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.

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.