Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Settra is truly a villain

124

Comments

  • GoatforceGoatforce Registered Users Posts: 7,082

    Goatforce said:

    Villain - something or someone considered harmful or dangerous

    Do his supporters not consider him at least 'dangerous'? Mildly irritating at least.

    I don't think that is a great definition of Villain. Every major WH character is dangerous, almost by definition of being a WH special character.
    But then it is a description, there's no good or bad descriptions, just descriptions. You could say he does more harm than good in the WH world, while the characters who are considered order do more good than harm. Like everything it's a scale.
    There are bad definitions (I assume that is what you mean when you say "description") absolutely. By your initial description literally everyone in WH, or most fantasy setting, would be considered a villain (Aragorn for example is an incredibly dangerous man, and kills many so could be said to be doing great harm, but he is obviously not a villain). That I would say is a terrible definition as it is incredibly loose and thus does not fit the purpose of a definition - to define things, in a way that accurately describes or catagorises what you are defining.

    Your new definition seems better, and I would say Settra bringing peace and prosperity to his land speaks heavily in his favour on that. He also did the same thing again when he brought the newly risen Tomb Kings to order (thought there were no "common folk" to meaningfully suffer the result of the war that time. He did a lot of evil true, but even if doing good was not his specific intent he did do a lot of it for his people.
  • KuntingWarriorKuntingWarrior Registered Users Posts: 3,288
    edited September 24
    All Brutus succeeded in doing was cementing himself as a beta geek who betrayed his own friends and getting cut down like the mongrel he was in the end. While Ceasar will be remembered for his achievements and glory for all time, a man of high virtue and thumos that was cut down by those beneath him. A man who ushered in a new age of conquest and expansion for Rome, of great deeds.
  • GoatforceGoatforce Registered Users Posts: 7,082

    Goatforce said:

    Awaken guys and look at the lore. In life Setyra is described as a mad selfosh magalomaniac snd tyrant obsessed with power and eternal life. She was a great ruler and conquerer but not a nice man. But it is okay for any ruler who wants to achieve something because in this situation the results he achieves for development of his country are more important. But if we look at the lore it has had been written many times that even a saint who becomes undead with the duration of time becomes a mad evil maniac because he's sustained by corrupted winds of magic. So citra who was not a kind man and his real life do you think he's a goody goody when he's sustained by powers of undeath? Guys it's pathetic. If we look at the end of times he has made the marriage you but every character and end of times is not the character it was in Warhammer setting. This crap is not about bahama it's something else and even there Sandra is a cool steelix guy but not the kind of man he's just a William fighting for himself against other more powerful villains that's it.

    You are thinking of Vampires, Tomb Kings are very different and I don't believe their form of Undeath corrupts them, they are just themselves. Settra is Settra, honestly even if TK Undeath was corruptive he is probably too stubbornly prideful to be warped by it, he is literally so strong willed he learned magic with no connection to it, a feat which is literally considered impossible.

    So your point is kinda negated by a fundamental misunderstanding of the TK's form of Undeath, and Settra's fundamental character.
    If you read the lore more carefully or all I have read you d understand you are wrong. Vampire, necromancer, reanimated tomb king, aven a liche priest using lore of light are all sustained and in constant contact with corrupted form of magic - and it inevitably with duration of time makes them to loose their mind and become evil as they reflect the magic sustaining them - it has been written and rewritten in all undead lore from armybook undead to all other armybooks, lore books, books telling about winds of magic, in Liber Necris and all sourcebooks. I have alvays had liked settra from 4th edition when by the lore after raising and several hundreds of battles he did not manage tp fully control city and mausoleums of Khemri and all his wars with Bretonnia. Later he got more fleshed out and even more cool. But he has alvays been evil (even in his mortal life). A talanted charismatic villian - thats vhy he is cool, not because he is modarn crap holywood standard seems evil but good in his heart but angry because his kitten was killed by hooligans vhen he was a kid. He has alvays had been a villian in the lore - why do you want to paint him white - it ll spoil him and be not Settra the Imperishable but some petty clown .

    Stop making merry sue from Settra - in his proud glory he ll not forgive your audacity)))
    I see literally no reference in modern lore to Tomb Kings or Liche priest degenerating to madness due to the magic that sustains them, so I am going to have to ask for an explicit source for that. If the source is from 4th edition then I assume that it has been reconned and is now incorrect as I do not believe the TK books from 6th onwards reference this at all. In other words it is old, outdated lore that no-longer holds true, again unless you have a modern source, but checking it the only references that seem to match yours are 4th, and thus are outdated, from when TKs were not even fleshed out as their own race (which explains your mistaken conflation of all undead, as this was a period when they were all in the same book).

    I did not say that Settra is a good person, in fact I openly stated he was not and that a megalomaniac is a good discriptor of him. I said he is not a villain and that is a separate thing. In utilitarian terms he did a great deal of good for his people. In terms of "antagonist" he is the leader of a broadly neutral race that only acts in hostility after being attacked or trespassed upon, and opposes the great villains of the setting (Chaos - although passive on this - and Nagash).

    He was a tyrant, but that does not automatically make him a villain in the WH setting.

    How am I making him a Mary Sue? I have acknowledged him as someone who is a tyrant, and have never denied the fact, I am simply saying that he did a lot of good too and that I do not consider him a WH villain. If you think saying that is making him a Mary Sue then you have no understanding of what the term means.
  • Lord_ZarkovLord_Zarkov Registered Users Posts: 380
    Goatforce said:

    Goatforce said:

    Awaken guys and look at the lore. In life Setyra is described as a mad selfosh magalomaniac snd tyrant obsessed with power and eternal life. She was a great ruler and conquerer but not a nice man. But it is okay for any ruler who wants to achieve something because in this situation the results he achieves for development of his country are more important. But if we look at the lore it has had been written many times that even a saint who becomes undead with the duration of time becomes a mad evil maniac because he's sustained by corrupted winds of magic. So citra who was not a kind man and his real life do you think he's a goody goody when he's sustained by powers of undeath? Guys it's pathetic. If we look at the end of times he has made the marriage you but every character and end of times is not the character it was in Warhammer setting. This crap is not about bahama it's something else and even there Sandra is a cool steelix guy but not the kind of man he's just a William fighting for himself against other more powerful villains that's it.

    You are thinking of Vampires, Tomb Kings are very different and I don't believe their form of Undeath corrupts them, they are just themselves. Settra is Settra, honestly even if TK Undeath was corruptive he is probably too stubbornly prideful to be warped by it, he is literally so strong willed he learned magic with no connection to it, a feat which is literally considered impossible.

    So your point is kinda negated by a fundamental misunderstanding of the TK's form of Undeath, and Settra's fundamental character.
    If you read the lore more carefully or all I have read you d understand you are wrong. Vampire, necromancer, reanimated tomb king, aven a liche priest using lore of light are all sustained and in constant contact with corrupted form of magic - and it inevitably with duration of time makes them to loose their mind and become evil as they reflect the magic sustaining them - it has been written and rewritten in all undead lore from armybook undead to all other armybooks, lore books, books telling about winds of magic, in Liber Necris and all sourcebooks. I have alvays had liked settra from 4th edition when by the lore after raising and several hundreds of battles he did not manage tp fully control city and mausoleums of Khemri and all his wars with Bretonnia. Later he got more fleshed out and even more cool. But he has alvays been evil (even in his mortal life). A talanted charismatic villian - thats vhy he is cool, not because he is modarn crap holywood standard seems evil but good in his heart but angry because his kitten was killed by hooligans vhen he was a kid. He has alvays had been a villian in the lore - why do you want to paint him white - it ll spoil him and be not Settra the Imperishable but some petty clown .

    Stop making merry sue from Settra - in his proud glory he ll not forgive your audacity)))
    I see literally no reference in modern lore to Tomb Kings or Liche priest degenerating to madness due to the magic that sustains them, so I am going to have to ask for an explicit source for that. If the source is from 4th edition then I assume that it has been reconned and is now incorrect as I do not believe the TK books from 6th onwards reference this at all. In other words it is old, outdated lore that no-longer holds true, again unless you have a modern source, but checking it the only references that seem to match yours are 4th, and thus are outdated, from when TKs were not even fleshed out as their own race (which explains your mistaken conflation of all undead, as this was a period when they were all in the same book).

    I did not say that Settra is a good person, in fact I openly stated he was not and that a megalomaniac is a good discriptor of him. I said he is not a villain and that is a separate thing. In utilitarian terms he did a great deal of good for his people. In terms of "antagonist" he is the leader of a broadly neutral race that only acts in hostility after being attacked or trespassed upon, and opposes the great villains of the setting (Chaos - although passive on this - and Nagash).

    He was a tyrant, but that does not automatically make him a villain in the WH setting.

    How am I making him a Mary Sue? I have acknowledged him as someone who is a tyrant, and have never denied the fact, I am simply saying that he did a lot of good too and that I do not consider him a WH villain. If you think saying that is making him a Mary Sue then you have no understanding of what the term means.
    In both TK books there’s plenty of lore about the various kings going a bit nuts because they are undead.

    The BL lore book Liber Necris (late 6th/early 7th) also went into quite a bit of detail in the corrupting effect of Dhar on sentient undead, although it is written from Mannfred’s perspective so there is some degree of bias there. In any case all undead are powered by Dhar (albeit very Shyish biased Dhar); the spell that awakened the TK specifically involved obscene amounts of warp stone and the Black Pyramid’s Dhar reservoir; and Dhar is inherently corrupting as is spelled out literally everywhere it’s talked about.

    That said, undead Settra is probably less villainous than living Settra. He’s content mostly to rule his current lands, keeps the other kings more or less in line and contained, and directs them against some of the settings top level threats.

    Living Settra went on an unending conquering spree and warped his whole civilisation into a monument to his own ego with his quest for immortality. While arguably the reduction in wars from him conquering everyone may have been a net positive, that’s a happy accident rather than any sort of intent from Settra who only cared about himself. And even characters who intentionally go about about conquering everyone to ‘bring stability’ are generally considered villains! And if you give Settra credit for the unintentional benefits of the reduced wars from conquering everyone, then you should account for the fact his quest for immortality and founding of the Mortuary Cult directly let to the rise of Nagash. And the negatives of that far outweigh any net positive from his reign!
  • SchwarzhelmSchwarzhelm Registered Users Posts: 2,453
    @Goatforce

    +1
    Also the mary sue comment makes zero sense.
    A mary sue is perfect and beloved by everyone while Settra is evil, hated by alot and definitely not perfect giving his flaws. He is just not a villain in the warhammer setting which doesn't mean he is suddenly good or missunderstood, he just doesn't have the drive of the chaos/destruction races.
  • SchwarzhelmSchwarzhelm Registered Users Posts: 2,453
    @Lord_Zarkov
    As far as I know the TK went nuts because they were sentinal beings in undead bodies.
    They were promised eternal life and didn't cope well with their situation.
    For me this is not the same as the madness necromancers and vampires suffer from constantly using Dhar, as far as IU now TK were mentioned to be like them.
  • IoriYamadaIoriYamada WalesRegistered Users Posts: 767
    Goatforce said:

    Goatforce said:

    Villain - something or someone considered harmful or dangerous

    Do his supporters not consider him at least 'dangerous'? Mildly irritating at least.

    I don't think that is a great definition of Villain. Every major WH character is dangerous, almost by definition of being a WH special character.
    But then it is a description, there's no good or bad descriptions, just descriptions. You could say he does more harm than good in the WH world, while the characters who are considered order do more good than harm. Like everything it's a scale.
    There are bad definitions (I assume that is what you mean when you say "description") absolutely. By your initial description literally everyone in WH, or most fantasy setting, would be considered a villain (Aragorn for example is an incredibly dangerous man, and kills many so could be said to be doing great harm, but he is obviously not a villain). That I would say is a terrible definition as it is incredibly loose and thus does not fit the purpose of a definition - to define things, in a way that accurately describes or catagorises what you are defining.

    Your new definition seems better, and I would say Settra bringing peace and prosperity to his land speaks heavily in his favour on that. He also did the same thing again when he brought the newly risen Tomb Kings to order (thought there were no "common folk" to meaningfully suffer the result of the war that time. He did a lot of evil true, but even if doing good was not his specific intent he did do a lot of it for his people.
    Yes, describing a definition, let's not delve into boring semantics as well.

    No, I'm going off the accepted moral system prevalent in the UK where Western Utilitarianism originates. Fighting a war for a greater good is not seen as the act of a villain. The harm comes from the over all action rather than an abstract action without context.

  • ROMOBOYROMOBOY Registered Users Posts: 4,357

    ROMOBOY said:

    Xenos7777 said:

    I fail to understand how bias one can be to not understand a tyrannical ruler is effectively evil...

    Settra is a vilain, not the kind of ruler 99% of any of you would want to be ruled by.

    Every ruler in authoritarian political systems is a tyrant.
    Debatable. I’m sure there are some dictators that were actually noble in history (although rare I’m sure).
    Imagine thinking Julius Ceasar was a bad guy, just lol.

    Glory to Rome.
    Exactly. The senate was a ring of rats, and Julius Caesar was the working man’s idol. Based Roman facts. (My name is Roman btw).
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

    Cathay > Chaos Dwarfs = Pain

  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,385
  • Cryptic_FreezeCryptic_Freeze Registered Users Posts: 426
    Settra is a GOD and you are a worm
  • Cryptic_FreezeCryptic_Freeze Registered Users Posts: 426
    Villain is a narrative term, and Settra is no villain. He has been an antagonist in a singular story, but in terms of his overall roll in the Warhammer universe, his neutrality and complex character is clear.

    Other men of Ptra have said it better than I, but being a tyrant doesn't make you a villain. He is the strong leader his ancient people need.

    Who do you compare him to, the Empire? He is generations older, from a time of different morals and values. Settra and Karl Franz put down rebellions all the same, so how exactly is he a more cruel ruler?
  • KuntingWarriorKuntingWarrior Registered Users Posts: 3,288
    ROMOBOY said:

    ROMOBOY said:

    Xenos7777 said:

    I fail to understand how bias one can be to not understand a tyrannical ruler is effectively evil...

    Settra is a vilain, not the kind of ruler 99% of any of you would want to be ruled by.

    Every ruler in authoritarian political systems is a tyrant.
    Debatable. I’m sure there are some dictators that were actually noble in history (although rare I’m sure).
    Imagine thinking Julius Ceasar was a bad guy, just lol.

    Glory to Rome.
    Exactly. The senate was a ring of rats, and Julius Caesar was the working man’s idol. Based Roman facts. (My name is Roman btw).
    The betrayal of Ceasar by those he had mercy upon is one of the greatest tragedy's in history, even unarmed and unarmoured they had to jump him 30 to 1 just to take the man down, ultimate chad who bedded Egyptian Queens for fun. His deeds and accomplishments brought about a new and prosperous age for his people and still inspire the hearts of men to this day.
  • KuntingWarriorKuntingWarrior Registered Users Posts: 3,288
    Anyone who sees Settra a a villain needs to start deadlift
  • Commissar_GCommissar_G Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 14,584

    Anyone who sees Settra a a villain needs to start deadlift

    I appreciate the linguistic artistry that went in to picking that exact exercise.
    81jt2dj75iky.png


  • GoatforceGoatforce Registered Users Posts: 7,082

    Goatforce said:

    Goatforce said:

    Awaken guys and look at the lore. In life Setyra is described as a mad selfosh magalomaniac snd tyrant obsessed with power and eternal life. She was a great ruler and conquerer but not a nice man. But it is okay for any ruler who wants to achieve something because in this situation the results he achieves for development of his country are more important. But if we look at the lore it has had been written many times that even a saint who becomes undead with the duration of time becomes a mad evil maniac because he's sustained by corrupted winds of magic. So citra who was not a kind man and his real life do you think he's a goody goody when he's sustained by powers of undeath? Guys it's pathetic. If we look at the end of times he has made the marriage you but every character and end of times is not the character it was in Warhammer setting. This crap is not about bahama it's something else and even there Sandra is a cool steelix guy but not the kind of man he's just a William fighting for himself against other more powerful villains that's it.

    You are thinking of Vampires, Tomb Kings are very different and I don't believe their form of Undeath corrupts them, they are just themselves. Settra is Settra, honestly even if TK Undeath was corruptive he is probably too stubbornly prideful to be warped by it, he is literally so strong willed he learned magic with no connection to it, a feat which is literally considered impossible.

    So your point is kinda negated by a fundamental misunderstanding of the TK's form of Undeath, and Settra's fundamental character.
    If you read the lore more carefully or all I have read you d understand you are wrong. Vampire, necromancer, reanimated tomb king, aven a liche priest using lore of light are all sustained and in constant contact with corrupted form of magic - and it inevitably with duration of time makes them to loose their mind and become evil as they reflect the magic sustaining them - it has been written and rewritten in all undead lore from armybook undead to all other armybooks, lore books, books telling about winds of magic, in Liber Necris and all sourcebooks. I have alvays had liked settra from 4th edition when by the lore after raising and several hundreds of battles he did not manage tp fully control city and mausoleums of Khemri and all his wars with Bretonnia. Later he got more fleshed out and even more cool. But he has alvays been evil (even in his mortal life). A talanted charismatic villian - thats vhy he is cool, not because he is modarn crap holywood standard seems evil but good in his heart but angry because his kitten was killed by hooligans vhen he was a kid. He has alvays had been a villian in the lore - why do you want to paint him white - it ll spoil him and be not Settra the Imperishable but some petty clown .

    Stop making merry sue from Settra - in his proud glory he ll not forgive your audacity)))
    I see literally no reference in modern lore to Tomb Kings or Liche priest degenerating to madness due to the magic that sustains them, so I am going to have to ask for an explicit source for that. If the source is from 4th edition then I assume that it has been reconned and is now incorrect as I do not believe the TK books from 6th onwards reference this at all. In other words it is old, outdated lore that no-longer holds true, again unless you have a modern source, but checking it the only references that seem to match yours are 4th, and thus are outdated, from when TKs were not even fleshed out as their own race (which explains your mistaken conflation of all undead, as this was a period when they were all in the same book).

    I did not say that Settra is a good person, in fact I openly stated he was not and that a megalomaniac is a good discriptor of him. I said he is not a villain and that is a separate thing. In utilitarian terms he did a great deal of good for his people. In terms of "antagonist" he is the leader of a broadly neutral race that only acts in hostility after being attacked or trespassed upon, and opposes the great villains of the setting (Chaos - although passive on this - and Nagash).

    He was a tyrant, but that does not automatically make him a villain in the WH setting.

    How am I making him a Mary Sue? I have acknowledged him as someone who is a tyrant, and have never denied the fact, I am simply saying that he did a lot of good too and that I do not consider him a WH villain. If you think saying that is making him a Mary Sue then you have no understanding of what the term means.
    In both TK books there’s plenty of lore about the various kings going a bit nuts because they are undead.

    The BL lore book Liber Necris (late 6th/early 7th) also went into quite a bit of detail in the corrupting effect of Dhar on sentient undead, although it is written from Mannfred’s perspective so there is some degree of bias there. In any case all undead are powered by Dhar (albeit very Shyish biased Dhar); the spell that awakened the TK specifically involved obscene amounts of warp stone and the Black Pyramid’s Dhar reservoir; and Dhar is inherently corrupting as is spelled out literally everywhere it’s talked about.

    That said, undead Settra is probably less villainous than living Settra. He’s content mostly to rule his current lands, keeps the other kings more or less in line and contained, and directs them against some of the settings top level threats.

    Living Settra went on an unending conquering spree and warped his whole civilisation into a monument to his own ego with his quest for immortality. While arguably the reduction in wars from him conquering everyone may have been a net positive, that’s a happy accident rather than any sort of intent from Settra who only cared about himself. And even characters who intentionally go about about conquering everyone to ‘bring stability’ are generally considered villains! And if you give Settra credit for the unintentional benefits of the reduced wars from conquering everyone, then you should account for the fact his quest for immortality and founding of the Mortuary Cult directly let to the rise of Nagash. And the negatives of that far outweigh any net positive from his reign!
    All the talk of madness in them I have seen is based on Tomb Kings horror or denial of what they have become, not because of the magic that animates them. I am aware of what powers necromancy, however my point is there is little evidence of it being significant in affecting the behavior of Tomb Kings. Also corruption in WH is often dependent on the will of the person being corrupted (if it is an insidious corruption rather than embraced), and to say Settra has a will of steel is an understatement. You yourself note Settra as being "less villainous" when he is undead, which rather contradicts the argument of possible corruption too.

    The benefits of reduced wars was quick and tangible in his reign, as was the great prosperity his nation experienced. The rise of Nagash was not, and is so so indirect (especially due to the fact it required the coincidence of capturing Dark Elves with knowledge of sorcery during the specific period Nagash was serving) that attributing it to Settra seems rather ridiculous. Now the decline of Nehekhara due to the cult of death is far more attributable to Settra but as I recall that was a cultural shift that took hold later so I would hesitate to lay the blame at his feet and even if the reason for the start of it all was megalomania I would hardly call starting an order dedicated to learning the secrets of immortal life and such villainous in and of itself.

    Not really. Julius Caesar is remembered as a hero, as are Alexander the Great, Hannibal... Being a conquerer in a more dog-eat-dog age where such things are celebrated and encouraged is hardly a condition of being called a villain. The fact that we remember and often even celebrate great conquerers (even knowing that they have done pretty awful things) means I really struggle to take "Settra conquered a lot of people" seriously as a charge against him with regards to villainy. Also I think using intent as a criteria for villainy is oversimplistic. Someone who has a good intent can easily be a horrible villain (Thanos for example is a "I do the horrible things to save the galaxy" guy), and I don't see why we should not praise a character for the good they did even if it was not the direct intent of that character. Settra was a conquerer in a world at almost constant war, and was amongst the very best at it. Given the fact that national weakness in WH could just as easily result in the eradication of your entire people by Greenskins or the like, a great conquerer seems eminantly desirable as a leader, as during his reign your nation is probably on balance a lot safer.

    Again, Settra was an incredibly unpleasant man, one might even go so far as to call him an evil man and he was certainly a tyrant. However in the context of the WH world and the circumstances of his nation, I just do not see Settra as a villain at all.
  • YurisusukiYurisusuki Somewhere in LustriaRegistered Users Posts: 449
    Honestly this is one of the best discussions I saw on this forum.

    I agree that Settra it's not a nice guy, i mean, someone so arrogant like him it's hardly a. Nice guy, but in my POV, a villain on a world like Warhammer it's someone far more cruel and dangerous than Settra, he is THE leader of Tomb Kings, a neutral race.

    The question about our own history it's pretty fun too, in fact if we put some old conquerors in modern day, and let them do the same things they have done in the last, they will be considered evil, but normally we can't be anachronistic when study history, in some degree we can say the same about fictional characters
    Just as planned

  • DaGangsterDaGangster Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,658
    Just depends on perspective, one persons villain is another persons hero.

    Team Vampire Counts

    "Many players cannot help approaching a game as an optimization puzzle. What gives the most reward for the least risk? What strategy provides the highest chance – or even a guaranteed chance – of success? Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game."

    - Soren Johnson
  • Fingolfin_the-GoldenFingolfin_the-Golden Registered Users Posts: 2,058
    Pocman said:

    I wouldn't call him a tyrant by warhammer standards. Probably not even by real life standards. I mean, people do not remember Alexanfer the Great, Caesar or people like that as villains, just as empire rulers.

    Oh yes they do. Both are remembered as villains for various things in various places.
  • Fingolfin_the-GoldenFingolfin_the-Golden Registered Users Posts: 2,058
    edited September 24

    Villain is a narrative term, and Settra is no villain. He has been an antagonist in a singular story, but in terms of his overall roll in the Warhammer universe, his neutrality and complex character is clear.

    Other men of Ptra have said it better than I, but being a tyrant doesn't make you a villain. He is the strong leader his ancient people need.

    Who do you compare him to, the Empire? He is generations older, from a time of different morals and values. Settra and Karl Franz put down rebellions all the same, so how exactly is he a more cruel ruler?

    It is not a narrative term, but a personality descriptor.
    Villains are bad and want to do bad, that’s why we use a peasant word.
    He is not neutral, he wants to enslave the world. Hi my name is Settra and I want to neutrally enslave you.
  • joproulx99joproulx99 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,250

    ROMOBOY said:

    Xenos7777 said:

    I fail to understand how bias one can be to not understand a tyrannical ruler is effectively evil...

    Settra is a vilain, not the kind of ruler 99% of any of you would want to be ruled by.

    Every ruler in authoritarian political systems is a tyrant.
    Debatable. I’m sure there are some dictators that were actually noble in history (although rare I’m sure).
    Imagine thinking Julius Ceasar was a bad guy, just lol.

    Glory to Rome.
    Are you kidding me???

    Imagine being a community minding your own business and some zealot **** knock at your door and ask you to bow or die?

    Rome was an evil empire sir. Simple as that.
    "Fear me mortals, for I am the Anointed, the favored Son of Chaos, the Scourge of the World. The armies of the gods rally behind me, and it is by my will and by my sword that your weakling nations shall fall."

    ~ Archaon, Lord of the End Times
  • GoatforceGoatforce Registered Users Posts: 7,082

    ROMOBOY said:

    Xenos7777 said:

    I fail to understand how bias one can be to not understand a tyrannical ruler is effectively evil...

    Settra is a vilain, not the kind of ruler 99% of any of you would want to be ruled by.

    Every ruler in authoritarian political systems is a tyrant.
    Debatable. I’m sure there are some dictators that were actually noble in history (although rare I’m sure).
    Imagine thinking Julius Ceasar was a bad guy, just lol.

    Glory to Rome.
    Are you kidding me???

    Imagine being a community minding your own business and some zealot **** knock at your door and ask you to bow or die?

    Rome was an evil empire sir. Simple as that.
    "Gauls under Brennus invaded Rome circa 390 BC.

    By the 5th century BC, the tribes later called Gauls had migrated from Central France to the Mediterranean coast.[7] Gallic invaders settled the Po Valley in the 4th century BC, defeated Roman forces in a battle under Brennus in 390 BC, and raided Italy as far south as Sicily.[1]

    In the early 3rd century BC, the Gauls attempted an eastward expansion, toward the Balkan peninsula. At that time it was a Greek province, and the Gauls intent was to reach and loot the rich Greek city-states of the Greek mainland. But the Greeks exterminated the majority of the Gaulish army, and the few survivors were forced to flee."

    Just a small snippet of Gallic history (as Ceaser was remembered for his wars there, relevant to Roman imperialism). "Minding their own business" is an incredibly strong term since most if not all nations at the time were doing exactly the same things as Rome itself was doing with regards to conquest and the like. The difference? Rome was indisputably the best at it at the time, if the Gauls had conquered Rome the Romans would probably have suffered a vaguely similar fate to the Guals at the hands of the Romans.

    Sorry but acting as if Rome was the bad guy just because it wasn't the underdog, when all the underdogs it conquered were engaged in exactly the same behavior, seems a little off. Also acting like other nations were just victims "minding their own business" seems rather nieve.
  • VildvargVildvarg Registered Users Posts: 1,198
    I think the sticking point is that Settra was thought of first before such characters as Nagash, Morathi, Bel'akor, Mannfred etc, etc.

    Hell Arkhan if tomb king LLs are just on your brain.

    There are far more clear cut villains most people won't argue with you about their intentions.
  • EyeEye Registered Users Posts: 105
    Settra is no more Villain than Volkmar that runs witch hunters who can burn entire village if it show signs of chaos corruption.Or Even Sigmar that wiped out entire norscan villages for sake of revenge.they are all people that will sacrfice anyone to protect things they hold dear. And its up to you to Judge their actions and name them villains or heroes.
  • joproulx99joproulx99 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,250
    Goatforce said:

    ROMOBOY said:

    Xenos7777 said:

    I fail to understand how bias one can be to not understand a tyrannical ruler is effectively evil...

    Settra is a vilain, not the kind of ruler 99% of any of you would want to be ruled by.

    Every ruler in authoritarian political systems is a tyrant.
    Debatable. I’m sure there are some dictators that were actually noble in history (although rare I’m sure).
    Imagine thinking Julius Ceasar was a bad guy, just lol.

    Glory to Rome.
    Are you kidding me???

    Imagine being a community minding your own business and some zealot **** knock at your door and ask you to bow or die?

    Rome was an evil empire sir. Simple as that.
    "Gauls under Brennus invaded Rome circa 390 BC.

    By the 5th century BC, the tribes later called Gauls had migrated from Central France to the Mediterranean coast.[7] Gallic invaders settled the Po Valley in the 4th century BC, defeated Roman forces in a battle under Brennus in 390 BC, and raided Italy as far south as Sicily.[1]

    In the early 3rd century BC, the Gauls attempted an eastward expansion, toward the Balkan peninsula. At that time it was a Greek province, and the Gauls intent was to reach and loot the rich Greek city-states of the Greek mainland. But the Greeks exterminated the majority of the Gaulish army, and the few survivors were forced to flee."

    Just a small snippet of Gallic history (as Ceaser was remembered for his wars there, relevant to Roman imperialism). "Minding their own business" is an incredibly strong term since most if not all nations at the time were doing exactly the same things as Rome itself was doing with regards to conquest and the like. The difference? Rome was indisputably the best at it at the time, if the Gauls had conquered Rome the Romans would probably have suffered a vaguely similar fate to the Guals at the hands of the Romans.

    Sorry but acting as if Rome was the bad guy just because it wasn't the underdog, when all the underdogs it conquered were engaged in exactly the same behavior, seems a little off. Also acting like other nations were just victims "minding their own business" seems rather nieve.
    Written by roman hands though.

    And even if true (we dont really know, and will never know), all it would prove is they were all villains lol, still villain.

    Yet I assume some villains started the show and engineered enemies who had to become as villainous to survive in a never ending vicious cycle, such is the way of human history, trauma engineering evil in survivors and perpetual violence about the lie that is vengeance.
    "Fear me mortals, for I am the Anointed, the favored Son of Chaos, the Scourge of the World. The armies of the gods rally behind me, and it is by my will and by my sword that your weakling nations shall fall."

    ~ Archaon, Lord of the End Times
  • JastalllJastalll Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,357

    Settra’s definitely a villain by objective standards - the narcissistic warmongering tyrant who tries to conquer the whole world and reshapes his whole civilisation to obsess over death in his attempt to satisfy his quest for eternal life is the primary villain of many a setting.

    However in Warhammer you have the likes of Nagash and Archaeon who want to kill the entire world and Malekith and Morathi who are willing to risk it trying to achieve similar ends to Settra, so he ends up closer to neutral in comparison.

    The Tomb Kings average out at neutral, but they’re still a spectrum. Khalida is at the more benevolent end and Settra the villainous one, even if he’s not as bad as Nagash.

    Yeah, in many other settings he'd 100% be a villain. It's just that Warhamemr has so many atrocious people that a guy who's just bad doesn't stand out too much. It's difficult for the ruthless tyrant and conqueror to come across as evil when he's mostly fighting an omnicidal necromancer who wants to turn the entire planet into mindless zombies.

    Which is why using him as an example of a villain in the blog alongside Archaon is odd to me. Even if they meant to use villains who initially had good motivations, Malekith is a much better fit since he actually had good intentions at some point (whereas Settra has always been Settra) and now he most empathically doesn't anymore.
  • GoatforceGoatforce Registered Users Posts: 7,082

    Goatforce said:

    ROMOBOY said:

    Xenos7777 said:

    I fail to understand how bias one can be to not understand a tyrannical ruler is effectively evil...

    Settra is a vilain, not the kind of ruler 99% of any of you would want to be ruled by.

    Every ruler in authoritarian political systems is a tyrant.
    Debatable. I’m sure there are some dictators that were actually noble in history (although rare I’m sure).
    Imagine thinking Julius Ceasar was a bad guy, just lol.

    Glory to Rome.
    Are you kidding me???

    Imagine being a community minding your own business and some zealot **** knock at your door and ask you to bow or die?

    Rome was an evil empire sir. Simple as that.
    "Gauls under Brennus invaded Rome circa 390 BC.

    By the 5th century BC, the tribes later called Gauls had migrated from Central France to the Mediterranean coast.[7] Gallic invaders settled the Po Valley in the 4th century BC, defeated Roman forces in a battle under Brennus in 390 BC, and raided Italy as far south as Sicily.[1]

    In the early 3rd century BC, the Gauls attempted an eastward expansion, toward the Balkan peninsula. At that time it was a Greek province, and the Gauls intent was to reach and loot the rich Greek city-states of the Greek mainland. But the Greeks exterminated the majority of the Gaulish army, and the few survivors were forced to flee."

    Just a small snippet of Gallic history (as Ceaser was remembered for his wars there, relevant to Roman imperialism). "Minding their own business" is an incredibly strong term since most if not all nations at the time were doing exactly the same things as Rome itself was doing with regards to conquest and the like. The difference? Rome was indisputably the best at it at the time, if the Gauls had conquered Rome the Romans would probably have suffered a vaguely similar fate to the Guals at the hands of the Romans.

    Sorry but acting as if Rome was the bad guy just because it wasn't the underdog, when all the underdogs it conquered were engaged in exactly the same behavior, seems a little off. Also acting like other nations were just victims "minding their own business" seems rather nieve.
    Written by roman hands though.

    And even if true (we dont really know, and will never know), all it would prove is they were all villains lol, still villain.

    Yet I assume some villains started the show and engineered enemies who had to become as villainous to survive in a never ending vicious cycle, such is the way of human history, trauma engineering evil in survivors and perpetual violence about the lie that is vengeance.
    And you think the Greeks didn't have records of the attacks on them?

    As I recall Romans were pretty big on record keeping, we can be pretty sure - certain even - these things happened - these things also happened before the Roman Empire was really a thing. I really don't get where the logic of "they were bad so lets not trust their records", the wierd revisionism of they were an empire so we must discredit and distrust their works is rather perverse.

    You are going to have to define villain, because by that logic the word has become so broad it has completely lost meaning.

    The world was a more savage place back then, more Darwinian in a way. The things they did were awful by our standards, and would have been horrible to live through, but judging them as evil for doing what was seen as perfectly legitimate by virtually every nation and people on earth at the time is uncharitable and reductive. These people did not live in our time, they did not share our ethics (more importantly they couldn't share our ethics as the ethical innovations that led to them had not been made), their context was completely different.

    "Some villain"? Again with the reductivism. History isn't a comic book where the bad can be traced back to some cackling nefarious villain behind it all, there was no "Adam and Eve" of humanity's violence. Humanity has been in conflict for numerous reasons, some stupid like a lord who desired power, some eminantly sensible like conflict over resources that were needed to keep their people fed. These conflicts can then lead to grudges and plant the seed of further violence not connected directly to the original conflict. In most of history's conflict you would probably be hard-pressed to find singular causes for the violence.
  • TrihnicusTrihnicus Registered Users Posts: 2
    Any logic that makes Settra a villain for being a conquerer can be used to decry all government as evil. They are all born and bred from war. Behaviors that improve humanity should generally be described as "good". And Settra improved his world. The fact that he considers it his gods given right to unite those peoples isnt exactly a mark against him. Mostly because it was true.

    Good and Evil are not absolutes. They are relative values set in any given time period by the common practices and thoughts of the day.

    Settra was a good leader. And by the standards of an age defined with blood, death and misery, a good enough man.
  • Fingolfin_the-GoldenFingolfin_the-Golden Registered Users Posts: 2,058
    Good and evil are pretty absolute in Warhammer.
    Settra is a villain.
  • Commissar_GCommissar_G Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 14,584

    Good and evil are pretty absolute in Warhammer.
    Settra is a villain.

    I normally appreciate your baiting attempts for what they are.

    This was pretty pathetic.
    81jt2dj75iky.png


  • KuntingWarriorKuntingWarrior Registered Users Posts: 3,288

    Anyone who sees Settra a a villain needs to start deadlift

    I appreciate the linguistic artistry that went in to picking that exact exercise.
    Hey yo, you know who I am, but you don't know why I'm here? Coconut.
Sign In or Register to comment.