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.

I'm a huge Tzeentch/Magnus/Thousand sons fan, but I don't see the wolves as jerks.

As far as SM go in general they're pretty nice. I'd say if I had to be rescued by a SM chapter I'd want it to be either the Ultramarines or Space Wolves.


But imagine a kinder, gentler Imperium...

Emperor: Russ!

Russ: Yeah Pa?

Emperor: Time to put a new face on the Crusade. Recent opinion polls show Imperial Citizens don't like being oppressed and think us too heavy handed at times.

Russ: K, wut then?

Emperor: Your legion will lead the way with a new, softer image. We'll be renaming them the Space Labradors.

Russ: O, no...

Emperor: In addition, We will be issuing the new Mk VII "Floppy Ear" armor to all of your marines in certain test demographics.

Russ: And you're certain this is for the best?

Emperor: Heretic!

Russ: Okay, okay, sorry...jeez.

The Wolves are one of the few chapters that genuinely cares about imperial citizens (see the Wars for Armageddon)

Its true. Say want you want about Space Wolves but they are one of the only chapters to go out of their way to save and protect civilians. Even laying down their lives to do so.

TBD wrote:

Manchu wrote:You'd have to be a card-carrying Chaos cultist to think the SW were jerks in Thousand Sons. If anything, that book only proves what a raging ass Magnus could be.

Eh, yeah right. If you read the book and think it is as simple as that then I am afraid I have to conclude you have certain issues with comprehensive reading.

Ugh, "comprehensive reading." First off, I think you mean reading comprehension. Second, and more importantly, this is a rather classic but ultimately simple debate. On the one side, there are people who understand that the 40k Universe isn't about shades of gray. Rather, there is the uncompromising and horrific "good" and the equally terrifying but ambiguous, amorphous "evil." (Yes, this fictional universe is a fundamentalist fascist's wet dream.) On the other side, you have people who think that good and evil are relative terms and that the Imperium is often if not mostly just as awful as Chaos. I would say that this last group doesn't "get it." Maybe it would be better to say that the concept of Chaos in the 40k Universe is so compelling because it actually appeals to the readership in the same way that it appeals to the characters: it rationalizes, relativizes, compromises, complicates, reveals nuances and complex moral problems--ultimately letting you believe whatever you want and, eventually, do whatever you like. The GrimDark version of "good," by contrast, demands a stark obedience at odds with what we think of as "humanity" (in the sense of being humane) in the real world or individuality by any standard. In this sense, yes, the SW are "jerks." But calling them jerks just belies how little a person understands the setting (go back to watching those milksop pinko-commies in Star Trek!) because what they really are--by GrimDark standards--is honorable, affable, and absolutely loyal. That's why the "Wolf of Fenris" story--as told from the perspective of traitors mind you--makes so little sense. Meanwhile, Magnus is blindingly arrogant and so allows his rationality to crumble under rationalization. His corruption and its fallout do indeed constitute epic tragedy. He's one of my favorite characters, actually. But remember that he, too, saw the SW as a pack of jerks. And it was because he had already fallen to Chaos.

Muts of the Emperor turning tail and playing sides of the stronger pack, albeit a sniveling weakling like Huron, is plausible. Though I've yet to hear beaten whelps whine for their lives, World Eaters practice euthanasia.

Manchu wrote:

TBD wrote:

Manchu wrote:You'd have to be a card-carrying Chaos cultist to think the SW were jerks in Thousand Sons. If anything, that book only proves what a raging ass Magnus could be.

Eh, yeah right. If you read the book and think it is as simple as that then I am afraid I have to conclude you have certain issues with comprehensive reading.

Ugh, "comprehensive reading." First off, I think you mean reading comprehension. Second, and more importantly, this is a rather classic but ultimately simple debate. On the one side, there are people who understand that the 40k Universe isn't about shades of gray. Rather, there is the uncompromising and horrific "good" and the equally terrifying but ambiguous, amorphous "evil." (Yes, this fictional universe is a fundamentalist fascist's wet dream.) On the other side, you have people who think that good and evil are relative terms and that the Imperium is often if not mostly just as awful as Chaos. I would say that this last group doesn't "get it." Maybe it would be better to say that the concept of Chaos in the 40k Universe is so compelling because it actually appeals to the readership in the same way that it appeals to the characters: it rationalizes, relativizes, compromises, complicates, reveals nuances and complex moral problems--ultimately letting you believe whatever you want and, eventually, do whatever you like. The GrimDark version of "good," by contrast, demands a stark obedience at odds with what we think of as "humanity" (in the sense of being humane) in the real world or individuality by any standard. In this sense, yes, the SW are "jerks." But calling them jerks just belies how little a person understands the setting (go back to watching those milksop pinko-commies in Star Trek!) because what they really are--by GrimDark standards--is honorable, affable, and absolutely loyal. That's why the "Wolf of Fenris" story--as told from the perspective of traitors mind you--makes so little sense. Meanwhile, Magnus is blindingly arrogant and so allows his rationality to crumble under rationalization. His corruption and its fallout do indeed constitute epic tragedy. He's one of my favorite characters, actually. But remember that he, too, saw the SW as a pack of jerks. And it was because he had already fallen to Chaos.

According to that logic, if I would say the Nazi military were jerks during WW2, then you would say I didn't understand the setting, because in that setting they were just being honorable, affable and most of all absolutely loyal to their regime

Some things can perfectly be judged regardless of the setting, and judged according to our values in our reality. Some of the things the Wolves did prior to the heresy, they themselves would consider them dishonorable "now", 10.000 years later, but still in basically the same setting.

When considering the Thousand Sons in the book, I think it is important to view Magnus and the rest of the chapter in a different light. Looking back at the end of the book it is clear that Magnus' actions were manipulated, but for example Ahriman's? We don't have enough information (in the book) to judge if and/or to what extent he was manipulated at that moment, so the events as seen through his eyes are not necessarily biased.

TBD wrote:
According to that logic, if I would say the Nazi military were jerks during WW2, then you would say I didn't understand the setting, because in that setting they were just being honorable, affable and most of all absolutely loyal to their regime

Well... yeah? By a Nazi setting and point of view they were.

Good and evil are 100% subjective.

You can only fairly judge people by the standards of their own culture and time.

ugh, Relativism is a cop out. There are absolutes.

TBD wrote:According to that logic, if I would say the Nazi military were jerks during WW2, then you would say I didn't understand the setting, because in that setting they were just being honorable, affable and most of all absolutely loyal to their regime

And thus Godwin's Law is invoked!

Henners91 wrote:

TBD wrote:According to that logic, if I would say the Nazi military were jerks during WW2, then you would say I didn't understand the setting, because in that setting they were just being honorable, affable and most of all absolutely loyal to their regime

And thus Godwin's Law is invoked!

Dude, you just totally made me smarter! I immediately looked that that up and I agree with this phenomenom but never knew it had a name! I'm going to use this term all the time now.

's a pleasure.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:ugh, Relativism is a cop out. There are absolutes.

Absolutes are relative

SO here is another classic debate. On the one hand TBD seems to assert that morality is objective (and I quote him: "things can perfectly be judged regardless of the setting") whereas Nitros14 claims the opposite. As a Catholic, I tend to agree with TBD concerning the real world: there is indeed such a thing as objective good in the real world. But I think that TBD has missed my point about 40k. The moral standards of the real world are not the moral standards of the GrimDark. And this isn't simply because morality is subjective--i.e., what we can afford to consider bad they are forced to accept as good. So in this sense it does not matter how fervently the Nazis believed genocide to have been good--because it is objectively wrong in the real world. Similarly, it does not matter how fervently we real world people believe genocide to be wrong (that is "not good" rather than "evil")--in the world of 40k, it's at least morally neutral in and of itself.

Note that I say that I believe that there is a such thing as objective good in the real world. Objective evil . . . well, I think that's a trickier subject. Of course, this is because I believe in an all-powerful benevolent God who is Himself the Absolute Good and Who cannot be rivaled by anything else, including evil. The 40k universe has the opposite set-up. There is (apparently) no such Chirstian Summum Bonum but there are extremely powerful "gods" who are far from benevolent. In this sense, 40k's morality gets somewhat complicated. The Chaos Gods, unlike the Christian God, did not create reality; therefore they are not responsible for setting up a natural morality nor can good or evil be qualified in terms of their existence. Morality in 40k--unlike the in the real world (as I see it)--appears to be subjective, by which I mean dependent upon perspective.

But actually (and thankfully) it isn't that complicated at all. This is because the GrimDark is dominated by the human perspective. And not just any old human perspective even! No, this particular human perspective is itself dominated by a fanatical, fascistic, racist, totalitarian, and fundamentally brutal worldview (galaxyview?). What's more, there is a such thing as objective truth in the GrimDark. It is true, for example, that humanity is besieged by alien and dameonic meances. It is also true that for humanity to survive, these forces must be fought and ultimately exterminated. These truths form the basis in "objectivity" of morality in the 40k universe. Now one could argue that this is still only a matter of perspective, a matter of equating human survival with moral goodness (i.e., monodominance). I grant the point. But if you don't accept that conceit then I don't think you will ever truly understand 40k.

Henners91 wrote:

TBD wrote:According to that logic, if I would say the Nazi military were jerks during WW2, then you would say I didn't understand the setting, because in that setting they were just being honorable, affable and most of all absolutely loyal to their regime

And thus Godwin's Law is invoked!

My 'learn something new every day' quota has just been met /salute

Manchu wrote:SO here is another classic debate. On the one hand TBD seems to assert that morality is objective (and I quote him: "things can perfectly be judged regardless of the setting") whereas Nitros14 claims the opposite. As a Catholic, I tend to agree with TBD concerning the real world: there is indeed such a thing as objective good in the real world. But I think that TBD has missed my point about 40k. The moral standards of the real world are not the moral standards of the GrimDark. And this isn't simply because morality is subjective--i.e., what we can afford to consider bad they are forced to accept as good. So in this sense it does not matter how fervently the Nazis believed genocide to have been good--because it is objectively wrong in the real world. Similarly, it does not matter how fervently we real world people believe genocide to be wrong (that is "not good" rather than "evil")--in the world of 40k, it's at least morally neutral in and of itself.

Note that I say that I believe that there is a such thing as objective good in the real world. Objective evil . . . well, I think that's a trickier subject. Of course, this is because I believe in an all-powerful benevolent God who is Himself the Absolute Good and Who cannot be rivaled by anything else, including evil. The 40k universe has the opposite set-up. There is (apparently) no such Chirstian Summum Bonum but there are extremely powerful "gods" who are far from benevolent. In this sense, 40k's morality gets somewhat complicated. The Chaos Gods, unlike the Christian God, did not create reality; therefore they are not responsible for setting up a natural morality nor can good or evil be qualified in terms of their existence. Morality in 40k--unlike the in the real world (as I see it)--appears to be subjective, by which I mean dependent upon perspective.

But actually (and thankfully) it isn't that complicated at all. This is because the GrimDark is dominated by the human perspective. And not just any old human perspective even! No, this particular human perspective is itself dominated by a fanatical, fascistic, racist, totalitarian, and fundamentally brutal worldview (galaxyview?). What's more, there is a such thing as objective truth in the GrimDark. It is true, for example, that humanity is besieged by alien and dameonic meances. It is also true that for humanity to survive, these forces must be fought and ultimately exterminated. These truths form the basis in "objectivity" of morality in the 40k universe. Now one could argue that this is still only a matter of perspective, a matter of equating human survival with moral goodness (i.e., monodominance). I grant the point. But if you don't accept that conceit then I don't think you will ever truly understand 40k.

Aaargh, you're reminding me of my Political Philosophy exam!

The way I'd approach the issue of morality is by excluding the divine, I can't even comprehend the relation of morality to a deity, probably because I myself am a godless heathen.... but at any rate, I'll throw in my layman's views since I cannot express things very eloquently when it comes to philosophy, being a straightforward type 'n' all:

I'd say that attempting to apply rules to morality is far too monumental a task for me at least to feel it worth pursuit: I think that people themselves have a gut reaction to things that I find hard to outline the parameters of: So rather than try and create a moral doctrine I'd say that so long as people follow a utilitarian approach (within reason and hence not completely binding) as well as their natural inclinations, then that's how we can arrive at a "moral" state of affairs in addition to the binding-nature of law.

But the way I'd approach 40k? Humans in themselves are numerous and not unique enough to make them of any special individual concern: The survival of the whole is far more pressing than the survival of the drone and thus it's perfectly acceptable, perhaps even desirable to expend men as currency: "Life is the Emperor's currency, use it well". I cannot envisage another way to preserve the species after all. Plus, there is not one alien race that is not a threat to man and thus their complete and utter extermination is warranted. So I guess I'm just echoing your third paragraph... but I find it very difficult or even impossible to relate to your others, perhaps out of apathy, my religious choices or simple incomprehension when it comes to philosophy (though I felt the exam went well... funny enough).

Manchu wrote:The moral standards of the real world are not the moral standards of the GrimDark.

I did understand your point, but I simply don't agree that the way to judge the very large and diverse 40K universe is as set in stone as you do. Even within that Grimdark setting there are still differences in the way the different factions go about their business, which may change through time, and some of them do apply more or less the same set of values and morals as we do right now, today, in our reality.

For example, the Salamanders chapter most likely would never have handled the situation like the Wolves did. They would have thought twice, if not three or four times, before going in blindly with guns blazing, destroying everything in sight and killing each and every civilian between them and the Thousand Sons. If I remember correctly the book even has someone, I believe Ahriman, questioning the Wolves' way by saying or thinking something in the fashion of "how come, when the Ultramarines take a world, they do it in a way that has it's population adore them afterwards?". This tells me the Ultramarines would not agree with how the Wolves handled Prospero. The Thousand Sons (in their loyal times) would try at all costs to preserve a world's cultural heritage.
And as I said before, I don't even think Logan Grimnar would handle things the way Russ did (because, as I said before I have no issue with wolves "now", 10.000 years later).

The befriending of Ahriman by the Wolf psyker, only to backstab him later during the summit with the Emperor & the other primarchs, seemed very un-Wolflike to me. Usually they are very in your face about things, and they don't sneak around under false pretense. I don't see how this is viewed as honorable in the Grimdark setting.

I bet that a lot of other chapters & factions within the Grimdark setting would agree with me that the Wolves acted like "jerks".

Actually, several of the Black Library novels have their main characters question certain aspects of the ways of the Imperium, which tells me that the same values "we" have apparently do apply to their mindset as well. Even though certain things are regarded as perfectly normal in their universe, their feeling tells them those thing are not right. This indicates a sense of morality, subconscious or not, that is very similar to ours. Ragnar even does it in the Space Wolves 2nd omnibus, which I am reading right now.

Another thing, btw: if Russ was manipulated by Horus into destroying Prospero instead of taking Magnus as a prisoner to the Emperor as originally ordered, and Horus was effected by Chaos at that time, it (indirectly) made the Wolves a pawn of Chaos too. When they did the things they did they didn't know, just as the Thousand Sons didn't know their behaviour was manipulated by Chaos, through Magnus (who himself didn't know either). So how do we judge the Wolves in that light? Radical tongues could consider them tainted as well.

I hope that part gets thorough attention in "Prospero burns", because Imo it is very interesting to see how the Emperor viewed the Wolves for doing what they did, being manipulated like they were. I am still curious why Russ didn't double check with the Emperor after his orders were changed. You could say he trusted Horus like he trusted the Emperor himself, but considering (part of) the reason he is sent to Prospero in the first place was that Magnus accused Horus of being a traitor, you'd think Russ would at least be cautious. Something/someone definitely did fail in the most epic way possible.

And how did the Wolves feel themselves? They just destroyed an entire world & almost an entire chapter because someone played them. I would probably not be happy with myself.

@TBD: I don't think your view of the Wolves measures up to how they are portrayed in any fluff outside of Magnus's and the Thousand Sons' view of them. I'm also not so sure that Horus tricked Russ into destroying Prospero. Finally, the morality of the GrimDark really is not similar to ours. Some of the writers, especially Dan "Mainstream" Abnett, have taken it upon themselves to make the humans of 40k more "relatable" but our compassion and concern for liberty and individuality just does not reflect the spirit of the Imperium. For example, I think you'll find that Magnus is not actually devoted to preserving the culture of subjugated worlds--he merely wants to accumulate their knowledge into his own libraries for his own purposes. You'll also find that the Thousand Sons had no tolerance for the "mortal" remembrancers until Magnus began to see them as a useful tool.

Nitros14 wrote:

TBD wrote:
According to that logic, if I would say the Nazi military were jerks during WW2, then you would say I didn't understand the setting, because in that setting they were just being honorable, affable and most of all absolutely loyal to their regime

Well... yeah? By a Nazi setting and point of view they were.

Good and evil are 100% subjective.

You can only fairly judge people by the standards of their own culture and time.

If you can then Nazi's are still jerks. The major followers of the Nazi Party were generally psychopaths that found acceptance in a new regime. They were completely different to Germany's culture, which was both rich and artistic. The context of the time also did not contain any points in time when being a murderer and commiting racial genocide was 'OK'.

idget wrote:

Nitros14 wrote:

TBD wrote:
According to that logic, if I would say the Nazi military were jerks during WW2, then you would say I didn't understand the setting, because in that setting they were just being honorable, affable and most of all absolutely loyal to their regime

Well... yeah? By a Nazi setting and point of view they were.

Good and evil are 100% subjective.

You can only fairly judge people by the standards of their own culture and time.

If you can then Nazi's are still jerks. The major followers of the Nazi Party were generally psychopaths that found acceptance in a new regime. They were completely different to Germany's culture, which was both rich and artistic. The context of the time also did not contain any points in time when being a murderer and commiting racial genocide was 'OK'.

I'd happily move to PMs to tell you on how many levels I dispute this

Angry Marines > Space Wolves

Manchu wrote:You'd have to be a card-carrying Chaos cultist to think the SW were jerks in Thousand Sons. If anything, that book only proves what a raging ass Magnus could be.

I'm a card-carrying chaos cultist then.

It's because the red corsairs are awesome. That, and that when their primarch is off hibernating, the space wolves turn into total wimps and lose every ounce of fenris blood. How dare they surrender to those-not-hardened-by-the-ice-forge-in-the-coldest-lake-on-fenris??!!??!

Good = aligned with the overarching morality of the culture. Bad = against it.
For catholics, the moral framework is defined by the Church. In 40k that of humanity is defined by the Imperium and mostly the Escalarchy, previously was by the Emperor. Most SM have their's defined by their primach (hence the subtle differences in what is considered 'right'). Chaos is defined by the Dark Gods, t'au by the ethereals, etc.


On the defection: A good point has been raised how the SW under Russ behaved differently to the SW under Grimnar. Given that 10 000 years have passed changing behaviour sounds reasonable to me. Also shows that the person in charge has a strong impact on what happens. And that individual personalities matter. The wolves that defected were probably a small group or squad (otherwise the first to shoot a brother would get instantly put down by the rest). Something must have happened over the course of the battle to make them change. Probably a complex mess of loyalties to each other vs other parts of the chapter (a leader might influence the rest to follow, that group having a strong dislike of the next up in the chain of command could provide friction), events that happened in that battle, what they were offered vs what it cost and general opportunity. They may have just been pushed too far and finally snapped.

I don't think anyone can say 'oh, but SW don't fall because it is against this trait the chapter is meant to embody'.

Of course the Space Wolves are jerks in the sense that everyone in this universe is a jerk (though since we're talking pre-heresy we aren't quite in full blown grimdark territory yet - the Emperor remains only mostly a jerk for example). However, the Space Wolves in A Thousand Sons were jerks even within this universe, chiefly because of their massive hypocrisy and backstabbing over the whole Council of Nikea incident. The Space Wolves used a psyker to betray the Thousand Sons and call for the banning of psykers, while ridiculously maintaining that their psykers didn't count. This didn't only affect the Thousand Sons - all of the other chapters were supposedly stripped of their Librarians (though most apparently ignored it). There's no way the Space Wolves avoid looking like jerks over this affair. They're arrogant, self-righteous and willfully ignorant - and yes that's in universe, not just grimdark interference.

Then there's the fact that Magnus was dead set on capitulation after his little accident on Terra. The Space Wolves themselves were not avengers for Magnus' fall or mere spectators - they were one of the key elements in Tzeentch's manipulations. You can't help but wonder what Magnus would have done if a less jerky legion had been sent to reign him in (though obviously Tzeentch would never have arranged it that way).