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 was thinking about the use of the words loyalist and traitor for Space Marines and CSM. I feel like their intention is to set out instantly who the goodies and baddies are, because they aren’t just words used by imperial characters in the stories they are used all over the place in marketing etc.

But of course if you think being loyal to a totalitarian genocidal theocracy makes you a goodie then you need to check yourself. The irony of the use of loyalists and traitors is that it really makes the CSM the goodies because they turned their back and want to destroy the horror that is the imperium that would make the the goodies and the space marines baddies.

There’s a speech by angron where says he doesnt kill and slaughter because he not moral, he does it because the butchers nails compel him. If he were a moral man he would have killed the emperor already.

I suppose it’s just another way in which GW try to make us all look at the 40K universe through the eyes of an imperial citizen

I mean Space Marines are an Imperial faction and the Chaos Legions betrayed the Imperium by following Horus. There's no morality involved just a definition.
While the Heresy may have started out with the intention of bringing the Emperor to justice, siding with Daemons and dudes like Erebus aren't the way to do it. As the saying goes, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

 Gert wrote:
I mean Space Marines are an Imperial faction and the Chaos Legions betrayed the Imperium by following Horus. There's no morality involved just a definition.

The definition is correct from an imperial perspective but the implication from a game and brand perspective is goodies and baddies, and it’s not on point

So what this is just a general complaint about 40k as a whole?

mrFickle wrote:
I was thinking about the use of the words loyalist and traitor for Space Marines and CSM. I feel like their intention is to set out instantly who the goodies and baddies are, because they aren’t just words used by imperial characters in the stories they are used all over the place in marketing etc.

I'm going to break it to you.

Back in the 90's, Dragon Magazine (the original one, when TSR was the original company) published an article comparing the 40k setting to the Star Wars setting, making the obvious parallels between the two empires.

That's how late your point is.

I don't know if it's the same in english but in german the -ist suffix gives "loyalist" a negative connotation (unlike "loyals" would have). So it makes sense that Chaos followers use the word loyalist, too, even though it's an insult.
So I wouldn't say being a "loyalist" makes you "good" per se, especially, as you pointed out, considering to what these guys are loyal to.

LOYALIST is not usually a very flattering way of refering to a force or institition. It usually equates to defenders of tradition (hardly a fancy concept in a post enlightment world).

Neither is Traitor. Rebel would be more positive.

The selection of words is adecuate for the IOM and the Chaotic Legions, IMHO.

In Ireland, Loyalist does not have particularly positive connotations. But Traitor definitely has worse ones.

Well the default POV in 40k is from the IOM perspective.

No words are innocent but the pair "loyalist/traitor" isnt particularly annoying.

Chaos forces are much more "evil guys" because apart from being the antagonist they lack a proper objective aim beyond "let the Galaxy Burn"... Its hard to be sympathetic to such nihilistic goals.

Back in the early days of 40K, the word 'loyalist', to a British audience, mostly brought to mind the so-called 'loyalist paramilitary' groups in Northern Ireland, like the UVF and UDA. In other words, violent bigots at best and murderous terrorists at worst. When you heard the word 'loyalist' on the news in those days, usually it meant another bunch of people had just been gunned down in a pub somewhere in Ulster. The word certainly didn't have positive connotations back then.

What even is the nice word for loyalist? The word naturally invokes the defense of the status quo. If the status quo has been sufficiently disrupted then you're a rebel which can have better connotations but that obviously doesn't apply to the Imperium.

Loyalty can be seen as a good quality in a person but when organisations use it, it's almost always in a negative context. "We value loyalty to the company/party" etc.

A "loyal person" has a very different connotation than "loyalist", though. The former is a compliment to your character, the latter is a political identification.

"Loyal" and "Loyalist" are used interchangeably with regard to the Legions/Primarchs that remained aligned to the Imperium during the Heresy which is what I'm trying to get at. Plus a lot of people are going to look at "Loyalist" and see "Loyal" i.e. good guys.
I hate this thread because now "Loyal" sounds super weird in my head and when I say it out loud.

They are "loyal" to the corpse of a genocidical and megalomaniac tyrant.

Its seems as flattering as being "loyal" to Daesh or a bloodlust military junta.

The world "loyalist" dosent do much to frame the IOM as the good guys.

Yes but Traitor says a lot. If you don't really know about 40k background and just have a skimmed knowledge of the Imperium (i.e. bad but necessary) then hearing Traitor Legions makes you think Bad Guy so naturally, the faction the Bad Guys betrayed must be the Good Guys. It's very simple logic that you would expect from a child, which is kind of the point.

So what would be the alternative, morally agnostic, terms to refer to the forces gathered arround Abbadon and Guilliman in the current time line?

Chaos and Imperial. Chaos Legions and Imperial Chapters. That's the terms you use. This isn't some huge philosophical debate, it's pretty simple to not use "Loyalist" and "Traitor", those words are just more evocative and better for literary work. An Imperial Marine calling a Chaos Marine a "filthy Traitor" for example.

If Loyalist is an insulting word then I guess I will have to tell my neighbours in Loyalist Township. I guess we have to rename the Loyalist Parkway that the Queen dedicated a few years back? My ancestors self-identifying themselves as United Empire Loyalists was an self-imposed insult?

Or maybe loyalist is a descriptive word for those who stay with the governing system in a rebellion or revolution? So the Space Marine Legions that stayed loyal to the Emperor during the Horus Heresy were sensibly referred to a loyalists? And those that broke away were referred to as traitors. I get that traitor is a loaded word - those who break away will likely use all sorts of other words. Nobody wants to be called a traitor, even when they are. Nothing inherently wrong with being called a loyalist if you are indeed loyal.

40K, for all its grim darkness, is meant to be entertainment and taken with a grain of salt and a pinch of irony. We can take it too seriously.

Problem is that "Chaos" and "Imperial" dont relate to each other from a semantic point of view... And this are the two main human factions fighting for the same basic resource: human flesh and soul.

Loyalist and Traitors are ment to be enemies, if you dont know the inner workings of the setting there is no reason to believe right away that chaotic and imperial forces would be enemies.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
If Loyalist is an insulting word then I guess I will have to tell my neighbours in Loyalist Township. I guess we have to rename the Loyalist Parkway that the Queen dedicated a few years back? My ancestors self-identifying themselves as United Empire Loyalists was an self-imposed insult?

Or maybe loyalist is a descriptive word for those who stay with the governing system in a rebellion or revolution? So the Space Marine Legions that stayed loyal to the Emperor during the Horus Heresy were sensibly referred to a loyalists? And those that broke away were referred to as traitors. I get that traitor is a loaded word - those who break away will likely use all sorts of other words. Nobody wants to be called a traitor, even when they are. Nothing inherently wrong with being called a loyalist if you are indeed loyal.

40K, for all its grim darkness, is meant to be entertainment and taken with a grain of salt and a pinch of irony. We can take it too seriously.

It's not an inherently insulting term, it all depends on context. Loyalist in Ireland implies violent sectarian terrorism.

Vatsetis wrote:
Problem is that "Chaos" and "Imperial" dont relate to each other from a semantic point of view... And this are the two main human factions fighting for the same basic resource: human flesh and soul.

Loyalist and Traitors are ment to be enemies, if you dont know the inner workings of the setting there is no reason to believe right away that chaotic and imperial forces would be enemies.

Going by usual fantasy tropes, Orks and Daemons should be on the same side, but they kill each other constantly. And that's just a basic example; how is someone new to the setting supposed to determine the relationship between "Tau," "Necrons," and "Drukhari?"

The conflict between the IOM and the chaos forces once loyal to Horus, later gathered arround Abbadon, first contained in the Eye of Terror and then spread through the "Great Rift" is the MAIN conflict of the 40k setting... Thats why it needs a special treatment and the pair of words "loyalist/traitors" give a sense of dialectical unity between this two human factions that have been fighting for hegemony over humanity for over 10000 years.

Thats much more significant than the relationship between Tau and Necrons, which is almost meaningless for the setting as a whole.

In that case, since you argue these two factions are so pivotal, shouldn't their positions in the story already suggest that they are diametrically opposed?

Besides, the core conflict in the Imperium isn't Imperium vs. Traitors, it's Imperium vs. Chaos. Genestealer Cults rebel against the Imperium all the time and no one's calling them pivotal to the fate of the galaxy; it's specifically Chaos that is the problem according to your definition.

Are GSC ever refered as traitors in the lore?

Are CSM and SM fighting over the souls and flesh of humanity?

My impression is that CSM continue to fight because they were made to fight and then need to find a fight and largely Abbadon gives them a fight.

The motive behind the invasions of the black crusades have a long game that only abbadon dis really concerned with, which I assume is the death of the emperor which is why CSM keep shouting death to the false emperor.

I assume they will then just allow humanity to get on with it and who knows they might do better if they aren’t under the yoke of the emperor and those who reign in his name.

The point is loyal and traitor all depend on you point of view and the point of view we are given is the imperial one

Vatsetis wrote:
Are GSC ever refered as traitors in the lore?

a fair bit, hell you often have a case where you get a novel where the protagionist is fighting against a revolution and it's only when a guy with 4 arms shows up in the final third of the book that they realize they're dealing with a genestealer cult and not say... a chaos cult

Well, it is of course quite complex.

Are Loyalists only loyal to The Imperium? Or to Humanity, recognising that horrific as it is, The Imperium remains the best chance for humanity to survive an increasing hostile Galaxy.

Are the CSM just Traitors to the Throne (which they absolutely are), or the more serious Traitors to humanity - their every act further imperilling the species’ chances of survival.

If we go back to the Great Crusade, it seems pretty clear The Emperor ultimately had good intentions for Humanity. We can look to the Ultramar System and it’s 500 worlds as the dream made real. 500 worlds coexisting and contributing to each other in relative peace and harmony,

Sure, to get there for the entire Galaxy, The Emperor was more than willing to wipe out every other civilisation, including human ones that refused his rule.

But that was only the first step, the necessary cleansing and war making out of the way as quickly as possible, so a (theoretical) lasting peace could be born in its wake.

I mean, consider the staggering level of The Imperium’s resources, even in its currently tenuous state. Then remove the need to support a mind bendingly huge military presence Galaxy wide.

In theory, Hive Worlds could see their population divided amongst less populous worlds, alleviating some of the worst conditions in the Imperium.

With resources turned to settlement rather than militaristic campaigns, currently dead worlds could be easily terraformed, and on a pretty large scale. Sure it would take time but the technology does exist already. It’s even comfortably arguable that in a state of peace, each and every planet with its own moon or moons could terraform them into their own, personal agri-worlds, relieving a lot of logistical pressure upon those running the Imperium.

But Horus denied that dream. It’s by his actions that the nascent Imperium was torn asunder, and so much damage caused. Those that followed him willingly shattered any chance of peace humanity might’ve known in the future.

Not only were around half of the military assets turned upon the other half, but campaigns to eradicate other threatening species were forgotten, allowing all manner of Xenos to lick their wounds and begin marshalling their forces once again.

Consider the Tyranids. A united Imperium, long since done fighting Orks and Eldar would stand a solid chance against them. Shipyards could churn out battlefleet after battlefleet - and the crews wouldn’t be exactly hard to come by, either.

Some of the most ridiculous weapons of the setting would still be held, albeit likely mothballed as a “just in case”.

The Hive Fleets would be a threat all the same, but one somewhat reduced, because The Imperium wouldn’t have spent the past 10,000 (maybe 9,000?) years chasing its tail, putting out one fire after another.

Tau? They’d just go squish, even if their accelerated development period still occurred. Utterly flattened.

Necrons? Good bit dicier, here. We don’t really know if The Emperor knew much about them, let alone that even entirely peaceful and productive worlds could be harbouring a Tomb Complex, awaiting its alarm going off. But like the Tyranids, they’d be facing a whole and healthy (well, healthier) Imperium better placed to counter them.

Both those relative new species would still bring a new era of war - but it seems likely they’d be wars The Imperium had a decent chance of winning.

Doc, what a brilliant confirmation that upholding Astartes to god like levels of power strongly correlates to imagining the IOM under the most positive light.

The most selfdefeating entity of the whole 40K setting is the IOM, its not Horus and his "traitors" from 10.000 years in the past, its not the mutant, the heretic or the xenos... Most of which would probably leave the IOM alone if they were not prosecuted... Its the Ecclesiarchy, the High Lords of Terra and the SM Chapters those too blame first for the horrible condition of humanity in the 40K setting.

It's multiple things. There isn't a single cause for the poor state of the Imperium. It's bad because of all of the bad things that keep happening.
Do you understand more than one thing can be bad?