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.

Wow! I had no idea my question would generate such a response! You guys are very well-versed in your faction lore, and quite passionate about the 40K universe. I am impressed. This has been quite an entertaining thread due to all of your responses.

I like what I am hearing so far about the Salamanders, and will do some further research on them, and I also noticed that the Space Wolves appeared in someone's list as not the most terrible faction, and as a bonus I know they have cool wolf-cavalry.

My local game store has a Talons of the Emperor box filled with lots of shiny, gold minis. Can you guys give me an idea of their motivations or where they stand?

Thanks!

'Good guys' in the sense of protagonists? Yes, the Imperium of Man and the Space Marines especially serve as the setting's protagonists.
But 'good guys' in a moral sense? No. Just like in real-world conflicts, there are no good or bad guys in 40k. Just horribly flawed bad guys fighting even worse guys.

luvdiscgolf wrote:
Wow! I had no idea my question would generate such a response! You guys are very well-versed in your faction lore, and quite passionate about the 40K universe. I am impressed. This has been quite an entertaining thread due to all of your responses.

I like what I am hearing so far about the Salamanders, and will do some further research on them, and I also noticed that the Space Wolves appeared in someone's list as not the most terrible faction, and as a bonus I know they have cool wolf-cavalry.

My local game store has a Talons of the Emperor box filled with lots of shiny, gold minis. Can you guys give me an idea of their motivations or where they stand?

Thanks!

The Shiny Gold Minis in the Talons of the Emperor boxs are of two """"factions"""" (More like elite units)

Sisters of Silence: They are a order of female- elite warriors specialiced in killing psykers. They are all "blanks", that in Warhammer means that they have the Pariah gene, basically making them anathema to Psykers. They have no soul, and in Warhammer40k Psykers have a very strong "soul", so they attract demons more because they can chanel more power of the Warp, but "Blanks" can kill a powerfull Psyker just by being nearby, because they fuction as black-holes of Psykic power, etc...

Adeptus Custodes: The Bodyguards of the Emperor of Mankind. The best of the best figthers in all of the Imperium.

Their motivations are the same: Do the Emperors Will. Normally they are free from some of the "bad things" about Imperium Forces because they are much more directly connected to the Emperor, so they remain more faithfull to his original plans for the Imperium. They are free from the religious dogmatism of many other imperial forces and the fanatical blidness, etc... they tend to be more pragmatic and open-minded in regard to how they see the world, but always with the Emperor will first.

I'm gonna recommend you this official page.
https://warhammer40000.com/setting/explore-the-factions/

Is very usefull to give you a first look of the warhammer40k world.

luvdiscgolf wrote:
Wow! I had no idea my question would generate such a response! You guys are very well-versed in your faction lore, and quite passionate about the 40K universe. I am impressed. This has been quite an entertaining thread due to all of your responses.

I like what I am hearing so far about the Salamanders, and will do some further research on them, and I also noticed that the Space Wolves appeared in someone's list as not the most terrible faction, and as a bonus I know they have cool wolf-cavalry.

My local game store has a Talons of the Emperor box filled with lots of shiny, gold minis. Can you guys give me an idea of their motivations or where they stand?

Thanks!

keep in mind that even with factions like the Salamanders and Space Wolves, their "good guy" charm only goes so far. They'll still engage in merciless acts of brutality and slaughter for what we would consider minor thought crime or the like, or simply for not existing under the Imperial Banner even if otherwise peaceful and cooperative, and life as a native Fenrisian under the rule of the Space Wolves certainly wouldnt be any better than living in dark ages northern europe for most. "Good Guy"-ness is all relative in 40k.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Obligitory mention of Caiphas Cain, HERO OF THE IMPERIUM.

He's probably one of two commissars who realized that not being an ass to people tend to be better in the long run.

Yes and no - both Cain and Vail are shown to be sensible and predominately "good" guys - especially to men and women under their command

However both are products of their uiniverse so Cains sees a truck load of prisoners being driven to the Schola Progenium for the children and students to practice live firing and interogation techniques on and thinks - yes all is right and normal with the world

Amberley fondly remembers her chidlhood primers having "Pyro the Flame" burning herectics.

Cain feels revulsion for humans who are part of the Tau Empire, even young and pretty ones!

 Vaktathi wrote:

luvdiscgolf wrote:
Wow! I had no idea my question would generate such a response! You guys are very well-versed in your faction lore, and quite passionate about the 40K universe. I am impressed. This has been quite an entertaining thread due to all of your responses.

I like what I am hearing so far about the Salamanders, and will do some further research on them, and I also noticed that the Space Wolves appeared in someone's list as not the most terrible faction, and as a bonus I know they have cool wolf-cavalry.

My local game store has a Talons of the Emperor box filled with lots of shiny, gold minis. Can you guys give me an idea of their motivations or where they stand?

Thanks!

keep in mind that even with factions like the Salamanders and Space Wolves, their "good guy" charm only goes so far. They'll still engage in merciless acts of brutality and slaughter for what we would consider minor thought crime or the like, or simply for not existing under the Imperial Banner even if otherwise peaceful and cooperative, and life as a native Fenrisian under the rule of the Space Wolves certainly wouldnt be any better than living in dark ages northern europe for most. "Good Guy"-ness is all relative in 40k.

Maybe for the Space Wolves, but you are painting Salamanders with a darker brush (What a clever joke ) that how they are in the official Lore. Obviusly they are gonna kill the Enemies of the Imperium, but if even the Black Templars can forbid a Xenos race because they where praying to the Emperor (After destroying their temples, for safety reasons), I don't expect Salamanders to be less reasonable than them. And even more with humans.

Wasn't it in Armageddon where the Orks had hundreds of civilian keep captive as hostages, Salamanders tried to made a plan to save them with minimal civilian losses, and the Marines Malevolent just bombard with theyr flyers the gak out of both orks and civilians? And after that, the Salamander Captain just slap like a little the Marines Malevolent official in front of everyone.

Good? No.

But the word 'good' means very little and is a construct of social norms and mores, a morality thing. Your definition of good is inherently biased/selfish...because "your" opinion of what is good and bad determines how you view them.

 Galas wrote:
....
After many years I have realized that to me is very hard to not liking something I like things in different degrees, but the point of "No no, this just utter garbage" has never happened with anything. The least I can like something is more like "Nah, it just doesn't interest me"

I am right here with you. There is something to like in everything, you just have to look really hard for it sometimes.

As for the whole "good vs. evil" dichotomy, there are a couple things to remember.

First, the Protagonist of a story is the "good guy" from their perspective. A well written character will be relatable, have traits and flaws, and will have trials and triumphs over the course of their story. A good "villain" will be the "good guy" once turned into the Protagonist and the story is from their perspective.

Good and Evil are two extremes on a sliding scale, with flavors of Chaotic, Lawful, selfish, and selfless thrown in. To me, EVIL in a story isn't a faction, but just a rough judge of how they will conduct themselves in relation to how the interact with others and their environment. A GOOD character will try to stop an orphanage from being burned down, and EVIL character will be the one to start the fire, and a Lawful character character won't do anything until the paperwork for fire protection services has been completed, regardless of GOOD or EVIL.

A big bad villain also doesn't need to be a true character either, but can be just some ominous, continuous threat. To use the example of Lord of the Rings (as depicted in the movies), we have Saruman and Sauron.

- Saruman is tempted by power, and allies with Sauron to achieve that, but is brought down before he has victory - character development.

- Sauron, on the other hand, doesn't get any development as a character, rather is just this big powerful entity that is a threat to everyone.

And EVIL character, a villain, can just be something for the Protagonists to defeat as they are the characters in the story. A villain can just be a force of nature-type of entity, just there to be a narrative device for the Protagonists (the "heroes") to thwart and save the day.

Think about 40K in those eyes, that some characters, whether heroes or villains, are there to be foils to the characters that are the Factions. A Necron Overlord may ally with a Space Marine Captain in order to defeat a Hive Fleet attack, because they, as characters, recognize a common enemy. Commander Farsight is disappointed in how the Ethereals are leading the Tau, and thus rebels against them. All the Primarchs are decent characters, because they all have individual motivations and interests beyond strict adherence to the Imperium.

Good guys and bad guys are good terms to use at a low-level explanation of the Factions in the setting, especially when trying to explain to your kids who each army is (my Step-daughter wanted to play the "goody guys" when I first introduced her to the hobby, but she is moving away from that now). But as terms to try to explain everything in 40K? It is difficult, because they aren't quite enough to describe the nuance and specifics of the Factions and Sub-factions of the setting, and that is okay. Heck, I would argue that it is good that we can't classify most of the Factions as "good" or "bad", just the "better" or "worse" Sub-factions as compared to real life.

luvdiscgolf wrote:
I like what I am hearing so far about the Salamanders, and will do some further research on them, and I also noticed that the Space Wolves appeared in someone's list as not the most terrible faction, and as a bonus I know they have cool wolf-cavalry.

There were some instances in previous publications how Space Wolves held off a Hive Fleet on a world to save the women and children, conscripting all able-bodied men to fight, and even sacrificed several Grey Hunters to help the last escape ships to get away with the last of the citizens. There was also the First War for Armageddon, where the Space Wolves nearly attacked the Inquisitors responsible for their treatment of the Imperial Guard soldiers after that conflict (sterilizing and forcing them to work until death, and sequestering them from any human contact to prevent knowledge of Daemons and Chaos from spreading). Space Wolves are big on honor, so that is a big part of it.

Salamanders are just straight up, all around, nice guys. But they also live on a Death World, which makes things suck for regular life.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I'm saying that a faction that can be usefully described by saying "these are the good guys" are boring. And yes, a faction that can be usefully described by saying "these are the bad guys" is exactly as boring for exactly the same reasons.

Do you find Lord of the Rings boring?

The Fellowship of the Ring can be usefully described as "the good guys", but they're also not one-note characters without personality. The two descriptors are not mutually exclusive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luciferian wrote:
The dichotomy of good and evil lacks complexity and nuance by its very nature. It makes everything into an objective binary and precludes interpretation or being open-ended. How is that interesting?

Okay Mr. "I had to write an essay in grade school". Tell me more about your overly simplistic summary of your overly simplified version of an otherwise complex and nuanced concept.

Perspective is in the eye of the beholder.

One mans butcher is another mans savior

David for the Jewish is one that I am on the fence about for instance.

luvdiscgolf wrote:
Wow! I had no idea my question would generate such a response! You guys are very well-versed in your faction lore, and quite passionate about the 40K universe. I am impressed. This has been quite an entertaining thread due to all of your responses.

I like what I am hearing so far about the Salamanders, and will do some further research on them, and I also noticed that the Space Wolves appeared in someone's list as not the most terrible faction, and as a bonus I know they have cool wolf-cavalry.

My local game store has a Talons of the Emperor box filled with lots of shiny, gold minis. Can you guys give me an idea of their motivations or where they stand?

Thanks!

Thunderwolf Calvary are awesome, and yeah space wolves are close to the salamanders these days. They are a bit angrier, but still tend to stick up for the little guy. They tend to play up the honorable barbarian hero shtick in that regard. Boastful drunkards as well so that also fits, and generally more friendly than most space marines. They also really like pissing off the morally questionable powers that be (inquisition) at every opportunity. So, more of a chaotic good to salamander's neutral good.

Space wolves also get a codex all to themselves, so they get a lot more development. Even by the standards of the vanilla chapters salamanders don't get much screen time. They are usually just portrayed as kind, caring, and honestly friendly individuals.

Sisters of silence are half the talons of the empire, and they are responsible for capturing and transporting psykers to terra, where they are either basically tortured and turned into sanctioned psykers or sacrificed to keep the emperor alive. They also hunt down dangerous psychic threats sometimes, though I'm unclear how they differ from the inquisition in that regard. Fairly middle of the road, "does brutal things because they are necessary" faction.

Custodes are just the emperor's enforcers, I guess Guilliman's now? They tend to be a "just do what we are told" bunch. Not super developed in the fluff tbh, and a lot of what is there is also conflicting.

 Melissia wrote:

Okay Mr. "I had to write an essay in grade school". Tell me more about your overly simplistic summary of your overly simplified version of an otherwise complex and nuanced concept.

You say that, but you literally haven't supported your position whatsoever except to generalize that narratives of good vs evil are not boring, but people who find fault with them are.

Tyranids are neither good nor evil, just hungry. If you want your good guys, look no further. No enslavement to the machines of industry, no forced sterilizations, no random acts of violence for the sake of power, no beating up the other guy because his rock is shinier than yours. It's all a nice simple circle of prey and hunter. You can't blame an animal for instinct.

Is there a chart that lists all the factions as lawful good, lawful neutral, etc?

 Galas wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

luvdiscgolf wrote:
Wow! I had no idea my question would generate such a response! You guys are very well-versed in your faction lore, and quite passionate about the 40K universe. I am impressed. This has been quite an entertaining thread due to all of your responses.

I like what I am hearing so far about the Salamanders, and will do some further research on them, and I also noticed that the Space Wolves appeared in someone's list as not the most terrible faction, and as a bonus I know they have cool wolf-cavalry.

My local game store has a Talons of the Emperor box filled with lots of shiny, gold minis. Can you guys give me an idea of their motivations or where they stand?

Thanks!

keep in mind that even with factions like the Salamanders and Space Wolves, their "good guy" charm only goes so far. They'll still engage in merciless acts of brutality and slaughter for what we would consider minor thought crime or the like, or simply for not existing under the Imperial Banner even if otherwise peaceful and cooperative, and life as a native Fenrisian under the rule of the Space Wolves certainly wouldnt be any better than living in dark ages northern europe for most. "Good Guy"-ness is all relative in 40k.

Maybe for the Space Wolves, but you are painting Salamanders with a darker brush (What a clever joke ) that how they are in the official Lore. Obviusly they are gonna kill the Enemies of the Imperium, but if even the Black Templars can forbid a Xenos race because they where praying to the Emperor (After destroying their temples, for safety reasons), I don't expect Salamanders to be less reasonable than them. And even more with humans.

Wasn't it in Armageddon where the Orks had hundreds of civilian keep captive as hostages, Salamanders tried to made a plan to save them with minimal civilian losses, and the Marines Malevolent just bombard with theyr flyers the gak out of both orks and civilians? And after that, the Salamander Captain just slap like a little the Marines Malevolent official in front of everyone.

I'm not familiar with the Black Templars example there, however the Salamanders on Armageddon isnt outside of my depiction of them. Yeah, they'll stand up for those little guys when they're Emperor-fearing Imperial workers being held and abused by vile Xenos. But they wouldnt hesitate to put obliterate a rebellious city and its inhabitants, or violently subjugate non Imperial humans, or exterminate a newfound primitive Xenos race to clear the way for an AdMech expediton, or any number of other horrific things.

BA try to be good as far as I can tell. But they are pretty fethed up.

Martel732 wrote:
BA try to be good as far as I can tell. But they are pretty fethed up.

And of course there are the Fleshtearers !

 Luciferian wrote:
you literally haven't supported your position whatsoever except to generalize that narratives of good vs evil are not boring, but people who find fault with them are.

You're being hypocritical here, given that your argument is "good guys are boring", with literally no arguments other than your opinion and presenting what's basically a strawman of "good".

I provided an example, and your response was "that example is boring", without any argument as to why other than "that's my opinion". So my response was "maybe you're the boring one" out of snark. I can continue to provide responses. Superman-- a character that can be usefully defined as "the good guy", but is also a complex, multi-dimensional character, with many of his best stories playing off not on his ability to achieve victory but what the best method might be to do, and if he's made a mistake in choosing in how to deal with it. Saitama-- "the good guy", but gain, a complex, multidimensional character with the story playing off on his invincibility. Batman, "the good guy", but there's a lot of tension in how he upholds his moral codes... or if he does, and how others will manipulate his need to uphold those codes.

You've oversimplified the concept of "good" to the point of it being useless. Of course it's boring when you do that. So stop doing it.

 TheLumberJack wrote:
Is there a chart that lists all the factions as lawful good, lawful neutral, etc?

Imperium- Lawful Evil
Chaos- Chaotic Evil
Tau- Lawful Evil (Farsight is Lawful Good)
Orks- Chaotic Neutral
Tyranids- True Neutral
Necrons- Hyperlawful Evil
Eldar- Lawful Evil
Dark Eldar- Lawful Evil
Harlequins- Lawful Neutral

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

luvdiscgolf wrote:
Wow! I had no idea my question would generate such a response! You guys are very well-versed in your faction lore, and quite passionate about the 40K universe. I am impressed. This has been quite an entertaining thread due to all of your responses.

I like what I am hearing so far about the Salamanders, and will do some further research on them, and I also noticed that the Space Wolves appeared in someone's list as not the most terrible faction, and as a bonus I know they have cool wolf-cavalry.

My local game store has a Talons of the Emperor box filled with lots of shiny, gold minis. Can you guys give me an idea of their motivations or where they stand?

Thanks!

keep in mind that even with factions like the Salamanders and Space Wolves, their "good guy" charm only goes so far. They'll still engage in merciless acts of brutality and slaughter for what we would consider minor thought crime or the like, or simply for not existing under the Imperial Banner even if otherwise peaceful and cooperative, and life as a native Fenrisian under the rule of the Space Wolves certainly wouldnt be any better than living in dark ages northern europe for most. "Good Guy"-ness is all relative in 40k.

Maybe for the Space Wolves, but you are painting Salamanders with a darker brush (What a clever joke ) that how they are in the official Lore. Obviusly they are gonna kill the Enemies of the Imperium, but if even the Black Templars can forbid a Xenos race because they where praying to the Emperor (After destroying their temples, for safety reasons), I don't expect Salamanders to be less reasonable than them. And even more with humans.

Wasn't it in Armageddon where the Orks had hundreds of civilian keep captive as hostages, Salamanders tried to made a plan to save them with minimal civilian losses, and the Marines Malevolent just bombard with theyr flyers the gak out of both orks and civilians? And after that, the Salamander Captain just slap like a little the Marines Malevolent official in front of everyone.

I'm not familiar with the Black Templars example there, however the Salamanders on Armageddon isnt outside of my depiction of them. Yeah, they'll stand up for those little guys when they're Emperor-fearing Imperial workers being held and abused by vile Xenos. But they wouldnt hesitate to put obliterate a rebellious city and its inhabitants, or violently subjugate non Imperial humans, or exterminate a newfound primitive Xenos race to clear the way for an AdMech expediton, or any number of other horrific things.

I don't know what to say. Is totally plausible to them to do that, but sometimes is not what you do, but how you do it. I doubt that Salamanders, even doing "bad" things, will do them like other more "radical" or "bad" Marines Chapters. I don't see Salamanders destroying a rebellious city and their inhabitants without trying first Diplomatic measures, and even if they have to do it by force, I don't see them killing every one single of the habitants of the city, for example, where I can see other Chapters totally doing that.
The same with how you subyugate non Imperial Humans. You can do it in many ways, and I don't see the Salamanders doing it in the "worst" of them.

 Vaktathi wrote:

luvdiscgolf wrote:
Wow! I had no idea my question would generate such a response! You guys are very well-versed in your faction lore, and quite passionate about the 40K universe. I am impressed. This has been quite an entertaining thread due to all of your responses.

I like what I am hearing so far about the Salamanders, and will do some further research on them, and I also noticed that the Space Wolves appeared in someone's list as not the most terrible faction, and as a bonus I know they have cool wolf-cavalry.

My local game store has a Talons of the Emperor box filled with lots of shiny, gold minis. Can you guys give me an idea of their motivations or where they stand?

Thanks!

keep in mind that even with factions like the Salamanders and Space Wolves, their "good guy" charm only goes so far. They'll still engage in merciless acts of brutality and slaughter for what we would consider minor thought crime or the like, or simply for not existing under the Imperial Banner even if otherwise peaceful and cooperative, and life as a native Fenrisian under the rule of the Space Wolves certainly wouldnt be any better than living in dark ages northern europe for most. "Good Guy"-ness is all relative in 40k.

Again, it's worth noting that most space marine chapters probably won't kill for thought crimes, if only because they would probably qualify as heretics themselves. The space wolves also went so far as to try to stop a purge, and I wouldn't be shocked if the salamanders have at some point as well. Celestial lions are another chapter worth mentioning I just remembered, the whole "ork snipers" thing being the price they paid for it.

Also, as much as we like to play the imperium as pants on head stupid, they still have diplomatic relations with the tau. Not the eldar but that's like 99% the eldar's fault at this point. With less dangerous xenos, the lore does change, but at least at one time they had some the tended to just leave alone.

They do tend to all come off as intolerant of other religions... but again in a universe we're accidentally/deliberately summoning demons is a rountine event, that's a little more justified than it is here.

 Verviedi wrote:

 TheLumberJack wrote:
Is there a chart that lists all the factions as lawful good, lawful neutral, etc?

Imperium- Lawful Evil
Chaos- Chaotic Evil
Tau- Lawful Evil (Farsight is Lawful Good)
Orks- Chaotic Neutral
Tyranids- True Neutral
Necrons- Hyperlawful Evil
Eldar- Lawful Evil
Dark Eldar- Lawful Evil
Harlequins- Lawful Neutral

The tyranid race is both sentient and rountinely wipes out entire civilizations to bolster itself. It is chaotic evil. The hive mind is sentient and commits genocide on intelligent species even when it does not need to do so to survive. That is, by definition, evil.

That's kind of like asking is their any good guy countires in the world. Sure there are some which are better than others, however, all have their issues, their histories and good/bad members of their societies.

When it comes to 40k, The setting is so profoundly disturbed and evil that necessary evils are needed just in order to survive.

 Melissia wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
you literally haven't supported your position whatsoever except to generalize that narratives of good vs evil are not boring, but people who find fault with them are.

You're being hypocritical here, given that your argument is "good guys are boring", with literally no arguments other than your opinion and presenting what's basically a strawman of "good".

I provided an example, and your response was "that example is boring", without any argument as to why other than "that's my opinion". So my response was "maybe you're the boring one" out of snark. I can continue to provide responses. Superman-- a character that can be usefully defined as "the good guy", but is also a complex, multi-dimensional character, with many of his best stories playing off not on his ability to achieve victory but what the best method might be to do, and if he's made a mistake in choosing in how to deal with it. Saitama-- "the good guy", but gain, a complex, multidimensional character with the story playing off on his invincibility. Batman, "the good guy", but there's a lot of tension in how he upholds his moral codes... or if he does, and how others will manipulate his need to uphold those codes.

You've oversimplified the concept of "good" to the point of it being useless. Of course it's boring when you do that. So stop doing it.

I think you need to make sure you're responding to the correct thread and user, because I never said any of those things. I never said "good guys are boring", I never presented a strawman of what is "good", and I never responded to an example that you never gave by simply saying "that example is boring."

Your two superhero examples are excellent for demonstrating the kind of narratives and characters I personally find interesting or uninteresting. Superman is so powerful, and so morally pure, that there is never any question about whether he will prevail or whether he is right in doing so. As you said yourself, the only way to introduce tension in his exploits is through the fact that his perception and judgment don't always match his godlike abilities or moral superiority. I don't find that interesting.

On the other hand, Batman has shades of grey to him. Yes, he also has a strong moral code, but he's a neurotic vigilante working outside the law, and one might nearly be able to say he's quite mad. Further, his opponents are rarely ever purely evil.

 Hollow wrote:
That's kind of like asking is their any good guy countires in the world.

There is no Iceland in 40k!

 Luciferian wrote:
I don't find that interesting.

Yes, I'm quite aware-- I find moral dilemmas interesting, and you don't.

But that's why I snarkily responded "guess you're just a boring person". Because when it comes right down to it, this is all a matter of opinion.

I actually find batman boring and less interesting, myself. He's presented far more often as morally incorruptible than superman is, even when his actions are morally bankrupt.

 Luciferian wrote:
Your two superhero examples are excellent for demonstrating the kind of narratives and characters I personally find interesting or uninteresting. Superman is so powerful, and so morally pure, that there is never any question about whether he will prevail or whether he is right in doing so. As you said yourself, the only way to introduce tension in his exploits is through the fact that his perception and judgment don't always match his godlike abilities or moral superiority. I don't find that interesting.

On the other hand, Batman has shades of grey to him. Yes, he also has a strong moral code, but he's a neurotic vigilante working outside the law, and one might nearly be able to say he's quite mad. Further, his opponents are rarely ever purely evil.

Maybe this is a bit offtopic, but the best comics of Superman aren't those that have him punching the ultra mega bad guy througt space. The best comics of Superman are the ones where you see the "Man"; not the "Super".

Like this:


And about Batman, I find him normally the prime example of Gary Stu, but you are right in that when a good autor use him, it can be one of the betters comics books out there. Is basically a Madmen trying to detain and help other Mad persons.

But normally batman is presented as just "haha super skill guy beats up villains hahahahah look at unskill power guy he stupid needs skill alpha man to guide his way".

 Melissia wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
I don't find that interesting.

Yes, I'm quite aware-- I find moral dilemmas interesting, and you don't.

But that's why I snarkily responded "guess you're just a boring person". Because when it comes right down to it, this is all a matter of opinion.

I actually find batman boring and less interesting, myself. He's presented far more often as morally incorruptible than superman is, even when his actions are morally bankrupt.

This whole interaction is highly ironic given your forum signature. Constructing arguments in bad faith is something you're quite good at.

If you're going to continue to put words in my mouth while refusing to respond to anything I've actually said except for a sentence fragment here or there, you might want to reconsider that signature of yours.

I'm not arguing in bad faith at all. I'm simply admitting that this is a difference of opinion and adding humor to my post. Not that you seem to give a damn.

 Galas wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
Your two superhero examples are excellent for demonstrating the kind of narratives and characters I personally find interesting or uninteresting. Superman is so powerful, and so morally pure, that there is never any question about whether he will prevail or whether he is right in doing so. As you said yourself, the only way to introduce tension in his exploits is through the fact that his perception and judgment don't always match his godlike abilities or moral superiority. I don't find that interesting.

On the other hand, Batman has shades of grey to him. Yes, he also has a strong moral code, but he's a neurotic vigilante working outside the law, and one might nearly be able to say he's quite mad. Further, his opponents are rarely ever purely evil.

Maybe this is a bit offtopic, but the best comics of Superman aren't those that have him punching the ultra mega bad guy througt space. The best comics of Superman are the ones where you see the "Man"; not the "Super".

I can respect that. That's certainly a different type of narrative than the type I'm being critical of, though.