# The Ork who Choked the Emperor



## aberson126

so i was thinking about it and it says at one point horus saved the emperors life by cutting off the arm of an ork warboss choking the emperor. now as i understand it the primarchs are badass copies of the emperor so the emperor has to be better then them. so this warboss would have killed the emperor. Who was this warboss cause he would have to be a real tuff boy for him to be able to match the emperor in a fight.


----------



## deathbringer

Not if he got behind the emperor so as the emperor turns from slaying one enemy his neck is already encased in green fingers.

What's more interesting is why the emperor didn't boil his balls with his mind, is it possible the emperor would rather die than use sorcery?


----------



## K3k3000

The title of this thread sounds like a children's book.

A very, very strange children's book.


----------



## aberson126

but i would think the emperer being such a superiuor being/warrior would be aware enough to know there is an ork warboss behind him, also warbosses are rather large they aint to good at sneaking about.


----------



## K3k3000

aberson126 said:


> but i would think the emperer being such a superiuor being/warrior would be aware enough to know there is an ork warboss behind him, also warbosses are rather large they aint to good at sneaking about.


You ask any good martial artist what you do when someone tries to hit you from behind while you're not aware and they'll give you the same answer, "You get hit." 

No amount of training or skill is going to prevent a good sneak attack, and if the Emperor had any supernatural senses it looks like they weren't working too well when he needed them.


----------



## Captain Stillios

I think that the Emperor let the Warboss choke him as a sort of test for Horus.


----------



## Cyrion

Captain Stillios said:


> I think that the Emperor let the Warboss choke him as a sort of test for Horus.


I have similar thoughts.


----------



## buckythefly

Its very much like that giant plot hole that happened in Episode 3 of the star wars trilogy, so I'll explain it how lucas did.

The jedi couldn't possibly fight back cause he didn't even suspect that there was a threat from the clone troopers. (Lame I know but it might apply.)

I am not saying the warboss was being sneaky, But I'm saying maybe the emperor didn't even think of the ork as a threat so didn't see him coming (Perhaps he'd already gutted him, and just didn't think to double-tap). 

Besides how the hell are you going to strangle the emperor to death unless your doing it with a power klaw.


----------



## pylco

in the heat of the battle (close combat) i would think, it could be difficult to see anything but the enemy in front of you. but there is a point, that the emperor is superhuman, superpsyker and he should have known about that warboss. Maybe as a psyker he was a pregog ( sees possible futures ) and he knew that Horus would be there for him... just a thought.


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor

The Emperor is not omnipotent or invincible. He can die and is not the most physically strong entity in existence.

Orks as we know grow in size the more successful they are, some are even known to have been the size of battle-tanks. The Emperor may well have genuinely been losing in a fight to an Ork Warboss. As for why he didn't use his psychic abilities, maybe the Warboss' Waaagh! psychic field was so strong/potent it prevented the Emperor from doing so. Or maybe the Emperor couldn't bring his powers to bear, or muster the concentration needed considering he was being choked. 

Personally I don't find it too hard to believe that the Emperor was losing and Horus saved his life.


----------



## Baron Spikey

CotE has it right, look at Snagrod from Rynn's World- he's a gigantic Ork that's been alive for over 1,000 years. You just never hear of an Ork dying from old age, it might be because they all die in battle but then again unlike Space Marines you also never hear of them becoming enfeebled by the passing of time either. 

The Ork that throttled the Emperor could have been around for thousands of years, something that ancient who lives on war would probably be experienced enoguh to get his meaty paws on the Emperor's throat some how.


----------



## vortex_13

There's also the theory that I heard that says that the emperor isn't as big and tough as he appears to be. That the giant,shiny,golden thing he has going on is just an illusion.


----------



## Lux

Is there not a fluff tidbit about a individual who stated they could see the emperor for what he truly is? That the golden aura and image of beauty and strength is a faux illusion, that he's actually a very horrific and disturbing looking being.


----------



## Baltar

Where is this story about the warboss from?

Any ork vs the Emperor = lolaskates.

Instadeath for any shitty greenskin. Big just means dumb as fuck when it comes to orks.


----------



## Warlock in Training

Child-of-the-Emperor said:


> The Emperor is not omnipotent or invincible. He can die and is not the most physically strong entity in existence.
> 
> Orks as we know grow in size the more successful they are, some are even known to have been the size of battle-tanks. The Emperor may well have genuinely been losing in a fight to an Ork Warboss. As for why he didn't use his psychic abilities, maybe the Warboss' Waaagh! psychic field was so strong/potent it prevented the Emperor from doing so. Or maybe the Emperor couldn't bring his powers to bear, or muster the concentration needed considering he was being choked.
> 
> Personally I don't find it too hard to believe that the Emperor was losing and Horus saved his life.





Baron Spikey said:


> CotE has it right, look at Snagrod from Rynn's World- he's a gigantic Ork that's been alive for over 1,000 years. You just never hear of an Ork dying from old age, it might be because they all die in battle but then again unlike Space Marines you also never hear of them becoming enfeebled by the passing of time either.
> 
> The Ork that throttled the Emperor could have been around for thousands of years, something that ancient who lives on war would probably be experienced enoguh to get his meaty paws on the Emperor's throat some how.


I third that chaps. I honestly find GW quiet brilliant. Not in marketing or public relations, but in story telling and fluff. The Imperium is built on lies and potraying the Emperor as a (very false) God that look at a planet and blew it up. He was a Mortal that was brought low in a fight against Horus and now like a cancer feeds off the souls of 1000 Psykers a day while churches that he originaly banned praise him. 

This Ork was more than likely a big ass mofo with attitude that nearly choked out the Big E durring one of the biggest Astartes vs Ork fights in the history of 40k. Its not that hard to belive. Sanguines had been beaten by a Blood Thirster. Fulgrim was possessed by a Daemon. Horus himself was brought low by a nasty powerful sword. Jhonson was KOed by his second in command.
These Primarchs are one step below the Emperor, and yet these things have shown to beat them, so is the Emperor being beaten by a LR size Warboss with a Killa Can for a Klaw that hard to belive. :wink:


----------



## Baltar

Mortal?

Hardly. Not unless mortals live for thousands of years, anyway...

I don't think that we can assume anything (even his possible weaknesses) about the Emperor yet, as almost nothing is known about him.

That DEFINITELY goes for anything that would assume he wasn't one of the most powerful entities in the universe (on par with any of the chaos gods). Especially considering almost everything so far has desribed him as such.

I think that the _only_ insight that has been granted of the Emperor so far is in The Last Church, and in Legion. Legion features Grammaticus, who actually met him, and the last church features a man that has seen visions of the Emperor, apparently (as well as his encounter with him at the church itself).

All else is tales and myths, and IMO is just a load of trash talk or worship.


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor

Baltar said:


> Mortal?
> 
> Hardly. Not unless mortals live for thousands of years, anyway...


Mortals can live for thousands of years...



Baltar said:


> I don't think that we can assume anything (even his possible weaknesses) about the Emperor yet, as almost nothing is known about him.


Well we can apply the Via Negativa in a sense to the Emperor. We may not have much information on him, what he is or the extent of his powers. But we can logically state what he is not.

For example hes not Omnipotent, hes not immortal, hes not (or wasn't) completely removed from humanity, etc. Which can then in turn give us a concept of what he is.

The story goes that he was being strangled by an Ork Warboss and Horus saved his life. I don't see why we can't just take this at face value and stop trying to justify how its false because 'The Emperor pwnnzzz!!11!'.  



Baltar said:


> Especially considering almost everything so far has desribed him as such.


The vast majority of sources concerning the Emperor are written by Imperials who worship the Emperor as a god... If there not bias I don't know what is.


----------



## K3k3000

Baltar said:


> That DEFINITELY goes for anything that would assume he wasn't one of the most powerful entities in the universe (on par with any of the chaos gods). Especially considering almost everything so far has desribed him as such.


We can safely assume that the Emperor was one of the most powerful entities in existence. Saying he was on par with the chaos gods, though, is very far-fetched. When I think of quantifying the Emperor's power, I use the same rule as I use for the Space Marines: much more powerful than some people think, but not nearly as powerful as many would like to believe.


----------



## Baltar

What source describes the emperor as being strangled to near-death by an ork?

Without citation, then it does not exist, and is just some rancid fanfiction.

If he lives without ageing, then he is immortal - he IS immortal. He does not age.

Being killable is not the same as being mortal. Vampires are immortal, but they can be killed.

Everyone should prolly try reading the lexicanum page on the Emperor. It's pretty good, and has citations, too. There are sources on there describing the Emperor as a an amalgum of many powerful beings, in fact. It is not farfetched to believe that he is on par with ALL of the chaos gods simultaneously, in fact, considering that there are sources that lend to the argument that he is in fact only around to keep chaos from overunning the entire galaxy - like a balance to the equation.


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor

Baltar said:


> What source describes the emperor as being strangled to near-death by an ork?
> 
> Without citation, then it does not exist, and is just some rancid fanfiction.


Its not fanfiction. Its stated in official source material. I believe it may be _The Collected Visions_, but i'll have to look that up for you.



Baltar said:


> If he lives without ageing, then he is immortal - he IS immortal. He does not age.


Who says he lives without ageing?

The Oxford Reference definition of immortal is as follows: 'living forever; never dying or decaying' - so the Emperor is mortal.



Baltar said:


> Being killable is not the same as being mortal. Vampires are immortal, but they can be killed.


I have come across that definition before, but the general (and dictionary) definition is as I gave above.



Baltar said:


> Everyone should prolly try reading the lexicanum page on the Emperor.


No thanks 



Baltar said:


> It is not farfetched to believe that he is on par with ALL of the chaos gods simultaneously, in fact, considering that there are sources that lend to the argument that he is in fact only around to keep chaos from overunning the entire galaxy - like a balance to the equation.


Direct quotes would be helpful here if you could.


----------



## Baltar

Dying and being killed are two different, definable things.

He does not die. He is ALWAYS described as immortal, and has given his age. He was born 8th millenia BC. No ageing = immortal.

Being killed is not necessarily the same as dying.

There is actually no proof that he can even BE killed, considering that he has never died, or been killed. It is therefore technically _impossible_ to claim that he can die.


----------



## Kale Hellas

immortal= living forever being unable to die of old age
invulnerable= cannot die


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor

Baltar said:


> He does not die.


*He hasn't died yet.



Baltar said:


> He is ALWAYS described as immortal


By Imperials who worship him.



Baltar said:


> and has given his age. He was born 8th millenia BC.


According to one theory (Star Child), that the Inquisition I believe declared was fabricated by Tzeentchian cultists.



Baltar said:


> No ageing = immortal.





Kale Hellas said:


> immortal= living forever being unable to die of old age


Your saying that despite me just quoting a dictionary..?



Baltar said:


> There is actually no proof that he can even BE killed, considering that he has never died, or been killed.


Thats like saying theres no proof I can die, because i've never been killed or have never died.



Baltar said:


> It is therefore technically _impossible_ to claim that he can die.


Why is he interred in the Stasis Life-Support systems of the Golden Throne then?


----------



## gen.ahab

He told Horus he was born in the 8th mil BC didn't he?


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor

gen.ahab said:


> He told Horus he was born in the 8th mil BC didn't he?


He told him he was born in Anatolia, not when.

But regardless, im not saying he isn't thousands of years old, im saying hes not immortal by the technical definition of the word.


----------



## Baltar

A method of staying alive has no bearing on the matter. If he cannot die and will not age, then he is immortal.

He himself gave his birth date - and it was as I said it was. Others claim that it's 50,000 years (far less) - hardly makes a difference. Both would make him immortal.

As I said, your definition is great - but dying is not the same as being killed. He _is_ undying. Just because we presume he can be killed means nothing (and it IS a presumption).

You are human, so we can assume that because others die, then you will die.

The Emperor is unique - no accurate assumptions can be made.


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor

Dictionary Definition of Immortal: 'living forever; never dying or decaying'.
Dictionary Definition of Dying: 'on the point of death'.



Baltar said:


> A method of staying alive has no bearing on the matter.


It does if without it he would be dead.



Baltar said:


> If he cannot die


Who said he can't die?



Baltar said:


> and will not age


Who said he can't age?



Baltar said:


> He himself gave his birth date


Source?



Baltar said:


> Both would make him immortal.


Living 50,000 years does not make you immortal.



Baltar said:


> but dying is not the same as being killed.


But by definition someone who is killed, dies. Dying can relate to someone who is killed as well as someone who is dying naturally.



Baltar said:


> He _is_ undying.


Source?



Baltar said:


> Just because we presume he can be killed means nothing (and it IS a presumption).


He himself states in _The Collected Visions_ that he would die from his injuries inflicted by Horus if hes not wired up to the Golden Throne...


----------



## zerachiel76

Baltar said:


> Where is this story about the warboss from?


I believe it's from Index Astartes IV page 2 (in the Sons of Horus section unsurprisingly :biggrin, 2nd column, beginning at 13 lines from the bottom of the page and I quote:

"On the Ork infested planet of Gorro, Horus repaid the debt by hacking the arm from a huge frenzied greenskin as it struggled to choke the Emperor's life out of him."

Hope this helps


----------



## Baltar

If he would have died from his injuries, then he would have been _killed_.

KILLED

IS

NOT

THE

SAME

AS

DYING.

If he is over 50,000 years old, and is human, then he is immortal. There are no sources that claim he ages, either.

Now he is on the throne, and he will not die, then he can also be considered immortal.

There are _only_ two options:

1: He is not human

2: He is immortal


----------



## Baltar

zerachiel76 said:


> I believe it's from Index Astartes IV page 2 (in the Sons of Horus section unsurprisingly :biggrin, 2nd column, beginning at 13 lines from the bottom of the page and I quote:
> 
> "On the Ork infested planet of Gorro, Horus repaid the debt by hacking the arm from a huge frenzied greenskin as it struggled to choke the Emperor's life out of him."
> 
> Hope this helps


So now we have the truth of it.

It struggled. Says everything I needed to know.

Thanks :biggrin:


----------



## Stephen_Newman

Well if the emporer can use psychic powers then why not physically lower his age with said powers.

I know the obvious question is why he cannot heal himself now but then again his psychic powers are being used to stop daemons invading mankind.

How on earth does being hooked on some futuristic life support machine (That is already failing in the 41st millenium-with nothing that can be done about it) count as being immortal.


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor

Baltar said:


> KILLED IS NOT THE SAME AS DYING.


Not in cause, but the result is the same. The dictionary definition of immortal again is: 'living forever; never dying or decaying'. Now if we take that further and take the dictionary definition of dying: 'on the point of death' - which can in turn refer to being killed or dying naturally.

The term 'living forever; never dying' seems to imply that an immortal individual cannot die (or be killed), especially considering the definition of 'dying' above. However there are some settings which use immortal in the sense of never dying via old age but being able to be killed (in regards to Vampires mostly as you said). But the realworld, technical definition of immortal means that you cannot die or be killed.



Baltar said:


> If he is over 50,000 years old, and is human, then he is immortal.


Who says humans cannot live to 50,000 years?



Baltar said:


> There are no sources that claim he ages, either.


There are no sources which claim he doesn't.



Baltar said:


> Now he is on the throne, and he will not die, then he can also be considered immortal.


Firstly take into account that the Golden Throne is a stasis crypt, so technically he is not physically ageing because he is in stasis (if he would at all).

But also how do we know he won't die of old age?



Baltar said:


> 1: He is not human


Which is possible.



Baltar said:


> 2: He is immortal


Your proof for him being immortal is because he is at least 10,000 (give or take) years old? Because that isn't proof at all.


----------



## Baltar

Because if you will not die, then you ARE immortal. The method has no bearing on it.


----------



## Baltar

Child-of-the-Emperor said:


> Not in cause, but the result is the same. The dictionary definition of immortal again is: 'living forever; never dying or decaying'. Now if we take that further and take the dictionary definition of dying: 'on the point of death' - which can in turn refer to being killed or dying naturally.
> 
> The term 'living forever; never dying' seems to imply that an immortal individual cannot die (or be killed), especially considering the definition of 'dying' above. However there are some settings which use immortal in the sense of never dying via old age but being able to be killed (in regards to Vampires mostly as you said). But the realworld, technical definition of immortal means that you cannot die or be killed.
> 
> 
> 
> Who says humans cannot live to 50,000 years?
> 
> 
> 
> There are no sources which claim he doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly take into account that the Golden Throne is a stasis crypt, so technically he is not physically ageing because he is in stasis (if he does at all).
> 
> But also how do we know he won't die of old age?
> 
> 
> 
> Which is possible.
> 
> 
> 
> Your proof for him being immortal is because he is at least 10,000 (give or take) years old? Because that isn't proof at all.


Ok, let us say that he may not be immortal.

Which is more ridiculous:

1: arguing that a human aged over 50,000 years old is mortal

2: arguing the opposite to the above JUST to cling to some view that he isn't...

Oh, wait...


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor

Baltar said:


> Because if you will not die, then you ARE immortal.


I agree. If you never die (including if you cannot be killed) then you are immortal. You seem to be confusing the real definition of immortal with the definition of immortal that some settings use (mostly Vampire ones).



Baltar said:


> The method has no bearing on it.


If thats the case, then if I hypothetically interred myself into stasis to be sealed for ever, that would make me immortal. Which is absurd.



Baltar said:


> 1: arguing that a human aged over 50,000 years old is mortal


Can I just remind you that 50,000 years is by no means eternity. It is possible for Humans to live to 50,000 (obviously not currently though).


----------



## Baltar

No, it is not absurd. If you will never die, then you can be considered immortal - the emperor's will is active, and his body will remain alive. There is NO part of that which can still be considered mortal.

As for humans living 50,000 years, it's all too speculatory for me.

I am a firm believer that he is not human at all. There seems to be a strong indication that he is not even a single being - one source sites him as being many, from his own account.


----------



## gen.ahab

Perhaps we should refrain from using the word immortal to describe the emperor, different people tend to have very different views on what does or does not constitute immortality. Although I tend to agree with Baltar in that the emperor would never die from natural causes.


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor

Baltar said:


> No, it is not absurd. If you will never die, then you can be considered immortal


In that example I gave, my living forever is entirely dependent on technology via the stasis Crypt. The stasis system would eventually fall into disrepair or be destroyed, and then without it I would die, thus I am not immortal (because I havn't lived forever) - even if I was interred into stasis for as long as possible. 



Baltar said:


> the emperor's will is active


Which is manifested via his psychic abilties, thus is neither here nor there.



Baltar said:


> and his body will remain alive.


I think its safe to assume that without the Golden Throne his physical body would die. Thus by the technical dictionary definition (and in the same way as my example above) he (like me in my example) is not immortal.



Baltar said:


> There is NO part of that which can still be considered mortal.


But there is no part which can be considered immortal, thus by process of elimination he is mortal.



Baltar said:


> As for humans living 50,000 years, it's all too speculatory for me.


But regardless, living 50,000 years does not make one immortal.



Baltar said:


> I am a firm believer that he is not human at all. There seems to be a strong indication that he is not even a single being - one source sites him as being many, from his own account.


Indeed, thats plausable. 



gen.ahab said:


> Although I tend to agree with Baltar in that the emperor would never die from natural causes.


And I personally find that likely as well, but by definition that doesn't make him immortal.


----------



## vortex_13

Lux said:


> Is there not a fluff tidbit about a individual who stated they could see the emperor for what he truly is? That the golden aura and image of beauty and strength is a faux illusion, that he's actually a very horrific and disturbing looking being.


Jon Grammaticus from Legion.


----------



## Cato Sicarius

*ALRIGHT GUYS LET ME FINISH THIS.*

According to what we know...

The Emperor is the collective reincarnation of all the shamans, the psyker-like individuals who guided early mankind with their wisdom and prophetic powers. The entities that would become the four Great Powers of Chaos had not yet formed when the Emperor was born. But even before the birth of the Emperor, as humanity grew and progressed, the Warp began to become increasingly disturbed, and the shamans began to lose their ability to reincarnate - instead, upon dying their souls were being consumed by the creatures of the Warp. Eventually the shamans, unable to reincarnate, would become extinct, and without the shamans to guide them, humanity would fall prey to Chaos. All the shamans of Earth gathered to decide what must be done. In the end they decided to pool their energies by reincarnating in a single body. The thousands of shamans, as one, took poison, and as one, died. A year later the man who would become the Emperor was born. He would be immortal and so no longer need to reincarnate. As he grew older his powers began to manifest. Over many millennia, he traveled among mankind, using his ancient wisdom to help where he could.

All of that is bits taken from Realm of Chaos: The Lost and the Damned and Realm of Chaos: Slaves to Darkness. Old fluff, but the only fluff we have.

Now according to that, by all accounts he *is immortal. End of.*

Now, when it comes to what this means, *a dictionary is fucking useless, and was made useless by the Highlander series*. I suspect that in true GW fashion they have taken the meaning of the word immortal to mean what it is in the Highlander series, and not what the dictionary really says. From this, we know that he *can* be killed, *but he does not die of age*. He will carry on living until killed. 

This shows two things:

1) He can be killed.

2) He cannot die of old age.

Now let me inform you of something: the Golden Throne does not put the Emperor in stasis. He uses the power of 1000 psykers everyday to *keep himself alive in conjunction with what the Golden Throne does to his body which helps to keep him on the brink of death, to hold back the full force of Chaos, and to act as the beacon of the Astronomicon*.

Finally, and I can't believe nobody thought of this, in the front of the Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook there is a picture of a *decaying Emperor on the Golden Throne.*

So at the moment... there is no point in arguing. The fluff we have is too vague and contradictory. For now all we can assume is one of two things:

a) The Emperor foresaw that Horus would save him and didn't bother trying to change that.

or

b) The Emperor was not as powerful at that time or was too preoccupied to stop the Warboss.


Now can we stop this pointless argument, because neither of you have seen any of the key points which I, a 14 year old child, have seen.


----------



## normtheunsavoury

vortex_13 said:


> Jon Grammaticus from Legion.


It should be added that Grammaticus only says he saw the Emperor for what he truly was, it doesn't say what that was.


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor

Cato Sicarius said:


> The Emperor is the collective reincarnation of all the shamans, the psyker-like individuals who guided early mankind with their wisdom and prophetic powers.


According to one _theory_, which I believe was declared to be false (by the Inquisition) and merely fabrications conjured up by a Tzeentchian Cult. Therefore its not much to go on.



Cato Sicarius said:


> The entities that would become the four Great Powers of Chaos had not yet formed when the Emperor was born.


According to an old source. The Chaos Marines and Chaos Daemons Codicies seem to have retconned this, to state that the Chaos Gods formed much, much earlier.



Cato Sicarius said:


> Now according to that, by all accounts he *is immortal. End of.*


I will remind you again, that is a heretical theory. And is contrary to the definition of immortal.



Cato Sicarius said:


> we know that he *can* be killed, *but he does not die of age*. He will carry on living until killed.


How do we know he cannot die of old age?



Cato Sicarius said:


> Now let me inform you of something: the Golden Throne does not put the Emperor in stasis.


Actually the Golden Throne _is_ a Stasis Crypt.



Cato Sicarius said:


> He uses the power of 1000 psykers everyday to *keep himself alive in conjunction with what the Golden Throne does to his body which helps to keep him on the brink of death, to hold back the full force of Chaos, and to act as the beacon of the Astronomicon*.


Yes, Psykers are sacrificed to him everyday to keep his soul tethered to his body. So what? 



Cato Sicarius said:


> Finally, and I can't believe nobody thought of this, in the front of the Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook there is a picture of a *decaying Emperor on the Golden Throne.*


Whats your point?



Cato Sicarius said:


> Now can we stop this pointless argument,


Funny how you say that after you've had your apparently conclusive say. 



normtheunsavoury said:


> It should be added that Grammaticus only says he saw the Emperor for what he truly was, it doesn't say what that was.


Aye. 

Uriah from _The Last Church_ may give us more to go on in this regard though:

"Now seeing past the glamours and the magnificence... He saw the ruthless ambition and the molten core of violence at the Emperor's heart." - _Tales of Heresy_, Page 372.


----------



## Baltar

It seems that a 14 year old thinks that they could copy the entirety of lexicanum (which I already quoted before he did) into a post and consider the argument to be over.

How foolish.

I think that it may be past someone's bed time.


----------



## aberson126

lol op here this threead really took off. i originally read this in the CSM codex. it also mentions that horus cuts the orks arm off, not that the ork is killed by horus. Maybe the warboss survived? maybe this ork could get to the emperer cause he was the most brutally cunning or maybe the most cunningly brutal? how did the ork gods come to be? the main thing i guess i wanted to discuss is the possibility of a emperor/primarch level ork


----------



## normtheunsavoury

It's often been said that even 40k canon is subject to interpretation and is always written with a bias of some sort. 
Ultimately we know pretty much bugger all about the Emperor, we don't even know his name! We know he is an incredibly powerful psyker, what those powers are is again a mystery. Maybe he is not as powerful as we have been led to believe. He was the only survivor of the battle with Horus, maybe Sanguinius beat the Warmaster at the cost of his own life and the big E just took the credit?
Maybe the Emperor's biggest strength is his ability to turn a situation to his own advantage, lies and propaganda.
There are just too many maybes to count, we probably know more about the missing Primarchs than we really know about the Emperor!


----------



## Baron Spikey

The Emperor's power have enabled him to exist as long as he has, the Golden Throne is currently keeping him on the edge of true death- I've yet to see any indication that suggests that without these 2 sources he would be immortal, age-wise. The Emperor is the most powerful human to have existed, no question, but to say e's impervious to all harm is utterly retarded- a gigantic Ork throttled him, he was saved, I'm sorry if your delusional fantasy but the Emperor isn't omni-f**king anything.


----------



## Baltar

Yes, and claiming someone is delusional with absolutely NOTHING at all to back up YOUR PERSONAL OPINION about a fictional character is totally objective, of course. Well done.

All evidence suggests that not only is he immortal, he's one of the most powerful entities there is.

Almost no evidence shows otherwise. (read as none, other than that some ork grabbed him once - written as "struggled to choke him" - (implying it was barely succeeding)


----------



## aberson126

All evidence suggests that not only is he immortal, he's one of the most powerful entities there is.

Almost no evidence shows otherwise. (read as none, other than that some ork grabbed him once - written as "struggled to choke him" - (implying it was barely succeeding)

well this some ork was barely suceeding at choking one of the most powerful entities there is. i mean the other major entities in 40k would be the eldar gods, the chaos gods, the hive mind, and the C'tun. so imagine a farseer tricking tzeentch or a chaos sorcerer match the hive mind in a brain fight. i think those scenerios are the same as an ork choking the big E.

i cant find much info on the ork gods mork and gork so im gonna go ahead and say that this ork that strangled the Emp is both gork and mork and after getting his arm cut off left the fight and jumped on a space hulk. He could survive the arm getting cut off cause orks are orks! also it says in the ork codex the hulk could have got moved around in time. maybe gork/mork is in the warp and will emerge to lead the orks in that final super battle with all the primarchs and pheonix lords and all them. just a theory


----------



## Baltar

I want summa what he's smokin'.


----------



## aberson126

Baltar said:


> I want summa what he's smokin'.


lol get your own


----------



## Skull Harvester

K3k3000 said:


> The title of this thread sounds like a children's book.
> 
> A very, very strange children's book.


I'd raise my children on it


----------



## ckcrawford

I don't think that just because the Emperor has not died yet makes him immortal.

If so, then why have,

1. A golden throne to keep you from dieing
2. 1000 souls sacrificed to you everyday

The question then is, what happens if you don't have these things?

I've always looked at the concept of "immortal" by looking at a primary example. "Vampires." They are assumed to be immortal right? They will live on and on until they are actually killed then. They CAN be killed. Right? Though by dieing of natural causes I would say no they don't as they can be killed by someone who actually wants to kill them. I believe that the Emperor cannot be killed by old age due to the reason that the Shaman that created the Emperor did so, so they wouldn't lose their souls during the reincarnation process. However, I believe he can be killed through unnatural ways like combat or accidents. If he cannot die AT ALL! Then i believe... though their is very little evidence suggests, then he would be... a god. Which is unprobable as humanity is at the verge of being exterminated at this point in the current fluff.


----------



## gen.ahab

The fact that humanity..... Wait there are trillions of humans! How the fuck does that constitute brink of extinction level oh shit moment? Whatever, his soul is tied here so the warp god cannot awaken until he dies.... At least that is what I hear. Anyhoo, yeah no where close to extinction level kiss you ass goodbye humanity moment yet. Lol


----------



## Serpion5

This thread was a hilarious read!:laugh: I`ve never seen so much pointless arguing about something that you simply cannot debate on. There is old fluff, yes, but is it still canon? 

IMO, (and that`s all it can be at this point) the Emperor has always been out to rule the galaxy. There is evidence in Mechanicum to support this. Other sources seem to paint him as good, some as evil, I can`t say solidly. I believe he wants control, and after everything he has done, if he had succeeded, who would have denied him? Would he have stopped with just the materium? Could he go further? Speculation is fun, but ultimately pointless.


I agree with CotE`s definition of immortal, having looked it up now.:biggrin:
With that in mind, E is not immortal, because he was quite mortally wounded. 
Nor is he omnipotent, if he were there would be no issue here.
It is written that he is humanity`s most powerful psyker. Past canon cannot be cited as fact. Therefore, his origins and power source/abilities and limits remain a mystery.
Also remember that he was not strong enough to kill the Void Dragon (or so he claimed).
And it never says anywhere that he is the physically strongest being in existence (to my knowledge...?). So his body would also have to have limits. Stamina, resilience, etc.

So we can assume...

E was kickin` ass against the orks. Focussed on one thing, he was caught off guard by another. Horus was nearby and came to help his dad like any good son would.

Is that so hard to believe?!

And ALL OF YOU REMEMBER THAT FACTS MAKE OPINIONS, NOT VICE VERSA!:no:

Play nice.:victory:


----------



## Stephen_Newman

Well lets see the nids are closing on the eastern side, the necrons are awaking on more worlds and exterminating all life, the chaos black crusades have got a stronghold on the cadian system, The astronomicon is failing and is barely registering in Maccrage. Daemons are pouring out of everywhere, the orks are getting bigger and appearing in larger numbers than ever before.

Sounds like plenty of reasons to say oh shit. Oh in the big black rulebook it also says that mankind is now dying out.


----------



## gen.ahab

"Dying out" because people are dying faster than can be replaced or nids maybe potently coming does not mean brink of extinction. Less than 1 mil people means brink of extinction. We ain't there yet slow down. Lol We are getting there but we are not there quite yet. Lol Enjoy the ride.


----------



## deathbringer

Baltar said:


> What source describes the emperor as being strangled to near-death by an ork?


Its discussed in the horus heresy books
As for the emperors true form possibly it is a projection but I doubt it.

One it seems the primarchs are rather resistant to warp powers and they describe him as a golden giant, even MAgnus who would see the emperors true aura in the warp

Two he is a powerful psyker but to maintain that illusion all the time, to his custodes, to his primarchs that would take a lot of concentration and effort, plus at some point it would slip.

Three in the last church the chair creaks under a great weight,well maybe its just his custodian armour however something has to fill that custodian armour, 

I personally am off the view that the emperor is the golden giant, embellished by genetic mutations and his psychic presence.


----------



## buckythefly

Firstly, An ork warboss the size of a land-raider needs to exist and sub in as a stompa in apoc games.

Second, the emperor is now a total gimp. So if he is immortal or not, and if he can turn gold to better more shiny gold is irrelivant. He's bound to the golden throne, he disconnects and I'm pretty sure its game over for his highness. Thats pretty darn immune to death there.


----------



## Baltar

Has anyone considered the "James Bond" theory?

IE: That there is in fact no such thing as "The Emperor", and he is in fact simply replaced whenever he dies, by the next person, to stand as a figurehead of the imperium? And that all of his so called deeds are simply enormous propaganda?

I personally don't think so.

I think that he is an immortal (if he would live forever naturally, then he's an immortal - that's a fact), and that he is _not_ human. His enormous size would rule out him being human, aswell as both his powers and his life span. I wouldn't be surprised if he was actually an unkillable being, with a body as a host (hence his immense psychic powers) - a bit like a daemon, but stronger. More like a god - only on his own side (much like C'tan or the gods of chaos). His body (host) that he chooses to reside in may be fragile, but he, as an entity, is likely to be immortal. His actual death could have been worse for those that may have had an outsider's hand in bringing about his fall, considering that he may now actually be trapped in that body (a dead husk, for most purposes), and is essentially useless. I think that, as has already been suggested, he may have had motives of his own beyond those of progressing the imperium.

Either way, I also think that we will learn more.

PS: Oh, and other than believing that the Emperor may be a much more sinister character than he seems, I also think that this ork warboss stuff is a load of bollocks, too. I reckon that even if such a thing happened, he had it WELL under control, and even if Horus wasn't going to save him, he would not have been harmed. I believe that he knew exactly what was going on, and was simply waiting for Horus to respond, so as not to give away exactly how powerful he really is, or for some other reason - to become closer to Horus, perhaps.

I say this because after reading the short story about the death games that the Adeptus Custodes play, attempting to assassinate the Emperor, it appears that the same thing has happened before. One such Custode was pretty much about to stab him, and he was in a position such that he would not have been able to prevent it - and yet the Custode, after being stopped by another guard, was told that even if all of the other guards would have been unsuccessful in "rescuing" the Emperor, the Emperor wouldn't have let himself be harmed.

He knows _exactly_ what is going on around him.

If an ork warboss got to him, then it was intentional.

Which makes everythnig about the Emperor even more sinister (and WAY more interesting).


----------



## ckcrawford

gen.ahab said:


> The fact that humanity..... Wait there are trillions of humans! How the fuck does that constitute brink of extinction level oh shit moment?


Don't worry, I know you weren't being emotional or something to my response... Way to keep a bearing.:grin:



Stephen_Newman said:


> Well lets see the nids are closing on the eastern side, the necrons are awaking on more worlds and exterminating all life, the chaos black crusades have got a stronghold on the cadian system, The astronomicon is failing and is barely registering in Maccrage. Daemons are pouring out of everywhere, the orks are getting bigger and appearing in larger numbers than ever before.
> 
> *Sounds like plenty of reasons to say oh shit. Oh in the big black rulebook it also says that mankind is now dying out*.


Wow, for a second there I thought I was talking out of my ass. Oh man... thank god.



gen.ahab said:


> "Dying out" because people are dying faster than can be replaced or nids maybe potently coming does not mean brink of extinction. Less than 1 mil people means brink of extinction. We ain't there yet slow down. Lol We are getting there but we are not there quite yet. Lol Enjoy the ride.


Oh cool check out some of the fluff, you'd be surprised at what you find. I do sometimes.


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor

gen.ahab said:


> "Dying out" because people are dying faster than can be replaced or nids maybe potently coming does not mean brink of extinction. Less than 1 mil people means brink of extinction. We ain't there yet slow down. Lol We are getting there but we are not there quite yet. Lol Enjoy the ride.


I don't think it matters how many humans are left. The brink of extinction refers to a species that is nearing extinction, regardless of the remaining population. We are in the Time of Ending, more and more threats are arising everyday, dozens of worlds are constantly falling into darkness. I don't think its innaccurate to say that Mankind is on the brink of extinction. And take into account that if the Emperor dies, likely so will the vast majority of Mankind - so when such a large proportion of the population can die very soon, describing humans as nearing extinction is acceptable.



Baltar said:


> (if he would live forever naturally, then he's an immortal - that's a fact)


Still havn't checked the dictionary then? 



Baltar said:


> His enormous size would rule out him being human, aswell as both his powers and his life span.


Thats a general problem with classification. How far do we go? Are Astartes Humans? Were the Primarchs?

His enormous size I don't see as much of a problem, he was a great genetical scientist remember.

His powers, well humans can be Psykers.

His Life span, well again - its possible for humans to live for thousands of years (especially if that particular human has manifested immense psychic abilites).

So in that sense I don't see much of a problem classing the Emperor as a human based on his height, powers and lifespan. But yes, there is still an argument to suggest he isn't human.



Baltar said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if he was actually an unkillable being


And if there was any proof to suggest he was unkillable I would happily accept him as immortal. But theres not, in fact theres evidence to the contrary. His near-death at the hands of this Ork, his wounds caused by Horus, and now his life's dependence on the Golden Throne.



Baltar said:


> I also think that this ork warboss stuff is a load of bollocks, too.


Despite it being mentioned (as people have said) in several sources?



Baltar said:


> I reckon that even if such a thing happened, he had it WELL under control, and even if Horus wasn't going to save him, he would not have been harmed.


Could you kiss the Emperor's ass even more? :grin:

I don't see the problem with accepting that the Emperor was losing to an Ork and Horus saved his life - hes not all powerful, hes not omnipotent, and he can be killed.


----------



## zerachiel76

I think the Emperor was quite stupid in fact. He _might_ have been the essence of the untainted warp but he was still a man and made lots of mistakes:

Not telling Horus about the Webway before leaving after Ullanor
His dealings with Angron (as detailed in After De'Shea)
His assumptions about Mortarion's loyalties despite being warned by Corax etc
His not showing Magnus more "safe" psychic methods (assumption here - don't flame too hard  )
His failure to see the psychological damage being done to Perturabo and the Iron Warriors
He could see how insane Night Haunter was but did nothing about it
The creation of the Council of Terra despite this angering the Primarchs who were his generals and then not even giving them seats on the council
Showing the Fabricator General the forbidden stuff on Mars then telling him not to access it
How did this guy even conquer earth if he wasn't able to deal with his main commanders effectively?


----------



## Cato Sicarius

Baltar said:


> It seems that a 14 year old thinks that they could copy the entirety of lexicanum (which I already quoted before he did) into a post and consider the argument to be over.
> 
> How foolish.
> 
> I think that it may be past someone's bed time.


Well, after reading through this thread it seems you haven't quite explained any of it in a way that would help (if you've even done it at all). All you've done is got into an argument about his being immortal, which is what I tried to end. Besides that, I explained what sources they came from and they are perfectly legitimate (unless somebody else can come up with better, newer sources, which would be perfect).

And also, do you really think many kids have bed time's any more?


----------



## gen.ahab

Child-of-the-Emperor said:


> I don't think it matters how many humans are left. The brink of extinction refers to a species that is nearing extinction, regardless of the remaining population. We are in the Time of Ending, more and more threats are arising everyday, dozens of worlds are constantly falling into darkness. I don't think its innaccurate to say that Mankind is on the
> brink of extinction. And take into account that if the Emperor dies, likely so will the vast majority of Mankind - so when such a large proportion of the population can die very soon, describing humans as nearing extinction is acceptable.


Yes but you have to be driven there first. Like an animal population needs to be lowered to a certain point to be considered to be on the "brink" of extinction. So even if we are getting killed off left and right we aren't really there yet is what I am saying.


----------



## Baltar

Child-of-the-Emperor said:


> I don't think it matters how many humans are left. The brink of extinction refers to a species that is nearing extinction, regardless of the remaining population. We are in the Time of Ending, more and more threats are arising everyday, dozens of worlds are constantly falling into darkness. I don't think its innaccurate to say that Mankind is on the brink of extinction. And take into account that if the Emperor dies, likely so will the vast majority of Mankind - so when such a large proportion of the population can die very soon, describing humans as nearing extinction is acceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> Still havn't checked the dictionary then?
> 
> 
> Thats a general problem with classification. How far do we go? Are Astartes Humans? Were the Primarchs?
> 
> His enormous size I don't see as much of a problem, he was a great genetical scientist remember.
> 
> His powers, well humans can be Psykers.
> 
> His Life span, well again - its possible for humans to live for thousands of years (especially if that particular human has manifested immense psychic abilites).
> 
> So in that sense I don't see much of a problem classing the Emperor as a human based on his height, powers and lifespan. But yes, there is still an argument to suggest he isn't human.
> 
> 
> 
> And if there was any proof to suggest he was unkillable I would happily accept him as immortal. But theres not, in fact theres evidence to the contrary. His near-death at the hands of this Ork, his wounds caused by Horus, and now his life's dependence on the Golden Throne.
> 
> 
> 
> Despite it being mentioned (as people have said) in several sources?
> 
> 
> 
> Could you kiss the Emperor's ass even more? :grin:
> 
> I don't see the problem with accepting that the Emperor was losing to an Ork and Horus saved his life - hes not all powerful, hes not omnipotent, and he can be killed.



I think you may have missed my point. It's not an ass kissing session at all.

I'm saying that I do believe he is as powerful as I suggest, but that he is not WHAT he seems to be. After all, it could be argued that the Emperor lead to the eternal war that man has forced itself into (in a way). I don't know why anyone keeps throwing the word "omnipotent" around - it's MASSIVELY retarded, seeing as the only people saying "he isn't omnipotent" are the ONLY people to have used the word so far. It gets roughly 92/100 on the asshole scale.

I don't think that the Emperor is at all as he appears to be - I don't think he's mortal - and in fact I don't even think that he is "humanoid" in the first place. I think that he is a being simply inhabiting a body which makes him physically mortal, and yet ageless (a body is just cells - it seems rational to suggest a being of large power could sustain an ageless body). I think that "he" is unable to influence events without maintaining a physical presence (some corporeal being that he could be can do nothing without a presence, regardless of power). I also believe that he is no such thing as "the good guy" in the story. He is just _believed_ to be the good guy.

The argument for his power being low (lower than Godlike - unlike ALL evidence suggesting that it is) seems to be "well he couldn't do this", which is all well and good, but you assume that he didn't want everything to go exactly as it did. There seems to be far, far too many events that _were_ under his control, that happened anyway, for a greater proportion of it not to be deliberate (to my mind, anyway).

Yes. That's right. I am saying you misunderstood my entire last post and that your reply is a nonsense repeat of what you have said before. Repetition tends to make me believe that instead of posting anything insightful, you would rather just blab your own opinions on to the thread. Which is good, because it makes them easily disregarded.

I see that you also totally disregarded the extremely valid and pertinent argument regarding the assassination attempts (and I would rate even a standard custian as being a FUCKLOAD harder than some shitty warboss - warboss the size of a LR ROFL what a load of shit - you're clutching at straws in the fluff that aren't even there).


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor

Baltar said:


> I don't know why anyone keeps throwing the word "omnipotent" around - it's MASSIVELY retarded, seeing as the only people saying "he isn't omnipotent" are the ONLY people to have used the word so far. It gets roughly 92/100 on the asshole scale.


Because some people seem to suggest that the Emperor is unkillable and invincible, that is why the naysayers say; "Hes not Omnipotent, so stop making him out to be."



Baltar said:


> I don't think he's mortal


Your entitled to that view. Although if hes an immortal, technically that means he cannot die or be killed. The evidence points to the complete contrary.



Baltar said:


> The argument for his power being low (lower than Godlike - unlike ALL evidence suggesting that it is) seems to be "well he couldn't do this", which is all well and good, but you assume that he didn't want everything to go exactly as it did. There seems to be far, far too many events that _were_ under his control, that happened anyway, for a greater proportion of it not to be deliberate (to my mind, anyway).


I accept that the Emperor is ridiculously powerful, there is no rational way to doubt that. But we know for certain his plans didn't work out, he failed, and now his Imperium and species is slowly treading down the dark path to Chaos because he failed.

In _A Thousand Sons_ for example, when Magnus' and the Emperor's minds connected - and they both instantly knew everything the other knew - Magnus saw everything the Emperor planned and realised he personally had wrecked any chance of the Emperor ever achieving such plans.

The Emperor was an incredibly powerful, wise and learned individual, but ultimately he failed. 



Baltar said:


> Yes. That's right. I am saying you misunderstood my entire last post and that your reply is a nonsense repeat of what you have said before. Repetition tends to make me believe that instead of posting anything insightful, you would rather just blab your own opinions on to the thread. Which is good, because it makes them easily disregarded.


If you look back over the last few pages, you have actually ignored several of my points and reasons, thats why I feel the need to reiterate my points - because you simply ignore them.



Baltar said:


> I see that you also totally disregarded the extremely valid and pertinent argument regarding the assassination attempts (and I would rate even a standard custian as being a FUCKLOAD harder than some shitty warboss - warboss the size of a LR ROFL what a load of shit - you're clutching at straws in the fluff that aren't even there).


Seriously?

Orks can grow to the size of Battle-Tanks, that is known and there are recorded battles when Imperials have faced Orks of such sizes. You would rate a single Custodian as a 'fuckload' superior to an Ork Warlord of such size who can potentially have thousands of years of constant war experiance? Ha.

Stop being deluded. You are essentially just saying the Emperor > Everything. Then putting your fingers in your eyes and going 'La la la la'.


----------



## Baltar

I am not saying any such thing at all.

I am being very clear, and concise.

I am saying that I don't think that the Emperor is even human, despite what body he inhabits. I am saying that you can kill the body just fine, but that he doesn't actually "end" with that, because it isn't his body in the first place. It's just a host for his power.

I'm saying that I believe that his current "state" was possibly orchestrated - IE: his death would have been a failure for whomever would have wanted him to end up in his current state, as his being is trapped in his physical body. (a body that may not be his true form).

I see that you didn't read anything I typed, which makes your post look, again, nonsensical. Just because a being is immortal and has god like power, doesn't mean that he can't have a mortal body (seems a small feat for a godlike being...)

I'm not even going to discuss the omnipotence thing; it's stupid. NO beings in warhammer are omnipotent, not even all of the Gods put together, or there'd be no story.

Oh, and so far, the evidence tends to show:

Primarchs >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything

Emperor >>>>>>>> Primarchs.

Show evidence otherwise. There is barely any, except for a few tiny events.


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor

Baltar said:


> I am saying that I don't think that the Emperor is even human, despite what body he inhabits. I am saying that you can kill the body just fine, but that he doesn't actually "end" with that, because it isn't his body in the first place. It's just a host for his power.
> 
> I'm saying that I believe that his current "state" was possibly orchestrated - IE: his death would have been a failure for whomever would have wanted him to end up in his current state, as his being is trapped in his physical body. (a body that may not be his true form).


Right. I did read that you've said that a few times now (sorry who was being repetitive?). But so what? 

Do you also consider humans (in the 40k setting) to be immortal because their souls can be described as eternal? 



Baltar said:


> I see that you didn't read anything I typed, which makes your post look, again, nonsensical.


I did, but a proportion of it was irrelavent.



Baltar said:


> Just because a being is immortal and has god like power, doesn't mean that he can't have a mortal body (seems a small feat for a godlike being...)


So now instead of the saying the Emperor is immortal, your now saying his body is mortal but his 'being' (or essence/soul) is immortal?



Baltar said:


> I'm not even going to discuss the omnipotence thing; it's stupid. NO beings in warhammer are omnipotent, not even all of the Gods put together, or there'd be no story.


Naturally. And I didn't say that you thought he was omnipotent. But _some_ people make him out to be.



Baltar said:


> Oh, and so far, the evidence tends to show:
> 
> Primarchs >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything
> 
> Emperor >>>>>>>> Primarchs.
> 
> Show evidence otherwise. There is barely any, except for a few tiny events.


So your saying the Emperor is superior to the Primarchs, and the Primarchs are superior to everything?

Does that include the Chaos Gods and C'tan?


----------



## Baltar

Child-of-the-Emperor said:


> Right. I did read that you've said that a few times now (sorry who was being repetitive?). But so what?
> 
> Do you also consider humans (in the 40k setting) to be immortal because their souls can be described as eternal?
> 
> 
> 
> I did, but a proportion of it was irrelavent.
> 
> 
> 
> So now instead of the saying the Emperor is immortal, your now saying his body is mortal but his 'being' (or essence/soul) is immortal?
> 
> 
> 
> Naturally. And I didn't say that you thought he was omnipotent. But _some_ people make him out to be.
> 
> 
> 
> So your saying the Emperor is superior to the Primarchs, and the Primarchs are superior to everything?
> 
> Does that include the Chaos Gods and C'tan?


I really, really need to learn multiquote.

No, i don't consider humans as immortal. I am literally saying that the Emperor is a non-human that has chosen to manifest himself as a human(ish). I am saying that his body can perish (whether or not that makes him mortal is questionable) but that the actually being that he is will continue to survive, as he is godlike in power, but without his physical presence he can not influence the physical realm. A little like a chaos god - they act through minions and demons etc - Khorne doesn't ever actually "appear" and smash worlds - all of his followers do it. You could argue that they are his manifestation in the physical realm. I am saying that the emperor is the same instance, except that the manifestation is concentrated into a single entity - the creature seen as the leader of mankind. I believe that "its" motives are actually not what they are broadcasted as being. I think that almost everything is a mistruth, such as the destruction of religion and the illegality of deifying him - it's almost as though he WANTED people to do that, and he knew that he would have to force people not to for it to actually happen.



> So your saying the Emperor is superior to the Primarchs, and the Primarchs are superior to everything?
> 
> Does that include the Chaos Gods and C'tan?


Well, arguing that the Emperor is superior to primarchs is easy. No question there.

The primarchs killed ALL enemies they ever faught - this is evidenced by the fact that almost all of the primarchs were killed through betrayal by other primarchs or the forces of such. No alien races or chaotic powers actually killed any of the primarchs, or the Emperor. They could kill ANYTHING any of the other races could throw at them, as evidenced by them CONQUERING THE GALAXY. Are they immortal? They _may_ never age, but they die just fine. Then again, so does everything else, so that isn't a benchmark.

The C'tan are likely to be on par with a primarch, although it would be nice to believe that rather than comparing them directly, we could just say that they were "different". In a physical form, I would argue that the primarch has the victory every time - but the C'tan are not a purely physical being. Can you really "kill" it? Well, you can go and stab the shit out of its body, but so what.

As for the chaos gods - nothing needs to be harder than them, because their manifestation is no single being. They manifest themselves in terms of entire events, whole countless armies of followers, and enormous champions. However, no "god" appears as the presence of some one single being that could be "beaten". So, no, there is no comparison between a primarch and god of chaos. It would be like saying "is a primarch greater than the wind?".


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor

Baltar said:


> I really, really need to learn multiquote.






Baltar said:


> No, i don't consider humans as immortal. I am literally saying that the Emperor is a non-human that has chosen to manifest himself as a human(ish). I am saying that his body can perish (whether or not that makes him mortal is questionable) but that the actually being that he is will continue to survive, as he is godlike in power, but without his physical presence he can not influence the physical realm.


Thats fine. But thats _your_ definition/theory/speculation, not everyones. 



Baltar said:


> Well, arguing that the Emperor is superior to primarchs is easy. No question there.


Aye.



Baltar said:


> The primarchs killed ALL enemies they ever faught - this is evidenced by the fact that almost all of the primarchs were killed through betrayal by other primarchs or the forces of such. No alien races or chaotic powers actually killed any of the primarchs, or the Emperor. They could kill ANYTHING any of the other races could throw at them, as evidenced by them CONQUERING THE GALAXY.


Right, but they _could_ have been killed by a Xenos race or a Daemon for example. Its fine saying they weren't, but that doesn't automatically mean they trump everything.

Also lets consider Rogal Dorn, who died at the hands of Traitor Astartes.
And Night Haunter who was killed by an assassin (although given, he allowed it).
_Technically_ speaking Ferrus Manus was killed by a Daemon.



Baltar said:


> The C'tan are likely to be on par with a primarch, although it would be nice to believe that rather than comparing them directly, we could just say that they were "different". In a physical form, I would argue that the primarch has the victory every time - but the C'tan are not a purely physical being. Can you really "kill" it? Well, you can go and stab the shit out of its body, but so what.


The C'tan are entities that consume star systems, their wars have unleashed black holes which consumed entire sectors, they are the untapped energy of stars made manifest, compressed into a necrodermis shell. Could a Primarch stand up to one? Very doubtful. Magnus and the Emperor I would say are the two that remotely stand a chance, what are the rest going to do? Stab them? 



Baltar said:


> As for the chaos gods - nothing needs to be harder than them, because their manifestation is no single being. They manifest themselves in terms of entire events, whole countless armies of followers, and enormous champions. However, no "god" appears as the presence of some one single being that could be "beaten". So, no, there is no comparison between a primarch and god of chaos. It would be like saying "is a primarch greater than the wind?".


Whilst that is true, the Chaos Gods are still singular entities whilst simultaneously being Chaos as a whole. Could a Primarch ever kill a Chaos God? No. Could a Chaos God ever kill a Primarch? Yes. 

Also take into account that at least 6 Primarchs (7 including Horus) are now completely enslaved to the Chaos Gods, and are now a part of the Chaos equation, enslaved to the incomprehensible will of the gods.

Also I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the Immortal definition. I take the dictionary definition, you take the definition you got from somewhere else.


----------



## Baltar

The C'tan certainly are super powerful. Godlike, really. However, they are still 300+ points tabletop, and if I was taking a primarch it would be at least 800+, or something. Poor rationalisation, I know, but it's how I see it. I see C'tan as a being far beyong their physical presence, and all we get on the battlefield from them is their physical representation.

The problem with your definition of immortality is that you assume that immortality cannot be made to end. A creature can be immortal _untill_ they are no longer immortal, for example. IE: They will live forever, untill they are caused not to be able to live forever anymore - being killed is one example.


----------



## deathbringer

You dont become an emperor by being a great warrior, you become one by being a great speech maker and politician.

If you can swing the masses to your side you dont have to get your hands dirty. 
Quite simply, because he is the emperor doesnt mean he is awesome in battle. Its easy to see that the emperor could have been blindsided and defeated by a warboss


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor

Baltar said:


> The problem with your definition of immortality is that you assume that immortality cannot be made to end. A creature can be immortal _untill_ they are no longer immortal, for example. IE: They will live forever, untill they are caused not to be able to live forever anymore - being killed is one example.


By definition though, the concept of immortality cannot be made to end.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary describes immortality as: "Immortality (or eternal life) is the concept of living in a physical or spiritual form for an infinite or inconceivably vast length of time." 

Living for an infinite amount of time, which cannot be ended by any means. That is immortality. "By definition, all causes of death must be overcome or avoided for physical immortality to be achieved."

Now I understand that some settings (often some fantasy Vampire settings) use immortalty in a different sense and under a different definition, but the dictionary and real-life definition means that if something is immortal it cannot die (by any means).


----------



## Baltar

No, no...

By definition of immortality, LIFE cannot be made to end.

Immortality is a quality that allows life not to end.

There is no quality that states that immortality cannot be caused to end.

A vampire will never die. It is therefore immortal. However, if you cut of its head or stab it through the heart, it ceases to be immortal. Nothing about that is in conflict with the definition you gave - which I already said was a great definition.


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor

Were really gonna have to agree to disagree now..


----------



## Baltar

The vampire is a difficult example to work with, because their termination of immortality is the same event as their death.

Another example would be angels, in some fiction. For example, an angel is immortal and can not die. However, if you cut off their wings, they become mortal, and can die.

It's no different.


----------



## Ardias26

Uh oh...you got the emperor fanboys riled now.

Ive always liked the idea of the imperial creed being a big fat lie to keep people in line


----------



## Serpion5

Baltar said:


> The C'tan certainly are super powerful. Godlike, really. However, they are still 300+ points tabletop, and if I was taking a primarch it would be at least 800+, or something. Poor rationalisation, I know, but it's how I see it. I see C'tan as a being far beyong their physical presence, and all we get on the battlefield from them is their physical representation.


Bearing in mind that the two c`tan represented are:

The weakest of their entire race.

A god who nearly starved to death BEFORE going to sleep, and so was barely a threat (even to a mere ultramarine!) by their true standards. 

I`m going to leave that one there, because I think that makes my point, tabletop rules cannot accurately portray fluff all the time, because they have to be fair gamewise...


Yes, PLEASE leave the "immortal" debate alone! 

According to Baltar`s definition (opinion based) Emperor is immortal.

According to CotE`s definition (dictionary based) he is mortal.

imo both views are valid. 

I personally use "Immortal" to define stuff that is otherwise classed as a god, chaos powers, c`tan, hivemind etc.

...yes, despite the fact that these things can be killed, in extreme circumstance.


----------



## Baltar

I asked someone I consider authoritative over the use of words about the immortal thing (as I was genuinely interested, as I take interest in how words should be used, as it applies to my work).

He explained that both uses of the word are equally valid, as the definition is not absolute. There is no such thing as an immortal; it's an abstract idea.

Therefore, rather than an argument over a definition (which this turns out not to be), it ends up as an argument of how to use a word. The point he made was that the word can be used both ways legitimately, making neither argument correct.

(making the argument pointless, too)


----------



## Serpion5

Baltar said:


> I asked someone I consider authoritative over the use of words about the immortal thing (as I was genuinely interested, as I take interest in how words should be used, as it applies to my work).
> 
> He explained that both uses of the word are equally valid, as the definition is not absolute. There is no such thing as an immortal; it's an abstract idea.
> 
> Therefore, rather than an argument over a definition (which this turns out not to be), it ends up as an argument of how to use a word. The point he made was that the word can be used both ways legitimately, making neither argument correct.
> 
> (making the argument pointless, too)



...does that mean you`ll leave it alone?


----------



## deathbringer

Baltar said:


> No, no...
> 
> By definition of immortality, LIFE cannot be made to end.
> 
> Immortality is a quality that allows life not to end.
> 
> There is no quality that states that immortality cannot be caused to end.
> 
> A vampire will never die. It is therefore immortal. However, if you cut of its head or stab it through the heart, it ceases to be immortal. Nothing about that is in conflict with the definition you gave - which I already said was a great definition.


But by that logic until we die each of us are immortal.
For example I may have a mutant strain of gene, or some form of innate protection bred into me that causes me to never die naturally, to be in essence immortal. You cant prove I dont until the day I actually die.

However shooting me in the face consequentially removes that immortality and thus i die.
So quite simply by your definition we are all immortal until the day we die

This sounds terribly stupid but the thought amuses me


----------



## Serpion5

deathbringer said:


> But by that logic until we die each of us are immortal.
> For example I may have a mutant strain of gene, or some form of innate protection bred into me that causes me to never die naturally, to be in essence immortal. You cant prove I dont until the day I actually die.
> 
> However shooting me in the face consequentially removes that immortality and thus i die.
> So quite simply by your definition we are all immortal until the day we die
> 
> This sounds terribly stupid but the thought amuses me


I like that. Serpion the immortal!:laugh:

My immortality has but one weakness! ...time... :cray:


----------



## Baron Spikey

Cancer, bullets, old age, knives etc etc my only weaknesses, how did you know?


----------



## Serpion5

Baron Spikey said:


> Cancer, bullets, old age, knives etc etc my only weaknesses, how did you know?


That`s what you get for being human!:taunt:


----------



## Aramoro

What a bizzare yet amusing thread. I wasn't aware that Highlander immortality had redefined the word but there you go. I mean when I went to school anything that could die was mortal, the antonym of mortal is immortal. 

I would have thought that was simple. 

As an aside I'm actually impervious to bullets and knives as I've enver been killed by one yet. Thus using faulty logic and induction I cannot be killed by them. 

Aramoro


----------



## Zenith_of_Mind

Didn't it occur to anyone arguing about what immortality actually is, that we don't have a completely sound explanation because immortality doesn't exist among humans and it's therefore technically unexplainable?


----------



## deathbringer

Zenith_of_Mind said:


> Didn't it occur to anyone arguing about what immortality actually is, that we don't have a completely sound explanation because immortality doesn't exist among humans and it's therefore technically unexplainable?


Did it ever occur to you that we all know its impossible to truly define immortality but it amuses us to try? Plus did it ever occur to you to enlighten us in such a priggish way is the definition of a buzzkill ?


----------



## Serpion5

Zenith_of_Mind said:


> Didn't it occur to anyone arguing about what immortality actually is, that we don't have a completely sound explanation because immortality doesn't exist among humans and it's therefore technically unexplainable?


I`m sure it occured to most of us. Exist among humans? In any reasonable context it doesn`t exist at all. It is a concept. Just like perfection. We can conceive of it, but can never truly achieve or comprehend it on any legitimate level. 

As has been said, we are just speculating. What`s wrong with that?


----------



## Zenith_of_Mind

deathbringer said:


> Did it ever occur to you that we all know its impossible to truly define immortality but it amuses us to try? Plus did it ever occur to you to enlighten us in such a priggish way is the definition of a buzzkill ?


I was merely remarking at the situation in the first few pages of the topic, where several people have argued whether the Emperor was immortal or not, without establishing the common definition of immortality. It's okay to speculate, of course, and I'm adding my opinion to the speculation - Emperor is immortal compared to the average human.


Serpion5 said:


> I`m sure it occured to most of us. Exist among humans? In any reasonable context it doesn`t exist at all. It is a concept. Just like perfection. We can conceive of it, but can never truly achieve or comprehend it on any legitimate level.
> 
> *As has been said, we are just speculating. What`s wrong with that? *


Like I said above, nothing. 

Btw, offtopic,


> In any reasonable context it doesn`t exist at all


I think there are some kind of micro organisms (maybe amoebas?) that are immortal. I've read about it somewhere some time ago, can't remember it now.


----------



## deathbringer

Sorry thought you were being sarcastic

As for amoebas being immortal if you could source it I'd be bloody interested in that


----------



## Aramoro

Amoebas can die and are hence not immortal. 

You might be thinking of Water Bears which are extremely hardy, but not immortal. 

Aramoro


----------



## Zenith_of_Mind

Aramoro said:


> Amoebas can die and are hence not immortal.
> 
> You might be thinking of Water Bears which are extremely hardy, but not immortal.
> 
> Aramoro


After doing an extensive Wikipedia search of 3 seconds, I have found this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_nutricula


> As of 2009, natural selection has developed *biological immortality* in at least one species, the jellyfish Turritopsis nutricula


----------



## Aramoro

Biologically Immortal is not Immortal. 

Aramoro


----------



## GWLlosa

Just to point out that the word "immortal" in its 'non-death from natural causes' sense is in popular usage, here's a writeup of the 'immortal' jellyfish:


Excerpt from:
http://www.factodiem.com/2010/04/life-v-oh-to-spend-eternity-as.html




> Possessing probably the most desirable type of immortality, Turriptosis jellyfish are able to die - they get eaten by whales all the time - but they do not die by running out of metabolic steam. For this reason their worldwide numbers are growing rapidly.


----------



## Silverclaw

AHA! the emperor is in fact a jellyfish! :shok:


----------



## Zenith_of_Mind

Aramoro said:


> Biologically Immortal is not Immortal.
> 
> Aramoro


Right...when something is immortal, it's actually not immortal. Yeah, that makes sense. I can certainly see logic in that.

Anyway, this is getting totally offtopic. Unless we somehow fit the "jellyfish theory" into Warhammer universe lol


----------



## Aramoro

heh it's hardly too off topic. Biologically Immortal means you do not age, you do not die from cellular degeneration. It's probably fair to say that the Emperor is probably biologically immortal. Immortal on the other hand means, not subject to death, being the antonym of mortal. The Emperor can die so he is not Immortal, only biologically so. 

Aramoro


----------



## Baltar

I like how people are stating in some absolute manner what the term "immortal" means, when it has no absolute meaning at all. It's rather foolish, considering that its definition is abstract.

Immortal may refer to _any_ instance of an entitie's inability to die, be that it may never die naturally, or that it may never be killed.

Both are immortality, as both may be used to describe an immortal being. This is because, as has been stated, the term "immortality" has no absolute meaning. There is no such thing, for a start.


----------



## Aramoro

Being immortal does have a very definite and simple meaning. 'Not being subject to death'. Biologically immortal just has some cavaets on it, means something different. I don't understand the confusion. 

Aramoro


----------



## Baltar

That is the definition of the word. This definition applies just as easily to a person that will never die naturally, and to a person that can never die at all.

That is a fact.

The word has no absolute meaning.


----------



## Aramoro

No it means exactly what I said it does. You simply do not understand the meaning it seems. It's pretty basic, if you know what mortal means, immortal is the exact opposite, simple. 

Aramoro


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor

Aramoro said:


> heh it's hardly too off topic. Biologically Immortal means you do not age, you do not die from cellular degeneration. It's probably fair to say that the Emperor is probably biologically immortal. Immortal on the other hand means, not subject to death, being the antonym of mortal. The Emperor can die so he is not Immortal, only biologically so.


Exactly right.



Baltar said:


> I like how people are stating in some absolute manner what the term "immortal" means, when it has no absolute meaning at all.


Isn't that what you were doing earlier?


----------



## Kale Hellas

can people go back to the wonderful topic of the emperor being choked by a giant ork that topic is just so great it makes you feel all warm inside.


----------



## Baltar

Aramoro said:


> No it means exactly what I said it does. You simply do not understand the meaning it seems. It's pretty basic, if you know what mortal means, immortal is the exact opposite, simple.
> 
> Aramoro


It has no meaning, only a definition.

The two are not the same.

If you learned the difference, then you would understand.


----------



## Baltar

Child-of-the-Emperor said:


> Exactly right.
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that what you were doing earlier?


Not at all correct, for a start.

And yes, that is what I was doing earlier, untill someone far far more authoritative on the matter provided me with his input, and now I consider it closed.

The term "immortal" has no absolute meaning, and as such, the definition may be applied just as correctly to either type of being; one that will never die of natural causes, and one that can never die.


----------



## Serpion5

Kale Hellas said:


> can people go back to the wonderful topic of the emperor being choked by a giant ork that topic is just so great it makes you feel all warm inside.


The Emperor survived. It`s probably a safe assumption that the ork didn`t. What more is there to discuss? 

Keep up, we`re talking about immortality now which is a deeper aspect of said scenario. Namely, was the Emperor ever in any real danger?

Logical conclusion would say yes he was, but that is an assumption. 

As implied, the extent of the Emperor`s power (sadly unknown) would go a long way to concluding this. Failing that, we`ll just keep arguing, debating, speculating and making shit up until something more amusing comes up or we all get sick of it.

That said, it does seem to be getting a bit repetetive...


----------



## lawrence96

I think that a Ork getting close enough to try and kill the Emp (henceforth known as Jeff) is possible. They come at you in their millions so he could of been simultaneosly fighting 50+ easily.

One comes up from behind him and grabs him by the throat and you know what my first thought would be.... Use my psychic powers to hold my trachea and my jugular open to keep me concious/alive. That accounts for the struggling to choke him. and it doesn't say how long the ork had been trying to kill jeff for before horus intervened it could of been hours (unlikely), it could of been seconds (more likely).

So the sequence could of been:
Jeff kills couple of thousand Orks (00.00s)
Warboss grabs Jeff (00.50s)
Jeff uses power to keep airways and jugular open(01.00s)
Horus cuts Orks hand off (01.50s)

So the whole sequence takes under 2 seconds. You can't really use this info to say how powerful any of the entities involved were, Jeff could of probably killed the ork himself, but his 1/2 a second pause to keep himself alive (a perfectly normal instinct for any creature) gave horus the time to cut down the Ork. Hell horus could of already been attacking the ork.

As for the Immortal VS Mortal argument, which dictionaries are being used? I've been known to play scrabble with one dictionary, place down a word that i know was in it. My mum to challenge it, use a different dictionary and not find it in there.

For example this come from Dictionary.com
1.not mortal; not liable or subject to death; undying: our immortal souls. 
2.remembered or celebrated through all time: the immortal words of Lincoln. 
3.not liable to perish or decay; imperishable; everlasting. 
4.perpetual; lasting; constant: an immortal enemy. 
5.of or pertaining to immortal beings or immortality. 
6.(of a laboratory-cultured cell line) capable of dividing indefinitely. 
7.an immortal being. 
8.a person of enduring fame: Bach, Milton, El Greco, and other immortals. 
9.the Immortals, the 40 members of the french Academy. 
10.(often initial capital letter) any of the gods of classical mythology.

Which with a few exceptions (like numbers 5,7+9) Jeff is.

Whereas http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/immortal_1 gives the definiton as being
• living or lasting forever
• very special and famous and therefore likely to be remembered for a long time

So you could both be right in your definitons depending on which dictionaries/sources are being referenced.


----------



## Baltar

Yours is the best post in the thread, tbh.

+rep


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor

I used the Oxford English Dictionary. But that aside, every dictionary/Internet dictionary/wikipedia I have looked on have all said essentially the same thing just in different wording, the term is essentially 'not liable to or subject to death'.

Which I strongly interpret as not being able to die/cease to exist under any circumstances.



Baltar said:


> There is no such thing, for a start.


Most Religions would strongly disagree, and even science would. Immortality as a concept is plausable.


----------



## Baltar

I keep saying, over and again: Your definition is perfect. Your attribution of it to a description is also fine.

I am telling you, though, that since their is no absolute meaning to the word, that mine is also fine. Both descriptions can be called immortal, legitimately, and neither is "more" correct than the other.

I, personally, really like Lawrence96's description of events. It makes the whole thing seem much more plausible to me.


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor

Baltar said:


> I keep saying, over and again: Your definition is perfect. Your attribution of it to a description is also fine.


I never disagreed with you!



Baltar said:


> I am telling you, though, that since their is no absolute meaning to the word, that mine is also fine. Both descriptions can be called immortal, legitimately, and neither is "more" correct than the other.


I think that most sources (dictionaries and otherwise) pretty much give the same definition of the word, its how we interpret it that is different. Out of curiosity more than anything, where are you getting your personal definition from? Or why do you interpret it as you do?



Baltar said:


> I, personally, really like Lawrence96's description of events. It makes the whole thing seem much more plausible to me.


We talking about the Ork here?


----------



## Baltar

I don't use my own definition - I am using yours.

I am saying that the definition can be used legitimately in both ways. Literally, the definition can _mean_ the description you give, OR the description I attribute to it. The reason for this is because immortality has no absolute meaning. It can be either, correctly. I don't choose _only_ to interpret it the way I do - I would interpret it both ways. As they are both applicable.

Yes, I was talking about the ork situation. His description fits well with what I believe would actually happen should an ork grab the emperor, and how it came to pass.


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor

Baltar said:


> I don't use my own definition - I am using yours.
> 
> I am saying that the definition can be used legitimately in both ways. Literally, the definition can _mean_ the description you give, OR the description I attribute to it. The reason for this is because immortality has no absolute meaning. It can be either, correctly. I don't choose _only_ to interpret it the way I do - I would interpret it both ways. As they are both applicable.


Thats what I said, and thats why i said "Or why do you interpret it as you do?" - But your saying you don't take a stance personally? You are happy to accept both definitions/interpretations as equally correct without taking a definition as correct in your own eyes?

Because I don't personally acccept that the word is totally ambiguous. I think the way I interpret it is correct (of course that doesn't mean I don't respect others interpretations though ).



Baltar said:


> Yes, I was talking about the ork situation. His description fits well with what I believe would actually happen should an ork grab the emperor, and how it came to pass.


Plausable.


----------



## Baltar

Yes, I now see both as correct, without taking a stance, or preference. The use of the word works in both instances (if we assume that the definition is fine - and it is).

The definition isn't ambiguous, but the definition can apply just as easily to both (given that the meaning of the definition isn't specific).

As for the Emperor, I was disappointed that nobody shared their thoughts on my suggestion of the possibility that he may not be human, may not be a corporeal (or mortal) being outside of his host body, and may have his own sinister agenda..


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor

Baltar said:


> As for the Emperor, I was disappointed that nobody shared their thoughts on my suggestion of the possibility that he may not be human, may not be a corporeal (or mortal) being outside of his host body, and may have his own sinister agenda..


You bring up a good point. The problem with that though is classification. (In 40k) Humans have souls that are essentially a bridge into the Warp, whether their souls have any other spiritual/personal properities is unknown. The Emperor (like other powerful Human Psykers, although to a greater extent) has a very strong warp presence presumably via his soul. 

Are Humans corporeal outside of their 'host' bodies? Doubtful, if they have souls which seem to inhabit the warp upon death. But does that stop them being human when their souls inhabit their flesh? No. Where the Emperor is concerned, I personally don't think having a non-corporeal existence pre or post death prevents you being classed as human (at least while your flesh/corporeal form is active), so the Emperor having a non-corporeal existence post-death isn't a problem for me in terms of classing him as a human. Of course though that doesn't automatically mean he is a human, I just don't think this is a strong argument for the case of him not being human. 

We are treading into the territory of warp physics here, where most things are speculatory. But its still fun to discuss.


----------



## Baltar

I'm not really referring to a "soul" as such, it's just that I don't want to say "god/daemon", even though that is the sort of being that I mean - except that he has literally decided to appear in the form of a human, even though he isn't.

I am wondering if the Emperor is a "good guy" at all...


----------



## lawrence96

I personally think that the Emporer is a good guy, but it's the kind of good that views the big picture- It's okay to kill these 20,000 people to save these 40,000 people kind of thing.

The kind of man who values survival of the species over survival of the person.

Problem with good guys like that is under a certain light halos can turn to horns...


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor

Baltar said:


> I'm not really referring to a "soul" as such, it's just that I don't want to say "god/daemon", even though that is the sort of being that I mean - except that he has literally decided to appear in the form of a human, even though he isn't.


Ah right. Its a tough call really, but personally I think that the Emperor is (or at least was) a Human. To me it seems like its a similar principle to Alpha-Plus psykers as an example - who for all intents and purposes cannot even be characterised on the assignment scale because they are too powerful (being able to summon Legions of Greater Daemons, snap Titans in half, liquify entire oceans and worlds etc. If the force of will is present). But are they still Human? I would say so.

In a similar regard, the Emperor can be said to be an Alpha-Plus psyker of some degree, the primary difference being that he maintains an unconquerable force of will with which to master his powers. And in a similar way I would still call him human, but that is just me.

But of course there are loads of theories floating around, ranging from the Emperor being a Xenos, to never having existing at all. All are equally valid and interesting. 

Would it be okay for me to press you further on your theory? Whats your reasoning behind your conclusions? I find it fascinating.


----------



## Baltar

I don't really have anything concrete, (well, that's a truism) but after the sources already given (Jon Grammaticus, The last church), it seems that it's clear that regardless of what the Emperor is or isn't, there have been two fairly firm instances of people perceiving the Emperor as something "different". In Jon Grammaticus's account, it just says that he sees the Emperor for what he truly is - to me that suggests that it would be seeing something "other" than human, as he wouldn't really be startled or shocked by that. As for the last church, nothing like that is given, but it does describe the Emperoras a violent person (I don't recall the exact wording) despite his apparent wishes to bring peace to humanity.


----------



## lawrence96

Well i reckon the "seeing him for what he is" comment probably doesn't mean actual physical form IMO. Probably more like seeing through his words and actions to what he really wants. Or perhaps even seeing through what he was saying to his real meaning ( i haven't read grammar-thingy so i don't know the context in which he was seen for what he was)

As to what he is, i reckon he's a man constructed by Tzeentch. Think about it, tzeentch likes to scheme ect. 

So one day he schemes a way to generate a mas influx of human souls into his cereal bowl and does this by creating a trojan man- someone with such a large psychic presence that when triggered would allow a mass influx of warp denezins to the materium. 

He decides to make this trojan man a great leader (so the amount of people following him when he went off would be at it's maximum) and a great warroir to persuade everyone to follow him.

He gives the man massive powers and intelligence and the will/confidence to use them. Only he doesn't count on this man being to willful and saying "screw you buddy, i'm going home" and decided to rebel and destroy the very thing that created him.

And, in my view at least, tzeentch seems like the typical, mad, bond villian- gives away his plan at the begining and ends up building something so powerful he himself needs protecting from it.


----------



## gen.ahab

Interesting theory but I don't think so. The emperor was the creation of the shamans and came in around 8k bc. Before the supposed creation event of the gods.


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor

gen.ahab said:


> Interesting theory but I don't think so. The emperor was the creation of the shamans and came in around 8k bc. Before the supposed creation event of the gods.


Take into account that that is also just a theory, and is by no means proven. Also the Chaos Gods (bar Slaanesh) gaining consciousness in Terra's middleages seems to have been written out as well, which is for the better in my opinion.


----------



## lawrence96

Who's to say the two theories are not intertwined? Shaman's plan (or scheme) to save their sould ect. Tzeentch either takes notice of this, or the scheming of the shamans (which would of been a long scheme- not "fancy killing yourself today Joe?" "Sure Bob, why not?") created Tzeentch and the "birthing event" was the emporer being born. What might be 3months in human time could be 300yrs in warp time.

Plus remeber the chaos gods have always existed- they might of been born in 1942 by our timeline but have always existed.


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor

lawrence96 said:


> Plus remeber the chaos gods have always existed- they might of been born in 1942 by our timeline but have always existed.


And yet have never existed at all. :shok:


----------



## World Eater XII

Dammit man stop messing with reality....mine anyways


----------



## Serpion5

"My reality is mine alone..."

What the Emperor IS doesn`t really matter to me.

I find it more interesting to wonder what he will be in the future. (something a bit more exciting than "Dead.")

If faith is strong, and his soul strong enough, maybe he can become immortal after all.


----------

