Master of Mankind...on the horizon?

[MrDarth151]

Right now, pre MoM, the Emperor is an idiot. He has made multiple ':cuss are you thinking' errors and they have yet to be illuminated to any satisfactory degree.

Maybe, but you'll have a hard time fitting all of the "Well, actually..." explanations into a single book. And that assumes your perception of his "incompetence" matches everyone else's. For my part, I really don't tend to understand why people double down on it so much.

And even if you did cover everything, people will still come at it with their own biases and beliefs (or, even more tediously, accuse you of retconning it, like with Abaddon). The best example, actually, being Abaddon and the Black Crusades. Look at that colossal misunderstanding in the fandom. Can you imagine how hard that is to explain to people that just read the lore and don't go on the forums and Facebook groups?

"They think Abaddon is a failure."

"But there's never been anything published anything that says that."

"No, but they think he's failed to get to Terra thirteen times."

"But a Black Crusade isn't about attacking Terra itself. The scale of the galaxy makes that impossible. Don't they read the lore?"

"Sure they do, we all do, but..."

"Are you joking here, Aaron? It's always been said he's the name whispered in terror across the galaxy. He's the thematic Antichrist of the setting, the inheritor of Evil, the Lucifer coming back to accuse his godlike Father."

"They just see that Horus reached Terra and Abaddon hasn't."

"But Horus had half of the Imperium's resources and the element of surprise. Abaddon has started with nothing. Don't they know how the Chaos Legions work? Uniting them is a Big Deal. That's always been said."

"Well, I'm going to blame both sides here..."

Don't get me wrong, the multifaceted way of seeing the setting is one of its great strengths, but it's when people forget that it's written specifically that way, where things start to go wrong. I presume I've read the same lore on the Emperor as you (i.e. all of it so far) and at no point do I think things like "He's incompetent". Just like I don't think "Abaddon is a failure" or "The Wolves and/or the Thousand Sons are objectively correct" since they're both wrong.

Like I said, it took me a while to really grasp why "the internet" mistook Abaddon as a failure, but that had some precedent beyond the memes in terms of how he'd been presented. Even then, I've had a hell of a time explaining it to people that don't go on the forums much and just read the lore. I don't really see it with the Emperor in the same way - and I think this is largely because everyone expects different things from him, and that his "perfection" means something different to everyone.

But I don't get what he's done that's so idiotic. I haven't even made him do anything new (he always chastised Lorgar; he always teleported Angron away and engendered that bitterness in Angron's heart because of it) yet I see people once in a while saying I've helped reinforce the Emperor being "incompetent".

He's Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar and Genghis Khan and Albert Einstein and every other military and scientific genius rolled into one, basically. From everything in the lore, he can be cold, distant, detached, distracted... He's the emperor of a species, not Han Solo, smirking and charming people and being super-cool. 40K is glorious because everyone sees a different thing when they look at it, but this one has honestly mystified me for a while. What is it that's so incompetent about him? Why do some people expect him to be perfect, and others see things only from the POV of those that consider themselves wronged by him?

I think this is part of my general approach to 40K, though. I'm always mystified when people can take sides and see one as objectively right or better than another. There's supposed to be compelling (or at least convincing) arguments for both sides. I try to make people see that Lorgar had a point for feeling the way he does and doing what he did, and the same for Angron, but those are perspectives in response to the endless accusations those characters have dealt with, for years, that they were simply "emo" or whatever other nonsense insecure men and boys level at characters who have any emotion beyond Manly Tears and Stoic Vengeance.

The most common one I see is "Why didn't he tell the primarchs about Chaos?" when he obviously did, since the Imperium functions with astropaths (to speak psychically through the warp), Navigators (to guide through the daemon-infested warp), warp drives (...), Gellar Fields (to stop daemons breaking in and eating everyone in the warp), and Horus literally explains what daemons are in the first book of the series. He just calls them by a different noun.

But that's the thing. Why is it supposed to be so obvious that "It could all have been avoided if he'd just told the primarchs about the Chaos Gods"? That assumes they *are* gods. Are they? Or are they malignant other-reality entities formed from the psychic 'stuff' of the warp? He told Magnus to be careful in the warp, and Magnus promptly wasn't. He said it was dangerous, but nope, Magnus knew better.

This is the big one, really. We know the setting. We know that ignorance is the only thing keeping the Imperium functioning. We know that ignorance of Chaos is a massive, massive, vital undertaking for the Imperium (populations are executed and planets destroyed for even learning about it) and that when people know about Chaos, it makes things worse. We know that the more someone knows about Chaos, the easier it is for Chaos to enter them, and enter reality through them. Knowledge doesn't equal safety and freedom from ignorance - knowledge in this setting puts you in the firing line. That's an eternal truth. This is a setting that venerates phrases like "An open mind is a fortress with its gates unguarded and unbarred." We know that, and always have. That's what the setting is.

And we know so much about the primarchs now. How can anyone think they'd be more reliable, more useful, more worthy and less prone to instability, if they just knew a tiny bit more? They're a pantheon of Greek Gods, fer Chrissakes. They're mythological embodiments of humanity's virtues and flaws. How is the issue with the guy that isn't showing them enough fatherly love?

"Okay, 18 god-beings. If you pray to these 4 super-aliens, they'll give you whatever you want and save your lives at dangerous moments, but I promise it'll come back to bite you on the ass, so don't do it, no matter what."

...hmm, I suspect that wouldn't have ended well, either. It isn't like human mythology is littered with tales of wishes coming true with bad side-effects or any roads to Hell being paved with good intentions.

This is stuff that's always struck me as so obvious that, well, putting it into a book would almost be like spoonfeeding readers. The same reason I don't want Abaddon to sit down with Khayon and say "Well, actually, Khayon, I've totes succeeded in all my goals so far and anyone who says my crusades have failed is silly. Here's a list of my achievements and justifications for what looked like failures."

Don't get me wrong, a fair bit of this is in the book, because it had to be. I'm not saying he didn't make mistakes, or whatever else. I'm definitely not saying he's perfect, because even a cursory glance at the lore shows he's not.

But I wouldn't approach it from the POV of "This will answer all of those things about the Emperor's behaviour where he was incompetent", because that's the same as "This book will answer everything about Abaddon being a failure". That would be coming at it from the wrong angle to begin with, and then expecting that bias to be justified.

Apologies if that got long, but obviously this is something I tend to devote a fair amount of time thinking about with each novel.

Need. Spoilers. Now.

I say this with complete seriousness, not being entirely sure what the "clues" mentioned might be, that if you know the lore about the Emperor and the Webway from Horus Heresy: Collected Visions, then you have over 90% of the spoilers for the novel.

The people that hate this book the most will be the "reading the novels for information" types (especially on /tg/) who won't find immense revelations on the exact indisputable origins of the Emperor, or how Custodians are made, or anything like that. That's the kind of stuff that I directly avoided saying.

I didn't rewrite the history of the Night Lords in the Night Lords Trilogy. I didn't change up Armageddon in Heslreach or redefine the World Eaters with loads of secrets revealed in Betrayer. I tend to look at The Master of Mankind in those terms. Illuminating things on the ground level, through characters' eyes, not rewriting the event itself.

(...though, yes, there's a lot about the Emperor in it.)

Really? Personally, I would find myself hating the book a lot more if I would not like the characterisation of the Emperor and his Custodians, rather than being angry about the lack of revelations. Emperor works better with mysteries involved.

Which is one of the reasons I personally dread that book. Having read both The First Heretic and Betrayer, the image of The Emperor in my mind, when written by you, is that of an incompetent , too lacking in intelligence and charisma to conquer Terra, much less the galaxy.

If we get more of that, I do not think I am going to enjoy the novel very much.

Firstly, that isn't what I said. I explained the demographic that would hate it the most, not "There will be no other reasons for it be disliked" or "These will be the only people to hate the book."

Secondly, you registered on a website just to make that point and say you dislike my work in the past, so... let's be honest, you're not presenting an image of someone who would like it even if it was the best book in the series. Spoiler: people registering on websites to insult an author's work with their first and only post aren't usually doing it from an open mind and a willingness to discuss things. A longstanding internet truth, there.

Thirdly, I agree. That's what would make me hate a book most, too. We share a viewpoint, there.

All that said, welcome to the B&C! It's a killer place, and I hope you enjoy your stay.

Hmm. I suppose I should elaborate on that point.

Firstly: I do not dislike your work. I do, however, dislike you portrayl of The Emperor and I shall elaborate on the reasons why in a moment. I do not believe that any work is inherently bad, nor do I approach them with closed mind, because that would be stupid. I value honesty. I would not tell you that I've enjoyed particular parts of your work when I did not, nor would I tell you that I think particular parts of your work work, when I think they do not. That would be not only dishonest, but just as pointless as mindless hating. Discussion should be had, and criticism should be constructive. It's an approach I take when it comes to writing, any writing, my own included.

Also, joining the forum just to post a complaint at you would be hillariously counter-productive when you are here, responding and all. I enjoy exchange of thoughts much more than I do just preaching.

Secondly: The Emperor. Let us talk about him, for a moment, and why I think your portrayl does disservice to the man. And that might take a while, so bear with me here.

I do not believe that The Emperor of Mankind, belowed by all, is inherently incompetent. I believe he is still human, beneath all of his power, and thus capable of making mistakes, and did horrible things because they were necessary. I also believe that the way you have portrayed him in the past makes him look less competent than he was portrayed beforehand. You elaborate on the scenes, and you make him... well, callous and stupid might be too strong choice of words, but not by much.

The devil is in the details. Compare how Collected Visions portrays the chastisement of Lorgar, and how you do so. When The Emperor chastises Lorgar in Collected Visions, it seems like a private affair between father and son. No mention of the Legion being present is given, and The Emperor's motivation are threefold: Lorgar is lax in his military duties, due to building his worlds full of faith. Lorgar creates cult of The Emperor, who does not wish to be worshipped, prefering enlightment and science. Lorgar and his Legion murder innocent people for refusing to convert, kill people not devout enough to their little cult and punish entire worlds for not showing sufficient piety. He chastises him, and commands him to follow Guilliman's example.

Contrast this with the First Heretic. It is somewhat ironic that you quote The Prince in the beginning, because Machiavelli also told rulers to never punish their men excessively and leave them alive to cause further problems in the future. Which would make dear old Niccolo a better politician than The Emperor of Mankind, because damn is Monarchia pointlessly excessive. By all accounts, if one only read The First Heretic, it is nearly impossible to view Lorgar as not being in the right. His less than glamorous deeds in spreading his faith in the Emperor are omitted. The citezens of Monarchia, whom we have no reason to consider anything but innocent, if fanatical in their faith, are displaced from their homes, their city razed to ash just to make a point, their ultimate fate left ambigious enough that I've known people that read the book and argued that Ultramarines left them to starve in the desert. Cyrene, who is presented as a point of view character that readers are to be sympathethic towards, is crippled by the barrage. Then the Word Bearers arrive, and are forced against their will to kneel in the ashes of their city, and told that they are failures as servants of The Emperor, solely on the basis of their faith and slowness in conquest, in front of Guilliman and his Ultramarines, no less. And then we learn that The Emperor, according to Lorgar, made no effort to chastise him or stop him in any way in over a century. Do I even need to point out how this sounds? That He, after a century of having in no way criticised for his ways, just decides to put a massive display seemingly just to humiliate him and his legion seemingly at random? Why does The Emperor of Mankind shows less skill in management of his resources than your average XXth century corporate manager? Lorgar flaunted Imperial standards of compliance for over a century. Most people can get fired from their jobs for poor conduct in less than a month. Can you honestly tell me that all of that does not speak poorly of his abilities to you?

I do not believe that The Emperor of Mankind should be pointlessly cruel. I do not believe that he should commit mistakes that has been decried by theoretics and practicioners of politics for over five hundred centuries. I do not believe that he should be outdone by people doing their job correctly in our age. It simply stretches my suspension of disbelief to the point of breaking, because his achievements massively dwarf people of our age. That is simply my stance on it. In similar manner, I dislike McNeill's The Last Church, because I've known Thomists that would have absolutly destroyed him in a debate if he used the same arguments.

The same in Betrayer. The core remains the same, but details change and so does our perception. Angron is taken from his warriors who die on the battlefield, and that would have been enough, but it is once again taken one step further, and he actually knows that Angron is dying and will continue to degenerate mentally, but hides that knowledge from everyone, and he makes him leader of a Legion anyways. There is even a change from previously established lore that serves to make him more callous: The World Eaters are present at Nuceria and forbidden by Him to aid Angron and his men, when Matthew Farrer already written that they were in the mustering docks at Vueron when the news of Primarch's recovery arrived.

In all honesty, I cannot, in clear concience, say that I like your portrayl of The Emperor thus far. It, I swear upon the Golden Throne of Terra, feels as if you are making him deliberatly more callous and more stupid than he is in any other portrayl, to make Word Bearers and World Eaters more justified. I do not know if you intended it like this, but nonetheless, it is the feeling that I get whenever The Emperor gets a place within your storylines.

So, that's my point and my thoughts on the matter. I would deeply appreciate a counter-point; is there something I missed in my readings and intepretations?

[Scribe]

ADB didn't make emperor look like anything but what he's been in the fluff since the old IA articles.

[Zeratil]

 

 

The devil is in the details. Compare how Collected Visions portrays the chastisement of Lorgar, and how you do so. When The Emperor chastises Lorgar in Collected Visions, it seems like a private affair between father and son. No mention of the Legion being present is given, and The Emperor's motivation are threefold: Lorgar is lax in his military duties, due to building his worlds full of faith. Lorgar creates cult of The Emperor, who does not wish to be worshipped, prefering enlightment and science. Lorgar and his Legion murder innocent people for refusing to convert, kill people not devout enough to their little cult and punish entire worlds for not showing sufficient piety. He chastises him, and commands him to follow Guilliman's example. 

 

Contrast this with the First Heretic. It is somewhat ironic that you quote The Prince in the beginning, because Machiavelli also told rulers to never punish their men excessively and leave them alive to cause further problems in the future. Which would make dear old Niccolo a better politician than The Emperor of Mankind, because damn is Monarchia pointlessly excessive. By all accounts, if one only read The First Heretic, it is nearly impossible to view Lorgar as not being in the right. His less than glamorous deeds in spreading his faith in the Emperor are omitted. The citezens of Monarchia, whom we have no reason to consider anything but innocent, if fanatical in their faith, are displaced from their homes, their city razed to ash just to make a point, their ultimate fate left ambigious enough that I've known people that read the book and argued that Ultramarines left them to starve in the desert. Cyrene, who is presented as a point of view character that readers are to be sympathethic towards, is crippled by the barrage. Then the Word Bearers arrive, and are forced against their will to kneel in the ashes of their city, and told that they are failures as servants of The Emperor, solely on the basis of their faith and slowness in conquest, in front of Guilliman and his Ultramarines, no less. And then we learn that The Emperor, according to Lorgar, made no effort to chastise him or stop him in any way in over a century. Do I even need to point out how this sounds? That He, after a century of having in no way criticised for his ways, just decides to put a massive display seemingly just to humiliate him and his legion seemingly at random? Why does The Emperor of Mankind shows less skill in management of his resources than your average XXth century corporate manager? Lorgar flaunted Imperial standards of compliance for over a century. Most people can get fired from their jobs for poor conduct in less than a month. Can you honestly tell me that all of that does not speak poorly of his abilities to you? 

 

I do not believe that The Emperor of Mankind should be pointlessly cruel. I do not believe that he should commit mistakes that has been decried by theoretics and practicioners of politics for over five hundred centuries. I do not believe that he should be outdone by people doing their job correctly in our age. It simply stretches my suspension of disbelief to the point of breaking, because his achievements massively dwarf people of our age. That is simply my stance on it. In similar manner, I dislike McNeill's The Last Church, because I've known Thomists that would have absolutly destroyed him in a debate if he used the same arguments.

 

The same in Betrayer. The core remains the same, but details change and so does our perception. Angron is taken from his warriors who die on the battlefield, and that would have been enough, but it is once again taken one step further, and he actually knows that Angron is dying and will continue to degenerate mentally, but hides that knowledge from everyone, and he makes him leader of a Legion anyways. There is even a change from previously established lore that serves to make him more callous: The World Eaters are present at Nuceria and forbidden by Him to aid Angron and his men, when Matthew Farrer already written that they were in the mustering docks at Vueron when the news of Primarch's recovery arrived.

 

In all honesty, I cannot, in clear concience, say that I like your portrayl of The Emperor thus far. It, I swear upon the Golden Throne of Terra, feels as if you are making him deliberatly more callous and more stupid than he is in any other portrayl, to make Word Bearers and World Eaters more justified. I do not know if you intended it like this, but nonetheless, it is the feeling that I get whenever The Emperor gets a place within your storylines.

 

So, that's my point and my thoughts on the matter. I would deeply appreciate a counter-point; is there something I missed in my readings and intepretations?

 

  Does First Heretic definitively say Lorgar had never been chastised for his belief before? I always thought the passage in HH Bk II gave some explaination:

 

"Once the truth was revealed, it was only a matter of time before the Emperor would be moved to censure the Word Bearers. The links of Cause and Effect are poorly recorded, but it seems that the Emperor waited some time after the the initial reports reached his court. That he sent missions to assay many more worlds conquered by the Word Bearers is known. We can only speculate as to why: perhaps he did not want to believe it of his son, perhaps he wanted to be sure, perhaps he was simply gathering information before acting. Some sources indicate that the Emperor confronted Lorgar during this time, that he even told him that if he persisted he would have to suffer the consequences. We cannot know if this is true, too much has been forgotten, and too much more must never be remembered."

 

 

As for the 'Failbaddon' and 'The Emperor is Incompetent' lines, I think Prot and Augustus summed up the more reasonable fan/forum side of things rather well. I'd add that the nature of Warhammer canon and it's looseness, combined with there being so much retelling of the same events, that not everyone will have access to (especially the really old background books) there's always going to be some confusion and taking of sides. I know ADB has said that he doesn't really have much in the way of favourites among the legions, but many people do, and that means many people want their group to be 'right' which leads them to support ancillary arguments that support that view. Aaaand a lot of it is just chatting on the internet over and over again about something for which little new information is published given the timescales involved - even with the excellent recent works throwing new light on old debates.

 

 As for the Emperor being cruel, I've always thought of it as being a side-effect of what he believes needs to be done - it is the 40k universe after all, it's just not a great place to be and the odds are always stacked against the Emperor and chaos-free humanity at large. He's not wantonly cruel, but neither is he omniscient. I've honestly always believed that the Emperor is fundamentally afraid. Afraid that he won't succeed and that humanity will be destroyed despite his efforts. Fear is a powerful motivator, but it affects your actions. I feel that the Emperor fears exactly what happened with Magnus above all, that some effort, taken with the best of intentions by one of his sons, will ruin his plans because of the schemes of the Chaos Gods. From that perspective something like Lorgar converting populations to the belief of any God, even a God-Emperor is incredibly dangerous. Look to 40k for all the examples of the Imperial Faith being corrupted, supplanted or taken advantage of to pursue another goals - such as the four-armed Emperor, various heretical cults and sects as well as full blown chaos cults.

[Marshal Rohr]

 

 

Contrast this with the First Heretic. It is somewhat ironic that you quote The Prince in the beginning, because Machiavelli also told rulers to never punish their men excessively and leave them alive to cause further problems in the future. Which would make dear old Niccolo a better politician than The Emperor of Mankind, because damn is Monarchia pointlessly excessive. By all accounts, if one only read The First Heretic, it is nearly impossible to view Lorgar as not being in the right. His less than glamorous deeds in spreading his faith in the Emperor are omitted. The citezens of Monarchia, whom we have no reason to consider anything but innocent, if fanatical in their faith, are displaced from their homes, their city razed to ash just to make a point, their ultimate fate left ambigious enough that I've known people that read the book and argued that Ultramarines left them to starve in the desert. Cyrene, who is presented as a point of view character that readers are to be sympathethic towards, is crippled by the barrage. Then the Word Bearers arrive, and are forced against their will to kneel in the ashes of their city, and told that they are failures as servants of The Emperor, solely on the basis of their faith and slowness in conquest, in front of Guilliman and his Ultramarines, no less. And then we learn that The Emperor, according to Lorgar, made no effort to chastise him or stop him in any way in over a century. Do I even need to point out how this sounds? That He, after a century of having in no way criticised for his ways, just decides to put a massive display seemingly just to humiliate him and his legion seemingly at random? Why does The Emperor of Mankind shows less skill in management of his resources than your average XXth century corporate manager? Lorgar flaunted Imperial standards of compliance for over a century. Most people can get fired from their jobs for poor conduct in less than a month. Can you honestly tell me that all of that does not speak poorly of his abilities to you?

 

Bold:IIRC, Machiavelli was talking about excessively punishing a conquered people, which is an entirely different scenario. Tough in war, magnanimous with your forgiveness is Machiavelli, too. I think you may be confusing 'better to kill an enemy and let him come back later for revenge', but also in the book he talks about making friends with your former enemies when you can both mutually benefit. Its the antithesis of Machiavellian Realism to classify anything as absolute, since Realism is entirely based on relativism. That's neither here nor there, because Monarchia wasn't a non-compliant world, it was possibly the exact opposite of non-compliant. It wasn't adhering to the Imperial Truth. The Emperor picked Monarchia precisely because the Word Bearers valued it, like when your parents smash your favorite toy for breaking your sisters. They misbehaved, and they were punished. 

 

 

Italics: We have no way of knowing if the Emperor warned or commanded Lorgar to stop what he was doing. Lorgar has displayed a tendency towards manic episodes, so just because he felt like the Emperor's chastisement came from nowhere, it doesnt actually mean it came from nowhere. Punishment isn't determined by the punished, its determined by Law (or in this case Emperor), so while you personally see this through Lorgar's perspective we don't know if this was run of the mill for how the Emperor punished wayward subjects (the guy created the Night Lords after all). 

 

 

 

 

I do not believe that The Emperor of Mankind should be pointlessly cruel. I do not believe that he should commit mistakes that has been decried by theoretics and practicioners of politics for over five hundred centuries. I do not believe that he should be outdone by people doing their job correctly in our age. It simply stretches my suspension of disbelief to the point of breaking, because his achievements massively dwarf people of our age. That is simply my stance on it. In similar manner, I dislike McNeill's The Last Church, because I've known Thomists that would have absolutly destroyed him in a debate if he used the same arguments.

 

That's a failure on McNeill's part, not the non-specific narrative of the Emperor. While TLC doesnt illustrate it well, the larger 'hard fact' of the in-universe history is the Emperor successfully led an atheistic religious war and managed to suppress all public religious institutions over a thousand years. 

 

 

 

The same in Betrayer. The core remains the same, but details change and so does our perception. Angron is taken from his warriors who die on the battlefield, and that would have been enough, but it is once again taken one step further, and he actually knows that Angron is dying and will continue to degenerate mentally, but hides that knowledge from everyone, and he makes him leader of a Legion anyways. There is even a change from previously established lore that serves to make him more callous: The World Eaters are present at Nuceria and forbidden by Him to aid Angron and his men, when Matthew Farrer already written that they were in the mustering docks at Vueron when the news of Primarch's recovery arrived.

 

The emperor created the Primarchs to be generals, so its understandable he'd take Angron on even if he had an expiration date due to the nails. You still ride old horses. 

[MrDarth151]

ADB didn't make emperor look like anything but what he's been in the fluff since the old IA articles.

 

Could you bring specific examples contradicting what I've said?

 

 

 

 

The devil is in the details. Compare how Collected Visions portrays the chastisement of Lorgar, and how you do so. When The Emperor chastises Lorgar in Collected Visions, it seems like a private affair between father and son. No mention of the Legion being present is given, and The Emperor's motivation are threefold: Lorgar is lax in his military duties, due to building his worlds full of faith. Lorgar creates cult of The Emperor, who does not wish to be worshipped, prefering enlightment and science. Lorgar and his Legion murder innocent people for refusing to convert, kill people not devout enough to their little cult and punish entire worlds for not showing sufficient piety. He chastises him, and commands him to follow Guilliman's example. 

 

Contrast this with the First Heretic. It is somewhat ironic that you quote The Prince in the beginning, because Machiavelli also told rulers to never punish their men excessively and leave them alive to cause further problems in the future. Which would make dear old Niccolo a better politician than The Emperor of Mankind, because damn is Monarchia pointlessly excessive. By all accounts, if one only read The First Heretic, it is nearly impossible to view Lorgar as not being in the right. His less than glamorous deeds in spreading his faith in the Emperor are omitted. The citezens of Monarchia, whom we have no reason to consider anything but innocent, if fanatical in their faith, are displaced from their homes, their city razed to ash just to make a point, their ultimate fate left ambigious enough that I've known people that read the book and argued that Ultramarines left them to starve in the desert. Cyrene, who is presented as a point of view character that readers are to be sympathethic towards, is crippled by the barrage. Then the Word Bearers arrive, and are forced against their will to kneel in the ashes of their city, and told that they are failures as servants of The Emperor, solely on the basis of their faith and slowness in conquest, in front of Guilliman and his Ultramarines, no less. And then we learn that The Emperor, according to Lorgar, made no effort to chastise him or stop him in any way in over a century. Do I even need to point out how this sounds? That He, after a century of having in no way criticised for his ways, just decides to put a massive display seemingly just to humiliate him and his legion seemingly at random? Why does The Emperor of Mankind shows less skill in management of his resources than your average XXth century corporate manager? Lorgar flaunted Imperial standards of compliance for over a century. Most people can get fired from their jobs for poor conduct in less than a month. Can you honestly tell me that all of that does not speak poorly of his abilities to you? 

 

I do not believe that The Emperor of Mankind should be pointlessly cruel. I do not believe that he should commit mistakes that has been decried by theoretics and practicioners of politics for over five hundred centuries. I do not believe that he should be outdone by people doing their job correctly in our age. It simply stretches my suspension of disbelief to the point of breaking, because his achievements massively dwarf people of our age. That is simply my stance on it. In similar manner, I dislike McNeill's The Last Church, because I've known Thomists that would have absolutly destroyed him in a debate if he used the same arguments.

 

The same in Betrayer. The core remains the same, but details change and so does our perception. Angron is taken from his warriors who die on the battlefield, and that would have been enough, but it is once again taken one step further, and he actually knows that Angron is dying and will continue to degenerate mentally, but hides that knowledge from everyone, and he makes him leader of a Legion anyways. There is even a change from previously established lore that serves to make him more callous: The World Eaters are present at Nuceria and forbidden by Him to aid Angron and his men, when Matthew Farrer already written that they were in the mustering docks at Vueron when the news of Primarch's recovery arrived.

 

In all honesty, I cannot, in clear concience, say that I like your portrayl of The Emperor thus far. It, I swear upon the Golden Throne of Terra, feels as if you are making him deliberatly more callous and more stupid than he is in any other portrayl, to make Word Bearers and World Eaters more justified. I do not know if you intended it like this, but nonetheless, it is the feeling that I get whenever The Emperor gets a place within your storylines.

 

So, that's my point and my thoughts on the matter. I would deeply appreciate a counter-point; is there something I missed in my readings and intepretations?

 

  Does First Heretic definitively say Lorgar had never been chastised for his belief before? I always thought the passage in HH Bk II gave some explaination:

 

"Once the truth was revealed, it was only a matter of time before the Emperor would be moved to censure the Word Bearers. The links of Cause and Effect are poorly recorded, but it seems that the Emperor waited some time after the the initial reports reached his court. That he sent missions to assay many more worlds conquered by the Word Bearers is known. We can only speculate as to why: perhaps he did not want to believe it of his son, perhaps he wanted to be sure, perhaps he was simply gathering information before acting. Some sources indicate that the Emperor confronted Lorgar during this time, that he even told him that if he persisted he would have to suffer the consequences. We cannot know if this is true, too much has been forgotten, and too much more must never be remembered."

 

 

As for the 'Failbaddon' and 'The Emperor is Incompetent' lines, I think Prot and Augustus summed up the more reasonable fan/forum side of things rather well. I'd add that the nature of Warhammer canon and it's looseness, combined with there being so much retelling of the same events, that not everyone will have access to (especially the really old background books) there's always going to be some confusion and taking of sides. I know ADB has said that he doesn't really have much in the way of favourites among the legions, but many people do, and that means many people want their group to be 'right' which leads them to support ancillary arguments that support that view. Aaaand a lot of it is just chatting on the internet over and over again about something for which little new information is published given the timescales involved - even with the excellent recent works throwing new light on old debates.

 

 As for the Emperor being cruel, I've always thought of it as being a side-effect of what he believes needs to be done - it is the 40k universe after all, it's just not a great place to be and the odds are always stacked against the Emperor and chaos-free humanity at large. He's not wantonly cruel, but neither is he omniscient. I've honestly always believed that the Emperor is fundamentally afraid. Afraid that he won't succeed and that humanity will be destroyed despite his efforts. Fear is a powerful motivator, but it affects your actions. I feel that the Emperor fears exactly what happened with Magnus above all, that some effort, taken with the best of intentions by one of his sons, will ruin his plans because of the schemes of the Chaos Gods. From that perspective something like Lorgar converting populations to the belief of any God, even a God-Emperor is incredibly dangerous. Look to 40k for all the examples of the Imperial Faith being corrupted, supplanted or taken advantage of to pursue another goals - such as the four-armed Emperor, various heretical cults and sects as well as full blown chaos cults.

 

 

Chapter ten of The First Heretic.

 

 

‘Magnus,’ Lorgar smiled as he saw the emotion on his brother’s face, ‘only the truly divine deny their divinity. It’s written thus in countless human cultures. He never denied his godhood when he first came to Colchis to take me into the stars. You were there. He witnessed weeks of celebrations in his honour, never once rebuking me for lauding him as a god. And since then? He has watched me crusade for him, never saying a word about what I’ve done. Only now, at Monarchia, did he bring down his wrath. When he decided my faith had to be broken, after more than a century.’

 

More than a century. It is part of the reason I cannot take it seriously.

 

On the subject of cruelty: I agree that it might be necessary at times, and there plenty of his morally questionable decision that I think fit this paradigm, because of consequentialist and utilitarian principles of morality.

 

The First Heretic simply pushes it beyond my suspension of disbelief. Century of no criticism at all, followed by at best mass forced deportation, at worst mass murder, just to make a point? How am I suppose to take it seriously? If it was... I dunno, a decade, then yes, we could blame unreliable comms, The Emperor wanting to have more evidence, the day to day business of running the biggest military conquest in the history of mankind alongside with running the said empire would make it more sensible. Century? Lorgar was turning worlds into temples for half of the Great Crusade, and The Emperor didn't say a single word, until he decided to commit a war crime from day to day just to make a point? It begets belief, and that is why I don't think it works.

 

I do hope I will enjoy The Master of Mankind more. I approach the books with open mind; I want it to be good.

[Scribe]

The Emperor did say though to stop? Thats canonical since forever. He had to eventually 'put his foot down' and thats canonical as well as some 'event' in the IA articles shattered Lorgar.

 

Just because we know what that event was, and how extreme it was, doesnt change that 'an event' had to take place.

[MrDarth151]

 

Bold:IIRC, Machiavelli was talking about excessively punishing a conquered people, which is an entirely different scenario. Tough in war, magnanimous with your forgiveness is Machiavelli, too. I think you may be confusing 'better to kill an enemy and let him come back later for revenge', but also in the book he talks about making friends with your former enemies when you can both mutually benefit. Its the antithesis of Machiavellian Realism to classify anything as absolute, since Realism is entirely based on relativism. That's neither here nor there, because Monarchia wasn't a non-compliant world, it was possibly the exact opposite of non-compliant. It wasn't adhering to the Imperial Truth. The Emperor picked Monarchia precisely because the Word Bearers valued it, like when your parents smash your favorite toy for breaking your sisters. They misbehaved, and they were punished.

 

You recall incorrectly, I'm afraid. The chapter on XVII, dealing with the problem of whatever it is better to be loved or feared. Machiavelli says it is best to be both, but since that's more often than not non-achievable, it is better to be feared, but with additional caveat of a prince always being careful as to not become hated.

 

Clearly, The Emperor did not succed in that regard.

 

Somewhat hillariously, Machiavelli specifically warns against destroying or taking away the property, noting that it can cause great hate in subjects of the Prince. Emps should read the book. He could learn a lot from it.

 

 

Italics: We have no way of knowing if the Emperor warned or commanded Lorgar to stop what he was doing. Lorgar has displayed a tendency towards manic episodes, so just because he felt like the Emperor's chastisement came from nowhere, it doesnt actually mean it came from nowhere. Punishment isn't determined by the punished, its determined by Law (or in this case Emperor), so while you personally see this through Lorgar's perspective we don't know if this was run of the mill for how the Emperor punished wayward subjects (the guy created the Night Lords after all).

 

While Lorgar is proned to being unhinged, he also does not appear to be lying. He might be deluded, but that is not the same thing. We have no indication, either from him, nor any other character, that The Emperor's chastisement was something that did not come out of nowhere. If that was the intended reaction, then I do not think the book conveyed it very well, to be perfectly honest.

 

 

That's a failure on McNeill's part, not the non-specific narrative of the Emperor. While TLC doesnt illustrate it well, the larger 'hard fact' of the in-universe history is the Emperor successfully led an atheistic religious war and managed to suppress all public religious institutions over a thousand years.

 

Form, however, is somewhat important to me. It's one of the problems when writing a genius; one should never feel that character that's supposedly magnitudes of intellect above them is in fact less intelligent than an average peer they know.

 

 

The emperor created the Primarchs to be generals, so its understandable he'd take Angron on even if he had an expiration date due to the nails. You still ride old horses.

 

No, that is understable. Why he did not tell anyone, nor put any surveilance on him or limitations on his power over the legion is less so.

 

 

The Emperor did say though to stop? Thats canonical since forever. He had to eventually 'put his foot down' and thats canonical as well as some 'event' in the IA articles shattered Lorgar.

 

Just because we know what that event was, and how extreme it was, doesnt change that 'an event' had to take place.

 

Then you do not understand my complaint. I do not question that the event needed to take place, I say that I did not particulary enjoy the spin ADB put on it, because I feel it lessens the character of The Emperor. Is that more clear?

[Scribe]

Ah yes, thats fine then.

 

IMO though, the Emperor was always that brutal of an individual, and has been characterized as such since the beginning of these books, very early, with The Last Church.

[Taliesin]

Jesus, that was long. 

 

tl;dr -- Yes, some things will be answered and explained. No, not everything. I hope this summation saved you all precious time!

 

Can I ask a simple question? What sort of size is the novel, in terms of hardcover page count?

 

Is it more like FH, which came in at nearly 500 pages and is one of the largest HH Novels?

Or more like Betrayer, which comes in at the HH average of 410 pages.

[Marshal Rohr]

 

 

Bold:IIRC, Machiavelli was talking about excessively punishing a conquered people, which is an entirely different scenario. Tough in war, magnanimous with your forgiveness is Machiavelli, too. I think you may be confusing 'better to kill an enemy and let him come back later for revenge', but also in the book he talks about making friends with your former enemies when you can both mutually benefit. Its the antithesis of Machiavellian Realism to classify anything as absolute, since Realism is entirely based on relativism. That's neither here nor there, because Monarchia wasn't a non-compliant world, it was possibly the exact opposite of non-compliant. It wasn't adhering to the Imperial Truth. The Emperor picked Monarchia precisely because the Word Bearers valued it, like when your parents smash your favorite toy for breaking your sisters. They misbehaved, and they were punished.

 

You recall incorrectly, I'm afraid. The chapter on XVII, dealing with the problem of whatever it is better to be loved or feared. Machiavelli says it is best to be both, but since that's more often than not non-achievable, it is better to be feared, but with additional caveat of a prince always being careful as to not become hated.

 

Clearly, The Emperor did not succed in that regard.

 

Somewhat hillariously, Machiavelli specifically warns against destroying or taking away the property, noting that it can cause great hate in subjects of the Prince. Emps should read the book. He could learn a lot from it.

 

 

Italics: We have no way of knowing if the Emperor warned or commanded Lorgar to stop what he was doing. Lorgar has displayed a tendency towards manic episodes, so just because he felt like the Emperor's chastisement came from nowhere, it doesnt actually mean it came from nowhere. Punishment isn't determined by the punished, its determined by Law (or in this case Emperor), so while you personally see this through Lorgar's perspective we don't know if this was run of the mill for how the Emperor punished wayward subjects (the guy created the Night Lords after all).

 

While Lorgar is proned to being unhinged, he also does not appear to be lying. He might be deluded, but that is not the same thing. We have no indication, either from him, nor any other character, that The Emperor's chastisement was something that did not come out of nowhere. If that was the intended reaction, then I do not think the book conveyed it very well, to be perfectly honest.

 

 

That's a failure on McNeill's part, not the non-specific narrative of the Emperor. While TLC doesnt illustrate it well, the larger 'hard fact' of the in-universe history is the Emperor successfully led an atheistic religious war and managed to suppress all public religious institutions over a thousand years.

 

Form, however, is somewhat important to me. It's one of the problems when writing a genius; one should never feel that character that's supposedly magnitudes of intellect above them is in fact less intelligent than an average peer they know.

 

 

The emperor created the Primarchs to be generals, so its understandable he'd take Angron on even if he had an expiration date due to the nails. You still ride old horses.

 

No, that is understable. Why he did not tell anyone, nor put any surveilance on him or limitations on his power over the legion is less so.

 

 

The Emperor did say though to stop? Thats canonical since forever. He had to eventually 'put his foot down' and thats canonical as well as some 'event' in the IA articles shattered Lorgar.

 

Just because we know what that event was, and how extreme it was, doesnt change that 'an event' had to take place.

 

Then you do not understand my complaint. I do not question that the event needed to take place, I say that I did not particulary enjoy the spin ADB put on it, because I feel it lessens the character of The Emperor. Is that more clear?

 

 

We dont have enough information to know all the details, and we probably wont. ADB wrote a story about Lorgar slipping to Chaos, not the chain of events leading to Monarchia. 

 

@ Machiavelli: You're missing my point. You're first quote said 'punish their men', Machiavelli was talking about a Prince's subjects not his army. The very same passage you're referencing has a section on mercy in moderation where useful, as I pointed out. The Emperor was punishing his army, not Monarchia. Again, realism is amoral and relative to state interest. Machiavelli wouldn't support being cruel if it gains you nothing, which the Emperor was not doing. He was punishing a legion that, in all likelyhood, had been subtly warned about their actions for a century. Lorgar believing the Emperor didn't say anything about it (exposition from Lorgar's own dialogue, therefore subjective) isn't enough information to objectively say it never happened. If the core of your argument revolves around regular dudes alive today being unable to write the dialogue of a Kurzweillian Singularity at the level of a being made of raw psychic energy of ten-thousand shamans with an intellect that far surpasses mortal man, then you will continue to be disappointed, because even if their was some sci-fi savant out there that could, you wouldnt be able to understand it.

 

The fact you describe Monarchia as a 'war crime' makes me think you don't understand the setting. The Imperium is ruled by law, there is no rule of law, its all decided by the Emperor. For something to be a crime, it must be against the law, and if the man the makes the laws orders it to happen - it cannot be a crime. War crimes are not objective, they are constructs of the post-WWII Western International Order, which is why the laws are rarely enforced because states know they can't enforce the law in every situation. 

[Zeratil]

 

 

 

‘Magnus,’ Lorgar smiled as he saw the emotion on his brother’s face, ‘only the truly divine deny their divinity. It’s written thus in countless human cultures. He never denied his godhood when he first came to Colchis to take me into the stars. You were there. He witnessed weeks of celebrations in his honour, never once rebuking me for lauding him as a god. And since then? He has watched me crusade for him, never saying a word about what I’ve done. Only now, at Monarchia, did he bring down his wrath. When he decided my faith had to be broken, after more than a century.’

 

More than a century. It is part of the reason I cannot take it seriously.

 

On the subject of cruelty: I agree that it might be necessary at times, and there plenty of his morally questionable decision that I think fit this paradigm, because of consequentialist and utilitarian principles of morality.

 

The First Heretic simply pushes it beyond my suspension of disbelief. Century of no criticism at all, followed by at best mass forced deportation, at worst mass murder, just to make a point? How am I suppose to take it seriously? If it was... I dunno, a decade, then yes, we could blame unreliable comms, The Emperor wanting to have more evidence, the day to day business of running the biggest military conquest in the history of mankind alongside with running the said empire would make it more sensible. Century? Lorgar was turning worlds into temples for half of the Great Crusade, and The Emperor didn't say a single word, until he decided to commit a war crime from day to day just to make a point? It begets belief, and that is why I don't think it works.

 

I do hope I will enjoy The Master of Mankind more. I approach the books with open mind; I want it to be good.

 

  Fair enough, I would take TFH as being the more 'reliable' source assuming Lorgar is telling the truth - or at least the truth as he saw it. None of us are the bad guys in our own minds after all. I do think that Lorgar is missing the point a little with part of that statement though, I don't feel the Emperor would forcefully come down on a religious element on the homeworld of one of his sons at the moment of re-uniting. Even in peaceful compliances that's the role of the Iterators, not the Emperor or the legions. It's more than reasonable to assume at that point the Emperor 'put up with' any religious celebrations concerning his arrival, with the expectation that his influence and that of the iterators and the Imperial Truth would turn Lorgar, and Colchis, away from religious worship. He has very little reason to dampen the spirit of his recently found son during such a moment of triumph.

 

 Certainly a century is a long time, but in the Emperor's defence he has his own conquests to manage in that time, more Primarchs to find and most of galaxy to conquer. That's before you get to other factors such as the ones you pointed out, time, distance, the need for investigation. Maybe the Emperor wanted to do something earlier, but other matters were more pressing for him. By the time he was ready to deal with the issue, and had the evidence to know that Lorgar's actions had gone beyond acceptability for him, he felt he had no option but to drive the message home with such force. And while the forced evacuation and civilian casualities inflicted on Monarchia might be a war crime by our standards, it's barely a blip even in M30 compared to almost everything the Imperium is doing. I'm sure there were many other worlds just like Monarchia that were considered non-compliant due to some deviance even though they considered themselves part of the Imperium.

[Goonbandito]

I always think of the Emperor as someone who operates and thinks on a fundamentally different level to that of a mortal, a transhuman Space Marine or even a Primarch.  He operates on a 'God' level if you will.  It's why I think His actions can seem so 'obviously' stupid to us when looking at it from the point of view of Lorgar or Magnus or Angron.  To us it seems clear that with a little bit of extra effort the Emperor could have easily handled things differently to prevent Lorgar's seeking of the Primordial Truth, Magnus' dabbling with warp-powers beyond his understanding or helping Angron out with the rage-machine in his head.  But to the Emperor they may well have been insignificant issues, things to look at, resolve and move on because He has far far greater concepts to deal with that demand His attention.  The story of the Emperor I think is about the fallacy and hubris of a God, and how despite being the Master of Mankind He is in fact not really capable of properly dealing with the very people He is purportedly leading. 

 

I like that interpretation because it plays right into the often paradoxical and hypocritical nature of the Imperium in the 40k Universe.  The citizens of the Imperium worship the God-Emperor - a religion that was started by someone who denounced the Emperor and turn to the worship of their greatest Enemy.  The Emperor demands compliance with the Imperial Truth of science and understanding - but builds his empire on the foundation of the Warp itself with the necessity of Navigators, Astropaths and other psykers.  The Great Crusade to lead Humanity into its bright future ends up setting the galaxy in flames and ushering in an all consuming Age of Darkness.

[Sete]

This was some heavy reading this late at night.

Long story short y'all need more Emperor in your life. Heretics.

[Zeratil]

As a slight aside I've always found it very amusing that a lot of what the traitor Primarchs stand for comes true. The Imperium of 40k is ruled based heavily on the fear of retribution (Curze) overwhelming violence (Angron). It needs and requires the extensive training os psykers for communication, travel and as a weapon of war and knowledge (Magnus). And of course it become a theocracy based upon a work written by Lorgar! Honestly if the loyalist primarchs came back in the 41st millennium they could easily believe that the traitors had won!

[Augustus]

Thats the thing. We have Logar saying that. I have nothing but my own imagination, but I always thought that the Emperor was:

 

"Hey these celebrations are nice, but Logar there are no gods."

"No gods but you."

"No, son. There are no gods.

"No gods but you." 

"No, son. I am not a god."

"Got it. No gods but you."

"Look, boy. I just found you. Don't make me have to put a boot up your ass already."

"Okay, okay. You are a 'god'. Better?"

"No."

"Ok. Ok. What about 'ghod'?

"Enjoy your celebrations. I have a galaxy to conquer."

"WAIT! I want to come too!!"

 

Jest. But I always figured the Emperor gave a lot of leeway early on. Logar's world was relatively a primitive planet. Perhaps the Emperor didn't flat out refuse Logar because he was working within the paradigm that was Colchis. Perhaps he thought when Logar saw ships flying across the galaxy Logar would change his mind?

[Marshal Rohr]

Here my angle, ADB doesn't intentionally make people look dumb in his novels. There's things he does I don't agree with narratively, but I'm not a BL author so it doesn't matter. He writes books to feed his family and likes the setting, so it's a double win for him. He's always careful to give both sides a fair shake, even when it ends in a way that makes half the fans mad.

 

To categorize it as carelessly making the emperor look cruel or dumb is disingenuous. I made the mistake once of saying he made Chapters cool in NL2 because he's biased against the heresy and he spanked me for it. If you don't like the result fine, but don't attribute it to malice.

[DarkChaplain]

If you don't like the result fine, but don't attribute it to malice.

 

That's a good rule of thumb in general. A lot of people here "hate" author X for "doing" Y to Legion Z, and will go on forever about said author doing inexplicably evil things to the factions they like. Often it seems like kindergarten level criticism to me, somewhat like temper tantrums.

 

Rarely, if ever, will an author write about a faction and intentionally knock them down out of their own bias. You may not like the direction Gav has taken the Raven Guard, or that McNeill gave the Wolves a thrashing at the end of A Thousand Sons. You may disagree with an author's interpretation of Vulkan, or malign the relevance of books like Pythos. But I very much doubt that *any* author writing for BL the past 10 years has been anything but passionate about what they're writing about, on one level or another.

 

There's no way any author here is out to get back at the fans or a faction and waste months of their lives on writing something out of malicious intent. You may find such people on the chans, social media or the youtube comments, but not in a professional capacity writing for an actual publisher*.

 

 

 

* Well, I might be unsure there as far as Chuck Wendig and Star Wars are concerned. Bloody hell was Aftermath miserable and basically a vehicle for his personal ideologies and agendas. I had a hard time finding passion for Star Wars in his works...

[Mellow]

I think it all boils down to a few simple points:

 

1) The lore is old and in many cases has not been updated beyond being a single sentence about something.

 

2) An author is never going to please everybody.

 

3) It's not real.

[A D-B]

I've already blown a week's worth of forum time in a single morning given various post lengths already, so out of necessity this'll have to be brief. It's a cool side-topic though, so I didn't want to look like I was ignoring it.  

 

I can see Darth's point, though I don't necessarily agree - and it's worth saying that even if I did, I'm not sure I'd be right: the Word Bearers kneeling is probably the scene I've had the most positive reader feedback for in my entire career. Where that's concerned, it's definitely a step up from "The Emperor chastised Lorgar", but that's because we're told in the old lore that Lorgar looked ravaged after his chastisement and needed a month in isolation, unable to do anything or appear in public. Meeting that demand required a scene with symbolic and real impact occur.

 

Added to that, let's be real, here. Monarchia isn't some terribly cruel event that made Lorgar rebel against the Emperor. Lorgar went seeking the truth because of the Emperor's disavowal of divinity, not because "I can't take this humiliation, I think Chaos rocks now instead." I struggle to see it some overly cruel heavy-handed move by the Emperor; these guys are all demigod warlords in the middle of conquering the galaxy and exterminating planetary populations (and entire species) on a monthly basis. It was the kind of stark warning that can easily be seen as tyrannical to 21st Century mindsets, while being Tuesday for the master of an entire galaxy who routinely sends species to extinction because he believes he has to. This isn't even in the Top 50 Major Things the Emperor Did.

 

Guilliman is even there and does... basically nothing. He's not awed and amazed at the situation; he's not trembling with surprise at the indignation of the moment. He's just there, calm and formal, waiting for it to be over. This is a major teachable moment for a Legion, and he's there as an example of a Legion doing its job, no more, no less. Argel Tal and the other characters don't lament it for novels and novels afterwards, either. Most of them never speak of it again, even when they're fighting the Ultramarines they're not banging on about it afterwards, unable to get over it. It was a lecture in a crater, not the beginning of the end.

 

This is one of 'those having your cake and eating it' scenarios, because it was both emotionally devastating in the moment and, frankly, also not that bad in context. He didn't scourge his son before all of the others and spread word that Lorgar was a miserable failure who everyone needed to laugh at, or dissolve the Word Bearers, or send them home with smacked bottoms. He gathered them, dismantled the trophy they'd built to congratulate themselves on a lie, told them to kneel before their king, and told them to stop doing what they were doing, and start behaving like the other Space Marines.

 

It wasn't the event itself that carried any weight with Lorgar, after the emotional turmoil had faded. It was the point of the lesson: the Emperor insisting he wasn't a god. That's what makes Lorgar go in search of the truth. He's not super-sad or humiliated over Monarchia forevermore. He even sends his sons - the ones that can't get over it, the ones "lost to hatred" - to fight/die at Calth, and keeps the majority with him that aren't bitter over it.

 

I see the Word Bearers' censure s a cool, symbolic, and serious gesture in the middle of a galaxy-conquering military movement, not some unreasonable Emperor-based evil incompetence that simply can't be imagined as plausible. I can see why someone might think it's too much, but in context I think it comes across as powerful and plausible rather than anything else. 

 

(Also, directly to Darth, I hope you stay around at the B&C, dude/dudette. It's an awesome forum and detailed analyses/discussions like yours are always welcomed.)

[Taliesin]

Just want to say I agree with all the explanations given for supposed "mishaps" from the Emperor so far.

 

I likewise do not understand what seems like very unreasonable criticism of his actions, by some. 

[HeritorA]

I think it all boils down to a few simple points:

1) The lore is old and in many cases has not been updated beyond being a single sentence about something.

2) An author is never going to please everybody.

3) It's not real.

True. There are no authors in humanity existence who pleased everyone. It's impossible task

I've already blown a week's worth of forum time in a single morning given various post lengths already, so out of necessity this'll have to be brief. It's a cool side-topic though, so I didn't want to look like I was ignoring it.

I can see Darth's point, though I don't necessarily agree - and it's worth saying that even if I did, I'm not sure I'd be right: the Word Bearers kneeling is probably the scene I've had the most positive reader feedback for in my entire career. Where that's concerned, it's definitely a step up from "The Emperor chastised Lorgar", but that's because we're told in the old lore that Lorgar looked ravaged after his chastisement and needed a month in isolation, unable to do anything or appear in public. Meeting that demand required a scene with symbolic and real impact occur.

Added to that, let's be real, here. Monarchia isn't some terribly cruel event that made Lorgar rebel against the Emperor. Lorgar went seeking the truth because of the Emperor's disavowal of divinity, not because "I can't take this humiliation, I think Chaos rocks now instead." I struggle to see it some overly cruel heavy-handed move by the Emperor; these guys are all demigod warlords in the middle of conquering the galaxy and exterminating planetary populations (and entire species) on a monthly basis. It was the kind of stark warning that can easily be seen as tyrannical to 21st Century mindsets, while being Tuesday for the master of an entire galaxy who routinely sends species to extinction because he believes he has to. This isn't even in the Top 50 Major Things the Emperor Did.

Guilliman is even there and does... basically nothing. He's not awed and amazed at the situation; he's not trembling with surprise at the indignation of the moment. He's just there, calm and formal, waiting for it to be over. This is a major teachable moment for a Legion, and he's there as an example of a Legion doing its job, no more, no less. Argel Tal and the other characters don't lament it for novels and novels afterwards, either. Most of them never speak of it again, even when they're fighting the Ultramarines they're not banging on about it afterwards, unable to get over it. It was a lecture in a crater, not the beginning of the end.

This is one of 'those having your cake and eating it' scenarios, because it was both emotionally devastating in the moment and, frankly, also not that bad in context. He didn't scourge his son before all of the others and spread word that Lorgar was a miserable failure who everyone needed to laugh at, or dissolve the Word Bearers, or send them home with smacked bottoms. He gathered them, dismantled the trophy they'd built to congratulate themselves on a lie, told them to kneel before their king, and told them to stop doing what they were doing, and start behaving like the other Space Marines.

It wasn't the event itself that carried any weight with Lorgar, after the emotional turmoil had faded. It was the point of the lesson: the Emperor insisting he wasn't a god. That's what makes Lorgar go in search of the truth. He's not super-sad or humiliated over Monarchia forevermore. He even sends his sons - the ones that can't get over it, the ones "lost to hatred" - to fight/die at Calth, and keeps the majority with him that aren't bitter over it.

I see the Word Bearers' censure s a cool, symbolic, and serious gesture in the middle of a galaxy-conquering military movement, not some unreasonable Emperor-based evil incompetence that simply can't be imagined as plausible. I can see why someone might think it's too much, but in context I think it comes across as powerful and plausible rather than anything else.

(Also, directly to Darth, I hope you stay around at the B&C, dude/dudette. It's an awesome forum and detailed analyses/discussions like yours are always welcomed.)

What A D-B said. Strangely (for myself ) I agree with his each point.

Just a quick question - will where be traitor Legionar. in the Web or is it simply daemons. I sincerely hope where will be some. Cause another point I love - void warfare would definitely be absent in MoM (no space 'void' in the webway)

A D-B you know how I do like SM vs CSM combat (or in our case loyalist vs different loyalists )

[Mellow]

I've already blown a week's worth of forum time in a single morning given various post lengths already, so out of necessity this'll have to be brief.

brief he says ...

 

I forget but did Guilliman react when Lorgar hit Malcador?

 

Also, I hope there are no Traitor Astartes in the Webway at this point.

[Guest]

 

I've already blown a week's worth of forum time in a single morning given various post lengths already, so out of necessity this'll have to be brief.

brief he says ...

 

I forget but Guilliman react when Lorgar hit Malcador?

 

 

Have you read Guillimans stand alone novel Mellow?

[Mellow]

I have.

[Sandlemad]

Preorders and extracts, getcha preorders and extracts right here.