Malcador: First Lord of the Imperium.

[animal310]

there’s been a few references and povs of the emperor as “good”, if not any direct stuff from the emp himself. from what i saw even back in the IA days, he always acted in mystifying and ruthless ways

from my understanding of the this story, it’s ambiguous. you can take or leave it

Yes and I am glad that they did leave it ambiguous however it does leave a nasty taste.

 

Not sure how saying the equivalent of the following to someone on their deathbed is supposed to be comforting “oh its all ok, the Emperor planned to kill millions of his own men along with the primarchs he created who consider him to be their father as part of some huge convoluted plan he cooked up, for reasons. Oh and the only reason that this super plan is not in fact going to plan is because of other reasons such as chaos, which was in fact one of the elements that the original plan was supossed to help defeat. So yeah all the destruction and billions dead in horrific circumstances is fine because the Emperor planned it all, except not quite like this. Oh and when you do die, trust him, he will look after you”.

 

I have no doubt that anyone on their deathbed in this setting would be totally comforted by hearing all this. She would have went out with a smile on her face.

 

Sigh.

[DarkChaplain]

Why that's comforting? Because it implies control of the situation. Because if it was all part of the plan all along, it means that there's hope for the plan's success even now. You have to remember that these characters live centuries, they're privy to a lot of secrets (Malcador obviously, but the dying woman specifically here). They've worked their entire lives believing in a greater cause, some goal much larger than their own lives. They gave all they had in service to that goal, through Malcador and the Emperor.

 

It is comforting to hear that all's going mostly according to plan, because it means their lives weren't wasted on schemes that would flop and never pay off. It means that their sacrifices were worthwhile, that they lived doing the right thing, that they had and still have a chance to succeed with their legacy.

 

These people at the core of the Emperor's court and Malcador's associates are far less selfish than you'd think. They willingly give themselves up, and the worst thing for them to hear is that their service meant naught in the end. That their contributions didn't serve their lords and their goals, rendering them irrelevant, wasted potential. They all knew there would be human sacrifices along the way. The Great Crusade alone slaughtered billions on the road to galactic conquest, on both sides. They're sending soldiers to their deaths to buy hours so they can prepare for the Siege better. All these high-ranked characters still agreed that it was a necessary evil, no matter how distasteful, in the pursuit of a common, greater good in the end. They don't gleefully applaud the lives lost to war, but they are fully aware that without these losses, the Imperium of Man would not exist.

[animal310]

 

 

He could have just said “don’t worry the Emperor has a plan that will fix it”

The core issue I have is this narrative that the Emperor always planned to destroy the Primarchs and their legions by way of a civil war. Whatever way you cut that it just

does not stand up to any scrutiny and is a serious departure from the origin of the story as written in 1993 by Bill King. Link below.

 

http://members.tripod.com/orcrist_game/40k/id3.html

 

I understand that of course some ret-cons take place however this is changing the fundamental nature of the conflict as first envisioned, which I think is not only disappointing but detrimental to the setting as a whole. The Emperor has gone from a tragic hero and visionary to a murdering, scheming failure. Why?

I know that ‘nothing is set in stone, everything open to interpretation etc, and this story is ambiguous. However I feel that it adds nothing and needlessly takes away for a cheap ‘surprise’.   

 

[Tymell]

 

He could have just said “don’t worry the Emperor has a plan that will fix it”

The core issue I have is this narrative that the Emperor always planned to destroy the Primarchs and their legions by way of a civil war. Whatever way you cut that it just

does not stand up to any scrutiny and is a serious departure from the origin of the story as written in 1993 by Bill King. Link below.

 

http://members.tripod.com/orcrist_game/40k/id3.html

 

I understand that of course some ret-cons take place however this is changing the fundamental nature of the conflict as first envisioned, which I think is not only disappointing but detrimental to the setting as a whole. The Emperor has gone from a tragic hero and visionary to a murdering, scheming failure. Why?

I know that ‘nothing is set in stone, everything open to interpretation etc, and this story is ambiguous. However I feel that it adds nothing and needlessly takes away for a cheap ‘surprise’.   

 

 

Honestly, I think you're answering your own complaint: it -is- open to interpretation. They're not taking anything away in this story because it could all be a lie. Or maybe some of it is. Or maybe none of it is.

 

Some folks will enjoy a story like that and some will hate it, and that's fair enough. But I don't understand how this story is taking away from the overall narrative for you, when it doesn't give you any absolutes truths. Just possibilities.

 

I think this is usually the case with the Emperor too. He's not depicted directly all that often in the series, and even when he is, his manner and words seem carefully chosen so as to leave things open. For example, in Master of Mankind, Land has a scene with the Emperor where he seems very cold and uncaring about the Primarchs, referring to them by numbers and discussing them as tools rather than sons. Is this really how he thinks of them, or is it put on because of who he's talking to? Maybe it even goes beyond that, with Land himself hearing and seeing what fits for him?

 

There are exceptions (as there always will be in a series with two dozen different authors), but I think on the whole this is how the Emperor has usually been portrayed. He does what he does, and whether that makes him a flawed monster only out for himself or a struggling genius taking on more than anyone ever has is up to you.

 

IMO.

[mc warhammer]

it’s also a very small (short) story in the entire hh stable

[Ascanius]

Complaining about things not being the same as in Bill King's story from White Dwarf #161 - which isn't even the only version of the story King wrote - is like complaining that things in today's Star Wars movies aren't the same as in George Lucas's early drafts of the story, or Ralph McQuarrie's concept art.

 

Other things that are different from that story:

• The Imperial Palace isn't decorated with angel statues
• Rogal Dorn isn't dark-haired
• Horus and the other Primarchs are (implicitly) not considered to be the Emperor's sons by anyone; Horus is metaphorically like a favoured son
• The Emperor and the other Loyalists appear have been unaware that Horus has sided with Chaos until the climax of the Siege of Terra
• It's a Terminator who attempts to intervene in the fight between Horus and the Emperor (obviously we don't know how this will play out now, but the next version King wrote would include the myth of the Guardsman)

So, yeah. If you don't like the current version of the story, that's one thing, but complaining that it's not the same as it used to be is silly.

 

There's a separate argument to be had about whether or not the old "the Emperor's heart was broken" story makes any goddamned sense, of course . . .

[mc warhammer]

the rogal hair colour change broke me

[animal310]

Complaining about things not being the same as in Bill King's story from White Dwarf #161 - which isn't even the only version of the story King wrote - is like complaining that things in today's Star Wars movies aren't the same as in George Lucas's early drafts of the story, or Ralph McQuarrie's concept art.

 

Other things that are different from that story:

 

• The Imperial Palace isn't decorated with angel statues
• Rogal Dorn isn't dark-haired
• Horus and the other Primarchs are (implicitly) not considered to be the Emperor's sons by anyone; Horus is metaphorically like a favoured son
• The Emperor and the other Loyalists appear have been unaware that Horus has sided with Chaos until the climax of the Siege of Terra
• It's a Terminator who attempts to intervene in the fight between Horus and the Emperor (obviously we don't know how this will play out now, but the next version King wrote would include the myth of the Guardsman)

So, yeah. If you don't like the current version of the story, that's one thing, but complaining that it's not the same as it used to be is silly.

 

There's a separate argument to be had about whether or not the old "the Emperor's heart was broken" story makes any goddamned sense, of course . . .

I acknolwdged that changes take place and many changes, such as the ones you list are either irrelevant or a part of a natural evolution and refinment of a story. I have only one issue, the suggestion that in some way the Emperor planned or planned a similar scenario to what occured is a fundemental change from both of Bill Kings versions and indeed the whole nature of the setting when it was originally envisioned. That is a huge change, not a difference in wall decoration or someones hair colour.

 

Personally I think that is a shame and a mistake. It’s also something I dislike because it makes no sense and falls apart at the merest hint of examination. My own view, I know others have theirs.

 

I believe the setting suffers from not having a more principled and honourable Emperor than the one that is suggested in this story and it would be nice to see such a portrayal before this is all wrapped up.

 

I don’t think Goulding will be writting the final verison in the throne room anyway, so I still have faith!

 

Incidentally both of Bill King’s versions are very similar apart from some updating and the swapping of a terminator for a guardsman, certainly no machavellian cacking from the Emperor! Yet!

[Jareddm]

 

I acknolwdged that changes take place and many changes, such as the ones you list are either irrelevant or a part of a natural evolution and refinment of a story. I have only one issue, the suggestion that in some way the Emperor planned or planned a similar scenario to what occured is a fundemental change from both of Bill Kings versions and indeed the whole nature of the setting when it was originally envisioned. That is a huge change, not a difference in wall decoration or someones hair colour.

To me, complaining about this now is mind-boggling.  Not just because I disagree with it, but because you seem to think it is a new concept, that this came out of nowhere.  I'm sure a number of folks in this very thread can remember us discussing how the Emperor likely planned the Heresy, at least in part, way back when The First Heretic came out.  The way he focused on supporting some primarchs while neglecting others.  His speech at Monarchia being a strong indicator of this.  In fact, what was being complained about was that the Emperor was so clearly beating on Lorgar and was responsible for the Heresy that no one even gave it a second thought that the Emperor had wanted it from the start.

[animal310]

 

I acknolwdged that changes take place and many changes, such as the ones you list are either irrelevant or a part of a natural evolution and refinment of a story. I have only one issue, the suggestion that in some way the Emperor planned or planned a similar scenario to what occured is a fundemental change from both of Bill Kings versions and indeed the whole nature of the setting when it was originally envisioned. That is a huge change, not a difference in wall decoration or someones hair colour.

 

To me, complaining about this now is mind-boggling. Not just because I disagree with it, but because you seem to think it is a new concept, that this came out of nowhere. I'm sure a number of folks in this very thread can remember us discussing how the Emperor likely planned the Heresy, at least in part, way back when The First Heretic came out. The way he focused on supporting some primarchs while neglecting others. His speech at Monarchia being a strong indicator of this. In fact, what was being complained about was that the Emperor was so clearly beating on Lorgar and was responsible for the Heresy that no one even gave it a second thought that the Emperor had wanted it from the start.

Just because some readers of the novels discus a fan theory concept does not make it part of the setting. Until it is, which it might be now, or might not be!

[DarkChaplain]

It has been implied numerous times in various stories over the past 10 years and more.

[mc warhammer]

but...you can (at least for now) take or leave that implication

[animal310]

It has been implied numerous times in various stories over the past 10 years and more.

Examples?

[Lord_Caerolion]

The implications behind the massive differences between the Emperors approach to the various Primarchs? Two Primarchs landed and were taken in to a slave population, rose against their masters, and were found by the Emperor on the eve of their final battle for freedom. The difference? Corax got offered the use of his Legion and the other Imperial forces in orbit, allowing them to decisively win the battle and conquer the lunar strongholds. Angron, on the other hand, had his Legion in orbit, they had a Crusade Fleet there, but instead of allowing the War Hounds to blood themselves in battle beside their Primarch and then recruit Angron's comrades the same way all other Primarchs were treated, he's instead kidnapped and immediately abandoned by the Emperor while his army dies leaderless on the planet below.

 

Does that seem like both Primarchs were treated the same upon discovery? Because it sounds to me like the Emperor was basically doing everything in his power to guarantee that Angron wanted him dead.

[DukeLeto69]

Being a Dune fan I like the idea that the Emperor was prescient and was manipulating the present to influence the future. However, in the case of 40k that only really works if the Emperor desired an outcome where he was worshipped as a God and religion and superstition etc usurped the progress of science etc.

 

Purely head cannon this but... I always liked the idea that the Emperor needed to take the battle to the Gods of Chaos in order to protect the human race. However, the only way he could do that was to become a God as Gods exist by drawing on the power of worship and veneration. The Emp needed to join the pantheon as an equal and as a manifestation of other aspects of the human psych not already taken by the other four Gods.

 

Connected to this the Primarchs are Arch Angels (good greater deamons) and the Astartes are Angels (good daemons) for the fight against the greater/lesser daemons warp.

 

As I said, just a head cannon concept.

[Kelborn]

Got a similar head cannon, as well.

Big E getting the boost up from the gods by offering half of his sons. In his arrogance, he tries to outmatch them by his webway project. As it turns out, rebellion happens much earlier than he'd expected it to happen (thanks to Erebus, Kor, etc.), screwing everything up.

 

One might say that his damnation came from the very source he wanted to protect and preserve so badly: mortals

[MrDarth151]

 

 

He could have just said “don’t worry the Emperor has a plan that will fix it”

The core issue I have is this narrative that the Emperor always planned to destroy the Primarchs and their legions by way of a civil war. Whatever way you cut that it just

does not stand up to any scrutiny and is a serious departure from the origin of the story as written in 1993 by Bill King. Link below.

 

http://members.tripod.com/orcrist_game/40k/id3.html

 

I understand that of course some ret-cons take place however this is changing the fundamental nature of the conflict as first envisioned, which I think is not only disappointing but detrimental to the setting as a whole. The Emperor has gone from a tragic hero and visionary to a murdering, scheming failure. Why?

I know that ‘nothing is set in stone, everything open to interpretation etc, and this story is ambiguous. However I feel that it adds nothing and needlessly takes away for a cheap ‘surprise’.   

 

 

Honestly, I think you're answering your own complaint: it -is- open to interpretation. They're not taking anything away in this story because it could all be a lie. Or maybe some of it is. Or maybe none of it is.

 

Some folks will enjoy a story like that and some will hate it, and that's fair enough. But I don't understand how this story is taking away from the overall narrative for you, when it doesn't give you any absolutes truths. Just possibilities.

 

I think this is usually the case with the Emperor too. He's not depicted directly all that often in the series, and even when he is, his manner and words seem carefully chosen so as to leave things open. For example, in Master of Mankind, Land has a scene with the Emperor where he seems very cold and uncaring about the Primarchs, referring to them by numbers and discussing them as tools rather than sons. Is this really how he thinks of them, or is it put on because of who he's talking to? Maybe it even goes beyond that, with Land himself hearing and seeing what fits for him?

 

There are exceptions (as there always will be in a series with two dozen different authors), but I think on the whole this is how the Emperor has usually been portrayed. He does what he does, and whether that makes him a flawed monster only out for himself or a struggling genius taking on more than anyone ever has is up to you.

 

IMO.

 

And I disagree.

 

I consider attempts of Black Library to portray Emperor as a character open to interpretation to be a failure. That's why I consider it to be taking away from the story: Because it says it gives you possibilities, but what is actually written gives you truths.

 

You bring up Master of Mankind, and Master of Mankind is an example of what consider to be a failure when it comes to providing ambiguous interpretation of the Emperor of Mankind. Point of the matter is: You have conversation with Land, and it isn't really inconsistent with the conversations Emps has with Ra and Diocletian. There are small differences, but the core is essentially the same.

 

And that is a problem. Because you have multiple sources saying that Emps treated Primarchs as tools, that he manipulated them, that he intended to wipe them and the Legions, you have Dark Imperium's Guilliman literally say that Emperor's ability to manipulate his power has decreased and that he can see very clearly that he only ever wanted to treat them as tools...

 

And then all of the alternative portrayals to that one come from perspective of Primarchs.

 

People Emps is literally, explicitly, multiple times stated by himself, and others, he manipulates.

 

So riddle me this: How is characterisation like that actually ambiguous? How would you reach that conclusion, based on the text, and not statements from Authors? I feel, more and more, that ambiguousness of The Emperor's portrayal is an informed quality, one that is stated, but not actually executed in writing.

[Kelborn]

Just my personal two cents but the way BL depicts the Emperor and his ambiguousness is how I'd wanted it to be.

 

Whoever interacts with him has his own view on him. "The" Emperor changes from each pov, making him a vague, mysterious, ambiguous and most importantly an inscrutable being.

 

If we compare him with the old gods, he is more manifold than his chaos counterpart. They are rather "simple" compared to him:

 

- Khorne: war, bloodshed, honor

- Tzeentch: magic, scheming, change

- Slaanesh: temptation, mortal desires, carnality / excess

 

Still, as far as I remember, we don't have direct interactions with them in the same way as we have with the Emperor. I for one do not know how BL is dealing them.

 

What of the Emperor?

 

Of what we call "known" or rather what we assume to know about him:

 

- webway project in order to preserve mankind

- getting rid of the dependence of the warp

- making the best of humankind

 

Those goals are on one hand, observations by reading what GW / BL is presenting us and on the other hand, assumptions from us, the reader.

 

Do I want the Emperor to be a tangible character like a Primarch or a Space Marine or a mortal? Surely not.

He is presented as the God-Emperor at the very end. His powers, backstory, intentions and everything about him is left in ambiguousness and that is a good thing.

 

Maybe it's just me but I really got the impression of a personified deity for the reasons I've mentioned earlier in this post.

 

If I may ask, how would you like to have them writing about the Emperor?

 

I mean, they will probably do their best in depicting THE most iconic figure of Warhammer besides THE regular Space Marine. It's naturally that not all will agree with them, eh? :)

[nagashnee]

I dont care if they want to write the Emperor or not, BL has shown they will do/say/publish anything if they think there is profit in it. 

 

But if i wanted Laurie Goulding to waste my time i could just go to his twitter, it is not only free, still  provides me access to his headcannon, but i also get called names! 

[hopkins]

I dont care if they want to write the Emperor or not, BL has shown they will do/say/publish anything if they think there is profit in it. 

 

But if i wanted Laurie Goulding to waste my time i could just go to his twitter, it is not only free, still  provides me access to his headcannon, but i also get called names! 

 

[Ascanius]

I don't have anything invested in the idea that "the Emperor planned it all along", but I guess I do have something invested against the idea that the Emperor has to have been "principled and honourable", because he cannot have been. That's incompatible with what he did, in any version of his story.

 

Anyway, on a slightly different topic, here's something Laurie Goulding posted over on The First Expedition on 2016-12-03:

 

What I took from it was that the Emperor *needed* Horus to rebel, for his plan to work. He just didn't expect Magnus to bust through the webway, or for himself to get stuck in the Throne at the end of the Siege...

 

You can't make an Imperium without breaking a few eggs, and all that.

 

I can't find it right this minute, but I definitely remember a post where he proposed that the plan was to get humanity ready to use the Webway, then die in battle with a corrupted Primarch to demonstrate both the danger of Chaos and that it can be beaten, et cetera.

[Ascanius]

OK, I found it. In this thread on 2016-12-06:

 

On a personal opinion level, I don't see how anyone can say the Emperor made bad decisions. He had a plan so complex that human minds can't comprehend it, and then Chaos threw the plan off-centre, and he never managed to recover, or things were done in his name that ended up ruining the plan.

 

Maybe, MAYBE, it was something like this?

 

1) So, I need to help mankind ascend. The way I do that is by unifying the Imperium, removing the need for warp travel and then dying gloriously. That's my divine plan, I move in mysterious ways etc.

2) First, unify Terra, except my Custodian Guard are too valuable and too few to do it quickly. Create army of gene-spliced barbarian Thunder Warriors.

3) Terra is unified. Have Custodians kill off key elements of Thunder Legion, rest will eventually die because I didn't build them to last.

4) Reconquer galaxy. Going to need to be in about 20 places at once for this, so create post-human primarch generals to lead my armies of transhuman Space Marines. Give them all unique traits to add variety and specialisations.

5) Make deal with UNKNOWABLE GODS OF DARKNESS. Part of the deal involves "accidentally" scattering the primarchs across the galaxy. That's okay though, because I'll end up finding all those worlds as I conquer the galaxy anyway.

6) Next phase after this is a new age of peace and prosperity for mankind, where we won't need Space Marines or primarchs. Hmmm... I can't build in a limited lifespan as I don't know how long they need to last... So instead I need something a bit more elaborate...

7) Part of new age will also be the webway, which will get rid of three of the most powerful parts of the crusading Imperium - the Navigators, the Legions and the Primarchs. None of them are going to be happy about that, and they will do whatever they can to stop it, if they find out.

8) Instead of risking an unpredictable rebellion, I will engineer a smaller one. I know, I'll put Primarch XVI in charge of the others - he's popular, and ambitious, and smart. He'll figure out what I'm doing, and I've given him everything he needs to rebel in a manageable way, AND gotten rid of the psykers in the Legions who might have been able to foresee it. There's no way this can all go wrong, especially because I abolished all religion and any possible interaction with those DARK GODS that I tricked earlier...

9) Leave Great Crusade, start work on the webway.

10) :cuss, MAGNUS. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE? THIS WAS ALL CAREFULLY BALANCED, YOU DINGUS. Russ, go and fetch Magnus. What an idiot. I need to explain my secret plan to him. Hope that doesn't mess with the whole Horus thing... anyway, I need to deal with this. Dorn, Malcador, hold my calls while I go back downstairs. Sigh, daemons everywhere...

11) ...Wait, WHAT? I've been in another realm, unable to monitor the actions of my underlings, and you've all completely thrown this plan down the toilet. Right, I'll fix this. Let's just wait for Horus and his... four, five... NINE?!... traitor Legions to come here. It's fine, I can still have a glorious death, Chaos is now quite clearly the biggest danger to all sentient life, and humanity will do pretty much anything I say.

12) Deal with Horus. Hey Malcador, hold my beer...

[mc warhammer]

i’d like to draw attention to his stress on the word “maybe”

[MrDarth151]

 

I don't have anything invested in the idea that "the Emperor planned it all along", but I guess I do have something invested against the idea that the Emperor has to have been "principled and honourable", because he cannot have been. That's incompatible with what he did, in any version of his story.

 

No. It is not.

 

This interpretation is based on reducing the idea of morality to some vague definition of goodness that only the most pure of fictional characters fulfil. You can be principled, and still commit acts that are, in and of itself, considered horrible. The ideas behind it are hundreds of years old. This really isn't hard.

 

And I am personally against "He didn't care about his sons at all!" idea, that Black Library has been pushing too hard in recent years, because if you take the Emperor as a man who didn't have emotional investment in his sons, and lacked strong moral principles, you arrive at a very simple, very plain conclusion.

 

The Emperor of Mankind was an idiot who didn't manage to learn lessons we know about proper authoritarian form of governance since times before Christ.

 

So no. I don't find it particularly compelling.

 

Also, I find Goulding's argument to be a cop out. Not only does it not match what is written in the novels, the entire principle seems to be "Here's a plan. It seems absolutely horrible on paper. But that's okay, cause the Emperor is a genius and you simply can't comprehend the genius of his plan with your small human brain! So we don't even need to try to write him as an intelligent person, because we already said that he was intelligent, all evidence to the contrary aside!"

 

Frankly, if you want to go that route, don't reveal anything about the man. The brilliance of the Emperor's plan is an informed quality. Intelligence of the Emperor is an informed quality. I don't find it believable in the slightest.

[nagashnee]

The more i read about the 'planned rebellion' idea the more i dislike it. Its just so full of logical holes. 

 

Tho it is the perfect staging ground for the  Laurie Goulding special 'its not badly thought out you all are just too simple to comprehend it'. So in a way it makes perfect sense.