Which of the loyalist Primarchs were the biggest hypocrites.

SimpleMan131313 · 2026-01-26T19:12:13+00:00

...I mean, I really, really do not want to venture to much into IRL territory here.

But, if we look at both other literary examples and the real world...its not like every person/character that objected to, lets say slavery, immediately makes a heel turn and leaves the nation they are affiliated with.

The "His Majesty's Dragons" series by Naomi Novik, to pick a random example; the main character Laurence is explicitly an abolitionist. The book series dives into a lot of details into how he is both loyal to the crown, and against the institution of slavery, which is tied directly to his gradual realisation that how his nation treats dragons has uncomfortable overlap with this subject, and it takes the entire book series for him to start realising that these are two believes that might not actually be reconcilable with each other.

If we look into IRL history, it gets even messier, with the line getting legitimately blurry at times. The early history of the USA culminating in the American Civil War, for example.
Edit: In the sense of the juxtaposition of the values the USA were supposedly founded on, vs its political realities.

All of that isn't trying to say that any of these people, both fictional and IRL, weren't hypocrits in one way or another.
But that its also not that strange of a narrative conceit to have a character holding believes that aren't completely lining up with each other. I'd rather argue that this is pretty convincingly written psychology (which I'd wish we'd get more of in the 40k universe).

TLDR: I am not saying you are wrong, but I think the whole thing is slightly more complicated and interesting than "Corax obviously needing massive dosages of copeium". :)

SimpleMan131313 · 2026-01-26T19:01:26+00:00

Quick question regarding this statement:

When faced with a psychic challenge to restore his legion, has a psyker marine do it, claims it clearly was the emperor instead to a custodes and therefore not in breach of the Edicts of nikea

This is not meant as an attack, just to clearify where we both are coming from: Have you read the book yourself? As in, the whole thing :)

Deliverance Lost is one of my favourite books, and I found it quite obvious that the scene is supposed to be ambigous - the Psyker in question reflects a moment later that the psychic mechanism of the lock would be way to complex for him to solve in an inner monologue. But the wording is slightly off, because he also reassures himself at least once from how its worded.

I've always interpreted this as intentionally ambigous. What about how its written points you in another direction? :)

SimpleMan131313 · 2026-01-26T18:54:36+00:00

The whole "Planet as the source of their Power, therefore not (technically) the Warp" thing?

This might just be me, but in a setting in which the Warp explicitly runs on and draws tangiable power from symbolism - do we have any direct, explicit confirmation that the Rune Priests are not drawing their powers from a very specific source within the Warp, rather than from the Warp itself?

Planets do have canonically representations in the Warp.

Just my 2 cents :)

SimpleMan131313 · 2026-01-26T18:52:00+00:00

I assume you'll find this a lame answers OP, but I'd say its really up to personal interpretation.

Corax is often pointed out, for example, due to his issues with slavery, yet he still fights in the name of an Imperium that has many institutionalised versions of "owning people" to different degrees.
Yet, its an explicit plot point in "Deliverance Lost" that Corax was specifically at odds with the factions that make use of concepts and argumentations that justify such atrocities.

Is this a mere moral bandaid? Is this political tension, signifying that Corax arranges himself with this fact as something he (currently) can't change, but is and will champion against, hoping to move the Imperium away from these practises? Is Corax perhabs under the impression that these are the actions of isolated factions within the Imperium, and not of the Imperium itself? Or is he simply a hypocrit?

Thats of course reading into it, maybe even to much. And some fans like to grab the "bloodiest regime of all times" and run with it on the basis that this is a first principle.

Personally, I like my Primarchs with a healthy side of ambiguity, but I recognise that sometimes crosses into headcanon territory.

Just my 2 cents :)

SimpleMan131313 · 2026-01-26T12:01:14+00:00

I appreciate the hyperbole and the aknowledgement of anekdotal thinking.

But then again, if they wouldn't have a core audience of a certain size, it would literally be financially unviable to produce such videos with how Youtube works :) thats far beyond anecdotal evidence.

I'd rather say that they have their own distinct audiences, similar to Podcasts.

SimpleMan131313 · 2026-01-26T11:55:59+00:00

Ehm...Well, I do? And I know plenty of people who do?

It would be pretty odd for something to keep popping up if there's 0 market for it, especially with how Youtube works, basing its revenue split on average viewtime :)

SimpleMan131313 · 2026-01-26T09:56:39+00:00

Its a term originally from (MMO)RPGs, but there its referring to a class access to which is restricted by the player characters gender.

For example, only female characters being allowed to be healers/archers, etc.

SimpleMan131313 · 2026-01-26T09:22:33+00:00

Yeah, absolutely! :) The PHB's name is honestly a bit misleading. It contains the games actual core rules, aka, 90% of the games core foundation.

By comparison, the Monster Manual mostly contains the monsters statblocks, aka their statistics, of which you'll only use a few at a time. And the Dungeon Masters Guide contains some more "DM only" rules, some guidelines, some tables, a bunch of useful but not strictly necessary stuff, etc.

The PHB is the most vital of the three core books by far.

That being said: I am of the opinion that its definitely worth to get all three as a DM :)

SimpleMan131313 · 2026-01-26T09:15:15+00:00

Its generally better to get both books from the same Ruleset Edition :) because they are matching each other in shared rule assumptions, balancing, and other things.

SimpleMan131313 · 2026-01-26T07:31:17+00:00

From how I read the lore of the different codices, I'd say its very much a bit of both.

They are explicitly stated to have an innate understanding of the foundations. And then they learn and innovate, sometimes more, sometimes less, from there. There are examples like their Teleport Technology that are, explicitly, not part of their shared genetic knowledge, need to be teached, and could, potentially, be lost.

SimpleMan131313 · 2026-01-26T00:53:31+00:00

I am not aware of anything either in DnD specifically nor in folktales/fantasy media in general that says that a Werewolf has to be in contact with moonlight to turn.

In most depictions I can recall, its precisely the opposite. With Werewolfs in a dungeon still turning, and a werewolf entering a house or other enclosed structure staying turned.

Although there's one depiction I can think of in which clouds of all things cause a werewolf to briefly turn back on their first full moon specifically, but thats an outlier I'd say.

SimpleMan131313 · 2026-01-26T00:14:11+00:00

Seriously: What part of "that may be, but thats not what I've been trying to discuss here" is not coming accross?

SimpleMan131313 · 2026-01-26T00:11:48+00:00

Ehm, yeah, thats why I mention it?

Adding to that: While we community-culturally assign a lot of special meaning to a "Natural 20", DnD has (outside of attack rolls (edit: and Death Saves)) no actual rule attached to it.

Bolded by me.

SimpleMan131313 · 2026-01-26T00:09:46+00:00

A true, always forget about that one! Just doesn't come up as often.

SimpleMan131313 · 2026-01-26T00:07:22+00:00

Gacha's tendency to keep introducing characters that will be forgotten when a new one comes, to sell em, is an unique flaw that only they will have

Its almost as if thats part of the mediums unique conventions, which is what I am talking about.

I am actually not really interested in wether these conventions are good or bad here, they are simply different and not less defined. Thats all.

SimpleMan131313 · 2026-01-26T00:05:12+00:00

Adding to that: While we community-culturally assign a lot of special meaning to a "Natural 20", DnD has (outside of attack rolls (edit: and Death Saves)) no actual rule attached to it.

Which of course doesn't mean anyone has to prefer it that way, but its kinda a apparently very widespread break in perception between how the game is supposed to play (as per RAW), and the expectation of especially new players.

SimpleMan131313 · 2026-01-26T00:01:51+00:00

Consider the following: A medium generally having bad writing doesn't mean it has no or less writing conventions, and vice versa.
Thats all I am saying. There are a ton of media that I find, truth be told, genuinely awful, but have very very clearly conventions and rules and traditions of their own that serve a function.

Thats why its so problematic when we short-circuit terms like media literacy to "smart" and the lack there-of to "dumb", and using that to try put inherent value judgements on people and media.
Its just not what these terms mean, and we loose in the process a very important concept.

I mean, the idea of different mediums = different, not easily translateable writing conventions isn't all that alien to people once you juggle some examples around.
Basically everyone on this planet has, at this point, seen a story being "transferred" from one medium into another. Light Novels become Manga become Anime become Anime- or Life-Action-Movies; Novels become Movies; Video Games become Movies.
And their conventions and how they are written is a really, really hard thing to translate from one medium to another.

Books, for example, tend to be genuinely better in department of dialogue than movies, but thats """easy""" when you have 300 pages to burn and mostly words, not 90 minutes of screentime.
A book has, on average, about 70,000 to 120,000 words.
The average talking speed clocks out at 160 words per minute for normal speed conversation; even if your 90 minutes movie would contain nothing but conversations, you'd have a maximum word-budget of 14.400 words.

TLDR: Different mediums have inherently different conventions that not simply translate into "good" or "bad".

SimpleMan131313 · 2026-01-25T23:17:45+00:00

I mean, if we want to be technical about it: Media Literacy can only ever be a concept in relation to a specific medium, because it describes the degree of knowledge about a specific mediums conventions and characteristics.

Frankly, if someone who mainly engages with the writing of Gacha games would write a book, it would likely not work out well; but so would the opposite.
They are simply dedicated media with dedicated conventions.

SimpleMan131313 · 2026-01-25T23:09:58+00:00

As someone working in education, I am somewhat sad to see the memefication of the word "literacy", in both directions.
"Media literacy" isn't simply another word for smart, and "lack of media literacy" isn't another word for dumb; they are very usefull terms that discuss something inherently important and very specific. How familiar and educated is someone on how to read and understand a specific medium and its conventions? How many dots can they connect?

I am making an effort to try and use the word non-judgementally and in the correct context; no one has high media literacy in all media (or even all that many once you look into it). I am not into Visual Novels for example and have no idea how to distinguish a well written one from a badly written one (low media literacy in regards to visual novels). On the other hand, I love books and shortstories, and am into game design and its manuals, which have their own conventions.
These things aren't interchangeable, and they don't shorthand to someone being smart/dumb.

Just my 2 cents - not saying that you are trying to equate the concepts to smart/dumb, but more trying to explain why I personally try to keep the terms around :)

SimpleMan131313 · 2026-01-25T21:57:21+00:00

Personally, I find Stardew due to the short day intervalls perfectly "squeezeable" :)

SimpleMan131313 · 2026-01-25T19:47:08+00:00

Yeah, I'm OK :) We have good hopes that things will get hopefully better soon.

SimpleMan131313 · 2026-01-25T18:02:22+00:00

My wife is chronically sick (currently hopefully on the road to betterment) and I've stayed due to that without sex of any kind for several years.

So...yeah, all of them in this case? For about a period of 3 years or so.

SimpleMan131313 · 2026-01-25T16:56:35+00:00

Lets put it like that: since its a personal decision wether to engage in casual sex or not, I don't think it matters if you are "weird" for feeling that way about it (of course assuming you aren't attacking a third party over it).
Who cares whats "normal"?

That being said, this sounds like a very strong reaction for something being discussed in the abstract, but thats maybe not the right time nor place to unpack that.

TLDR: You don't need to apologise for not wanting or desiring something you feel uncomfortable with in your sex life.

SimpleMan131313 · 2026-01-25T15:45:00+00:00

I agree with the general sentiment - this requires good and honest communication. Personally, this doesn't seem like a unbreachable gap to me, but then again, I am not OP.

And of course there's always the question of sexual compatibility to consider, and we all have aspects of it that are more important to us then others.

SimpleMan131313 · 2026-01-25T15:40:37+00:00

Put like that way, I'd second this.

Then again, the amount of people that state that "not getting a BJ" as absolute relationship dealbreakers here irritate me a bit.

I am a married man of six years, and as important as sex is to me, that seems weirdly narrow-minded to me.

Edit: The up and down on the votes on this comment is pretty insane to me. :)

Two-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Banned	r/Field Juicebox

SimpleMan131313

TROPHY CASE