News: No news is good news...

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: 40k Alignments  (Read 3430 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BoyProdigy

  • Pirate Prince
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1575
  • Country: 00
  • Still rocking your world!
Re:40k Alignments
« Reply #20 on: June 24, 2002, 09:58:22 PM »
i say CN for DE just because they do what ever helps them out. They drink souls to save them selves not because they are evil.

Offline LysergicZenRaver

  • Dr. Evil
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 910
  • NothingIsImpossible ~ RealityIsInfinite ~ AllIsOne
Re:40k Alignments
« Reply #21 on: June 24, 2002, 11:02:41 PM »

Solipsism doesn't mean that your actions must be entirely self centred.


True. To give a bit of background on my views:


I can believe in nothing further than my own mind, as any evidence for the existence of anything further than that is suspect; senses, etc. can easily be fooled, but my mind must exist for me to think. This is solipsism in a nutshell.

From this, I realized that belief in Christianity and its teachings - my religion for the first 14 years of my life - is absurd; it is belief in something with no basis on which to believe in it. It is, ultimately, faith; and faith is by definition foolish, as it requires belief in something without sufficient evidence to prove it. Thus, with the rejection of Christianity I rejected its morality, and completely reevaluated everything I do and why I do it.

Examining other religions and philosophies, one sees that most of them have, at some point, the requirement of belief in something further than one's own mind; all require faith, and thus all are suspect (though they are also all possible). Ideas such as heaven, hell, karma, God, and reincarnation cannot be taken as fact as I have seen no evidence to convince me of their truth (or lack of it); while it is possible for them to be true, I cannot believe in them. And even if I did see material or sensual evidence, even that is, ultimately, not enough; there is not sufficient evidence to convince me that my senses cannot be fooled or their output altered.


Thus, my actions are limited by what I call enlightened hedonism.  Basically, it states that since I exist and my conscious mind is affected by certain moods, chemicals, or something, and I cannot change that, then I'm going to do what I can to provide happiness or pleasure to myself via those moods, chemicals, senses, etc., but with no moral limitations (for obvious reasons; I see no reason to limit my actions based on possibilities that it might possibly have eternal consequences). What does limit my actions is the full spectrum of what impact it has on me; for example, going out and randomly raping/murdering people is not a good idea. Even though it may feel good, it has a high risk of eventually leading to capture and a prison term, or possibly death; the ultimate consequences outweight the immediate benefits. Enlightened hedonism is all about benefiting me, both in the present and in the future, according to the apparent existence of things as provided by my senses - which, although untrustworthy, are the only basis I have.

From a lack of morality, to fulfill my philosophy of enlightened hedonism, I could, for example, steal a cookie from someone and eat it, if I thought I wouldn't get caught. Or lie, cheat, do whatever - as long as it either won't have a negative effect in the future, or if it's not likely, or if the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.

Since I will not do nasty things to other people unless the benefits outweigh the detriments, it's not really problem for me. If I want a person to like me, I treat them well. If I don't know the person and/or don't like them, I have no such compunction. If I can cheat someone or steal from someone without getting caught, I will.

Enlightened hedonism is essentially the ultimate conclusion of amoral agnosticism; it's the combination of desire for self-gratitude and lack of morals. I can do anything, and I will do anything - if it benefits me.


--Pyronate
And to discriminate only generates hate
And when you hate then you're bound to get irate
Badness is what you demonstrate
And that's exactly how anger works and operates
You gotta have love just to set it straight
Take control of your mind and meditate

--Black Eyed Peas "Where Is The Love"


This body. This body holding me.
Be my reminder here that I am not alone in
This body, this body holding me,
We are eternal - All this pain is an illusion.

--Tool "Parabola"

Offline Spacewolf

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
  • I am all that is evil. But you can call me cookie
Re:40k Alignments
« Reply #22 on: June 25, 2002, 01:32:00 AM »
 Well let me see if I can take a stab at this..

 Dark Eldar either neutral evil I go with this after reading alot of fluff. Mainly because there is rules they abide by in their society and these are not chaotic ones.

 Eldar either Neutral or Neutral good. Every thing I have read on the eldar shows that they do what is best not just for the craftworld but the universe. (just because they are not fond of humans does not make them evil or anything)

Nid neutral evil and neutral When they are controled by the hive mind neutral evil when they are on their own they would revert to animal intel.

Orks Chaotic Neutral. They do not know why they does what they does.. They just does it... (Gotta love orks)

 Chaos chaotic evil and Chaotic neutral I put that in here after reading about the Iron Warrior and Thousand sons. They turned because they thought the Emperor turned his back on them (in the case of the Thousand Sons he did)

 Tau Neutral Good after all they try to scare you before fight  that has gotta count for something.

 Necron neutral evil they destroy for the C'tan with out thought of life.

 SM depends on the Chapter.
   Space Wolves, Crimson Fist, Imperial fist, White Scars Neutral Good.
   Blood Angels, Dark Angels Lawful Neutral
   Ultramarines Lawful good.
   Black Templars Lawful Neutral
(Note not SM chapter stick to the Adeptus astartes SW being classic example)

  SOB's Lawful neutral

 Imp guard probably covers all since each Imp army is from a differnt world and all act differntly.

Offline Lord Calamir

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
  • Member of the Council of Ulthwe
Re:40k Alignments
« Reply #23 on: June 25, 2002, 05:14:01 AM »
Chaotic evil races can have social structures If you've read R. A. Salvatore's books, the drow are totally devoted to chaos, pain and suffering, and they have a nice social system that works for them perfectly well, and alows for maximum betrayal and backstabing. ;D The DE have a social structure at least a little similar to the drow, so they can be chaotic evil


yeah, what I said ;D (Salvatore rulez!)

Quote
On a side not, when people say evil, they always mean it like it's a bad thing. There's nothing wrong with being evil is there?


well, that's a matter of your personal POV... if you're evil, of course you won't think it's wrong ;)

Quote
Eldar either Neutral or Neutral good. Every thing I have read on the eldar shows that they do what is best not just for the craftworld but the universe. (just because they are not fond of humans does not make them evil or anything)


Well, then you've read different things than I have. According to my sources, Eldar don't give a d*mn about any race besides themselves, leaving aside their special hostility towards Chaos (and maybe Necrons). Eldrad Ulthran, for example, indirectly initiated the Armageddon War to prevent the Orks from attacking Ulthwe. However, they are not imperialists, and thus "better" than the Imperials.

Quote
Tau Neutral Good after all they try to scare you before fight  that has gotta count for something.


Yeah. Join us or be destroyed. Great attitude [sarcasm off] The Tau, despite their "friendliness", are expansionists, and although they are not fascists like the Imperials, they are certainly not Good.
All hail Eldrad, for he shall safely guide us through the darkness until a new morning dawns.

Offline Commander Ikari

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 284
  • Show me a problem, not easily solved by a railgun!
Re:40k Alignments
« Reply #24 on: June 26, 2002, 04:57:16 AM »
Nobody is good. Except the Green dwarf.
"Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hatred and hatred leads to suffering."

Offline The Hive Custodian (Retired)

  • Primojanitor Paragon
  • Ancient
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3021
  • Perfection Within; Perfection Without
Re:40k Alignments
« Reply #25 on: June 28, 2002, 01:32:14 AM »
I think they should have a third part of alignment: passive and active. It's mostly a indication of whether you try to impress your beliefs on others.

That said...

As far as what I think on alignment...

I believe that everything that exists had a singular, common beginning. Therefore, we share a common existence. It is one thing that all self-knowing beings share. The other is self-knowlege: the ability to appreciate that fact, to feel. Sharing these two things, and only these things, cannot lend itself to the premise that one is superior to another. In other words we are endowed with the same rights.

So how does this relate to good and evil? I believe that a good person will follow this law, and by it the Golden Rule: after all, we're all equal in that sense. An evil person is the opposite of good, and the neutral is in between.

Solipsism... I don't believe in it, at least not entirely. Even though nothing can be proved to the solipsist, I think that there's still a reasonable chance that this universe is real. Personally, I think the the risk of what I would lose by ignoring the above (the universe is real) is outweighs the risk of what I would lose if I did not adhere to solipsism (the universe is not real).

Plus, it just wouldn't feel right otherwise, y'know?

But each to their own, I guess...

As for me, I like to think of myself as Passive Neutal Good...
Calculus is an art, but algebra is attrition.

Offline LysergicZenRaver

  • Dr. Evil
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 910
  • NothingIsImpossible ~ RealityIsInfinite ~ AllIsOne
Re:40k Alignments
« Reply #26 on: June 28, 2002, 10:09:07 PM »
I believe blah blah blah (various unproveable statements) blah blah blah


There's your problem.

Quote
Even though nothing can be proved to the solipsist, I think that there's still a reasonable chance that this universe is real.


Any true solipsist will also admit there is a chance the universe is real. You can tell how well thought out their solipsism is by whether or not they use qualifiers or probabilities in statements of chance. A true solipsist would never, ever say "reasonable chance that this universe is real," but would rather say merely "chance," with no qualifiers.

Quote
Personally, I think the the risk of what I would lose by ignoring the above (the universe is real) is outweighs the risk of what I would lose if I did not adhere to solipsism (the universe is not real).


What would you lose?

Also, your dichotomy is wrong. It's (the universe is real) vs. (the universe may or may not be real), rather than (the universe is not real).

Quote
Plus, it just wouldn't feel right otherwise, y'know?


No... I don't. Wouldn't feel right? Acknowledging that everything beyond yourself may or may not exist, and you can realistically never know whether or not it does? Perhaps it feels unnatural at first, but... so? You're going to deny the truth (heh) because you don't like it? Doesn't that seem the height of foolishness? As someone once said, "That's apathy of the stupid kind."

Quote
As for me, I like to think of myself as Passive Neutal Good...


So is a good friend of mine... he's a moral agnostic, and gets really pissed off when people try to force their views on others. However, he's active about enforcing passivity.

Your active-passive addition isn't really necessary, and adds little to the alignment system. The idea of alignment is to describe the basic defining principles of one's morality and ethics. How much you try to push that varies from individual to individual.


--Pyronate
And to discriminate only generates hate
And when you hate then you're bound to get irate
Badness is what you demonstrate
And that's exactly how anger works and operates
You gotta have love just to set it straight
Take control of your mind and meditate

--Black Eyed Peas "Where Is The Love"


This body. This body holding me.
Be my reminder here that I am not alone in
This body, this body holding me,
We are eternal - All this pain is an illusion.

--Tool "Parabola"

Offline The Hive Custodian (Retired)

  • Primojanitor Paragon
  • Ancient
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3021
  • Perfection Within; Perfection Without
Re:40k Alignments
« Reply #27 on: June 29, 2002, 12:00:06 AM »
Quote
Quote
Well, just sorting out my philosophical stuff...

>>I believe blah blah blah (various unproveable statements) blah blah blah

>There's your problem.

To prove things... I don't need to put anything in concrete. As long as there's a chance that the universe is real, then I cannot justify my actions otherwise. As for the first part, I guess I did not express my thoughts in the best manner, because if the universe is real, which is possible as we agree, then we share a common existence, and so on, following what I put down.


>>Even though nothing can be proved to the solipsist, I think that there's still a reasonable chance that this universe is real.

>Any true solipsist will also admit there is a chance the universe is real. You can tell how well thought out their solipsism is by whether or not they use qualifiers or probabilities in statements of chance. A true solipsist would never, ever say "reasonable chance that this universe is real," but would rather say merely "chance," with no qualifiers.

>I see... I have no prior knowlege of solipsism... yet, "chance" is still sufficient for my argument.

>>Personally, I think the the risk of what I would lose by ignoring the above (the universe is real) is outweighs the risk of what I would lose if I did not adhere to solipsism (the universe is not real).


>What would you lose?

Justification. All of us have the need to justify stuff, because we need a reason for things. Why do we need a reason for things? Well, that question's an example of that!

You justify your actions by the pleasure they bring. I justify my actions as I said above.

>Also, your dichotomy is wrong. It's (the universe is real) vs. (the universe may or may not be real), rather than (the universe is not real).

If the universe is real, then the logic of my statements would be real. So, that would eliminate "the universe may be real" from the second half. Now, I *will* admit that I don't know what a "dichotomy" is...

>>Plus, it just wouldn't feel right otherwise, y'know?

>No... I don't. Wouldn't feel right? Acknowledging that everything beyond yourself may or may not exist, and you can realistically never know whether or not it does? Perhaps it feels unnatural at first, but... so? You're going to deny the truth (heh) because you don't like it? Doesn't that seem the height of foolishness? As someone once said, "That's apathy of the stupid kind."


I can imagine that nothing beyond me exists, sort of like The Matrix but without the whole machine conspiracy mind-control thing. I am also willing to accept that it is possible that that is the case, just as you are willing to accept that it is possible that this universe is real. As long as there is a chance... but I won't repeat that. Anyway, I was referring to the conscience (as in Pinnochio (sp?)). A weak argument, perhaps, but one I could not resist putting in...

>>As for me, I like to think of myself as Passive Neutal Good...

>So is a good friend of mine... he's a moral agnostic, and gets really pissed off when people try to force their views on others. However, he's active about enforcing passivity.

>Your active-passive addition isn't really necessary, and adds little to the alignment system. The idea of alignment is to describe the basic defining principles of one's morality and ethics. How much you try to push that varies from individual to individual.

Oh, well, just a random idea I had. Perhaps it wasn't too good, then. As for how I feel about defending passivity... well, as long as they don't bother me too much about it, then I'll listen to the ideas.

In any case, I enjoy this discussion.
Calculus is an art, but algebra is attrition.

 


Powered by EzPortal