I was thinking about the use of the words loyalist and traitor for Space Marines and CSM. I feel like their intention is to set out instantly who the goodies and baddies are, because they aren’t just words used by imperial characters in the stories they are used all over the place in marketing etc.

But of course if you think being loyal to a totalitarian genocidal theocracy makes you a goodie then you need to check yourself. The irony of the use of loyalists and traitors is that it really makes the CSM the goodies because they turned their back and want to destroy the horror that is the imperium that would make the the goodies and the space marines baddies.

There’s a speech by angron where says he doesnt kill and slaughter because he not moral, he does it because the butchers nails compel him. If he were a moral man he would have killed the emperor already.

I suppose it’s just another way in which GW try to make us all look at the 40K universe through the eyes of an imperial citizen

I mean Space Marines are an Imperial faction and the Chaos Legions betrayed the Imperium by following Horus. There's no morality involved just a definition.
While the Heresy may have started out with the intention of bringing the Emperor to justice, siding with Daemons and dudes like Erebus aren't the way to do it. As the saying goes, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

 Gert wrote:
I mean Space Marines are an Imperial faction and the Chaos Legions betrayed the Imperium by following Horus. There's no morality involved just a definition.

The definition is correct from an imperial perspective but the implication from a game and brand perspective is goodies and baddies, and it’s not on point

So what this is just a general complaint about 40k as a whole?

mrFickle wrote:
I was thinking about the use of the words loyalist and traitor for Space Marines and CSM. I feel like their intention is to set out instantly who the goodies and baddies are, because they aren’t just words used by imperial characters in the stories they are used all over the place in marketing etc.

I'm going to break it to you.

Back in the 90's, Dragon Magazine (the original one, when TSR was the original company) published an article comparing the 40k setting to the Star Wars setting, making the obvious parallels between the two empires.

That's how late your point is.

I don't know if it's the same in english but in german the -ist suffix gives "loyalist" a negative connotation (unlike "loyals" would have). So it makes sense that Chaos followers use the word loyalist, too, even though it's an insult.
So I wouldn't say being a "loyalist" makes you "good" per se, especially, as you pointed out, considering to what these guys are loyal to.

LOYALIST is not usually a very flattering way of refering to a force or institition. It usually equates to defenders of tradition (hardly a fancy concept in a post enlightment world).

Neither is Traitor. Rebel would be more positive.

The selection of words is adecuate for the IOM and the Chaotic Legions, IMHO.

In Ireland, Loyalist does not have particularly positive connotations. But Traitor definitely has worse ones.

Well the default POV in 40k is from the IOM perspective.

No words are innocent but the pair "loyalist/traitor" isnt particularly annoying.

Chaos forces are much more "evil guys" because apart from being the antagonist they lack a proper objective aim beyond "let the Galaxy Burn"... Its hard to be sympathetic to such nihilistic goals.

Back in the early days of 40K, the word 'loyalist', to a British audience, mostly brought to mind the so-called 'loyalist paramilitary' groups in Northern Ireland, like the UVF and UDA. In other words, violent bigots at best and murderous terrorists at worst. When you heard the word 'loyalist' on the news in those days, usually it meant another bunch of people had just been gunned down in a pub somewhere in Ulster. The word certainly didn't have positive connotations back then.

What even is the nice word for loyalist? The word naturally invokes the defense of the status quo. If the status quo has been sufficiently disrupted then you're a rebel which can have better connotations but that obviously doesn't apply to the Imperium.

Loyalty can be seen as a good quality in a person but when organisations use it, it's almost always in a negative context. "We value loyalty to the company/party" etc.

A "loyal person" has a very different connotation than "loyalist", though. The former is a compliment to your character, the latter is a political identification.

"Loyal" and "Loyalist" are used interchangeably with regard to the Legions/Primarchs that remained aligned to the Imperium during the Heresy which is what I'm trying to get at. Plus a lot of people are going to look at "Loyalist" and see "Loyal" i.e. good guys.
I hate this thread because now "Loyal" sounds super weird in my head and when I say it out loud.

They are "loyal" to the corpse of a genocidical and megalomaniac tyrant.

Its seems as flattering as being "loyal" to Daesh or a bloodlust military junta.

The world "loyalist" dosent do much to frame the IOM as the good guys.

Yes but Traitor says a lot. If you don't really know about 40k background and just have a skimmed knowledge of the Imperium (i.e. bad but necessary) then hearing Traitor Legions makes you think Bad Guy so naturally, the faction the Bad Guys betrayed must be the Good Guys. It's very simple logic that you would expect from a child, which is kind of the point.

So what would be the alternative, morally agnostic, terms to refer to the forces gathered arround Abbadon and Guilliman in the current time line?

Chaos and Imperial. Chaos Legions and Imperial Chapters. That's the terms you use. This isn't some huge philosophical debate, it's pretty simple to not use "Loyalist" and "Traitor", those words are just more evocative and better for literary work. An Imperial Marine calling a Chaos Marine a "filthy Traitor" for example.

If Loyalist is an insulting word then I guess I will have to tell my neighbours in Loyalist Township. I guess we have to rename the Loyalist Parkway that the Queen dedicated a few years back? My ancestors self-identifying themselves as United Empire Loyalists was an self-imposed insult?

Or maybe loyalist is a descriptive word for those who stay with the governing system in a rebellion or revolution? So the Space Marine Legions that stayed loyal to the Emperor during the Horus Heresy were sensibly referred to a loyalists? And those that broke away were referred to as traitors. I get that traitor is a loaded word - those who break away will likely use all sorts of other words. Nobody wants to be called a traitor, even when they are. Nothing inherently wrong with being called a loyalist if you are indeed loyal.

40K, for all its grim darkness, is meant to be entertainment and taken with a grain of salt and a pinch of irony. We can take it too seriously.

Problem is that "Chaos" and "Imperial" dont relate to each other from a semantic point of view... And this are the two main human factions fighting for the same basic resource: human flesh and soul.

Loyalist and Traitors are ment to be enemies, if you dont know the inner workings of the setting there is no reason to believe right away that chaotic and imperial forces would be enemies.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
If Loyalist is an insulting word then I guess I will have to tell my neighbours in Loyalist Township. I guess we have to rename the Loyalist Parkway that the Queen dedicated a few years back? My ancestors self-identifying themselves as United Empire Loyalists was an self-imposed insult?

Or maybe loyalist is a descriptive word for those who stay with the governing system in a rebellion or revolution? So the Space Marine Legions that stayed loyal to the Emperor during the Horus Heresy were sensibly referred to a loyalists? And those that broke away were referred to as traitors. I get that traitor is a loaded word - those who break away will likely use all sorts of other words. Nobody wants to be called a traitor, even when they are. Nothing inherently wrong with being called a loyalist if you are indeed loyal.

40K, for all its grim darkness, is meant to be entertainment and taken with a grain of salt and a pinch of irony. We can take it too seriously.

It's not an inherently insulting term, it all depends on context. Loyalist in Ireland implies violent sectarian terrorism.

Vatsetis wrote:
Problem is that "Chaos" and "Imperial" dont relate to each other from a semantic point of view... And this are the two main human factions fighting for the same basic resource: human flesh and soul.

Loyalist and Traitors are ment to be enemies, if you dont know the inner workings of the setting there is no reason to believe right away that chaotic and imperial forces would be enemies.

Going by usual fantasy tropes, Orks and Daemons should be on the same side, but they kill each other constantly. And that's just a basic example; how is someone new to the setting supposed to determine the relationship between "Tau," "Necrons," and "Drukhari?"

The conflict between the IOM and the chaos forces once loyal to Horus, later gathered arround Abbadon, first contained in the Eye of Terror and then spread through the "Great Rift" is the MAIN conflict of the 40k setting... Thats why it needs a special treatment and the pair of words "loyalist/traitors" give a sense of dialectical unity between this two human factions that have been fighting for hegemony over humanity for over 10000 years.

Thats much more significant than the relationship between Tau and Necrons, which is almost meaningless for the setting as a whole.

In that case, since you argue these two factions are so pivotal, shouldn't their positions in the story already suggest that they are diametrically opposed?

Besides, the core conflict in the Imperium isn't Imperium vs. Traitors, it's Imperium vs. Chaos. Genestealer Cults rebel against the Imperium all the time and no one's calling them pivotal to the fate of the galaxy; it's specifically Chaos that is the problem according to your definition.

Are GSC ever refered as traitors in the lore?

Are CSM and SM fighting over the souls and flesh of humanity?

My impression is that CSM continue to fight because they were made to fight and then need to find a fight and largely Abbadon gives them a fight.

The motive behind the invasions of the black crusades have a long game that only abbadon dis really concerned with, which I assume is the death of the emperor which is why CSM keep shouting death to the false emperor.

I assume they will then just allow humanity to get on with it and who knows they might do better if they aren’t under the yoke of the emperor and those who reign in his name.

The point is loyal and traitor all depend on you point of view and the point of view we are given is the imperial one

Vatsetis wrote:
Are GSC ever refered as traitors in the lore?

a fair bit, hell you often have a case where you get a novel where the protagionist is fighting against a revolution and it's only when a guy with 4 arms shows up in the final third of the book that they realize they're dealing with a genestealer cult and not say... a chaos cult

Well, it is of course quite complex.

Are Loyalists only loyal to The Imperium? Or to Humanity, recognising that horrific as it is, The Imperium remains the best chance for humanity to survive an increasing hostile Galaxy.

Are the CSM just Traitors to the Throne (which they absolutely are), or the more serious Traitors to humanity - their every act further imperilling the species’ chances of survival.

If we go back to the Great Crusade, it seems pretty clear The Emperor ultimately had good intentions for Humanity. We can look to the Ultramar System and it’s 500 worlds as the dream made real. 500 worlds coexisting and contributing to each other in relative peace and harmony,

Sure, to get there for the entire Galaxy, The Emperor was more than willing to wipe out every other civilisation, including human ones that refused his rule.

But that was only the first step, the necessary cleansing and war making out of the way as quickly as possible, so a (theoretical) lasting peace could be born in its wake.

I mean, consider the staggering level of The Imperium’s resources, even in its currently tenuous state. Then remove the need to support a mind bendingly huge military presence Galaxy wide.

In theory, Hive Worlds could see their population divided amongst less populous worlds, alleviating some of the worst conditions in the Imperium.

With resources turned to settlement rather than militaristic campaigns, currently dead worlds could be easily terraformed, and on a pretty large scale. Sure it would take time but the technology does exist already. It’s even comfortably arguable that in a state of peace, each and every planet with its own moon or moons could terraform them into their own, personal agri-worlds, relieving a lot of logistical pressure upon those running the Imperium.

But Horus denied that dream. It’s by his actions that the nascent Imperium was torn asunder, and so much damage caused. Those that followed him willingly shattered any chance of peace humanity might’ve known in the future.

Not only were around half of the military assets turned upon the other half, but campaigns to eradicate other threatening species were forgotten, allowing all manner of Xenos to lick their wounds and begin marshalling their forces once again.

Consider the Tyranids. A united Imperium, long since done fighting Orks and Eldar would stand a solid chance against them. Shipyards could churn out battlefleet after battlefleet - and the crews wouldn’t be exactly hard to come by, either.

Some of the most ridiculous weapons of the setting would still be held, albeit likely mothballed as a “just in case”.

The Hive Fleets would be a threat all the same, but one somewhat reduced, because The Imperium wouldn’t have spent the past 10,000 (maybe 9,000?) years chasing its tail, putting out one fire after another.

Tau? They’d just go squish, even if their accelerated development period still occurred. Utterly flattened.

Necrons? Good bit dicier, here. We don’t really know if The Emperor knew much about them, let alone that even entirely peaceful and productive worlds could be harbouring a Tomb Complex, awaiting its alarm going off. But like the Tyranids, they’d be facing a whole and healthy (well, healthier) Imperium better placed to counter them.

Both those relative new species would still bring a new era of war - but it seems likely they’d be wars The Imperium had a decent chance of winning.

Doc, what a brilliant confirmation that upholding Astartes to god like levels of power strongly correlates to imagining the IOM under the most positive light.

The most selfdefeating entity of the whole 40K setting is the IOM, its not Horus and his "traitors" from 10.000 years in the past, its not the mutant, the heretic or the xenos... Most of which would probably leave the IOM alone if they were not prosecuted... Its the Ecclesiarchy, the High Lords of Terra and the SM Chapters those too blame first for the horrible condition of humanity in the 40K setting.

It's multiple things. There isn't a single cause for the poor state of the Imperium. It's bad because of all of the bad things that keep happening.
Do you understand more than one thing can be bad?

Indeed.

Horus was but the first stone. The infantile power struggles within the Imperium ever since have only made things worse.

But, that’s what happens when there’s a power vacuum.

The point about xenos is interesting. Would they largely leave humans alone? During the golden age their couldn’t have been 40K levels of war otherwise it wouldn’t have been that golden. Then all the planets were cut off by warp storms but millions of human worlds survived so did the warp storms prevent them from attacking humans or did they not want to.

And then at first chance the emperor just went crazy and decided to kill them all

Golden Age doesn't mean peace though. It could just mean that humanity was doing all the winning, which they obviously were because of Men of Iron.

Fair point

 Gert wrote:
Golden Age doesn't mean peace though. It could just mean that humanity was doing all the winning, which they obviously were because of Men of Iron.

and if they where winning without humans even needing to see combat it could have been a golden age for humanity while bloody bloody wars where being fought "elsewhere"

Gsc cults are no traitor, they are xenon tainting the very DNA of the population. You can't betray the Imperium if you aren't even human. But loyalist and traitor are just neutral words, the ones who remained loyal (wether it's a good thing or not) and the ones who didn't (like the rebels in Star Wars, rebel isn't good or bad, it's just the name of people who are in a rebellion). I see no issue with that

Golden Age Tech also included complete STCs, and technology so advanced it could snuff out Suns - so wrecking any Xenos might not have been that notable an achievement.

I don’t mean to belittle anyone, but it is super easy to look at the technology available within The Imperium and assume that’s as good as humanity will ever get. The Golden Age dwarfs it utterly.

Consider Titans and Legion Flagships. Colossal and near undefeatable even today. Then think that during The Golden Age, the only thing limiting their construction and deployment was gathering the necessary resources.

Thanks to the more advanced STCs (not all were equal. Some only produced blueprints and the tools to build them, some might as well have been Industrial Replicators. More on that in another thread), that might’ve been even easier than we might think, if they were capable of sorting, smelting and synthesising the necessary materials.

mrFickle wrote:
But of course if you think being loyal to a totalitarian genocidal theocracy makes you a goodie then you need to check yourself. The irony of the use of loyalists and traitors is that it really makes the CSM the goodies because they turned their back and want to destroy the horror that is the imperium that would make the the goodies and the space marines baddies.

Hello, we are the Night Lords, we are going to torture you for the lols, and to destroy the horror that is the Imperium and all that.

Aside from that - loyalist/traitor are simply because the setting is primarily shown from the imperial perspective, the chaos marines are nothing if not totalitarian genocidal theocrats, and none of them turned their back on the Imperium out of a desire to 'destroy the horror'.

mrFickle wrote:
There’s a speech by angron where says he doesnt kill and slaughter because he not moral, he does it because the butchers nails compel him.

"I don't kill people because i'm bad, I just kill people because the nails in my head tell me to. Now if you would excuse me i've got new recruits in and i've misplaced my hammer..." - Angron.

Angron also refused to lead his Legion because he thought they were weaklings, killed like half the Legions high command, encouraged the implantation of the Nails and then butchered the parts of the Legion who weren't down with implants that make you murder harder.
Angron is not a morally good character in any way shape or form.

We could describe Angron as morally compromised though, rather morally evil.

The Butcher’s Nails aren’t exactly conducive to rational thought, creating as they do an addiction to violence.

Like any addict, can we really blame someone in the throws of physical and mental addiction needing their fix as evil?

If a junkie mugs someone at knife point to get money for their next fix? It is absolutely not a moral act - but it doesn’t make the person underneath the addiction evil per se (nor does it excuse their action, for clarity)

Sure but Angron still had a lot of lucidity, especially in the earlier years of the Crusade. He could easily have told his Legion not to implant the Nails and certainly shouldn't have encouraged it. Angron was a spiteful git who, like every other Primarch, had a massive ego. He forced the Nails upon the World Eaters so they could share his pain. He felt such disdain for them he literally stole a ship and just left for two years until Kharn found him. He gave them impossible tasks and then ordered decimations when the Legion failed.
There's making bad choices because of the Nails and then there's Angron.

Or he had been driven beyond full rationality by the Butcher’s Nails.

It may have been him simply trying to recreate his fallen brethren. The one The Emperor left to die on their hill, instead of doing something actually constructive, like intervening in the conflict in some way.

Most of these responses seem to argue over "loyalist" and "traitor" in real world demographics/politics and little to do with 40k.

That the chaos gods are fundamentally evil isn't really something that can be denied - it's just how the gods are in the 40k universe. Daemons are described as hating all mortals for purely existing, and only fight alongside if beholden to by their gods.

You could argue that the horus heresy was initially motivated by a sense on bringing justice to the emperor for some legionaries. Even then it's merely them being rather petty about arguing who shoud be in charge.

And the Imperium is clearly not "good" in and of itself.

IMO there are no "good guys" in a general sense in the 40k universe, which of course was probably GWs original idea with the grim-dark setting.

Tbh Angron’s mistreatment of his legion is probably a combination of a deliberate FU to the Emperor combined with the nails making it difficult for him to think of them as people rather than the Emperor’s tools plus a bit of self hatred at the fact that he’s been cast in the role of those he was trying to overthrow before the Emperor abducted him.

 Boringstuff wrote:
Most of these responses seem to argue over "loyalist" and "traitor" in real world demographics/politics and little to do with 40k.

That the chaos gods are fundamentally evil isn't really something that can be denied - it's just how the gods are in the 40k universe. Daemons are described as hating all mortals for purely existing, and only fight alongside if beholden to by their gods.

You could argue that the horus heresy was initially motivated by a sense on bringing justice to the emperor for some legionaries. Even then it's merely them being rather petty about arguing who shoud be in charge.

And the Imperium is clearly not "good" in and of itself.

IMO there are no "good guys" in a general sense in the 40k universe, which of course was probably GWs original idea with the grim-dark setting.

Very much the last point.

Chaos offers absolute freedom - but with no safety.

The Imperium offers security - but for pretty much everyone, absolutely no freedom and a life of drudgery.

The only species actively enjoying themselves are Orks, because the state of the Galaxy is exactly to their liking. And given Orky outlook, not actually evil. Might makes right for all Orks. Sure, you might be a weedy humie. But, potentially, if you can stick a ten penny one up the bracket of an Ork and kill him? You’re no longer weedy. Sure, the next biggest Ork will just come and duff you up. But that’s just their society. They don’t do what they do out of any malice as we understand it.

Chaos offers absolute freedom - but with no safety.

Nope. Chaos offers absolute slavery, with even death being no escape. But it also offers a chance for the power to lash out against everyone/everything that's ever hurt you. (and the Imperium does a lot of hurting, and life seems grindingly pointless and hopeless, so its no surprise that people will take the chaos option)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mrFickle wrote:
I was thinking about the use of the words loyalist and traitor for Space Marines and CSM. I feel like their intention is to set out instantly who the goodies and baddies are, because they aren’t just words used by imperial characters in the stories they are used all over the place in marketing etc.

But of course if you think being loyal to a totalitarian genocidal theocracy makes you a goodie then you need to check yourself. The irony of the use of loyalists and traitors is that it really makes the CSM the goodies because they turned their back and want to destroy the horror that is the imperium that would make the the goodies and the space marines baddies.

There’s a speech by angron where says he doesnt kill and slaughter because he not moral, he does it because the butchers nails compel him. If he were a moral man he would have killed the emperor already.

I suppose it’s just another way in which GW try to make us all look at the 40K universe through the eyes of an imperial citizen

Maybe its a cultural thing, but 'loyalist' absolutely doesn't make you a 'goodie.' It just means you're on the side of whoever's currently in the big chair (or someone who was just ousted, depending on the context).
It isn't really a moral judgement-- here, for example, 240-odd years ago, loyalist and traitor were synonyms.
Same would be true of anyone who fought for Charles I- they'd be loyalists.

I still argue Chaos offers freedom.

In a way, it’s more of a meritocracy as Ork society, as your the judgement of your performance depends on which god you pledge yourself to - if you even did.

Yes, you’re still ultimately beholden to another being - but their rules are loose at best.

Imperium are objectively the good guys, their ultimate goal is to save humanity against its countless enemies.

Everything the Imperious does, it does for that reason. Sure, sometimes harsh or brutal measures are necessary, but ultimately its towards a good cause.

People who disagree are not only objectively wrong, but also either heretic or xeno sympathizers.

Good joke.

I suspect ia not a joke... That is what GW marketing has done to the perception of the setting. :(

Daemonhammer wrote:Imperium are objectively the good guys, their ultimate goal is to save humanity against its countless enemies.

Everything the Imperious does, it does for that reason. Sure, sometimes harsh or brutal measures are necessary, but ultimately its towards a good cause.

People who disagree are not only objectively wrong, but also either heretic or xeno sympathizers.

And here's where you say that you're joking...


... right?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:I suspect ia not a joke... That is what GW marketing has done to the perception of the setting. :(

That's not just GW's marketing - that's a lack of insight in real life, especially regarding the whole "sometimes harsh or brutal measures are necessary, but ultimately its towards a good cause" sentiment.

I could sort of understand that sort of reasoning... but thats not what the IOM do.

The IOM fanatics might fill self-rightjeous, but they are clearly playing in favour not of humanity as a species but rather of a corrupt elite and the chaos Gods, who are very happy of the existence of the IOM... dont want to get political but you could find parallels with certain "Imperial Republic" between two oceans.

Thats why you need 40K to be a satire or else is just a celebration of militaristic bigotry.

Or people can just be capable of separating fiction from reality.
I like the 40k universe and the Imperium is a compelling empire that has a lot of interesting background. That doesn't make me a goose-stepping Xenophobe.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I still argue Chaos offers freedom.

In a way, it’s more of a meritocracy as Ork society, as your the judgement of your performance depends on which god you pledge yourself to - if you even did.

Yes, you’re still ultimately beholden to another being - but their rules are loose at best.

yeah no dude, thats not how it works. you might think you're free, but in reality you've just changed one master for another. the HH novel "Slaves of darkness" does a good job of showing how it really works

Well Gert this is sort of problematic... because actually myth and fiction are a product of human mind and they exist precisely to alterate human social behaviour (even if they are concealed as entertaiment).

So if people start thinking about militaristic bigots as "the good guys" (IE: defenders of humanity) without any level of irony or criticism... precisely in a moment when in the real world that sort of ideology is on the rise globally... well it sort of rises some red flags.

Please try to understand my words with some nuance and dont take them literally for an easy reply.

The only nuance needs to be in the experience of the individual and what media they consume.
It doesn't matter if 40k portrays the Imperium as "good" (it actually doesn't as soon as you scrape a millimeter beneath the surface and read a single novel) if a hundred other pieces of media show that militant authoritarian Xenophobic systems of governance are bad. Which they do, like all the time.

 Boringstuff wrote:
That the chaos gods are fundamentally evil isn't really something that can be denied - it's just how the gods are in the 40k universe.

I disagree. If the Chaos gods are a reflection and manifestation of the emotions of living beings, then they are capable of anything which living beings are which are tied to the emotions which created them and currently sustain them. They are made the way they are by the misery inflicted on the galaxy by the Imperium of Man. If humanity were not actively and deliberately oppressed by the imperium, then it is possible that the resultant reduction in negative emotions would change the chaos gods to reflect that change in the emotions which feed them.

The chaos gods seek to negatively impact the universe (from the point of view of the Imperium, at least) because they are manifestations of negative emotions and actions as that is the strongest source of emotion in the Imperium. If it were reversed, and the Imperium was not an oppressive, fascistic regime constantly stamping on the face of humanity, allowing humanity to more freely experience positive emotions then it is entirely possible that would also be reflected in the actions of the chaos gods.

BTW it's not just the Imperium that makes the Gods the way they are. The War in Heaven was so cataclysmic that it turned the Warp from a safe and beautiful place into the hellscape we know today. The Old Ones basically kept it in balance and then the eradication of their race combined with the massive psychic backlash caused by the War polluted the Warp. By the time Humanity discovered Warp Travel it was already too late then the Fall of the Aeldari just made everything worse and was the final nail in the coffin for the empire of man.

How can you genuinely complain about militarism, fanaticism, xenophobia and bigotry in the Imperium? The Imperium is completely justified in having those attitudes.


A single heretic or genestealer hybrid on a planet of billions is enough to sow the seeds of what would eventually cause its destruction.

Interstellar travel works by traveling trough hell, where getting licked by a daemon once is enough to consign you to eternal torment and the only semi-reliable means of salvation is faith in the Emperor.

The forces of Chaos are entirely made up of insane psychopaths who worship evil and want nothing more than perpetual suffering for everyone.

Xenos range anywhere from devouring swarms or terminators to anarchist fungus and communists.

On top of all that, the Imperium has been in a state of perpetual warfare on a million fronts for 10 thousand years.
Harsh and brutal behavior is not only justified but even necessary for the Imperium to survive.

 Daemonhammer wrote:
How can you genuinely complain about militarism, fanaticism, xenophobia and bigotry in the Imperium? The Imperium is completely justified in having those attitudes.


A single heretic or genestealer hybrid on a planet of billions is enough to sow the seeds of what would eventually cause its destruction.

Interstellar travel works by traveling trough hell, where getting licked by a daemon once is enough to consign you to eternal torment and the only semi-reliable means of salvation is faith in the Emperor.

The forces of Chaos are entirely made up of insane psychopaths who worship evil and want nothing more than perpetual suffering for everyone.

Xenos range anywhere from devouring swarms or terminators to anarchist fungus and communists.

On top of all that, the Imperium has been in a state of perpetual warfare on a million fronts for 10 thousand years.
Harsh and brutal behavior is not only justified but even necessary for the Imperium to survive.

Gert, this is why you need to make the fact that the Imperium is bad painfully obvious.

Because there are people who look at a xenophobic, genocidal war machine and think "Yes, they need to do that to save the human race!" without any hint of irony.

They say "...the Imperium has been in a state of perpetual warfare on a million fronts for 10 thousand years." without considering the fact that the Imperium started those wars itself when it began a crusade of genocidal expansion with the aim of human supremacy over the entire galaxy and the extermination of all other intelligent life. If Nazi Germany didn't want to fight against the whole world then it shouldn't have declared war on it. It doesn't get to whine that it had to kill millions of Poles and completely flatten Warsaw as they were subversive and trying to undermine its rule when it didn't need to invade Poland in the first place.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Gert, this is why you need to make the fact that the Imperium is bad painfully obvious.

Because there are people who look at a xenophobic, genocidal war machine and think "Yes, they need to do that to save the human race!"

They say "...the Imperium has been in a state of perpetual warfare on a million fronts for 10 thousand years." without considering the fact that the Imperium started that war itself when it began a crusade of genocidal expansion with the aim of human supremacy over the entire galaxy.

So what do you think the Imperium should do differently? Start peace talks with Chaos? Negotiate trade with Tyranids or Dark Eldar?

 Daemonhammer wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Gert, this is why you need to make the fact that the Imperium is bad painfully obvious.

Because there are people who look at a xenophobic, genocidal war machine and think "Yes, they need to do that to save the human race!"

They say "...the Imperium has been in a state of perpetual warfare on a million fronts for 10 thousand years." without considering the fact that the Imperium started that war itself when it began a crusade of genocidal expansion with the aim of human supremacy over the entire galaxy.

So what do you think the Imperium should do differently? Start peace talks with Chaos? Negotiate trade with Tyranids or Dark Eldar?

It should die.

The Imperium is solely responsible for the current state of the galaxy and should pay the price. Humanity as a species can survive without it, just as it survived before the Emperor began his genocidal mission.

Did the Imperium create the Chaos gods or even the Eye of Terror?

Did the Imperium create Tyranids, Orks, Necrons or Eldar?

No they didnt, those evils were there long before the Imperium was about.

 Daemonhammer wrote:
Did the Imperium create the Chaos gods or even the Eye of Terror?

Did the Imperium create Tyranids, Orks, Necrons or Eldar?

No they didnt, those evils were there long before the Imperium was about.

Did the chaos gods invent space marines who would rip the galaxy in half? Nope, that was all the Imperium.

Also, by what criteria do you call Tyranids, Orks, Necrons and Eldar evil that does not also apply to the Imperium of Man?

Daemonhammer wrote:How can you genuinely complain about militarism, fanaticism, xenophobia and bigotry in the Imperium? The Imperium is completely justified in having those attitudes.

No, they are not. The Interex stand as a counter to that.

The Interex are a society that is xeno-allied, anti-Chaos, and manages to do that with the militarism, fanaticism, xenophobia and bigotry.

The Imperium is flat out just *bad*.

Harsh and brutal behavior is not only justified but even necessary for the Imperium to survive.

The Interex did just fine. You know what killed the Interex? The Imperium.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Daemonhammer wrote:
So what do you think the Imperium should do differently? Start peace talks with Chaos? Negotiate trade with Tyranids or Dark Eldar?

It should die.

The Imperium is solely responsible for the current state of the galaxy and should pay the price. Humanity as a species can survive without it, just as it survived before the Emperor began his genocidal mission.

Absolutely correct. If humanity should survive, it should do so without the Imperium, because the Imperium is unequivocally evil.

However, just because the Imperium is evil doesn't mean Chaos is good, and it doesn't change that those loyal to an evil regime should be called "loyalists".

There is no real "good guy" in 40k. trying to decide whose the least evil between all the various factions is like deciding whose least evil between a list of Hitler, Stalin, Ghengis Khan, Vald the Impaler, Nero, and Leopold II

The Imperium could have peace talks with certain xenos. The Imperium could just not punish convicts by making them Servitors, burn them to death, or strip them to the front of a machine to be in constant agony for the hell of it. The Imperium is not the only way humanity can survive.

The only way you could say the Imperium is justified is if you think you're one of the people who wouldn't be killed tortured, or born with a "Kill-Me-Aura" like psykers and blanks, only to be used as fuel for the emperor, or strangled as a kid.

It is the most brutal regime. Humanity has fallen. The Imperium even more so.

The Imperium could have peace talks with certain xenos

*sighs* name one.
I'm not arguing the IoM is the good guys here, but on the Xenos front NONE of the Xenos races are going to happily sit down with the IoM.

One? T'au.

Next, any races the T'au have under their wing.

Jokaero, as well, but that's less peace talks, and more bananas.

BrianDavion wrote:

The Imperium could have peace talks with certain xenos

*sighs* name one.
I'm not arguing the IoM is the good guys here, but on the Xenos front NONE of the Xenos races are going to happily sit down with the IoM.

Is that before or after the Imperium tried to wipe them all out?

Because, sure, they wouldn’t be inclined to be nice after humanity’s biggest empire tried to slaughter them all.
But before then, well…

BrianDavion wrote:

The Imperium could have peace talks with certain xenos

*sighs* name one.
I'm not arguing the IoM is the good guys here, but on the Xenos front NONE of the Xenos races are going to happily sit down with the IoM.

The Tau Empire.

You know, the species which has an entire caste of diplomats and emissaries and which views military action as a last resort after diplomatic attempts have failed.

The Imperium could easily cede control of a collection of systems in exchange for a temporary truce and potentially an alliance against more important threats. Sure, it probably won't last forever but it would close off one front for a time as the Tau set about incorporating the new systems into the Empire and allow the Imperium to focus its attention elsewhere.

Basically the 40K equivalent of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

The Imperium could have peace talks with certain xenos

*sighs* name one.
I'm not arguing the IoM is the good guys here, but on the Xenos front NONE of the Xenos races are going to happily sit down with the IoM.

The Tau Empire.

You know, the species which has an entire caste of diplomats and emissaries and which views military action as a last resort after diplomatic attempts have failed.

The Imperium could easily cede control of a collection of systems in exchange for a temporary truce and potentially an alliance against more important threats. Sure, it probably won't last forever but it would close off one front for a time as the Tau set about incorporating the new systems into the Empire and allow the Imperium to focus its attention elsewhere.

Basically the 40K equivalent of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

ok, name one that they haven't already done that, the IoM ahs struck temproary accords with the Tau before

40k has a bunch of minor xeno species, many of which the imperium refused to even try diplomacy. One example included allowing HUMANS that were allies to an alien species to join the imperium during the horus heresy.

T'au are just the major race most likely. But Eldar would also be willing to go for peace treaties if it benefited them.

The Imperium burned all the bridges they could have taken for peace. The Imperium had chances to make allies. The Imperium still has a chance if it stops trying to murder every xenos it comes across. But it refuses to.

Luckily we have the IOM to prevent humanity into falling into xenos anarchy and communism"... WtF!!!!

BEST CASE scenario the IOM can be considered "good guys" only to the level of Judge Dredd in the Karl Urban film... A film that goes quite a mile to show that this sort of "law" is almost as bad as "crime" and that the main victims of this conflict are civilians trapped in the middle.

The imperium and it’s citizens are only under constant threat because humans have spread out across the galaxy assuming it belongs to them. And they have assumed they can take it by force.

Sending millions or billions or trillions on humans to their death is not trying to save humanity it’s trying to keep the threat far enough away from the high lords of terror that they will never pay the price for humanities never ending xenocide.

Chaos only take such an interest in humanity because of the emperor and his plans made humanity the perfect tool for chaos to try a bad consume the galaxy.

The eye of terror was always there but until the traitor legions went to live their what came out of it? There were no demon armadas going. In black crusades

yeah cause the tyranids where TOOOOOOOOOOOOOTALLY gonna ignore em if they only occupied a small empire.. how'd that work out for the Tau?

Its highly doubtful that the IOM tendency to fight everyone... Including himself... Is the best way to protect the galaxy from the Tyranid external threat.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The Tau Empire.

You know, the species which has an entire caste of diplomats and emissaries and which views military action as a last resort after diplomatic attempts have failed.

The Tau objective with regards to the Imperium, and everyone else, is a client species of slaves to the Greater Good.

Military action will be used where advantageous to the Greater Good. Diplomatic action will be used where advantageous to the Greater Good. The size of the human population of the galaxy will be adjusted to best fit the needs of the Greater Good.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The Imperium is solely responsible for the current state of the galaxy and should pay the price.

Prior to the rise of Imperium:
-The war in heaven created the hellscape that is the current warp, the c'tan ate most things and the enslavers ate most of the rest, the Eldar and krok were created
-The Eldar murder-fcked slaanesh into existence and fragmented into two distinct groups - a dying race that tortures as a way of life to buy one more day, and a dying race who throw whole worlds and civilizations under the bus to buy one more day.
-The Kork became the orks - biological weapons that exist only to fight and kill and multiply. The rise of the Imperium and the death of the ork 'beast' at the hands of the Emperor slowed their inexorable march towards the total slaughter of everyone they can reach for a time. Their only motivation? 'Krump it'.
-And somewhere beyond the borders of the Imperium the Tyranids were hungry and looking for more food.

In amongst all of this mankind was taking its first steps to becoming a psychic race, a state that meant literally every human being was a potential portal to the afore mentioned hellscape and chaos gods through which they could reach into realspace and and bend it to their will. Their will being to eat the souls of mankind (and everything else), preferably in a long-term farm of torture and misery to best sustain them because that is the messed up place the war and the Eldar left them.

The Imperium as the Emperor envisaged it was a brutal and flawed attempt to prevent chaos from getting enough of a grip on humanity to stop them from growing beyond this early vulnerable state into a race of psykers strong enough to stand alone, by pulling all humans under the same oppressive banner lest chaos splinter away a group of them to turn on the rest as their agents in realspace.

It failed, and now the Imperium exists in a kind of holding pattern tilting back and forth between a step on the long road to psychic freedom, and a step on the short road to chaos soul farm. They are unapologetically 'evil' while believing their actions to be the lesser of all evils. But soley responsible for the state of the galaxy? Not by a long shot.

mrFickle wrote:
I was thinking about the use of the words loyalist and traitor for Space Marines and CSM. I feel like their intention is to set out instantly who the goodies and baddies are, because they aren’t just words used by imperial characters in the stories they are used all over the place in marketing etc.

But of course if you think being loyal to a totalitarian genocidal theocracy makes you a goodie then you need to check yourself. The irony of the use of loyalists and traitors is that it really makes the CSM the goodies because they turned their back and want to destroy the horror that is the imperium that would make the the goodies and the space marines baddies.

There’s a speech by angron where says he doesnt kill and slaughter because he not moral, he does it because the butchers nails compel him. If he were a moral man he would have killed the emperor already.

I suppose it’s just another way in which GW try to make us all look at the 40K universe through the eyes of an imperial citizen

In my humble opinion W40k isn't about the eternal war among the Good against the Evil, but among the Evil against other kinds of Evil and is up to us choose what is the lesser evil. But how can we say the faction X is an evil less evil of any other W40k's faction? To me is impossible.

Again, the warp is a reflection of the material plane.

The Imperium fuels the current incarnation of the warp by being oppressive and engaging in never-ending war.

Change that, and you change the nature of the warp and the entities within.

The_Grim_Angel wrote:

mrFickle wrote:
I was thinking about the use of the words loyalist and traitor for Space Marines and CSM. I feel like their intention is to set out instantly who the goodies and baddies are, because they aren’t just words used by imperial characters in the stories they are used all over the place in marketing etc.

But of course if you think being loyal to a totalitarian genocidal theocracy makes you a goodie then you need to check yourself. The irony of the use of loyalists and traitors is that it really makes the CSM the goodies because they turned their back and want to destroy the horror that is the imperium that would make the the goodies and the space marines baddies.

There’s a speech by angron where says he doesnt kill and slaughter because he not moral, he does it because the butchers nails compel him. If he were a moral man he would have killed the emperor already.

I suppose it’s just another way in which GW try to make us all look at the 40K universe through the eyes of an imperial citizen

In my humble opinion W40k isn't about the eternal war among the Good against the Evil, but among the Evil against other kinds of Evil and is up to us choose what is the lesser evil. But how can we say the faction X is an evil less evil of any other W40k's faction? To me is impossible.

Virtually every faction of 40K is horrible to the Other, that is those outside their own particular faction. However quite a few factions, such as the Imperium, Chaos, and Dark Eldar, are horrible even within their own faction with internecine fighting, torture, or oppression. Orks don't seem to mind it and see the fighting as just the way things are and get a kick out of it. Tyranids are all really just cells forming the body of the Hive Mind. Any fighting between Tyranids is intentional to test which strain is stronger.

Actually I would argue that Craftworlds, Exodites, Harlequins, and Tau are perhaps the least dark of 40K's factions, for the simple fact of them generally not being riven by internal conflict even if they have disagreements. The odd honor duel between Exodites or Saim-hann champions doesn't really count. Yes, I am aware that Craftworlds have fought wars and proxy wars too, but they are notable for being uncommon. They still might be horrible to Outsiders, but to those inside their group they seem to be less gakky. The quality of life for Craftworlders seems actually pretty good and is far above what most people in the Imperium could dream of. Sure, one could argue they are under mental stress and oppressed by the Path system, but that is still far better than the mental and physical oppression suffered by menial workers within the Imperium.

The Tau similarly seem to not have internecine conflict despite Farsight breaking from the Ethereals. Even then, his vision seems to be more of the Greater Good without the need for Ethereals. Again, one could argue the caste system is oppressive, but that might be bias from those that don't live in caste based societies. Even the humans that join them, though a client state/race, seem to have enjoyed their improved standard of living enough to for example fight fiercely against Imperial reconquest (as detailed in the Imperial retaking of Taros).

I am not arguing these factions are "good" but they are certainly less dark IMO than some other factions.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Again, the warp is a reflection of the material plane.

The Imperium fuels the current incarnation of the warp by being oppressive and engaging in never-ending war.

Change that, and you change the nature of the warp and the entities within.

While true, the problem is the big 4 Chaos gods are powerful enough now to survive for a time and to induce mortals to behave in a manner that feeds them. The big 4 are like billionaires, with more than enough to live off of even if you cut off their income today. So for example even if the Imperium were to become suddenly pacifist overnight, and that would starve Khorne in the long term, he has enough reserves to survive for probably a long time. In that time, Khorne's daemons would tear a bloody path through the suddenly pacifistic Imperium, and Khorne could expend some of his vast accumulated power to induce rage and bloodthirstiness in people, thus generating his own food effectively. All mortal races would have to change their nature and be able to survive long enough, containing any attempt by the gods to throw things off, that the gods eventually starve and the warp calms.

Or the alternative would be to do what the Necrons do and seal the warp off using blackstone. The downside though of a tight seal like what the Necrons do seems to create a lethal apathy in most humans, and presumably other species with at least some warp signature.

BrianDavion wrote:

The Imperium could have peace talks with certain xenos

*sighs* name one.
I'm not arguing the IoM is the good guys here, but on the Xenos front NONE of the Xenos races are going to happily sit down with the IoM.

The T'au, and their various client races? The client races that the Interex had allied with? And we've already seen cases where Orks and Eldar have been happy to parlay with Imperial forces - it's not unreasonable to say that those races couldn't find a way to reach mutually beneficial relationships.

After all, if all Orks want is to fight - let the Imperium guide them to the fights.

A.T. wrote:Military action will be used where advantageous to the Greater Good. Diplomatic action will be used where advantageous to the Greater Good. The size of the human population of the galaxy will be adjusted to best fit the needs of the Greater Good.

The same could be said of the Imperium.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The Imperium is solely responsible for the current state of the galaxy and should pay the price.

Prior to the rise of Imperium:
-And somewhere beyond the borders of the Imperium the Tyranids were hungry and looking for more food.

Eh, the Tyranids only came to the galaxy because the Imperium was civil-warring and overloaded the Pharos. They *did* accidentally bring the Tyranids in.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The same could be said of the Imperium.

The Imperium will say they hate you and then shove you into the furnace.
The Tau will say they are your friends and then have you build the furnace. Then they will shove you in, for the Greater Good.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Eh, the Tyranids only came to the galaxy because the Imperium was civil-warring and overloaded the Pharos. They *did* accidentally bring the Tyranids in.

I guess they ran out of things during the heresy to take the mystery out of with those books. I await the trilogy of Alpharius founding the Tau empire, realising his folly, and then disguising himself as farsight only to be recognised by Guilliman as the dawn blade is revealed to be the weapon of his brother...

A.T. wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The same could be said of the Imperium.

The Imperium will say they hate you and then shove you into the furnace.
The Tau will say they are your friends and then have you build the furnace. Then they will shove you in, for the Greater Good.

That's projection from the POV of the Imperium.

There is no evidence the Tau actually do that kind of systematic genocide. Please quote and cite your sources. Unless you are referring to the 4th Sphere Expansion? In which case, that was shown to be an aberration and traumatic response to what they went through. Those commanders were punished. The 5th Sphere Expansion has not done the same. If you refer to Dawn of War games, the Tau ending was non-canonical. There is actually an official winner of each DoW and expansion, with all the other faction endings non-canonical.

Sure the Tau are not above conquest when diplomacy fails, and their client races are in a subordinate role, but that's different from what you are accusing them of.

Also, Commander Brightsword committed the Koloth Gorge Massacre on Nimbosa in which his forces completely wiped out the Imperial defenders, giving no quarter.

He was recalled back to T'au to face censure for his actions.

The Imperium would pin a medal on a commander who did that to any xenos species.

A.T. wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The same could be said of the Imperium.

The Imperium will say they hate you and then shove you into the furnace.
The Tau will say they are your friends and then have you build the furnace. Then they will shove you in, for the Greater Good.

The Imperium will tell you that they have no choice, and put you in the furnace that your ancestors built, that you maintain, and that your children will stoke, because "putting you in the furnace is the only way to save humanity".

Same difference - just replace "Greater Good" for "the Emperor". The difference is that the Imperium's body count is vastly higher.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Eh, the Tyranids only came to the galaxy because the Imperium was civil-warring and overloaded the Pharos. They *did* accidentally bring the Tyranids in.

I guess they ran out of things during the heresy to take the mystery out of with those books. I await the trilogy of Alpharius founding the Tau empire, realising his folly, and then disguising himself as farsight only to be recognised by Guilliman as the dawn blade is revealed to be the weapon of his brother...

Hey, all I'm saying is that the Tyranids *are* technically humanity's fault, like it or not.

The main threat of the Tau to the Imperium is not so much its military threat, since the Tau are a small empire still on the grand scheme of things. It is the ideological threat, because they offer an alternative path to the Imperium for human survival.

The humans on Taros if anything fought harder than the Tau to resist the Imperium's reconquest because the humans had enjoyed an improved quality of life and some local autonomy in the 40 or so years since the Tau took Taros.

Now of course the Imperium would view the idea of humans treating aliens as equals, let alone being subordinate to them, repugnant but that's the whole point: the humans under the Tau pose the threat of seductive new ideas to the downtrodden masses of the Imperium. The Imperium fears the spread of these ideas more than the Tau's actual physical conquests.

Iracundus wrote:
The main threat of the Tau to the Imperium is not so much its military threat, since the Tau are a small empire still on the grand scheme of things. It is the ideological threat, because they offer an alternative path to the Imperium for human survival.

The humans on Taros if anything fought harder than the Tau to resist the Imperium's reconquest because the humans had enjoyed an improved quality of life and some local autonomy in the 40 or so years since the Tau took Taros.

Now of course the Imperium would view the idea of humans treating aliens as equals, let alone being subordinate to them, repugnant but that's the whole point: the humans under the Tau pose the threat of seductive new ideas to the downtrodden masses of the Imperium. The Imperium fears the spread of these ideas more than the Tau's actual physical conquests.

Exactly - the Tau are proof that the Imperium is not the only way that humanity can survive - and therefore why they are such a threat.

Damm T'aus and their communist infiltrarion tactics... I thought those "reds" have been erased after the fall of the wall. :(

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The Imperium will tell you that they have no choice

They would say it was your duty, or their demand, or nothing at all and just push you in. But they would do it to your face by preference.

It's one of those things they haven't yet ruined about the Tau by giving too much background information in stories, that they are likely just as much slaves to the Ethereals as their client races, and potentially working against their own long-term interests depending on the ultimate true goal of the Greater Good.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Iracundus wrote:
The main threat of the Tau to the Imperium is not so much its military threat, since the Tau are a small empire still on the grand scheme of things. It is the ideological threat, because they offer an alternative path to the Imperium for human survival.

The humans on Taros if anything fought harder than the Tau to resist the Imperium's reconquest because the humans had enjoyed an improved quality of life and some local autonomy in the 40 or so years since the Tau took Taros.

Now of course the Imperium would view the idea of humans treating aliens as equals, let alone being subordinate to them, repugnant but that's the whole point: the humans under the Tau pose the threat of seductive new ideas to the downtrodden masses of the Imperium. The Imperium fears the spread of these ideas more than the Tau's actual physical conquests.

Exactly - the Tau are proof that the Imperium is not the only way that humanity can survive - and therefore why they are such a threat.

It is the psychic potential of humans that is the attraction/danger when it comes to Chaos. Tau don't have that issue.

 harlokin wrote:
It is the psychic potential of humans that is the attraction/danger when it comes to Chaos. Tau don't have that issue.

IIRC the psychic issue for humans with the Tau is currently somewhat handwaved with intervention from other client species, chemicals in the water providing psychic-castration of the humans, etc.

A.T. wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The Imperium will tell you that they have no choice

They would say it was your duty, or their demand, or nothing at all and just push you in. But they would do it to your face by preference.

I mean, *is* it really to your face? "Doing it for duty" is still a lie, because that duty isn't required for the survival of humanity.

It's one of those things they haven't yet ruined about the Tau by giving too much background information in stories, that they are likely just as much slaves to the Ethereals as their client races, and potentially working against their own long-term interests depending on the ultimate true goal of the Greater Good.

Again, it's also just as likely that the T'au genuinely *are* mostly benevolent, and there isn't any mind control, or drugs in the water, or ulterior motive beyond a Greater Good, and that life as part of their empire is the "good" ending.

harlokin wrote:It is the psychic potential of humans that is the attraction/danger when it comes to Chaos. Tau don't have that issue.

I don't recall the Interex having such issues.

A.T. wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
It is the psychic potential of humans that is the attraction/danger when it comes to Chaos. Tau don't have that issue.

IIRC the psychic issue for humans with the Tau is currently somewhat handwaved with intervention from other client species, chemicals in the water providing psychic-castration of the humans, etc.

Source on that last one?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

harlokin wrote:It is the psychic potential of humans that is the attraction/danger when it comes to Chaos. Tau don't have that issue.

I don't recall the Interex having such issues.

Oh yes, the Interex; who could forget such an 'amazingly fleshed-out civilization' only invented as an artless contrast of the Imperium, and so significant that it was wiped out by a few thousand Astartes.

*The 63rd Expeditionary Fleet which contained the Sons of Horus (including Horus), Mechanicum and Titans of the Legio Mortis, and Imperial Army Regiments.

harlokin wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

harlokin wrote:It is the psychic potential of humans that is the attraction/danger when it comes to Chaos. Tau don't have that issue.

I don't recall the Interex having such issues.

Oh yes, the Interex; who could forget such an 'amazingly fleshed-out civilization' only invented as an artless contrast of the Imperium, and so significant that it was wiped out by a few thousand Astartes.

And who were surviving in the galaxy without all the awfulness the Imperium displayed - the fact it took the 63rd Expeditionary Fleet to finally wipe them out says more about their capabilities than it belittles their accomplishments.

Also, "artless contrast of the Imperium" is exactly what they were - demonstration that the Imperium absolutely did not have to do what they did, and doubly tragic that they were wiped out by the evidently more inhumane and villainous of the two.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

And who were surviving in the galaxy without all the awfulness the Imperium displayed - the fact it took the 63rd Expeditionary Fleet to finally wipe them out says more about their capabilities than it belittles their accomplishments.

How long they might have survived, and whether it was even tenable in the long-term is never touched upon. Never mind the fact that they were merely surviving, while the Imperium was thriving.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Also, "artless contrast of the Imperium" is exactly what they were - demonstration that the Imperium absolutely did not have to do what they did, and doubly tragic that they were wiped out by the evidently more inhumane and villainous of the two.

Nah, good riddance to a unimaginative, happy-clappy, shower of gak.

 harlokin wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

And who were surviving in the galaxy without all the awfulness the Imperium displayed - the fact it took the 63rd Expeditionary Fleet to finally wipe them out says more about their capabilities than it belittles their accomplishments.

How long they might have survived, and whether it was even tenable in the long-term is never touched upon. Never mind the fact that they were merely surviving, while the Imperium was thriving.

They survived well enough beyond the Long Night, they developed tech that could quite easily penetrate power armour, had studied Chaos to the point that they were equipped to reject it, and were evidently more capable of dealing with certain xenos threats like the Megarachnid, considering that they were capable of essentially marooning them all onto one planet. They clearly showed more common sense than the Imperium too (not a high bar to pass), given how they didn't decide to go picking a fight with the Megarachnid, and left them on that world as a quarantine.

No, I think they were pretty clearly shown as a capable long-term civilisation, and thriving. Not to the same extent as the Imperium, but considering the moral cost of the Imperium's "progress", I think that the Interex have the high ground here.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Also, "artless contrast of the Imperium" is exactly what they were - demonstration that the Imperium absolutely did not have to do what they did, and doubly tragic that they were wiped out by the evidently more inhumane and villainous of the two.

Nah, good riddance to a unimaginative, happy-clappy, shower of gak.

A canon unimaginative shower of gak!

All I'm saying is that the Imperium is not justified, has never been justified, and all of their excuses for why they do what they do are utterly meaningless. The Interex are proof of that, and that's why they needed to exist: because if they didn't, we *could* end up with people claiming "but the Imperium is the only way that humanity could survive among the stars". No, the Interex are proof that humanity could have survived - if the Imperium didn't exist.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

All I'm saying is that the Imperium is not justified, has never been justified......

I get that, I just prefer the view that the Imperium was justified at some point, but that point has long since passed.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Again, it's also just as likely that the T'au genuinely *are* mostly benevolent, and there isn't any mind control, or drugs in the water, or ulterior motive beyond a Greater Good, and that life as part of their empire is the "good" ending.

A mounting pile of circumstancial evidence, as it should be. Any author that decides to state outright one way or the other isn't doing the faction justice.
A few fun ones include "after the Ethereal caste provided the Vespid leaders with custom-made communication headsets, they became suddenly and completely compliant", and "the Poctroon are the first sentient race to join the empire, though within a few generations the unfortunate aliens have fallen to a terrible plague. Fortuitously, the Tau are immune to this virulent phage, and inherit the aliens' now abandoned world..."

A.T. wrote:Source on that last one?

Not to hand i'm afraid. Too many paper books with no built in search function :(
I think GW are rather deliberately skirting around this particular issue as uncontrolled gue'la psykers should be a one way ticket to a massive daemonic incursion, enslaver plague, or just your mundane alpha-plus level 'Alma Wade' style apocalypse.

Shas'O Status'Qu'O: "Why is the planet suddenly on fire?"
(nearby fire warriors' head slowly spins 180 to face him): "bEcAUsE It bUUUUuurns..." (tau get telekinetically yeeted into the sun)

I would say the Unification Wars and the Solar Reclamation are probably where the justification starts and ends. There seemed to be a lot more killing of genuine threats and merging of human peoples than after that.
Yeah the Emperor was bad but compared to people like Narthan Dume and the Priest-King of Maulland Sen were absolutely worse.

 harlokin wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

All I'm saying is that the Imperium is not justified, has never been justified......

I get that, I just prefer the view that the Imperium was justified at some point, but that point has long since passed.

Sorry, but no. The Emperor was always wrong and the Imperium is founded on that.

The Imperium didn't fall from some grand dreams of utopia, it was what it became from the very start. The very foundation of the Imperium is mass murder and colonialism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

A.T. wrote:

I think GW are rather deliberately skirting around this particular issue as uncontrolled gue'la psykers should be a one way ticket to a massive daemonic incursion, enslaver plague, or just your mundane alpha-plus level 'Alma Wade' style apocalypse.

Or perhaps it is the environment of the Imperium that makes psykers so dangerous. Perhaps the beings of the warp, especially those with malevolent intent, are more drawn to psychic minds which are beacons of negative emotion.

harlokin wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

All I'm saying is that the Imperium is not justified, has never been justified......

I get that, I just prefer the view that the Imperium was justified at some point, but that point has long since passed.

Yeah, nah. I would hate that the Imperium was ever justified in what it did, because what it did was awful. It should never have been seen as justifiable, and I'm glad that non-Imperium humans existed in the setting to prove that it wasn't necessary to do what the Imperium did.

A.T. wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Again, it's also just as likely that the T'au genuinely *are* mostly benevolent, and there isn't any mind control, or drugs in the water, or ulterior motive beyond a Greater Good, and that life as part of their empire is the "good" ending.

A mounting pile of circumstancial evidence, as it should be. Any author that decides to state outright one way or the other isn't doing the faction justice.
A few fun ones include "after the Ethereal caste provided the Vespid leaders with custom-made communication headsets, they became suddenly and completely compliant", and "the Poctroon are the first sentient race to join the empire, though within a few generations the unfortunate aliens have fallen to a terrible plague. Fortuitously, the Tau are immune to this virulent phage, and inherit the aliens' now abandoned world..."

For the Vespid, how much of that is actual mind control, or just finally being able to communicate effectively?
For the Poctroon, how much of that is simply just their biology being different, and being a tragic accident?

For every conspiracy that the Tau are evil mind controllers and deliberately subversive, there's a rational explanation and wholesome intent. My point still stands - it's down to interpretation and personal opinion as to what the Tau truly are, but the point stands that we have no *solid* proof that the Tau have any ill-intent towards their Gue'vesa.

We cannot say the same for the Imperium, who we outright know are in the wrong.

Source on that last one?

Not to hand i'm afraid. Too many paper books with no built in search function :(

Aight - so let's just not make that claim again until we have proof, yes?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Source on that last one?

Not to hand i'm afraid. Too many paper books with no built in search function :(

Aight - so let's just not make that claim again until we have proof, yes?

https://youtu.be/BYAjyJvPFfI

Technically not the Canon ending to the game, but this also implies forced sterilization.

Arcanis161 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Source on that last one?

Not to hand i'm afraid. Too many paper books with no built in search function :(

Aight - so let's just not make that claim again until we have proof, yes?

https://youtu.be/BYAjyJvPFfI

Technically not the Canon ending to the game, but this also implies forced sterilization.

Even if that were the case, it is a less harsh punishment than what the imperium would impose.

Also, the Imperium has mass-sterilisation programs.

Arcanis161 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Source on that last one?

Not to hand i'm afraid. Too many paper books with no built in search function :(

Aight - so let's just not make that claim again until we have proof, yes?

https://youtu.be/BYAjyJvPFfI

Technically not the Canon ending to the game, but this also implies forced sterilization.

So, a non-canon ending, in a video game series that I thought we were saying wasn't exactly "canonical" in the first place? And it's an implication, not an outright statement?

You can see why I'm skeptical of this as anything concrete, yes?

harlokin wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Yeah, nah. I would hate that the Imperium was ever justified in what it did, because what it did was awful. It should never have been seen as justifiable, and I'm glad that non-Imperium humans existed in the setting to prove that it wasn't necessary to do what the Imperium did.

Yeah, nah.

Very insightful, good contribution.

It was the same as yours, pal, in response to what was my expression of personal preference. You can like it, or go feth yourself.

Did you stop reading after my first sentence, or not? Because I definitely put more insight and actual *response* into my reply. Yours was... well, completely superfluous, beyond expressing you disagreed, which was already evident. Clearly, they are not the same, but I'm glad that my response affected you so much that you felt the need to reaffirm your disagreement in two words.

As I said - you really demonstrated keen insight and contribution in your two word response, have a gold star.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
For every conspiracy that the Tau are evil mind controllers and deliberately subversive, there's a rational explanation and wholesome intent.

That is... pretty much excactly what I said, so yes?
"A mounting pile of circumstancial evidence, as it should be. Any author that decides to state outright one way or the other isn't doing the faction justice."

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Aight - so let's just not make that claim again until we have proof, yes?

I recalled it from an old Deathwatch game. After further investigation it appears to have been an all-purpose sterilization. Deathwatch Core Rulebook page 352
"Imperial religion is prohibited and the Tau Water Caste run education (and re-education) programs that instill an understanding and love of the Greater Good into the somewhat reluctant gue’la minds. Populations are regularly sterilized to prevent population growth outstretching Tau methods of control. Human transgressors against the Greater Good are not publicly executed as is the Imperial way, for the Tau see no need to publicize the fates of those who oppose them. Instead, such gue’la simply disappear, and it is the way of the Greater Good to convince oneself that they never existed at all."

and from the same source and page:
"...Gue’Retha is a place which the Tau decline to name, but which human malcontents call the Lacuna. This underground research facility, it is rumored, is where the Tau conduct psychological experiments on the gue’la prisoners. The results supposedly help the Tau refine their methods of social manipulation, but no one can be sure since any heard to utter such thought vanish, quite possibly into Lacuna itself"


And from the supporting xenos sourcebook, Mark of the Xenos page 4:
I am recently returned from a contact negotiation with the Tau, and I am driven to commit my immediate thoughts to record. While maintaining the propriety that my station demands, I grow increasingly frustrated by the manner in which the Tau comport themselves. Indeed, I might go so far as to describe them as infuriating! Their Water Caste envoys maintain a mask of politeness and openness, yet they talk around every issue raised. I have come to understand that the Tau regard themselves as occupying some sort of moral high ground in everything they do. They condemn our actions, claiming our methods are excessive or unreasonable, yet have a justification for every one of their own, often equally extreme, deeds. When they hear that Imperial forces have decimated a rebellious world, they call us callous and state that such things could never occur under their beneficent rule. Yet, when they invade a world that refuses to submit to joining their empire, they at first deny all involvement, and then eventually cite the necessity of their vile collectivist creed. They preach equality and the value of every sentient being, yet they allow their auxiliary subjects to make sacrifices they rarely ask of their own kin.

I submit this observation to you in the hope that it may further your own studies into this particular xenos species. While my recent mission was undoubtedly trying, I have come away from it with a deeper understanding of the Tau, which I believe can serve us all. They do not seek to expand their empire for mere territorial or material gain, for their home region is bountiful in natural resources of every type. They expand because they must, just as we fight because we must. They believe it is their destiny to unite every sentient being in the galaxy under their rule. This, I believe shall be their undoing. By the time they discover the truth of the horrors that lurk between the stars, they will have fatally overstretched themselves, and then we can strike them down once and for all.


I'm sure there is a rational explanation and wholesome intent in there somewhere, but i'm going to need page numbers and quotes... :p

A.T. wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
For every conspiracy that the Tau are evil mind controllers and deliberately subversive, there's a rational explanation and wholesome intent.

That is... pretty much excactly what I said, so yes?
"A mounting pile of circumstancial evidence, as it should be. Any author that decides to state outright one way or the other isn't doing the faction justice."

And I was just reaffirming that we can't outright make a claim either way. You claimed that the Tau were "The Tau objective with regards to the Imperium, and everyone else, is a client species of slaves to the Greater Good.

Military action will be used where advantageous to the Greater Good. Diplomatic action will be used where advantageous to the Greater Good. The size of the human population of the galaxy will be adjusted to best fit the needs of the Greater Good."

I stated how this was only one interpretation of what they were, and how the Imperium are explicitly shown as awful, unlike the Tau, who are obfuscated somewhat.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Aight - so let's just not make that claim again until we have proof, yes?

I recalled it from an old Deathwatch game. After further investigation it appears to have been an all-purpose sterilization. Deathwatch Core Rulebook page 352...

Great, we're getting somewhere! Is this a localised case (ie, an outlier within the Empire), or is this considered as regular practice within the Empire? I don't have the book on me, could you provide the information - because reading the extracts you provided, it seemed like this may have been an outlying example, and not common practice.

Second, if I'm not mistaken, aren't those books not considered direct GW canon? I mean, they're not in publication any more, and I do seem to remember GW saying that they were ultimately third party products?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Arcanis161 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Source on that last one?

Not to hand i'm afraid. Too many paper books with no built in search function :(

Aight - so let's just not make that claim again until we have proof, yes?

https://youtu.be/BYAjyJvPFfI

Technically not the Canon ending to the game, but this also implies forced sterilization.

So, a non-canon ending, in a video game series that I thought we were saying wasn't exactly "canonical" in the first place? And it's an implication, not an outright statement?

You can see why I'm skeptical of this as anything concrete, yes?

Sorry, I seem to have missed the part where the forum agreed to only count written works as Canon.

Furthermore, while yes, it is a "non-canon" ending, it is the ending that occurs when playing the Tau, this it would at least count as what would have happened if the Tau won.

"You can see why I'm skeptical of this as anything concrete, yes?"

And I see that as the intent of how the Tau are written. Nothing is directly stated, only implied. See the video I linked and the other quotes given.

Also, didn't the Farsight book have Tau Ethereals experimenting with Genestealers or was that another story?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Aw, you don't like when people oppose the idea that bad stuff needs to happen to have good things, or that the ends justify the means?

Shame, I suppose, but it says more about you than me.

I don't like the theme of victory without sacrifice, in this setting. I also don't like that expressing that preference results in amateur psychoanalysis of real-life motivations.

@A.T.

So, both from Imperial viewpoints and based on rumours with no concrete evidence, rumours shared with the imperium by those with an axe to grind and an incentive to paint the Tau in the worst possible light.

Arcanis161 wrote:Sorry, I seem to have missed the part where the forum agreed to only count written works as Canon.

I make reference to a comment made (perhaps in another thread) which indicated that video games had a degree of obfuscation to them, and that as they weren't entirely GW property, weren't exactly the same relevance.

I'm not saying it's not canon, but that if it's not something being widely supported by GW's own material, its relevance should be questioned.

"You can see why I'm skeptical of this as anything concrete, yes?"

And I see that as the intent of how the Tau are written. Nothing is directly stated, only implied. See the video I linked and the other quotes given.

Similarly, I've seen other Tau material which has been made with the intent of showing how not everything in the galaxy has to be awful, and how there can be altruistic and good-hearted factions out there.

Again, all implication, and all down to personal interpretation, which I like, but that's why I'm commenting, I suppose - to at least mention how the Tau might not be as malevolent as some users have implied.

Also, didn't the Farsight book have Tau Ethereals experimenting with Genestealers or was that another story?

If so, it's the first I've heard of it, so I'd like to see more on it!

harlokin wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Aw, you don't like when people oppose the idea that bad stuff needs to happen to have good things, or that the ends justify the means?

Shame, I suppose, but it says more about you than me.

I don't like the theme of victory without sacrifice, in this setting. I also don't like that expressing that preference results in amateur psychoanalysis of real-life motivations.

And I don't like the theme of "the ends justify the means" in any setting. I also don't like that expressing that preference results in being labelled a moraliser.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
So, both from Imperial viewpoints and based on rumours with no concrete evidence, coming from those with an axe to grind and an incentive to paint the Tau in the worst possible light.

I don't really have an axe to grind? I just presented what I knew.

I do find it odd that evidence I considered to be hinting at darker motives is being dismissed as they're not explicitly stating that there are darker motives. I thought it was obvious that the whole point was that they were hints to allow interpretation from the players as to whether or not the Tau were actually evil.

But apparently, the response I see is that if there's no explicit evidence, then it doesn't exist. No room for nuance and other interpretations eh?

This feels like a fight to just have a fight.

EDIT:

Again, all implication, and all down to personal interpretation, which I like, but that's why I'm commenting, I suppose - to at least mention how the Tau might not be as malevolent as some users have implied.

I stand corrected. That's fair.

Arcanis161 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
So, both from Imperial viewpoints and based on rumours with no concrete evidence, coming from those with an axe to grind and an incentive to paint the Tau in the worst possible light.

I don't really have an axe to grind? I just presented what I knew.

Oh, I don't literally mean the people sharing it in this thread. I mean the people that gave that information to the Imperium in universe. They mention they got it from malcontents.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
@A.T.

So, both from Imperial viewpoints and based on rumours with no concrete evidence, coming from those with an axe to grind and an incentive to paint the Tau in the worst possible light.

I really thing that the Tau are in a much more progressive phase of development than the regressive IOM so their actions are somewhat more tolerable (from a modern POV)... but it is also true that the more they engage in the never ending war of the 40K galaxy (whose main architech is without doubt the Big E) the more "grimdark" the T´au empire is going to turn.

Its hard to constantly engage with madmen without lossing some level of sanity.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Great, we're getting somewhere! Is this a localised case (ie, an outlier within the Empire), or is this considered as regular practice within the Empire?

One of two examples (from what is being said about dawn of war). No contradicting quotes or information, no indication that this location is notable or unique within the Tau empire in any way.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Second, if I'm not mistaken, aren't those books not considered direct GW canon? I mean, they're not in publication any more, and I do seem to remember GW saying that they were ultimately third party products?

Proof required of your claim i'm afraid.
FFG games were directly licenced by GW. Everything within is officially endorsed by GW unless there is a statement to the contrary.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
So, both from Imperial viewpoints and based on rumours with no concrete evidence, rumours shared with the imperium by those with an axe to grind and an incentive to paint the Tau in the worst possible light.

A report from a senior member of the Astartes to his superior, based on direct first hand observation and interaction with the Tau, for the purpose of informing further study and prudent military strategy.

I mean I literally gave you the whole quote, the book, and the page number so I don't know where you are getting the idea of it being some kind of vague, twisted and wistful slander.

It's widely known that GW doesn't consider any licensed material canon. Blood Ravens weren't an official canon Chapter until a model was released in Deathwatch: Overkill. The Storm Wardens, despite being cool, have never been confirmed canon.
Licensed material is given a lot of room to breathe specifically because GW can just turn around and say "Nah that's not GW-produced material and is therefore not canon". It sucks but that's how it works.

A.T. wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Great, we're getting somewhere! Is this a localised case (ie, an outlier within the Empire), or is this considered as regular practice within the Empire?

One of two examples (from what is being said about dawn of war). No contradicting quotes or information, no indication that this location is notable or unique within the Tau empire in any way.

Well, there *is* contradicting information in that we don't see it mentioned anywhere else, or in other pieces of media that do mention the Gue'vesa, in all truth.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Second, if I'm not mistaken, aren't those books not considered direct GW canon? I mean, they're not in publication any more, and I do seem to remember GW saying that they were ultimately third party products?

Proof required of your claim i'm afraid.
FFG games were directly licenced by GW. Everything within is officially endorsed by GW unless there is a statement to the contrary.

As Gert said, that's not quite true. Licenced stuff is not, and has never been, treated in the same way as BL or Codex stuff by GW. Drawn from, inspired by, yes, but the design that went into those wasn't overseen by GW any more so than the Munchkin 40k expansion or 40k Monopoly is canon material.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Well, there *is* contradicting information in that we don't see it mentioned anywhere else

Quotes and references have been provided. You are the one who asked for proof, you are only being asked to meet the same burden.

A.T. wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Well, there *is* contradicting information in that we don't see it mentioned anywhere else

Quotes and references have been provided. You are the one who asked for proof, you are only being asked to meet the same burden.

I appreciate the quotes and references you have provided. I should, however, still mention that those quotes and references come from third party material, the internal canonicity of one of the above is questionable.

Alas, I cannot provide sources for the *absence* of the mention of something, as I'm sure you are well aware. All I can tell you is that no direct GW material references what you describe - the source of which is... all GW direct material?

Arcanis161 wrote:

I do find it odd that evidence I considered to be hinting at darker motives is being dismissed as they're not explicitly stating that there are darker motives. I thought it was obvious that the whole point was that they were hints to allow interpretation from the players as to whether or not the Tau were actually evil.

Actually that's where I stand. The evidence is innuendo, biased, or circumstantial. Hardly a smoking gun. I think the only conclusion is that the Tau are not necessarily that nefarious. It's not proof they are genociding as standard policy. It can be if you choose to attribute such malevolent motives and it might not be or be an outlier, an aberration. There is room for interpretation.

However, that means such circumstantial evidence isn't really sufficient proof to prove the claim the Tau are doing those things. The fact there are human subject populations over a lifetime after the Damocles Crusade show that the Tau clearly aren't sterilizing all humans.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I should, however, still mention that those quotes and references come from third party material, the internal canonicity of one of the above is questionable.

The deathwatch book had to go directly through Games Workshops head of intellectual property Alan Merritt and his department.

He pops up in some of their dev diary stuff, and also interestingly on this very forum when he got the boot, with reference to his connection to the FFG books on the first page.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/698955.page

The Munchkin game and 40k Monopoly developments will have needed to go through the IP department as well. Doesn't change the fact licensed materials aren't considered canon. In the Index Astartes for the Blood Ravens, the events of all the DoW games up to 3 are left as a closely guarded secret of the Ravens because of how the games operate with multiple endings and such. That's as canon as DoW gets.

The_Grim_Angel wrote:

mrFickle wrote:
I was thinking about the use of the words loyalist and traitor for Space Marines and CSM. I feel like their intention is to set out instantly who the goodies and baddies are, because they aren’t just words used by imperial characters in the stories they are used all over the place in marketing etc.

But of course if you think being loyal to a totalitarian genocidal theocracy makes you a goodie then you need to check yourself. The irony of the use of loyalists and traitors is that it really makes the CSM the goodies because they turned their back and want to destroy the horror that is the imperium that would make the the goodies and the space marines baddies.

There’s a speech by angron where says he doesnt kill and slaughter because he not moral, he does it because the butchers nails compel him. If he were a moral man he would have killed the emperor already.

I suppose it’s just another way in which GW try to make us all look at the 40K universe through the eyes of an imperial citizen

In my humble opinion W40k isn't about the eternal war among the Good against the Evil, but among the Evil against other kinds of Evil and is up to us choose what is the lesser evil. But how can we say the faction X is an evil less evil of any other W40k's faction? To me is impossible.

But GW overuse the phrases loyalist and traitors so that when you first walk in the shop you think, ‘oh there’s the good guys and they must be the baddies’

GW overusing terms like hero and villain is more of an issue IMO. Another issue is having too many "good" characters. However, while people love a good antagonist, you can't have every single book and character be genocidal murderers with no regard for human life because that's worse IMO.
I've seen quite a few BL authors say that without good characters or moments of hope, 40k ceases to become Grimdark and just becomes nihilistic. 40k may be a horrible place but the rare moments of "good" are what make it a good setting. The Ultramarines lose almost their entire Chapter fighting Behemoth but their sacrifice buys time for the wider Imperium to fight back and learn valuable data on fighting the Tyranids. For every 10 Chapters with murderous tendencies, a disregard for human life and a lack of rationality there is a Chapter like the Salamanders, who despite fighting for a corrupt and hopeless regime, try to keep the suffering of the innocent to a minimum.

mrFickle wrote:

The_Grim_Angel wrote:

mrFickle wrote:
I was thinking about the use of the words loyalist and traitor for Space Marines and CSM. I feel like their intention is to set out instantly who the goodies and baddies are, because they aren’t just words used by imperial characters in the stories they are used all over the place in marketing etc.

But of course if you think being loyal to a totalitarian genocidal theocracy makes you a goodie then you need to check yourself. The irony of the use of loyalists and traitors is that it really makes the CSM the goodies because they turned their back and want to destroy the horror that is the imperium that would make the the goodies and the space marines baddies.

There’s a speech by angron where says he doesnt kill and slaughter because he not moral, he does it because the butchers nails compel him. If he were a moral man he would have killed the emperor already.

I suppose it’s just another way in which GW try to make us all look at the 40K universe through the eyes of an imperial citizen

In my humble opinion W40k isn't about the eternal war among the Good against the Evil, but among the Evil against other kinds of Evil and is up to us choose what is the lesser evil. But how can we say the faction X is an evil less evil of any other W40k's faction? To me is impossible.

But GW overuse the phrases loyalist and traitors so that when you first walk in the shop you think, ‘oh there’s the good guys and they must be the baddies’

Because GW current Marketing undermines the initial creative input of the 40K setting... and everything gets flanderised withoout any nuance... Heck even 40K and AOS are turning into a great big mixed mess.

mrFickle wrote:


But GW overuse the phrases loyalist and traitors so that when you first walk in the shop you think, ‘oh there’s the good guys and they must be the baddies’

It's deliberate, I think.

What makes 40k great, I think, is that its not that simple. 'Loyalist' and 'traitor' is merely perspective, after all. And 'loyalist', especially where I'm from, certainly does not mean 'good guy'. Loyalist and traitor is evocative of the mindsets of a lot of the protagonists of the game. Its an anchor for the reader.

I remember the realisation as a teenager when I dug into this awesome setting that really, no, it wasn't a case of goodies and baddies. It was more than the simplistic taglines and more than my first impression. It wasn't black and white, it was shades of grey. It was one of the first IPs I'd explored in any depth or felt I could explore in any depth where I felt there was 'depth' and 'nuance' after my first impression of goodies and baddies/heroes and villains etc, and for a very young deadnight, the fact that this realization was gained by me, rather than being presented on a plate to me set 40k apart from the other things I loved as a kid. It gave me a kind of ownership of what 40k was to me. I wanted to dive in and know more.

And I'm pretty certain this was deliberate desig
on the part of gw. Im pretty certain there's while board meetings over individual phrases to be used to give this precise kind of engagement. Can't fault them, really.

Loved it, still do.

Deadnight wrote:

mrFickle wrote:


But GW overuse the phrases loyalist and traitors so that when you first walk in the shop you think, ‘oh there’s the good guys and they must be the baddies’

It's deliberate, I think.

What makes 40k great, I think, is that its not that simple. 'Loyalist' and 'traitor' is merely perspective, after all. And 'loyalist', especially where I'm from, certainly does not mean 'good guy'. Loyalist and traitor is evocative of the mindsets of a lot of the protagonists of the game. Its an anchor for the reader.

Yeah, absolutely want to highlight this - "loyalist" is a term which, depending on your culture and environment, can absolutely mean wildly different things, ranging from both positive connotations, and negative ones, as illustrated here.

Loyalist doesn't state anything beyond "loyal to a regime/power/ideology" - but the real question depends on what that regime/power/ideology is, and in many cases, a "loyalist" is someone loyal to a very unsavoury ideology.

"Traitor" is definitely a more loaded term, but again, it's all relative to whoever they betrayed. As an example, Finn in SW:TFA is outright called out as a traitor by another stormtrooper - but Finn is definitely the "good guy" in the situation.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


"Traitor" is definitely a more loaded term, but again, it's all relative to whoever they betrayed. As an example, Finn in SW:TFA is outright called out as a traitor by another stormtrooper - but Finn is definitely the "good guy" in the situation.

George Washington was technically a traitor. The founders of the 1916 Irish Republic were traitors. Arguably the supporters of William of Orange were traitors to the actual monarchs at the time.

By other perspectives, heroes, founding fathers and revolutionaries.

"It's only treason if you lose."

 Duskweaver wrote:
"It's only treason if you lose."

have the collective CSM lost? The heresy failed as horus was attempting to take over the imperium. But. By then end of the heresy most of the traitors seem more content with just seeing the imperium burn. Now most of the CSM resent their primarchs, if they knew them, and just want to see the gals emperor and the imperium fail and die. If they haven’t won the certainly are winning considering the state of the imperium. Even if winning just means waiting

Yep the Heretic Astartes definetly lost in tbe Horus Era... They just survive for a long period of time in the fringes of the IOM and after the fall of Cadia they are ment to have made a comeback... But due to the huge inertia of the setting that dosent means much to the status quo.

mrFickle wrote:

 Duskweaver wrote:
"It's only treason if you lose."

have the collective CSM lost?

The quote is an intentional tautology, illustrating the entirely subjective nature of terms like 'traitor' and 'treason'.

If you successfully overthrow the previous 'legitimate authority' and make yourself the new 'legitimate authority', you're not a traitor. Those who remained loyal to the previous authority are now the traitors.

If you fail to do that, though, then you're just a traitor.

The CSMs unequivocally failed to replace the Emperor as the 'legitimate authority' of the Imperium. So they're traitors.

Perhaps it is more correct to say "It's not treason if you win."

I vaguely remember a Horus heresy story where one of the traitor primarchs (I think) did bring this up and complained about them being branded as traitors and Imperium as loyalists. It was not elaborated much and I dont remember where I read it sorry (too many books in the series now that I remember everything). If I remember correct they brought up the issue of them looking at the loyalist as the real traitors.

There have several stories/books/fluff that the chaos marine called the loyalist marine as a loyalist but in an insulting manner. So guess its part of the POV