Once again, Pundit makes up the opinions of a bunch of people, having found it inconvenient to discover what they actually think.

Cool story bro.

Actually Pundit, there's several Radical factions within the Inquisition itself (tasked with preserving the Status Quo) that feel the Empire is "wrong", and seek to remake it in their ideology. Some of which go against several of the tenets of the current Imperium (technology is sancrosect, the alien must be destroyed, using the Profane against Chaos, etc).

Some are "good", some are "evil", all of them come from people trying to make a go of it, in the 40k universe.

Really, the WH40k universe has become a lot like D&D or Star Wars: enough divergent material has come out, that you can run 100 different theme'd campaigns in the game universe, and they'd all work. It's just that damn big and diverse enough, that anyone's play style can really be accommodated (well, within reason. TOON WH40k is unlikely to ever happen...).

Quote from: Novastar;474966(well, within reason. TOON WH40k is unlikely to ever happen...).

I thought it already did with Blood Bowl.

It's also a setting designed for a wargame.

Complaining about the setting along certain lines, such as we have seen, is often ignorant of that fact.

40K, evne during the Rogue Trader days, was still a wargame - or a skirmish game. Combat has always been the bread and butter of the setting. Hence the bloody time of war motif.

If it was intended as an rpg or perhaps had evolved into one from a much earlier point then things probably would be different. They would be more open to change, which is ultimately what most people cannot grokk: the Imperium is a static entity wholly resistant to change on the basis that change = chaos (literally in the case of Tzeentch ).

The question of what attitude one ought to take towards the Imperium is ultimately one for PCs in a campaign to ask. As I said, the best 40KRPG games I've been in have been ones where the question of the morality of the Imperium and its agents is a recurring theme of great importance. DH supports this best of the three, with its Inquisitorial factions and the recurring mentions of the radical "slide" many go through.

I'm currently reading a bit on the French and Indian War, and it occured to me at one point that it'd make an interesting way to map its narrative onto the 40k universe. You got two major warring factions, empire'esque and unbound in their ambition for domination and conquest, and caught between them you have these warrior tribes of uncouth natives who may be more brutal than either empire (e.g. the taking of scalps) but in other ways don't engage in colossal war enterprises (for lack of technology, and other reasons).

Sure the mapping of Indians onto Orcs is not pc, but then so is the mapping of France/Britain onto Empire/Chaos (or Chaos/Empire, take your pick). But the key is to see that

a) in a conflict of only evil factions the orcs come closest to being non-evil, the lesson here being that 'monstrous/uncivilized' does not always equal 'non-noble', and

b) Empire and Chaos may look on the surface as if they map onto a 'good/evil' conflict but under the surface they are quite similar w.r.t to their goals (world spanning domination) and only differ w.r.t to their means, and neither is above justifying any means by their ends (e.g. inquisitors nuking whole planets to wipe out a hive of heretics).

This is a first shot of some vague train of thought I've been having. So if there's something colossaly wrong or tasteless about it, don't hesitate to let me know. That's after all what this board excels at.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;474974The question of what attitude one ought to take towards the Imperium is ultimately one for PCs in a campaign to ask. As I said, the best 40KRPG games I've been in have been ones where the question of the morality of the Imperium and its agents is a recurring theme of great importance. DH supports this best of the three, with its Inquisitorial factions and the recurring mentions of the radical "slide" many go through.

Yeah recently in the Grey Knights Codex Toquamada Coteaz himself has begun the slide to radicalism. It seems to be something of a default now that pretty much every Puritain gets corrupted.

Quote from: RPGPundit;474949Its Grimdark, its stupid, its pseudo-fascist fanwank. But its not "misery tourism" in the strict definition of the term.

RPGPundit

So it's more like America's foreign policies?

Oh wait, that description also applies to bullshit like FtA.

Quote from: Blackhand;475100So it's more like America's foreign policies?

Oh wait, that description also applies to bullshit like FtA.

Wow...

Quote from: Talking_Muffin;475106Wow...

Methinks Blackhand hasn't read FtA.

Also, he whines like a little canon-bitch every time someone has the timerity to question his fanwank material.

Quote from: Blackhand;475100So it's more like America's foreign policies?

Oh wait, that description also applies to bullshit like FtA.

LOL weak insult is weak.

Seriously, that's the best you've got? A total non-sequitur that only highlights your own ignorance?

RPGPundit

Nonsequitur is where it's at.

I didn't really see it as such.  Maybe that actually highlights your arrogance, rather than my ignorance.

It was an insult, and an example of how rhetoric can be applied to anything you want to demean, when you want to demean it.  

I have not wasted more than a few minutes of my time with FTA, but that's irrelevant to statement.  It's just part of the comment you see as a nonsequitur.  You are the psuedo-fascist (rpg'r!), in this view.  When you apply rhetoric, you can take any view on those words you want.  The more spin, the better.

As far as fanwank goes - I think that's basically what we're all doing here, so don't get too far up on that high horse and take a look at what's actually being said - that we hate the very concepts of each other's games.

Quote from: One Horse Town;475260Also, he whines like a little canon-bitch every time someone has the timerity to question his fanwank material.

No.  I am here to remind people whenever someone has the temerity to make an argument against the setting when the crux of that argument serves as the point of the setting.

Such as the psuedo fascist Imperium.  You can't change it.  It would change the setting.

Quote from: One Horse Town;475260Methinks Blackhand hasn't read FtA.

I was referring to the ignorant statement of American foreign policies. Some are fucked-up, but still...

Oh yeah, as a tangent, why was Bush blasted for starting an illegal war (that was voted on by a Congress with members who ran like scared, little bitches once it wasn't popular), but Obama gets a pass on bombing the shit out of Libya? Anyhoo, what's FTA/fta/Fta/etc?

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;474955Once again, Pundit makes up the opinions of a bunch of people, having found it inconvenient to discover what they actually think.

To be fair that does save a lot of time.

Quote from: Talking_Muffin;475312I was referring to the ignorant statement of American foreign policies. Some are fucked-up, but still...

Oh yeah, as a tangent, why was Bush blasted for starting an illegal war (that was voted on by a Congress with members who ran like scared, little bitches once it wasn't popular), but Obama gets a pass on bombing the shit out of Libya? Anyhoo, what's FTA/fta/Fta/etc?

Don't get politics in your RPG discussion please. That stuff belongs in tangency.

FtA = Forward to Adventure! Pundit's first published RPG.