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.

The title of "Emperor" does not imply or demand worship.

templeorks wrote:I still have to say he wanted to be worshiped atleast by the mechanicum as I stated before.

EXCELLENT POINT! "Machine," he spaketh "heal thyself." And, lo, it came to pass as the Omnissiah did command!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alpharius wrote:The title of "Emperor" does not imply or demand worship.

Really? Then why isn't it the Horus Rebellion ?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alpharius wrote:The title of "Emperor" does not imply or demand worship.

Really? Then why isn't it the Horus Rebellion ?

When was it labeled the "Heresy"?

During or after the events?

You guys are really grasping at straws now.

Especially as you know where we ended up - the events as they happened?

Quite different indeed.

templeorks wrote:

Alpharius wrote:The title of "Emperor" does not imply or demand worship.

Really? Then why isn't it the Horus Rebellion?

You're still dodging the substance of the question, Alpahrius.

The Emperor explicitly claimed to not want to be worshipped as a god.

Okay, but a lot of people claim a lot of things at the same time as doing the opposite.

I belive it is referanced as herasy in the books a few times but not sure by whom it may have been one of the imperial cultist but i think it was a space marine that said it.

Melissia wrote:No direct evidence, no. Indirect? Oh hell yes, I cited an example earlier, but there's others if I really wanted to look into the Horus Heresy and pre-Horus Heresy era stories again (I don't). The biggest examples I gave were how the recruited his various primarchs, which if I changed the names around I could have believed was a series of mythological stories of Zeus/Jupiter testing some Greco-Roman heroes.

I never said he intended to literally use worship to become a god, so much as being worshipped as a god is something he is capable of using, and could have planned for (and from his actions it appears he either did plan for it, or he was stupid/ignorant of human psychology).

Yes, he might SAY a great deal, but I think his actions when dealing with humans or around humans makes it rather unclear.

totally wrong.

The Emperor clearly and blatantly chastised Lorgar for worshipping him as a god. He made this reprimand very public to make an example of how religon had no place in the new age of "Imperial Truth". Lorgar's feeling were hurt and so the seeds of Heresy were sown.

1hadhq wrote:Emperor, Imperator, Kaiser, Czar and whatever anyone may throw in here isn't a religious title.

Empeor is not itself a religious title. But a lot of them have demanded to worshiped as gods.

templeorks wrote:I belive it is referanced as herasy in the books a few times but not sure by whom it may have been one of the imperial cultist but i think it was a space marine that said it.

An imperial cultist, filled with the ideas from 'lectitio divinatus' would call Horus and his traitors actions Heresy.


@ Manchu: examples?

-insane roman ceasars?
-egyptian pharaoh's?

All of them demanded to be worshipped.
The Emperor did not.

I'm going to look through the books I have and see if I can find what I'm thinking of and try to give a source I'll do that later when I find it.

Manchu wrote:You're still dodging the substance of the question, Alpahrius.

The Emperor explicitly claimed to not want to be worshipped as a god.

Okay, but a lot of people claim a lot of things at the same time as doing the opposite.

What?!?

No I haven't!

I've stated my side clearly, and often.

In the time honored tradition of Melissia, I've been looking for 'proof' to the contrary - and from the latest, most up to date background, it isn't there.

1hadhq wrote:Plus. Repeating the lies of the Heretics and accusing the Emperorof Mankind of any intend of "ascension" to godhood is

Heresy

and shall be treated accordingly.

Actually that's one of the few points of contention within the Ecclesiarchy, the other one being the question of "Was the Emperor a god before his ascension to the throne, or did he become one at that point?". At least if I remember my fluff correctly (some discussion in a Dark Heresy book most recently).

Officially, neither side of the debate is heretical, though they might believe it of the other, the Ecclesiarchy as a whole accepts both as potentially true (and not necessarily mutually exclusive).

1hadhq wrote:@ Manchu: examples?

-insane roman ceasars?
-egyptian pharaoh's?

All of them demanded to be worshipped.
The Emperor did not.

What is the source of the Emperor's authority?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Alpharius: Again, what is the functional difference between the Emperor during the Great Crusade and a pagan god?

This Emperor's reprimand of Lorgar is one of the best indications that he did not want to be worshiped. He could have simply let it go to bolster that image, but he explicitly said no, no worshiping. The only reason I could think that he did actually want to be deified is that the timing wasn't correct.

The problem I have with the Emperor intending to create an atheist, religion free society, is that he failed so miserably at it. The Emperor had physical, mental and psychic powers that far surpass any human, and yet he set up the Imperium for exactly the opposite of what he intended? Sounds rather inept and not Emperor-esque.

Also, the fact that he attempted to eradicate other religions means nothing, or else supports that he intended to fill the vacuum. What better way to guarantee your own religion than the extinguish the others?

Anyways, a lot of this is supposition of motivation based on how events turned out. I, for one, think is is a possibility, though not readily supported.

Alpharius wrote:In the time honored tradition of Melissia, I've been looking for 'proof' to the contrary - and from the latest, most up to date background, it isn't there.

This approach is good ONLY up to a certain point. For example, you will never find it officially stated that Blood Angels are vampires or have anything to do with them. In the meantime, we all know that vampire legends figure strongly into the inspirations for their fluff and aesthetic. To deny this because there is no BL quotation on it would be to have an incomplete and frankly useless discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fiend wrote:The problem I have with the Emperor intending to create an atheist, religion free society, is that he failed so miserably at it. The Emperor had physical, mental and psychic powers that far surpass any human, and yet he set up the Imperium for exactly the opposite of what he intended? Sounds rather inept and not Emperor-esque.

This point cannot be emphasized enough regarding this topic.

Manchu wrote:
@Alpharius: Again, what is the functional difference between the Emperor during the Great Crusade and a pagan god?

What?

Are you trying to be difficult here?

Because other than the fact that the Emperor has stamped out ALL religion and in turn stamped out any attempt to cast himself as a god, going so far as to chastise one of his Primarch sons for trying to worship him as a god, and thereby inadvertently kicking off the very corruption of half his legions by Chaos...

I guess, nothing?

Again, as much as I may wish otherwise, the LATEST background as set forth in the HH series (and, to some extent, unfortunately, the "Visions of Heresy"/card game) IS the most recent and up to date.

Do I prefer the days when the INDEX ASTARTES articles ruled the day?

Sure!

But, they're more than a little outdated now, in MANY areas.

Manchu wrote:

Fiend wrote:The problem I have with the Emperor intending to create an atheist, religion free society, is that he failed so miserably at it. The Emperor had physical, mental and psychic powers that far surpass any human, and yet he set up the Imperium for exactly the opposite of what he intended? Sounds rather inept and not Emperor-esque.

This point cannot be emphasized enough regarding this topic.

You're both assuming we ever knew or saw the Emperor's entire plan BEFORE everything hit the fan.

Well, we didn't - but we do know he was going to try and eliminate warp travel.

The new background for the Council of Nikaea muddies the water with a confusing change, but, as is, almost ALL Psykers were prohibited from using their powers, not just 'sorcerers'.

He was going somewhere with all of it.. who knows where?

Manchu wrote:

Alpharius wrote:In the time honored tradition of Melissia, I've been looking for 'proof' to the contrary - and from the latest, most up to date background, it isn't there.

This approach is good ONLY up to a certain point. For example, you will never find it officially stated that Blood Angels are vampires or have anything to do with them. In the meantime, we all know that vampire legends figure strongly into the inspirations for their fluff and aesthetic. To deny this because there is no BL quotation on it would be to have an incomplete and frankly useless discussion.

Oh, I agree with this 100% - it is just... interesting to see it ignored by some who regularly champion it.

Fiend wrote:This Emperor's reprimand of Lorgar is one of the best indications that he did not want to be worshiped. He could have simply let it go to bolster that image, but he explicitly said no, no worshiping. The only reason I could think that he did actually want to be deified is that the timing wasn't correct.

He goes a lot further than merely reprimanding him.. try all out destruction on a plantery scale to prove his point.

The problem I have with the Emperor intending to create an atheist, religion free society, is that he failed so miserably at it. The Emperor had physical, mental and psychic powers that far surpass any human, and yet he set up the Imperium for exactly the opposite of what he intended? Sounds rather inept and not Emperor-esque.

Well yes.. he failed, but it's why he failed is interesting surely : Is it that it is, ultimately beyond the ability of a human, even a or perhaps THE superhuman to thwart or meddle in the affairs of the Gods...

..or.. is it that any deals or bargains struck with the warp entities -- see the mentions in A Thousand Sons and some of the more WTF claims in The First Heretic -- will, ultimately be twisted and fail as chaos, inevitably, corrupts and ruins all that it influences.

Also, the fact that he attempted to eradicate other religions means nothing, or else supports that he intended to fill the vacuum. What better way to guarantee your own religion than the extinguish the others?

Anyways, a lot of this is supposition of motivation based on how events turned out. I, for one, think is is a possibility, though not readily supported.

It alld epends really on what the Emperor's plans were. We know he planned to utilise the webway, thus eliminating the need for navigators and warp travel in a stroke... perhaps he had other plans as well.

For example having already encountered and bested The Dragon -- and used his very existence for his own ends, I don't think it impossible that he could well have had plans to carry on the Necron Pylon project -- even if only to a lesser extent and close the EoT, rather than severing the connection bewteen the warp and the material universe altogether.

Melissia wrote:

1hadhq wrote:Plus. Repeating the lies of the Heretics and accusing the Emperorof Mankind of any intend of "ascension" to godhood is

Heresy

and shall be treated accordingly.

Actually that's one of the few points of contention within the Ecclesiarchy, the other one being the question of "Was the Emperor a god before his ascension to the throne, or did he become one at that point?". At least if I remember my fluff correctly (some discussion in a Dark Heresy book most recently).

Officially, neither side of the debate is heretical, though they might believe it of the other, the Ecclesiarchy as a whole accepts both as potentially true (and not necessarily mutually exclusive).

Seems we can't solve it from the ecclesiarchys POV then.
But maybe a solution isn't neccessary as 2 possible views are better than 1 set in stone.

Manchu wrote:
What is the source of the Emperor's authority?

His military efforts.
-unified terra
-conquered the galaxy
Emperors authority = lies at the end of "some" gun barrels ....and some choppy stuff too since we are looking at WH.40k

Manchu wrote:

Alpharius wrote:In the time honored tradition of Melissia, I've been looking for 'proof' to the contrary - and from the latest, most up to date background, it isn't there.

This approach is good ONLY up to a certain point. For example, you will never find it officially stated that Blood Angels are vampires or have anything to do with them. In the meantime, we all know that vampire legends figure strongly into the inspirations for their fluff and aesthetic. To deny this because there is no BL quotation on it would be to have an incomplete and frankly useless discussion.

Maybe Blood angels aren't vampires?








Automatically Appended Next Post:
@reds8n: Already done with reading "First heretic" ?

Fiend wrote:This Emperor's reprimand of Lorgar is one of the best indications that he did not want to be worshiped. He could have simply let it go to bolster that image, but he explicitly said no, no worshiping. The only reason I could think that he did actually want to be deified is that the timing wasn't correct.

The problem I have with the Emperor intending to create an atheist, religion free society, is that he failed so miserably at it. The Emperor had physical, mental and psychic powers that far surpass any human, and yet he set up the Imperium for exactly the opposite of what he intended? Sounds rather inept and not Emperor-esque.

Also, the fact that he attempted to eradicate other religions means nothing, or else supports that he intended to fill the vacuum. What better way to guarantee your own religion than the extinguish the others?

Anyways, a lot of this is supposition of motivation based on how events turned out. I, for one, think is is a possibility, though not readily supported.

Your missing the entire point of 40K. The Imperium is the exact opposite of everything that The Emperor set out to do. Everyday the Emperor rolls over in his grave (or throne rather). Happens right after they sacrifice 1000 psykers to him in Chaos-like dark ritual.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Fiend wrote:This Emperor's reprimand of Lorgar is one of the best indications that he did not want to be worshiped. He could have simply let it go to bolster that image, but he explicitly said no, no worshiping. The only reason I could think that he did actually want to be deified is that the timing wasn't correct.

The problem I have with the Emperor intending to create an atheist, religion free society, is that he failed so miserably at it. The Emperor had physical, mental and psychic powers that far surpass any human, and yet he set up the Imperium for exactly the opposite of what he intended? Sounds rather inept and not Emperor-esque.

Also, the fact that he attempted to eradicate other religions means nothing, or else supports that he intended to fill the vacuum. What better way to guarantee your own religion than the extinguish the others?

Anyways, a lot of this is supposition of motivation based on how events turned out. I, for one, think is is a possibility, though not readily supported.

Your missing the entire point of 40K. The Imperium is the exact opposite of everything that The Emperor set out to do. Everyday the Emperor rolls over in his grave (or throne rather). Happens right after they sacrifice 1000 psykers to him in Chaos-like dark ritual.

Yup - there's that 'subtle irony' that the writers seem to be aiming for these days!

1hadhq wrote:Seems we can't solve it from the ecclesiarchys POV then.
But maybe a solution isn't neccessary as 2 possible views are better than 1 set in stone.

Wait what, you mean it's okay to disagree with someone? How dare you suggest that. Alpharius will be along to warn you shortly.

First off, deep breath Alphy, not trying to troll you here.

Think of it this way: what people say has many levels, like an onion has peels. There is a literal level, the outer peel. It's often used to disguise the inner peels, in a variety of ways for a variety of reasons. So you might hear a Golden Daemon winner saying "I'm not such a great painter." But if you show me her/his award-winning model and still argue that he's not such a good painter, quoting him as your evidence, then don't expect me to be convinced.

Same with the Emperor, as Melissa has noted. Claiming that you don't want to to be worshipped while you also claim utter, uncompromising authority over the entire galaxy . . . just doesn't add up. Now getting rid of all religions and philosophies that differ from yours . . . well, that makes sense. Because they're competing against your vision; and it's that vision which is the source of your legitimacy. Horus's response to the Emperor's claims could be summed up as "don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining."

Or maybe its just that Alpharius has obviously read the HH books.

The Imperial Cult isn't called that for no reason. The Lecticio Divinatus (sp?) started out as a secret, shadowy and completely ILLEGAL cult. Only after The Emperor's death when every rule in the book was being broken did it get sanctioned as the official religon of the Imperium. What was happening of course was the Ecclesiarchy had become so powerful it wanted a seat on the high lords of Terra. There was no point enforcing that law anymore as that cult was at least very obvious in its allegiance with the Emperor.

It's just politics: just like real religon.

I am most definitely not missing the entire point of 40k. The 'subtle irony', as Alph aptly and sarcastically put it, is impossible to miss. I don't think anyone could miss it.

Anyways, I see your side Canuck. It is entirely possible that the Emperor extended his power to far (he is 'human' after all, please don't burn me) and genuinely failed at his endeavor.

I can see this argument hinging on the Emperor's level of power. He was undeniably strong but, 1. Was he fallible? In that case, he probably did strive for the goals he stated, didn't want to be worshiped but failed. 2. Was his prescience near infallible? Then he probably intended to set himself up for deification.

I assume he was fallible, but the fluff that I know has him spending tens of thousands of years manipulating human history. Apparently, he didn't learn a damn thing about humans in that time if he didn't think his actions would lead to him being worshiped.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:The Imperial Cult isn't called that for no reason.

The word "cult" has nothing to do with something being illicit. For example, Catholics often refer to the cult of the saints.

Melissia wrote:

1hadhq wrote:Seems we can't solve it from the ecclesiarchys POV then.
But maybe a solution isn't neccessary as 2 possible views are better than 1 set in stone.

Wait what, you mean it's okay to disagree with someone? How dare you suggest that. Alpharius will be along to warn you shortly.

I tend to disagree regularly and I am still here without any 'timeouts'..

Manchu wrote:First off, deep breath Alphy, not trying to troll you here.

Think of it this way: what people say has many levels, like an onion has peels. There is a literal level, the outer peel. It's often used to disguise the inner peels, in a variety of ways for a variety of reasons. So you might hear a Golden Daemon winner saying "I'm not such a great painter." But if you show me her/his award-winning model and still argue that he's not such a good painter, quoting him as your evidence, then don't expect me to be convinced.

Same with the Emperor, as Melissa has noted. Claiming that you don't want to to be worshipped while you also claim utter, uncompromising authority over the entire galaxy . . . just doesn't add up. Now getting rid of all religions and philosophies that differ from yours . . . well, that makes sense. Because they're competing against your vision; and it's that vision which is the source of your legitimacy. Horus's response to the Emperor's claims could be summed up as "don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining."

So every tyrant has claimed godhood?
Cause thats your point, good sir. And this point is fail.


Debating his vision seems fine at first glance until you realize we don't know this vision.
What we have are scraps.
It was good enough to convince lots of people to follow.
Why should GW stop every single time when the Emperor told anyone about his vision?
IIRC there is always a meeting of the Emperor and his newly found son but never are we told what was talked there.
I say thats intended.

Melissia wrote:I assume he was fallible, but the fluff that I know has him spending tens of thousands of years manipulating human history. Apparently, he didn't learn a damn thing about humans in that time if he didn't think his actions would lead to him being worshiped.

Couldn't agree more. This is ultimately why the CSM viewpoint is so convincing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@1hadhq: So you think the Emperor is just another failure of a tyrant?