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.

[REhorror]

chris_78500 eredeti hozzászólása:

I think the biggest problem is that the fanabse (as in ,the wider part of it) likes the Imperium too much.
You don't realyl see people complaining about Dark Eldar being "grimderp", or T'au being dumb, or...

But if an Icon,oclast playthrough is right and ends up well, that means the Imperium is WRONG. Capital letters, unambigiuously wrong and dumb and evil.
And fans don't liek that.
They like the idea of the Imperium being evil, but only if there's a justification for it, only if they can rationalize it as "it's necessary".

I think the problem is that the Iconoclaust path is that it's not "right", it's the MC having some unknown protection that prevents him from having any consequences for his action.

This is not "right". This is cringe.

EDIT: For an example, bring up Caligos Winterscales, VERY similar character to your RT, he is an Iconoclaust, he tries to rule BUT he has a heretic in his retinue and that turns him.

In this game, you have Idira and Marazhai (yes, yes, Dark Eldar is anti-Chaos but they can corrupt in different ways) and you constantly interact with heretic and even tries to take up their clothes, and of course, nothing happens to you even if you aren't praying to the Emperor.

So yes, you aren't even playing by the game's rule.

[SnuffSaid]

chris_78500 eredeti hozzászólása:

I think the biggest problem is that the fanabse (as in ,the wider part of it) likes the Imperium too much.
You don't realyl see people complaining about Dark Eldar being "grimderp", or T'au being dumb, or...

But if an Icon,oclast playthrough is right and ends up well, that means the Imperium is WRONG. Capital letters, unambigiuously wrong and dumb and evil.
And fans don't liek that.
They like the idea of the Imperium being evil, but only if there's a justification for it, only if they can rationalize it as "it's necessary".

My main armies were Khorne and Tyranids, the reason I like the Imperium as ambiguous is because it's better writing. "Authoritarianism bad" is obvious and because of that, vapid, if it goes no deeper than that. Creating a world where this unequivocally bad system in our world is the only one that actually works in their world is ethically interesting. This is exactly the same reason why we found GRRMs world interesting; of course we'd want to be the idealistic, honourable knight in shining armour, but in a cruel world without plot armour he's liable to get stabbed in the back; his honour can get him killed. This is half of the appeal when it comes to "grimdark" settings.

[Frostiken]

The problem with Iconoclast is that if it's a "pragmatic" approach where it's neither dogmatic nor heretical, then why isn't the choice in the game to be Iconoclastic simply a matter of picking between dogma and heresy, instead of having the third option right there for you to just mindlessly pick to easily get the "good" ending without having to make a single decision?

[Balekai]

Frostiken eredeti hozzászólása:

The problem with Iconoclast is that if it's a "pragmatic" approach where it's neither dogmatic nor heretical, then why isn't the choice in the game to be Iconoclastic simply a matter of picking between dogma and heresy, instead of having the third option right there for you to just mindlessly pick to easily get the "good" ending without having to make a single decision?

That was already done. As i previously posted earlier (this thread is too big lol), there were four convictions: Imperialis (Dogmatic), Benevolentia (Iconoclast), Hereticus (Heretical) and Reason, which got cut before alpha and absorbed by the Dogmatic and Iconoclast. Notice the empty conviction line below Dogmatic (nm its not there anymore, but in the beta footage you will see it in the Beta conviction window).

Iconoclast is a mixture of being benevolent, rational and/or anti dogmatic without being full on chaos heretic. One can be a heretic that fights chaos. Heretical conviction is for those who's conviction is truly aligned with chaos heresy. Iconoclast conviction is anti dogmatic, but not pro heresy or chaos.

It would be really hard and kind of stupid to combine Iconoclast and heretical because both paths would be so generalized and shallow it wouldn't make sense narrative wise.

The convictions measures intent, not results. That's why they're convictions. ;)

[Moonlight Knight]

chris_78500 eredeti hozzászólása:

They like the idea of the Imperium being evil, but only if there's a justification for it, only if they can rationalize it as "it's necessary".

I do generally agree this is kind of a big problem in the fanbase. Even GW admits the Imperium is fuelled by hate and not a system to admire or emulate in any sense.

REhorror eredeti hozzászólása:

I think the problem is that the Iconoclaust path is that it's not "right", it's the MC having some unknown protection that prevents him from having any consequences for his action.

This is not "right". This is cringe.

EDIT: For an example, bring up Caligos Winterscales, VERY similar character to your RT, he is an Iconoclaust, he tries to rule BUT he has a heretic in his retinue and that turns him.

In this game, you have Idira and Marazhai (yes, yes, Dark Eldar is anti-Chaos but they can corrupt in different ways) and you constantly interact with heretic and even tries to take up their clothes, and of course, nothing happens to you even if you aren't praying to the Emperor.

So yes, you aren't even playing by the game's rule.

I will agree the game would have had more depth if you had to roll Willpower in cases of dealing with Chaos using an Iconoclast option or face some kind of scenario change that made the result worse, and maybe failing enough of these instances could result in the voice in your head getting harder to resist or somehow skewing your perceptions to get its desired result.

That said, I still don't think the Iconoclast route is bad as an idea.

SnuffSaid eredeti hozzászólása:

My main armies were Khorne and Tyranids, the reason I like the Imperium as ambiguous is because it's better writing. "Authoritarianism bad" is obvious and because of that, vapid, if it goes no deeper than that. Creating a world where this unequivocally bad system in our world is the only one that actually works in their world is ethically interesting. This is exactly the same reason why we found GRRMs world interesting; of course we'd want to be the idealistic, honourable knight in shining armour, but in a cruel world without plot armour he's liable to get stabbed in the back; his honour can get him killed. This is half of the appeal when it comes to "grimdark" settings.

Half, maybe, but not all. A lot of people really enjoy watching characters try to uphold their ideals smartly and see how they fare and how much they have to compromise to achieve their goals, which already isn't that far removed from how Imperium authority figures who aren't weak or incompetent already work.

"Authoritarianism bad" is obvious, but like you said, it should go deeper, not surrender as a point entirely. The writing doesn't suddenly become good again when you go "Actually... What if... Authoritarianism... Good?"

[Moonlight Knight]

Balekai eredeti hozzászólása:

That was already done. As i previously posted earlier (this thread is too big lol), there were four convictions: Imperialis (Dogmatic), Benevolentia (Iconoclast), Hereticus (Heretical) and Reason, which got cut before alpha and absorbed by the Dogmatic and Iconoclast. Notice the empty conviction line below Dogmatic (nm its not there anymore, but in the beta footage you will see it in the Beta conviction window).

Iconoclast is a mixture of being benevolent, rational and/or anti dogmatic without being full on chaos heretic. One can be a heretic that fights chaos. Heretical conviction is for those who's conviction is truly aligned with chaos heresy. Iconoclast conviction is anti dogmatic, but not pro heresy or chaos.

It would be really hard and kind of stupid to combine Iconoclast and heretical because both paths would be so generalized and shallow it wouldn't make sense narrative wise.

The convictions measures intent, not results. That's why they're convictions. ;)

Ye, I will agree that a better name for the Iconoclast path would have been Renegade, since that's already a word commonly used to refer to various factions in the setting that are either Excommunicatus or otherwise not welcome in the Imperium for heretical beliefs, but who are still fighting against Chaos and not tainted by it.

[sleeve]

Yall make iconoclast sound abit like Yvraine's sevenfold path for the Eldar

[Werdna]

Iconoclast is for redditors
Loyalists are 3 digit IQ people that want Romance
Heretics are 3 digit IQs that know that Owlcat's Romance writer is a cuck fetishist

[Balekai]

Moonlight Knight eredeti hozzászólása:

Balekai eredeti hozzászólása:

That was already done. As i previously posted earlier (this thread is too big lol), there were four convictions: Imperialis (Dogmatic), Benevolentia (Iconoclast), Hereticus (Heretical) and Reason, which got cut before alpha and absorbed by the Dogmatic and Iconoclast. Notice the empty conviction line below Dogmatic (nm its not there anymore, but in the beta footage you will see it in the Beta conviction window).

Iconoclast is a mixture of being benevolent, rational and/or anti dogmatic without being full on chaos heretic. One can be a heretic that fights chaos. Heretical conviction is for those who's conviction is truly aligned with chaos heresy. Iconoclast conviction is anti dogmatic, but not pro heresy or chaos.

It would be really hard and kind of stupid to combine Iconoclast and heretical because both paths would be so generalized and shallow it wouldn't make sense narrative wise.

The convictions measures intent, not results. That's why they're convictions. ;)

Ye, I will agree that a better name for the Iconoclast path would have been Renegade, since that's already a word commonly used to refer to various factions in the setting that are either Excommunicatus or otherwise not welcome in the Imperium for heretical beliefs, but who are still fighting against Chaos.

Hmm I think Iconoclast fits here better honestly. Renegade suggests more of an open rebellious nature against the Imperium as a whole. Iconoclast decisions and mindset in game as a conviction, is more about how to approach dealing with threats to the Imperium rather than being anti Imperium as a whole. A disagreement with and/or hostility to the religious dogma that an Iconoclast RT, feels is getting in the way of the Imperium's future and success (which makes Iconoclast characters borderline heretical if they weren't the RT). It's 9/10 religious dogma that's the problem when it comes to rational or benevolent Imperial citizens and where they run into trouble.

The real renegade path is Heretical which seems to have a deep disdain for all things Imperium and wants to tear down just about everything, in addition to empowering themselves by any means necessary.

[Moonlight Knight]

Balekai eredeti hozzászólása:

Moonlight Knight eredeti hozzászólása:

Ye, I will agree that a better name for the Iconoclast path would have been Renegade, since that's already a word commonly used to refer to various factions in the setting that are either Excommunicatus or otherwise not welcome in the Imperium for heretical beliefs, but who are still fighting against Chaos.

Hmm I think Iconoclast fits here better honestly. Renegade suggests more of an open rebellious nature against the Imperium as a whole. Iconoclast decisions and mindset in game as a conviction, is more about how to approach dealing with threats to the Imperium rather than being anti Imperium as a whole. A disagreement with and/or hostility to the religious dogma that an Iconoclast RT, feels is getting in the way of the Imperium's future and success (which makes Iconoclast characters borderline heretical if they weren't the RT). It's 9/10 religious dogma that's the problem when it comes to rational or benevolent Imperial citizens and where they run into trouble.

The real renegade path is Heretical which seems to have a deep disdain for all things Imperium and wants to tear down just about everything, in addition to empowering themselves by any means necessary.

Actually, you know what? Fair argument. I was really only approaching it from the angle of "Renegade is already a word for this in canon," but in terms of getting the point across, Iconoclast actually is better.

[holy-death]

BlazingScribe eredeti hozzászólása:

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.

It's not that clear-cut. Some Dogmatic options are plain stupid, too. This is a problem when you are making certain tagged choices, because there are situations when these choices are not reasonable in the context in which they are given and are there only for the player to boost the number for a certain path (even if picking said option is objectively detrimental). Otherwise we wouldn't have choices hard-locked behind ideologies or items that only Dogmatic/Iconoclast can wear.

The latter is quite problematic from role-playing point of view, too. Less in the case of Dogmatic vs Heretic (you can't really justify a Puritan suddenly grabbing a cool Chaos Blade of DOOM out of nowhere), but certainly in the case of Dogmatic vs Iconoclast, especially when items in question aren't actually Holy Relics that can show their true potential only through one's power of faith.

Frankly, I would've liked it more where it had been a battle between Puritan, Radical and Heretical positions. Radical could consider breaking dogma more often, depending on circumstances, but with the caveat that it involves certain risks. It would - for example - allow you to use xenotech, whereas a true Puritan would never touch alien technology. Or you could go Radical enough to use "just a little bit" of Chaos gear, but not enough to be considered too Heretical. And going full Heretical means access to really reality-game-breaking stuff, which could've been cool in and of itself.

So, eh, I see Iconoclast as a nice try, but ultimately a missed opportunity to do some really good stuff with it. I am also disappointed in how little reactivity the game has from role-playing perspective and how there isn't ever anything interesting happening when you screw up a skill check or two.

[Balekai]

The problem with Puritan and Radical is that these terms are more one dimensional compared to the ones used in my opinion. Dogmatic, Iconoclast and Heretical are not about Purity vs. Semi-Impurity vs. Full on impurity. They also don't really fit with the idea of conviction. "I have pure conviction!" "I have "semi-pure conviction!" "I have totally impure conviction!" pure impure what conviction? Radical of what?? Would be my questions. I can easily come to the conclusion what Dogmatic, Iconoclast and Heretical mean when it comes to an Imperial citizen or Rogue Trader.

Dogmatic: One who believes completely in and has full faith in Imperial Dogma and the Emperor. All the struggle, pain and sacrifice is worth every penny.
Iconoclast: One who believes that Imperial Dogma is in many ways, a hindrance to the Imperium, counter productive and there are better ways to do things without so much sacrifice, loss and pain.
Heretical: One who is not only against Imperial Dogma, but is outright hostile towards the Imperium, the Emperor and what it all represents. Tear it all down, increase personal power and rule over your lessers.

If anything, the radical is the dogmatic character because of their radical dogmatic faith in the Emperor and the Imperium. The first dogmatic shift in the game is walking through an inferno believing the Emperor has your back (and after the fact, not thinking for a moment it could be the power of chaos/corruption). The Iconoclast decision is more rational and thoughtful by retreat back and saving everyone to fight another day, which leads to allies on the final tutorial battle. Nothing radical or heretical about that at all. :)

There are some stupid decisions, smart decisions and cool decisions in each conviction. It's up to the player to choose which ones fit their character. Which is why it was nice for Owlcat to reduce max needed conviction and increase conviction shifts to allow more leeway to RP correctly. If you're not farming every single possible point of conviction you will see the results of your more benevolent Iconoclast decisions (Iconoclast decisions are vulnerable to this especially, because taking say a dogmatic option after saving someone with an Iconoclast choice, will nullify that original choice by killing them or their family etc.).

[Frostiken]

Balekai eredeti hozzászólása:

Frostiken eredeti hozzászólása:

The problem with Iconoclast is that if it's a "pragmatic" approach where it's neither dogmatic nor heretical, then why isn't the choice in the game to be Iconoclastic simply a matter of picking between dogma and heresy, instead of having the third option right there for you to just mindlessly pick to easily get the "good" ending without having to make a single decision?

That was already done. As i previously posted earlier (this thread is too big lol), there were four convictions: Imperialis (Dogmatic), Benevolentia (Iconoclast), Hereticus (Heretical) and Reason, which got cut before alpha and absorbed by the Dogmatic and Iconoclast. Notice the empty conviction line below Dogmatic (nm its not there anymore, but in the beta footage you will see it in the Beta conviction window).

Iconoclast is a mixture of being benevolent, rational and/or anti dogmatic without being full on chaos heretic. One can be a heretic that fights chaos. Heretical conviction is for those who's conviction is truly aligned with chaos heresy. Iconoclast conviction is anti dogmatic, but not pro heresy or chaos.

It would be really hard and kind of stupid to combine Iconoclast and heretical because both paths would be so generalized and shallow it wouldn't make sense narrative wise.

The convictions measures intent, not results. That's why they're convictions. ;)

Played more smartly it'd have been interesting to just remove any indication of any kind of conviction altogether, and let players make inobvious fluid choices based on their own interpretation of what's going on in the universe.

Let the "but but but the Imperium is evil, so let me take the actions to oppose it and we can be good guys yay!" suddenly blindside the player as they go down the path of Chaos unwittingly, to only then learn why the Imperium is.

[Dragon Master]

Frostiken eredeti hozzászólása:

Balekai eredeti hozzászólása:

That was already done. As i previously posted earlier (this thread is too big lol), there were four convictions: Imperialis (Dogmatic), Benevolentia (Iconoclast), Hereticus (Heretical) and Reason, which got cut before alpha and absorbed by the Dogmatic and Iconoclast. Notice the empty conviction line below Dogmatic (nm its not there anymore, but in the beta footage you will see it in the Beta conviction window).

Iconoclast is a mixture of being benevolent, rational and/or anti dogmatic without being full on chaos heretic. One can be a heretic that fights chaos. Heretical conviction is for those who's conviction is truly aligned with chaos heresy. Iconoclast conviction is anti dogmatic, but not pro heresy or chaos.

It would be really hard and kind of stupid to combine Iconoclast and heretical because both paths would be so generalized and shallow it wouldn't make sense narrative wise.

The convictions measures intent, not results. That's why they're convictions. ;)

Played more smartly it'd have been interesting to just remove any indication of any kind of conviction altogether, and let players make inobvious fluid choices based on their own interpretation of what's going on in the universe.

Let the "but but but the Imperium is evil, so let me take the actions to oppose it and we can be good guys yay!" suddenly blindside the player as they go down the path of Chaos unwittingly, to only then learn why the Imperium is.

We can even add onto this. The more down chaos you go, the more the player starts seeing things on the screen that really aren't there because chaos is influencing them. They start seeing and hearing events and can't quite make out that what they're doing isn't what they think they're doing.

[Frostiken]

Dragon Master eredeti hozzászólása:

Frostiken eredeti hozzászólása:

Played more smartly it'd have been interesting to just remove any indication of any kind of conviction altogether, and let players make inobvious fluid choices based on their own interpretation of what's going on in the universe.

Let the "but but but the Imperium is evil, so let me take the actions to oppose it and we can be good guys yay!" suddenly blindside the player as they go down the path of Chaos unwittingly, to only then learn why the Imperium is.

We can even add onto this. The more down chaos you go, the more the player starts seeing things on the screen that really aren't there because chaos is influencing them. They start seeing and hearing events and can't quite make out that what they're doing isn't what they think they're doing.

Missed opportunity.

It's not like any of the Traitor Primarchs just one day had a choice in front of them of "Press button, receive evil". Horus was deceived by his pride. Alpharius by his loyalty. Magnus by grief.

When you've got ♥♥♥♥ labeled outright "Heretical Choice", it's no surprise that it's voluntarily giving over to Chaos. Boring.

Imagine had it been written so smartly that Chaos is influencing every choice, *including* ones that sound not heretical at all. That the proper way to navigate through the game is "What Would The Emperor Do".