Void__Dragon wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I'm sorry but Magnus is the most obvious traitor of them all.

Compared to Lorgar, Angron, Curze, or Perturabo? No he isn't, lol. Probably Mortarion as well. Notice how four of these five went traitor without Chaos having to directly influence them.

Sure he is. It's as simple as noting that Magnus cannot help but be influenced by the Warp. Any of Lorgar, Angron, Curze, and Perturabo would have been okay had daddy given them more hugs. With Magnus, who actually got a huge amount of attention from the Emperor, this would not have helped. In fact, we know it just made things worse.

Also, I don't think Mortarion belongs in that group.

 Manchu wrote:
With Magnus, who actually got a huge amount of attention from the Emperor, this would not have helped. In fact, we know it just made things worse.

Magnus was too influenced by Prosperine culture...the Emperor should have re-molded Magnus' mindset and personally overhauled the Fifteenth Legion's psychic doctrines instead of simply giving Magnus more information and mere warnings.

I think he actually trusted Magnus. The reverse, of course, was not true. Not for lack of affection, which is why everyone calls it tragic. Rather, Magnus was simply an arrogant man.

 Manchu wrote:
I think he actually trusted Magnus. The reverse, of course, was not true. Not for lack of affection, which is why everyone calls it tragic. Rather, Magnus was simply an arrogant man.

Perhaps, from the moment the Primarchs were taken away, their fates were sealed? Now that I think about it, many of them needed a firm hand and direct guidance from the Emperor from when they children - Magnus, Angron, Perturabo, Kurze, Alpharius, etc. Ultimately, the Primarchs were still Human, and as such, they needed their parents (or in the Primarchs' cases, their gene-father) to mold them the right way from the very beginning.

It's my ongoing suspicion that the Emperor struck a deal with the Ruinous Powers to create the Primarchs but that it was ultimately a dupe to distract them so that he could establish an Imperial webway.

 Manchu wrote:
It's my ongoing suspicion that the Emperor struck a deal with the Ruinous Powers to create the Primarchs but that it was ultimately a dupe to distract them so that he could establish an Imperial webway.

I do like dark twists, willingly barters with chaos to create 20 corrupted sons so that they won't notice his labyrinth plans

 Manchu wrote:
So true. By that same token, Lorgar and Angron would have eventually fallen.

Probably also Magnus.

Yes, Curze was a psycho and would have gone renegade regardless. I hate it when fans of him go "I like him cuz he's BATMAN!", because he's only Batman if Batman would punish jay-walkers by kidnapping their children, and then skinning them alive on television where everyone was forced to watch.

Angron always just needed an excuse, and Lorgar would have discovered the truth eventually and probably propagated a short-lived crusade before getting crushed.

Magnus would inevitably feth something up, too, although I'm pretty sure that if it was anyone other than Russ (or Angron or Curze, I guess) were sent to Prospero, he would have stuck to his first inclination to meekly accept punishment. He and his Legion would have likely been severely admonished and perhaps soul-bound, and would be the Grey Knights-equivalent.

 Omegus wrote:
because he's only Batman if Batman would punish jay-walkers by kidnapping their children, and then skinning them alive on television where everyone was forced to watch.

You have a way with words, I'll give you that.



I wonder if Magnus would have surrendered to Guilliman or Sanguinius. Sending Russ further baited him, something the Emperor had to have known.

I would love to accept the compliment, but that's basically what we learn in Prince of Crows.



So yes, Kurze would literally skin your children on live television if you litered or failed to yield at an intersection.

Sending Russ was not Empy's finest moment. I sort of take the way that the shamanistic ways of Fenris is different to the warp than the other psychic ways. I mean there are psykers completely untempted by the Ruinous Powers, but they suffer from worse things in return. And having Leman Russ anti-magic impersonated (and a possible hypocrite) go up against the sossery of Magnus was an irresistible lure for the writers.

 Manchu wrote:
Sure he is. It's as simple as noting that Magnus cannot help but be influenced by the Warp. Any of Lorgar, Angron, Curze, and Perturabo would have been okay had daddy given them more hugs. With Magnus, who actually got a huge amount of attention from the Emperor, this would not have helped. In fact, we know it just made things worse.

Also, I don't think Mortarion belongs in that group.

Define "influenced by the Warp", first of all.

The vast majority of humans exist within the Warp to some degree. But like fish in the ocean, they aren't aware of this. Magnus is the fish who knows he lives in the water. And it's not just that he can't "unsee" the water; he's utterly obsessed with it.

 Manchu wrote:
The vast majority of humans exist within the Warp to some degree. But like fish in the ocean, they aren't aware of this. Magnus is the fish who knows he lives in the water. And it's not just that he can't "unsee" the water; he's utterly obsessed with it.

And contacted - and seemingly targeted - by Tzeentch (or a powerful warp entity at least), who he also made a pact with.

Yep, that is certainly another big black mark against him. But I was referring more to the inevitably of such black marks. An arrogant, psychically powerful man obsessed with the Warp is bound to run into a daemon eventually.

You're not making your meaning particularly clear.

How is his being "influenced" by it going to play a factor in some inevitable downfall regardless of the heresy?

Clarity in this case apparently has less to do with what I am posting than what you are expecting to read.

Magnus is arrogant regardless of the Heresy.

Magnus is a psychic titan regardless of the Heresy.

The Ruinous Powers exist and take interest in beings like Magnus regardless of the Heresy.

Magnus's arrogance would be his undoing in any dealings with the Ruinous Powers regardless of the Heresy.

And, in fact, even considering that the Heresy did happen, Magnus fell to Chaos regardless of the Heresy.

 Manchu wrote:
And, in fact, even considering that the Heresy did happen, Magnus fell to Chaos regardless of the Heresy.

Wha? Magnus' fall to Chaos specifically required being placed in a position where he either got direct help form Tzeench, or he and his legion died. Getting stuck in that spot required the use of sorcery to try and save Horus, the use of sorcery to try and warn the Emperor, and the Wolves being sent to Prospero as a result of all that. Without Horus falling, why exactly would Magnus have used such stupidly powerful magics that would wreak havoc on Terra and thus have the Wolves sent after him? Without the Heresy Magnus would still be hanging out on Prospero, waiting for the Emperor to give him a call.

Your take is that Magnus would have fallen because he was arrogent and a psyker. You're ignoring the myriad number of external forces that were acting on Magnus that combined with those traits to eventually lead to his fall.

 Manchu wrote:
Clarity in this case apparently has less to do with what I am posting than what you are expecting to read.

I'd say the issue is more that you are not very capable at enunciating your point.

Magnus is arrogant regardless of the Heresy.

True.

Magnus is a psychic titan regardless of the Heresy.

Also true.

The Ruinous Powers exist and take interest in beings like Magnus regardless of the Heresy.

Obviously true.

Magnus's arrogance would be his undoing in any dealings with the Ruinous Powers regardless of the Heresy.

Arguable, but not really relevant at the moment.

And, in fact, even considering that the Heresy did happen, Magnus fell to Chaos regardless of the Heresy.

Oh yeah? Magnus only went past the point of no return during the Battle of Prospero, an event kickstarted off because of the heresy.

Had anyone not Russ been sent to apprehend him, it is probable that that alone would have kept Magnus from going traitor. He'd be sent back to Terra in chains, sure, but still a loyalist.

It is worth noting that, seemingly alone of the Daemon Primartchs, Magnus's mind is largely intact and as it always was, compared to say, Angron or Fulgrim. I think this is important to note that it illustrates that, whatever the reasoning, Magnus's fall to Tzeentch at the end of the day became his old choice, but had events unfolded differently he might not have felt pressed towards making that choice.

daveNYC wrote:
Magnus' fall to Chaos specifically required being placed in a position where he either got direct help form Tzeench, or he and his legion died. [...]
Your take is that Magnus would have fallen because he was arrogent and a psyker. You're ignoring the myriad number of external forces that were acting on Magnus that combined with those traits to eventually lead to his fall.

My point is that all of these circumstances are the merest contrivances for the Lord of Change, especially when working with such a mind as Magnus's -- a mind that is actively seeking such knowledge. If it wasn't his "dire warning" about Horus, it would have been something else. One way or another, the Wolves would have eventually been sent to Prospero. The Thousand Sons would eventually have been imperiled, or whatever excuse Magnus could use for doing the "unthinkable" without much actual thought. If Tzeentch wanted Magnus, only Magnus himself (and even then probably only in cooperation with the Emperor) could resist. As things stand with Magnus's personality, again regardless of the Heresy, Magnus is not resisting but actively seeking out.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
I'd say the issue is more that you are not very capable at enunciating your point.

Apparently not. I have answered your other objection.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
It is worth noting that, seemingly alone of the Daemon Primartchs, Magnus's mind is largely intact and as it always was, compared to say, Angron or Fulgrim.

That is an interesting point. But the question is, has he persevered through his fall or was he always corrupted?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
One other thing:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Had anyone not Russ been sent to apprehend him, it is probable that that alone would have kept Magnus from going traitor.

By the Edict of Nikaea, when the Emperor said woe to any who broke faith with him and promised to destroy them, Magnus was already a traitor by the time the Wolves were on their way to Prospero. That is why the Wolves were sent in the first place. The issue is, was he contrite? Did he regret his betrayal and want to make amends for it? He almost certainly did, which is why Horus's orders to Russ to kill him was such a brilliant move. But Magnus had already betrayed the Emperor at that point, regardless of the Heresy and regardless of any contrition. He had chosen his own counsel, his fascination with the Warp, over loyalty to his father and that was his true breaking point. Everything that happened afterward, the destruction of Prospero, the Thousand Son's escape, Magnus's allegiance to Horus, are just the consequences, just the pieces falling into place.

But Mangus did get direct help from Tzeentch when he was looking for a way to stop the mutation in his sons. He made his bargain with Chaos when he first got his legion.

 Manchu wrote:

daveNYC wrote:
Magnus' fall to Chaos specifically required being placed in a position where he either got direct help form Tzeench, or he and his legion died. [...]
Your take is that Magnus would have fallen because he was arrogent and a psyker. You're ignoring the myriad number of external forces that were acting on Magnus that combined with those traits to eventually lead to his fall.

My point is that all of these circumstances are the merest contrivances for the Lord of Change, especially when working with such a mind as Magnus's -- a mind that is actively seeking such knowledge. If it wasn't his "dire warning" about Horus, it would have been something else. One way or another, the Wolves would have eventually been sent to Prospero. The Thousand Sons would eventually have been imperiled, or whatever excuse Magnus could use for doing the "unthinkable" without much actual thought. If Tzeentch wanted Magnus, only Magnus himself (and even then probably only in cooperation with the Emperor) could resist. As things stand with Magnus's personality, again regardless of the Heresy, Magnus is not resisting but actively seeking out.

"A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island, with nothing to eat. A can of soup washes ashore. The physicist says, "Let's smash the can open with a rock." The chemist says, "Let's build a fire and heat the can first." The economist says, "Let's assume that we have a can-opener..."

You'll have to do better than just assuming that the Wolves would have been sent to burn Prospero one way or another regardless of whether or not the Heresy happened. While the events leading to Prospero might be relatively minor to one such as Tzeench, that doesn't mean that they'd be easy cogs to replace. It took the corruption of Horus to convince Magnus to try and message the Emperor directly, and it took the corupted Horus to change the Wolves' orders from capture to kill. In the alt-history where the Heresy doesn't happen, what exactly would Magnus do that would get the Wolves sent to Prospero with orders to burn it to the ground?

 Void__Dragon wrote:
I'd say the issue is more that you are not very capable at enunciating your point.

Apparently not. I have answered your other objection.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
It is worth noting that, seemingly alone of the Daemon Primartchs, Magnus's mind is largely intact and as it always was, compared to say, Angron or Fulgrim.

That is an interesting point. But the question is, has he persevered through his fall or was he always corrupted?

Long story short, my take is that Tzeench, being the Lord of Change, cannot, by his very nature, totally control his servants. There always has to be free will and the potential for another path being taken. Plus, if you say that Magnus was always corrupted, then the whole story of his fall becomes pointless. Inevitability doesn't make for a compelling story.

daveNYC wrote:


"A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island, with nothing to eat. A can of soup washes ashore. The physicist says, "Let's smash the can open with a rock." The chemist says, "Let's build a fire and heat the can first." The economist says, "Let's assume that we have a can-opener..."

LOL cheers Dave !!!

daveNYC wrote:
It took the corruption of Horus to convince Magnus to try and message the Emperor directly

But what you have to realize is that the corruption of Horus and the message to the Emperor are just arbitrary pieces. The underlying meaning is Magnus's corruption. As ChaosGirl points out, this was already underway even though Magnus did not himself know it. So if the question is, what would it take to make Magnus fall? then we don't need to look to Horus or Russ. All the necessary ingredients were present in Magnus's own personality and talents on the one hand and in Tzeentch's interest on the other. Everything else is merely incident, although engineered. It could thus all be configured differently, as per the circumstances.

daveNYC wrote:
Long story short, my take is that Tzeench, being the Lord of Change, cannot, by his very nature, totally control his servants. There always has to be free will and the potential for another path being taken. Plus, if you say that Magnus was always corrupted, then the whole story of his fall becomes pointless. Inevitability doesn't make for a compelling story.

Magnus embraced Tzeentch again and again, unknowingly at first, knowingly later, but always of his own free will. The compelling nature of the story is exactly that -- how free is free will? How determinative is determinism? As to Magnus's mind, I posed a question -- not an answer.

Just for kicks - what do you think modern 40k inquisiton would have done to Magnus, if they knew he made a Faustian deal?
Btw - beauty about Tzeench is that gives you an illusion of a free will,but you are dancing to his tune all the time....

 DarthMarko wrote:
what do you think modern 40k inquisiton would have done to Magnus

They'd send Draigo, obviously.

He would carved "I love NY" on pure warp enegy...I can dig that, LOL..

 Manchu wrote:

daveNYC wrote:
It took the corruption of Horus to convince Magnus to try and message the Emperor directly

But what you have to realize is that the corruption of Horus and the message to the Emperor are just arbitrary pieces. The underlying meaning is Magnus's corruption.

So Magnus was already corrupt and was going to fall regardless. So in the absence of Horus falling and Magnus breaking open Terra, at some point he would have gone down to breakfast and just decided to, what, make like Lorgar and start getting his daemon on? You make it sound as though all Tzeench needed to do was just chillax and Magnus would have fallen into his lap, which begs the question why the actual events that led to Magnus' fall required such a degree of manipulation.

I mean you're labeling the turning of Horus and the message to the Emperor as 'arbitrary pieces', as if you could substitute the corruption of the Warmaster with causing a shipment of socks to Prospero to go missing or something.

daveNYC wrote:
So Magnus was already corrupt and was going to fall regardless.

Regardless of the Heresy, yes. He had free will. But he also has a personality. What it would take for Magnus not to fall is for him not to be Magnus. That was the chance of Nikaea. His arrogance made taking that chance impossible. (Although, I will say again, I suspect the Emperor was kind of setting him up, too.)

daveNYC wrote:
You make it sound as though all Tzeench needed to do was just chillax and Magnus would have fallen into his lap, which begs the question why the actual events that led to Magnus' fall required such a degree of manipulation.

I mean you're labeling the turning of Horus and the message to the Emperor as 'arbitrary pieces', as if you could substitute the corruption of the Warmaster with causing a shipment of socks to Prospero to go missing or something.

To Tzeentch, this little galaxy and its greatest turmoils are like the crossword in the Sunday paper. And to Magnus, the quest for knowledge is all-important. And are you seriously asking why Tzeentch would prefer a convoluted method over a direct one? :/

I know he's not a primarch, but if the theory that Malcador was one of the warlords on Terra that the Big E brought to heel, I'm surprised he didn't turn to chaos, then again, who is to say he didn't...

Anyway, when it comes to loyalist primarchs, I vote Ferrus Manus, He's back story shows he has an interest in constant competition and dislikes unity (hence the structure of the Iron Hands and why he never united his homeworld). Constant competition for the sake of the pursuit of "perfection"? I could see Slaanesh easily preying on that and Khorne, though a bit more difficult, could sway Ferrus into believing constant war would eventually lead the best man to become the last man standing admist the carnage

 Manchu wrote:

daveNYC wrote:
So Magnus was already corrupt and was going to fall regardless.

Regardless of the Heresy, yes. He had free will. But he also has a personality. What it would take for Magnus not to fall is for him not to be Magnus. That was the chance of Nikaea. His arrogance made taking that chance impossible. (Although, I will say again, I suspect the Emperor was kind of setting him up, too.)

daveNYC wrote:
You make it sound as though all Tzeench needed to do was just chillax and Magnus would have fallen into his lap, which begs the question why the actual events that led to Magnus' fall required such a degree of manipulation.

I mean you're labeling the turning of Horus and the message to the Emperor as 'arbitrary pieces', as if you could substitute the corruption of the Warmaster with causing a shipment of socks to Prospero to go missing or something.

To Tzeentch, this little galaxy and its greatest turmoils are like the crossword in the Sunday paper. And to Magnus, the quest for knowledge is all-important. And are you seriously asking why Tzeentch would prefer a convoluted method over a direct one? :/

We're coming at it from completely different points of view. I'm holding that Magnus required that specific situation on Prospero to fall, thus the century plus worth of manipulation needed to get to that point. You hold that Magnus would have gone to the dark side regardless, so the mess on Prospero was just Tzeench 'doing it with style' so to speak.

I'm also not sure how you're managing to reconcile Magnus having free will with the statement that he was always going to fall to Chaos. If free will doesn't allow you to chose to avoid damnation then it's not nearly all it's cracked up to be.

daveNYC wrote:
so the mess on Prospero was just Tzeench 'doing it with style' so to speak.

I don't think you understand Tzeentch. Tzeentch wasn't just "doing it with style" as if there was some less stylistic way that it could have happened. The nature of Tzeentch is towards complexity. It's not a person that can just decide to be straight forward. That's the equivalent of saying "couldn't Khorne just calm down a little?"

daveNYC wrote:
I'm also not sure how you're managing to reconcile Magnus having free will with the statement that he was always going to fall to Chaos. If free will doesn't allow you to chose to avoid damnation then it's not nearly all it's cracked up to be.

Fair warning, this is going to get really complicated.

Magnus was free to avoid his fate just as much as he wasn't free to do so. Free will is a harder thing to exercise than you seem to think. There was no single point where Magnus was presented with: "Do you want to fall to Chaos? YES/NO." Rather, his fall unfolded over time. Perhaps a better way to put it, to avoid the confusion of linear-biased language, is that his corruption emerged out of time.

The word "fall" implies an endpoint on a timeline. Linear time is not a helpful way to analyze Magnus, except inasmuch as he was blinded to the truth by an overly linear conception of time. But if we were to plot a timeline of his "fall", we can locate three main points: (1) his pact with "something in the Warp" to halt the flesh change of the Thousand Sons, (2) his decision to violate the Edict of Nikaea, (3) him calling out to that same "something in the Warp" for deliverance as he lost to Russ. Now, and this is the hard part, imagine the line of the timeline folded back on itself so that each of the three points overlap, becoming the same point. I think that's a little closer to the Tzeentchian POV and the best way to take into account Magnus's "free will."

What I'm trying to accomplish by folding the timeline like this is to show that exercising free will is not merely "historical" in the linear sense. Our decisions are conditioned not only by our will and motivation but also by their consequences -- and not only are the consequences obscure but also the motivations. This is a key aspect to Magnus's personality symbolized by him being a "cyclops." Magnus has one eye, the eye that looks to the future. Although his eyesight is far superior to that of almost all humanity, it is still lacking and especially because he himself lacks the eye that looks to the past. Magnus's concern is always with what will be rather than what has gone before: what will befall my Legion in the wake of the flesh change, what will befall the Imperium in the wake of Horus's treachery, what will befall humanity in the wake of the Council of Nikaea?

For Tzeentch, a being of the Warp, the future and past and present are coterminous, like our folded timeline. For Tzeentch, the "moment" of its pact with Magnus is also the "moment" of its salvation of the Thousand Sons from the Space Wolves -- except, of course, that I'm using the word "moment" in a purely metaphorical way, as our conception of linear time doesn't literally apply to the Warp. Magnus is blind to the coterminous aspect of these "historical" points because he is obsessed with his ability to shape the future according to his will through the power of his mind. The best way that I can put it is, Magnus does not perceive that he is falling; he only perceives that he has not fallen yet. Tzeentch, and the Emperor to some extent, can see him as he is becoming. I suppose you can liken it to the relationship between an acorn and a tree. When Tzeentch looks at an acorn in realspace, it sees the nut and the sapling and the tree and the mulch all at once. It's not that Tzeentch "knows the future" -- which is the secret power that Magnus wants so badly. Rather, Tzeentch perceives all possibility and transformation.

Despite all his study, one-eyed Magnus failed to cultivate this ability and so did not accurately understand his peril. He did not understand how the pact he made to save his Legion was the acorn to the the tree of his corruption -- or who knows it might have gone further back than that. All Magnus's knowledge was in fact ignorance. Could he have averted his corruption? Yes -- but it's so hard that it doesn't look "free" in the superficial sense. This is what I meant earlier by saying, Magnus could have avoided damnation by ceasing to be Magnus. Magnus was doomed to fall; but had he completely reformed his personality, completely changed his point of view, he might have noticed the danger. That still means that "Magnus was doomed to fall." The man who averted his fall would no longer be Magnus.

And here we have the ultimate irony, the Tzeentchian pièce de résistance. The thing that could have saved Magnus, in a word, was change.

Manchu the corruption of Magnus started earlier. He often ventured too far into the warp even before Empy came along with his ride of the week. So it's basically four steps, not just the three you presented. With that exception I agree with you.

Yeah, I just wanted at least three points as examples to show the complexity of the folded timeline concept.

Yeah Manchu, and even if your changes the parameters. Magnus was an addict. It's like an alcoholic might not drink today, or tomorrow. But generally they sooner or later fall for the temptation and the Warp was that for Magnus. He couldn't help it. And free will is quite sidelined as the only thing keeping an addict from going for his or her addiction is willpower, and that will erode sooner or later. Of course this is for addicts without any treatment of their addiction.

To extend the metaphor, this is why I have my suspicions about the Emperor considering he just told Magnus to go "cold turkey."

Empy wanting Magnus dead? Wouldn't it be simpler just sending Leman Russ? And before the Thousand Sons were functional as a Space Marine Legion? I sort of think Empy should have kept a closer eye on Magnus. He was his addicted son. I sort of assumed Magnus kept his addiction hidden, at least a while and Empy weren't like a normal dad. Around following his sons. They were all grown up with virtues and vices by the time he found them, so he had to improvise with them.

I think the Emperor sold Magnus his first crack rock actually. Even before they met in person, their two minds met in the Warp and the Emperor began to show Magnus some of its secrets. Also, I don't thin the Emperor wanted Magnus dead. I think he wanted to imprison Magnus in the Golden Throne. And he needed a reason to punish him.

 Admiral Valerian wrote:

 Bloodfrenzy187 wrote:
IMHO Alpharius should not have turned to Horus it just makes no clear sense to me.

I think it would have been cool to see Vulkan turn to Chaos and be all evil and shizzzz.

Of all people, Horus turning to Chaos DOES NOT make sense at all. Even if he had been stabbed by Erebus' 'magic dagger', someone as close to the Emperor as he was should have responded to the vision with "Hmmm...and? Is this it, void predators of the Warp? You expect me to believe my father would do this? You expect me to betray him with this...lie? Illusion? You apparently do not know me at all. Kill me if you wish, but Horus Lupercal has no interest in your threats or offers."

I second that.
WTF happened there? that story I know makes no sense, you get a vision of "the future where you are shunned" and respond by becoming a traitor and massacring countless number of people, some of your own brothers included, to prevent it?
Even a slowed chicken could have realized that's one very, very dumb reaction and an obvious "self fulfilling prophecy" trap.

Hahaha Machu. I buy it. Your argument is hilarious. And that's the basic of my interpretations. For me when I read something I think. "Can it get me to laugh?" And if yes. Then it is. "Can I have a rational explanation for it?" If yes, then I go for it. Hehe but that paints Empy as worse than dads I have seen on several squicky TV-series who whore out their daughters and such, as this is pretty much Chaotic Evil from Empy.

 BoomWolf wrote:

 Admiral Valerian wrote:

 Bloodfrenzy187 wrote:
IMHO Alpharius should not have turned to Horus it just makes no clear sense to me.

I think it would have been cool to see Vulkan turn to Chaos and be all evil and shizzzz.

Of all people, Horus turning to Chaos DOES NOT make sense at all. Even if he had been stabbed by Erebus' 'magic dagger', someone as close to the Emperor as he was should have responded to the vision with "Hmmm...and? Is this it, void predators of the Warp? You expect me to believe my father would do this? You expect me to betray him with this...lie? Illusion? You apparently do not know me at all. Kill me if you wish, but Horus Lupercal has no interest in your threats or offers."

I second that.
WTF happened there? that story I know makes no sense, you get a vision of "the future where you are shunned" and respond by becoming a traitor and massacring countless number of people, some of your own brothers included, to prevent it?
Even a slowed chicken could have realized that's one very, very dumb reaction and an obvious "self fulfilling prophecy" trap.

But its a vision he had no real reason to see as wrong. The Emperor had left Horus, his closest son (and all the other Primarch's), to head off to Terra with no explanation to why.

I don't think Horus' fall was that bad. Sure it wasn't great, but it wasn't that bad IMHO:

Horus was under masses of pressure, trying to run the galaxy and please everyone whilst being undermined by the High Lords of Terra, his brothers and even Remembrancers.
He had also just been attacked by a lost human civilisation whom he had connected and bonded with, but - through the machinations of Erebus - he would have to exterminate: he was seeming to question the great crusade.
Additionally, he had been presented with gods, the existence of which The Emperor denied (it was this that seemingly swayed Lorgar too) and the means to achieve his own Galaxy, rather than the Emperors. The Emperor's which he had been led to question and he had seen the darker side and flaws of (he'd been around The Emperor the longest after all, probably also having witnessed the fate of the missing Legions). Furthermore, its fairly well stated IIRC that Horus was the most ambitious of the Primarks.
If you combine this with a mortal wound and being exposed to the full power of Chaos, I can kind of understand why Horus rebelled.
I mean, we don't even know if the vision shown to Horus was actually what the Emperor planned or not...

I think his fall showed how human Horus was, personally.

 BoomWolf wrote:

 Admiral Valerian wrote:
Of all people, Horus turning to Chaos DOES NOT make sense at all."

I second that.

I'll third it.

This was Graham McNeill's most egregious work if only because it was the most important. Horus falling does make sense in a way, just not the way Mr. McNeill wrote it out. The bare bones of Horus's fall is actually very simple to imagine: Horus is the leader not only of mere mortals but also of his fellow demi-gods. He is second only to the Emperor himself. And when the Emperor leaves him in charge of everything, the natural question is "am I really second to the Emperor?" The puzzle for Mr. McNeill was how to get from that haunting question to the Heresy. How does doubt become betrayal? Of all the fallen Primarchs, Horus really was the lynchpin (Fulgrim and Mortarion arguably would not have fallen otherwise) and should have been the hardest to corrupt. As things stand, he was easily tricked in a vision. The most you can say for that is, well, he was demi-god lain low, that's got to be traumatic. But then the issue of, what does it take to nearly kill Horus? comes up. And the answer we have for that is also pretty lame.

 Beaviz81 wrote:
Hehe but that paints Empy as worse than dads I have seen on several squicky TV-series who whore out their daughters and such, as this is pretty much Chaotic Evil from Empy.

Well TBH I don't think it's very funny. I think it's pretty fething sick. But the Emperor has to do what the Emperor has to do. I think we get too hung up on the "father/son" thing. The Emperor no more fathered the Primarchs than I "father" a meal that I cooked. If I started talking about myself as the "father of the meal" people might feel a bit repulsed when I proceeded to eat it. Same with the Primarchs. They were means to ends. The Emperor needed a lens for the Golden Throne. So he made Magnus. And something smiled in the Warp.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Dave wrote:
I don't think Horus' fall was that bad. Sure it wasn't great, but it wasn't that bad IMHO

We usually agree but ... not on this one.

 Just Dave wrote:
Horus was under masses of pressure, trying to run the galaxy and please everyone whilst being undermined by the High Lords of Terra, his brothers and even Remembrancers.

(1) As a Primarch, he was designed to do this. (All Emprah Conspiracy Theories aside, for the moment.)
(2) Things were proceeding smoothly so there was no need to stress out.

 Just Dave wrote:
He had also just been attacked by a lost human civilisation whom he had connected and bonded with, but - through the machinations of Erebus - he would have to exterminate: he was seeming to question the great crusade.

These are just more bad qualities about McNeill's story. Horus bonded with these backward mortals? I still can't believe that. And what basis did he suddenly have to question the Great Crusade? Exterminating non-compliant populations never bothered him before. In fact, he had exhibited complete, voluntary, and thoughtful agreement with the Great Crusade up until descending to sordid huts of this one, completely uncompelling mud ball.

 Just Dave wrote:
Additionally, he had been presented with gods, the existence of which The Emperor denied (it was this that seemingly swayed Lorgar too) and the means to achieve his own Galaxy, rather than the Emperors.

If the Emperor is not a god, as Horus definitely believed, then he had no reason to believe that the Ruinous Powers were gods. They're all just very powerful beings. Horus should have had no problem concluding "those are some powerful Warp aliens." But that's a contrivance of 40k: if it lives in the materium and is not human, we call it xenos; if it lives in the immaterium and is not human, we call it daemon. I'm truly baffled that the Primarchs were surprised to find sentience in the Warp. I can understand their surprise that Emperor did not tell them about such sentience but that's really not getting us from a doubt to a betrayal.

 Just Dave wrote:
If you combine this with a mortal wound and being exposed to the full power of Chaos, I can kind of understand why Horus rebelled.

Already addressed why the wound thing is lame. As to "the full power of Chaos," it hardly seems so: he just had a vision. A kind of unbelievable vision, really. And he just totally bought it.

 Just Dave wrote:
I think his fall showed how human Horus was, personally.

I think it made him seem like nothing more than the plot device that he had always been. The only difference is that it's okay for him to be a plot device in the background. It's just gak for him to be a plot device in the foreground.

Honestly Machu, if the opinion disturbs you. Then you shouldn't hold it. I'm of the opinion that GW makes a game, a game shall be funny. If it churns your stomach you should really change it, if only for medical reasons. I can see your reasons and even support them, but if you feel uncomfortable I think you shall reconsider your opinion if only for medical reasons. If you think something is ulcer-inducing or too cruel then you might take things a bit too seriously. Just MHO.

I think you're confusing "funny" with "fun."

Nothing in a BL novel is going to give me an ulcer. I take that back. Graham McNeill's description of the fall of Horus might do. But I pretty much already take your advise of that score. When I think of the fall of Horus, I think -- well, it has to be something besides what McNeill wrote. And I haven't come up with any specific scenario yet but then again BL doesn't pay me to write novels, either.

 Manchu wrote:

The word "fall" implies an endpoint on a timeline. Linear time is not a helpful way to analyze Magnus, except inasmuch as he was blinded to the truth by an overly linear conception of time. But if we were to plot a timeline of his "fall", we can locate three main points: (1) his pact with "something in the Warp" to halt the flesh change of the Thousand Sons, (2) his decision to violate the Edict of Nikaea, (3) him calling out to that same "something in the Warp" for deliverance as he lost to Russ. Now, and this is the hard part, imagine the line of the timeline folded back on itself so that each of the three points overlap, becoming the same point. I think that's a little closer to the Tzeentchian POV and the best way to take into account Magnus's "free will."

I'm not sure if that third point takes place in the HH timeline. The novel seems to indicate that Magnus channelled the last of his physical essense into a spell that saved his Legion, but given his might as a psyker, he survived in an ethereal warp form (much like the Emperor is supposedly going to when his physical form finally succumbs). Certainly the old Index Astartes explicitly stated this, but this was also when Magnus was literally a Cyclops, the Council of Nikea made a distinction between psychic powers and sorcery, and Russ was the one to convince the Emperor that Magnus needed be destroyed.

If anything, the third step would be when Magnus accepted help from that "something" (something he perceived as utterly inferior to him and completely under his control, or even deluding himself with notions of it being a benevolent entity) to force his way into the Webway.

This is a key aspect to Magnus's personality symbolized by him being a "cyclops." Magnus has one eye, the eye that looks to the future. Although his eyesight is far superior to that of almost all humanity, it is still lacking and especially because he himself lacks the eye that looks to the past. Magnus's concern is always with what will be rather than what has gone before: what will befall my Legion in the wake of the flesh change, what will befall the Imperium in the wake of Horus's treachery, what will befall humanity in the wake of the Council of Nikaea?

I would agree with this, I always felt that Tzeench's price of an eye for "saving" the Legion was really him taking away Magnus' perspective (weak pun somewhat intended). He could no longer see the forest for the trees, so to speak.

For me the reason for taking your interpretation of the Magnus - Empy-relationship is that Empy is supposed to be the big good Machu. And him going chaotic evil instead is just an irony I can't find not morbidly hilarious. Of course I love thinking of Empy and his demi-gods as flawed and imperfect. Even Empy who I think of as the ultimate Mary Sue made scores of mistakes, and that's what really appeals to me, virtues makes the man, mistakes makes the story. If I want a boring invincible hero I watch Streetfighter.

 Manchu wrote:
I think the Emperor sold Magnus his first crack rock actually. Even before they met in person, their two minds met in the Warp and the Emperor began to show Magnus some of its secrets. Also, I don't thin the Emperor wanted Magnus dead. I think he wanted to imprison Magnus in the Golden Throne. And he needed a reason to punish him.

Given that the Emperor thought he was showing his son the wider warp, when Magnus was already swimming in it since childhood, the more apt metaphor is that the Emperor offered Magnus a line of coke, when Magnus had already been cooking rocks in his basement.

 Omegus wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
(3) him calling out to that same "something in the Warp" for deliverance as he lost to Russ

I'm not sure if that third point takes place in the HH timeline. The novel seems to indicate that Magnus channelled the last of his physical essense into a spell that saved his Legion, but given his might as a psyker, he survived in an ethereal warp form (much like the Emperor is supposedly going to when his physical form finally succumbs).

Doesn't it come out to the same thing?

 Omegus wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I think the Emperor sold Magnus his first crack rock actually. Even before they met in person, their two minds met in the Warp and the Emperor began to show Magnus some of its secrets. Also, I don't thin the Emperor wanted Magnus dead. I think he wanted to imprison Magnus in the Golden Throne. And he needed a reason to punish him.

Given that the Emperor thought he was showing his son the wider warp, when Magnus was already swimming in it since childhood, the more apt metaphor is that the Emperor offered Magnus a line of coke, when Magnus had already been cooking rocks in his basement.

LOL and ROFL - this is the funniest metaphor I've ever heard....now my stomach hurts...

btw that Horus fall (really bad writen thingy)......x4...

And in " the Betrayer " Lorgar so much pisses Magnus with that simple facts, that he shines like a a-bomb...



He later even tells him to embrace Tzeench, and that they are all changing (becoming dp),so Magnus's turning point is yet to come....I'think




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Omegus wrote:


If anything, the third step would be when Magnus accepted help from that "something" (something he perceived as utterly inferior to him and completely under his control, or even deluding himself with notions of it being a benevolent entity) to force his way into the Webway.

Or simply said - hubris... Funny, how nobody ever mentions that "push" when he was flying through the ether...I'm glad somebody remebers that...

Marko try to look back at what Machu wrote earlier. The three points. I just added the first point and pointed out that Magnus was an addict. And even though Machu added the insane point that Empy basically pimped out Magnus, I liked the point as insane and witty (I wasn't aware of his feelings at that point) enough to work.

 Beaviz81 wrote:
Marko try to look back at what Machu wrote earlier. The three points. I just added the first point and pointed out that Magnus was an addict. And even though Machu added the insane point that Empy basically pimped out Magnus, I liked the point as insane and witty (I wasn't aware of his feelings at that point) enough to work.

I' know , I'm still laughing, but interesting theory (which I don't think is true).....
So if I get this straight...
Empy:
1. I will make a junkie out of you
2. you'll be so hooked up, that eventually it will cost you, and I will punish you.....
3. when I'm over with punishment, and your brain is fried, I' will use you as a living battery

So emperor was a drug dealer and a pimp....LOL guys this is the funniest moment on dakka

Hahahahahaha Marko. That is bloody hilarious and partly why I support the claim of Machu. Excuse me, I'm gonna roll around having convulsions of laughter for the next 24 hours.

It's hilarious, which is partly a reason for me to think the way I think about anything in 40k.

For as much of the DA's that turned to Chaos it has always surprised me that the Lion didn't have something to do with this.
I would have believed that he was corrupted to a extent for this to happen. Just my opinion though

@Beaviz81.... I'm still laughing...my girlfriend is asking me WTF are you laughing like a maniac (I woke her up)....Ooooooo sweeeet God-Emperor...still can't stop....

No wonder Marko my friend. Insanity is so often funny made flesh. And seeing people with the same sense of humor as myself is simply glorious. Too bad you ain't more active in the Dakka-Fiction-part, I would consider you great there.

Of course Manchu despite me laughing mercilessly at your points, I still am willing to follow them, so please don't ban us. We mean no harm.

Ty friend...
@manchu knows we are just joking...but culmination of this thread is where great ocean is compared with cigarettes, alcohol, coke & meth

Dear God I think I pied myself. This has been a true laugh-riot. I'm 31 I'm almost worried about my health due to laughter.

I honestly hope to see you writing some fluff on your own Marko. And well Empy hiring Magnus out for warp seems hilariously doable for some strange reason, but damn is he a horrid daddy. That's really awful yet morbidly hilarious.

Well, I'm not that good at English, so I'll stick to just posting simple stuff...but really, ty for the compliments...

Btw, we are the same age, so we are probably on the same level with humor and general comprehension of the 40k universe...

So cheers friend, we will stay in touch...(now I'm going to put blanket on my face and pretend to be in a venerable dreadnought and go to slumber...very mature on my behalf.)...

CORSAIR CAPTAIN wrote:
Everyone always talks about what Primarch almost stayed loyal and which one should have been treated better but no one seems talk about the Primarchs that logically would have fit in better in the Warmasters camp. My candidates are Corax, the Lion, and Sangiunus. Corax seems far to into the equality sorta stuff really fit in with the Imperium even before the Heresy let alone after, his suicide by Chaos seems pretty close to Konrad's suicide by assassin, my guess is he realized that he fought to defend a Empire that stood against everything he believed in and like Curze tired of the long war. Sanguinus should have sided with Horus, instead he sacrificed his life and the sanity of his legion who spent the next ten thousand years being treated like crap. As far as the Lion, he and his Legion are just too headstrong, they were before the heresy and they remained so after.

I don't see that. Corax didn't kill himself. He just ran off. I couldn't really see him turning to chaos. He seems to more human in respects to his kin. He looked inward and blamed himself for the raptors mutations. Granted he's slightly self centered for assuming its his fault though. Sangiunus doesn't fit the bill to turn either. He's too devoted to the cause of the imperium to turn. His loyalty is assured though his sacrifice. He did it to save humanity. His sons suffered but, it was something that had to be done. He had to confront Horus. The Lion, I could have seen going over. But, being that he sought to try and defend the wider imperium as best he could and not let it be plundered. There is logic in this tactic. He was trying to prevent Horus from using the resources available in that part of the galaxy for the siege on Terra. To that effect he was for the most part successful.

 Lobukia wrote:
I can't see the Khan turning. The Mongolian Empire and its conquests were built on unwavering loyalty from the Tumen commanders to the Great Khan. For Jaghatai to betray his sworn liege would not have been in keeping with either his back-story or the man (Genghis) he was channeling.

As a counterargument, Genghis Khan was unwilling to submit to any man. There was a falling out between him and his blood brother because he was unwilling to play second fiddle

 b1soul wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
I can't see the Khan turning. The Mongolian Empire and its conquests were built on unwavering loyalty from the Tumen commanders to the Great Khan. For Jaghatai to betray his sworn liege would not have been in keeping with either his back-story or the man (Genghis) he was channeling.

As a counterargument, Genghis Khan was unwilling to submit to any man. There was a falling out between him and his blood brother because he was unwilling to play second fiddle

True, but Jaghatai (Subotai, anyone) isn't a commander of governments, he's a conqueror of nations and a destroyer of legions. I should have had said Jaghatai is one half GK and one half Subotai. Regardless, he has already submitted, and once submission is given, it is ironclad in this culture/persona

The Khan is the good guy version of Angron.

 Manchu wrote:
These are just more bad qualities about McNeill's story. Horus bonded with these backward mortals? I still can't believe that.

That was from Horus Rising, not False Gods, and as such was Abnett's work.

And really, it wasn't so much that he bonded with the Interex, he just tried so hard to improve upon the Great Crusade, taking the Interex's example to heart (And he frankly should, the Emperor's method towards conquering the galaxy and fighting Chaos is idiotic, the Interex have a much more intelligent method), only to see all that effort come to nothing due to forces he couldn't control.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
That was from Horus Rising, not False Gods, and as such was Abnett's work.

I thought Dave was referring to the Davinites, not that Interex scum.

 Manchu wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
That was from Horus Rising, not False Gods, and as such was Abnett's work.

I thought Dave was referring to the Davinites, not that Interex scum.

Nope, Interex.

Can you explain what you mean by "bonded" then?

General definition of bonded: formed a connection with, developed a relationship, grew to like, respected, didn't see as notably divergent and wouldn't want to exterminate... Abnett did a pretty good job of displaying Horus' emotions/anguish IMHO.

No, I understand what the word "bonded" means.

Rather I am asking for evidence for the statement. I know Horus thought they were human enough to talk with (in contrast to Abaddon) but that hardly makes a bond.

 Manchu wrote:
No, I understand what the word "bonded" means.

Rather I am asking for evidence for the statement. I know Horus thought they were human enough to talk with (in contrast to Abaddon) but that hardly makes a bond.

Well, I haven't read the book for a while - and I don't have it to hand right now - but as I recall, Abnett basically showed Horus' personal connection to the Interex and that they were both a formidable race and challenge, so basically Erebus' manipulation that forced them to war was a bit of a kick in the nuts for Horus.

Afraid I can't really provide quotes or passages...

Oh, I'm not necessarily looking for citations so much as anecdotes. I can agree that the fact that Horus tried to make peace instead of war during his first campaign as Warmaster is noteworthy -- and it's especially noteworthy given that it catastrophically failed. And we could even speculate that Horus's betrayal was ultimately a sublimation of his own fear of failure onto the Emperor. But that's just not on the pages of False Gods. All we have in that book is a wounded Warmaster who is either extremely gullible or decided to betray the Emperor even before his vision quest.

In Horus Rising (just reread it last week), Horus is talking with the Mornville about the interex. Abaddon wants war, but Horus states that he doesnt want to fight a war with these people because he realizes that these people are so similar to them. He believes that they can be brought into the fold without being destroyed, and he tries to avoid the waste of life. That is why he goes to the ceremony unarmed. That is why he is basically forced out of the chambers after all hell breaks loose. He is still trying to save negotiations until the very end when they make their "last stand".

So we're getting into the argument of Horus not falling to chaos now?

 ENOZONE wrote:
So we're getting into the argument of Horus not falling to chaos now?

Makes a change from the usual 'Magnus being hard done by' argument, but yeah, its off-topic...

Anyway it's pretty astounding how many did betray The Emperor so I don't think any more should have. If I had to pick though sometimes I wonder about that Lion guy. He seems a little suspicious.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Anyway it's pretty astounding how many did betray The Emperor so I don't think any more should have. If I had to pick though sometimes I wonder about that Lion guy. He seems a little suspicious.

So many people have said this in this thread, and yet I really don't see why. He's not likeable, but then so many other loyalists aren't either.

 Manchu wrote:
Oh, I'm not necessarily looking for citations so much as anecdotes. I can agree that the fact that Horus tried to make peace instead of war during his first campaign as Warmaster is noteworthy -- and it's especially noteworthy given that it catastrophically failed. And we could even speculate that Horus's betrayal was ultimately a sublimation of his own fear of failure onto the Emperor. But that's just not on the pages of False Gods. All we have in that book is a wounded Warmaster who is either extremely gullible or decided to betray the Emperor even before his vision quest.

I wouldn't say Horus was particularly gullible in False Gods, just a massively arrogant douche.

"Whoa what? You're saying in the future, I am not feared, respected, and lauded as the most awesome guy in the galaxy? THAT'S fething bs."

Lion wasn't considered as a "half traitor" in the beginning...That is BL -s work mostly...or 40k character centric soap opera IMHO...

I was under the impression that the sources for the Lion being disloyal was Fallen Angels. I think I can toss Big Ben farther than I would trust them.

 Beaviz81 wrote:
I was under the impression that the sources for the Lion being disloyal was Fallen Angels. I think I can toss Big Ben farther than I would trust them.

But the fallen were like 100% chaos in the beginning...I dont know when the conspiracy theories started....
By that I' mean "Which side is loyal" question.....

Even so, Luther might have been less than truthful to the Space Marines that followed him. So some fallen might believe the Dark Angels follow the Ruinous powers. I still think it is amazing that people are debating the Lion's loyalty when it's basically written in stone. But in the large picture of things the Dark Angels are a loyal and extremely ruthless chapter who is dedicated to the hunt for the traitors.

Well because IMHO Lion is a very shady character...and like some guys already said - loyal only to himself.....Now, if you ask me, and fluff from the the books, he is 100% neutral, doesn't like neither loyalist and traitors....

 DarthMarko wrote:
Well because IMHO Lion is a very shady character...and like some guys already said - loyal only to himself.....Now, if you ask me, and fluff from the the books, he is 100% neutral, doesn't like neither loyalist and traitors....

Ahem, the ”Lion” and ”savage weapons” anyone? Did people forget the Lion’s quote “loyalty is its own reward,” and his selfless struggle to reach the Emperor at Terra, even at the risk of losing his own home world?

This neutral policy the Lion supposedly runs is as real as Horus golden mullet.

 Redcruisair wrote:

 DarthMarko wrote:
Well because IMHO Lion is a very shady character...and like some guys already said - loyal only to himself.....Now, if you ask me, and fluff from the the books, he is 100% neutral, doesn't like neither loyalist and traitors....

Ahem, the ”Lion” and ”savage weapons” anyone? Did people forget the Lion’s quote “loyalty is its own reward,” and his selfless struggle to reach the Emperor at Terra, even at the risk of losing of his own home world?

IIRC The better quote to display the Lion's loyalty is what he says to a certain Daemon in The Primarchs: pretty much flat out states his loyalty to The Emperor.

I disagree with you Marko, Lion was loyal. That's finite. He wasn't obviously loyal, but not the fence-sitter may paints him to be.

As someone else mentioned, he's just not very likable. I guess that's why people can't. just. let. it. go.

I think the older fluff depicted Jonson as a more brooding fence-sitter with his own agenda. Whereas the newer fluff from the HH books depict him as a noble loyalist shining knight.

They're doing the same thing with the Khan in the HH books too which is regrettable. I liked the idea of the Heresy that beyond a few psychopaths (Angron, Curze, and so on) nobody could have really predicted which Primarchs became traitor or loyalist. However with the exception of Fulgrim and Alphparius reading the current books it becomes rather obvious who would be loyalist or traitor the first time they're mentioned.

Johnson was always brooding and such, but not a fence-sitter. If anyone was it was Robute with Ultramar first and the IOM second. Sounded like the stupid plan a political party entered my high-school with. They argued for the care of the elderly first and the youth people second. Their vote-context was basically the village-idiot.

 Harriticus wrote:
Whereas the newer fluff from the HH books depict him as a noble loyalist shining knight.

Shining knight? Where are you getting this? He comes off as a brooding, arrogant man who is easily distracted by matters of pride -- i.e., the very prototype of all Loyalist DA.

 Harriticus wrote:
I think the older fluff depicted Jonson as a more brooding fence-sitter with his own agenda. Whereas the newer fluff from the HH books depict him as a noble loyalist shining knight.

I like how despite being fiercely loyal and proactive - such as seemingly going out of his way to sort out Guilliman and his unremembered empire - he gets nothing. It's typical 40K. He still gets comatose'd, seen as having questionable loyalty, doesn't save his father and loses half his Legion.

Actually, I like The Lion. He basically raised himself and turned out alright.

It's the Dark Angels actions that are suspicious. Many Marines have fallen throughout the ages but the DA go well above and beyond in their never-ending cover-up to make everything look Kosher. His Legion doth protest too much I think.

They protest nothing other than the continued existence of their traitorous brethren ... which somehow makes them the traitors?

 Manchu wrote:
They protest nothing other than the continued existence of their traitorous brethren ... which somehow makes them the traitors?

Wars have been lost over this obsession. They don't just protest the continued existence of The Fallen, they seek to cover it up. Suppression of this knowledge is more important than anything in the Universe, even The Imperium. Why? The only thing that justifies this level of paranoia is if at the very centre of the Dark Angel secrets onion The Lion was a traitor.

I'd respect them more if they worked harder to protect the humans/innocent people/civilians they betrayed and failed, but the cover-up is a nice twist IMHO; I don't think they'd have as much character if they went down the humanitarian route I'd respect them more for.

 Harriticus wrote:
I think the older fluff depicted Jonson as a more brooding fence-sitter with his own agenda. Whereas the newer fluff from the HH books depict him as a noble loyalist shining knight.

They're doing the same thing with the Khan in the HH books too which is regrettable. I liked the idea of the Heresy that beyond a few psychopaths (Angron, Curze, and so on) nobody could have really predicted which Primarchs became traitor or loyalist. However with the exception of Fulgrim and Alphparius reading the current books it becomes rather obvious who would be loyalist or traitor the first time they're mentioned.

Short stories seem to go with a generic shining knight loyalist persona.

The actual DA novels in the HH portray him as a cold-hearted sociopath almost utterly lacking in empathy.

 Just Dave wrote:
I'd respect them more if they worked harder to protect the humans/innocent people/civilians they betrayed and failed, but the cover-up is a nice twist IMHO; I don't think they'd have as much character if they went down the humanitarian route I'd respect them more for.

I'm not saying a faction like them shouldn't exist in the background. Doesn't mean I need to like the cut of their jib.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 Harriticus wrote:
I think the older fluff depicted Jonson as a more brooding fence-sitter with his own agenda. Whereas the newer fluff from the HH books depict him as a noble loyalist shining knight.

They're doing the same thing with the Khan in the HH books too which is regrettable. I liked the idea of the Heresy that beyond a few psychopaths (Angron, Curze, and so on) nobody could have really predicted which Primarchs became traitor or loyalist. However with the exception of Fulgrim and Alphparius reading the current books it becomes rather obvious who would be loyalist or traitor the first time they're mentioned.

Short stories seem to go with a generic shining knight loyalist persona.

The actual DA novels in the HH portray him as a cold-hearted sociopath almost utterly lacking in empathy.

That's understandable. I don't think he even saw another human being untill he was like 11. Most people would lack empathy with a similiar background.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Suppression of this knowledge is more important than anything in the Universe, even The Imperium.

Oh for crying out loud, can't you figure the rest of it out? The issue isn't that the Lion was a traitor -- it's that he couldn't get his his gak together and save the Imperium ... and the DA are so fething ashamed of this that they ... duh duh duh ... do the same fething thing all the time. They call it ...

GRIIIIIIIIIIMDAAAAAARK


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
The actual DA novels in the HH portray him as a cold-hearted sociopath almost utterly lacking in empathy.

Who somehow thinks of himself as just as or more capable than Horus.

He also has serious entitlement issues, thinking that since he is first son over the first legion, he deserves to be Warmaster on principal.

 Manchu wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Suppression of this knowledge is more important than anything in the Universe, even The Imperium.

Oh for crying out loud, can't you figure the rest of it out? The issue isn't that the Lion was a traitor -- it's that he couldn't get his his gak together and save the Imperium ... and the DA are so fething ashamed of this that they ... duh duh duh ... do the same fething thing all the time. They call it ...

GRIIIIIIIIIIMDAAAAAARK

I think it's traditionally called "irony" but yes I get it. What's your point?

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
What's your point?

You're kidding right? You're asking me the point of the thing that I just explained to you step-by-bloody-step?

 Manchu wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
What's your point?

You're kidding right? You're asking me the point of the thing that I just explained to you step-by-bloody-step?

Yes, Manchu. You seem to think we're in some sort of argument. You do that sometimes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
He also has serious entitlement issues, thinking that since he is first son over the first legion, he deserves to be Warmaster on principal.

Yes, another reason why if I had to pick a loyalist it would be him.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
You seem to think we're in some sort of argument.

You mean that thing where people with differing viewpoints engage with the evidence and logic supporting their own and each other's statements?

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
The only thing that justifies this level of paranoia is if at the very centre of the Dark Angel secrets onion The Lion was a traitor.

 Manchu wrote:
The issue isn't that the Lion was a traitor -- it's that he couldn't get his his gak together and save the Imperium ...

The point is that the Lion was clearly not a traitor although he was also clearly very flawed. The point is that even his loyal sons are also flawed and their flaws do not make them traitors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
He also has serious entitlement issues, thinking that since he is first son over the first legion, he deserves to be Warmaster on principal.

Yes, another reason why if I had to pick a loyalist it would be him.

On this point, we can agree. Lion El'Jonson was a "primarch that should have gone to Chaos but did not."

 Manchu wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
You seem to think we're in some sort of argument.

You mean that thing where people with differing viewpoints engage with the evidence and logic supporting their own and each other's statements?

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
The only thing that justifies this level of paranoia is if at the very centre of the Dark Angel secrets onion The Lion was a traitor.

 Manchu wrote:
The issue isn't that the Lion was a traitor -- it's that he couldn't get his his gak together and save the Imperium ...

The point is that the Lion was clearly not a traitor although he was also clearly very flawed. The point is that even his loyal sons are also flawed and their flaws do not make them traitors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
He also has serious entitlement issues, thinking that since he is first son over the first legion, he deserves to be Warmaster on principal.

Yes, another reason why if I had to pick a loyalist it would be him.

On this point, we can agree. Lion El'Jonson was a "primarch that should have gone to Chaos but did not."

I'm saying I find the Dark Angel conduct unjustifiable because The Lion was not a traitor, not that the DAs and Johnson are traitors.

You're saying that .... now. But, in any case, the fact that the Lion was not a traitor is not why the DA behave like they do. They behave like they do because of the shame and failure that Luther's rebellion brought on their Primarch and them and that the Fallen, by drawing every new breath, continuously propagate.

 Manchu wrote:
You're saying that .... now. But, in any case, the fact that the Lion was not a traitor is not why the DA behave like they do. They behave like they do because of the shame and failure that Luther's rebellion brought on their Primarch and them and that the Fallen, by drawing every new breath, continuously propagate.

Yes and then what they've done to cover that up and pursue those guys is doing more harm to them. That grimdark irony. Doesn't mean that's not stupid.
This is a thread about who could have hypothetically gone to Chaos. Lion would have been perfect because his descendants already have the system setup to cover that up.

?

Chaos Space Marines don't seem too interested in covering up their treachery.

Kinda goes in circles.

None of the loyal Primarchs are traitors. Because they didn't betray the Emperor. Period.

For a "what if" or "who could've" thread, you'd need to step outside the "established" somewhere, and that will of course always be subject to an easy refute from those who don't follow along with the "what if".

 Manchu wrote:
?

Chaos Space Marines don't seem too interested in covering up their treachery.

And if they did? Once again don't know what your point is.
Let's boil it down since your intent on starting a "debate". Do you think the DAs are justified in they way they conduct themselves? In their codex it says they mind-wipe and "disappear" brothers that ask too many questions. These are their own 'Brothers".

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Do you think the DAs are justified in they way they conduct themselves?

From an in-universe POV? Yep. The Fallen cannot help but spread corruption. The Inquisition does similar things -- even to other Inquisitors.

Now let's go back to your point for a minute.

You're saying that the Lion might have fallen to Chaos but did not because the DA are committed to hunting down traitors even 10,000 years later?

So the fact that Jonson's most loyal sons are in fact so loyal that they are rooting out corruption even ten milennia later is a good indication that the Lion could have been corrupted?

Um ...

 Manchu wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Do you think the DAs are justified in they way they conduct themselves?

From an in-universe POV? Yep. The Fallen cannot help but spread corruption. The Inquisition does similar things -- even to other Inquisitors.

Now let's go back to your point for a minute.

You're saying that the Lion might have fallen to Chaos but did not because the DA are committed to hunting down traitors even 10,000 years later?

So the fact that Jonson's most loyal sons are in fact so loyal that they are rooting out corruption even ten milennia later is a good indication that the Lion could have been corrupted?

Um ...

The Dark Angels don't root out corruption. In fact if given a straight up choice between letting corruption spread and protecting their secret they would absolutely keep their secret. That itself is a form of corruption.

You're exaggerating by abstraction. Hunting down the Fallen is rooting out corruption. One might say, they are getting their own house in order as a first priority.

 Manchu wrote:
You're exaggerating by abstraction. Hunting down the Fallen is rooting out corruption. One might say, they are getting their own house in order as a first priority.

I'm not exaggerating. Given the choice of letting a planet of millions fall to Chaos or capturing 1 Fallen they wouldn't even hesitate.

Not to mention you didn't even respond to how they treat their own Chapter Brothers other than "even The Inquisition would do that". As if The Inquisition was the first and foremost authority on what's right and wrong.

As if anything in 40k is about right and wrong? Seriously, what fictional setting are you even talking about?

 Manchu wrote:
As if anything in 40k is about right and wrong? Seriously, what fictional setting are you even talking about?

Don't pull that. We can always view fiction through the lens of our own real life morality. In fact, we're supposed to.

But that's not the subject to hand. No one is asking "is the Lion morally good" or "are the DA morally good"?

I don't even know what the subject at hand is. You seem to still be talking about whether The Lion is still loyal or not. I would debate that point if it weren't for the HH series. Before that the idea was out there about who was really the traitor The Lion or Luthur. I believe Gav Thorpe wrote a book to try and play that up. Back then it made the DAs actions more intriguing: what are they really covering up? However in the HH books it pretty much just straight up Lion is Loyalist. I think this was a case of be careful what you wish for. That was a mystery better left foggy I think.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
I don't even know what the subject at hand is.

The thread title has not changed: "What Primarchs should have gone to Chaos but did not?"

 Manchu wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
I don't even know what the subject at hand is.

The thread title has not changed: "What Primarchs should have gone to Chaos but did not?"

Ya, as I said in my first post: none of them "should" have but I could see how The Lion could. He had a bad upbringing and ambition. Something many of the traitors did too.

I completely agree with that, as I already mentioned. My objection is to the notion that the Lion could have fallen to Chaos because of the way the DA act in M41.

 Manchu wrote:
I completely agree with that, as I already mentioned. My objection is to the notion that the Lion could have fallen to Chaos because of the way the DA act in M41.

And I still think the DAs act as ones with a guilty conscience if even they aren't.

 Beaviz81 wrote:
I disagree with you Marko, Lion was loyal. That's finite. He wasn't obviously loyal, but not the fence-sitter may paints him to be.

Well I'm not questiononig his allegiance,rather his motives...He wasn't that crazy ultra loyal in the begining of the heresy IIRC (not helping IH after they are declared 100% loyal, fearful on Dorn and Guiliman, his conversation with Curze etc.)
IMHO he is a very calculated persona and like @Void_Dragon said "sociopath lacking of empathy"...I' think in post heresy he would have been a real thorn in Guiliman eyes...

Just wanted to get this quote of A D-B (off Bolter and Chainsword; his preferred forum I believe), regarding the Lion's loyalties (which he tried to settle) and how he tried to depict him:

A D-B wrote:And regarding the Lion's presence:

"Essentially, I envisage Caliban is a fairly tainted world, so the Chaos Gods have their talons into the Lion from the start - they bring him down onto Caliban, after all: a world plagued by Great Beasts and not exactly a million miles from the newborn Eye of Terror. He's one of the most obvious choices for corruption.

However, I don't subscribe to the notion that the Lion was tainted (or a traitor) himself. As he grew up, he was everything the Emperor needed him to be, sure. This vision represents right at the beginning, there was the potential for it all to go wrong. The Chaos Gods probably planned or hoped it would, but history evidently proved them wrong.

Of all the primarchs, I think the Lion needs to be credited with an almost unbelievable amount of willpower, even moreso than most of his brothers. He strikes me as one of the ones that Chaos could've dug their talons into very easily, but he apparently never suffered their touch at all."

And regarding his hair colour, I wanted the child that landed on Caliban to be very different to the medieval warlord-king that rose to throw off any taint within himself and conquer a whole world from Chaos with little more than pistols and swords. I dig the idea of this skinny, pale, dark-haired and hollow-eyed little wretch, finding his first steps on a Chaos world after being dragged through the warp, rising into a tanned, blonde statuesque Achilles to be pretty rad.

That part in italics is him quoting himself from a previous post.

I agree with him. Lion was a top contender for corruption but overcame. He doesn't get enough credit for that.

Well, not to piss on him, but his portrayal makes Tzeench nb2. in calculating...His willpower in resisting chaos - kudos for that, but his motives are still shady...
That's what I said neutral (not so much loyal, not so much chaos)...
Now after heresy (if he didn't have that incident),he would probably be only real renegade primarch....IMHO

Could it be that Khan only Listened to Horus because he was a Liason of the Emperor? When he stopped horus stopped aswell.

All evidence points to...Corvus Corax!!!

 Void__Dragon wrote:


Short stories seem to go with a generic shining knight loyalist persona.

The actual DA novels in the HH portray him as a cold-hearted sociopath almost utterly lacking in empathy.

Only the second novel gives that impression.... which is kinda understandable since the point of the novel was to get us to understand why someone as awesome as Luther could've fallen.

The first novel shows him in a very sympathetic light, with the exception of him moving aggressively against the Lupus Knight, which is rather understandable with what's learned shortly after.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarthMarko wrote:
Well, not to piss on him, but his portrayal makes Tzeench nb2. in calculating..

Well, it's his 'Gift'. He is the best natural strategos (behind Horus, as always).

Where is the first novel noticeably sympathetic towards him? The closest scene I can recall is Zahariel's realization that the Lion seems to have no understanding of normal people.

Also, Perturabo played him like a tool.

Honestly, the second novel was total tripe. I read the half that had to do with Zahariel, simply because I enjoyed his character in the first book, but the whole plotline that the expedition fleet led by the Emperor himself had Chaos cultists on it that decide to feed the entire population of Calaban to some kind of Chaos slugs was just silly. The bolter-porn half on the Forge World was so yawn-inducing, that I just skimmed to the few tidbits of dialogue, which were just confirmation that the Lion is utterly incapable at reading people (to the point of asking a Sgt. for advice on whether to trust someone).

It would explain why he gleefully gave Perturabo siege engines for promises of support to be Warmaster (perhaps he hadn't realized the significance and sheer magnitude of Horus' betrayal, and dismissed it as just another single instance of a Primarch swerving from the path and to be swiftly eliminated such as II and XI), or embracing that sentient teleportation engine he discovered in one of the short stories which any reasonable individual would destroy immediately (this also puts his strategic acumen into question, since this macguffin is the only thing that lets him do anything meaningful against the Night Lords' predations).

 Omegus wrote:
Honestly, the second novel was total tripe. I read the half that had to do with Zahariel, simply because I enjoyed his character in the first book, but the whole plotline that the expedition fleet led by the Emperor himself had Chaos cultists on it that decide to feed the entire population of Calaban to some kind of Chaos slugs was just silly. The bolter-porn half on the Forge World was so yawn-inducing, that I just skimmed to the few tidbits of dialogue, which were just confirmation that the Lion is utterly incapable at reading people (to the point of asking a Sgt. for advice on whether to trust someone).

It would explain why he gleefully gave Perturabo siege engines for promises of support to be Warmaster (perhaps he hadn't realized the significance and sheer magnitude of Horus' betrayal, and dismissed it as just another single instance of a Primarch swerving from the path and to be swiftly eliminated such as II and XI), or embracing that sentient teleportation engine he discovered in one of the short stories which any reasonable individual would destroy immediately (this also puts his strategic acumen into question, since this macguffin is the only thing that lets him do anything meaningful against the Night Lords' predations).

I thought the people that became cultist were turned because they were on Caliban. The further down into the hive thing the worse the taint got. I think he kicked himself over the siege engine and that is why he didn't turn over the xenos teleporter thingy.

 Manchu wrote:
The Khan is the good guy version of Angron.

I read somewhere that the Khan is one of the few primarchs who empathise/sympathise with Angron. He says something to the effect of "don't judge Angron, for you have not walked his path"

Anyone remember where this quote is found?

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Where is the first novel noticeably sympathetic towards him? The closest scene I can recall is Zahariel's realization that the Lion seems to have no understanding of normal people.

Also, Perturabo played him like a tool.

That's the second novel. There's no hint whatsoever about is supposed sociopathy in the first one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Omegus wrote:
Honestly, the second novel was total tripe.

Yes. And the end of the first one, too, to be honest.

which were just confirmation that the Lion is utterly incapable at reading people (to the point of asking a Sgt. for advice on whether to trust someone).

Which no one would have figured out in about 60 years of contact with the dude.

embracing that sentient teleportation engine he discovered in one of the short stories which any reasonable individual would destroy immediately (this also puts his strategic acumen into question, since this macguffin is the only thing that lets him do anything meaningful against the Night Lords' predations).

What short story is this?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

embracing that sentient teleportation engine he discovered in one of the short stories which any reasonable individual would destroy immediately (this also puts his strategic acumen into question, since this macguffin is the only thing that lets him do anything meaningful against the Night Lords' predations).

What short story is this?

I think it was in The Primarchs, if not that then Age of Darkness.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
That's the second novel. There's no hint whatsoever about is supposed sociopathy in the first one.

I am pretty sure it isn't. Zahariel doesn't so much as glance at the Lion in the second novel, in this scene, Zahariel was still an unmodified human.

With a selfish non caring father like the Emperor, it surprised me that not all except Dorn and Roboute went over to chaos, if you read how he deals with his sons failings, i wonder if he realy was immortal. If he had guided Magnus more, if hadn't rebuked lorgar so extremely, the Horusy Heresy wouldn't have happened, or at least on a lesser scale, I wonder if the Emperor was so tight lipped about chaos, because of what happened to the second and 11th legion.

Had the lion fell, it would be to nurgle or slaanesh, nurgle due to the lions pride being broken, slaanesh for his price being exploited by the warmaster

How does pride relate to Nurgle?

What does betrayal have to do with Slaneesh?

- - - - -

In the first novel, The Lion was clearly sociopathic. His frequent misjudging of how long it would take The Order to complete the eradication of the Great Beasts is a heavy foreshadowing of his inability to empathize with normal people- that and his ruthless provoking of those other Knights into a war they had no chance of winning.

Broken pride leads to dispear, that leads to nurgle, too much pride leads to arrogance and that leads to slaanesh, the only thing that saved the lion was his inhuman nature

 DarthMarko wrote:

 Beaviz81 wrote:
I disagree with you Marko, Lion was loyal. That's finite. He wasn't obviously loyal, but not the fence-sitter may paints him to be.

Well I'm not questiononig his allegiance,rather his motives...He wasn't that crazy ultra loyal in the begining of the heresy IIRC (not helping IH after they are declared 100% loyal, fearful on Dorn and Guiliman, his conversation with Curze etc.)
IMHO he is a very calculated persona and like @Void_Dragon said "sociopath lacking of empathy"...I' think in post heresy he would have been a real thorn in Guiliman eyes...

Calculating the Lion was yes, but I don't even question his motives. I recall someone earlier writing something about him being brought up at a chaos-tainted place much like Magnus. Though he unlike Magnus overcame his taste of Chaos, and persevered while Magnus has the disturbing though hilarious backstory we had so much fun with earlier in the discussion. Hehe.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
That's the second novel. There's no hint whatsoever about is supposed sociopathy in the first one.

I am pretty sure it isn't. Zahariel doesn't so much as glance at the Lion in the second novel, in this scene, Zahariel was still an unmodified human.

When they wander off alone in the night? I didn't get the feeling at all that it was refering to his inability to feel people. I could be very wrong on this though, it's be a few months since I've red the novel. I had the feeling that the whole sociopathy thing had been added in the second, and that only Zahariel's cousin remarked it...

I'll recheck it in the next few days...

As a note, Sociopathy typically refers to someone with Anti-Social Personality Disorder, whilst Psychopathy refers to a Psychopath: what I'm sure many of you actually mean. To describe someone bred for war as Anti-social may be a bit... Clichéd? Then again, due to all the factors surrounding their upbringing and creation, diagnosing any of the Primarchs could be clutching at straws.

BlaxicanX wrote:
How does pride relate to Nurgle?

What does betrayal have to do with Slaneesh?

- - - - -

In the first novel, The Lion was clearly sociopathic. His frequent misjudging of how long it would take The Order to complete the eradication of the Great Beasts is a heavy foreshadowing of his inability to empathize with normal people- that and his ruthless provoking of those other Knights into a war they had no chance of winning.

If he had lacked empathy, he would not have felt a link between him and Zahariel, out of them both killing a Calibanite Lion. I really didn't get the impression he was sociopathic in the 1st novel, at least not more than any warlord would be after a lifetime of warring. His attitude toward the Knights would be perfectly understandable if he knew what they were doing with the beasts.

 Beaviz81 wrote:

 DarthMarko wrote:

 Beaviz81 wrote:
I disagree with you Marko, Lion was loyal. That's finite. He wasn't obviously loyal, but not the fence-sitter may paints him to be.

Well I'm not questiononig his allegiance,rather his motives...He wasn't that crazy ultra loyal in the begining of the heresy IIRC (not helping IH after they are declared 100% loyal, fearful on Dorn and Guiliman, his conversation with Curze etc.)
IMHO he is a very calculated persona and like @Void_Dragon said "sociopath lacking of empathy"...I' think in post heresy he would have been a real thorn in Guiliman eyes...

Calculating the Lion was yes, but I don't even question his motives. I recall someone earlier writing something about him being brought up at a chaos-tainted place much like Magnus. Though he unlike Magnus overcame his taste of Chaos, and persevered while Magnus has the disturbing though hilarious backstory we had so much fun with earlier in the discussion. Hehe.

You mean, how Magnus was forced into prostitution...:-)
Btw, my point is simple - "You don't have to be chaos worshiper, to be bad..."

Also, you don't have to be disloyal to be "bad."

Well for me the Lion falls under Good is not Nice-territory. Not For the Evulz. But that's my interpretation of the guy.

Yeah, I think that is an excellent way to put it.

I'm sure he's quite charming once you get to know him....well maybe not.

the lion had fought chaos corruption on his homeworld and was not corrupted so he obviously is not a canidate to turn to horus. instead of trying to decide who among the loyalists should have or would have been more apt to turn to chaos we should be looking at the sins of the father that made so many sons turn, the emperor obviously had much blame in the situation. hr handled the situation with the thousand sons and magnus poorly. you dont chastise your son for trying to better himself and his chapter for trying to better serve you without explaining yourself to them. secondly he had too many secrets from the primearchs that he intrusted the fate of the universe to. intrusting them with extreme power with no reasoning as to why you yourself are abandoning the task at hand yourself is just asking for failure. the emperor in my opinion started to believe his own legends. in the end he realized too late he was just a man.

-----