Have the 30k stories ruined the 40k stories?

[Bulwyf]

Melkor didn't start as evil, unless you count being greedy as evil; that greed blossomed into his desire to create his own world, and his need to corrupt what Iluvatar had made was revenge-driven. Even during his first imprisonment and his probation, the Valar never addressed the core issue with Melkor in that unlike the others, he had no actual purpose for being and apparently Iluvatar had never set one aside for him after the creation of Arda; Melkor was an outcast before he ever rebelled (he's like the reverse of Horus in that regard). Sauron worked for another Vala completely before falling under Melkor's sway and never really pulled out of the spiral from there (his forging of the Rings of Power was him hearkening back to his days of being a Maiar of Aule the Artificer). What I never really got about Sauron was how he watched Melkor's fall and thought he could possibly succeed at doing the same thing without getting the same Valar curbstomp; even at his strongest, he would never be a match for even the lowest of the Valar, much less all of them. I theorize Sauron was either not really fleshed out well for motivation, was doing it all out of pure spite, or was simply so depraved that he was blind to the possibility that what he was doing might draw attention to himself. In that sense, even Abaddon's motives are clear-cut compared to Sauron's.

 

Actually Sauron believed the Valar had completely abandoned Middle Earth after capturing Melkor for the last time. This is why he felt he could act with impunity in being a new Dark Lord and avoiding what happened to Melkor. And frankly he was correct: the Valar never came back to Middle Earth to confront him and you have only what may be described as indirect actions in the Lord of the Rings in helping out Frodo and the rest of the Fellowship. The only overt actions the Valar ever did after Melkor's last capture was the sinking of Numenor and sending the five Wizards to Middle Earth.

 

Sauron saw a power vacuum with no order and tried to instill his own order without fear of direct Valar confrontation. If he had regained the One Ring he would have ruled ME completely until the end of the world. Even Gandalf says as much in the story.

[Khestra the Unbeheld]

It's all still conjecture. The Valar obviously hadn't cut of all interest with Middle-Earth, or they wouldn't have sent the Istari in the first place. Not to mention the countless reports of the Elves after their return to Valinor shouldn't have gone unnoticed. Either the Valar didn't really consider Sauron to be that great a threat, or they considered whatever information the Istari and the Elves were giving them to be overblown out of proportion. Either way, Sauron couldn't have known for certain that they'd simply leave be if he'd won. He was making either a huge gamble, or just didn't care about the potential outcome as long as he caused maximum suffering to Middle-Earth before he got taken out. In any case, the Valar should have been paying attention, the last time they left things alone Sauron had a Numenorean warfleet parked off the Valinor coast with conquest on their minds. Pretty solid evidence of a habitually problematic creature, that. :D

[tiberium40k]

I do think it's time we had a Primarch who was just out and out bad. Maybe even more than one! We got plenty of fallen heroes, now we need a monster unleashed.

 

This. I don't want to see another Primarch to go from bad to misled.

[Khestra the Unbeheld]

I do think it's time we had a Primarch who was just out and out bad. Maybe even more than one! We got plenty of fallen heroes, now we need a monster unleashed.

 

This. I don't want to see another Primarch to go from bad to misled.

 

Wouldn't Mortarion fit that bill to the most extent? I doubt strongly any of the Primarchs we know (can't speak for the two we never meet) could be classified as wholly "bad" prior to actually becoming that way. "Morally bankrupt" might be the best we can expect.

 

It's almost unfortunate that the Alpha Legion's been covered already, they'd have been a shoo-in for Bad For The Sake Of Badness just because the Emperor wasn't the one who found them. :lol:

[Valkyrion]

Isn't the bad Primarch Night Haunter? He was mass murdering before he knew of the Emperor and didn't stop, destroying his homeworld twice, pretty much. I know he was a bit sad about it all, but even so.

[A D-B]

Isn't the bad Primarch Night Haunter? He was mass murdering before he knew of the Emperor and didn't stop, destroying his homeworld twice, pretty much. I know he was a bit sad about it all, but even so.

 

This touches on one of my biggest discomforts.

 

If the Night Haunter actually is the narratively straightforward monster of his IA article (and his Apocalypse Now / Heart of Darkness roots), I suspect people will be annoyed. He's one of the ones a lot of fans tend to discuss as being betrayed himself, or absolutely justified in his turning against the Imperium. You can spin it both ways at once, but ultimately we're dealing with a pretty monstrous guy, at the head of an absolutely corrupt, lawless Legion. But people prefer the "betrayed noble criminals" and "he was definitely schizophrenic" deal, often implying it's deeper and/or better, and in a lot of ways, that's become perceived canon.

 

There's a lot of tread in the story, don't get me wrong. And the notion of a primarch that loathes his own Legion (even as he wields them as a necessary lesson of human nature) is a beautiful one. But a lot of people want the tragic monster. They want the "good" bad guy. And I'm not convinced that's what Night Haunter really was. On one hand, it's cool. On the other hand, we have a lot of canon in the past setting him up a different way. Which to stick to? Both? Neither? One or the other?

 

So I look upon his story with a little dread, and say things like "I'm, um, for my first HH novel, I'll, uh, write about the Word Bearers finding the Eye of Terror instead."

[greatcrusade08]

i re-read soul hunter yesterday (only took a few hours, im such a geek).. i would say night haunter is only evil by standards no-one in the imperium can reach :P

he belived in obedience under the blanket of fear and tbh its a brilliant move.. the fact he killed criminals, murderers and rapists really does make him "the batman".. and no-one thinks the batman was evil.

 

i would say he was misunderstood by many in the imperium, his values are a little messed up but nostramo wasnt exactly a schoolyard.. in his own mind he wasnt evil, which is important.

he belived in justice, even for himself

 

you want evil, see angron!

[Unintentional Batman]

If the Night Haunter actually is the narratively straightforward monster of his IA article (and his Apocalypse Now / Heart of Darkness roots), I suspect people will be annoyed.

 

While I haven't read the IA fluff on Haunter, making the implication that Kurtz of Apocalypse Now/ Heart of Darkness is a narratively straightforward monster doesn't sit well with me. Monster, absolutely and beyond all doubt, but narratively straighforward one - not really. If I misunderstood the point and this was only about the 40K character and his inspiration from the actual Kurtz, then nevermind (Heart of Darkness is marvelous book, and Apocalypse a great, great film both are deep works of art so I just had to comment)

 

I do agree with rest of your post, though.

 

How I see the Night Haunter, he doesn't have to be "noble" or "betrayed" to be justified in turning against the Empire. In Night Haunter's world, (pretty much) everyone is a monster - including himself and he never tried to hide the fact that he was in fact one. He's the "Batman" gone over the edge - from comics Comedian from Watchmen would be a much closer match than a regular Batman (who is essentially a straightforward hero, not coming close to the psychological depth of a characters Cruze was based on). He wasn't a hero or an anti-hero, but even a villain can be justified in the grim and dark :P

 

Anyway...

[Frater Uriah]

Isn't the bad Primarch Night Haunter? He was mass murdering before he knew of the Emperor and didn't stop, destroying his homeworld twice, pretty much. I know he was a bit sad about it all, but even so.

 

This touches on one of my biggest discomforts.

 

If the Night Haunter actually is the narratively straightforward monster of his IA article (and his Apocalypse Now / Heart of Darkness roots), I suspect people will be annoyed. He's one of the ones a lot of fans tend to discuss as being betrayed himself, or absolutely justified in his turning against the Imperium. You can spin it both ways at once, but ultimately we're dealing with a pretty monstrous guy, at the head of an absolutely corrupt, lawless Legion. But people prefer the "betrayed noble criminals" and "he was definitely schizophrenic" deal, often implying it's deeper and/or better, and in a lot of ways, that's become perceived canon.

 

There's a lot of tread in the story, don't get me wrong. And the notion of a primarch that loathes his own Legion (even as he wields them as a necessary lesson of human nature) is a beautiful one. But a lot of people want the tragic monster. They want the "good" bad guy. And I'm not convinced that's what Night Haunter really was. On one hand, it's cool. On the other hand, we have a lot of canon in the past setting him up a different way. Which to stick to? Both? Neither? One or the other?

 

So I look upon his story with a little dread, and say things like "I'm, um, for my first HH novel, I'll, uh, write about the Word Bearers finding the Eye of Terror instead."

I don't think that the Night Haunter was any kind of tragic monster, which is what is so great about him. He lived by his creed, and never compromised his principles. In the end, he got exactly the vindication he wanted, and, I think, the fate he knew, even without prescience, he deserved. In the context of the Night Lords, the real tragic monsters are the Legion he loathed. In Throne of Lies, the most remarkable scene, and one of the most poignant in Black Library fiction that I've thus far encountered, thank you, is where the assembled Legion views the copy of the recording. There, chanting his honor, they remember him as his holo-ghost replays its last moments. There is regret and sorrow, because they loved him and were absolutely loyal to him, and they still, ten thousand years, or however long it is to their individual reckoning, keenly feel his absence. And that is what is the most wonderful thing about the Night Haunter: he took these men, who were not most of them good people to begin with, and he made absolute monsters out of them, and despite it all, they loved him. And he did it as a kind of social experiment, just to prove he was right. He was not corrupted by Chaos or duped by arguments: every action the Night Haunter took was thought out, rationalized, and dissected to ensure maximum results. Regret, shame and humanity were weaknesses to be consciously crushed. Morality was something he understood implicitly, and ignored to further his own agenda.

 

greatcrusade08, there is no Batman in the Night Haunter. If you distill Batman down to his most basic element, he is a sad little boy who doesn't want what happened to him to happen to anybody else. This is absolutely not the case with the Night Haunter. Any similarity to Batman would have to come down to "He's a vigiliante, and he wears dark blue with gold accoutrements." Also, linking him as more like the Comedian from The Watchmen is similarly inappropriate. In the end, Eddie Blake repents of his sordid, violent life to Moloch, confessing to the devil, as it were; Night Haunter dies not only unrepentant, but, in his mind, vindicated.

[Lexington]

Night Haunter dies not only unrepentant, but, in his mind, vindicated.

...

 

Loved that whole post. Perfectly stated. Nothing more to add.

[greatcrusade08]

Night Haunter dies not only unrepentant, but, in his mind, vindicated.

...

 

Loved that whole post. Perfectly stated. Nothing more to add.

 

i agree, my connection to batman was one of a tenious similiairty in terms of vigilante actions.. i was discussing good/evil as opposed to his past

[Unintentional Batman]

Also, linking him as more like the Comedian from The Watchmen is similarly inappropriate. In the end, Eddie Blake repents of his sordid, violent life to Moloch, confessing to the devil, as it were; Night Haunter dies not only unrepentant, but, in his mind, vindicated.

 

Fair enough.

 

Personally I don't see Blake really repenting, he just gets one-upped by someone better than him at being a monster. His psyche just fallen apart cause someone had been able to create a joke so cruel and cynical it broke his world-view, something even he could not handle. But yeah, there's loads of differences between Night Haunter and the Comedian - just that the actions as a vigilante type and an evil man are much more easy to compare to a character like Blake than to the straightforwardly heroic and pure-hearted Batman. It was just a bit more fitting, not even close to a 1:1 comparison. Anyway... Maybe we shouldn't get this thread truly deralied into comicbook talk ;)

[Frater Uriah]

Maybe we shouldn't get this thread truly deralied into comicbook talk :rolleyes:

You're absolutely right. Back to the discussion.... :D

[A D-B]

If the Night Haunter actually is the narratively straightforward monster of his IA article (and his Apocalypse Now / Heart of Darkness roots), I suspect people will be annoyed.

 

While I haven't read the IA fluff on Haunter, making the implication that Kurtz of Apocalypse Now/ Heart of Darkness is a narratively straightforward monster doesn't sit well with me. Monster, absolutely and beyond all doubt, but narratively straighforward one - not really. If I misunderstood the point and this was only about the 40K character and his inspiration from the actual Kurtz, then nevermind (Heart of Darkness is marvelous book, and Apocalypse a great, great film both are deep works of art so I just had to comment)

 

Yeah, I'm referring to the ease of the character being an homage (read: ripoff) of the already excellently explored themes in the source material, and they're basically just transferred over. Narratively speaking, that's very straightforward. The themes themselves aren't simple by any means, no.

[Bulwyf]

Isn't the bad Primarch Night Haunter? He was mass murdering before he knew of the Emperor and didn't stop, destroying his homeworld twice, pretty much. I know he was a bit sad about it all, but even so.

 

This touches on one of my biggest discomforts.

 

If the Night Haunter actually is the narratively straightforward monster of his IA article (and his Apocalypse Now / Heart of Darkness roots), I suspect people will be annoyed. He's one of the ones a lot of fans tend to discuss as being betrayed himself, or absolutely justified in his turning against the Imperium. You can spin it both ways at once, but ultimately we're dealing with a pretty monstrous guy, at the head of an absolutely corrupt, lawless Legion. But people prefer the "betrayed noble criminals" and "he was definitely schizophrenic" deal, often implying it's deeper and/or better, and in a lot of ways, that's become perceived canon.

 

There's a lot of tread in the story, don't get me wrong. And the notion of a primarch that loathes his own Legion (even as he wields them as a necessary lesson of human nature) is a beautiful one. But a lot of people want the tragic monster. They want the "good" bad guy. And I'm not convinced that's what Night Haunter really was. On one hand, it's cool. On the other hand, we have a lot of canon in the past setting him up a different way. Which to stick to? Both? Neither? One or the other?

 

So I look upon his story with a little dread, and say things like "I'm, um, for my first HH novel, I'll, uh, write about the Word Bearers finding the Eye of Terror instead."

 

I know we've debated the merits of ye olde Konrad and the Night Lords over on the Chaos Marine board here a few times and after reading this post I felt like rising my index finger in the air and pronouncing a definitive "Ah HA!"

 

I have no idea why other than it is at least reassuring for a fan of your work and a fan of the Night Lords to see that there is at least some admission that there are two vastly different takes on Curze. I am an admitted proponent of the "misunderstood monster" portrayal. I find it more plausible that he was used as the Emperor's boogey man to frighten people into line than the other portrayal of him. It has been broadly hinted in other HH works that each Primarch had his own unique "role" and it is clear that Curze's role was to frighten systems into compliance and if needed be the monster the Emperor needed him to be. It is no different than the role Angron served or Russ served in those regards.

[Captain Idaho]

Whilst I understand how desirable for everyone to have the fallen hero persona, I must confess I would be disappointed if we saw it again for Nighthaunter. Twisted logic akin to his alter ego, Colonel Kurtz, I can accept, but let's be honest we have far too many fallen heroes. It's like the renegade good guy. We have a thousand "Wolverines" in films now-a-days, and now we have a thousand villains in 40K who are the tragic fallen hero...

 

I want Curze to be given the attention he deserves for being so cool. I will be a tad disappointed to read the usual fallen hero background on him when there is an opportunity to do something much more original.

[Khestra the Unbeheld]

He only has to be the tragic, fallen hero to those of his Legion that shared his vision; to everyone else, he can be terror incarnate, ruthless and malignant, or a failed martyr to a doomed cause mercifully released from his madness. I don't think any of these views betrays his fluff in any way, especially if held up to the Nietzschean perspective of "What's done from love lies beyond good and evil." Obviously, the tragic hero bit didn't even take for 100% of his Legion, so it really is a world still open to all interpretations of Night Haunter in all his aspects.

[Captain Idaho]

It's not so much betrayal of his exisiting background material or persona really, I'm just bored of the tired old tragic, fallen hero. Same way I can't be bothered with Wolverine style heroes.

 

I mean, I love my chocolate icecream but sometimes that flavour becomes tiring and I want some vanilla or strawberry to mix it up.

[Bulwyf]

It's not so much betrayal of his exisiting background material or persona really, I'm just bored of the tired old tragic, fallen hero. Same way I can't be bothered with Wolverine style heroes.

 

I mean, I love my chocolate icecream but sometimes that flavour becomes tiring and I want some vanilla or strawberry to mix it up.

 

All of the Chaos Primarchs are tragic heroes. All of them without exception. Not one of them has ever been described as a twist his moustache and tie innocent dames to railroad tracks or a raving loon who just wanted to kill for the sake of killing. There is a reason each of them went "bad" and for most of them it has to do with the environment they were raised in or a direct falling out with the Emperor.

 

Just for example look at Angron. He's put on a planet where he's captured and used as a gladiator slave. The planet has Dark Age of Technology gear and installs neuro implants that specifically ramp up his rage and violence in him. So we know he's a psycho loon...oh wait, not exactly. He bonds with his fellow gladiator even not killing those who fought well against him. He leads them in a great slave rebellion and tries to escape only to be hunted down by the armies of the planet rules. He's freakin' Spartacus.

 

Right when the planet rulers are about to wipe him and his little slave army out here comes the Big E. Big E says hey son, grats on not dying so far, I've come to give you a Legion and let's go run around in space together. Angron says thanks dad but I've got less then two thousand men depending on me for their survival down below and I have to go back. I'm their leader, its my duty to fight with them and die if need be. So Angron goes back, Big E decides he can't let Angron fight a battle he has no chance of winning so he teleports Angron out of the fight right before it happens.

 

So the most violent, rage filled Primarch in the fluff was actually a rather honorable man who was willing to die with his comrades rather than cut and run. I have no idea fluff wise why the Emperor didn't decide to help Angron out by wiping out the planet rulers armies and thus giving Angron his first new recruits as World Eaters with the gladiators Angron was leading. Instead the Emperor makes a foolhardy decision to basically kidnap Angron and let him watch as the people who knew and loved were brutally murdered.

 

You can find a somewhat similar tale among the other Chaos Primarchs. None of them are depicted as raving lunatics who only want to run around and kill children and drink ale from their skulls or nefarious archvillians just wanting for their chance to betray their father. You may hate the tragic hero syndrome but there's a tragic hero in every one of the Chaos Primarchs.

[Lexington]

All of the Chaos Primarchs are tragic heroes. All of them without exception. Not one of them has ever been described as a twist his moustache and tie innocent dames to railroad tracks or a raving loon who just wanted to kill for the sake of killing. There is a reason each of them went "bad" and for most of them it has to do with the environment they were raised in or a direct falling out with the Emperor.

Sorry, gotta disagree here. The cartoony definition you're pushing for 'villain' leaves the word without any meaning - no believable character acts without motivation - and excuses the Traitor Primarchs for actions that go well beyond working out their issues. Every single Traitor Primarch* made the choice, somewhere along the way, to join with literal demon-kings from Hell, and wage a war that slaughtered billions for no objective other than to cause suffering to sentient beings, and the surviving ones have continued to do so for ten millenia. There's no justification for that, and while one can feel sympathy for them as characters, they're not tragic heroes. They're villains, and colossal, galactic ones at that.

 

* Well, okay, I suppose Fulgrim's got an excuse, but even that story isn't without a villain, even if it's only Alan Merritt for robbing the poor guy of agency.

...and maybe Alpharius, since I'm half convinced that, by the end of these books, we'll find out that he's really one of those damn head-people from Battlestar Galactica.

[Jarl Kjaran Coldheart]

I would argue against Morty being a tragic hero, especially after re-reading the old Death Guard IA.

 

the skinny of it being that he made a bet with the Emperor, failed, his last sight before falling uncouncious was the Emperor slaying his "father" with NO effort on his part.

 

even before the Heresy, both Corax and Guilliman talked privatly with the Emperoer about where Morty's loyalty lay with, but were brushed off. (the EMperor said that loyalty to Horus was loyalty to himself...big mistake)

 

WLK

[Bulwyf]

All of the Chaos Primarchs are tragic heroes. All of them without exception. Not one of them has ever been described as a twist his moustache and tie innocent dames to railroad tracks or a raving loon who just wanted to kill for the sake of killing. There is a reason each of them went "bad" and for most of them it has to do with the environment they were raised in or a direct falling out with the Emperor.

Sorry, gotta disagree here. The cartoony definition you're pushing for 'villain' leaves the word without any meaning - no believable character acts without motivation - and excuses the Traitor Primarchs for actions that go well beyond working out their issues. Every single Traitor Primarch* made the choice, somewhere along the way, to join with literal demon-kings from Hell, and wage a war that slaughtered billions for no objective other than to cause suffering to sentient beings, and the surviving ones have continued to do so for ten millenia. There's no justification for that, and while one can feel sympathy for them as characters, they're not tragic heroes. They're villains, and colossal, galactic ones at that.

 

* Well, okay, I suppose Fulgrim's got an excuse, but even that story isn't without a villain, even if it's only Alan Merritt for robbing the poor guy of agency.

...and maybe Alpharius, since I'm half convinced that, by the end of these books, we'll find out that he's really one of those damn head-people from Battlestar Galactica.

 

 

Name one Chaos Primarch that came straight out of the womb (er, capsule) slaughtering people simply for the sake of killing. You can not. I'm not excusing anything they did but they all had reasons to do what they invariably did. I am assuming you have read enough high fantasy or science fiction to see a plethora of cartoonish villains who are evil because, well, they just are evil. None of that applies to the Chaos Primarchs.

[Lexington]

Name one Chaos Primarch that came straight out of the womb (er, capsule) slaughtering people simply for the sake of killing. You can not.

Dude, that's my point - simply because a character has motivation beyond some vague need to do Evil doesn't mean we must refrain from calling him a villain. Really a character who sees the consequences of their actions with clear eyes, yet still commits atrocities without remorse is, to me anyway, much more monstrous than some sub-human beast who just does evil for evil's sake. Accuse me of holding antiquated Kantian ethics if you want (I've got a friend who'll murder me dead for just using the term, so you might need to get in line ), but I just feel like it's okay to put the "villain" label on characters who choose to cause anguish, suffering and wholesale genocide of truly incalculable dimensions just because they've got some Daddy Issues.

 

I am assuming you have read enough high fantasy or science fiction to see a plethora of cartoonish villains who are evil because, well, they just are evil. None of that applies to the Chaos Primarchs.

You know, I honestly haven't. Certainly I see them erected as strawmen often enough, prodded and torched to prove the enlightened perspective of someone or another (not being personal here, but you've got to admit, it's done a lot), but, hell, you just don't see a lot of Skeletors littering the cultural landscape these days, especially outside of the kiddie genre. It's like there's a whole intellectual cottage industry dedicated to denouncing a shadow.

[Billuriye]

Graham McNeill said he will potray Perturabo in a irredeemebly evil way so you will have your genuine evil soon.

[tiberium40k]

I have no idea fluff wise why the Emperor didn't decide to help Angron out by wiping out the planet rulers armies and thus giving Angron his first new recruits as World Eaters with the gladiators Angron was leading. Instead the Emperor makes a foolhardy decision to basically kidnap Angron and let him watch as the people who knew and loved were brutally murdered.

 

To quote myself from another thread:

 

Angron declined everything the Emperor offered him, including his own Legion. If Angron had simply said yes or conditioned his service to the Emperor, things would have gonea a whole lot differently. This tells me Angron was too proud to accept help and wanted to achieve his goal himself (weather it was victory or a glorios death) and would have had his pride equally hurt if the Emperor had landed with his Custodes and fried the slaver`s army with laser beams from his eyes. Angron would still have seen this as the Emperor stealing his victory/glorious death.