Despite being among the most grimdark, the Grey Knights are one of the most clear-cut "good-guys" of the setting.
Even if you go by their old lore of each psybolt that they will usually spray on full-auto needing a human life to be expended, they are some of the few people who are really above petty shit of fighting for their own interests, ending chaos is all that matters to them. Yes, occasionally they will fight xenos if absolutely forced because they are in their path of fighting daemons. But ultimately they are above petty inter-species squabbles. In the past they have literally safeguarded fallen eldar infinity circuits until other eldar could came and pick them up to prevent Slaanesh from having a fine dinner.
One might bemoan their practice of purging or mindwiping those that witnessed daemons, but when even the mere sight of daemons easily corrupts a man is that really so wrong? Well, even if it is, the motivation is born nobly from the Knights wanting to take absolutely no risks in stomping out these seeds of chaos. Despite serving the Inquisition they rarely get in the petty scheming and politicking of Inquisitors, and their scuffle with the Space Wolves was the only time they ever willingly got into conflict with other Imperials. Yes, their methods are abhorrent to both us readers and many people in the setting. But I personally think they truly fulfill their moniker of Knights, taking the hard road for the noble goal of eradication of chaos and furthermore, they are truly among the few who are genuinely good people in the setting.
Posted Aug 26, 2020, 5:01 PM UTC
I think the proper term for the Grey Knights is "Nessecary Evil." it's certainly pretty hard to argue that killing hundreds of people because they saw something they shouldn't have is something other than evil, but it certainly is a damn sight better than the alternative.
But is a necessary evil anything but a good? In the second world war many people went hungry because food had to go to the frontlines, and many children suffered with so little to eat, but it was necessary to beat the Germans.
I think this is no different. Although their methods are abhorrent to basic sensibilities, on the balance sheet of their actions they ultimately do so much good it compensates for that thousand-fold. Of course by my flair as you can tell I'm a Grey Knight fan so I'm biased, but I'm only really a Grey Knight fan because the GK are nobledark as opposed to the entirety of the rest of 40k that is grimdark.
Depends on whether you're the one who's starving. Do you understand the point I'm making? If you do you have the answer to your question. If not I'll happily expand and clarify.
I understand what you're trying to say, but I'm not quite sure I agree with that premise. Would those children that starved be any happier ending up in a fascist prison camp a year later with the same fate of starvation except even worse?
Also, I would like to apologize for invoking Godwin's law but its just the quickest example I could have thought of.
The lesser of 2 evils is still evil.
This is just a false equivalence, just because something is less evil or necessary evil does not make it good. Its still evil. Watch for relational concept creep.
People don't think that far ahead when their bellies are empty. The point is a necessary evil is only a good thing if you're the one carrying out that evil. To those on the receiving end it most assuredly is not.
Let’s face it, the GK are one misstep away from chaos. Evil is still evil no matter who’s name it is in.
The balance sheet means nothing because you don't know what the results are if they didn't do those necessary evils.
What if they hadn't killed those Sisters of battle to bathe in their Blood? One of them could have went on to do great things, become a living saint that changed the universe for the better. We don't know because the Grey Knights killed them and declared it necessary evil.
I think the grey knights are closer to good than a lot of the Imperium, but that doesn't make them good.
Unfortunately we've seen how it balances out. In Plague Wars, there's a hospital planet that tends to the wounded Guardsmen. A handful of the patients had faced the Death Guard, and been secretly corrupted, they didn't even know it. They slipped through the screening protocols. It was enough to open a warp rift and turn the place into a daemon world. Everyone on that planet is dead at best, plus how many will have to die to reclaim it? Will the planet be salvageable, or is it lost to the Imperium forever? That's the cost of being a kinder soul than the Grey Knights.
That is one planet.
How many planets have people that fought the Death Guard and that didn't happen?
The lore focuses on the worst things, and the Imperium treats things like they will be the worst possible outcome. The point of the universe is that the imperium goes overboard.
That's the cost of screening protocols not being secure enough.
The issue here is the balance of probabilities. Yes, that sister might have become great in and of herself. But the thing is that every Grey Knight is already great, their Codex literally stating a Grey Knight is to a Space Marine what a Space Marine is to a man.
Sure, some random Guardsman that saw daemons tearing apart his buddies might go on to become a great general leading Imperial armies. But far, far more likely he would simply go insane and start a chaos cult to massacre thousands of people and summon daemons perpetuating the cycle that the Grey Knights are made to stop.
As I said above their actions certainly are dark, frightening, abhorrent even. But ultimately they are noble in both intention and result.
No. A necessary evil isn't good.
That's why it's called a necessary evil.
Not 'a good'.
You've gone to the allies’ perspective, what about the nazi’s perspective? You realise they also believed their atrocities were a “necessary evil”? They thought they were nobly taking on the burden of doing evil deeds so that all humanity could prosper. Turns out they were wrong. Even from the allies’ perspective: what atrocities are acceptable to make sure you win the war? How many children burned alive is “worth it”?
We don’t need to go into how there isn’t really objective truth in 40k lore, it’s all potentially unreliable, because it doesn’t matter. There’s no way the grey knights could objectively know that their atrocities are “necessary”. They’re still committing atrocities. Atrocities aren’t noble.
Necessary Evil is the grimdank equivalent of good. It's similar to the old addage "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." they're only a valid solution because the problem they solve is so horrible that killing thousands of innocents because a handful might be corrupted is the better alternative. Look at the hospital planet from Plague Wars. 7 infected slipped through the screening process, and the whole planet was invaded by daemons. Killing countless innocent civilians will never earn anybody the title of "good guy." But it does put it in perspective. It's evil, but it's the lesser evil, the necessary evil. And that just makes it all the more grimdark , that the best we can do is kill the innocent, because it's better than missing the corrupted. Good by comparison isn't good, but it is necessary in this case.
I don't agree in entirety, but I think what you're articulating is close enough to what I believe that I'll accept it.