The Night Lords Reputation

[Dan The Deamon]

I think where he's coming from is that he likes the Night Lords and doesn't want to associate them with something so negative in today's world.

 

On the same topic though, while there are parrallells between Night Lords tactics and terrorism i'm interested to see if we would call them something else in these times.

 

We see terrorists as using unconventional tactics to further their own goals and sidestep conventional warfare.

A parallel in 40k would be an underhiver setting off a bomb in the upper tiers of a hive. He can't stand up to a fight with enforcers and he certainly isn't getting any point across continuing to be scum, to he attracts attention with terror.

 

Now a Night Lord setting off a bomb in an upper hive tier starts to feel different. We think he has the power and strength to stand up against greater numbers, but what if he doesn't? what if his technology is reduced to scrap and he's severely outnumbered?

 

in Lord of the Night Zso had no numbers, very little technological advantage, and almost zero strength. His only option was terrorism, and seemingly did a fantastic job at it.

 

Now what happens if we get three battle companies at full strength terrorizing a world? Well they have the advantage technologically and numerically. Drawing attention with terrorism really isn't necessary when you have the power to force inhabitants to listen. In that case i wouldn't call them terrorists. I would call them Tyrants.

[vipertaja]

I think where he's coming from is that he likes the Night Lords and doesn't want to associate them with something so negative in today's world.

 

On the same topic though, while there are parrallells between Night Lords tactics and terrorism i'm interested to see if we would call them something else in these times.

 

We see terrorists as using unconventional tactics to further their own goals and sidestep conventional warfare.

A parallel in 40k would be an underhiver setting off a bomb in the upper tiers of a hive. He can't stand up to a fight with enforcers and he certainly isn't getting any point across continuing to be scum, to he attracts attention with terror.

 

Now a Night Lord setting off a bomb in an upper hive tier starts to feel different. We think he has the power and strength to stand up against greater numbers, but what if he doesn't? what if his technology is reduced to scrap and he's severely outnumbered?

 

in Lord of the Night Zso had no numbers, very little technological advantage, and almost zero strength. His only option was terrorism, and seemingly did a fantastic job at it.

 

Now what happens if we get three battle companies at full strength terrorizing a world? Well they have the advantage technologically and numerically. Drawing attention with terrorism really isn't necessary when you have the power to force inhabitants to listen. In that case i wouldn't call them terrorists. I would call them Tyrants.

 

I didn't get the impression that he was going at it from that angle...but whatever, maybe. If someone thinks I'm getting too gruesome here then I'll stop I guess. We are talking about genocidal maniacs in power armour though, but I understand if someone doesn't want to...link it to reality or what not. I merely intended to explore their methods and tactics from how it is done in our world. (I don't want to come across as a gorehound really...I'm not)

 

If tyrants use terrorist tactics they are still terrorists...we have various names like state sponsored terrorism where even "nice" western world big powers might decide they REALLY don't like someone and thus do some "unofficial" and VERY illegal stuff behind the scenes...or fund someone who does it for them. Intelligence agencies are handy for that etc..

 

The thing is...Night Lords don't really use terror tactics purely because they have to...post heresy they use terror tactics because they want to. Like a cat likes playing with it's victim. And I guess it's just their way of life now...how they roll.

 

EDIT: To be honest I didn't intend for the discussion to become this long back and forth thing...

[Dan The Deamon]

If tyrants use terrorist tactics they are still terrorists...we have various names like state sponsored terrorism where even "nice" western world big powers might decide they REALLY don't like someone and thus do some "unofficial" and VERY illegal stuff behind the scenes...or fund someone who does it for them. Intelligence agencies are handy for that etc..

 

The thing is...Night Lords don't really use terror tactics purely because they have to...post heresy they use terror tactics because they want to. Like a cat likes playing with it's victim. And I guess it's just their way of life now...how they roll.

 

 

I disagree about Tyrants being terrorists. Since your example isn't Country ABC terrorizing weaker country XYZ, and Country ABC paying Merc to do it for them the Merc is the terrorist, and Country ABC is something else.

 

While they may be similar in some aspects, and they may be 'terrorizing' someone or something, it doesn't automatically mean they are a terrorist. Hell by that logic whenever my wife comes home from work she's a terrorist, when my in laws come to town to visit, they are terrorists.

 

If one kid steals another kids toy on the playground and threatens him not to tell his teacher, I would call him a bully, not a terrorist. We have all these other Terms, titles, and words to describe something a little better, and more concise.

 

I see your argument, terrorizing = terrorist. I just disagree with it.

 

No wrong or right, just debate.

[Lord of Worms]

I should point out that "terrorist" is just modern rhetoric. Back in the day, they used to say "anarchist". Same thing.

[vipertaja]

If tyrants use terrorist tactics they are still terrorists...we have various names like state sponsored terrorism where even "nice" western world big powers might decide they REALLY don't like someone and thus do some "unofficial" and VERY illegal stuff behind the scenes...or fund someone who does it for them. Intelligence agencies are handy for that etc..

 

The thing is...Night Lords don't really use terror tactics purely because they have to...post heresy they use terror tactics because they want to. Like a cat likes playing with it's victim. And I guess it's just their way of life now...how they roll.

 

 

I disagree about Tyrants being terrorists. Since your example isn't Country ABC terrorizing weaker country XYZ, and Country ABC paying Merc to do it for them the Merc is the terrorist, and Country ABC is something else.

 

While they may be similar in some aspects, and they may be 'terrorizing' someone or something, it doesn't automatically mean they are a terrorist. Hell by that logic whenever my wife comes home from work she's a terrorist, when my in laws come to town to visit, they are terrorists.

 

If one kid steals another kids toy on the playground and threatens him not to tell his teacher, I would call him a bully, not a terrorist. We have all these other Terms, titles, and words to describe something a little better, and more concise.

 

I see your argument, terrorizing = terrorist. I just disagree with it.

 

No wrong or right, just debate.

 

 

Look...if, say, the US for example decided to press something out of a country with a few ominous words and the other country refuses...does it really matter if the US sends the CIA, hires Blackwater or funds some local sect to do the dirty work? Usually (I'd imagine) it would make the CIA arrange for funding and training some dudes within that other country.

This applies to any major country that has that kind of power. They have all done this. And still do this from time to time.

I see no real difference here other than deniability and some sort of rhetoric.

 

I don't know what your wife does, but if she's up on this scale I might reconsider being with her....on the same planet.

Let's not start diluting terms to the point where they become meaningless. Remember, this dicussion was about people who kill people and put their mangled corpse on display as a subtle hint to others, not minors squabbling over lunch money, even though it could sort of apply in a way.

 

To be honest, I'm starting to feel I shouldn't have brought up any of it...

[vipertaja]

I should point out that "terrorist" is just modern rhetoric. Back in the day, they used to say "anarchist". Same thing.

 

Terrorist means someone using terror.

 

Today, used politically and in the media, terrorist seems to mean either "the people we don't like" or "muslim(as if there is no other kind)". I was actually a tad worried someone would use the latter one there when I started this whole mess...but luckily not.

 

 

I can see how some types of anarchism could overlap here though.

[Dan The Deamon]

To be honest, I'm starting to feel I shouldn't have brought up any of it...

 

No it's good stuff, we just have to be very careful and communicate respectfully. These things tend to get out of hand, and we've also thrown in some countries and religions that could spark some unrest.

 

"Terrorist means someone using terror"

Baseball players are people who play baseball.

 

What is terror being defined as?

[vipertaja]

To be honest, I'm starting to feel I shouldn't have brought up any of it...

 

No it's good stuff, we just have to be very careful and communicate respectfully. These things tend to get out of hand, and we've also thrown in some countries and religions that could spark some unrest.

 

I agree. I'd rather steer away from that stuff now that it's done with.

 

"Terrorist means someone using terror"

Baseball players are people who play baseball.

 

What is terror being defined as?

I don't really see the point of here. The example was meant to be obvious, becauce the word is.

I'd rather not go into the definition games if the participants already know the meaning somewhat.

It tends to go from the defintion to the definition of the definition and the definition of the definition

of the definition and so on...at least in other disussions I've been in or read. Then it's stretched into

something ludicrous where it doesn't really apply and the debate can go on forever.

 

I'll give it this one time. Terror is not a word that should just be thrown at anything lightly. It's not just some

vague intimidation or unnerving feeling. It's not about being a tad scared...it's about fear to the point of

hysteria and beyond. It's about panic and confusion. A terrorist attempts to create such hysteria by using terror tactics.

Either to push his demands through or to weaken the target for further attack and bring it down.

 

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=terror&gwp=13 There. Not perfect, but it's all I'll bother. The fifth definition is

obviously in a joking sense, while the first four apply more or less.

[Captain Juan Juarez]

I think where he's coming from is that he likes the Night Lords and doesn't want to associate them with something so negative in today's world.

 

Well, first time I've ever been accused of being a "fan-boy", you would be wrong too.

 

 

My point is that if you compare the Night Lords to a terrorist of the modern era there is not such a great degree of similarity.

 

Yes, both use terror but realistically does a modern day terrorist expect to be able to achieve anything beyond terror - with the exception of terror being the goal, which does nothing in the long run - In my opinion, no, which is why the differ from the Night Lords; the Astartes always have a goal.

[vipertaja]

I think where he's coming from is that he likes the Night Lords and doesn't want to associate them with something so negative in today's world.

 

Well, first time I've ever been accused of being a "fan-boy", you would be wrong too.

 

 

My point is that if you compare the Night Lords to a terrorist of the modern era there is not such a great degree of similarity.

 

Yes, both use terror but realistically does a modern day terrorist expect to be able to achieve anything beyond terror - with the exception of terror being the goal, which does nothing in the long run - In my opinion, no, which is why the differ from the Night Lords; the Astartes always have a goal.

 

 

I see no reason to squabble about success and efficiency when the subject of comparison is methods and tactics.

You are disagreeing about a subject nobody is otherwise talking about.

(incidentally, if terrorists do succeed in our world, we can have something called a revolution on our hands, for example.

Some may call them freedom fighters in this case and the difference can be rather blurry and entirely subject to POV, being

sometimes more of a label than anything else)

[Tenebris]

Well lets see what the Night Lords are about:

 

- Unconventional warfare, unlike the other Legions the Night Lords (and the Alpha Legion) prefer subtle tactics to conventional warfare. Here we can include:

- Snipers,

- Chemical/Nuclear/Bilogocal Weapons,

- Propaganda or just public executions,

- Kidnapping, despoling, desecrating,

- Brutal urban warfare perefferable to other combat zones (Cityfight book),

- Traps, mines, drones, probes,

- Psycological warfare (shock and awe),

- use of demonic entities or spells to sverly dent the sanity of the enemy,

- shows of intense cruelty and bloodthirstiness,

- genocide, beating, assassinations...

 

All this methods of warfare have a common denominator - fear or terror. Conventional armed forces include this tactics to dent into the enemy's will to fight, the unconventional forces forge their entire strategy on this tactics, but only the Night Lords have mastered this kind of warfare. Why should a Night Lords captain use wave after wave of veichles and marines when he can use the said tactics to completly break the enemy in their mind and body. The Night Lords are not pesky terrorrists or tyrants, they are madman, cruel and vicious criminals and renegades, without pity or any sense of morality, criminals who are superhuman, have elite status and weaponry and centuries of hate, bitterness and viciousness to unleash on the unfortunate imperial citizens. The Night Lords dont merly use fear as a weapon but they revel in terrorr, the screams and in the inflicted pain, they are saddists and degenerates from the first to the last.

 

But what is their goal? For me apart their insane thirst for the pain and hoplessness of others they use this forms of warfare to create only a thing - chaos. By denting the morale of entire worlds, torturing entire sectors, butchering countless imperial citizens and assailing the imperial institutions they seek to break not the mighty Imperial institutions but the very base or prillar of the Imperium - its people. If you break the will of the masses than all that was based upon this people falls down, from the insignificant Imperial Guard regiment to the aloof Inquisitors, all is destroyed and hopless when the true thrust from the chaos forces arrives.

 

So what kind of reputation do the Night Lords have? A reputation considered abhorent for the rigid Imperium, the reputation of cruel anarchists who are more than able to create galactic disasters and troubles. In short they are not feared beacouse of the methods they do employ but beacouse they use this methods on the imperial citizens on which the Imperium is based. As cults are dangerous for the Imperium, as the false gods convert the minds and souls of its citizens, so the terror is able to paralyze enitre Imperial sectors, cripple its reloution and definitly create much more damage than a single demonic entity or unholy crusade can. A reputation of fear and terror indeed.

[vipertaja]

Well lets see what the Night Lords are about:

 

- Unconventional warfare, unlike the other Legions the Night Lords (and the Alpha Legion) prefer subtle tactics to conventional warfare. Here we can include:

- Snipers,

- Chemical/Nuclear/Bilogocal Weapons,

- Propaganda or just public executions,

- Kidnapping, despoling, desecrating,

- Brutal urban warfare perefferable to other combat zones (Cityfight book),

- Traps, mines, drones, probes,

- Psycological warfare (shock and awe),

- use of demonic entities or spells to sverly dent the sanity of the enemy,

- shows of intense cruelty and bloodthirstiness,

- genocide, beating, assassinations...

 

All this methods of warfare have a common denominator - fear or terror. Conventional armed forces include this tactics to dent into the enemy's will to fight, the unconventional forces forge their entire strategy on this tactics, but only the Night Lords have mastered this kind of warfare. Why should a Night Lords captain use wave after wave of veichles and marines when he can use the said tactics to completly break the enemy in their mind and body. The Night Lords are not pesky terrorrists or tyrants, they are madman, cruel and vicious criminals and renegades, without pity or any sense of morality, criminals who are superhuman, have elite status and weaponry and centuries of hate, bitterness and viciousness to unleash on the unfortunate imperial citizens. The Night Lords dont merly use fear as a weapon but they revel in terrorr, the screams and in the inflicted pain, they are saddists and degenerates from the first to the last.

 

But what is their goal? For me apart their insane thirst for the pain and hoplessness of others they use this forms of warfare to create only a thing - chaos. By denting the morale of entire worlds, torturing entire sectors, butchering countless imperial citizens and assailing the imperial institutions they seek to break not the mighty Imperial institutions but the very base or prillar of the Imperium - its people. If you break the will of the masses than all that was based upon this people falls down, from the insignificant Imperial Guard regiment to the aloof Inquisitors, all is destroyed and hopless when the true thrust from the chaos forces arrives.

 

So what kind of reputation do the Night Lords have? A reputation considered abhorent for the rigid Imperium, the reputation of cruel anarchists who are more than able to create galactic disasters and troubles. In short they are not feared beacouse of the methods they do employ but beacouse they use this methods on the imperial citizens on which the Imperium is based. As cults are dangerous for the Imperium, as the false gods convert the minds and souls of its citizens, so the terror is able to paralyze enitre Imperial sectors, cripple its reloution and definitly create much more damage than a single demonic entity or unholy crusade can. A reputation of fear and terror indeed.

 

This is all well and good, but if a terrorist is someone who uses panic and fear, then how are the night lords "not pesky terrorists"? I'd say this all would make them EXACTLY that. What is the disagreement? Is it the way the word has been used after 9/11 or what? Other than that, a very well written point of view.

[Yogi]

Its totally what its associated with .. the word isn't clean.

 

Before Soul Hunter.. Night Lords to me were psychotic bullies. Tormenting their victims for kicks.. targeting the weakest parts of a force and just playing with them. I have to say terrorist never occurred to me. Vraal in SH to me epitomises NL behaviour, hard bitten, selfish, aggressive and enjoys killing. But SH was good as with my old view was Curze was great and his legion was unlikable bullies.

[vipertaja]

Its totally what its associated with .. the word isn't clean.

 

Before Soul Hunter.. Night Lords to me were psychotic bullies. Tormenting their victims for kicks.. targeting the weakest parts of a force and just playing with them. I have to say terrorist never occurred to me. Vraal in SH to me epitomises NL behaviour, hard bitten, selfish, aggressive and enjoys killing. But SH was good as with my old view was Curze was great and his legion was unlikable bullies.

 

Thou speaketh truth. I use the bare bones meaning of the word, but it is tainted and mangled with associations and rhetoric.

 

I shall have to get on with reading Soul Hunter, really. I am frustratingly slow at reading books. ;)

For one thing I like that the chaos space marines in it have servants, like loyalists do.

[Captain Juan Juarez]

Soul Hunter is a brilliant read, and i'm not even half way through yet - plus it has inspired an idea for a cool tattoo! :D

[vipertaja]

Soul Hunter is a brilliant read, and i'm not even half way through yet - plus it has inspired an idea for a cool tattoo! :D

 

Yeah? What kind of tattoo?

[Dan The Deamon]

[quote name='Captain Juan Juarez' date='Mar 22 2010, 11:25 AM' post='2329082'

Yes, both use terror but realistically does a modern day terrorist expect to be able to achieve anything beyond terror - with the exception of terror being the goal, which does nothing in the long run - In my opinion, no, which is why the differ from the Night Lords; the Astartes always have a goal.

 

A modern day terrorist has goals in which his acts are set to achieve. They may not be well thought or, or very productive, but there is an ends to his means. Primarily they want us to stop meddling in the affairs in their part of the world. If they didn't have a goal they would be anarchists, and wouldn't be targeting specific countries and their allies.

 

The Night Lords have goals in which their form of "terror" is derived from. If they are coming for you your options are pretty slim. All this depends on their goals which i think need more detail.

 

*Pre heresy/decline Night Lords would have been used primarily as deterrent or pacification of unruly worlds. They have a goal and achieve it with many, many tactics, one of them, may have been terrorism. I find this harder to imagine because there are so many better ways to achieve your goals when you're at the head of a company of astartes with no real threats. The Night Lords strike me as warriors not caught up in certain types of doctrinal warfare. They will use what's available and what's best for the job, as quickly and efficiently as possible.

 

If a group of radical Muslims was suddenly given power armor, bolters, space ships, and genetically enhanced super powers, they would annihilate us as quickly as possible. They wouldn't be terrorists simply because they no longer have to be.

 

*Post Heresy/decline Night Lords may enjoy raiding unsuspecting civilian worlds for no goal or purpose, other than instilling fear in their opponents. Their goal in this case is fear, and they are using terrorism to achieve that goal. That doesn't necessarily mean they are terrorists though. When Russia invaded Afghanistan in the 80's the murdered thousands of civilians, fathered unwanted children, and terrorized the countryside. Because they were in a position of power over the afghan people terrorists wasn't the best word for them, it was tyrant.

 

*Now if you drop a handful of night lords (pre/post Heresy) onto a planet to achieve a specific mission and they use terror as we saw in Lord of the Night against numerically superior, or more powerful foes, then they are terrorists. They can't achieve their goal through use of power or strength so they achieve it through subterfuge and dirty tactics.

 

Are Night Lords Terrorists? Sometimes, but i think any Astartes from almost every legion or chapter can be given the same title from time to time. Alpha Legion, Raven Guard, World Eaters, White Scars, Etc.Maybe not as frequently as the Night Lords, but for the same reasons.

 

In an effort to get off these forums and get back to painting/modeling I will leave my opinion. I'm all for healthy debate but we're bordering on squabbling.

[Captain Juan Juarez]

Soul Hunter is a brilliant read, and i'm not even half way through yet - plus it has inspired an idea for a cool tattoo! :D

 

Yeah? What kind of tattoo?

 

I'm reworking a small phrase in the book into a quote and going to have it wreathed in lightning.

 

Dan, my only quibble was the use of the word "terrorist" and its connotations, but I've quit with that argument now :)

[Dan The Deamon]

Man I know what you mean. I did two years in the middle east and have my own feelings that I didn't want mingling with my favorite legion.

 

I was trying to approach the topic objectively, as painful as it was to make the connections they were there. Although while the connections did exist, it's not like the Night Lords are the only ones who had them. We are dealing with miniature warfare here :lol:

[Walter Payton]

The thing about terrorists is that if they win, they are not terrorists, but revolutionaries and heroes. The Night Lords have not won.

[vipertaja]

Man I know what you mean. I did two years in the middle east and have my own feelings that I didn't want mingling with my favorite legion.

 

I was trying to approach the topic objectively, as painful as it was to make the connections they were there. Although while the connections did exist, it's not like the Night Lords are the only ones who had them. We are dealing with miniature warfare here :lol:

 

Oh...I sincerely hope I didn't dig up anything nasty for you.

As you say though, we are talking about fictional characters here (fortunately).

While I did try to compare my views of the methods of the night lords

to our reality I did not intend to equate them with real world forces in any way.

(despite naming real events and whatnot)

 

BTW...that's some wicked modelling you've done on your night lords.

[Dryad]

It's not the methods that make the Night Lords scary, it's the fact that they are mentally able to do them. It's that sociopathic framework.

 

When I watch a random show about crazy crimnals on A&E, I always sit there and think, "man, that guy is ****ed up! I can't imagine being inside his head and being able to do the things he does..."

 

That's the parallel. I think the whole Imperium looks at the Night Lords in the same way. Thats where the fear comes from; the upredictability of their tendancies.

[Dan The Deamon]

Vipertaja, don't stress it. Healthy debate and communication on any topic is just fine.

 

I bring it up because Terrorism and Insurgency are two different styles of warfare in use by the same group. We call them different things based off what style we find, or catch them in. When you track some guys down to their hideout in a mountain they aren't an insurgency or terrorists, they're simply group A. When those same guys cause terror in another country, they're terrorists, and when they oppose you within their own country they are an insurgency.

 

All i was trying to convey is that simply labeling Night Lords terrorists doesn't encompass the scope of their legion or it's combat doctrine. Sure they engage in those activities but they aren't the only ones. There's a little more to any force, make believe or real, than terrorism.

[vipertaja]

Vipertaja, don't stress it. Healthy debate and communication on any topic is just fine.

 

I bring it up because Terrorism and Insurgency are two different styles of warfare in use by the same group. We call them different things based off what style we find, or catch them in. When you track some guys down to their hideout in a mountain they aren't an insurgency or terrorists, they're simply group A. When those same guys cause terror in another country, they're terrorists, and when they oppose you within their own country they are an insurgency.

 

All i was trying to convey is that simply labeling Night Lords terrorists doesn't encompass the scope of their legion or it's combat doctrine. Sure they engage in those activities but they aren't the only ones. There's a little more to any force, make believe or real, than terrorism.

 

Certainly. I'm not sure what you mean by "not being the only ones"...I don't think they are, by far. I do think that they

specialize in the whole terror and fear aspect a bit more than most though, obviously. Certainly in a different way than

say the Alpha legion does (a faction most described as terrorists), who concentrate more in the confusion aspect and

often staying unrecognised behind the scenes, funding other groups. This does not mean they don't have their

justifications...they have rather strong ones actually (whether they are "right" about it is another thing).

Same can apply in a real world context. People have motives. This is why I don't like when some "bad guy" is described

as "just being crazy" and "evil"...that's just lazy. The bastard has some sort of motive like anyone else.

 

I also didn't place any sort of moral judgement on the word, though I know it tends to be loaded with it.

I think 40k is sort of great like all such fiction in that one can ignore real world "weight" in a way...if you

know what I mean? All the tragedy is just drama and suspence, but with no real damage done.

[Dark Mechanicum]

wow, only gone for a couple of days and I love reading the debate.

 

My comparisons when it came to RL armies were more guerilla style. I can see where they use the tactics as those used by terroists (in the causing extreme terror), Looking at their reputation from the viewpoint of the imperium what you see is thus:

 

- Excesses by the legion only known to those who have access to those documents.

- Their documented use of terror tactics

- Stories of how they attack different planets that to the imperium have no value

 

Thus from those three points you have a colored picture of what the Night Lords are about, its a distinct Imperium viewpoint. Lord of the Night and Soul Hunter gave us the Night Lord's point of view and the view of other Chaos Legions as in the case of Soul Hunter with Abaddon.

 

So their are two reputations being discussed, one seen through Imperium lenses, and the other seen through the eyes of themselves and their brethern.

 

Imperium: Terror tactics and fear causers that raid undefended planets and targets weaker then themselves.

 

Chaos: A legion that is falling in on itself and breaking apart into many splinter warbands and fleets.