Tzeentch... Evil?

[the dark god]

Tzeentch is well evil man what about his bolt of change power it terns them into a blob of crap :lol: and his sorcerers can have up to three magic powers just to conflict a load of pain :rolleyes:

[Captain Malachi]

The thing is, evil is, as others have said, subjective. So while I am utterly convinced that Tzeentch is evil, and am all the more of a fan for it, others may well prefer to think of him as more of a good force. Who's to say what's evil afterall?

[Rahveel]

indeed, one could argue that evil only exists when one does as one feels one should not.

[Cry Havok]

As said earlier, it's perspective. EVERYONE's evil if you're on the emperor's side. My interpretation of Tzeentch is not always progression of knowledge, but change for the sake of change. Bring some anarchy to a civil system, because "working properly" is so boring...

I don't think Tzeentch is evil, because change is his nature. Unlike the other gods who seem to embody the often assumed roots of evil, the seven deadly sins, Tzeentch is almost child-like comparatively, always asking questions and sticking his nose in things that could make trouble to see how things work,

But hey, that could be the most evil of all, children.

[Cry Havok]

Edit: Double post :)

[NielsPeter]

Tzeentch's only desire is to reforge the world in the crucible of destruction. Does that sound BAD at all?

[aleksandur]

Tzeentch's only desire is to reforge the world in the crucible of destruction. Does that sound BAD at all?

 

where I come from, you have to implode a casino before you can build a new one...

[Spareknikov]

The thing is, evil is, as others have said, subjective. So while I am utterly convinced that Tzeentch is evil, and am all the more of a fan for it, others may well prefer to think of him as more of a good force. Who's to say what's evil afterall?

 

Sorry for jumping on the 'Eye of the Beholder' bandwagon, but Good and Evil do not exist, but are merely points of view.

 

So everybody is just misunderstood? No, somebody does something which is unacceptable to someone else and they need to call it something. Man has labelled everything that has hurt him since his dawn and merely gave it a name and typically stays away from it like a mouse in a particular psychological experiment...

 

...which isn't evil. ^_^

 

Nietzsche and Warhammer... I didn't think I'd be mixing those two together this morning...

 

If anything, the Chaos Gods are malicent beings who do things by dictation of the many things they are made up of, which are the 'evil' things of every sentient race existing upon the 40k Universe.

[Marchosias]

Sorry for jumping on the 'Eye of the Beholder' bandwagon, but Good and Evil do not exist, but are merely points of view.

 

 

Nietzsche and Warhammer... I didn't think I'd be mixing those two together this morning...

 

If anything, the Chaos Gods are malicent beings who do things by dictation of the many things they are made up of, which are the 'evil' things of every sentient race existing upon the 40k Universe.

 

Finally someone with an objective view :)

 

Spareknikov is correct, there is no good and evil. If you read Plato he has real trouble defining what is good and to explain his theory he mentions honouring the Gods as a good dead. It's a subtle point but he cannot define 'good' in itself so in effect mankind must create a higher being to define the conditions of Good and Evil because mankind itself cannot do so. Thus he defines good as doing good deeds which really doesn't explain anything. He then goes on to say that good benefits the majority of the people concerned with the action, and thus defines good as a subjective truth on the basis of opinion. But yes Nietzsche goes far beyond this and recognises that man must overcome Good and Evil if he is too ever reach a higher state of existance. Wow, bit deep for a Sunday morning. :P

[Child-of-the-Emperor]

Tzeentch is evil from humanitys perspetive, but in reality the Gods are just manifestations of the most prominent emotions abroad in the galaxy/universe (whatever!)

 

So is it not mortals who are evil for having these emotions and creating the gods?! <_<

 

and btw to the earlier discussion of Khorne being the most dominant (wouldnt say powerful) god, yes it is true... quote from 4th ed codex:

"Khorne is generally the dominant Chaos God, for he draws on the rawest, most elemental forces of human nature."

 

And

 

"The Prince of Chaos (Slaanesh) does not have the resources to seriously challenge the Blood God (Khorne); the very nature of his power is such that it will ultimately expend itself long before Khorne's hordes have satisfied their bloodlust."

[Roultox]

Aside from chaos demon incusions, ultimately the god is only as evil as the follower who worships the deity. Deeds bid the image right?

 

When the Thousand Sons had tried to use their knowledge to side with the Imperium against horus by warning everyone of his plans, what happened to them? Sure it was tzeentch's plan to have them fail and follow the flow (because the son of chaos - horus was commanding the powers at the time) which he no longer is around so... Tzeentch makes worse enemies of his brothers(+sister~) then he does of the mortal realms. Take the slaanesh failure of what happened to the masque, eternal dancer of slaanesh (demon codex page 51) where tzeentch pisses slaanesh off and he takes it out on one of his earnest daemonettes.

 

Tzeentch is an ultimate power, but perhaps the most easily used for the will of goody-two-shoe pipers. For a little while at least, until he lets them fail. Cant let a lackey wander off the leash and call the shots before claiming his soul now right? Its mentioned a mortal can change preferences (and where his soul lands in the warp) during his short lifetime. Tzeentch usually yanks the fishing rod when the mortal is at his peak performance in being a good boy.

 

Delicious, beak filling crumpets!

[alexwars1]

The Chaos gods formed from the hoped and dreams of mortals. therfore they can only be as evil as they who created them, thoug as a colbarative collection of ideals they maybe able to surpass the creaters (like the theory of we are screwed when computers are capable of making smarter versions of themselves).

[Paradigm]

Tzeentch is evil, just like the Imperium, just like the eldar etc etc. Every race in 40k is evil. Except maybe the Tau, but that is highly debatable.

[Captain Malachi]

No, the tau are evil too, just in a more subtle way.

[Spareknikov]

No, the tau are evil too, just in a more subtle way.

 

In a warm, fuzzy kind of way that even Sla'anesh finds questionable.

 

However when it comes to deeds fitting the image of the God, or if the God is made by the deeds that shape it, I think that would only really apply if the God is questioned and borderline fiction ie, no proof, and is merely the image of such deeds. If all the followers are evil, that may make him evil, but only if the said god was questioned.

 

In the 40k universe, the Chaos Gods are considered real (otherwise, they wouldn't have their own codex :lol: ). So by looking into their background and sifting out what makes the God Tzeentch Tzeentch, the codex would say (as well as other background fluffs') that ambition etc creates Tzeentch, but there's nothing there that really says 'Evil' ambitions create him/her/it. So any 'deeds' or actions that fuel the meaning of what creates the God would just be fuelling the colourful furnace and again isn't actually evil (or good for that matter).

 

It's like saying the "fire is fuelled by wood". But what kind of wood? Mahogany? Oak? There's no real discrimination (so let's not say the Chaos Gods are Racist :D ) between the deeds and actions.

 

"One mans' trash is another mans' treasure." So what is good to one man is evil to another, and what is evil to one man is good to another. So again, there would be no such thing as evil. B)

[Shaantitus]

It is all down to point of view and perspective.

 

From Khorne's point of view. Khârn does GOOD work.

 

However the ig trooper standing in front of Khârn probably has a differing opinion.

 

The same thing goes for Tzeench.

Anything that heightens his power or advances his plans is good.

However if that means Khârn ends up meeting that guardsman again...... see above. :lol:

 

The emperors designs are for the good of all mankind but if you are an untainted individual on a world destined for exterminatus you might disagree....

[Spareknikov]

From Khorne's point of view. Khârn does GOOD work.

 

However the ig trooper standing in front of Khârn probably has a differing opinion.

 

Heheheheheheheh. I wish people could see the mental image I got from that! :lol:

[Child-of-the-Emperor]

*Puts on his theological debating hat"

 

Tzeentch like the other Warp Gods, cannot be described as evil. 'Neutral' is a more accurate term.

 

The Warp Gods dont kill, maim, destory, Plot etc etc etc for the sake of it. It is the only thing they know, as they are the embodiment of such emotions, thoughts, feelings, worship, and actions.

 

The Gods are restricted to their traits, as they are in a sense slaves to the particular emotions that spawned them. for example:

-Slaanesh has to achieve pleasure in all aspects as it is all he knows, it is what he is.

-Tzeentch has to plot, scheme, dabble, etc as it is what he his.

-Khorne has to kill, maim, murder and destroy as he is the emodiment of those actions and feelings, it is his purpose.

-Nurgle has to decimate, corrupt, and waste everything, as he is also (yes your getting the picture!) the embodiment of the emotions, and it is his purpose, goal and only reason for existing.

 

If anything Mortals are more evil, as the Warp gods are merely manifestations of there darkest desires, thoughts, actions, emotions etc. :D

 

And i mean of course the gods appear evil to mortals, but the warp gods are above and beyond human morality and comprehension - so no they are not evil. :)

 

---- See first quote below ;)

[Imperialis_Dominatus]

So just because the Gods are incapable of anything but evil (in that they come from our 'darkest emotions,' as you said, and take them to the extreme), they are absolved of the evil itself? They're evil. They come from evil, they create evil, they hope and yearn and push with all their gestalt emotional being for evil.

 

A dog that had a bad master is still put to sleep when it mauls someone. It doesn't know any better, and in many cases, such creatures cannot be rehabilitated in any sense; it cannot do better than it does. But it still gets punished for its acts. Same with the Gods. Their evil is something they are culpable for.

[Marchosias]

The point everyone seems to miss is on the creation of Gods. Khorne is the strongest because his 'trait' is expressed the most by mortals. If everyone turned hippy and smoked weed (without developing the psychosis) then Khorne would cease to exist. The point is mankind creates Gods to justify their actions. Consider a God as 'the thing in itself'. (Yes, now we are turning on the philosophy :lol:) Without anything to define them then a God would cease to exist. Consider the Sun, often revered as the giver of life, warmth, happiness etc. Due you think such attributes could be associated with the sun if life did not exist? Of course not. The sun 'in itself' would still shine but it would not change moods. It would simply herald the beginning of day and the end of darkness. Now mankind interprets, and interprets is the key word here, darkness as evil. Because crops do not grow, the earth becomes cold and life becomes miserable, (examine north Scandinavia in winter when they have 3 months without sunshine). You may remember the story of Horus (Egyptian mythology) as he rises in the morning to conquer evil but at night Set returns to bring darkness to the world and the battle for Good and Evil starts again. Due you think Horus and Set, indeed the very essence of Good and Evil, would exist without the interpretation of mankind? Good and Evil do not exist within themselves because they rely on mankind to define them. Thus any higher power elected by man to represent its ideal is solely dependent on the value it has been assigned. It cannot alter its worshippers without altering the God. Consider how in the Old Testament God was portrayed as jealous, vindictive, ruthless and unforgiving. Compare this to the New Testament where he is forgiving, peaceful, loving. Did God 'in itself' actually change? Of course not, he still remains the higher power. It was the conditions through which he rules that were altered by his followers. Because he can only represent the ideal of his worshippers.

[Imperialis_Dominatus]

But that's saying that there is no evil. If there is no evil, you can't really bring it into the argument. Child of the Emperor did. He says that the Gods are only capable of evil, therefore you can't call them evil, and that it is mortals (whose actions fuel the gods, and seemingly whose most evil actions fuel the gods the most) who are evil.

 

Now, if you want to say there is no evil or good, no objective absolute morality, I can't really argue with you on that one. As far as we know, evil and good seem to be shaped by human experience and interpretation. But I personally do believe in good and evil as universal concepts. I can't cite discussing such with another sentient race or even a higher power (and if I said I did I'd get a lot of :huh: :P looks) though.

[lesdiablesrouge]

Reading through a few of these posts I would have to say that chaos in itaself is not evil or good ....... it is the actions of others who follopw these plans that make their 'wishes' either good or evil (and even that is open to interpretation). Whereas chaos makes no bones with who it affects and is quite open to any interpretations of its wishes to get things done it is the other races that are more sinister.

 

If you look at humanity it has the emeror, or whats left of him on the throne, with people slaving around in his worship, people/pyskers being sacrificed to keep him alive/undead and basically no freedom .... look at the life of a servitor .............. this is worse than nazi germany in my opinion ............ kill anything that isn't human to acquire new/lost technology and to keep us (humanity) safe. The emperor is keeping us from falling into the hands of chaos ......... well chaos was around long before the emperor and they didn't just appear out of the warp and completley devourer us then ........... they are more subtle than that. If I lived in the 40K universe on terra i would be waiting for chaos to arrive and paint my face blue ...... shouting "FREEDOM!!!!!!!" at the top of my voice. When you look at 40K humanity in this light isn't it the imperium which is inherrently evil. Where is the emperor from? He made a pact with the chaos gods, and supposedly tricked them right? Well what if it wasn't a trick? RE: the above what if he was the deffice by which the chaos gods implanted in humanity ......... the enslavement of the human race ......... war to 'unifie' Terra ........ genetic growing of the primarchs ......... the galatic war to re-unite the lost humans .......... the heresey ................... THIS LOOKS LIKE THE WORK OF THE BLOOD GOD, THE LORD OF CHANGE, THE LORD OF DECAY & in part THE LORD OF EXCESS (the emperors greed for power).

 

Don't get me wrong I play deamons, orks and marines (Blood angels - probably my fav) ...... In the end aren't all the races doing the devils work?

[Marchosias]

But that's saying that there is no evil. If there is no evil, you can't really bring it into the argument.

 

I'm confused, why can't i do this? Surely you must be able to define evil to say that it exists?

 

Now, if you want to say there is no evil or good, no objective absolute morality, I can't really argue with you on that one. As far as we know, evil and good seem to be shaped by human experience and interpretation. But I personally do believe in good and evil as universal concepts.

 

You've just argued my point for me, that Good and Evil do not exist 'within themselves'. That without mankind to interpret them how do they exist as universal concepts?

 

There is no objective morality. Let us examine the recent Holocaust. The underlying issue was the extermination of another race, in this case the Jews. Now 60 years on it is deemed inapropriate (to say the least) to talk of the Nazi's in a positive light. Indeed it is illegal to make Hitler salutes because the Holocaust is looked upon with abhorrence and a act of great evil.

Let us examine another event, the rebellion of Nat Turner. For those of you who need some refreshment regarding African-American history, Nat Turner was a slave who lived on a plantation in Virginia at the start of the 19th century. He led a rebellion with the objective of the extermination of the white race. In the 48 hours that the rebellion lasted he killed 60 white people regardless of age or gender. Yet Nat Turner is something of a revered figure among some African-Americans and especially in Hip-Hop culture.

 

The point is that circumstances have blurred the lines between 'Good and Evil' in these 2 cases despite both having the same ojective, the extermination of another race. What you define as evil, someone else will define as good. So where is your objective morality?

 

EDIT: spelling

[Imperialis_Dominatus]

But that's saying that there is no evil. If there is no evil, you can't really bring it into the argument.

 

I'm confused, why can't i do this? Surely you must be able to define evil to say that it exists?

 

No, I was discussing the argument preceding mine in light of yours. In that while Child of the Emperor's argument seemed to argue that there was evil and yours argued that there is not. I may have misinterpreted your post as being in support of his rather than being a standalone argument. If so, I apologize.

 

Now, if you want to say there is no evil or good, no objective absolute morality, I can't really argue with you on that one. As far as we know, evil and good seem to be shaped by human experience and interpretation. But I personally do believe in good and evil as universal concepts.

 

You've just argued my point for me, that Good and Evil do not exist 'within themselves'. That without mankind to interpret them how do they exist as universal concepts?

 

I didn't argue your point, I stated my own lack of a real counterpoint. I can't come up with an objective reason why there should be an objective good or evil. That doesn't stop me from believing there is such a standard. As far as we know (rather than believe), an objective standard of good or evil is difficult to support, since all we really have to go by is human experience.

 

As a Christian, I believe there is a universal concept of good and evil. But I can't really bring my religious beliefs into this, can I? It's not rational. My only real defense here is to say 'you can't prove that, even if I can't either.'

 

There is no objective morality. Let us examine the recent Holocaust. The underlying issue was the extermination of another race, in this case the Jews. Now 60 years on it is deemed inapropriate (to say the least) to talk of the Nazi's in a positive light. Indeed it is illegal to make Hitler salutes because the Holocaust is looked upon with abhorrence and a act of great evil.

Let us examine another event, the rebellion of Nat Turner. For those of you who need some refreshment regarding African-American history, Nat Turner was a slave who lived on a plantation in Virginia at the start of the 19th century. He led a rebellion with the objective of the extermination of the white race. In the 48 hours that the rebellion lasted he killed 60 white people regardless of age or gender. Yet Nat Turner is something of a revered figure among some African-Americans and especially in Hip-Hop culture.

 

Just because someone else believes that an act of evil was an act of good (or vice versa) does not invalidate the possibility of a standard for good and evil existing. I look at it as a shotgun blast against a target. The center of the target could be considered our theoretical 'objective standard of morality.' The shot will, of course, scatter all over the target. Each impact represents a worldview; some are far or near to the center. The existence of impacts far from the center does not invalidate the existence of impacts closer to the center, or that of the center itself.

 

People can be wrong. Nat Turner's rebellion was not an act of good, in my opinion, having resulted in the deaths of innocents (well, not entirely innocent, due to slavery, but still). Well intentioned, but you know what people say about good intentions. Again, in my opinion, those who celebrate his actions rather than his intentions are celebrating an evil.

 

You can't simply state as fact that there is no objective morality. Similarly, you'll note I'm not stating as an explicit fact the existence of an objective morality, simply my belief in one. From this belief, I conclude that the Gods of Chaos are evil (hooray, on topic!). Your mileage may vary.

 

The point is that circumstances have blurred the lines between 'Good and Evil' in these 2 cases despite both having the same ojective, the extermination of another race. What you define as evil, someone else will define as good. So where is your objective morality?

 

Circumstances have blurred these lines because people have an unwavering potential to be wrong. Celebrating the death of 'whitey' in Nat Turner's riots is, in my opinion, tantamount to celebrating the persecution of Jews up to and including some of the deaths in the Holocaust. The magnitude is certainly on a different scale (six tens vs. six million), but the underlying intention is still the same: celebrating deaths born of hate. Which is, by an objective standard, foully evil.

[Child-of-the-Emperor]

In order for something to be classed evil it has to possess both Sentience and Free Will. - Sentience in order to be aware of what it is doing. and Free Will so it can choose whether or not to commit evil. (if such a concept exists - presuming it does!)

 

The Chaos Gods do not possess these characteristics.

 

They are sentient beings (in a sense of the word, and as far as we are aware), But they do not have free will, or it may be more accurate to say that have an extremley limitied free will.

 

Let me explain:

As they are manifestations of particular emotions they are those emotions. They know nothing else. They Have to act in accordance to those emotions. They do not have the choice to act any other way. For example Khorne can only act in ways which cause bloodshed, violence, anger etc. He Cannot show Mercy, such a concept is beyond him - to him it does not exist. the Warp Gods are not moral agents.

 

Calling a Chaos God evil is like calling a mental patient who has murdered evil. (poor example but couldnt think of another this early in the morning!) - the mental patient does not know what he is doing, or where he is, he does not have the judgement to decide whether to commit evil or not. Although we can agree that it is a terrible act he has committed, maybe even an 'evil' act, but he himself is not evil.

 

The Warp has become what it is today because of the Mortal races, their hidden desires, their ambitions, and feelings. To call the manifestations of these emotions 'evil' is to also say feeling anger is evil, because it empowers the Blood god. Having ambitions and hope is evil because it empowers the changer of ways. The gods are these emotions, nothing more.

 

The emperor is keeping us from falling into the hands of chaos ......... well chaos was around long before the emperor and they didn't just appear out of the warp and completley devourer us then ........... they are more subtle than that.

 

Actually the Chaos Gods as sentient entities didn't come about until roughly M2. Whilst Slaanesh came about later in M29. The Emperor according to existing fluff was born around 8000BC.

 

Before the Gods became conscious in M2 (apart from Slaanesh) the Warp was a lot calmer and was no way near as dangerous as it is in M41.

 

Although Time as a concept does not exist within the warp... it is accepted that the above is correct :)

 

--- Just nitpicking :D