Philosophy in 40k and Why People are Mad about Iconoclast

[BlazingScribe]

These are some musings I've had and conclusions I've come to since playing Rogue Trader, and reflecting on the setting its presents along with other materials on 40k I have read. Spoilers ahead, so be warned.

40k as a setting is relentlessly, comically grim, and that is intentional. That tone is a necessary component of the setting, partly because it is one of its defining features after decades of use and adaptations, and partly because many of rule-of-cool elements and character moments depend on that depressing background to work. Caiphas Cain would not work half as well in Star Trek as he does in 40k. The Salamanders and Lamenter's status as the "good guys" is only relevant because of the context they are in. The relentless darkness of the setting makes the frequent negative outcomes tolerable in light of the rare, but bright contrasts of the victories against evil. Plus, for those people who like seeing evil get its due, its an inversion of the usual formula. When the setting is working as intended, it's great, because you can enjoy heavy metal space operas without a trace of irony. It's just really a cool illusion. But its a narrow path.

On the one hand, there is such a thing as grimderp; when something is so grim, so dark, so inane in its cruelty that readers give up. The odds are no longer insurmountable, they're just dumb. Where this line is varies from person to person and author to author; a bell curve of acceptability. Act 3 in Rogue Trader is arguably this point. Your character being betrayed, captured, and likely failing numerous skill checks and encounters can be frustrating to a play that has grown used to having agency. More importantly, the player does not just resent the characters who placed in that narrative position, they resent the story itself for taking that direction. Investment is lost, and in-character desperation becomes frustration. We approach the "dumb" zone. That isn't a universal experience, but it is an example of approaching the "negative" end of the curve.

On the other hand, there is the positive end of the curve that is more insidious. This is the point where things become too noble, too bright, too optimistic for the setting around it to sustain. Much like horrific fascist dictatorships in real life, the Imperium of the 40k universe only works when the following statement is true: The horror is necessary. The Imperium is not even close to a "good" faction, but you can get around that and empathize with its collective if you accept that this is the best they can manage. If that ever stops being true, and a viable, more palatable alternative is available, then the horror of the imperium is accented and we approach the "dumb" zone again. This is what happened with the original Tau, a faction that originally appeared more moral and noble than the imperium, yet was still competitive. The usual arguments in favor of the imperium failed, it was shown to be evil and stupid by comparison, and so the illusion broke. Most can support a lawful evil empire if the context permits it, but no one likes a cruel idiot. How Iconoclast can be interpreted in this game has a similar risk.

The iconoclast narrative looks stuck in a no-win situation. The setting demands that idealist action backfire, that relentless dogmatism is the only way to survival and that is why all the common-place suffering is acceptable. If an idealist iconoclast does succeed in making their Utopia, it risks making the rest of the setting stupid-evil by comparison. But as a roleplaying experience, it sucks to pick a narrative route that ends with "rocks fall, everything dies." Saying "I warned you" doesn't make that outcome any more enjoyable, it just makes you insufferable and the recipient angry. I think this is why there are so many arguments about Iconoclast choices. it's an argument between people who understand the setting and accept it for how it is, and people who want the agency to push back against a status quo. Two different, be equally important narrative fantasies. Owlcat I think recognized this on some level, because they did something pretty clever with Iconoclast. Spoilers ahead. Seriously, do not read if you have not finished the game.

Nomos is the answer. Nomos solves every problem, both with the narrative and the setting, for everyone involved. Iconoclast players get their happy ending, or as close as they can manage. They get to play the benevolent ruler, who faces down both chaos and the Imperium and says "no, we're doing something different." They get a sliver of hope, and a promise at a future, and that's enough. For setting purists and dogmatists though, their justifications are not compromised. Getting Nomos for an Iconoclast run is a difficult gamble that might not even work, and requires a lot of compromises to achieve. It is long shot at best, and at worst heralds the "something worse" that is promised by alternatives. More important, the Nomos solution wouldn't work across the imperium at large; it's a miracle that it could work at all. The setting is intact, the grimdark still makes sense, the heavy metal space opera continues.

Rambling essay over.
TL:DR I think Iconoclast deserves a lot of credit for how it's been implemented and I think opposition to it from purists doesn't take the full picture into account. It isn't a "golden ending" exactly, it's a risky third path. A viable path to benevolence and a bright future, maybe, but a dangerous one, only accessible through guile, determination, and a lot of luck. All the effort aside, they got lucky this time. Isn't that grimdark in itself?

*Minor edits for clarity.

[BlazingScribe]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από REhorror:

My problem with Iconoclaust is basically there's no downsides.
Heretic: you lose and piss off a lot of companions.
Dogmatic: you lose out in profit factor and SOME companions.

Iconoclaust: you get the best of both worlds, all the companions (including the bloodthirsty Dark Eldar) and all the profit factor, and all the flaws (such as the permanent debuff can be willed away either by bug or event).

It seems very Mary Sue-ish considering the flaws in the other paths.
This is why I don't consider it canon nor it fits 40K.

I have two points to consider for that.
1. Iconoclast can be played and interpreted as a middle ground between zealotry and heresy. It's a shade, and as a shade can be nudged one way or the other. A moderate by definition is going to be acceptable to a wider array of opinions. So yeah, it makes sense that a moderate could reach more people and have more options. Particularly when the other two primary options are extremes in of themselves. This is to say nothing of the fact that an Iconoclast playthrough could be anything from an full-on rebellion against the imperium to a more modest take on imperial faith.

2. I'm going to ignore the term "Mary-Sue" because it means nearly nothing, and point this out instead. You cannot simultaneously claim that Iconoclast is the "best" outcome in all categories, while also pointing out the numerous ways that hard-lining it causes problems, not the least of which can be seen at the end of chapter 1, and could unsustainable long-term. By definition, an Iconoclast conclusion has its issues. Those issues are different and more subtle than the extreme alternatives, but they exist, and your actions can bite hard. It is very easy to see why burning everyone alive on a space station on the suspicion of heresy could be a problem. it is bit harder to understand why allowing minor cults to exist could be an issue but... then you learn.

[Balekai]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από REhorror:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Balekai:

I don't think any of this game is going to be canon. :D

Might not, but probably Heretic and Dogmatic would be the most fitting.

Being the "independent" Hermit boss isn't going to last, and will just revert to other 2. Or you get conquered and ruled by xenos.

It would be Dogmatic ending(s) if anything.

As for the Hermit Kingdom not lasting. Nothing is going to last in the 40K universe including the Imperium. It's all on its way out unless some Order Gods start resurrecting. :)

We know based off some companion endings it has to last at least a few decades if not centuries narrative continuity wise.

The thing about the Koronus Expanse is that GW can ignore this game as Canon because the area is such small potatoes. The Rogue Trader could die one day and the region reverts back to the Imperium over time as more dogmatic influences take over. Nomos goes and does something else/disappears whatever. Very easy for everything to be canon but not canon.

[REhorror]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Balekai:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από REhorror:

Might not, but probably Heretic and Dogmatic would be the most fitting.

Being the "independent" Hermit boss isn't going to last, and will just revert to other 2. Or you get conquered and ruled by xenos.

It would be Imperium ending if anything.

As for the Hermit Kingdom not lasting. Nothing is going to last in the 40K universe including the Imperium. It's all on its way out unless some Order Gods start resurrecting. :)

We know based off some companion endings it has to last at least a few decades if not centuries narrative wise continuity wise.

The thing about the Koronus Expanse is that GW can ignore this game as Canon because the area is such small potatoes. The Rogue Trader could die one day and the region reverts back to the Imperium over time as more dogmatic influences take over. Nomos goes and does something else/disappears whatever. Very easy for everything to be canon but not canon.

Well, yes, nothing is going to last.

But say, your hermit kingdom is gonna like 100 top, provided the warp storm doesn't mess up with the subsequent Crusade fleet.

Unlike the other empires that last for ten thousands of years already and have a solid foundation.

[REhorror]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από BlazingScribe:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από REhorror:

My problem with Iconoclaust is basically there's no downsides.
Heretic: you lose and piss off a lot of companions.
Dogmatic: you lose out in profit factor and SOME companions.

Iconoclaust: you get the best of both worlds, all the companions (including the bloodthirsty Dark Eldar) and all the profit factor, and all the flaws (such as the permanent debuff can be willed away either by bug or event).

It seems very Mary Sue-ish considering the flaws in the other paths.
This is why I don't consider it canon nor it fits 40K.

I have two points to consider for that.
1. Iconoclast can be played and interpreted as a middle ground between zealotry and heresy. It's a shade, and as a shade can be nudged one way or the other. A moderate by definition is going to be acceptable to a wider array of opinions. So yeah, it makes sense that a moderate could reach more people and have more options. Particularly when the other two primary options are extremes in of themselves. This is to say nothing of the fact that an Iconoclast playthrough could be anything from an full-on rebellion against the imperium to a more modest take on imperial faith.

2. I'm going to ignore the term "Mary-Sue" because it means nearly nothing, and point this out instead. You cannot simultaneously claim that Iconoclast is the "best" outcome in all categories, while also pointing out the numerous ways that hard-lining it causes problems, not the least of which can be seen at the end of chapter 1, and could unsustainable long-term. By definition, an Iconoclast conclusion has its issues. Those issues are different and more subtle than the extreme alternatives, but they exist, and your actions can bite hard. It is very easy to see why burning everyone alive on a space station on the suspicion of heresy could be a problem. it is bit harder to understand why allowing minor cults to exist could be an issue but... then you learn.

I'm going to say two things.
1. If it's the middle between the two, then it should inherit the flaws of the others. But in this case, you get all the benefits with next to no downsides, that is Mary Sue-ism. You get everything without suffering ANY notable consequences.
2. M8, you get to convince a baby C'tan friggin' God to be your protector. Nothing realistic or awesome about that, it's just pure plot device to explain why the other factions don't immediately go in and destroy your kingdom right now.

[BlazingScribe]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από REhorror:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από BlazingScribe:

I have two points to consider for that.
1. Iconoclast can be played and interpreted as a middle ground between zealotry and heresy. It's a shade, and as a shade can be nudged one way or the other. A moderate by definition is going to be acceptable to a wider array of opinions. So yeah, it makes sense that a moderate could reach more people and have more options. Particularly when the other two primary options are extremes in of themselves. This is to say nothing of the fact that an Iconoclast playthrough could be anything from an full-on rebellion against the imperium to a more modest take on imperial faith.

2. I'm going to ignore the term "Mary-Sue" because it means nearly nothing, and point this out instead. You cannot simultaneously claim that Iconoclast is the "best" outcome in all categories, while also pointing out the numerous ways that hard-lining it causes problems, not the least of which can be seen at the end of chapter 1, and could unsustainable long-term. By definition, an Iconoclast conclusion has its issues. Those issues are different and more subtle than the extreme alternatives, but they exist, and your actions can bite hard. It is very easy to see why burning everyone alive on a space station on the suspicion of heresy could be a problem. it is bit harder to understand why allowing minor cults to exist could be an issue but... then you learn.

I'm going to say two things.
1. If it's the middle between the two, then it should inherent the flaws of the others. But in this case, you get all the benefits with next to no downsides, that is Mary Sue-ism. You get everything without suffering ANY notable consequences.
2. M8, you get to convince a baby C'tan friggin' God to be your protector. Nothing realistic or awesome about that, it's just pure plot device to explain why the other factions don't immediately go in and destroy your kingdom right now.

"Those issues are different and more subtle than the extreme alternatives, but they exists, and your actions can bite hard. "

Do you read what you're debating against or just argue?

[REhorror]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από BlazingScribe:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από REhorror:

I'm going to say two things.
1. If it's the middle between the two, then it should inherent the flaws of the others. But in this case, you get all the benefits with next to no downsides, that is Mary Sue-ism. You get everything without suffering ANY notable consequences.
2. M8, you get to convince a baby C'tan friggin' God to be your protector. Nothing realistic or awesome about that, it's just pure plot device to explain why the other factions don't immediately go in and destroy your kingdom right now.

"Those issues are different and more subtle than the extreme alternatives, but they exists, and your actions can bite hard. "

Do you read what your debating against or just argue?

OK, what are the CONSEQUENCES of an independent Iconoclaust route in-game? Where are the biting hard?
I'm talking about CONSEQUENCES as in profit loss, loss of companions, or even some bad ending slides.

[The Sylvan Learning Center]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από REhorror:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από The Sylvan Learning Center:

Neutral is always the "best" path in video game writing

No it isn't, usually Lawful Good/Goody-two-shoes is.
Neutral implies you can take reward after completing a quest.
Lawful Good/Goody-two-shoes means you ought to refuse reward, and then gets rewarded some more for your supposed charity.

No,
The lawful good endings are usually implied by the writer to be *too* lawful and the neutral is usually harder to get and more satisfying.

[REhorror]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από The Sylvan Learning Center:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από REhorror:

No it isn't, usually Lawful Good/Goody-two-shoes is.
Neutral implies you can take reward after completing a quest.
Lawful Good/Goody-two-shoes means you ought to refuse reward, and then gets rewarded some more for your supposed charity.

No,
The lawful good endings are usually implied by the writer to be *too* lawful and the neutral is usually harder to get and more satisfying.

You are talking about the best.

Lawful Good is usually the easiest and even somehow most profitable.
Satisfying is subjective.

[AH-1 Cobra]

Iconoclasts are also heretics who must be purged.

[Balekai]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από REhorror:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Balekai:

It would be Imperium ending if anything.

As for the Hermit Kingdom not lasting. Nothing is going to last in the 40K universe including the Imperium. It's all on its way out unless some Order Gods start resurrecting. :)

We know based off some companion endings it has to last at least a few decades if not centuries narrative wise continuity wise.

The thing about the Koronus Expanse is that GW can ignore this game as Canon because the area is such small potatoes. The Rogue Trader could die one day and the region reverts back to the Imperium over time as more dogmatic influences take over. Nomos goes and does something else/disappears whatever. Very easy for everything to be canon but not canon.

Well, yes, nothing is going to last.

But say, your hermit kingdom is gonna like 100 top, provided the warp storm doesn't mess up with the subsequent Crusade fleet.

Unlike the other empires that last for ten thousands of years already and have a solid foundation.

That's a lot of assumption. We have argued this before, but first of all there's nothing in the game that suggests any Imperial Fleet can beat Nomos' wards and the Imperium isn't big on innovation. It also has bigger sish to fry like Chaos and the Tyranids.

Do you know who will be big on innovation and technological advancement? A Koronus Expanse no longer beholden to Imperial dogma that is freer to study, progress and coalesce into a better functioning, less Byzantine region of space. That's if that innovation and learning doesn't turn the whole area into a daemon or xenos ravaged sector of space. But Nomos Protects! :p :P

The same arguments you make can be applied to the Tau Empire that doesn't have a super protector like Nomos. In many ways, the Maw and by extension Nomos' wards, act very much like the warp storms that protected the Tau for like 4000 years from Exterminatus.

Or real world similar events that created unlikely powers such as the American Revolution leading to a nation (protected by the Atlantic and later Pacific Ocean), that one day would eventually eclipse the British Empire in geopolitical power and no one would have seen that one coming.

[L3wt]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από AH-1 Cobra:

Iconoclasts are also heretics who must be purged.

This.

[Megapewpew]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από BlazingScribe:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από REhorror:

My problem with Iconoclaust is basically there's no downsides.
Heretic: you lose and piss off a lot of companions.
Dogmatic: you lose out in profit factor and SOME companions.

Iconoclaust: you get the best of both worlds, all the companions (including the bloodthirsty Dark Eldar) and all the profit factor, and all the flaws (such as the permanent debuff can be willed away either by bug or event).

It seems very Mary Sue-ish considering the flaws in the other paths.
This is why I don't consider it canon nor it fits 40K.

I have two points to consider for that.
1. Iconoclast can be played and interpreted as a middle ground between zealotry and heresy. It's a shade, and as a shade can be nudged one way or the other. A moderate by definition is going to be acceptable to a wider array of opinions. So yeah, it makes sense that a moderate could reach more people and have more options. Particularly when the other two primary options are extremes in of themselves. This is to say nothing of the fact that an Iconoclast playthrough could be anything from an full-on rebellion against the imperium to a more modest take on imperial faith.

2. I'm going to ignore the term "Mary-Sue" because it means nearly nothing, and point this out instead. You cannot simultaneously claim that Iconoclast is the "best" outcome in all categories, while also pointing out the numerous ways that hard-lining it causes problems, not the least of which can be seen at the end of chapter 1, and could unsustainable long-term. By definition, an Iconoclast conclusion has its issues. Those issues are different and more subtle than the extreme alternatives, but they exist, and your actions can bite hard. It is very easy to see why burning everyone alive on a space station on the suspicion of heresy could be a problem. it is bit harder to understand why allowing minor cults to exist could be an issue but... then you learn.

Eh, I disagree here. There is not near enough consequences for "playing it nice" in a universe like 40k. Things for the most part, can just "work out" by being iconc as long as you pick the right choices, which by it's existence cheapens any tough choices in accordance to the lore. Dogmatic and Heretic feel closer to how it should feel in this universe, iconclast feels like fanfiction, tbh due to it not having ANY edges to it.

[Moonlight Knight]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Megapewpew:

Eh, I disagree here. There is not near enough consequences for "playing it nice" in a universe like 40k. Things for the most part, can just "work out" by being iconc as long as you pick the right choices, which by it's existence cheapens any tough choices in accordance to the lore. Dogmatic and Heretic feel closer to how it should feel in this universe, iconclast feels like fanfiction, tbh due to it not having ANY edges to it.

To be fair, Battlefleet Gothic has a whole ending where you literally close the Eye of Terror, so I'm not sure this is really an issue. Not every ending has to be taken as canon or even canonically possible.

[REhorror]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Balekai:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από REhorror:

Well, yes, nothing is going to last.

But say, your hermit kingdom is gonna like 100 top, provided the warp storm doesn't mess up with the subsequent Crusade fleet.

Unlike the other empires that last for ten thousands of years already and have a solid foundation.

That's a lot of assumption. We have argued this before, but first of all there's nothing in the game that suggests any Imperial Fleet can beat Nomos' wards and the Imperium isn't big on innovation. It also has bigger sish to fry like Chaos and the Tyranids.

Do you know who will be big on innovation and technological advancement? A Koronus Expanse no longer beholden to Imperial dogma that is freer to study, progress and coalesce into a better functioning, less Byzantine region of space. That's if that innovation and learning doesn't turn the whole area into a daemon or xenos ravaged sector of space. But Nomos Protects! :p :P

The same arguments you make can be applied to the Tau Empire that doesn't have a super protector like Nomos. In many ways, the Maw and by extension Nomos' wards, act very much like the warp storms that protected the Tau for like 4000 years from Exterminatus.

Or real world similar events that created unlikely powers such as the American Revolution leading to a nation (protected by the Atlantic and later Pacific Ocean), that one day would eventually eclipse the British Empire in geopolitical power and no one would have seen that one coming.

The Koronus expanse isn't as big enough to be compared to the American continent.

The americans also got support from rival powers at the time such as the french. And then they themselves also decide to play ball with the original Empire, the brits after independence.

Your new regime got nothing except a C'tan god that will totally protect us mmmm'kay.

If I want to get into RL examples, it would be closer to Ukraine which had a popular "muh freedom coup", stays a few years and then Russia decides to get it back.

[BlazingScribe]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από REhorror:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από BlazingScribe:

"Those issues are different and more subtle than the extreme alternatives, but they exists, and your actions can bite hard. "

Do you read what your debating against or just argue?

OK, what are the CONSEQUENCES of an independent Iconoclaust route in-game? Where are the biting hard?
I'm talking about CONSEQUENCES as in profit loss, loss of companions, or even some bad ending slides.

Okay. Spoilers for endings.
1. Heinrix probably right about Minoris. While you are able to save a handful of citizens and a miraculous generator who go on to create a new world, within a generation it inherits all of the problems of the old one. Plus you get a demon world constantly spewing out corruption and ravaging the expanse.
2. Possible death by inquisition, depending on how extreme you are, whether you were loyal, and whether Nomos can back you up.
3. Several companions can go into exile/die because of association with you and your actions. This varies but is still notable. Yrliet (because of Pasqal), Argenta, and Ulfar. Heinrix too probably depending on how you treated them.
4. All of your colonies have some kind of major crisis that needs to get resolved and does appear in the ending slides. Being benevolent towards cults on your capital world results in a genestealer invasion. The penal world can become a pirate haven. Janus can get thrashed by xeno spirits. Footfall can have a religious schism and the artifact stolen by drukhari. The Forge world can be okay but it depends on you making nice with an ancient and unknowable machine.
5. Your fate, should you choose, is entrusted to a "abominable monster" who is a god for all intents and purposes. Personally, I like Nomos, but they are alien and not at all human.
6. You have religious schisms in the imperial faith and the adeptus mechanicus depending on your actions, resulting in the deaths of many people.
7. While Yrliet can be a loyal ally if given the chance, the Drukhari is NOT and can even kill Abelard's children.

Other things
.
1. Scammed by xeno trader on footfall.
2. Give up opportunity to open a war rift in the dark city. Not necessarily a bad one, but a missed fun bit of payback all the same.
3. Potentially spent a lot of money in Jae's quests and others throwing money at problems.
4. Picking a fight with and killing Chorda or the Archbishop
5. Possibly causing Argenta to fail in her quest depending on how you treated her faith. A dogmatic character would have no issue encouraging her wholeheartedly.
6. Numerous colony improvements, while mechanically beneficial, are depraved in execution. Turning your people into servitors or corpse starch does not fit with a "good-two-shoes" playthrough, even if it does benefit your empire overall.
7. Some of the best equipment in the game is locked behind levels of dogmatic or heretic. (yeah Iconoclast has their own but its a valid point for any of them.)

There are other things, but you get the point. Not everything above is explicitly labled "iconoclast" but some area, and the rest falls in line with the moralist ideology in general.