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

To preface this, I’m pretty new to 40k lore and just had this thought looking over the thread about Angron and the butcher’s nails. I think that the traitor legions and loyalist legions are meant to symbolize the difference between nature and nurture, and I feel (in my limited experience) there is enough to make it a decent theory. Mainly, most of the traitor primarchs were largely impacted by the world’s they originally landed on (Mortarion despising authority, Angron being psychologically messed up, Konrad Curze developing his use of torture) while loyalist primarch didn’t have to overcome nearly as much or had much better starts. My other main piece of evidence is that loyalist’s legions put a lot of emphasis on their own geneseed while the traitor legions really don’t care. The traitor legions just need someone to be initiated (get nurglified, have butcher’s nails put in) and then you’re a part of it, no genetic background required. I’m really interested if anyone else thinks similarly, or if you guys think I’m entirely off base.

maybe?

its a interesting theory, but i would argue that the as the lore has evloved, what we see is less a "nature vs nurture" split, but a "rise above vs sink down to" spilt, with the loyalist legions rising above their flaws, but the traitors letting those flaws drag them down. the Blood Angels were super-bloodthirsty, on par with the world eaters, but were able to transform themselves into the sophisticated vampires we know today. The Emperors children fell to hubris and arrogance, while the ultras were able to keep a mesure of realism that tempered them. The Iron warriors and the Imperial fists are both, arguably, overlooked and under-applicated, but the latter took duty as its own reward and the former threw a hissy fit about it.

and so on. its not a perfect fit, obivously, and some primarchs were indeed more or less doomed to fail, but i think thats partly just a case of reverse-engineering form the state they were introduced as and paving a road towards that (ie, the Night Lords were introduced as these fear mongerers fond of torture, so they wrote their history to lead towards that state)

I think it would be great if the HH series had such a consistent theme but the truth is it’s all over the place

It’s kind of about the futility of power.

The Primarchs were engineered to be loyal. Yet, there are examples of The Emperor’s treatment being unfair, and fostering resentment.

Compare how The Iron Warriors were treated to The Imperial Fists.


Angron is a standout, as whilst The Emperor didn’t exactly help things? The damage done via the Butchers Nails was hardly his doing.

Always keep in mind Horus was forcibly turned, as was Fulgrim.

Magnus is an odd case. Whilst The Emperor did set the ball rolling? It was Horus who told Russ to go full mental.

Nighthaunter probably should’ve been euthanised though.

I think it was inevitable some would turn - but without something on the scale of Istvaan, such rebellion would’ve been greatly reduced and therefore have been more or less manageable.

Heck, without Horus, there’s an argument the other elements, particularly the Mechanicum, wouldn’t have turned coat too.