Anyone playing Warhammer online?

[Velvet-Tongue]

Playing a witchunter on vortex. Anyone else?

[ForrestBlack]

I'd be up for some Necromunda if they had a simulator where you could be sitting in a fictional gaming store moving little figures around and eating pizza with AI friends.

[Raza]

I lost interest when I found out there wouldn't be any playable Slaaneshi.

[Raza]

Tzeentch is my second favorite, but it kinda lacks the character realism for me. I identify with my awareness of the innate mutability of the world, society, and human life experience; but it associates with good and constructiveness to me. If I think about bringing change to the world, I don't see myself as a badguy, killing people for it. I'd probably be talking at people, or something silly like that.

Sheer thrill-seeking sadomasochistic hedonism though; there's a purpose suited to pursuit over an insane path of mindless ultraviolence to make one grin.

[Velvet-Tongue]

They have daemonettes atleast Raza

[Raza]

Really? That was my alternate hypothesis, from the limited scope I derived from reading fiction featuring them exclusively as bad guys, but I thought that was just me being nuts again.

Which is generally far from a devalidating attribution, mind, but the thing with fiction is that I can deduce whatever realistic underlying motivations I want, but if a licenced writer doesn't like it all they have to do is write it down otherwise. They wouldn't even have to understand my point to falsify it; it's happened all too often in DnD campains when the DM made would-be villains my Paladin of Freedom didn't bother disapproving of, they just add something like "....and he stabs the little girl." Using logic to argue with fiction is generally a rather fruitless pursuit; I presumed that when I wasn't looking GW would be stamping whatever black and white morality their latest tournament storyline required right over any refined ethical reinterpretations I might invent, anyway.

[sunkarma]

Yes. I recently got Warhammer and I'm torn between it and world of warcrack.
I love the community quests, etc...I haven't played in a bit but I'll login and give you my character info...maybe even create one on your server- I miss having cool ppl to play with (virtually, that is)

[Velvet-Tongue]

Come on and join Everyone is around lv 20, with a splattering of early levels and a few tier 4 folks.

Let me know when ya start up, the guild I'm in is awesome

[Wickedanima]

Yes. I recently got Warhammer and I'm torn between it and world of warcrack.
I love the community quests, etc...I haven't played in a bit but I'll login and give you my character info...maybe even create one on your server- I miss having cool ppl to play with (virtually, that is)

W00t! Warcrack.

[Raza]

The Warhammer 40,000 universe has suffered the same fate as any culture which becomes popularized. It's been over-simplified and over-commodified. The Tau are a case in point; they have no place in the 40k universe; they were simply a marketing technique to bring in the ‘manga crowd’. More repugnant still, the chaos legions have been partially emofied with chapter titles that sound like My Chemical Romance spin-off bands. This has all served to contaminate the original ethos of Warhammer 40,000.

Although I generally keep tabs on it, i haven’t really read any 40k material extensively since 3rd ed., except the new chaos space marine codex, which is an abomination, and some chapter-approved stuff. From what I can tell the only thing of worth that has not depreciated is the quality of the sculpts, although my preference is still for the older models.

I’m not sure if you’re talking about the novels (which I haven’t read) or the game material but the moral setting is still not entirely black and white (and this is some testament to the original writing). For example in 40k, the emperor of mankind basically cannibalizes innocents to keep the chaos powers at bay and while all the SM chapters are totally merciless, various ones are actually borderline psychotic. For me the struggle between the imperium and chaos has never been good versus evil, but more man’s mechanistic and structure-imposing half versus his natural and unrestricted passion and curiosity. Its also like pantheism versus monotheism; in real life we often see great societal and industrial advances during monotheistic regimes (much of the imperium is devoted to the worship of the machine god) but at the cost of war and strife and at the end of the day you’re left thinking, why does what we make always seem to be so at odds with that which makes itself? Chaos is literally the pure form of human archetypal norms, if no people kill, khorne disappears, if people's fear of of death dissipates or if they discover a new vaccine, Nurgle retreats. So what we get with chaos is actually pure, righteous and primeval energy. none of the deities are evil per se, khorne is about pure strength and violence but its violence without resentment or spite…mostly. Nurgle is always described as playful and giddy. Tzeentch is just weird.

This is even more apparent in the fantasy setting (which is what all the smart people play) where the Northern Tribesmen, or chaos-marauders, are basically pagan not evil. In the forests you have chaos beastmen fighting wood-elves and you’d be hard-pressed to explain to me why the beastmen don’t have as much right to be there as anyone else.

I could talk all day about Warhammer! Oops!

Makes sense to me, yeah.

I’ve never successfully played DnD outside of a computer because I’m too introverted in public, but my friend who’s a DM dispensed with character alignment ages ago citing it as way too restrictive and an obstacle to roll playing. I’m not sure I understood exactly what else you were saying about interpretation and fiction. Care to explain further?

I just mean that arguing with a writer or DM over the ethics of the fictional world they create or control can be a waste of time. For example in DnD you have 'positive energy' and 'negative energy', which are the life forces of living and undead creatures, respectively. Looking at the game world, I can observe that both are capable of fueling animate beings both sentient and non-sentient, both social and predatory, etc; and that each nourishes and restores animates of its own kind while harming the other. So I say they're polar but (a)morally equal opposites, but the book slaps an [Evil] descriptor on any spell involving the negative energy, and portrays 'evil' as an objective, detectable force of (super)nature in its setting. I can then argue that this nature makes it an entirely new and distinct use of the word 'evil' which necessarily loses its relevance to its common use in an ethical context, but at that point people generally start throwing rulebooks at me.

In the real world, if I voice some sharp moral relatirevision like, I dunno, "pedosexuality isn't so bad" - I can argue my point from common, unchanging observations. People that disagree can offer their own interpretations and explanations (or whatever indignant approximations of such they manage to muster), but if their arguments fall short they cannot retroactively modify the very nature of child sexuality to make their view correct. Fiction writers can and often will do this, and that's a horribly unfair way to treat my delightfully edgy insights.

[karyn]

it seems like a weird thing to procrastinate but i keep meaning to make a character

[Raza]

got you.

You had me at 'you'.

[Joel Awesome]

I'd be happy to play you a game of 40k with one of my 5 armys or stomp you with my growing Lizardman horde, but there's no way you'll ever get me into an MMO.

I agree with Raza that I might have been more interested if I could have portrayed my everlasting devotion to the Dark Prince.