Opinion "In defense of Dystopia: Why Warhammer 40k can remain grim"

    

     In the grim darkness of the 41st millennium, there is only war. This tagline carried me through a great deal of my early Warhammer gaming years. I remember reading that opening crawl so many times. It was bleak, it was so much darker than anything I had read previously. Works from authors such as Tolkien, or the various Star Wars EU authors (may they get justice) it was my first experience with a dystopian universe. There were no plucky Skywalkers, and there certainly was not a defined good guy and bad guy. Everyone was horrible in their own way. However, lately I am seeing a growing trend in the online conversation to create a different lore setting, and potentially purge elements of the original lore to not only update the setting. But, to additionally try to give a face lift to certain elements of the setting that people are beginning to question. Yet, as I continue to watch the discussion online all I keep thinking is are we trying to build a Utopia in a Dystopia? 

    Purely by its very definition dystopian settings are post apocalyptic, and filled with injustices. The genre ranging from classics such as Brave New World, all the way to A Handmaid's Tale. Additionally, they are usually contain authoritarian factions or overtones. Even Star Wars begins with the oppressive Empire chasing down Princess Leia's ship. Thus 40K's setting fits it perfectly. Even the Tau, a faction often toted as being the 'good guys', are guilty of falling into the same authoritarian and dystopian patterns. Never forget the epilogue of the Dawn of War games for the Tau, and how magically all the humans started reducing in their population.

    One reasoning I have seen put forward is that it is glorifying fascism, and thus attracting the wrong people to the hobby. Whilst I can understand this sentiment, I still cannot get on board with this idea. It reminds me of the saying 'we can only go as fast as our slowest idiot'.  I am not keen to have the hobby scorch earth itself in order to avoid attracting people who were already idiots. Although to be fair wholesale laying waste to lore and game to avoid the taint of selected individuals is so painfully on point for Warhammer 40k, that I cannot help but laugh at the irony. 

    I do not believe that anyone in the hobby actually wants genuine fascists in the hobby. Well maybe unironic fascist, but they want to be everywhere.  I have played warhammer since I was a kid. I have watched people in real life check people who were being tools. Moreover, if someone is that level of stupid that they will paint all their minis to have swassies and Nazi iconography on their miniatures, Games Workshop changing the setting is not going to stop it. Anymore than the current lore stops people from making samurai Space Marines, or even creating an entire chapter of female Space Marines (https://theliterarykhan.blogspot.com/2020/10/female-space-marines-there-is-no-way.html). Or even more bizarre creations

The Cuteness burns hotter than my Melta

    Perhaps this may be a strange comparison to draw, however I feel it is apt. When I was in high school(and we rode dinosaurs to school blah blah blah) playing videogames was only marginally ok, and geek chic was the fevered dream of kids being bullied. I recall watching videogames go mainstream with popularity of games like CoD. I saw the people I could not stand, suddenly becoming fans of something I was. They also bought with them all the toxic attitudes they already held and enacted. You cannot stop people from liking the things you like as well. Moreover, the way in which they choose to interact with them does not have to align with what a company, or the lore states. That being said it is not as if GW have not themselves put forward their own statement on these concerns. 

    As far as a statement from a corporate entity goes, this was as strong a statement as many hobby companies have made. Whilst many felt the statement did not match its actions as a company there was no denying the subsequent storm of debate it unleashed online. Instead of wholesale rewrites they merely explained that along with keeping the 'grim and dark' nature of their settings, they would continue to expand, and diversify the characters portrayed within it. Indeed true to their word we saw a few months later the release of Guy Haley's Avenging Son, and I am sure there is no denying that GW was true to their word. They decided that in the grimdark equivalent of Marie Antoinette, they could have their new range of characters, and still torture them in the dystopian nightmare of the 41st millennium. Or rather 42nd? 

        Even the trailer for ninth edition 40k had this philosophy on display with half the characters in the first ten seconds being women. Games Workshop is backing up their statements, and yet they are not overly about to change the setting. The universe is still filled with horror and injustices, but as they said in their statement these are 'not a reflection of how we feel the real world should be'. Again, it goes to the question I have been asking people are we trying to create a utopia in our dystopia? 

    Also we saw a number of releases in recent times of new female characters and miniatures. In fact excluding the Sisters of Battle range, 40k has twenty five kits that include, or are female sculpts. This is excluding specialist games as well. Additionally these sculpts are changing previous versions. Hesparex has learned the value of pants, and gone are the near naked sisters repentia. Replaced with more modest versions that look more like they are modelling Nike Shoes and Chainsaws. Moreover, just as with Avenging Son, we have books such as Severina Raine, or expansions such as Psychic Awakening that support these lines, whilst putting female characters in central roles. I know it may not seem like a lot but they present an encouraging trend. (Post script edit 27th of April today we have another in the range with the addition of the new SoB banner bearer)

    In most all stories there needs to be conflict, and in no small part does this arise from the very setting of 40k. This conflict is usually created in part from placing the characters into an unfair and dystopian setting. Take for example Star Wars. Clearly it is a setting in which, unlike 40K, we see good vs evil. We as an audience appreciate that. Also it benefits from playing into classic literary story structures like the mono myth, or heroes journey. This is not how things work in 40k. There heroes by and large do not win. Just read another tale from Guy Haley, Devastation of Baal, and tell me that was a win. However, much like Star Wars, 40K was created in a different time and modern audiences begin to question more. In fact one only needs to look at more modern Star Wars properties such as The Mandalorian to see that the 'lived happily ever after' ending of Return of the Jedi, does not hold up. Modern interpretations seeming to enjoy making things more murky, or questionable when it comes to morality. The monologue by Werner Herzog's character regarding the removal of the Empire throws up questions that were never asked in a previous age.

"It is a shame that your people suffered so. Just as in this situation, it was all avoidable. Why did Mandalore resist our expansion? The Empire improves every system it touches. Judge by any metric. Safety, prosperity, trade, opportunity, peace. Compare Imperial rule to what is happening now. Look outside. Is the world more peaceful since the revolution? I see nothing but death and chaos."

    Now again this is not to endorse the Empire, but to add conflict to the setting. Additionally the acknowledgement that there were a hell of a lot of people on those Death Stars when they exploded is another more recent addition to Star Wars muddying the waters on the setting. Strangely the Star Wars fandom seems to manage this idea. Of course they are not without their own factional conflicts, in no small part with wars over the perceived soul of the franchise. I would mention that in the Force Awakens they disposed of any subtle portrayal with the Empire diving into the connections to fascism. Including the infamous saluting troopers scene as they fire star killer base. Again no denying that the Empire are the bad guys in the setting but again what kind of bad guys do we have without the jackbooted Empire? An empathetic faction? This is indeed the criticism levied against 40K and its treatment of the Imperium in particular. Do not forget that Star Wars also has a number of dedicated tabletop and videogames that allow players to assume the role of the Empire. Does the same criticism of attracting fascists hold up? Does allowing this somehow draw more fascists to these games? More importantly the question is does it somehow make the idea of fascism more palatable to the fans? Strangely these games get a pass that Warhammer 40k does not. It probably helps Star Wars has a massive counter to this argument. That is the entire global network of Empire enthusiasts that call themselves the 501st Legion. 

These are the fans you're looking for

    The 501st Legion are are dedicated group of Star Wars fans who dress up as the bad guys to do good things. As a charity they make appearances, raise money, and even visit sick kids in hospitals. They were actually so prolific that they were made official Star Wars cannon, being named Vader's Fist and personal legion. Not exactly the most fun branding. They dress as bad guys, get lore as bad guys and yet it is understood that they are not actually fascists, and to the best of my knowledge do not get the same suspicions, or concerns, that people show to Warhammer 40K. Let us return to our beloved GrimDark.

    The common criticism is that Warhammer, unlike Star Wars, positions fans to identify with the Imperium as they are the human faction. The idea being that we as humans are meant to naturally gravitate towards the Imperium. This opinion is backed by the fact that almost all of the starter sets come with Imperium factions, and that the undoubted poster children for the setting are the Space Marines. That this automatically positions them as the 'good guys', and this leads to the average player ignoring the fact that the Imperium of Man is not a positive force. Or that they were meant to be a satire of fascism. It was summarised in the following image. 

    However, I may pose the following reality of the majority of the player base for Warhammer 40K, The 'normies' you might say that are in the hobby but are unaware of these issues. 

    The sad reality is that the majority of people who play Warhammer are really not involved in the conversation. They are happy to spend time simply wanting to know what new miniatures are coming out, what the story is doing, and how to win more games. There is a harsher reality here. They do not care. They just want to hobby. Furthermore, there is an apparent growing resentment towards the criticisms of 40K. With criticism legitimate, or not, being treated with the same hostility as shown to those who criticised videogames. In a scenario that is all too familiar, we see a polarisation of the fanbase with an ongoing conflict. A conflict that in all reality is more online than in the real world. Additionally a conflict that more often degenerates into 'dunking on', 'hot takes', and hyperbole. The problem with this polarisation is that it fails to look at the situation as a whole. The all or nothing approach that results in reductionist thinking, and the diminishing of efforts made to fix the issue. A problem made worse when viewed specifically through social media.

    The problem with the argument is that is painfully close to the videogames make you violent scare mongering of days gone by. The days where wild Jack Thompsons roamed the wilderness. That a game with such fascist imagery and factions will attract fascists, and even possibly seduce individuals into its ideals. Radicalisation is not an uncommon fear in the current age, and there are a number of drives that lead to a person becoming radicalised and are pretty varied. The FBI give examples such as personal needs like power, affiliation, morality, or purpose that they can draw from certain sources. Professor Hilary Pilkington stated that quote 'existing research shows that different pathways lead to radicalisation, while different people on a shared pathway either radicalise or do not'. In simple terms people can look at something and react differently. Shocking I know. That one person can look at the Imperium and think cool toys, and someone else sees a vehicle for radicalisation. So again the idea of scorched earthing the 40K setting does not work. 

    Perhaps it is however interesting to point out something a little subtle that may have gone overlooked by many people. Simply the question I ask is

    I am not being funny here. There has been a lot of changes in the Primaris approach to iconography, and whilst I will not go so far as to say it is for the reason of removing fascist imagery. There is a distinct design shift in the miniatures. It is not fully gone, but it is getting less. 

    By no means a huge change but the shift away from the Aquila, to the use of various skull motif is a subtle design change that makes me wonder if change is not already happening albeit organically. Whilst still present in the older kits available, I would be interested to see if this trend does not continue. 

    As I look at the current discourse I can see the motives behind it. A desire to remove problematic imagery from the world. To remove the unpalatable in hopes of creating something less problematic, or ideal. This is what brings me to my question about trying to create a utopia in a dystopia. In practical terms what does a toned down Imperium look like? Some cynical part of me cannot imagine free an open elections in the shadow of an ork waaagh or Tyranid hive fleet. I am being hyperbolic, but by any metric it would just be another authoritarian regime. Wartime historically is not a great time for democracy. Additionally, I cannot shake the idea that we would lose something in the very flavour and spirit of the lore. I am not against it entirely but it would need to be done well. I see the changes in aesthetics in the marine ranges, and I could imagine a second age headed by the reluctant Bobby G. Done for genuine story reasons I could get behind it. But, the we have to do it to avoid glamorisng fascists or radicalising fans argument just does not do it for me. 

    As we move along in our beloved hobby and no doubt the debate continues I would only make these two comments. Firstly that change, genuine and organic, is already underway. This is often lost in the wider debate. Looking at the releases from Games Workshop, there is no reason to no believe that their current trends will continue. In fact as far as a game goes the rumours of AoS 3 would have me believe that they are modelling large parts of its rules off 40K. So I do not see 40K exploding and being rebooted any time soon. finally as always I would urge civility and not losing sight of the facts when arguing your position. In a culture of dunking and hot takes, an easily countered hyperbole does damage to the argument. 

    Remember hospitality is sacred, and we all love this hobby.