Carrack Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 In regards to space marines slaughtering xenos, I would say that in most cases, these would be just wars. The most depicted xenos would be the Eldar, Orks, Nids, and Tau. Of the Eldar, those from Commorough lack any redeeming qualities and have historically raided humanity for slaves. The Craftworld kin ally with their darker cousins, at least they do now, and have given birth to a Chaos God in the past. Their enigmatic manipulations harm humanity more often than not. Orks and Nids are malevolent forces of nature out to fight with or dine on humanity. Humanity is clearly justified in slaughtering them. The Tau appear to be enlightened shiny beacons of hope in a dark universe, but when you look beneath the surface you will find rigid caste systems, forced sterilization, acceptance of cannibalism and possibly mind control from the Ethereals. You also have a history of Tau encroachment on human territory. I hear that Necrons are more nuanced now but their goal used to be destroy all life or something along those lines. Fair game. The minor xenos don't show up ax much as they used to but off the top of my head you have Saruthi and Loxotil, both chaos races. I'm not saying that space marines wouldn't wipe out a benign alien species simply because they are not in His image, but in the grim dark future, the universe would be a better place without most of the alien races. At least the major ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperors Immortals Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Cain is also presented as an alternate vision of the 40k universe where techpriests wear white and Sisters are kinky catholic schoolgirls in armour, soo... http://i891.photobucket.com/albums/ac116/incinerator950/Mobile%20Uploads/tmp_24128-10415561_10202540758269052_9114921606682749007_n560170390_zpsf342a664.jpg OK, what is this and why is it funny? I cant figure it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slips Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Uh.....the phrase hes known for is...forum sensitive and could get anyone who posted it into trouble...safe to say its about fornication... (oh god the ice is so thin..) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incinerator950 Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 I've waited all day for someone to notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradigm Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 You guys are totally missing the point. Chaos Marines are the (only) good guys in 40k. Also math was created by man and is in fact subjective to man's understanding. It's a common fallacy that math is universal. (Like we only have five senses or the primary colors are any thing other than cyan magenta yellow and black.)This is why we struggle with things like one dimensional particles and string interaction. We don't comprehend them because our observations of the world are limited, and our math is skewed to our perceptions. An alien species will have different math. And it will probably also work. Just because 2+2=4 all the time doesn't mean it's the only way to get there. Keep in mind we got by without zero for hundreds of years in western math. And our math still worked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperors Immortals Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 It started getting more efficient after introducing Zero, and the universally true statement "we have no bananas" was still correct. I'll look that guy up a little more then 950, glad to make your day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Commander Scrymgeour Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 erm. mathS is indeed universal, however the language we use to describe it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conn Eremon Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 erm. mathS is indeed universal, however the language we use to describe it isn't. Both Math and Maths are accurate short-form for Mathematics. I certainly prefer one over the other (when you're so used to saying "math," saying "maths" sounds like you're making fun of somebody with a lisp), but both are grammatically correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Commander Scrymgeour Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 i know, wasn't trying to bait, but was instead highlighting the point in the second clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdemayo Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 It seems to me the conflict between the Imperium and Chaos isn't about good versus evil. It is about whether the future of mankind will remain recognizeably human, rather than post-human. Whatever it's faults, the Imperium maintains a population that is biologically and socially human as it has existed through history. Those humans may be good or evil, noble or corrupt, but their biological/moral matrix and their world view remains that of natural, standard homo sapiens. Chaos however is radically other. It may not be evil, but it can never be good, as a human understands it, becausehuman "good" is predicated on a particular, continengent mental and social frame Chaos no longer shares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faithwing Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Tdemayo just blew my mind. Good stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucio Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 A little late to the discussion here perhaps, but one of the biggest obstacles to defining morality in the WH40k universe is a lack of a defintion for morality in the first place. For example, do you subscribe to the idea of moral absolutism, where a literal divine force makes the judgement on what is moral and immoral? Do you take the concept of moral relativisim, where intent is factored into the judgements on moral and immoral behaviour? Personally, I've felt it best to judge the morality in a fictional universe from the perspective of moral absolutism, it's the most logically robust system, and makes it easier to debate and render judgement on the actions of an individual. By this system, you would typically designate the Emperor as the moral judge, which means those acting within his dictates are considered moral, and those acting against them are considered immoral, effectively his servants are excused from our moral standards, where murder, opresssion, torture and slavery are encouraged by the ImperiumAn alternative absolutisic viewpoint would be to take "God" as the moral compass, and rely on the inherent judgement of good and evil, where acts themselves, regardless of intent, are either right or wrong. By that standard, pretty much the only good people in the WH40k universe are the Squats, and thats only because they're dead and thus incapable of acting. Everyone else's society, when judged as a whole, is wrong.However you chose to define morality though, pretty much none of the standards use would judge a Chaos Space Marine to be good, neither in action nor in thought. Even taking into account that they were originally forced into their lifestyle, they've still acted in an immoral fashion by killing, rather than be killed, and survival is ultimately immoral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frater Cornelius Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 I think they are evil. But what Miko tried to say (a few pages back) is that evil is an overarching term that one can look from the outside and judge. You see, what second gen CSM do it evil. They do evil things. However, can they be held accountable for said evil deeds? That is the question. For example, a lobotomized servitor might be order to torture and kill someone innocent. That act is evil. But can it be held accountable for said evil deed? Probably not because a servitor is 100% subject to whoever commands it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Furyou Miko Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Can something with no free will even be described as performing an action? Or is it like trying to say a sword has agency, or a pen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frater Cornelius Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Can something with no free will even be described as performing an action? Or is it like trying to say a sword has agency, or a pen? That is a valid point. It would be the same as to say weapons are evil. No, weapons are tools. The flesh wielding it is responsible. But then, if a person has free will but is constraint by other factors like blackmail, mind-control or brainwashing. Can he be held accountable? Or in other words, only an aware person can be described as evil? There is a fine line here ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElectricPaladin Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 But the thing is that Space Marines aren't tools. They were supposed to be tools, but obviously something went wrong somewhere along the line. If they didn't have agency, there wouldn't have been a Heresy, or any of the other more recent defections... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conn Eremon Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 One could say that the Heresy happened because the Space Marines were tools, in the hands of the Primarchs. Where it went wrong was that the Primarchs were not, and they had everything they needed to tear down what they had built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElectricPaladin Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 One could say that the Heresy happened because the Space Marines were tools, in the hands of the Primarchs. Where it went wrong was that the Primarchs were not, and they had everything they needed to tear down what they had built. But we still have many examples of Astartes turning in the "hands" that wielded them. Every legion had both loyalists and traitors, and in some of the legions (Dark Angels, for example), the split was nearly 50/50. That's pretty poor reliability for beings that are tools, not people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conn Eremon Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 One could say that the Heresy happened because the Space Marines were tools, in the hands of the Primarchs. Where it went wrong was that the Primarchs were not, and they had everything they needed to tear down what they had built. But we still have many examples of Astartes turning in the "hands" that wielded them. Every legion had both loyalists and traitors, and in some of the legions (Dark Angels, for example), the split was nearly 50/50. That's pretty poor reliability for beings that are tools, not people. Not necessarily. If we go with the idea that they were tools, then they have two, I don't know, "handlers." The fact that they flipflopped between the two doesn't necessarily say anything other than which was the dominant handler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdemayo Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Maybe we should think of it in Call of Cthulhu terms. The Imperium may be evil but it still has a few SAN points, meaning it still shares some basic human point of reference. Chaos has no more SAN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uprising Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Personally the only black and white race is tyranids. They are mere animals feeding themselves to survive. The other fractions are merely different shades of grey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElectricPaladin Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 One could say that the Heresy happened because the Space Marines were tools, in the hands of the Primarchs. Where it went wrong was that the Primarchs were not, and they had everything they needed to tear down what they had built. But we still have many examples of Astartes turning in the "hands" that wielded them. Every legion had both loyalists and traitors, and in some of the legions (Dark Angels, for example), the split was nearly 50/50. That's pretty poor reliability for beings that are tools, not people. Not necessarily. If we go with the idea that they were tools, then they have two, I don't know, "handlers." The fact that they flipflopped between the two doesn't necessarily say anything other than which was the dominant handler. You make a very compelling point, but I should be honest - you would need to convince me that Astartes having no agency is the only valid interpretation before I would accept it because of the degree to which I think it would make for an incredibly boring story. Characters with limited free will are interesting - characters with no free will aren't characters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Furyou Miko Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 That is a valid point. It would be the same as to say weapons are evil. No, weapons are tools. The flesh wielding it is responsible. But then, if a person has free will but is constraint by other factors like blackmail, mind-control or brainwashing. Can he be held accountable? Or in other words, only an aware person can be described as evil? There is a fine line here A character controlled by Blackmail has the choice to ignore the risks and do the right thing at a potential cost to themselves, so yes, they still have agency and can be held accountable. Mind-control and brainwashing take away the character's ability to make decisions (or just informed ones, with brainwashing). The actions themselves will be evil, but the person doing them? With mind control, no, because they have no agency and are simply puppets. Brainwashing is the same as the socialization issue raised by the OP, in which case I would default to my original argument that a person is evil because they commit evil acts, regardless of intent. But the thing is that Space Marines aren't tools. They were supposed to be tools, but obviously something went wrong somewhere along the line. If they didn't have agency, there wouldn't have been a Heresy, or any of the other more recent defections... Ah, my comment about agency was aimed at the previous comments about Servitors, rather than Marines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frater Cornelius Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 That is a valid point. It would be the same as to say weapons are evil. No, weapons are tools. The flesh wielding it is responsible. But then, if a person has free will but is constraint by other factors like blackmail, mind-control or brainwashing. Can he be held accountable? Or in other words, only an aware person can be described as evil? There is a fine line here A character controlled by Blackmail has the choice to ignore the risks and do the right thing at a potential cost to themselves, so yes, they still have agency and can be held accountable. Mind-control and brainwashing take away the character's ability to make decisions (or just informed ones, with brainwashing). The actions themselves will be evil, but the person doing them? With mind control, no, because they have no agency and are simply puppets. Brainwashing is the same as the socialization issue raised by the OP, in which case I would default to my original argument that a person is evil because they commit evil acts, regardless of intent. But the thing is that Space Marines aren't tools. They were supposed to be tools, but obviously something went wrong somewhere along the line. If they didn't have agency, there wouldn't have been a Heresy, or any of the other more recent defections... Ah, my comment about agency was aimed at the previous comments about Servitors, rather than Marines. @ marked section - But how is a gun different then? A gun has no intend and is also a mere puppet of the person wielding it. Why is a gun not held accountable then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Furyou Miko Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 A gun isn't different. The gun is held to the same level of accountability as the servitor or the person being mind-controlled. They are not in control of their own actions, they are being controlled by an outside force. Therefore, they can't be held accountable because they were incapable of making a choice. You could argue that the mind-puppet could have fought the control, but failing isn't the same as choosing not to fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.