Have the 30k stories ruined the 40k stories?

[Anselmius]

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.

Ya, that was my original point to Valkyrion about TFH, and I thought the point of the section you quoted too (though I might have poorly communicated it). Thus, this "canonically declares the 40k Imperium as a huge lie and its loyalist servants as (at best) deluded fools (thus chaos fans probably love HH)."

 

That's been canon since forever.

I know it was hinted at as a possibility and even reinforced by the activity of the Imperium in the early HH books (though the intent of the 'imperial truth' was never really known for sure I thought). I never thought it was solidly declared that the Imperium was a lie, and I thought that was intentional. And the source Legatus mentions leaves it ambiguous as well.

[A D-B]

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.

Ya, that was my original point to Valkyrion about TFH, and I thought the point of the section you quoted too (though I might have poorly communicated it). Thus, this "canonically declares the 40k Imperium as a huge lie and its loyalist servants as (at best) deluded fools (thus chaos fans probably love HH)."

 

That's been canon since forever.

I know it was hinted at as a possibility and even reinforced by the activity of the Imperium in the early HH books (though the intent of the 'imperial truth' was never really known for sure I thought). I never thought it was solidly declared that the Imperium was a lie, and I thought that was intentional. And the source Legatus mentions leaves it ambiguous as well.

 

 

But... well, the Emperor isn't a god. The fact humanity worships him as "the God-Emperor" when he was always Something Else is part of the tragedy of 40K. It's certainly not new. It's integral to the gothic, grim ignorance of the species within the setting.

 

40K was never about humanity "getting it right". It's about how massively wrong and ignorant we are, how self-destructive, in a galaxy that hates us.

[Legatus]

The Imperial Cult certainly emphasizes the supersticious nature of mankind in the 40K setting (as does the entire Tech Priest element). But I am not sure there was meant to be a specific conflict between a desire by the Emperor to not be worshipped and the Imperial Cult prior to the fleshed out Horus Heresy narrative from the Collected Visions books and forward. In the previous descriptions of his disapproval of the Word Bearers he did not care for their worship, but that was not the reason for why he had been chastising them. Their worship was presented more as what was obstructing them from their appointed task.

[A D-B]

The Imperial Cult certainly emphasizes the supersticious nature of mankind in the 40K setting (as does the entire Tech Priest element). But I am not sure there was meant to be a specific conflict between a desire by the Emperor to not be worshipped and the Imperial Cult prior to the fleshed out Horus Heresy narrative from the Collected Visions books and forward. In the previous descriptions of his disapproval of the Word Bearers he did not care for their worship, but that was not the reason for why he had been chastising them. Their worship was presented more as what was obstructing them from their appointed task.

 

I get that, definitely. What I don't get is where anything in the HH series suddenly "confirms" the Imperium is a lie. There's been no real change, no confirmation of anything absolutely astoundingly different, least of all in The First Heretic.

[Legatus]

With "Imperium" he probably meant the "Imperial truth". I have not read a lot of the HH books, just bits and peices, but from what I gather, in the HH series the Emperor was propagating the notion that there did not exist anything divine in the universe. A notion that was then proven wrong by the discovery of the Chaos gods. In that sense, the Emperor was indeed lying to the people of the Imperium.

Now, that was not necessarily a bad move, since even knowledge of the dark gods can corrupt.

[Anselmius]

But... well, the Emperor isn't a god. The fact humanity worships him as "the God-Emperor" when he was always Something Else is part of the tragedy of 40K. It's certainly not new. It's integral to the gothic, grim ignorance of the species within the setting.

 

40K was never about humanity "getting it right".

I can appreciate how this can be an interpretation of 40k, but I thought that this nihilistic vision was far far from established canon. To suggest that the basis of the imperium is just a set of deluded fools does seem to go against the theme of a good deal of canon if not the specific words (but I am not a huge source of authority here). Dystopian sure, but nihilistic? I think few people would like 40k if it was just nihilistic, if the heroism and sacrifice amongst all the darkness was based off falsity and the only constant was tragedy.

 

Of course, maybe I am just projecting my own tastes, I, for one, couldn't further stomach 40k (games or books which I used to really like) if that's the canon, but maybe you are right. I always saw the theme as leaving open tales of faith and heroic struggle amidst uncertainty, poor reasons for hope, and general grim darkness, which is the core of any good story IMO. However, if you are right, its merely a tragedy and nothing more, and the heroism and faith is just pure vanity. That's the chaos perspective, true, but I didn't know GW intended that to be the right perspective in the universe.

[A D-B]

But... well, the Emperor isn't a god. The fact humanity worships him as "the God-Emperor" when he was always Something Else is part of the tragedy of 40K. It's certainly not new. It's integral to the gothic, grim ignorance of the species within the setting.

 

40K was never about humanity "getting it right".

I can appreciate how this can be an interpretation of 40k, but I thought that this nihilistic vision was far far from established canon. To suggest that the basis of the imperium is just a set of deluded fools does seem to go against the theme of a good deal of canon if not the specific words (but I am not a huge source of authority here). Dystopian sure, but nihilistic? I think few people would like 40k if it was just nihilistic, if the heroism and sacrifice amongst all the darkness was based off falsity and the only constant was tragedy.

 

Of course, maybe I am just projecting my own tastes, I, for one, couldn't further stomach 40k (games or books which I used to really like) if that's the canon, but maybe you are right. I always saw the theme as leaving open tales of faith and heroic struggle amidst uncertainty, poor reasons for hope, and general grim darkness, which is the core of any good story IMO. However, if you are right, its merely a tragedy and nothing more, and the heroism and faith is just pure vanity. That's the chaos perspective, true, but I didn't know GW intended that to be the right perspective in the universe.

 

All of that is in it, too. The thing is, it's not mutually exclusive. That's where the misunderstanding is coming from, I think.

[Anselmius]

All of that is in it, too. The thing is, it's not mutually exclusive. That's where the misunderstanding is coming from, I think.

Its from the prior subject, but only because I think is does mean the heroism and the imperium being false is mutually exclusive. If chaos is right about the imperium being a lie then all the heroism and faith in it is all building up an ugly lie (as all lies are), and all their acts are essentially driven to that end (and its merely accidental that it may stop something even worse). At best the faith and heroism is a meaningless hymn to Nietzschian nihilism. That is if you are right about this, and I guess there's a much much better chance you are, rather than I.

[A D-B]

All of that is in it, too. The thing is, it's not mutually exclusive. That's where the misunderstanding is coming from, I think.

Its from the prior subject, but only because I think is does mean the heroism and the imperium being false is mutually exclusive. If chaos is right about the imperium being a lie then all the heroism and faith in it is all building up an ugly lie (as all lies are), and all their acts are essentially driven to that end (and its merely accidental that it may stop something even worse). At best the faith and heroism is a meaningless hymn to Nietzschian nihilism. That is if you are right about this, and I guess there's a much much better chance you are, rather than I.

 

Ahhhh, I see what you mean now. Ignore what I said, it was 2am and my jetlag terminated all hope of understanding other human beings.

 

I don't think it's mutually exclusive, though. I think there's room for all of it, without anything being diminished. That's the beauty of the setting. My opinion only, natch.

[tiberium40k]

I hope that some of the books contradict some of this and bring back the open-endedness.

 

I think this is inevitable, unless the writers actively choose to back the traitors. Thus far, most HH work has been from the traitor`s perspective, or otherwise explaining their motivations. Soon we will be getting books about the Raven Guard, Blood Angels and Ultramarines, so I don`t think these books will be written in the same manner as the ones out now so at least some of the balance will shift back. At least I hope so.

[Anselmius]

I think there's room for all of it, without anything being diminished. That's the beauty of the setting

In my opinion, I would agree so long as some of these big questions in the canon are not solidly closed in favor of the 40k traitor's perspective or in favor of the 40k imperium's perspective, and I suppose I never thought it was closed in that way, even if they left open the possibility that the traitors were right and had fluff to support that conclusion (at least in what they saw the imperium as, not for turning to the horrors they did :P).

 

 

Thus far, most HH work has been from the traitor`s perspective, or otherwise explaining their motivations.

I thought it was supposed to be narratives from a neutral perspective describing the traitors (thus not tainted by traitor bias)?

[Khestra the Unbeheld]

I thought it was supposed to be narratives from a neutral perspective describing the traitors (thus not tainted by traitor bias)?

 

Where on Earth did you draw that conclusion from? The entire point to this series is to tell it from the Traitors' POVs, since 40K fluff has been predominantly Imperial bias since forever and the only word we've ever had to go on about how the Heresy went down was from the Imperials. That there are Loyalist or even "neutral" POVs at all in this is basically them throwing bread into the duck pond to keep feathers from being ruffled, all while the bottom of the pond is being dredged up for all the water-rotten corpses that have been hiding beneath the waters for years.

[Scribe]

I cant say I fully grasp what you are trying to get at Anselmius.

 

1. Emperor sets out to create his Imperium, devoid of religion, and focused on science and logic.

2. Some of the followers of the emperor declare he is a God, but we know as outside readers, that Warp Gods and 'miracles' are just the Warp and Psychic phenomena, and so does the Emperor, so he rails against this.

3. TFH shows the Word Bearers being illuminated to the truth of this, and the lie is that what THEY (and Emperor-As-God followers) believed. The Emperor is not a God, belief in him as God, the Imperial Truth, is the lie.

4. Fast forward, Big E is killed, installed on the throne, and the Imperial Cult takes over, the lie is made into reality for the Imperium and the God Emperor is born.

 

Note, that in the fluff its often stated that many Space Marines do not worship the Emperor as a God, but more a grand father type figure. There is still place for heroism and righteous sacrifice, as the forces of the Imperium disagree with Xeno and Chaos forces on Humanities place amongst the stars, but I think its pretty much established, and has been since I have been in the hobby (12 years now?) that the Emperor is not a God, did not wish to be seen as one, and the fact his Imperium turned into exactly the opposite of what he wanted is one of the core tragedies in the mythos.

[Anselmius]

I thought it was supposed to be narratives from a neutral perspective describing the traitors (thus not tainted by traitor bias)?

 

Where on Earth did you draw that conclusion from? The entire point to this series is to tell it from the Traitors' POVs, since 40K fluff has been predominantly Imperial bias since forever and the only word we've ever had to go on about how the Heresy went down was from the Imperials. That there are Loyalist or even "neutral" POVs at all in this is basically them throwing bread into the duck pond to keep feathers from being ruffled, all while the bottom of the pond is being dredged up for all the water-rotten corpses that have been hiding beneath the waters for years.

From the plain meaning of the text I thought :D. Its seems written in such a way that it is just telling the 'truth' about these events and there is no disclaimer stating that 'this is just the perspective of the events from the traitors point of view'. Where do you get your idea from?

 

 

but I think its pretty much established, and has been since I have been in the hobby (12 years now?) that the Emperor is not a God, did not wish to be seen as one, and the fact his Imperium turned into exactly the opposite of what he wanted is one of the core tragedies in the mythos.

See I never got that, but I have only been in the hobby for 6-7 years, and have picked it up a bit more since my friends are playing it. I can tell you that most of my friends do not think that is canon, and the only thing that ever seems to point in that direction has been some of the Horus Heresy stuff (with the early books even somewhat leaving that ambiguous). That's no solid proof that I am right, its just to point out that I do not think it is at all clear (though perhaps the HH is changing that). Again, I am not saying your interpretation is clearly invalid, I jsut thought 40k was much more open-ended on these particular questions.

 

As for the comment on the space marines not worshiping, etc that fluff is often contradicted with other fluff (which leaving it open is a good thing IMO), not to mention some chapters clearly do worship him.

 

There is still place for heroism and righteous sacrifice

Logically, the quality of an act is known by its ends. Thus, when sacrifice and 'heroism' is for something intrinsically bad (i.e a lie), the sacrifice and 'heroism' also takes on that quality, for it is the ends in mind for those acts that make them either good or bad (e.g. sacrificing one's time for evil vs sacrificing one time for good; the former is bad the latter is good). So no, I cannot see how there is room for that sort of stuff if in the imperium if the imperium is canonically a lie in the mythos (or at least one has to leap some hoops and be rather sophistic to fit it in).

 

3. TFH shows the Word Bearers being illuminated to the truth of this, and the lie is that what THEY (and Emperor-As-God followers) believed. The Emperor is not a God, belief in him as God, the Imperial Truth, is the lie.

The most reasonable interpretation of that book seems to be as such, yes. I'm only saying that the canon seemed to be open prior to this (even if there was a good deal of evidence pointing to this). I just hope the canon contradicts itself on this particular subject.

[Scribe]

The HH stuff takes a lot from the late 3rd edition IA articles, and even previous material from Realm of Chaos and such. The Emperor has (always?) been described in the following ways from what I recall.

 

- Emperor, leading Crusade, born as reincarnation of all of Humanities Shaman as the warp grew and Warp Entities (Daemons/Chaos Gods) gained in power.

- Star Child, the potential Warp God that is currently suppressed due to the maintained link between the Emperor on the throne, and his Spirit.

- God Emperor, the psychic manifestation of humanities belief in the Emperor As God.

 

There are some pretty good discussions about this on Warseer, but unfortunately for your interpretation I think it could be quite easily backed up in quotes that the Emperor had no desire (publicly) to be a God, as he knew where that leads, and from where such talk draws its power, the Warp, hopefully his end game is fleshed out a bit in further HH novels.

 

Regarding your point on sacrifice, I think I must disagree. Belief is a powerful thing in 40k, and since the whole point of the Emperors crusade (at least as far as its been stated) is to promote and protect humanity, how is any heroism or sacrifice with that goal in mind a bad thing?

 

EDIT: Should also be said, ones definition of a God in 40K can be up for interpretation as well so maybe the Emperor was/is, by yours.

[Anselmius]

The HH stuff takes a lot from the late 3rd edition IA articles, and even previous material from Realm of Chaos and such. The Emperor has (always?) been described in the following ways from what I recall.

 

- Emperor, leading Crusade, born as reincarnation of all of Humanities Shaman as the warp grew and Warp Entities (Daemons/Chaos Gods) gained in power.

- Star Child, the potential Warp God that is currently suppressed due to the maintained link between the Emperor on the throne, and his Spirit.

- God Emperor, the psychic manifestation of humanities belief in the Emperor As God.

The last one would seem to be a consequence of some of the canon on the warp, but we have a peculiar case with the emperor since he is not a pure warp being to begin with. So the third thing seems up in the air. The first two are true, and largely GW backed off these (thank goodness in regards to the silly first one), but, of course, GW did not canonically deny them as far as I know. Nonetheless, even if these things were maintained as canon, they do not logically entail the stuff in the HH.

 

but unfortunately for your interpretation I think it could be quite easily backed up in quotes that the Emperor had no desire (publicly) to be a God, as he knew where that leads, and from where such talk draws its power, the Warp, hopefully his end game is fleshed out a bit in further HH novels.

With the HH series, there was evidence, and with TFH, near solid proof, yes I agree. That's why I said the HH series, most particularly TFH, was ruining 40k for me despite having great authorship.

 

Regarding your point on sacrifice, I think I must disagree. Belief is a powerful thing in 40k, and since the whole point of the Emperors crusade (at least as far as its been stated) is to promote and protect humanity, how is any heroism or sacrifice with that goal in mind a bad thing?

Protection of mankind is obviously a noble objective, you are right. However, in the mythos, the fundamental grounding ideal seems to be that 'the good' of mankind is the god-emperor, and that the imperial institution is the best means to achieve both the survival of man and his knowledge of the emperor. However, if that is a lie (like namely there is no 'god'-emperor), then man should abandon that aspect of the crusades and just focus on protecting humanity and finding out what indeed is the good of mankind. Look, all things evil have something good and noble in them, for if they didn't no one would (or even could) do evil. That does not make them good and beautiful just because they have some of that (or even a lot of it). If the basis of the imperium is evil, then how can a decent human being enjoy the stories about its heroes?

 

Sure, you can make the tragedy elements come in, but you also canonically excise the possibility for heroic elements for those who act on loyalty to the tragically false institutions. These two things are mutually exclusive as far as I can tell, and so to have the best of both worlds, it should be left ambiguous.

 

Should also be said, ones definition of a God in 40K can be up for interpretation as well so maybe the Emperor was/is, by yours.

Its up for interpretation, sure, but I transfer reason and logic into my fiction as well. In other words, for me, meanings carry the same meaning in any context (otherwise they would simply be different meanings and not the same :)). The only thing that changes is the context of the world around the meaning. If what you say is canon, it would be very odd to think of the emperor as a god figure in how that term is traditionally understood. This is why I would like the emperor left mysterious (since even if His 'godhood' were reinforced more, He would also probably be screwed up).

 

In my opinion, leaving such questions of the basis of the faith or morals of a fictional setting vague is the reason why authors like Tolkien get such a larger audience than say people like Lewis (if you know about their debates on these matters). It allows far more people to relate and empathize with the characters, and empathy is the basis of fans to a fiction :D. Furthermore, it doesn't cheapen the story with silly 'dead-shamans-soulman' or 'just-the-product-of-men's-thoughts' type twists.

[Scribe]

See, from where I am sitting, the first one was never backed off of at all. The Emperor was born, and unless I am mistaken its still via the reincarnation of the souls of countless Shaman. The starchild may be gone though, but I think that would be unfortunate...

 

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Emperor#Origins

 

I mean, this is the story, to me at any rate, and the HH books have simply expanded upon the Emperors thought process, and beliefs as seen in The Last Church, hes very anti-religion, and I think this goes on prior to the HH books as well, but do not have any proof on hand.

 

I disagree that the fundamental core of the setting is that the 'good' of mankind is the God-Emperor. Quite a bit actually. The Emperor is a beacon, but it was never about 'go out and do my good works' it was 'Humanity has a destiny to rule the stars, lets make it happen!'. I mean, I personally just accept that the basis of the Imperium is simple survival. Humanities best shot at getting through time, is by killing off everything else. Thats really what the Great Crusade was about, unifying humanity, kicking Xeno ass, and removing external threats to the species.

 

To me, the fundamental core of the setting, being fleshed out a great deal in the HH, is that humanity had nearly reached a Golden Age, a time of science, reason, and progress, but instead, it went the complete opposite, falling into religious hysteria, superstition, and fear. Thats the main selling point of the setting, and the great 'tragedy' of the HH, to me at any rate. :D

[Anselmius]

See, from where I am sitting, the first one was never backed off of at all. The Emperor was born, and unless I am mistaken its still via the reincarnation of the souls of countless Shaman.

Shaman is just as dead as the starchild. This was a wise move on GW part.

 

The starchild may be gone though, but I think that would be unfortunate...

I guess the Star child is far less silly than the suicide shammy emp, but still, bloody demystification ;)

 

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Emperor#Origins

Thats an unofficial source, and the reason that is mentioned is probably because its the only thing that was ever mentioned. GW has gone back to remaining thankfully silent on the issue however. I

 

I mean, this is the story, to me at any rate, and the HH books have simply expanded upon the Emperors thought process, and beliefs as seen in The Last Church, hes very anti-religion, and I think this goes on prior to the HH books as well, but do not have any proof on hand.

Agreed, but 'expanded' is the key word. I never saw this as cannon before HH, and even the early HH was ambiguous about the emperor's intent of the imperial truth. TFH sorta changed that as did The Last Church. The latter, however, was too loose to be canon in my opinion (i.e. the book seemed to be more like a series of legends passed down, and no doubt grubby heretics might have gotten their hands on them :D).

 

I disagree that the fundamental core of the setting is that the 'good' of mankind is the God-Emperor.

i disagree, but I don't have many arguments for you here except that all the core of the universe (from the imperial perspective) seems to focus on the emperor as someone who is good in himself, and not just good because he brings mankind what is good.

 

To me, the fundamental core of the setting, being fleshed out a great deal in the HH, is that humanity had nearly reached a Golden Age, a time of science, reason, and progress, but instead, it went the complete opposite, falling into religious hysteria, superstition, and fear. Thats the main selling point of the setting, and the great 'tragedy' of the HH, to me at any rate. :o

Putting aside the other talk, even if its canon that the imperium is a lie, that seems to me a peculiar way of reading the HH. HH makes it quite clear that the imperium was the exact same intolerant, bloody, totalitarian imperium except instead of the creed of the emperor, etc it was the creed of very militant atheism. Sure, the claim was also that there is only 'science' etc, but not being incompatible with theism, the core of the creed in HH was atheism (i.e. belief in supernatural is false). There was no golden age, and the only reason to say this would be because one might favor an 'atheistic' imperium rather than a 'quas-theistic' imperium. They just traded one creed for another without GW taking sides as to which was better (and it would have caused a bit of controversy if they did I think).

[Scribe]

Source on the Emperor's origin being retconned? FYI the source of that link is the Realm of Chaos books, which where essentially what set the framework for the modern setting of 40k, they where about as solid a source as one could get.

 

There was little to no canon at all on how the Emperor thought, what he believed, or really anything from what I recall. At one point I think he was being set up as a Warp God of Law (aka: Chaos/Law Moorcock-ian type dynamic) and the Imperial Truth, with some Fan speculation, would lean towards that type of thinking as well. There IS one source of psychic power in 40K, and that is what the Emperor is at the end of the day, a high level psyker.

 

The Emperor does not bring 'what is good' at all, I mean really read the quotes and fluff in any of the major rule books. Its all about being subserviant to your master, welcome the lash, for it improves thee, hate the mutant, the heretic, the traitor, etc etc. There is really nothing good about the "Imperium" at all, thats the point, no good guys in 40K, grim dark, blah blah. ;)

 

Even if you remove his anti-religious stance from The Last Church, the priest at the end still sees him as a monster about to embark on something terrible, not in the sense of something bad, but actually something on the scale of...well massive amounts of genocide, and death that the modern universe has no benchmark for. This is not the action of a 'good' person, but of someone removed from humanity by his insight/power, who will do anything to see humanity survive.

 

As for my argument on what the actual core of 40k is, if you have Mechanicum read the section from the techpriest to dalia (think thats her name) and how she thinks of the whole machine god/omnissiah dynamic, if thats not a goal for progress and removal of religious hysteria, I dont know what is. Hell, the Emperor even states that an atheist Imperium is his goal, I'll look up the quote tomorrow.

 

This creed of the Emperor talk, is exactly what he wanted to avoid, religion being pulled over the eyes of the masses of humanity.

 

I think I see where you are coming from, in that you dont like how the HH is making the Emperor out to be perhaps, but I argue there is no source for having the Emperor being a theist anyway, he KNOWS what the Gods of 40K are, and he wants humanity free of them.

 

Interesting discussion though. :]

[Anselmius]

Source on the Emperor's origin being retconned?

The silence and a high level of fan distaste of the subject gives a sort of consent to it being retconned. Not a solid one, sure, but at least good evidence. I'm not saying one cannot hold it as part of the lore, and its a far more valid claim than fan fiction, but it being solid canon seems to have been done away with (and I am grateful for this).

 

There was little to no canon at all on how the Emperor thought, what he believed, or really anything from what I recall.

We definitely agree on this. This is what I am not liking about the newer HH books. The first ones still kept us in the dark as to what a reflection of 30k was of the real intent of the emperor as much as 40k left us in the dark as to how it was a reflection of the emperor's intent, since in both cases we just hear the words and see the action of his servants. Its becoming less and less of a possibility that the emperor was a god, and that all of what happened prior to the heresy was just an evil he tolerated and let his servants misinterpret for the greater good of the imperium, since he foresaw the things to come (that's just one of the many possible avenues an imperial fan might have interpreted the fluff).

 

Its all about being subserviant to your master, welcome the lash,

There is a lot of nobility to be found in stories of strong loyalty that come at the expense of self in humility. Of course this is only true if somehow the master (even if often corrupt himself) ought to be listened too. So you can basically scratch any hint of these aesthetic virtues too if the imperium is canonically a lie.

 

Even if you remove his anti-religious stance from The Last Church, the priest at the end still sees him as a monster about to embark on something terrible, not in the sense of something bad, but actually something on the scale of...well massive amounts of genocide, and death that the modern universe has no benchmark for.

Agreed

 

Hell, the Emperor even states that an atheist Imperium is his goal, I'll look up the quote tomorrow.

Its from TFH right? He doesn't quite say it explicitly but its very reasonably implied and the most reasonable interpretation possible (though through the words written, it still leaves open a very remote possibility that its not). I'm not disagreeing with you on that.

 

This creed of the Emperor talk, is exactly what he wanted to avoid, religion being pulled over the eyes of the masses of humanity.

I would really prefer this to be an open question so it is easier to empathize with individuals who are loyal to the imperium in the 40k setting. I am now really liking what Marc Gascoigne (BL editor) said about there being no certain canon now since HH is starting to make this the case, but I still don't want to see GW go in this direction and further ruin (in my eyes) the IP. I hope they take a step back from it. Furthermore, there comes a point when even if what Marc said is true, the non-canon canon (;)) becomes too big to ignore and otherwise enjoy your own vision. At the moment, since I have friends who expect me to play with them, I'm just going to be ignoring some details in the HH so I can sort of enjoy the hobby ;).

 

but I argue there is no source for having the Emperor being a theist anyway,

Would a 'god' properly be called a theist (food for thought on the meaning of the term :()?

 

Anyhow, prior to HH there was little evidence of the opposite too. It was a very open question and a mystery of 40k as it should be. The ultra nihilistic vision of 40k should be a possibility I think (even backed up with evidence), but not a guarantee as it is becoming. As a possibility only, it makes the acts of many of the loyal imperials potentially courageous against the bleak appearance of the universe without canonically declaring them deluded (only potentially deluded, which adds to the heroism of it all since they should rationally be aware of it). In both cases you have a grim dark future, but in one there is a shrivel of hope and beauty, however distant, that there is good worth fighting for however confused and dark everything seems to be. 'Hope against hope', though aesthetically pleasing, is only beautiful if the hope is possibly in the truth (even if its a distant possibility). Its just a cruel joke if the hope is in vanity which some of the newer canon is starting to say. This is one of the primary things that made 40k shine to me, and the grim-dark setting is just ugly to me without it.

 

Interesting discussion though. :]

Indeed friend, but a painful one for a fan such as myself as I see my super nerdy interest dwindle in a work of art I once greatly enjoyed. This might be a bit silly considering there is a certain degree of triviality to the whole thing, but art can be important to the human experience. Ahhh, I'm a true fan boy aren't I? :D

[Scribe]

Just time for a breif reply. The major points for my stance do not come from TFH, but Tales of the Heresy - The Last Church.

 

A quick quote from the Emperor

 

Uriah - 'Then I hope you have foreseen the consequences of a world bereft of religion.'

Emperor - 'I have,' replied the emperor. 'It is my dream. An Imperium of Man that exists without recourse to gods and the supernatural. A united galaxy with Tera at its heart.'

 

There is a ton more in that story if you like.

 

Additionally, the conversation in Mechanicum is on pages 137-139.

 

'I believe the Emperor is a great man, a visionary man, a man of science, and reason, who has knowledge greater then the sum total of the Mechanicum,' 'but I believe that he is despite all that, just a man. His mastery of technology and refutation of superstition and religion should be a shining beacon guiding the union of Imperium and Mechanicum towards the future, but many on Mars are willfully blind to this, determined to ignore the evidence before them. Instead they embrace their blind faith in an ancient, non-existent god closer to their chest then ever before.'

 

Now, this is obviously an in character point of view, but the Emperors own stance is fairly well document in both TFH and TlC (the last church), so the quote from Mechanicum just serves to reinforce that the Emperors stance is well known throughout the Imperium. There is another short story where this is brought up, I think with the Sisters of Silence where one is shocked to hear the other refer to the Emperor as 'God-Emperor', highlighting the incoming schism to be found in the loyal followers of the Emperor, in addition to the split in the HH forces.

 

EDIT: Seems obvious to me that you want a God-Emperor, who is a force for good, but I really dont think the setting supports that conclusion. You refer a few times to not liking a nihilistic (Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief?) version of 40k but I really think that is already what we had, prior to any HH novels.

 

The Emperor didnt want a religious following, this is known from the IA on the Word Bearers if not earlier, morality in 40k is a grim thing indeed, where if its not in the interests of the state, its either meaningless at best, or heresy/treason at worst no?

[Anselmius]

'but I believe that he is despite all that, just a man. His mastery of technology and refutation of superstition and religion should be a shining beacon guiding the union of Imperium and Mechanicum towards the future, but many on Mars are willfully blind to this, determined to ignore the evidence before them. Instead they embrace their blind faith in an ancient, non-existent god closer to their chest then ever before.'

As you agree, this is purely from a subjective point of view, and even stated as such.

 

Now, this is obviously an in character point of view, but the Emperors own stance is fairly well document in both TFH and TlC (the last church)

I certainly agree that this is the stance in that and TFH, and the Last Church is even more specific (though perhaps less authoritative). I'm just saying its new to close the canon in this way is. Its not that before that this was not a legitimate view from within the fiction, its just that before there was not conclusive evidence for it, and the canon certainly didn't necessitate that conclusion.

 

Seems obvious to me that you want a God-Emperor, who is a force for good, but I really dont think the setting supports that conclusion.

More like I want that possibility open, not necessarily that the canon guarantees it. Again, you are right, the Last Church and TFH do not support that. Before, however, this question was open. Hopefully it will open back up.

 

You refer a few times to not liking a nihilistic version of 40k but I really think that is already what we had, prior to any HH novels.

That may have been your vision of it, and there is evidence to support it. I always viewed it as hope amongst apparent despair/nihilism. There is a huge difference. Prior to TFH this was a possibility for the imperials. Note that in this, I am not denying the very very grim darkness of 40k prior to HH.

 

The Emperor didnt want a religious following, this is known from the IA on the Word Bearers if not earlier

No, prior to the Last Church and TFH, there could have been various reasonable interpretations for his actions even if that is one of them.

[Scribe]

For what its worth, I have always been partial to the old background from the RoC books. Shaman, Starchild, Sensai, Illuminati, all that stuff was great. :P

 

Perhaps its just my own bias coming through in my interpretations of what we knew before hand (IA articles and such) but as ADB mentioned at the top of the page, very little has changed from previously established canon (noting that 40k canon is a fairly nebulous thing anyway) so I dont know, maybe its just me. Its an interesting topic, I think I will take it up with my gaming group and other boards as well. :]

 

I also think, that the 40K God-Emperor, is a real thing, a growing Warp Entity/God that can be a source of good that we also see in the early HH novels as a seperate thing from the Emperor, but I'm not to big on most of the 40K novels really, only getting into Black Library for the HH and ADB's Night Lords work.

[Kalythos]

My perception is that, like in the Planescape universe, belief is a very very powerful force. Since the warp is a realm shaped by the thoughts(conscious or unconscious) of sentient species it is quite reasonable that if a large population believes in a god , he will inevitably come into existence(or he may have been in a state of shadowy existence as there is no causality in the strict sense in the warp).

This ties in with a theory, that the the eldar gods are dead because the eldar believe they are dead. If they believed otherwise, a spark would remain, potentially to be re-kindled into their former blazing glory.

[Badhaggis]

That sounds more like Terry Pratechett if you ask me...