Latest posts for the thread "Why is the 40k background so creepy at times?"

Why is the 40k background so creepy at times?

Insane Smile — GMT

So I was browsing around on Dakka and found this cool thread:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/545278.page
It got me thinking, "Why do they make the fluff so disturbing at times?" Please don't get me wrong, 40k's fluff is amazing and it's not like I have a weak stomach. I was wondering what is gained when it is made like it is. I'm saying this is a bad thing just a thought.

Why is the 40k background so creepy at times?

thenoobbomb — GMT

It sets the tone for the universe, the setting of humanity not being just besieged from all sides, but besieged by creatures of nightmare.

Why is the 40k background so creepy at times?

Psienesis — GMT

Grim and Dark. Grimdark.

Re:Why is the 40k background so creepy at times?

HerbaciousT — GMT

Because GrimDark.

Why is the 40k background so creepy at times?

Insane Smile — GMT

Wow that pretty true, didn't think about that.

Why is the 40k background so creepy at times?

ZebioLizard2 — GMT

I play Slaanesh and I heavily enjoy the lore, so yeah. Grimdark.

Why is the 40k background so creepy at times?

KhornedBeef — GMT

I agree being "grimdark" is 40k's thing from the start. This leads to an arms race of horror, because every faction needs to be terrifying/awesome in their own right. So when Codex X states something horrifying about their faction, the next Codex Y needs something at least equally horrifying, if not more. The truth is, the average 40k player is so used to demons mutating and merging dudes with there armor into barely sentient rage-monsters that you have to get "creative"

Re:Why is the 40k background so creepy at times?

Super Ready — GMT

It makes it a bit unique. In lots of sci-fi and fantasy settings there are clear "good guys" and "bad guys", and a lot more people want to play the former than the latter. I find that having a lot of selfish, ambiguous factions not only makes the setting more interesting and less cliche, it's truer to life as a result. (<--- cynic - can you tell...?)

And yet, everybody still flocks to the Marines (also guilty) which would be the default good guy choice if Mankind were still the good guys...

Why is the 40k background so creepy at times?

Waaghboss Grobnub — GMT

Want disturbing Lore?? Read The first Heretic... Realy got me thinking i dont want to live anymore if 40 might become true

Why is the 40k background so creepy at times?

Psienesis — GMT

You don't have to worry about that.... we're still at least 15,000 years away from that.

Why is the 40k background so creepy at times?

LoneLictor — GMT

Over the top grimdark is what makes 40k unique. Take that away and you have...

1) A shitton of technology and lore stolen from Dune.

2) Power armor and Tyranids stolen from Starship Troopers.

3) Chaos stolen from Michael Moorcock

And so on.

Re:Why is the 40k background so creepy at times?

Zed — GMT

Mindless, hopeless, vicious, bloody and endless war needs no explanation...

Why is the 40k background so creepy at times?

DarthMarko — GMT

LoneLictor wrote:
Over the top grimdark is what makes 40k unique. Take that away and you have...

1) A shitton of technology and lore stolen from Dune.

2) Power armor and Tyranids stolen from Starship Troopers.

3) Chaos stolen from Michael Moorcock

And so on.

Dude, after more than 20 years, for the last 3 months I was re-reading F. Herbert and started with books from his son and K.Anderson (which aren't bad IMHO)....

I was freaking shocked how much of that was ripped - a TONE (God emperor, space travel, machine rebelion,sob, psykers...I could really go on)...

Re:Why is the 40k background so creepy at times?

Roberkhan — GMT

Hi, guys! First post in Dakka ever!

I'm currently kind of planning to return to 40k after 15 years lapse, so, I'm in dire need of hooking up with the community out there. That's you !

My guess is that the dark background has it's core at the conflict between order and chaos (not Chaos, just plain chaos, uncontrolled change), with the conflict between good and bad completely subjected to this. Basically, the Imperium tries to be order, to control the galaxy to prevent it's annihilation in any form. Of course, it tries to do so in a very conservative way, which prevents them from strategically allying with other "order" factions such as Tau or Eldar or from exploring new ways of action. It makes sense: immovilism has worked -more or less- for almost 10000 years of total war, so, why take the risk and change? Specially, in a galaxy that heavily punishes change: the Horus Heresy or the Fall of the Eldar were the final steps of very dynamic processes. "Let's not temp luck", High Lords of Terra probably think. "Keep doing what we do best and crush any possible menace with massive force, even if it hurts us. We can take it".

This conservative ideology is what generates all the apparently psychotic -and idiotic- performances from the Imperium: Exterminatus, updated warfare doctrine, feudal political organization, lack of I+D, etc. Esentially, if a change is suspected to have a minimum chance of not working, it is not explored.

However, the Galaxy is changing around the Imperium. Therefore, the assumed risk for lack of risk trade is taking it's heavy toll on it. Updated politics work no more. Crush any potential traitor, his family and his dog when half of the imperial population probably hates the Imperium? Stop the Tyranids with conventional warfare that, basically, feeds the Hive Fleets? Keep the expensive Space Marines as trusty problem-solvers when they keep turning to Chaos at an alarming high rate? Feed Thraka more battles that increase his power among Orkdom?

I don't know now what my point was... Oh, yes, the idea is this: the Imperium (and Eldar, to an extent, according to their last Codex) are sacrificing Good in a struggle for Order, which they are even so losing. That's why the background is so appealling. Specially in a dark time such as our 21st century beginnings (I'm a Spaniard, I know what I mean ), even darker stories are demanded, because they deformingly mirror our dirty world. And we should not forget that all this setting was made up in the 80's, the most postmodern, punk, gritty, sarcastic decade ever.
As Darth Marko and LoneLictor point, GW is not inventing anything new, however. Judge Dredd, for example, followed exactly the same ideology years before WH40k was created: Order keeps society from banishing. Good can wait. It can even be sacrificed if it is in the quest for Order. Dredd is Law, not Justice. So are the Adeptus Terra.
All in all, both Warhammers have been all about cliche-bashing from the beginning. That's fine for me. I like the method. Just assemble good ideas from many sources: other fictions, reallity, history, private jokes, whatever. Mix them and season with a good dose of hype (always go bigger!) and desperate grimdark. Sometimes, the result is memorable, like Tolkien's Third Age languid Elves turned into a bunch of self restraining psycho punks who were about to destroy the Galaxy by partying too hard. Sometimes, it's as bland as Catachans: "See Rambo and Apocalypse Now? Coll, ain't it? Imagine it with lasguns!"

Cheers,
Roberkhan

Why is the 40k background so creepy at times?

pelicaniforce — GMT

LoneLictor wrote:

3) Chaos stolen from Michael Moorcock

The relation between these things is completely superficial. I prefer to imagine that comparisons are made due to poor assumptions, and not impoverished critical faculties.

If critical comparisons fail to convince, then authorial intent and forensic histories may prevail, furnished by Bryan Ansell:

'Certainly, Michael Moorcock was an influence and inspiration. Michael Moorcock and Tolkien cast massive shadows over the whole fantasy industry: in my case Jack Vance and Clark Ashton Smith were equally important.
I don't think our vision of Chaos Warriors overlaps much with that of Michael Moorcock (although we did occasionally borrow his arrow symbol).
For me, all the roots of the Chaos Warriors that Citadel made over the years lie with Frank Frazetta's "Death Dealer" paintings and sketches, the first few "Chaos Warriors" that Tony Ackland made at Asgard (also the one that Stan Pochron made) and John Blanche's sketches from the early 80s.

'I think that the first fantasy stories I read were the "Faraway Tree" tales by Enid Blyton.

'When I discovered fantasy, science and historical fiction in the 1960s Moorcock wasn't visible enough yet to make it into my local (Arnold) library. I was enthusiastic about Jack Vance, Clark Ashton Smith , Harry Harrison, Fritz Leiber, Keith Laumer, James Blish , Robert Sheckley, Brian Aldis , Edgar Rice Burroughs , Kurt Vonnegut, Robert Heinlein ,TH White, Cyril Judd, Fritz Leiber, Philip K Dick and others . Also Russell Thorndike, Rafael Sabatini, Hubert Cole, Alfred Duggan, Mary Renault, Henry Treece, Geoffrey Trease and Leslie Charteris.

'I have books by all those people in the room I am sitting in now.

'I didn't discover Moorcock until the Hawkmoon books in the early 70s. Tandem was publishing James Branch Cabell and getting him to me via WH Smith at round about the same time that Moorcock appeared: so I still associate them with each other. I don't think that Cabell has had any influence on my fantasy gaming, but I am quietly obsessed with him. I recommend "Figures of Earth", "The Silver Stallion" and "Jurgen" to anyone who might enjoy his poetic Edwardian prose and sly wit.

'I suspect that only a small, eccentric minority of gamers are going to be interested in who my favourite artists might be. But: Frank C Pape is my favourite artist. Followed by (in no particular order) Winsor Mckay, John Duncan, NC Wyeth, Druillet, Mobius, Klimt, Albert Robida, Beardsley, Dore, Bruegel, Durer, Richard Dadd.'

As for any themes about order or law, they are either absent or specifically denigrated. The connections are fatuous.

Additionally, the syncretic or pastiche aspects of the settings are ennobling and enabling. They are appropriations of established language to advance more complicated ideas.
\

GW is not inventing anything new

This is the only thing with any verity. GW is not the creative entity. The staff of Citadel created the settings, and finished doing it a while ago. They do not continue to "invent" anything, since those staff do not work on the setting anymore, and that company does not exist. You can credit some individuals like Chambers or Abnett with more efforts, but they are individuals, and Games Workshop is several times removed from actually inventing anything.

Why is the 40k background so creepy at times?

Psienesis — GMT

Well, the whole corrupting/mutating effects of Chaos, as well as all of the artwork found in GW publications depicting the same, are very much, definitely in-line with Moorcock.

As is WHFRP's Gods of Chaos vs Gods of Law, like Solkan (who seems rather a lot like Donblas the Justice-Maker from the Elric saga).

Basically, Ansell is talking out of his butt. Maybe for him Frazetta started the "Warriors of Chaos" imagery, but that certainly does not hold true for the meat-and-potatoes description of Chaos, the Warp, and its effects on mortal creatures depicted in WHFB, WHFRP and the Realms of Chaos sourcebooks.

Why is the 40k background so creepy at times?

Traejun — GMT

Because grimdark... that is all.

Why is the 40k background so creepy at times?

Void__Dragon — GMT

Because Graham McNeill.

Oh Graham McNeill, you sly dog.

Why is the 40k background so creepy at times?

Pilau Rice — GMT

If it was all smiles, cuddles and love there wouldn't be as much war and GW would go bust.