Are you good... or EVIL?

Ebonbuddha

Ebonbuddha

Active member
I think we are saying the same thing Steelcult.
I hate using this as an example.If I must... :
The Imperium think they are just and right in their actions by hating everything that is not human. This has serve to keep humanity safe from Chaos and alien menaces. This tight reign on all humans have kept most of them from being carried off as slaves by aliens, eaten by aliens, or mutated beyond recognition by the beings of the warp. By recieving this protection, they have to be careful how they \"express\" their displeasure, be careful of their fellow citizens acting strange.

Chaos (heretics) think the Emperor is evil because he doesn\'t allow the worship of the power of the Empyrium.By following chaos they have the freedom to do what they want. They can follow every pleasure they want. Whether it\'s frenzied blood shed, forbidden knowledge, masochistic love of disease,or blatant debauchery.

Who are the good guys?

Then again, I might have just added to the confusion.lol

Originally posted by steelcult
Originally posted by Garshnak
but I think you could define a difference between \'dark\' and \'light\' type of minis.
Click to expand...

You could. But in human existance, what has been dark to one side, is light to themselves, if that makes any sense.
Click to expand...
 
B

barkel

New member
philosophy in fantasy

I have to disagree with the comment that what one culture sees as \"dark\" (or bad) another will see as \"light\" (or good). I don\'t believe that is true.

Religion and culture aside, there is a moral fiber to man. It can be boiled down to a version of the \"golden rule.\" If there is something that you would not like to have done to you then it is morally wrong to do it to another person. For the most part, this stretches across cultures.

It feels silly applying this to the fantasy world, but: the empire, dwarfs, elves, and other \"good\" armies are for order. They primarily fight to defend, or to root out any other army that would threaten their existance, and on a rare occasion, for revenge. They don\'t make a habit of pillage and murder. The \"bad\" armies, Dark Elves, Undead, Chaos, Skaven, and Orcs do exactly that.

So I would argue that good and bad are not subjective. I would argue that they are as different as night and day. :D

barkel
 
V

vincegamer

Active member
Just to add to what Steelcult said, I was watching \"Warrior Challenge\" where they took 4 British riot police and 4 US army soldiers and had them live as a unit of Roman soldiers for a week. The historian made a point to the black troops that the Roman army in Britain had black soldiers. The Romans recruited wherever they went and moved their armies all over the empire so there was vast integration. Of course this doesn\'t affect the truth of what Nelson said, because he said there weren\'t many non-fair-skinned folk in Medieval northern European armies. That is true, but homogeneous armies is false.
Originally posted by steelcult
Hmm, you may want to check your data there again, my young padwan. The Wooden Walls that protected England for the entire 19th Century were crewed with men from all over the world. And looking at photos of the crews of US Naval vessels from the same period show a large number of non cacasian faces. The land forces were probably no different. Hell, the English today still have the Ghurka\'s - a regiment originally raised in the 1790\'s I believe. Society may not reflect that today, especially since from a politcal point of view you can get more votes by balkanizing folk than by bringing them together.
Click to expand...
 
Sand Rat

Sand Rat

New member
Dont know Barkel - while I do believe that there are some absolutes in life - Death and taxes mainly - so much of life is a shade of grey. Gaming and fantasy gaming especially make an effort to come down on one side or the other with no shades of grey - good vs evil or even Good vs Evil. I dont think this is a bad idea for a gaming situation, I just dont think its realistic in real life - am I evil because I drive a pickup truck and eat meat - well, according to some world views I am, yet according to others I am not.
 
B

barkel

New member
Sorry Steelcut

Look, this whole thread has gotten silly. I was simply interested in whether more folks played good armies or bad. I wasn\'t making a judgement of those people. I was simply curious. I wasn\'t going to put in my memoirs, \"And though I struggle for the causes of goodness, all of my mini collecting peers have fallen to Chaos. Still I shall prevail. God willing, I shall prevail!\"

Then people started saying, \"well, I play mostly evil, but it doesn\'t make me a bad person.\"

Ok... Then the talk came up of one culture thinking something is evil that another culture holds as pure. So, like a fool, I fell into the mix as well. I stated that there are absolutes. I shouldn\'t have said it. I should have just left the thread to denegrade into an \"It\'s all Good\" political commentary.

So, I\'ll get us back on course. Everyone collects neutral armies by virtue of the fact that no army can be completely good and no army can be completely bad. But since we are all neutral what\'s the point in fighting? It must be for the excercize. We all war to lose a couple of pounds, because Lord knows my low carb diet isn\'t doing sh*t.

barkel
 
Sand Rat

Sand Rat

New member
Ok, Barkel. I never thought you were making a judgement call on any of us - hell truth be known I prolly got more skellies than anything else - which would put me squarely in the bad/evil/ raising the undead camp. I just was trying to engage in some of that high level debate stuff that Finn17/18 is always on about. Nothing more. Personally, I think the debate about what you play was kind of interesting, especially when folks started whipping out their justifications for why they play them.
 
S

supervike

Super Moderator
It is an interesting debate, but doesn\'t sound like the one Barkel intended to do.


It is sort of like some of the computer RPGs I have played. I certainly could have taken on a darker side, but I seem to play all my characters leaning towards the good side. Not sure why...
 
Sand Rat

Sand Rat

New member
Small hijack

When, in your experience oh fan of the Vik. has any thread gone where the writer intended it to? :p
 
N

Nelson

New member
Originally posted by steelcult
Hmm, you may want to check your data there again, my young padwan. The Wooden Walls that protected England for the entire 19th Century were crewed with men from all over the world. And looking at photos of the crews of US Naval vessels from the same period show a large number of non cacasian faces. The land forces were probably no different. Hell, the English today still have the Ghurka\'s - a regiment originally raised in the 1790\'s I believe. Society may not reflect that today, especially since from a politcal point of view you can get more votes by balkanizing folk than by bringing them together.
Click to expand...

Yarrr, we\'re really switching around here, Lloyd.....the movement of people from Africa to the 19th century? I\'m still talking around 1400 or so, as most parts of warhammer remind of that time period, but you may be right. As I\'ve said before, I\'m sure that there were coloured people ALL around, I\'m, just saying that they didn\'t exactly feature predomninantly in the armies of france, england, etc. The Empire certainly seems rennaisanceish. I still agree that some mercenary/isolated units were made up of non-whites. Put it this way....how many black longbowmen fought in the hundred years war?

Hey, this is unfair! I\'m frickin\' fifteen years old....not much of an education, I say!:D
 
Sand Rat

Sand Rat

New member
Well, if you want to talk 1400-1600 then how bout the Arabs in Spain (till 1492 when Ferdinand and Isabella kicked them out of the Caliphate of Grenada), or where would ol\' Willy Shakespeare have gotten the Idea for Othello a few years later? Vince may be right to an extent, but even in the 1400-1600 there was a great deal of comingling of the groups out there - more than our limited reading or Hollyweird has ever shown.
 
B

barkel

New member
I guess we should adapt and follow the thread where it takes us.

It has been quite a while since I studied Medieval History, or Renaisance, for that matter. But Shakespeare aside, where can we see that there were \"a lot\" of other races in Europe during the late Med. or early Ren period?

I have, in my day, studied Medieval and Renaissance History, and I don\'t recall a great deal of discussion on the immigration patterns of the citizenry.

In Italy, Spain, Egypt, Asia minor, and Greece, sure. During the Pax Romana people were free to move about as they pleased, provided they could afford to, which is a leap. So there might have been some other-than-white families scattered about. But after Rome fell, which was in the 5th century, Europe and the Mediterainian became a much less civil place. It simply wasn\'t safe to wander.

Sure there was trade, but one thing to remember about trade is that a trader will come with his goods and then he will leave with his new goods. He didn\'t stick around. If he did he would no longer be a trader.

I could be wrong. Please correct me if I am, because I am not above learning new things. But I think it is safe to say that the average European in the 1400 say to about the late 1800 would have seen only white faces all the days of his life.

barkel
 
B

barkel

New member
for a little extra reading

Here are some articles I have read today on race in Medieval Europe. Note that I have no idea who these authors are. Therefore I have no idea as to their credibility or their motivation.

This article I thought was very interesting and seemed to be well documented with primary sources:

http://www.angelfire.com/md/8/moors.html

This article seems to play on assumtions that I feel the previous article refuted:

http://www.trinicenter.com/historicalviews/14062001.htm

Ok, those seem to be the only two sites I could find even remotely related to race in the Medieval period. That is certainly not enough to make any kind of educated decision. I do think it is enough, however, for me to say that my statement, \"the average medieval person would have seen only white faces all of his life,\" is a stretch. I need to study this topic a little moor (get it, Moor). Ok it\'s not funny.

barkel
 
Sand Rat

Sand Rat

New member
Barkel -

From my reading, I would put the percentages somewhere in the middle. There was probably more interaction between sub-Saharan Africa and Europe than the strictly Eurocentric view would hold, and less than the Afrocentric school of thought holds.

Nelson and I were also discussing this last night - I for one have no issues with painting multi-racial armies - even if they are not the norm for anyone else.

As to the good or evil argument, I still hold that while there are a few absolutes - Slavery is bad, taxes will be paid, and in the end we all die - more of the world is in shades of grey, not black or white. But, that is my opinion on the matter and not to be taken as more than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back To Top
Top