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.

Also keep in mind that the 1st Legion were…well…..1st Legion.

Before the destruction of Caliban, they were exemplary Astartes. Entrusted with weapons no other Legion was entrusted with. And even gifted more of the super dangerous stuff than their brother legions.

They…..waged war. That was their task, that’s what they did. And did so with aplomb. Not exactly glory seeking (ref Russ being peeved) just….efficient. But not the life and materiel risks others took. Pretty much noted for Just Enough Plus One to get the job done, and done as quickly as possible. I suppose one could call it a Balanced Efficiency.

They did what their orders said, and that was enough. If they took ridiculous risks, it’s because the calculus of war required it. Which would inevitably lead to grand moments. But the grand moments were never the aim.

Post-Heresy you’ve a Legion/Chapters robbed of the surety of their purpose. Arguably harder hit by the internal betrayal most, if not all, other Legions/Chapters experienced.

Re the BTs it’s worth baring in mind that they’d be far and away outnumbered by the forces of the ecchlisarchy. SoB probably number in the millions or more. While the BTs are large for a marine Chapter they don’t come close to that.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
From what book is that picture?

As Rex said - Deathwing. Page 35.
Specifically 'Cloud Runner' and the story of how the 1st company came to be the white painted 'Deathwing' (as opposed to black painted as this predates green Dark Angels).

The plains world is stated as the Dark Angels traditional and only recruiting world at the time. The characters have home-world names and also 'marine' names - Cloud Runner / Ezekiel, Broken Knife / Gabriel, Weasel-Fierce / Marius, and the Shaman Bloody Moon / Librarian Paulo.

Later on they were re-themed as paranoid monks but if you look at their 4e upgrade sprue they still had the tribal feathers. It was 6th edition IIRC that turned them into the not-templars (about the same time as the actual templars were turned into black-painted ultramarines from a codex perspective anyway). With the new primaris stuff the tribal iconography is entirely replaced.

Black Templars are not a part of the Ecclesairchy, unlike the Sisters. So treating them as equal is wrong from the very start.

The "point" of Black Templars is being the exemplary crusading Space Marines. Everything in their lore and models supports this one theme. The other point is of course selling another variety of Space Marine models.

A.T. wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
From what book is that picture?

As Rex said - Deathwing. Page 35.
Specifically 'Cloud Runner' and the story of how the 1st company came to be the white painted 'Deathwing' (as opposed to black painted as this predates green Dark Angels).

The plains world is stated as the Dark Angels traditional and only recruiting world at the time. The characters have home-world names and also 'marine' names - Cloud Runner / Ezekiel, Broken Knife / Gabriel, Weasel-Fierce / Marius, and the Shaman Bloody Moon / Librarian Paulo.

Later on they were re-themed as paranoid monks but if you look at their 4e upgrade sprue they still had the tribal feathers. It was 6th edition IIRC that turned them into the not-templars (about the same time as the actual templars were turned into black-painted ultramarines from a codex perspective anyway). With the new primaris stuff the tribal iconography is entirely replaced.

Thanks for the explanation, from now on my head canon will be native American themed dark angels as this looks way cooler to me

 Gert wrote:

It's a sad association but Templars suffer more than most from being a faction where utter morons don't see the obvious "You should not idolise these people" banner despite GW actually doing a relatively consistent job in portraying the Templars as raving lunatics.

I would question GW's consistency there. They talk out of both sides of their mouth a lot on that one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Abanshee wrote:

I guess what I'm trying to illustrate is not everyone finds the satire of Warhammer, engaging or really even well done for that matter. I find (most of) it obnoxious, highly surface-level, and very preachy as someone who's apolitical. Kyril Sinderman's speech was one of the few examples I enjoyed. Also, the Council of Nikaea was very interesting and gives a great insight into Imperial politics. However, I mainly enjoy this setting for one thing: the brutal, soul-grinding warfare of the far future.

Indeed. If you want to appreciate the satire of 40k that is fine, but you shouldn't be gatekeeping the hobby against those who unironically like parts of it. If someone unironically likes the zealous Black Templar's faith and over the top nature then good for them finding what they like. They're not a bad person for doing that.

Nah, if they find the idea of killing anyone who looks different unironically enticing then they *should* be called out. The Black Templars are pro-genocide.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:


I'm not up on the current modeling, but do Stormboyz still wear M35-inspired helmets and goose-step all over the place?

Because that was funny.

I haven't met an ork player without a well-developed sense of irony. It's worth noting that the orks are intended to be evocative of a trend in British youth culture of aping World War-era German mannerisms and aesthetic, so it's like doubly removed from Nazism (or WWI-era Germany).

Hecaton wrote:
I would question GW's consistency there. They talk out of both sides of their mouth a lot on that one.

In the general tone of "Space Marines are heroes", sure that's true. But in fiction with Templar main characters or even often just as side characters/interactions, it's pretty blatant that they're not right in the head.
The wider issue is that the people who idolise the Templars are generally too squish brained to see it.

Nah, if they find the idea of killing anyone who looks different unironically enticing then they *should* be called out. The Black Templars are pro-genocide.

100% agree.

Alright, but what is the BT player pool and what surveys are there to affirm that BT bring in horrible people into the game?

I mean, I've stumbled across two black templar players in my regiment, in my squadron even, both are fairly normal people, one even quite smarter than I am and none is a screaming genocidal lunatic.

Sounds like overstretching or extrapolating to me. And pouring a lot more politics in here than necessary.

Side subject though.

Hecaton wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Abanshee wrote:

I guess what I'm trying to illustrate is not everyone finds the satire of Warhammer, engaging or really even well done for that matter. I find (most of) it obnoxious, highly surface-level, and very preachy as someone who's apolitical. Kyril Sinderman's speech was one of the few examples I enjoyed. Also, the Council of Nikaea was very interesting and gives a great insight into Imperial politics. However, I mainly enjoy this setting for one thing: the brutal, soul-grinding warfare of the far future.

Indeed. If you want to appreciate the satire of 40k that is fine, but you shouldn't be gatekeeping the hobby against those who unironically like parts of it. If someone unironically likes the zealous Black Templar's faith and over the top nature then good for them finding what they like. They're not a bad person for doing that.

Nah, if they find the idea of killing anyone who looks different unironically enticing then they *should* be called out. The Black Templars are pro-genocide.

News flash: most the setting is, especially in the Imperium.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Alright, but what is the BT player pool and what surveys are there to affirm that BT bring in horrible people into the game?

I mean, I've stumbled across two black templar players in my regiment, in my squadron even, both are fairly normal people, one even quite smarter than I am and none is a screaming genocidal lunatic.

Sounds like overstretching or extrapolating to me. And pouring a lot more politics in here than necessary.

Side subject though.

It's not that all or even most BT players are terrible people. It's just, as mentioned on the first page, a "red flag."

"Of all the chapters of marines out there, I chose the one that's known for being extra intolerant and extra proactive about genocide!"
"Because you like highlighting how fethed up and non-aspirational the imperium is and how the Templars open-intolerance makes it impossible to pretend they're good guys, right? "
"..."
"... Right?"

It has the same energy as those guys who are just really into playing specifically Germany in WW2 games. It's probably fine. Probably.

Other chapters are arguably more sinister in a real-world sense because while every marine is a brainwashed dog of the fascist imperium, some chapters get portrayed in a more positive light that sort of kind of makes it easy to forget that they're still bad guys. Like, I love the Salamanders, but they've still participated in their share of imperium-mandated genocides. So stories where they spend the whole time being shown as basically good guys is kind of like talking up what a nice guy your friend the xenophobe is when you get to know him.
"Sure, he's staunchly loyal to the evil empire, but sometimes he doesn't kill civillians though! (As long as he isn't ordered to anyway.)

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

News flash: most the setting is, especially in the Imperium.

I'm quite aware. Seems like you didn't understand my comment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

It's not that all or even most BT players are terrible people. It's just, as mentioned on the first page, a "red flag."

"Of all the chapters of marines out there, I chose the one that's known for being extra intolerant and extra proactive about genocide!"
"Because you like highlighting how fethed up and non-aspirational the imperium is and how the Templars open-intolerance makes it impossible to pretend they're good guys, right? "
"..."
"... Right?"

It has the same energy as those guys who are just really into playing specifically Germany in WW2 games. It's probably fine. Probably.

Other chapters are arguably more sinister in a real-world sense because while every marine is a brainwashed dog of the fascist imperium, some chapters get portrayed in a more positive light that sort of kind of makes it easy to forget that they're still bad guys. Like, I love the Salamanders, but they've still participated in their share of imperium-mandated genocides. So stories where they spend the whole time being shown as basically good guys is kind of like talking up what a nice guy your friend the xenophobe is when you get to know him.
"Sure, he's staunchly loyal to the evil empire, but sometimes he doesn't kill civillians though! (As long as he isn't ordered to anyway.)

I think it's healthy to assume that their appreciation for the BTs is ironic on some level unless you know for sure otherwise. I picked Smoke Jaguars in Battletech because I liked their color scheme; the fact that they have a penchant for committing war crimes is something I found out about later but I was like "yeah, sure, I'll play a villain faction."

Hecaton wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

It's not that all or even most BT players are terrible people. It's just, as mentioned on the first page, a "red flag."

"Of all the chapters of marines out there, I chose the one that's known for being extra intolerant and extra proactive about genocide!"
"Because you like highlighting how fethed up and non-aspirational the imperium is and how the Templars open-intolerance makes it impossible to pretend they're good guys, right? "
"..."
"... Right?"

It has the same energy as those guys who are just really into playing specifically Germany in WW2 games. It's probably fine. Probably.

Other chapters are arguably more sinister in a real-world sense because while every marine is a brainwashed dog of the fascist imperium, some chapters get portrayed in a more positive light that sort of kind of makes it easy to forget that they're still bad guys. Like, I love the Salamanders, but they've still participated in their share of imperium-mandated genocides. So stories where they spend the whole time being shown as basically good guys is kind of like talking up what a nice guy your friend the xenophobe is when you get to know him.
"Sure, he's staunchly loyal to the evil empire, but sometimes he doesn't kill civillians though! (As long as he isn't ordered to anyway.)

I think it's healthy to assume that their appreciation for the BTs is ironic on some level unless you know for sure otherwise. I picked Smoke Jaguars in Battletech because I liked their color scheme; the fact that they have a penchant for committing war crimes is something I found out about later but I was like "yeah, sure, I'll play a villain faction."

Oh, absolutely. It's just also nice when they crack a joke at the BTs' expense at some point to confirm that it is ironic. It's like wearing a fedora. Wearing a fedora doesn't mean you're a bad person, but wearing a fedora is (or at least was) kind of associated with a certain brand of jerk. So you're kind of on alert for them to either address the fedora thing or else confirm the stereotype.

Everybody should play as orks because orks are just here for the giggles.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
It's not that all or even most BT players are terrible people. It's just, as mentioned on the first page, a "red flag."

It is unreasonable to assign any kind of flag or suggestion of -phobe or -ism to someone based on their plastic army men.
Now if they turn up with totemkopf krieg or white-painted redemptionists with burning crosses then by all means.

Incidentally don't you play the sadist torture elves faction? As far as red flags go... :p

A.T. wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
It's not that all or even most BT players are terrible people. It's just, as mentioned on the first page, a "red flag."

It is unreasonable to assign any kind of flag or suggestion of -phobe or -ism to someone based on their plastic army men.
Now if they turn up with totemkopf krieg or white-painted redemptionists with burning crosses then by all means.

Incidentally don't you play the sadist torture elves faction? As far as red flags go... :p

In my experience that just means they were raised Catholic.

A warning sign is not the same as a fact.

If I see someone wearing a "Straight Pride" t-shirt, I'm going to assume they're an ass, but if they're genuinely ignorant about any wider implications and just got it because "I'm a straight person, and I'm proud of who I am!" then that's showing they're not who I thought they were.

Being a BT fan is not the same level as that example, though. I wasn't even really aware of that association-the BT players I know are fine folk, far as I know.

A.T. wrote:
It is unreasonable to assign any kind of flag or suggestion of -phobe or -ism to someone based on their plastic army men.
Now if they turn up with totemkopf krieg or white-painted redemptionists with burning crosses then by all means.

You've missed the point entirely, somehow. Nobody is saying all Templar players are fascists or racists. What has been said is that in the wider community, those who do support those ideologies and "values" often associate themselves with the Templars and other factions like the Death Korps.

It doesn't help when channels like FlashGitz make a whole series of videos about Templars killing Furries (a community widely known to be a safe haven for LGBTQ+ folks) because they're "degenerates" and "mutants". They're just doing edgelord humour but there are people out there that take that idea and make it their ideology.

Hence for those of us who are part of a minority group or are vocal allies, we tend to get cautious when people have Templar profile pictures/avatars or get a bit too into the RP-ing. And while It usually takes all of two seconds to figure out if the person is normal or not but the fact remains it's something that has to happen because there is a solid chance that individual is about to start hate criming.

A.T. wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
It's not that all or even most BT players are terrible people. It's just, as mentioned on the first page, a "red flag."

It is unreasonable to assign any kind of flag or suggestion of -phobe or -ism to someone based on their plastic army men.

It's unreasonable to assume someone is <insert negative trait here> based on their army, and I'm not advocating that people do so.

That said, if you wear a fedora, talk about how your favorite movie is Fight Club, or are really, really into WW2 factoids, these are all things that ping in the brain and make you go, "Hmm."
None of those things make someone a bad person, but they're... signs that a person may be more likely to hold certain unsavory views. Reasonable people can disagree, but I feel like playing BT is sort of vaguely in the same vein. It's a small red flag, but still a red flag (to me).

Again, liking BT is perfectly fine. But if you told me someone had come out as a piece of hateful garbage and asked me to guess which faction they played, BT would probably be one of my first guesses.

Incidentally don't you play the sadist torture elves faction? As far as red flags go... :p

Shoot. You're onto me.
I feel like there's a general sentiment that the hobby does have an unfortunate habit of appealing to fascists and xenophobes and that xenophobic facists are more (openly) prevalent than in the past. The implication would be that drukhari appeal to like... sadistic serial killers I guess? And I don't think the hobby is known for having a problem with serial killers the same way it has a problem with fascists.

But that said, I feel like the conversation might be getting blown a little out of proportion. Again, no one is going to assume you're a bad person just because you play BT.

EDIT: JNA and Gert both made my points better, faster, and more succinctly. Thanks, folks.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

It's unreasonable to assume someone is <insert negative trait here> based on their army, and I'm not advocating that people do so.

That said, if you wear a fedora, talk about how your favorite movie is Fight Club, or are really, really into WW2 factoids, these are all things that ping in the brain and make you go, "Hmm."
None of those things make someone a bad person, but they're... signs that a person may be more likely to hold certain unsavory views. Reasonable people can disagree, but I feel like playing BT is sort of vaguely in the same vein. It's a small red flag, but still a red flag (to me).

Again, liking BT is perfectly fine. But if you told me someone had come out as a piece of hateful garbage and asked me to guess which faction they played, BT would probably be one of my first guesses.

I am... very left wing, but there's plenty of WW2 history buffs who are great people, people who like Fight Club, and people who wear fedoras. I grew up in a rural area and wearing fedoras was common for people who worked with horses.

I wouldn't even consider any of that red flags, that's honestly fairly judgmental. It's the lack of irony, thinking the Imperium is unironically in the right for being a totalitarian hellhole, etc.

 Gert wrote:
You've missed the point entirely, somehow. Nobody is saying...

I'm pretty sure someone speedrunning a permanent forum ban could just replace X in your post with something a little spicier than 'templars'

Not Gert wrote:X are a red flag group because they are often associated with less desirable elements of humanity such as homophobes, transphobes, racists and sexists.

And I do get your point, i'm just not part of the flashgitz crowd as so your post came in completely out of left field for me.

Hecaton wrote:
I am... very left wing, but there's plenty of WW2 history buffs who are great people, people who like Fight Club, and people who wear fedoras.

Sure. And plenty of people like playing BT who are great people. I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. The point is that all the examples above are tropes that are associated with various types of donkey-caves.

Regardless of whether or not they're popular among ranchers, fedoras associated with misogynistic neckbeards: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fedora%20Guy. Being "too into WW2" (especially if their interests skew heavily German) can sometimes be a hint that someone has a bit of an obsession with WW2 Germany. Fight Club (while a good movie) tends to be very popular with the alt-right crowd when they miss they miss the irony and go, "This guy is talking a lot of sense!"

My point is that all of these things can absolutely be enjoyed by perfectly wonderful people, but unfortunately they are also known to be things that happen to be particularly popular among not-so-lovely people for various reasons. JNA phrased it better than I am:

A warning sign is not the same as a fact.

If I see someone wearing a "Straight Pride" t-shirt, I'm going to assume they're an ass, but if they're genuinely ignorant about any wider implications and just got it because "I'm a straight person, and I'm proud of who I am!" then that's showing they're not who I thought they were.

Being a BT fan is not the same level as that example, though.

A.T. wrote:

 Gert wrote:
You've missed the point entirely, somehow. Nobody is saying...

I'm pretty sure someone speedrunning a permanent forum ban could just replace X in your post with something a little spicier than 'templars'

Not Gert wrote:X are a red flag group because they are often associated with less desirable elements of humanity such as homophobes, transphobes, racists and sexists.

And I do get your point, i'm just not part of the flashgitz crowd as so your post came in completely out of left field for me.

I thought Gert put things pretty well. Picking apart their last post a bit:

You've missed the point entirely, somehow. Nobody is saying all Templar players are fascists or racists. What has been said is that in the wider community, those who do support those ideologies and "values" often associate themselves with the Templars and other factions like the Death Korps.

This. Playing BT doesn't mean you're a fascist/racist. But if someone who plays 40k is a fascist/racist, I'd be unsurprised if Templars or Krieg were their armies of choice.

It doesn't help when channels like FlashGitz make a whole series of videos about Templars killing Furries (a community widely known to be a safe haven for LGBTQ+ folks) because they're "degenerates" and "mutants". They're just doing edgelord humour but there are people out there that take that idea and make it their ideology.

I know the exact videos Gert is referring to. It's edgy humor, and to my knowledge the creators of those videos are not fascist/racist. But the comments section anywhere I've seen the video posted tends to be big on furry bashing. Which, as Gert points out, the punchline of the videos is that the fascists are are inflicting violence on the minority group with ties to the LGBTQ crowd. So you can see where the vibes can be a bit sour.

Hence for those of us who are part of a minority group or are vocal allies, we tend to get cautious when people have Templar profile pictures/avatars or get a bit too into the RP-ing. And while It usually takes all of two seconds to figure out if the person is normal or not but the fact remains it's something that has to happen because there is a solid chance that individual is about to start hate criming.

Bolded for emphasis. 99% of the time the guy playing BT is a perfectly cool person. But if the first and only impression I have of you is your BT avatar or similar, I'm going to have that piece of data in the back of my head. I'm not going to assume you're a nazi until proven otherwise or anything like that, but I'm going to be aware around you.

So with all the above in mind, I think Gert is making their case very reasonably, and everything they stated is pretty specific to BT (and Krieg). To my knowledge, BA and GK don't feature in fan videos where they rip up furries with chainsaws.

That whole story of BT player being read flag is then in essence boiling down that they tend not to agree with your LGBT political views so most of they are likely to be bad person? What the heck?

Why don't you then just play and if you want a debate invite him after the game to have a drink and a chat about it simply? This fuss is getting more and more irrelevant can we get this topic back on track and into the lore?

Hecaton wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Abanshee wrote:

I guess what I'm trying to illustrate is not everyone finds the satire of Warhammer, engaging or really even well done for that matter. I find (most of) it obnoxious, highly surface-level, and very preachy as someone who's apolitical. Kyril Sinderman's speech was one of the few examples I enjoyed. Also, the Council of Nikaea was very interesting and gives a great insight into Imperial politics. However, I mainly enjoy this setting for one thing: the brutal, soul-grinding warfare of the far future.

Indeed. If you want to appreciate the satire of 40k that is fine, but you shouldn't be gatekeeping the hobby against those who unironically like parts of it. If someone unironically likes the zealous Black Templar's faith and over the top nature then good for them finding what they like. They're not a bad person for doing that.

Nah, if they find the idea of killing anyone who looks different unironically enticing then they *should* be called out. The Black Templars are pro-genocide.

Literally every faction in 40k is on a genocidal mission. And considering the goals and motivations of every other faction, it is 100% justified within the setting. Every species, or group within any particularl species, which wasn't made up of genocidal maniacs is extinct...

40k is basically the Dark Forest hypothesis being allowed to play out.

 Grey Templar wrote:


Literally every faction in 40k is on a genocidal mission. And considering the goals and motivations of every other faction, it is 100% justified within the setting. Every species, or group within any particularl species, which wasn't made up of genocidal maniacs is extinct...

40k is basically the Dark Forest hypothesis being allowed to play out.

Nope. Tau, Leagues of Votann, and a good chunk of the Eldar aren't. There were humans who weren't but the Imperium found that philosophy abhorrent so they destroyed them.

Tau? You find better being rule by a single party of priviledged individuals in a rigid cast system were free will is chastised, and where information is hidden (see Aun'vas holograph and Farsight enclaves totally not being a thing) and lied about? The Tau are dicks. They don't go about it the same manner, they are more subtle characters. hence why their stories involve more diplomacy. And is expansion according to their manifest destiny a good thing? Nah, saying Tau are better is not true.

Eldar happily sacrifice a billion other people as chaff. Best example is Eldars sacrificing armaggedon by trhowing the orks at it to preserve their kin. Or how the help in the organising of the exterminatus in DoW2 (which events are canon)? How is that less abhorrent than what the imperium does? How is their goal not te reestablish dominance because they feel only they are masters and they want to subjugate all other "inferior" races?

Don't know how they rebooted the squats with votanns but old squats with their honour bound grudges brought to massacres for the slightest percieved insult. How is that better belief than the Imperium's?

Every 40k faction is in essence abhorrent, each with its means of expressing it. The imperium is not the villain. It is one of the villains. Black templar are an aspect of that character, an blatant one.
Black templars are a simple theme, maybe not the most original, but they fit the larger lore of their character well.

If anything, if you hope for a good faction in 40k just get yourself another setting.

Grey templar is right.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Literally every faction in 40k is on a genocidal mission. And considering the goals and motivations of every other faction, it is 100% justified within the setting. Every species, or group within any particularl species, which wasn't made up of genocidal maniacs is extinct...

This is where the worst change has occurred in 40k lore. It didn't used to be justified. The Imperium used to be shown as a genocidal, superstitious, fanatic gakshow that got in its own way far more than it helped itself, and was staying afloat through sheer inertia from its own size. It was a warning that even in such dire straits, this kind of hyper-religious, authoritarian, xenophobic state was counterproductive and unhelpful.

Now, the lore paints loads of that crap as strictly necessary- blind faith now provides tangible benefits against daemons, for example. Space Marines have always had a problem with being painted as the good faction, but that has accelerated over the last decade and now the indoctrinated murder-soldiers forced into service as pre-pubescent children are heavily sanitised at any surface level glance into 40k lore. All of this is being fed to 12 year olds and I do think it is an issue that the lore increasingly glorifies the Imperium in pursuit of profits.

Black Templars are the exemplars of the Imperium's worst aspects. They fit perfectly within the lore as the Space Marines even other Marines find a bit much, they embody the cult of sacrific pervading the Imperium, and their bending of the Codex Astartes being allowed through their faith is a good example of Imperial hypocrisy. I think they are a great part of the lore overall.

I do recognise what Gert and Wyldhunt are saying though- Black Templars can be a very subtle dog whistle because their themes unironically map onto the themes of some very unsavoury real ideologies. I wouldn't personally go as far as to say they are a "red flag" because I doubt the hit rate is that high, but I do agree it is something in the back of the mind. This is typically different to factions like Chaos or Dark Eldar, because those factions, whilst obviously evil, have different themes that don't highlight self-sacrifice and genocidal purity in the way the Imperium in general and Black Templars in particular do. They don't map onto certain real-world ideologies in the same way. The issue isn't playing a "villain" faction, it is how that "villain" faction intersects with the real world. Again though, this is not a reason not to play Black Templars in my book, just something to be aware of. I have actually been intending to start a small Black Templars force for my Armageddon armies.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Tau? You find better being rule by a single party of priviledged individuals in a rigid cast system were free will is chastised, and where information is hidden (see Aun'vas holograph and Farsight enclaves totally not being a thing) and lied about? The Tau are dicks. They don't go about it the same manner, they are more subtle characters. hence why their stories involve more diplomacy. And is expansion according to their manifest destiny a good thing? Nah, saying Tau are better is not true.

Eldar happily sacrifice a billion other people as chaff. Best example is Eldars sacrificing armaggedon by trhowing the orks at it to preserve their kin. Or how the help in the organising of the exterminatus in DoW2 (which events are canon)? How is that less abhorrent than what the imperium does? How is their goal not te reestablish dominance because they feel only they are masters and they want to subjugate all other "inferior" races?

Don't know how they rebooted the squats with votanns but old squats with their honour bound grudges brought to massacres for the slightest percieved insult. How is that better belief than the Imperium's?

Every 40k faction is in essence abhorrent, each with its means of expressing it. The imperium is not the villain. It is one of the villains. Black templar are an aspect of that character, an blatant one.
Black templars are a simple theme, maybe not the most original, but they fit the larger lore of their character well.

If anything, if you hope for a good faction in 40k just get yourself another setting.

Grey templar is right.

I think you are missing the point.

Hecaton is correct with none of Eldar, the Leagues or Tau being on a genocidal mission. If you want to stay on an Eldar Maiden World? If you live on a plaent the Leagues want to mine out for profit? If you are adamant about not joining the Tau for the Greater Good? Sure, you and your civilisation will be removed from existence.

That is not what a genocidal mission is all about though. None of them go out of their way to exterminate other species - the Imperium very much does so. Black Templars in particular: one of their trademark quotes is exactly about this!

Note that none of this is saying that Eldar, Tau or the Leagues are in any way "better" than the Imperium. Just that their intentions are different.

Allow me to elaborate on what you say, Darnok, as I feel I don't miss the point, but maybe didn't express my point of view right.

Different, but just pretty much as bad in that regard. Abhumans and squats prove the imperium sometimes pulls enough brain matter to refrain from killing everyone. As do Tau or Eldar, as you said. Unlike Votann, that may be true.

Think about the BT as the extremists, this part that stopped reasoning and becomes a caricature of their faction at large.

The Imperiums mission is not necesseraly genocidal at heart. It is the very same as all other races safe orks who just want to have a good laughs and DE who don't care. Other predate to feed/expand and survive. It is pretty much the same the Eldar would do if they weren't portrayed as weakened or the Tau if they had the means to go toe to toe with the ressources of the imperium.

As a summary: I don't think the different empires in 40k setting are supposed to have dinstinct intentions. In fact they have the same. But in a setting where the Imperium is the dominant fish, it can apply all its stupidity to bully the tinier fishes. If you reversed the situation and put Eldar in command, the scenario could totally be written in quite the same fashion but with Eldard bullying their neighbours.

Then of course the way they achieve it or try to varies, but in the end, they're all pretty much the same as far as ethics go.

For this reason i still disagree on that detail.

 Darnok wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Tau? You find better being rule by a single party of priviledged individuals in a rigid cast system were free will is chastised, and where information is hidden (see Aun'vas holograph and Farsight enclaves totally not being a thing) and lied about? The Tau are dicks. They don't go about it the same manner, they are more subtle characters. hence why their stories involve more diplomacy. And is expansion according to their manifest destiny a good thing? Nah, saying Tau are better is not true.

Eldar happily sacrifice a billion other people as chaff. Best example is Eldars sacrificing armaggedon by trhowing the orks at it to preserve their kin. Or how the help in the organising of the exterminatus in DoW2 (which events are canon)? How is that less abhorrent than what the imperium does? How is their goal not te reestablish dominance because they feel only they are masters and they want to subjugate all other "inferior" races?

Don't know how they rebooted the squats with votanns but old squats with their honour bound grudges brought to massacres for the slightest percieved insult. How is that better belief than the Imperium's?

Every 40k faction is in essence abhorrent, each with its means of expressing it. The imperium is not the villain. It is one of the villains. Black templar are an aspect of that character, an blatant one.
Black templars are a simple theme, maybe not the most original, but they fit the larger lore of their character well.

If anything, if you hope for a good faction in 40k just get yourself another setting.

Grey templar is right.

I think you are missing the point.

Hecaton is correct with none of Eldar, the Leagues or Tau being on a genocidal mission. If you want to stay on an Eldar Maiden World? If you live on a plaent the Leagues want to mine out for profit? If you are adamant about not joining the Tau for the Greater Good? Sure, you and your civilisation will be removed from existence.

That is not what a genocidal mission is all about though. None of them go out of their way to exterminate other species - the Imperium very much does so. Black Templars in particular: one of their trademark quotes is exactly about this!

Note that none of this is saying that Eldar, Tau or the Leagues are in any way "better" than the Imperium. Just that their intentions are different.

He's correct that their intentions aren't genocidal, however, their actions most definitely are. After all, the road to hell is paved with "good intentions".

It's just that he's failed to mention anything negative about any other faction other than the Imperium of Man from what I've seen. It's simply an argument made in bad faith.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:


The Imperiums mission is not necesseraly genocidal at heart. It is the very same as all other races safe orks who just want to have a good laughs and DE who don't care. Other predate to feed/expand and survive. It is pretty much the same the Eldar would do if they weren't portrayed as weakened or the Tau if they had the means to go toe to toe with the ressources of the imperium.

As a summary: I don't think the different empires in 40k setting are supposed to have dinstinct intentions. In fact they have the same. But in a setting where the Imperium is the dominant fish, it can apply all its stupidity to bully the tinier fishes. If you reversed the situation and put Eldar in command, the scenario could totally be written in quite the same fashion but with Eldard bullying their neighbours.

Then of course the way they achieve it or try to varies, but in the end, they're all pretty much the same as far as ethics go.

For this reason i still disagree on that detail.

The Imperium is explicitly genocidal to all sentient xenos and has a central goverment policy that all sentient xenos are to be made extinct. This hasn't changed since the Great Crusade. Some xenos get a temporary stay of execution, usually for pragmatic reasons like an alliance of convemience or insufficient Imperial resources to currently prosecute a war against them. Rogue Traders explicitly have the right to trade with aliens in order to scout out aliens and lull them into a false sense of security.

In contrast, whilst all other major players in the 40k galaxy engage in genocide, most of them do no have an explicitly mono-species agenda. The main exception is the Tyranids, who are omnicidal, and some Necron factions. Other Necron factions are happy to do.inate other species. Chaos will commit acts of great destruction and cruelty including genocide, but Chaos is not limited to humans and many human followers of Chaos work with Chaotic xenos. Orks live for war and have a might-makes-right philosophy, but genocide is pretty rare* and enslavement of defeated peoples is the usual outcome. Tau obviously incorporate multiple xenos races into their empire. Eldar are a bit more complicated and have been shown to be very happy to commit genocide on other species if it saves an Aeldari life, but equally the mainstream view for Cratworld Eldar is of dominance over other species rather than extermination. The pre-Fall Eldar clearly did not see the need for genocide of all other sentients or there would be basically no aliens at all in 40k, likely including humans. Dark Eldar require others to survive if they don't want to change their hedonistic ways, so are very unlikely to try to exterminate all other species.

So in short, I disagree that the main factions in 40k are all the same in their intentions. I think they are all horrible, evil entities but in typically very distinct ways. I think so many flavours of bad is part of the charm of the setting!

*Not unheard of though- the Black Slayers on Armageddon were noted for being especially ruthless in killing all they found.