Good Game, Bad Ending[Spoilers]

[Leonardo Trapovich]

Won't bother using the spoiler tags in the text because i assume that even the BG3 tourists can read THE TITLE(though they often prove otherwise).
Anyways, if you are iconoclast, your first slide after killing a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ C'TAN SHARD is getting told that "lol lmao you were too nice to people so muh imperium of muh emprah of muhnkind invades you and turns people to being mindless savages again".
What is this ♥♥♥♥♥♥ grimderp? At least heretical options are obviously ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ stupid - iconoclast gives a ton of benefits in game and in story instead, just to ♥♥♥♥ on you in the ending slides.
*sigh* imma go play Black Souls - at least "I AM GOING TO ALICE" simulator is good grimdark.

[Khryst]

Originally posted by Harukage:

That is one of the problem i have with the game. Why can't i be radical yet loyal to the Imperium? Why should i as Iconoclast strive to be independent and bring the wraith of the Emperor on myself?

and that's actually the problem with video games in general.

the warrant of a rogue trader, would/should allow exactly that without being "pure dogma". It's made especially worse by the fact Heinrix in conversation even talks about the radical/puritan groups within the inquistion itself.

[corisai]

Originally posted by Harukage:

That is one of the problem i have with the game. Why can't i be radical yet loyal to the Imperium? Why should i as Iconoclast strive to be independent and bring the wraith of the Emperor on myself?

Because being loyal mean picking Dogmatic options? Even if not always - but it should be your highest soul mark value. You aren't forced to pick all Dogmatic options & reaching rank 5.

[ravenguard0009]

Originally posted by Harukage:

That is one of the problem i have with the game. Why can't i be radical yet loyal to the Imperium? Why should i as Iconoclast strive to be independent and bring the wraith of the Emperor on myself?

Pretty much this I was hoping for an ending for something in between Dogmatic and Iconoclast. I really wanted an ending where my Rogue Trader essentially made his protectorate to be like Ultramar an Imperial sector where the Standard of Living is decent or better by Imperial Standards.

[Polupostage]

The big issue here with Iconoclast, is in fact that the Imperial Reclamation pretty much takes you by surprise, i also was "what the ♥♥♥♥ ?" facing that slide, especially after reading much about the independancy a Warrant Trade gives to Rogue Traders.
But yeah, astonishment turned to relief when i remembered lo Nomos the savior, and indeed in the next slide, he saves you.

... Problem is, at no moment in the whole game, is it said that making such Iconoclastic choices, you might after tidying the Expanse get stabbed in the back by the Imperium, even beleaguered as it is already.
At no moment, when you talk to Calcazar for exemple, does he imply, or independantly dawn to the Rogue Trader, that "mmmh, maybe i will NEED the power of a C'tan to not get ♥♥♥ ♥♥♥♥♥".

I also really dislike the way some companions turns out to betray the Rogue Trader and even the values that they were apparently agreeing with. Jae, Yirliet, you ♥♥♥♥♥ !
Also Pasqal, which i carried all over the expanse to become whole and ascend as the collective... So much for his promises of "Yeah we will never forget that". My ass.
I understand also that giving a too happy ending to the romance with Cassia is totally contrary to being grimdark, but really, it ends just like that ? Why then makes it such a passionnate love full of promises, if not maybe pandering for the quota of love story to entice the player ?

So paradoxally the impression given is that the Koronus Expanse seems not so much safer than before, but no one, even those with no ties elsewhere, stays in the retinue of the Rogue Trader to face it together...

All those bad points aside, where i think the characters suddenly deviate abruptly just for the sake of being not a "too good ending", i liked all the rest, since i had the premonition to save and ascend Nomos.

But there is maybe indeed something missing about the benevolence of the Iconoclast Rogue Trader that the Imperium fear, but paradoxally, seems to leave no traces whatsoever in few generations as everyone, even the Werserian for example become average aristocrats.
All this fuss for something that simply revert to a Imperium 2.0 in just a few decades ?...

[drager55891]

It is 40k

Where chaos is in a world happier that a preschool show.

And the rest get the same monotone stuff and lose.

[Alectai]

It's actually canon that the Imperium treats secession as a crime greater than heresy. Heresy, they'll kill you all and make sure to crow their victory to the high heavens, but secession gets you actually Erased from History, with the full attention of the Assassin Temples and any ships and fleets that aren't doing something critical (And 'Stomping on random bits of unrest and xeno invasions are not considered critical unless they're hitting something that can't be lost').

The Imperium's legitimacy is borne from "We are the only path that doesn't get your soul eaten by demons or aliens", which means that they cannot--from a foundational standpoint--tolerate any human polities that don't bend the knee to the Golden Throne. This wasn't something that came after the Emperor got stabbed either, this was his number one priority. "You pay my taxes and obey my doctrine, submitting to my throne, and in exchange, I won't kill you all."

So yeah, it's unsurprising that an Iconoclast run that gains real power draws a full out Crusade Fleet to kill you, that's the number one thing the Imperium will pay any price to stop, and it doesn't matter who's in charge because this is a fundamental maxim that all of their significant players agree on.

[drager55891]

Originally posted by Alectai:

It's actually canon that the Imperium treats secession as a crime greater than heresy. Heresy, they'll kill you all and make sure to crow their victory to the high heavens, but secession gets you actually Erased from History, with the full attention of the Assassin Temples and any ships and fleets that aren't doing something critical (And 'Stomping on random bits of unrest and xeno invasions are not considered critical unless they're hitting something that can't be lost').

The Imperium's legitimacy is borne from "We are the only path that doesn't get your soul eaten by demons or aliens", which means that they cannot--from a foundational standpoint--tolerate any human polities that don't bend the knee to the Golden Throne. This wasn't something that came after the Emperor got stabbed either, this was his number one priority. "You pay my taxes and obey my doctrine, submitting to my throne, and in exchange, I won't kill you all."

So yeah, it's unsurprising that an Iconoclast run that gains real power draws a full out Crusade Fleet to kill you, that's the number one thing the Imperium will pay any price to stop, and it doesn't matter who's in charge because this is a fundamental maxim that all of their significant players agree on.

Part of the lore is they cause many heresy and secession with how they act. Screaming about fighting the great enemies while being their best source of power.

[Polupostage]

But there is precisely absolutely nowhere and nowhen during my Iconoclast run that said i would secede, stop paying tithes, or repudiate the God-Emperor cult, just because i make more pragmatic/benevolent choices than blind dogmatism.

On the contrary there has already been numerous examples given on this topic of various parts of the Imperium ruled with more leeway and benevolence.
Also, i did my run with the Dogmatics die-hard that are Argenta and Ulfar, and at no moment did they criticized my choices (except regarding Xenos). It's even Argenta that sometimes entice you to show mercy and generosity to the downtrodden. And killed her master.

But don't get me wrong i'am not mad that my RT decides to secede since the Imperium launch a reclamation crusade, but this crusade is badly introduced. Correction, it's mere possibility is never introduced during the whole game.
You can expect one if you become openly Heretic i guess, but even then nothing says if it's a possibility at all, especially considering the state of the Maw, that you yourself can't pass.

[Khloros]

Originally posted by Alectai:

It's actually canon that the Imperium treats secession as a crime greater than heresy. Heresy, they'll kill you all and make sure to crow their victory to the high heavens, but secession gets you actually Erased from History, with the full attention of the Assassin Temples and any ships and fleets that aren't doing something critical (And 'Stomping on random bits of unrest and xeno invasions are not considered critical unless they're hitting something that can't be lost').

The Imperium's legitimacy is borne from "We are the only path that doesn't get your soul eaten by demons or aliens", which means that they cannot--from a foundational standpoint--tolerate any human polities that don't bend the knee to the Golden Throne. This wasn't something that came after the Emperor got stabbed either, this was his number one priority. "You pay my taxes and obey my doctrine, submitting to my throne, and in exchange, I won't kill you all."

So yeah, it's unsurprising that an Iconoclast run that gains real power draws a full out Crusade Fleet to kill you, that's the number one thing the Imperium will pay any price to stop, and it doesn't matter who's in charge because this is a fundamental maxim that all of their significant players agree on.

The problem is though, the rouge trader even as the iconoclast path, does not succeed, and he is allowed to do a lot of sketchy things because he has the warrent of trade.

A rouge trader 100% can make deals with Xenos and its kosher as long as it benifits the imperium of man. Foe example, its completely excusable for the deal he made with the eldar.

"Yes you can have your craft world pick up your people then bugger off and we wont bother you" You get rid of xenos in the expanse, you prevent a war between the IoM and that craft world because you are so far out there you would not be able to support it and you would lose all those worlds, and its the iconoclast thing to do.

If they did a better job explaining that the iconaclast was the rebel not just the generic nice guy, it would have been better. but they did not.

[Alucard]

I love how 40k fanboys justify bad writing (becasue Act 3-5 is just very bad writing and Act 5 is riddiculous) by "it's 40k man, its supposed to be like that (bad)".

I guess being fed by GW for over 20 years of bad writing with occasional good few books and media really molded them into "It's 40k bro, you wouldn't get it, it's not bad writing/game - it's grim dark bro".

Copium.

Originally posted by Khloros:

If they did a better job explaining that the iconaclast was the rebel not just the generic nice guy, it would have been better. but they did not.

This! This so much

[Khloros]

A far far better ending to the iconoclast ending would have been along the lines of them having a slide saying something like,
"Despite the loyalty shown by the rogue trader, many of his actions drew the unwavering gaze of the inquisition, the leniency toward criminals, and the lack of contempt shown to xenos had drawn into question his bonds of loyalty, that if not for the sacred warrant of trade that allotted him such freedom to act, would be a death sentence to any other. Though only time would tell, as the road to heresy is paved with good deeds and intent, the future of the rogue traders protectorate would not go on with out the watchful gaze, and all to swift judgement of the inquisition ready to enforce the will of the emperor should it find loyalty lacking..."

Boom there you go, i just made an ending dialog slide for the Iconoclast that leaves ambiguity up in the air regarding their choices made, but does not outright say the imperium of man is going to come and blow you up. you are welcome.

[drager55891]

Originally posted by Alucard:

I love how 40k fanboys justify bad writing (becasue Act 3-5 is just very bad writing and Act 5 is riddiculous) by "it's 40k man, its supposed to be like that (bad)".

I guess being fed by GW for over 20 years of bad writing with occasional good few books and media really molded them into "It's 40k bro, you wouldn't get it, it's not bad writing/game - it's grim dark bro".

Copium.

Originally posted by Khloros:

If they did a better job explaining that the iconaclast was the rebel not just the generic nice guy, it would have been better. but they did not.

This! This so much

That is why I said 40k is where chaos is in a world happier that a preschool show.

The setting does have flaw and is getting worse. The entire it must be grim dark mindset is the LORE cause that brought powered up Space Marines out of no where

[Dominemesis]

Because tolerance and compromise, which is the way of the Iconoclast, while good in our world, is utterly disasterous in the 40K universe where everything else in the universe, from ancient gods, chaos gods, every xenos race, sentient AI and likely some I've forgotten are trying to kill off all of humanity.

[Zaris]

I also played Iconoclast and gave Nomos the Shard power and "it" protected the Expanse from the Imperium and the rogue traders new empire was cut off the rest of the universe.

[Mindmaker]

Should have been nice to Nomos.