Why does the Lion distrust Guilliman?

[Captain Idaho]

Analogies don't have to be literal comparisons. As long it portrays the agony of the choices involved here, it worked well enough to illustrate the circumstances.

 

The Lion is utterly loyal to the Emperor while Guiliman is loyal to the Imperium/humanity. That difference I think is what is driving all the differences between them at this point in time.

 

People keep saying this, yet I believe he is actually becoming dangerously unstable. He executed one of his senior officers infront of his men for being utterly loyal to the Emperor, so the Lion CAN'T be utterly loyal to the Emperor can he. :lol:

[Marshal Rohr]

The Lion executed Nemiel over Librarians. Guillimans realizes Librarians are the best way to combat Daemons. They are alike even with that.

 

 

Im serious, its like Renly is Guilliman and Stannis is the Lion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I need to finish watching that damn show. Driving me crazy.

[Legatus]

You're so far off in the scale of your analogy it's kind of comical. The situation is much closer to the first mate making the decision before even hearing from the captain of the ship and even that doesn't come close to accurately describing it. Bottom line, and Guiliman knows it(quoted text and all), is that planning for the war that will be after the current one instead of fighting the current one IS treasonous. It'd be one thing if he heard from the Emperor and the Emperor agreed with the plans but that isn't the case here.

Except that it is up to Guilliman how to direct his Legion, and that he is certain to act with full approval of the Emperor.

[Captain Idaho]

The Lion executed Nemiel over Librarians. Guillimans realizes Librarians are the best way to combat Daemons. They are alike even with that.

 

 

Im serious, its like Renly is Guilliman and Stannis is the Lion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I need to finish watching that damn show. Driving me crazy.

 

The programe is seriously colouring my judgement of everything! :lol:

 

But Guilliman and the Lion aren't the only ones to want to use Librarians to combat Daemons. The Lion was 100% correct on that subject, but I bet Sanguinius and Guilliman both don't ever execute their own men for disputing their intention/actual use of Librarians.

[Billuriye]

The Lion executed Nemiel over Librarians. Guillimans realizes Librarians are the best way to combat Daemons. They are alike even with that.

 

Lion realizes that too but Nemiel is useless with his insubordination.

[Brother Captain Kezef]

The Lion executed Nemiel over Librarians. Guillimans realizes Librarians are the best way to combat Daemons. They are alike even with that.

 

Lion realizes that too but Nemiel is useless with his insubordination.

 

True, Nemiel wuld never allow the Libbies to be usd and the Lion realised that the Libbies where their only way out of the situation. he is pragmatic and victory comes first.

[Droma]

Analogies don't have to be literal comparisons. As long it portrays the agony of the choices involved here, it worked well enough to illustrate the circumstances.

 

The problem with analogies is that often times they are over simplifications of a very nuanced situation and don't clearly convey the multitude of things that go into the original situation. You're trying to render a scene that was an entire chapter worth of events with several books and short stories for previous motivations down into a glib sentence. I know why he chose to use the analogy but I don't think any of us need things simplified in that way when we can simply discuss the complicated motivations of a complicated character.

 

The Lion is utterly loyal to the Emperor while Guiliman is loyal to the Imperium/humanity. That difference I think is what is driving all the differences between them at this point in time.

 

People keep saying this, yet I believe he is actually becoming dangerously unstable. He executed one of his senior officers infront of his men for being utterly loyal to the Emperor, so the Lion CAN'T be utterly loyal to the Emperor can he. ;)

 

Yes and no. Once again I think you're choosing to render a conclusion in the abstract while failing to take the context of the situation into account. So let me provide the context of our discussion.

 

The Lion is the son of the Emperor. He is leaving one war front against one of his brothers to stop two potential traitors from laying claim to an extremely powerful piece of technology that could turn the tides of a galactic civil war. While on the way his ship becomes trapped between real space and the warp and demons are invading his ship. If at any point the warp drives are destroyed the entire ship will be cease to be and should that happen it is very likely the Emperor will lose the war.

 

Now during all this he has found out that his librarians could help turn the tide and save the ship and therefore the galaxy. We also know Nemial is NOT a command level officer. He is a discipline officer. He is also refusing the direct order of one of the sons of Emperor.

 

Now that we have context we can then analyze the Lions actions. Yes he kills Nemiel in a fit of anger. This is a being that can kill space marines far easier than even we can kill a four year old. If momentarily loses it in an extremely tense situation. He then immediately regrets his decision. He says he will mourn the loss after the current crisis has ended. A little more context for you, at this point the Lion has not been able to contact earth and he has no idea if the Emperor is even alive. Hell the navigators think he is dead because they can no longer see the astronomicon. So who knows if the nikea decree at this point even still stands? We've seen the traitor primarchs and their descent into madness. This is no where near the same thing. There is no taint in the Lion. He's not on top of his game but who would be at this point? I don't think you can make the claim that he is any more unstable than any other loyal primarch with the current exception of possibly Dorn and Sanguinius.

 

You can't simply go OMG he executed him he's obviously insane and doesn't trust the uber pure Gillymanz!(hyperbole) and then not back it up with something more significant than minor transgressions and simple analogies. Hell all the words I've typed on this subject in all my posts in this thread doesn't do a character analysis of the Lion or Guiliman justice. Like ADB is a fan of saying. You're all missing the shades of gray.

[ForTheLion]

Guilliman has and always will be an overglorified clerk that has been blessed with the body of a primarch...thats how most of his brothers see him at least..in one of the 1k sons novels i think leman calls him a soldier trying to play the role of leader, might of been prospero burns?

 

regardless the lion has good reason to distrust him from his own personal expirience, since he knows that after horus it was he who held the most victories in the great crusade...so as far as hes concerned he should be leading the defences against horus

[Gree]

Guilliman has and always will be an overglorified clerk that has been blessed with the body of a primarch...thats how most of his brothers see him at least..in one of the 1k sons novels i think leman calls him a soldier trying to play the role of leader, might of been prospero burns?

 

I don't recall Russ saying anything of the sort in any novel. In fact I don't recall any peice of fluff were his brothers think of him as an ''overglorifed desk clerk.''

[Captain Idaho]

Guilliman has and always will be an overglorified clerk that has been blessed with the body of a primarch...thats how most of his brothers see him at least..in one of the 1k sons novels i think leman calls him a soldier trying to play the role of leader, might of been prospero burns?

 

regardless the lion has good reason to distrust him from his own personal expirience, since he knows that after horus it was he who held the most victories in the great crusade...so as far as hes concerned he should be leading the defences against horus

 

Read Know No Fear ;)

 

@ Droma: Yeah I didn't miss the context, I went past it. There are always other ways to deal with such a situation and acheive the same desired result. In this case that was reinstatement of the Librarians.

 

Allowing context to bog you down with excuses is the road to damnation. It's ok to do this because...

 

I get desparate measures may require desparate solutions, but this circumstance certainly could have been addressed by having Nemiel arrested and stripped of office. The Lion had a choice of how to deal with the situation and went for the most extreme choice.

 

Could we imagine how it would feel to be a Legionaire who hears about what happened and the damage to moral? Loyalty to the Emperor comes after loyalty to the Lion. Sounds a lot like what Horus did at Istvaan...

[Droma]

Allowing context to bog you down with excuses is the road to damnation. It's ok to do this because...

 

I get desparate measures may require desparate solutions, but this circumstance certainly could have been addressed by having Nemiel arrested and stripped of office. The Lion had a choice of how to deal with the situation and went for the most extreme choice.

 

Could we imagine how it would feel to be a Legionaire who hears about what happened and the damage to moral? Loyalty to the Emperor comes after loyalty to the Lion. Sounds a lot like what Horus did at Istvaan...

 

Context is probably the single most important point in any argument and to summarily dismiss it and then place your own opinions of right and wrong on a situation you're completed removed from doesn't leave room for a conversation about a complex subject.

 

Let me jump past the context of our discussion and say you're wrong because you don't understand or choose not to understand. It's not fair of me to do that and it's also not fair of you to do the same. You're treating the situation as black and white and coloring it with your personal bias. You've done the same for your opinions on Guiliman. You back your statements with I think, I feel, and not sound reasoning.

 

My opinions on the subject have been stated and I believe stated quite clearly. I'll be bowing out of the thread at this point or directing my comments at other posters from this point forward.

[Legatus]

Yeah, that story was simply being all melodramatic. Imagine a commander whose ship is hit and suffering a hull breach, having to make the difficult decision to seal off that section of the ship when not all crew members have yet made it to the safe sections, condemning them to a painful void death. He would be "betraying" those crew members, to save the rest of the ship, and he would probably feel a sense of guilt for having to do so. But he would not be considered a "traitor". That is how Guilliman himself ponders about how he is "betraying" the people of the Imperium he cannot save or those he has to oppose to establish order.

You're so far off in the scale of your analogy it's kind of comical.

Your assessment of who it is Guilliman is betraying is off, so maybe that is why the analogy seems to make no sense to you.

"The Imperium was lost. Everything he knew told him so, and this betrayal was the one thing that would save the dream at its heart from extinction."

In that section, it is cleary described that Guilliman is sacrificing the current Imperium to ensure that the goal of the Emperor can be realized in the second attempt. That is not a treason against the Emperor, because it is the agenda of the Emperor that is being adhered to. This is treason against the people of the current Imperium, who are left at the mercy of Horus. At no point is Guilliman suggesting that he will not defend Terra, and, unless it is being retconned, he will be on his way there when it is being under siege, together with the Space Wolves and, curiously enough, the Dark Angels.

 

Thus my analogy. Guilliman feels he is betraying the people he cannot save, the people he has to sacrifice in order to ensure the future for the people of the next Imperium. Just like a Captain is sacrificing the people in the breached areas to save the rest of the ship.

[Captain Idaho]

I wasn't ignoring context, I was going past it. I wasn't allowing the context of the situation to allow excuses for how the Lion's actions were out of the usual sphere of his expected behaviour.

 

And besides, everyone defending the Lion doesn't seem to want to comment on the obvious point made by myself and other - the Lion had other options when dealing with Nemiel, including acquiescence (the wrong choice) or having him stripped of office and arrested (the logical and least troubling decision for his other officers and men).

 

Look at the message he sent to his men; question me over anyone else, including the Emperor, and you die. Horus would be proud!

 

I seriously think BL are making the Lion the traitor Primarch who stayed loyal. His actions echoe those of Horus at Istvaan. I'm also sure the rebellion of Luthor and his men will not be a black and white thing that he and his men felt abandoned but maybe even justified since the Lion is losing his way somewhat.

 

***edited*** Not that I think the Lion is a traitor, rather his actions are as dark as the traitor Primarchs' and he is being set up to be the bad guy of the loyalists by BL...

 

Anyway, the discussion has been fun and I look forward to reading replies to this post. After those replies I probably won't continue my part of the discussion since it would just be perpetuating a circular debate. Please do reply if you feel so inclined though and continue discussion etc, as I will read it.

[Grimdarkness]

But Nemiel was a forshadowing of just how deep and hot the lions rage/anger could be. Remember he orders his ships to fire on caliban thus dooming the planet in a fit of rage.

[ForTheLion]

At the end of the day it dosent really matter how loyal the lions intentions were though, nor how selfish and traitorous guilimans were....

 

As we well know in the 41st millenium the smurfs are the poster boys that everybody likes who are obsessed with a book :cuss while the dark angels are viewed with susupicion and are on a private crusade...hence no matter where this discussion leads, ultimately the present is set in stone...at least untill 6th edition

[Apothecary Vaddon]

In 6th edition, we will undoubtedly see the next step in the evolution of Wardian fluff: space marine sex.

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

I think it'll be interesting to see what the Lion's motives shape into, and how he relates that in context of the greater Heresy.

[Veteran Sergeant]

Yeah, not like Guilliman is responsible for the deed that made Lorgar go on a soul-searching quest that spawned the Heresy.

You're falling into the same trap Lorgar did.

 

The Emperor was responsible for Monarchia. Guilliman just did what he was told.

 

The Lion didn't trust Guilliman because it's starting become obvious that the modern incarnation of El'Johnson is a little paranoid.

[Atlantic]

Starting to become obvious?

 

Let's put it this way.

 

Instead of asking why does the Lion distrust Guilliman, let's take it one further.

 

Who does the lion trust?

 

Any of the other Primarchs? No (especially after Perturabo tricked him)

Luther? No

His own subordinates? Looks like only a few of them

The Emperor? Doesn't seem to trust the E's judgment

 

Little psychic warp monkeys? Yes......

[Perrin]

He does seem crazy. Maybe the little hooded things he talks to (Watchers in the Dark?) whisper dark thoughts in his ear, telling him that everyone will betray him and to trust only them? It seems to be working anyway.

 

He does seem crazy. Maybe the little hooded things he talks to (Watchers in the Dark?) whisper dark thoughts in his ear, telling him that everyone will betray him and to trust only them? It seems to be working anyway.

[Legatus]

I dunno, the Watcher in 'The Lion' seemed to give sound advise to Jonson, which he seems to neglect in soem instances:

'I have Curze now,' the Lion said, speaking only to shadows. His monologue stopped every few moments, as though to allow someone else to speak. (...)

The Lion paused and wiped a fingertip across his brow.

'Guilliman is a misguided fool at best, and a traitorous dog at worst.' He took a deep breath. 'I know that, but I would no sooner bend my knee to him than to Horus. (...)'

 

'No, it is too important,' said the primarch. 'Even if what you say is true, I cannot return to Caliban yet. Some what may, I have to stop Horus and Guilliman.'

In the upper paragraph, Jonson seems to acknowledge something the Watcher had just told him, but then proceeds to dismiss Guilliman anyway. ('I know that, but...') Maybe the Watchers told him that Guilliman can stop the Warmaster? Or can rebuild the Imperium?

In the second paragraph, the Watcher seems to have told Jonson that something is amiss on Caliban, but again Jonson is not heeding his advice.

[MadDoc]

Watch out Legatus, defending Jonson in this thread could get you jumped on from a great height... ;)

[Legatus]

If anything I was defending the Watchers in the Dark. ;)

 

But Jonson's loyalty or his capabilities cannot really be questioned. He was just not very good with people. And I mean that not in a "it annoys me how GW always promotes Guilliman, so I'll say that nobody liked him" kind of way, but in a very real and actual "he grew up in the wild, among beasts" kind of way.