Captain Idaho Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Got to say I agree with Lexington in this topic. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221534-have-the-30k-stories-ruined-the-40k-stories/page/4/#findComment-2662071 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Rohr Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Hitler wasn't born evil either. Oh yeah. I went there. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221534-have-the-30k-stories-ruined-the-40k-stories/page/4/#findComment-2662663 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khestra the Unbeheld Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Hitler wasn't born evil either. Perfect example of why "evil" is subjective. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221534-have-the-30k-stories-ruined-the-40k-stories/page/4/#findComment-2662684 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulwyf Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 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. That is not how the IA article reads which is canon. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221534-have-the-30k-stories-ruined-the-40k-stories/page/4/#findComment-2662759 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulwyf Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Got to say I agree with Lexington in this topic. Color me shocked. :D Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221534-have-the-30k-stories-ruined-the-40k-stories/page/4/#findComment-2662763 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulwyf Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 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 :D), 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. I would disagree with you. If an individual decides a course of action is necessary to achieve an ends and no alternatives present themselves then they are not evil. I would still label them as villains on a personal moral level based on what those actions are but when it comes to the Primarchs we have metahumans with stunted emotional growth in almost every one of the Traitor Primarchs coupled with circumstances beyond their control. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221534-have-the-30k-stories-ruined-the-40k-stories/page/4/#findComment-2662766 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexington Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 I would disagree with you. If an individual decides a course of action is necessary to achieve an ends and no alternatives present themselves then they are not evil Pol Pot had the goal of "cleansing" a few million people - couldn't really do that without mass murder, now, could'ja? Yet, I don't think anyone's going to take pity on ol' Saloth for being the tragic victim of circumstances. He was an evil monster! I don't mean to to be a jerk or poke at you here, Bulwyf, and it's generally not kosher to bring these sorts of real-world tragedies into the discussion of Space Hero Fantasy Men, but I also think it's important to remember that words aren't just sophistry, and that it's actually possible to make moral judgements, even in the face of an entirely subjective universe. Even if the concepts of suffering and agony are just ephemeral qualia, which we experience only because of the coincidence of brain function that is consciousness, you can still make the case that it is wrong to cause them. More, in the 40K universe, they are unquestionably real, reflected in the metaphysics of a dimensional plane that conscious beings inhabit on some level, so it seems to me that the moral arguments against causing them becomes even stronger. ...but when it comes to the Primarchs we have metahumans with stunted emotional growth in almost every one of the Traitor Primarchs coupled with circumstances beyond their control. Ehn, I dunno. If we really apply this concept of the Primarchs as man-children who let circumstances control them, the whole Heresy Era ceases to make any sense whatsoever. The Great Crusade would have faltered and failed as soon as any individual Primarch took control of their Legion. They wouldn't know how to lead, and lord knows no one would follow them. Their plans would be simple, and their armies would be run around and easily defeated by your average backwater warlord. You'd have enormous military organizations dedicated to full-time babysitting of the irrational demi-god that's supposed to be spearheading the fight for human dominance of the Milky Way. It's just not a tenable situation. That said, you're not wrong in your description of the situation we're presented with anymore (though I'd disagree with your conclusions), but this is just one more of the million reasons I wish GW had kept the Heresy shrouded in myth and legend. From the Index Astartes articles onwards, we've had a continual "defining" account of the Heresy, and I think the nicest possible descriptor one could have for the overall effort is "uneven." A lot of the above concerns are short-circuited by having the Primarchs controlled by moustache-twirling Grand Vizier types, but I don't think that's done the setting a lot of favors either. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221534-have-the-30k-stories-ruined-the-40k-stories/page/4/#findComment-2663175 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethrion Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 For me the HH series hasn't ruined the 40k books. Certainly there are some poorly written 40k books - as an example I couldn't stand the "Hunt for Voldorius" - but equally there are some bad HH books too. A few of my favourite books are 'Soul Hunter', 'Helsreach' and 'Lord of the Night'. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221534-have-the-30k-stories-ruined-the-40k-stories/page/4/#findComment-2663183 Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiberium40k Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 That is not how the IA article reads which is canon. The IA says nothing that disproves my post. It says Angron said no to anything the Emperor offered him and went down to die with his army. Khestra the Unbeheld argued that Angron didnt want to die, but win, and the post was an answer to his claim. Regardless, if the Emperor intervened by landing on the planet and destroying the slaver army, Angron would still have a hurt pride issue and would probably be the same guy. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221534-have-the-30k-stories-ruined-the-40k-stories/page/4/#findComment-2663313 Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiberium40k Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Hitler wasn't born evil either. But he was evil long before he was named Chancellor. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221534-have-the-30k-stories-ruined-the-40k-stories/page/4/#findComment-2663331 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Librarian Vespasian Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Making generalised comparative comments and conclusions about two large bodies of work (that of the Horus Heresy Novels and the Warhammer 40,000 Novels); whose nature is further fragmented by the individual authors and the chronological expanse in which they were written; is to me rather pointless. In my experience such an excersise always results in inaccurate conclusions. Each book has to be taken on its own merits, which are very much subjective to the individual. Its all a matter of taste as to whether a particular individual likes or dislikes a book. I mean there have been several books, including those from the Horus Heresy series, which I have personally disliked. But others have absolutely loved them. I don't believe that there is a difference between the quality of an individual authors work in the Horus Heresy series and that of the Warhammer 40,000. As a specific example I thought that Soul Hunter was superb. This quality was also matched by First Heretic which I thoroughly enjoyed: so I do not believe that an A-Team/B-Team mentality exists when authors are writing Horus Heresy/Warhammer 40,000 stories. Individual writers' work does evolve and develop over a period of time, constantly improving. For example I find that each Graham McNeill Horus Heresy novel consistantly improves on its predecessor. So my advice is to take each book as it comes and enjoy it if you can. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221534-have-the-30k-stories-ruined-the-40k-stories/page/4/#findComment-2663378 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piousservant Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 I would disagree with you. If an individual decides a course of action is necessary to achieve an ends and no alternatives present themselves then they are not evil. Well that's the strangest definition of evil I've heard. I'd concur that there are "means" that might not be considered evil depending on the "end" they were to achieve but that's slightly different. You can have an end goal which is evil in itself of course (though that definition remains an entirely subjective one). On a slight tangent, worth noting that "the end justifies the means" is more a statement of relative morality (that the importance/good of the end is what justifies the means you use to achieve it) rather than a statement that any means is justified. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221534-have-the-30k-stories-ruined-the-40k-stories/page/4/#findComment-2663514 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulwyf Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 I would disagree with you. If an individual decides a course of action is necessary to achieve an ends and no alternatives present themselves then they are not evil Pol Pot had the goal of "cleansing" a few million people - couldn't really do that without mass murder, now, could'ja? Yet, I don't think anyone's going to take pity on ol' Saloth for being the tragic victim of circumstances. He was an evil monster! I don't mean to to be a jerk or poke at you here, Bulwyf, and it's generally not kosher to bring these sorts of real-world tragedies into the discussion of Space Hero Fantasy Men, but I also think it's important to remember that words aren't just sophistry, and that it's actually possible to make moral judgements, even in the face of an entirely subjective universe. Even if the concepts of suffering and agony are just ephemeral qualia, which we experience only because of the coincidence of brain function that is consciousness, you can still make the case that it is wrong to cause them. More, in the 40K universe, they are unquestionably real, reflected in the metaphysics of a dimensional plane that conscious beings inhabit on some level, so it seems to me that the moral arguments against causing them becomes even stronger. ...but when it comes to the Primarchs we have metahumans with stunted emotional growth in almost every one of the Traitor Primarchs coupled with circumstances beyond their control. Ehn, I dunno. If we really apply this concept of the Primarchs as man-children who let circumstances control them, the whole Heresy Era ceases to make any sense whatsoever. The Great Crusade would have faltered and failed as soon as any individual Primarch took control of their Legion. They wouldn't know how to lead, and lord knows no one would follow them. Their plans would be simple, and their armies would be run around and easily defeated by your average backwater warlord. You'd have enormous military organizations dedicated to full-time babysitting of the irrational demi-god that's supposed to be spearheading the fight for human dominance of the Milky Way. It's just not a tenable situation. That said, you're not wrong in your description of the situation we're presented with anymore (though I'd disagree with your conclusions), but this is just one more of the million reasons I wish GW had kept the Heresy shrouded in myth and legend. From the Index Astartes articles onwards, we've had a continual "defining" account of the Heresy, and I think the nicest possible descriptor one could have for the overall effort is "uneven." A lot of the above concerns are short-circuited by having the Primarchs controlled by moustache-twirling Grand Vizier types, but I don't think that's done the setting a lot of favors either. Pol Pot's idea to reduce his country to Stone Age level of technology and agriculture was only made possible by killing off I believe roughly a third of his country's populations. His actions were evil, there is no question of that, just as any figure in actual history that decides for the sake of "X" the need to exterminate humanity justifies the end. You can have an end that is by itself simply evil of course: deciding to strip the lands you control of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, political and religious dissidents...yes, that goal is in itself evil. What we have though with the Primarchs that we've seen so far is none of them had evil goals. What I am assuming is the first good chunk of HH novels that are "pro-sympathy" with Chaos are simply showing how they made their decisions. As the Heresy goes on and they sink into Chaos we as readers will lose that sympathy by seeing what their turning against the Imperium actually entails. I imagine we as readers will be presented with just how bleak the Emperor's odds looked and how evil, truly evil, the Traitors had become and will find ourselves "rooting" for the Emperor and the Imperium to stop these evil Primarchs who seem bent to literally burn the galaxy of all life. As for the Primarchs being emotionally stunted (at least almost all the Traitor Primarchs) the proof as they say is in the pudding. Look at how many were either not raised or brought up as slaves. Their emotional immaturity does not impede their ability to lead armies or be tactical geniuses or technological geniuses. It does however greatly impair their emotional spectrum and their ability to make what we would consider emotionally mature decisions. Does that excuse what they did? No. Does it at least explain what led them to their decisions and does in fact instill some sympathy as readers ? Yes. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221534-have-the-30k-stories-ruined-the-40k-stories/page/4/#findComment-2663585 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Idaho Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Hitler wasn't born evil either. Perfect example of why "evil" is subjective. Also a great example of why some people agreeing with you doesn't make what you did excusable. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221534-have-the-30k-stories-ruined-the-40k-stories/page/4/#findComment-2663767 Share on other sites More sharing options...
GooseDaMoose Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 I'm confused as to why Pol Pot and Hitler's evil are being discussed in a thread about books set in the 31st and 41st millennia. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221534-have-the-30k-stories-ruined-the-40k-stories/page/4/#findComment-2663876 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khestra the Unbeheld Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Hitler wasn't born evil either. Perfect example of why "evil" is subjective. Also a great example of why some people agreeing with you doesn't make what you did excusable. Excuses imply wrongdoing; if you win, there's no need for any. :o Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221534-have-the-30k-stories-ruined-the-40k-stories/page/4/#findComment-2663921 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Idaho Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 :P good job he lost then! But history also decides as well. Social changes have lead to social guilt which lead to apologies for "crimes" committed by victorious nations in recent times. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221534-have-the-30k-stories-ruined-the-40k-stories/page/4/#findComment-2664035 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khestra the Unbeheld Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 ;) good job he lost then! But history also decides as well. Social changes have lead to social guilt which lead to apologies for "crimes" committed by victorious nations in recent times. Indeed, but that's the decision of the victorious nation, and entirely subject to its own whims, not because there's some higher agency dictating a set paradigm that the events of moment X = evil on a universal scale. History, while typically written by the victors, strives to view all possible events without the blinders of specific social mores to bias conclusions. Knowing the "what" is not enough to reveal the truth, merely enough to render a verdict after the fact; the "why" is the telling piece, and the "why" is what makes evil subjective. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221534-have-the-30k-stories-ruined-the-40k-stories/page/4/#findComment-2664172 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supreme Overlord Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 It took me half an hour to read through this thread...but it was so worth it. :) I have read hardly any 40k novels so I can't comment. I have read almpost all the HH ones though, and so far only Battle for the Abyss has been comparable to a smoking pile of horse dung. 90% of the other HH books have been fantastic, a handful of those being "edge of seat," "nailbitingly" great. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221534-have-the-30k-stories-ruined-the-40k-stories/page/4/#findComment-2664499 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anselmius Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 HH did ruin a good bit of 40k for me, but not because of it having superior authorship. Although I do think HH series have a more epic and classic feel about them than some of the regular books, this positive aspect does not really eclipse all of the 40k stuff for me. My problem with HH is that it is now nearly impossible to emphasize with the imperial heroes of 40k. It didn't start out like this. The first few books left that open, and I really liked them. However, some of the more recent ones (though seemingly well written) take away the mystery of the whole emperor thing. Im thinking First Heretic in particular (though I skipped a few books before that one). This basically canonically declares the 40k Imperium as a huge lie and its loyalist servants as (at best) deluded fools (thus chaos fans probably love HH). This was a huge mistake, in my opinion, and it really killed a lot of my interest in the whole 40k IP. I hope that some of the books contradict some of this and bring back the open-endedness. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221534-have-the-30k-stories-ruined-the-40k-stories/page/4/#findComment-2776184 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valkyrion Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share Posted May 31, 2011 My problem with HH is that it is now nearly impossible to emphasize with the imperial heroes of 40k. It didn't start out like this. The first few books left that open, and I really liked them. However, some of the more recent ones (though seemingly well written) take away the mystery of the whole emperor thing. Im thinking First Heretic in particular (though I skipped a few books before that one). This basically canonically declares the 40k Imperium as a huge lie and its loyalist servants as (at best) deluded fools (thus chaos fans probably love HH). This was a huge mistake, in my opinion, and it really killed a lot of my interest in the whole 40k IP. I hope that some of the books contradict some of this and bring back the open-endedness. Woah, no way. I think you've misunderstood TFH. TFH justifies the turning of the Word Bearers from their own point of view . The bit that is canon is that the word bearers believed everything they were told by Lorgar, Erebus and the daemon, not that everything Lorgar, Erebus and the Daemon said is true. All of the books so far, except Prospero Burns and the two Dark Angel books (and Battle for the Abyss to a degree), have dealt with the traitor legions and why they turned. To paraphrase the X Files, every HH book has been designed to deceive, inveigle and obfuscate. There are truths in there but you have to find them. Why the traitors turned is more interesting than why the loyalists didn't, which is why even in the stories about the loyalists you have a degree of uncertainty about their motives (did Lion sit on the fence? does Guilliman want to inherit the throne? etc) But even within the books about the traitors the Emperor's position is strengthened through Keeler, Loken, Garro etc. The Imperium may or may not be a lie, we don't know. What we do know is that the Word Bearers et al believe it is a lie and the Imperial Fists et al believe it isn't, but through the traitors believing that it is a lie we end up with the Emperor being ultimately embraced as a god. Which brings us to 40k and where we are now. Anyway, this is a bit old, but back to the OP - I stand by it. Without wishing to arse lick, Blood Reaver is superb as is Soul Hunter, but aside from being well written they are superb because they hark back to 30k. Lord of the Night is similar, Angels of Darkness likewise. They explain the whys of things. The 40k books don't explain the whys of things, they just cover over it with big explosions. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221534-have-the-30k-stories-ruined-the-40k-stories/page/4/#findComment-2776987 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anselmius Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 The Imperium may or may not be a lie, we don't know. What we do know is that the Word Bearers et al believe it is a lie and the Imperial Fists et al believe it isn't, but through the traitors believing that it is a lie we end up with the Emperor being ultimately embraced as a god. Which brings us to 40k and where we are now. Maybe, but I felt the First Heretic kinda ruined some of 40k with (spoiler): the emperor's chastisement of Lorgar, and Him mentioning that what Lorgar's colony was doing was a lie (which is basically a microcosm of 40k). I suppose we can take that as just the story from the Word Bearer's point of view and potentially uncanonical, but meh.. I would prefer they leave the canon on who the emperor is and his motives in the dark for speculation. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221534-have-the-30k-stories-ruined-the-40k-stories/page/4/#findComment-2777864 Share on other sites More sharing options...
A D-B Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 The Imperium may or may not be a lie, we don't know. What we do know is that the Word Bearers et al believe it is a lie and the Imperial Fists et al believe it isn't, but through the traitors believing that it is a lie we end up with the Emperor being ultimately embraced as a god. Which brings us to 40k and where we are now. Maybe, but I felt the First Heretic kinda ruined some of 40k with (spoiler): the emperor's chastisement of Lorgar, and Him mentioning that what Lorgar's colony was doing was a lie (which is basically a microcosm of 40k). I suppose we can take that as just the story from the Word Bearer's point of view and potentially uncanonical, but meh.. I would prefer they leave the canon on who the emperor is and his motives in the dark for speculation. I think you misread that, dude. The great irony of the Word Bearers' situation is that what they preached is exactly what came to happen in the Imperium. The Emperor never wanted to be considered a god; they were the only ones claiming he was. That's why he chastises them. And then, ironically, the Imperium comes to believe it, anyway. That's been canon since forever. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221534-have-the-30k-stories-ruined-the-40k-stories/page/4/#findComment-2777878 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legatus Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Well, it was not quite as ironic in the previous canon. In the 2nd Edition Codex Chaos and the 3rd Edition Index Astartes Word Bearers, the Emperor was described as chastising the Word Bearers mainly for their slow progress. Their faith and the time and resources spent erecting monuments to the Emperor were described as "pointless" and " a waste of time", but not as specifically objectionable to the Emperor. I think it was first with the Horus Heresy novels that it was made into a specific goal of the Emperor to not have the Imperium worship him, but I am not sure about this detail. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221534-have-the-30k-stories-ruined-the-40k-stories/page/4/#findComment-2777902 Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninja6fett Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Has anyone ever considered that the Emperor may have changed his mind about the God thing at some point? Or that he realizes that the label of God is inevitable and he decides that he needs to roll with that. The experiences of Keeler and Garro are something I find fascinating. Sometimes I feel that the Horus Heresy and in fact the whole setting may just be an entire just as planned by the Emperor, sometimes it feels like there is no way he couldn't have seen certain things coming or acted in the worst way possible unintentionally. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221534-have-the-30k-stories-ruined-the-40k-stories/page/4/#findComment-2777929 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.