The True Astartes

[Ktan]

and i won this becuase of lonescouts email to graham mcneill.. your views on this subject were wrong and you guys cant accept that.

your onkly srgument now is that im sme kind of zealot (yet more personal attacks) and that BL material is fan fiction.

 

its all very desperate.. this is me walking away vindicated..

 

Graham McNeil, as much as he seems like a nice guy, is not the final authority on 40K or the Ultramarines. If something he claimed was contradicted by canon, he would be as incorrect as anyone else.

 

So far, I would agree the Ultramarine shooting a child is uncharacteristic. However, without quotes or access to the relevant books for myself, I can't judge the text as written. It could claim Ultramarines are unlikely to shoot children. It could claim they never do. It could claim they would in the above situation.

 

They are also examples (main one any instance where the Ultramarines participated in Exterminatus) that show McNeil is, unfortunately, incorrect in his response to Lone Scout, if the paraphrasing was as close to McNeil's word's as possible. The only way around this would be for McNeil to retcon out previous Ultramarine history. Like I said, nice a person as he is, he's not the final word on 40K fluff. 40K has no Lucas/Roddenberry/Whedon style 'word of God'.

 

If Nick Kyme claimed the Salamanders did not care about civilians in a personal email, would we now consider previous material (material that suggested they do) discarded?

 

 

It's also worth bearing in mind, Stoneface's is an unreliable narrator. This is a common technique in fiction. Basically, Stoneface's character is not a 'word of God'. A similar technique is applied whenever you read an 'in-universe' story, such as the Inquisitor's report in the 3rd Edition Codex.

 

As I see it, there are some problems with the argument. Your main and consistent claim is that Ultramarines would never kill unarmed children. However, you deny examples such as Exterminatus or the bombings of Monarchia.

 

It is incredibly bizarre to claim the Ultramarines would not kill unarmed children, and then consider the above counter-arguments as irrelevant. Unless the Ultramarines evacuate children from any planet they destroy first, which doesn't ever seem to be mentioned or make tactical sense, the Ultramarines can, have and will kill children under certain circumstances. If you are going to dismiss these instances, you need to justify why they can be dismissed other than that the method is different.

 

If, however, you are arguing that Ultramarines would not shoot children, and that is alone what you are arguing, that seems a strangely specific argument. The problem with this is that it makes the argument harder to refute without actually acknowledging the important point; the killing of children, not the manner in which it is done.

 

Also, IMVHO, picking a Chapter such as the Flesh Tearers ruins the effect of this piece.

[Darkchild130]

Agreed, I could add a page of murdering children to my Flesh Tearer story (when I finally get round to finishing it) and it would have no impact at all, as Flesh Tearers tend to kill everything in front of them.

It would be pointless.

 

Leaving it how it is gives it weight.

 

Darkchild

[greatcrusade08]

As I see it, there are some problems with the argument. Your main and consistent claim is that Ultramarines would never kill unarmed children. However, you deny examples such as Exterminatus or the bombings of Monarchia.

 

ill think youll find early in the debate i suggested that exterminatus and the such was a different matter.. these things are called for when there is no-one left to save.

bombing a planet is a far cry from pulling a trigger at unarmed children.. and the two cannot be compared

 

If, however, you are arguing that Ultramarines would not shoot children, and that is alone what you are arguing, that seems a strangely specific argument. The problem with this is that it makes the argument harder to refute without actually acknowledging the important point; the killing of children, not the manner in which it is done.

thi is my point, the story doesnt talk about bombing kids it talks about shooting unarmed kids..

when you hear about extermintaus, you dont read about how the kids melted and whatnot, its just not done.. and tbh for a different conversation.

 

my point is that an ultramarine would not shoot unarmed children, im claimed it as a fact with supporting eveidence, until someone can disprove it..

 

but arent we just covering old ground again?

[Wolf Priest Haelaeif]

As I see it, there are some problems with the argument. Your main and consistent claim is that Ultramarines would never kill unarmed children. However, you deny examples such as Exterminatus or the bombings of Monarchia.

 

ill think yull find early in the debate i suggested that exterminatus and the such was a different matter.. these things are called for when there is no-one left to save.

bombing a planet is a far cry from pulling a trigger at unarmed children.. and the two cannot be compared

 

Exterminatus is employed when it cannot otherwise be made certain that the taint of heresy does not spread. This can mean there are 10.000 heretics on the planet distributed among several billion innocent citizens, including children. And the reason the IoM does only employ Exterminatus hesitantly is not because they are so nice, but because it would destroy resources.

 

Also, if you replied to everything he posted instead of to only the one thing you had an idea how to sideline, you might become someone who can be taken seriously.

 

Not replying to his other statements must otherwise be read as agreement, and then you just agreed to being wrong.

 

 

Edit: oh god, man, you did not even understand what he wrote, either.

[Vincent Black Shadow]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoralEventHorizon

[Ktan]

im claimed it as a fact with supporting eveidence

 

I'm yet to see this evidence as anything more than extremely heavy paraphrasing. How do I not know that's just your interpretation of the text?

 

Wolf Priest Haelaeif has addressed the problems with dismissing Exterminatus.

 

Discussing whether you would read about Exterminatus effects is irrelevant. That is a literary choice, and we are discussing canon here.

 

And yes, bombing a planet is a far cry from pulling the trigger on a child. One kills many orders of magnitude more children. Not all of whom will be tainted.

 

But then, if your argument is as absolute as it is, "an Ultramarine would never kill a child", then the innocence/taint of the child should be irrelevant. So the taint of a planet undergoing Exterminatus is not really the issue here.

 

In fact, going off what you said about Exterimatus, there are situations where Ultramarines would consider killing children. Is it really that much of a stretch to go from an Ultramarine killing heretic children to an Ultramarine killing the children of a dissident who attacked him?

 

Bearing in mind, how close dissidents are to heretics in the eyes of the Imperium and the implication that the Marine sensed something was spiritually amiss with the children.

 

Another point to answer: Do you think an Ultramarine would hesitate to pull the trigger on a child who was a pawn of Chaos?

[Gree]

Exterminatus is employed when it cannot otherwise be made certain that the taint of heresy does not spread. This can mean there are 10.000 heretics on the planet distributed among several billion innocent citizens, including children. And the reason the IoM does only employ Exterminatus hesitantly is not because they are so nice, but because it would destroy resources.

 

I thought Exterminatus was employed only when the planet was completely beyond salvation?

[greatcrusade08]

im claimed it as a fact with supporting eveidence

 

I'm yet to see this evidence as anything more than extremely heavy paraphrasing. How do I not know that's just your interpretation of the text?

 

Wolf Priest Haelaeif has addressed the problems with dismissing Exterminatus.

 

Discussing whether you would read about Exterminatus effects is irrelevant. That is a literary choice, and we are discussing canon here.

 

And yes, bombing a planet is a far cry from pulling the trigger on a child. One kills many orders of magnitude more children. Not all of whom will be tainted.

 

But then, if your argument is as absolute as it is, "an Ultramarine would never kill a child", then the innocence/taint of the child should be irrelevant. So the taint of a planet undergoing Exterminatus is not really the issue here.

 

look lets cut to it.. i did orignally say that ultras dont kill children, but once the discussion got under way it was pretty evident i was talking about actually pulling the trigger.. a sentence ive had to repeat time and again..

now graham mcneill said it clearly ultramarines dont shoot childrne, we can argue the merits of bombing a planet, but thats not what this story was about.. which was my point.

you can say im paraphrasing, you can chime in with BL authors not canon, whatever you want.

but without any quotes that show marines DO shoot children, any counter aqrguments hold no weight.

 

and tbh, with the amounts of personal attacks ive been recieveing, im stepping away from this thread for good.. people need to realise that not everyone backs down from an argument, regardless of how many people gang up on them... some people should be ashamed at themselves for acting the way they have in this thread

[Ktan]

look lets cut to it.. i did orignally say that ultras dont kill children, but once the discussion got under way it was pretty evident i was talking about actually pulling the trigger.. a sentence ive had to repeat time and again..

 

Yet you repeatedly say 'kill'. Even when it supposedly established you mean 'shoot'.

 

Also, I would ask again, what is the difference between a bullet and a bomb?

 

now graham mcneill said it clearly ultramarines dont shoot childrne, we can argue the merits of bombing a planet, but thats not what this story was about.. which was my point.

you can say im paraphrasing, you can chime in with BL authors not canon, whatever you want.

but without any quotes that show marines DO shoot children, any counter aqrguments hold no weight.

 

I have already addressed what McNeill said. While it holds some weight, he is not word of God. You would have to demonstrate why his authority overrides previous (and in fact, contemporary) fluff. Otherwise, it is an appeal to authority. Also, FYI, I do consider the BL to be canon.

 

I say you are paraphrasing because I can't judge the context or the words from your paraphrasing it, making it useless evidence. If you have imposed a personal interpretation on the evidence then I cannot disentangle that from your words without the context or quotes themselves.

 

If you are asking for quotes that state Ultramarines would specifically shoot children, that's bizarre. That's like arguing that an Imperial Fist would never stab an Iron Warrior because there is no canon quote stating it has happened.

 

Ultramarines have killed children.

Imperial Fists have killed Iron Warrriors.

 

The methods are not important here; we have evidence Ultramarines would kill children and do so willingly.

 

The crux of the matter is not 'would an Ultramarine shoot a child'. Method is irrelevant. If you were arguing an Ultramarine could not deal with the psychological consequences of killing a child personally, you would have a case. You are not, however, so method holds little bearing (aside from factoring in things like torture, which shooting someone is generally not).

 

 

and tbh, with the amounts of personal attacks ive been recieveing, im stepping away from this thread for good.. people need to realise that not everyone backs down from an argument, regardless of how many people gang up on them... some people should be ashamed at themselves for acting the way they have in this thread

 

There is a distinct difference between being ganged up on and arguing a minority view in a thread. If you argue any view, you should be prepared to defend it no matter the numbers against you.

 

Ten men bringing one point each against you should be no different than one man bringing ten points against you.

[GooseDaMoose]

Exterminatus is employed when it cannot otherwise be made certain that the taint of heresy does not spread. This can mean there are 10.000 heretics on the planet distributed among several billion innocent citizens, including children. And the reason the IoM does only employ Exterminatus hesitantly is not because they are so nice, but because it would destroy resources.

 

I thought Exterminatus was employed only when the planet was completely beyond salvation?

 

According to Lexicanum, Exterminatus is employed when "the destruction of the entire population is deemed necessary to prevent the contagion from spreading further" or "when the world is deemed to be not worth the amount of men and material that would be required to conquer or reclaim it" and that "the Exterminatus order can be given by any Inquisitor"

[Wolf Priest Haelaeif]

Exterminatus is employed when it cannot otherwise be made certain that the taint of heresy does not spread. This can mean there are 10.000 heretics on the planet distributed among several billion innocent citizens, including children. And the reason the IoM does only employ Exterminatus hesitantly is not because they are so nice, but because it would destroy resources.

 

I thought Exterminatus was employed only when the planet was completely beyond salvation?

 

It is used then, but also when there is a risk of some kind of taint - be it chaotic, alien or whatever - spreading to more worlds if the world is not destroyed. For example when a cult is so deeply rooted that it is not possible to make sure it is completely eradicated by any other means. In the original Inquisitor trilogy, it is even employed because there is a single creature on a world which the inquisitor does not know how to otherwise destroy. He later finds out the creature could flee before the billions of innocent inhabitants were killed by the Exterminatus.

[Vincent Black Shadow]

Everything GW/BL has ever printed is canon. Even the self-contradicting parts.

[Dinks]

Everything GW/BL has ever printed is canon. Even the self-contradicting parts.

Indeed, but then as GW have already stated - nothing in the fluff is fact - all of it is propoganda from various sides.

[Ktan]

Further pertinent point that I've been discussing via PMs:

 

Index Astartes III:Ultramarines-

Life on Macragge was harsh and only the strongest survived to adulthood. The state determined whether children, both male and female, were strong when they were born and weakling infants were left on the mountains to perish.

 

I asked The Emperor's Champion about the wider context of this. He told me this referred to Macragge before Guilliman. However, he emphasised that the Index Astartes did not mention that Guilliman changed this. He also noted another quote, that in 'modern' times: "The harsh life on Macragge breeds hardy people with strong martial values and hard-working natures."

[Gree]

Exterminatus is employed when it cannot otherwise be made certain that the taint of heresy does not spread. This can mean there are 10.000 heretics on the planet distributed among several billion innocent citizens, including children. And the reason the IoM does only employ Exterminatus hesitantly is not because they are so nice, but because it would destroy resources.

 

I thought Exterminatus was employed only when the planet was completely beyond salvation?

 

According to Lexicanum, Exterminatus is employed when "the destruction of the entire population is deemed necessary to prevent the contagion from spreading further" or "when the world is deemed to be not worth the amount of men and material that would be required to conquer or reclaim it" and that "the Exterminatus order can be given by any Inquisitor"

 

Lexicanum is not a reliable source.

 

Exterminatus is employed when it cannot otherwise be made certain that the taint of heresy does not spread. This can mean there are 10.000 heretics on the planet distributed among several billion innocent citizens, including children. And the reason the IoM does only employ Exterminatus hesitantly is not because they are so nice, but because it would destroy resources.

 

I thought Exterminatus was employed only when the planet was completely beyond salvation?

 

It is used then, but also when there is a risk of some kind of taint - be it chaotic, alien or whatever - spreading to more worlds if the world is not destroyed. For example when a cult is so deeply rooted that it is not possible to make sure it is completely eradicated by any other means. In the original Inquisitor trilogy, it is even employed because there is a single creature on a world which the inquisitor does not know how to otherwise destroy. He later finds out the creature could flee before the billions of innocent inhabitants were killed by the Exterminatus.

 

I would also hesitate to use the original Inquistor trilogy as an example, given the great changes in fluff since then.

 

In Eisenhorn we have heretical cults on worlds that are destroyed the old fashioned way.

[Wolf Priest Haelaeif]

But the Inquisitor novels are at least as good a source as anything Graham McSue wrote.

[Gree]

But the Inquisitor novels are at least as good a source as anything Graham McSue wrote.

 

Hardly. Fluff has changed greatly since Watson wrote them in the eighties.. Meanwhile the Ultramarine books at least have the excuse of being refrenced in the past two codices and being much more recent.

 

I've read Space Marine, a novel that Watson refrenced in his books and wrote around the same time. The Astartes of then are defnitely very, very different than the Astartes of today.

[Wolf Priest Haelaeif]

Meh. I am not going to go and find anything on Exterminatus now just to prove that some silly concept of friendly marines doesn't make sense. But I'd guess if we really need it, it will be somewhere in the Ordo books.

[Vincent Black Shadow]

Exterminatus is ordered by Inquisition, not astartes, FWIW. And there are plenty of examples of marine chapters objecting to exterminatus and similar measures, as I posted earlier in this thread.

 

Nobody is saying that marines are nice. Just that some chapters are not babykilling amoral, unfeeling gun drones.

[Lone Scout]

The alternative is to not kill. Also, saving your friend by killing someone else, in my ethics, still makes you a bad guy.

That is a pretty disgusting view to be fair. One that many many many people will have issues with, and to be honest it is not one you can really comment on unless you have been in a situation like that. I am sure you would kill to protect your family or even friends.

 

Hm. You may have misunderstood me, because I didn't name the context. I am not a pacifist. I was referring to his WWII examples. I would, if necessary, kill to protect myself or family or friends. But I will not actively put myself in a situation where this is necessary. Any soldier will by definition have assented to being put into situations of kill or be killed. And that means that he actively sought a situation where he had to kill someone in order to live. Which to me is the same as planning to kill someone without necessity.

 

Therefore, a heroic act by a soldier protecting his comrades by killing someone is, imo, still an evil act.

 

With people who are drafted into the military, it is arguable, and it also is with police, because it is not the job of the police to kill people, it only happens that they may, in rare cases, have to protect themselves when trying to arrest someone. But people who willingly join the military cannot, in my book, be good guys.

 

Edit: Damn. I am still doing it. I am arguing with the internet. I am an idiot. Forgive me.

You have got to be kidding me!? This ^^^ is offensive trash. Standing by and watching people get killed...THAT is an evil act.The only accuate non offensive bit of writting in this statement is "I am an idiot".

@ mostly everyone else if you still insist that you know more than a BL writter I pity you...really I do. If your ego's need stroking that badly then fair enough you wonderfull god like pervayers of perfection you. :devil:

[Ktan]

@ mostly everyone else if you still insist that you know more than a BL writter I pity you...really I do. If your ego's need stroking that badly then fair enough you wonderfull god like pervayers of perfection you. :rolleyes:

 

I didn't see anyone claiming they were better. I certainly wasn't.

 

I was merely pointing out that taking an author's opinion which is contradicted by the canon is little more than an appeal to authority.

 

If you want to vindicate the author's opinion, provide evidence that corroborates what he said, or demonstrate that he has the authority to override previous canon. (In a personal email, no less, rather than published material)

 

Even experts can make mistakes. Following an 'expert' opinion through without considering other mitigating evidence is a logical fallacy. As is attacking anyone for not doing the same.

 

 

Case in point, many real world scientists have been wrong about many things. A good example that springs to mind is Newton. Newton was something of a demi-god in Physics, to the extent he was often believed outright. His 'corpuscular' theory of light, however, was found to be incorrect and Huygen's wave theory became the dominant classical theory after it was finally proven by experiment. What if science had refused to acknowledge Huygen's experiments?

 

(Yes, corpuscular theory made a minor return via wave-particle duality, but many important predictions of Newton's theory were simply wrong).

 

Newton was probably far better at physics than most people ever will be. However, if he is contradicted by evidence, we ignore what he said. Are we arrogantly assuming we know better than Newton? No, we're not. We're considering the merit of what was said independent of who said it.

[Wolf Priest Haelaeif]

My quoted statement, Lone Scout, is not "offensive trash," but my ethics about when to kill and when not to kill people. If your ethics differ, fine, but calling mine offensive trash, is, in fact, offensive. You might as well insult my religion. I therefore feel personally offended and I ask you to rethink your statement.

 

Edit to elaborate: I never said one should stand by and watch people get killed. If one can avert the death of someone by hurting someone else, one should. But preventing people from getting killed by killing others instead makes the one preventing those and killing these a killer. What right has he to chose who has to die?

[Vincent Black Shadow]

Marines Malevolent hit innocent bystanders with a whirlwind barrage. Their arrogance has people wanting them investigated by the Inquisition.

 

Flesh tearers continued fighting through the enemy into civilian militia, and the Sisters of Battle wanted them destroyed by the Inquisition for this act.

 

(Codex: Armageddon, 3rd ed)

 

These are explicitly pointed out in the fluff as exceptions to the norm, things that define these somewhat sinister chapters in contrast to normal marines. If these sorts of behaviors were at all commonplace, there would be no need to point out these traits in these chapters. In both instances, these chapters are viewed as aberrations, non-compliant with in-game understanding of space marines, and viewed by some as fit for destruction.

 

The conceit of the original story is ambiguity. Fine, I can buy that it was intentionally left ambiguous to the narrator (and thus the reader) why children were killed.

 

But to say that such an act would not in itself, performed without justification, be considered an act of heresy, worthy of severe punishment if not death... well, that's just silly. These guys are super humans created by a living god for the express purposes of defending humanity and fighting wars on humankind's behalf. Humanity is considered divine. If the only way to do that is to kill the few to save the many, marines can do that. But they won't just go around gunning down anything that moves. If they do, that chapter will also be subject to inquisitorial queries and abject disgust from other imperial forces.

[Wolf Priest Haelaeif]

Vincent: those are good examples, but both are about these chapters attacking loyal citizens or even imperial forces. Nonetheless, I agree with you that in general, most chapters will not just kill everyone they happen upon.

 

But I still think that those children would, by most marines - maybe not by all, I concede that, but by most - be judged to most likely be heretics, and therefore executed. To be entirely sure, we'd need more context. Is it a chaos incursion? Are there any cults involved? Some kind of alien infiltration? All we know is there was a rebellion and their mother attacked the marine. To me, the conclusion that the woman was a heretic (ie, tainted in some way by chaos, member of a cult, infected by alien somawhubblies) because she attacked a marine is very likely. If she is a heretic, her children may be tainted, too, and the marine would not have time nor the capability to find out if that is the case. So he does what must be done. If the mother had not attacked but asked for help or hidden herself, his choice might have been very different.

[Ktan]

Maybe something to take away from the piece is that Space Marines make the hard decisions without much remorse. To typical humans, such a thing seems cold or callous. Marines, however, do not hesitate. They think first, but they weigh up their possibilities with such speed and conviction that they appear not to consider it at all.

 

I severely doubt the Marine would take pleasure in shooting children. However, while a typical human might struggle to bring himself to do this, a Marine would not.

 

Perhaps the guarsman might do it with instruction, or after due consideration. The Marine does not require this time. So long as he does his duty to the Emperor, his conscience is clean.

 

EDIT:

 

Another thought

 

Marines have fancy scanners and stuff. Maybe the children were carrying bombs or other weapons that the Marine detected. The guardsman saw a Marine gunning down children, but the Marine saw their weapons and wiped them out before they could go off.

 

Entirely conjectural, but I'm just throwing the idea out there =P