Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yes, and that is the tragedy. Yes, it is one-dimensional. And that is ok.

 F.E.A.R. wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Who do you consider a tragic character? Got any examples?

40K; Saul Tarvitz; Loken; Torgaddon

Aside from 40K, Arthas the Lich King, Illidan Stormrage (Warcraft); Anakin Skywalker (Star Wars); LOTR Boromir.

Don't write tragedies when you can't. I can't do mathematics, thus I cannot be a maths teacher. Same problem with GW's 40K, don't have multiple writers write the same thing.

So.

The only one of those I’ll agree with as tragic is Arthas, who is unabashedly one of my favorite video game stories / characters.

Ironically I’m also a big fan of Illidan, but he doesn’t have the first whiff of tragedy about him. OG Illidan is a fun anti-hero but he very much brought everything on himself. New Illidan, ala Legion, is simply a good guy who doesn’t like to talk to / trust others. Sacrificing the bits that made him fun (bring an ego maniac drug addict who was hugely self centered) to just make him a good guy without the brain power to properly communicate his intent.

Anakin is a laugh. He’s supposed to be a tragedy, I’ll give you that, but it’s ironic that you mention Angron as an example of people ‘staying in their lane’ and not doing things they can’t do… because Lucas COULD NOT write tragedy. As a result Anakin is just a whining cry baby surrounded by brain damaged mongoloids with no perception beyond what’s right infront of them.

Boromir I’ll give you. No arguments there. I know I said "the only one I'll give you" initially, but admittedly I forgot he was even on the list. My bad.

Anyway, the point here is that opinion is the ultimate arbiter. Angron is not a terribly interesting character because he’s at his “end state” for most of the heresy (and, more-over, the heresy just isn't that interesting of a story - and isn't well written to boot), but his story is quite tragic in the Grecian sense, as it’s supposed to be. It’s okay that you don’t like him (his characterization in the heresy is weak and he’s honestly super annoying), but that’s an issue with what we’re given to focus on; not his design. But it becomes laughable when you start trotting out examples like Illidan and Anakin, who are similarly weak on execution while also being significantly worse in actual context.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think the real complaint is that Angron and the World Eaters are fairly one-dimensional. There isn't much beneath the surface of "woes is me, we are forced to be mindless killing machines! what a tragedy!"

Is that true? Yes. Is that a problem? No. If you want a more nuanced chaos faction with a tragic backstory do Thousand Sons. Angron and the World Eaters are one dimensional because they are supposed to be one dimensional.

Chaos in general is cartoon super villian levels of one dimensional evil, and the World Eaters are the most one dimensionally evil of them all. They're just angry and kill stuff because they are lobotomized murder hobos. No more nuance and depth is required. If you want that that is ok, just don't complain that it can't be found in the World Eaters and their Primarch.

Tell me you haven't read any of the WE POV HH novels, without actually telling me.

 morganfreeman wrote:


So.

The only one of those I’ll agree with as tragic is Arthas, who is unabashedly one of my favorite video game stories / characters.

Ironically I’m also a big fan of Illidan, but he doesn’t have the first whiff of tragedy about him. OG Illidan is a fun anti-hero but he very much brought everything on himself. New Illidan, ala Legion, is simply a good guy who doesn’t like to talk to / trust others. Sacrificing the bits that made him fun (bring an ego maniac drug addict who was hugely self centered) to just make him a good guy without the brain power to properly communicate his intent.

Anakin is a laugh. He’s supposed to be a tragedy, I’ll give you that, but it’s ironic that you mention Angron as an example of people ‘staying in their lane’ and not doing things they can’t do… because Lucas COULD NOT write tragedy. As a result Anakin is just a whining cry baby surrounded by brain damaged mongoloids with no perception beyond what’s right infront of them.

Boromir I’ll give you. No arguments there. I know I said "the only one I'll give you" initially, but admittedly I forgot he was even on the list. My bad.

Anyway, the point here is that opinion is the ultimate arbiter. Angron is not a terribly interesting character because he’s at his “end state” for most of the heresy (and, more-over, the heresy just isn't that interesting of a story - and isn't well written to boot), but his story is quite tragic in the Grecian sense, as it’s supposed to be. It’s okay that you don’t like him (his characterization in the heresy is weak and he’s honestly super annoying), but that’s an issue with what we’re given to focus on; not his design. But it becomes laughable when you start trotting out examples like Illidan and Anakin, who are similarly weak on execution while also being significantly worse in actual context.

Same Arthas is also my favorite video game character, what makes Arthas so tragic is the choices he makes. Arthas is not locked in this destiny where he has no choice. Arthas makes all the "right" choices and does everything to defeat the Undead and save his homeland and people. He goes to the very ends of the earth, however on his journey to "truly" save his people, he was warned, Medivh warned him to not do it, because with every fallen man, a new undead warrior arises, Arthas didn't listen, Jaina begged him, he still refused, thinking he was doing the right thing, the spirits that guarded Frostmourne warned him to go back, he didn't, when he defeated them he said "still trying to protect the sword" to which the spirit replied "trying to protect you, from IT". They enter the chamber, Muradin reads the curse on Frostmourne and tells Arthas to get the hell out of there, and at the very last Arthas says "I will gladly bear any curse to save my own people". Ultimately damning himself and his people.

From what I recall Illidan wasn't accepted by his brother and Tyrande, I think he was made the bad guy because he accepted daemonic powers by Sargeras, he wanted to save his people, but his plans were interrupted (like always), was imprisoned 10K years, banished, and still did good. As from Legion on wards IDK what's going on except that everyone wanted Illidan to return, he did, he defeated Sargeras and that was it.

I'm not a huge Star Wars fan but this is all I know from the films. That's all I know from the surface I've scratched of Star Wars.

Boromir is a tragic hero.

Angron is supposed to be this Oedipus but doesn't work out. The problem with 40K generally, as mostly shown in Angron's and Mortarion's case and that is the problem of free will. The authors of 40K write the books with no free will on the bigger picture something the casual reader won't notice. Angron has no choice, this is what makes him less of an interesting character, did he chose to be a Daemon Prince? No!

Mortarion was forced to serve Nurgle because he infused them with AIDS and gave him the illusion of choice, serve me or perish eternally, to which Mortarion accepted to serve Nurgle.

It contradicts the set up, it's simple it's not heckting complicated, 9 loyalists vs 9 traitors. The loyalists stay with the Emperor, while the others accept Horus and the Dark Gods. But we don't have this, because we have forceful conversions, destiny horse gak, but then some wanted to join Chaos and some didn't, and then there were more loyalist than traitors and so on and so on. A complete freaking mess.

No, I don't think they were going for that. Oedipus made choices in attempt to avoid his preordained fate that actually cause it to occur. Angron made zero choices because he was never given one, even a false choice like Mortarion. The tragedy of Oedipus is that if anybody involved had ignored the prophecy none of it would have happened.

If anything, Angron is anti-Oedipus. Oedipus shows that reacting in fear of something can cause it to happen. Angron shows that sometimes you never get given a choice and life just sucks, so you might as well just rage at the world.

Are the Primarchs being needed to stabilize the geneseed of their legions still a thing?

If so, that may explain why the Emp's and Horus were reluctant to kill off Angron--as long as he was around, his legion could be effectively reinforced.

I'd like to think that once the Emperor had managed to create and contain a human webway, he would have arranged an 'accident' for the more unstable primarchs and simply allowed their legions to decline from simple attrition--perhaps reinforcing them with more stable geneseed so that they would eventually simply be loyalist legions with a different name.

The Primarchs provided a pure source with which to create more geneseed but they were also a massive investment for the Emperor and getting rid of Angron just because he had the brain scramblies wasn't really an option at that late stage of the Crusade.

By the time the damage was done, two Legions and their Primarchs had been lost so getting rid of another one that served its purpose of breaking the most difficult of enemies also was not an option.

 morganfreeman wrote:
Angron's a solid tragedy. He's got the perfect mixture of unstoppable powerhouse and abject failure which makes a really solid character story.

The issue is that Angron's a large-scale player in the Heresy, rather than his own side story. As a result the interesting part of Angron's story are minimal, and then his "end state" is highly present after that. And while that 'end state' has some enjoyable moments, it has no development to offer and therefor gets tedious.

TLDR that someone's said before: Angron's an excellent story, but a fairly boring character.

This. Totally this. Angron's origin story is reasonably interesting/compelling. It's just that he's kind of prevented from every being interesting again by the way he is now.

Like, when Magnus shows up in a story, I find myself wondering if he's going to betray someone, what esoteric psyker shenanigans he's going to be up to, whether his whole shattered soul thing or relationship with Ahriman will come into play. If Angron (or any Khorne character really) shows up, I just go, "Oh hey. I bet he screams a bunch, swings something sharp, and provokes zero interesting trains of thought."

(Am happy to be pointed towards some interesting Khorne characters, but so far the most interesting ones I've come across are the ones who act the least Khorne-y.)

Regarding tragic characters, I'm surprised no one has pointed to Magnus or Ahriman yet. They can both be prideful jerks, sure, but hubris is a classic tragic trait. In both cases, they're well-intentioned, but their hubris and desperation lead to them heaping tragedy on top of tragedy. Kurze can be read as tragic, but he's complicated enough to be a less clear-cut example.

It’s also that his tragedy was taken on to the shoulders of his sons, in an attempt to curry favour with him. And they had to do that because….of the butcher’s nails.

Maybe that's just me, but I feel the point that is missed is variety amongst the character. If all primarchs were angrons of sort, that would be boring.

But there you have got one character with that addiction/enslavment/self esteem issue, that marks him out amongst the rest. It is not the least creative character they came up with in my eyes.

It's a paradox to me that having characters with, in essence, shortcomings, imperfections of their own would irritate people, and end up seemingly asking for all characters to be the same... Dull.

I don't know why Angron is singled out as being uninteresting when the entire loyalist line-up save Guilliman and the Khan (and maybe Leman Russ in an unintentionally sympathetic butt monkey sense) are standing right there.

Every other loyalist Primarch is functionally interchangeable.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
I don't know why Angron is singled out as being uninteresting when the entire loyalist line-up save Guilliman and the Khan (and maybe Leman Russ in an unintentionally sympathetic butt monkey sense) are standing right there.

Every other loyalist Primarch is functionally interchangeable.

Honestly, a lot of it is the flashy aesthetics/gimmicks. You won't see Guilliman howling like a literal wolf and communing with the genius loci of his planet. Corax may not have an especially unique personality, but you won't get his wraith slipping super powers or sneaky tactics from Dorn. When the Khan shows up, you get excited to see some bike stunts or some philosophizing on the council of Nikea. When Corax or Alpharius show up, you can get excited to see what sneaky method they use to overcome overwhelming odds. When Russ shows up, you can expect a bunch of howling and viking stuff. When Magnus shows up, you can expect some glimpses into the nature of psychic powers or a speech about the future of humanity's psykers. When Fulgrim shows up, you can expect some bishonen fabulousness and Slaaneshi creepiness.

When Angron shows up, you can pretty much just expect tantrums. Which is:
A.) A bit boring on its own.
B.) Actively annoying if you find it frustrating to watch characters shut down rational discussions with pointless rage.
C.) A bit redundant with most of the primarchs as most of them tend to get shouty and stabby at least every now and again.

Again, this all mostly applies to post-backstory Angron.

I disagree. When Angron shows up I find I get some of the most introspective (maybe thats not the right word) psychological profiling/deep dive storytelling of any of the primarchs.

Everything you listed there about the other primarchs is the same aesthetic/gimmicky window dressing you referred to, theres no real depth to it, no character behind it.

With Angron though you see a character that is actually tormented and angst-ridden for actual reasons (unlike Corax or Curze who are just edgy sadbois), and the dynamic and relationship between him and his legion is fascinating. The whole "our Legion is ashamed of our Primarch, we think he is a flawed and broken creature, we took the butchers nails to try to make ourselves more like him in the hopes we could understand him and find something to love about our father" thing is actually deep storytelling that resonates with me (and others I know, though sadly not everyone) and gives I think more insight into the mind of a Primarch and an Astartes than you get from most of the other storytelling (which is ironic considering that we're talking about the most deranged bunch of them, but there we are).

Uh, Curze isn't an edgy sadboy. He's an unhinged lunatic driven insane by visions of a dark future.

Corax, also not edgy. Yes, he was grim but he came from a world of slaves and didn't exactly have the upbringing where one could develop into a Regular Joe with normal social skills.

I like Corax, but I think you can safely call the goth primarch with shadow powers and a tragic backstory "edgy." If someone rolled up a D&D character that was basically Corax with the numbers filed off, I'd consider it "edgy."

Everything you listed there about the other primarchs is the same aesthetic/gimmicky window dressing you referred to, theres no real depth to it, no character behind it.

With Angron though you see a character that is actually tormented and angst-ridden for actual reasons (unlike Corax or Curze who are just edgy sadbois), and the dynamic and relationship between him and his legion is fascinating. The whole "our Legion is ashamed of our Primarch, we think he is a flawed and broken creature, we took the butchers nails to try to make ourselves more like him in the hopes we could understand him and find something to love about our father" thing is actually deep storytelling that resonates with me (and others I know, though sadly not everyone) and gives I think more insight into the mind of a Primarch and an Astartes than you get from most of the other storytelling (which is ironic considering that we're talking about the most deranged bunch of them, but there we are).

Fair points. For me, this still comes back to Angron's origin story/early arc being interesting but his character after that point less so.

"Hey Goreblud the Skull Claimer, what do you want for dinner?"

"How dare you ask me that? GRAAAAAAWR!"

"Darn it, Goreblud! Your daddy issues were sad 10,000 years ago. Now you're just being annoying and unhelpful. And for Khorne's sake, stop putting nails in your little brothers!"

Compare to, say, Ahriman. Who despite being hung up on the rubric for millennia, is at least still taking steps to address it and can have a full conversation. The Lion is pretty dull ( to me), but at least he has this whole... forgiveness/redemption/changes to how the Fallen are being handled angle to pursue. Guilliman is like, my 3rd least favorite primarch, but on paper the concept of a primarch trying to wrangle the disappointment the imperium has become into a less terrible shape at least gives you some new material to explore.

I guess in Angron's case, he was interesting during the Great Crusade, and then he just became way less interesting. Or at least ran out of material. And when you watch him work, you don't get anything gimmicky or clever to flavor his brand of warfare. No convoluted Alpharius plots. No viking stuff. No weird magic or Curze-style horror movie stuff. Not even the fun dissonance of brutalitly and fabulousness you get with Fulgrim. It's just... Run forward. Hit things.

So he's bringing nothing new to the table in terms of character development (after his initial arc), and he's not going about his business in an especially interesting way. If you just really like big dudes doing melee, or if you get infinite mileage out of the context of the tragedy from his initial arc, more power to you. But I think you can see why that wouldn't hold up for everyone.

I still disagree. His interaction with his legion (Kharn and Sarrin in particular, but theres probably another half dozen less notable moments over the series) as he loses his grip on sanity and progresses deeper into daemonhood is fascinating and provides a lot of depth of character. Although I guess, in a way, what I find so interesting about Angron is not so much what Angron himself says or does, but what others think about Angron as they interact with him - particular those within the World Eaters legion.

My view on this whole Angron vs tagedy thing.

Comparing him to other tragedy stories is moot.

You are not suppose to like to Angron or even relate to him. He has no choices. In the Angron story recently in the new setting the author refers to him as "a force of nature".

He isn't something you can talk to or settle or bargain. He has no real thought or planning. He just is.

You are simply suppose to pity the creature that is Angron and pray he never comes your way.