both by author and time period.

In the beginning, there were lots of portrayals of the Imperium as the bloated, ossifying, and dieing corpse of Human bureaucracy. The mortal followers of Chaos were at best fools lured to their doom by their desires, often dooming others along the way. Especially since the elements of chaos were deliberately described as having enough positive aspects that you could understand someone getting led into them for various reasons, before they either lose sight of their original goals, become corrupted, etc.

Seriously, back when Dragon magazine and TSR existed, there was an article in Dragon comparing the Imperium to the Empire in Star Wars.

Right, I actually don't really feel that "inherent inaccuracy" to the canon lore is a detriment. Actually, that aspect is more like a positive to me, displaying how the perspective of the (in world) deliverer changes what would be regarded as a "fact." It seems to me though that lately, this "morally complex" aspect is falling by the wayside, more and more. Perhaps that is not actually what is happening, as I said, it's just, unfortunately, not in me to try to keep up on the lore, mostly due to what I personally see as "quality issues" aside the actual narrative choices.

Even so, the relatively "recent" changes to Necrons, for example, smacks of nonsense to me, from multiple levels (not the least of which is related to somelike like "locus of control"). But this is really aside the issue here. In any case, my personal head-canon, I don't want "good guys" or "bad guys." Every faction is terrible, from the view of the other. Even the Tau, with their pragmatic notion of the "Greater Good" should be something like a caution to the application of a Utilitarian ideal.

In reality, as a pseudo-idiot-armchair philosopher, to me, each "faction" should encompass, in theory, some aspect of ethics/morality taken to something like "an extreme." Tyranids to a sort Hobbesian "State of Nature" nightmare, Necrons as caution to the "at any cost" sort of mentality, Chaos as the oppression of notional freedom, the Imperium as the danger of over-the-top order and so on. Lately though, this seems, to me, to be either lost, or just so watered down as to not even apply. But like I said, could just be my "incorrect" interpretive lense at work.

It's a twenty five year old setting, written by a bunch of dudes that a first spent a lot of time incorporating references to things that have moved on since then. And a person could write pages about how GW's depiction of Chaos, and the various components of it, has flailed back and forth over the years. That's no so much inconsistency, but development over time.

You're complaining about Necrons and the "locus of control" yet saying that you want Necrons as a caution against the "at any cost" mentality. But, look at it over the decades:

Once upon a time, Necrons were just Space Skeletons, in part because the Terminator movie was cool and in part because they could make a space skeleton. Then they got their first codex, and the C'Tan were in charge of everything. Then they got another codex, and it changed to "The C'Tan double crossed the Necrons". Probably because it's hard to do much with "super powered god beings running around leading armies", and it was just easier to deal with "A bunch of undead leaders, leading the remains of a race that made a really bad desperate bargain."

What's that do? For the people who need it, there's a relatable component to the Necrons--their leaders, everything from crazy necromancers to the leader that's trying to redeem his bad choices. For the people who want them to be, Necrons are just Space Skeletons. That's likely part of the reason why GW doesn't try to police its canon, so that things can be what different people want them to be.

...
Or, alternately, the explanation is brief. You appear to be suffering from the symptoms of "Old Player Syndrome." I don't think the writing could take another decade of "stuck at the precipice of doom" and they had to let something finally happen. It'll probably settle out fine in another few years.

 solkan wrote:
Or, alternately, the explanation is brief. You appear to be suffering from the symptoms of "Old Player Syndrome." I don't think the writing could take another decade of "stuck at the precipice of doom" and they had to let something finally happen. It'll probably settle out fine in another few years.

It's unclear to me why you seem to be taking a quasi-hostile tone with me.

In any case, I already agreed that the "inaccuracies" were likely a good thing. However, it seems that you are out to "prove me wrong" and I guess maybe "correct" what you see as my "Old player Syndrome."

Whatever that may mean, perhaps I do have it. But no where did I insist that my personal preference was "superior." In fact, I point out that it is strictly my personal preference. When I state that the new Necron fluff seems nonsensical to me, I mean exactly that, to me. If people like it, good for them. I don't like chocolate ice cream, but I don't mind if other people do.