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.

 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.