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 potential is all a Custodes needs though.

They have absolute authority. Given the Imperium will gladly wipe out a planet to root out Heresy, is the loss of a Chapter so different, especially when you consider the potential harm they could do?

The Custodes ordered them to stand down. They did not. That's the evidence of Heresy. It's right there.

The Custodes asked twice when he had all the proof he needed that the seed of Heresy had been planted the first time.

He attempted to control the situation and keep it from escalating to 200 rogue marine running rampant in his fleet, but it failed because the marines where Heretics.

I don't understand what he should have done instead, even following real world logic.

1. There is a chapter of heretic marines on the planet you're orbiting.
2. You have reinforcements for that chapter on board your ship.
3. Adeptus Astartes have extremely strong feelings of fraternity.
4. Even exposure to Chaos can turn chapters.

So what do you do? After taking in all that information, you order (you do not politely ask, you're a military superior, not a buddy) them to stand down while you further evaluate their disposition and gather more information about the situation on the ground. Oh, they don't stand down and they immediately begin vouching for their corrupted brothers? Okay, this is a really bad situation for the Custodes, so he resolved it per the Grimdarkness of the 41st Millenium.

It also helps portray The Imperium as not being all Happy Clappy just because Guilliman has returned.

They’re pulling mostly in the same direction, but the Custodes duty comes first, every time.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:The potential is all a Custodes needs though.

They have absolute authority. Given the Imperium will gladly wipe out a planet to root out Heresy, is the loss of a Chapter so different, especially when you consider the potential harm they could do?

Right, yeah, but why do these Greyshields have more potential than the Iron Hands? If the Custodes are happy to demand these Marines stand down because a completely unrelated Chapter did something wrong, why aren't they also demanding the Wolves come to heel because of their own rogue members in the Gaudinian Heresy?

Rihgu wrote:The Custodes ordered them to stand down. They did not. That's the evidence of Heresy. It's right there.

Yes, but I'm asking why the Custodian asked them them stand down in the first place. The Marines ultimately doom themselves, but not before the Custodian already plays his hand.

That's the thing I'm debating here, not whatever happened afterwards. How the Marines reacted is irrelevant for answering why the Custodian accused them of corruption in the first place.
What you're doing is saying "the policeman found evidence at this person's house, therefore they must be guilty", and ignoring why the policeman got a warrant to search the otherwise completely innocuous house in the first place. (And yes, I know the Imperium doesn't work on our legal principles, but we have enough demonstration from the Custodes, from the fact that they've not exterminated the Ultramarines, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Imperial Fists, Iron Hands and nearly every other Chapter, that they don't just arrest on such flimsy charges).

1. There is a chapter of heretic marines on the planet you're orbiting.
2. You have reinforcements for that chapter on board your ship.
3. Adeptus Astartes have extremely strong feelings of fraternity.
4. Even exposure to Chaos can turn chapters.

You ignore the fact that these reinforcements have never met the Chapter they're reinforcing, and haven't had any kind of exposure that you couldn't have known about. There is absolutely no reason the Marines they were escorting were in any way corrupted beyond any other loyal Chapter, so why accuse them of corruption?

If those are the requirements for arresting those Marines, why don't the Custodes do it to every First Founding Chapter?

So what do you do? After taking in all that information, you order (you do not politely ask, you're a military superior, not a buddy) them to stand down while you further evaluate their disposition and gather more information about the situation on the ground. Oh, they don't stand down and they immediately begin vouching for their corrupted brothers? Okay, this is a really bad situation for the Custodes, so he resolved it per the Grimdarkness of the 41st Millenium.

Yes, they doom themselves, but that doesn't change the fact the Custodian essentially RDM'd the Marines.
Tell me, are you familiar with games like Trouble in Terrorist Town, or similar games of hidden identity, or what RDM means? Random Death Match, it basically means when a player kills another for no reason in a hidden allegiance game. There's a lot of controversy around RDM, especially when it results in the killing of someone who genuinely was bad. Sure, you succeeded, you killed a bad guy - but that doesn't change the fact that you had no reason to do it.
That's exactly what you're describing - "it was okay for the Custodian to accuse someone he had no real reason to distrust because he was proven right after the fact!" That's inconsistent with what we know from 40k (because we don't see Custodians going around to First Founding Chapters and accusing them or heresy because completely unrelated Chapters fell to Chaos). Yes, everyone is held suspect, and retribution is swift and violent, but people don't just go around accusing completely unrelated groups because someone else was a heretic, and that's certainly not what Custodes are described as doing.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:It also helps portray The Imperium as not being all Happy Clappy just because Guilliman has returned.

They’re pulling mostly in the same direction, but the Custodes duty comes first, every time.

And why couldn't that same story have been done without any mention of Greyshields? Because that's the issue I have here - the fact the Custodian reacted like that to a completely unrelated group of Marines. Had those Marines been actual Brazen Drakes, I wouldn't be saying this.

That's all it is - remove mention of Greyshields, remove mention of "accepting Cawl's Gift". The story is fixed. Why is that so hard to understand?

I think it's worth going back to the story and reviewing it:

- "Apprehend these traitors." as Shield-Captain Tyvar draws is spear and points his gun at the captain.
- Gerion starts to say "Shield-Captain..."
- "You do not address me, Gerion. You do not look at any of these faithful servants of the Emperor. You are tainted by heresy and you will be detained, along with your brothers, until an appropriate fate can be determined."
"Shield-Captain, we do not know the Chapter has truly turned. This may be a mistake, some trick of the enemy. We may have brethren even now attempting to restore the honor of the Brazen Drakes on the world. ... I am not in the habit of betraying my battle-brothers."

It's 40k. You're guilty until proven innocent. Especially when heresy is concerned. And here you've got the Primaris Captain going "I'm willing to ignore an Inquisition edict in order to try to prove the honor of these fellow Space Marines who I've never met."

How, exactly, was that supposed to work out? When a chapter becomes heretics, they don't all just rush out to the Chaos Spikes and Bits store.

Yeah, on the one side, it's the terrible "I knew the suspect was going to resist arrest, so I pulled my gun out, thus escalating the situation and causing what I suspected to happen to happen" bad cop situation. On the other side, it's still the situation where the Captain is NOT saying "OMG, I can't believe we were sent here to reinforce a bunch of filthy traitors! Purge the heretics!"

Because, again, what in the Emperor's Name did the rookie Captain think was going to happen? "I'm going to call up the Crimson Drakes, and by the Emperor's Good Will the person answering is going to be a loyalist and not a Filthy Traitor Acting Like A Loyalist." Or "Hold on. I know the Inquisition says that these people are traitors, but I think we need an independent fact finding mission into this war zone to see what's really happening." The Inquisition response to any of that would be to do what Tyvar did.

If the story was trying to illustrate a conflict between naive new Primaris and the established order, or that the people involved with "Cawl's Miracle" (presumably Guillman and the rest) were more open minded than everyone else thinks they should be, then I think it works.

 solkan wrote:
I think it's worth going back to the story and reviewing it:

- "Apprehend these traitors." as Shield-Captain Tyvar draws is spear and points his gun at the captain.
- Gerion starts to say "Shield-Captain..."
- "You do not address me, Gerion. You do not look at any of these faithful servants of the Emperor. You are tainted by heresy and you will be detained, along with your brothers, until an appropriate fate can be determined."
"Shield-Captain, we do not know the Chapter has truly turned. This may be a mistake, some trick of the enemy. We may have brethren even now attempting to restore the honor of the Brazen Drakes on the world. ... I am not in the habit of betraying my battle-brothers."

It's 40k. You're guilty until proven innocent.

So where are these Custodes fleets going out and demanding the Ultramarines, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, etc etc bend the knee and get detained, hmm?

No. 40k *isn't* guilty until innocent. It's innocent, until you do the slightest thing wrong, and then you are utterly destroyed. That innocence hadn't been broken until the Custodian accused them of something they had no reason to suspect.

If that had been an RPG I was DMing, and the Custodian did that, I'd have called them out for being OOC. It was completely irrational, even for 40k standards, to expect Greyshields to be in league in any way with the traitor Marines. Had they not been Greyshields? Different story. But unfortunately, as much as I mention how simple it would be to just agree that calling them Greyshields was an author mistake, no-one seems to buy it.

Especially when heresy is concerned. And here you've got the Primaris Captain going "I'm willing to ignore an Inquisition edict in order to try to prove the honor of these fellow Space Marines who I've never met."

How, exactly, was that supposed to work out?

Yet again, you've missed my point.
The Marine absolutely signs his own death warrant by doing that. It doesn't change the fact that Custodes had no reason to suspect them in the first place.
Seriously, what is so hard to understand about that?

If the story was trying to illustrate a conflict between naive new Primaris and the established order, or that the people involved with "Cawl's Miracle" (presumably Guillman and the rest) were more open minded than everyone else thinks they should be, then I think it works.

Except it just paints the Custodian (who is described in other material as being expert diplomats and above the whole 'hurr durr heresy lol' mindset) as committing an RDM and finding justification after the fact?

Want to showcase the "conflict between the naive new Primaris and established order"? Give the established order a REASON to distrust the Primaris beyond "you're supposed to be their reinforcements, even though I know you've never met and there's no way you could have been corrupted".

Simple fix? Have the Marines be the first one to react. Have the entire thing start off with the Custodes saying "ah well, looks like the Marines on that planet are traitors, you guys are coming with us to exterminate them", and have Gerion say "hold on, what if this is all a big misunderstanding" - THEN the Custodian has a reason, and the story can play on normally. But as it currently is? It's a mess.

Just to reinforce: I like the core story. I like how it reinforces the Imperium is brutal and unforgiving and takes no chances. I can even appreciate the idea of "new vs old" if that's what they were going for. But their execution raises so many internal issues of consistency and plain stupidity that there's no way I can look at it and not want to do the tiniest, smallest of edits to make it fit.

And so far, no-one has told me why my amendments detract in any way from the original themes and ideas, or why there's no way that the inconsistencies can't be explained by simple authorial mistakes?

You keep asking why the Custodes haven't done this to any of the 1st Founding chapters. Where are the events where a Custodes Shield Captain has been on board a fleet to deliver reinforcements to Ultramar to discover the Ultramarines have turned traitor? There aren't any? Well, that's why the Custodes haven't purged the Ultramarines because some Ultramarines have gone heretic.

Also the Custodes haven't been out and about doing anything for something like, 10,000 years or so.

You're conflating "Brazen Drakes have gone traitor, therefore their Greyshield reinforcements are also guilty" with "The Astral Chickens have gone traitor, therefore their parent chapter are also traitors".
I get the line of logic you're following but it doesn't really ring true. The problem isn't that the Brazen Drakes and therefore everybody associated with them are traitors - it's that the Brazen Drakes went Traitor and the Greyshields defied a direct order to stand down while the Custodes figured out what's happening.

Yes, he accused them perhaps before he had adequate reason to. However, ultimately, his order was just for them to stand down while he figured things out. He happens to naturally distrust Astartes, so he added a little bit more bite to it than needed. However, the Astartes IMMEDIATELY proved him correct by disregarding his order and standing up for their heretic brothers. They fought in the Indomitus Crusade, they know how heresy works.

And so far, no-one has told me why my amendments detract in any way from the original themes and ideas, or why there's no way that the inconsistencies can't be explained by simple authorial mistakes?

You're one of the few people who sees any inconsistencies, which is why nobody else is trying to explain them away.

Rihgu wrote:
You keep asking why the Custodes haven't done this to any of the 1st Founding chapters. Where are the events where a Custodes Shield Captain has been on board a fleet to deliver reinforcements to Ultramar to discover the Ultramarines have turned traitor? There aren't any? Well, that's why the Custodes haven't purged the Ultramarines because some Ultramarines have gone heretic.

If they're happy to accuse these Greyshields because they happy to be ever so slightly related, but don't have the effort to go and humble First Founders with confirmed traitors, then that just makes the Custodes look completely lazy, doesn't it?

Like, you're saying that the Custdoes are totally ruthless and hardline and super duper dedicated to rooting out heresy, but they can't be bothered to go to Ultramar and bring them to heel? Which is it?

Also the Custodes haven't been out and about doing anything for something like, 10,000 years or so.

And now they are, and can. I'm sure their vastly extensive intelligence networks can find out about things like Svane Vulfbad or the Gaudinian Heresy. Now they're out and about, if they're so ruthless, why haven't they paid the Iron Hands a visit?

You're conflating "Brazen Drakes have gone traitor, therefore their Greyshield reinforcements are also guilty" with "The Astral Chickens have gone traitor, therefore their parent chapter are also traitors".
I get the line of logic you're following but it doesn't really ring true. The problem isn't that the Brazen Drakes and therefore everybody associated with them are traitors - it's that the Brazen Drakes went Traitor and the Greyshields defied a direct order to stand down while the Custodes figured out what's happening.

The Greyshields weren't given an order to stand down! They were told at gunpoint that they were all traitors! That's a world of difference apart from "direct order to stand down".

Had the Custodian given a "stand down" order, I'd agree, but that's not what happened. The only similarity the Greyshields and the Brazen Drakes share is genetic heritage - the Custodian essentially accused every Greyshield on that ship of being a traitor simply because of their genetic affiliation. That is absolutely identical to asking the Blood Angels to surrender because of the acts of the Knights of Blood, or the Ultramarines/Dark Angels because of the acts of the Astral Claws.
There is no reason that the Greyshields should be associated with the actions of the Brazen Drakes, and other Chapters shouldn't.

Yes, he accused them perhaps before he had adequate reason to.

Finally. You admit he didn't have adequate reason. That's my whole point.

However, ultimately, his order was just for them to stand down while he figured things out.

No, it wasn't. Verbatim, his order was "Apprehend these traitors." Not "stand down", not "turn over your weapons", not "sit down". His immediate orders were to arrest them and call them traitors. His secondary orders were no better: "You are tainted by heresy and you will be detained, along with all of your battle-brothers, until an appropriate fate can be determined." That's not "stand down", that's 'You're an enemy, and I'm going to decide how to punish you later'.

The Custodian had passed judgement on them before they'd spoken a word. That isn't the same as standing down.

He happens to naturally distrust Astartes, so he added a little bit more bite to it than needed.

Ah yes, calling people traitors is "a little bit more bite", is it?

However, the Astartes IMMEDIATELY proved him correct by disregarding his order and standing up for their heretic brothers.

I'm not disputing that. That still doesn't change the fact that the Custodian essentially acted without any reason. If I went outside and stabbed someone, and then found out they'd just stolen from a shop, I'd still have stabbed that man with no evidence.

And so far, no-one has told me why my amendments detract in any way from the original themes and ideas, or why there's no way that the inconsistencies can't be explained by simple authorial mistakes?

You're one of the few people who sees any inconsistencies, which is why nobody else is trying to explain them away.

No, but you've not told me at all why my amendments are bad, regardless. Irrespective if you think they're necessary or not, what do those changes do that negatively harms the story?

Let's ignore if we think the story is inconsistent or not. If I had retold it, my changes done exactly as I've described, would that be a bad story or not? Simple question.

No, but you've not told me at all why my amendments are bad, regardless. Irrespective if you think they're necessary or not, what do those changes do that negatively harms the story?

Let's ignore if we think the story is inconsistent or not. If I had retold it, my changes done exactly as I've described, would that be a bad story or not? Simple question.

Sure, let's boil it down to this. Your amendments aren't "bad". They tell a different story, though, of a highly reasonable Custodes performing highly reasonable actions, being totally justified in his hatred/distrust of Astartes. There's a different vibe to it.
This harms the story to my taste because it's less of the parts of 40k that I enjoy. I really don't like stories that portray any characters as paragons of virtue, reason, logic, and honor in 40k.
I strongly prefer the story as is, about a Custodes who vents his distaste of Astartes on the closest target with the loosest of justification (but he DOES have logically consistent justification). The last lines of the story would be much weaker, in my opinion, with your amendments.

Let's ignore if we think the story is inconsistent or not. If I had retold it, my changes done exactly as I've described, would that be a bad story or not? Simple question.

Your simple question is pretty disingenuous.

You are of course entitled to your opinion and I don’t think anyone here is disputing that, it is clear that I, and many others simply don’t agree with you, and are unconvinced by your argument.

As for your question, this is akin to asking about any other piece of art or fiction and claiming you could do a better job by changing a few small details. Basically minimal editing. This is quite different from authorship and whether your changes would improve the story or not is irrelevant. Without rewriting the complete piece with your suggested changes it’s impossible to judge the standard of the finished piece.

Good editorial suggestions is a skill in and of itself, but is quite different from creative work from scratch.

Rihgu wrote:
You keep asking why the Custodes haven't done this to any of the 1st Founding chapters. Where are the events where a Custodes Shield Captain has been on board a fleet to deliver reinforcements to Ultramar to discover the Ultramarines have turned traitor? There aren't any? Well, that's why the Custodes haven't purged the Ultramarines because some Ultramarines have gone heretic.

1) Ultramarines have totally turned to Chaos.
2) The Blood Ravens got given Primaris, and they had their Chapter Master become a daemon prince and a good portion of the Chapter turn to Chaos within the last 200 years or so. But that's less cause for purging than the Brazen Drakes Greyshields?

Rihgu wrote:

No, but you've not told me at all why my amendments are bad, regardless. Irrespective if you think they're necessary or not, what do those changes do that negatively harms the story?

Let's ignore if we think the story is inconsistent or not. If I had retold it, my changes done exactly as I've described, would that be a bad story or not? Simple question.

Sure, let's boil it down to this. Your amendments aren't "bad". They tell a different story, though, of a highly reasonable Custodes performing highly reasonable actions, being totally justified in his hatred/distrust of Astartes. There's a different vibe to it.

Sorry, since when is executing people simply because they questioned you "reasonable"?

This is exactly the kind of "grimdumb" I'm on about! The very idea of demanding someone's surrender because people they're even related to should be such an unreasonable thing, the idea of actually going through with it should be horrific. Even IF the Custodian had genuine reason (unlike in the story) to suspect the Marines of being traitors, by our sensibilities, it still shouldn't give him the right to execute them.

*That* is the grimdark part, the fact that the Custodian is even able to execute people on such little reason, not the Custodian accusing people with no reason to do so.
One is horrific and inhumane, the other is just RDM.

This harms the story to my taste because it's less of the parts of 40k that I enjoy. I really don't like stories that portray any characters as paragons of virtue, reason, logic, and honor in 40k.

If you think a character executing someone simply for defending their case is a "paragon of virtue", I don't think it's worth discussing this with you. Yikes.

The Custodes killing the Marines simply for defending themselves is completely grimdark, and totally in line with 40k. It's a horrific act, totally barbaric, simply on it's own accord. If that's not grimdark to you, then I despair for what must be.

I strongly prefer the story as is, about a Custodes who vents his distaste of Astartes on the closest target with the loosest of justification (but he DOES have logically consistent justification).

No, he doesn't. The Greyshields have no connection to the Brazen Drakes (prior to their accusation) that doesn't also incriminate every other Space Marine.
If the Custodian thinks that is enough evidence to call them traitors, he is implying that every Space Marines must be a traitor.

The last lines of the story would be much weaker, in my opinion, with your amendments.

I disagree. They would fit the theme so much better had the Marines be the first ones to act. Think about it. The Custodian says nothing, doesn't react, doesn't accuse the Greyshields of anything. And then, out of nowhere, Gerion leapts to their defence, saying "we should help them, we don't know the whole story, there could be loyalists down there" - that fits so much better into the theme of "Space Marines always side with other Marines", because that's actually being done on their own autonomy. They're not being pressured, they're not being told they're traitors; they're just doing what they think is right - and THEN, after that bombshell, the Custodian has his evidence, and begins the whole "apprehend these traitors" routine. Now, the Custodian both has an explicit reasoning, is still behaving totally grimdark-ly (because even IRL, you'd still want to check that evidence for yourself, you wouldn't arrest someone simply on them suggesting that there might be loyalists), and the theme is actively reinforced by the Marines instead of forced upon them.

Aash wrote:

Let's ignore if we think the story is inconsistent or not. If I had retold it, my changes done exactly as I've described, would that be a bad story or not? Simple question.

Your simple question is pretty disingenuous.

You are of course entitled to your opinion and I don’t think anyone here is disputing that, it is clear that I, and many others simply don’t agree with you, and are unconvinced by your argument.

As for your question, this is akin to asking about any other piece of art or fiction and claiming you could do a better job by changing a few small details. Basically minimal editing. This is quite different from authorship and whether your changes would improve the story or not is irrelevant. Without rewriting the complete piece with your suggested changes it’s impossible to judge the standard of the finished piece.

Good editorial suggestions is a skill in and of itself, but is quite different from creative work from scratch.

It shouldn't be hard to figure out what my revision would be, and the differences within it. I'm literally talking deleting every mention of the word 'Greyshield', it's replacement with a similar term (like Space Marine or Brazen Drake), and wholesale deleting the entire phrase about meeting Kaslyn and their adoptive homeworld, and all that.

It shouldn't be hard to imagine, no? So what's the problem with it? I'm not saying I could write a better story wholesale. I'm not claiming authorship anywhere. I'm saying this one has problems, that I could amend, that would maintain the theme of the work and fix the plot holes and internal inconsistencies it presents. I'm talking about editing, I'm talking internal story control.

I never claimed for a second about "creative work from scratch". So, with that corrected, how about answering my actual question?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Rihgu wrote:
You keep asking why the Custodes haven't done this to any of the 1st Founding chapters. Where are the events where a Custodes Shield Captain has been on board a fleet to deliver reinforcements to Ultramar to discover the Ultramarines have turned traitor? There aren't any? Well, that's why the Custodes haven't purged the Ultramarines because some Ultramarines have gone heretic.

1) Ultramarines have totally turned to Chaos.
2) The Blood Ravens got given Primaris, and they had their Chapter Master become a daemon prince and a good portion of the Chapter turn to Chaos within the last 200 years or so. But that's less cause for purging than the Brazen Drakes Greyshields?

Apparently, the only reason the Custodes haven't done anything about that is because they're lazy, and only deal with traitors when they don't have to walk too far to do it.
Super zealous against Marines, totally grimdark and unreasonable and will absolutely detain Marines for the SLIGHTEST hint of heresy... but only if they're on the same ship. Otherwise, "not our division". Super grimdark, I know.

At least, that's the impression I'm getting.

It shouldn't be hard to figure out what my revision would be, and the differences within it. I'm literally talking deleting every mention of the word 'Greyshield', it's replacement with a similar term (like Space Marine or Brazen Drake), and wholesale deleting the entire phrase about meeting Kaslyn and their adoptive homeworld, and all that.

It shouldn't be hard to imagine, no? So what's the problem with it? I'm not saying I could write a better story wholesale. I'm not claiming authorship anywhere. I'm saying this one has problems, that I could amend, that would maintain the theme of the work and fix the plot holes and internal inconsistencies it presents. I'm talking about editing, I'm talking internal story control.

I never claimed for a second about "creative work from scratch". So, with that corrected, how about answering my actual question?

No, I don’t think the story you aren’t willing to write would necessarily be bad, but I think the one that the author did write is quite good.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with all Sgt_Smudge's points here. The crux of the issue for me is that the custodes instantly escalated the situation because the grey shields were ON PAPER members with the chapter.

If his first response had been to issue a stand down order, that would make sense. But he doesn't. His first response is instead to declare dudes traitors. Not the same thing. He communicated instantly, "I am confirming that you are in fact guilty even though I have no reason to think that you've had any contact or commonality with the traitors on that planet."

Which, yeah. That's pretty dumb. Like, all the individual pieces of the story are fine, but the author seems to have fumbled a critical step in the order of operations.

CUSTODES: Hey guys! We're here. Now everyone put on your new Brazen Drakes name tags!

PRIMARIS: Cool.

BEACON: ALERT! ALL BRAZEN DRAKES ARE TRAITORS!

CUSTODES: Gasp! You tricked me! I thought we were friends!

PRIMARIS: Wait. Wut?

CUSTODES: SILENCE, HERETIC!

*Self-detrimental massacre ensues*

SISTER: Omg, Custodes senpai. You're like, so smart for figuring out they were all traitors before any normal person could have had any reason to think they were! And the way you forced them into armed conflict so that they had no choice but to reveal their heresy? Genius!

The Alpha legion has been working way too hard. Apparently all you need is one inquisitorial access code and a telephone and you can cut an imperial force's numbers in half overnight.

P.S. It's telling that you could do this same scene with orks and everyone would go, "Lol, yeah. That's totally what those silly stupid orks would do."

Aash wrote:No, I don’t think the story you aren’t willing to write would necessarily be bad, but I think the one that the author did write is quite good.

Please read what I've said. I think the core of the story is fine. That's why my 'edits' don't change much of it. It's the small things, small additional details that they've added that drag it from a really entertaining piece into a "wait, what?" story.
Small things, like the Custodian acting without any evidence, to the inconsistency on how Greyshields are portrayed - small things that realistically don't change the core story, but disrupt the internal consistency and logic of the setting.

I'm not sure why there's so much blowback against the idea of "hey, these small things are inconsistent - maybe the story would be better without them".

Wyldhunt wrote:

Spoiler:

Yeah, I pretty much agree with all Sgt_Smudge's points here. The crux of the issue for me is that the custodes instantly escalated the situation because the grey shields were ON PAPER members with the chapter.

If his first response had been to issue a stand down order, that would make sense. But he doesn't. His first response is instead to declare dudes traitors. Not the same thing. He communicated instantly, "I am confirming that you are in fact guilty even though I have no reason to think that you've had any contact or commonality with the traitors on that planet."

Which, yeah. That's pretty dumb. Like, all the individual pieces of the story are fine, but the author seems to have fumbled a critical step in the order of operations.

CUSTODES: Hey guys! We're here. Now everyone put on your new Brazen Drakes name tags!

PRIMARIS: Cool.

BEACON: ALERT! ALL BRAZEN DRAKES ARE TRAITORS!

CUSTODES: Gasp! You tricked me! I thought we were friends!

PRIMARIS: Wait. Wut?

CUSTODES: SILENCE, HERETIC!

*Self-detrimental massacre ensues*

SISTER: Omg, Custodes senpai. You're like, so smart for figuring out they were all traitors before any normal person could have had any reason to think they were! And the way you forced them into armed conflict so that they had no choice but to reveal their heresy? Genius!

The Alpha legion has been working way too hard. Apparently all you need is one inquisitorial access code and a telephone and you can cut an imperial force's numbers in half overnight.

P.S. It's telling that you could do this same scene with orks and everyone would go, "Lol, yeah. That's totally what those silly stupid orks would do."

Exactly, illustrates how I feel about it perfectly. Underlined for emphasis, and the little name tag thing is exactly how it feels this went down, complete with the Custodes' outrage.

If all you need to convince Imperial officials that you're totally in league with traitors is to accuse them of heresy, and when they call you out on such a ridiculous claim, say that this proves their heresy, the Alpha Legion should have taken over the Imperium in days.

Like, if a Custodes goes up to Fenris and tells Logan Grimnar "you are all traitors, and you're coming with me", and Grimnar even says for a second "wait, what is the meaning of this", apparently that makes all Space Wolves traitors?

This conversation wouldn't happening if it was an imperial guard squad.

People assume space marines too much specialness. They're still a cog in the Imperium and can be disposed of and replaced like any other.

Hellebore wrote:
This conversation wouldn't happening if it was an imperial guard squad.

Guardsmen aren't Space Marines. Guardsmen can fall to Chaos with the slightest provocation. The same cannot be said of Space Marines - especially not Space Marines who have been under the watchful eyes of both the Custodes and Sisters of Silence.

The reason the Greyshields are accused isn't even because of anything they've demonstrated. It's because the Marines they were about to join (who, as I grow tired of reminding, would have had nothing to do with them) turned traitor. That's like killing every Cadian because one Cadian halfway across the galaxy turned to Chaos - which judging from the fact that there are still Cadians in the Imperium, tells us that this is not how the IoM operate.

People assume space marines too much specialness. They're still a cog in the Imperium and can be disposed of and replaced like any other.

True. But Space Marines are disposed of with reason. The Custodian had no reason to accuse them in the first place. The Imperium has a brutal calculus of war - but even it doesn't accuse Marines on such trivial grounds as presented here.

Want a grimdark story like this? Try the Abyssal Crusade - the Marines were tried and found guilty, not simply on a whim, but as a direct result of a warp storm to act as the first suspicion. If getting Marines excommunicated were so easy as this story presents itself, ex-Saint Basillius would have had an even easier time.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

That's like killing every Cadian because one Cadian halfway across the galaxy turned to Chaos

It makes even less sense than that. If a guy that came from Cadia fell to chaos, you could at least argue that maybe there was something about his home planet that lead to that fall. This is more like... Imagine a vostroyan regiment gets wiped out, so the last survivors of that regiment get mixed into a predominately cadian regiment. Later the vostroyans fall to chaos, and the custodes decide to kill all cadians because of some vostroyans that never came anywhere near Cadia.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Guardsmen aren't Space Marines. Guardsmen can fall to Chaos with the slightest provocation. The same cannot be said of Space Marines - especially not Space Marines who have been under the watchful eyes of both the Custodes and Sisters of Silence.

What? The same can be said of space marines, and in fact I regularly joke about it.

Good thing that space marines have a strong metabolism, because if they caught a cold they'd turn to nurgle lol.

Well, I didn't think this would turn into such a big discussion when I started this thread...and while I still dislike how the characters were written in this story for the same reasons mentioned in my inital post, I think we all have to give some credit to the author for creating such a reaction to a simple short story.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Guardsmen aren't Space Marines. Guardsmen can fall to Chaos with the slightest provocation. The same cannot be said of Space Marines - especially not Space Marines who have been under the watchful eyes of both the Custodes and Sisters of Silence.

What? The same can be said of space marines, and in fact I regularly joke about it.

Good thing that space marines have a strong metabolism, because if they caught a cold they'd turn to nurgle lol.

I hear this a lot, but I honestly think the whole "Space Marines are always turning traitor" is more a case of 'we're only told those story because they're so big and important'. The Badab War is quoted as being one of the most dangerous conflicts in recent 40k, and as being "unthinkable". And that was, what, one large Chapter that actually fell to Chaos? And sure, you have the Abyssal Crusade, but that was literally Chapters being thrown into the Eye of Terror itself, hardly normal conditions.

Basically, it's like the myth of "all the Dark Angels do is chase the Fallen!", when that's only a very small proportion of their operations. It's just that we, the audience, are predominantly shown those stories. Or how Space Marines seem to show up in every fight, but that's only because GW focuses on them.

I'm not saying Marines are incorruptible, they definitely *are* corruptible, but nowhere near the same degree as Guardsmen.

My favorite thing is whataboutism.

"The Brazen Drakes were declared traitors wholesale because some of them fell to chaos."

"Well, WHAT ABOUT the space wolves?"

-.- this isn't about the SW, it's about the Brazen Drakes.

And for what it's worth, I think it's gak writing that the Space Wolves haven't been called out for their gak, especially given the Month of Shame or whatever it's called where they actively fought the Inquisition. THAT'S bad writing, not this excellent short story.

GW's writing is full of inconsistency. The Ecclesiarchy gets to assassinate Space Marines with no consequences, Marines do dodgy stuff all the time and a race of geniuses make idiotic mistakes.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
My favorite thing is whataboutism.

"The Brazen Drakes were declared traitors wholesale because some of them fell to chaos."

"Well, WHAT ABOUT the space wolves?"

-.- this isn't about the SW, it's about the Brazen Drakes.

No-one's explained why it's exclusive to the Brazen Drakes though? Why should be be a difference?

And for what it's worth, I think it's gak writing that the Space Wolves haven't been called out for their gak, especially given the Month of Shame or whatever it's called where they actively fought the Inquisition. THAT'S bad writing, not this excellent short story.

The Wolves should be called out, but this short story isn't flawless. I don't disagree that it's themes are great, but the details really bog this down.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
My favorite thing is whataboutism.

"The Brazen Drakes were declared traitors wholesale because some of them fell to chaos."

"Well, WHAT ABOUT the space wolves?"

-.- this isn't about the SW, it's about the Brazen Drakes.

No-one's explained why it's exclusive to the Brazen Drakes though? Why should be be a difference?

There shouldn't. The other chapters should've been called out also. They weren't because of gak writing. I've held the opinion that that's crap writing even before this short story released - indeed, it's finally a welcome change for the marines not to be wearing plot armor thicker than their power armor.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

And for what it's worth, I think it's gak writing that the Space Wolves haven't been called out for their gak, especially given the Month of Shame or whatever it's called where they actively fought the Inquisition. THAT'S bad writing, not this excellent short story.

The Wolves should be called out, but this short story isn't flawless. I don't disagree that it's themes are great, but the details really bog this down.

It's a short story; I wouldn't worry about the details. The themes it presents are the meat and potatoes of the story, and the individual details aren't that problematic imo. The specific culture surrounding the induction of greyshields into a chapter probably varies from chapter-to-chapter anyways; it's not as egregious as Land Raiders armed with Multilasers or anything (which happened in a real novel by the by).

A Multilaser Land Raider makes much more sense though.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sorry, since when is executing people simply because they questioned you "reasonable"?

Isn't... isn't the entire purpose of you proposing amendments to make it more reasonable to you? You keep talking about "they have no reason to do this, it doesn't make sense!" and propose amendments to give them a reason... and then call it unreasonable? I'm confused as to the point, then.

If you think a character executing someone simply for defending their case is a "paragon of virtue", I don't think it's worth discussing this with you. Yikes.

A character executing traitors for being traitors is a paragon of virtue by 40k standards (and honestly, when traitor means daemon-worshipping maniac setting entire worlds to flame... probably by real life standards, too!). The Custodes has no fault in that case. There would be a legitimate risk to him and the Imperials under his command. Again, I thought that was the entire point of you suggesting amendments! To give the Custodes a valid reason to act the way he does. If you're not seeking to give him a valid reason, I'm confused!

edit: It's very common in fiction for paragons of virtue to be mass murderers. Aragorn kills hundreds of Orcs in LotR, and he's very much not only a good guy but also a hero. It's okay to be a paragon of virtue while also killing the bad guys. It's a basic rule of fiction. Obviously I do not point to real life mass murderers as paragons of virtue...

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I hear this a lot, but I honestly think the whole "Space Marines are always turning traitor" is more a case of 'we're only told those story because they're so big and important'.

Uh? I mean, look at what can make a marine turn to Chaos. For instance, the story of the Wolf of Fenris. There is nothing special happening: just some space wolves being attacked by Red Corsairs and knowing that they will be killed. That's enough to make them turn coats. Uh, yeah, definitely easy to turn a marine.

Unit1126PLL wrote:There shouldn't. The other chapters should've been called out also. They weren't because of gak writing. I've held the opinion that that's crap writing even before this short story released - indeed, it's finally a welcome change for the marines not to be wearing plot armor thicker than their power armor.

So me bringing up that the Drakes aren't treated consistently with other Chapters isn't an issue, right?

It's a short story; I wouldn't worry about the details. The themes it presents are the meat and potatoes of the story, and the individual details aren't that problematic imo. The specific culture surrounding the induction of greyshields into a chapter probably varies from chapter-to-chapter anyways; it's not as egregious as Land Raiders armed with Multilasers or anything (which happened in a real novel by the by).

Eh, I'm not sure I agree. The core themes are fine, but the individual details create problematic implications for the setting. Again, it's not like the details just weren't fleshed out, it's more because the author added too many details to the story which had a great core anyways.
To put it as a food analogy, while I can appreciate that the steak at the core of the meal is great, the chocolate sauce covering it just takes away from the lovely steak.

Rihgu wrote:Isn't... isn't the entire purpose of you proposing amendments to make it more reasonable to you? You keep talking about "they have no reason to do this, it doesn't make sense!" and propose amendments to give them a reason... and then call it unreasonable? I'm confused as to the point, then.

The story *as is* is unreasonable in 40k standards (aka, the whole 'these Greyshields must be corrupted for no reason!' issues).
A Custodian killing a Marine just for defending themselves (which I don't have any issues with) is unreasonable in real life.

I think you're mistaking what things I think are unreasonable within the setting, and what things are unreasonable IRL. The Custodian RDMing? Unreasonable in both 40k and real life. The Custodian responding violently to the Marines opposing them? Unreasonable IRL, but justified in setting.
Again, the ONLY issue I have is that if those Marines remain as Greyshields, there is no reason for the Custodian to suspect them in the first place and call them traitors.

If you think a character executing someone simply for defending their case is a "paragon of virtue", I don't think it's worth discussing this with you. Yikes.

A character executing traitors for being traitors is a paragon of virtue by 40k standards (and honestly, when traitor means daemon-worshipping maniac setting entire worlds to flame... probably by real life standards, too!). The Custodes has no fault in that case. There would be a legitimate risk to him and the Imperials under his command. Again, I thought that was the entire point of you suggesting amendments! To give the Custodes a valid reason to act the way he does. If you're not seeking to give him a valid reason, I'm confused!

But they're not a paragon of virtue in real life, which is what I thought you were complaining about.
You said that you don't like characters who are "paragons of virtue". The Custodian isn't a paragon of virtue. They're fine within the context of 40k, but that doesn't make them virtuous IRL? What on earth are you complaining about with "I really don't like stories that portray any characters as paragons of virtue, reason, logic, and honor in 40k"?

Yes, the Custodian needs valid reason IN UNIVERSE. As presented, the story doesn't give him any reason to initially accuse the Marines. And, regardless of if the Custodian did or did not have justification within the universe, they still wouldn't be virtuous or rational by our IRL standards.

edit: It's very common in fiction for paragons of virtue to be mass murderers. Aragorn kills hundreds of Orcs in LotR, and he's very much not only a good guy but also a hero. It's okay to be a paragon of virtue while also killing the bad guys. It's a basic rule of fiction. Obviously I do not point to real life mass murderers as paragons of virtue...

Orcs are explicitly evil (well, Tolkein himself flip-flops on that point). In 40k, nearly everyone is explicitly evil.

What on earth do you mean by your "I really don't like stories that portray any characters as paragons of virtue, reason, logic, and honor in 40k." comment?

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Uh? I mean, look at what can make a marine turn to Chaos. For instance, the story of the Wolf of Fenris. There is nothing special happening: just some space wolves being attacked by Red Corsairs and knowing that they will be killed. That's enough to make them turn coats. Uh, yeah, definitely easy to turn a marine.

If it's so easy, and the Custodes are so aggressive about purging corrupt Marines, why haven't the Custodes killed all the Marines then?

After all, if they're happy to kill 200 Marines with no reason, exterminating Chapters with confirmed quarrels with Imperial servants should be much higher on the Custodes' list of priorities.

If it's so easy, and the Custodes are so aggressive about purging corrupt Marines, why haven't the Custodes killed all the Marines then?

After all, if they're happy to kill 200 Marines with no reason, exterminating Chapters with confirmed quarrels with Imperial servants should be much higher on the Custodes' list of priorities.

Killing 200 marines confined to a fleet vs. killing 1,000,000 marines spread across the galaxy.
Also, the pragmatic point of marines serving a purpose for the Imperium despite the distaste of the Custodians.
ALSO, the pragmatic point of the Imperium at large revering the Adeptus Astartes and very likely taking very poorly to the Custodes turning on them.
Those 200 marines were there, easy targets, and had Kill On Sight orders on them.

edit: for somebody so concerned with the logic of 40k, you don't seem to be trying to apply any of it.