sorry bout that last post....

It was in there. Can't remember which one and I'm not inclined to read them all over (not all of them were that good...) but it was in there. I want to say it was in the Ben Counter one but I could be wrong.

It really rang bells when I read it because Space Marine Libedo has always come up at every frikkin' 40k game I've ever played for the last 20 years....

I want a book and page number, because I call BS or at least severe confusion on your part on this issue. I've read the whole HH series and it was repeatedly quite clear that they were effectively sexless. Not just uninterested culturally, but chemically modified to be divorced from sex entirely. Which is why the reactions and events in Fulgrim were such a big deal.

**** is never even mentioned in the entire HH, they sure as hell never "raped as a form of subjegation", as that would go completely against the entire point of the crusade.

Aureus said:

And even in Fulgrim the Emperors Children didn't engage in sexual acts at all. The accompanying remembrancers sure did (being only humans and all), but it isnt stated anywhere that any of the Space Marines did anything of the sort. Sure their emotional response manifested in other severely disturbing ways (very violent ones), but nothing sexual.

However, in Dark Heresy, Acolytes seldom encounter Chaos Marines of the Emperors Children legion. Slaaneshi cultists on the other hand are entirely plausible, and they're certainly not above ****** people...

Aureus said:

Haven't read the HH novels except for Descent of Angels (which sucked so hard I seriously considered sawing the DA Icons off my 700+ model 40k army and starting over with a home-brew chapter) so I can't tell you what it did or didn't say.

However, If you're calling for exact page cites for his side of the argument (which I wouldn't mind seeing) you should also provide exact page cites for "Not just uninterested culturally, but chemically modified to be divorced from sex entirely."

Don't demand evidentiary standards from the other side of the debate that you have not met yourself.

I have read the three first books 2 times and i have never read that astartes raped populations.

It never states in any book set in the 40k Universe that Astartes commit acts of **** or intercourse, or even of one feeling physical desire for a human. It does imply in the book "Horus Rising" by Dan Abnett that all of the parts are there, which would suggest chem-gelding given the lack of, erm, use . That said, even if they were not castrated in some form, Astartes are both mentally and physically a species apart from humanity, something acknowledged often in the Horus Heresy novels. They don't have an absence of fear during battle because they're wired to experience joy instead, but because they are incapable of feeling it. They are bred to be warriors, the perfect warriors, and it stands to reason that if they can be modified to not experience something as primal and human as fear, then why not lust or physical desire? How else could you explain the complete and total lack of reference? The Emperor's Children were seduced by Slaanesh by the promise of pleasure and intoxicating sensations, not by sex, which is something that we as human beings nearly always assume to be one and the same.

DocIII said:

You're kidding right DoccllI?

The man makes up a completely false statement that no one else remembers saying, and you're saying we need to prove he's lying? Are you serious?

What does it matter anyway DocIII? You've already said that in your mind the novels aren't canon anyway, due to some arbitrary standard you're trying to enforce, and yet now you want us to prove within those discounted sources stuff that would counter-act this possible misinformation. But since those same novels don't matter to you at all, why do you care since they're not canon by your arbitrary system.

Xathess Wolfe said:

I never said prove anyone's lying. Or accused anyone of lying. Or even of being wrong. What I said was if you're going to demand that he prove his statements to a specific level of proof, be prepared to provide the same level of proof for your own statements. That's simple equity.

Aureus demands book and page number from the person on the other side, but has not provided the same for his side. If he's unwilling to provide the same level of proof he asks for, then why should the other side of the argument bother with trying to accede to his request.

Further demanding a higher degree of proof than you're willing to provide makes your own position appear arbitrary and with less merit.

Further, you're now accusing someone of making something up that no one else remembers and yet its something I've heard mentioned before on the forums (again no one has specifically cited the source)

I'm not trying to enforce any standard. I've said I find the novels less convincing evidence due to their often contradictory and divergent material. I never said they were worthless.

Ok, then i ask that you prove that astartes **** populations exact book and page.

Because i can only say that i have not read that anywhere in any book. do you want me to write source: all books, all pages.

If that last was directed at me, you've clearly not been paying attention when reading the above posts.

Maxim C. Gatling cited the Horus Heresy novels for the premise of Astartes using **** as a weapon, but never got any more specific.

Aureus asked Maxim C. Gatling to provide specific book and page number cites.

Aureus also posed the separate but related premise that all Astarted are "chemically modified to be divorced from sex entirely."

My response to Aureus was to ask that he provide equivalent citation to his own (Aureus's) statement re chemical modification that he was asking Maxim C. Gatling to provide re Maxim's premise that Astartes used **** as a weapon.

So to this point we have merely two separate claims that cannot both be true as each precludes another. (however either being proven untrue will not prove the other true).

Then Xanthess Wolfe stepped in slinging accusations of lying and fabrication into what had previously been a fairly civil discussion.

I do not know if Maxim's position is correct. I merely stated that this is not the first time I've heard of it, to counter Xanthess' contention that Maxim's position was "mak[ing] up a completely false statement that no one else remembers."

I have not asked either side to disprove the other's position, merely to provide the source for their own; and to be willing to step up with the same degree of specificity for their material that they ask the other guy to provide for his.

The best either side has managed so far is: um' somewhere in the Horus Heresy books. Nice and vague.

How is asking Aureus to provide a book and page for Aureus's contention (Astartes chem-geld) any less reasonable than Aureus asking Maxim to provided book and page number for Maxim's contention (Astartes use of ****)?

Hell, I don't even need anything that specific, I'd just appreciate folks not quoting to me as irrefutable fact things that 1) I've never seen in any source, and that 2) when questioned as to where they got it they can't do better than "I think it's maybe in a black library novel somewhere"

If an idea is just an idea you like great. That doesn't make it any less valid for discussion. Just present it as such.

If an idea actually has a semi-official source supporting it, provide the source before telling people how it's the final word.

One minor clarification:

Above I said that both Maxim's and Aureus' contentions could not be true as they are mutually exclusive. That is somewhat misleading. Due to the regularly contradictiory nature of GW background material, particulalry BL novels, it could conceivably be true that each premise is stated in a source with the GW logo stamped on it. Such is the nature of the inconsistent material provided.

But with everyone being so vauge in where they got their material, who knows?

Well, I don't know if this helps much or not, but one of my players has five of the Heresy books converted to PDF on his laptop (he's working on eventually digitizing his whole collection of BI books in the hopes of getting me to read them). I ran a couple of text searches of the five books (Horus Rising, False Gods, Galaxy in Flames, Flight of the Eissenstine, and Fulgrim) that he had and came up with the fallowing:

The word "geld" dose not appear in any of those books.

The word "castrate" dose not appear in any of those books.

The word "****" appears 3 times in Fulgrim but none of the other four.

In the three instances of the word "****" in Fulgrim, one was used when talking about the destruction of a world's environment by industrialization and the other two were used when a remembrancer (Serena) was trying to convince a Space Marine that she had slit a fellows throat in self defense "He tried to **** me!"

So, if it's mentioned in either of those books, it's in a more subtle fashion. Maxium, can you remember about which book it was in and how the subject was broached? If you can, I can have the next book that my player digitizes be that book and run a search for key words for you so you don't have to dig it up your self.

What about other words like "sex" (allow partial matches), "orgy" (should appear in Fulgrim), "intercourse", "seduce", etc...

I could have sworn there was some mention of seduction involving Space Marines in one of the last three books of the HH series (obviously not in Mechanicus, as that barely touches on them). But that could very well be a figment of my imagination or have been merely the fantasies of a female character with no substance behind it.

DocIII said:

Yes I did, and I'm going to stand by my stance. Until I see proof, as far as I'm concerned he is making up his statements. Not trying to be uncivil here, simply trying to get what you're saying, someone to prove their statements making them less vague, since I and a number of other people do not remember ever reading such statements in any of the books.

Its like someone walking in here and saying that Space Marine Codex says there are female space marines, and us demanding proof, while you coming in and saying for us to prove there are no female space marines, and me saying that anyone who says such a thing is fabricating things, until I see proof. Same exact thing.

Edit: I will admit though that I could have stated my other post better. SImply put as far as I and a number of other people can remember, there is NO proof that states that Space Marines **** anything, and that I'd like to see anything that states otherwise.

While I'll admit that it in no way proves that Space Marines don't commit **** (the absence of proof does is not proof in itself for the counter-arguement) I will state though that there is a number of things that lead to the point that the Marines are gelded or are at least sterile.

a) The biggest thing to this is that Space Marines don't have offspring, but have to recruit their population from their worlds. It would be more efficient to allow births (that can be genetically tweaked in vetro) then to have to recruit.

b) The Space Marines are geneticly changed. How much this changes the Space Marines DNA to differ from humans is a different arguement, but it could also explain why the Space Marines don't have offspring.

c) The Space Marines are chemically and hormonely different then humans, with no less then 3 (and I'm thinking there are more) implanted glands that mess with their horomones, and with that Power Armor, regulate the hormones of the Space Marine. The regulation is the key, since the hormones are tailered to fighting, not to sex, any hormones that would not be directed to that would be regulated out.

I will give a small counter arguement to the above. Brother-Sergeant Agamoor in Shades on Twilight is not listed with the talent Chem-Geld.

Xathess Wolfe said:

Again failure to pay attention.

Not the same thing.

I NEVER asked Aureus to prove ANYTHING regarding what the HH books did or didn't say about space marine **** or lack thereof.

I only asked that he provide evidence for his own statement vis-a-vis space marines being chemically altered to be incapable of sexual acts of equal specificity to the evidince he asked from Maxim for Maxim's statements.

That's it.

No more, no less.

Again, it was a fairness point. In any debate both sides should be held to the same standards of veracity. Otherwise the side refusing to support its statements undermines its own position.

Back to the original issue...

I think that Insanity Points are all about the hold you have on reality. As that hold begins to slip, you suffer delusion, compulsion, unreasoning fear, etc. You don't perceive or cope with reality appropriately. Thus the definition of sanity vs. insanity depends on what reality is actually like.

Corruption is very interesting. It seems to me that the issue is purely one of dealing with the Warp. If you mess with the Warp, either with powers or entities or knowledge, you get corrupted. If you don't mess with the Warp, you are free from the taint.

This is fascinating because it casts the whole struggle of the Inquisition in a rather absolute light. Think of Call of Cthulhu: who are the good guys? Arguably (on this sort of view), the good guys are the guys who oppose the Great Old Ones. The bad guys are the guys who work for the Great Old Ones. End of story. Therefore, a "good guy" could act in such a way that he makes Pol Pot look like Mother Teresa... but he's still a "good guy" because he fights on the side of Man.

Philosophically I don't agree with it but it's a fun way to set up the game: being a "good guy" has nothing to do with morality. It's purely a question of which side you're on. If you play for Asgard, you're a Lawful. If you play for Jotunheim, you're a Chaotic. Simple as that. The "good guys" may do nice things more often, and obviously whether they win or lose determines whether there will be any more backyard cookouts, puppy dogs and football games in the future, but to be "good" is essentially a tribal affiliation.

Thank you, Requete. The tirade was getting tiresome. I agree completely with your opinions of insanity. When the man sitting next to you in the grav-train dies explosively vomiting maggots and viscera all over the compartment, I believe insanity points come into play. When the Acolytes enter a building whose interior dimensions vastly outweigh those of the exterior, I believe tests should be taken and points awarded for failures. However, when it comes to your stating that corruption flows only from the Warp, I disagree. It is my opinion that often times the corruption points we grant are sometimes necessary to represent corruptions or appetites perhaps already within the sould of the character. I will explain:

When it comes to acts of extreme violence, prejudice or callousness, it all depends on the "why", doesn't it? In the 41st Millenium, Inquisitors or other men in power will declare entire planets Exterminatus and kill billions, but never lightly, and always as a last resort. While it is a terrible thing to consider, I would not say that by doing so they would gain a corruption point (at least in game terms). However, if an Acolyte in the service of the Inquisition decides to kill an underhiver without provocation when it neither serves the Imperium (even if it serves their appetite, or "means nothing at all" to the character), I would give them a point on the spot. The Acolytes of Dark Heresy are given incredible power and freedom, but like all power it must be used carefully and with responsibility. Just because they can slaughter an entire household without anyone on the outside becoming aware doesn't mean that they should necessarily be free to do so, and should their patron Inquisitor become aware of the needless acts against the subjects of the Imperium (acts which any Arbiter would arrest them for), I suspect they'd reconsider the continued service of the Acolyte in question. By committing needless murders or acts of violation when doing so is in no way mandated by the Inquisition or Imperium at large, the Acolytes show that their souls are indeed "corrupted", and the points are very much called for.

In short:

1. No insanity points for the committing of a **** (but perhaps for the victim), but instead corruption points should be given, as I cannot see how such an act could ever be done for "the good of Mankind".

2. No insanity points for the utilization of torture as a means to extract information (but, again, maybe for the victim), and corruption points should only be given if the deed is done wrongly (i.e. not in the interest of the Inquisition), and if not, they'd still better have a bloody good reason.

My thanks as well Req, for getting back on track. I applogise for being part of wandering so far off.

First, on Corruption Points:

The problem by and large here across the board seems to stem from the name: Corruption Points. If this were called Warp Taint, then many of the problems about when its appropriate disappear. Why is this a problem?; because the term corruption carries with it connotations of moral decay and degradation.

Now while exposure to the warp can twist the mind and cause such collapse, and while those who are devoid of concern for others or any belif of right and wrong may be more suceptable to the lure of easy power via warp exposure, they are not quite the same thing. As stated in many a previous thread and post, being an evil, morally bankrupt bastard does not make you turn into a mutant.

On insanity:

I'm going to have to disagree with the above limitation on insanity. While I agree that insanity should be given for examples of reality bending/mind twisting stuff given by Moriartus, I cannot agree on his assessment of violent acts vis-a-vis insanity.

I may be mis-interpreting (amd pleas correct me if so), but Mort seems to be suggesting that insanity is only about perception of reality. Violent, abusive and violative acts are somehow taken out of the sanity/insanity context and put solely in a moral corruption context. This has two problems. 1) the naming convention problem with corruption points from above, and 2) divorcing sanity from extreme acts seems a bit odd.

Further, even when using Mort's stance vis-a-vis corruption this is somehow made ok when done for the "greater good" or when mandated by the inquisition. Just because something is authorized by an authority doesn't render it sane, and some the the most psychotic acts in history have been performed by what the actors deemed the greater good. Believing you're justified doesn't make you sane.

The only real system in place in the RAW for representing any mental/moral/personal decay is the Insanity Points system. So for your depraved/violent/divorced from reality acts across the board, in my opinion insanity points are the way to go.

Of course then again I don't buy into the just b/c the imperial creed supports it, something must be sane camp. You can be a bug-eyed, batshit crazy psycho murderer and still be within both the I.Creed and the mandates of the Inquisition.

DocIII said:

Ok, I think I see where you're coming from. I think I need to clarify my position that while I don't think the committing of extreme acts necessarily means someone gets insanity points, I agree completely that people who have "lost it" are definitely more likely to do them. Violence or extreme acts (usually with an associated Fear test) are bound to have an effect on the characters, but psychopathic behaviour should be the result, not the cause, of whatever points have been obtained. So, if a character with zero insanity points decides he would like to do something horrible like massacre a family or **** the barkeep (all I could think of), as a GM I would seriously pull into question his motivations, because for all intents and purposes, until they gain enough points to obtain their first disorder they are still considered "sane", if not entirely stable. If they say then that they're doing it just for kicks or for practise or any other reason, I'd give them corruption points, because even though the acts may not be strictly in the service of the Dark Powers, the Acolytes are "men and women of destiny and purpose - exactly the sort of people that the Ruinous Powers seek to slowly corrupt and toy with. For most, the touch of Chaos brings summary destruction, madness and death" (Core Rulebook, p. 238). So while your average throat-slitting, barkeep-****** assassin might not be under close Warp scrutiny, his opposite in the Inquisition will be observed very closely by Gods and Daemons and "rewarded" for their actions, not to mention the attentions of their own Imperial masters. Even if the player argued that their character wouldn't have a problem committing the act, I don't think it's a stretch to say the Imperium at large would probably frown on murder or **** or unsanctioned torture (and what makes the Imperium frown makes some bloodthirsty gods giggle).

Moriartus said:

I can see your point about an individual's own actions are the result of how insane they are (points already awarded) rather than the source of points earned.

Then again that depends on how you look at insanity points. Maybe by doing the psychotic thing its not so much gaining insanity, but showing how crazy the character already is. The GM giving out IP at that point is just making the record (insanity points on the character sheet) conform to the facts (the lunatic behavior).

In that sense adding the insanity points is just about making the character sheet match the reality of the nut you've got running loose.

Graver said:

Ok, it didn't say the word "****". However, the innuendo was obvious and the meaning was unequivocated. The context was I believe one of the "hero" Marine characters was explaining to a woman (Remembrancer perhaps?) the Space Marine's role in placating a hostile human civilization (i.e. crush them completely, kill all males between certain ages etc). I believe it was generated by the woman's questioning why the Astartes didn't leave immediately after a conquest and just leave the placation/garrison duties to the Imperial Army.

I remember one of the pervading themes of the book was the main character wondering how human he still was after being an Astartes for so long. I want to say it's the same book where they kill civilians who were in the way when Horus got critically injured, but I'm not sure.

Dammit, I'll find it. Even if I have to read the Ben Counter books over again...

I can't expect it to be believed just because I said so. I understand. So I'll come back when I have the page number and a quote.

The part where the crew gets crushed in the deck is in False Gods by the way, that's before Horus turns to Chaos under Erebus' guidance.