Is the Heresy series too apologist

[Pulse]

Thinking about it i can only see Perturabo as being the man i described and his Legion would fit the bill nicely. They are always focussed and methodical in their tactics and so i think they would be the ideal candidates.

[Yogi]

Because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.

 

Where are any of these? WHERE?

 

Seems to me Angron is just like that. But say he isn't and HH team decide to do a book on another Primarch..

 

To want to see the world burn you would have to be extremely angry. To be extremely angry someone has to do you wrong. In HH someone is usually the Emperor. Then some cynical forum goer goes "Oh this again, another primarch with daddy issues."

 

GG man, you can't win.

[A D-B]

Because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.

 

Where are any of these? WHERE?

 

Seems to me Angron is just like that. But say he isn't and HH team decide to do a book on another Primarch..

 

To want to see the world burn you would have to be extremely angry. To be extremely angry someone has to do you wrong. In HH someone is usually the Emperor. Then some cynical forum goer goes "Oh this again, another primarch with daddy issues."

 

GG man, you can't win.

 

There's a difficulty with this topic, and I think I can explain it in two parts.

 

Firstly, narratively-speaking, "just because he's a bad person" is weak writing, and unrealistic. It doesn't happen often, it's awful when it happens in stories, and its lesser cousin "He did it because he was crazy" is just as awful. It's plot spackle, or story polyfilla. It smears over a hole in the plot, in favour of "Just because, okay?". I'm simplifying Pulse's point, but it's a valid stance.

 

Secondly, in that example, the Joker didn't just want to watch the world burn. That was a great soundbite when Alfred says it, but the Joker has reasons for wanting that, and beyond it, he has a very clear modus operandi. He doesn't just want to watch the world burn at all. He wants to show what a joke society is, and how humanity is all barely one step away from seeing things the way he does. His elaborate scheme at the end of the movie is all about that, and he explains it to Batman himself. He works damn hard to make his point.

[Marshal Rohr]

Is wanting to cause Anarchy a real point though? I mean, all your doing is causing chaos for no reason. If you have a higher motive to provoke anarchy, really you miss the point of anarchy.

 

Its like being an atheist, by denying a higher power you inherently admit there is a higher power to deny.

 

Maybe the irony is the point though? The characters seemingly do things for no real reason other than to do. Thought the Joker did say he was just a dog chasing a car, and if he caught one he wouldn't know what to do. Then he goes on to hatch this MASSIVE scheme to force people into his way of thinking, which goes against his very point that he does things just to do them.

 

Maybe hypocrasy is a cornerstone of crazy?

[Bava]

Its like being an atheist, by denying a higher power you inherently admit there is a higher power to deny.

 

An atheist doesn´t deny anything, an antitheist does.

 

Is wanting to cause Anarchy a real point though?

 

Joker doesn´t want anarchy per se. His point is that the principles and value systems our society is built on are inherently flawed and so he consequently wants to 'enlighten' us. A Prometheus with a pretty scary smile, so to speak. At least, thats my understanding of this awful movie.

 

OT:

 

To want to see the world burn you would have to be extremely angry. To be extremely angry someone has to do you wrong. In HH someone is usually the Emperor. Then some cynical forum goer goes "Oh this again, another primarch with daddy issues."

 

GG man, you can't win.

 

Totally agree. An absolutely malevolent character with no excuse for his evilness would just be mentally disordered. And that would be an excuse in itself, too. ;)

[Olis]

Its like being an atheist, by denying a higher power you inherently admit there is a higher power to deny.

 

An atheist doesn´t deny anything, an antitheist does.

 

Please, PLEASE, let's not have that debate here.

[Captain Idaho]

Because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.

 

Where are any of these? WHERE?

 

Seems to me Angron is just like that. But say he isn't and HH team decide to do a book on another Primarch..

 

To want to see the world burn you would have to be extremely angry. To be extremely angry someone has to do you wrong. In HH someone is usually the Emperor. Then some cynical forum goer goes "Oh this again, another primarch with daddy issues."

 

GG man, you can't win.

 

There's a difficulty with this topic, and I think I can explain it in two parts.

 

Firstly, narratively-speaking, "just because he's a bad person" is weak writing, and unrealistic. It doesn't happen often, it's awful when it happens in stories, and its lesser cousin "He did it because he was crazy" is just as awful. It's plot spackle, or story polyfilla. It smears over a hole in the plot, in favour of "Just because, okay?". I'm simplifying Pulse's point, but it's a valid stance.

 

Secondly, in that example, the Joker didn't just want to watch the world burn. That was a great soundbite when Alfred says it, but the Joker has reasons for wanting that, and beyond it, he has a very clear modus operandi. He doesn't just want to watch the world burn at all. He wants to show what a joke society is, and how humanity is all barely one step away from seeing things the way he does. His elaborate scheme at the end of the movie is all about that, and he explains it to Batman himself. He works damn hard to make his point.

 

You make a valid and strong point. Sure it is lazy to say "he did because he was crazy", but that does simplify the issue a little. It's entriely possible, in my opinion, to have a nasty, crazy character who DOES do the bad things because he is simply that bad, but have the depth and strong narrative by not providing that character's perspective. Instead you use a different character's perspective living (and suffering) in his shadow.

 

I dunno, to me it could work just the once. You can have depth and still be an evil character for the sake of evil. The Walking Dude from The Stand is an example of an interesting character who is just plain bad.

 

I'm not cricising your work, or that of your colleagues, please don't think that. If I was half the writer you were I'd be a happy chappy. I was just pointing out there is a strong narrative leading to sympathy to characters who are or go on to, murder many innocents. I'd like to see a character to counter balance this.

[Pulse]

There's a difficulty with this topic, and I think I can explain it in two parts.

 

Firstly, narratively-speaking, "just because he's a bad person" is weak writing, and unrealistic. It doesn't happen often, it's awful when it happens in stories, and its lesser cousin "He did it because he was crazy" is just as awful. It's plot spackle, or story polyfilla. It smears over a hole in the plot, in favour of "Just because, okay?". I'm simplifying Pulse's point, but it's a valid stance.

 

Secondly, in that example, the Joker didn't just want to watch the world burn. That was a great soundbite when Alfred says it, but the Joker has reasons for wanting that, and beyond it, he has a very clear modus operandi. He doesn't just want to watch the world burn at all. He wants to show what a joke society is, and how humanity is all barely one step away from seeing things the way he does. His elaborate scheme at the end of the movie is all about that, and he explains it to Batman himself. He works damn hard to make his point.

Yeah i know what Alfred said it and i know what the Joker did in the film as well.

 

My point is, why are there no actual bad guys in 40k? So far all i have seen are weak willed and dispirited Primarchs, even the so called "evil" Primarch, Curze, is nothing more than a paranoid idiot, there isn't anything remotely "evil" quite frankly he is boring, even though i did like the descriptions of him in your books Soul Hunter and Blood Reaver.

 

There are plenty of people in todays world that actually enjoy killing, I can even attest to that myself being in the army, the very primal thrill of the hunt, the adrenaline rush, the hightened senses, the fact you know you can actually die at any point, the fire fights, the smell of blood and finally the satisfaction of a job well done. It is addictive. To many that is dark and even quite disturbing but quite frankly it is part of human nature.

 

40k needs more of that, especially when it comes to some of the Primarchs turning from the Emperor, because so far the Primarchs have turned bcause of some very crappy reasons.

[Marshal Rohr]

Dont Daemons qualify as pure evil?

[Pulse]

Dont Daemons qualify as pure evil?

Have you read how they are in 40k? Quite frankly they should be almost unstoppable enmasse or at least vulnerable only to Librarians or a relic blade. A bolter killing a daemon and sending it back into the warp? As if.

[Doghouse]

I agree i think that is missing completely, it seems to be the writers are turning away from what was for many, a dark storyline, to something that isn't out of place in a early-teen novel. I am actually half expecting to read a Primarch that has all of the features of Edward Cullen from Twilight and has some sort of love interest with a Silent Sister that the Emperor finds out about and forbids the relationship, causing the Primarch to throw a teenage strop and becomes an Anarchist.

 

That's the reason we'll never know what happened to the second and eleventh legion.

 

For me it's always been more of a mythology than a true to life account, it's more about the joint corruption of perfection and the ideal of truth in my eyes rather than trying to apply real world psychology to the actions of the characters but can understand why people could see that differently.

[Luna Drake]

Not to be a pain but I really like how the HH novels are going fave character so far

Magnus as he did what he thought was best by trying to warn his father by breaking the edict of Nikea and accepted his punishment but changed his mind as he witnessed the destruction his brothers legion unleashed upon prospero :blink:

so far the one problem I have is Black Library doing special editions which means I miss stuff which will probably pop up later. ;)

[Greyall]

@Pulse: Of course there are bad guys in 40K. What do you call someone who kills a world to vanquish his brethren's armies? When I hear about people who have the best reasons for doing awful things, I remember all the others who endure hardships and tons of crap because they know turning against their equals wouldn't do much in that case. It's not about fighting for freedom for any of the traitor Primarchs. Lorgar came the closest to that concept, but the fact is he was just too afraid of dealing with a reality different from the one he envisioned - plus, he resorted to daemons. It was a personal war that condemned billions of humans to death, with the added spice of corruption by Chaos. That was evil. Really evil. They thought their ambitions, religious beliefs, grudes and resentments were worth all those lifes and the best chance humanity would ever have to prosper in a f**ed up universe.

 

Look at Dorn. He and his Legion commanded the palace defense and were rewarded with the obligation to split from their brothers. His solution...to go on a penitence rampage that ended in a slaughterhouse made by Perturabo. He had reasons to resent the Imperium, yet he chose to overcome his dangerous feelings. That puts him head and shoulders above the traitors, in my opinion.

[Biaz]

I don't believe it was the Primarchs who are "evil" because, like you say, they all have a reason, an excuse. It is their warriors- those soldiers who saw where their Primarch and legion were headed, and went with it, because it suited their desires, ambitions and personalities- who posses the evil and malice you crave. They didn't have to join their Primarch, as we all know, some did not, and were largely obliterated. It's not in the Primarchs where you'll find the selfishness, greed and evil; it's in characters like Abaddon, Khârn and Bile who turn not for feelings of abandonment, rejection or the grandiose plans of saving the galaxy, but because they can, and this change gives them the freedom to give in to their basest desires and ambitions.

[Greyall]

The best excuse doesn't erase an evil action...And, apart from some exceptions (like the Word Bearers, in which Erebus and Kor Phaeron guided their Primarch towards rebellion), the Heresy was carried out by the Chaos Gods and Primarchs. Of course the Marines followed them, they were made (literally) to be team players, to embody their Legion's and Primarch's spirit and view the Emperor and the Imperium as the ultimate goal. Of course, most of these Marines chose the Legions over the Imperium.

[Dinks]

Of course the Marines followed them, they were made (literally) to be team players, to embody their Legion's and Primarch's spirit

Apart from the Marines in a Legion before their respective Primarchs were actually found, they tend to be different in attitude and character compared to the Marines created after the Primarch was found.

[Billuriye]

Apart from the Marines in a Legion before their respective Primarchs were actually found, they tend to be different in attitude and character compared to the Marines created after the Primarch was found.

 

I think that's random. Their human ancestry and random geneseed genetics are more important here rather than being created before or after Primarch found.

[Walter Payton]

Its like being an atheist, by denying a higher power you inherently admit there is a higher power to deny.

 

I might just be being thick, but I don't understand what you mean by this. Are you saying that disbelief in something is evidence for its existence?

[The Emperor's Champion]

Its like being an atheist, by denying a higher power you inherently admit there is a higher power to deny.

 

I might just be being thick, but I don't understand what you mean by this. Are you saying that disbelief in something is evidence for its existence?

That appears to be what he's saying.

And no, that doesn't make any sense.

 

There are no dragons. <---Therefore I think there are dragons? WTH?

That's not how logic works!

[sponsra]

The best excuse doesn't erase an evil action...

 

Yes!

 

The fact that someone has a reason or motif for performing evil actions doesn´t make the actions themselves not evil. Even if you would have a character that did evil deeds just out of greed or anger, there would still be a reason for that characters being greedy/angry. What do we do inte face of evil, how do we process horrbile things? Well, one trick is to distance yourself from the terror by naming it "evil". For me, whenever I see horribel things on tv (like the terrorattack in Norway, recently) I get annoyed that they mostlly report on the deed itself. For me it eases my fear and horror of what I see if I get to know the "why"...

[Valtonis]

evil is determined by the morality of a society.

it differs according to the ethics and morals that govern said society.

for example, the mayan society accepts human sacrifices and so it is not seen to be evil but in todays society it would be deemed evil.

same deal with cannabalism.

 

but in general, evil things have something in common, that is self over society.

if an act benefits oneself but at a cost to others and/or society it would be seen as evil.

but there will be a conflict when different ideals collide

 

Human history is full of violence and atrocity committed on behalf of "good" against people categorized as "evil."

no "evil" person in history sees himself/herself as evil.

People intoxicated by their own self-righteousness or who believe in their own intrinsic moral superiority too easily give themselves permission to do terrible things to those they hate or fear.

 

but again this is more towards the western ideas and interpretation

 

no one is evil or good.

there is just action and reaction; cause and effect

 

most western religions preach that evil is an external force that seduces man to commit evil deeds but Buddhism teaches us that evil is something we create, not something we are or some outside force that infects us.

and sorting people into categories is the first step to suffering

[Pulse]

evil is determined by the morality of a society.

it differs according to the ethics and morals that govern said society.

Indeed, personally i don't find anything evil.

 

I see the dark side of human nature as just that, a side of humanity, one side of many, nothing more nothing less.

[Grandmaster Anaziel]

evil is determined by the morality of a society.

it differs according to the ethics and morals that govern said society.

Indeed, personally i don't find anything evil.

 

I see the dark side of human nature as just that, a side of humanity, one side of many, nothing more nothing less.

I disagree, people have demonstrated throughout history that they can and will be truly monstrous to one another. Genocide and mass slaughter are very clearly evil. There's no justifying anything of that nature.

Unfortunately, the capacity to do evil is a real part of human nature. That's partly why I like Magnus the Red, he did truly have a sense(flawed as it was) of morality. He tried to save as much as destroy.

 

I also agree with the opener that many of the primarchs are being presented in an apologetic light.

Take Leman Russ for example.(have to cut the traitors some slack XD) He IMHO is a monster. He would kill every single living thing in existence if the Emperor told him to. He's an awesomely powerful and cool warrior but a monster none the less. But his truly terrifying nature does not really come across(as much as I think it could've) in either PB or TS.

[Pulse]

I disagree, people have demonstrated throughout history that they can and will be truly monstrous to one another. Genocide and mass slaughter are very clearly evil. There's no justifying anything of that nature.

Unfortunately, the capacity to do evil is a real part of human nature. That's partly why I like Magnus the Red, he did truly have a sense(flawed as it was) of morality. He tried to save as much as destroy.

You class it is as evil because society does.

 

Go back to the Roman era for example (one of many) and things like mass slaughter were celebrated at certain points, times and culture change, thus effecting how people think.

 

Go forward even further to 40k and the whole galaxy is fighting in one on going war, most people will see (or hear about) death, genocide and war constantly and so be far less emotional because of it, to a degree.

[Grandmaster Anaziel]

I disagree, people have demonstrated throughout history that they can and will be truly monstrous to one another. Genocide and mass slaughter are very clearly evil. There's no justifying anything of that nature.

Unfortunately, the capacity to do evil is a real part of human nature. That's partly why I like Magnus the Red, he did truly have a sense(flawed as it was) of morality. He tried to save as much as destroy.

You class it is as evil because society does.

 

Go back to the Roman era for example (one of many) and things like mass slaughter were celebrated at certain points, times and culture change, thus effecting how people think.

 

Go forward even further to 40k and the whole galaxy is fighting in one on going war, most people will see (or hear about) death, genocide and war constantly and so be far less emotional because of it, to a degree.

I class it as evil because human life has value.

As I said, the capacity for evil is unfortunately part of human nature.

As you say many societies and groups throughout history have justified in their own minds genocide and and other atrocities. However, the fact that people think actions or ideas are correct does not make them correct or right.

The Earth being flat is a humorous example.

 

I also agree that the people of 40k have been desensitized to many varying grotesqueries.

However, I think that simply adds to the tragic nature of 40k.