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.

Did the game creators intend the Imperium of Man to be a bit of a caution against the potential encroachment of religion into government? A warning against the creation of an Abrahamic Theocracy?

I don't know if they intended anything like that at first. I'm purely speculating here, but given the level of foresight and organization GW appeared to have back when 40k was first getting started the initial meeting probably went something like this: "this Catholic Church iconography looks really awesome and impressive...let's grab that. Oh, Knights are really cool. We gotta have those too. Except they'll be...like...super soldier knights in really big armor. Oh, with rocket launchers. Rapid Fire rocket launchers!"

That said, the recent retcon of the Emperor into "Turbo Atheist" mode could be seen as enforcing what you say since it sets up the irony of what the imperium eventually became. That said, it could equally be making fun of athism for doing the in-universe equivalent of thinking that if you pull a sheet over your head the monsters won't get you (i.e. trying to remove all human emotions by not telling them about the warp and thus starve the demons to death. We all know how well that idea turned out.).

Feth no. The setting of WH40K is a pastiche of sci-fi concepts stretching back nearly 100 years at this point.

It's a mix of Herbert, Lovecraft, Bradbury, Asimov, 70s sci-fi TV, 50s sci-fi movies, Bradly, Heinlein, Moorcock, and it draws very heavily on extreme images of the Catholic church in Europe across the Dark Ages, and throughout other eras of history.

It's only aspect as "social commentary" is wry, tongue-in-cheek satire.

 Psienesis wrote:
Feth no. The setting of WH40K is a pastiche of sci-fi concepts stretching back nearly 100 years at this point.

It's a mix of Herbert, Lovecraft, Bradbury, Asimov, 70s sci-fi TV, 50s sci-fi movies, Bradly, Heinlein, Moorcock, and it draws very heavily on extreme images of the Catholic church in Europe across the Dark Ages, and throughout other eras of history.

It's only aspect as "social commentary" is wry, tongue-in-cheek satire.

And Psienesis wins this thread!

 Psienesis wrote:
Feth no. The setting of WH40K is a pastiche of sci-fi concepts stretching back nearly 100 years at this point.

It's a mix of Herbert, Lovecraft, Bradbury, Asimov, 70s sci-fi TV, 50s sci-fi movies, Bradly, Heinlein, Moorcock, and it draws very heavily on extreme images of the Catholic church in Europe across the Dark Ages, and throughout other eras of history.

It's only aspect as "social commentary" is wry, tongue-in-cheek satire.

I know they mean basically nothing buuuuut have an exalt!

 Accolade wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Feth no. The setting of WH40K is a pastiche of sci-fi concepts stretching back nearly 100 years at this point.

It's a mix of Herbert, Lovecraft, Bradbury, Asimov, 70s sci-fi TV, 50s sci-fi movies, Bradly, Heinlein, Moorcock, and it draws very heavily on extreme images of the Catholic church in Europe across the Dark Ages, and throughout other eras of history.

It's only aspect as "social commentary" is wry, tongue-in-cheek satire.

And Psienesis wins this thread!

Breaking News: Flufflord Psienesis strikes again!

Giving the Imperium its equivalent of the Catholic Church was probably just done for the sake of juxtaposition. Combining a far future sci-fi setting with something widely concidered archaic and opposed to science and progress. It does a lot to set the tone of 40K and set it apart from popular sci-fi universes.

Insofar as 40K has/had hints of political commentary I think it's just a vague and muddled anti-totalitarian sentiment. Like a wimpy, mumbly version of Laibach. Though personally I kinda like the sleaziness of 40K invoking all this highly charged imagery and history just for the sake of entertainment.

Yes, much like how Voldemort's takeover of the Ministry of Magic was a warning as well.

It's the dark ages. The height of theocracy.

The message is "the dark ages suck".

 Mr Nobody wrote:
It's the dark ages. The height of theocracy.

The message is "the dark ages suck".

Which is, if you know history, complete gak. The Dark Ages was actually one of the more peaceful and prosperous times in European history.
The Dark Ages was also far from being the 'height of theocracy'.

LOL, you're giving GW far too much credit hahaha

 Avinash_Tyagi wrote:
Did the game creators intend the Imperium of Man to be a bit of a caution against the potential encroachment of religion into government? A warning against the creation of an Abrahamic Theocracy?

Well, considering GW in the late 80s was basically a bunchy of geeky British metallers with left-wing ideals, um... YES. Almost certainly. I might be wrong, but I can't imagine any of the GW design team around them being particularly religious. Not as specific manifesto, but certainly the product of a group of young misfits who were happy to take the piss out of traditional religion or government.

As has been pointed out, it's influences are huge and varied, and have encompassed many things over the years, but the original version of 40k was a LOT more tongue-in-cheek.

Marines were just brainwashed ex-convicts (no holy-knight stuff) and the entire Imperium was a satire on unquestioned power, organised religion and soul-destorying bureaucratic governments - a satire British people in the 80s would have been very familiar with.

The Emperor's Crusade-era secularity was added much later...

 Psienesis wrote:
Feth no. The setting of WH40K is a pastiche of sci-fi concepts stretching back nearly 100 years at this point.

It's a mix of Herbert, Lovecraft, Bradbury, Asimov, 70s sci-fi TV, 50s sci-fi movies, Bradly, Heinlein, Moorcock, and it draws very heavily on extreme images of the Catholic church in Europe across the Dark Ages, and throughout other eras of history.

It's only aspect as "social commentary" is wry, tongue-in-cheek satire.

I wouldn't say purely the Catholic church. Most world religions (including atheism) have some pretty bloody, single minded periods in their history (Communist China and Russia were/are big on stamping out 'heretical' thought, both being state's that favored atheism, Islam has had it's 'children of the book' concepts, Buddhism has led to purges of non Buddhists, see Japanese history as an example, etc.).

The Catholic church is just more identifiable to the primary market audience for GW, and thus the easy allusions to it.

@Maniac_nmt
Just FYI, atheism isn't a religion. It'd be "religion and atheism".

Anyway, I think that Catholocism is generally the strongest influence in terms of the Imperium's religious aspect. And the purging of other groups is hardly exclusively a religious thing, more of a general oppressive regime/ideaology thing.

I don't think so, because you have had periods of 'really bad' theocracy, like Goge Vandire and the Age of Apostasy, and periods of 'kinda heroic' theocracy, like Sebastian Thor.

I do kind of think that the atheism of the Imperial Truth period (prior to the developing Imperial Creed) was actually probably done (very nicely, IMHO) to subvert expectations. Who expected the Emperor who is now venerated as a god to be somebody who was adamantly opposed to worship? It made the story more complex and interesting to me.

 Troike wrote:
@Maniac_nmt
Just FYI, atheism isn't a religion. It'd be "religion and atheism".

Anyway, I think that Catholocism is generally the strongest influence in terms of the Imperium's religious aspect. And the purging of other groups is hardly exclusively a religious thing, more of a general oppressive regime/ideaology thing.

Depends on your point of view, athiesm can certainly fit within the definition of religion, and I have heard it quite successfully argued as such (by non"religious" people even).

Catholocism is simply the easy to compare to religion, as that is what most of us are familiar with, and is the popular group to villify (for the record, I am not Catholic).

So, I would say the Imperium is more a semi commentary against absolute power, not so much a theocracy.

 Maniac_nmt wrote:
So, I would say the Imperium is more a semi commentary against absolute power, not so much a theocracy.

Well, it could be homage to Frank Herbert's Dune - that book handles just this sort of thing. Once you enter religion into government things start moving of their own accord, often with disastrous results.

 Troike wrote:
@Maniac_nmt
Just FYI, atheism isn't a religion. It'd be "religion and atheism".
.

Yes, it is. It's a system of belief built around the concept of a god or gods. In atheism's case, the concept of them not existing.

 Furyou Miko wrote:

 Troike wrote:
@Maniac_nmt
Just FYI, atheism isn't a religion. It'd be "religion and atheism".
.

Yes, it is. It's a system of belief built around the concept of a god or gods. In atheism's case, the concept of them not existing.

Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour, or not collecting stamps a hobby. It is not a system of beliefs built around a diety, but a lack of one.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Yes, it is. It's a system of belief built around the concept of a god or gods. In atheism's case, the concept of them not existing.

That does not make sense. Would you say Hinduism and Christianism are the same religion because they share the belief that Islam is not true ? Because that is basically all that link atheists together, not believing in the same thing.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Yes, it is. It's a system of belief built around the concept of a god or gods. In atheism's case, the concept of them not existing.

That does not make sense. Would you say Hinduism and Christianism are the same religion because they share the belief that Islam is not true ? Because that is basically all that link atheists together, not believing in the same thing.

Your argument doesn't make any sense either. So protestantism isn't a religion? Because the only thing linking them together is not being catholic. The only thing linking different christians together is a belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.
The word 'religion', like many words, has multiple definitions. Whether atheism is a religion or not depends on how you define 'religion'. What is sure however, is that atheism is a belief. Believing in the existence of some unproven deity is little different from believing in the non-existence of some never disproven deity.
Conclusion: Become agnostic.
In any case, this thread has gone off topic.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Because the only thing linking them together is not being catholic.

Apart from the whole Bible, Jesus and all that…

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The only thing linking different christians together is a belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Exactly. That is a huge thing they have in common.
I mean, they all believe that God will judge them after they did, and that God will send some to hell and others to heaven. How is that not a huge thing in common ?
On the other hand, do atheists have any common idea on what will happen after they die ? No. Because they do not share beliefs, they just share not believing in religions.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
What is sure however, is that atheism is a belief.

The word 'belief', like many words, has multiple definitions. Whether atheism is a belief or not depends on how you define 'belief' .

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Believing in the existence of some unproven deity is little different from believing in the non-existence of some never disproven deity.
Conclusion: Become agnostic.

“All I say is that I think it is damned unlikely that anything like a central cosmic will, a spirit world, or an eternal survival of personality exist. They are the most preposterous and unjustified of all the guesses which can be made about the universe, and I am not enough of a hair-splitter to pretend that I don't regard them as arrant and negligible moonshine. In theory I am an agnostic, but pending the appearance of radical evidence I must be classed, practically and provisionally, as an atheist.”
Howard Philips Lovecraft.

As someone who does believe in God, I can honestly tell you Atheism is not a religion, nor is it a belief

There is no belief involved in Atheism, rather there is the fair assessment that there is no empirical evidence to support the existence of God.

A true atheist is not someone who hates the idea of religion, nor someone who dismisses religion just to be contrarian.

Rather they are someone who has looked at the available facts and said there is no empirical evidence of God.

Unlike those of us with faith, they are unwilling to make the leap of faith, of belief, in a deity or deities.

It's a fair stance to have, I mean if someone says invisible purple-polka dot dragons walk among us, you'd be justified in saying you need proof before you accept that

Would you say Hinduism and Christianism are the same religion because they share the belief that Islam is not true ?

To be fair, Hinduism isn't really a religion, first the term hindu owes its roots to outside cultures referring to the people of the Indus river region. The word hinduism or hindu doesn't appear in the sacred vedic texts.

In addition Hinduism has no root founder or belief system, rather it is a large umbrella of beliefs covering everything from Polytheism to Atheism (westerners are primarily familiar with the Smarta tradition, the belief that all of the gods are different aspects of Brahman, but that is just one tradition within the larger Vedanta school of hindu philosophy, and there are six Astika schools in Hinduism)

So really it is a collection of religious philosophies.

 Avinash_Tyagi wrote:
As someone who does believe in God, I can honestly tell you Atheism is not a religion, nor is it a belief

Though to be fair there are some that make it a crusade against religion, every bit as fervent as a religious extremist...

But that's a bit off topic - I still think 40K Imperial Theocracy owes a lot to Herbert's Dune books. Religious government, uncontrollable hordes of zealots, an emperor caught in his own prophecy.

The definition of a religion is something more than just whether one believes in a god or not. Just look at the opening paragraphs on Wikipedia: "A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that are intended to explain the meaning of life and/or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, people derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle. [...] The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith, belief system or sometimes set of duties; however, in the words of Émile Durkheim, religion differs from private belief in that it is "something eminently social"."

And it didn't even mention anything about gods yet. In fact, some religions do operate without gods; like Buddhism.

Spetulhu wrote:
Though to be fair there are some that make it a crusade against religion, every bit as fervent as a religious extremist...

Well, communists can be pretty fervent too, does that mean communism is a religion ?

tgjensen wrote:
Just look at the opening paragraphs on Wikipedia: "A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that are intended to explain the meaning of life and/or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, people derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle.

Atheism is linked to no “positive” belief, no cultural system, no world view. It does not have any narrative, symbol or sacred history. It does not intend to explain neither the meaning of life (that is what philosophy is for, I guess), nor the origin of the cosmos or the Universe (that is science's job).

 Psienesis wrote:
Feth no. The setting of WH40K is a pastiche of sci-fi concepts stretching back nearly 100 years at this point.

It's a mix of Herbert, Lovecraft, Bradbury, Asimov, 70s sci-fi TV, 50s sci-fi movies, Bradly, Heinlein, Moorcock, and it draws very heavily on extreme images of the Catholic church in Europe across the Dark Ages, and throughout other eras of history.

It's only aspect as "social commentary" is wry, tongue-in-cheek satire.

This. Besides the religious aspects of sci fi classics like Dune, a 2000 AD series called Nemesis the Warlock may have had an influence. In Nemesis, humans are a big, oppressive, Spanish-Inquisition styled empire who want to purge all alien life and use their own as cannon fodder. Their leader is even named Torquemada. The folks at GW definitely ripped off 2000 AD's Judge Dredd for the Adeptus Arbites, so it's a pretty likely influence. "Catholic Inquisition inspired futuristic dystopia" is actually a fairly common sci fi concept.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:
Though to be fair there are some that make it a crusade against religion, every bit as fervent as a religious extremist...

Well, communists can be pretty fervent too, does that mean communism is a religion ?

No. And I didn't mean the "militant" anti-religious guys are a religion, just that sometimes they do act like religious zealots. Trying to ban religious symbols from public places, asking legislators to forbid public disturbances like church bells or minaret prayer calls, that sort. Symbols don't hurt anyone so why forbid them unless you're extremely motivated - like any good crusader wiping out the infidels.

It's just an excuse for skulls and fire.

Spetulhu wrote:
asking legislators to forbid public disturbances like church bells or minaret prayer calls

So, do you think the legislator should allow public disturbance as long as they are religiously-motivated ? Seriously, either you forbid all sound nuisance, or none, but “it is okay if it is religiously-motivated” ? That is bad.