Master of Mankind - Review or Spoilers?

[mc warhammer]

 

 

It's because he's a chaos fan at his core. No good guy goes unpunished.

or isn't that just...40k? that it's not a moral universe. the vast majority of modern fiction rewards heroic actions, i always figured this was 40k's niche

 

 

Oh this is true for sure. Without getting too far off track, I just think he occasionally takes it a bit far. I understand others may like it, but it takes me out of the novel. Didn't happen in this book though, or at least nobody who I felt particularly bad about losing. Maybe Ra. But I don't mind mental or emotional turmoil. Its the physical suffering I don't enjoy.

 

 

 

fair enough, everyone has their thresholds. that scene stayed with me long after reading it too...it really was a punch in the guts.

[Loesh]

In legal and social battles perhaps, but Warhammer is...well...war.

 

People die, sometimes people die in uglier ways then others on the battlefield. I don't expect flawless victories, not in the long term anyway.

[Kastor Krieg]

First, Horus betrayed the Emperor. On a personal level, having the emperor not want to kill him because he loves him makes the Emperor a weaker character. He's a the whiny ex boyfriend who can't over his ex girlfriend who cheated on him. He is the dad who keeps giving the son with a heroin addiction a second chance even though the sons steals money and wrecks family members cars. He's the boss who plays favorites, the corrupt Congressman, the teacher who favors girls over boys because 'boys are rowdy'. That's not a leader of the entire human race, it's the personification of all the nerds with insecurities playing this game and reading this lore projected onto the Emperor.

Yeah, no. Not a weaker character. A human after all.

[mc warhammer]

 

Snorts

 

I never bought the idea ADB was a Chaos fan specifically. Reading between the lines, horrible things happen to Chaos characters the same way as absolutely awful things happen to the loyalists. Both the Word Bearers and World Eaters get their face broken in repeatedly in Betrayer and Lorgar is humbled multiple times in the First Heretic.

 

Ultimately, the setting is just horrific and it breeds horrific people and outcomes.

Hardly. No where in history do good guys always take it on the nose. No where in history do bad guys always take it on the nose. Sometimes victories for good and bad people come without some form of loss. In this setting no one ever wins anything without losing something, and that's a function of how stories are written not a reflection of reality.

 

 

it...seems like you just wrote what loesh did back to him though? his point is that the setting is horrific and breeds horrific outcomes. your point brings up reality and then concludes that the horror of the stories is due to the setting? kinda the same point.

[Marshal Rohr]

 

 

 

Snorts

 

I never bought the idea ADB was a Chaos fan specifically. Reading between the lines, horrible things happen to Chaos characters the same way as absolutely awful things happen to the loyalists. Both the Word Bearers and World Eaters get their face broken in repeatedly in Betrayer and Lorgar is humbled multiple times in the First Heretic.

 

Ultimately, the setting is just horrific and it breeds horrific people and outcomes.

Hardly. No where in history do good guys always take it on the nose. No where in history do bad guys always take it on the nose. Sometimes victories for good and bad people come without some form of loss. In this setting no one ever wins anything without losing something, and that's a function of how stories are written not a reflection of reality.

it...seems like you just wrote what loesh did back to him though? his point is that the setting is horrific and breeds horrific outcomes. your point brings up reality and then concludes that the horror of the stories is due to the setting? kinda the same point.

It's only the same point if there is an understanding that there is a reality in which we exist, a 'reality' in the setting, and then there is the way humans convey information (novels). The HH series by BL is a novel series so each story must have some form of loss and danger, and it has a beginning/middle/end and there are rules for what goes in each section and how conflicts need to be resolved. The same way there are rules for how to structure dialogue and exposition.

 

The 'reality' of the setting has no awareness of its end state, like we do in actual reality. That means that sometimes victories for good and bad people happen all the time independent of anything else. It sounded an awful lot like he was saying nothing the entire setting or universe happens without something bad happening and that's just not true. There are as many instances of imperials winning massive wars against the darkness as there are instances of the darkness winning. These are best reflected in FW and Codexes since those are more like histories than novels. The only difference is that we know the end state, i.e. The darkness' victories have been building momentum beyond in-universe reality while the Impwrial victories and defeats are tacking towards stretching them to breaking.

[Marshal Rohr]

First, Horus betrayed the Emperor. On a personal level, having the emperor not want to kill him because he loves him makes the Emperor a weaker character. He's a the whiny ex boyfriend who can't over his ex girlfriend who cheated on him. He is the dad who keeps giving the son with a heroin addiction a second chance even though the sons steals money and wrecks family members cars. He's the boss who plays favorites, the corrupt Congressman, the teacher who favors girls over boys because 'boys are rowdy'. That's not a leader of the entire human race, it's the personification of all the nerds with insecurities playing this game and reading this lore projected onto the Emperor.

Yeah, no. Not a weaker character. A human after all.

You're illustrating my point perfectly.

[MrDarth151]

I think we will find that Horus is the exception, not the rule.

Darth, it's not your fault, as GW lost their way over the last several editions, but the Emperor and Imperium was always going to lose, they never had a chance.

Yeah, I forgot that "True 40k" was always pointlessly nihilistic.

You know, I've considered moving away from that the smartest move the company has done in recent years. I was evidently wrong.

Edit.

It does not change my complaint that I do not believe that what I've heard of the book thus far is consistent with the rest of the sources.

It is not pointlessly nihilistic, being nihilistic IS the point!

There is no right or wrong in this setting, there certainly is no moral good. There is Ends justified by any means, and the Imperiums only End, is to survive another night.

This is a faction with no issues in sterilizing or cleansing LOYAL worlds, in 30K or 40K.

This is a faction which depends on creating monsters, brainwashing them, and in some cases wiping their minds to ensure their survival.

This is a faction which when confronted with refusal by their own species will KILL THEM ALL vs letting that world (or worlds) stand on their own.

There is no point in time in which the roots of 40K have the Imperium as anything but the worst regime of all time, lead by monsters, if only because that is the only way to survive.

Chaos wins, not because its better, but because mankind cannot help to save itself from its own worst failings.

High Fantasy is elsewhere, this is 40K, and its grim, and dark, and nihilistic, because thats the point of the setting. You can even play within it, and your hero's can be righteous, and morally upstanding, but thats not the setting, and ADB is one of the best and holding to what the setting actually is, not what he wants to make it up to be.

If you can find sources that show my views are wrong, stack them against those that back me up.

EDIT: Now my blood is up! Anyone got a link to this Reddit thread so I can bask in people's futile protestations?

You are, frankly, wrong.

Point number one: By the very definition, there is not point to nihilism. If the ultimate end of 40k is everything getting destroyed by Chaos, then there is no point to setting existing. Every single story we have thus far have been pointless. The Emperor beating Horus at the end of HH has been pointless. Every single story we have seen of the universe is pointless, because there is no greater end game: There is just 40k version of the End Times.

Point number two: Hillarity of you bringing the end justifying the means knows no bounds, because the entire consequentialist branch of ethics points towards the Imperium being the morally best and most justified faction in the universe. That is not under discussion; that is an actual fact, due to consequentialism being heavily utilitarian focused, and Imperium of Man defending the most sizeable population of people that are morally neutral or good. End justifies a means does not mean that the Imperium is evil, it simply means that it does not fit into other two branches of morality. To claim otherwise is to be ignorant of basic morality, and if we talk more, you will learn that I have a very low opinion of people who are ignorant of basics of my area of academic expertise.

Point number three: Yes, Imperium wipes out worlds. It does not do so wantomly, or without reason. We know that for a fact, because one of the more sizeable Ordo Minoris of the Inquisition, Ordo Excorium, has one hundred Inquisitors dedicated solely to monitoring the practice of Exterminatus. The end justifies the means. If the end is worth it, then the deed is good, even if that deed involves killing billions of people.

Point number four: The creation of monsters and mind wiping them is covered under consequentialist understanding of ethics. Not to mention that the portrayl of how bad Astartes creation process varies from author to author.

Point number five: The wholesome wiping of worlds based on them not willing to submit was one: Rare, as directly stated in Know no Fear by Dan Abnett through the mouth of Roboute Guilliman, two: Ill looked upon, as the Night of the Wolf clearly demonstrated in the Betrayer, and how the chastisement of Primarchs over employing overtly brutal methods is mentioned in the Collected Visions.

Point number six: If GW wanted to portray Imperium of Mankind as the worst regime possible, they've done piss poor bloody job at it, because it isn't the worst regime in comparison to the real ones (Totalitarian regimes of 20th century have commited crimes that are just as bad as IoM at its worst and and worse, but lack consequentialist/utilitarian justification that IoM has in abudance), nor is it the worst regime in fiction (Because there are dozens of worse ones), nor is it even the worst regime within its own setting, because Vect's Commorragh and various Chaos ruled regimes of Maelstorm and Eye of Terror are worse by every known measure of morality. If they were sincere in trying to make the Imperium the worst regime imaginable, then they fail miserably at morality and ethics.

Point number seven: Chaos wins because 40k writers have no sense of scale nor strategical level of warfare, but that is a rant for another day. Suffice to say Abaddon should not be a serious threat in the universe under how said universe is constructed.

And frankly, nothing annoys me more than being informed, without any ambiguity to it what so ever, that any investement I may have in the universe is ultimately pointless and meaningless. I have always argued that 40k is at its best when there is ambiguity to it. If you just state "And Chaos will win, no buts, no ifs", then you might as well ask me to burn every 40k book I own, because there is no point in being invested in 40k at all, or waste my time and money on something that has no point to it.

I liked the increase in ambiguity that the recent editions have provided over constant DOOOOOM that people seem to like in 40k. The idea of the universe being inherently skewed towards a single faction winning and constant focus on just single conflict having any import at all (Chaos vs Imperium) is something I've come to hate with passion over recent years. It works for single stories within the setting, not the setting in its entirety.

You are free to disagree. Just don't ask me to like it.

Third, part of what makes the loyalists sympathetic protagonists is their commitment to their oaths and ideals of the great crusade, even know we now know the Emperor couldn't have cared less about their loyalty (the greatest sin is failure). They are watching half of their number betray them and ruin everything they have built. If the emperor forgave that, or had trouble swinging the sword in punishment, that's a slap in the face to every Iron Hand, Salamander, and Raven Guard lying dead on Isstvan, every Ultramarine floating in space above Calth or starving to death fighting with bare hands and rocks under the surface. It's a kick in the balls to every Blood Angel who survived Signus, and each Dark Angel flayed on a cross in Thramas.

This novel is great because it shows the loyalists are not only fighting to preserve the Imperium, now they are fighting to prove they are necessary. It adds a sense of urgency. If they lose then they will be treated the same as the traitors. If they win they might just get to live to serve on. There is a great golden bolt pistol pointed at the back of the head of every loyalist legionary now.

Does it really though? I have been graciously provided with exempt of the after word for the book. It does not feel like the loyalty is worth anything right now, after being told outright that no matter what, Humanity has lost. Frankly, every exempt and every opinion I saw of the book seem to point towards any investement towards loyalist faction being, ultimately, futile.

I have a hard time seeing why we should not root for Cabal right now, after we got a word of god statement disproving any and all hope for the setting, contrary to numerous hints in the various codexes suggesting otherwise.

[Kastor Krieg]

The Emperor is the best (in terms of extremes, so sometimes also worst) Mankind has to offer. That also means compassion and hope, which last until the very end when they are crushed and the character leashes back.

That kind of contempt towards "the whiny ex boyfriend who can't over his ex girlfriend who cheated on him [...] the dad who keeps giving the son with a heroin addiction a second chance even though the sons steals money and wrecks family members cars", the readiness to vilify the victim (the betrayed, the abused) for their perceived "weakness", setting up what is done to them as their own fault just speaks volumes, but not about the Emperor's character, my friend.

[Kelborn]

Could someone explain to me of what happened to Drach'nyen in this book?

 

Overall it sound well done. But I'll wait until it's released in my native tongue in order to fully enjoy it. :D

[Scribe]

Sorry you hate it then Darth.

[MasterofMankind]

I think the Emperor staying his hand perfectly encapsulates one of the central themes of the Heresy; no matter how post-human he, his sons and Marines are they're still all too human.

 

On the novel itself, love it to bits, but I wonder now how the ending meshes with the old fluff of Emperor not being able to engage in the heresy because of the Golden Throne thing

[MrDarth151]

Sorry you hate it then Darth.

 

I hate what it represents for the setting. I have no opinion on the book itself as of right now. It might actually be a decent read, despite its wider implications.

 

And I feel bad harping on ADB like that, especially since I recently finished Helsreach and I liked it quite a bit. But opinions are opinions and I will not hold my own back. 

[mc warhammer]

 

 

 

Snorts

 

I never bought the idea ADB was a Chaos fan specifically. Reading between the lines, horrible things happen to Chaos characters the same way as absolutely awful things happen to the loyalists. Both the Word Bearers and World Eaters get their face broken in repeatedly in Betrayer and Lorgar is humbled multiple times in the First Heretic.

 

Ultimately, the setting is just horrific and it breeds horrific people and outcomes.

Hardly. No where in history do good guys always take it on the nose. No where in history do bad guys always take it on the nose. Sometimes victories for good and bad people come without some form of loss. In this setting no one ever wins anything without losing something, and that's a function of how stories are written not a reflection of reality.

it...seems like you just wrote what loesh did back to him though? his point is that the setting is horrific and breeds horrific outcomes. your point brings up reality and then concludes that the horror of the stories is due to the setting? kinda the same point.

It's only the same point if there is an understanding that there is a reality in which we exist, a 'reality' in the setting, and then there is the way humans convey information (novels). The HH series by BL is a novel series so each story must have some form of loss and danger, and it has a beginning/middle/end and there are rules for what goes in each section and how conflicts need to be resolved. The same way there are rules for how to structure dialogue and exposition.

 

The 'reality' of the setting has no awareness of its end state, like we do in actual reality. That means that sometimes victories for good and bad people happen all the time independent of anything else. It sounded an awful lot like he was saying nothing the entire setting or universe happens without something bad happening and that's just not true. There are as many instances of imperials winning massive wars against the darkness as there are instances of the darkness winning. These are best reflected in FW and Codexes since those are more like histories than novels. The only difference is that we know the end state, i.e. The darkness' victories have been building momentum beyond in-universe reality while the Impwrial victories and defeats are tacking towards stretching them to breaking.

 

 

 

seemed more to me like he was saying horrible things happen to chaos and to loyalists in fairly equal measure. while you're saying victory doesn't choose sides, he's saying loss doesn't choose sides either.  but maybe i missed something.

 

i think your point about lack of awareness of the end-game in universe is a good one, though that doesn't apply to all characters (certainly the elite amongst most factions have some idea of the fate of the galaxy and either fight for or against that). which is also why comparison to real world and real history can only go so far; because we don't have supernatural forces conspiring behind the scenes against us irl like those in 30/40k. the rules in a gothic/horror setting are different because the fundamental fabric of their universe is different.

 

as you say, the odds are hopelessly stacked against the imperium and only getting worse.  in that unfair scenario, it would make sense that the imperium suffers with each victory (at least in 40k).  fw and codices being written "like history" only really makes the information more suspect, not less. i'm not saying that overwhelming victories for the imperium aren't possible, but the events are open to being recorded in a skewed/ignorant manner.

[Marshal Rohr]

As an ethicist you should completely understand the point of investment in the loyalist faction.

 

'Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it'

[MrDarth151]

As an ethicist you should completely understand the point of investment in the loyalist faction.

 

'Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it'

 

The issue here is that the loyalist faction can only be good with heavy involvement of utilitarian and consequentialist ethics and the problem with that is that the end justifies the means only if you achieve said end.

 

As long as there is a glimmer of hope, no matter how small, there is a point to defiance. And what can I do is the face of meta statement declaring any resistance futile?

[Scribe]

 

 

Sorry you hate it then Darth.

I hate what it represents for the setting. I have no opinion on the book itself as of right now. It might actually be a decent read, despite its wider implications.

 

And I feel bad harping on ADB like that, especially since I recently finished Helsreach and I liked it quite a bit. But opinions are opinions and I will not hold my own back.

No I meant the setting not the book.

 

Though Marshal has my view on how to approach the setting as an Imperial.

 

The utter pointlessness and DENIAL of that is 100% true to the setting.

[MrDarth151]

 

 

Sorry you hate it then Darth.

I hate what it represents for the setting. I have no opinion on the book itself as of right now. It might actually be a decent read, despite its wider implications.

 

And I feel bad harping on ADB like that, especially since I recently finished Helsreach and I liked it quite a bit. But opinions are opinions and I will not hold my own back.

No I meant the setting not the book.

 

Though Marshal has my view on how to approach the setting as an Imperial.

 

The utter pointlessness and DENIAL of that is 100% true to the setting.

 

 

This is where you are wrong. I don't hate the setting. I hate one particular interpretation of it.

[mc warhammer]

You are, frankly, wrong.

 

Point number one: By the very definition, there is not point to nihilism. If the ultimate end of 40k is everything getting destroyed by Chaos, then there is no point to setting existing. Every single story we have thus far have been pointless. The Emperor beating Horus at the end of HH has been pointless. Every single story we have seen of the universe is pointless, because there is no greater end game: There is just 40k version of the End Times.

 

snipped a bunch of this.

 

nihilism isn't  as simple "there is no point", because there certainly is for nihilists. but there's google for things like this.

 

the imperium is also not made up of nihilists- they're zealots. and they're fighting to their last.

 

if you can only enjoy a story that leads to ultimate victory then 99% of modern heroic fiction is there for you. if you're interested in stories about the actual struggle itself rather than just the conclusion, then you're in the right place. there's something powerful about watching someone fight on despite knowing they won't win. in some ways, that's more powerful.

 

and just because there won't be a huge gandalf moment in 40k doesn't mean that every smaller victory along the way is worthless. you might as well say that every good moment in your life has been pointless because you will die one day.

[Marshal Rohr]

 

 

 

 

 

Snorts

 

I never bought the idea ADB was a Chaos fan specifically. Reading between the lines, horrible things happen to Chaos characters the same way as absolutely awful things happen to the loyalists. Both the Word Bearers and World Eaters get their face broken in repeatedly in Betrayer and Lorgar is humbled multiple times in the First Heretic.

 

Ultimately, the setting is just horrific and it breeds horrific people and outcomes.

Hardly. No where in history do good guys always take it on the nose. No where in history do bad guys always take it on the nose. Sometimes victories for good and bad people come without some form of loss. In this setting no one ever wins anything without losing something, and that's a function of how stories are written not a reflection of reality.

it...seems like you just wrote what loesh did back to him though? his point is that the setting is horrific and breeds horrific outcomes. your point brings up reality and then concludes that the horror of the stories is due to the setting? kinda the same point.

It's only the same point if there is an understanding that there is a reality in which we exist, a 'reality' in the setting, and then there is the way humans convey information (novels). The HH series by BL is a novel series so each story must have some form of loss and danger, and it has a beginning/middle/end and there are rules for what goes in each section and how conflicts need to be resolved. The same way there are rules for how to structure dialogue and exposition.

 

The 'reality' of the setting has no awareness of its end state, like we do in actual reality. That means that sometimes victories for good and bad people happen all the time independent of anything else. It sounded an awful lot like he was saying nothing the entire setting or universe happens without something bad happening and that's just not true. There are as many instances of imperials winning massive wars against the darkness as there are instances of the darkness winning. These are best reflected in FW and Codexes since those are more like histories than novels. The only difference is that we know the end state, i.e. The darkness' victories have been building momentum beyond in-universe reality while the Impwrial victories and defeats are tacking towards stretching them to breaking.

 

seemed more to me like he was saying horrible things happen to chaos and to loyalists in fairly equal measure. while you're saying victory doesn't choose sides, he's saying loss doesn't choose sides either. but maybe i missed something.

 

i think your point about lack of awareness of the end-game in universe is a good one, though that doesn't apply to all characters (certainly the elite amongst most factions have some idea of the fate of the galaxy and either fight for or against that). which is also why comparison to real world and real history can only go so far; because we don't have supernatural forces conspiring behind the scenes against us irl like those in 30/40k. the rules in a gothic/horror setting are different because the fundamental fabric of their universe is different.

 

as you say, the odds are hopelessly stacked against the imperium and only getting worse. in that unfair scenario, it would make sense that the imperium suffers with each victory (at least in 40k). fw and codices being written "like history" only really makes the information more suspect, not less. i'm not saying that overwhelming victories for the imperium aren't possible, but the events are open to being recorded in a skewed/ignorant manner.

The German army pulled off one of the most brilliant displays of military prowess in recorded history from 1944 to 1945 by fighting a losing, two-front war against numerically superior and better supplied allies in spite of toxic leadership at the top of their hierarchy. The Imperium is Germany in this setting, and their representation should be similar to the history miracles the Germans pulled off time and time again during the late war. To those frontline regiments in M41, fighting the legions of hell and winning, authors owe a good showing. To the wider Imperium run by weak men with no knowledge of the necessities of war and the hubris to think they can win, wasting lives of good, brave men where none need be wasted, authors owe only scorn and contempt.

 

As for the supernatural, human beings are good and evil enough on our own. I don't need an evil god or pantheon to explain actions when ideology and politics have done a far better job than any fantasy could for tens of thousands of years. Chaos and the chaos gods say more about their fans views on the real world than any powerful force in-niverse, the same way loyalists and loyalist fans cling to their side for their own real world reasons.

[The_son_of_Dorn]

A lot of hate for the sake of hate I see.

[mc warhammer]

A lot of hate for the sake of hate I see.

 

or opinions for the sake of opinions.

[The_son_of_Dorn]

An opinion that indicates hate still spreads it.

[mc warhammer]

 

 

As for the supernatural, human beings are good and evil enough on our own. I don't need an evil god or pantheon to explain actions when ideology and politics have done a far better job than any fantasy could for tens of thousands of years. Chaos and the chaos gods say more about their fans views on the real world than any powerful force in-niverse, the same way loyalists and loyalist fans cling to their side for their own real world reasons.

 

 

firstly, let me just say that i'm not a fan of any faction. that's a whole level of the fandom i don't really understand or feel any real need to.

 

secondly, are you saying that chaos doesn't exist as an independent force in-universe and has no real influence on events beyond their fan's wishes? or are you being meta and arguing from an in-universe loyalist's perspective?

An opinion that indicates hate still spreads it.

 

i'd say an uninformed opinion usually tends towards the destructive, but i do empathise with you.

[Marshal Rohr]

 

 

As an ethicist you should completely understand the point of investment in the loyalist faction.

 

'Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it'

The issue here is that the loyalist faction can only be good with heavy involvement of utilitarian and consequentialist ethics and the problem with that is that the end justifies the means only if you achieve said end.

 

As long as there is a glimmer of hope, no matter how small, there is a point to defiance. And what can I do is the face of meta statement declaring any resistance futile?

Utilitarian and Consequentialist lenses are excellent ways to write your own army background, and they are good methods of critquing the fiction in an academic sense. But they are not concrete foundations to build the universe on. There is a reason moral relativism is the oldest and most pervasive Metaphysical lesson on the timeline of human history, and that is because in the end ethics and morality are unique to each individual person, even in shared ethnic and national groups. The same man who cheats on his wife with hookers behind a bar Friday night might be in church Sunday morning and lecturing his students on civic duty and loyalty in class Monday. And his story will be repeated and repudiated by every other single person in his demographic. Ethics and morality are not positive sciences, they are ideas and ideas cannot be enforced universally. If they could I could see your point. As they cannot, it's pointless to try and make them.

[Marshal Rohr]

 

 

 

 

As for the supernatural, human beings are good and evil enough on our own. I don't need an evil god or pantheon to explain actions when ideology and politics have done a far better job than any fantasy could for tens of thousands of years. Chaos and the chaos gods say more about their fans views on the real world than any powerful force in-niverse, the same way loyalists and loyalist fans cling to their side for their own real world reasons.

 

firstly, let me just say that i'm not a fan of any faction. that's a whole level of the fandom i don't really understand or feel any real need to.

 

secondly, are you saying that chaos doesn't exist as an independent force in-universe and has no real influence on events beyond their fan's wishes? or are you being meta and arguing from an in-universe loyalist's perspective?

An opinion that indicates hate still spreads it.

i'd say an uninformed opinion usually tends towards the destructive, but i do empathise with you.

I'm saying I see 40k in the same way I see game of thrones. Dragons and ice demons and fire gods exist (chaos in 40k would parallel this), but I personally enjoy Tyrion talking about why Khaleesi would be stupid to execute all the noble families in Westeros or Tywin's lectures on family alliances and real politik more than seeing dragons burn people.