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.

Hello all,

I have yet to read all of the Heresy books and I just jumped over to the Lexicanum but I couldn't find a terribly large amount of information concerning the original duty of Chaplains.

Now, I believe that the Chaplains were originally created to ensure that the original legions would not use Librarians.

But why would they use the word, "Chaplain." Chaplain is definitely a religious term and we all know the Emperor was a strong proponent of logic and reason over superstition and mysticism.

If anyone can shed some light on the original Chaplains, perhaps a link or a quick sentence. I would be greatly appreciated.

Campbell

So far the Heresy series hasn't detailed how the Chaplains became widespread. I would guess that they were instigated during the Second Founding as a way of maintaining the spiritual moral of the Chapters after they were split from their Primarch, and to prevent low moral from breaking the Imperium after they were betrayed during the Heresy. Remember that Chaplains do fulfill a religious role. They maintain the faith of the Chapter Cult, which is separate from the Eccliesiarchy and holds it own beliefs about the Emperor.
One thing we do know is that the Word Bearers had Chaplains before the Heresy, and still keep this position. They fulfilled the same duties as 'modern' Chaplains, keeping the faith throughout the Legion, although this faith was literally the worship of the Emperor as a God. They preached, gave sermons to both their Legion brothers and the populace of conquered planets and generally maintained the spiritual moral, counselling and guiding their charges. They were also feverant scholars like their Primarch. Each Company had a Chaplain alongside the Captain, and I believe there was also a ranking Chapter Chaplain. Perhaps they were beginning to be taken on in some form by other Legions, as keepers of moral. Currently, the Word Bearers Chaplains are called Dark Apostles and fulfill the same role as they did pre-Heresy, albeit with a different faith. They're also the commanders of their warband and not longer just a ranked officer serving beneath a Captain.

Right, but there is little to no information as to whether or not Chaplains were used to eliminate Librarians?

Could one field a Pre-Heresy army with a librarian and a chaplain?

The Emperor's Children and Dark Angels have both had chaplain characters in the Horus Heresy series (pre-heresy)

It's been mentioned that Chaplains were something originally conceived by the Word Bearers and spread throughout the Legions, presumably much earlier in the Crusade before the Lodges, which spread in a similar way.

However, apart from in the Word Bearers, their role is not 'religious' before the heresy. They are battle leaders, inspirational heroes, and have the duties of keeping traditions and keeping up morale in battle. So, just like post-heresy, but a bit less religious.

At the moment, we know that the Emperor's Children, Dark Angels, Word Bearers had chaplains before the Heresy. The Space Wolves had Wolf Priests. We also know that the Luna Wolves, Thousand Sons, World Eaters and Death Guard didn't use chaplains.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Campbell1004 wrote:Right, but there is little to no information as to whether or not Chaplains were used to eliminate Librarians?

Could one field a Pre-Heresy army with a librarian and a chaplain?

Yes, there's no suggestion of this. As far as we know, Chaplains had been around for quite a while before the Council of Nikaea. So yes, you could field a Pre-Heresy army with both of these, you just need to pick your Chapter carefully.

Well, I have a Pre-Heresy Salamanders army. The Chaplain would be a Promethean Priest, the Librarian must likely just a Librarian.

The purpose of the Chaplains pre-heresy was to provide moral assistance to their battle brothers.
The Chaplains did originate in the Word Bearers legion and spread to other legions.

It wasn't completely religious, they were the counselors for the Adeptus Astartes.

ArbitorIan wrote:

Campbell1004 wrote:Right, but there is little to no information as to whether or not Chaplains were used to eliminate Librarians?

Could one field a Pre-Heresy army with a librarian and a chaplain?

Yes, there's no suggestion of this. As far as we know, Chaplains had been around for quite a while before the Council of Nikaea.

I think I can shed some light on the soure of chaplains as "guardians" of the edict of nicaea.

The Horus Heresy: Vol II: visions of Darkness
Page 20:



The "chaplain edict" comes from the HH/visions of... books.

Mein Hut vor dir, herr.

Thank you all for the help.

i remember a wolf priest in prospero burns... longfang i think that was his name... way before the heresy

Chaplains can pre-date the Edict as they were about. But post Nikea you couldn't run a Libby and a Chappy together.

AustonT wrote:Chaplains can pre-date the Edict as they were about. But post Nikea you couldn't run a Libby and a Chappy together.

Except, apparently, in the Dark Angels - according to Fallen Angels, which is set after Horus has declared for Chaos, but features a Redemptor-Chaplain and two practising Librarians. However, that book is one of the least HH-accurate novels and has a pretty huge number of basic author mistakes - it might as well be a current-era SPASE MARIENZ HURR novel, so I wouldn't hold it up as canon.

Didn't the Counil of Nikaea have a sub clause that all psychers would be tested first and if they were found to be submissive and useful they would be allowed to remain.
If I remember the council was originally set up to deal with Magnus the Red and his use of Sorcery. The Emperor declared that sorcery was completely outlawed, and would have included the complete outlaw of psychers to prevent another psychic cataclysm that ravaged humanity in the dark age of technology. However, a concession was made to allow loyal psychers to continue to serve, but they would be watched and were strictly forbidden from performing sorcery.

I might be wrong though.
I would think chaplains would have been around to provide spiritual guidance for the new adepts from the space marines home-worlds. Many come from unique worlds and having a chaplain type figure in the army to help the recruits deal with the culture shock would have helped.

ArbitorIan wrote:

AustonT wrote:Chaplains can pre-date the Edict as they were about. But post Nikea you couldn't run a Libby and a Chappy together.

Except, apparently, in the Dark Angels - according to Fallen Angels, which is set after Horus has declared for Chaos, but features a Redemptor-Chaplain and two practising Librarians. However, that book is one of the least HH-accurate novels and has a pretty huge number of basic author mistakes - it might as well be a current-era SPASE MARIENZ HURR novel, so I wouldn't hold it up as canon.

Good point.

Perhaps it has something to do with the Lion not passing on stuff to Caliban? He doesn't seem to have been in contact with Luther and Caliban for some time.

BL works are not canon regardless of how well or poorly they are written.

The original duty of Chaplains was to enforce the Imperial Truth and indoctrinate new marines into the Legion.

AustonT wrote:BL works are not canon regardless of how well or poorly they are written.

OT, but...

40k is not comic books. According to GW, there is no such thing as 40k 'Canon'. Anything written may or may not be true, depending on your point of view. It all helps them construct their universe where anything could happen. Even though the player base may wish to impose some hierarchy on what's 'canon' or not, according to GW the BL books are just as valid as the codices...

AustonT wrote:BL works are not canon regardless of how well or poorly they are written.

The original duty of Chaplains was to enforce the Imperial Truth and indoctrinate new marines into the Legion.

Canon in warhammer does not exist.

ArbitorIan wrote:

AustonT wrote:BL works are not canon regardless of how well or poorly they are written.

OT, but...

40k is not comic books. According to GW, there is no such thing as 40k 'Canon'. Anything written may or may not be true, depending on your point of view. It all helps them construct their universe where anything could happen. Even though the player base may wish to impose some hierarchy on what's 'canon' or not, according to GW the BL books are just as valid as the codices...

Demonstrably untrue. According to GW, or more specifically George Mann the guy in charge of BL:
only the Studio material (rulebooks, codexes, army books and suchlike) was canonical

I've always thought of pre heresy chaplains as Space Marine commissars, they basically keep the other marines in line and inspire other marines in battle

Viersche wrote:I've always thought of pre heresy chaplains as Space Marine commissars, they basically keep the other marines in line and inspire other marines in battle

But without the whole "execution" thing.

AustonT wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:40k is not comic books. According to GW, there is no such thing as 40k 'Canon'. Anything written may or may not be true, depending on your point of view. It all helps them construct their universe where anything could happen. Even though the player base may wish to impose some hierarchy on what's 'canon' or not, according to GW the BL books are just as valid as the codices...

Demonstrably untrue. According to GW, or more specifically George Mann the guy in charge of BL: only the Studio material (rulebooks, codexes, army books and suchlike) was canonical

I'd love to see where this is written - I haven't heard it before. There are numerous sources supporting the idea that GW Policy is that 'there is no canon'. A recent one, by Gav Thorpe, is quoted here.

http://mechanicalhamster.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/jumping-the-fence/ wrote:Often folks ask if Black Library books are ‘canon’. With Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000, the notion of canon is a fallacy. There are certainly established facts – the current Emperor is Karl-Franz, the Blood Angels have red armour, Commissar Yarrick defended Hades Hive during the Second Armageddon War. However, to suggest that anything else is non-canon is a disservice to the players and authors who participate in this world. To suggest that Black Library novels are somehow of lesser relevance to the background is to imply that every player who has created a unique Space Marine chapter or invented their own Elector Count is somehow wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth. Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 exist as tens of thousands of overlapping realities in the imaginations of games developers, writers, readers and gamers. None of those interpretations is wrong.

And from Marc Gascoigne at BL (via 40kOnline at http://www.40konline.com/community/index.php?PHPSESSID=8a59fc25e0ba48e67faf34f7f3a62818&topic=130418.msg1580076#msg1580076)

I think the real problem for me, and I speak for no other, is that the topic as a "big question" doesn't matter. It's all as true as everything else, and all just as false/half-remembered/sort-of-true. The answer you are seeking is "Yes and no" or perhaps "Sometimes". And for me, that's the end of it.
Now, ask us some specifics, eg can Black Templars spit acid and we can answer that one, and many others. But again note thet answer may well be "sometimes" or "it varies" or "depends".
But is it all true? Yes and no. Even though some of it is plainly contradictory? Yes and no. Do we deliberately contradict, retell with differences? Yes we do. Is the newer the stuff the truer it is? Yes and no. In some cases is it true that the older stuff is the truest? Yes and no. Maybe and sometimes. Depends and it varies.
It's a decaying universe without GPS and galaxy-wide communication, where precious facts are clung to long after they have been changed out of all recognition. Read A Canticle for Liebowitz by Walter M Miller, about monks toiling to hold onto facts in the aftermath of a nucelar war; that nails it for me.
To attempt answer the initial question: What is GW's definition of canon? Perhaps we don't have one. Sometimes and maybe. Or perhaps we do and I'm not telling you.

Thank retconning for this confusion. In the original storyline there was a difference between psykers (space marine librarians) and sorcery (practiced by the 1000 sons). It was a little murky but basically a psyker used inborn powers to manipulate warp energies, while a sorceror bargained with warp powers for more power than they could wield themselves.
The original council of Nikea banned only sorcery and the legions were never ordered to disband their librarians. I think one of the monkeys writing the newer books made a mistake and rather than correct it they just decided the previous version of reality no longer applied.
Sometimes I think GW is seriously trying out the infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters theory.

edit - Here's a similar thread on warseer where someone else said about the same thing (though with more detail!) and the source is apparently Index Astartes III
edit again- after looking at a little of IA II, these books are too new. The original source has to be something older
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=250590

This thread has links to where I pulled that quote from. It's a summary by an attendee at a share holder's meeting. There are also other quotes from Andy Hoare and Gav Thorpe, his is especially notable because it doesn't SPECIFICALLY use the word canon (which really is something we the fans apply) but suggests a clear separation between the novels and studio material.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/8/387647.page
The argument between what is and is not canon can continue forever so suffice to say I'm not going to try to evangelize you to my point of view. I will point out that some ridiculous bs has been written and published by the BL, and patently ignored by the studio. The easiest and most recent is Mr Swallows novels and the mysterious abscense of any of those events appearing in the codex. GW is in a hard spot to declare canon having retconned so much of the 40k universe, but there is more than ample proof that neither the publishers, nor the authors, or the studio staff place the BL production in the same realm as studio material.