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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
I honestly never understood the "40k promotes fascism" thing.

Some people can't separate fiction from real life. That simple, unfortunately.

Unfortunately, this is true. We can all sit here and say "but no-one would think that the Imperium is good and right in what they do, and apply that to the real world", but there are people who do. And regardless if *we* know that they didn't get the joke, that's not much help when they're going around calling to "purge the heretics" and "tolerance is for the weak", and clearly didn't get the memo. The least we can do is say "hey bud, just to let you know, in black and white terms, the Imperium's awful, and those beliefs are awful".

Yeah we're more saying that the people who think that 40K promotes/endorses/approves of totalitarianism are stupid.

You've got it backwards.

I think that anyone seriously ascribing/inferring any kind of real world values to some made up toy solider make-believe universe needs their noggin checked lol..

GW as a company/PR however is a separate beast...

Its like separating the artist from the art. Some people just cant do that.

I think the creepiest thing about 9ed Books are those wierd bubble head aliens and the mushroom things! What is up with that art. That's nightmare worthy weirdness..

Tiberias wrote:


Now, here's the thing. The imperium of man in 40k does the exact same thing, only that those threats are very real. Almost everything in this fictional universe is actively trying to destroy the imperium and kill it's citizens, or worse.
Does that mean that the imperium are the good guys and their ways are to be endorsed? Hell no! They are freaking horrible, but they also managed to survive through a ten thousand year period of cultural, philosophical and technical decline.
It's an interesting thought experiment as to what cicumstances would have to occur, that such a totalitarian, xenophobic way of thinking would be the most effective way forward for a civilization in total decline.

But that's not true either. The Imperium is very much NOT the most effective system in its circumstances. It is a tragic, failing corpse in long, agonising life support that does stupid, wasteful things all the time. Rote ritual, superstition and veneration of old times when man hadn't fethed up everything aren't effective, they are barely functional enough to survive yet another day.

Part of the "40k promotes fascism ermahgerd" situation is that some folks really buy into that thought experiment. For someone who views the real world in ugly "us vs. them" narratives, it's not a big leap to think resorting to horrible draconian measures is "the only way" to keep "us" safe from "them" and sympathise with the Imperium. But that's bs. The Imperium doesn't have to be like that to survive, it could do much better by not oppressing its citizens, trading with nonhostile xenos cultures instead of destroying them and so on. It is like that because it has degenerated into a massive mockery of bad government and breakdown of basic human decency: it laughs at the hardliner idiots whose fault it is that the future is a hellhole instead of a Star Trek utopia. That's the whole point of forgetting the promise of technology and progress in the far future of only war: it's not that we must, it's just that we're too deep in to see we really could do better.

 Sherrypie wrote:
Part of the "40k promotes fascism ermahgerd" situation is that some folks really buy into that thought experiment.

And the other half are those that believe people support fascism because they like 40k.

Both are awful, but that latter group are by far the worst simply because the former can be easily dismissed as pack of idiots, where as those who genuinely think that liking the "bad guys" means you support/are a bad guy are very hard to interact with, as they tend to draw everything back to that completely off-base and unfounded notion.

*corrected spelling

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Part of the "40k promotes fascism ermahgerd" situation is that some folks really buy into that thought experiment.

And the other have are those that believe people support fascism because they like 40k.

Both are awful, but that latter group are by far the worst simply because the former can be easily dismissed as pack of idiots, where as those who genuinely think that liking the "bad guys" means you support/are a bad guy are very hard to interact with, as they tend to draw everything back to that completely off-base and unfounded notion.

Yes, that is also rather tiresome. Sometimes they can be reasoned with through other examples like pointing out that surely a massive portion of the planet's teenage population wasn't suddenly supporting violent anarchy just because they liked Loki in Marvel movies for a variety of reasons, but sometimes you just can't. Heck, usually the villains have better character motivations and more interesting stories of how they ended up in their spot than the usual protagonists anyway

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah we're more saying that the people who think that 40K promotes/endorses/approves of totalitarianism are stupid.

You've got it backwards.

I would like the know the way of thought that draws someone from w40k any faction lore, to actual political system in the real world. Because in the case of the imperial system, it would be rather hard to do, earth has only two kind of a similar govmerments, but I don't think I ever saw anyone on any forum express the need of building another Iran or Vattican where they live.

But on the other hand my own thoughts go on strange paths too, so who knows. Although if someone were to worry about people like me, thinking strange things, then everything would have to be banned, because everything can make you think strange things or in strange ways, when you are strange yourself.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
I honestly never understood the "40k promotes fascism" thing.

Some people can't separate fiction from real life. That simple, unfortunately.

Unfortunately, this is true. We can all sit here and say "but no-one would think that the Imperium is good and right in what they do, and apply that to the real world", but there are people who do. And regardless if *we* know that they didn't get the joke, that's not much help when they're going around calling to "purge the heretics" and "tolerance is for the weak", and clearly didn't get the memo. The least we can do is say "hey bud, just to let you know, in black and white terms, the Imperium's awful, and those beliefs are awful".

Do people really though? Or are there more people outraged about some people posting dumb quotes on the internet to try to be edgy or funny?
And even if there were, what would your solution be? Censor the lore of 40k? Censor the artwork? I'm sure you would agree that wouldn't be the best idea.
I am a firm advocate of letting people spout whatever nonsense they want, but I also think it's the responsibility of the remaining people who are still sane to challenge that nonsense and say that it is wrong and why.

Tiberias wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
I honestly never understood the "40k promotes fascism" thing.

Some people can't separate fiction from real life. That simple, unfortunately.

Unfortunately, this is true. We can all sit here and say "but no-one would think that the Imperium is good and right in what they do, and apply that to the real world", but there are people who do. And regardless if *we* know that they didn't get the joke, that's not much help when they're going around calling to "purge the heretics" and "tolerance is for the weak", and clearly didn't get the memo. The least we can do is say "hey bud, just to let you know, in black and white terms, the Imperium's awful, and those beliefs are awful".

Do people really though? Or are there more people outraged about some people posting dumb quotes on the internet to try to be edgy or funny?
And even if there were, what would your solution be? Censor the lore of 40k? Censor the artwork? I'm sure you would agree that wouldn't be the best idea.
I am a firm advocate of letting people spout whatever nonsense they want, but I also think it's the responsibility of the remaining people who are still sane to challenge that nonsense and say that it is wrong and why.

Also , a lot of the drama get's hyped up for no reason other then to generate traffic online.

In many ways further, it's like the old videgame shtick , aka videogames cause violence, nonsense that went arround and arround and still does.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Yeah we're more saying that the people who think that 40K promotes/endorses/approves of totalitarianism are stupid.

Oh, they are stupid. Horrifically, undeniably stupid. But they're still doing those things, stupid or not.

Tiberias wrote:Do people really though? Or are there more people outraged about some people posting dumb quotes on the internet to try to be edgy or funny?

As far as I'm concerned, there's not a difference. Someone posting fashy stuff as a joke or because they genuinely believe it is still posting it. Someone behaving just a bit too "Imperial" in a hobby store is still doing it, even if it's a joke.

And even if there were, what would your solution be? Censor the lore of 40k? Censor the artwork? I'm sure you would agree that wouldn't be the best idea.

No, certainly not. I'm talking about making CLEAR that the Imperium are evil, with essentially statements of "hey, if you look at the Imperium and see something admirable, get lost", and straight-facedly saying "the Imperium's bad" instead of saying it with a bit of a tongue-in-cheek. Basically, to come back to the OP - make it clear that it being "creepy" is the intention and to be expected.

I am a firm advocate of letting people spout whatever nonsense they want, but I also think it's the responsibility of the remaining people who are still sane to challenge that nonsense and say that it is wrong and why.

I definitely agree with the latter, not so much the first.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Tiberias wrote:Do people really though? Or are there more people outraged about some people posting dumb quotes on the internet to try to be edgy or funny?

As far as I'm concerned, there's not a difference. Someone posting fashy stuff as a joke or because they genuinely believe it is still posting it. Someone behaving just a bit too "Imperial" in a hobby store is still doing it, even if it's a joke.

Heaven forbid people cosplay or get into character as anything other than the good guys.
Not that there are any good guys in 40k of course.


We should probably stop people playing the game at all come to think of it, since whatever side you play your glorifying horrific things. Better ban the PC games and the books too! Might get people being a little bit too Sisters-of-battley, or a little bit Tauish.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
We should probably stop people playing the game at all come to think of it, since whatever side you play your glorifying horrific things. Better ban the PC games and the books too! Might get people being a little bit too Sisters-of-battley, or a little bit Tauish.

The only faction that doesn't really do anything horrible would be the Exodites. They're just the Eldar Amish.

That's probably why they're not playable, they're just not evil enough for 40k standards

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Someone posting fashy stuff as a joke or because they genuinely believe it is still posting it. Someone behaving just a bit too "Imperial" in a hobby store is still doing it, even if it's a joke.

Heaven forbid people cosplay or get into character as anything other than the good guys.

That's not what I'm talking about, and you know it. Don't be disingenuous.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Yeah we're more saying that the people who think that 40K promotes/endorses/approves of totalitarianism are stupid.

Oh, they are stupid. Horrifically, undeniably stupid. But they're still doing those things, stupid or not.

Tiberias wrote:Do people really though? Or are there more people outraged about some people posting dumb quotes on the internet to try to be edgy or funny?

As far as I'm concerned, there's not a difference. Someone posting fashy stuff as a joke or because they genuinely believe it is still posting it. Someone behaving just a bit too "Imperial" in a hobby store is still doing it, even if it's a joke.

And even if there were, what would your solution be? Censor the lore of 40k? Censor the artwork? I'm sure you would agree that wouldn't be the best idea.

No, certainly not. I'm talking about making CLEAR that the Imperium are evil, with essentially statements of "hey, if you look at the Imperium and see something admirable, get lost", and straight-facedly saying "the Imperium's bad" instead of saying it with a bit of a tongue-in-cheek. Basically, to come back to the OP - make it clear that it being "creepy" is the intention and to be expected.

I am a firm advocate of letting people spout whatever nonsense they want, but I also think it's the responsibility of the remaining people who are still sane to challenge that nonsense and say that it is wrong and why.

I definitely agree with the latter, not so much the first.

I heavily disagree with you on most points there. First of all when you say you disagree with my point on letting people freely spout their nonsense. How would you stop that? Prohibiting certain speech? I am sure you would also agree this would be a bad idea.
Also saying that GW has to spell out that the imperium are definitely the bad guys and it should not be in a challenging or tounge and cheek way is really patronizing and, sorry, frankly quite ridiculous.
Again we are talking about fiction here. If someone comes to the conclusion for example that the empire from star wars are in fact the good guys and their autocratic ways are the way to go, are the makers of star wars then morally compelled to issue a statement at the begin of every movie that states: beware! The empire are in fact the bad guys!" I mean come on...

Tiberias wrote:
I heavily disagree with you on most points there. First of all when you say you disagree with my point on letting people freely spout their nonsense. How would you stop that? Prohibiting certain speech? I am sure you would also agree this would be a bad idea.

"Certain speech" that calls for the demonisation of others because of reasons out of their control shouldn't be free. So, no, not a bad idea at all. But that's getting very near to politics (really shouldn't be political though), so I suggest this tangent end there.

Also saying that GW has to spell out that the imperium are definitely the bad guys and it should not be in a challenging or tounge and cheek way is really patronizing and, sorry, frankly quite ridiculous.

I wish it were ridiculous that it needed to be spelled out to some people, but unfortunately, there are those who need to be told that bluntly.
I'm not saying that those people have a point. I'm saying that, regardless if we say they're stupid or not, they're still doing it.

Again we are talking about fiction here. If someone comes to the conclusion for example that the empire from star wars are in fact the good guys and their autocratic ways are the way to go, are the makers of star wars then morally compelled to issue a statement at the begin of every movie that states: beware! The empire are in fact the bad guys!" I mean come on...

I mean... yeah. If a significant portion of the Star Wars fanbase were to turn around and say "yeah guys, the Empire was totally justified in everything it did", I *would* expect something to change regarding depiction of the Empire. But, thankfully, most people who watch Star Wars find it pretty easy to see that the Empire's evil. But 40k? First, you have to deal with the simple nature of anthropocentricism, which will put people on the "humans=good" side anyway, then that you have terms like "heroic" thrown around when talking about certain Imperial factions, and then the sheer amount of "well, sure everyone's a *bad* guy, but the Imperium's not THAT bad" comments that people make? Like, even to someone not familiar with SW, at least they can pretty easily identify who the bad guys are. The same can't be said for 40k, because *everyone* is. And it's okay that everyone's a bad guy - but when there's a fairly significant amount of people missing that, we really ought to consider *why* such a high percentage miss it.

In the context of the 40k universe I like the Imperium personally. Hell, I have the Imperium Flag on my wall, car, and tool chest at work(along with the Inquisition I, and a purity seal). In a real life context it is terrifying, but for the absolute horror (or at least how it was portrayed in the past) of the 41st millennium not as much. I only play Imperial forces (Ultramarines,Grey Knights, Custodes, Imperial Guard in kill team, Imperial Navy and Ultramarines in Battlefleet Gothic, Imperial Navy and IG in Aeronautica Imperialis, and Enforcers in Necromunda). I always viewed it as look how dystopian and totalitarian the Imperium is and they are nominally who you are supposed to root for as the lesser of evils (or weevils as Capt Aubrey would say) or as "a united humanity". Knowing our history I'd say an Imperium (not the "magic" stuff) is more likely than a utopia like Star Trek. I'd rather the system from Star Ship Troopers (the book damn it not the movie) if I had a choice. To be clear I don't want the Imperium to ever be a reality, but I like cheering them (and it's heroes who I do find many of which to be awesome) on in the lore. As for rulebook art? Go back to the grim dark look I say.

"Remind me, how do those ironic non-idiots show up in the ratings?"
"They show up the same, my friend, they show up just the same"

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
I heavily disagree with you on most points there. First of all when you say you disagree with my point on letting people freely spout their nonsense. How would you stop that? Prohibiting certain speech? I am sure you would also agree this would be a bad idea.

"Certain speech" that calls for the demonisation of others because of reasons out of their control shouldn't be free. So, no, not a bad idea at all. But that's getting very near to politics (really shouldn't be political though), so I suggest this tangent end there.

Also saying that GW has to spell out that the imperium are definitely the bad guys and it should not be in a challenging or tounge and cheek way is really patronizing and, sorry, frankly quite ridiculous.

I wish it were ridiculous that it needed to be spelled out to some people, but unfortunately, there are those who need to be told that bluntly.
I'm not saying that those people have a point. I'm saying that, regardless if we say they're stupid or not, they're still doing it.

Again we are talking about fiction here. If someone comes to the conclusion for example that the empire from star wars are in fact the good guys and their autocratic ways are the way to go, are the makers of star wars then morally compelled to issue a statement at the begin of every movie that states: beware! The empire are in fact the bad guys!" I mean come on...

I mean... yeah. If a significant portion of the Star Wars fanbase were to turn around and say "yeah guys, the Empire was totally justified in everything it did", I *would* expect something to change regarding depiction of the Empire. But, thankfully, most people who watch Star Wars find it pretty easy to see that the Empire's evil. But 40k? First, you have to deal with the simple nature of anthropocentricism, which will put people on the "humans=good" side anyway, then that you have terms like "heroic" thrown around when talking about certain Imperial factions, and then the sheer amount of "well, sure everyone's a *bad* guy, but the Imperium's not THAT bad" comments that people make? Like, even to someone not familiar with SW, at least they can pretty easily identify who the bad guys are. The same can't be said for 40k, because *everyone* is. And it's okay that everyone's a bad guy - but when there's a fairly significant amount of people missing that, we really ought to consider *why* such a high percentage miss it.

Since this discussion has remained quite civil, which is really awsome btw, I would not refrain from dicsussing general concepts while leaving specific political discussions at the side.
There are limits to free speech in a real life setting, and there should be. You can not incite explicit calls for violence against people or groups no matter their background ethnicity etc for example. I mean you theoretically can, but then you can be charged for doing so, which is a good thing.
But limiting free speech in art or fiction is a very, very slippery slope and 40k is far from requiring such censorship or warning label in my opinion.

And yes, you are correct discerning the imperium as "the bad guys" in the hellhole that is 40k is more challenging when you compare the imperium to other factions. So yeah, compared to what awaits a lowly imperial citizen in the hands of the chaos gods or dark eldar for example, the imperium isn't that bad. This is what makes the whole setting interesting in the first place, as I eluded towards in one of my previous posts. The ways of this horrible imperium of man only "make sense" in the grueling setting of 40k.

If some people can't understand that or want to draw some conclusions to include "lessons" from 40k lore into their real life political values, then those people can and will do the same with star wars, dune and every religious text ever written. Are you gonna put a warning label on the bad parts of every religious book ever written? These can also warp people pretty badly if misused.

And yes I know lets NOT get into religion specifically please, but my point is more on free speech I am NOT saying this or that specific religion is bad! There are some parts in most religions I heavily disagree with, but I will always fight for the right of the pracititioners so practice their religion in piece. I will adress the parts I do not like though, in a civil manner.

So gain, censoring 40k is absolutely not necessary and goes against my understanding of free speech and artistic freedom.

The discussen on these last pages seems to have shifted rather sharply, let's just say that I don't believe Warhammer 40k or similar works are in need of a disclaimer and that I dread any political influence by those who think it does.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Tiberias wrote:Do people really though? Or are there more people outraged about some people posting dumb quotes on the internet to try to be edgy or funny?

As far as I'm concerned, there's not a difference. Someone posting fashy stuff as a joke or because they genuinely believe it is still posting it. Someone behaving just a bit too "Imperial" in a hobby store is still doing it, even if it's a joke.

Heaven forbid people cosplay or get into character as anything other than the good guys.
Not that there are any good guys in 40k of course.


We should probably stop people playing the game at all come to think of it, since whatever side you play your glorifying horrific things. Better ban the PC games and the books too! Might get people being a little bit too Sisters-of-battley, or a little bit Tauish.

This isn't even mistakeable for OP's point, and I don't believe you thought it was when you chose to pretend as much.

What people are arguing for - and approving of - is GW doing more to reaffirm the fundamentals of the 40k universe, ie that there are no good guys here, and trying to map your political ideology to the IoM makes you look goofy. In other words, leaning back into the grimdark that made the brand iconic in the first place, as with the baby bolters.

It's not a question of free speech, it's a question of who you're choosing to foster in your playerbase and why. Nobody wants to sit across a gameboard from a guy who's spending the rest of his weekend preaching to a Youtube following that they're subhuman, much less doing it openly in the store. You can only choose to encourage one of the two - which is it to be?

You may think it's obvious IoM are awful already. I might even think it's obvious. But it's less obvious than it used to be, and clearly enough people don't find it so obvious that they're too embarrassed to try using them as a totem anyway.

GW has a corporate and community responsibility to make the ground as stony as reasonably possible for those people, and I'm heartened to see signs it recognizes as much.

The idea that the Imperium is 'necessary' is not something I remember seeing much ten or twenty years ago. IMO it rather misses the point of the setting; it turns it from a satire of authoritarianism into outright totalitarian/fascist fantasy.

I mean, we have a universe in which a galaxy-spanning totalitarian ethnostate perseveres under the guidance of a Great Leader, needing extreme measures of authority to defend against universally hostile aliens (with whom no negotiation or peace is possible) and subterfuge from within by (((heretics))), with policies of extermination carried out by a caste of ubermensch as routine, and with the entire civilization given over to a war footing. If that's not satirical, it's just The Iron Dream played straight.

I have to wonder how much of that perception has to do with the straight-faced presentation of Imperials, particularly Space Marines, as good guys. When they're both the heroic protagonists and the face of the setting, it's hard to read it as critical of them, their actions, or the society they defend. I think GW's put themselves in a rather difficult position with wanting to sanitize their protagonists for mass-market appeal, but in the process downplaying the negative characteristics that are necessary to avoid it reading like apologism for the Imperium. Gradually, it reads less like things are awful because the Imperium made it awful and continues to make it worse, and more like things are awful despite the best efforts of our noble heroes who rage against the dying of the light.

If there are people with a more surface-level understanding of the setting who are looking at the overtly grim, horrific imagery in the rulebook and asking 'are we the baddies?', then I think it's performing a necessary function.

 catbarf wrote:
Gradually, it reads less like things are awful because the Imperium made it awful and continues to make it worse, and more like things are awful despite the best efforts of our noble heroes who rage against the dying of the light.

If there are people with a more surface-level understanding of the setting who are looking at the overtly grim, horrific imagery in the rulebook and asking 'are we the baddies?', then I think it's performing a necessary function.

This. Since the addition of guilliman, warhammer 30k (and the introduction of that lore to 40k with many many many important characters and factions like the SOS and the Custodes who just "happen" to remember the events of 10,000 years ago with perfect accuracy and clarity) I have seen a great resurgence in folks who want to view the imperium as "only cruel because it has to be".

Events in the lore (like the recent story where the Custodes and SOS slaughter a bunch of probably totally heresy-free Primaris marines because their Firstborn cousins went Renegade) make these people EXTREMELY uncomfortable and they tend to get immediately up in arms. Because it portrays a Custode acting...exactly as someone who believes in the Imperium's ideology would act, and creating a problem for the imperium in doing so (the first canonical Primaris Renegades).

"the imperium creates its own problems" is absolutely a theme that is coming up less and less and less in the lore, particularly when that lore involves the factions within the imperium that people love to love.

the_scotsman wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Gradually, it reads less like things are awful because the Imperium made it awful and continues to make it worse, and more like things are awful despite the best efforts of our noble heroes who rage against the dying of the light.

If there are people with a more surface-level understanding of the setting who are looking at the overtly grim, horrific imagery in the rulebook and asking 'are we the baddies?', then I think it's performing a necessary function.

This. Since the addition of guilliman, warhammer 30k (and the introduction of that lore to 40k with many many many important characters and factions like the SOS and the Custodes who just "happen" to remember the events of 10,000 years ago with perfect accuracy and clarity) I have seen a great resurgence in folks who want to view the imperium as "only cruel because it has to be".

Events in the lore (like the recent story where the Custodes and SOS slaughter a bunch of probably totally heresy-free Primaris marines because their Firstborn cousins went Renegade) make these people EXTREMELY uncomfortable and they tend to get immediately up in arms. Because it portrays a Custode acting...exactly as someone who believes in the Imperium's ideology would act, and creating a problem for the imperium in doing so (the first canonical Primaris Renegades).

"the imperium creates its own problems" is absolutely a theme that is coming up less and less and less in the lore, particularly when that lore involves the factions within the imperium that people love to love.

You definitely have a point with that. That is how I want to see the Imperium and therefore it is hoe I see them since it is fiction. To me the Imperium is the flickering light (not pure by any means) standing against pure horror thatvwants the destruction and enslavement of the Human species. Lol I know alot if people don't see it that way and it did start as a satire but the novels and newer lore have moved away from that (and to be fair I only read novels from the Imperium's pov). Especially since I play Ultras. Now that does not mean I ever want a human power to become that in reality.

the_scotsman wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Gradually, it reads less like things are awful because the Imperium made it awful and continues to make it worse, and more like things are awful despite the best efforts of our noble heroes who rage against the dying of the light.

If there are people with a more surface-level understanding of the setting who are looking at the overtly grim, horrific imagery in the rulebook and asking 'are we the baddies?', then I think it's performing a necessary function.

This. Since the addition of guilliman, warhammer 30k (and the introduction of that lore to 40k with many many many important characters and factions like the SOS and the Custodes who just "happen" to remember the events of 10,000 years ago with perfect accuracy and clarity) I have seen a great resurgence in folks who want to view the imperium as "only cruel because it has to be".

Events in the lore (like the recent story where the Custodes and SOS slaughter a bunch of probably totally heresy-free Primaris marines because their Firstborn cousins went Renegade) make these people EXTREMELY uncomfortable and they tend to get immediately up in arms. Because it portrays a Custode acting...exactly as someone who believes in the Imperium's ideology would act, and creating a problem for the imperium in doing so (the first canonical Primaris Renegades).

"the imperium creates its own problems" is absolutely a theme that is coming up less and less and less in the lore, particularly when that lore involves the factions within the imperium that people love to love.

Well the story about the brazen drakes is quite recent so they still at least publish lore like that. But even if the custodes didn't kill those brazen drakes, they wouldn't automatically be "the good guys" that endorse the ways of the imperium or embody the good guys quite the opposite.
I've written this time and time again. The custodes are one of the last factions that remember the origin vision the emperor had for the imperium and they have the skills, knowledge and tech to further that vision, yet for ten thousand years they chose not to do it. Still, they lament the state of the imperium,even look down on it. Which makes them massive hypocrites. They lack the vision and initiative to act on their own on most things that does not concern the safety of the emperor or holy Terra (maybe the sol system). They also often act as completely uncharismatic, arrogant buffoons, who make horrible desicions despite their recources and training.
This is what makes them interesting.

With guilliman it's a similar thing. He woke up to a complete craphole of an imperium. A perverted version of what he fought for initially (though the primarchs weren't exactly good guys during the crusade but still...) and now he has to pick up the pieces and try to reform that rotting moloch of an empire. A task which he will most likely not succeed in doing.
This is what makes the recent "good" characters interesting imo, their efforts are ultimately in vain and they probably know it too.

And leaving all that aside. Guilliman and all the other primarchs are still and always have been, genocidal warlords even by the standards of 40k.

 catbarf wrote:
The idea that the Imperium is 'necessary' is not something I remember seeing much ten or twenty years ago. IMO it rather misses the point of the setting; it turns it from a satire of authoritarianism into outright totalitarian/fascist fantasy.

I mean, we have a universe in which a galaxy-spanning totalitarian ethnostate perseveres under the guidance of a Great Leader, needing extreme measures of authority to defend against universally hostile aliens (with whom no negotiation or peace is possible) and subterfuge from within by (((heretics))), with policies of extermination carried out by a caste of ubermensch as routine, and with the entire civilization given over to a war footing. If that's not satirical, it's just The Iron Dream played straight.

I have to wonder how much of that perception has to do with the straight-faced presentation of Imperials, particularly Space Marines, as good guys. When they're both the heroic protagonists and the face of the setting, it's hard to read it as critical of them, their actions, or the society they defend. I think GW's put themselves in a rather difficult position with wanting to sanitize their protagonists for mass-market appeal, but in the process downplaying the negative characteristics that are necessary to avoid it reading like apologism for the Imperium. Gradually, it reads less like things are awful because the Imperium made it awful and continues to make it worse, and more like things are awful despite the best efforts of our noble heroes who rage against the dying of the light.

If there are people with a more surface-level understanding of the setting who are looking at the overtly grim, horrific imagery in the rulebook and asking 'are we the baddies?', then I think it's performing a necessary function.

Bruh, don't use the triple parenthesis, especially when discussing this topic... Might give the wrong impression.

Tiberias wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Gradually, it reads less like things are awful because the Imperium made it awful and continues to make it worse, and more like things are awful despite the best efforts of our noble heroes who rage against the dying of the light.

If there are people with a more surface-level understanding of the setting who are looking at the overtly grim, horrific imagery in the rulebook and asking 'are we the baddies?', then I think it's performing a necessary function.

This. Since the addition of guilliman, warhammer 30k (and the introduction of that lore to 40k with many many many important characters and factions like the SOS and the Custodes who just "happen" to remember the events of 10,000 years ago with perfect accuracy and clarity) I have seen a great resurgence in folks who want to view the imperium as "only cruel because it has to be".

Events in the lore (like the recent story where the Custodes and SOS slaughter a bunch of probably totally heresy-free Primaris marines because their Firstborn cousins went Renegade) make these people EXTREMELY uncomfortable and they tend to get immediately up in arms. Because it portrays a Custode acting...exactly as someone who believes in the Imperium's ideology would act, and creating a problem for the imperium in doing so (the first canonical Primaris Renegades).

"the imperium creates its own problems" is absolutely a theme that is coming up less and less and less in the lore, particularly when that lore involves the factions within the imperium that people love to love.

Well the story about the brazen drakes is quite recent so they still at least publish lore like that. But even if the custodes didn't kill those brazen drakes, they wouldn't automatically be "the good guys" that endorse the ways of the imperium or embody the good guys quite the opposite.
I've written this time and time again. The custodes are one of the last factions that remember the origin vision the emperor had for the imperium and they have the skills, knowledge and tech to further that vision, yet for ten thousand years they chose not to do it. Still, they lament the state of the imperium,even look down on it. Which makes them massive hypocrites. They lack the vision and initiative to act on their own on most things that does not concern the safety of the emperor or holy Terra (maybe the sol system). They also often act as completely uncharismatic, arrogant buffoons, who make horrible desicions despite their recources and training.
This is what makes them interesting.

With guilliman it's a similar thing. He woke up to a complete craphole of an imperium. A perverted version of what he fought for initially (though the primarchs weren't exactly good guys during the crusade but still...) and now he has to pick up the pieces and try to reform that rotting moloch of an empire. A task which he will most likely not succeed in doing.
This is what makes the recent "good" characters interesting imo, their efforts are ultimately in vain and they probably know it too.

And leaving all that aside. Guilliman and all the other primarchs are still and always have been, genocidal warlords even by the standards of 40k.

Images stick with people more than text. Every bit of text in 40k could have the space marines constantly, consistently portrayed as the baddest worst bad guys and the chaos space marines portrayed as unequivocally the heroes of the setting, and a large number of people would view the marines as the good guys. https://i.redd.it/mvkbm0ktks351.jpg this isn't an image of "a genocidal warlord even by the standards of 40k" that is an image of a hero you're supposed to look at and say "I am going to imagine myself as THAT GUY!"

Even if 100% every single punisher novel and issue hit the core themes of the punisher 100% perfectly, constantly and consistently portraying him as perpetuating a cycle of violence and at least as bad if not worse than the criminals he guns down (since he often responds to "something that is not murder but is a crime" with "murder") if you kept the images the same people would still be wearing punisher T-shirts and indicating that they're like that guy.

the_scotsman wrote:

Tiberias wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Gradually, it reads less like things are awful because the Imperium made it awful and continues to make it worse, and more like things are awful despite the best efforts of our noble heroes who rage against the dying of the light.

If there are people with a more surface-level understanding of the setting who are looking at the overtly grim, horrific imagery in the rulebook and asking 'are we the baddies?', then I think it's performing a necessary function.

This. Since the addition of guilliman, warhammer 30k (and the introduction of that lore to 40k with many many many important characters and factions like the SOS and the Custodes who just "happen" to remember the events of 10,000 years ago with perfect accuracy and clarity) I have seen a great resurgence in folks who want to view the imperium as "only cruel because it has to be".

Events in the lore (like the recent story where the Custodes and SOS slaughter a bunch of probably totally heresy-free Primaris marines because their Firstborn cousins went Renegade) make these people EXTREMELY uncomfortable and they tend to get immediately up in arms. Because it portrays a Custode acting...exactly as someone who believes in the Imperium's ideology would act, and creating a problem for the imperium in doing so (the first canonical Primaris Renegades).

"the imperium creates its own problems" is absolutely a theme that is coming up less and less and less in the lore, particularly when that lore involves the factions within the imperium that people love to love.

Well the story about the brazen drakes is quite recent so they still at least publish lore like that. But even if the custodes didn't kill those brazen drakes, they wouldn't automatically be "the good guys" that endorse the ways of the imperium or embody the good guys quite the opposite.
I've written this time and time again. The custodes are one of the last factions that remember the origin vision the emperor had for the imperium and they have the skills, knowledge and tech to further that vision, yet for ten thousand years they chose not to do it. Still, they lament the state of the imperium,even look down on it. Which makes them massive hypocrites. They lack the vision and initiative to act on their own on most things that does not concern the safety of the emperor or holy Terra (maybe the sol system). They also often act as completely uncharismatic, arrogant buffoons, who make horrible desicions despite their recources and training.
This is what makes them interesting.

With guilliman it's a similar thing. He woke up to a complete craphole of an imperium. A perverted version of what he fought for initially (though the primarchs weren't exactly good guys during the crusade but still...) and now he has to pick up the pieces and try to reform that rotting moloch of an empire. A task which he will most likely not succeed in doing.
This is what makes the recent "good" characters interesting imo, their efforts are ultimately in vain and they probably know it too.

And leaving all that aside. Guilliman and all the other primarchs are still and always have been, genocidal warlords even by the standards of 40k.

Images stick with people more than text. Every bit of text in 40k could have the space marines constantly, consistently portrayed as the baddest worst bad guys and the chaos space marines portrayed as unequivocally the heroes of the setting, and a large number of people would view the marines as the good guys. https://i.redd.it/mvkbm0ktks351.jpg this isn't an image of "a genocidal warlord even by the standards of 40k" that is an image of a hero you're supposed to look at and say "I am going to imagine myself as THAT GUY!"

Even if 100% every single punisher novel and issue hit the core themes of the punisher 100% perfectly, constantly and consistently portraying him as perpetuating a cycle of violence and at least as bad if not worse than the criminals he guns down (since he often responds to "something that is not murder but is a crime" with "murder") if you kept the images the same people would still be wearing punisher T-shirts and indicating that they're like that guy.

I agree! He es depicted as an angelic figure against the demonic figure of abaddon. But here's the thing within the bounds of the fictional universe of 40k he is that angelic figure for the citizens of the imperium, he does actually fight for them.
Does that mean he is a good guy by our real life standards? No, no no!

But this is what I meant with my point about artistic freedom and free speech. Within the confines of your fictional universe that character might be a good guy, but only compared to the myrad of guys who are even worse by a considerable margin.

I honestly don't get at all what 'artistic freedom' and 'free speech' have to do with any of this.

This thread is a bunch of individuals voicing opinions on an image being present.

And you seem to be arguing against the people who are in favor of the image being present...by saying that they want to limit free speech?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
It is though? You had Jack Chick talking about how DnD is secretly making kids worship the devil, just as you have gits claiming that the IoM is great because its fascist or the setting is evil because its fascist and it somehow makes people nazis or some nonsense.
If you encountered such people in person you must have terrible luck, because in all of my years I haven't encountered such folks.

The issue here, and why it's unlike somebody like Chick, Gore, or Thompson, is that these people don't hate the game. They love what they perceive its message to be and wish to co-opt it to promote their own hideous world views. GW can't have that because there is no fast way for a product to become publicly untouchable than to have the skinheads and KKK approving of it without making a formal rebuke and addressing the reasons they've come to your product.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
No, certainly not. I'm talking about making CLEAR that the Imperium are evil, with essentially statements of "hey, if you look at the Imperium and see something admirable, get lost", and straight-facedly saying "the Imperium's bad" instead of saying it with a bit of a tongue-in-cheek.

Basically what they did on Twitter (see sig), but in the medium itself, then?