Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This has been a topic that I've been thinking about for a while now and I believe it poses at least some interesting lore questions.
As the title suggests this topic is about the adeptus custodes and free will.

First some lore facts: we know custodians are chosen at infancy or at least at a very young age to undergo the process to become one of them. They are then altered at a molecular level using some (probably) DAoT gene-alchemy. Through this process they become the most advanced superhumans the imperium can manufacture, but only with tremendous time and rescource investment. They are functionally immortal in that they don't age, but can be wounded or killed in combat. They also have to be rather well versed in historical, philosophical and historical topics, because they were expected to also provide the emperor with counsel and conversation.
So far so good.....the perfekt mary sues, right? But we also know that they are utterly incorruptible. There has never been a canon example of a custodian betraying the emperor, which brings us back to our main topic and question:

Do the custodes actually have free will?

I actually think they do...to an extent. There are examples on the Horus heresy book where custodians do not fully agree with the emperors plans or at least feel some uncertainty about them. But they would never ever act against him or his plans and I think this is where it becomes somewhat interesting. Because it does not seem to be some sort of "programming" where they are physically restricted to only be able to act according to the emperors plans. To me it seems that they are made in such a way that their unquestioning loyalty is so engrained in their being that they might disagree with the emperor on an intellectual level in some topics, but they would never come to the conclusion that going against him could be the right thing to do. Which, when you think about it, is actually quite a sinister form of subservience.

I think it gives the faction some depth, because while the custodians are being treated with the utmost respect in the imperium and have the shiniest toys, they are actually bound by a very, very sophisticated form of slavery.

What do you think?

Read watchers of the Throne. Part of what makes Valarian special and different from his brothers is that he does have free will. He directly disobeys both his Chapter Master and Bobby G. That's like disobeying the Emperor in both cases. Can't do that without free will. Wierd thing is despite not exactly having the parts for this to even be a thing, he does it for love of a woman.

Its something that happens in real life as well. If you are never shown failure by a parent figure they become the block you stand upon.

Custodes are basically raise to believe that the emperor is their father, their best friend, and the only one they can count on. They are given the absolute best training and education, then put through rigorous testing until they are finally granted the rank of true custodian.

Pushed to the limits of their capabilities and gifted every advantage, but always knowing they are inferior to the Emperor in every way as to keep them from getting a big head.

They are free to do what they want, but all they want is the Emperor's will.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Read watchers of the Throne. Part of what makes Valarian special and different from his brothers is that he does have free will. He directly disobeys both his Chapter Master and Bobby G. That's like disobeying the Emperor in both cases. Can't do that without free will. Wierd thing is despite not exactly having the parts for this to even be a thing, he does it for love of a woman.

I did, twice.

It's not the same thing as denying the emperor, at all. This is part of my point why I think it's a very sophisticated form of slavery and subservience. They can come to their own conclusions like Valerian did, they can act against their captain general (not chapter master...yes thats nitpicky on my part but still) and guilliman, but only if they think it ultimately serves the emperors will or is necessary for his protection. In the case of Valerian, he acted against a superior, but nothing the did was against the throne or the emperor. There were multiple approaches to a tactical situation and he chose a differnt one than his captain general (which was expected of him anyway, because Valoris is a badass and was playing a game of 3d chess the whole book).

I think they are even able to contemplate about why many legions and their respective primarchs fell during the heresy and how they were led towards that path. They just can't ever come to the conclusion that turning your back on the emperor is the right path, no matter the circumstance.

So if you are trying to make Custodes out to be "slaves" or some weird 40k is all slavery:

All I can say is welcome, this is 40k we have literal catholic space nazis, slaves, and racial segregation. The Wokest thing ever to happen in this universe is when literally half of humanity decided that Hell was better than Not Hell, and went over to the other side.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So if you are trying to make Custodes out to be "slaves" or some weird 40k is all slavery:

All I can say is welcome, this is 40k we have literal catholic space nazis, slaves, and racial segregation. The Wokest thing ever to happen in this universe is when literally half of humanity decided that Hell was better than Not Hell, and went over to the other side.

That is a very fair and interesting point. Humanity in 40k is one of the worst versions of humanity you can think of, but still better than almost all other things in 40k (if you are a human). This is a big part of what makes the setting interesting for me general, but that is a discussion for another thread.

Your point about humanity all essentially being enslaved in 40k is surely true to some extent, but my main point is this: the rest of humanity even space marines, psychoindoctrinated mudermachines that they are, can in fact make the choice to take different path under certain circumstances (which is the whole point of the heresy books essentially). Renegades and heretics are a thing after all. Custodes on the other hand, while being able to contemplate such concepts like being a renegade/traitor and why some people might do it, are unable to come to the conclusion that this can be the proper path, away from the emperor.

This is a small, but important distinction in my opinion. Custodes have the free will to contemplate about a certain concept like becoming a traitor to the emperor, but lack the free will to ever come to the conclusion that going down that path is the right choice. To me it seems they just lack the ability to come to that conclusion no matter the circumstance....which is why I called it a rather sophisticated form of slavery. They are bound to the emperor for eternity, no matter the circumstance or what he does or what he becomes....which is a rather scary concept, to me at least and I think it actually gives the faction some character.

Could just be a case of being kept in a box.

If you're kept in a box, all you know is what's inside the box, and what you're told about the outside of the box. Why would you doubt if you have no reason to believe otherwise?

It may just be that, lacking external stimuli / information, and a *very* likely modification of their minds to the "faith" centres, that there is insufficient information to go against their innate, "No, this is the right way and I have no reason to change." Mentality.

That opens the possibility of corruption, that just hasn't happened *yet*.

I've always thought that the Custodes are basically the only faction to know everything about the nature of chaos, humanity, the emperor and the emperors plans and end goals.

As pointed out earlier they can disagree with the Emperor, and indeed they have to be able to do that in order to be good conversationalists and more importantly good counsel. Like wise to do those things they need to have access to all the same information the Emperor has.

That ends up being important because if they know the end goal, and are indoctrinated that A)The end goal is all that matters and B)The Emperor is the only being who can attain that end goal (regardless of the actual plan taken to reach it) you end up with a bunch of fanatics who place the Emperors life above all else and know that he they must be loyal because ti is only through him that the goal (what ever it is) can be achieved through, while also understanding that they can be part of the process that decides the path that is taken- but again, can only be achieved by the Emperor.

Givivng them the mental freedom to disagree and advise, but likewise creating the bonds of absolute loyalty needed from them.

And that's before all the mental conditioning and pscho-indoctrination and anything else is thrown at them to keep them loyal.

Carlovonsexron wrote:
I've always thought that the Custodes are basically the only faction to know everything about the nature of chaos, humanity, the emperor and the emperors plans and end goals.

As pointed out earlier they can disagree with the Emperor, and indeed they have to be able to do that in order to be good conversationalists and more importantly good counsel. Like wise to do those things they need to have access to all the same information the Emperor has.

That ends up being important because if they know the end goal, and are indoctrinated that A)The end goal is all that matters and B)The Emperor is the only being who can attain that end goal (regardless of the actual plan taken to reach it) you end up with a bunch of fanatics who place the Emperors life above all else and know that he they must be loyal because ti is only through him that the goal (what ever it is) can be achieved through, while also understanding that they can be part of the process that decides the path that is taken- but again, can only be achieved by the Emperor.

Givivng them the mental freedom to disagree and advise, but likewise creating the bonds of absolute loyalty needed from them.

And that's before all the mental conditioning and pscho-indoctrination and anything else is thrown at them to keep them loyal.

That is actually a very interesting take. You are right they are one of the only factions who know about the end goal.

There has been a discussion about what if the emperor had shared his knowledge and the dangers of chaos with the primarchs and their legions (interex style). Would they understand the end goal and keep away from the ruinous powers or would some of them have fallen to chaos either way? For the primarchs and their legions I think a case can be made that some of them still might have fallen to chaos, despite knowledge of the end goal (which could be argued is part of the reason the emperor didnt tell them).
I believe the custodes wouldn't have the ability to fall to chaos even if they lacked knowledge of the end goal....but that is of course just conjecture on my part.

Tiberias wrote:
Custodes on the other hand, while being able to contemplate such concepts like being a renegade/traitor and why some people might do it, are unable to come to the conclusion that this can be the proper path, away from the emperor.

Or they have the strength of character to acknowledge that turning from the Emperor's path is never the correct answer, whereas too many within the Imperium are easily swayed, corrupted or tricked into stepping off such a path.

Also, note that the Emperor's path and the Imperium's path may well no longer align 100% of the time.

 Dysartes wrote:
Or they have the strength of character to acknowledge that turning from the Emperor's path is never the correct answer, whereas too many within the Imperium are easily swayed, corrupted or tricked into stepping off such a path.
Also, note that the Emperor's path and the Imperium's path may well no longer align 100% of the time.

This is how I see it. Bear in mind that the Custodes are quite literally the closest anyone gets to the Emperor himself, barring Guilliman - someone's gotta polish that Throne and make sure none of the Black Ship psykers decide to step behind the ropes on the Palace "tour". It stands to reason that they have most reason to have faith out of anyone in the Imperium - in fact, if you're walking around the proof, is it really even faith so much as it is just observation?

Tiberias wrote:

Carlovonsexron wrote:
I've always thought that the Custodes are basically the only faction to know everything about the nature of chaos, humanity, the emperor and the emperors plans and end goals.

As pointed out earlier they can disagree with the Emperor, and indeed they have to be able to do that in order to be good conversationalists and more importantly good counsel. Like wise to do those things they need to have access to all the same information the Emperor has.

That ends up being important because if they know the end goal, and are indoctrinated that A)The end goal is all that matters and B)The Emperor is the only being who can attain that end goal (regardless of the actual plan taken to reach it) you end up with a bunch of fanatics who place the Emperors life above all else and know that he they must be loyal because ti is only through him that the goal (what ever it is) can be achieved through, while also understanding that they can be part of the process that decides the path that is taken- but again, can only be achieved by the Emperor.

Givivng them the mental freedom to disagree and advise, but likewise creating the bonds of absolute loyalty needed from them.

And that's before all the mental conditioning and pscho-indoctrination and anything else is thrown at them to keep them loyal.

That is actually a very interesting take. You are right they are one of the only factions who know about the end goal.

There has been a discussion about what if the emperor had shared his knowledge and the dangers of chaos with the primarchs and their legions (interex style). Would they understand the end goal and keep away from the ruinous powers or would some of them have fallen to chaos either way? For the primarchs and their legions I think a case can be made that some of them still might have fallen to chaos, despite knowledge of the end goal (which could be argued is part of the reason the emperor didnt tell them).
I believe the custodes wouldn't have the ability to fall to chaos even if they lacked knowledge of the end goal....but that is of course just conjecture on my part.

The potential problem with the Primarchs is that they are so powerful to begin with; if they disagree with the Emperor strongly enough, and knew already that paths to greater power existed, even at the cost of damnation they might have chosen the pursue them, or have fallen prey to its tricks and temptations even faster. Even Magnus ended up ensnared by the machinations of Chaos and we was the primarch who had by the far the most knowledge and experience with it.

The Custodes on the other hand, while vastly more powerful than a mortal human (or mortal anything else for that matter) don't have access to anywhere near the power the Emperor does- and so the temptation for the power gained from bargains with Chaos is much, much less. That might be a reason why the ranks of the Custodians are closed to psykers.

 Dysartes wrote:

Or they have the strength of character to acknowledge that turning from the Emperor's path is never the correct answer, whereas too many within the Imperium are easily swayed, corrupted or tricked into stepping off such a path.

Also, note that the Emperor's path and the Imperium's path may well no longer align 100% of the time.

Considering the Emperor was at best a highly flawed man who ultimately wasn't fit to lead humanity to a golden age or at worst a monstrous unfeeling despot wholly detached from the people he was meant to lead no, I don't think that's true.

There is by now a wealth of fluff that, with varying degrees of competence, has portrayed the Emperor as not being anywhere close to infallible. Many of the problems the Imperium has faced and now faces can be traced directly back to the Emperor.

Custodes are merely heavily indoctrinated, moulded into being unfailingly loyal to the Emperor on a level beyond any other Imperial force save perhaps the Grey Knights. They are all certainly very intelligent and capable of reasoning and making their own decisions, but only within the framework of their mental reprogramming.

Yeah, I mean, the Emperor is not infallible. You wouldn't come into loyalty of the emperor by a frank and intellectual examination of his acts and his will and his words. Agreed with the Void Dragon (heywaitaminute)

Dumb question - and I'm mad I never realized this, but is the Emperor story just one big Arthurian allegory?

One man has an idea, a dangerous and radical idea, and tries to bring the rest of mankind kicking and screaming into a better age. Only some of his chosen sons go rogue and end up starting a war to destroy his idea, the whole thing ends up with him and his literal incest son (You could make the case that Horus was incestuous, as he had no mother, and thus was soley immaculately conceived by a man) stabbing each other at the very end of the battle, and killing each other. Arthur is heralded to be immortal, and will someday return, thus saving the world and humanity again. The exact same thing is the Emperor.

How did I never see this? Horus is Mordred, and Bobby G is literally Lancelot. Both are french knights.

I always thought that the Custodes' loyalty to the emperor was genetically baked into the core of their being, meaning that they did not have freewill in the strictest sense. However, since the emperor is beyond really commanding them day-to-day, the point is basically moot. Now that I am typing this, though, I cannot recall where I gained that impression.

In the Valdor book there's a conversation between Valdor and the Emperor to kick it off where the fact that the Emperor has baked in a compulsion to obey him into the Custodes is pushed pretty hard.

In Master of Mankind, there's a comment that while the Custodes aren't incorruptable, no daemon has 10,000 years to spare to do it. Ain't no daemon got time for that.

Isn't that literally why Valarian is branded a failure of the Blood games, he is commanded to enter the room where the Throne is an look upon the Emperor, and physically cannot? Then he is literally ordered NOT to help Alleya, and goes through a physical pain state in helping her to break the orders of the High lords and Trajaan.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Isn't that literally why Valarian is branded a failure of the Blood games, he is commanded to enter the room where the Throne is an look upon the Emperor, and physically cannot? Then he is literally ordered NOT to help Alleya, and goes through a physical pain state in helping her to break the orders of the High lords and Trajaan.

It is imo heavily implied in the emperors legion that Valerian wasn't able to join the companions because he was needed elsewhere. Him not being able to enter may have been a psychic intervention of the emperor himself.

Tiberias wrote:
That is a very fair and interesting point. Humanity in 40k is one of the worst versions of humanity you can think of, but still better than almost all other things in 40k (if you are a human). This is a big part of what makes the setting interesting for me general, but that is a discussion for another thread.

I'd really disagree. As a human, it'd still be better to live as part of the Tau empire/nation. One of the interesting things about the setting - the Dark Eldar are cruel and sadistic, and yet they are cruel and sadistic for utilitarian reasons - it's how they extend their lives and keep their souls safe. The Imperium actually makes things worse for themselves by being cruel and sadistic, since they feed Chaos with all of their mass murder, torture, and slavery, and don't really get anything concrete out of it.

To answer OP's question, though, the idea of humans in the real world having free will is very much an open question. Does anyone have free will, or is what happens in our brains deterministically controlled by hormones, environment, genes, etc?

Hecaton wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
That is a very fair and interesting point. Humanity in 40k is one of the worst versions of humanity you can think of, but still better than almost all other things in 40k (if you are a human). This is a big part of what makes the setting interesting for me general, but that is a discussion for another thread.

I'd really disagree. As a human, it'd still be better to live as part of the Tau empire/nation. One of the interesting things about the setting - the Dark Eldar are cruel and sadistic, and yet they are cruel and sadistic for utilitarian reasons - it's how they extend their lives and keep their souls safe. The Imperium actually makes things worse for themselves by being cruel and sadistic, since they feed Chaos with all of their mass murder, torture, and slavery, and don't really get anything concrete out of it.

To answer OP's question, though, the idea of humans in the real world having free will is very much an open question. Does anyone have free will, or is what happens in our brains deterministically controlled by hormones, environment, genes, etc?

Yeah, I wasn't trying to tackle the real life philosophical issue of free will with this question. The difference here is that we're an outside observer of a fictional universe where we know the rules, or some of the rules at least regarding the lore.
Also the comparison to real life free will falls flat because in 40k there are actual means to alter a human being to not only become immortal, but also arguably alter their psyche in such a way to partly remove their free will or remove the "parts" that can be disloyal. That changes everything regarding the question of free will.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Read watchers of the Throne. Part of what makes Valarian special and different from his brothers is that he does have free will. He directly disobeys both his Chapter Master and Bobby G. That's like disobeying the Emperor in both cases. Can't do that without free will. Wierd thing is despite not exactly having the parts for this to even be a thing, he does it for love of a woman.

I think the big part of "first among equals" that people forget is the among equals part. The custodes aren't a military (despite the naming conventions) and the captain-general doesn't have the kind of authority over them a chapter master does over astartes. As for the primarch, the custodes hate the primarchs. They frequently talk down to them during the heresy novels. After all, valerian has a misericordia and gulliman does not.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Isn't that literally why Valarian is branded a failure of the Blood games, he is commanded to enter the room where the Throne is an look upon the Emperor, and physically cannot? Then he is literally ordered NOT to help Alleya, and goes through a physical pain state in helping her to break the orders of the High lords and Trajaan.

Valerian was supposed to help Aleya as part of Valdor's plan, iirc. Valdor knew his psychology gave Valarian the exact orders he needed to fulfill Valdor's goal, as indirect as those orders were.

Tiberias wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
That is a very fair and interesting point. Humanity in 40k is one of the worst versions of humanity you can think of, but still better than almost all other things in 40k (if you are a human). This is a big part of what makes the setting interesting for me general, but that is a discussion for another thread.

I'd really disagree. As a human, it'd still be better to live as part of the Tau empire/nation. One of the interesting things about the setting - the Dark Eldar are cruel and sadistic, and yet they are cruel and sadistic for utilitarian reasons - it's how they extend their lives and keep their souls safe. The Imperium actually makes things worse for themselves by being cruel and sadistic, since they feed Chaos with all of their mass murder, torture, and slavery, and don't really get anything concrete out of it.

To answer OP's question, though, the idea of humans in the real world having free will is very much an open question. Does anyone have free will, or is what happens in our brains deterministically controlled by hormones, environment, genes, etc?

Yeah, I wasn't trying to tackle the real life philosophical issue of free will with this question. The difference here is that we're an outside observer of a fictional universe where we know the rules, or some of the rules at least regarding the lore.
Also the comparison to real life free will falls flat because in 40k there are actual means to alter a human being to not only become immortal, but also arguably alter their psyche in such a way to partly remove their free will or remove the "parts" that can be disloyal. That changes everything regarding the question of free will.

The outsider observer part changes it more.
Free will discussions are absurdly moot since 'fated to do it' and 'chose to do it' are identical (or rather, indistinguishable) to both the person acting and anyone observing them from the same universe. They may want to believe someone is choosing, but there isn't any way of proving it.

In fiction you can play with the concept, but it stays absurdly moot, since having it as answerable question at all means you're discussing an entirely alien proposition.
Plus the fundamental, reductive answer is always: 'characters in novel- of course they don't.' Any positive answer is the author showing a lot of philosophical bias.

Dang.. Man trying to dodge dem spoilers. I like the thread some interesting ideas but had to stop reading as Im not all the way through the HH books.

From the books I've digested so far I get the feeling the custodes have unwavering loyalty gene coded into their very being. The custodes that ive read about so far aprt from maybe valdor(I think valdor is a bit different to the rest) they cant comprehend the heresy/betrayal at any level. Its like: "It doesnt matter why. He's a traitor and thats all there is to it. He must die"

Where the various different astartes by comparison tend to muse "I dont believe its true.. but why? Why would this happen? Was it a sickness of the mind? Some sort of xenos corruption?"

At least that's the vibe im getting.
I absolutely agree that the custodes dont care about the IOM in the slightest. If the IOM burning down to the ground. would mean saving the Emperor, life they would burn it without a nano second of a hesitation.
Which suggest they have this integrated at some sort of genetic level. Which makes perfect sense really..

Outside of that, they seem to be pretty uninhibited. They aren't like the Astartes where moods are preferences are built into them (though at least they have moods built into them). Then again the Astartes have a fair bit more freedom in terms of allegiance than the custodes.

The question isn't "do custodes have free will"

The question is "Is free will actually a thing?". That's not an answer we, as humans, have actually established yet

stratigo wrote:
The question isn't "do custodes have free will"

The question is "Is free will actually a thing?". That's not an answer we, as humans, have actually established yet

I think we have but some people be trollin...

In the word's of the late great Hitchen's:

"“Yes we have free will; we have no choice but to have it.”

It is impossible to talk about Free Will because our conception generally doesn't allow for a space between determinism or randomness.

If something happens for a reason, it is determined.

If something happens for no reason, it is random.

What is free will in that paradigm? Our decisions, even if freely made, are still informed and made for reasons. In that way, our choices are "determined." What the question really means is "are our choices the consequence of the will, or of physics" but, depending on how you view the will, it is simply a consequence of physics (i.e. emerges from the brains biophysical makeup). So even if we have the free will to choose, that free will is determined (as hitchens put it so well) by physics and biology...

... it's a mess. Our semantic spaces are just terrible at addressing the concepts surrounding consciousness in general.

This is in the context of 40k, it makes maximum security death row inmates look like they are living in the garden of eden, the burden of proof for free will is, "is there anything preventing you from thinking thoughts that a normal human might think given the circumstances?"

If you have to be semantic (and I do), you could ask who has the most relative free will in 40k.