PDA

View Full Version : Gork n' Mork being more powerful than the Chaos Gods?



Astner
11-09-2007, 20:33
I seem to remember Gork n' Mork being stronger than the Chaos Gods. It was said that they laughed off the Ruinous Powers' assaults as their attacks bounced off.
Where and when was this, did it actually happen?

Iracundus
11-09-2007, 21:54
Epic Titan Legions rulebook. There is a bit of fluff about the Ork gods inspiring the creation of the first Ork Gargant, after a Mek sees an Imperial Titan in action and gets envious.

The Ork gods are supposedly the most potent and powerful however, being Orks, they are fractious and fight each other most of the time or they just pursue simple pursuits. The reason they don't dominate the warp is the same reason Orks as a race don't dominate the galaxy. However since Orks are so numerous a race, the Ork gods are a reflection of this and are powerful and nigh invulnerable to direct attack.

Chilltouch
11-09-2007, 21:59
Utterly pissing stupid. Gork and Mork are barely even registered as valid presences in the Warp, let alone matching the Chaos Gods.

Supremearchmarshal
11-09-2007, 23:38
Erm... Orks are very numerous and each one has a much greater psychic potential than a human, so the Ork gods must be pretty powerful. The Chaos Gods are only superior in that more than one race worships them, but then again no race is mentioned to worship them in it's entirety (or indeed, it's majority), while over 99% of Orks worship Gork and Mork (there also being a small number of Stormboyz that worships Khorne and even fewer Orks that worship other Chaos gods).

I think their resistance to the chaos god's assault is more a metaphor for the Ork resistance to anything unorky.

Crazy Tom
12-09-2007, 00:15
Don't they have some kind of mass psychic field, kind of gestalt thing? Which kinda means any daemon / chaos power isn't trying to corrupt one Orc, it's trying to corrupt them all... Kind of like the Tyranids, only less of a controlling influence. Sadly I can't remember where I came across this.

Lord Cook
12-09-2007, 01:00
In the 40k universe, belief in something makes that thing real. For example the more anger and blood lust that people feel, the more powerful Khorne becomes. Considering that there are more orks than there are humans, and that all orks believe very strongly in Gork and Mork, it would make sense that they have tremendous power. If the Emperor wasn't a God when he was up and about, he certainly is now. There really are miracles, and saints, and acts of faith. Humanities belief in it has made it real.

At least that's my understanding.

El_Machinae
12-09-2007, 01:48
Of course they're more powerful. What they do with that power isn't all that impressive from our Point of View.

jhon
12-09-2007, 02:37
Erm... Orks are very numerous and each one has a much greater psychic potential than a human, so the Ork gods must be pretty powerful. The Chaos Gods are only superior in that more than one race worships them, but then again no race is mentioned to worship them in it's entirety (or indeed, it's majority), while over 99% of Orks worship Gork and Mork (there also being a small number of Stormboyz that worships Khorne and even fewer Orks that worship other Chaos gods).

I think their resistance to the chaos god's assault is more a metaphor for the Ork resistance to anything unorky.

ture but , they often mistaken khorne and nurgle as mork and gork[ it is in the deamon hunter]. over 99% of ork worship gork and mork , but i think over 40% mistaken khorne and nurgle as mork and gork .

codicium_aeternum
12-09-2007, 03:30
orks have more psychic potential than humans? since when?

i point to the emperor, horus, ing mae sing, magnus the red,

orks with psyker abilities... none that i can think of...

Iracundus
12-09-2007, 03:46
Weirdboyz and Weirdboy Warpheadz. You're mistaken if you're looking for superhuman like psykers among the Orks. However as a whole their race is more psychic, just look for the old Freebooterz supplement which mentions this. All Orks are slightly psychic but the power they channel isn't expressed except either as the collective Waagh psychology they go through or via a Weirdboy using this energy for their powers.

Although there is an example given in the Daemon Hunters supplement of how Orks might conceivably drift into Nurgle worship, this is still a rare thing and nowhere near that 40% figure made up by the previous poster.

devolutionary
12-09-2007, 03:56
orks have more psychic potential than humans? since when?

i point to the emperor, horus, ing mae sing, magnus the red,

orks with psyker abilities... none that i can think of...

hehe yet older (and as yet uncontradicted fluff) points to Ork psykers having far greater potential bar none of the control required to turn them in to super psykers

ZigZagMan
12-09-2007, 04:12
Orks are so uncontrolable, the old fluff had rules for a possessed warphead, that could have a greater deamon in him, yet be unable to influence the warphead in the least. While the warphead gained all the power associated with being possessed by a greater deamon (strength, psychic power, toughness, etc) Theres your superpowered ork psycher!

Vaktathi
12-09-2007, 04:58
Utterly pissing stupid. Gork and Mork are barely even registered as valid presences in the Warp, let alone matching the Chaos Gods.

RT Orks, 2nd Ed Ork codex and Gorkamorka would beg to differ. They just havent been mentioned much since then. They litterally describe a forming Waaaghh (or Waaagh-Ork back then) and Gork and Mork as being so single minded and overbearing that they could brush off the attempts of the Chaos gods to stand in their way as well as the Emperor's psychic spirit once the Orks began stirring.

Astner
12-09-2007, 06:00
Maybe the statement I was quoting was refering the resistance of the Ork's against the Chaos energies as they are hard to corrupt.

Voltaire
12-09-2007, 06:01
To observe an Orks psychic potential, you only have to look at their social hierachy. It is psychically linked that when an Ork is more important he becomes bigger and bigger. This is not a mere coincidence and any Ork can grow to its full potential given time.

If you really want to see an Ork with psychic potential, try looking at Ghazghkull. Being shot in the head unlocked his psychic potential and the Orks around him generally listen more and Waagh better than those smaller Warbosses. The Waagh itself can be viewed as a psychic manifestation of the need ti fight having an adverse effect on an Ork and we all know every Ork loves Waagh!

Orion Vargus
12-09-2007, 10:37
Erm... Orks are very numerous and each one has a much greater psychic potential than a human, so the Ork gods must be pretty powerful. The Chaos Gods are only superior in that more than one race worships them, but then again no race is mentioned to worship them in it's entirety (or indeed, it's majority), while over 99% of Orks worship Gork and Mork (there also being a small number of Stormboyz that worships Khorne and even fewer Orks that worship other Chaos gods).

I think their resistance to the chaos god's assault is more a metaphor for the Ork resistance to anything unorky.

Orks are said not to register much in the warp at all the only psychic orks are wierd boys and they are few and far between (much less of them than there are for example astro paths, santioned pychers etc).
How there slight pychic presence can combind during a waagh.

Orion Vargus
12-09-2007, 10:40
Weirdboyz and Weirdboy Warpheadz. You're mistaken if you're looking for superhuman like psykers among the Orks. However as a whole their race is more psychic, just look for the old Freebooterz supplement which mentions this. All Orks are slightly psychic but the power they channel isn't expressed except either as the collective Waagh psychology they go through or via a Weirdboy using this energy for their powers.

Although there is an example given in the Daemon Hunters supplement of how Orks might conceivably drift into Nurgle worship, this is still a rare thing and nowhere near that 40% figure made up by the previous poster.

LOL thats what I was trying to say lol damn my **** poor articulation

Supremearchmarshal
12-09-2007, 11:21
Orks are said not to register much in the warp at all the only psychic orks are wierd boys and they are few and far between (much less of them than there are for example astro paths, santioned pychers etc).
How there slight pychic presence can combind during a waagh.

True, though the majority of humans don't register much, either. Most humans cannot use psychic powers after all, and daemons are blind to their warp-presence. Also daemons are usually uninterested in Orks, since Ork Wierdboyz are so set in their Orky ways that a daemon attempting to possess one can become trapped in his mind!

Hostilius
12-09-2007, 15:14
So far in all fluffs I read, there are no evidence Gork and Mork existed. Perhaps it is just some Orkish imagination. They dont have much of an impact in 40k like they do in Fantasy. I mean they dont really have some tangible evidence of their existence like the Emperor (his corpse), the Chaos gods (their "gifts" and daemons), Star gods (their very being) and Khaine (his avatar).

Otek
12-09-2007, 15:18
Most of the old fluff seems to show Gork and Mork being more powerful the the chaos gods. And it makes since if you think about it, orks being one of the largest (in terms of population) races around, with almost all of them worshiping Gork and Mork. Although, the orks have constant arguments over which god is which, (one is cunning brutality and the other is brutal cunning, if memory serves), so, who's to say how much of that worship goes to the correct/incorrect god.

Astner
12-09-2007, 16:51
But does it sound reasonable?
Gork and Mork laughed at them because Orcs are just about immune to the corruption of chaos?

Adra
12-09-2007, 17:07
We should bare in mind that the ork gods could just be how the orks have chosen to deify their creators.....the Old Ones....who first brought the Krork into existance in order to fight the C'tan.

As many on here are so keen to point out about Imperial faith, just cos they are mentioned does not mean that it is not taken from an ork perspective and therefor possibly just faith and not factual like the chaos gods.

Chilltouch
12-09-2007, 18:10
Why is it that every faction has some all-powerful diety behind it?

Lord Cook
12-09-2007, 18:18
The Tyranids, Tau and Dark Eldar don't. Hive Mind doesn't count.

Temmy
12-09-2007, 18:19
I remember reading somewhere that Gork and Mork don't exist the same way that the Chaos gods do, and aren't warp powers. Instead of beinggestalt entities created by shadowselves that feeds on the emotions and souls of sentients, they are more like a metaphor for the collective self image of the Orks that exists in the psychic field all orks generate. During periods of great Orkish activity, the Orks grow more unified, emit more psychic power and the idea of Gork and Mork gains strength. If this were true, every Ork is Gork and Mork.

brotherhostower
12-09-2007, 18:31
There are two schools of thought that can be brought to bear on this arguement, and both have background information in their favor.

It CAN be said that there are only 5 deific powers (the star gods, not existing in the warp, and the old ones, do not count as they aren't worshipped).

The Star Child (The Emperor), Khorne (and under other names such as, Khaine, and 1 of the Ork deities), Slaanesh, Nurgle (and the other ork deity), and Tzeentch. In Original Epic, there was a breakdown of it, and some vague support for it.

The other school of thought is that ALL percieved deities are real. IF Khaine is Khaine and not an aspect of Khorne and the Laughing God is the Laughing God and not say, the Deciever, then Gork & Mork must neccissarily be real as well.

As for all races having a deity-like being behind them? This is true, the Dark Eldar have Slaanesh (you can argue against it because it's not explicit, but there is fluff to support it), the Tau also have a mysterious benefactor (I can't remember where the reference is, but there IS one to a super-being assisting the "young" race from their area), and the Tyranid could also be said to be influenced by the Outsider C'Tan.

Chilltouch
12-09-2007, 18:46
I'm personally not a fan of the psychic field anyway. I personally think Orks are just fine being the savage menace that has a huge chance to overrun the galaxy. They don't need psychic fields to make everything work, they don't need ultimate gods. They're perfect just the way they are.

madd0ct0r
12-09-2007, 19:49
i agree. sort of laurel and hardy in a tarantino film.

i'm gonna have to start an ork army. (yellow tracksuits not included)

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
12-09-2007, 19:58
I'm personally not a fan of the psychic field anyway. I personally think Orks are just fine being the savage menace that has a huge chance to overrun the galaxy. They don't need psychic fields to make everything work, they don't need ultimate gods. They're perfect just the way they are.

Of course, you mean just the way they are now as you understand them. As has been shown, back in RT days and early epic stuff and whatnot, Gork and Mork were both real and powerful. Just because you don't want them there doesn't mean they're not. Although this is one of those things that we'd never be able to get a real answer from GW about, like the Emperor being as god or not, who the lost Primarchs are, etc.

Dalenator
12-09-2007, 20:27
I like the idea that every Ork is Gork'n'Mork and that Orks can possible tap into the 'inner Ork' to accomplish feats of pure unadulterated Orkyness.

I'd also like for Gork'n'Mork to not be real as it means Orks don't need some higher power to look after them, meaning Orks have the muscle to make it on their own.

Iracundus
12-09-2007, 22:09
Gork and Mork aren't looking after Orks like some paternalistic deity. They are Orks. They like to fight and they inspire the Orks to go Waagh. If the Orks in the material universe get defeated, Gork and Mork aren't going to care much as an individual Ork doesn't care if his neighbor gets killed.

DantesInferno
12-09-2007, 22:48
This topic seems a little absurd to me, because it buys totally into the idea that 40k gods are, for all intents and purposes, actual people living in the Warp. So, for instance, it makes sense to say "Khorne is stronger than Slaanesh", because it means the warp-person Khorne could beat the warp-person Slaanesh in an arm-wrestle or something.

Needless to say, I think this is taking the 40k background far too literally, in effect endorsing what the inhabitants of the universe think about their gods (ie as people in the warp) at the expense of what we "know" about the warp - massive swirls of emotion.

Iracundus
13-09-2007, 06:14
They do have measures of strength, measured not in physical muscle strength but in the amount of power they have in their beings. Khorne is stronger than Slaanesh because he is older and has accrued more souls and psychic energy into himself. If push came to shove, he would be able to expend more energy than Slaanesh and in that sense is stronger.

Russell's teapot
13-09-2007, 07:06
I've always been a little confused about Gork & Mork. What exactly are they?

If we take the Gods of the other races - Khorne, Khaine, Nurgle, Tzeench etc. we see the physical manefestation of these deities. They have Daemons, they interact with the physical realm. But, in order to do this they require emotion (I've stated in other threads that I don't believe that they care where this is from) and/or specific worship.

I would say that the specific worship is more likely than emotion to provide an interaction between the Warp 'being' and the material universe - that's why every battlefield isn't litttered with bloodletters (although I'd wager that sometimes this can happen).

Anyway, I digress...

What do Mork & Gork do?

They appear to be worshipped, I'll take that as a given for the moment, so if they are Warp 'beings', where is the manefestation? We can take examples from Orky Kultcha fluff, but at least some of these can be explained away by 3rd person fluff:

1) M&G inspire the gargents: Brainboyz, Mekaniks etc. are genetically programmed by the OO to do what they do - given the time & the material, eventually they will build a gargent

2) Ork gunz only work for orkz: is this really true? Perhaps this could be the 'dakka' manefestation of G&M

3) Wierdboyz psychic abilities: you don't need to worship anyone to be able to use these...

4) Red wunz go fasta: perhaps this is G&M?

So there are a couple of things that G&M could do, unless someone knows better (I don't claim to know too much about Orky Kultcha).

I'm still not sure that they exist - where do they fit into the Partheon? Or do Orkz have an emotion that no other races have? My favorite idea (if they exist at all) at the moment is that G&M are Warp beings that cover all the emotions - it's just that they favour the 'flavour' of Orks so much that they can shun those of all other races (Orks are numerous & have been around for aaaaages - so they can be picky I guess) & spend thier entire time 'fighting' other Warp Gods (& each other) for these emotions (/souls/whatever), so that their physical presence in the material universe is limited. However, I'll coutner that by reiterating where are their daemons?

Iracundus
13-09-2007, 09:06
The Epic Titan Legions book shows the Orks didn't always build Gargants.

It's simple. Gork and Mork are the racial gods of the Orks much as Khaine is one of the racial gods of the Eldar, and Khorne, Nurgle, Tzeentch the 3 gods spawned unknowingly by humanity. There is no requirement that gods have to spawn daemons. Even the Chaos gods have slight different preferences, with Nurgle preferring Greater Daemons that are essentially miniature copies of himself. Gork and Mork appear to prefer not diluting their own personal power through intermediaries.

Tehkonrad
13-09-2007, 09:55
gork and mork are super 1337 they are the epitomies of orkyness

Green-is-best
13-09-2007, 10:05
Yeah, as most have said, the old fluff states pretty clearly that Gork and Mork are seperate, uniquely orky dieties. Moreover, WAAAGH the Orks indicates that not only are Wierdboyz immune to the depredations of the warp, but Orkdom as a whole is simply impervious to negative warp powers. Why? Because to be an Ork is to live stress free.

MvS
13-09-2007, 10:08
I remember reading somewhere that Gork and Mork don't exist the same way that the Chaos gods do, and aren't warp powers. Instead of being gestalt entities created by shadowselves that feeds on the emotions and souls of sentients, they are more like a metaphor for the collective self image of the Orks that exists in the psychic field all orks generate. During periods of great Orkish activity, the Orks grow more unified, emit more psychic power and the idea of Gork and Mork gains strength. If this were true, every Ork is Gork and Mork.

I've always preferred this idea, and you verbalise it perfectly I think.

It makes sense to me that a race that can be psychic but still largely protected from the predations of Chaos (not entirely mind you) would have some psychic protection or 'filter'. This, for me, is it.

I can't help but feel that the Epic Ork imagery dipped its toes a little deeply into 'each 40K culture/army is the BEST culture/army'. There are hints of this with the Tyranids and the Necrons. I never really understood the desire to say on one hand that Chaos is the greatest threat to existence, and then spend the next few years releasing imagery and codices stating that the Necrons/Tyranids/Orks [insert race here] are in fact a greater risk AND immune to Chaos too!!

Then of course the next Chaos supplement comes out and we start the cycle again.

Actually, that's unfair. This drive has been curtailed a bit in recent years, so I'm hoping that the imagery will develop along more balanced lines and with the central unifying theme it used to have.

Iracundus
13-09-2007, 11:15
Epic Ork imagery never attempted to portray them as the greatest threat to existence. It just showed the Ork gods as the most potent in terms of raw power and resistance to damage, and that the drive towards Waagh in the Orks is pretty much unstoppable once the buildup starts, which was what the other gods were attempting to stop in that Epic background piece. However, and this is a big however, the Ork gods don't have the desire or will to dominate the warp, so although they may be most potent in raw power, they don't do much of lasting effect with it. Also, all Ork Waaghs peter out in the end as either the momentum runs out or the Orks start fighting among themselves once the initial gains are made.

Russell's teapot
13-09-2007, 12:39
So the Waaaaah! = Gork & Mork.

That makes more sense than they being actual deities.

Good call.

Iracundus
13-09-2007, 13:47
Not a "call" at all. There are multiple canonical sources both from the Titan Legions supplement, and from the 2nd ed. Ork Codex, and even earlier sources clearly stating from objective points of view Gork and Mork existing in the warp. Disbelieving in Gork and Mork's existence is equivalent to disbelieving in Slaanesh or Khorne's existence. Incorrect. It is analogous to someone claiming Horus won the duel in the Heresy, despite all the sources to the contrary.

Grimbad
13-09-2007, 14:10
Slomotion replay with commentary.

[orky rambling]
From Russel's teapot:

What do Mork & Gork do?

They appear to be worshipped, I'll take that as a given for the moment, so if they are Warp 'beings', where is the manefestation? We can take examples from Orky Kultcha fluff, but at least some of these can be explained away by 3rd person fluff:

1) M&G inspire the gargents: Brainboyz, Mekaniks etc. are genetically programmed by the OO to do what they do - given the time & the material, eventually they will build a gargent

Gork and mork don't inspire the gargants. Imperial warmachines usually do. However, the gargants are the avatars of gork and mork.


2) Ork gunz only work for orkz: is this really true? Perhaps this could be the 'dakka' manefestation of G&M

Yep, that is true. It's somewhere in Lukas Anzion's report in codex: orks.



3) Wierdboyz psychic abilities: you don't need to worship anyone to be able to use these...

No, but you need to be in a waaagh!. Wierdboyz draw on the Waaagh! energy of other orks to supply energies for their powers. One of their powers in Codex: Feral Orks (no longer tournament legal :( ) is called 'Gork 'll get 'em' and it calls down a huge green fist from the sky.


4) Red wunz go fasta: perhaps this is G&M?

Nope, that's the unconscious psychic powers of orks. They (orks as a whole, one ork cannot make something impossible happen) believe it, so it becomes true. They believe their guns work, so they do. They believe Gork and Mork beat the beejeezus out of other gods on a regular occasion. Again, it's all in the ork codex in Anzion's reports. And seeing as orks are the largest population of man-sized creatures in the known galaxy, their belief in Gork and Mork is enough to make the god-beating possible. In a story in an old ork book (it's been mentioned previously in this thread) when orks start making gargants, Gork and Mork awaken, and the Waaagh!-ork begins, the expression on the emperor's rotting face turns to fear for the first time in millenia.


I'm still not sure that they exist - where do they fit into the Partheon? Or do Orkz have an emotion that no other races have?

Orks have waaagh! energy, which is between zen and killing things. It should not be confused with khornate killing things. Orks kill because it's fun, not because they hate everything. Gork and Mork represent two aspects of orkyness, Beating Things Up and Stabbin' Things in the Back, respectively(or non-respectively, but gork=violence and mork=cunning is the most accepted view.)

There was this ork myth (from one of the old ork books) about how gork and mork go hunting. Eventually they end up at the ork drops (where they drop their crap) and see a squig at the bottom of the pit. A big, bloated squig. They figure out that the squig is nurgle and kick its ass. Not because they hate nurgle, but because it made the mushrooms growing around the drops taste bad and that made them angry. (Actually I can't recall the exact reason right now but they were less angry than annoyed at nurgle.)
Orks make myths like that for almost every god.

Gork and Mork are NOT Khorne and Nurgle. A statistically irellevant number of particularly stupid orks occasionally are tricked into believing that nurgle is one of their gods, and they usually only do it for plotline purposes to give daemonhunters an excuse to fight orks. There are particularly mean and violent orks that worship khorne. They are quite distinct from those who worship Gork and Mork. Khorne and Nurgle are the gods of rage and despair. Gork and Mork are the gods of Orky Violence and Orky Kunnin'. I can see a HUMAN (not an ork) confusing Gork and Khorne, but Mork and Nurgle? WTF do cunning and despair have to do with each other?

Orks have a deep respect for the wargods of other races, the emperor included. However, 99.999999*% of them know which gods are theirs.



So the Waaaaah! = Gork & Mork.

That makes more sense than they being actual deities.

Good call.
The waaagh! is Gork and Mork in exactly the same way as devotion is the God-Emperor and rage is Khorne. That is to say, they are the Waaagh! personified. They are as much deities as those of any other race though.

Sorry to pick on you Russel's teapot but you asked all the right questions.

*Actually since there are so few nurglorks and khorneboyz and so many orks as a whole, there should be more 9s.

[/orky rambling]

Iracundus
13-09-2007, 14:19
One small caveat: The Anzion thing is an in-character theory and report. It isn't necessarily true.

Gork is less a god of killing than a god of fighting. That is the distinction from Khorne who cares about the results. Gork (& Mork) just want to fight and have fun, and not necessarily to conquer the warp.

I think it was in one of the ancient Ork supplements...Freebooterz? where it describes (from an omniscient narrator point of view) the Orks as a race having some grudging respect for the humans and their Emperor. Though they still think humans are runts doing nonsensical (to Orks anyway) stuff supposedly at the behest of the Emperor, they know the humans have been fighting the Orks for thousands of years and show no signs of giving up. The comical bit is the Ork view of the Emperor. Just as the Ork thinks of Gork and Mork as basically really big Orks, the Ork view of the Emperor is a caricature of what they see as human traits.

Russell's teapot
13-09-2007, 14:41
I can't believe I'm getting involved in another religious debate - this is the 3rd in a week - that's more than I've had in total since I stopped baiting real-world religious people & that was years ago!

For my understanding of the Warp, its 'beings' and their inter-relation with the material universe please see this thread:
http://warseer.com/forums/40k-background/101208-speculation-on-the-births-of-the-chaos-gods.html

In my interpretation of the fluff surrounding the Warp we have 4 main vorticies of emotion which are roughly comparible to the 'Big 4' Gods percieved by Humans. All the other Gods are a part of these vorticies, to a greater or lesser extent. All the vorticies intermingle & their lines are blurred. For a pictorial representation see post 151 on page 8 of the linked thread.

Now, that's how I see Chaos working - so how do Gork & Mork fit in?

My first thought was as I posted in my original response in this thread. That G&M would cover all 4 vorticies, but would select only Orky emotions, unlike say Slaanesh - which has a strong fondness for Eldar, but will take anyone's praise if s/he can.

However, having seen Temmy's suggestion & cogitated on it - his idea seems more sensible. The presumption being (as I read it) that G&M are not Gods at all.

Orks are psychic, so an Ork has a 'projection' in the Warp. My interpretation of Temmy's theory is that each ork has its 'projection' in the Warp - a small ripple if you will. The more Orks you have, the greater the ripple. Once you get enough Orks together then this ripple becomes a tidal wave & this is the Waaaaah! Other Orks can unconciously 'feel' this ripple and are drawn to it (probably a creation of the Old Ones?). This Waaaah! is G&M.

Therefore G&M are only as powerful as the Waaah! they are associated with. In fact if you have different Waaah!s in different parts of the Galaxy, you are likely to have more than 1 G&M...(!)

This idea may be shot down in flames, for example - how would the Waaah! interact with Chaos - would Daemons/ non-Ork psychers be affected by the Waaaah!, and is this too similar an idea to the 'Shadow in the Warp'? However, I think that it's better to have a debate than saying 'GW say they're Gods so they must be' no matter how illogical that argument appears in light of other fluff.

RT dons lifesaver in-case of landing on water...

Iracundus
13-09-2007, 14:44
Trying to alter the facts to fit the theory isn't the way things should work. One alters the theory to fit the facts. In this case, the facts are that Gork and Mork are Ork gods. The obvious conclusion being that things cannot and should not be subsumed into merely being the 4 Chaos gods by another name.

In a fictional universe, the only true arbiter of "fact" is the publisher, and even then only when it isn't from a subjective fallible point of view within the universe. Examples: The Emperor defeated Horus. The Tyranids lost to the Ultramarines on Macragge. No amount of twisting or turning changes those 40K facts.

It's just funny how people have no problems accepting the existence of the Emperor or Khorne but bend over backwards trying to find reasons why Khaine or Gork and Mork can't possibly be independent gods of their own.

Russell's teapot
13-09-2007, 14:56
Really?

The facts I see are that the Orks believe Gork & Mork are Gods. However, they act completely differently to any other Gods in 40k. All other Gods have Daemons, Avatars & effects in the material universe. The 'Big 4' pour out of the EoT. I don't see any evidence of G&M doing that.

Just because the Orks fit the same name tag to thier "Gods", doesn't mean that they are the same type of being as the other 'Gods' we can see in 40k.

Iracundus
13-09-2007, 14:57
Read all the previous posts. The bits from the 2nd ed. Ork Codex, Titan Legions, and Freebooterz, aren't from the in-character point of view of the Orks. It is an objective 3rd party narrator saying what happened, and Gork & Mork existing in the warp as gods in the same way as other gods.

Gork & Mork act no differently to certain other gods. Creating Daemons isn't mandatory. Cergorach has no daemons, no Greater Daemons, and no supernatural effects in the universe. He has followers, but then so do Gork and Mork.

DantesInferno
13-09-2007, 23:12
Apologies for backtracking in the thread somewhat, but I thought this was an interesting point, and pretty relevant to the original topic:


They do have measures of strength, measured not in physical muscle strength but in the amount of power they have in their beings. Khorne is stronger than Slaanesh because he is older and has accrued more souls and psychic energy into himself. If push came to shove, he would be able to expend more energy than Slaanesh and in that sense is stronger.

This still seems to be endorsing the "gods as people in the warp" approach, just with metaphysical soul-muscles instead of literal physical muscles. On this view, the topic is fairly straightforward: Gork and Mork are more powerful than the Chaos Gods if and only if their warp-power is greater.

But I'm having a lot of trouble buying that you can describe the 40k gods in this way. What does the idea of Khorne "being able to expend more energy" actually mean? Is there a conscious flexing of metaphysical muscles involved? Does whatever it is we refer to as Khorne actually make choices? I find it makes much more sense to view the gods in the warp as abstractions, and definitely not as literal conscious people.

The paradigm case for the various interpretations of how gods work in 40k is the Eldar Fall, where Slaanesh fought Khorne and shattered him into his Avatars.

On the first, literal interpretation, there was an actual fight between Khaine and Slaanesh in the warp. You can imagine it: an uppercut here, a bodyslam there, punch to the groin, etc.
On a more metaphoric level, there was a battle in the warp between two swirling gods, each making plans to defeat the other, throwing warp power at each other, and so on.
But on the most abstract level of all, what the GW material means when it says "Slaanesh fought Khaine" is that there was some kind of interplay between the warp vortices we refer to as Slaanesh and Khaine, which involved the former largely subsuming the latter, as a result of the various flows of emotion produced in the warp by what was actually happening in the physical universe. To the real-life inhabitants of the universe, this becomes figured as a battle in the warp between the two entities, and that's the image that gets sent on to us.

Needless to say, the latter one is what makes the most sense to me as an interpretation of what happened.

So I entirely agree that Gork and Mork exist in the warp as gods in the same way as other gods, but the real question is: "What kind of existence is that?"

Gdolkin
14-09-2007, 00:47
That's one of the best posts ever Dante, indeed, what do God and Power and Consciousness mean in 40K? What does this show about what they mean to us? It's only on warseer that my geek obsessive sci-fi hobby and my love of philosophy and language (and open-minded atheism) feed eachother so well.. i like the idea about what 'Slaanesh fought Khaine' might be said to mean, and 'Does Khorne make choices?' is a damn good question.. as i said in another thread, i'm of the belief that the Chaos Gods are perhaps more 'really' storms of emotion and souls in the warp than: a big bestial warrior on a throne of skulls, a seductive hermaphrodite, a foul diseased troll etc..It's unnecessary, but i'll type it again just because i enjoy it: Rage, Despair, Hope, Pleasure -powerful and undeniable energies. The Gods we worship could be said to be abstract aspects of ourselves. Gork and Mork might be like that too, like hurricanes of fightin' and kunnin' Orkiness in the warp. Anything's possible in the warp eh? In places, if such a term can be applied to the immaterium, the Warp becomes the WAAAAAAGH:) :)
Ps. sorry to stay off-topic but might human greed and selfishness be covered by Slaanesh?
Pps. Anyone seen and got a link to that bit from BL that i saw on warseer a few months ago? that explained the root prefix and suffix in Chaos lingo of the names of the Gods, and showed how e.g Khorne (Khar-neth) means anything from 'Cause of Violence' to 'Essence of Rage' to 'Lord of Murder' etc..?
Cheers,

Lord Cook
14-09-2007, 01:23
Ps. sorry to stay off-topic but might human greed and selfishness be covered by Slaanesh?

I would have thought the Laughing God would get those, based on how he hid behind Khaine (metaphorically or not) during Khaine's 'battle' with Slaanesh.

Iracundus
14-09-2007, 01:50
The gods HAVE been shown to make choices if people would actually read some of the sources instead of trying to speculate in a void or invent things out of nothing. Tzeentch himself spoke to Magnus, preventing the killing of Ahriman, revealing that Tzeentch had orchestrated and supported the Rubric. The Chaos gods have been mentioned multiple times as dictating arbitrary rules to their daemonworld followers for their battles, and wagering on the outcomes of the fighting.

There is ample evidence of this so there really is no grounds for people to make a priori assumptions about what is "obvious" or "makes sense" to them being the canonical truth when in fact the evidence points to the opposite.

DantesInferno
14-09-2007, 02:04
The gods HAVE been shown to make choices if people would actually read some of the sources instead of trying to speculate in a void or invent things out of nothing. Tzeentch himself spoke to Magnus, preventing the killing of Ahriman, revealing that Tzeentch had orchestrated and supported the Rubric. The Chaos gods have been mentioned multiple times as dictating arbitrary rules to their daemonworld followers for their battles, and wagering on the outcomes of the fighting.

There is ample evidence of this so there really is no grounds for people to make a priori assumptions about what is "obvious" or "makes sense" to them being the canonical truth when in fact the evidence points to the opposite.

But surely "Tzeentch spoke to Magnus" comes under a similar heading to "Khaine fought Slaanesh"? It just depends how literally you take it. "Tzeentch spoke to Magnus" could mean that the big bird-headed person called "Tzeentch" actually opened up a line to realspace, and caused the air to vibrate in such a way so that Magnus heard what he was saying. Or, you could understand "Tzeentch spoke to Magnus" to mean a process of interaction between Magnus and the gigantic warp vortex we call "Tzeentch" which resulted in Magnus comprehending a message. Did the message necessarily come from a single consciousness living in the Warp? Who knows. Does "Tzeentch" pass the <Turing test> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test)? Is that sufficient for consciousness? Some real questions which need to be answered.

There's no one single interpretation of what's going on which definitively rules out the others.

This isn't about ignoring canonical evidence which doesn't support my position, it's about interpreting the canonical evidence we do have in consistent and sensible ways.

Iracundus
14-09-2007, 02:13
The consistent and sensible approach is to accept what is written in black and white instead of bending backward to try and find ways to twist it to avoid facing the truth. It was clearly stated Tzeentch spoke to Magnus. It even quotes him in the 2nd ed. Chaos Codex, with sibilant s's and all. Whether Tzeentch spoke via mechanically flapping a set of lips or expending power to vibrate the air is irrelevant as it is still the entity Tzeentch that was responsible for it.

DantesInferno
14-09-2007, 02:24
The consistent and sensible approach is to accept what is written in black and white instead of bending backward to try and find ways to twist it to avoid facing the truth. It was clearly stated Tzeentch spoke to Magnus. It even quotes him in the 2nd ed. Chaos Codex, with sibilant s's and all. Whether Tzeentch spoke via mechanically flapping a set of lips or expending power to vibrate the air is irrelevant as it is still the entity Tzeentch that was responsible for it.

It may be written in black and white, but that doesn't mean you need to take it 100% literally. Otherwise, as I pointed out in our other thread on the topic, you have a literal dog-headed person called Khorne sitting on a literal mountain of literal physical skulls in an ocean of literal physical blood, somewhere in the Warp.

This is a universe where we only refer to the Emperor as "the Emperor", we call one side the "loyalists" and the other the "traitors", call one group "the Fallen" and so forth. If you're taking things absolutely at literal face value, you're missing out on a lot of subtlety and depth.

I'm not sure if you're read the novel "The Great Gatsby", but for anyone who has, the big question of the novel is to what extent the character Gatsby really is great. It would be somewhat simplistic to say that "We know Gatsby is great: the title tells us so".

Lord Cook
14-09-2007, 02:27
I'm not sure if you're read the novel "The Great Gatsby", but for anyone who has, the big question of the novel is to what extent the character Gatsby really is great. It would be somewhat simplistic to say that "We know Gatsby is great: the title tells us so".

I had to laugh at that one. Touché.

Iracundus
14-09-2007, 02:28
The Imperium calls its side the loyalists and calls the Chaos followers the "traitors". That is different from what players may see or call their sides. "We" does not translate to taking the viewpoint of the Imperium. Chaos marines even call the Emperor the betrayer of the Great Crusade, so it is not simply a matter of taking one side at face value.

Subjective statements are not the same as objective didactic accounts of events or situations, and it is the latter we are dealing with when discussing about the gods.

DantesInferno
14-09-2007, 02:39
The Imperium calls its side the loyalists and calls the Chaos followers the "traitors". That is different from what players may see or call their sides. "We" does not translate to taking the viewpoint of the Imperium. Chaos marines even call the Emperor the betrayer of the Great Crusade, so it is not simply a matter of taking one side at face value.

I think you'll find that many of the accounts you would like to term "objective" use terms like "the Emperor", "Loyalists", and so on.


Subjective statements are not the same as objective didactic accounts of events or situations, and it is the latter we are dealing with when discussing about the gods.

There seems to be some circularity going on........
The Chaos Gods are like X, because objective accounts say so.
We know the accounts are objective, because they're dealing with the Chaos Gods.

Hive Mind 33
14-09-2007, 02:55
I am ending this right now LET US ALL AGREE TO DISAGREE.

Ktotwf
14-09-2007, 03:48
Slomotion replay with commentary.
In a story in an old ork book (it's been mentioned previously in this thread) when orks start making gargants, Gork and Mork awaken, and the Waaagh!-ork begins, the expression on the emperor's rotting face turns to fear for the first time in millenia.

[/orky rambling]


Please tell me that bit about the Emperor's face turning to fear is actually in there! That would be pretty flippin' cool.

Iracundus
14-09-2007, 04:06
There is no circularity at all. The Chaos gods are X becaues objective accounts state so. The accounts are objective because they are not from in-character sources in the 40K universe but a 3rd party omniscient poin of view narrator.

DantesInferno
14-09-2007, 04:18
There is no circularity at all. The Chaos gods are X becaues objective accounts state so. The accounts are objective because they are not from in-character sources in the 40K universe but a 3rd party omniscient poin of view narrator.

But how do you know that that narrator is omniscient and impartial?

I've already pointed out that the vast majority of 3rd person views we get about the 40k universe refer to the person on the Golden Throne as "the Emperor". We agree that there's some degree of subjectivity being smuggled into the descriptions there. How does it differ in the case of the Chaos Gods?

Iracundus
14-09-2007, 04:23
It is perfectly accurate to refer to him as "the Emperor" because that is exactly his title and the position he holds within the human Imperium. Whether one is pro or anti Imperial has no bearing on that. Whatever name he originally held is not known by the inhabitants of the universe, possibly not even the Emperor himself by now, and is really irrelevant to the running of the Imperium or the role the Emperor fulfills as a theocratic god emperor. All of this is in itself irrelevant to the issue of objectivity.

Ktotwf
14-09-2007, 04:24
I've already pointed out that the vast majority of 3rd person views we get about the 40k universe refer to the person on the Golden Throne as "the Emperor". We agree that there's some degree of subjectivity being smuggled into the descriptions there. How does it differ in the case of the Chaos Gods?

I don't know about that: this is a fictional, constructed universe, and not every race is really realized in 3D so to speak.

"The Emperor" is just the name of the being sitting on the Golden Throne. He has no other name, and most Xenos accounts call him something like "the Emperor of Terra", "Rotting Corpse", "Weakling Seer"... I could call the Emperor of Japan "The Emperor", that doesn't mean I accept his rule or his control, simply that I acknowledge a position he holds.

To make EVERY third person account that you disagree with "questionable", is to undermine the very fabric of the 40k fluff until we no longer have a coherent narrative.

You could just as easily believe that the Xenos races are all entirely made up by the Imperium in order to scare the populace and assume greater political power. (that would be pretty "subtle" and "brilliant" wouldn't it?)

Grimbad
14-09-2007, 04:31
Please tell me that bit about the Emperor's face turning to fear is actually in there! That would be pretty flippin' cool.

It was that or he just felt fear for the first time in millenia. But his face changing sounds cooler.
There's a link to the story somewhere in the who loves orks thread, but I'll be damned if i'll wade into that pile of orkyness to pull it out for you.
Oh, wait, forgot it was given as a word document.
Cut and paste!

"Gork and Mork stirred and a wave of fear passed through the warp. Suicide and incidences of violent crime climbed steeply. On Icolbar an Astropath screamed and threw himself from the balcony of a starscraper apartment, yelling that his people were doomed. On the Craftworld Hope of Other Days, an Eldar philosopher stopped listening to the atonal music of his waterchimes and began composing his death-haiku, feeling his life had been justified. On distant Earth a living corpse in a golden throne opened eyes that held fear for the first time in centuries."

And despite what other people may say, THIS peice is written for the ork perspective, and clearly defines the Ork gods awakening from a long sleep and preparing to occupy their gargant avatars. I don't think chaos gods slept while the Abaddon attacked the imperium. The Ork gods did, because apparently all the orks got lazy and sat around on their own planets (there are relatively peaceful ork worlds, the ancient ork empires havent made war on the imperium, ever.). But when gargants get built things are set in motion leading to gatherings of tribes and surges of violence.
However, I don't own the old ork background books, this particular piece could be made up. I believe someone made a reference to it earlier in this thread though. The Ork codex itself does say that "... the ferocity of an ork waaagh! evokes fear even among the holy spires of terra."

Ktotwf
14-09-2007, 04:44
That is SUCH cool fluff. I could imagine the Emperor's eyes open for just a moment, with extreme terror, the Adeptus Custodes all being like "WTF!", and then it being over.

I imagine the Emperor still moves around a bit - I mean, he seems to have said or done something that convinced the SOBs to kill Vandire. Although, it would be cool if they had walked in, and the Emperor had like a single tear falling down his cheek (especially cool if it was a tear of blood) or something.

DantesInferno
14-09-2007, 05:13
It is perfectly accurate to refer to him as "the Emperor" because that is exactly his title and the position he holds within the human Imperium. Whether one is pro or anti Imperial has no bearing on that. Whatever name he originally held is not known by the inhabitants of the universe, possibly not even the Emperor himself by now, and is really irrelevant to the running of the Imperium or the role the Emperor fulfills as a theocratic god emperor. All of this is in itself irrelevant to the issue of objectivity.

No, it really is relevant. GW could have referred to this character in a mutitude of ways. Presumably he had a name (or many names) before he began to conquer Terra, they could have called him that. Or they could have called him "Emperor [insert name here]". Or they could refer to him in the rulebooks and so on as "the corpse god of the Imperium" or something.

But they didn't: the default way of referring to this character is now "the Emperor" - a name which evokes mystery, authority, grandeur and so on. No name to make him seem less impressive, his title impressively Capitalised. Not to mention that it just happens to be how the Imperium (and not any other group in the galaxy) sees him. Is it a coincidence? Not really. Even though the background is presented as objective, there are just these little hints that creep in which should serve to keep people on their toes.


To make EVERY third person account that you disagree with "questionable", is to undermine the very fabric of the 40k fluff until we no longer have a coherent narrative.

You could just as easily believe that the Xenos races are all entirely made up by the Imperium in order to scare the populace and assume greater political power. (that would be pretty "subtle" and "brilliant" wouldn't it?)

That doesn't follow from what I've been saying. All I've been arguing for is that people should have some healthy scepticism when reading the background. Even where the background appears objective, there can still be some subtle hints that all is not as it seems. A good case of this can be seen in comparing the IA articles of the Iron Warriors and the Imperial Fists. All written in 3rd person style, and yet violently different impressions of events.

So, my position is that people should be reasonable in their interpretations of the background - not taking everything as complete gospel (not a bad analogy in the circumstances); but also not doubting where there's no reasonable evidence to do so.

In any case, we seem to have got derailed from the real meat of the debate, which should be "Just what exactly are gods in the warp, and what does it mean when we say one is more powerful than the other".

Ktotwf
14-09-2007, 05:21
I see WHAT DantesInferno is driving at obviously, but I don't see all that much merit in it.

What is the point of GW making fluff in an omniscient third person narrator type viewpoint, only to drop ever so subtle hints that what they are saying is B.S.? What is the point? All it does is fractures the narrative, and take the power of shaping the universe out of their hands, and into the hands of any random dude who plays 40k, and that isn't necessarily good.

What I see instead is that GW simply tells the story from the Imperium's point of view - the narrator IS third person and omniscient, and he won't hesitate to call the Emperor a "withered and monstrous" creature in the like (something that no Imperial could get away with), but he also seems to see justice in the Imperium's cause.

I just don't buy that we are supposed to accept that most 3rd person narration is "questionable", especially because this undermines the entire validity of the story once again "How do we know anything is true?"

DantesInferno
14-09-2007, 05:35
I guess it depends what you're looking to take out of the 40k setting.

I would have thought GW would have been fairly pleased with themselves if they've created a background which can support the sort of debate which has gone on in this thread - it shows people can bring their imaginations to the material, channel their own creativity to try to get a coherent picture for themselves. Fracturing the narrative isn't necessarily bad: lots of the great works of fiction have highly ambiguous narratives and narrators. In fact, I see that as a good feature: it makes it far more interesting.

If we take absolutely everything we're told as set in stone and immoveable, all the debate on these forums would be reduced to the threads we already get a fair amount of the time: "Do Space Marines have sex?", "Do Space Marines cut their hair?", "How many High Lords are there?", "What happened to the missing Primarchs?". And so on.

I don't think I would have managed to sustain my interest in 40k if that was all there was.

Ktotwf
14-09-2007, 05:38
That is true. It certainly lends to debate - but isn't debate a bit less fun if there is no "right answer"? I mean, this isn't postmodern art or a college philosophy court. I mean, I may not want everything spelled out in black and white, but I am much more uncomfortable with "oh think whatever you want, nothing is set in stone. the emperor is a green monkey, the eldar are parrots, and commissar gaunt is a stripper named candy."

But creating "1984"ish setting where you aren't supposed to be sure who to trust seems to be a big f'in deal for them as well.

DantesInferno
14-09-2007, 05:48
That is true. It certainly lends to debate - but isn't debate a bit less fun if there is no "right answer"? I mean, this isn't postmodern art or a college philosophy court. I mean, I may not want everything spelled out in black and white, but I am much more uncomfortable with "oh think whatever you want, nothing is set in stone. the emperor is a green monkey, the eldar are parrots, and commissar gaunt is a stripper named candy."

There's a difference between "no right answer" and "rationally grounded in evidence and reasoned debate". There wouldn't be any point arguing for the proposition that the Eldar are parrots, because there's no evidence for that. On the other hand, I think there is evidence for the idea that the Chaos Gods aren't conscious in any way that we could possibly understand, even if the evidence is at times only implicit.

Ktotwf
14-09-2007, 05:52
Well, yeah, the Chaos Gods aren't actually like guys who hang out and chill in the Warp. There isn't a manifestation of Khorne actually sitting on a Throne with skulls and stuff...

I think they are more like the personification of natural forces within the warp...

Although there is of course fluff like in Ben Counter's Grey Knights where one of the Chaos Gods (Tzeentch perhaps) actually spoke to one of his Greater Demon Princes, and his voice fractured a planet in twain.

Twisted Ferret
14-09-2007, 06:55
My opinion seems to be somewhere in the middle of the two sides here.

I think Dante makes a good point when referring to how the Chaos Gods exist. The Warp as a whole, and especially the existence of and interaction between such complicated entities, should be wholly or nearly incomprehensible to a human mind grounded in physical reality. What's it like to be Tzeentch? We just can't fit it into our brains, because it's so damn different. We can, however, come up with approximations such as "swirl of emotion", even though I wouldn't say the Warp is actually like an ocean with swirls and waves and so forth. It is, at best, a metaphor.

However, I do believe the Chaos Gods are entities. I think GW background itself supports this, talking about how Khorne was originally just a conglomerate of emotion but eventually grew so complex that "he" became "conscious" as well. It makes little sense to me to say that the Gods have no volition or aims or personality, although these things as applied to them become strange indeed. Of course they're not giant people, but neither are they senseless masses of Warp-energy. Daemons aren't, after all - they can have goals and so forth. I believe the Gods can both desire things and choose things and all that good stuff, and that while Khorne isn't just a great warrior sitting on a throne of skulls, there is such a manifestation of him "somewhere" - because that's how he's always envisioned.

*shrug* Just what makes sense to me. As for Gork & Mork, I prefer to see them as a different type of being than the Chaos Gods. I think they have an existence as well, but it's from the collective unconscious/gestalt of the Orks and as such it's as meaningless to say that they're more powerful than the Chaos Gods as it is to say the C'tan are. Then again, DantesInferno also makes a good point as to what exactly "power" is in reference to these beings.

This is one of the reasons I love 40K. :)

Iracundus
14-09-2007, 08:48
Ork gods arising from Orky feelings of battlelust and cunning and racial identity of Orkyness is no different from humans giving rise to Chaos gods. The warp is the warp, and Eldar souls, Tau souls, Ork souls all end up in the same sea of psychic energy. There is no point to try and make up arguments that somehow Orks present a special case, and Eldar gods are a special case, and every other racial god is a special case and how they aren't the same as the other warp gods. Apply Occam's Razor. All of them are warp gods. All of them are grown from the worship and emotions of their respective races. As one of the most numerous of the galaxy's indigenous races, Ork gods are the most potent, but have probably the least will to actually exercise that power for long term ends.

It almost sounds like people are desperate to bend over and create special cases just to avoid having to admit that perhaps the Chaos gods are the be all and end all of the warp.

Iracundus
14-09-2007, 08:56
The Ork piece detailing the creation of the first Gargant is NOT from an in-character Ork perspective. It is written from a 3rd party narrator point of view. It segues from the Ork Mek first getting the idea and a view into the warp and elsewhere. It describes what the Ork does, and thinks. However, more importantly it describes what the gods do, not what the Ork believes they do but what they actually do.

The piece if people would just bother to read earlier posts, isn't fan-fic. It first appeared in the old Ork books and also again in Epic Titan Legions. The Ork gods inspire the creation of the first Gargant after an Ork Mek sees an Imperial Titan crush a war buggy and thinks to build a body (symbolically) for Gork and Mork. The Ork gods inspire the budding Waagh. The other gods, including the Chaos gods, and Emperor, attempt to prevent the Waagh inspiration from building but the Ork gods brush them aside. As the Waagh builds up, portents build up in readings of the Imperial Tarot, an Eldar philosopher goes to prepare for ritual suicide, etc... Then it ends with the Waagh being unleashed as the first Gargant rumbles into action.

Does it mean Orks and their gods are supreme? Not in the least. The Waagh most likely fractured, fizzled, or was defeated after the initial surge, just like all Waaghs eventually do. It does mean however that the psychic impetus and desire to go on these Waaghs is almost impossible to stop once it starts building up.

f2k
14-09-2007, 11:23
I've always thought that the relationship between the Orks and their goods is a bit like that between the Cimmerians and Crom. As Conan puts it: "No Cimmerian would ever pray to Crom. At birth he gives us strength in body and soul - and that's enough". Or something to that effect (been a while since I read the story).

Also, there's some similarity between the orkish gods and Nurgle in that their power is very dependent on what goes on in the material universe. Nurgle grows stronger when there’s a plague unleashed, and Gork and Mork grows stronger when the Waaagh is unleashed. During a plague / Waaagh, Nurgle / Gork and Mork are at the peak of their powers, easily able to push aside the other Gods. Then the plague / Waaagh disappear and they sink back to the bottom of the warp and prepare for the next time…

RedStompa
14-09-2007, 17:19
1) M&G inspire the gargents: Brainboyz, Mekaniks etc. are genetically programmed by the OO to do what they do - given the time & the material, eventually they will build a gargent

2) Ork gunz only work for orkz: is this really true? Perhaps this could be the 'dakka' manefestation of G&M

3) Wierdboyz psychic abilities: you don't need to worship anyone to be able to use these...

4) Red wunz go fasta: perhaps this is G&M?

So there are a couple of things that G&M could do, unless someone knows better (I don't claim to know too much about Orky Kultcha).


Ork weapons work for humans- just not as effectively cause gork&mork dont like humies. another reason you dont see humans using ork weapons i that they will probably blow the human's arm/hand off since they are basically bolerts make of scrap metal.

i thought a wierdboy power was Fist of Mork, and another was Foot of Gork, were a giant green manifestation of said appendages would materialize out of the sky an batter the ork's opponents.


Given tha there are Trilllions upon trillions or orks making even MORE orks.... I would think an ork presence(s) in the warp would be signifigant. I also heard in some GW fluff that while the Emperor fights the four Chaos Gods, slowly gaining power, Gork and Mork just sit on the sidelines and laugh.

Rockerfella
15-09-2007, 13:47
I remember from sometime ago a lovely piece of fluff where Gork and Mork Clobber Nurgle, boshing him back into his own pit of filth and decay, all the time laughing and being 'loutish' about the whole thing.

Any one else remember this??

Cheers!

Chilltouch
15-09-2007, 14:28
RedStompa, I could make a batch of missiles called Gods. Just because I can fire out a God out of a missile, it doesn't mean that it is a true deity I am shooting out. It's just a name. Even if I make the missile to look like a deity's face, it doesn't make it a real god.

Same thing applies to the Fists and Feet of Gork and Mork. Just because they conjure huge feet and fists that are said to belong to Gork and Mork, doesn't mean they actually belong to Gork and Mork.

Personally, I think of Orks are psychically, rather feeble. They're barely even sentient and the only real emotive thing they possess is battlelust.

And I find it really hard to believe that a couple of Gods made from the emotion of a single race are more powerful than the Great Four, who are built up out of emotions that are supplied by every creature in the universe.

Hive Mind 33
15-09-2007, 15:26
And I find it really hard to believe that a couple of Gods made from the emotion of a single race are more powerful than the Great Four, who are built up out of emotions that are supplied by every creature in the universe.

really now then why does red unz go faster
or this little story
an ork was captured once but in a cage. It had it's gun and was shooting up the place. the captures took it away and found it had no trigger, they took it p part and could not figure out why it works. the gave it back and he was shooting up the place yet again. From what i hear about the orks most tech works cause they believe it will.

Orks are the most numerous race next to nids. Every creatuer in the universe really not Tau they have almost no presence in the warp. and Nids are directly linked to the hive mind they give the warp nothing, and cron give the warp nothing. Orks everything goes to Gork and Mork. the Eldar have kaine, the laughing gods, and ynned who is being born. The hurd are from another universe supposedly so how that works is anyones guess. so thay leaves humans and for all those who say they are all the same gods the Warp is a huge place it is no so far fetched that more than one vortex is around. oh and its only this galxy not the univese most of that is Orks and Nids.

thechosenone
15-09-2007, 15:40
Chilltouch... ouch. To call orks barely sentient is kind of demeaning to them. If you look at all th eexploits orks have pulled off you might reconsider that statement. Ghazkull laying waste to most of armegeddeon, Nadzerg taking on medeusa V and the way in which he escaped that doomed world, ork meks building Gargants and stompas and looted vehicles. These are not the actions of essentially cave men with guns but the work of a race that cherishes war and combat. There like the Klingons of 40k.

Chilltouch
15-09-2007, 16:26
Orks are barely sentient. Sure. They can make complex pieces of machinery. So can certain machines we have today. Computer hardware isn't manmade. Tactics? There's AI in certain games which adapts to the tactics of the player. What are these? Machines and programs. Orks, are essentially machines of war. They were made and programmed by the Old Ones to be the most effective warmachines ever made. However, what's the Ork's range of emotions.

What their goal in life?
To fight stuff.
What's their greatest pleasure?
Fighting stuff.
What do they least enjoy?
Not fighting stuff.
What do they do best?
Fighting stuff.
What's their favourite hobby?
Fighting stuff.
What do they do in their spare time?
Fight stuff.
What do they build stuff for?
To fight stuff better.

They were made for fighting. Nothing else. Sure, once in a while they may laugh at the misfortunes of other Orks or kill other Orks out of anger. But their range of emotions is very limited, which is why they are barely sentient. Just like how Eldar would consider the human range of emotions as feeble and leaving them barely sentient.

EDIT: And, for the record, Red Unz Go Faster because they subconsciously build them to go faster.

Ironsides
15-09-2007, 21:30
I
I'm not sure if you're read the novel "The Great Gatsby", but for anyone who has, the big question of the novel is to what extent the character Gatsby really is great. It would be somewhat simplistic to say that "We know Gatsby is great: the title tells us so".


This comparison is inherently flawed as *official* GW fluff is ,as Iracundus says, from a 3rd party omniscient narrator. You may question Gatsby's greatness, as Fitzgerald intended, but by your reasoning it is equally legitimate to question his existence.:)


edit: sorry, I thought i was posting this on the relevant page. please ignore.

Grimbad
15-09-2007, 22:01
"Orks are barely sentient."
That's rather rude.

Orks, it is stated in Anzions report (though as said before, he's not completely trustworthy...) are as intelligent as humans, but just have simpler solutions to problems. Like hitting it with a stick. And it is worth noting that they have no formal education system and only pick things up in the field. Also note that for orks such simple solutions tend to work. For example, if you called an ork barely sentient, he would hit you with a stick and solve the problems.


What their goal in life?
To fight stuff.
That's how the imperium sees it. Orks also usually intend to get drunk a lot too.
What's their greatest pleasure?
Fighting stuff.
I can't argue with that.
What do they least enjoy?
Not fighting stuff.
I'd think an ork would least enjoy being alone, given their mob mentality. The would probably also dislike cleaning toilets. They, like anyone else except tyranids, spend most of their time not fighting stuff, whether encamped, in transit, or living a normal life in an ork settlement. Not fighting stuff is boring, but not unpleasant.
What do they do best?
Fighting stuff.
Consider oddboyz next time you make such a generalization. Orks are also renowned eaters and some have musical talent.
What's their favourite hobby?
Fighting stuff.
Some raise squigs for a living and enjoy it too. Some make bikes. Some breed grots. War is not a hobby.
What do they do in their spare time?
Fight stuff.
Orks have civilization. They have currency. They have sports (blood bowl, believe it or not.) and music and art. Though their culture is violent, violence is not their culture. In their spare time they gamble, drink, yell at grotz and do their civilian jobs. Like supplying the town with quality squig meat.
What do they build stuff for?
To fight stuff better.
They build stuff for transit and convenience too. Warbikes are not the only bikes. Orks build permanent structures to live in, though they are usually fortified.

Commentary in bold.

"They were made for fighting. Nothing else. Sure, once in a while they may laugh at the misfortunes of other Orks or kill other Orks out of anger. But their range of emotions is very limited, which is why they are barely sentient. Just like how Eldar would consider the human range of emotions as feeble and leaving them barely sentient."

They were made to survive and designed to serve as soldiers. But they were designed as a species that would not die. If Orks never stopped fighting, they would have killed each other off before humans existed. Orks have the same spectrum of emotions as humans do with some variations. They feel sadness at the loss of a good friend or even a good enemy.

Overall, your view of orks is biased rather like that of the imperium. You only see the raving mongol horde aspect. If one thing irks me about the 40k rulebook, it's the blurb on orks describing them as little more than animals. The ork codex shows a different race. Orks can be also be cunning, slitting a mans throat soundlessly. But soundless killing isn't as notable as firing the loud guns and yelling at the top of your lungs, so nobody notices the smart orks much. In war, Orks do behave like savages to other races. They raid and pillage and burn. But when they are among orks the society has more of the aspect of a town in a western movie. A bit lawless, too much drinking, but when things go too far, when another ork commits a crime, order is enforced however necessary.

"And, for the record, Red Unz Go Faster because they subconsciously build them to go faster."
How can that cause the effect when orks often apply paint after construction or repaint over other colors?

Snotlings are barely sentient. Orks are people.

RedStompa
15-09-2007, 22:37
I agree with the above poster... there is lots of fluff to the contrary of what your saying Chilltouch... after all how could a WAAAAAAHGGG ever form if they just fought amongst themselves all the time? Firebase had a short sotry of an ork that didnt want to fight all the time, he had a squig farm. It also went into detail about orkish bars, currency, and how/why they fight with other orks.

your just mad that the wimpy chaos gods can do anything against Gork and Mork, let alone the emperor. also: I hate the tau.

Chilltouch
15-09-2007, 23:13
Getting drunk is a goal in life?
When they're in transit, camping or whatever, they fight with each other.
You can't really be good at eating things and I am sure that they can crush skulls better than they can play an Orkish guitar.
Squig and grot farmers probably feed them live sentients, like snotlings and grots and humans, to satisy their morbid obsession for violence. Bike makers probably test how good they are at smashing stuff, by running over grots. Yet again, violent undertones to everything.
Their currancy is teeth. I doubt they pick them out of corpses, unless they are the corpses of those they just killed. Their sport involves major violence. Sure, they may do artistic stuff for the heck of it but I doubt anyone really appreciates it. Same with music. Orkish gambling seems rather impossible to me. They'd gamble on a grot fight, and then they'd say a grot was drugged up for an excuse for a fight and just end up causing one massive punch up. And enjoy it. As for civilian jobs, name a job that Orks would do that couldn't be considered violent or used for violence in any form.
They build stuff for travelling to a fight too. And they build fortified buildings so they can go inside and get to fight for longer. Since it's not much fun being shot down before you can blast a few slugs at the enemies, right?

That's the thing - Orks can't kill each other off, they reproduce through death via spores. That's their method of breeding. Logical, isn't it?
Anyway, give me an example of an Ork going "Alaz poor Grotshnick, oi knew 'im well".
Ork's form of policing is that if you're caught trying to steal a kustom flashygit gun, or eat 'is squig without payin', he can kick the living snot out of you.

They know they're going to paint it red, so they subconsciously build them to go faster. They subconsciously pimp 'em up to go faster during a checkup when they paint 'em red.

I am not mad. I try to consider myself as unbias as possible. I simply go by what appears to be the most logical parts of the 40K Universe.

Ktotwf
15-09-2007, 23:37
The Orks are a sentient civilization - and by the looks of it, they are the most successful civilization known to the galaxy.

What separates them from say, Humans or Eldar is that they don't feel empathy towards each other. Orks could care less if other Orks are hurt or killed - they only care when THEY are being hurt or killed.

DantesInferno
15-09-2007, 23:54
This comparison is inherently flawed as *official* GW fluff is ,as Iracundus says, from a 3rd party omniscient narrator. You may question Gatsby's greatness, as Fitzgerald intended, but by your reasoning it is equally legitimate to question his existence.:)

Yeah, and my point was "How on earth do you actually know that the narrator is omniscient and objective without totally begging the question?"

There are plenty of cases of GW background which is presented as 3rd person, and yet we have good reason to doubt the independence of the material (eg the IW and IF articles in the IA series, or things like: "Worshipped by untold billions, the sorrow and sacrifices made to sustain His divine corpse ensure the continued survival of the human race in the face of a hostile galaxy." from the 4th ed rulebook. Not just "...his corpse", but "...His divine corpse". It's capitalised in exactly the same way it would be if the author thought he was a God).

So if you accept that the objectivity of some GW pieces can be questioned, even when they're written in an apparently objective way, what makes the bits about the Chaos Gods automatically 100% objective and reliable?

Ktotwf
15-09-2007, 23:57
There are plenty of cases of GW background which is presented as 3rd person, and yet we have good reason to doubt the independence of the material (eg the IW and IF articles in the IA series, or things like: "Worshipped by untold billions, the sorrow and sacrifices made to sustain His divine corpse ensure the continued survival of the human race in the face of a hostile galaxy." from the 4th ed rulebook. Not just "...his corpse", but "...His divine corpse". It's capitalised in exactly the same way it would be if the author thought he was a God).



Ummm...perhaps, and call me wacky, the Emperor is ACTUALLY a God, and the question of bias is irrelevant?

If the narrator was really so Pro-Imperial, would they have referred to the Emperor as a corpse at all? That is something that Anti-Imperial factions usually do.

I think the point here, just as in the usual introduction to all the BL novels "He is a rotting corpse...master of a million worlds" is to juxtapose imagery...which is at the very heart of who the Emperor is...juxtaposed imagery of rotten flesh and Godlike power.

The Emperor IS both a God, and a pathetic paralyzed sack of withered flesh. He is not entirely a Corpse, and not entirely some glowing omnipresent deity.

calicojack
16-09-2007, 00:01
And to bring the thread back 'round to the original post:

Gork and Mork, under Waaargh: da Orks, and such like, ARE Chaos Gods. Or, rather, are "a" Chaos God. [pp 60 ff, in Waaargh: DO, by the way] Whilst the other sentient species seem to generally contribute to the other Four Great Powers [martial honour and prowess to Khorne, hope to Tzeentch, defiance to Nurgle, and pleasure to Slaanesh], the Orks seem to contibute to a single Power - Gork and Mork. Ork-ness in the Warp, as it were.

Of course, as the book points out, in Ork mythology, Gork and Mork regularly defeat the Four Great Powers, because that is Ork Mythology. In human mythology, the Emperor regularly defeats the enemies of Mankind [despite being dead]. In Eldar mythology the Eldar Gods ... um ... well, they are eldar.

Anyhow.


Some races confuse Orks as being evil and thus synonymous with Chaos. This is a misunderstanding on their part, however. Orks are not inherently evil; neither is Chaos. [...] Chaos is neither good nor evil; it simply mirrors the survivalist emotions of the intelligent beings in the real universe. Thus, predatory powers of Chaos, be they deities or daemons, exits because living things generate these emotions. By analogy, there are gargantuan Ork powers in the warp - powers that are the reflections of the Orks' cheerfully irresponsible and warlike nature. At the same time it is possible for Orks to overindulge their taste for militarism and bloodshed, which will ultimately lead them to Khorne. Indeed, Khorne does feed on these aspects of Orkish character; this shows in the very face of Khorne, which has markedly Orkish aspects.
from W:do p. 61.

So "Ork gods"? Equivilant to the Emperor [the humans' "war god"]. Ork Power? Well, there does appear in the older sources to be a "Ruinous Power" that embodies "Orkishness." Gork and Mork, as it were. Are they stronger than the Four Great Powers? Only in Ork stories, it would seem, the same way that the Emperor [possibly a Lesser Power in his own right, thanks to the Golden Throne] bests all in human myths.

Noserenda
16-09-2007, 00:17
Getting drunk is a goal in life?
When they're in transit, camping or whatever, they fight with each other.
You can't really be good at eating things and I am sure that they can crush skulls better than they can play an Orkish guitar.
Squig and grot farmers probably feed them live sentients, like snotlings and grots and humans, to satisy their morbid obsession for violence. Bike makers probably test how good they are at smashing stuff, by running over grots. Yet again, violent undertones to everything.
Their currancy is teeth. I doubt they pick them out of corpses, unless they are the corpses of those they just killed. Their sport involves major violence. Sure, they may do artistic stuff for the heck of it but I doubt anyone really appreciates it. Same with music. Orkish gambling seems rather impossible to me. They'd gamble on a grot fight, and then they'd say a grot was drugged up for an excuse for a fight and just end up causing one massive punch up. And enjoy it. As for civilian jobs, name a job that Orks would do that couldn't be considered violent or used for violence in any form.
They build stuff for travelling to a fight too. And they build fortified buildings so they can go inside and get to fight for longer. Since it's not much fun being shot down before you can blast a few slugs at the enemies, right?

Ork's form of policing is that if you're caught trying to steal a kustom flashygit gun, or eat 'is squig without payin', he can kick the living snot out of you.



See now all the above is based on the fundamental view of orks as barely sentient animals, it doesent support it, if you actually read the Ork fluff perhaps youd understand what the other posters are talking about?

Orks are simple creatures, that doesent mean they are barely sentient or animals! An ork likes to drive fast so he builds a bike to GO FAST not for any reason but just because going fast is fun! Same goes for pretty much anything else in the Ork worldview, sure fighting is FUN its not actually their central preoccupation.



They know they're going to paint it red, so they subconsciously build them to go faster. They subconsciously pimp 'em up to go faster during a checkup when they paint 'em red.


They very consciously build a vehicle to go as fast as possible regardless of pretty much any other factor (Aside from possibly firepower) you cant subconsciously pop under the hood and tune the engine whilst painting... And then the well documented psychic field that surrounds all orks propels red vehicles that little bit faster.

Which kinda leads me to the Ork gunz thing, all Ork guns "work" because the mek that built them cant generate enough of a waaaagh field by himself to make them work in his workshop, but in the field and during battles, damage, malfunctions and jury rigged repairs are often aided by the waagh field so eventually you have a gun that by all rights is little more than a lump of metal with a string attached still firing as long as there is bullets for it. As long as an ork is firing it in a waaagh field anyhow.

Tehkonrad
16-09-2007, 00:40
orks are civilization and chilltouch is wrong

DantesInferno
16-09-2007, 00:49
Ummm...perhaps, and call me wacky, the Emperor is ACTUALLY a God, and the question of bias is irrelevant?

If the narrator was really so Pro-Imperial, would they have referred to the Emperor as a corpse at all? That is something that Anti-Imperial factions usually do.

I think the point here, just as in the usual introduction to all the BL novels "He is a rotting corpse...master of a million worlds" is to juxtapose imagery...which is at the very heart of who the Emperor is...juxtaposed imagery of rotten flesh and Godlike power.

The Emperor IS both a God, and a pathetic paralyzed sack of withered flesh. He is not entirely a Corpse, and not entirely some glowing omnipresent deity.

Of course, you're entitled to interpret something like: "Worshipped by untold billions, the sorrow and sacrifices made to sustain His divine corpse ensure the continued survival of the human race in the face of a hostile galaxy" as objectively true. I'm just objecting to the idea that it is necessarily true: that everything written in the 3rd person is automatically objective, and therefore can only be interpreted in one way.

I don't think that's a tenable position. There are multiple ways of interpreting the background which will appeal to different people, and the argument should be about which positions make most sense in the context of the background as a whole.

RedStompa
16-09-2007, 01:17
Orks aren't human, so for them it very well could be a goal to gt drunk in life.
damn I forgot that their drink was cllaed something-root or other.

Orks release spores ALL THE TIME, not just when they die.

How would you explain an ork useing his slugga to blast a gaurdsmen in half, and when some other gaurdsmen uses that same slugga it jams and almost blows up in his hand.

I doubt an ork would make a self desstruct function on their gun.

red wuns go fasta because they think it can go fasta- trillions of orks minds put into the belife of something like that would make it so, same way as if a chaos sorceror wanted to make something chaosy- it would happen, some of the time.

theres a difference between making a missile and calling it a god and building one and BELIVEING IT IS ONE. You cannot compare this with real life, because there is no warp in real life. The orks like Gork and Mork, (i dont know why), but their belife generates them in the warp, and if one of the principles of their belife was that red painted vehicles go faster, then it is so.

same with green as fightiest, blue luckiest, gold teefiest.

they belive in it, and by that belife it is so.

how would you exaplin that bikes and other vehicles still stay together and outrun some imperial vehicles after being in multiple battles and years of use?

Cause they belive it can work.. no ork vehicle is put together well, unless they looted one.

CHILLTOUCH IS A HERETIC AND SHOULD BE SENT TO A PENAL COLONY. THAT IS ALL.

Iracundus
16-09-2007, 01:42
Actually all that stuff about belief making it work is from Anzion's in character report. Its actual truth can be debated upon.

Before 3rd ed. and that Anzion, it was because the Meks had inbuilt knowledge of how to make their things that the Imperium couldn't figure out. It may have looked ramshackle and about to fall to pieces but it was supposedly built on working engineering principles even though the Mek wouldn't be able to explain why. Also the Orks are supposed to be the galaxy's masters of force field technology, exceeding the Imperium, and even the Eldar, though again this understanding is on the instinctual level.

Besides the Meks and Painboyz, who are subsets of the class Oddboyz (ie all those Orks that have specialist skills or roles), there are non-combatant specialty roles that are mentioned in Freebooterz such as the equivalents of accountants for example. In times of war, these may still pick up a gun and go fight, but their special skills are not war related.

DantesInferno
16-09-2007, 01:58
Actually all that stuff about belief making it work is from Anzion's in character report. Its actual truth can be debated upon.

Before 3rd ed. and that Anzion, it was because the Meks had inbuilt knowledge of how to make their things that the Imperium couldn't figure out. It may have looked ramshackle and about to fall to pieces but it was supposedly built on working engineering principles even though the Mek wouldn't be able to explain why. Also the Orks are supposed to be the galaxy's masters of force field technology, exceeding the Imperium, and even the Eldar, though again this understanding is on the instinctual level.

No reason that it couldn't be a bit of both?

I must say I kinda like the Anzion theory (whilst of course noting that it is an in-character background piece and therefore not necessarily true). The idea of the Orks' latent psychic powers bringing about things which, from the outside, seem illogical makes sense to me. And it fits nicely with my favoured interpretation of what's going on with, say, the Acts of Faith which Sisters of Battle perform, or even daemon summoning or something like that.

RedStompa
16-09-2007, 02:23
what are 'Acts of faith' I always hear about them but never know what it really means...

Chilltouch
16-09-2007, 03:00
I guess it's just the fact that I find "hurhur we use psychic powerz to do everything" absolutely bloody stupid.

I think Orks work better as primalistic savages rather than psychic powerhouses. Okay? I THINK. I don't have any grudge against Orks. I just think the concept of Orks using psychic powers for about everything is inane. Okay? I think the concept that Orks have the ultimate deity is idiotic, when lately there is 0% solid background around Gork and Mork at all. All in all, I prefer Orks to be like their Orc cousins. No magical powers. Just pure, ol' tough grittiness to the 'ardest.

Why don't the Orks just go "HUR HUR YOU'Z ALL DEAD" and watch everyone's head pop off? It makes Orks look pathetic - the toughest humanoid brutes the galaxy has spawned rely on some pixie dust magic to work? No! Orks are meant to be big, old, violent bastards! They're meant to have an animalistic cunning and be the ultimate looters, rather than getting a thick tube, a few nuts and bolts, weld it all together and use psychic powers to fire out the nuts and bolts.

And before anyone says, "but what you want doesn't matter. what GW says does matter" or anything remotely like that statement, I KNOW. This post is entirely about personal preference and I severely dislike the direction GW's gone with Orks. Okay?

Good.

RedStompa
16-09-2007, 03:13
it looks like you havent read or paid attention to what everyone else has been saying.

All orks have psyker potential but they cant use it. they have a very limited amount (minus wyrd boyz). Because there are so many of them worshipping Gork and Mork they generate a massive presence in the warp. and lat time I checked there were waaaay more orks then humans, eldar,dark eldar and numbers in chaos legions/cults. The little power they do have adds up with their sheer numbers. and noone is saying that orks use their power every day to do everything, there are very few that can actually use their power to 'tap in' to the essence of Gork and Mork.

What you think and what is fact are two different things.

CONSIDER YOURSELF PURGED.

EDIT:

"And before anyone says, "but what you want doesn't matter. what GW says does matter" or anything remotely like that statement, I KNOW. This post is entirely about personal preference and I severely dislike the direction GW's gone with Orks. Okay?"

the only person that has said that is you. resorting to GW bashing (although I do not defend them) in this argument is rediculous. And as far as I know Gork and Mork have ALWAYS existed as long as orks have, and have ALWAYS has a small mount of latent psykick ability. Your previous posts were not about personal prefernce, they were about saying how Gork and Mork didn't exist and that all orks were idiotic, senseless barbarians. while they seem dumb, and they are very brutal, THEY ARE SENTIENT, AND THEY HAVE A CULTURE.

NOW CONSIDER YOURSELF PURGED.

Chilltouch
16-09-2007, 03:22
So, essentially, you just went "but what you want doesn't matter. what GW says does matter" anyway. Thanks, really.

I KNOW. Okay? I KNOW. I just think that concept's completely idiotic and Orks could be better off without and, y'know - actually be cool people who loot stuff and make their own tech out of stuff WITHOUT PSYCHIC POWERS. They don't need gods to be brilliant. They don't need psychic powers either. That is what I THINK.

I KNOW THAT WHAT I THINK AND WHAT IS FACT ARE TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS.

And last time I check, Orks are possessed by at least the tiniest shred of animosity and infight at least the tiniest bit. And as a source quoted by another Ork fan was about a slugga without a trigger, and slugga's are the Ork's most common ranged weapon, and that they infight, then I would say they use their little psychic field a fair bit.

Or have Orks become a civilized, noble people with a honour-based culture who have learned that infighting is bad and have learned to appreciate art and music and other fine things, such as good wine?

RedStompa
16-09-2007, 03:30
I KNOW. Okay? I KNOW.

apparently you dont cause INDIVIDUAL ORKS HAVE LITTLE TO NO PSYKER ABILITIES ON THEIR OWN!

I didn't go with the GW argument... I said it was ridiculous to bash them, and that thats how orks have always been.

I also said nothing about orks being civilized or noble. just that they HAD a civilization (albet a very violent one) and they were more then idiots blundering around a battlefield picking up spare parts.

CONSIDER YOURSELF EXTERMINATUS'ED.

Iracundus
16-09-2007, 03:34
Yes, Orks fight among themselves. So what? Their gods Gork and Mork fight among themselves. The fact they are so fractious is part of the reason why they do not completely overrun the galaxy. However that fact has nothing to do with whether Orks have a civilization or not. They have a robust brutal one, lacking some of the refinements and niceties that humans and Eldar might have but that doesn't mean they aren't civilized in their own sort of way.

Ktotwf
16-09-2007, 03:36
Not only are the Orks "civilized", they have the PERFECT civilization, as that one Eldar guy so kindly pointed out.

Chilltouch
16-09-2007, 03:38
They're more than idiots blundering around a battlefield picking up spare parts, they're savages who picked up spare parts, exchanged them with a mekboy for a nice shoota, who then uses the aquired part to make a nice piece o' kit.

And in case you have not realized, I enjoy exaggeration. It may be stupid for me to bash the way Orks are, but I severely dislike the conception of the Ork psychic field where no indivudual ork has much power but together they have the power to fire guns with no triggers (there, I said it) and I would like to see it changed.

Iracundus
16-09-2007, 03:39
That Eldar however also has the title or nickname of being perverse.

It also depends on what scale you rate perfection of a civilization. If you're talking about simply pure survival, then yes Orks are probably the most robust of the galaxy's races. Everything about them is structured around being simple and able to survive, and their culture has changed very little in their entire existence. However if one uses other methods of evaluation, then Orks are far from perfect.

Ktotwf
16-09-2007, 03:41
That Eldar however also has the title or nickname of being perverse.

It also depends on what scale you rate perfection of a civilization. If you're talking about simply pure survival, then yes Orks are probably the most robust of the galaxy's races. Everything about them is structured around being simple and able to survive, and their culture has changed very little in their entire existence. However if one uses other methods of evaluation, then Orks are far from perfect.

And yet, the Eldar, with all their refinements and high culture, are dying, and the Imperium has had to become more and more like the Orks (self sacrificing, brutal, and uncaring) to survive.

This excites me really, for how they are going to depict the Tyranid vs. Orks galactic showdown in the new Orks codex.

Iracundus
16-09-2007, 03:45
The Eldar still probably have the highest individual quality of life.

Orks may be strong as a civilization but life as an individual Ork is likely to be short and brutal.

As I said above, it goes by what metrics you use to measure. There can be more to life than simple survival.

RedStompa
16-09-2007, 03:50
What? when are they doing this?

"And in case you have not realized, I enjoy exaggeration. It may be stupid for me to bash the way Orks are, but I severely dislike the conception of the Ork psychic field where no indivudual ork has much power but together they have the power to fire guns with no triggers (there, I said it) and I would like to see it changed."


well, not meaning to beat a dead ork (haha) but this forum was a discussion asking if Gork and mork were stronger then the Chaos gods, and they are, not a discussion about what we would like to see changed about them.

Now, Let us continue our discussion about Why/how they are more powerful

*mumbles to self* since I was victorious after the last skirmish. *looks around and stands up* "WAAAAAGGGGGGGHHHH!!!!".... I mean..... lets get back to the topic.

Chilltouch
16-09-2007, 03:56
However, essentially the two topics are related.

Anyway, as you've stated several times, Gork and Mork are absolutely godly, they make the Emperor **** his pants, they make the Eldar write emo poems and they make the Chaos Gods cry whenever they flinch and the only reason why Gork and Mork don't obliterate everything is because they can't be bothered and they just fight each other.

Is there anything else to add?

RedStompa
16-09-2007, 04:01
"godly"

not godly- they ARE gods... yes theres plenty left to discuss; why Gork and Mork for instance? Where gork and mork orks at one point, or are they simply ideas? why do the orks choose gork over mork andvie versa.... and no more sarcasm from the Tau, cause their going to get wiped out anyways.

Iracundus
16-09-2007, 04:05
Gork and Mork have always been canonically stated as gods. They are not ascended mortals. How they can be brothers without any obvious progenitor is not stated and the Orks themselves don't seem to bother wondering why.

Both Gork and Mork in appearance seem to be archetypal Orks. Even Orks have trouble agreeing on their looks. The whole "Gorkamorka" mess supposedly started when the Orks built a statue supposed to represent one of the Ork gods and they had a big schism ending in fighting over whether the statue represented Gork or Mork.

Green-is-best
16-09-2007, 04:06
However, essentially the two topics are related.

Anyway, as you've stated several times, Gork and Mork are absolutely godly, they make the Emperor **** his pants, they make the Eldar write emo poems and they make the Chaos Gods cry whenever they flinch and the only reason why Gork and Mork don't obliterate everything is because they can't be bothered and they just fight each other.

Is there anything else to add?

Yes.

Green is best. :D

Chilltouch
16-09-2007, 04:08
... Why are you assuming I am a Tau player? I just like that avatar.

Anyway, I could say that you're going off-topic, as this is meant to be about why Gork and Mork are more powerful than the Chaos Gods. But instead, I say that they are an idea, or are at least an idea now - because even if they once lived, the so-called Orkish psychic field remembers them and keeps them animated as great Gods. No one knows any details about Gork or Mork, one's apparently meant to be more brutal, the other one more cunning but I don't know about that.

RedStompa
16-09-2007, 04:09
Gorkamorka

what exactly happened? and I wonder if the original statue maker lived to tell the take, or if the statue itself survived?

Can't forget:

Red wunz go fasta

RedStompa
16-09-2007, 04:11
"Why are you assuming I am a Tau player? I just like that avatar"

Yes, and I'm Leman Russ, primarch of the Space Wolves, the reason I went missing is because I had to find more things.

Chilltouch
16-09-2007, 04:19
... Seriously, I don't play Tau. In fact, I don't play at all these days. I mainly just enjoy the background that I enjoy. Also, Tau are going to be destroyed as sonn as an Eastern Fringe faction gets its crap together.

Green-is-best
16-09-2007, 04:20
... Why are you assuming I am a Tau player? I just like that avatar.

Anyway, I could say that you're going off-topic, as this is meant to be about why Gork and Mork are more powerful than the Chaos Gods. But instead, I say that they are an idea, or are at least an idea now - because even if they once lived, the so-called Orkish psychic field remembers them and keeps them animated as great Gods. No one knows any details about Gork or Mork, one's apparently meant to be more brutal, the other one more cunning but I don't know about that.

Yep, Mork is the master of low cunning, while Gork is the master of bashin' fings gud.

In other words, Mork's strategy for dealing with a Space Marine force would be "right den ladz, shoot da choppy bitz an chop da shooty bitz," whereas Gork's strategy would be "WAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!!!!"

Night Bearer
16-09-2007, 04:49
Interesting thread, guys. I'm sure my two bits won't matter, but there are a few things I feel that are being overlooked:

1. Regarding the power of Gork and Mork: I think people are overlooking a key distinction regarding the Orks gods vs Chaos gods: for lack of better terms, the Chaos gods are "emotional" gods, whereas the Ork gods are "racial" gods.

What I mean by this is, the mere existence of a human or Eldar doesn't generate "power" for Khorne, Nurgle, Slaanesh, or Tzeentch. Humans (and such) have to actively possess and pursue the relevant emotions and actions to fuel the relevant god. In addition, theoretically, a Chaos worshipper can change allegiances, making the individual "source" of the Chaos Gods' powers highly unstable for a variety of reasons.

The Orks gods, on the other hand, appear to be powered simply by the existence of Orks. While they may enjoy surges due to Waaaghs - and especially with big ones like Ghazghkull's - nevertheless, from what I recall of the old fluff, the Ork gods first and foremost are sustained by the latent psychic power of the Ork race, which in aggregate is likely quite higher than humans (fewer if stronger individual pyskers) or Eldar (probably very psychic as a race, but have to restrain it to avoid becoming targets of Slaanesh).

The older Chaos fluff underscored that the powers of the Chaos gods wax and wane individually, so that at times one or another will be dominant due to a massive plague outbreak, particularly large wars, etc etc., but that this is always in flux. OTOH, it would appear that Gork and Mork have a much more stable "base" for their power - since the Orks probably outnumber a large number of other races combined - and the Waaaghs only increase an already strong base level.

2. Regarding POV and bias in GW fluff - I think it's very important to keep in mind that GW shifted its view on fluff from v2 to v3. For those that may recall, the v3 rulebook and first wave of armybooks were extremely light on background, and GW's explanation was that it felt it had explained too much and put too much detail into things before and now wanted more open ended background and more mysteries.

For me, I think the best example of this would be the Dark Angel half of the Angels of Death codex from v2. Even though it wasn't literally spelled out completely, the fate of Luther and much about Cypher were effectively spelled out because enough detail was given to make very solid guesses as to the few things that were left "hinted" at.

Now, for me, the importance of this distinction of how GW did/views v2 vs. v3 fluff is in the explanations they gave - I wish I had the old White Dwarfs and forum postings, but their argument clearly indicated that v2-era fluff was intended, by GW, as gospel truth. They were telling it as is, from a reliable 3rd person POV. Whether this narrator or narrators were using "biased" language, IMO, is irrelevant in regards to what were apparently GW's intentions at the time.

Now, post-v2, that all changes, and GW made it clear (at least during v3, I don't know what their "policy" might be now) that they are now wanting more open-ended narratives and weasel room to change things.

3. v2 Orks and v3+ Orks are two separate races - Of course, this isn't official, but in practical terms I think any background discussion of Orks has to acknowledge that we are really dealing with two separate races, as GW completely altered them (for the worse, IMO). Ork kulture was much more detailed in v2 - and yes, there were indeed "non-violent" Ork jobs back then, like brewboyz and such.

IMO, and it's only that, but I feel it relevant, I believe the RT/v2 Orks are essentially based on British stereotypes of Germans, esp of the WWI era, where the British saw civilized Germany as a militaristic society hell-bent on war due due to German arrogance championing the superiority of German "kultur".

To me, the Space Orks of old were exaggerations of this stereotype, and in the process they were both hyper-brutal yet highly civilized. Their use of teeth, for example, is not barbaric - Ork teeth are replaced on a constant basis, and their highly nomadic "lifestyle" made their teeth a perfect material for money as they essentially carry it with them (so no need for mining or other industrial labor just to produce coins or electronic banking, so to speak) and, to quote the v2 Orkdex from memory, Ork poverty isn't permanent because sooner or later a boy will grow new teeth.

The Orks were highly cunning, civilized, and intelligent. However, as has been stated, they were also brutally direct - if things could be done simply, they'd opt for it (and for an Ork, violence can be a wonderfully simple solution when bullying around a grot or dealing with pesky beekees and panzees).

Nowadays, of course, this has all been thrown away and replaced with what's essentially HiveFleet Gorilla - a representation of Orks as little more than mindless, Tyranid-like killing machines (notice how they share the same exaggerated bodysize differences from slogger to leader just like the bugs?). Sure, they have a recognizable language and use artificial guns, but they're not much less primitive than a Hive Tyrant and its gaunts. Their brutality and violence is not longer the result of an Ork cultural bias towards direct and simple responses when satisfactory, but because Orks no are really no longer capable of anything else.

Anyways, all I wanted to say is that I think the "emotional/racial" distinction between how the Ruinous Powers and Gork'n'Mork receive their power is a crucial one that may have been overlooked, as well as the fact that GW's intentions w/ how their fluff is to be received changed significantly after v2, which is when most of the Ork fluff being cited here was written.

I wish I had my primary sources to cite first hand, but this is all coming from recollection over the v2 fluff (when I was a big Ork player) and the arguments GW made when people began to complain that the first army books (in v3) were too bare, background-wise.

RedStompa
16-09-2007, 05:00
'beekees'

Why do Orks call Space Marines that?

beakie boyz

panzies for eldar- although this one is more obvious...

orks still retain their civ and kulture as far as I know anyways... there was recent fluff describing ork kulture

Chilltouch
16-09-2007, 05:02
I'd say the pointy-nose helmets are the reason.

Green-is-best
16-09-2007, 05:02
Amazing post! I really do miss the Orks of old. Squig vs. Ork face eatting contests were pretty hilarious, Sumboyz (Orkses wot counts teef fur uvver Orkses) were great, and all the descriptions of Da Clanz and Orky Kultur were just so great. (One of my favorites was "Sum Orkses will do anyfing fur teef, nuffin' wrong wif dat. But hobnobbin' wif humiez? Dats diffrunt.") Now the distinction between the clans is meaningless.

Iracundus
16-09-2007, 05:04
Orks are British stereotypes of football hooligans and other "low-brow" working class stereotypes.

I wouldn't be so quick to claim the Tyranids as primitive. They are just cells in the larger super-organism.

The biggest shift which seems to be partly rolled back was the 3rd ed. insistence on purely Imperial POV reports. It led to very superficial exploration of the background since Imperial characters as a whole know very little about xenos races. Since the Orks are still limping along on their old 3rd ed. Codex, they have very little background on them unless one goes to look in the older sources.

RedStompa
16-09-2007, 05:52
I'd say the pointy-nose helmets are the reason

I though those were phased out for the most part? Dont they have the more blunt nosed ones now? Like in DoW? Which one is more advanced?


ok after these no more off topic qs

Night Bearer
16-09-2007, 05:54
Orks are British stereotypes of football hooligans and other "low-brow" working class stereotypes.
It certainly overlaps and influences some area, but I would disagree that this is the dominant source of the old Ork theme.

Without serious thought, just what strikes me:
-the very "German" look of the gear of the v2 Stormboyz and many Blood Axes
-"Goff" likely derived from "Goth", a Germanic tribe
-the similarities in appearance of the Lungbursta (Ork tank from Epic) with the German Jagdpanther from ww2
-the "potato-masher" look of the Ork stikkbomb
-the glyph for "Ork" in the old v2 book, at least to me, looks a lot like the old German cross (similar to the Black Templars' chapter symbol) from the WWI era, with a slight hint of a swastika in how the arms of the cross are slightly bent in the same clockwise direction.
-the tendency of Ork special chars, like Ghazghkull mag uruk Thraka and Nazdreg ug Urdgrub, to have "von"-like components in their names, a very stereotypical naming convention for the equivalent of German officers of noble birth
-the Ork tendency to fight wars on two fronts. :)


I wouldn't be so quick to claim the Tyranids as primitive. They are just cells in the larger super-organism.
They're Space Ants, or Space Bees...or maybe Space Bants....

Ktotwf
16-09-2007, 05:55
They're Space Ants, or Space Bees...or maybe Space Bants....

Space Locusts

Night Bearer
16-09-2007, 05:56
I though those were phased out for the most part? Dont they have the more blunt nosed ones now? Like in DoW? Which one is more advanced?
At the time "beekees" became the Orky word for Marines, all Marine minis were of the beaked kind.

It's really just a holdover from the Rogue Trader days.

Night Bearer
16-09-2007, 05:57
Space Locusts
Space Lobantusts. :)

Ktotwf
16-09-2007, 05:58
At the time "beekees" became the Orky word for Marines, all Marine minis were of the beaked kind.

It's really just a holdover from the Rogue Trader days.

Yeah...beaked Marines is so...wrong...

Iracundus
16-09-2007, 06:02
Read Ghaz's full name carefully. Notice the more than just merely passing reference to a certain British politician?

The whole translated Orkish language is British Cockney, mutated to fit 40K.

The look of the old Stormboyz was more of a take on the whole notion of "stormtroopers" rather than an Ork race wide slant on Germany. The Imperial Guard have far more regiments that steal ideas from WWI and WWII German equipment than the Orks.

The Black Templars used the Teutonic Cross. Yes, but that doesn't make them suddenly Germans in space either. Also note that the swastika is not a traditional German symbol either, and appears in other cultures and religions such as Buddhism.

Numerous Imperial nobility have "von" in their names. Does this suddenly make the Imperium German? No.

It sounds to me like a few details about the Orks are being seized upon, with some rather tenuous links to Germany, and then a blanket statement of them being based off of Germans is being made.

Green-is-best
16-09-2007, 07:01
Read Ghaz's full name carefully. Notice the more than just merely passing reference to a certain British politician?

Yeah, I've heard that whole Thatcher thing before but I'm not buying it. Putting aside the fact that his first and most commonly used name is Ghazghkull, mag uruk thraka really doesn't sound or look that much like Margaret Thatcher. Mag? Missing a r sound. Uruk? By itself it bares zero resmbelence with -aret. You put them together and you get mahg-oo-rook. As opposed to Margaret which is mahr-gah-reht. And Thraka has a r sound and a k sound that are simply absent from Thatcher. Moreover, the reference itself doesn't make sense. How is Ghazghkull anything like Thatcher? Might as well name him Ghazghkull Rul Nud Ragran.



The Black Templars used the Teutonic Cross. Yes, but that doesn't make them suddenly Germans in space either. Also note that the swastika is not a traditional German symbol either, and appears in other cultures and religions such as Buddhism.

Ok, that is a complete crock of crap that gets thrown around a lot on this board. I'm a Buddhist, but I'd never ever EVER use a manji (I don't even like calling the Buddhist symbol a swastika) on anything. Why? Because a symbol definitionally embodies a concept independently of personal biases. The values and ideas that it represents are assigned by societies and cultures, not individuals. That means that if you live in East Asia or on the Sub-Continent, the swastika is a holy device. But, if you come from the United States, Russia, or Western Europe, a swastika is a Nazi emblem, PERIOD. It is absurd to expect people in the West to see the primary motif of the most heinous social and political construct in human history as anything but a symbol of irredeemable evil.

Iracundus
16-09-2007, 09:37
If it were that explicit and an exact match, it wouldn't be a reference would it? They might as well just have spelled it out. You're meant to read it smoothly. The Orkish language appears to lack the ch sound entirely so the next approximation is in place.


I've seen the Buddhist swastika in plenty of places, oriented appropriately, in the West. Do not attempt to generalize so broadly and assume everyone is ignorant. It is only misinterpreted by those that are unaware of the background of the symbol and the differences in orientation between the Nazi one and the Buddhist one. To say the swastika period is Nazi is tantamount to saying the cross is satanic. There is a world of difference between the two swastikas, just as there is a world of difference between an upright and inverted crucifix.

Green-is-best
16-09-2007, 10:23
If it were that explicit and an exact match, it wouldn't be a reference would it? They might as well just have spelled it out. You're meant to read it smoothly. The Orkish language appears to lack the ch sound entirely so the next approximation is in place.

So, a big green guy from space has a name that kind of bares a passing resembelence to Thatcher's name if you slur your words together. Not much of a reference, if you ask me.



I've seen the Buddhist swastika in plenty of places, oriented appropriately, in the West. Do not attempt to generalize so broadly and assume everyone is ignorant. It is only misinterpreted by those that are unaware of the background of the symbol and the differences in orientation between the Nazi one and the Buddhist one. To say the swastika period is Nazi is tantamount to saying the cross is satanic. There is a world of difference between the two swastikas, just as there is a world of difference between an upright and inverted crucifix.

There is no such thing as one "Buddhist swastika." The swastika is used by many different Eastern faiths, including Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism. It's position and meaning vary by country and sect. For instance, in Japanese Buddhism, for instance, a "right-facing" ura-manji represents strength and intellect, while a "left-facing" omote-manji symbolizes love and mercy. To an untrained Westerner, the omote-manji looks nearly identical to the Nazi swastika.

More importantly, why is it ignorant for a Westerner to be unfamiliar with religions that have relatively small footprints outside of Asia? Most people in Europe and North America have never set foot inside a Buddhist or Hindu temple, let alone traveled to East Asia or India. While you happen to be somewhat familiar with some aspects of Buddhist symbology, there's really no reason to expect anybody else is.

Anyway, this is way off topic and I don't want Wintermute coming down on me for the second time today, so if you're interested in continuing this, send me a pm.

devolutionary
16-09-2007, 10:36
Ugh and once again there is an utter failure to fully comprehend that the Swastika as it stands is a derivative from northern European runic devices, a cultural history that the Nazi's plundered vigorously for their own mythological basis and imagery. That there is another four-limbed, basic geometric symbol out there in the world does not imply any sort of association, it's just coincidence. Other cultures that had no Christian contact have used cross-like symbols, just as 5-pointed stars are found universally outside of wiccan (pagan, possibly?), satanic, Communist, and American iconography.

Happy now chaps? :p

Aaaaaaaaanyways, as has been pointed out in 40k, there are a number of issues. The first is perspective. Most fluff is written from an Imperial-centric view - they are the ones with the propaganda machine, the numbers, and the main role in the show.

Then there is the nature of Gods, power, and the Warp itself. Some argue that all Gods are of the Warp and therefore are Chaos Gods. Some argue that the Chaos Gods are of the Warp an perhaps Warp Entity is a much more accurate term. It's a matter where you decide to branch the differentiation between Warp, God, and Chaos.

Then there's the fact that a lot of the fluff written is quite frankly contradictory and crap. The Black Library is rife with such things, and as GW themselves releases these books and then contradicts them in later codices, I can only conclude that ultimately there are no absolutes, so why bother trying to assign them? As far as the Orks are concerned, Gork 'n Mork are superior. As far as Chaos is concerned... well, I actually don't think Chaos cares, and as such neither should you ;)

Night Bearer
16-09-2007, 14:46
Read Ghaz's full name carefully. Notice the more than just merely passing reference to a certain British politician?
No, not really. I think that's way more "tenuous" than anything I've suggested.


The Imperial Guard have far more regiments that steal ideas from WWI and WWII German equipment than the Orks.
Nowadays, yes, but what about back in the Rogue Trader era where the genesis of the Ork background is located?

Due to the popularity of ww2 movies and books beginning in the 90s, GW has certainly made much greater use of German ww2 material for IG names, regiment themes, and other things, including the Black Templars.

However, at the time, I would argue that the predominant use of "German" imagery was in several of the Ork lines, including Stormboyz, Goffs, Blood Axes, and the generic Ork line (e.g. the old metal riders for warbikes and wartraks).


Also note that the swastika is not a traditional German symbol either, and appears in other cultures and religions such as Buddhism.
The background to 40k is pop culture, not academic thesis. The true history and/or use is irrelevant in the context of the popular perception of 40k's primary audience - namely, wargamers. Besides, as I stated, it's not a swastika itself - only that it looks (to me) like a German cross with just a subtle hint of it, enough (IMO) to indicate what may have been the intended allusion (that the Orks are the "Germans" of the 40k universe, if the Imperial POV is meant to be taken in part as British or at least "Allied").

Obviously most races in the game draw on a number of allusion - I've always thought the Imperium to be conceived as a blend between the Romans and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, myself - and yes, the Ork language is clearly based off Cockney, but I think it is fair to say that a substantial amount of the original Ork imagery and background was clearly inspired by common stereotypes of the Germans.

Iracundus
16-09-2007, 14:57
Actually you'll find a lot of 40K background is a ripoff of real history and real life so real world academia and culture is most relevant in order to actually appreciate those borrowings. The 40K universe is absolutely littered with it from Alexander the Great *cough* Macharius to part of a retelling of Jutland in BFG with the Imperial fleet playing the part of the German High Seas Fleet to Horus being Lucifer in a retelling of the Christian myth of the rebellion of angels.

Stormboyz had Germanic like uniforms but that is more a play on the stormtrooper reference, not Germany per se. Goffs is a reference to Goths, which aren't Germans any more than the Angles or Saxons are British. There's nothing Germanic about Blood Axes either. They had some uniforms, some with overcoats, but unless you equate any military uniform with coats to being Germanic then there really isn't any connection.

The Orks aren't the Germans of 40K. They're the generic barbarian horde, much as the Imperium is the equivalent of medieval Christendom during the dark ages. That the historical equivalent were the various tribes called the Gothis, Visigoths, Vandals, etc... and that these are often collectively referred to as "Germanic" doesn't make the Orks WWI or WWII German.

Yes some small fragments may have been derived from Germany but that doesn't mean Orks are German. As above, the Imperial fleet is in design doctrine closer to WWI German ships, and in one of the BFG references, they play the exact part of the German fleet. Does that suddenly make the Imperium German? No.

Night Bearer
16-09-2007, 17:30
Actually you'll find a lot of 40K background is a ripoff of real history and real life so real world academia and culture is most relevant in order to actually appreciate those borrowings.
No, it isn't. It tells you what the source is, but GW often mixes and changes to fit their particular needs, and they are simply not above using a pop culture perspective or take over a more nuanced or "true-to-history" take.


Stormboyz had Germanic like uniforms but that is more a play on the stormtrooper reference, not Germany per se.
But who are best known for their stormtroopers? It's like saying putting fur hats and overcoats w/ red stars on an IG trooper is a "winter reference", not a Soviet one.


There's nothing Germanic about Blood Axes either. They had some uniforms, some with overcoats, but unless you equate any military uniform with coats to being Germanic then there really isn't any connection.
No, it's equating the German stahlhelm and picklehaub with being German, and guess what a fair number of Ork and Grot models had back in the day?

The Orks were clearly meant to invoke a Germanic feel. None of the other 40k lines from this time rely as heavily on this look as the Orks, and the 40k background is not an in-depth, historically measured and accurate treatise on the subjects it rips off for its own use.

Look, I love the 40k background, but it's a pop culture mix and match of historical tropes and obscure references that may seem academic, but really aren't. GW plays fast and loose with historical, religious, and pop cultural references.

Not everything Orky is "Germanic" - Snakebites were clearly based on North American tribes, fex - but it doesn't change the fact that the Orks were clearly based on a stereotype of the aggressive "Hun" (i.e. German) and his "kultur" (i.e. "Orky know-wotz").

Orks even had medals and monocles back then, for pete's sake!

Green-is-best
16-09-2007, 18:50
Nowadays, yes, but what about back in the Rogue Trader era where the genesis of the Ork background is located?


I think that is absolutely key. The Ork fluff significanlty predates the "Germanification" of any regiment of the Guard.

Grimbad
17-09-2007, 00:00
Getting drunk is a goal in life?
When they're in transit, camping or whatever, they fight with each other.

Yes, but not all of them. If orks are travelling together, they're on a waaagh!. They aren't at war with each other. Fights on a hulk would mostly be to maintain order.

Squig and grot farmers probably feed them live sentients, like snotlings and grots and humans, to satisy their morbid obsession for violence.
Actually fungus mostly IIRC. Fungus that grows around the ork ****-pits.

Bike makers probably test how good they are at smashing stuff, by running over grots. Yet again, violent undertones to everything.
Grotz are the annoying little brother from hell. There have been times when I wanted to run over my little brother with a bike. Orks just have fewer inhibitions.

Their currancy is teeth. I doubt they pick them out of corpses, unless they are the corpses of those they just killed. There are some things about the teeth. They have to be ork teeth. Big ones, nearly tusks. See attachment. Now IIRC Blood Axes are the only orks who take them from old battlefields, all the others find this improper and use fresher ones. Ork teeth distintegrate over time (my guess is that the spores in ork hands corrode them) to prevent inflation. Usually they are obtained in brawls or by having your teeth pulled if you're low on cash.

Their sport involves major violence. Sure, they may do artistic stuff for the heck of it but I doubt anyone really appreciates it. Same with music. Orkish gambling seems rather impossible to me.
They have blood bowl and doubtless all kinds of races. Of course there would be disputes, but orks like each other mostly and don't live to make hell for other orks ('cept weedy blood axes). Art is appreciated. Idols of Gork and Mork and battle tapestries are IIRC favored forms. Before you call this barbaric, I'd like to point out that there were points in human history where this was true too. Music... you honestly haven't heard of goffic rokk? (http://uk.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.uk?WCI=Menu&WCE=Search)
As for civilian jobs, name a job that Orks would do that couldn't be considered violent or used for violence in any form.
Name a human job in the 41st millennium that doesn't serve the imperial war machine. There isn't one. Everything humans do at some level supports the army. Ork jobs that aren't violent? Drummer, choir ork (they exist, though they have in ork myth knocked down fortresses with their voices.), brewa, storyteller.

They build stuff for travelling to a fight too. And they build fortified buildings so they can go inside and get to fight for longer. Since it's not much fun being shot down before you can blast a few slugs at the enemies, right?
Humans do that too you know.

Anyway, give me an example of an Ork going "Alaz poor Grotshnick, oi knew 'im well".
"Grubnatz felt vaguely disappointed that he wouldn't get to fight Skabsnik now that the stupid zogger had got himself perished."
-Codex: Orks, p.38
Though not an example of mourning for a friend, it's mourning for a respected enemy. But not very intense mourning as Skabsnik hadn't actually declared himself an enemy yet and they never fought, but Skabsnik was getting ready to. Also, it's hard for orks to be sad in the middle of a firefight.

Ork's form of policing is that if you're caught trying to steal a kustom flashygit gun, or eat 'is squig without payin', he can kick the living snot out of you.
Do you think Batman is a horrible person for punishing criminals? It's vigilante justice, but it is justice nonetheless. Do you blame Wyatt Earp for doing the right thing? No, but it was his job! And nobs fill the same role as such people.

And last time I check, Orks are possessed by at least the tiniest shred of animosity and infight at least the tiniest bit. And as a source quoted by another Ork fan was about a slugga without a trigger, and slugga's are the Ork's most common ranged weapon, and that they infight, then I would say they use their little psychic field a fair bit.
Orks do infight, but not at every level at every moment. They have wars with each other, they have brawls with each other, but they live normal lives in between.



3. v2 Orks and v3+ Orks are two separate races - Of course, this isn't official, but in practical terms I think any background discussion of Orks has to acknowledge that we are really dealing with two separate races, as GW completely altered them (for the worse, IMO). Ork kulture was much more detailed in v2 - and yes, there were indeed "non-violent" Ork jobs back then, like brewboyz and such.
...
...
...
I wish I had my primary sources to cite first hand, but this is all coming from recollection over the v2 fluff (when I was a big Ork player) and the arguments GW made when people began to complain that the first army books (in v3) were too bare, background-wise.
It can be assumed that the aspects of everyday ork life have changed little as they were never much addressed in the tragically little background of the 3rd edition codex. But if the rumors are correct, the next ork codex will be more 2nd edition-ish.


Read Ghaz's full name carefully. Notice the more than just merely passing reference to a certain British politician?

It sounds to me like a few details about the Orks are being seized upon, with some rather tenuous links to Germany, and then a blanket statement of them being based off of Germans is being made.
As for ghazzy, read the last paragraph here (http://ca.geocities.com/crazy40kguy/namesandhomages/orks.html).
Early orks were definitely german based. The swastika (the real one and the nazi one) were both ork glyphs, but the design of said glyphs has since been changed to more of a pinwheel design.

Iracundus
17-09-2007, 06:05
You do know there is a difference between the official GW explanation and the tongue in cheek reference to Margaret Thatcher right? It's analogous to the difference between the GW explanation of what the Eldar word "mon-keigh" means in 40K and the real attempt to have a play off the word "monkey".

Again I'm not denying there are parts of the Orks that are German based but again it is as inaccurate to say they are Germans in space as it is to say the Imperium is. Just have a look through the 2nd ed. and you'll find people with "von" in their names and wearing monocles (or cyber replacements like monocles). A few borrowed traits doesn't suddenly mean an entire race or faction is solely or mostly a ripoff of just one specific nation in RL.

Green-is-best
17-09-2007, 07:37
You do know there is a difference between the official GW explanation and the tongue in cheek reference to Margaret Thatcher right? It's analogous to the difference between the GW explanation of what the Eldar word "mon-keigh" means in 40K and the real attempt to have a play off the word "monkey".

Again I'm not denying there are parts of the Orks that are German based but again it is as inaccurate to say they are Germans in space as it is to say the Imperium is. Just have a look through the 2nd ed. and you'll find people with "von" in their names and wearing monocles (or cyber replacements like monocles). A few borrowed traits doesn't suddenly mean an entire race or faction is solely or mostly a ripoff of just one specific nation in RL.

Everyone is entitiled to their opinion, I suppose. The people who disagree with you have put forward some pretty cogent points that you really haven't refuted. So, believe what you choose!

Iracundus
17-09-2007, 07:43
I refuted the points in my last post. A few borrowings do not mean suddenly the Orks are Germans, anymore than the Imperium borrowing few Soviet details means they're Russian or the Imperium being German just because they have officers with monocles or nobles with "von" in their name. The Orks have just as much borrowing from Cockney and football hooligan stereotypes.

Green-is-best
17-09-2007, 09:22
I refuted the points in my last post. A few borrowings do not mean suddenly the Orks are Germans, anymore than the Imperium borrowing few Soviet details means they're Russian or the Imperium being German just because they have officers with monocles or nobles with "von" in their name. The Orks have just as much borrowing from Cockney and football hooligan stereotypes.

You did not address the point that many of the similarities between Orks and English stereotypes of early 20th century Germans predate the Imperium's metamorphosis from a spacefaring Soviet Union into the human culture stew of second edition and beyond. In fact, you seem to have ignored that sticky subject altogether.

Here's a hint, look at source material prior to second edition.

Iracundus
17-09-2007, 09:40
You didn't address their borrowings of football hooligan and traditional English stereotypes of working class stereotypes, right down to their rough and tumble drinking culture and Cockney English. They're closer to that, with a few odd bits borrowed from the Germans, and tribals for the Snakebites. In much the same way that a few Soviet or German details don't make the Imperium suddenly just the USSR in space, a few German details don't make the Orks WWI or WWII Germans, not when they still have the majority of their stuff based off of British working class stereotypes.

Green-is-best
17-09-2007, 10:17
You didn't address their borrowings of football hooligan and traditional English stereotypes of working class stereotypes, right down to their rough and tumble drinking culture and Cockney English. They're closer to that, with a few odd bits borrowed from the Germans, and tribals for the Snakebites. In much the same way that a few Soviet or German details don't make the Imperium suddenly just the USSR in space, a few German details don't make the Orks WWI or WWII Germans, not when they still have the majority of their stuff based off of British working class stereotypes.

I didn't address it because its not my arguement, its Night Bearer's. He seems to be quite capable of making his own points. I'm just saying that you're repeating the same points over and over without addressing things like:


No, it's equating the German stahlhelm and picklehaub with being German, and guess what a fair number of Ork and Grot models had back in the day?

The Orks were clearly meant to invoke a Germanic feel. None of the other 40k lines from this time rely as heavily on this look as the Orks, and the 40k background is not an in-depth, historically measured and accurate treatise on the subjects it rips off for its own use.

Look, I love the 40k background, but it's a pop culture mix and match of historical tropes and obscure references that may seem academic, but really aren't. GW plays fast and loose with historical, religious, and pop cultural references.

Not everything Orky is "Germanic" - Snakebites were clearly based on North American tribes, fex - but it doesn't change the fact that the Orks were clearly based on a stereotype of the aggressive "Hun" (i.e. German) and his "kultur" (i.e. "Orky know-wotz").

Orks even had medals and monocles back then, for pete's sake!

Iracundus
17-09-2007, 10:25
I never denied some details were based off the Germans, but a few details aren't enough to generalize that broadly to say the Orks are Germans. The analogy with the Imperium doesn't depend on what edition, merely the fact that ripping off details doesn't suddenly equate to that entire race or faction being based off of the historical example that was ripped off. Even with the Imperium of this edition ripping off very heavily from the Germans, such as the Death Korps of Krieg as just one off the cuff example, nobody suggests the Imperium are Germans in Space

Rockerfella
17-09-2007, 16:21
Lets be honest, Orks are basically space Chavs. Not that I've ever given my number to a chav, but if you've ever read a txt message from one, you'll notice its almost identical to Orky writing. Scary...

Interesting to note, that chavs are members of the British working class, often identifiable by their filth ridden, yobbish, lager drinking, loud mouthed behaviour. In case you haven't noticed, i'm not a fan. Although I LOVE the Orks. Strange.....

Cheers.

chris.seraphim
17-09-2007, 19:55
If you think about it logically, then the two gods formed by the getslat of the ENTIRE Ork race - and Orks are both sickeningly numerous (moreso that humans, Tau and Elder combined) and have a really big warp shadow, so much so that the combined warp echo (Waagh) of an Ork army is a tangible force on any battlefield they fight on or planet they inhabit - are gonna be pretty damn hard, when compared to entities that are formed from one emotional aspect of a fraction of one, less populous race, or even a few races.

Make it maths.
one million Orks in totla (not real numbers) 99% or whom go for Gork & Mork. Orks have a psychic imprint value of, say 2.
So thats 1980000 'warp point's for Gork N Mork.
By contrast, there are (in relative numbers) half a million chaor worshippers, each with a psychi value of say 1.5 (averaged out between 1 for humies and 3 for eldar...)
so thats 750000 warp points for chaos
split FOUR WAYS.

Which gives Gork N Mork with 990000 warp points each
and each chaos god with 187500 warp points each
.....yeah I bet they're worried...............

for arguments sake, the Emperor recieves the remainder of the human race, at warp value one, so has 500'000 warp points.
chaos beats the big E if they can stay on each others page, but Gork N Mork beat them BOTH if they can stop arguing about who overcooked the squiggs or who is the harder Ork!

Yes, those numbers are silly but I think you get the idea, or maybe ive been at work too long....going home now.

Chilltouch
17-09-2007, 20:13
Gods don't work through belief.
They work through emotion.

And every sentient being in the galaxy - no, UNIVERSE that feels pleasure, hope, rage or despair, fuels the power of the Chaos Gods.

Meanwhile, Gork and Mork? ... Meh. They're just fuelled by Orks.

We have no idea how powerful they are in comparison as we have no measure of the entire 40K universe.

salamandercaptain
17-09-2007, 21:20
Yeah, and my point was "How on earth do you actually know that the narrator is omniscient and objective without totally begging the question?"


A lot of the fluff referenced for Gork and Mork being gods is 1st and 2nd edition fluff.
I those days all of the fluff with the specific exclusion of in-character stories was written from an omniscient 3rd person narrator point of view. Hence we could take the view that Canonically Gork and Mork are gods.

With the arrival of 3rd ed there was a stated change to write all fluff from the point of view of the Imperium, exemplared by most of the fluff in the 3rd ed Ork codes. This policy though slightly relaxed has continued into 4th ed.

This change in point of view does much to explain the massive differences in fluff interpretation that seem to be fueling this thread.

Orks were once the greatest race in 40k fluff wise with Waaugh the orks, 'Ere we go and Freebooterz as supportive texts.

Chaos got close but the 3 chaos books weren't homo sapiens exclusive.

I'm also fairly sure that it states that Nurgle started to come into being with the Gret plagues of the middle ages and that the 3 chaos gods were initally avatars of HUMAN emotions only. Moving house at the moment but will look out the reference

s

Iracundus
17-09-2007, 21:34
Realms of Chaos books. Khorne was the first of humanity's Chaos gods to awaken followed by Tzeentch, as society became more complex. Nurgle awoke before the Middle Ages and is implied was behind the bubonic plague. It says by the end of the Middle Ages all 3 were fully conscious and aware. All of this once again from the omniscient 3rd person narrator perspective.

Chilltouch
17-09-2007, 21:39
It took an entire galactic empire thousands of years of perversion and debauchery to make Slaanesh.

And Nurgle was awoken by what was a flu - no, a COMMON COLD - compared to most of the inter-steller horrors?

Wow, I am just beginning to realize exactly how much of the 40K background I think is absolute ********.

Mechanicus
17-09-2007, 21:40
I those days all of the Fluff with the specific exclusion of in-character stories was written from an omniscient 3rd person narrator point of view.
All of this once again from the omniscient 3rd person narrator perspective. Do we know that, or is that an assumption? Was it said by GW that the viewpoint was omniscient, that it was completely unbiased? Or do we take the more recent comments from GW that the background is all possibly untrue, and filled with lies, propaganda and mistakes, after the advent of 4th edition, with 3rd person background more often used?

Iracundus
17-09-2007, 21:47
It was omniscient. These are events that no character in 40K knows, with perhaps the exception of the Emperor. These are from the POV of a 3rd party narrator. Do you understand what that means? The narrator is outside the 40K universe, telling things as they are. They aren't an in-character voice with bias or trying to peddle a particular faction's propaganda.

DantesInferno
17-09-2007, 23:09
It was omniscient. These are events that no character in 40K knows, with perhaps the exception of the Emperor. These are from the POV of a 3rd party narrator. Do you understand what that means? The narrator is outside the 40K universe, telling things as they are. They aren't an in-character voice with bias or trying to peddle a particular faction's propaganda.

Read the Iron Warriors and Imperial Fists IA articles for an example of where a 3rd person account of events which can be biased. Noo one character knew everything presented in either of the IA articles, and it certainly wasn't phrased as a character's account. Yet the two articles managed to offer completely different perspectives of events which occured (eg the Iron Cage).

Or if you want a 2nd ed source, go take a look at Codex: Angels of Death. It tells the events in a 3rd person narration, events which no one living individual in the 40k universe would know (eg what happened in the duel between Luther and the Lion, where the Lion is now, etc). And yet there's still a pretty strong sense that it's from one side of the story. They call one side "the Fallen" - who do you think calls this group of Marines that name? They didn't refer to themselves in that way, I'm pretty sure.

As Mechanicus says, you can't possibly know that what is said is objective and unbiased - that is just the way you're interpreting it.

Ktotwf
17-09-2007, 23:30
Do we know that, or is that an assumption? Was it said by GW that the viewpoint was omniscient, that it was completely unbiased? Or do we take the more recent comments from GW that the background is all possibly untrue, and filled with lies, propaganda and mistakes, after the advent of 4th edition, with 3rd person background more often used?

Personally, I take that as just a rather weak attempt to add cheap depth to the background.

As I have said before, if EVERYTHING is up for debate, than we could believe that there aren't any aliens, and the Imperium is just making it up for their own political purposes.

I tend to feel that unless something stated in the third person is completely absurd (as in the Imperial Infantryman's Uplifting Primer which states that Orks are scared of big noises) and we are supposed to know it is absurd, then you should probably accept it as being true.

DantesInferno
17-09-2007, 23:48
Personally, I take that as just a rather weak attempt to add cheap depth to the background.

As I have said before, if EVERYTHING is up for debate, than we could believe that there aren't any aliens, and the Imperium is just making it up for their own political purposes.

I tend to feel that unless something stated in the third person is completely absurd (as in the Imperial Infantryman's Uplifting Primer which states that Orks are scared of big noises) and we are supposed to know it is absurd, then you should probably accept it as being true.

Sure, everything is up for debate, but the whole point of debate is to have plausible evidence to back up what you say. Otherwise it's just yelling at each other (which happens far too often on these forums anyway). Suggesting that there aren't any aliens (like the Eldar) is hopelessly implausible, simply because we've got so much evidence (from the Eldar point of view as well as the Imperial one) against it.

It's a straw man to suggest that because we can question things which, on their face, appear to be 3rd person and objective, therefore we can't rationally establish anything at all.

Ktotwf
17-09-2007, 23:50
It's a straw man to suggest that because we can question things which, on their face, appear to be 3rd person and objective, therefore we can't rationally establish anything at all.


Yes, but these quotes are very rarely objected to as subjective merely because of their existence - they are always objected to because it is inconvenient evidence that goes against one's own personal interpretation.

And to me, that is a kind of skeezy area of personal interpretation, and an area I would rather not get in to.

Iracundus
18-09-2007, 03:35
Nurgle was awoken by humanity's despair and troubles while still on Earth. Again people are mistaken in assuming awoken means suddenly explodin into being at full power like Slaanesh. All the RoC says is the Big 3 gained consciousness at those times. As humanity spread across the stars, the gods have grown stronger and larger along with humanity.

It took the collapse of the Eldar empire in one stroke to make a Chaos god spring to full power from unconsciousness. There's a difference there.

The Fallen are the collective group of the DA that chose to rebel. It is just a label just as the Emperor is just a label for the entity responsible for the Imperium. Nitpicking over the connotations of names is pointless when the names serve just as easy way to call the entities in question. As already mentioned elsewhere, the Emperor is still the Emperor whether one is rabidly pro-Imperial or anti-Imperial. Calling him by his title doesn't indicate anything about one's political position and doesn't change the objectivity of the narrator accounts.

DantesInferno
18-09-2007, 03:59
Nurgle was awoken by humanity's despair and troubles while still on Earth. Again people are mistaken in assuming awoken means suddenly explodin into being at full power like Slaanesh. All the RoC says is the Big 3 gained consciousness at those times. As humanity spread across the stars, the gods have grown stronger and larger along with humanity.

And it's worth taking a moment or two to think about what "Nurgle was awoken by humanity's despair" actually means in the context of how warp gods work in 40k background.


The Fallen are the collective group of the DA that chose to rebel. It is just a label just as the Emperor is just a label for the entity responsible for the Imperium. Nitpicking over the connotations of names is pointless when the names serve just as easy way to call the entities in question.

No, it really is important. Why are they called "the Fallen" and not "the true Dark Angels" or whatever else the Fallen would call themselves? Clearly because we're being fed an account which is implicitly from the perspective of one side. It wasn't just arbitrarily chosen, or decided by a coin-toss or something.


As already mentioned elsewhere, the Emperor is still the Emperor whether one is rabidly pro-Imperial or anti-Imperial. Calling him by his title doesn't indicate anything about one's political position and doesn't change the objectivity of the narrator accounts.

And yet the very label by which you call something has meaning. He isn't the Emperor according to the Chaos Legions, he's the False Emperor. The Emperor was only his title for a portion of his life, and only a portion of the galaxy supports his claim anyway. The fact that we're just not given this information should tell you that it's not just a comlpetely objective account of what's going on.

Ktotwf
18-09-2007, 05:41
I actually tend to side with Iracundus on the naming issue. The Emperor is just the Emperor, and that is the way GW tends to do it.

DantesInferno
18-09-2007, 06:16
The Emperor is just the Emperor, and that is the way GW tends to do it.

But that was my point! Say we have character X. If GW calls character X "the Emperor" all the time, in apparently 3rd person objective accounts, it just serves to reinforce the mythos and authority of the character: nameless, Capitalised to show respect, etc.

Presumably he had a name (or series of names) before he became "the Emperor" - why is his title used instead of his actual name? Could it be because that's what the Imperium refers to him as? Suggesting that it's a completely random or arbitrary process seems a bit counter-intuitive.

Ktotwf
18-09-2007, 06:26
But that was my point! Say we have character X. If GW calls character X "the Emperor" all the time, in apparently 3rd person objective accounts, it just serves to reinforce the mythos and authority of the character: nameless, Capitalised to show respect, etc.

Its a way of GW giving us a sense of the character - he is the Emperor, and that is all he is.


Presumably he had a name (or series of names) before he became "the Emperor" - why is his title used instead of his actual name?

Because none of his names have relevance to his current existence.

He was probably known as Alexander the Great, Jesus, Muhammad, and John, and Billy Bob, and Ughh, and Jimi Hendrix (heh) and Shang Wi and any other name you can come up with, but what relevance does that have to his character and his role within the Imperium?

One could even argue that by virtue of having had so many names, it would be silly to pick one to refer to him by, thus as he is essentially many personalities in one, he is an entity (The Emperor) and not a person in any way we would understand it.

We have a multi soul, multi personality being, and what, we are supposed to call him Emperor Johnny or something?


Could it be because that's what the Imperium refers to him as? Suggesting that it's a completely random or arbitrary process seems a bit counter-intuitive.

It is probably just because his "name" is not meant to be known - no one knows it, and no one uses it.

stormblade
18-09-2007, 06:28
Presumably he had a name (or series of names) before he became "the Emperor" - why is his title used instead of his actual name? Could it be because that's what the Imperium refers to him as? Suggesting that it's a completely random or arbitrary process seems a bit counter-intuitive.

- It could also be(in fact it is) that nobody knows his real name and capitalized is used by the imperials out of respect.

The Narrator does it the same way because there is no other name for him.

Ktotwf
18-09-2007, 06:29
The Narrator does it the same way because there is no other name for him.


Yeah, I think so.

DantesInferno
18-09-2007, 06:44
Its a way of GW giving us a sense of the character - he is the Emperor, and that is all he is.

To the Imperium, at least. Other groups call him different things.


Because none of his names have relevance to his current existence.

Isn't the fact it has been decided that none of his other names are relevant enough to question the objectivity? Why aren't they important, and who says so?


He was probably known as Alexander the Great, Jesus, Muhammad, and John, and Billy Bob, and Ughh, and Jimi Hendrix (heh) and Shang Wi and any other name you can come up with, but what relevance does that have to his character and his role within the Imperium?

If we knew what his other names were, then we'd be able to decide. The fact is, of course, that we're not even given the opportunity to judge because the Emperor's background is denied to us.


One could even argue that by virtue of having had so many names, it would be silly to pick one to refer to him by, thus as he is essentially many personalities in one, he is an entity (The Emperor) and not a person in any way we would understand it.

We have a multi soul, multi personality being, and what, we are supposed to call him Emperor Johnny or something?

The background doesn't even explicitly say this anymore. It's all just left unsaid, and deliberately so. Welcome to the cult of personality which is the Imperium. By being encouraged to refer to this character by a mysterious and authoritative title, we're just reinforcing the character's mystery and authority.


It is probably just because his "name" is not meant to be known - no one knows it, and no one uses it.

Not known or used by anyone in the 40k setting, at least. Are we still comfortable saying that the narrator is really objective? It's effectively putting us in the place of someone in the 40k universe, or close enough.


- It could also be(in fact it is) that nobody knows his real name and capitalized is used by the imperials out of respect.

The Narrator does it the same way because there is no other name for him.

So, who is this Narrator, and is s/he really objective if s/he is making choices as to which of his names are relevant and which aren't?

EDIT: 1 000 posts!

stormblade
18-09-2007, 06:55
So, who is this Narrator, and is s/he really objective if s/he is making choices as to which of his names are relevant and which aren't?

EDIT: 1 000 posts!

He/she/it does not chose, it is his 'name' that is used the most at the time and other factions really don't have another name for him(except perhaps chaos who call him "The False Emperor" which would truly be subjective, The Eldar refer to him as 'the human psyker which is called the Emperor').

Although the Narrator would be more objective if he actually listed a few of his 'names' every time he mentions him it would be too much of a bother and simply annoying to read.

Congratulations(on the 1000th post)

DantesInferno
18-09-2007, 07:00
He/she/it does not chose, it is his 'name' that is used the most at the time and other factions really don't have another name for him(except perhaps chaos who call him "The False Emperor" which would truly be subjective, The Eldar refer to him as 'the human psyker which is called the Emperor').

So why is calling him "the Emperor" (which is what the Imperium calls him) more objective than calling him "the False Emperor" (which is what the Traitor Legions call him)?


Although the Narrator would be more objective if he actually listed a few of his 'names' every time he mentions him it would be too much of a bother and simply annoying to read.

What I find important is the idea that "the Emperor" could be called something other than "the Emperor" is not even acknowledged in much of the background material. It's just an implicit assumption that this is what we should call the character, which filters on through to the readers.

stormblade
18-09-2007, 07:07
So why is calling him "the Emperor" (which is what the Imperium calls him) more objective than calling him "the False Emperor" (which is what the Traitor Legions call him)?

- Because it has an epithet of negative connotation.




What I find important is the idea that "the Emperor" could be called something other than "the Emperor" is not even acknowledged in much of the background material. It's just an implicit assumption that this is what we should call the character, which filters on through to the readers.

- But how else could you call him? I personally have no idea except perhaps the Warp Beacon(which sounds kind of funny)

DantesInferno
18-09-2007, 07:13
- Because it has an epithet of negative connotation.

So the epithet of negative connotation is evidently subjective. And yet the epithet of positive connotation is objective?


- But how else could you call him? I personally have no idea except perhaps the Warp Beacon(which sounds kind of funny)

It's the very fact that we don't have anything else to call him that I'm trying to point out here. Presumably there is something else (he wasn't always the Emperor of Mankind), but we simply don't know, because we are denied the information (much like those in the 40k setting).

Ktotwf
18-09-2007, 07:21
So the epithet of negative connotation is evidently subjective. And yet the epithet of positive connotation is objective?

But "The Emperor" is not a positive connotation, it is simply a statement of the position the Emperor holds within the Imperium. I see it as value neutral, as the Emperor is, unquestionably, "The Emperor" of the Imperium of Man.

The 3rd person narrator (if he/she could be said to be someone at all) seems to use Imperial terms as a reference point, and the viewpoint of mankind.

I think it is only meant to serve the purpose of anchoring you within the reality of the story.

There is obviously bias inherent in the telling of the background (there is bias inherent in ANYTHING written really), but the point is not to establish the background written in this way as unreliable, or even to sell a viewpoint to the audience, it is only to give the narration character, and I think THAT is the main point, not that that narration is to be understood as inherently unreliable.

If the fluff were written with true "Imperium Bias", as in written in such a way that the information is meant to be unreliable, then GW would make that more clear.

I think GW is getting too much credit here - they write from the viewpoint of the Imperium often as way to immerse the reader, not to give the wary an Easter Egg wherein they can say "You don't have to pay attention to this." GW isn't trying to be tricky here, they are trying to give the reader a sense of the Imperium.

stormblade
18-09-2007, 07:22
So the epithet of negative connotation is evidently subjective. And yet the epithet of positive connotation is objective?

Umm, there is no epithet in 'the Emperor'- it is a noun presenting a title which is, in this case, turned into something like a name




It's the very fact that we don't have anything else to call him that I'm trying to point out here. Presumably there is something else (he wasn't always the Emperor of Mankind), but we simply don't know, because we are denied the information (much like those in the 40k setting).

- You do have a point there but I must admit that I've never seen that as much of a problem. I mean we do not know what the hell happened in the millenniums before 30k or something, to me this seems far more vital than was he called Bob, Nikolai or Laszlo.

Iracundus
18-09-2007, 08:32
Calling someone by their title has no connotation. Calling them "false" does have a connotation. Likewise calling him "almighty Emperor" would have a connotation. Whether or not a Chaos follower thinks the Emperor is a false one doesn't change the fact he is still Emperor.

Similarly calling Eldrad by his full name and title Eldrad Ulthran (Foremost of Ulthwe) has no specific connotation in itself. Just calling him that doesn't imply anything about the speaker's view towards him, or the Eldar, merely that he is being called by the title he has, regardless of the speaker's views on that.

Trying to imagine connotation out of the names or titles people have doesn't alter the 3rd party narrator objective account of events.

Adra
18-09-2007, 09:15
Objectivity is impossible anyway as our opinions are shapped by our experiance and personal interpretation and its impossible to be 100% objective about anything. If u have an opinion you will fall one side of the argument no matter how hard you try.

The Carrion Lord is a title of the Emperor but we cant help but find that a neggative title due to the connotations we read within the name and that is more to do with our socolisation than it is to it being a true neggative title or not. The is no good or evil, no right or wrong, just subjective interpretation.

Nurgle for example...hes The Lord of Decay and The Lord of All....same guy but title one has a more neggative aspect than title two, but that is because my opinion is totaly subjective and cannot help but be so. None of you, for all you may wish, can be 100% objective and so i would not expect its from 40k either. That would be dull.

Another good example. We all agree that Night Haunter was screwed over by the Emperor ok...but thats cos our opinion is subjective.....we are not being objective. Another person may say "yes but, no matter what he should never have turned against his farther." That opinion is no less valid than ours because it is subjective, as is ours.

MvS
18-09-2007, 09:42
Before his incarceration into the Golden Throne, and having read the Horus heresy books to date, I would think that the title 'False God' would have suited the traitors better than False Emperor. As has been stated previously, he is an emperor and so he is the Emperor.

That said, post Heresy with the Emperor becoming more and more like a crusted old mummy, hardly ever communicating with anyone in any given millennium, the term 'false emperor' might have a more genuinely descriptive capacity... unless we mean 'emperor' to be just a figurehead, then I suppose he doesn't need to do that much to keep is title.

But anyway, isn't this thread supposed to be about Gork and Mork?

;)

Mechanicus
18-09-2007, 17:23
It was omniscient. These are events that no character in 40K knows, with perhaps the exception of the Emperor. These are from the POV of a 3rd party narrator. Do you understand what that means? The narrator is outside the 40K universe, telling things as they are. They aren't an in-character voice with bias or trying to peddle a particular faction's propaganda. That they're speaking in 3rd person does not mean it is from a third party, outside of the events. I can write in third person about things in my life, and yet it would not mean I was not involved. And events that no character knows? That's assuming, a) that the source is guaranteed to be true, and b) that the source is speaking from the time period concerned. Very few know it at the end of the 41st millennium, for example, but later on we don't know what they'll know. Lion sleeping in the Rock? At the end of the 41st millennium, only him, the Watchers in the Dark and possibly the Chaos Gods know about it. And Luther may have theories. Later on? If he wakes up, or if they tunnel through more of the Rock, etc, then they just might.

As I have said before, if EVERYTHING is up for debate, than we could believe that there aren't any aliens, and the Imperium is just making it up for their own political purposes.As I've said on other forums, there are things beyond a reasonable doubt, and so you ask questions about it. Does it make sense? Is it stated a lot in the background? Is it something that would be noticed or a something very few people would know? Is there opposing evidence? Aliens and the Horus Heresy, well, there's a lot of viable evidence saying they exist and no viable evidence to the contrary. Same with the Horus Heresy.

Yes, but these quotes are very rarely objected to as subjective merely because of their existence - they are always objected to because it is inconvenient evidence that goes against one's own personal interpretation.Mainly because things up for personal interpretation are things which aren't stated clearly/multiple times/are of dubious truthfulness...

And to me, that is a kind of skeezy area of personal interpretation, and an area I would rather not get in to.And yet, some areas of 40k are left so open that personal interpretation is unavoidable if you're going into any depth in the 40k universe.

But "The Emperor" is not a positive connotation, it is simply a statement of the position the Emperor holds within the Imperium. I see it as value neutral, as the Emperor is, unquestionably, "The Emperor" of the Imperium of Man.It has positive connotations - by only using "The Emperor", it suggests his position is more important to him than himself; implying that he is his job, and is dedicated to it.

There is obviously bias inherent in the telling of the background (there is bias inherent in ANYTHING written really), but the point is not to establish the background written in this way as unreliable, or even to sell a viewpoint to the audience, it is only to give the narration character, and I think THAT is the main point, not that that narration is to be understood as inherently unreliable.

If the Fluff were written with true "Imperium Bias", as in written in such a way that the information is meant to be unreliable, then GW would make that more clear.It is not "meant" to be unreliable. In its nature, anything given a bias, even a slight one, has the potential to be unreliable.

I think GW is getting too much credit here - they write from the viewpoint of the Imperium often as way to immerse the reader, not to give the wary an Easter Egg wherein they can say "You don't have to pay attention to this." GW isn't trying to be tricky here, they are trying to give the reader a sense of the Imperium.It was never said they were trying to be tricky, but if GW changes things in the background every so often, then saying that some of it might not be true is a quick and easy way to reconcile the differences. It was said after much of the background was written, but intention does not equal canon. Intended as 3rd person omniscient? Perhaps. We'll probably never know. But I don't see why it hurts to use it as a way to reconcile things.

thechosenone
18-09-2007, 17:39
It sure has been awhile since anyone posted something about gork and mork

Mechanicus
18-09-2007, 17:56
I do get sidetracked too often... :s

Gork and Mork, in my opinion, are most definitely warp 'gods'. More in the sense of souls accumulated around a central being or concept (Orkiness, in this case) rather than by emotions. Looking at the Liber Slaanesh, where the Eldar gods are shown as a form of manifestible (-ible? -able, maybe?) warp entity. I imagine that these warp entities began off as more Enslaver than Chaos God, being possessed of a sentient consciousness from the outset (which I like to think of as being souls contributed by the Young (and maybe Old) Races, incorporating Xenology's theory). And so as they became worshipped as gods, emotions and soul energy began to accumulate around them (fast tracked Chaos Gods, in my mind, but with fundamental differences). Now, they could still manifest, unlike the Chaos Gods, so I believe that the fact they had a central soul had something to do with it, perhaps allowing it to focus itself enough to manifest, rather than the conglomerate Chaos Gods.

When their manifestations were destroyed in the War in Heaven, I think the controlling souls were merely absorbed by the nascent god, rather than being put back in control, leaving 'shells' for Slaanesh to consume.

Now, the Young Races' pantheon for the Hrud and Eldar (and presumably Rashan and Knib) seems to be different to the Orks. I like to think it's because the Orks and Jokaero were given two of their own of these warp entities, which, once again, became gods over time.

Now, I'm saying this with a certain amount of uncertainty as to whether anyone else will understand what I'm saying, and I'm sure MvS will correct me on any wrong terminology. :D

RedStompa
18-09-2007, 21:51
And just like a Chaos Space Marine falling down a flight of steps, this thread has run off the track of the original topic.

Night Bearer
20-09-2007, 01:41
Again I'm not denying there are parts of the Orks that are German based but again it is as inaccurate to say they are Germans in space
I never said they were Space Germans (those are the Tau, btw :) ), I simply said that the original look and feel of the Orks seems very much based on a stereotype of Germans being both cultured and violent, which I made to refute the notion that somehow being ultra-violent precludes the Orks from being civilized! :D

Night Bearer
20-09-2007, 02:13
Regarding terminology and bias, as has been stated terms like "Emperor" are just neutral, and to say otherwise I think is just reading too much into it.

Fex, plenty of background stories, as well as Imperial characters have referred to Thraka as a "warboss" or "warlord", but it seems doubtful that we're supposed to believe any of these Imperial officials acknowledge the validity of Orkoid authority, as it were. :)

GW is simply telling a story about a future humanity that worships their dead/near-dead Emperor. The capitalization isn't meant to indicate the narrator believes in the Emperor's godhood - it's mean to underscore to you, the reader, that these people believe he's a god - GW simply used a convention familiar to most of its fans (capitalization of God's titles and pronouns) to help communicate the nature of this world.

It's a simple storytelling convention, not a sign of bias. It'd sure be annoying to be a GW writer and have to go


"Most human citizens of the Imperium, which I, the narrator, am totally not part of, worship an individual they refer to as the "God-Emperor" - their capitalization, not mine! - who before this was known as Bob the VIIth, Rick the Unlucky, Alf, Tom the quite Lucky, Bob Dobbs, and these other names which are totally irrelevant to the story I was trying to tell about how these future humans, who are brainwashed from our point of view, and their genetically engineered supermen, who are genetically engineered supermen by our point of view, "worship" (their term, not mine, again, totally not a pro-Imperial narrator here!) this "God-Emperor" (their term and capitalization!) as, well, their "God-Emperor", which is to say that for our purposes this future human civilization is an empire - not a judgment call on my part! - which obeys an emperor who is kinda dead - again, not a judgment! - and even though this is a short write-up about the Imperium, I should point out that Orks, Eldar, Chaos forces, and others do not respect the authority of this emperor, which seems really obvious but, you know, I haven't mentioned I'm completely neutral in the past 30 words so I should probably mention that and should explicitly explain that my use of the term "Emperor" - with or without capitalization - is totally a convention I'm using to try and explain this background of ours. Again, myself - totally not Imperial. I actually live in Brighton and eat packets of crisps, or biscuits, or whatever we British call cookies.

"So, now that we've established a rich atmosphere, full of grim and dark futuristic imagery, where a rotting corpse rules a vast star-spanning human empire, their gravest threat are the heretics of Chaos. Now, before we begin, I should point out a few disclaimers regarding my use of terms such as "Gods", "Dark Gods", "Chaos Gods", "Ruinous Powers", "The Emperor", "False-Emperor", "Gork", "Mork", "Bork" (well, forget that last one)...."

The Emperor's Faithfull
20-09-2007, 03:28
Awesome quote Night Bearer

Killnik
24-09-2007, 19:44
orks have more psychic potential than humans? since when?
i point to the emperor, horus, ing mae sing, magnus the red,
orks with psyker abilities... none that i can think of...

Surly your pointing to spefic special individuals, the adverage ork gun works because orks want it to work, Techpreists can't figure out how it works and thats the only plausable (ha-ha) explanation, so the average ork is more psychic then the average human.

my nitpicked response :P