The True Astartes

[Gree]

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.

 

I don't care about that friendly marine thing. I'm trying to clarify things on Exterminatus policy.

 

But I'd guess if we really need it, it will be somewhere in the Ordo books.

 

You could find some outdated information yes. But I was looking at stuff published past Second Edition.

[Vincent Black Shadow]

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

 

Sure, all entirely possible. This is why, a couple pages back, when I gave an honest critique of the story as a piece of writing, I suggested that some of the ambiguity be removed. We can all only guess as to why the marine shot the kid, and we're all power armor fluff nuts to some degree. Imagine if someone read this story who knew little to nothing about the WH40k universe? I understand that's likely not the target audience, but good storytelling doesn't assume prior knowledge of motivation and character, and can exist in a vacuum, especially in a story that sets up motivation and character as the defining thesis for its telling.

 

...And if it was written unambiguously that the marine had his reasons but it still shocked the narrator, it likely wouldn't have spawned 7 pages of discussion. :rolleyes:

[Lone Scout]

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?

You have said that Allied soilders durring ww2 acted evilly by fighting to help liberate a country that was not their own, that by doing so committed murder "(Which to me is the same as planning to kill someone without necessity)". <This is offensive nonsence and most people here would agree. You have managed to insult anyone that has ever served their country. You have insulted their family and friends as well. :P Nice work :rolleyes:

 

"What right has he to chose who has to die?"

What right did the original killer have. Once an attempt to kill someone is made that person looses his rights. I would see this intervention as chosing who lives.

 

I don't do religion so you need not worry about me attacking your religion. Your ethics appear watery to me....it's ok for you to kill to defend your family but it's not ok to kill to save a strangers life? :rolleyes: yeah that sounds solid to me :rolleyes:

 

 

@Ktan "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".

 

"Little more" smacks of arogence as if you are placing yourself on a pedistool because I had to go and ask someone...oh my I must suck bad fancy looking to a higher authority than my own...how shortsighted of me!!! If you bothered to read my post that is exactly what I said it was, I'm not and expert nor are you. The email you dismiss so easily was sent to a writter with years of experiance on not just the issue at hand...but the very chapter stated in the original writting. If you think your more authoritive than Mr McNeill you are dreaming. This isn't science it is a created world where the authors are gods. They created this world, 40k is their certainty. If said people say SM don't kill children than they don't...it is black or white. There is no going back and forth it is case closed, certain, right!

[wolf2.3]

I'm wading in again. Firstly the Jason Bourne movie...dude did you watch it...he got stuffed up because he failed to kill his mark because his (the marks) kid was on his marks lap...so much for the phyco conditioning theory. (how many kids did Jason Bourne kill...none...why...because he was the good guy...good guys don't kill kids)

If you want to think that your marines sit around everyday praying, shooting going to "how to kill heretics seminars" then thats fine but surely they have better things to do. Marines enjoy eating, they appreciate beauty and reward kindness (read the spacewolf novels by King) so to my mind this proves they are not heartless, conditioned automatons.

3rdly marines are there to protect humanity, that is why they exist.

 

Now I KNOW I'm not an expert so I took the liberty of enlisting the help of someone who is. (no I won't post the email cause people expect that correspondance isn't quoted so I will paraphrase it).

I emailed Mr Graham McNeill and he states that a spacemarine would not kill unarmed civilians and never children and certainly not UM's. Further more you would never see this in a BL publication...the fluff is well off base.

(ask yourself why....because the good guys don't kill children grim dark, medieval whatever...it's like cannon law..goodies are goodies for a reason...when they stop being goodies they become badies...this and because infantcide to any normal human being is offensive it doesn't sell novels).

 

Before you all McNeill this and he wreaked that bare in mind that he does write for BL and you do not. He would be more able to say what a marine would and would not do than almost all of us here (any GW/BL writters please raise your hands).

 

I'd be interesed to see what ADB makes of the matter. He seems to my mind at least to have a much better impression of the 40k universe than McNiel does. The ultras novels should'nt be looked into for an insight into 40k as the very motives driving the plot fall apart like soggy paper upon casual reading let alone constructive cross examination.

 

@GC08, on this forum i have a lot of respect for your knowledge and opinions but in this instance i feel the dog has had the bone for too long and won't let go. This thread has been argues for too long for anyone to recount what they have said and the camps of oposition are well and truly chosen. GC08, your camp seems to be in the clear minority so based on this your claim to have won the argument is unfounded. In this instance i feel you should either agree to disagree or find some of your much vaunted quotes to convince the overwhelming majority otherwise.

[Ktan]

@Ktan "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".

 

"Little more" smacks of arogence as if you are placing yourself on a pedistool because I had to go and ask someone...oh my I must suck bad fancy looking to a higher authority than my own...how shortsighted of me!!! If you bothered to read my post that is exactly what I said it was, I'm not and expert nor are you. The email you dismiss so easily was sent to a writter with years of experiance on not just the issue at hand...but the very chapter stated in the original writting. If you think your more authoritive than Mr McNeill you are dreaming. This isn't science it is a created world where the authors are gods. They created this world, 40k is their certainty. If said people say SM don't kill children than they don't...it is black or white. There is no going back and forth it is case closed, certain, right!

 

At what point did I state I was more authoritative? I did not. I was taking the canon as authoritative.

 

I did not place myself on a pedestal. I was pointing out a logical flaw in your argument. Me saying 'little more' is not an attack against any individual, it is a dissection of a point being made. I was stating it was little more than a logical flaw because it was.

 

You are building a strawman by suggesting I've said I'm better (which also is ad hominem. You are trying to discount what I am saying by making me out to be arrogant, rather than providing evidence that corroborates what McNeill says). I've frequently and explicitly said I do not believe I am better than Graham, or that I know more.

 

The amount of experience that McNeill holds does give his testimony some weight, because he's familiar with the material. It does not, however, make his word completely immutable, especially not in the face of contrary published material. I am dismissing what he says because it contradicts other facts from canon, not because I think I am better.

 

Just because I disagree with McNeill, it does not mean I think I am better. I never professed that. The problem I have is that you are claiming we should take McNeill's opinion over other material because he has years of experience.

 

That is a logical fallacy.

 

It is also contradicted by people who have created scenarios where Ultramarines would kill children as well. People who wrote stories for the Black Library that involve planetary destruction. Are they less authoritative than McNeill? Could I not slightly alter your argument?:

 

"the authors are gods. They created this world, 40k is their certainty. If they say UMs call in planetary bombings which will inevitably kill children...it is black or white. There is no going back and forth it is case closed, certain, right!"

 

If no other material contradicted what McNeill said in a personal email, then I would consider it very strongly. But it is against published literature.

 

There is nothing wrong with seeking the opinion of a higher authority. However, that does not guarantee they are correct. Simply accepting what someone says because they are in a position of authority, or they have been doing something for a long time can be a fallacy.

 

The mentioning of Newton was an analogy to demonstrate the point I was making. It was to highlight the problems of appealing to authority, not to make out 40K as similar to science.

 

I'll repeat an earlier question I posed:

 

If, in a personal email, Nick Kyme claimed Salamanders do not care about the lives of Imperial citizens, would you believe it, even if it flew in the face of current published material?

[Brother Tyler]

A little time out is in order.