Teetengee

I could have predicted that response. We went into this a bit in a discussion about why there aren't role playing games for the non-human factions and it's because most human written aliens are largely just humans in funny suits. Most exist to offer perspectives of outsiders and cultural interaction via analogue and distance as much as any other reason. Necrons are very obviously based at least in part on understandings of Ancient Egyptian culture, of course, but many other xenos species are also rooted in specific real world cultures, just like many imperial factions are.

a coalition of these types who continue to build those ties and unpack the other terrible views they have of each other could engender a good faction in the long run if they could find a way to stick around. Having folks like Guilliman and other heroes of the Imperium on your side would certainly help with that though. I think Guilliman for one is introspective and analytical enough to realize that the imperial strategy can't hold forever, and might be willing to engage in real alliance and coalition building even if only out of desperation now that he's tried the other options. I may be giving him too much credit though.

I think a repair or alternate webway project is the most realistic way that GW might move the setting toward something less fatalistic. Alliance with harlequins might allow for it, bartering with deldar (though...hmmm), or even someone figuring out a way to quarantine parts of the imperial webway could allow for opportunities. And hell, maybe you have to sacrifice terra for it, emperor dies and resurrects, terra is overrun, astronomicon shuttered, but you lock it out of the system and can access it elsewhere so terra and the astronomicon aren't as needed anymore. I don't think anyone in humanity factions are working on such a project explicitly, but it wouldn't surprise me if some inquisitors might try it, or maybe the khan.

I'm less looking at past lore and more looking at what might happen on the return of future primarchs. We've seen previously unparalleled cooperation with xenos (especially yvraine and her eldar factions) and loyalist primarchs have perspective over the 10k fall in combination with the influence to make it a difficult prospect for the Imperium to just destroy them if they step away from orthodoxy. Additionally, the Imperium's ability to crush other attempts is deteriorating with its own crumbling. If the emperor were to die, resurrect, or rise from the throne, there would be enormous tumult throughout the entirety of the imperium and felt through all the galaxy. If a primarch stepped into that vacuum he might have both the influence and perspective to push toward something different, and maybe better. The primarchs themselves might not have the capacity for it, to be honest, but a faction which included a primarch could use the reputation and political significance of the primarch's presence to push for things no other imperial breakaway faction ever could, particularly in the event of a catastrophe like what the recent lore changes regarding the terminus decree suggest might be coming. You'd need a confluence of things 1. Imperial focus sufficiently divided. 2. Perspective on the Imperial decline. 3. The willingness to admit mistakes have been made. 4. A potent enough force to defend until recruitment and alliance can start growing your position. The right people, at the right time, with the right resources, might have a chance. But they'd have to be willing to challenge their own prejudice, bias, and assumption, and make a ton of sacrifices both personal and at larger scales. And you'd have to work very fast to build something up in the wreckage of the Imperium fast enough that you don't get stuck in the "dangerous enough to not be ignored, but not dangerous enough to defend yourself" zone. All that said though...I don't want that to actually occur? I like the idea of it as a hope that fails to be realized better than an actuality, as the measure of that failure is the context by which the tragedy of 40k is given weight. I feel like it would turn 40k into something else, and AOSization that wouldn't really capture the vibes of 40k. I'm of mixed feelings on whether a split in systems between 40k the old world and 41k, age of hope and progress after such an event would be good or not, but I'd definitely not want to see just a pure move into that sort of thematic shift. EDIT: Not sure where to put this in the above, but it's worth noting that not only the Imperium is crumbling, and it seems like everybody's end times are kind of coming around the same pace. Many factions are losing strength, which allows for other factions a little more breathing room and more negotiating power to deal with the factions which aren't (nids, maybe orks, maybe crons)

A good faction would imo have to attempt some sort of other solution, in the long term, that's kind of the point. I can think of ways it could be attempted (some of them heavily dependent on where you fall in the starchild theories and I think any of them involve some sort of overthrow of the machine cult without getting just another machine uprising), but that's not necessarily something I'm actually interested in exploring, because it would be so different from what 40k explores right now and is useful for. So I think I'm in agreement when you say it would rewrite the setting. That's not to say the existing canon (such that it is) would have to be thrown out, but the end result would ultimately be a different collection of themes than our current grimdark 40k. Yeah, and I am sufficiently optimistic that I believe things could get better even at the current point (with truly mythic effort), but that to actually have that happen would kind of change 40k from the setting I want it to be.

To bring things back to @Inquisitor_Lensoven's original question, I think I'd need the aforementioned Inquisitor's working definition of good to be used for the discussion (deontological, utilitarian, moral relativist, etc....). I doubt we'll crack the question of moral evaluation that everyone can agree to in a wardolly discussion forum, but I suspect I can help in determining the results of a specific vision of that within the 40k universe.

ok, but the relevant question to the topic of this thread is "is the imperium good" not "is the imperium necessary for humanity's survival" I argue no on both accounts, but critically we need to need to keep those arguments at least somewhat distinct given the premise of the 40k dystopia or at least the argument needs to be made that they're the same question, and I don't think that's been done sufficiently (yet?) I'd argue that once you no longer value individual humans you lose all claims to humanity. Humanity is more than just the physical stuff of human flesh, just look at how we use words like inhumanity. There is humanity within the imperium, but it is in spite of the Imperium's best efforts, not because of them. On top of that, I think once you're in a context where other peoples exist, you have to question the self-serving notion that protecting your own people's existence is good even when you do so via eradication of everyone else, which is the Imperium's goal. As soon as you make your survival dependent on another's extinction you've crossed the line where protecting your own survival is inherently a good thing, and now you have to justify your actions have worthwhile results. That isn't to say it can't be good, but someone's right to exist doesn't extend to a right to prevent the existence of others, that conflict needs to be navigated by other argument and not by singular axiom. We only have the (xenophobic, genocidal, antitheist) Emperor's (implied) opinion that that golden age was inherently flawed and unsalvageable. Sure it failed, but that doesn't mean the things that caused it's failure couldn't be fixed so you could get the good bits back. I don't think enough has been written about the failure of the DAOT to say that it couldn't be handled differently and better as an alternative to the Imperium. (Though clearly the machine revolt problem is one that would need a real solution.) The Emperor wanted his answers to be right and enforced that through violence, but it's pretty clear he made a lot of mistakes (none of this was what he planned) and failed to foresee many results. We can't trust that he's right on there being no other solutions, and when he eradicates every group that tries something different, it's kind of hard to test that.

the reason the chaos gods are so dangerous is at least partly because they were created in that image as a psychic echo of (largely at this point due to numbers) humanity's most self-destructive impulses. Obviously it is a bit of a self-reinforcing process due to the way the chaos gods influence further action within the universe. The DAOT humans clearly could handle many of these threats without resorting to the imperial totalitarianism, and thus the tragedy of the setting is that the Imperium isn't necessary, but the vast majority of those who work within it are incapable of changing it to something else in any meaningful way. Even the Emperor with all his xenophobia never wanted all of what the Imperium has become. And I am not referencing the tau as an existing faction capable of full self sufficiency, just an example of a different approach that works well enough that shows that if the Imperium's resources were set toward a different path they could successfully do something else. As for humans being a master of their own destiny, I'm not sure how that's relevant?/gen Are humans even being really preserved if the organization created to preserve them strips them of all we'd recognize as humanity? That's a question I think 40k grapples with a lot and avoids a direct answer to, but it's one worth considering as well. I'm not just talking the biological example of space marines, but the moral framework of the Imperium as well, the two obviously thematic echoes. Also, are the centuries old heavily modified leaders of the Imperium even really human anymore (genuine question I think is interesting to consider as well)? Because if not then the Imperium doesn't represent humanity having mastery of their own destiny in any way, putting aside the consideration for whether a small group can truly represent the whole.

Don't worry, it's specifically in the 40k context, because humans are quite canonically not the only species that has cultural development, etc... I don't think the same logic necessarily applies to the real world. I could say more about my distaste for that sort of understanding within the real world, but ultimately it's off-topic for the forum. Also, humans exist within other cultures in the 40k universe beyond just the Imperium (gue'vesa for instance). Basically, equating humanity's survival to the imperium's survival is buying into the in-universe imperial propaganda. My asking for justification of Humanity as the Imperium sees it isn't the same as asking for justification for humanity's existence period. I reject the idea that the Imperium is the only solution that maintains humanity, which is at the crux of things, but I need to know *why* someone feels the humanity as represented by the imperium deserves to be preserved before I can understand where that full disconnect is.

yeah, but I'm questioning why "survival of humanity" is a good outweighing the genocides they (try to) commit, within the context of the 40k universe. I don't see a clear argument for human life being more valuable than eldar, ork, tau, etc within the 40k context being made. Also sort of questioning that all the bad stuff is actually necessary, because we have some evidence that other options at least were available in 40k. The one that I am most curious about though was the "objectively" part of chaos is objectively bad, because that's claiming something specific but I'm not sure what, exactly. I certainly don't contest that chaos are bad, but I don't think they're necessarily categorically distinct in badness from the Imperium, even if I think they're qualitatively a lot worse in many important ways (at least as generally represented within the setting).

(please take my laughter as with you) Through Tzeentch all things are possible./j I'm just trying to get an understanding of what is actually being argued, not even get to an agreement (as I think that exceedingly unlikely).

I mean, absent any explicit authorial intention of in universe moral truth, any interpretation of moral truth in the 40k must be subjective, because it is up to the interpretation of the reader. It isn't real after all, so all of the action within the 40k universe is simply a story being interpreted through our lense (again, barring an explicit statement from GW). Given GW has only ever given that in the form of the "to be a man in such times...is to live in the cruelest and most bloody regime imaginable." line, we have been told previously that the object moral truth is that the Imperium is awful. However, I would caution against using that as objective moral in universe truth as well, due to my understanding of it being de-"word of god"ed by attributing the quote to Vulkan. So in short, no, there is no objective moral truth without explicit authorial intent. On top of that, it is unclear there is even objective truth within the lore, moral or otherwise, due to the everything is canon but not everything is true statements from GW. That means we need to define good for ourselves in these discussions, not having an unbiased in universe definition to work from or a real world agreed firm definition either that everyone can agree to. You've still not really explained the "chaos is objectively bad," "humanity's survival is good," or "only the imperium can ensure humanity's survival" assertions you've made either, which makes it difficult to engage with you in good faith.

you made some interesting assertions here I'm curious about. 1. Why is chaos objectively bad, specifically? (I'm not saying they aren't bad, but you make a clear distinction with the Imperium and that hinges on understanding what exactly you are saying.) 2. Why is human survival the only thing that matters? As far as I'm concerned (and I think many moral frameworks would be consistent with this), if the only way for you to survive is through untold suffering, it is your moral imperative to let yourself perish. Look at modern fables such as Omelas, (though I would avoid any real world examples for forum reasons, of course). I think this question becomes particularly important and more difficult to justify in a setting where non-human cultures of similar complexity to humanity definitely exist.

The imperium is a monster, and the in universe fascist propaganda that justify its continued existence are just that, propaganda. We know from the interex and the tau (not saying either faction is good, mind you) that there are other ways to deal with the threats of the universe. Every moment, the powers of the imperium, corrupt and distant from the front lines and the horrors of the universe, decide to continue, to keep layering atrocity upon atrocity. The imperium must do these things to maintain itself, but the imperium is not humanity, no matter how much it tries to pretend they're the same. That said, the reach and power of even the crumbling Imperium is still sufficient to crush almost any attempt to build something better, and it has to to maintain its own power, like any totalitarian regime; it cannot allow comparison. With the advent of the split in the cosmos due to the actions of Abaddon, there is some chance of pockets growing away from Imperial power that might build a true force for good, but by the time they become a faction they will either win or lose quickly, because the Imperium's hand is forced, it must bend its will to destroy any acknowledgment that another way is possible. As for the lost primarchs. They don't exist for story reasons. They exist for setting reasons, for "your dude" reasons, for the fun little reference to the real world lost roman legions. Since they don't exist for story reasons, they aren't a plot hook, not for the general story/setting of this little plastic wardolly game we all play or hang around. I don't believe they will ever be explained or returned, because their whole point is to be missing. The only reason any explanation has been created at all is for simply consistency within the Horus Heresy bookline explaining the once mythic imagined history of the setting. I think a much more likely "good" faction would be Guilliman (or similar loyalist primarch) realizing the rot that both his father's and his work has wrought within humanity and leaving, trying to build something different and atone for what he's done.

love the pink elements!