Chaos: Pure Evil, or just different

[Roultox]

I dont think all the books have the needed insight as much of the info stemmed from older versions of the warp have been tossed aside or changed in more recent fluff. As stated earlier the link between 40k and fantasy was severed.

 

I've read both tau codexes, but not the xenology. I remember the part where the Tau were explained to be at war in their middle-ages, and that these creatures came to these ready to kill warriors and they laid their arms to rest at the very sight of them. Theories were talked about, and DoW may be a game, but its part of the Tau. (Renegade tau leaders, other fluff explaining how cruel the Tau can be to their subordinates, and how they slaughtered everyone inside a cavern before going renegade - I forget that leaders name)

 

Xenocidal as in, prevent breeding of a species. The vespid and kroot allies as I explained are a part of their military in a direct way, so they are allowed to breed around. Not humans as much, especially since they are so abundant compared to the Tau.

 

 

But back on topic...

Everyone has a general consensus on whats going on after reading all 3 pages so far. People will have their personal take but we can all agree that chaos has the ability to be good as much as the ability to be evil right? If you choose to maim, burn and kill, then do it in the ork sector! If you want to pillage and be a full slaanesh worshipper, thne go play with some tyranid or something. (Dont even imagine it, please dont)

 

Its the marines hatred for the Imperium that keeps them comming back at the Imperials, and we all agree lots of Imperials deserve to die. If not for their ways but instead for the idea that maybe it is better that a new Emperor controls everything where fear of technology might be the end of of them all. Among a few dozen other small reasons why. Thats why my chaos marines roll up their sleeves saying to themselves "Lets go finish the job". The Emperor might have been a good guy, but immortality corrupts everyone, and since humans thrive on change and learn things through violence, we sort of need these gods. Plagues killing the old and allowing new, and of course something to challenge our morals something along the lines of slaanesh.

 

The day man stops commiting sin is when we stop learning so much, right? Required evil.

(Just like an episode I saw of Trippin' The Rift where god was nonexistent, and nobody knew what evil is- lol)

[Lady_Canoness]

So what have we learned?

 

Is Chaos truly evil? What is "truly evil"?

 

I think that if we are to take this further, we need to find a loose definition of evil and apply it to those in question (who knows, maybe the Chaos Marines are really freedom fighters).

 

However, I am as of yet not convinced that any argument can be made saying that the majority of Chaos are not evil (though I will admit that I do not know what evil is)

 

How do we know what is evil? We know it by know what it is not. That is to say that if we know what is not evil, we can know what is evil.

[Roultox]

It falls under what we have prejudice against. We all have to consider every planet has their customs, and their customs may vary as wild as earth's customs (or more diverse) so what one finds as an ok thing, may not fly with the next guy.

 

The only constant answer in this thread: "It falls under personal opinions and views of the individual judging each part very directly and never on the broad scale"

 

Chaos cannot be summarised or combined when mentioned, as it all differs. Just like someone asking "Are humans more evil, or more good?" rather then asking "Is this one human more good or evil?" as no-one can truly know. Even on that, Chaos isnt defined as deeply as it would be needed to be defined for such an answer "is it evil?".

 

Fun thread though! Go in circles and end up where we started with a few more cents in our pocket then from when we started... *Star flys by* The more you know! ... ...

 

Yeah, I had to say it..

[sjon]

I got one thing more that speak for the evil-ness of chaos <_<. If Horus would have succeeded in his coup taking over the Imperium, and the Imperium would have descended into the worship of chaos, what everybody be happier? I think not, life in the Imperium under normal rule is pretty tough already. But if you have true faith in the emperor, your life could be manageable. even though there is a good chance of dying on most worlds is at is still a hard and fascist society ruled by aristocrats mostly. Yes the Imperium and Imperial church demand sacrifice, but that is nothing compared to taht what chaos would ask. With Chaos everything would be insane and disturbing.. No man will hold his insanity truly and will be dead or become a fanatical worshiper and be dead a little later.. Everybody would live in fear of death constantly. You would be abused, tortured, chopped into little pieces, experimented on, ritualistically sacrificed by the masses or worse just your loved ones etc. etc. A regime that brings total insanity with it should be considered evil I think ;)

[Khestra the Unbeheld]

Sanity is for the weak! ;)

 

No one knows for a certainty what Horus would have done if he'd succeeded. Maybe he'd have loosed the Khornates on Terra and butchered everyone in the name of Chaos, or maybe he'd have given the Warp the finger and turned on them once he'd toppled the Emperor. Horus was a user; I don't find it too off-the-wall to consider the possibility that he would have betrayed the Chaos gods once he'd gotten what he needed out of them, especially if he'd already gotten some kind of insight on how they function and how to beat them.

 

Nietzsche put it best: what's done from love lies beyond good and evil. Personally, I applaud GW for leaving 40K and everything in it as an amoral universe. Nothing is so cut-and-dry as "good" and "evil" in the minds of Men.

[Satyroth]

In my opinion, evil is just the word given to things that the majority of people do not agree with because they conform to the "good" group, because they are not independant.

 

The Chaos Gods do not promote "evil", nor do they reward it. I like to think of them as a big happy family that treat the "fallen" as children and reward them for worship and deliverance of their ideas. Basically it is just manipulation, a game almost, playing on the basic instincts and emotions of humanity (rage, curiosity, vulnerability, lust), but in a way it allows Space Marines and mortal men the chance to become human again. Instead of being single minded soldiers with no choice but the dominion of the Emperor, they can make choice and follow the path which appeals to them, and usually they use their fears or desires to do this.

 

Nurgle; overcome the fear of death and illness and become the very embodiment of what you feared.

Slaanesh; chase your desires and any indulgances your mind and body can take, and be rewarded for enjoying it.

Khorne; unleash anger and hatred and serve the God of Blood - kind of like anger management for pent up massacres :P

Tzeenech; power, greed, and more power. Politicians and Meglomaniacs only :D

 

thats how I see it :D

 

Chaos is not evil, it is freedom!

[Kingin]

With the subject of Horus I although there are many outcomes of what he can do. But what I think is that the Chaos gods have a weakness but its hard to find, but could be found. I really like it how Satyroth brought the thing up, even through I've been saying what he said for a while, but lets not get off subject, I think that some people who are in the category of Chaos would just want to live there life's the way they want to live. Also the Chaos gods could give stuff that the Emperor can not, and thats the chance of living. Like the idea with Nurgle, if someone is suffering a really bad illness or someone else they (love) or know they can ask Nurgle to save them, and Nurgle does help them, and you have to serve him.

 

With my fluff in my army (there is more but won't get into the details) is that the commander is in so much pain of losing the one he loved and asked Nurgle to get the pain away and Nurgle did. He took his heart, to get rid of the pain. There is much more stuff but don't want to get into the details for time.

 

But the point I'm saying is that Chaos gods aren't really bad its what others want to see them as. Also has the Emperor freed you from pain and illness? Or even gave you what you really want? Or even freedom to do whatever you want?

Just going to leave you with those questions.

[Ian W]

I think if you were to compare the two, you couldn't escape the conclusion that chaos is 'evil'... in the way we normally understand the word. The Ruinous Powers act only to further their own ends and to gather as much power and influence for themselves as possible - with no thought to the number of innocents that need to be killed/enslaved/defiled.

 

Perhaps the Chaos Marines themselves could best be described as 'weak' or 'easily influenced' - each God having exploited weaknesses in their character to turn them to it's cause. For example, Fulgrim's search for perfection was cruelly made his undoing by Slaanesh.

 

While the Emperor isn't 'good' by our normal standards (e.g. he requires daily human sacrifice to survive), the lives he takes and wars his marines wage are with the aim of protecting and advancing humanity. So from a human perspective they must be considered at least 'beneficial' or 'necessary'.

 

Interesting point, this is why the WH40k universe is so interesting, not much stands up to our normal moral thinking!

[Lady General Ophelia]

Terribly sorry for resurrecting what should be a dead topic, but I simply must reply;

 

To but it bluntly, Chaos is evil. It represents the darkest facets of the human psyche; lust, ragem hope, and despair. To think it otherwise would be foolish. The forces of Chaos wage war on a whim, (Yay! Alliteration ftw!) slaughter millions, and all in all splash around in a pool of negative emotions and thoughts. Look at the Emperor's Children. The killing and boiling down of thousands of civilians into pleasure-drugs, not to mention all the other, more mundane horrors they wrought, is absolutley inconcievable.

 

In short, Chaos came from evil, feeds on evil, so therefore, it can only be used for evil

[Khestra the Unbeheld]

Terribly sorry for resurrecting what should be a dead topic, but I simply must reply;

 

To but it bluntly, Chaos is evil. It represents the darkest facets of the human psyche; lust, ragem hope, and despair. To think it otherwise would be foolish. The forces of Chaos wage war on a whim, (Yay! Alliteration ftw!) slaughter millions, and all in all splash around in a pool of negative emotions and thoughts. Look at the Emperor's Children. The killing and boiling down of thousands of civilians into pleasure-drugs, not to mention all the other, more mundane horrors they wrought, is absolutley inconcievable.

 

In short, Chaos came from evil, feeds on evil, so therefore, it can only be used for evil

 

That coin is just as easily placed in the purse of the Imperium. Did you just skip over the previous three pages, where no less than five other people harped on the same points you just re-illustrated? Topic necromancy done just to parrot the views of others is spam, and you've provided no new insight to make breathing life back into this a worthwhile cause. :D

[Lord_Caerolion]

As we've (although I think it might have only been me) repeatedly shown, the Chaos Gods also feed off of positive emotions, they feed off of anything that has to do with their "domain". So Khorne doesn't only feed off of animal rage, but also martial honour and pride. Slaanesh feeds off of romantic love and the pleasure in eating a favourite food, etc.

[Lady_Canoness]

Ok first off, Khestra that comment was not needed.

 

Secondly, I think we all understand that Chaos does some pretty bad stuff. We also understand that the Imperials do some pretty bad stuff. To get at the core of the issue we have to dig at the root of what makes evil evil and good good, so that we can better examine the "evils" of the Imperium and Chaos.

 

Also I don't think that we can judge purely based on modern concepts, because if we do no race in the 40k universe would be considered 'good' - even the Tau would be bad due to the Ethereals be totalitarians and having absolute control over every facet of the Tau way of life.

[Wulfen Lord Leo]

Ah, now this is a really good topic, I vote for it to be stickyed too.

 

As for my arguement, well until I read Lord of the night the only BL books i had read were DOW ones. However, after reading it, my concept on the Imperuim and Chaos changed massively. In the warhammer universe, there isnt "good" or "evil" in my opnion, there are only shades or grey.

 

Even if a force is seen as "evil" they will always be those who are slightly more "good". A real world example would be the Nazi's (not an easy subject as Im jewish, but I've read up a lot on the two world wars in a Horrible History book). Most of them were blind crusaders following one guys vision of "good" just like most Chaos, and to an extent regualr, Space Marines, which could be seen as a darker or lighter shade of grey. However, theres an example in WW2 of a different shade of grey. When a nazi was about to kill a jewish woman, his officer showed perhaps a lighter shade of grey by saying "One day history wil judge us", stopping the soldier.

 

A warhammer example would be the Night Lord marine in Lord of the Night. Or my Dark Apostle that will lead my gaurd army, he shows a lighter side of chaos, spreading the faith of the chaos gods, and only killing the ones who would try to destroy them for it.

 

Now if youll exuse me, I have to take a break from all this philosiphy Im spreading. I dont ussualy use this much philosiphy.

[Lady General Ophelia]

Don't be an ass, Khestra. Nobody made you read this

 

But Lady_Cannoness, excellent comeback, though I wouldn't call the Tau Etherals "bad." They are, really, a benevolent dictatorship, and if Tau history is any example, necessary for the species survival. And to Leo: You're right. In 40K, good and evil are ambivalent. However, I stand by my message that because they came from evil, the chaos gods can be nothing but evil. You make a point with the "noble" Night Lord, but aren't the Night Lords the ones who will brodcast the sounds of prisoners being tortured to death for days on end to the planet they will shortly be massacaring?

 

I would have to rank Chaos like this: Khorne, the least evil, since rage in and of itself is not bad, just what it is unleashed upon. Next would be Nurgle, since he shows a genuine care for those who follow and worship him. Next, Tzeetch, because he's the manifestation of stabbing your neighbor in the back. Finally, Slaneesh. She is by far the most despicable being in the entire mythos of Warhammer. Following her hedony-fueled birth, she killed most of the Eldar population, plunged humanity into the Dark Age, and to this day, continues to work her tentacles into the material universe however she can. Plus, she's the patron goddess of hussies...

 

So yeah, shades of grey. But some greys are darken than others...make no mistake...

[Lord_Caerolion]

Umm... you seem to mis-understand the history of the Imperium. Slaanesh didn't cause the Dark Age of Technology, no-one knows what did that. What Slaanesh did was remove the war-storms around Terra, allowing for the Great Crusade to start. And what happened to the Eldar was their own fault, not Slaaneshs. The Eldar knew about the Warp, it was their choice to become so hedonistic. You can't blame Slaanesh for acting as a warp-god, and taking the souls of those who created him/her/it.

Also, as I've shown, the Chaos Gods aren't simply the manifestations of negative emotions, as you assume. So Slaanesh isn't simply the god of debauchery, he/she/it is also the god of art, the god of love.

Really, the actual order I'd place it in is: Slaanesh at the bottom, Tzeentch next, then Nurgle, then Khorne. The reasoning behind this is simple, people can turn to Slaanesh and Tzeentch for purely humane reasons, in fact I'd say that most do. A simple desire for knowledge, or change, or love, or perfection. As for Nurgle and Khorne, Nurgle is less... damaging than Khorne. Nurgle you turn to when everything else has let you down, when you cannot see any way to go on, and Nurgle provides you a way to continue. Khorne is only turned to out of motivation for martial prowess, a desire to be better at killing, at fighting.

Khorne is the only god that is turned to purely for a way to see others destroyed. Nurgle, not all the time, although jealousy can provide motivation. Tzeentch, he provides knowledge, not methods of destroying enemies, although his knowledge of magic can certainly help. And Slaanesh, you turn to him/her/it for perfection, which admittedly can be martial perfection, but is in the main for artistic perfection, or beauty, the desire to be loved, to be wanted.

 

Lastly, we've never argued that some greys are darker than others, in fact my first post was dedicated to explaining the various shades of grey that Chaos encompasses. Have you even read the previous pages? What I'm saying is that Chaos, and its respective Gods, embodies all of those possible shades at the same time. Each God can be the embodiment, to you at least, of absolute evil, yet at the same time that God can also embody all that is good about their emotion. So yes, Slaanesh is the "patron god of hussies", as you so tactfully put it. Hell, Slaanesh is also the patron god of drug-addicts, of rapists, of sado-masochists. However, Slaanesh is also the patron god of artists, the patron god of lovers, the patron god of connoisseurs. Slaanesh is the embodiment of pleasure, and he/she/it therefore embodies all aspects of that emotion, not only the darker.

[Rain]

It is impossible to say whether or not CSM are evil because "evil" is an extremely subjective concept that lies completely in the mind of the beholder. For example the Iron Warriors are viewed as evil because they culled their own planet and then betrayed their brother marines and swore allegiance to Chaos, slaughtering millions in the process. From their point of view however, it is them who were betrayed when they were forced to endlessly toil in endless sieges only to be seperated into small garrison units on pointless worlds.

 

And then after this humiliation and ignominy, they hear that their own homeworld in in revolt and suspect that this is another mockery by the very Imperials for whom the IW have been fighting and dying. Therefore, they swear themselves to Chaos to be given the power to exact vengeance and once they are unleashed they revel in the deaths of their former comrades as it is is both cathartic and (according to the IW) justified. The issue is then of course if you consider mass murder in the name of vengeance evil, or if you take a Nietzsche-an stance and simply consider it as an inevitable and justified action of the strong (traitor Astartes) upon the weak, especially after the subjugation of the strong.

 

Point is, it is all in how you interpret the fluff and personally define evil, as even such debased legions as the Emperor's Children can be sympathetic depending on your philosophy and ultimately it is only that philosophy and not the marines themselves that determine their moral standing.

[DuskRaider]

Oh wow, I forgot all about this thread. Are Chaos Marines evil? They do horrific things, but not all are out of desire to destroy. Look at the Thousand Sons legion. The only reason they turned to chaos was because Magnus used forbidden arts to warn the Emperor of Horus' impending possession by the Chaos gods. And yes, I do say possession, because Horus was not fully in control at the time of the heresy, his downfall starting with his "death" on Davin's Moon. And in this sense, can you blame the Chaos gods for not wanting to overthrow the Emperor?

From what I recall, he was looking to pretty much destroy the Immaterium. Also, take a look at the other legions who sided with Horus. The Iron Warriors were being misused and neglected left and right by the Emperor, pretty much drove into the ground. Death Guard turned because of two things: A: The Emperor killed Mortarion's "father", something which, even though he knew the creature was evil, Mortarion still somewhat cared for the thing he called father enough to kill him by his own hand, doing an honorable deed. This was taken away by the Emperor. And B: The Emperor, and this is true with many of the primarchs, pretty much neglected his faherly duties and shrugged them off. This is where Horus came in. If Horus hadn't become possessed by Chaos, would the Death Guard still be loyal? Yes.

Others include the Night Lords, who at the time of their rebellion, Night Haunter had assaulted Rogal Dorn, who if you ask me was so full of himself and deserved it, that they had no where else to go. Alpha Legion didn't truly follow Chaos, and I guess neither did Iron Warriors or Night Lords per say, but each had a reason to turn their backs on their father.

Chaos in itself is a natural state. Even things in nature are chaotic. Animals give in to the 4 aspects of Chaos, do they not? Can you call animals evil? No. Chaos is primal, it was there since the beginning of time and it will always be there until the end of time. As far as the Emperor himself is concerned in my eyes, he is no longer among the living. He is a corpse on a throne and will never be revived. He's been dead for 10,000 years and his name and "commands" are only used to keep the High Lords of Terra in control.

Chaos is neither good nor evil, for both of these are set in an order and can be defined. Chaos is not defined. Chaos cannot be labeled into a group, as this is not the nature of the force with which we speak. It is constantly changing and readapting and reinventing itself. A lack of constant is what Chaos can be described as.

Take a god like Malaal, for example. A chaos god which brings about the destruction of Chaos. In that very nature it makes no sense, why would a force who should be so concerned about it's well being have a patron to destroy itself? You see, this is the beauty of it. There's no clear definition of Chaos.

 

 

Okay, my rant is over.

[Lady_Canoness]

So far everyone is of the opinion that Good and Evil are too large a topic to tackle - and I agree - but I think that we (being all well versed in philosophy) should grap the bull by the balls should strive to unmask Good and Evil for the purpose of this argument.

 

[Enter Plato, Thrasymachus, and Lady_Canoness in tunics]

 

Thrasymachus: Justice is really the advantage of the stronger, and harmful to the one who obeys and serves. Injustice is the opposite, it rules the truly simple and the just, and those it rules do what is to the advantage of the stronger, and they make the one they serve happy, but themselves not at all.

L_C: That sounds alot like the Imperium to me; domination of the strong over the weak to the advantage of the strong, but Chaos could make the same claim... What say you Plato?

Plato: Justice, the true good, is the harmony of the three attributes of the just man: Wisdom, Spirit, and Moderation.

 

[Exit Plato, Thrasymachus]

 

OK! that was corny!

 

I turn to Plato for the most basic and fundamental definition of the Good, and Thrasy does a good job at portraying corruption. I think that if we use Plato's definition of Good (harmony between Wisdom, Spirit, and Moderation) then we can start scratching away at this issue.

 

Shall we dance?

 

:)

[Rain]

Sorry but I don't think your quote applies here LC. Plato had a deep belief in metaphysics and therefore his ideas of good and evil were more strictly defined along those lines. He thought that the tangible world was "shadows on the wall" with the "real" (metaphysical) world being that which casts the fleeting shadows that we actually see. Therefore, knowledge of this real world was the root of wisdom which would then in theory compel you to be good. Point is, none of this has much to do with WH40K as it is far more philosophical and argumentative than any of the fluff goes, and I don't think many Space Marines sit around contemplating objective reality when there are things to shoot running around.

[Lady_Canoness]

My point exactly!

 

I think that we need to take our search for Good and Evil out of 40k context, find out what it is, then put it back into context. That make sense? We have to try something new, otherwise we keep going round in circles.

[Rain]

Except that it can be argued that looking at good/evil outside of context is completely pointless because these concepts can only exist in proper context. Furthermore, you have to consider the facts that 1.) Plato may have well been wrong (in fact I would agree he was) and 2.) The 40k universe itself is fictional therefore even if he was right in the context of our universe, he may well be wrong in the context of 40k.

[TheDarkApostle]

Rain, I would like to add that before the Iron Warriors killed pretty much everyone on their homeplanet, UNDER ORDER OF THE EMPEROR / WARMASTER HORUS, the whole planet had rebelled and threw off Imperial rule and was essensially destroying itself with war between the few remaining loyalists and the chaotic cultists. Alebeit seeded there by Horus in secret in the first place, it doesn't change the fact that the massacre of the people on Olympus (or whatever it was called) was a correct move in the eyes of the fellow people of the Imperium. And thus it can be concluded that that point of the Iron Warriors history can not be used to prove any chaos or evil among them.

 

TDA

[Rain]

Yeah, I mentioned in my blurb that Olympia was in revolt. That being said, the attack itself was sanctioned by Horus, but the genocidal nature of it was at odds with what Perturabo thought the Emperor would tolerate (as was of course Horus's plan). As for the cause, it was rumored to have been pushed along by Horus, but also since the legion was never there as they had to constantly fight and garrison worlds, the dethroned Tyrant of Lochos (Perturabo's adopted father who he then overthrew) spent the rest of his life fostering rebellion and upon his death the population finally rose up in arms.

[Chosen of Night Haunter]

Okay, now I've lurked at this thread for long, watching, reading and researching the knowledge revealed and the facts claimed. While much have been said, with the most correct probably being that we'll never all agree, I believe I have something to add to the debate. Please judge me hard if you must, but read along anyway...

 

To start with, let's separate the two matters which have become blurred in the discussion: The concepts of 'doing evil' and 'being evil'.

 

Evolutionary speaking, 'Evil' is not something in particular, it's what we don't understand and thus rightly fear. Basically; to survive man (I'll speak of humankind like a man purely for the sake of simplicity, no offence meant to women, children, etc.) needed to beware of that which is threatening him and his loved ones. Anything that is threatening must be dealt with so that it is no longer threatening. The bear was threatening because it wanted to kill and eat man, or defend what the bear saw as its belongings; a concept man could relate to. Indeed all bears acted as such, and man could thus distinguish them and needed no other word than 'bear'.

However, many other things threatened man, some of them which he didn't understand; lightning and diseases, for example. These phenomenons hurt and killed without relation to any concept man knew; lightning struck not only those who threatened it, and what were indeed the lightning's possessions? To give a reason for such threats man invented unearthly beings that had demands and power beyond mortals: Gods. And with the gods doing such terrible things seemingly without meaning, man needed a word to describe the reason for this incomprehensible behaviour: Evil.

Now there was no need to waste time thinking why the lightning struck; either the lightning itself was 'evil' and should be avoided by definition, or the one who was struck had gone against the will of the gods and were thus being 'evil' and punished by the gods. 'Good', as of being in line with the beneficial god's and their wishes, is thus the opposite of 'evil'. This also explains why killings in war are often acceptable to man (because we here understand the reason; take what he's got or defend our own stuff), while murder (as in more or less random killings of a non-enemy) is viewed as evil.

 

However, not only did man see things he did not understand, at times he also encountered things he had never seen before. Such things could be as well irrelevant, a threat or a boon, with man having no chance of knowing which it was. It's better to be safe than sorry (or in this case; the curious dies first!) and thus man labelled everything unknown as dangerous, until proven otherwise. Thus, whenever something unusual or odd is encountered, man has a tendency to label it dangerous, and since we do not often understand things we see for the first time, such things are quickly associated with 'being evil'.

To demonstrate, take a look (Warning! Shocking image!) here. Does it look evil to you? Then ask yourself: Has it ever hurt anyone? Can it ever be responsible for its own shape? The answer to both questions is "no" and still your first thought will be 'Evil!' Or perhaps just 'Ugly!', but the span is not that wide as you would in both cases avoid it, regardless of it actually being a sweet minded puppy. Only if you came to know it closely you would begin to alter your opinion, and see it as something else and more than just 'evil' and 'ugly'.

 

To return to Warhammer 40K, nobody and everybody are 'evil', depending on whom they threaten or are believed to threaten. The Chaos Space Marines are thus only evil if seen from an opposed point of view, with the Chaos Space Marines being in their full right of declaring as well the Emperor, Space Marines, Eldar and Tyranids as 'evil' and seeing themselves as 'good' or 'right'. Labelling the Tyranids, C'tan/Necrons and Chaos Gods as greater evils (from a human perspective) than perhaps the Orks and Eldar might be valid in this case, simply because the last two races are more similar to humans and thus more comprehensible to mankind.

 

So much for the concept of something 'being evil', but what about 'doing evil'?

 

If 'good' and 'evil' is defined by whatever the action in question is threatening someone we care for or it is something we don't understand the reason for, only a few things are evil. By today however, 'us' does not only entitle the ones most dear to us, but also our friends, colleagues, citizens, countrymen and human kind as a whole. Thus the western world (pardon the loose grouping, again only for the sake of simplicity) sees 9/11 as an 'evil' because it has hurt someone we identify ourselves with, and hurt them for a reason we cannot truly comprehend. For the same reason the bombing of Iraq is not seen as evil, because it is war with a purpose (I know this is not the viewpoint of everybody, but let's save discussions of these topics for another time and place). I'm sure however, that the Iraqi people who are seeing bombs raining down on their houses and families in their quiet heart think of the bombs and the people behind them as evil, because the individual Iraqis do not understand why they in particular are being attacked. And most of us can understand that, or at least that is my claim. 'Doing evil' today (And in Warhammer) is thus a matter of an action done to threaten those we identify with.

 

So, to recap, we might not think of anything as 'good', 'evil', 'right', 'wrong', 'light' or 'darkness' in any other than subjective ways, either as individuals or as a group. In any case, everything we consciously do is supposedly done in the belief that it is the best thing to do (see Caerolion's example of Holocaust etc.). Regardless of the actual intention of the actor in the moment of the action, the opposite part will always be able to label the action as purposefully 'evil'.

 

In some cases however, actions are taken without conscious thought, but instead based on feelings and reflex. Such actions can be caused by moments of blinding hatred, love or sorrow, instincts and pure reflexes. Can one be labelled as evil for acting on reflex? Example: I was just told a story of a martial arts expert and soldier, sleeping, only for his girlfriend to come and surprise him. The man jumped up and subdued his girlfriend almost still in his sleep, breaking her arm in the effort.

Was this an act of evil? Surely he hurt an innocent and even loving person. But he didn't mean to, and wasn't consciously aware that it was not an enemy, intent on harming him, that he was struggling with. His girlfriend was shaken, but forgave him.

I don't see such unconscious reactions as 'evil', regardless of we're speaking the above incident or a murder committed in blind jealousy or hatred, because the action is not done with an evil intention.

 

That said I'm by no means willing to defend such actions, make no mistake. My point here is, that trouble is not distinguishing between 'good' and 'evil', as this is highly subjective and hopeless to map out, but to distinguish between being 'in control' and 'out of control'. Being in control thus means not acting on instinct and feelings, but only doing things logically perceived as 'right' by the individual in the deciding moment (not unlike the earlier mentioned distinction between Law and Chaos in D&D really). If not acting on emotion or reflexes, we are thus always acting 'right' regardless of what opponents and bystanders would mean.

 

The logic falters here, of cause, because we have all tried, at least as kids, to do something wrong and then feel bad about it afterwards. This is an important point however, because why do we feel bad? If we committed the act because we wanted it to happen and perhaps later find that it hurt others, then we made the 'right' act only to later find it 'wrong' in our own perspective after we gained more knowledge about the situation. The 'right' choice in a first-time situation thus might not be the 'right' choice on the second occurrence. We never know the entire consequences of our actions however (man is not omnipresent and can only think so far into the future) and thus what was done 'right' can later turn out to be 'wrong', and even back to 'right' again if further knowledge is uncovered. Now, in my view, if a conscious action is done in a moment where the action seemed perfectly right to the actor, who am I then to take offence when the subject had no choice but to take the action as it was done, because it seemed to be the most 'right' thing to do?

 

This raises several other tricky questions: Is it 'wrong' not to know what the 'right' thing is? And who to ask for finding out what is 'wrong' or 'right'? Some might say this is where community takes its place: What is best for the most people is 'right' to us all. I do not fully agree, but let it be with that. My last point here is that 'right' is what we have learned to be 'right', no more no less, and nobody can really stand up and judge, because the 'right' will simply be another subjective meaning.

 

What is 'right' in my opinion is to control (not necessarily restrain) yourself, not to hurt anybody by emotional outburst or reflex, and then do what you perceive as 'right' and be responsible for that action. And with that responsibility also comes the responsibility to learn about yourself and the world, thus minimize the risk for your 'right' to be based on ignorance and lack of knowledge. Thus I have no qualms about changing my perception of 'right' or 'wrong', and do it at times if not often, simply because I constantly learn more, and understand more. In this perspective being 'good' thus comes down to 'being in control and learning', while the opposite, 'being out of control and not learning' is akin to 'evil'.

 

Thus, to return to WH40K I see no 'good' or 'evil' characters, but I see characters more or less in control. Thus Khorne and Orks hits the top of my 'out of control and not learning' list while Tzeenth (and Tyranids!) may top 'in control and learning' in GWs universe. For the same reason I see no good or evil Space Marines or Chaos Space Marines, but I see an Emperor (or the High Lords of Terra) and an Arch Heretic acting extremely by hatred and ambition and thus 'out of control', with some Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines acting 'in control and learning', like the Ultra Marines' Roboute Guilliman and Marneus Calgar, Alpha Legion's Alpharious and a certain Night Lord character of my own.

 

That's my view on this. Any comments? :P