# Are Worshipers of Chaos Insane?



## Davidicus 40k (Jun 4, 2010)

Alright, sounds like a simple/stupid question, but a recent discussion on another forum has got me thinking. First, we have to define insanity, but it has several definitions:

The inability to discern right from wrong; moral deficiency (the "mild" level).
The inability to discern reality from imagination (a more serious level).
The loss of mental lucidity and cohesion, ability to reason, etc. (the most advanced level).
At first, I thought the first two levels covered most Chaos worshipers, while the third applied to Chaos Spawn, those who fail on "the Path" of ascension. Yet some argue that Chaos worshipers aren't insane at all. Basically, Chaos followers do recognize "right" from "wrong", but they're so blinded by emotions - bloodlust, vengeance, greed, whatever feelings are most amplified by Chaos - that they simply don't care. Also, they can always determine what's real and what's not, which allows them to have some capacity as soldiers and warriors; while they may have visions and glimpses of the Warp, they know what's happening around them.

This second point is the one I have some issue with. In almost all descriptions of the Warp and Chaos paraphernalia, descriptions like "twisting", "mind-bending", and "insanity-inducing" are used. To a normal (i.e. sane) person, Chaos inspires tremendous fear and revulsion, but to Chaos worshipers, it offers freedom and fulfills their desires. If they're not insane, how could they not only overcome their natural instincts to flee from anything and everything related to Chaos, but embrace it as something good?

What do you guys think? Are Chaos worshipers insane, or are they simply extremely nihilistic and brutal? Are there differentiations that need to be made amongst the ranks of those who follow Chaos (i.e. the Spawn are insane, but great Chaos generals are not)? Are there other definitions that would fit better? Does this entire topic make your brain hurt just thinking about it? Thanks.

P.S: If it helps, the discussion that prompted the creation of this thread started when someone brought up the "old" Khorne, who focused on martial glory and honor, vs. the "new" Khorne, who delights in mass slaughter and bloodshed - even that of weak, defenseless civilians, who don't provide much sport. I ask this in the Fluff forum because some sources would be nice, and perhaps this differentiation between old and new fluff will be important.


----------



## Smokes (Nov 27, 2009)

I think that Chaos Worshipers can be insane or perfectly sane but it just depends on the follower in question. A renegade Xanthite who spent too much time around cultists and began worshiping the Ruinous Powers isn't necessarily insane but someone whose mind has been shattered certainly is. It's easy to say that worshiping anything Chaos related would require someone to be insane but that isn't always the case especially if you look at the 40k universe.


----------



## Durant (Aug 24, 2011)

It is also subjective in the eyes of the observer.

One Chaos worshipper may see his dribbling self mutilating friend as perfectly normal. But the Imperial citizen walking past them huddled in the subway may see him as a raving loonatic :grin:


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Given that the Imperial Creed supports self-destructive subservience I do not think that the majority of humanity forms a effective baseline to measure the insanity of chaos worshippers. Taking the Gaunt's Ghosts series for instance: the Blood Pact seem to be no less functional than many of the societies that are loyal to the Imperium.

My feeling is that most chaos worshippers have the same mental balance as "normal" humans, with the possibility of a higher proportion of psychopathy and self-hatred. High levels of insanity seem more to be a result of exposure to daemons and the warp; the greater incidence amongst chaos worshippers might just be due to the increased chance they will see a daemon combined with the probability a loyal citizen will be purged if they encounter a daemon.


----------



## Machiavellismx (Sep 11, 2011)

The great thing about Chaos is... all above are right.

It attracts all kinds. My favourite types are the one's who turn to Chaos out of need or to fuel their hatred, e.g. someone might wish to avenge a death, so he turns to Khorne, knowing it is wrong but simply doesn't care. A governor may turn to Tzeentch for more power, thinking (like oh so many Chaos worshippers) that he can out-smart the Chaos Gods or that nothing 'bad' will happen him like the others.

The Night Lords & Iron Warriors see Chaos as a means to an end, something to use to help them in their agenda, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

This of course, is why Chaos is so so dangerous and such a threat, as it attracts so many different kinds of people. Some will be insane and see Chaos as right, soothing, etc. Others may start off sane and have their minds shattered by Chaos. Others may remain sane (by sane I mean normal, everyday humans, astartes etc) or others may be kind-of sane, but so blinded by hate or vengeance that they've defiantly got issues or warped - wahey, bad pun lol - views. The Word Bearers see Chaos as Gods who wish to be worshipped and that it is human nature to need to worship higher beings.

Gotta love it!


----------



## MEQinc (Dec 12, 2010)

For the most part Chaos Worshippers remain capable of telling right from wrong and reality from delusion. The problem is that their perceptions of right and wrong are often skewed. This means that the worshipper won't be killing people because he doesn't believe it's wrong, but rather because he believes it is right. His Gods have demanded it afterall and human history is full of people doing horrible things for that reason. The other problem is that Chaos exposes it's worshippers to many things that are really better off unseen. This means that human worshippers will have things added to their world-view which most humans won't, which can often come across as delusions. After all if some one told you that there was a tentecaled monster waiting to devour your very soul, wouldn't that sound delusional to you?

This means that Chaos worshippers will often come across as insane (by the standards of Imperial societies) but are generally not (by the standards of their own 'societies').


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

I would go with MEQinc's view to degree. We can't really measure sanity based on moral outlook, morals are subjective. You can't say that someone is insane because they can't tell the difference between right and wrong, morals change from one person to the next and one society to the next.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

As the fluff has changed so much over the years, and from author to author it is really hard to make a blanket statement across a entire population of people. If you selected one group of chaos worshiper it would be a far more fruitful endeavor to show if they as individual are mentally ill or not.


----------



## Lubacca (Sep 4, 2011)

i don't think you can categorize them as 'insane'. The outlook of each individual is different and the path they choose to walk has a miriad of reasons behind it. i think it's more about the universal view that the person in question has. 

As stated before, why did they turn to Chaos?
Greed?
Hate?
Aravice?
Lust?

Chaos is a many flavored thing and like a shattered mirror it sends out different views to different people. 

Insane? no. 

Broken? possibly.


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

Do you think Chaos is insane?










What do you think?


----------



## Machiavellismx (Sep 11, 2011)

normtheunsavoury said:


> I would go with MEQinc's view to degree. We can't really measure sanity based on moral outlook, morals are subjective. You can't say that someone is insane because they can't tell the difference between right and wrong, morals change from one person to the next and one society to the next.


While I do agree with this, it's like C.S Lewis said, everyone instinctivly knows right from wrong at the most basic, humane level.

His example was that a man goes to work everyday with his lunch, and his co-worker never has his own. So everyday, the man with the food shares it with the man with non, for years. One day, he forgets to bring his lunch, and the guy he always shares it with asks, "where is the food today?" to which he replies, "I've forgotten it." So the other guy goes out, and buys his own for the first time, then does not share any with the person who always had with him.

CS Lewis said you can take that example to any race, religion, group of people, anywhere in the entire world, and they will tell you that the man was wrong to not share his lunch, as the other guy always had. While peoples views do differ, at the most basic, we all know what is right and wrong inside. You can have warped views, convince yourself your righteous, the greater good, and so on - the road to hell is paved with good intentions - or can have your mind broken. But somewhere, you know whats good vs. evil.

Its why Luther, Fulgrim and even Horus, deep deep down inside knew that they were wrong. It was just buried and took a devastating act to show them that - The final battle on the Rock for Luther, death of Ferrus for Fulgrim and the Death of Sanguinius / End of the Emperor for Horus.


----------



## aboytervigon (Jul 6, 2010)

None of the chaos worshippers insane, some are just sanity challenged.


----------



## Davidicus 40k (Jun 4, 2010)

LukeValantine said:


> As the fluff has changed so much over the years, and from author to author it is really hard to make a blanket statement across a entire population of people. If you selected one group of chaos worshiper it would be a far more fruitful endeavor to show if they as individual are mentally ill or not.


That's true, and I'm glad this has generated some discussion (though the answers are what I expected so far). I'm still concerned about the natural revulsion Chaos signs, symbols, objects, etc. cause in "normal" humans, yet Chaos worshipers are perfectly fine with them. While it may not be enough to classify them as "insane", don't you have to admit that mentally, they're just not quite... right? Or are the descriptions of Chaos and the Warp exaggerated, and is it possible for some humans (not talking about the psychically inert) to be affected less severely?

Let's start by accepting that Chaos Spawn can be considered insane, on all levels, and the breakdown of their physical bodies reflect the shattering of their minds. However, Spawn have fallen off "the Path", correct? I probably don't understand enough about Chaos fluff, but don't you rise through the ranks by pleasing your chosen god and resisting the blinding emotions that cause you to lose your lucidity?

This ties in with the mental capabilities of military forces like the Blood Pact. I think they perform well because they haven't reached the most severe level of insanity, but rather function with a "manic genius", a "crazy logic" that you wouldn't expect from someone who carves sickening symbols into his skin and screams praises in foreign tongues to some entity of the Warp. They have a grasp of strategy and tactics (especially the commanders), yet they're still prone to losing cohesion due to fury and rage.

It's so strange that Chaos seems to suggest indulging in your emotions, drawing power from them, yet retaining self-control so that you can better serve your chosen deity... at the same time. This is why I initially believed Chaos worshipers were insane; the more you think about it, the more your brain hurts.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Davidicus 40k said:


> That's true, and I'm glad this has generated some discussion (though the answers are what I expected so far). I'm still concerned about the natural revulsion Chaos signs, symbols, objects, etc. cause in "normal" humans, yet Chaos worshipers are perfectly fine with them. While it may not be enough to classify them as "insane", don't you have to admit that mentally, they're just not quite... right? Or are the descriptions of Chaos and the Warp exaggerated, and is it possible for some humans (not talking about the psychically inert) to be affected less severely?
> - Aversion to stimulus does not prove sanity or insanity but simply proves exposure to raw warp energy is unpleasant for those not used/attuned to it. Kind of like Someone shinning a really bright light in your eye, if they do it long enough you desensitize and it no longer hurts.
> 
> 
> ...



However this is a little to meta for a casual discussion on 40k, but I do have some theoretical ideas on the nature of the warp based on psychology and the fictional physics of 40k that make a lot more sense then enough people got angry so here is a traditional polytheistic god (Damn the new Daemons book I wanted it to get all philosophical about the nature of the warp, but maybe that's asking to much of a sci-fi game based on profits.)


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

Machiavellismx said:


> While I do agree with this, it's like C.S Lewis said, everyone instinctivly knows right from wrong at the most basic, humane level.
> 
> His example was that a man goes to work everyday with his lunch, and his co-worker never has his own. So everyday, the man with the food shares it with the man with non, for years. One day, he forgets to bring his lunch, and the guy he always shares it with asks, "where is the food today?" to which he replies, "I've forgotten it." So the other guy goes out, and buys his own for the first time, then does not share any with the person who always had with him.
> 
> ...


That's a good example (damnit!) but the moral reaction to a man not sharing his lunch is still a learned behaviour. We are social animals and to live within a society we must have certain shared beliefs or society will fall apart. 
Not being bound by these morals would not constitute insanity, just a different moral outlook from the next man. Altruism exists as one of the binding components of our society, we all tend to do things for the good of others, even at the risk of those actions being detrimental to ourselves. But, if you raised someone to be purely selfish, if that was their rewarded behaviour, then they would act in a way that you would consider 'wrong'.
People do things all the time that we think of as morally sickening; mugging pensioners, stealing from the weak and the needy, child abuse, the list goes on and on. Are all the people that commit these acts insane? I would say no, morally void maybe but not insane. 

When this is applied to a fantasy setting like 40k you have to expand on what we would consider right and wrong, the boundaries have shifted. You have real deities that demand actions that go directly against what we as humans perceive as good or evil. Would an Ork not sharing his lunch with another Ork, in their society, be considered wrong? 
The Ork who missed out would probably feel hard done by but their society is based on the survival of the biggest and the most martially capable. Not altruism and fairness. Our morals, no matter how universal they may appear just don't apply anymore. Morals as a measure of sanity become useless. 

Another example of how things are different in 40K is hearing voices. In our society if someone says they have voices in their head we dose them up on anti psychotics and in some cases lock them away, we _know_ the voices aren't real and that that person is suffering from some form of mental illness. 
In 40K you can't make that assumption, the voices _could_ be real and in many cases they are. The person hearing the voices is not suffering from a mental illness, they really are hearing voices.

In the 40K setting, where 'insanity' has become something of a cliche, our perceptions of what is or isn't normal do not translate. It's impossible for us to apply our world view to the galactic _insanity_ that is the Imperium of Man. The insanity of Chaos worshipers is impossible to quantify as there is nothing sane to measure them against.


----------



## Black Steel Feathers (Aug 17, 2011)

I find the example of a man sharing his lunch interesting. Just to add my two pennies here, there is documented proof of what can pass- in human minds- as altruism within vampire bats, which suggests that 'morals' (for a lack of a better word) aren't an entirely human concept. Basically, from what I've read, vampire bats often share blood that they've drunk with others within their roost, whether or not they happen to be related, eg mother and son. It has also been recorded that bats who share blood are more likely to have blood given to them, whereas bats who take blood but do not 'return the favour', so to speak, are less likely to have blood given to them. 

Here's some links to back me up:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/07/0709_030709_socialanimals_2.html
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/vecase/behavior/Spring2001/Kizer/altruism.html
http://atheistdad.wordpress.com/2011/02/14/vampire-bats-and-the-golden-rule/

Now that I think of it, I realise 'morals' wasn't the best word; still, it's evidence that the idea of co-operation and such is within animals, that this sort of basic moral code isn't wholely down to learnt behaviours. I've also heard of evidence of Neanderthal communities caring for the sick and the elderly, which is sometimes thought of as a modern and 'human' behaviour. (And if our moral responses was entirely learnt, it would be interesting to know who, exactly, we learnt it off.)

*wanders off to inflict her nonsense on another thread*


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

Another good point.

In this example it is an undeniable example of altruism but we still can't say it is or isn't a learned behaviour, animals still have the ability to learn, if they didn't we wouldn't have Behaviourist psychology (check out Pavlov or Skinner). 
What this behaviour tells us is simply that altruism exists outside of humanity, not what the emotional response is to this altruism or even if there is one at all. Would one bat be annoyed at another for it not sharing food? 
Without an emotional response or understanding of morals in bats we can't say whether this is a moral decision or if it is instinctive behaviour that has evolved to best serve the bats as social animals. 
So, back to my original point, using morals as a guide for sanity doesn't work because to use morals in this way requires the assumption that there is a universal right and wrong or good and evil, as a concept, it doesn't really stand up to closer scrutiny.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

LukeValantine said:


> However this is a little to meta for a casual discussion on 40k, but I do have some theoretical ideas on the nature of the warp based on psychology and the fictional physics of 40k that make a lot more sense then enough people got angry so here is a traditional polytheistic god


I for one am interested in hearing your theories.


----------



## Machiavellismx (Sep 11, 2011)

normtheunsavoury said:


> When this is applied to a fantasy setting like 40k you have to expand on what we would consider right and wrong, the boundaries have shifted. You have real deities that demand actions that go directly against what we as humans perceive as good or evil. Would an Ork not sharing his lunch with another Ork, in their society, be considered wrong?
> The Ork who missed out would probably feel hard done by but their society is based on the survival of the biggest and the most martially capable. Not altruism and fairness. Our morals, no matter how universal they may appear just don't apply anymore. Morals as a measure of sanity become useless.


I love these deep discussions, they get really interesting and I always feel like I'm learning lol :biggrin:

What my point was - I put this in a previous post, not the lunch one - that not all Chaos Worshippers are insane, but rather it attracts all kinds, and that everyone knows its wrong on some level. I agree that, in relation to the orks, their survival is simply of the fittest, but these are a xenos species that was bred specifically for war and nothing else, by the old ones. I feel that as an example, while a good one, does not apply to the idea of human Chaos-worshippers. My posts have been about the human followers, though I didn't state that so my bad 

This leads back to your first point, which was about the muggers, child abusers and generally bad people in society. I do not think these people are morally void at all, twisted and warped but they know what they are doing is wrong, on some level. Some will regret it, but won't stop, while others ignore their conscience and carry on. For the record I have a very strict view on these people, and that anyone who commits such evil acts should be totally locked up and never see daylight again, because, I do believe they know what is right and wrong, going back to CS Lewis' lunch example.

I originally posted the example in response to the post saying that morals and values shift, so we cant judge Chaos followers. With this I disagree, as with human Chaos followers, I feel we can judge them with an unbiased view. That view is there is a universal right and wrong, and that anyone who follows Chaos is simply wrong. Not insane, but definalty bad/evil/wrong, some degree of each. Trust me, I'd love to side with Chaos as they're my favourite armies, but all my guys are always the dark-grey area, they're not inherently bad, but fallen heroes and totally bad-ass.

In response back to the part about deities, again, I feel the point stands. While the Chaos Gods demand action, even their followers call them the Dark Gods. The name alone says it all. As a race, we humans have a strange attraction the dark and bad on some levels - hey its why we live horror movies and vampires, after all, who wouldn't want to be a vampire? But its as a famous author once wrote, I've forgotten who though  , that when we are in the side of good, the side of darkness is always tempting and attractive. But when you are on the side of darkness, the side of good is also tempting and desirable. We can convince ourselves that following the Chaos gods isn't bad or evil, or that the Chaos Gods are real and that excuses the actions of the followers, but I disagree. I don't think morals change between groups of races of humanity, from the above points.

Sorry my post was all-over the place, I'm just about to eat and my heads feeling bleh lol. Also, man, I'd love to be an Inquisitor, this discussion makes me want to go read Eisenhorn again aha.


----------



## MEQinc (Dec 12, 2010)

*cracks knuckles* Okay, this is going to be a long one.



Davidicus 40k said:


> I'm still concerned about the natural revulsion Chaos signs, symbols, objects, etc. cause in "normal" humans, yet Chaos worshipers are perfectly fine with them.


I can think of two reasons why this would occur.
1) The symbols commonly seen by enemies of Chaos would likely be runes of warding, proctection or curses. It is logical that part of the desired effect of these symbols would be to cause distress in others.
2) As others have stated raw warp energy causes an adverse reaction in most humans. Worshippers of Chaos have a greater exposure rate and thus likely a lesser reaction to the sigils.



> Let's start by accepting that Chaos Spawn can be considered insane, on all levels, and the breakdown of their physical bodies reflect the shattering of their minds.


I don't accept that. Many spawn do appear to be insane, however many more wind up being more animalistic and instictive than insane and evil.



> It's so strange that Chaos seems to suggest indulging in your emotions, drawing power from them, yet retaining self-control so that you can better serve your chosen deity... at the same time.


Chaos grants its power primarily based on emotional levels. However Chaos' power is often very dangerous to the host. Therefore you want to achieve maximum power without losing yourself to it. It's a simple balancing act, not much different from that of psykers.



Machiavellismx said:


> I originally posted the example in response to the post saying that morals and values shift, so we cant judge Chaos followers. With this I disagree, as with human Chaos followers, I feel we can judge them with an unbiased view. That view is there is a universal right and wrong, and that anyone who follows Chaos is simply wrong.


There is no universal right or wrong nor is it truely possible to have an unbaised point of view. 

Chaos is not simply and universally wrong as it has many sides and many flavours. Chaos believes in power to the individual, it is about personal freedom and having the power to stand up for yourself and the courage to achieve your goals. How is this evil or wrong? Chaos is selfish, that's true; but selfish is not necessarily wrong. At a fundamental level all humans are selfish, we can (and do) rise above this selfishness to serve a greater goal but Chaos worshippers are also capable of this. Chaos worshippers perform acts of extreme violence but are the Imperials really all that different? No.



> We can convince ourselves that following the Chaos gods isn't bad or evil, or that the Chaos Gods are real and that excuses the actions of the followers, but I disagree.


God Wills It. How many times have words just like that excused acts of extreme violence? Without evidence that god actually does will it. The Chaos Gods have shown themselves to be real, they have shown their followers the rewards for true faith and they demand nothing that humans haven't willingly done for millennia. The fact is, humanity can be disturbing in its actions but always from an external, subjective point of view. Chaos worshippers believe that they are in the right, Imperials believe exactly the same thing. This is the cause of their conflict, it has nothing to do with right and wrong.


Also, as far as the sandwich sharing thing goes. I would say that this isn't an example of universally good morals but rather of subjective good practises for constructing a social society. Sharing is expected because it forms and displays bonds of trust and mutual assitance between individuals. The man without the sandwich will now no longer be able to expect food from the other, because he has broken the social convention of this group. Is this wrong though? The man will be punished for this behaviour, is that right? Morals are simply a societies conventions which dictate what will be accepted and what will be punished. Some societal conventions have dictated that women are inferior to men and therefore that a woman who spoke out against a man was wrong. Is this true? I would say no, but that is from the subjective experience of my life in a well-developed western country. Others might disagree. There have been cultures that did not expect individuals to share evenly, there likely will be again. There is no universal evil.


----------



## Khargoth (Aug 5, 2010)

I think there's a 'sliding scale of insanity to Chaos worshippers' I'm going to try and categorize them.

*-The Rebels:* People who have turned to Chaos, because they believe the Imperium (or whatever society they withdrew from) is wrong or evil. Similar to modern guerrilla rebels, they understand they are fighting against the established order, but believe the established order is no longer right. Could be considered by all rights to be completely sane and of a stable mind.

*-The Renegades:* Those who have eschewed the established order in favor of personal gain. This could include downtrodden Imperial citizens with more selfish motives at heart. Definately signs of narcissism, antisocial tendancies and compulsive greed.

*-The Righteous:* Those who honestly believe Chaos is the right path. May have no moral concerns over murdering non-believers, or other otherwise questionable acts. The mindset of your average Chaos cultist. Would show signs of delusional behavior, brainwashing, dissocial personality disorders.

*-The Radicals:* Those who believe they can 'control' Chaos for a greater good. Would consider Imperials to be narrow-minded or ignorant. Likely to deny that they are being corrupted by Chaos, or that their control is not absolute. Often display messiah complexes, delusions of omnipotence; grandeur, superiority complexes.

*-The Reprobates:* Most Chaos Marines fall into this category. Presented with the freedom that Chaos offers, many into this category dive straight in. Often lacking an established moral code to fall back on, or have otherwise had their personal morals destroyed by severe mental trauma, worshippers in this category display amoral behavior, narcissistic tendencies, simple greed and antisocial behavior. Sometimes suffer dissocial personality disorders and are attempting to reforge a sense of self.

*-The Ravagers:* Have given themselves to Chaos almost completely. Consider their existence to be for the sole benefit of Chaos. May have feelings of camaraderie/brotherhood towards those of a similar disposition. Severe personality disassociation, little concern for their own well-being, severe lack of personal moral code. Most likely to show signs of physical mutation.

So, for instance, an Iron Warrior may be a Rebel-Renegade, his Warsmith a Renegade-Radical, whilst a Khorne Berzerker or a Noise Marine would be a more severe case of Reprobate-Ravager.


----------



## Doelago (Nov 29, 2009)




----------



## MEQinc (Dec 12, 2010)

Khargoth said:


> I think there's a 'sliding scale of insanity to Chaos worshippers' I'm going to try and categorize them.
> 
> *-The Rebels:* People who have turned to Chaos, because they believe the Imperium (or whatever society they withdrew from) is wrong or evil. Similar to modern guerrilla rebels, they understand they are fighting against the established order, but believe the established order is no longer right. Could be considered by all rights to be completely sane and of a stable mind.
> 
> ...


:goodpost:

My only complaint is the fact that you seem to give every group (aside from Rebels) some mental disorders which strikes me as an increadibly broad generalization.


----------



## Khargoth (Aug 5, 2010)

It's not a specific case for _anyone_ who falls into that category; just the kind of disorders someone in that category could display; it also serves as a general yardstick of how 'not sane' they are.


----------



## Harriticus (Nov 10, 2010)

The vast majority of Chaos worshipers (generalized as the "Lost and the Damned") are indeed insane. Chaos hordes of Heretics, Cultists, Beastmen, Rogue Psykers, Renegades, Mutants, etc.. are known for their mental instability as well as viciousness. Many like Mutants are little more then gibbering beasts.

With the exception of guys like Khorne Berzerkers, most CSM have it together though.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Khargoth said:


> I think there's a 'sliding scale of insanity to Chaos worshippers' I'm going to try and categorize them.
> 
> *-The Rebels:* People who have turned to Chaos, because they believe the Imperium (or whatever society they withdrew from) is wrong or evil. Similar to modern guerrilla rebels, they understand they are fighting against the established order, but believe the established order is no longer right. Could be considered by all rights to be completely sane and of a stable mind.
> 
> ...


You forget one major group.
-Nihilists: Individuals that feel like/or have lost everything and seek to destroy everything else so other can feel their pain. Others in this group believe they are doing a favor for the universe by ending the suffering of others or showing them the failure of putting value in what can so easily be destroyed. A number of nurgle worshiper fall into this category. Mental illness is rife in this group and includes depression, Dellusion.


----------



## MEQinc (Dec 12, 2010)

Harriticus said:


> The vast majority of Chaos worshipers (generalized as the "Lost and the Damned") are indeed insane. Chaos hordes of Heretics, Cultists, Beastmen, Rogue Psykers, Renegades, Mutants, etc.. are known for their mental instability as well as viciousness. Many like Mutants are little more then gibbering beasts.


1) Increadible generalization
2) Not particularly accurate.

The Lost and the Damned are commonly perceived as insane by those they fight. This has more to do with cultural bais than actual study though. Mutants are simply those who suffer from being born with a disfigurement. They are viewed as insane for daring to believe that this doesn't make them worthless. Renegades, mutants and heretics are often enough people who simply disagree with the Imperium and it's dogmatic, fanatical worship of a corpse. Does that really make them insane? No. Will that stop the Imperium from labelling them as such? Hell no.


----------



## Davidicus 40k (Jun 4, 2010)

Great responses, especially LukeValantine, MEQinc, and Khargoth. Thank you all. I came into this discussion painting Chaos with a very broad brush (which was silly of me), but now I know things aren't always as they appear - which is why 40k has depth and why it's one of my favorite sci-fi universes.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Well we may not be able to make blanket statements about sanity, but you can make behavior correlation statements with some certainty. For instance chaos worshipers are far more prone to erratic and violent behavior then typical human. They also do have noticeably higher levels of mental illnesses then what is normally expected. However as stated these are correlations observed in chaos worshipers, and not a cause and effect relationship. Other wise the vast majority of chaos followers would insane, which would make there armies completely useless (Kinda the reason I dislike Johnsons work making dreadnoughts and possessed look schizophrenic, which by the way is reflected in the roles and half the reason no one uses them)


----------



## Harriticus (Nov 10, 2010)

MEQinc said:


> 1) Increadible generalization
> 2) Not particularly accurate.
> 
> The Lost and the Damned are commonly perceived as insane by those they fight. This has more to do with cultural bais than actual study though. Mutants are simply those who suffer from being born with a disfigurement. They are viewed as insane for daring to believe that this doesn't make them worthless. Renegades, mutants and heretics are often enough people who simply disagree with the Imperium and it's dogmatic, fanatical worship of a corpse. Does that really make them insane? No. Will that stop the Imperium from labelling them as such? Hell no.


In Hammer of the Emperor as well as Storm of Iron, Chaos Mutants are shown to be barely Ogryn-level in intelligence. Keep in mind many of these Mutants are abhumans from the Eye of Terror, who have been badly effected by Chaos energies. 

Most individuals can't handle giving themselves over to Chaos. Most CSM can, which is why they retain a degree of rationality as can Cultists who have often yet to experience the powers of the Warp firsthand like Heretic armies bred in the Eye of Terror or Traitor Guardsmen exposed to Daemonic invasions. I think a key difference between the Imperium and Chaos is while an Imperial Guardsman may come across as fanatical, your average Chaos Heretic is going to be far more bloodlusting, deranged, and suicidal.


----------



## MEQinc (Dec 12, 2010)

LukeValantine said:


> Well we may not be able to make blanket statements about sanity, but you can make behavior correlation statements with some certainty. For instance chaos worshipers are far more prone to erratic and violent behavior then typical human. They also do have noticeably higher levels of mental illnesses then what is normally expected. However as stated these are correlations observed in chaos worshipers, and not a cause and effect relationship.


Behaviour correlation is all well and good. However, a) Chaos worshippers are more prone to violence because of the nature of the Imperial relationship with Chaos (ie they have to be violent to survive) and there is only a limited tendency towards erratic behaviour. b) Have you actually seen a study that shows higher level of mental illness in Chaos worshippers, or indeed any piece of fluff that mentions mental illness (rather than just shouts of "He's Insane!")? Cause I haven't and would be genuinely interested in seeing one.



Harriticus said:


> In Hammer of the Emperor as well as Storm of Iron, Chaos Mutants are shown to be barely Ogryn-level in intelligence.


Correction, some mutants are shown to be barely Ogryn-level in intelligence. Again this is a generalization drawn from a single source that deals with individuals under circumstances which differ from the norm.



> I think a key difference between the Imperium and Chaos is while an Imperial Guardsman may come across as fanatical, your average Chaos Heretic is going to be far more bloodlusting, deranged, and suicidal.


Because Imperial Guardsmen are never shown to make suicidal charges into the face of a superior enemy position in the belief that God is on there side? The only real difference between Chaos and the Imperium is ideology. Behaviour follows similar patterns on both sides.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

MEQinc said:


> Behaviour correlation is all well and good. However, a) Chaos worshippers are more prone to violence because of the nature of the Imperial relationship with Chaos (ie they have to be violent to survive) and there is only a limited tendency towards erratic behaviour. b) Have you actually seen a study that shows higher level of mental illness in Chaos worshippers, or indeed any piece of fluff that mentions mental illness (rather than just shouts of "He's Insane!")? Cause I haven't and would be genuinely interested in seeing one.


No offense, but you are being a tad ridicules of at this point. Fact remains that everything we know about chaos comes from their image in the fiction from all printed material, and going on the number of occurrences that CSM, and traitors are shown acting in ways that are actually mentally ill, or excessively violent/erratic compared to imperial/tau/eldar counter parts we can safely say they are more violent and erratic/and dysfunctional then other armies (not nearly to the point many assume, but the levels are higher). Case in point in more then a few books it is a common recurring theme for traitors and CSM to engage in pointless bloodsport and to execute fellow soldiers out of sheer malice. Also some like a certain Word bearers dreadnought show clear mental sickness as its defined in the DSM (Sever PTSD causing flashbacks and reliving past memories) 

Keep in mind this includes books that are supposed to be written from the chaos perspective "Daemon world ect". At this point I am the one drawing from direct evidence here. So unless you can site against 75% of all existing fluff on chaos you most concede the point that chaos worshipers do have relatively higher levels of dysfunctional behavior then other armies (well maybe the dark eldar have higher levels, but they have some serious issues). I mean you seem to be drawing on your own feelings on the mater rather then available evidence and that is never a good argument. After all regardless of the reason behind a action we can call something like stripping you skin of and walking through a temple filled with hanging hooks and blades as highly dysfunctional (sited from daemon world book). Obsessing about a single enemy, and targeting them repeatedly even though it is counter to success (antagonist from the space wolf Books), Engaging in sever self mutilation (Book of slaanesh, and lucious the eternal from the CSM codex). After all not everyone is a rational and mentally sound CSM during the HH series, and in fact the vast majority of books do hint that at least the underlings in a CSM army are often unhinged showing clear behavior that any sound minded individual would consider completely insane regardless of the reason behind said behavior (Suicidal behavior, Manic, Morbid thoughts behavior, self mutilation). Note the occurrence of this kind of self destructive behavior in stories involving CsM's i higher then ever other, but maybe witch hunters.

Hell do you even realize that your words are getting as ridicules as the blanket statements claiming that all chaos worshipers are crazy. seriously at this point its sounds like your actual trying to get people to swallow the idea that no chaos worshipers are insane! I hope I am wrong, because making gross overestimates in the other direction makes you look just as foolish. You may be just be trying to say I can't be sure about the nature of chaos worshipers, but in a fictional universe we most assume that at least the majority of the presented fiction is accurate otherwise we can't say anything about the 40k universe. Example we could just as easily apply the same logic your applying to assume that 90% of all SM are secretly black woman because we haven't been shown more then a few hundred SM in each book, do you see the logical disconnect here?

By all mean p;ease illiterate to the error in my methodology? Because at this point the only alternative is to make irrational conclusions based of emotion, and hear say, and looking at the forums form we all know how that works.


----------

