The limits of Grimdark, Grimderp, and Suspending Disbelief

[MrDarth151]

The Imperium enslaves those that serve it, and commits genocide on those that won't serve it - or which it doesn't want serving it, i.e. xenos.

 

You are comparing eternity of suffering to a single lifetime. Imperial slaves just work and die. Chaos slaves are mutilated to forever experience the torture that is sensory deprivation, because alternative is going insane and dying within weeks.

 

I understand that people don't have my professional background, and so finer details of morality involved might elude them, but come on. Chaos is portrayed as unquestioningly worse than the Imperium.

 

Also, metaphysical slavery is infinitely worse that a physical one. Physical slave always has an option to die. Metaphysical will just get brought back to life by the Chaos gods.

 

What other term than "slavery" would you use for the conditions of the common Imperial citizen? Sure, it might be more like the classical slavery practiced by Rome, which had its tolerable forms to the point where people sold themselves into slavery for the chance of a better life - but it was still slavery, and even these slaves were still unfree property without rights, to say nothing of the much more numerous slaves in much less tolerable conditions.

 

I would use the term serfs to describe them. 

 

And I don't subscribe to the idea that Imperium is has unilateral policy about anything, so yes, I don't believe all of the Imperial Citizens are slaves.

 

To put it another way, do you think citizens of the Imperium have any degree of meaningful freedom?

 

I don't think vast majority of any individuals have any degree of meaningful freedom.

 

Being able to get out of your life as a hive-city manufactorum drudge by joining the Imperial Guard or going on pilgrimage doesn't count . . .

 

If they can, they are not slaves.

 

Also, slavery and massive amounts of pilgrimages undertaken on their own resources hardly adds up.

[Wargamer]

Serfdom is most definitely a better term than slavery. People rarely move around, but when they do it's typically for military or religious reasons.

[MrDarth151]

I will also note that I would argue that Imperium of Mankind is, at its basest, meritocracy. People who have been promoted on connection, not merit, are largely exceptions, not the rule. If you are good enough, you can rule planets, become transhuman, order armies of millions.

 

Take Creed, for example. Started as a Whiteshield, through Lord General to Lord Castellan of Cadia itself. Space Marines promotions are almost entirely merit based. Even Langsung, noted for using his influence as a High Lord for his own personal gain, was noted to be an excellent naval commander, even by those who disliked him.

 

It's not that you cannot change your fate. It's just that you need to be exceptional among quadrillions of Imperials.

 

So... just like real life? How many people actually lead fulfilling, meaningful lives? How many struggle to make to the next month, even in civilised countries? Look at any country, you will find no shortage of the downtrodden.

 

The issue, I believe, is that we are fans of a very expensive, time consuming, and niche hobby. If you can actually afford to commit to 40k, which I believe most of us are, it means that we are relatively well of. We intuitively feel that Imperium is a horrible place, even though what we see in novels and codex often enough doesn't support it on rational level. And intuitive feelings are hard to disregard. Hell, they are hard to disregard to me, and I am professionally trained to recognise and avoid such interpretations, because they are considered a poor argument by people with my background.

 

Looking at it rationally? If I argue that there might be something more than inevitable destruction of Imperium and Human race, then of course I would consider a service rendered to the Imperium to be meaningful. People struggle every day to provide for their families, and sometimes just to survive. This is a common fact for our species. Upper class of first world countries is not really representative either of our history nor of our current state.

 

So yes, joining the Imperial Guard, and providing a fraction of second more time to the struggling humanity? That is a worthy thing. It is meaningful. It has value. On such sacrifices does the Imperium prevail.

 

Mind, this is only true if one does not accept the most grimdark interpretation of the setting, which I don't. And this is just an example of things that make it more worthwhile to me thanks to it.

[Moonreaper666]

Still waiting for Ciaphas Cain to meet Colonel Kubrick Chenkov!

 

 

Meritocracy is kinda wrong, more like an oligarchy mixed with a theocracy

 

 

Goge Vandire and that traitor Strab of Armageddon come to mind

 

 

I will also note that I would argue that Imperium of Mankind is, at its basest, meritocracy. People who have been promoted on connection, not merit, are largely exceptions, not the rule. If you are good enough, you can rule planets, become transhuman, order armies of millions.

 

Take Creed, for example. Started as a Whiteshield, through Lord General to Lord Castellan of Cadia itself. Space Marines promotions are almost entirely merit based. Even Langsung, noted for using his influence as a High Lord for his own personal gain, was noted to be an excellent naval commander, even by those who disliked him.

 

It's not that you cannot change your fate. It's just that you need to be exceptional among quadrillions of Imperials.

 

So... just like real life? How many people actually lead fulfilling, meaningful lives? How many struggle to make to the next month, even in civilised countries? Look at any country, you will find no shortage of the downtrodden.

 

The issue, I believe, is that we are fans of a very expensive, time consuming, and niche hobby. If you can actually afford to commit to 40k, which I believe most of us are, it means that we are relatively well of. We intuitively feel that Imperium is a horrible place, even though what we see in novels and codex often enough doesn't support it on rational level. And intuitive feelings are hard to disregard. Hell, they are hard to disregard to me, and I am professionally trained to recognise and avoid such interpretations, because they are considered a poor argument by people with my background.

 

Looking at it rationally? If I argue that there might be something more than inevitable destruction of Imperium and Human race, then of course I would consider a service rendered to the Imperium to be meaningful. People struggle every day to provide for their families, and sometimes just to survive. This is a common fact for our species. Upper class of first world countries is not really representative either of our history nor of our current state.

 

So yes, joining the Imperial Guard, and providing a fraction of second more time to the struggling humanity? That is a worthy thing. It is meaningful. It has value. On such sacrifices does the Imperium prevail.

 

Mind, this is only true if one does not accept the most grimdark interpretation of the setting, which I don't. And this is just an example of things that make it more worthwhile to me thanks to it.

[Huggtand]

The Empire is technically an autocracy (in 40k a theocratized dictatorship where the Emperor hold the supreme power  )

 

In practicality, it’s an oligarchy (Council of Terra).

 

What form of oligarchy can be up for debate since not all High Lords are chosen in the same way in the governing branches. For example, the inquisitorial representative is not chosen in the same manner as the Grandmaster of the assassins etc. From what we see in the background materials and novels there are hints of all kinds of oligarchy-variants in the different Adeptus, like meritocracy, theocracy, aristocracy, or plutocracy.

 

Personally, I would say that in practice the empire is a kraterocracy, since it's only those who are strong enough to seize power through force, social maneuvering or political cunning that ends up in the Council (it’s a bit of a competition ​ ) 

[MrDarth151]

 

Still waiting for Ciaphas Cain to meet Colonel Kubrick Chenkov!

 

Why? What would that accomplish?

 

Meritocracy is kinda wrong, more like an oligarchy mixed with a theocracy

 

You do realise those systems are not contrary in the slightest, right?

 

Also, theocracy part is debatable. While the state church holds a degree of political power, they do not rule the Imperium.

 

Goge Vandire and that traitor Strab of Armageddon come to mind

 

Two of the most incompetent characters in the history of 40k?

 

 

Personally, I would say that in practice the empire is a kraterocracy, since it's only those who are strong enough to seize power through force, social maneuvering or political cunning that ends up in the Council (it’s a bit of a competition ​ )

 

I would argue that this becomes more true as we progress up the leadership ladder. Something like Lord General up, I would believe? I think that the lower ranks rely more on meritocracy by necessity.

 

[Huggtand]

 

 

Personally, I would say that in practice the empire is a kraterocracy, since it's only those who are strong enough to seize power through force, social maneuvering or political cunning that ends up in the Council (it’s a bit of a competition ​ )

 

I would argue that this becomes more true as we progress up the leadership ladder. Something like Lord General up, I would believe? I think that the lower ranks rely more on meritocracy by necessity.

 

 

Yes, I should have specified that I meant the government level of the empire or the top levels of different Adeptus. As you say, in the broader scope I would agree it's more of a meritocracy (mixed with a little of everything else ).

[Wargamer]

The lower orders most certainly do not rely on meritocracy! Nobody born below the cloud level of a Necromundan Hive is ever going to become planetary governor! In addition, many Imperial worlds have established ruling classes, if not outright caste systems. For every Guard regiment that promotes on merit there are regiments that choose their officers based on breeding.

 

Overall, the Imperium's power is granted by birth far more than by merit.

[Tarvek Val]

I agree, Wargamer. Look at the Volpone Bluebloods regiment of the Imperial Guard; the entire officers corp is made up of a bunch of arrogant, nasty, and power-hungry aristocrats. 

[MrDarth151]

The lower orders most certainly do not rely on meritocracy!

 

I have quite a dislike of people using logical absolutes like that. Please, don't.

 

Nobody born below the cloud level of a Necromundan Hive is ever going to become planetary governor!

 

And of course, every hive is like Necromunda, right? Even though we've seen so many different interpretations of Hives over the years that I've actually lost count, and most planets aren't Hive Worlds.

 

Also, I know this goes against the all important idea of equality, but people are not born with equal chances. Nobody born below cloud level of a Hive is likely to have the skill necessary to actually govern the world.

 

In addition, many Imperial worlds have established ruling classes, if not outright caste systems.

 

Which does not actually precludes meritocracy? You seem to be under impression that I argue total equality, and that is not actually the case. Equality is unnecessary for meritocracy. If you choose your rulers from the highest class, you still choose those that are competent over those that aren't.

 

Unless you are arguing that most of the people being chosen are not, in which case I would point out that said worlds would not survive in the universe that outright requires them to be excellent. Either they are, in majority, competent, or Imperium survives on writer's fiat alone, and I would like to think 40k writers to be better than that, despite my misgivings.

 

For every Guard regiment that promotes on merit there are regiments that choose their officers based on breeding.

 

And if they aren't actually good at their job, they get shot by their assigned Commissar, who have the right to execute them for incompetency, and don't care about politics of the world they most likely never seen.

 

And in case you think I'm making that out: The newest Astra Militarum Codex, page 36, on company commanders.

 

 

Most are hard-bitten heroes, skilled combatants and pragmatic strategists whose first loyalty is to the Emperor of Mankind. Some rare men of rank may be ineffective fops with commissions awarded through inheritance or politicking, but the hour is too dark for the Munitorum to suffer fools for long. Those who cannot discharge their duties soon discover that being the governor's son means little to a merciless Commissar.

 

What part of "My interpretation is rooted in what GW actually prints" people don't understand? What, I am not GRIMDARK enough, so I must be wrong, or making stuff up?

 

Nothing grinds my gears more than people implying that I'm lying through my teeth or I'm completely ignorant. So there. GW says you are wrong. In the latest printed material available.

 

And for the record: I can do that with most stuff. Between studio and BL having different interpretations of the universe, thirty years of published material, canon policy being basically "Everything counts", and some authors just outright ignoring core facets of the universe to make their stories more believable, like Abnett, I can back practically everything I have ever said about the universe. Or at the very least, provide enough that my interpretation is seen to have merit.

 

Now, can we stop with posts using logical absolutes to invalidate my views of the setting? I've had a tough week, and I'm snappy. I don't deny anyone right to their own interpretation, but if you try to say that I cannot have mine because "The 40k just doesn't work that way", I am liable to be mean.

[Wargamer]

That line flies in the face of decades of publications, which has made it clear that for every talented general who can conquer a hive with a hundred men, there's a man who was "born" to lead and will happily march his men through minefields with not a shred of hesitation.

[MrDarth151]

That line flies in the face of decades of publications, which has made it clear that for every talented general who can conquer a hive with a hundred men, there's a man who was "born" to lead and will happily march his men through minefields with not a shred of hesitation.

 

So basically what you are saying is that you get to choose which CANON material to ignore, but I don't. Your position on this is internally contradictory. And hypocritical.

[Wargamer]

I'm saying there are numerous rulebooks, codices and novels contradicting your single line. I know which I'm siding with.

[MrDarth151]

I'm saying there are numerous rulebooks, codices and novels contradicting your single line. I know which I'm siding with.

 

Like? Give me examples here. It's the least you could do, if you are arguing I'm wrong.

[Tarvek Val]

Well, here's an example. General Noches Sturm of the Vulpine Bluebloods. Storm was an aristocrat of one of the Noble Houses of Volpone, who later rose to the rank of Lord General thanks to his political ties and personal power. He was not a particularly skilled or competent general; though he was in command of the defense of Vervunhive during the war for Verghast, all of the other officers heading the defense thought his plan was flawed at best and moronic at worst. He attempted to flee for his life when things went sour, and it was a commissar from an entirely different regiment that caught him and ordered his imprisonment. The Volpone regiment would have had a commissar; clearly he / she did not care about the incompetence of the regiment's head, so arguing that the Commissariat is a fail-safe against incompetence is a flawed argument. By Colonel-Commissar Guant's own sayings, there are good and bad commissars; some do their jobs well, and some do not. 

 

Another example: Aldo Dercius. Commander of the Jantine Patricians, who of course got his position thanks to being the head of a powerful political dynasty on the world of Jant Normanidus. He was also a coward, and abandoned friendly units to be slaughtered by orks to save his own skin. Instead of facing any repercussion or punishment, the egregious act was covered up and, again, discovered by someone else (Commissar Guant) wayyy far down the line.

 

These examples are from one series; for more examples just look at the Eisenhorn / Ravener series. You will quickly see that all the people in power in the Imperial societies / worlds explored are those with great wealth and political power.

[Wargamer]

Further to the Necromunda example - to hold power on that world you have to be born into an Upper Spire family. It's not even enough to be the leader of a house - the lower houses have zero hope of upsetting the power balance because the circle above them is designed to keep them in place! In such a situation you cannot possibly have a meritocracy because the viable candidates, though capable by necessity, are drawn exclusively from an ultra-elitist aristocracy!

 

Also worth pointing out that, in the Gaunt's Ghosts series referenced above, one of Gaunt's oldest friends is a Commissar who is more interested in having big dinners and "perks" than actually doing his job. He's so bad at being a Commissar he gets prescribed sugar pills and told they're medicine designed to steady his nerves!

[Tarvek Val]

I was going to mention him, but couldn't remember his name for the life of me!

 

Veynom Blenner: Commissar to the Greygorian 3rd Regiment. He is seen as spoiled by his well-behaved and well-mannered unit.

[Huggtand]

The Imperium is too layered and complex to be defined as the same thing at all layers. I see it broadly as following if we define government by power source:

1. First layer is the emperor and in theory he has absolute power. That's make the Imperium an autocracy (a theocratic dictatorship in this case)
    
2. Second layer is the council of high lords of Terra who in practicality rule the Imperium. That's an oligarchy (on this level I would say a kraterocracy)
    
3. Third layer is the Inquisition, the Adeptus Terra and the Adeptus Ministorum. Here it gets a little muddled since we really don't know exactly how their ruling bodies is chosen. Based on different lore I would still say that most are a form of kraterocracy and meritocracy since it seems to be a blend of political maneuvering and aptitude for the office. I can't say that on this level we see very much of inherent aristocracy
    
4. Fourth level is the different adeptus and offices under the above branches. I would hazard that this layer looks alot like the the above, with a little more variations in the different branches.

And there ends the Imperial government. Below this is the lokal planetary governors, the imperial guard, the imperial fleet etc. Some of them can have representatives in the council of Terra but they as an organization have no ruling function on the Imperial level.

 

As I wrote earlier; the Imperium as a bureaucracy entity don’t care if a local planet is a democracy, a feudal kingdom or a dictatorship based on slavery. As long as it pay its tithes and don’t threatens the stability of the Imperium, it can govern itself as it see fit. So, on the local level there are all sort of forms of government we can imagine (and probably some more). But that is separate from the Imperial bureaucracy.

 

An crud example from our own world: Sweden is a democratic country. It has an unitary parliament and a constitutional monarchy without political power. Within reason the government doesn't care how households, clubs or business govern themselves. There can be clubs where only the aristocracy can be members and there are organizations where only your skill is regarded for advancement. Whatever the different forms on that level, that doesn't change what Sweden as a country is.  

 

It's the same with the imperial guard. There are regiments that are inherent aristocracy and there are regiments like Gaunt's Ghosts that are a meritocracy. But we know from the lore that the high command of the whole imperial guard is't a heridaty title. It's a position you reach via political maneuvering, luck and skill. So I would define the imperial guard organization, as a kraterocracy from a top-down perspective.

 

 

Just my 2 Imperial credits 

[Wargamer]

I think there's a serious misunderstanding of what a meritocracy is here. Meritocracy is merit based - the right person for the job gets the job.

 

People seem to be confusing this with "the person ruthless, cunning and devious enough to get the job, gets the job."

 

To be clear, having the intelligence to assassinate your way to the top is not meritocratic unless you're trying to become head of the Guild of Assassins, because the skills you employed to gain power are not the skills required to execute the office to its utmost.

[Indefragable]

When did this thread lose all its fun?

[mc warhammer]

around the time people started seeing discussion as a personal attack?

[carlisimo]

My impression is that the Imperial Guard and Navy are generally not meritocratic, and it’s even worse when it comes to planetary governments. They’re all infested with aristocrats.

 

The Astartes and Inquisition are the exceptions. Maybe the Ecclesiarchy as well.

 

The Siege of Vraks is a good example that comes to mind, but most Black Library material seems consistent with it.

[Huggtand]

I think there's a serious misunderstanding of what a meritocracy is here. Meritocracy is merit based - the right person for the job gets the job.

 

People seem to be confusing this with "the person ruthless, cunning and devious enough to get the job, gets the job."

 

To be clear, having the intelligence to assassinate your way to the top is not meritocratic unless you're trying to become head of the Guild of Assassins, because the skills you employed to gain power are not the skills required to execute the office to its utmost.

 

Yes, the correct term would be kraterocracy - those who are strong enough to seize power through physical force, social maneuvering or political cunning, rule. But, the different types is not exclusive from each other and, as in our reality, there are almost always a mix of government forms.

 

So, personally I would say that most (not all) of the governing forms on the Imperial level is a mix of mostly kraterocracy with a pinch of meritocracy, plutocracy and in some cases aristocracy* . In the novels we see that to reach the top levels you need force, social maneuvering or political cunning, but you also need to be competent at what you do.

 

At the local level (planetary governments, imperial guard regiments, guilds etc), anything goes  and it's more up to the author to have a good background that makes a good story.

 

 

*The Imperial Navy and Imperial guard is heavily influenced by the age of sails and the first world war, so in these organizations there are a bigger focus on the right breeding to be an officer

[WarriorFish]

Indeed, I think this topic had its day some time ago so I'm closing it before any more circles are worn.