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.

 Ketara wrote:


Sorry, just to clarify here; because I want to understand if you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Given that Guilliman:

i) clearly wasn't directing the collective forces of the Imperium post-Heresy,
ii) wasn't claiming to speak for the Emperor post-Heresy,
iii) claimed no prerogative above his brothers or the Lords of Terra collectively post-Heresy,
iv) had no successor of his formal seat/position do any of the above either

With all that, are you actually trying to say that the position Guilliman occupied immediately post-Heresy is the same (meaning the same in all respects) identical formal position as the one he has now in 40K?

He had the same position (Lord Commander of the Imperium, the Chairman of the High Lords of Terra) which had the same de jure authority. Regardless of whether he has more authority now (in practice he definitely does, even if we ignore the Regent thing) he still had greater authority already in 30K era than the leader of a single legion. Do you not accept that this is true? Do you not think that the Lord Commander of the Imperium and the Chairman of the High Lords of Terra is a position of greater authority than the leadership of a single Space Marine legion?

EDITING

What he's doing right now though is essentially what the Emperor tried to do, see humanity through the storm and get things running smoothly so humanity can be governed by humans. Currently however, the IOM really does need a primarch to help them get it together. It needed at least 18 and the Emperor to get started and to think that anyone short of one of the Emperors sons is going to be up to the job post cadia falling and the universe getting cut in half by a warp river is silly.

It's been shown in multiple stories from the Rise of the Primarch to Dark Imperium, that no Bobby G really doesn't want the job. He's tired of all this, which gather storm makes clear. He's (rightfully) horrified and disappointed what the IOM has become with out proper guidance and is doing his best to try and reform what he can while navigating the complex nature of the Imperium.

His defining trait, more than any other Primarch is that he is dedicated to the Imperium and humanity as a whole. The Horus Heresy novels make it clear that he got the Emperor's vision more than most of his brothers and that's why his legion was more than just conquerors, they also made sure before they left that the planets they took over had a useful society. He's exactly what the IOM needs right now, which is why the Eldar did what they did. The Eldar needs the IOM to help them fight chaos. I actually find that the Eldar are starting have issues with how much Yvraine is helping him a pretty interesting story down the road as well.

Crimson wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Guilliman has taken over the Imperium before, in the aftermath of the Heresy (as the titular Lord Guilliman). The thing that makes him not a hypocrite? He actually stepped down from power, and lived up to his word.

He stabilised the Imperium, abdicated, and then got taken down by Fulgrim.

Did he step down? Could you elaborate on that?

Considering that we don't see him in that position during Thessala, it is logical to assume he stepped down from the mantle, and gave supreme power to the High Lords of Terra.

Not if those characters are big damn heroes who succeed and rule the whole damn thing. Heroism is for guardsmen who die a miserable death, unsung and unremembered. Guilliman is a boring character, he is a invincible honourable superguy who has been given the highest authority in the setting and he even has audacity to angst about it.

Boring in your opinion. Just because you overlook the depth to the character doesn't mean it's not there.

And yes, look at all that big hero succeeding! Cadia totally didn't fall! The Beheading never happened! The Emperor wasn't interred in the Golden Throne! The Tau Empire didn't force the Imperium out of the Damocles Gulf! Half the galaxy isn't split from the other by a massive warp storm! The Imperium has no external threats to worry about!
Heroism is for anyone. Saying that only guardsmen can be heroic is incredibly just... wrong.

What you want from the setting isn't what's portrayed in it.

The Lord of the Rings works well due to the contrast of the pure and innocent Hobbits against characters hungry for power: Gollum/Smeagol, Denethor, Saruman, and Sauron. The evil in that is contrasted by a good force, and that enhances the evil. 40k, before the Gathering Storm, was getting too close to a point where, because there was no actual contrast, and everyone was evil, humanity was DOOOOOOOOOOOMED, the setting had no real tension. It was just a slope downwards into darkness.

Everyone being evil, was the fething point! As much as I like Middle-Earh 40K should not be that sort of setting where there are clear good guys, it ruins the whole bloody thing.

But it stands true. Having morally good characters amplifies the evilness of others. What's the point of having a character like Cersei Lannister without an Eddard Stark to stand diametrically opposed? Game of Thrones would be hardly as interesting if EVERYONE was an incestuous, murdering, backstabbing, megalomaniac. LOTR wouldn't be as gripping if Sauron was only marginally worse than the people of Gondor, who now use Hobbits as slaves and the Hobbits themselves are bloodthirsty savages.

Adding a character with a moral compass, and a well meaning (but not always successful) intent amplifies the conflict against the people who ARE NOT that.

Crimson wrote:

 Ketara wrote:


Sorry, just to clarify here; because I want to understand if you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Given that Guilliman:

i) clearly wasn't directing the collective forces of the Imperium post-Heresy,
ii) wasn't claiming to speak for the Emperor post-Heresy,
iii) claimed no prerogative above his brothers or the Lords of Terra collectively post-Heresy,
iv) had no successor of his formal seat/position do any of the above either

With all that, are you actually trying to say that the position Guilliman occupied immediately post-Heresy is the same (meaning the same in all respects) identical formal position as the one he has now in 40K?

He had the same position (Lord Commander of the Imperium, the Chairman of the High Lords of Terra) which had the same de jure authority. Regardless of whether he has more authority now (in practice he definitely does, even if we ignore the Regent thing) he still had greater authority already in 30K era than the leader of a single legion. Do you not accept that this is true? Do you not think that the Lord Commander of the Imperium and the Chairman of the High Lords of Terra is a position of greater authority than the leadership of a single Space Marine legion?

Guilliman has more power than a "standard" Primarch (wow, can't believe I'm having to say standard and Primarch together). However, this is NOT because Guilliman wanted, planned, or sought after this power and position.

Much like in Imperium Secundus, Guilliman is trying to make the best solution for the wider Imperium. Factually (please try to disprove this) he is the most competent person in the setting to rule the Imperium as it stands. He KNOWS this. Therefore, if his goal is to better the Imperium and humanity by extension, he has to sacrifice his own morals to have the best chance of saving the Imperium.

If you(for example) had previously said "I'd never work for a global corporation, I disagree with them entirely", and then, the only job you could sustainably provide for yourself, your family, your loved ones, was via working for a global corporation, would you do it? If you held to your anti-corp morals, you'd be letting down not only yourself, but the people you care most about. Or, you break them, to do more good.

That's what Guilliman's doing, and I don't think that's bad at all, narratively or in setting.

 Stux wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Yes, I'd love that. But have you noticed how there has been several pages of people saying how an Inquisitor absolutely cannot do such a thing?

That's a gross misrepresentation of our position I'm afraid.

We're saying a SINGLE inquisitor, acting without the support of others of similar de facto power, cannot do it.

If a cabal led by an Inquisitor, with support of some High lords, most of the ecclesiarchy, maybe even some Space Marines with a grudge banded together it could absolutely happen!

Indeed, I'd have BTW made the same argument if the post had simply asked "could an Inqusistor exercise power against ANY of the High Lords?"