Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I know this may be one of those questions that's has no answer, but I wanted to ask it.

Does the emperor ever directly communicate with anyone now? I know people read the imperial tarot to determine the will of the emperor. People clam to have visions of the emperor's will, people claim to hear the world of the emperor, interpret signs, etc.

We don't know what happened when the brides of the emperor entered his presence, but they sure came out royally P.O.d and ready to deal with vandire. But what happened was conveniently not recorded and they never spoke of it.

So does the emperor ever directly communicate with anyone? I suppose some form of communication happened between him and guillman, Guilleman supposedly asked the emperor "Why do I still live?" Did he reply in words or just some sort of vague telepathic impression? I don't real all the books, so have i missed one where the emperor literally said something in 40k, not 30k? If I missed a book that answers this let me know.

I do think that Custodes may be able to exchange thoughs and wills with the Emperor.
Also Guillmann should have been able to communicate with his august father.

Allegedly, he does.

Trouble is, what people are told is never revealed. Or the how.

Guilliman ‘spoke’ with the Emperor upon his return.

But did he really? Like, really really? We just don’t know.

I like to think that while many have thought they have heard the words of the Emperor, nobody actually has since he was enthroned. I haven't read anything in the fluff to suggest otherwise.

Of course I'm happy to be proved otherwise, don't want to be accused of heresy...

"The Emperor, he knows me, and he knows I'm right, I have been talking to the Emperor, all my live..."

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Allegedly, he does.

Trouble is, what people are told is never revealed. Or the how.

Guilliman ‘spoke’ with the Emperor upon his return.

But did he really? Like, really really? We just don’t know.

In Dark Imperium, Guilliman reflects on his meeting with the Emperor. This is a "first person" section so no ambiguity.

With words of light and fire, the Emperor had conferred with His returned primarch, the last of His finest creations.

A creation. Not a son.

The living Emperor had been an artful being, as skilled at hiding His thoughts as He was at reading those of others. What remained of Him was powerful beyond comprehension, but it lacked the subtlety He had had whilst He walked among men. Speaking with the Emperor had been like conversing with a star. The Emperor’s words burned him.

What hurt most deeply was what went unsaid.

The Emperor greeted Guilliman not as a father receives a son, but as a craftsmen who rediscovers a favourite tool that he thought lost. He behaved like a prisoner locked in an iron cage who is passed a rasp.

Guilliman had no illusions. He was not the man who brought the rasp; he was the rasp.

While the Emperor had walked abroad, He had cloaked His manipulations in love. He had let His primarchs call Him father; He had let them call themselves His sons. He had rarely spoken those words Himself, Guilliman now realised, and when He had He had done so without sincerity. Buffeted by the full might of the Emperor’s will unclothed in flesh, a cloak had been ripped from Guilliman’s eyes.

The Emperor had allowed them to love Him, and to believe He loved them in return. He had not. His primarchs were weapons, that was all.

Though His power was immense, perhaps greater than it had been before He ascended, the Emperor’s humanity was all but gone. He could no longer mask His thoughts with a human face. The Emperor’s light was blinding, all encompassing, but finally – finally – Guilliman had seen it as a whole. The being he had thought of as a father could hide nothing from him.

Given how painful the conversation was for Guilliman, it is possible that anyone less than a Primarch would not be able to withstand a telepathic conversation with the Emperor which is why they are reduced to dreams, tarot readings and the like.

 Karhedron wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Allegedly, he does.

Trouble is, what people are told is never revealed. Or the how.

Guilliman ‘spoke’ with the Emperor upon his return.

But did he really? Like, really really? We just don’t know.

In Dark Imperium, Guilliman reflects on his meeting with the Emperor. This is a "first person" section so no ambiguity.

First time dealing with unreliable narrators?

Until you get a third person view of the same scene I'll take it with a pinch of salt TVM...

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Karhedron wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Allegedly, he does.

Trouble is, what people are told is never revealed. Or the how.

Guilliman ‘spoke’ with the Emperor upon his return.

But did he really? Like, really really? We just don’t know.

In Dark Imperium, Guilliman reflects on his meeting with the Emperor. This is a "first person" section so no ambiguity.

First time dealing with unreliable narrators?

Until you get a third person view of the same scene I'll take it with a pinch of salt TVM...

It's telepathy. A third person would be looking at a dead body and Roboute. Maybe watching Roboute spasm on the floor.

There's not really any reason to question what Roboute is recalling here.

Sigh...

Why is it in 40k, and only 40k we ever see this is readers taking things at face value?

You only have a single source of what happened. Characters lie, characters misinterpret things (wilfully or otherwise), characters misremember things. 40k is not special that their characters are all George bloody Washington.... but apparently just like him they all cannot tell a lie.

Okay but the character in question is a superhuman who we know doesn't just 'misremember' things because space magic biology. Lying is a ridiculous claim when we're looking at a memory and while misinterpretation is possible in this instance it's unlikely as the things that Guilliman is picking up on (being seen as a weapon etc) are things we knew were already true.

For someone complaining about taking things at face value you seem to have missed the fact that sometimes things are just what they look like.

What's the relevance of George Washington?

pm713 wrote:
Okay but the character in question is a superhuman who we know doesn't just 'misremember' things because space magic biology. Lying is a ridiculous claim when we're looking at a memory and while misinterpretation is possible in this instance it's unlikely as the things that Guilliman is picking up on (being seen as a weapon etc) are things we knew were already true.

For someone complaining about taking things at face value you seem to have missed the fact that sometimes things are just what they look like.

What's the relevance of George Washington?

Old story about George Washington chopping down a cherry tree in his youth and confessing to it. Totally made up, but still a very common association between the first US president and being incapable of telling a lie.

Though one group people seem unaware of is the Emissaries Imperatus, the order of Adeptus Custodes who have received direct guidance from the Emperor through their thoughts. It was them who backed up Guilliman regarding the Emperor's new orders regarding the Primaris and the initiation of the Indomitus Crusade.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Sigh...

Why is it in 40k, and only 40k we ever see this is readers taking things at face value?

You only have a single source of what happened. Characters lie, characters misinterpret things (wilfully or otherwise), characters misremember things. 40k is not special that their characters are all George bloody Washington.... but apparently just like him they all cannot tell a lie.

Equally, I think it's too easy to declare everything you read to be unreliable or lies. I haven't read the rest of the book the quote is form but on the surface it doesn't strike me as being unreliable. Seems like it's a pretty honest account of Guilliman meeting the Emperor and his realisations about Him. Is there anything about the text or the rest of the novel it appears in that would lead us to think it's not an accurate account?

jareddm wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Okay but the character in question is a superhuman who we know doesn't just 'misremember' things because space magic biology. Lying is a ridiculous claim when we're looking at a memory and while misinterpretation is possible in this instance it's unlikely as the things that Guilliman is picking up on (being seen as a weapon etc) are things we knew were already true.

For someone complaining about taking things at face value you seem to have missed the fact that sometimes things are just what they look like.

What's the relevance of George Washington?

Old story about George Washington chopping down a cherry tree in his youth and confessing to it. Totally made up, but still a very common association between the first US president and being incapable of telling a lie.

Though one group people seem unaware of is the Emissaries Imperatus, the order of Adeptus Custodes who have received direct guidance from the Emperor through their thoughts. It was them who backed up Guilliman regarding the Emperor's new orders regarding the Primaris and the initiation of the Indomitus Crusade.

That is incredibly weird.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Sigh...

Why is it in 40k, and only 40k we ever see this is readers taking things at face value?

You only have a single source of what happened. Characters lie, characters misinterpret things (wilfully or otherwise), characters misremember things. 40k is not special that their characters are all George bloody Washington.... but apparently just like him they all cannot tell a lie.

Whereas in everything else I read, if a character hears something, and as never shown as being mentally unstable, or proven wrong later in the story, they are telling the truth.

It seems to be only 40k which has this kind of "nuh nuh THEY COULD BE LYING it's all FAKE NEWS" attitude.
I'm not saying 40k should be full of concrete facts and there should be no ambiguity, but come on - it's getting a little bit out of hand the amount of "we can't trust what anyone says" going on. If we're going to say that this account, from probably the sanest and most rational person in the setting, in their own mind, to no-one but an unknown omniscient audience, is fake, can we trust anything in the setting? If we can't prove anything, what setting is left? Can we prove that Space Marines even exist, or are they all propaganda?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pm713 wrote:
Okay but the character in question is a superhuman who we know doesn't just 'misremember' things because space magic biology. Lying is a ridiculous claim when we're looking at a memory and while misinterpretation is possible in this instance it's unlikely as the things that Guilliman is picking up on (being seen as a weapon etc) are things we knew were already true.

Exactly. It sounds like more hoops are being jumped through to say that it's fake.

Slipspace wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Sigh...

Why is it in 40k, and only 40k we ever see this is readers taking things at face value?

You only have a single source of what happened. Characters lie, characters misinterpret things (wilfully or otherwise), characters misremember things. 40k is not special that their characters are all George bloody Washington.... but apparently just like him they all cannot tell a lie.

Equally, I think it's too easy to declare everything you read to be unreliable or lies. I haven't read the rest of the book the quote is form but on the surface it doesn't strike me as being unreliable. Seems like it's a pretty honest account of Guilliman meeting the Emperor and his realisations about Him. Is there anything about the text or the rest of the novel it appears in that would lead us to think it's not an accurate account?

To me, yes.

Throughout the whole novel Gulliman is juggling in his head about the Emperor's whole divinity and whether he is actually for realsies a god, throwing into question everything he thought he knew about his father and making him second guess himself. Whilst I personally believe that what happened did happen (to an extent), we do not have the benefit of a omniscient narrator we can only go on the word of a single character and their interpretation of events so it leaves it open for review and/or retcon down the line.

 Grimtuff wrote:
...so it leaves it open for review and/or retcon down the line.

Absolutely anything, including work from an omniscient audience perspective, can be open to retcon. We're operating on what is most likely to be true - and so Guilliman being a hyper-rational, incredibly sane, and generally loving son suddenly imagining that his father spoke to him and essentially treated him like garbage sounds like a a stretch.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Sigh...

Why is it in 40k, and only 40k we ever see this is readers taking things at face value?

You only have a single source of what happened. Characters lie, characters misinterpret things (wilfully or otherwise), characters misremember things. 40k is not special that their characters are all George bloody Washington.... but apparently just like him they all cannot tell a lie.

Equally, I think it's too easy to declare everything you read to be unreliable or lies. I haven't read the rest of the book the quote is form but on the surface it doesn't strike me as being unreliable. Seems like it's a pretty honest account of Guilliman meeting the Emperor and his realisations about Him. Is there anything about the text or the rest of the novel it appears in that would lead us to think it's not an accurate account?

To me, yes.

Throughout the whole novel Gulliman is juggling in his head about the Emperor's whole divinity and whether he is actually for realsies a god, throwing into question everything he thought he knew about his father and making him second guess himself. Whilst I personally believe that what happened did happen (to an extent), we do not have the benefit of a omniscient narrator we can only go on the word of a single character and their interpretation of events so it leaves it open for review and/or retcon down the line.

Doesn't he realise that from a logical viewpoint the Emperor is absolutely a god and then freak out and deny it?

pm713 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Sigh...

Why is it in 40k, and only 40k we ever see this is readers taking things at face value?

You only have a single source of what happened. Characters lie, characters misinterpret things (wilfully or otherwise), characters misremember things. 40k is not special that their characters are all George bloody Washington.... but apparently just like him they all cannot tell a lie.

Equally, I think it's too easy to declare everything you read to be unreliable or lies. I haven't read the rest of the book the quote is form but on the surface it doesn't strike me as being unreliable. Seems like it's a pretty honest account of Guilliman meeting the Emperor and his realisations about Him. Is there anything about the text or the rest of the novel it appears in that would lead us to think it's not an accurate account?

To me, yes.

Throughout the whole novel Gulliman is juggling in his head about the Emperor's whole divinity and whether he is actually for realsies a god, throwing into question everything he thought he knew about his father and making him second guess himself. Whilst I personally believe that what happened did happen (to an extent), we do not have the benefit of a omniscient narrator we can only go on the word of a single character and their interpretation of events so it leaves it open for review and/or retcon down the line.

Doesn't he realise that from a logical viewpoint the Emperor is absolutely a god and then freak out and deny it?

IIRC, yes. Been a while since I read it- he's doing the whole "theoretical/practical" thing he does in his head then blurts out, amongst a group of Ministorium priests "So he's not a god!" or words to that effect.

 Grimtuff wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Sigh...

Why is it in 40k, and only 40k we ever see this is readers taking things at face value?

You only have a single source of what happened. Characters lie, characters misinterpret things (wilfully or otherwise), characters misremember things. 40k is not special that their characters are all George bloody Washington.... but apparently just like him they all cannot tell a lie.

Equally, I think it's too easy to declare everything you read to be unreliable or lies. I haven't read the rest of the book the quote is form but on the surface it doesn't strike me as being unreliable. Seems like it's a pretty honest account of Guilliman meeting the Emperor and his realisations about Him. Is there anything about the text or the rest of the novel it appears in that would lead us to think it's not an accurate account?

To me, yes.

Throughout the whole novel Gulliman is juggling in his head about the Emperor's whole divinity and whether he is actually for realsies a god, throwing into question everything he thought he knew about his father and making him second guess himself. Whilst I personally believe that what happened did happen (to an extent), we do not have the benefit of a omniscient narrator we can only go on the word of a single character and their interpretation of events so it leaves it open for review and/or retcon down the line.

Doesn't he realise that from a logical viewpoint the Emperor is absolutely a god and then freak out and deny it?

IIRC, yes. Been a while since I read it- he's doing the whole "theoretical/practical" thing he does in his head then blurts out, amongst a group of Ministorium priests "So he's not a god!" or words to that effect.

Oof. Talk about awkward timing. Best hope they forget about that.

Here's the excerpt

The entourage of Adeptus Custodes, Sisters of Silence and the Victrix Guard fanned out, weapons ready. The Librarians remained at his side. Hard sounds clattered through the ruin. There were two major transepts at either end of the long knave. A third minor transept crossed the middle of the church. Like many holy buildings, the cathedral’s plan when viewed from above made the single barred ‘I’ of the Imperium. Guilliman surveyed it all disapprovingly. Worship of his creator had become the bedrock of the Imperium. It was as pernicious as the efforts of Chaos, in its way. He did not understand it, but as he looked around this cathedral, one like many hundreds he had seen all across the Imperium, he doubted his own convictions regarding the Emperor’s divinity.
Theoretical, he thought. The Emperor is a god and denied His own divinity to protect humanity. Practical, He is a god.
Or, he continued to himself, Theoretical, the Emperor was not a god, but became one.
Practical, He is a god.
He dismissed the idea angrily. These theoreticals had trooped through his thoughts so many times before he had grown weary of them, but his mind would not stop generating counter-arguments to his beliefs.
Theoretical, the Emperor was always a god, but was unaware of it. Practical, He is a god.
No, he thought.
Theoretical, the Emperor became a god to protect humanity. Practical, He is a god.
He is not a god, he thought.
Theoretical, Guilliman thought savagely now, turning his anger against his traitorous mind. The Emperor was never a god, denied He was a god and has been wrongly elevated by men who see power and mistake it for divinity. Practical, the Emperor is not a god.
‘He is not a god,’ said Guilliman out loud

I would like to add to the list other than Guilliman would be:
- Any "sanctioned psyker" undergoes "Soul-binding" to the Emperor.
- Astropath
- Astra Militarum Primaris Psyker
- Psychic Inquisitor

Super old fluff now, but in the old Draco novel (originally released as Inquisitor) the Emperor guides Inquisitor Draco through the Inner Palace to the Throne and speaks to him psychically.

Interestingly the Emperor’s mind had fractured into a plethora of different personalities that didn’t all agree - presumably the souls of the shamans that reincarnated together to form the Emperor in the Realms of Chaos fluff.

Lord Zarkov wrote:
Super old fluff now, but in the old Draco novel (originally released as Inquisitor) the Emperor guides Inquisitor Draco through the Inner Palace to the Throne and speaks to him psychically.

Interestingly the Emperor’s mind had fractured into a plethora of different personalities that didn’t all agree - presumably the souls of the shamans that reincarnated together to form the Emperor in the Realms of Chaos fluff.

I remember this. I always liked it as an idea. The Emperor is not one entity anymore but a plethora of souls fused together in constant effort to focus and debate what is truly best for humanity. Given he has consumed 1000 psykers a day for 10.000years I buy that he'd be a union of innumerable souls at this point. Pretty sure the Draco books are not considered canon anymore though.

 Nerak wrote:

Lord Zarkov wrote:
Super old fluff now, but in the old Draco novel (originally released as Inquisitor) the Emperor guides Inquisitor Draco through the Inner Palace to the Throne and speaks to him psychically.

Interestingly the Emperor’s mind had fractured into a plethora of different personalities that didn’t all agree - presumably the souls of the shamans that reincarnated together to form the Emperor in the Realms of Chaos fluff.

I remember this. I always liked it as an idea. The Emperor is not one entity anymore but a plethora of souls fused together in constant effort to focus and debate what is truly best for humanity. Given he has consumed 1000 psykers a day for 10.000years I buy that he'd be a union of innumerable souls at this point. Pretty sure the Draco books are not considered canon anymore though.

If the consumed souls retain their individuality. They could just be eaten and die.

jareddm wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Okay but the character in question is a superhuman who we know doesn't just 'misremember' things because space magic biology. Lying is a ridiculous claim when we're looking at a memory and while misinterpretation is possible in this instance it's unlikely as the things that Guilliman is picking up on (being seen as a weapon etc) are things we knew were already true.

For someone complaining about taking things at face value you seem to have missed the fact that sometimes things are just what they look like.

What's the relevance of George Washington?

Old story about George Washington chopping down a cherry tree in his youth and confessing to it. Totally made up, but still a very common association between the first US president and being incapable of telling a lie.
.

Made up by a biographer (Mason Weems), not by Washington. Its not a relevant comparison

Slipspace wrote:
Equally, I think it's too easy to declare everything you read to be unreliable or lies. I haven't read the rest of the book the quote is form but on the surface it doesn't strike me as being unreliable. Seems like it's a pretty honest account of Guilliman meeting the Emperor and his realisations about Him. Is there anything about the text or the rest of the novel it appears in that would lead us to think it's not an accurate account?

No. He has no particular reason to lie to himself, or stress himself out with the implications of the conversation (which he revisits repeatedly in his thoughts over the course of the book), if it never happened.

While the conversation has implications for the Imperium as a whole, for the novel, the most important aspect of the conversation is what it means for Roboute, so if it didn't happen, his entire character arc in the novel makes no sense.

I agree, the novel only makes sense if we assume Guilliman's reflections on his meeting with the Emperor are honest. Whilst there may be an element of subjectivity, I don't think there is any need to invoke an unreliable narrator. The Emperor clearly communicated with Guilliman.

Is Gulliman's recollection fair and accurate? I would argue that the revelations in Valedor suggest this is the case. The Emperor's human emotions were already starting to ebb at the dawn of the Great Crusade and Malcador implies this will continue. 10,000 years and unimaginable suffering later, Guilliman finds his father cold, distant and uncaring. There is nothing inconsistent in any of this.

I think part of the problem is that the phrase "unreliable narrator" is used a bit liberally in describing 40k background. Typically, in literature, an unrelated narrator is a narrator who either cannot, or does not, convey accurate information about the narrative they are sharing. It does not generally apply to narration which is reliably, but simply biased or subjective.

40k has always included information presented in both the third person omniscient voice "Space marine power armor is made of..." and in universe, first and third person information: "Ask not the Eldar a question, for they will give you three answers, all of which are true and terrifying to know." - Inquisitor Czevak

In this quote, Inquisitor Czevak isn't necessarily an unreliable narrator. He is, however, a specific person in the 40k universe sharing his, admittedly expert, observations about the eldar. Is his statement literally always true? Probably not. Can we rely upon it to understand that the eldar are subtle, highly attuned to the nature of reality, and unlikely to give a straight answer? Probably yes.

Likewise, the impressions of Guilliman, who is consistently portrayed as rational and steady, are probably pretty reliable. They are obviously subjective, as they literally describe his emotional state during the discussion, but that's just general POV framing stuff.

I thought the Emperor communicated now only in code, like, you know, by Cypher?

Another reason for invoking the unreliable narrator is that it’s been used as the blanket explanation of inconsistencies and contradictions in the stories. (It sounds better than having authors change their minds, disagree with previous authors, not know about previous works, or just make mistakes... And it’s more useful, because it leaves room to argue about what really happened.) And that’s combined with the tradition that you don’t get an interesting story by having an omniscient narrator spoil plot twists or surprises, or reveal more than the characters present know.

Suppose Guilman came into the Emperor’s presence and was visibly stunned by the experience. Afterwards, what does he say happened? He’s in the Emperor’s presence, this is a time of great need, and a lot that could be done if he had a mandate. That’s a lot of motivation for an experience to be recounted that no one else can refute or contradict details for.

In real life, dealing with coma patients causes people to conclude improbable or unlikely things. Take that and add in the fact that your coma patient is hooked up to a device channeling (and killing) a tremendous number of psykers, and you’ve got this person trying to reach out to his estranged father figure.

In setting, there’s no positive outcome from attempting to contradict Guillman’s account of the encounter. But there’s also no real way of proving that that’s what actually happened. So what does the narrator of the story write? Putting down what Guilman’s going to describe happening seems like the thing to report.

In short: It’s a better story if the narrator gives us what Guilman says (or would say, if asked) is the truth. That doesn’t mean it’s what actually happened.