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]

Originally posted by chaoticevilrussian:

Originally posted by REhorror:

I'm being more lenient because at least the Dogmatic route is awesome and MOSTLY lore-friendly.

Oh well, Owlcat matures a lot more from Kingmaker to WoTR, so I expect the sequel to be even better.

Kingmaker and PotR is where Owlcats fell in love with idea of "Chaotic Good is the best Good". So don't hold your breath.

I think I played Lawful Neutral or Neutral Good in Kingmaker (despite the actual alignment being Lawful Good for some reasons).

Lawful Good, for me is the opposite end of Chaotic Evil, both are cartoonic in a way, too extremes. Always prefer my MC to have some personality flaws.

[Dryden]

Nomos is an unwanted complication. Besides, the lord inquisitor has a much better plan than releasing some entity and hoping it won’t pull a men of iron on you one day.

As for an Iconoclast Nomos holding off an imperial invasion.. maybe. The problem here being that it’s still just a fragment and the Imperium have faced and defeated worse things.

[Moonlight Knight]

Originally posted by REhorror:

Originally posted by chaoticevilrussian:

Kingmaker and PotR is where Owlcats fell in love with idea of "Chaotic Good is the best Good". So don't hold your breath.

I think I played Lawful Neutral or Neutral Good in Kingmaker (despite the actual alignment being Lawful Good for some reasons).

Lawful Good, for me is the opposite end of Chaotic Evil, both are cartoonic in a way, too extremes. Always prefer my MC to have some personality flaws.

I think personally that a big part of why the alignment system sucks is that a lot of people misunderstand it to mean that Lawful Good, for example, is more good than, say, Neutral Good or Chaotic Good.

None of them are more or less good than any other, they're different kinds of good with different priorities.

Personally I prefer Neutral Good because I see the value of discipline and rules, I just think that any law that doesn't exist to provide for human dignity is worth less than nothing, so I don't try to pick a fight with Orderly types but I also don't like being beholden to them. Since that's my overall mindset I tend to relate best to characters who feel similarly, you know?

[REhorror]

Originally posted by Dryden:

Nomos is an unwanted complication. Besides, the lord inquisitor has a much better plan than releasing some entity and hoping it won’t pull a men of iron on you one day.

As for an Iconoclast Nomos holding off an imperial invasion.. maybe. The problem here being that it’s still just a fragment and the Imperium have faced and defeated worse things.

For me, starting YET another humanity civil war in the middle of Chaos & xenos is just frankly dumb.
There's nothing "for the people" about that.

[chaoticevilrussian]

Originally posted by BlazingScribe:

Originally posted by chaoticevilrussian:

Kingmaker and PotR is where Owlcats fell in love with idea of "Chaotic Good is the best Good". So don't hold your breath.

I played Lawful good and didn't regret it for the most part. There was a bit more "my way or death" than I would have liked though. That's beyond the scope here though.

Lawful Good is not being discredited there, thats true but in both games Chaotic Good (Azata especially) is where you get the most. the most allies, the most toys, the best goddess strait up playing matchmaker for you, and you defy ecspectations and conventions to do impossible even more often than other paths. Also Angel it PotR can't be Chaotic or Neutral Good, which makes no sence.

[Metus]

I will say though, I find it funny so far (and in Books) when I play Iconoclast and I see it happen in the books, ♥♥♥♥ just goes better. (IE; Lamenters, Gaunt, Cain, and Salamanders). Yes, I know they die. A lot. But of course, it's a matter of one internet dudes opinion.

[chaoticevilrussian]

Originally posted by Metus:

I will say though, I find it funny so far (and in Books) when I play Iconoclast and I see it happen in the books, ♥♥♥♥ just goes better. (IE; Lamenters, Gaunt, Cain, and Salamanders). Yes, I know they die. A lot. But of course, it's a matter of one internet dudes opinion.

Comissar Cain is not dead. Saying different is going against edicts of Adeptus Administratum.

[Moonlight Knight]

Originally posted by chaoticevilrussian:

Originally posted by BlazingScribe:

I played Lawful good and didn't regret it for the most part. There was a bit more "my way or death" than I would have liked though. That's beyond the scope here though.

Lawful Good is not being discredited there, thats true but in both games Chaotic Good (Azata especially) is where you get the most. the most allies, the most toys, the best goddess strait up playing matchmaker for you, and you defy ecspectations and conventions to do impossible even more often than other paths. Also Angel it PotR can't be Chaotic or Neutral Good, which makes no sence.

Angels can be Neutral Good, you just lose Paladin powers if you do. You can't be Chaotic good because the path is about, well, angels. Azatas are the Chaotic Good variant.

(Worth noting, you can still romance Arueshalae as a non-Azata)

[BlazingScribe]

Originally posted by Megapewpew:

Originally posted by Moonlight Knight:

I'll agree it could have been done differently and better, I just still do think that in some way both the world and the setting itself are better for someone trying to do something like this in a relatively serious manner, so I don't want to dismiss the attempt out of hand, you know?

But like, yeah, what you said in this post is more than fair.

Eh, maybe it's just my personality, but I really dislike the "I know better" story beats that run counter to a setting. It feels like when an author does this, they are superseding their wants and desires over why the setting is popular in the first place.

I get why people like it and I dont begrudge the PLAYER, because it allows people who struggle with grimdark to deal. But I just find it odd, since this is the setting they(the writers) chose.

The "I know better" bit is fair. Your most reasonable opposition as an Iconoclast is usually Heinrix, and he doesn't have the power to meaningfully oppose your decisions. He makes a ton of good points in narrative though, and gets understandably pissed when you ignore dogma. To his credit, he is typically proven right in everything says though. Everyone else, Chorda, Cazador, other notable figures, are either people you shoot for being too dogmatic/crazy or persuade that they are wrong. I can understand how the combination of having a very powerful and influential character and a moralist stance can create a weird mixture on 40k. It really doesn't help that Cazador is a massive hypocrite.

[REhorror]

Originally posted by Moonlight Knight:

Originally posted by REhorror:

I think I played Lawful Neutral or Neutral Good in Kingmaker (despite the actual alignment being Lawful Good for some reasons).

Lawful Good, for me is the opposite end of Chaotic Evil, both are cartoonic in a way, too extremes. Always prefer my MC to have some personality flaws.

I think personally that a big part of why the alignment system sucks is that a lot of people misunderstand it to mean that Lawful Good, for example, is more good than, say, Neutral Good or Chaotic Good.

None of them are more or less good than any other, they're different kinds of good with different priorities.

Personally I prefer Neutral Good because I see the value of discipline and rules, I just think that any law that doesn't exist to provide for human dignity is worth less than nothing, so I don't try to pick a fight with Orderly types but I also don't like being beholden to them. Since that's my overall mindset I tend to relate best to characters who feel similarly, you know?

There's like what 3 different interpretations of Lawful good, but let's just say I don't like the super unrealistic "I'm super good and I'm gonna make the laws good and everyone can/will be good like me".

I like my character having limit, work within the laws while being not overly good or evil or try to subvert the laws at part to do good.

And again, I consider DnD aligmment charts to be flawed, and don't strictly stick to it, I should be Lawful Good in one encounter and Lawful Evil the next one, it depends.

[Balekai]

Originally posted by Dryden:

Nomos is an unwanted complication. Besides, the lord inquisitor has a much better plan than releasing some entity and hoping it won’t pull a men of iron on you one day.

As for an Iconoclast Nomos holding off an imperial invasion.. maybe. The problem here being that it’s still just a fragment and the Imperium have faced and defeated worse things.

But it comes back to priorities.

Using another historical point. One of the reasons why the War of 1812 went as long as it did and was fought mainly by local colonial forces, is because Britain was distracted at home by Napoleon.

The same thing is happening here. The Imperium is being beset on all sides by massive Hive Fleets. The Tomb Wotlds have all awakened for further pressure, Chaos is on the march in the northern sectors including Calixis Sector... but the Imperium is going to throw all its might against a small insignificant back water of the Imperium called the Koronus Expanse which is, more or less, stable with a somewhat heretical, but still allied with Humanity rulers, and is still blocked off for the most part.

Again: Tau situation 2.0.

[chaoticevilrussian]

Originally posted by Moonlight Knight:

Angels can be Neutral Good, you just lose Paladin powers if you do. You can't be Chaotic good because the path is about, well, angels. Azatas are the Chaotic Good variant.

(Worth noting, you can still romance Arueshalae as a non-Azata)

That is true only in the game and goes coppletely against Pathfinder lore where Angels can be of ANY Good alignment (Even if Chaotic Angels are more rare). Nocticula's former angel side-chick from act 4 was actually one of chaotic types. And Azata ARE mostly chaotic due to the way they came into being.

And Aru's romance is written is a way that really makes most sence if you are Azata. She even gets many additional dialogues.

[Dryden]

Originally posted by Balekai:

Originally posted by Dryden:

Nomos is an unwanted complication. Besides, the lord inquisitor has a much better plan than releasing some entity and hoping it won’t pull a men of iron on you one day.

As for an Iconoclast Nomos holding off an imperial invasion.. maybe. The problem here being that it’s still just a fragment and the Imperium have faced and defeated worse things.

But it comes back to priorities.

Using another historical point. One of the reasons why the War of 1812 went as long as it did and was fought mainly by local colonial forces, is because Britain was distracted at home by Napoleon.

The same thing is happening here. The Imperium is being beset on all sides by massive Hive Fleets. The Tomb Wotlds have all awakened for further pressure, Chaos is on the march in the northern sectors including Calixis Sector... but the Imperium is going to throw all its might against a small insignificant back water of the Imperium called the Koronus Expanse which is, more or less stable with a somewhat heretical, but still allied with Humanity rulers, and is still blocked off for the most part.

Again: Tau situation 2.0.

Aye very true. But I’m sure some Inquisitor could find a way to lure either an Ork waaagh or a hive fleet towards the region.

There is always the possibility that some old tech capable of exterminating the problem just happens to be collecting dust.

[Moonlight Knight]

Originally posted by REhorror:

Originally posted by Moonlight Knight:

I think personally that a big part of why the alignment system sucks is that a lot of people misunderstand it to mean that Lawful Good, for example, is more good than, say, Neutral Good or Chaotic Good.

None of them are more or less good than any other, they're different kinds of good with different priorities.

Personally I prefer Neutral Good because I see the value of discipline and rules, I just think that any law that doesn't exist to provide for human dignity is worth less than nothing, so I don't try to pick a fight with Orderly types but I also don't like being beholden to them. Since that's my overall mindset I tend to relate best to characters who feel similarly, you know?

There's like what 3 different interpretations of Lawful good, but let's just say I don't like the super unrealistic "I'm super good and I'm gonna make the laws good and everyone can/will be good like me".

I like my character having limit, work within the laws while being not overly good or evil or try to subvert the laws at part to do good.

And again, I consider DnD aligmment charts to be flawed, and don't strictly stick to it, I should be Lawful Good in one encounter and Lawful Evil the next one, it depends.

The most important things to me personally at least within the narrative structure is A) remembering that a character can fail and still be part of said alignment. An alignment is an aggregate of actions and intent, and so having them stumble morally shouldn't immediately revoke their status, I don't feel. When you should start shifting alignment is when your actions are developing a pattern of failing to live up to your stated ideal, likely because your character (or their player) is making excuses to not change their behavior. B) Good is not nice, and evil is not mean. That doesn't mean I think that being an unrelenting ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ is good, just a well-intentioned character with principles can and, imo, should have scary moments, and being evil isn't just being a cartoon villain, and someone without scruples should absolutely be willing to play ball if it meets their goals or just helps them stay alive.

I actually have a heroic character in Pathfinder whose alignment is neutral evil. You'd never know it to meet him, and he doesn't actually have bad intent because he wants to live a relatively normal, peaceful life. He just doesn't have empathy or an actual moral core. Everything he does for others is for the sake of building a safety net around himself and he's perfectly capable of committing war-crime-level atrocities (and has made plans for how he would do so) if it meant protecting the way of life he's built for himself, and doing so without guilt.

[Megapewpew]

Originally posted by BlazingScribe:

Originally posted by Megapewpew:

Eh, maybe it's just my personality, but I really dislike the "I know better" story beats that run counter to a setting. It feels like when an author does this, they are superseding their wants and desires over why the setting is popular in the first place.

I get why people like it and I dont begrudge the PLAYER, because it allows people who struggle with grimdark to deal. But I just find it odd, since this is the setting they(the writers) chose.

The "I know better" bit is fair. Your most reasonable opposition as an Iconoclast is usually Heinrix, and he doesn't have the power to meaningfully oppose your decisions. He makes a ton of good points in narrative though, and gets understandably pissed when you ignore dogma. To his credit, he is typically proven right in everything says though. Everyone else, Chorda, Cazador, other notable figures, are either people you shoot for being too dogmatic/crazy or persuade that they are wrong. I can understand how the combination of having a very powerful and influential character and a moralist stance can create a weird mixture on 40k. It really doesn't help that Cazador is a massive hypocrite.

Chorda isn't being too dogmatic, she's just crazy(even the Inquisitor says as much) even a dogmatic should have issues with her if they are actually following the rules of the imperium. Luckily you can be an intelligent dogmatic in this game so it works out fine for the most part.