What if 40K had good guys?

[Marshal Rohr]

1 hour ago, Robbienw said:

Not a function of the Imperium.  THE function of the Imperium.
 

Despite what went wrong it is what the Emperor set it up to be.

First, any government’s, real or fake, primary function is not defense, it’s enforcing the social contract. There are 54 books about how the Imperium is specifically not what the Emperor created or wanted. 

Edited August 4 by Marshal Rohr

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

8 hours ago, Robbienw said:

It does make them good guys.  Protecting mankind from corruption and extinction is an unalloyed good, there is no greater goal.

 

As I said earlier there are bad parts in the imperium, due to the scale of the empire they aren’t able to stop all corruption and infiltration, but overall as a faction they are the good guys.

 

Much of the terrible stuff done is out of necessity because the galaxy is so harsh and the opposing factions really are horrifically bad.  Survival trumps being nice to everyone all the time.  Being extreme and sacrificing parts for the whole is the only way to the ultimate goal at this point.  
 

These are human beings, it’s not realistic to say a faction can only be good if they do good things all the time.  The human race would be gone in seconds if that were the case.

 

You can argue 2 or 3 of the xenos factions are good guys, from their perspectives maybe they are, but every single xenos faction has negative intentions towards humanity, so to us they are still bad. 

 

It’s clear from the lore there is no alternative to the imperium now.  It could have been better of course if it weren’t for Magnus 

What corruption?

 

 

7 hours ago, Robbienw said:

I think you are wilfully misunderstanding what I’m saying here.  Perhaps because you like the idea of there being some kind of moral equivalence between the imperium, and objectively horrible factions like chaos for whatever reason.

 

There is no such equivalence.  Some of the other factions, chaos for example, are obviously objectively bad, no matter what they think of themselves.

 

The imperium is good because it protects mankind.  The setting is ultimately about mankind’s survival, we are humans, human survival is the only thing that matters.

 

 

 

But mankind is and always has been overwhelmingly bad…

 

5 hours ago, Robbienw said:

Not a function of the Imperium.  THE function of the Imperium.
 

Despite what went wrong it is what the Emperor set it up to be.

So when the emperor went on a crusade to destroy religion and superstition to create the imperium he decided to set it up as a theocracy? Is that why the cult of the emperor didn’t actually pop up with any real power until many years after the heresy?

 

edit

not trying to be rude or anything but how old are you? 
All of your posts sound like what I’d expect from a rather immature juvenile. Have you taken even a HS level ethics and morality class?

Edited August 4 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Robbienw]

6 hours ago, Marshal Rohr said:

First, any government’s, real or fake, primary function is not defense, it’s enforcing the social contract. There are 54 books about how the Imperium is specifically not what the Emperor created or wanted. 

The Imperium is not a modern day government, It’s a far future empire spanning ~1 million planets and surrounded by homicidal enemies.

 

The Imperium is primarily a vehicle for mankind’s survival - this is what the Emperor set it out to be.  The Emeperor failing to achieve his full plan/set of objectives for the Imperium and humanity does not mean the Imperium is not meeting its primary objective. 

Edited August 4 by Robbienw

[Antarius]

On 8/1/2025 at 1:41 PM, The Yncarne said:

“What if we’re the baddies?” asked the commissar in his skull cap. 

"But why skulls?" 

 

And yeah, it's hardly a coincidence that Commissars (and many other aspects of the Imperium) is basically a mash up of Nazi and USSR imagery and concepts (mixed with the ott dystopian tone of Judge Dredd etc.).
Still probably a better symbol than a rat's , though 

Edited August 4 by Antarius

[Antarius]

11 hours ago, Robbienw said:

I think you are wilfully misunderstanding what I’m saying here.  Perhaps because you like the idea of there being some kind of moral equivalence between the imperium, and objectively horrible factions like chaos for whatever reason.

 

There is no such equivalence.  Some of the other factions, chaos for example, are obviously objectively bad, no matter what they think of themselves.

 

The imperium is good because it protects mankind.  The setting is ultimately about mankind’s survival, we are humans, human survival is the only thing that matters.

I'm not going to argue this with you anymore (and this isn't meant as snark in any way just to make it completely clear, this being the internet and all), but there's no misunderstanding here, wilful or otherwise. I understand your point perfectly.
I just disagree and, honestly, I think your interpretation is both self-contradictory and relies on completely ignoring key points in the lore and history of 30K/40K.

But that's ok, we don't have to agree on this 

Edited August 4 by Antarius

[Robbienw]

32 minutes ago, Antarius said:

I just disagree and, honestly, I think your interpretation is both self-contradictory and relies on completely ignoring key points in the lore and history of 30K/40K.

 

This sentence makes me certain my assessment that you are wilfully misunderstanding what I am saying is correct. 

 

But of course no one is under any obligation to agree on anything.

Edited August 4 by Robbienw

[Teetengee]

Quote

To be a man in such times is to be one amongst untold billions. It is to live in the cruelest and most bloody regime imaginable.
These are the tales of those times. Forget the power of technology and science, for so much has been forgotten, never to be re-learned.
Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim darkness of the far future there is only war.
There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods.

The imperium is a monster, and the in universe fascist propaganda that justify its continued existence are just that, propaganda. We know from the interex and the tau (not saying either faction is good, mind you) that there are other ways to deal with the threats of the universe. Every moment, the powers of the imperium, corrupt and distant from the front lines and the horrors of the universe, decide to continue, to keep layering atrocity upon atrocity. The imperium must do these things to maintain itself, but the imperium is not humanity, no matter how much it tries to pretend they're the same. That said, the reach and power of even the crumbling Imperium is still sufficient to crush almost any attempt to build something better, and it has to to maintain its own power, like any totalitarian regime; it cannot allow comparison. With the advent of the split in the cosmos due to the actions of Abaddon, there is some chance of pockets growing away from Imperial power that might build a true force for good, but by the time they become a faction they will either win or lose quickly, because the Imperium's hand is forced, it must bend its will to destroy any acknowledgment that another way is possible.

 

As for the lost primarchs. They don't exist for story reasons. They exist for setting reasons, for "your dude" reasons, for the fun little reference to the real world lost roman legions. Since they don't exist for story reasons, they aren't a plot hook, not for the general story/setting of this little plastic wardolly game we all play or hang around. I don't believe they will ever be explained or returned, because their whole point is to be missing. The only reason any explanation has been created at all is for simply consistency within the Horus Heresy bookline explaining the once mythic imagined history of the setting. I think a much more likely "good" faction would be Guilliman (or similar loyalist primarch) realizing the rot that both his father's and his work has wrought within humanity and leaving, trying to build something different and atone for what he's done.

Edited August 4 by Teetengee

[Antarius]

1 hour ago, Robbienw said:

 

This sentence makes me certain my assessment that you are wilfully misunderstanding what I am saying is correct. 

Well, I can honestly assure you that I'm not and frankly I find it a bit weird that you would insist on thinking that, rather than take me at my word. I have already laid out my points as well as I can, so I won't be debating the matter with you any further, as we're definitely not going to agree on this.

To reiterate: I understand your point, such as it is, perfectly. I just think you are mistaken.

[Domhnall]

 

 

Just a little bit of fun!

[Robbienw]

16 minutes ago, Antarius said:

Well, I can honestly assure you that I'm not and frankly I find it a bit weird that you would insist on thinking that, rather than take me at my word. I have already laid out my points as well as I can, so I won't be debating the matter with you any further, as we're definitely not going to agree on this.

To reiterate: I understand your point, such as it is, perfectly. I just think you are mistaken.

 

Not sure why you'd find it weird i don't believe you.  There is clearly misunderstanding on your part.

 

[Antarius]

48 minutes ago, Robbienw said:

 

Not sure why you'd find it weird i don't believe you.  There is clearly misunderstanding on your part.

 

Because it implies that rather than simply disagreeing with you on the stated points, I'm lying about my intentions for disagreeing with you, for some unfathomable reason. Something I happen to know isn't the case, as I have rather better insight into my own thoughts than you do, since I am me and you are not.
So now I think we're at a point where it's clear that there isn't any point in continuing this part of the conversation either.

I generally find it a good rule of thumb to believe that your fellow posters are posting in good faith and not being deceitful about their motivations for debating - it's much easier and more constructive that way.

Edited August 4 by Antarius

[Robbienw]

16 minutes ago, Antarius said:

Because it implies that rather than simply disagreeing with you on the stated points, I'm lying about my intentions for disagreeing with you, for some unfathomable reason. 

 

Why is that unfathomable?  People do it all the time for a variety of reasons.  Maybe your misunderstanding is genuine then perhaps.

 

Just telling you how i see it.  

Edited August 4 by Robbienw

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

6 hours ago, Antarius said:

I'm not going to argue this with you anymore (and this isn't meant as snark in any way just to make it completely clear, this being the internet and all), but there's no misunderstanding here, wilful or otherwise. I understand your point perfectly.
I just disagree and, honestly, I think your interpretation is both self-contradictory and relies on completely ignoring key points in the lore and history of 30K/40K.

But that's ok, we don't have to agree on this 

Not to mention GW themselves stating clearly that there are no good guys in 40k

[Teetengee]

18 hours ago, Robbienw said:

I think you are wilfully misunderstanding what I’m saying here.  Perhaps because you like the idea of there being some kind of moral equivalence between the imperium, and objectively horrible factions like chaos for whatever reason.

 

There is no such equivalence.  Some of the other factions, chaos for example, are obviously objectively bad, no matter what they think of themselves.

 

The imperium is good because it protects mankind.  The setting is ultimately about mankind’s survival, we are humans, human survival is the only thing that matters.

 

 

 

you made some interesting assertions here I'm curious about.

1. Why is chaos objectively bad, specifically? (I'm not saying they aren't bad, but you make a clear distinction with the Imperium and that hinges on understanding what exactly you are saying.)

2. Why is human survival the only thing that matters? As far as I'm concerned (and I think many moral frameworks would be consistent with this), if the only way for you to survive is through untold suffering, it is your moral imperative to let yourself perish. Look at modern fables such as Omelas, (though I would avoid any real world examples for forum reasons, of course). I think this question becomes particularly important and more difficult to justify in a setting where non-human cultures of similar complexity to humanity definitely exist.

[Marshal Rohr]

8 hours ago, Robbienw said:

The Imperium is not a modern day government, It’s a far future empire spanning ~1 million planets and surrounded by homicidal enemies.

 

The Imperium is primarily a vehicle for mankind’s survival - this is what the Emperor set it out to be.  The Emeperor failing to achieve his full plan/set of objectives for the Imperium and humanity does not mean the Imperium is not meeting its primary objective. 

Ok well our modern government is a futuristic super government compared to the Pharaohs and it has the same exact function as Bronze Age governments. You can’t “do your own research” on this one. 

Edited August 4 by Marshal Rohr

[Brother Tyler]

 

It would be a real shame if we had to shut this discussion down on account of:

• people being unable to avoid obviously unnecessary political discussion, and
• people being unwilling to accept that other people might have significantly different opinions on a very subjective issue.

This is a very interesting discussion, but like all such discussions, there are diverse interpretations of and viewpoints on the very complex issues. Those different interpretations and viewpoints do not in any way justify attacking each other.

 

[Antarius]

When it comes to the general discussion of what makes a "good guy" in fiction (something which will probably mirror real world morals to some extent, but that's a whole other can of worms that I'm not going to open here, for multiple reasons), I think there are certain general points to be made, as well as points about Warhammer 40.000 vs Other Settings™

 

- Most stories generally operate with a certain amount of "protagonist bias", meaning that readers tend to view the protagonist(s) as the good guy(s), until given a specific reason not to (in Warhammer 40.000, we are of course given several such reasons for all the factions, but we are also allowed to see almost every faction as protagonists to some degree, because there are stories written from their pov). Come to think of it, readers sometimes miss or gloss over even very big hints that the protagonist is not, in fact, a good guy - something which probably explains why someone might not see the Imperium as bad.

 

- Most stories (at least most good stories) generally operate on a "show, don't (just) tell" basis, when it comes to establishing who the good guys are (or aren't), which I think is certainly the case in Warhammer 40.000. Some stories also has the author come right out and tell us who the good guys are (which doesn't happen in Warhammer 40.000, of course). Sometimes, confusion may arise when characters (especially characters who are also narrators) tell us that they're the good guys and readers mistake this for the authorial voice.

For example, we have lots of imperial sources in-universe telling us that the Imperium is good, but we never have an authorial voice telling us so. At the same time, we are repeatedly shown that the Imperium commits almost every horrible act imaginable (often for no discernible benefit to anyone but just for purely bureaucratic reasons, which probably goes back to Warhammer 40.000's satirical roots). In some novels we might have protagonists who do seem to be genuine good guys, but there's usually a catch and we're usually shown that they commit actions that we're supposed to feel conflicted about, sometimes to the point where we have to rethink whether they actually are the good guys after all, even when they themselves keep insisting that they are (the examples are almost too numerous, but the narrator in "The Oubliette" would be an obvious example of such a narrative shift).

Contrast this with, for example, The Lord of the Rings, where every once in a while we have an authorial voice telling us/affirming that the fellowship are, in fact the good guys in this story, but mostly we are shown that they are good through their words, thoughts and deeds (in fact, the authorial voice only pops up very rarely and usually in connection with a character's inner monologue), whereas characters' failings to live up to their ideals are repeatedly shown (and sometimes stated to be) just that; a failure to act as they should, which jeopardises their status as good people and which is sometimes later redeemed to some degree (often at the cost of their lives). In short, in LotR, the good guys are the good guys specifically because they live up to the moral standards of being good, not because "well they just are and the other side are evil" or whatever other poor justifications might appear in other works.
Of course, LotR is also a setting in which there is an authorially established, objective moral truth; something which pretty clearly doesn't seem to be the case for Warhammer 40.000 (at the very least, it's definitely not stated to be the case).

 

- Warhammer 40.000 has a plethora of protagonists, partly due to the decision to write most codexes from the faction's pov, which allow us to understand why they - in their own minds - are "the good guys". Of course it also always takes pains to show us that once you stop squinting, they really aren't - and oftentimes dramatic or narrative irony is employed to illustrate this (e.g. the noble space marines doing everything they can to save the population from the Orks, so they can all be servitored for heresy for daring to elect their leader democratically - or whatever similar tongue in cheek dystopian horror stories we find scattered throughout the lore). But the genius of this is that you can always identify with "your guys", no matter who they are, which is a great trait for a narrative wargame.
Of course, this nuanced approach is also a big part of the reason why there can't really be any genuinely good guys; the universe is set up around war and dystopian cosmic horror. It's simply not a setting in which a whole faction can remain sufficiently untainted, without either being warcrimed into extinction (most likely by the Imperium and probably as a funny little blurb in a codex) or undermining the entire setting.

Edited August 5 by Antarius

[Robbienw]

So essentially what you are saying is, in your personal view, you don't think there is any objective moral truth in the 40k universe, therefore no one is good OR bad.  Everyone or thing is just acting in their own interests.

[Orange Knight]

40k has lots of good guys and heroes, and always has.

 

It has no truly good factions, however, and that's what makes it so compelling. 

 

To expand on this, even if no one is truly good, there are still degrees of good or evil that the factions can be measured by. The Imperium is terrible, but the Necrons, Chaos and Dark Eldar are even more terrible.

 

[Teetengee]

34 minutes ago, Robbienw said:

So essentially what you are saying is, in your personal view, you don't think there is any objective moral truth in the 40k universe, therefore no one is good OR bad.  Everyone or thing is just acting in their own interests.

I mean, absent any explicit authorial intention of in universe moral truth, any interpretation of moral truth in the 40k must be subjective, because it is up to the interpretation of the reader. It isn't real after all, so all of the action within the 40k universe is simply a story being interpreted through our lense (again, barring an explicit statement from GW).

Given GW has only ever given that in the form of the "to be a man in such times...is to live in the cruelest and most bloody regime imaginable." line, we have been told previously that the object moral truth is that the Imperium is awful. However, I would caution against using that as objective moral in universe truth as well, due to my understanding of it being de-"word of god"ed by attributing the quote to Vulkan.

So in short, no, there is no objective moral truth without explicit authorial intent. On top of that, it is unclear there is even objective truth within the lore, moral or otherwise, due to the everything is canon but not everything is true statements from GW.

That means we need to define good for ourselves in these discussions, not having an unbiased in universe definition to work from or a real world agreed firm definition either that everyone can agree to.

You've still not really explained the "chaos is objectively bad," "humanity's survival is good," or "only the imperium can ensure humanity's survival" assertions you've made either, which makes it difficult to engage with you in good faith.

[Marshal Rohr]

You guys are arguing with someone that refuses to acknowledge the ancient and immutable reason governments have existed from hunter gatherer societies until now and in some studies shows up in animal communities! You can’t squeeze blood from a stone. 

[Teetengee]

3 minutes ago, Marshal Rohr said:

You guys are arguing with someone that refuses to acknowledge the ancient and immutable reason governments have existed from hunter gatherer societies until now and in some studies shows up in animal communities! You can’t squeeze blood from a stone. 

(please take my laughter as with you) Through Tzeentch all things are possible./j

I'm just trying to get an understanding of what is actually being argued, not even get to an agreement (as I think that exceedingly unlikely).

[Marshal Rohr]

4 minutes ago, Teetengee said:

(please take my laughter as with you) Through Tzeentch all things are possible./j

I'm just trying to get an understanding of what is actually being argued, not even get to an agreement (as I think that exceedingly unlikely).

He’s making the argument can’t be bad because it provides a good (the survival of a race) by performing subjectively bad acts, and that makes it ultimately good. It’s a utilitarian/ends justify the means argument. 

[Tawnis]

On 8/3/2025 at 8:36 AM, Robbienw said:

The Imperium as a whole is good - it’s the only thing protecting mankind from extinction.

 

It’s pretty much objective that there is no alternative to what they are doing.  The previous versions of human federations/empires/alliances etc were all tried and tested before 30k and lead to mankind on the brink of extinction.

 

Of course it has bad and corrupted parts, it’s an unimaginably massive empire.

Being less bad than some other alternatives does not make it good. 

 

On 8/3/2025 at 2:26 PM, Robbienw said:

Much of the terrible stuff done is out of necessity because the galaxy is so harsh and the opposing factions really are horrifically bad.  Survival trumps being nice to everyone all the time.  Being extreme and sacrificing parts for the whole is the only way to the ultimate goal at this point.  

 

It’s clear from the lore there is no alternative to the imperium now.  It could have been better of course if it weren’t for Magnus 

 

Again, just because there is something else that is worse, doesn't mean that what was done is good. 

If you beat someone to a pulp instead of murdering them, that is a less bad outcome, but it doesn't make it good. You can argue motivations all you want, maybe the person you attacked was a terrible person, maybe they killed people, doesn't make your actions inherently any better no matter how they are justified. 

Lets say it was something preventative, you were stopping them from hurting someone, that may be a necessary thing, but it doesn't make it the right thing. It doesn't make it good. 

[Robbienw]

4 minutes ago, Tawnis said:

Being less bad than some other alternatives does not make it good. 

 

Protecting mankind from extinction makes it good.