ADB on the new Black Templar fluff

[BrotherWallenstein]

Hello Brothers!

 

I recently got back into 40k after a long break. I hope to muster the courage to post pictures of my Crusade soon.

 

Anyways! ADB did a "AMA" on Reddit earlier, and I asked him how he feels about the new Black Templar fluff.

Figured you might be interested in his response...

 

And here is a link to the full AMA: https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer/comments/7igatt/im_aaron_dembskibowden_ask_me_anything/

 

"How do you feel about the Black Templars fluff retcon, going from "Imperial Truthers" to hyper-religious "Imperial Culters"?

Helsreach is legendary by the way, it's what made me come back to painting and collecting."

 

"I feel… distant. On one hand, I think Guy Haley dealt with it well, and he’s the consummate professional with this stuff. Whether he loves something or hates something, you’ll never know. He turns his book in, the book is great, and that’s that. He doesn’t dissolve into 8 months of crippling doubt, rewrites, and back-and-forths with other loreheads like I do.

It’s not that I dislike that specific change, exactly. I don’t think it’s bad, it’s just not a difference I personally enjoy. And that’s not me being diplomatic. I genuinely don’t think it’s worse or better, it’s just a difference I don’t want to write about. Yet? I might feel different if inspiration strikes.

I also have the advantage of being in all those conversations (and, more rarely, meetings) where important IP people have drilled into my skull “There is no one true 40K, there’s just the way you look at the lore through your own lenses”. So, to me, it’s one of those things, if you get me? If I wrote about the Templars, they’d probably? hopefully? still be more like the classic Templars, because of 40K’s stance on loose canon.

Part of my “Hmm, not for me, thanks” is that I feel like it’s such a sea change, and it crosses the boundary of what the Templars are to me, in some respects. At least insofar as I’ve always understood them. The Space Marines are inherently autonomous, not feeding upon Imperial culture, or even part of it, unless they choose to be, and literally deciding their level of involvement with the institutions of the Adeptus Terra. It strikes me as cool, but not really my flavour, for the Templars to adhere to the precepts of the Ecclesiarchy. Or even align with their beliefs, really. As much as 40K is about ignorance, and as much as everyone is some degree of wrong/in the dark/ignorant, the Templars already had their own thing without needing to stick that closely to the historical Templar, uh, template. Like, their beliefs are pretty much the least historically interesting thing about various knightly orders, so having it define the Templars in 40K isn’t for me.

Again, I don’t think it’s bad. (I’d say if I did.) It’s just not my flavour."

Edited December 8, 2017 by BrotherWallenstein

[Scribe]

Yeah. This lines up with what he was telling me about canon in general just a few days back. 

 

'Its 'whatever' do what you like.'

 

Not a stance I like from GW (I dont blame ADB).

[Firepower]

Pretty much what I would've guessed.  Nothing extreme said here or even with 'finality,' but out of alignment with the Templars he's shaped in his own writing (you know, the good Templars).  Still, interesting read.

 

Can't say I'm a huge fan of the 'whatever' ideal, either.  "We wrote the fluff, it's our IP and our universe to do with as we please...but you know, whatevs."  Bit of a wanting/eating cake paradox there.

Edited December 8, 2017 by Firepower

[Marshal Rohr]

He said later in the thread he would’ve played Sigismund straighter than John French. Personally, I love John French and think he’s one of the few authors at BL who sees 40k similar to the way I do - but, I’ve never liked his Sigismund arch. It’s my only really critique of his otherwise great narrative choices. So I’m really sad we will never get to see a different, ‘played straight’ Sigismund.

[Ciler]

Still, it reinforces the whole : do with your crusade as you please. Want your Templars to be diehard atheists, go with it ; OK with the emperor worship, that works too.

 

The evolved setting (with the great rift) seems like a good reason to further justify the discrepancy between crusades on one side and on the other.

[Marshal Rohr]

I think that would be more acceptable if we had official lore examples or passages to extrapolate that from. Right now it feels too much like femmarines or lost Legions. If we had a BL short that showed an atheist crusade we could have something to base our fluff on. Edited December 9, 2017 by Marshal Rohr

[Medjugorje]

for me there is no reason to say that both can exist together. Its fundamental different.

 

But to be honest. This is not the problem for my view on themplars. I dont like the way like they act in beast arises.

There is one way, GW tried too many times to legitimize the rules in 6th and 7th edition, where you can build lists that are not fluffy.

(Black Templars + Iron Warriors  - Blood Angels and Necrons)...

 

For me BT used to be the guys who willing to die before fight beside a xenos or a heretic.

Everywhere you can read about the hate from BT but then they fight beside whaaaat???

[Marshal Rohr]

I understand, I just mean for my own personal ‘permission’

[Medjugorje]

i would never blame anybody for wanting this or this "fluff". But for me the "old" fluff is dead because it cant exist beside the new one.

 

For me there is a hope that the new fluff is a way to being more different to other chapters. (Just the religious thing)

Edited December 9, 2017 by Medjugorje

[Marshal Rohr]

i would never blame anybody for wanting this or this "fluff". But for me the "old" fluff is dead because it cant exist beside the new one.

 

For me there is a hope that the new fluff is a way to being more different to other chapters. (Just the religious thing)

 

Absolutely! I think we can both agree that Templars need more lore!

[Firepower]

What does playing Sigismund "straighter" mean, by the way?  I actually haven't read French's book.

[redmapa]

I agree with ADB, as far as the recent retcons go the "religious Templars" is probably the mildest one and personally Im ok with it though I still prefer the older and muddier version.

[Scribe]

What does playing Sigismund "straighter" mean, by the way?  I actually haven't read French's book.

 

If I had to guess, he wouldnt have had Sigismund fall in love with the idea of the Emperor as God, which at the time, was heretical. 

[Marshal Rohr]

Hopefully, he means like Sigismund in Black Legion. Where he's more terrifying than Vader in a hallway. 

[Sword Brother Adelard]

I personaly found Sigismund's first few lines in Black Legion a bit wooden, very parroted in a way.

​I much preferred him in Templar. He seemed more rounded, unsure of himself in some ways, but extremely able at his trade.

[Hawklynn]

Still, it reinforces the whole : do with your crusade as you please. Want your Templars to be diehard atheists, go with it ; OK with the emperor worship, that works too.

 

The evolved setting (with the great rift) seems like a good reason to further justify the discrepancy between crusades on one side and on the other.

 

 

I think that would be more acceptable if we had official lore examples or passages to extrapolate that from. Right now it feels too much like femmarines or lost Legions. If we had a BL short that showed an atheist crusade we could have something to base our fluff on.

 

Now this would be interesting. A possible civil war between BT crusades? Worlds would burn.

[Medjugorje]

it would be the ruin for the black templar fluff. PLEASE NOT.

 

Choose one. I can live each decision.

[redmapa]

I dont think a civil war would destroy the fluff, its a neat idea of a long lost inner conflict that was probably resolved by unleashing the Marshalls into penitent crusades with only their households. I think the "Purity of Purpose" event where the Templars cleansed several craftworlds with the Sisters is a great spot for a certain High Marshall to start getting too cozy with the Eclesiarchy, maybe assasinated in "friendly fire" or an killed in an "accident", such a tumultuous time for the chapter with the high command dying left and right is a great story in and of itself and the story of a punished Marshall sent into suicide missions with every chapter keep turning them away is also a seed for a fun story.

 

Different shades of zeal are always welcomed in my opinion and times of crisis are always good stories.

[allegedlynerdy]

I feel like the entirety of this divided Imperium stuff going on now is leading up to a civil war, and I would like to be able to see Templars on both sides.

[TheOneTrueZon]

I think this has been incredibly overlooked:

 

[allegedlynerdy]

There's also what I asked (didn't post until now because very similar) but his answer also aluded to something BT in the future...

 

Me:

 

For Black Templars, would you consider the "official" canon that they are part of the imperial cult instead of knowing the imperial truth to simply be propaganda? My understanding is that the official GW stance on lore is that it is all biased, and therefore could be horribly inaccurate. Do you believe this is the case concerning the Templars?

 

ADB:

I'd like it to be the case, but that's a personal view. And I think it's a great idea, personally speaking.

 

It won't come up for me unless I actually write about them again, so I'm safe from really worrying about it. For now...

[Ebon Hand]

My personal headcanon has been exactly what you asked about allegedlynerdy, that it's propaganda about the Black Templars, an excuse to use them as an example for faith, the same as they used Grimaldus by naming him Hero of Helsreach.

 

I'm very glad to read that ADB shares the same feelings I do about the change, specifically that it feels distant and inconsequential, but I don't necessarily hate it although I don't like it for my Black Templars.

 

I may diverge in that I actually do like the loose nature of canon in the 40k universe. It makes everything potentially just a legend... It allows you to make the universe your own as you decide what the real truth is or even what it encompasses.

 

This always made more sense to me as we often forget the sheer scale of the setting. Even if Primarchs were running around or the Black Templars were the most numerous in roster, scores of campaigns or even entire sagas could be fought over spans of sectors and still none of those legends would matter one iota whether they were true or not. All that would matter is the enemy in front of you trying to destroy YOUR planet, and the brothers in arms and ammunition by your side.

[TheOneTrueZon]

I may diverge in that I actually do like the loose nature of canon in the 40k universe. It makes everything potentially just a legend... It allows you to make the universe your own as you decide what the real truth is or even what it encompasses.

 

The concept of the "unreliable narrator" is the backbone of my reasoning behind the flux of canon over the years. The people telling the story can't get it right - there is no unbiased voice, and quite often, horribly misguided.

[Marshal Mattias]

It's worth considering that (so far as I recall) the Adeptus Astartes as a whole "publicly" endorse the Imperial Creed when pressed. It is a tool employed by the Imperium to maintain control. Most chapters know the Imperial Truth, but still take action against heretical elements of the populace who do not follow the creed. So a narrator in-universe would assume that all chapters follow the creed, and would see the Zeal of the Templars as a shining example of devotion above all others, making it particularly worthy of note. So if your head-canon follows the "propaganda" theory, then it is pretty well-justified.

[Medjugorje]

There's also what I asked (didn't post until now because very similar) but his answer also aluded to something BT in the future...

 

Me:

 

For Black Templars, would you consider the "official" canon that they are part of the imperial cult instead of knowing the imperial truth to simply be propaganda? My understanding is that the official GW stance on lore is that it is all biased, and therefore could be horribly inaccurate. Do you believe this is the case concerning the Templars?

 

ADB:

I'd like it to be the case, but that's a personal view. And I think it's a great idea, personally speaking.

 

It won't come up for me unless I actually write about them again, so I'm safe from really worrying about it. For now...

 

My interpretation is that he doesnt write anything about Black Templars for a longer time.

... and I asked him for two years ( i dont remember exactly ) and he said that he dont write about bt next time.