Best books from 2016

[MrDarth151]

 

The Emperor being too despotic was never the criticism of the book in the first place.

Wasn't a main criticism the Emperor's emphasis of water theft over mass murder as a crime deserving execution?

 

Perhaps too "callous toward human life" would more accurately describe your objection?

 

 

No, the criticism was the crime was being ignored. The Emperor should not tolerate his laws being broken. Because it makes him look weak. And, say, allows traitorous subjects to retain their positions of power and commit greater crimes. Like draining a last major source of water on Terra. For example.

 

My criticism was that the Emperor is bad at being despotic, not that he is too despotic.

[Scribe]

I think its best to just move on until said review/comment is posted. Its not going to end well for anyone to try and dig out answers...

 

As one who has followed the majority of the discussion on this book at least local to this forum, the objections by and large so far completely miss the primary point of the book.

[b1soul]

The Emperor should not have done a lot of things...

 

1. Humiliate Lorgar in front of Guilliman

2. Whisk Angron away from his true brothers

3. Make Peturabo feel neglected and unappreciated

 

The list goes on. The Emp is not infallible. He is capable of mistakes, on both macro and micro levels. On the micro level, he may not be able to...or wish to...punish every single crime. He may have to prioritise, bend the rules for the sake of efficiency or other goals

 

As far as I can tell...water theft was the greater crime and judged to be significantly more harmful to the collective good.

 

Perhaps the noblewoman's pogroms/genocides even had the effect of purging elements deemed undesirable by the Emp. Not much info is given, which allows room for a lot of reasonable hypotheses

[HeritorA]

The Emperor should not have done a lot of things...

 

1. Humiliate Lorgar in front of Guilliman

2. Whisk Angron away from his true brothers

3. Make Peturabo feel neglected and unappreciated

 

The list goes on. The Emp is not infallible. He is capable of mistakes, on both macro and micro levels. On the micro level, he may not be able to...or wish to...punish every single crime. He may have to prioritise, bend the rules for the sake of efficiency or other goals

 

As far as I can tell...water theft was the greater crime and judged to be significantly more harmful to the collective good.

 

Perhaps the noblewoman's pogroms/genocides even had the effect of purging elements deemed undesirable by the Emp. Not much info is given, which allows room for a lot of reasonable hypotheses

Great list. He could simply give Mortarion a clear road to have his Vengeance on enslavers of Barbarus - and he would have been the most loyal son ever.

'As far as I can tell...water theft was the greater crime and judged to be significantly more harmful to the collective good.' - especially if it's the last sea/ocean/river and the precious resource.

[Scribe]

What I think all those examples (and more besides) show, and is supported by the text (a compromised primarch is better than no primarch) is that it was all, literally beneath Him.

 

Many mistakes made, but this is a being attempting to guide an entire galaxy spanning empire, an entire race, to a singular goal on a path only He can navigate.

 

Could things have been done better? Likely. However as again proven by this text He was not Omniscient or Omnipotent, but despite that, He was the best Humanity had, by far.

 

So all those other issues, those are issues for lesser beings. His gaze was higher, on a more critical road, and his failing was in assuming or trusting or hoping, that the Primarchs would be his Generals, and do as they had been told.

[A D-B]

The Emperor should not have done a lot of things...

 

1. Humiliate Lorgar in front of Guilliman

2. Whisk Angron away from his true brothers

3. Make Peturabo feel neglected and unappreciated

 

The list goes on. The Emp is not infallible.

 

Very true. #1 is a wash since, well, there's just as much argument to say that Lorgar took a fairly cold lesson extremely badly; the Emperor only even shows up when he refuses to listen to Malcador. It could have gone many other ways, and Lorgar chose to take it as hard as he did. The reason people are 50-50 on who they agree with and who is justified in that scene is because the scene thankfully works well. Some people think Lorgar was overreacting, some people think the Emperor was too harsh and Lorgar was justified, some people adopt a place on the continuum. I like that a lot, and that was what some of the authors always intended in the HH. It's not a particularly controversial scene.

 

#2 always intrigued me though, ever since I first read about it in Ye Olde Lore. Why did he do that? And the same with #3. Why was that allowed to happen? What else makes sense? Why would a loving parental figure do those things and screw up so badly? Maybe because, well, he wasn't a loving parental figure in the terms people vaguely assumed. If he was a loving dad, the problem is that nothing makes sense any more. He becomes a completely incompetent dad who can't understand or relate to anything or anyone, rather than - as the lore and TMoM paints him - a figure that is beyond human concerns; humanity is his focus, not patting his kiddywinkles on the head and kissing their booboos. 

 

It was deemed that this was the only way to justify all of the mistakes and explain away the inconsistencies, which obviously the overwhelming majority of people got, so far. Otherwise, all of the endless stupid "lol bad dad" memes start to make sense. 

 

We discussed that a lot in various meetings, as you can imagine.

 

Of course, TMoM is far from the whole story, and there are several glaring warning sirens saying "THIS PART PROBABLY ISN'T THE WHOLE STORY" which, thankfully, pretty much everyone has picked up on.

[Scribe]

 

#2 always intrigued me though, ever since I first read about it in Ye Olde Lore. Why did he do that? And the same with #3. Why was that allowed to happen? What else makes sense? Why would a loving parental figure do those things and screw up so badly? Maybe because, well, he wasn't a loving parental figure in the terms people vaguely assumed. If he was a loving dad, the problem is that nothing makes sense any more. He becomes a completely incompetent dad who can't understand or relate to anything or anyone, rather than - as the lore and TMoM paints him - a figure that is beyond human concerns; humanity is his focus, not patting his kiddywinkles on the head and kissing their booboos. 

 

It was deemed that this was the only way to justify all of the mistakes and explain away the inconsistencies, which obviously the overwhelming majority of people got, so far. Otherwise, all of the endless stupid "lol bad dad" memes start to make sense. 

 

We discussed that a lot in various meetings, as you can imagine.

 

Of course, TMoM is far from the whole story, and there are several glaring warning sirens saying "THIS PART PROBABLY ISN'T THE WHOLE STORY" which, thankfully, pretty much everyone has picked up on.

 

 

This must be how Curze felt... ;)

 

As a WE (and hence Angron) fan since my youth, this has always been the issue, and I'm glad to find I wasnt alone in all those years of 'Look at this mook Emperor, no way he cares otherwise why X??'

 

The fact you hit on it in Betrayer and felt compelled to do so AGAIN just tells me that its a point that had to be hammered home for the wider fandom.

[A D-B]

#2 always intrigued me though, ever since I first read about it in Ye Olde Lore. Why did he do that? And the same with #3. Why was that allowed to happen? What else makes sense? Why would a loving parental figure do those things and screw up so badly? Maybe because, well, he wasn't a loving parental figure in the terms people vaguely assumed. If he was a loving dad, the problem is that nothing makes sense any more. He becomes a completely incompetent dad who can't understand or relate to anything or anyone, rather than - as the lore and TMoM paints him - a figure that is beyond human concerns; humanity is his focus, not patting his kiddywinkles on the head and kissing their booboos.

It was deemed that this was the only way to justify all of the mistakes and explain away the inconsistencies, which obviously the overwhelming majority of people got, so far. Otherwise, all of the endless stupid "lol bad dad" memes start to make sense.

We discussed that a lot in various meetings, as you can imagine.

Of course, TMoM is far from the whole story, and there are several glaring warning sirens saying "THIS PART PROBABLY ISN'T THE WHOLE STORY" which, thankfully, pretty much everyone has picked up on.

This must be how Curze felt...

As a WE (and hence Angron) fan since my youth, this has always been the issue, and I'm glad to find I wasnt alone in all those years of 'Look at this mook Emperor, no way he cares otherwise why X??'

The fact you hit on it in Betrayer and felt compelled to do so AGAIN just tells me that its a point that had to be hammered home for the wider fandom.

I think (read: I know and am amazed by the fact) that some people attribute it to me, as if I'd invented it. Nuh-uh. I showed what Angron thought about it, which is, well, kind of the point of showing things from a character's point of view and giving it clarity. But it's not my choice, no. In so many things, you run with what's there and define it through the eyes of a character on the ground. There's no need to invent new things wholesale.

Some of the most furious complaints you see about 40K, the HH, whatever else are about "the changes" - often cited when people don't realise it's just old lore being explained through a character's eyes. And a lot of that old lore never made much sense anyway, so you're on shaky ground to begin with. Where Angron was concerned though, and Lorgar to an extent, there was very little to change at all. (Practically nothing with Angron, in fact.) You make what's there make sense, and get out of the way. (Or, rather, you have long-ass meetings and email discussions about how to make what's there make sense, and then do it, and then get out of the way.)

[Scribe]

I fully agree, and if you see me crop up in various threads here, I'm often coming from this incredulous position toward's other people's (mis)understanding of the setting. Maybe its just a knowledge thing, or where people draw the line of 'this is when canon starts' or..something.

 

I cannot think of anything off the top of my head you have invented or made up, you are in my mind one of if not the most strict adherent to what has come before and as you say just looking at it from various perspectives in your work.

 

Thats why Angon's answer was so perfect to me, because it echoed with the truth of forum debates held for years and years like much of your (imo) best stuff.

 

"Why did he do it? Why did he take you.'

"I don't know.'

 

Because thats just it, its unjustifiable how it was done, unless the Emperor simply didnt care about anything but getting his Primarch back in the fold.

 

I wonder if Warseer still has my posts on Betrayer...I went full fan boy on that one in my review if I remember right...

[Vel'Cona]

I believe the "terrible father" quote is most poignant on this subject.  I for one enjoy the concept of the Emperor as aloof and dispassionate if nothing else than for the characterization it provides for a figure that up until now has been purely a vague near-deity.  The Last Church is an additional study in Big E's lack of empathy for human nature, which many could blame on his status as an Eternal but in fact is nothing more than a character flaw (compare to John Grammaticus or Vulkan).  Interestingly, the Emperor's lack of developed empathy in many ways smacks more of a Pariah-like attitude, which could imply that he occupies a state of being wholly different from any other in the 40k universe.

[1ncarnadine]

Thats why Angon's answer was so perfect to me, because it echoed with the truth of forum debates held for years and years like much of your (imo) best stuff.

"Why did he do it? Why did he take you.'

"I don't know.'

Because thats just it, its unjustifiable how it was done, unless the Emperor simply didnt care about anything but getting his Primarch back in the fold.

It's not even just that, but by teleporting Angron away and dooming the rebellion he also secured Nuceria into the Imperium, possibly even bloodlessly (minus Angron's rebellion). We know Nuceria was relatively advanced, having made the Butcher's Nails and maybe even being capable of producing anti-grav vehicles. That could have been a big deal to the Emperor. And what if they had something - anything - that may have benefitted the webway project? It does seem to be considered a relative back-water planet by Betrayer, but still. It's not unusual for the Emperor to take what he wants and disregard what he leaves behind.

Maybe it was a backroom deal with the Mechanicum - "don't blow them up, give us their tech, and we'll stop bothering you about something."

Or, preserving Nuceria and its technology may also have been a move to keep safe the knowledge to remove the Butcher's Nails, even if it turned out the answer was just "uh, nope, we don't really do that."

Yeah, we just don't know. Worth considering though.

But on the main topic, for best reads of 2016... I think Path of Heaven was my favorite read, all-around. I've read the ebook once, and listened to it on audiobook on loooong drives maybe 3 full times now. Runner-up might be Fabius Bile: Primogenitor (really digging the IIIrd Legion from this year).

Honorable mentions for Praetorian of Dorn being the best Alpha Legion novel yet (), and Master of Mankind was great too.

I also read Prospero Burns for the first time in 2016, which was probably long overdue. Then I re-read A Thousand Sons. Both were fantastic, and great reads to tie in to the upcoming HH7 release. Especially fun to revisit ATS; the way I read books and appreciate my media has changed a lot since its release. I remember thinking all the Remembrancer plots were skip-worthy when I read it, and just wanted cool action stuff. I actually don't think I would have liked PB very much if I had read it then, either.

[Scribe]

Yes, there are any number of reasons, but it all boils down to the Emperor not being sentimental, and working based off of what He perceived to be the correct path regardless of who suffers for it (Angron).

 

Thats kind of what I think ADB was getting at earlier. The best way to make the Emperor's actions make sense, is to put him above the consequences, aloof, etc.

[mc warhammer]

 

Master of Mankind... I didn't like very much. But I'm writing a review of why at the moment, and that's neither here or now.

 

Shocking! Especially since you keep mentioning that review - no doubt to repeatedly foreshadow its eventual posting as being vital and important, right? The strangest thing about that book, for me, isn't the insane and overwhelming reception it's had so far (though that's terrifying and humbling in equal measure), it's the occasional voices just so honestly desperate to insist other people are missing the point, and repeatedly trying to tear it down. The bizarre zeal of those voices. The smug "Just you wait for my review"-ness and the disingenuous "I just can't understand why anyone would like it!"-ness of HeritorA (despite, y'know, many reviews or forum threads and Facebook threads where people list what they like about it in immense detail, many of which he posts in or is replying to as having read).

 

My fave book this year was Ahriman: Exodus. I was late to the party on that one.

 

 

i noticed the looming threat/promise of "the review" too.

 

there are people who encounter information that contradicts their beliefs with curiosity and intrigue and there are people who just can't stand that contradiction. in any discussion, those guys are usually out to win. their mind was made up till death before they even registered. you'll drive yourself crazy expecting anything different.

 

i think it's still important to counter them in public; there are plenty of fence sitters or lurkers or people who have a genuine curiosity who can benefit.

 

 

 

as for my fav book, i've only read PoH and PoD. it's actually hard to choose, but i think PoD just nudges ahead. despite the fact i hated some of the events depicted, they were really well done.

[b1soul]

as for my fav book, i've only read PoH and PoD. it's actually hard to choose, but i think PoD just nudges ahead. despite the fact i hated some of the events depicted, they were really well done.

Other than

Alph's death (I'm assuming you didn't like it)

what did you dislike about PoD?

[mc warhammer]

 

as for my fav book, i've only read PoH and PoD. it's actually hard to choose, but i think PoD just nudges ahead. despite the fact i hated some of the events depicted, they were really well done.

Other than

Alph's death (I'm assuming you didn't like it)

what did you dislike about PoD?

 

 

 

you hit that nail on the head, and i think i've expressed why elsewhere (though if 30k becomes a setting, then i have less of a gripe).

 

and funnily enough, even though i love revisions, secret histories, retcons and all that jazz...i found the way the ending slotts into the old lore via "lets just strike this from the record shhhh" a little trite. and honestly, it's just my knee jerk reaction- i mean, it's clever, it fits the way 40k works and also dorn's m.o.it was just too neat for my tastes.

 

so my gripe is that it worked...too well?

 

 

edit: actually, something about the writing didn't grab me. it's a stylistic/structural thing, but i find authors like adb keep my interest by putting a big ? at the beggining of each chapter that hooks me in for the duration. PoD either wasn't structured that way or i didn't notice. the plot itself was fuill of questions and mystery, but the way it was structured caused me to skip chunks of (very nicely written) description or exposition to get to those answers

[b1soul]

I thought PoD's main flaw was Archamus the dullard and his hot-head assault marine sidekick

 

Other than that, it was quite enjoyable

[mc warhammer]

I thought PoD's main flaw was Archamus the dullard and his hot-head assault marine sidekick

 

Other than that, it was quite enjoyable

 

 

yeah, i remembered your view of him as i was reading, so i was looking out for those dullard moments and didn't find any.  he was a hot headed youth himself, (so i get the idea of the foil, even if i can agree he was annoying). as a more measured adult, he was playing catch up to an enemy primarch and performed astoundingly well.

 

his personality didn't make much of an impression on me though.

[b1soul]

yeah, i remembered your view of him as i was reading, so i was looking out for those dullard moments and didn't find any.  he was a hot headed youth himself, (so i get the idea of the foil, even if i can agree he was annoying). as a more measured adult, he was playing catch up to an enemy primarch and performed astoundingly well.

 

his personality didn't make much of an impression on me though.

By dullard...I should probably clarify that I mean bland personality and not particularly bright

 

He doesn't come across as an idiot, just not very mentally agile if you will

[Marshal Rohr]

I fully agree, and if you see me crop up in various threads here, I'm often coming from this incredulous position toward's other people's (mis)understanding of the setting. Maybe its just a knowledge thing, or where people draw the line of 'this is when canon starts' or..something.

I cannot think of anything off the top of my head you have invented or made up, you are in my mind one of if not the most strict adherent to what has come before and as you say just looking at it from various perspectives in your work.

Thats why Angon's answer was so perfect to me, because it echoed with the truth of forum debates held for years and years like much of your (imo) best stuff.

"Why did he do it? Why did he take you.'

"I don't know.'

Because thats just it, its unjustifiable how it was done, unless the Emperor simply didnt care about anything but getting his Primarch back in the fold.

I wonder if Warseer still has my posts on Betrayer...I went full fan boy on that one in my review if I remember right...

As much as I agree with most of your views on the setting, and as much as I disagree with the troll who only made an account to on an author nice enough to explain things to us (surely joining the BnC with the express intention of personally attacking another poster, constantly reminding us he works in Academia so clearly is smarter than the plebeians who post here, and snidely sniping at him when he engages with fans is against like... all of the rules for conduct), I would avoid becoming the BnC's Arbiter of True Canon. I tried it and failed. Others tried it and failed. Some people like sunshine and rainbows. The studio will them just as hard as they the ones who like what we do. In the end, what we think and what we post wont change any minds. Thats why all of my reviews are always 'I dont like X' or 'Y is silly to me'.

You can't accept 'old lore doesnt matter to the updated story' for things you like (Drach'nyen explicitly being the thing to kill the Emperor, Abaddon winning, etc), and then get mad when the same rule will cover things that might upset you (the eventual Age of Sigmar-ing of 40k, Codex mentions of hope for the Imperium, etc). Eventually, the studio will do something that goes counter to the doom and gloom of the setting. Its inevitable. It will happen sooner or later. There is some going on at GW we dont know about right now internally and that kind of drama comes before big changes.

Edit: To clarify, when you said some people misunderstand the universe, that implies that there is something concrete and unchangeable to understand, and there is not. 40K doesnt have laws like thermodynamics, its subject to change at any time, for the dumbest or reasons, or even worse... Apathy to existing lore. If the studio got reorganized tomorrow and some guy who really liked Tolkien as a kid writes that the Imperium is a force for good and 40k is a battle between Good and Evil and both might win, THAT is the new underlying truth of the universe, and you wont be able to change that anymore than I can make the Templars atheists again.

[mc warhammer]

 

yeah, i remembered your view of him as i was reading, so i was looking out for those dullard moments and didn't find any.  he was a hot headed youth himself, (so i get the idea of the foil, even if i can agree he was annoying). as a more measured adult, he was playing catch up to an enemy primarch and performed astoundingly well.

 

his personality didn't make much of an impression on me though.

By dullard...I should probably clarify that I mean bland personality and not particularly bright

 

He doesn't come across as an idiot, just not very mentally agile if you will

 

 

 

yeah, i get that. though i felt that was more due to the shock of dealing with the AL form of warfare, something the IF and imperium in general felt ill equipped to handle. to me, it doevtails nicely with the "new warfare" written about in KNF. it's almost more alien to them than xenos.

 

i think he performed well, but i won't miss him.

[Scribe]

 

Edit: To clarify, when you said some people misunderstand the universe, that implies that there is something concrete and unchangeable to understand, and there is not. 40K doesnt have laws like thermodynamics, its subject to change at any time, for the dumbest or reasons, or even worse... Apathy to existing lore. If the studio got reorganized tomorrow and some guy who really liked Tolkien as a kid writes that the Imperium is a force for good and 40k is a battle between Good and Evil and both might win, THAT is the new underlying truth of the universe, and you wont be able to change that anymore than I can make the Templars atheists again. 

 

 

Fair points, and while yes ultimately the setting is malleable, until it changes, it is what it is.

 

An example of a Crapsack World Trope, dialed to 11.

 

I get you man. I deny several changes in my head canon, and can only hope that the wider setting never takes a blow (Templars, Iron Hands being my goto complaints) that I need to reconcile or accept.

 

So I'll preach 'The True Word' until it no longer is such, and push back on Hope, Light of Dawn, Rise of the Emperor, and Marines+1 until such time as I cannot make those arguments with validity. :] 

[HeritorA]

The Emperor should not have done a lot of things...

1. Humiliate Lorgar in front of Guilliman

2. Whisk Angron away from his true brothers

3. Make Peturabo feel neglected and unappreciated

The list goes on. The Emp is not infallible.

Very true. #1 is a wash since, well, there's just as much argument to say that Lorgar took a fairly cold lesson extremely badly; the Emperor only even shows up when he refuses to listen to Malcador. It could have gone many other ways, and Lorgar chose to take it as hard as he did. The reason people are 50-50 on who they agree with and who is justified in that scene is because the scene thankfully works well. Some people think Lorgar was overreacting, some people think the Emperor was too harsh and Lorgar was justified, some people adopt a place on the continuum. I like that a lot, and that was what some of the authors always intended in the HH. It's not a particularly controversial scene.

#2 always intrigued me though, ever since I first read about it in Ye Olde Lore. Why did he do that? And the same with #3. Why was that allowed to happen? What else makes sense? Why would a loving parental figure do those things and screw up so badly? Maybe because, well, he wasn't a loving parental figure in the terms people vaguely assumed. If he was a loving dad, the problem is that nothing makes sense any more. He becomes a completely incompetent dad who can't understand or relate to anything or anyone, rather than - as the lore and TMoM paints him - a figure that is beyond human concerns; humanity is his focus, not patting his kiddywinkles on the head and kissing their booboos.

It was deemed that this was the only way to justify all of the mistakes and explain away the inconsistencies, which obviously the overwhelming majority of people got, so far. Otherwise, all of the endless stupid "lol bad dad" memes start to make sense.

We discussed that a lot in various meetings, as you can imagine.

Of course, TMoM is far from the whole story, and there are several glaring warning sirens saying "THIS PART PROBABLY ISN'T THE WHOLE STORY" which, thankfully, pretty much everyone has picked up on.

And of course the ripple on the water effect A D-B. I think the best quote here would be the dialog between the Empra and Ra about scaling the wall.

And you are totally right - people try to judge the Emperor with human measures, but he is outside any ranging system. He is beyond human concerns same as his 'numbers' are too influenced by them.

I fully agree, and if you see me crop up in various threads here, I'm often coming from this incredulous position toward's other people's (mis)understanding of the setting. Maybe its just a knowledge thing, or where people draw the line of 'this is when canon starts' or..something.

I cannot think of anything off the top of my head you have invented or made up, you are in my mind one of if not the most strict adherent to what has come before and as you say just looking at it from various perspectives in your work.

Thats why Angon's answer was so perfect to me, because it echoed with the truth of forum debates held for years and years like much of your (imo) best stuff.

"Why did he do it? Why did he take you.'

"I don't know.'

Because thats just it, its unjustifiable how it was done, unless the Emperor simply didnt care about anything but getting his Primarch back in the fold.

I wonder if Warseer still has my posts on Betrayer...I went full fan boy on that one in my review if I remember right...

As much as I agree with most of your views on the setting, and as much as I disagree with the troll who only made an account to on an author nice enough to explain things to us (surely joining the BnC with the express intention of personally attacking another poster, constantly reminding us he works in Academia so clearly is smarter than the plebeians who post here, and snidely sniping at him when he engages with fans is against like... all of the rules for conduct), I would avoid becoming the BnC's Arbiter of True Canon. I tried it and failed. Others tried it and failed. Some people like sunshine and rainbows. The studio will them just as hard as they the ones who like what we do. In the end, what we think and what we post wont change any minds. Thats why all of my reviews are always 'I dont like X' or 'Y is silly to me'.

You can't accept 'old lore doesnt matter to the updated story' for things you like (Drach'nyen explicitly being the thing to kill the Emperor, Abaddon winning, etc), and then get mad when the same rule will cover things that might upset you (the eventual Age of Sigmar-ing of 40k, Codex mentions of hope for the Imperium, etc). Eventually, the studio will do something that goes counter to the doom and gloom of the setting. Its inevitable. It will happen sooner or later. There is some going on at GW we dont know about right now internally and that kind of drama comes before big changes.

Edit: To clarify, when you said some people misunderstand the universe, that implies that there is something concrete and unchangeable to understand, and there is not. 40K doesnt have laws like thermodynamics, its subject to change at any time, for the dumbest or reasons, or even worse... Apathy to existing lore. If the studio got reorganized tomorrow and some guy who really liked Tolkien as a kid writes that the Imperium is a force for good and 40k is a battle between Good and Evil and both might win, THAT is the new underlying truth of the universe, and you wont be able to change that anymore than I can make the Templars atheists again.

Wow wow easy where.

[DukeLeto69]

 

The Emperor should not have done a lot of things...

1. Humiliate Lorgar in front of Guilliman

2. Whisk Angron away from his true brothers

3. Make Peturabo feel neglected and unappreciated

The list goes on. The Emp is not infallible.

 

 

Very true. #1 is a wash since, well, there's just as much argument to say that Lorgar took a fairly cold lesson extremely badly; the Emperor only even shows up when he refuses to listen to Malcador. It could have gone many other ways, and Lorgar chose to take it as hard as he did. The reason people are 50-50 on who they agree with and who is justified in that scene is because the scene thankfully works well. Some people think Lorgar was overreacting, some people think the Emperor was too harsh and Lorgar was justified, some people adopt a place on the continuum. I like that a lot, and that was what some of the authors always intended in the HH. It's not a particularly controversial scene.

 

#2 always intrigued me though, ever since I first read about it in Ye Olde Lore. Why did he do that? And the same with #3. Why was that allowed to happen? What else makes sense? Why would a loving parental figure do those things and screw up so badly? Maybe because, well, he wasn't a loving parental figure in the terms people vaguely assumed. If he was a loving dad, the problem is that nothing makes sense any more. He becomes a completely incompetent dad who can't understand or relate to anything or anyone, rather than - as the lore and TMoM paints him - a figure that is beyond human concerns; humanity is his focus, not patting his kiddywinkles on the head and kissing their booboos. 

 

It was deemed that this was the only way to justify all of the mistakes and explain away the inconsistencies, which obviously the overwhelming majority of people got, so far. Otherwise, all of the endless stupid "lol bad dad" memes start to make sense. 

 

We discussed that a lot in various meetings, as you can imagine.

 

Of course, TMoM is far from the whole story, and there are several glaring warning sirens saying "THIS PART PROBABLY ISN'T THE WHOLE STORY" which, thankfully, pretty much everyone has picked up on.

Ok so seeing as so many people have gone off topic with this thread I will also

 

I have another theory about why the Emperor acts the way he does at any point. The problem with this theory is that it is too close to Dune universe and as such probably isn't the case. However, it WOULD WORK very well as an explanation...

 

The Emperor is prescient. In other words he can tell the future. Now as the future is not set and can be influenced (as the Eldar know and do) then He knows that he needs to nudge someone a certain way, win or lose a battle at a certain time etc to achieve his goals.

 

In God Emperor of Dune, Leto has deliberately set himself up as a tyrant that suppresses the human race. This is because he can see the infinitesimal number of possible futures and knows that only one "path" to the future will actually result in the human race continuing rather than becoming extinct. He calls this "The Golden Path" but to achieve it one of the things he must do is orchestrate his own death and the massed rebellion and dispersal of the human race. He does this by being extremely repressive.

 

So what is the 30k Emperor has a similar "dilemma" with how to save the human race? What if he has seen all possible futures and knows that to achieve his goals he has to be a bit of a jerk? He needs Horus to go against him. He needs certain Primarchs to side with Horus and others to remain loyal. He therefore needs to manipulate situations and treat his sons in certain ways to ensure they are "nudged" towards his required path to the future!

 

Now my next connected theory is pure fanboy speculation about something *I* think would be cool but I have no evidence to back is up...

 

Personally I like the idea that The Emperor wanted/needed to become a God all along. Forget the fact there are chaos Gods, they are just Gods and they exist due to the emotions, behaviour and worship of quadrillions of sentient beings (mostly human). So what if to become a God it means The Emperor needs to be worshipped in the same way. What if his denial of divinity was part of his "Golden Path" knowing that denying divinity would ultimately result in his ascension to Godhood! If he can foretell the future he will know his mortal body all but dies in the fight with Horus but that outcome would be his desired intention.

 

Why?

 

Because to provide salvation to the human race and prevent extinction He needs to be in the warp constantly at war with the other Gods and to maintain his position in the pantheon he needs to be worshipped. And self sacrifice is an almost sure way to ensure veneration (look at Jesus).

 

Ergo...

 

What was the "deal" He cut with the (Chaos) Gods? What if He tricked them? Or even more bold what if he claimed he must be one of them? What if he made it clear to them that their very existence relies on the continuing existence of the human race and that only he can protect them from extinction in 10,000 years time. What if the Gods are all playing the grand game in their own way but recognise that while one may have the upper hand at any given time, all of them need to exist for the others to exist.

 

Like Slaanesh being a relative newcomer to the pantheon so The Emperor would be the next God!

 

Also, ever wondered why it is an eight pointed star of chaos? Will there ultimately be eight Gods? The Emperor being number five? ( yes I know in reality that the eight pointed star was copied/reference to Michael Moorcock).

 

So in my little personal 30k/40k belief system I like the idea that the War in the Webway was actually more a War in the Warp and that it is still raging in the "present". The corpse God is actually anything but...his mortal body is a husk but his mind/spirit is still fiercly fighting a war in the warp to save humanity from extinction...and he draws his power from the worship of quadrillions of humans.

 

Just an idea!

[WarriorFish]

Stay on topic please, if you want to discuss things like the nature of the Emperor or the setting at large this is not the place for it. Thanks.

[Karthak]

For best books, Path of Heaven blew my socks off.

Why would a loving parental figure do those things and screw up so badly? Maybe because, well, he wasn't a loving parental figure in the terms people vaguely assumed. If he was a loving dad, the problem is that nothing makes sense any more. He becomes a completely incompetent dad who can't understand or relate to anything or anyone, rather than - as the lore and TMoM paints him - a figure that is beyond human concerns; humanity is his focus, not patting his kiddywinkles on the head and kissing their booboos.

It was deemed that this was the only way to justify all of the mistakes and explain away the inconsistencies, which obviously the overwhelming majority of people got, so far. Otherwise, all of the endless stupid "lol bad dad" memes start to make sense.

I don't think the "lol bad dad" meme is going away any time soon. Two years ago, on another forum, a thread was posted with the title of:

"The Reason You Suck' speeches you've wanted to give to a fictional character"

My entry was:

The Emperor of Man.

"If you'd devoted even a fraction of your unparallelled intellect towards being a good father this entire mess wouldn't have happened!"

It got over a hundred likes.

About the Emperor being above it all and only focusing on humanity, this quote by Mordin Solus from Mass Effect 3 springs to mind:

"I MADE A MISTAKE! I made a mistake...Focused on big picture. Big picture made of little pictures. Too many variables. Can't hide behind statistics. Can't ignore new data. My responsibility."

Especially the part about "Big picture made of little pictures."