Who do you think best represents the good in-universe?

[Scribe]

 

We may not like it, but it is necessary.

 

To call that evil, is not what I see. It is survival, quite simply.

 

Agreed here, thats the distinction that a few are making.

[Volt]

 

I don’t see him that way because he knew his end and stoically accepted it.

 

Why are Nidz evil... it’s all perspective and I don’t see them having any redeeming values. Sure they are quite powerful but so are many things.

 

That is not how morality works. Good and Evil is not relative to power.

 

Nids are simply looking for food. Are Lion's evil? Are Bears? Absolutely not.

 

Morality doesn't work, it's an arbitrary concept individually projected onto the world in a subjective manner - utterly void of any conception of absolutes or even truth as it is nothing more than personal perception. It is not a fact of reality such as the physical constants that govern the behavior of objects or forces. We can debate what is moral until heat death, but there is no such thing as "that's not how morality works", as your view is only correct in the sense that you might have power to enforce it on others, propagating your mode of thought. Of course, while it is certainly a very functional framing to argue that the best moral system is the one that reigns supreme as the best propagating meme in a population, popularity isn't always the best mode of judgement for a variety of contextual reasons.

[Scribe]

I think I understand what you are saying Volt, but within the context or framework that I think we are working with here, Nids eating biomass can never be called evil/good. There is no moral attachment to it.

 

Am I misunderstanding you?

[Marshal Rohr]

I would’ve said Nids were amoral until the recent spate of novels/rulebooks about the Hive Mind targeting the Blood Angels as a personal vendetta. Not sure I like that, but it’s a pretty low level development. It could be argued the 3rd Edition Necrons might’ve been amoral, reacting to the Galaxy with preprogrammed protocols for extermination without the ability to realize what they were doing, but giving their leaders personalities changed that.

[SpecialIssue]

I would’ve said Nids were amoral until the recent spate of novels/rulebooks about the Hive Mind targeting the Blood Angels as a personal vendetta. Not sure I like that, but it’s a pretty low level development. It could be argued the 3rd Edition Necrons might’ve been amoral, reacting to the Galaxy with preprogrammed protocols for extermination without the ability to realize what they were doing, but giving their leaders personalities changed that.

 

Oh their leaders did know what they were doing - despite what the consensus memory of them seems to be, oldcrons did have agency (their upper echelons anyway), being allowed to keep (many) of their memories by the C'tan as a reward for their service.

 

Oldcrons already had much of the room for further fleshing out of personality and internal factions, with the exact same leadership structure and potential as the Retcrons; which really annoys me as they had a far more interesting unifying theme and philosophy.

[Brother-Captain Gilead]

I would’ve said Nids were amoral until the recent spate of novels/rulebooks about the Hive Mind targeting the Blood Angels as a personal vendetta. Not sure I like that, but it’s a pretty low level development. It could be argued the 3rd Edition Necrons might’ve been amoral, reacting to the Galaxy with preprogrammed protocols for extermination without the ability to realize what they were doing, but giving their leaders personalities changed that.

 

Regarding Tyranids I don't still know if that rises above an animal instinct though. A traumatized animal can react in a hostile way to a color or a sound or a smell, if we consider the whole race of Tyranids to actually just be a giant megaorganism, their actions towards Blood Angels could just be an adverse reaction to past trauma instead of an action carrying actual moral weight. If and when we see Tyranids rising above actions that could be explained by behaviour that we can witness in dogs and cats, then I will consider removing them from the bag of amoral beings (currently includes them, low level necrons and most imperial robots and servitors since they aren't really capable of doing anything besides what they have been programmed to do, ditto for Tau drones). Even if that happens, I would argue that a hormagaunt is still an amoral beast and it is only the hivemind that has the capacity to act in an immoral or moral manner.

[Marshal Rohr]

I’m not trying to say one way or the other, I’m just saying more recent developments have expanded on some kind of personality for the hive mind.

[Panzer]

 

I would’ve said Nids were amoral until the recent spate of novels/rulebooks about the Hive Mind targeting the Blood Angels as a personal vendetta. Not sure I like that, but it’s a pretty low level development. It could be argued the 3rd Edition Necrons might’ve been amoral, reacting to the Galaxy with preprogrammed protocols for extermination without the ability to realize what they were doing, but giving their leaders personalities changed that.

 

Regarding Tyranids I don't still know if that rises above an animal instinct though. A traumatized animal can react in a hostile way to a color or a sound or a smell, if we consider the whole race of Tyranids to actually just be a giant megaorganism, their actions towards Blood Angels could just be an adverse reaction to past trauma instead of an action carrying actual moral weight. If and when we see Tyranids rising above actions that could be explained by behaviour that we can witness in dogs and cats, then I will consider removing them from the bag of amoral beings (currently includes them, low level necrons and most imperial robots and servitors since they aren't really capable of doing anything besides what they have been programmed to do, ditto for Tau drones). Even if that happens, I would argue that a hormagaunt is still an amoral beast and it is only the hivemind that has the capacity to act in an immoral or moral manner.

 

 

I think it has been made pretty clear that Tyranids are not just animals. They plan, they strategize and at least according to Mephiston there is also some malice behind their actions. They are weird and alien but they aren't just instinct driven.

I agree on the last sentence though. The individual Tyranid beast has no real conscious.

Edited May 5, 2020 by Panzer

[Brother-Captain Gilead]

 

 

I would’ve said Nids were amoral until the recent spate of novels/rulebooks about the Hive Mind targeting the Blood Angels as a personal vendetta. Not sure I like that, but it’s a pretty low level development. It could be argued the 3rd Edition Necrons might’ve been amoral, reacting to the Galaxy with preprogrammed protocols for extermination without the ability to realize what they were doing, but giving their leaders personalities changed that.

 

Regarding Tyranids I don't still know if that rises above an animal instinct though. A traumatized animal can react in a hostile way to a color or a sound or a smell, if we consider the whole race of Tyranids to actually just be a giant megaorganism, their actions towards Blood Angels could just be an adverse reaction to past trauma instead of an action carrying actual moral weight. If and when we see Tyranids rising above actions that could be explained by behaviour that we can witness in dogs and cats, then I will consider removing them from the bag of amoral beings (currently includes them, low level necrons and most imperial robots and servitors since they aren't really capable of doing anything besides what they have been programmed to do, ditto for Tau drones). Even if that happens, I would argue that a hormagaunt is still an amoral beast and it is only the hivemind that has the capacity to act in an immoral or moral manner.

 

 

I think it has been made pretty clear that Tyranids are not just animals. They plan, they strategize and at least according to Mephiston there is also some malice behind their actions. They are weird and alien but they aren't just instinct driven.

I agree on the last sentence though. The individual Tyranid beast has no real conscious.

 

 

Simple acts of malice or strategy doesn't really mean all that much though: cats are known to play with their food while it is still living and wolves can and do strategize when they hunt in packs. That being said I don't necessarily completely disagree (and of course we are talking of a universe that only exists in the imagination so there is no objective truth), but I do like how GW is in my opinion playing the Tyranids always on the edge between purely animalistic and instinctual and the horrible concept of there being an actual consciousness capable of identifying good from evil and just selecting evil on such a massive scale. It adds nice flavour to them when they are teetering between a force of nature and a force of nature that could actually choose to not destroy but chooses to do so anyway. To me they are still in the force of nature box with any decisions that look like strategy or malice being just animalistic instinct on the level of a megaorganism that spans across whole sectors of space, but that is just my personal reading of them.

[Panzer]

 

 

 

I would’ve said Nids were amoral until the recent spate of novels/rulebooks about the Hive Mind targeting the Blood Angels as a personal vendetta. Not sure I like that, but it’s a pretty low level development. It could be argued the 3rd Edition Necrons might’ve been amoral, reacting to the Galaxy with preprogrammed protocols for extermination without the ability to realize what they were doing, but giving their leaders personalities changed that.

 

Regarding Tyranids I don't still know if that rises above an animal instinct though. A traumatized animal can react in a hostile way to a color or a sound or a smell, if we consider the whole race of Tyranids to actually just be a giant megaorganism, their actions towards Blood Angels could just be an adverse reaction to past trauma instead of an action carrying actual moral weight. If and when we see Tyranids rising above actions that could be explained by behaviour that we can witness in dogs and cats, then I will consider removing them from the bag of amoral beings (currently includes them, low level necrons and most imperial robots and servitors since they aren't really capable of doing anything besides what they have been programmed to do, ditto for Tau drones). Even if that happens, I would argue that a hormagaunt is still an amoral beast and it is only the hivemind that has the capacity to act in an immoral or moral manner.

 

 

I think it has been made pretty clear that Tyranids are not just animals. They plan, they strategize and at least according to Mephiston there is also some malice behind their actions. They are weird and alien but they aren't just instinct driven.

I agree on the last sentence though. The individual Tyranid beast has no real conscious.

 

 

Simple acts of malice or strategy doesn't really mean all that much though: cats are known to play with their food while it is still living and wolves can and do strategize when they hunt in packs. That being said I don't necessarily completely disagree (and of course we are talking of a universe that only exists in the imagination so there is no objective truth), but I do like how GW is in my opinion playing the Tyranids always on the edge between purely animalistic and instinctual and the horrible concept of there being an actual consciousness capable of identifying good from evil and just selecting evil on such a massive scale. It adds nice flavour to them when they are teetering between a force of nature and a force of nature that could actually choose to not destroy but chooses to do so anyway. To me they are still in the force of nature box with any decisions that look like strategy or malice being just animalistic instinct on the level of a megaorganism that spans across whole sectors of space, but that is just my personal reading of them.

 

 

Oh yeah they very much belong into the force of nature category. It's not like you could argue with them or anything. There's no option of peace or similar. The only thing one can do is either flee or fight.

[Scribe]

Wasn't that the Lion?

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Prolly Angron.

[Brother-Captain Gilead]

 

Some of my choices are Garro, Sanguinius and Sigismund. They all gave their lives willingly for the Imperium.

 

 

"Straight Arrow" Garro is a good choice. My favourite "hero" of the story is Garviel Loken; I can't seem to recall any particular misdeed on his part, and he always acted with integrity.

 

There was at leas one known instance though when Sanguinius have slain one of his men for merely disagreeing with him.

 

 

Wasn't Loken part of the procession that took the wounded Horus from the hangar deck to the apothecarium after he was wounded by the anathema, literally killing normal humans who happened to be in their way? He did feel bad about it, but that was still a pretty brutal thing to do.

[DanPesci]

Wasn't that the Lion?

 

Yep, although justified or not is another question (and wasnt merely for disagreeing)

 

 

I cant remember what heresy book its in exactly but from what i remember, this happens due to Dark Angels librarians breaking the edict of Nikea to fight off a daemon incursion on a ship. A DA chaplain claims that this is wrong (as its against the emperors own edict despite the fact they would have all been daemon chow) and demands that the Lion execute the librarian right there and then, but the Lion instead backhands the chaplain and knocks his head right off.

 

 

 

 

Cool discussion though and there's been some really interesting responses in this thread. The problem (as many have pointed out) is that morality doesn't have a fixed position and isnt black and white.

 

 

Take Erebus for example. He would be hard to argue that he is 'good'. He lies, betrays, schemes, murders and tortures people, ultimately driven by his own goal of power and not much else. He's probably one of the most clear cut 'choatic evil' (talking D&D alignment here) characters.

 

Argel Tal on the other hand is literally possesed by a daemon, however shows honour in combat and often shows regret at his actions....but he ultimately has no way to sever the ties between himself and his Primarch. At the most basic level hes 'just following orders', as he has been concvinced that despite all the evidence to the contrary, his path is correct:

 

 

 

"Do you really think that I enjoy this; the torture and the killing? That I would rather not have peace? ... but this is what the true Gods demand, Khârn. This is the Truth we have, this is the galaxy we live in."

- Argel Tal

 

 

Both could be seen as different kinds of 'evil' although im not sure anyone would argue that Argel Tal was actually 'evil' himself

Edited May 5, 2020 by DanPesci

[Gederas]

Wasn't that the Lion?

Yep, although justified or not is another question (and wasnt merely for disagreeing)

 

I cant remember what heresy book its in exactly but from what i remember, this happens due to Dark Angels librarians breaking the edict of Nikea to fight off a daemon incursion on a ship. A DA chaplain claims that this is wrong (as its against the emperors own edict despite the fact they would have all been daemon chow) and demands that the Lion execute the librarian right there and then, but the Lion instead backhands the chaplain and knocks his head right off.

I'd say that's a perfectly justified, if hilariously overkill, response.

 

There's a term amongst TTRPG players, "Lawful Stupid" where a character's outlook can be summed up as "the Law is the Law and all that matters is that it is the law; whether or not it helps or hurts people is irrelevant, the LAW must be upheld!".

 

Which is what was happening there with that Chaplain.

 

There's following the rules, and then there's following the rules to the detriment of yourself and everyone around you.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Sanguinius had to slay a brother suffering from the black rage and he felt really bad about it too... so no... not for disagreeing. I think for this type of discussion it’s important to get the facts straight.

[Scribe]

Reading up on the Celestial Lions, they seem like pretty good people.

 

I didnt know they show up in Spear of the Emperor, thats pretty awesome.

[Snazzy]

 

 

If we are to insist on pushing our own morals onto the universe... I would nominate Drukhari as the good guys because they elevate the individual, and the rights and responsibilities of the individual, to a greater degree then any of the other playable factions (their Nihilism and sadism aside). Now I may be wrong as I know nothing aboutt the Craftworlds and it wouldn't be surprising to me if they were the same way but with a culture of self control. Regardless, it is a metric I rarely see used in discussions of morality in 40k.

 

 

 

Drukhari did the opposite.  By batch cloning Kabalites and creating a might makes right society they abjured the whole idea of respect for individuality.  

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Dark Eldar has True Born which aren’t vat grown.

[Scribe]

Dark Eldar has True Born which aren’t vat grown.

 

Even Incubi, who are apparently able to be trusted to keep their word!

 

---

 

I was thinking on this topic last night, and wanted to see if we could quantify 'good' at the factional level. I got this far before I fell asleep. Each is a scale of 1 to 4.

 

1. Empathy for the 'Other'. (1 = No Empathy, 4 = Same Species)

2. Nature vs Nurture. (1 = Instinctual/By Birth, 4 = Learned and Reasoned Behavior)

3. Capacity for Choice. (1 = Hive Mind Drone, 4 = Custodian)

4. Ability to Reason with the 'Other'. (1 = Hive Mind Drone, 4 = Custodian)

 

I then thought of a very basic scenario to test a faction's 'goodness'.

 

A Warp Storm dissipates, leaving a highly advanced Human civilization independent of Knights, Mechanicus, and Imperium, alone in the void.

 

This civilization is pure of mutation, not Psychic, does not leverage AI, yet insists on remaining independent and is completely isolationist, will never attack another faction as an aggressor.

 

Choose any faction.

 

Will that faction leave them alone? How will they treat them when confronted with a declaration of freedom? I would argue the higher the scale, of values from my list above works out to, the more complicit a faction is, or responsible, for its behavior.

 

Nids for example, will not have the capacity for empathy (1), are on the Nature side of the scale (1) have no personal choice (1) no reasoning ability (1).

 

For a total of 4, so when they eat that world, it is difficult for me to fault them as a faction.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Since your model values their freedom above all else I think it fails as a reasonable example since basically every faction will attack them.

[Panzer]

 

I was thinking on this topic last night, and wanted to see if we could quantify 'good' at the factional level. I got this far before I fell asleep. Each is a scale of 1 to 4.

 

1. Empathy for the 'Other'. (1 = No Empathy, 4 = Same Species)

2. Nature vs Nurture. (1 = Instinctual/By Birth, 4 = Learned and Reasoned Behavior)

3. Capacity for Choice. (1 = Hive Mind Drone, 4 = Custodian)

4. Ability to Reason with the 'Other'. (1 = Hive Mind Drone, 4 = Custodian)

 

I then thought of a very basic scenario to test a faction's 'goodness'.

 

A Warp Storm dissipates, leaving a highly advanced Human civilization independent of Knights, Mechanicus, and Imperium, alone in the void.

 

This civilization is pure of mutation, not Psychic, does not leverage AI, yet insists on remaining independent and is completely isolationist, will never attack another faction as an aggressor.

 

Choose any faction.

 

Will that faction leave them alone? How will they treat them when confronted with a declaration of freedom? I would argue the higher the scale, of values from my list above works out to, the more complicit a faction is, or responsible, for its behavior.

 

Nids for example, will not have the capacity for empathy (1), are on the Nature side of the scale (1) have no personal choice (1) no reasoning ability (1).

 

For a total of 4, so when they eat that world, it is difficult for me to fault them as a faction.

 

 

I think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone with a particular high Empathy stat among the factions. It's 40k after all.

 

Even T'au I wouldn't give a higher Empathy value than 2 if at all. It's join the Greater Good or die. If you don't actively fight against them they might come back a few times to ask, even put in quite some effort to convert you openly or not so openly, but ultimately there's no real choice.

They'd probably end up with a total score of 12 out of 16 or so (2+4+3+3). I'm not  sure what the difference between your 3rd and 4th point is though, so I gave them the same value.

 

I guess with your system the most "good guy" would be a Freeblade Knight. Being honourable is part of the brainwashing and he's not part of some Forgeworld or big Knighthouse so he has no reason to subjugate a random world (unless it has fallen to Chaos or is infested with Genestealers etc.).

Edited May 5, 2020 by Panzer

[Scribe]

Yes they are similar Panzer, I was trying to think of my 4th category but I was falling asleep lol.

 

The distinction is (in my mind) that a Daemon can reason, but a Khorne Daemon can only ever be a Khorne Daemon. It has no choice in the matter, even if it has capacity for logic?

 

I do agree, Empathy would be hard to find.

 

Nids at 1.

Necron at 2

DE at 2 (or 1...)

Eldar at 2 or 3?

 

I do also agree that Freeblade's would be one of the very few factions with potential for 'good'.

 

 

Since your model values their freedom above all else I think it fails as a reasonable example since basically every faction will attack them.

 

Apply the model to am Imperial Faction vs Nids.

 

Nid's have no choice. No agency. No ability to reason with the 'Other'.

Space Marines? They have agency. They have ability to reason. They would have more ability to have empathy, especially say a 'noble' Chapter like Angels, or Wolves.

 

Yet how will they respond to being told 'no, I would rather we stay free from Imperial rule.'

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Compare say the hillbilly eldar versus Bieltan. They might be able to get along. It’s more interesting to me to pick factions that have some common ground rather than those that are mortal enemies.

 

We all know how SM will react - there’s already a short story about the 13th Company that covers this scenario. Basically you’ve posited a no win scenario asking what’s gonna happen... :D

Edited May 5, 2020 by Black Blow Fly

[Scribe]

But it is indeed a scenario that provides an example of the morality of the setting. :D