Morality in 40K Writing

[Arkangilos]

But that's another thing about the setting, which often gets confused or overlooked - the Imperium is a HORRIBLE place. It's the worst fascist dictatorship, and it talks about ethnic cleansing and planetary genocide like its all perfectly fine. You have indentured slavery, exploitation of every level of society, rampant drug use and abuses of authority, power, position etc.

The Imperium is, and always has been, a chilling dystopia. Humanity thinks the xenos and the daemons are the evil ones, but they're really not... Mankind probably deserves to die out!

#CabalWasRight2016

That said, you guys are really not good at the "Worst fascist dictatorship" thing. Because... it really isn't. Hell, under your rules, it couldn't be if it wanted to.

It isn't even really a good dictatorship, because individual governors are stated to have much autonomy in rulling their worlds, as per 7th edition rulebook, as I'm sure you know. Federations are basically anathema to opressive dictatorships.

Hillariously, GW written itself into a corner, because for Imperium to be the worst fascist dictatorship, or even on par (Because entities like Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were evil in rather wide variety of ways, while lacking moral justifications that Imperium has), it would have to have level of connectivity and control over their planets that would allow them to kick majority of the threats in the balls and firmly establish complete dominance over the galaxy. Grimdarkness prevents the Imperium from being even remotely close to entities like Nazi Germany.

No helped by the fact that many Black Library authors do not write Imperial worlds as that much worse than second or third nation countries. Which, I will say firmly, is not even in top ten of worst dictatorships.

Over the years the horribleness of the Imperium became very much an informed attribute. Especially to a utilitarian, like me.

I could actually reasonably argue that the Imperium of Mankind is a good entity as far as the real and fictional empires go. Without much trouble even.

I don't think that's really solid ground for the imperium being good, or even decent.

Essentially the hope spots in the Imperium are the result of a lack of control or resources, not from any inherent goodness in the heart of it's rulers who have callousness on par if not often exceeding the likes of Hitler or Stalin. Psychopaths are deliberately found and recruited into the highest echelons of the imperiums hierarchy because empathy and compassion are more likely to lead to corruption and damnation in the Imperiums eyes. There can be no empathy, no understanding for the enemy because that makes a chink in their armor and is all Chaos needs to take root.

It was played for laughs in Dark Apostle, but we're talking about people who consider bulldozing piles of corpses into factories to produce nutri paste as a solid trade off, millions pointlessly sent to their deaths with a few inches of ground being made is considered a solid 'win' in the imperiums textbook because the whole 'million is a statistic' deal has been taken to it's logical extreme. At best you might wind up on a relatively peaceful but heavily inbred agri world where you may eek out a few happy stress free years before someone like Kryptman decides to dump the life eater virus on your head so the nearest Hive Fleet doesn't turn you into bio fuel.

That the imperium cannot make every world an Orwellian horror isn't a good reason for them to be the good, or even the 'alright' guys, it just means they are impotent and that impotency is probably one of the largest reasons they are doomed hilariously enough. If there is a way to prove that the Imperium are the good guys...for the futility of that even being a thing...it's with a 'ends justify the means' argument. Because all these nasty things? They are necessary to mankinds survival, but the consideration of if a place of nothing but misery and pain is worth living in has long since passed from your average inquisitors mind.

Worlds are occasionally allowed a measure of autonomy because the Imperium can't get around to driving a jackboot into their throats, not out of any kindness in their heart.

See, here's a thing: Entirely a third of moral theorems relies on the "ends justify the means" argument. One of the three major branches of ethics is consequentialism, that relies on that exact principle... though we like to word it with a lot of complex terms and difficult to grasp logical equations, because it makes us seem more smart.

I've come to realise over the years (and reading some studies) that majority of people view good in a very deontological way. The deed A is bad. That is all there is too it. But when you go into detailed study of morality, things become a lot less clear. Intuitive understanding of morality is the most practical one, but it also very rarely holds up to scrutiny and basically amounts to "I like A. A is good. I dislike B. B is evil.".

I will not bore you with details (though I can expand if you want), but basically, if there is proper justification to an action, then there are ethical theories under which those actions (and people that perpetrate them) can be considered good. It cannot be stated objectively (because objectivity under rules of logic is a lot harder than what people usually mean when they say something is objective), but it can be argued and it can be proven.

And, in my personal view, I consider going for the extremes that you mention to be a bad writing, and one that substantially diminishes the main themes of the setting. Humanity in 40k should be doomed because it resorts to extreme measures and does anything it can, but it still isn't enough. Examples that you bring of, and indeed most of the extreme examples of that kind, do not produce that response in most readers that know their stuff. It produces a "My god is the Imperium run by incompetent dimwits, I could do a better job at it" kind of response.

Imperium should not be stupid.

I can agree with some of that, and really at this point it comes down to personal taste. Most of the time I think yes the imperium should be portrayed as a necessary extreme that's still not doing enough. BUT, and this is a big but, people are really dumb in real life and I don't think it hurts to remind people now and again that people who have trouble remembering how to breathe now and again are big contributors to the Imperium imploding. Much in the same way as Chaos can infight to the point of total inefficiency or Eldar can be too busy smelling their own butts to realize they bumped into an unusually large Tyranid swarm.

I disagree about Chaos infighting, because that's one of the point of the faction, the ultimate self-destructiveness of it.

And the thing is: Really dumb people don't get put into position of power in real life, unless they are elected. No-one is saying that they should be all flawless demigods, but take the "Let us throw millions of men onto enemy position until it crumbles and laugh" strategy, for example. There is literally no period of human warfare where that would be an acceptable strategy. That's something that was considered stupid since antiquity and became more and more stupid as the warfare progressed.

It is especially silly in terms of the Imperial Guard, because, by design, every regiment has a well trained, elite and educated outside observers in the form of Commissars, that are empowered to kill incompetent individuals. People like that should be routinely shot, not in positions of commanding armies of millions.

And it's a problem for the setting in my opinion, because it veers it into nonsense. Inertia is a powerful thing, but it should not allow the Imperium to survive for ten thousands of years if the people in positions of power are that stupid and incompetent. Because running the empire of this size requires supreme competence just to not have it collapse on itself within a decade, even assuming that incompetency like that is not common place.

Dunno. It feels often times like the writers forget, or simply do not comprehend, how much of talent, competency and not being pointlessly evil would be required to run an Imperium like that.

You should really go back and study history if you don't think stupid people get put into positions of power unless they are elected, and if you don't think, "throw them at the enemy until the fortification crumbles" was not a legitimate thinking in warfare.

General Falkenhayn did exactly that for the Battle of Verdun, and his reason was, "to bleed the French dry."

General Douglass Haig had similar thinking. In fact, almost every general in the First World War employed that mentality for most of the war.

Not to mention Stalin's famous "quantity is a quality all on its own" policy during the Second World War.

And let's talk about stupid leaders: you have the Emperors of Rome who declared war on the ocean, appointed horses as councils, played an instrument as their city burned, etc.

History is FULL of incompetent and leaders who were born into their positions. Some were killed, others were not.

[Arkangilos]

And why would commissars shoot generals if they are successful, even at the cost of millions of unimportant lives? Take that Valhallan General for example. He wasted almost a full Regiment on a mine field. Did it remove a Regiment from play? Yes, but it also allowed the imperial war machine to press on without delay, which was necessary for the overall victory.

[Marshal Rohr]

I think we paint that as stupidity, but often times these conflicts are so intense and fortifications play such an integral role that high casualties are inevitable. This is a setting where you can slave a convict's skull to the equivalent of anti-aircraft cannons and stick one of those on every prefabricated bulletproof wall erected.

[LaurieJGoulding]

 

I disagree about Chaos infighting, because that's one of the point of the faction, the ultimate self-destructiveness of it.

 

And the thing is: Really dumb people don't get put into position of power in real life, unless they are elected. No-one is saying that they should be all flawless demigods, but take the "Let us throw millions of men onto enemy position until it crumbles and laugh" strategy, for example. There is literally no period of human warfare where that would be an acceptable strategy. That's something that was considered stupid since antiquity and became more and more stupid as the warfare progressed.

 

It is especially silly in terms of the Imperial Guard, because, by design, every regiment has a well trained, elite and educated outside observers in the form of Commissars, that are empowered to kill incompetent individuals. People like that should be routinely shot, not in positions of commanding armies of millions.

 

And it's a problem for the setting in my opinion, because it veers it into nonsense. Inertia is a powerful thing, but it should not allow the Imperium to survive for ten thousands of years if the people in positions of power are that stupid and incompetent. Because running the empire of this size requires supreme competence just to not have it collapse on itself within a decade, even assuming that incompetency like that is not common place.

 

Dunno. It feels often times like the writers forget, or simply do not comprehend, how much of talent, competency and not being pointlessly evil would be required to run an Imperium like that.

 

 

I can't find a single sentence in this post that I agree with. (That's got to be some kind of record. Can someone check?)

 

From what you've just said there, I think it's very apparent that you have completely, utterly, and entirely missed the point of Warhammer 40,000. The Imperium is doomed. It cannot ever possibly be run by humans. It has been in freefall since the death of the Emperor, and the only victories are the result of sacrificing MILLIONS of lives. It doesn't work, and it hasn't worked for 10,000 years.

 

I can't even begin to comment on your statements about history and politics.

 

Do you ever wonder why so many people disagree with you on here, and why you think every book is sorely lacking in some way? It's because you're looking at it like it's supposed to be something else. You're looking at 'Star Wars' and expecting '1984', or sitting through 'Benidorm' and wondering when it will turn into 'Friends'.

 

By all means, do whatever you like with your hobby - enjoy it however you see fit. But from what you're describing, it's not the setting that GW publish, in any form.

[Arkangilos]

I think we paint that as stupidity, but often times these conflicts are so intense and fortifications play such an integral role that high casualties are inevitable. This is a setting where you can slave a convict's skull to the equivalent of anti-aircraft cannons and stick one of those on every prefabricated bulletproof wall erected.

Yeah, I hope you didn't think I was painting them as stupid. I think some are, but not all of that.

[Marshal Rohr]

I'm sure there are generals and field grades who are more than willing to sacrifice lives to climb the ladder, but those will be the exception over the rule. 40k is so 'lead from the front' that even regimental commanders are leading assaults across no man's land personally, something anathema to modern command and control.

[Excessus]

 

I can't find a single sentence in this post that I agree with. (That's got to be some kind of record. Can someone check?)

 

 

Welcome to B&C! :D

 

 

I'm sure there are generals and field grades who are more than willing to sacrifice lives to climb the ladder, but those will be the exception over the rule. 40k is so 'lead from the front' that even regimental commanders are leading assaults across no man's land personally, something anathema to modern command and control.

 

The 40k military tactics are mostly Napoleonic in their style with lines of men led by their sword-swinging officer from the front. There are some more "modern" tactics sprinkled in here and there (elysian drop troops, kasrkins and so on) but motly the scenario is WWI...old tactics new technology...

[Gree]

We see decent enough places inBlack Library novels don't we? The Gaunt,Eisenhorn and Cain novels feature places that seem to be pleasant and prosperous enough outside of alien or heretic invasions. Perlia and Gudrun seem to be pleasant enough places that I wouldn't mind living in. Certainly the central government of the Imperium is callous and unfeeling on a grand scale, but on a local scale it seems like there are good places to live.

 

I've never considered the Imperium to be the ''worst fascist dictatorship'' or ''worst government imaginable'' as I can frankly imagine far worse than the Imperium. (And I assure you I have a very creative imagination).Instead of a fascist dictatorship it's usually described as  more like a feudal oligarchy. (The High Lords of Terra for example) I suppose the Emperor is in theory an absolute head of state, but he really can't do anything in practice. In practice the Imperium is not ruled by any one man. If fact there is quite a number of deliberate checks and balances put in place isn't there.

 

It's not quite controlling enough for me to really consider that. When you get down to it the Imperium is also very decentralized and uncaring about individual planets as long as some basic laws are maintained and tithes are paid.

[KramFoot]

My take on morality in 40k is this: Every faction is evil in a way, and not good at all per see.. but definitely grey. Except Tyranids. They're just really really hungry. 
 Hell, look at the Imperium, it flings trillions of men and women at the enemy every day, it turns children into beasts that can spit acid and can't feel fear.. It is a system besieged by the enemy within and without. They have made weapons that make nukes look like toys. They stalk their own shadows just to purge anybody who could potentially be a heretic, or accidentally become a portal for lots of demons . This is a faction who will wipe out entire planets and systems just to buy more time for the rest of humanity. 
 And this is the best that humanity can do now, now that it is 2 minutes to midnight in the setting. All of this is necessary to stay alive for even one more day. All of this is done to keep the hope going that, one day, they can win.

 

And these guys, who are paranoid, ruthless and anything else that is bad to our modern view, are the heroes. Morality in this setting, I argue, is completely skewed and most importantly, grimdark and alien to us.
But I could be wrong here. Probably!

[m_r_parker]

(and I daresay your average twelve-year-old would be bored to tears by several of my books, especially the Chaos ones)

Dude - if we went back in time and gave 12 year old me a copy of the Night Lords trilogy, that would literally blow my mind. It would simultaneously grip me and leave me unable to sleep for a month afterwards, mainly because I wouldn't stop reading it at night and scaring myself silly. That was the type of stuff that I craved as a teenager.

... that probably explains a lot actually

There's a fine line to be drawn here on the BL side, and I can see why it's there. Personally I would love to see some darker (I mean really dark) elements bought into the books, but equally I realise that not every kid wandering into a GW store is going to be able to read that content (let alone the outraged, torch and pitchfork wielding, parents marching into Nottingham). Drawing comparisons between the darkness at the heart of Chaos and the Imperium is fascinating, especially when a rational person looks at the actions of the perceived 'Good Guys' and see's that they're no better than the 'Bad Guys' they're trying to stop. The Imperium is a complete wreck at this point and is justifying practically destroying itself as trying to save itself, there are very few areas where there is actual goodness and purity out there. It's undoubtedly going to be the better option that having the Chaos worshippers in charge, but it's not exactly a cake walk in itself.

Most of the 'No-No' areas I can get behind. In a setting where there is so much underlying 'greyness' it's good to see that you don't have to go over the top with women and children, there are plenty of other ways to get this across without crossing those lines. One of the best examples I can think of is in The First Heretic where Xaphen is torturing psykers in order to prevent astropathic communication between the Custodians and Terra. They're Word Bearers, they're always going to be at the front of the more dogmatic / religious end of the grey scale, but there was one bit in there that truly showed how dark their actions were without treading into too uncomfortable territory. Amongst Xaphens notes on the ritual usage of the packers it was observed that those who volunteered would burn out (i.e. die) very quickly, but those who were unwilling would last a lot longer, showing that there was a parallel between the fear and suffering of the victim and the rituals effectiveness. if that doesn't creep you out on some level - it should! That in itself is a truly horrific concept, the more you try to resist it the worse it gets and the longer it lasts for. The cherry on the cake is that upon discovering this they exclusively look for victims who would be the most unwilling, and for whom this process will subject the greatest level of fear and pain. It's horrific, and yet makes a certain amount of sense from a Chaos perspective. At least Xaphen gets his comeuppance (as per the Rules laid out earlier).

Equally dark is probably one of the latter parts of the third Night Lords novel, and I think it's been long enough that we can go without Spoiler tags at this point (skip ahead if you still haven't read it, and shame on you!). Uzas has been falling steadily more and more into the thralls of Khorne, regardless of whether he thinks he is or not (he may say that he's only taking the power without giving anything in return, but in my eyes he's lost to the Blood God whether he accepts it or not), and the deeds of his bloodlust aboard their various craft on the human population are well document, even if he can't remember doing those things. Upon his final moments, and in a rare moment of clarity, he realises that he isn't to blame for all of it. Syrian has also been preying on the human populous, feeding on their fear, and has been pinning the evidence and blame on Uzas - who most of the time can't remember what he has or hasn't done. These are Night Lords, objects of fear incarnate who take pride in extracting pain from their victims, of which some are actively falling under the thrall of more malevolent Gods, and in this one moment you feel actual sorrow at this betrayal. It's like in Jedi when Vader comes back from the brink and you see the good still in him - he's done so much evil, and yet there's still a glimmer of good in there that comes to the surface. My heart broke when Uzas confronted Cyrion about this, and it hurt even more when Cyrion yet again pinned the blame of their fight onto Uzas when Talos found out they were fighting. Say what you will about the Imperium being a dark place, and different shades of grey in an area where the perceived 'Good Guys' are, I'm much more interested in seeing the splashes of light in the darkness no matter how small they are.

One of the commandments I do like, in a tangential way, is that the head-honchos can't be seen performing the worst acts, and that everyone gets their commuppence. I don't like it in a 'He got what was coming to him' justice way, but I always feel it's more sinister for the truly evil villains of the setting to get others to do the dirty deeds themselves. There's a stronger story thread through the conflict that the underlings have in carrying out the will of the more powerful bad guy, and the sense of damnation that comes from it. From a setting perspective it makes sense, I agree that it's very difficult for there to be any sense of justice / karma if the recipient is required to stick around. From a narrative perspective however it must be better to show the fall of someone doing the acts of someone above them in the chain, either deriving joy from the actions or having doubts or regrets at what they've done. Whether its tricking someone into doing something they would never do otherwise, or breaking someone down and imposing your will onto them, it feels a lot more 'evil' than simply doing it yourself.

And it wasn't until today that I knew the Omnibus and Hardback versions of the Night Lords trilogy had been edited to take out the most graphic stuff! I heard A-D-B mention at the Q&A at BL Live that late submissions meant that some of those scenes were left whole and unedited, where perhaps they should have been toned down a little, but I didn't realise they'd been changed in subsequent releases from the paperbacks. Something which is equally unforgivable considering I have both the Omnibus and Hardback versions and didn't notice - Equally I think this is the first time hearing that there'd been complaints from the public about those parts of the novels. Some people are killjoys!!! (joking!)

[Jareddm]

We see decent enough places inBlack Library novels don't we? The Gaunt,Eisenhorn and Cain novels feature places that seem to be pleasant and prosperous enough outside of alien or heretic invasions. Perlia and Gudrun seem to be pleasant enough places that I wouldn't mind living in. Certainly the central government of the Imperium is callous and unfeeling on a grand scale, but on a local scale it seems like there are good places to live.

 

I've never considered the Imperium to be the ''worst fascist dictatorship'' or ''worst government imaginable'' as I can frankly imagine far worse than the Imperium. (And I assure you I have a very creative imagination).Instead of a fascist dictatorship it's usually described as  more like a feudal oligarchy. (The High Lords of Terra for example) I suppose the Emperor is in theory an absolute head of state, but he really can't do anything in practice. In practice the Imperium is not ruled by any one man. If fact there is quite a number of deliberate checks and balances put in place isn't there.

 

It's not quite controlling enough for me to really consider that. When you get down to it the Imperium is also very decentralized and uncaring about individual planets as long as some basic laws are maintained and tithes are paid.

Perhaps it's that "fascist dictatorship" is how the Imperium tries to portray itself to its population.  It wants its people to believe that, "The Imperium is always watching everything at all times."  However, we see how different things are in practice.

[Gree]

 

We see decent enough places inBlack Library novels don't we? The Gaunt,Eisenhorn and Cain novels feature places that seem to be pleasant and prosperous enough outside of alien or heretic invasions. Perlia and Gudrun seem to be pleasant enough places that I wouldn't mind living in. Certainly the central government of the Imperium is callous and unfeeling on a grand scale, but on a local scale it seems like there are good places to live.

 

I've never considered the Imperium to be the ''worst fascist dictatorship'' or ''worst government imaginable'' as I can frankly imagine far worse than the Imperium. (And I assure you I have a very creative imagination).Instead of a fascist dictatorship it's usually described as  more like a feudal oligarchy. (The High Lords of Terra for example) I suppose the Emperor is in theory an absolute head of state, but he really can't do anything in practice. In practice the Imperium is not ruled by any one man. If fact there is quite a number of deliberate checks and balances put in place isn't there.

 

It's not quite controlling enough for me to really consider that. When you get down to it the Imperium is also very decentralized and uncaring about individual planets as long as some basic laws are maintained and tithes are paid.

Perhaps it's that "fascist dictatorship" is how the Imperium tries to portray itself to its population.  It wants its people to believe that, "The Imperium is always watching everything at all times."  However, we see how different things are in practice.

 

Some worlds maybe, but as I said the Imperium is decentralized to an extreme.

 

You have feral worlds that might only every see the Emperor as a Sun God and the Imperium as a distant force that comes once every few generations to collect some tithes. Other worlds we see have their own distinct cultures and rulers that really only treat the Imperium as a distant entity. Like in Gaunt's Ghosts you have entire planets waging their own wars and conflicts with the Imperium only bothering to really intervene when evidence of Chaos worship manifests. On Gravalax a Commissar's cap and badge only meant a "fancy officer" to locals with no real understanding of what it meant.

 

I don't doubt some worlds view it like that, but others (particularly the ones further away from Terra's light) have a more distant view of the Imperium.

[bluntblade]

I think if the Imperium was portrayed as the worst, bloodiest regime imaginable (or whatever the book says it is), most people would have a really hard time with it. Because some things are clearly evil, if we saw characters doing those things over and over, it gets harder to relate to characters. Especially with younger kids being a target audience, I don't think it'd be practically feasible to churn out the number of books they do while maintaining a balance.

Further, the Imperium itself is the problem here. There can be legitimately kind and compassionate people inside a harsh tyranny. So even if every BL book shows us situations that aren't that bad, and planetary governors who go out of their way for their citizens, we offer lyrics ever see a fraction of a percent of the worlds in the Imperium, so it's not very persuasive to say that because we don't see it often, it must not be true.

Not so much on a morality note, but Vaer Greyloc springs to mind.

[Marshal Rohr]

Everything about your government always seems perfectly normal if you have no frame of reference. That's why everyone thought the internet would be a force for good, until it turned out to have the exact opposite effect.

[MrDarth151]

 

 

I disagree about Chaos infighting, because that's one of the point of the faction, the ultimate self-destructiveness of it.

 

And the thing is: Really dumb people don't get put into position of power in real life, unless they are elected. No-one is saying that they should be all flawless demigods, but take the "Let us throw millions of men onto enemy position until it crumbles and laugh" strategy, for example. There is literally no period of human warfare where that would be an acceptable strategy. That's something that was considered stupid since antiquity and became more and more stupid as the warfare progressed.

 

It is especially silly in terms of the Imperial Guard, because, by design, every regiment has a well trained, elite and educated outside observers in the form of Commissars, that are empowered to kill incompetent individuals. People like that should be routinely shot, not in positions of commanding armies of millions.

 

And it's a problem for the setting in my opinion, because it veers it into nonsense. Inertia is a powerful thing, but it should not allow the Imperium to survive for ten thousands of years if the people in positions of power are that stupid and incompetent. Because running the empire of this size requires supreme competence just to not have it collapse on itself within a decade, even assuming that incompetency like that is not common place.

 

Dunno. It feels often times like the writers forget, or simply do not comprehend, how much of talent, competency and not being pointlessly evil would be required to run an Imperium like that.

 

 

I can't find a single sentence in this post that I agree with. (That's got to be some kind of record. Can someone check?)

 

From what you've just said there, I think it's very apparent that you have completely, utterly, and entirely missed the point of Warhammer 40,000. The Imperium is doomed. It cannot ever possibly be run by humans. It has been in freefall since the death of the Emperor, and the only victories are the result of sacrificing MILLIONS of lives. It doesn't work, and it hasn't worked for 10,000 years.

 

I can't even begin to comment on your statements about history and politics.

 

Do you ever wonder why so many people disagree with you on here, and why you think every book is sorely lacking in some way? It's because you're looking at it like it's supposed to be something else. You're looking at 'Star Wars' and expecting '1984', or sitting through 'Benidorm' and wondering when it will turn into 'Friends'.

 

By all means, do whatever you like with your hobby - enjoy it however you see fit. But from what you're describing, it's not the setting that GW publish, in any form.

 

 

Indeed. I'm beginning to think that the novels I enjoy have been created by accident or oversight of the editorial department and in reality they were supposed to get sent back to be rewrited and include more DOOOOOM.

 

As of today, I've read... over seventy 40k novels, majority of codexes since the fifth edition begun, and I'm not actually sure how many anthologies and I'm sitting here, mesmerised, as you tell me that the interpretation of the setting I supported (not come up with, mind) is something GW never published.

 

I suppose I only liked the novels because I don't understand what they are truly about too. Figures.

 

Damn. I need to apologise to some people. I have vehemently defended 40k as having more depth than that, and I was evidently wrong.

 

And then I'm going to read Abnett's Necropolis to wash away bad taste this discussion left in my mouth. A good novel that one. Still my favorite amongst the Guard novels.

[Arkangilos]

You aren't defending depth. Nothing you are saying adds to 40k. No one is saying that humanity is doomed, and no one is saying everything is going to die.

 

There is a huge difference between, "chaos wins" and "everything is doomed."

 

It's the fight between order and chaos, and as long as order does not reign supreme, chaos wins. I mean, there is literally no other way around it.

 

Do human emotions fuel the chaos gods? Yes.

Did the chaos want eternal struggle? Yes.

Did humanity ever break free of the warp? No.

 

It sounds a lot like they got everything they wanted. You cannot defeat chaos because it is always there. There will always be small victories for order, but they won't change anything, because the nature of chaos means that a victory came through conflict, which is what they want.

 

Did you kill something? Are you ever angry? Yes? Khorne wins.

Did something die? Did you ever dispair? Yes? Nurgle wins.

Did you ever act in excess? Have you ever felt lust? Material greed? Yes? Slaanesh wins.

Did you hope and dream? Conspire? Yes? Tzeentch wins.

 

Even if the emperor is reborn as a warp God and crushes the other four, chaos still wins, because he's become part of that cycle.

 

Chaos winning isn't some terrible thing everyone makes it out to be. Chaos is nature, and nature will always prevail because it's all there is.

 

Chaos dominion is what would be terrible.

[MrDarth151]

You aren't defending depth. Nothing you are saying adds to 40k. No one is saying that humanity is doomed, and no one is saying everything is going to die.

 

There is a huge difference between, "chaos wins" and "everything is doomed."

 

It's the fight between order and chaos, and as long as order does not reign supreme, chaos wins. I mean, there is literally no other way around it.

 

Do human emotions fuel the chaos gods? Yes.

Did the chaos want eternal struggle? Yes.

Did humanity ever break free of the warp? No.

 

It sounds a lot like they got everything they wanted. You cannot defeat chaos because it is always there. There will always be small victories for order, but they won't change anything, because the nature of chaos means that a victory came through conflict, which is what they want.

 

Did you kill something? Are you ever angry? Yes? Khorne wins.

Did something die? Did you ever dispair? Yes? Nurgle wins.

Did you ever act in excess? Have you ever felt lust? Material greed? Yes? Slaanesh wins.

Did you hope and dream? Conspire? Yes? Tzeentch wins.

 

Even if the emperor is reborn as a warp God and crushes the other four, chaos still wins, because he's become part of that cycle.

 

Chaos winning isn't some terrible thing everyone makes it out to be. Chaos is nature, and nature will always prevail because it's all there is.

 

Chaos dominion is what would be terrible.

 

Based on what I've gathered from discussions with mister Goulding and mister Bowden, your interpretation is incorrect.

[Legatus]

Chaos isn't really such a super invulnerable and all powerful entity. It is not even eternal. Though there is no real concept of a flow of time in the warp, Chaos only really came into being 50.000 years ago, at least in the sentient form of the great Gods. Most planets in the galaxy are far older, and 50.000 years would barely register on their timeline. And if Chaos can come into being just like that, it may also be eradicated at some point. Just how that would be accomplished is as of yet unknown. Immunizing mankind against the influence of Chaos could have a real effect, and might just deprive the dark gods of the sustenance they need.

Chaos used to be the old and ancient evil in 40K, but the introduction of the C'tan kind of put things into a new perspective (not to the benefit of the overall setting, IMHO). Apparently there once was a civilisation that could connect and disconnecte realspace and the warp at will, much more advanced than the Eldar or anything the Emperor had devised. It could be as simple as an Adeptus Mechanicus expedition discovering an ancient Slann artefact, and then they just have to figure out how to use it. Perhaps with some help from the Eldar, or a scheming Necron Lord that has a beef with Chaos. And then the threat of Chaos just goes away like that.

That is probably not going to happen. But it is a real possibility. Chaos is not all eternal and neverending. There merely are no means available to the Imperium or the Eldar to really do anything about it at the current time.

[Arkangilos]

 

 

You aren't defending depth. Nothing you are saying adds to 40k. No one is saying that humanity is doomed, and no one is saying everything is going to die.

 

There is a huge difference between, "chaos wins" and "everything is doomed."

 

It's the fight between order and chaos, and as long as order does not reign supreme, chaos wins. I mean, there is literally no other way around it.

 

Do human emotions fuel the chaos gods? Yes.

Did the chaos want eternal struggle? Yes.

Did humanity ever break free of the warp? No.

 

It sounds a lot like they got everything they wanted. You cannot defeat chaos because it is always there. There will always be small victories for order, but they won't change anything, because the nature of chaos means that a victory came through conflict, which is what they want.

 

Did you kill something? Are you ever angry? Yes? Khorne wins.

Did something die? Did you ever dispair? Yes? Nurgle wins.

Did you ever act in excess? Have you ever felt lust? Material greed? Yes? Slaanesh wins.

Did you hope and dream? Conspire? Yes? Tzeentch wins.

 

Even if the emperor is reborn as a warp God and crushes the other four, chaos still wins, because he's become part of that cycle.

 

Chaos winning isn't some terrible thing everyone makes it out to be. Chaos is nature, and nature will always prevail because it's all there is.

 

Chaos dominion is what would be terrible.

Based on what I've gathered from discussions with mister Goulding and mister Bowden, your interpretation is incorrect.

Really? Please provide their quotes as evidence.

Because what they did say was that a win for chaos was not the same as a win for Abbadon, and that chaos achieved its goals in the heresy, and that the state of the Imperium is what chaos wanted. That sounds like a chaos win to me.

[Loesh]

*Snorts*

 

Because stories that are destined end poorly for the characters they are about indicate a lack of depth.

[mc warhammer]

 

 

 

And the thing is: Really dumb people don't get put into position of power in real life,

 

Extremely, extremely debatable, at least with how we're using 'dumb' here in the context of poor decision making. Being book smart has never been the same thing as having common sense or good impulse control, it's led to many a tragedy in human history.

absolutely. anyone who thinks our society is a meritocracy has likely accrued very very little power within it.

[mc warhammer]

 

I suppose I only liked the novels because I don't understand what they are truly about too. Figures.

 

Damn. I need to apologise to some people. I have vehemently defended 40k as having more depth than that, and I was evidently wrong.

the passive aggressive is strong with this one

[MrDarth151]

 

Really? Please provide their quotes as evidence.

Because what they did say was that a win for chaos was not the same as a win for Abbadon, and that chaos achieved its goals in the heresy, and that the state of the Imperium is what chaos wanted. That sounds like a chaos win to me.

 

 

Here you go.

 

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/328184-master-of-mankind-review-or-spoilers/?p=4593739

 

Chaos is not nature, it is entropy. What it ultimately wants in the destruction of the material universe.

 

And it will win. There is no question about that and no room for doubt: one day Chaos will achieve its goal.

 

Every faction is destined to lose. That is what the universe is. Oh, we will never see it happen, yes, because goal of GW is to sell models and they can't do that without universe, but that is the point of the setting: Inevitable and unavoidable destruction of everything for the joy of the Chaos.

 

 

*Snorts*

 

Because stories that are destined end poorly for the characters they are about indicate a lack of depth.

 

No it doesn't. And you will have a hard time finding where I argued that it does.

 

 

[Loesh]

 

 

*Snorts*

 

Because stories that are destined end poorly for the characters they are about indicate a lack of depth.

 

No it doesn't. And you will have a hard time finding where I argued that it does.

 

 

 

From what I gathered, 40k supposedly has less depth for having a particular version of the IP that's more accurate then other interpretations. At the very least, that's what it comes across as.

[Dosjetka]

=][= If you disagree with someone, fine, but there's absolutely no need to be an arse about it.

All of you, cool your jets and cut the crap or this thread is going to get closed down real quick. =][=