Relativistic accounts of truth in 40k lore

[Astalon]

I've been motivated to start this topic due to a trend we've seen in Black Library writing regarding the Horus Heresy and other events in the past few years, as well as recent posts in here which are more specific e.g. terminator height. 

 

The view being expressed that; there is no objective truth revealed in the 30k/40k lore, but accounts from different perspectives that may or may not be true, to different extents, but regardless the reader cannot know with certainty where truth ends and exaggeration or mythologising begins.  An example being the heresy novel Master of Mankind, where I think the approach is taken well and retains a certain mystery regarding the Emperor's vision and personality, which overall I think is a good thing.

 

The purpose of this topic is to discuss the merits of this approach, what we like and don't like, as well as specific examples of this in the lore and discussion around the truth of a given example.

 

While the example above, of Master of Mankind, I think is a good one,  I have come to really struggle with the concept.  The basic problem, for me, is where the line is drawn and knowing what things can be taken as 'true' cornerstones of the setting.  A more prosaic example, being the terminator height thread being discussed at the moment.  It was mentioned that as the setting is prone to exaggeration, the wildly differing accounts of terminator size could be put down to the different perspectives we read exaggerating, and we cannot be sure which or any of them is true. The italicised text being my problem - if that is the case, then could terminators or space marines by 5 foot 6 and actually everyone in the setting is a lot smaller than nowadays?  Surely this can't be the kind of situation we want to get to, and that these things should be 'nailed down', so to speak.

 

What if all accounts of the Horus Heresy are simply a plot from the high lords of Terra to cover-up some other tradgedy and there never were more than the loyalist legions, the current Chaos Space Marines simply tricked in to believing the whole mythology?  I'm being slightly facetious, of course, but the point i'm trying to emphasis is that I think the noble aim of representing the views of characters we read about as simply their perspective on things, can get applied too liberally such that the foundations of what is cool about the setting begin to stand on shaky ground.  We surely need some objective facts about the setting that can be taken as read.  Space marines really are x height with x organs and x abilities, no question.

 

What do you think?

[Lord_Caerolion]

I think it's more easily solved by Occam's Razor. Instead of having to have intricate conspiracies being hinted at in the fluff, it's more that just some authors make mistakes. It happens with every setting.

[Astalon]

I think it's more easily solved by Occam's Razor. Instead of having to have intricate conspiracies being hinted at in the fluff, it's more that just some authors make mistakes. It happens with every setting.

 

I guess my point is that it's not being used just to explain mistakes, but actively embraced as a central tenet of the setting, and advocated as a virtue.

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

I think that you're opening a huge can of worms even broaching the relativism of truth. Even in this limited setting. 

 

"The Imperium loses 40m citizens a day to xeno aggression. SAD!"

 

Is that true? Does it matter if its true, if it's believed?

[Redtoof]

Truth is subjective. Everything you have been told is a lie.

 

GW lore has always been and should always be deliberately vague to allow players to fill in the gaps. It's up to players to decide canon for themselves, so they can make their own characters and stories. Some like the mystery of not knowing things for sure, it makes the universe seem bigger and allows for creativity. For this reason my favourite bits of lore are the little snippets in the timelines where you get two sentences on a notable event that shaped the fate of entire worlds, but no further detail anywhere.

[Kinstryfe]

As with verifying and piece of information, I think it comes down to a combination of the"reliability" of the sources (emphasized because it's all fiction afterall), corroboration with other sources, and motive of the sources.

 

As an example, GW has stated some things with "word of God" intent, outside of the setting. "This is The Emperor of Mankind. He made Twenty Legions of Space Marines. Two are mysteriously missing. 9 went renegade. They were numbered in this order : Dark Angels........ Alpha Legion. Space Marines have these organs and use these weapons." Stuff like that is stuff presented to us about the setting but outside of the setting, and there is no reason to consider it suspect unless contradicted by another Word of God, and even then that's when you look at the reasoning behind it. (ie The toughest marine armor is Terminator Armour. Oops, it's not anymore. Now there's Centurion armour because we've gotta sell some more models.)

 

Down from this we have information that is not stated as Word of God but which can be corroborated between multiple sources which are each strong enough to stand up to scrutiny. Take the statement "The Alpha Legion often acts in ways which seem contradictory to being either a loyalist or traitor Legion." There is sufficient evidence in multiple books showing the Legion at odds with itself and aiding both sides that you can fairly reliably refute a contrary statement.

 

After this you have facts that have no direct secondary source to confirm or refute them. These cannot be definitively proven or disproven without additional support, comprise a great deal of the background, and are where much of the debate about lore happens. "Russ was The Emperor's executioner" is possibly the most popular example of this that comes to mind. It is stated, but the intent behind the statement and the truth of the statement are both open to debate, and there isn't sufficient additional proof in the setting to settle the debate one way or the other.

 

Lastly we have information which is stated from dubious sources, and is contradicted by other sources, rendering it especially questionable. An example is the old White Dwarf article about Fabius Bile which states that the Space Wolves are innately immune to chaos because of the Canis Helix, which is contradicted in later chaos codexes describing Space Wolves which have fallen to chaos. In this case either or neither of the informations could be true, but it is impossible to tell which until more sources come to light. Stuff like "How tall is Terminator Armour" falls in here as well. Differing statements in the lore that contradict each other enough that it's unlikely to be settled without Word of God intervention from Games Workshop.

 

For a long time now, the setting has definitely relied heavily on blurring the lines between categories. It's part of the Everything is True but Nothing is True method of storytelling GW uses to great effect, and a lot of fans seem to have as much fun trying to figure out the subtext of the story as they do reading the story outright. It also serves as a great way to cover up all the contradictions that arise from thirty years and hundreds of writers working on one shared setting, because almost any fact could be true or false unless it's been confirmed by (and remain unchanged by) Word of God statements.

[Astalon]

Some interesting replies already, thank you.

 

My personal view is that it does in fact matter that some things are true, in order to enjoy the setting.  Certain things are required to be objectively true about space marines, for example, to enjoy their depiction.  If all information about space marines could be true, but could also be untrue, it wouldn't be so enjoyable to read about them.  If they didn't really have transhuman abilities and power armour was actually a lie, that'd be less compelling.

 

I like the distinction you draw Kinstryfe about words of god and sources.  I think i'm trying to get at a point that I think more of the setting should be categorised as word of god when it comes to the abilities and structure of the factions, while leaving the ambiguity about events as opposed to actors.  Without it there is a risk that the integrity of the ideas behind the setting fall apart, in my mind.

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

I have no reason to believe Australia exists. I am assured that it does, and I verily believe that to be true, but I don't know that it does.

 

Even if I visit Australia, does that fundamentally change anything? We interpret the world through our senses, which are divined by our brain, which is lazy and which lies all the time.

 

How often do you notice that you spend all day looking at the end of your own nose? You don't, because that's one of the many, many, many things you observe on a day to day basis that your brain doesn't bother to tell you about.

[Kinstryfe]

Some interesting replies already, thank you.

 

My personal view is that it does in fact matter that some things are true, in order to enjoy the setting.  Certain things are required to be objectively true about space marines, for example, to enjoy their depiction.  If all information about space marines could be true, but could also be untrue, it wouldn't be so enjoyable to read about them.  If they didn't really have transhuman abilities and power armour was actually a lie, that'd be less compelling.

 

I like the distinction you draw Kinstryfe about words of god and sources.  I think i'm trying to get at a point that I think more of the setting should be categorised as word of god when it comes to the abilities and structure of the factions, while leaving the ambiguity about events as opposed to actors.  Without it there is a risk that the integrity of the ideas behind the setting fall apart, in my mind.

That's how I look at the setting, and think it's a pretty sensible way to do so.

 

Ultramarines wear blue armour. Yup, that's pretty well verified. There are painting guides and everything.

 

Ultramarines were the largest Legion during the great crusade. I mean, you could definitely argue that it wasn't true until later in the crusade, and even make scandalous comments about why that may have been so, but it's been repeated in enough places that it's effectively, even if not absolutely, true.

 

The Ultramarines were the most efficient legion. Hey now, they were numerous and good at clerical work, but most efficient? What about Horus' speartip? Or The Lion's methodical approach to war. I dunno. We need more info to figure this out.

 

The Ultramarines have 11 letters in their name, and were the 13th Legion. 1+1+1+3=6. Six is the number of Slaanesh. The Ultramarines are also based on Romans, who are known for their debauchery and excess. It's obvious! The Ultramarines are secret Slaanesh worshippers! That's why instead of killing Guilliman, Fulgrim only wounded him. It was BDSM that just got out of hand! .....you probably shouldn't believe that kind of theory...

[Leif Bearclaw]

An example is the old White Dwarf article about Fabius Bile which states that the Space Wolves are innately immune to chaos because of the Canis Helix, which is contradicted in later chaos codexes describing Space Wolves which have fallen to chaos. In this case either or neither of the informations could be true, but it is impossible to tell which until more sources come to light.

 

Do you have a source for that? Because the only old WD article I'm aware of off the top of my head that involves Fabius (Heroes and Villains of the 41st Millenium) makes no mention of the Canis Helix, and only refers to SW gene-seed in an in character piece where it can be used to correct a mutation/issue with EC gene-seed.

 

This actually highlights another tricky issue with 'truth' in the setting. When the fans get something wrong, and then propagate the incorrect fluff (not having a dig, I've done it myself when I've misremembered things). I've never seen a primary source that states the Canis provides immunity to Chaos corruption (which would be a bad thing, as that's the GK's USP). What has been speculated (starting with the 13th Co IA from the Eye of Terror period, as far as I'm aware) is that the Canis provides some level of resistance to warp corruption, initially proposed as an explanation for the 13th. It also was predated by the existence of Traitor Wolves, which have been explicitly a thing since at least the 3rd edition SW dex.

[apologist]

On a personal level, I'm very forgiving of contradictions within the background, as it adds to the Orwellian, revisionist feel that appeals to me. My view on this has been influenced by the fact I grew up with Rogue Trader, which gave a top-down view of the galaxy, and left almost everything specific up to the reader. This was intentional, as it was made explicit that the universe was so different that modern-day readers wouldn't really be able to relate. The note on language, for example, makes it clear that 'Tech' (the original name for what is now called 'High Gothic') is not literally Latin, but the authors use Latin as a gloss because it gives modern-day readers the right impression of age and authority. Similarly, the note on technology:

 

 

Except on the occasions where a technical explanation or description was felt useful to an understanding of the rules, such explanations have generally been avoided. The book contains few descriptions of how specific items are used or function – it is enough within the context of the game that the item has the effects attributed to it. This has been a deliberate policy throughout the rules. The main reason for this is simply that the Age of the Imperium is not a technically inclined age, to have included descriptions of 'head-up displays', 'computer links', etc, would have given the wrong impression entirely. This is an age where problems are solved by brute force and ignorance, where dangers are either too gross or too unthinkable to elicit any other response. The other reason why technical description has been avoided is that the Age of the lmperium lies more than forty thousand years in the future – at a stage in history when those head-up displays and computers are about as innovative as stone circles. 

 

What scientific knowledge persists from the Dark Age of Technology is far above and beyond anything we can imagine from the perspective of the Twentieth century. That understanding lies only with a select few – the Adeptus Mechanicus – the Tech-priests of the Imperium. Even their knowledge is somewhat debased, and the popular image of technology can be compared with that of witchcraft in medieval times. Those who come into contact with technology use it with reservations and a reverence that are almost religious. The Space Marines, for example, treat their equipment and armour as if it were imbued with a will of its own- a fine chest-plate, well looked after and constantly maintained, may reward its wearer by saving his life; whereas a Marine who neglects his equipment may be struck down by a leaking suit or malfunctioning weapons. Such is the will of the Gods.

 

While it is impossible to speculate with any certainty on the technical developments of the next forty millennia, it has obviously been necessary to make assumptions during the construction of this game. The greatest assumption has involved the creation of a broad history and a universe populated by a variety of dangers. The people of the far future are mentally very different from those of today – they have a way of looking at things in which twentieth century ideas of efficiency and morality are irrelevant.'

 

(My emphases.)

 

So, in terms of the game, I agree with the idea that supporting multiple contradictory views is a virtue. The underlying principle of 'Everything you have been told is a lie' is one I thoroughly embrace for the universe as a whole, particularly in relation to the game. It provides a lot of benefits:

 

i) Promoting creativity and personalization amongst hobbyists

ii) Adding to the sense of 'reported history', which in turn adds to the semi-mythic atmosphere

iii) Gives an in-universe explanation for new products being introduced

 

In general, most such 'mistakes' are readily explicable as variations within the massive scale (both time and space) of 40k. 

 

On the other hand, I understand that it's nice to have some generally agreed facts to discuss; the minutiae and detail are part of the appeal of the system. The direct 'floor-level' viewpoint of Black Library novels allows for exciting events that go beyond what the 1st and 2nd editions of the game offered, and it's that which is causing the disjunct.

 

I'm not sure there's a real solution for that, without sacrificing the appeal of part of what is, by design, a mysterious and ill-understood universe, but I'd be very sorry to have god-level 'facts' stamped on things. It might seem nice to know that all Space Marines stand in a height range between 6'4" and 7'5" (or whatever); but someone, somewhere, will find his own personal 40k universe made slightly 'wrong' by such a declaration, and that restricts creativity – which would be a dreadful shame.

 

I, for one, am happy with a bit of doublethink on this issue 

[Kinstryfe]

 

An example is the old White Dwarf article about Fabius Bile which states that the Space Wolves are innately immune to chaos because of the Canis Helix, which is contradicted in later chaos codexes describing Space Wolves which have fallen to chaos. In this case either or neither of the informations could be true, but it is impossible to tell which until more sources come to light.

 

Do you have a source for that? Because the only old WD article I'm aware of off the top of my head that involves Fabius (Heroes and Villains of the 41st Millenium) makes no mention of the Canis Helix, and only refers to SW gene-seed in an in character piece where it can be used to correct a mutation/issue with EC gene-seed.

 

This actually highlights another tricky issue with 'truth' in the setting. When the fans get something wrong, and then propagate the incorrect fluff (not having a dig, I've done it myself when I've misremembered things). I've never seen a primary source that states the Canis provides immunity to Chaos corruption (which would be a bad thing, as that's the GK's USP). What has been speculated (starting with the 13th Co IA from the Eye of Terror period, as far as I'm aware) is that the Canis provides some level of resistance to warp corruption, initially proposed as an explanation for the 13th. It also was predated by the existence of Traitor Wolves, which have been explicitly a thing since at least the 3rd edition SW dex.

Since it's buried somewhere in my parents' basement, I don't have the source readily available and, since I've been reading fluff since around 1995, I will readily admit that I may be misremembering. It's entirely possible I'm mixing up details with that with some of the 13th company fluff you mentioned, as I do recall the resistant-to-chaos-and-wolf-out versus chaos wolves being an internet argument issue itself when it came out. Perhaps a bad specific example but it gets the point across. When multiple sources are in conflict, you need a more reliable source (than my brain) to prove or disprove.

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

I don't agree that the 41st Millennium is really any different from the 2nd or 3rd. This is an age where problems are solved with brute force and ignorance and the 41st Millenium is written by people of this age. 

 

We are less than one hundred years removed from a conflict that killed ca. 50m people, for no real reason, as a sequel (or maybe a continuation if your grasp on history is appalling) to another conflict that that killed 18m people and which was, essentially, a family dispute that got out of hand.

 

We are ignorant, brutish creatures. 

 

Maybe. Truth is subjective.

[Ascanius]

I think the noble aim of representing the views of characters we read about as simply their perspective on things, can get applied too liberally such that the foundations of what is cool about the setting begin to stand on shaky ground.  We surely need some objective facts about the setting that can be taken as read.  Space marines really are x height with x organs and x abilities, no question.

 

What do you think?

 

I think you shouldn't worry about it. We don't need objective facts to be nailed down, because it doesn't really matter. Pick what you prefer to be true and ignore anything that contradicts it.

 

That may be harder or easier, depending on what you choose to believe is true, but them's the breaks.

[Huggtand]

Apologist, I wish that I could give you more likes for that post 

 

I think that the vagueness of the 40k lore since RT is what has made this hobby and fiction so strong. The small blurbs or short stories in the old codexes was really gold since they triggered our imagination to create the rest of the setting.

[Urriak Urruk]

The "no objective truth" thing is actually cultivated by GW itself, as so many books contradict each other they can always say, "Everything is canon, but not everything is true."

[Astalon]

 

I think the noble aim of representing the views of characters we read about as simply their perspective on things, can get applied too liberally such that the foundations of what is cool about the setting begin to stand on shaky ground.  We surely need some objective facts about the setting that can be taken as read.  Space marines really are x height with x organs and x abilities, no question.

 

What do you think?

 

I think you shouldn't worry about it. We don't need objective facts to be nailed down, because it doesn't really matter. Pick what you prefer to be true and ignore anything that contradicts it.

 

That may be harder or easier, depending on what you choose to believe is true, but them's the breaks.

 

 

Again, appreciate the insight everyone.  It seems that the majority are saying that they prefer this approach to the lore by GW and the fanbase.  This suggests its more a problem I have with the setting than it being something general which other people are missing (I thought initially it could be the case that no one had taken the implication to its logical conclusion).

 

My response to your post, Ascanius, is to say that I do need objective facts to be nailed down, in order to feel that the setting isn't just going to fall apart because there is nothing that can be considered absolutely true (in the setting, not outside of the game) for fear of destroying someone's creativity.

 

If I pick, Space Marines but ignore Primaris, don't think Tau really exist and say that warp daemons don't really physically manifest then am I still playing or engaging in 40k?  It doesn't feel like it. 

 

In short, for GW to claim that "everything is canon, but nothing everything is true" makes it so open as to be not a cohesive thing.

[Marshal Rohr]

Empirical facts, replicated in controlled settings, cannot be relative. Nature just doesn’t work that way.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

I'm a big fan of BattleTech, which has a featured a continuously advancing storyline and a solid canon for decades, with only minor retcons here and there. I don't write for the franchise, but talking to some of the writers on their forums and social media, it seems that they have such a massive wealth of background that they have to fact check everything they write to make sure they're not crossing wires somewhere. This dramatically increases their work loads. The fact that GW pushes its "everything can be true" basis for the fluff allows them to sidestep this problem; the editors don't mind that X Company of the Y Chapter was reported fighting on Planet A *and* Planet B in 999M41 because they can rationalize it very easily. Maybe someone's calendar was off. Maybe there's two chapters with the same name. Warp shenanigans! It happens.

 

Personally, having grown up with BattleTech and enjoying its fluff for longer than I have 40K, I prefer the more cemented canon of BT to that of 40K's loose canon. I find it, at times, non-sensical and a little jarring. But that's the way they want it, so that's what we get.

[Urriak Urruk]

Empirical facts, replicated in controlled settings, cannot be relative. Nature just doesn’t work that way.

 

I'd like to introduce you to my friend Tzeentch, who might disagree with that opinion.  

[Huggtand]

Empirical facts, replicated in controlled settings, cannot be relative. Nature just doesn’t work that way.

 

I like to seperate the setting and the narrative for ease of argument, otherwise it can be a bit muddled in my brain   

 

The setting is the canvas/universe where the story takes place. Here GW has build a world and we have most of it described outside of the setting. This is the objective facts (until it is retconed ) Examples is:

- 40k takes place in our universe with our normal natural laws like gravity

- There is another "dimension" the warp that functions as magic

- There is the emperor and he created 20 primarch

 

The narrative is the history of what is happening. This is sometimes told outside the setting and is then a rather objective fact (until it is retconed ), but often it is told by a narrator inside the universe. This of course falls into the "Everything is canon, but not everything is true" since an author always can say that the narrator in universe didn't have the whole picture or lied for some reason.

 

Kinstryfe in post #6 described it very nice 

 

But, this is of course a fictional made up universe we are discussing, where the things that are stated as facts (the big E sits on the golden throne) can change tomorrow if GW wich it 

[jeffersonian000]

GW themselves have said a number of times that there is no canon in 40k, it’s all lies and propaganda. Personally, I read 40k as “future mythology”, tall tails of gods and heroes in an era after a the Fall. Works for me, and grants a bit of insight into the tongue in cheek nature of jumps in logic that seem to stymie quite a few fans. Mostly I read 40k as a grandiose Gothic build up to a cheeky punchline ... and sometimes the punchline is missing. It’s all good, though.

 

As to the Black Library, especially the Horus Heresy series, to me those come off as a docudrama of the mythos rather than the truth behind the mythos. HH just seems like the writers exceeded the material, and are now just making stuff up to build bridge out of the corner they accidentally painted themselves into, which makes HH more like Lost than Game of Thrones.

 

But that’s just me.

 

SJ

[Panzer]

GW themselves have said a number of times that there is no canon in 40k, it’s all lies and propaganda. 

No, they said the opposite. They said everything you read is canon but not everything you read is necessarily true.

[jeffersonian000]

 

 

GW themselves have said a number of times that there is no canon in 40k, it’s all lies and propaganda.

No, they said the opposite. They said everything you read is canon but not everything you read is necessarily true.

And that’s just the more recent propaganda. GW has been publishing Lore for over 30 years, and only recently have they tried to backpedal of their original stance, mostly do to having next to no one left from the original company.

 

SJ

[Urriak Urruk]

 

 

GW themselves have said a number of times that there is no canon in 40k, it’s all lies and propaganda.

No, they said the opposite. They said everything you read is canon but not everything you read is necessarily true.

And that’s just the more recent propaganda. GW has been publishing Lore for over 30 years, and only recently have they tried to backpedal of their original stance, mostly do to having next to no one left from the original company.

 

SJ

 

 

You two are essentially agreeing, but you are using different terminology.

 

Everything is official, but that doesn't make it true. Every author is legitimate, but nothing written is accurate. Some is propaganda, some is bad writing, some is a biased author... in the end, everything is canon and nothing can be trusted.