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.

Karol wrote:

BrianDavion 785394 10721379 wrote:
and how long can they keep that up before people stop giving a gak? if you over do the "LOL GRIM DARK NO HOPE LOL" you go to grimderp where no one cares and it becomes a cliche parody. (see all the jokes about GOT's killing characters off)

I don't get why people think that got had too many character kills, durning the Xth-XIth century in middle europe worse stuff happened. siblings killing each other, mothers druging children from other wifes, sons castrating fathers. Kings invited to peace meetings, running nude from assassins from a sauna being caught by peasents and getting nailed to the gate door. Women that were ex wifes of dukes drawn nude through the streets of capital while being whipped durning winter. And then their fathers and family starting a litteral civial war that even the king and his army couldn't stop. And later on the monogls came and burned city after city, killed Henry the Second, and mounted his head on a spike. started the siege of his capital in legnica, with defenders being led by his wife. And it only stoped because the mongolian leader died and they had to go back for new leader election. and this is just 150 years, before that people were less civilised and there were purges of entire populations.

Because fiction is not reality.

In real life, there are no characters or heroes. In a story, you want readers to learn about and become emotionally invested in the characters, and if you kill them repeatedly then people don't form attachments.


That said, i think 40k should stick to a setting and not a narrative. It's a wargame, and the story is about Katherine's plastic soldiers versus [Katherine's Friend's] plastic soldiers, not whatever grand narrative involves heroes.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Karol wrote:

BrianDavion 785394 10721379 wrote:
and how long can they keep that up before people stop giving a gak? if you over do the "LOL GRIM DARK NO HOPE LOL" you go to grimderp where no one cares and it becomes a cliche parody. (see all the jokes about GOT's killing characters off)

I don't get why people think that got had too many character kills, durning the Xth-XIth century in middle europe worse stuff happened. siblings killing each other, mothers druging children from other wifes, sons castrating fathers. Kings invited to peace meetings, running nude from assassins from a sauna being caught by peasents and getting nailed to the gate door. Women that were ex wifes of dukes drawn nude through the streets of capital while being whipped durning winter. And then their fathers and family starting a litteral civial war that even the king and his army couldn't stop. And later on the monogls came and burned city after city, killed Henry the Second, and mounted his head on a spike. started the siege of his capital in legnica, with defenders being led by his wife. And it only stoped because the mongolian leader died and they had to go back for new leader election. and this is just 150 years, before that people were less civilised and there were purges of entire populations.

Because fiction is not reality.

In real life, there are no characters or heroes. In a story, you want readers to learn about and become emotionally invested in the characters, and if you kill them repeatedly then people don't form attachments.


That said, i think 40k should stick to a setting and not a narrative. It's a wargame, and the story is about Katherine's plastic soldiers versus [Katherine's Friend's] plastic soldiers, not whatever grand narrative involves heroes.

Well said. If you want 40k narratives go to Black Library, not your fething codex.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
In real life, there are no characters or heroes.

That is not true at all. Throughout history there are countless people who are heroes. Sure, it's just because they are the ones that happened to survive; no one remembers the people who randomly die before they do something great. Even if it is just blind luck that someone was in the right place and didn't get shot somehow, that's how you become a hero.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Karol wrote:

BrianDavion 785394 10721379 wrote:
and how long can they keep that up before people stop giving a gak? if you over do the "LOL GRIM DARK NO HOPE LOL" you go to grimderp where no one cares and it becomes a cliche parody. (see all the jokes about GOT's killing characters off)

I don't get why people think that got had too many character kills, durning the Xth-XIth century in middle europe worse stuff happened. siblings killing each other, mothers druging children from other wifes, sons castrating fathers. Kings invited to peace meetings, running nude from assassins from a sauna being caught by peasents and getting nailed to the gate door. Women that were ex wifes of dukes drawn nude through the streets of capital while being whipped durning winter. And then their fathers and family starting a litteral civial war that even the king and his army couldn't stop. And later on the monogls came and burned city after city, killed Henry the Second, and mounted his head on a spike. started the siege of his capital in legnica, with defenders being led by his wife. And it only stoped because the mongolian leader died and they had to go back for new leader election. and this is just 150 years, before that people were less civilised and there were purges of entire populations.

Because fiction is not reality.

In real life, there are no characters or heroes. In a story, you want readers to learn about and become emotionally invested in the characters, and if you kill them repeatedly then people don't form attachments.


That said, i think 40k should stick to a setting and not a narrative. It's a wargame, and the story is about Katherine's plastic soldiers versus [Katherine's Friend's] plastic soldiers, not whatever grand narrative involves heroes.

Sure, Alexander The Great, Ghengis Khan, Caeser, Boudicca, Musashi Miyamoto, Charlemange, Christopher Lee, Rasputin, Wu Zetian, Cleopatra and many more besides were all just utter nobodies. Nothing compelling or interesting about them at all.

and if GW ever took the achomplishments of any of those characters, wrapped it up in a 40k char and sold us the story how many people here would be screaming "mary sue"?

The thing is that 40k has precedent for people enjoying it with out special characters.

It was only after 3.5 Ed and the explosion of black library that GW started pushing characters in the game more.

As form eldrad's death the issue with that was one of factional imbalance. He was one of very few Eldar characters, while marines had dozens and were in no danger of losing any of them.


The irony with tying the story to your characters is that it can't advance without them being around. They literally become the hub on which the story turns.

When before people could make their own chapter master for the Ultramarines, now they can only do it historically because Calgar will never die.

Those factions are now frozen in time, rehashing the same stories with the same characters.

There have been dozens of chapter masters and there will be dozens more. But we will never get them.

Similarly there are dozens of potential non imperial characters out there but GW doesnt make them so the storyline threads all fall back onto individual characters.

When the imperium takes action, you have a huge range of characters to divvy up the work to. When the Eldar do something, it's always Eldrad, or now yvraine. Part of the reason people generated anti Eldrad memes is because he is everywhere doing everything. And why? Because GW wanted character driven narrative and they also didn't want to expand the non imperial faction character lists out to spread load.

Like the token women in an action movie, they are left representing every character trope for their Demographic and often generate backlash at all the skills they are required to carry as a result.


Large chunks of 40k are now locked into being unchanged because of the existence of undying characters and believability starts diving.

There have been some characters created with narrative immortality like the Phoenix lords. But that feature was balanced in their narrative by being wanderers, not really affecting their racial narrative and showing up only at fated battles. In that space them not dying is irrelevant and it builds out of a mythos that make sense. The tragedy of their resurrections also feeds into this.

Plot immortality is another matter entirely.

BrianDavion wrote:
and if GW ever took the achomplishments of any of those characters, wrapped it up in a 40k char and sold us the story how many people here would be screaming "mary sue"?

You're joking right?

BrianDavion wrote:
and if GW ever took the achomplishments of any of those characters, wrapped it up in a 40k char and sold us the story how many people here would be screaming "mary sue"?

Lord Solar Macharius is hardly a Mary Sue.

Although the term is often misused these days. A true Mary Sue is supposed to be perfect to the point of absurdity. Sometimes people use the term even for characters that have failures and decent development arcs, just because they do cool things and are quite powerful.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
and if GW ever took the achomplishments of any of those characters, wrapped it up in a 40k char and sold us the story how many people here would be screaming "mary sue"?

You're joking right?

not really, sometimes truth is stranger then fiction. hell I once remember a forward to a WE Johns story where he outright said "one of the things that happens in this book I would never have written about dismissing it as unrealistic bs, except I met a guy who it actually happened too"

BrianDavion wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
and if GW ever took the achomplishments of any of those characters, wrapped it up in a 40k char and sold us the story how many people here would be screaming "mary sue"?

You're joking right?

not really, sometimes truth is stranger then fiction. hell I once remember a forward to a WE Johns story where he outright said "one of the things that happens in this book I would never have written about dismissing it as unrealistic bs, except I met a guy who it actually happened too"

No I meant you were joking about gw basing characters on some of those people or elements of them. You know they've already done that right? Macharius is Alexander the Great. Guilliman borrows from Caesar. Jaghatai Khan. C'mon.

BrianDavion wrote:
killing characters is, honestly cheap, it has some inital shock value but eventually people just kinda shrug. GOT taught us that

No. Killing cheap characters is cheap. Killing well established, important characters can add huge emotional intrigue to a story. See Ensign Haskell vs Mufasa.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
and if GW ever took the achomplishments of any of those characters, wrapped it up in a 40k char and sold us the story how many people here would be screaming "mary sue"?

You're joking right?

not really, sometimes truth is stranger then fiction. hell I once remember a forward to a WE Johns story where he outright said "one of the things that happens in this book I would never have written about dismissing it as unrealistic bs, except I met a guy who it actually happened too"

No I meant you were joking about gw basing characters on some of those people or elements of them. You know they've already done that right? Macharius is Alexander the Great. Guilliman borrows from Caesar. Jaghatai Khan. C'mon.

people accuse Gulliman of being a Mary Sue and the other two names you mentioned are in the background and not the foreground. (BTW I'd argue Gulliman is more augustus then Julius ceaser in background, agreed?)

Technically, a Mary Sue should be an introduced character and proxy for the author, whom continually outshines the established characters, while only ever incurring the admiration of said characters. Also, Mary Sue actually tends to die at the end, which flies in the face of what many of us are complaining about regarding modern 40k.

Either way, even if we agree to a much broader definition of Mary Sue, as someone without any character flaws, I don't think it's fair to characterize Guilliman is one. Guilliman seems to draw a lot of ire simply for being competent, and sane in a galaxy of balls-to-the-wall lunatics.

And no, I'm not an Ultramarine fanboy; always hated their blue armour.

BrianDavion wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
and if GW ever took the achomplishments of any of those characters, wrapped it up in a 40k char and sold us the story how many people here would be screaming "mary sue"?

You're joking right?

not really, sometimes truth is stranger then fiction. hell I once remember a forward to a WE Johns story where he outright said "one of the things that happens in this book I would never have written about dismissing it as unrealistic bs, except I met a guy who it actually happened too"

No I meant you were joking about gw basing characters on some of those people or elements of them. You know they've already done that right? Macharius is Alexander the Great. Guilliman borrows from Caesar. Jaghatai Khan. C'mon.

people accuse Gulliman of being a Mary Sue and the other two names you mentioned are in the background and not the foreground. (BTW I'd argue Gulliman is more augustus then Julius ceaser in background, agreed?)

So the Emperor is Caesar and Gulliman is Augustus? Yeah I see it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
Technically, a Mary Sue should be an introduced character and proxy for the author, whom continually outshines the established characters, while only ever incurring the admiration of said characters. Also, Mary Sue actually tends to die at the end, which flies in the face of what many of us are complaining about regarding modern 40k.

Either way, even if we agree to a much broader definition of Mary Sue, as someone without any character flaws, I don't think it's fair to characterize Guilliman is one. Guilliman seems to draw a lot of ire simply for being competent, and sane in a galaxy of balls-to-the-wall lunatics.

And no, I'm not an Ultramarine fanboy; always hated their blue armour.

Right. Guilliman isn't a Mary Sue.

Sanguinius is! He even fething dies at the end.

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Right. Guilliman isn't a Mary Sue.

Sanguinius is! He even fething dies at the end.

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Let's not start saying things we might regret here!

Gadzilla666 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
and if GW ever took the achomplishments of any of those characters, wrapped it up in a 40k char and sold us the story how many people here would be screaming "mary sue"?

You're joking right?

not really, sometimes truth is stranger then fiction. hell I once remember a forward to a WE Johns story where he outright said "one of the things that happens in this book I would never have written about dismissing it as unrealistic bs, except I met a guy who it actually happened too"

No I meant you were joking about gw basing characters on some of those people or elements of them. You know they've already done that right? Macharius is Alexander the Great. Guilliman borrows from Caesar. Jaghatai Khan. C'mon.

people accuse Gulliman of being a Mary Sue and the other two names you mentioned are in the background and not the foreground. (BTW I'd argue Gulliman is more augustus then Julius ceaser in background, agreed?)

So the Emperor is Caesar and Gulliman is Augustus? Yeah I see it.

Actually I'd say his adoptive father Kornor was more Caeaser. Powerful beloved leader of the people? check. Slain by a rival who resented his growing power and authority? check. his adoptive son and heir initiates a campaign of vengence against the killer, and then ends up as the uncontested leader of the people? check and check.

So that would make Guilleman Augustus. I can see that.
Who's Mark Anthony, Lepidus and Cleopatra then?

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


Because fiction is not reality.

In real life, there are no characters or heroes. In a story, you want readers to learn about and become emotionally invested in the characters, and if you kill them repeatedly then people don't form attachments.


That said, i think 40k should stick to a setting and not a narrative. It's a wargame, and the story is about Katherine's plastic soldiers versus [Katherine's Friend's] plastic soldiers, not whatever grand narrative involves heroes.

we are very attached to people being killed, every city has at least one monument to people that got shot by Russians or the Nazis, and for bigger cities, there are more, and there are plates on houses to comemorate slaughters of civilians, plus we have nationalist fest. In families people remember to purges and people that died 50-60 years ago too, and we have to go to light candles on their graves on the dates of their birthdays, the day they died and on the day of all saints.
In school everyone has to read books about the various massacers, wars etc.

BrianDavion wrote:
and if GW ever took the achomplishments of any of those characters, wrapped it up in a 40k char and sold us the story how many people here would be screaming "mary sue"?

If they did it right no one. Most of histories notable people are as known for their failures and short comings as their great deeds and accomplishments. You can make a long narrative of a characters rise, success, failures and eventual deaths. How grand would stories be of those like Caesar , Napoleon , Boudica was mentioned by someone. What good are the stories of historic figures without their failures as well ? Just because someone rises far doesn't mean they don't fall equally far based on pride, age, making mistakes, bad luck a combination of all of them. That is what makes those historic figures interesting, memorable and strong in their ways yet human in their short comings and ends.

GoT started to jump the shark and just kill people for no reason, seemingly out of no where for no real gain. Go beyond the call to make Mary Sues, then have someone do what you expected someone else to accomplish just to be like " Didn't see that coming did ya ? " They made the characters act out of character for no reason than to die, or make mistakes or lord knows why. There was a myriad of reasons why people began to dislike the series and it wasn't because people were dying too much.

Most 40k characters end up like Mary Sues because the writers are bad at letting a story start, move and end.

Like for instance, I have said I like Creed. If he had died in the fluff, I would have hated it but I felt he had a suitable last stand, as any good hero should. He would have died with his men fighting till the last and such an end is a good thing. He didn't though he was instead left more vaguely on the back burner to be " Will he be back ? " We don't know. Will they found a new Cadia somewhere ? Who knows. Kells death was fitting for his character and for the most part they did a good job making it a grim dark battle where you cared as much as you could in the characters involved and the losses moved the story. Character death however isn't the only thing to drive a story and warhammer is much more interesting as a setting with history and heroes and a living feeling to the worlds.

It works best, for me, as settings and their layered stories and times past, current and future to war over.

So they can be amazing characters and live and die like historic ones and not be mary sues, though I feel like the setting is by far more riveting than the random big name in it.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
So that would make Guilleman Augustus.

I also get the feeling that there are large doses of both Constantine and Justinian in there. The whole Imperium Secundus this seems very similar to the eastern Roman empire and the founding of Contstantinople by Constantine. Also, Guilliman returning to Terra in recent times feels a bit like Justinian's attempts to reconquer the western empire. Justinian's lead general was even called Belisarius!

Guilliman seems to be an amalgam of many different Roman ideas. Things like the Ultramarines being the 13th legion, which was the legion with which Caesar crossed the Rubicon. I'm sure there are many more.

Are you saying GW is being all sneaky and taking things from history to hash out again in their stories ? That doesn't sound like them at all.

BrianDavion wrote:
and if GW ever took the achomplishments of any of those characters, wrapped it up in a 40k char and sold us the story how many people here would be screaming "mary sue"?

Those guys? Nah. They all had quite major flaws.

Now Admiral Yi on the other hand? Total marty stu!

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
and if GW ever took the achomplishments of any of those characters, wrapped it up in a 40k char and sold us the story how many people here would be screaming "mary sue"?

Those guys? Nah. They all had quite major flaws.

Now Admiral Yi on the other hand? Total marty stu!

ohh come on! Alexander was an uber talented guy who conquered the entire world by time he was 30, he was young, and gay, and died a tragic death, and was remembered forever more as the greatest conquerer ever, I mean he reads like a marty stu in a badly written slash fic! (... and after typing that I will never look at him the same way again lol)

Great person history is usually massively without nuance tbf. Things are just nearly always far more complex than that but humanity loves its heroes

 Trickstick wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
So that would make Guilleman Augustus.

I also get the feeling that there are large doses of both Constantine and Justinian in there. The whole Imperium Secundus this seems very similar to the eastern Roman empire and the founding of Contstantinople by Constantine. Also, Guilliman returning to Terra in recent times feels a bit like Justinian's attempts to reconquer the western empire. Justinian's lead general was even called Belisarius!

Guilliman seems to be an amalgam of many different Roman ideas. Things like the Ultramarines being the 13th legion, which was the legion with which Caesar crossed the Rubicon. I'm sure there are many more.

interesting, I wonder why a byzantian general durning the time of the wretched teodora would have a slavic name, meaning the white tzar.

Karol wrote:
interesting, I wonder why a byzantian general durning the time of the wretched teodora would have a slavic name, meaning the white tzar.

Flavius Belisarius was born in modern day Bulgaria.