BrotherSurge said:

I'll have to look at the game to see which concepts it allows. I can think of a Freedom Fighter trying to use Chaos and sorcery to provide him with the power to maintain his freedom and the one of his companions, but try not to be too much tainted by it. It would be the revolutionary analogous to the radical inquisitor.

nick012000 said:

And for those of us not fortunate enough to have read this novel, how is it like?

 @Lord Ork

I'll have to look at the game to see which concepts it allows. I can think of a Freedom Fighter trying to use Chaos and sorcery to provide him with the power to maintain his freedom and the one of his companions, but try not to be too much tainted by it. It would be the revolutionary analogous to the radical inquisitor.

I believe it was MILLANDSON who once noted that this is exactly what played out in one of his playtest groups - some characters tried to stay true to the ideals that led them to Chaos while others embraced the corruption and got to the For The Evulz stage pretty early.

@Brother Surge

But what does that leave us with? I don't see how there will be any meaningful choices in Black Crusade. Why would you want to preserve your humanity? The only thing that'll do is hinder your ability to conquer, plunder and pillage.

Plunder and pillage might be more difficult, but conquer? A glamorous Slaanesh demagogue would have a much easier time overthrowing imperial rule on a world if he actually walks the walk. Sometimes, simply being the one who doesn't burn you to death for looking different may be all it takes to win someone's sympathy. I mean, who would you rather follow: The guy who said he would throw down the oppressors and make life better for everyone and whose every action shows that these are his actual goals or the one who said the same and then killed a few of his own underlings for giggles? 

Like Lynata said, you might start out with noble amibitions - get rid of the imperium, down with the oppressors etc. - but that hardly seems to be the focus of this game. The corruption point mechanic in particular, where you achieve apotheosis when you score high enough, only seems to encourage inventive ways in how to burn down an orphanage. Or, if you've reached the end of the corruption point scale, don't want to be a daemon, you can remain a human, but you'll still have burnt down that orphanage.

As Nick noted, Corruption only dictates when you leave this plane of existence - not as what. The latter at least seems to be based on Infamy, which is the power you amass, not the way you do that.

In fact, I really wonder if Corruption continues to be an alignment meter at all. It might go straight to "harmful warp interaction", meaning you'd get it for summoning a daemon unprotected or begging Papa Nurgle for help in a situation you can't handle on your own.

All in all, I don't think FFG did all that talking about bringing back Grey Khorne only to turn back and make the game into a "who can eat the most babies?" contest.

its as far as i seen so far. how much are you willing too give too get what you want.

and then how much are you willing too give too hold one what you have

there is no holding on too purity, you already have that up. its only intresting too know how much of yourself and how willing are you too give it up (i think)

like i said if you personaly don`t see how you could play this then don`t DH, RT an DW can entertain you with all the things they can do.

but FFG has already given you way on how too make this a more grey sided view then just black and white.

yes you do evilish things, just how evil and why would be an intresting Q say there`s a group of ppl that have something you need/want do you a, kill them all b, con them into following you is someway and that way get your hands on it or c, do some task too gain favor (of group or groeps patron) there by convicing them too give you the thing you want?

there are lots ways too play chaos just as there are lotsa ways too play loyalist doesn`t mean one is better then the other just the focus is someplace els.

some want power maybe become a deamon prince others want rule ppl or know everything there is too be know of kill someone powerful they cant by themself or any number of other things.

i`m going too wait for the book befor i say yes or no. personaly i don`t see the draw of DW but other ppl love it, i see there point and maybe agree it could be fun it isn`t too me. if this isn`t for you, it isn`t for you.

I think it's pretty simple, really. To gain power, you have to gain infamy. To gain infamy, you have to do evil things. All those daemons and Chaos Space Marines simply won't follow you around if they think you're too weak to lead them, and mercy is a weakness, especially to them. Sure, you can always opt for the softer approach when engaging in a campaign, but please don't expect your troops to follow suit (look at how they behaved on Terra during the Horus Heresy and you get the picture). That orphanage you spared from orbital bombardment? I'm sure your Noise Marines will appreciate that you left them a few new playthings.

A Black Crusade is like a typhoon of madness and depravity sweeping across the galaxy, and its leaders have a hard enough time getting the waves to strike into the same direction. Attempting to reign in their troops' very nature sounds pretty futile, so better get used to the idea that even if you control your own actions, you will still be a part of some pretty major atrocities - simply because it was you who made them possible.

So, you either get your act together and do what has to be done (in turn becoming evil), or you end up just being another slave getting his broken body worked to death for his tyrannic masters. In a Chaos band, it's eat or be eaten.

Cifer said:

I'd totally follow the guy who seems to be too good to be true. But he'd still be feigning being good. Sure, he'll talk nice, give me pretty flowers to wear in my hair, but it's all so he can corrupt me later. It's all just variations of evil.

No matter if you take the torch to the orphanage, or if you waltz in and use your stunning charisma to convince the orphans to shut themselves in and set fire to their own house, you'll still have burnt down an orphanage.

Alright, so corruption isn't a fast track to daemonhood, because it's tempered by infamy. To raise your infamy, you'll have to... commit infamous acts, I suppose. And that, itself, tells you what it's all about.

If you apply cultural relativism to the game, then yes, Chaos is just misunderstood, and if we just put ourselves in their shoes we'll see things differently. The Imperium of Man and Chaos are just two different cultures clashing, and no one's better or worse than the other. I guess it all depends on what particular view you subscribe to. I still feel that Black Crusade seems to leave you with very little choice as to whether you want to be good or evil, since "becoming the most badass evil guy" seems to be the whole point of playing the game. In Dark Heresy you can choose to pay only lip service to the Emperor, because the mechanics themselves do not dictate your allegiance. You're free to be as depraved or holy as you wish. In Black Crusade, you have no choice but to align yourself with Chaos.

@Brother Surge

I'd totally follow the guy who seems to be too good to be true. But he'd still be feigning being good. Sure, he'll talk nice, give me pretty flowers to wear in my hair, but it's all so he can corrupt me later.

Is it? Or more specifically: Does it have to be?

I'd say this depends on how far you're already down corruption lane - if you're still master of your own thoughts, I'd say it's quite possible that you adhere to the ideals that brought you to chaos (liberate the oppressed), not to those your deity tries to impose on you. After all, there'd be barely a point to Chaos otherwise - "Great Khorne, I want to throw down the Imperial oppression on my world, would you grant me a pact?"-"I WILL - OF COURSE, YOU WON't ACTUALLY WANT TO PROTECT YOUR PEOPLE ANYMORE, BUT KILL THEM TOGETHER WITH EVERYTHING IMPERIAL!" - "Er... ok, I think I'll pass..."
I prefer my corruption more slowly and insidiously, thank you.

Alright, so corruption isn't a fast track to daemonhood, because it's tempered by infamy. To raise your infamy, you'll have to... commit infamous acts, I suppose. And that, itself, tells you what it's all about.

I'd assume that to raise Infamy, you'll mainly have to amass power and influence, by whatever means you deem fitting. We'll see how it's actually done when the book comes out.

@Lynata

I think it's pretty simple, really. To gain power, you have to gain infamy. To gain infamy, you have to do evil things. All those daemons and Chaos Space Marines simply won't follow you around if they think you're too weak to lead them, and mercy is a weakness, especially to them. Sure, you can always opt for the softer approach when engaging in a campaign, but please don't expect your troops to follow suit (look at how they behaved on Terra during the Horus Heresy and you get the picture). That orphanage you spared from orbital bombardment? I'm sure your Noise Marines will appreciate that you left them a few new playthings.

At which point you have a choice - enact brutal discipline on your troops, likely losing a few to challenges, desertion and punishment and possibly being deposed as warlord or let them continue, justifying the whole thing as for the greater good (no blue-ies allowed!). It's the same choice every victorious commander in history faced, though Chaos will likely have slightly bigger problems with it, unless you're bright enough to limit your recruitment to those who aren't sadistic genocidal madmen, periodically weeding out those who become such (and, if you're consequential enough, ultimately offing yourself before you destroy everything you worked to create).

A Black Crusade is like a typhoon of madness and depravity sweeping across the galaxy, and its leaders have a hard enough time getting the waves to strike into the same direction. Attempting to reign in their troops' very nature sounds pretty futile, so better get used to the idea that even if you control your own actions, you will still be a part of some pretty major atrocities - simply because it was you who made them possible.

Yes, at Black Crusade level, reigning in your troops is pretty futile, especially since you can't abstain from making use of the more monstrous ones if you want to have a chance of success. Sounds like characters who hate the sounds of eggs breaking should abstain from leading one.

I'm not saying Chaos is a cosmic force of kittens and flowers. Chaos is not misunderstood. Chaos is an amoral force that, if not tempered by a human will (which tends to break sooner or later), is generally quite deadly to everything around it.
I'm saying it's going to be possible to play a tragic anti-hero, whose goals are comparably just and who isn't doomed to automatic failure right out of the box. He'll struggle, he certainly won't have an easy time, he may or may not be be less powerful than those who embrace corruption, he may be rejected by those he fights for, have a harder time retaining his minions and ultimately still fall, but he won't automatically do worse than the atrocities the Imperium commits on a daily basis.

The argument that "Mice see cats as Evil, but cats see themselves as Good" doesn't work very well in the fictional 40K universe. Yes, the Imperium would be considered Evil by modern standards, but it can be argued that it is a necessary evil- necessary for the survival of the human race as a whole. Chaos, on the other hand, is almost always portrayed- in the fluff and the novels- as inflicting suffering, horror and death for sheer pleasure and personal power, not for any morally justifiable reason. The idea of Chaos as "freedom fighters" is purely a creation of fans and is not backed up by the background material. Soul-devouring daemons can hardly be said to have humanity's best interests at heart. Of course, daemons may seduce followers by tricking them into thinking that they are serving some noble purpose...

I don't know if this has been said before, but I have to remind that there will be a Corruption stat for characters. In principle, it would note that not all characters are not in the same degree of evilness.

About freedom fighters, I know that chaos demons cares a fuck about freedom and such. But I still can see how a fool or desperate freedom fighter would turn to chaos to fight the imperium tirany.

@Adeptus-B

There's an important distinction to be made here: Chaos as the energies and beings of the Empyrean and Chaos as the mortal followers of the aforementioned. Regarding the first, I completely agree - these are forces of nature which, when running unchecked, will certainly doom stuff around them. The second, however, are still humans who generally had a reason for turning to the powers of Chaos. How much of this reason survives depends on how much of the human that made the pact still exists and how much of him has been reduced to a mirror of his patron. This is not fan-think, it's what has been described in the FFG news and what has been hinted at in some of the more nuanced sources. In fact, if the idea of using Chaos to at least temporarily achieve goals unrelated to those of the deities is impossible, radical Inquisitors would be rather pointless.

Regarding the Imperium as a necessary evil... I disagree. It's an evil that demonstrably allows humanity to survive, but it's unknown whether it is the only or the best way to manage this. Even the keepers of the Imperium, the Inquisition, has quite a few factions in favor of tearing down parts of it and rebuilding them in another way.

Cifer said:

I guess this the matter of perspective which players and GMs will ultimately have to consider. Is Chaos amoral or not? Is the destruction wrought by a band of roving bloodletter daemons no more evil than say, a tornado blowing a town to bits? What natural phenomena would you compare with the actions (I'll let your mind run free here) wrought by a slaaneshi daemon?

To me, Chaos is portrayed as a cosmic force of evil. It's wholly unnatural, but I understand if people view it differently. The ambiguous way Chaos is portrayed makes it easy to adjust and adapt according to taste. The lure of Chaos is such that it is easy to believe that you may escape any involvement unscathed, that it is a "force" to be manipulated and used, and not something that will leave you irrevocably damned.

The idea of a cosmic force of palpable and very real evil is strange and cheesy to me, but on the other hand, that's how Chaos have been described in most sources I've read.

I guess this the matter of perspective which players and GMs will ultimately have to consider. Is Chaos amoral or not? Is the destruction wrought by a band of roving bloodletter daemons no more evil than say, a tornado blowing a town to bits? What natural phenomena would you compare with the actions (I'll let your mind run free here) wrought by a slaaneshi daemon?

I'd say that the bloodletters aren't evil. Evil denotes, at least in my opinion, a choice - a choice to commit an atrocity or to abstain from helping someone in need for example. I do not believe a bloodletter has a choice. Bloodlust is his very essence and he cannot decide against it any more than water can flow back into the ocean mid-tsunami.
Thus, I believe that the terms of good and evil are not truly applicable to daemons.

Of course, just because they aren't evil in a moral sense doesn't in any way mean they're not extremely dangerous.

BrotherSurge said:

Most roleplayers with a religious background somewhere in their upbringing probably have heard something similar in their church, mosque or temple. Which is why I suspect that its been quantified for so long by writers/players and GM's in RPG's, rather than what it could also be seen as diametric, political points of view. Some people just like to organise things in black and white out of simplicity more than anything else, which is a lot easier to deal with than complicated shades of grey about both sides of the conflict and motivations of the participants.

Way I figure it as I'm writing up a pre-amble at the moment for the weekends roleplaying, make up what you want your character to be, circumstances may change which affects their personal choices and decisions... however, there are repurcussions for everything :)

Maybe the presence of an utterly evil and corrupting force is necessary to provide the middle ages feeling.

The Imperium is repeatably noted as being "the cruelest and most bloody regime imaginable," which sounds to me like saying "the Imperium is absolutely as bad as it gets." I don't expect it to be literally the case, but it is a frequently stated tagline.

Do Chaos followers do bad stuff? The worst, most stereotypical followers of Chaos -- the sacrifice-happy crazy cultists -- are identical to redemptionists & death cult assassins. Sister Repentia are as freakish as any warrior of Khorne or Slaanesh, and cherubim, arco-flagellants and penitent engines are as twisted mockeries of technology and of the human form as any heretek creation. Celestians are heartless, uncontrollable psychopaths like Khorne Berserkers, and so on. An Imperial can seem to be an awesome hero saving normal humans from the depredations of chaotics; but a chaos follower can seem to be an awesome hero saving psykers from the Black Ships or muties from the Monodominants.

As FFG's article on chaotic morality states, there are no "good guys" in 40k, but there are good individuals.