The Primarchs - Character Killing

[Mantras]

So having read the stories in the Primarchs, something has been bothering me.

 

 

In The Reflection Crack'd, Eidolon gets offed in a somewhat pointless manner, having questioned Fulgrim.

 

In The Lion, the same happens to Nemiel. Primarch loses his temper and kills an established character.

 

And in The Serpent Below, Ranko is presumed to die at the end, although its not confirmed.

 

Does no one else think that at least the first two of these were fairly pointless killings of characters who had a fair ammount of page time before?

 

 

 

I would be very interested to hear what other people think on this.

[Son of Rawl]

It does not bother me as much if it adds to the story, but if your upset about charecter killing then do not read anything by George RR Martin as you will scream blue bloody muder at him, like I do :)

[Mantras]

Its not that it bothers me per se, just the seem to be fairly arbitrary and do not really advance the plot in any way. I loved all three stories, but the first two of these just seemed a little out of place to me.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

I can understand why you'd be upset/worried/curious/whathaveyou about it, but I can't say I share the sentiment. Eidolon was the only one of the three who was truly a major character -- Ranko was named once and had about three lines of dialogue prior to the The Primarchs -- and even he wasn't one of the driving forces behind the Emperor's Children. Those laurels fall to men like Fabius, Lucius, and Marius Vairosean. And besides, when it comes to warp, can anyone truly die? After all, in Galaxy in Flames, Khârn gets speared and crushed by a Sons of Horus Rhino, but we know he comes back. . .

[Kol Saresk]

Eidolon, I don't really miss that much. Too be honest, I thought his death was one of those "just desserts." Nemiel, I kind of don't get because they spent two novels building up his character only for him to die in a short story. But it was conductive to the "overall" story of what is happening to the Lion during the Heresy and how he has changed from when he was just a knight on Caliban. And Ranko, I kind of wished that there was more to him. Otherwise, he's just simply a stage hand that we simply get to see in action.

[2000AD]

Eidolon was an ass...!

 

:blink:

[Smirnov]

I mentioned Eidolon in the other thread, his death is suprising only because he was taking part in siege of Terra and active afterwards, otherwise the moment was logical - being killed by their whimsical Primarch over an imagined insult is the ultimate fate of all Emperors Children.

 

But Nemiel is another story. I'm kind of disappointed. First of all, it's a minor part of a short story. Lion just kills him, and everyone, including Nemiels terminator guards, forget about it the instance the scene changes. No thoughts on the parts of the characters, no nothing. It's like 'Lion: Roar! Lion smash chaplain! Legion: oh, well...'

 

And then I really wanted to see, how Nemiel and Zahariel change over the course of their lives, how being with Lion and Luther brings them apart, and when they meet on Caliban in the end, they have become enemies - willing or unwilling. This had the potential to be one of the greatest personal stories of the whole series. And surely it would have been a great addition to the character of Dark Angels.

 

So I'm 'a bit' disappointed by his death, as you may guess.

[Veteran Sergeant]

I kinda like the idea that anyone can die at any time. If every character has some kind of dramatic death, the dramatic deaths lose their significance.

 

War is hell.

[Smirnov]

I kinda like the idea that anyone can die at any time. If every character has some kind of dramatic death, the dramatic deaths lose their significance.

 

War is hell.

Like Horus dying to random guardsman before siege of Terra began?

We are talking about stories, not real life. Character death must have some meaning, some reason behind them. Sometimes they happen just to show that 'everyone can die', and usually the most likable character dies (I hate you, Whedon!), but in case of Nemiel that character clearly had a greater purpose in the story, than just being random victim. Eidolon's death is fine in that regard.

[Veteran Sergeant]

I kinda like the idea that anyone can die at any time. If every character has some kind of dramatic death, the dramatic deaths lose their significance.

 

War is hell.

Like Horus dying to random guardsman before siege of Terra began?

Exaggerate much? LOL. It doesn't do you any favors. Let's try discussing this like big boys.

 

 

We are talking about stories, not real life. Character death must have some meaning behind them.

There is nothing wrong if this is your preference, but this is absolutely not true. Some of the best writing and best novels ever written tell this idea to take a hike, lol. George RR Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series, for example. You might know it as the award winning Game of Thrones miniseries. Absolutely no reason or meaning to character deaths. Catch-22 by Heller. I could really go on and on if I was willing to think about it, heh.

 

Life has no meaning other than to procreate and sustain the species (though we are even doing that too well and overpopulating the Earth at this point, but that's a seperate discussion for another forum), sorry to break it to you. Does that mean characters can't die for a "Reason"? No, of course not. But it absolutely doesn't mean every death has to be scripted. Characters die. Sometimes you don't like it. But any novel where you know the fate of every character before it starts would be pretty boring indeed.

 

Like I said though, if that kind of formula appeals to you, by all means. Don't let me tell you what to read. But you need to simmer down with this "you're wrong!" tone, especially discussing with me.

[Kol Saresk]

Read a Stephen King novel. Half of the characters in there get a nice little intro that makes it seem like they are about to become adecent part of the storyline, and then they die. And it's usually stupid stuff that kills them. Why shouldn't be the same in 40k when the entire premise is that everything is going to Hell in a handbasket with cookies?

 

I like the fact that anyone could die at any moment, but like I said before, Nemiel's was more of a waste. He had a position in two novels where his character was being built up, even more so in the second novel. I had the same imagined destination for him that Smirnov had. That being said, I always did find the delicious irony of someone who once thought to attack the Emperor became one of the "trusted few" of a Primarch who owed loyalty to no one but said Emperor, not even his brother Primarchs.

[Billuriye]

Nemiel's death wasn't a good payoff for his invested character. It didn't incur any emotions from me except "lolwut".

[Valkyrion]

Eidolon had been turned into a comic bad guy. His character was diminishing on every page. The idea of a sycophantic 2nd in command isn't new, but Eidolon got more and more like Starscream*.

I don't know if that was by design and the plan was always to kill him off ignominiously, but either way he did need killing off. He'd become a bit of a parody.

 

He can always come back. Isn't that a Stephen King book? Sometimes they come back. Again. For More.

 

* I realise Starscream was always trying to usurp or kill Megatron, but I mean in the more general bumbling buffoon bad guy role.

[Brother Vaneb]

I mentioned Eidolon in the other thread, his death is suprising only because he was taking part in siege of Terra and active afterwards, otherwise the moment was logical - being killed by their whimsical Primarch over an imagined insult is the ultimate fate of all Emperors Children.

 

But Nemiel is another story. I'm kind of disappointed. First of all, it's a minor part of a short story. Lion just kills him, and everyone, including Nemiels terminator guards, forget about it the instance the scene changes. No thoughts on the parts of the characters, no nothing. It's like 'Lion: Roar! Lion smash chaplain! Legion: oh, well...'

 

And then I really wanted to see, how Nemiel and Zahariel change over the course of their lives, how being with Lion and Luther brings them apart, and when they meet on Caliban in the end, they have become enemies - willing or unwilling. This had the potential to be one of the greatest personal stories of the whole series. And surely it would have been a great addition to the character of Dark Angels.

 

So I'm 'a bit' disappointed by his death, as you may guess.

 

As much as that would be nice i think it will be more dramatic as to when Zahariel finds out Nemiel is dead, and killed by The Lion. I think that might have abit more of an impact. Death of a friend, the hidden face of Chaos on Caliban , Zahariel being close to Luther, i think it has potential....

[Kol Saresk]

I don't think Zahariel will be getting close to Luthor, but a nice little theory just popped into my head about what may happen. But we still got five years before we see that since the most up-to-date time of the Heresy is two years after Istvaan and if I'm not mistaken, they've been publishing the Heresy for two years so they seem to be keeping it up in a reasonable timetable.

[No Foes Remain]

I don't think Zahariel will be getting close to Luthor, but a nice little theory just popped into my head about what may happen. But we still got five years before we see that since the most up-to-date time of the Heresy is two years after Istvaan and if I'm not mistaken, they've been publishing the Heresy for two years so they seem to be keeping it up in a reasonable timetable.

Put on your tin-foil hat and speak of your theory, please?

[Kol Saresk]

I don't think Zahariel will be getting close to Luthor, but a nice little theory just popped into my head about what may happen. But we still got five years before we see that since the most up-to-date time of the Heresy is two years after Istvaan and if I'm not mistaken, they've been publishing the Heresy for two years so they seem to be keeping it up in a reasonable timetable.

Put on your tin-foil hat and speak of your theory, please?

Okay, please excuse any and all incoherence. i tend to ramble, but here goes.

 

We know that Zahariel lied when he told Luthor that he didn't remember the daemon's true name that they found under Caliban. We also know that Caliban was destroyed by a warp storm that opened up just after Luthor beat the Lion and swept away the Fallen, although Luthor himself was left behind. It is strongly assumed that the Chaos Gods opened the warp portal themselves, although almost all the fluff concerning the appearance of warp storms says that some sort of catalyst is needed in the material realm, like warp tech, a strong universal desire present in a species, rituals, and so on so forth and that most other storms are usually just the random tides of the warp spilling out in places where the barriers are weak, providing moments of opportunity.

 

We can already see Zahariel distancing himself from Luthor. He already feels like the rest of the Fallen in that they were betrayed by Luthor. So Zahariel is a third party. Or at least he is on his way there. What if, he summons the daemon to destroy the entire Dark Angels Legion, both the Fallen and the Unforgiven? True, he felt betrayed that Nemiel stayed behind and he didn't. But he would still feel his friend's death as a pretty big impact. And it just might be enough for him to go over the edge. Of course, if this theory is what will happen, I'm sure it will be reworked so Zahariel is an innocent victim.

[No Foes Remain]

You are excused of your incoherence, since thats what theories are meant to be all about. And It does make sense, because as soon as I started to read it and you stated about the warp storm I instanty though that Zahariel and the daemon had something to do with it. But BL might go with the less expected option to suprise us.

[Smirnov]

We are talking about stories, not real life. Character death must have some meaning behind them.

There is nothing wrong if this is your preference, but this is absolutely not true. Some of the best writing and best novels ever written tell this idea to take a hike, lol. George RR Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series, for example. You might know it as the award winning Game of Thrones miniseries. Absolutely no reason or meaning to character deaths. Catch-22 by Heller. I could really go on and on if I was willing to think about it, heh.

Actually, I have a low opinion about Martin, and one of my issues with him is that most of his 'plot twists' come from his rule 'if the character has at least some positive qualities, he must die. The more positive in him, the more gruesome the death'. But I know that general consensus holds SoIaF as some pinacle of modern fantasy, so I'm not arguing... Still, it pains me to see Martin brought into the discussion as an example, because to me it sounds like 'Uwe Boll is making these movies and it's ok. Let's do the same!'

But that's offtopic. On topic...

 

Life has no meaning other than to procreate and sustain the species (though we are even doing that too well and overpopulating the Earth at this point, but that's a seperate discussion for another forum), sorry to break it to you. Does that mean characters can't die for a "Reason"? No, of course not. But it absolutely doesn't mean every death has to be scripted. Characters die. Sometimes you don't like it. But any novel where you know the fate of every character before it starts would be pretty boring indeed.

 

Like I said though, if that kind of formula appeals to you, by all means. Don't let me tell you what to read. But you need to simmer down with this "you're wrong!" tone, especially discussing with me.

I'm ok with major characters dying (I think that's a neccessary addition, as we are not sheding any tears on those several thousand guardsmen, who died in Feat of Iron, entirely between the lines), I just want their deaths to have a meaning. And if it's not just a major, but pivotal character, his death should be a big thing. I know that 'should' is a bit strong term for creative process, but I think that in this case it's a question of basics of story building, not creative perpective of the author.

 

Fiction is not real life, obviously, and that's why I read fiction. I have enough of real life in, well, real life. In life a lot of things happen due to chance, vicissitudes of fate and other principal that we have little to no control or understanding of. You get fired for no reason, your friend goes out to buy some smokes and gets run over by a car, during a routine medical examination you are diagnosed with terminal illness. That's life. In fiction that's something more. It the beginning of the sotry, or the end of it, or a new twist. Your friend dies and you dedicate your life to vengeance or making sure nothing like this happens again. Knowing that you are dying, you start to muse about your past days, thinking what you did wrong to deserve this fate and try to fix some things before the bell tolls.

 

That's my issue with Nemiel. His death does not have a meaning. The scene, obviously, shows the degradation of the Lion, his willingness to do anything for victory and his pride going as far as killing his own for objecting him. A senior chaplain opposes the Lion, stating that the primarch is going to break Emperor's rule, and Lion kills his in a fit of presumed rage and arrogance.

Now, could it have been another chaplain, not Nemiel? Easily, nothing would have changed in the scene. Was Nemiel a major character in Angels's storyline? Yes he was, actually, one of the main characters of the first two books. Did his death bring an abrupt end to some of the story threads out there? Yes, I can name a few. Moreso, he was close to the primarch, he was one of the most decorated chaplains in the legion. And his death left no ripples in the story. Not even a promice of further notice about it. Even Lucius gave more reaction to Eidolon's death. In case of Nemiel there's nothing. I can bring a Martin example. Ned's death, as unexpected as it is, is one of the major plot twists in the first book. It not only shows us that 'everyone is mortal', but it lays ground to Rob's rebellion, it changes the fates of Starks, it gives rise to Boltons, to some other guys taking part in conspiracy whose names I forgot. Nemiel's death reminds me of a poorly told roleplaying game. 'Ooops, you roll 1 on your diplomacy check, the Lion kills you. Now roll a new character.'

 

I'll stress it again, because I think I was misunderstood. I'n not against any character deaths. Or all them being scripted or something like that. I just want a major character's death have a meaning. When a character, who was building up for two books, as main character in one to boot, is killed of in a by-scene, that's just a waste of previous books. For example, i'm ok with Eidolon's death. It was unexpected, because Eidolon was active post-Heresy until that moment, but the scene itself was done well. And it's almost identical to the one with Lion, I must add. Only bit different characters, bit different decorations, and when he dies my fisrt thought is 'did I read that wrong?!' and the second is 'well, he had that coming'.

 

 

As much as that would be nice i think it will be more dramatic as to when Zahariel finds out Nemiel is dead, and killed by The Lion. I think that might have abit more of an impact. Death of a friend, the hidden face of Chaos on Caliban , Zahariel being close to Luther, i think it has potential....

I hope so. I really started to like Dark Angels with the first two books. They brought some depth to the chapter, which I always considered 'half fail'. It would be a great loss for me, if the last books turns out to be something like Deliverance Lost.

[Billuriye]

Actually, I have a low opinion about Martin, and one of my issues with him is that most of his 'plot twists' come from his rule 'if the character has at least some positive qualities, he must die. The more positive in him, the more gruesome the death'. But I know that general consensus holds SoIaF as some pinacle of modern fantasy, so I'm not arguing... Still it pains me to see Martin brought into the discussion as an example, because to me it sounds like 'Uwe Boll is making these movies and it's ok. Let's do the same!'

But that's offtopic. On topic...

 

I know it's off topic but that's just plain false. Lots of evil guys in ASOIAF die in most horrific manner. And character being good does not have a direct relevance to his fatality. Most of the time a character dies because he can't adapt. Adaptation implies a certain compromise on good qualities but that's just realistic.

[Veteran Sergeant]

Yeah, I think there are far too many quaint hand waves about the quality of Martin's writing saying he kills characters purely for shock value simply because he occasionally kills characters that people really like. I've been reading the series since its inception. Not one of the TV show groupies by any means. But you're absolutely right Bill. Characters die, good and bad, and there's really very few "good" characters in the series anyway. There's a reason why his series has drawn the widespread acclaim it has. Nobody ever talks about fantasy fiction, lol. If people talk about Martin's books, there's a reason. You'll never see an R. A. Salvatore novel adapted by HBO. :lol:

 

Ultimately, Lion is the important character. Maybe Nemiel's role in the story was to show a critical turning point for the DA primarch. Nemiel's "purpose" or "meaning" was to die at his hands. Countering the idea of it being "any chaplain", it diminishes the effect. If he kills some faceless red shirt, it's less dramatic. So in a way, if you're looking for "meaning" to character deaths, there you go.

 

Making a Uwe Boll comparison seems pretty unfair regardless.

[TennisBall]

I thought Nemiel's death made perfect sense. The Lion considers himself alone, doesn't know who he can truly trust, he even resents the way Guilliman is acting to restore order as he feels Guilliman is acting without the Emperor's blessing.

 

With this going on in the background, The Lion's flagship is invaded by warp creatures and his troops don't have the means to stop them using conventional methods. There is a good possibility that the ship will be overrun and lost with all on board. The only viable solution is to ignore the Edicts of Nikea and reinstate the Librarium. Nemiel clearly states that he will oppose his Primarch in this, he will oppose the use of the only weapons that could win this battle and any future battle against similar foes. There is no half-way ground, no room to compromise, Nemiel has just become an obstacle to The Lion winning, he's effectively a traitor at this point and is killed accordingly.

That the others don't weep and moan over his death should not be surprising as they had more important concerns such as cleaning out a ship full of demons. They may even have agreed with what happened.

[Hyaenidae]

Eidolion's death wasn't a big loss to me; matter of fact, I thought it was beautiful that his own primarch snuffed him in a fit of petulance. His death showed how far the Children have fallen and changed, and frankly, Eidolion was an ass and had it coming. The story was outstanding altogether, high fives to Mr. McNeil for another job well done.

 

Nemiel, though.... What. In. The. :D . Seriously, where the hell are the BL staff taking the Lion at this point?!? Murdering his own son, who was defending the Emperor's law (who the Lion swears he is loyal to), in front of everyone, is something I'd expectfrom the psychopathic Haunter, not the noble Lion. Executing Nemiel was almost the stupidest action I've seen in the HH yet, especially since the last two books spent so much timebuilding him up. I don't mind when an important character bites the dust, but it needs to add to the story in some way. Instead, I felt his death took away from the I Legion's . Not firing on the Death Guard, known traitors mind you, and allowing them to parley, takes a close second. El' Johnsons' motives are getting confusing, but not the 'good' confusing like in Legion. More like, I either want some straight answers on what the hell the Lions' playing at, or just drop his story line until the fall of Caliban. It's not fun or enjoyable anymore.

 

As for Sheed Ranko... I think that he +sound of a silenced bolt pistol, followed by a meaty thump+

[StrayCatt]

You are presuming that the Death Guard are known traitors ... We know, but does the Lion. Are all of Mortarion's sons traitors?? Think carefully, and remember Garro ...

 

-Adam

[Antarius]

Ultimately, Lion is the important character. Maybe Nemiel's role in the story was to show a critical turning point for the DA primarch. Nemiel's "purpose" or "meaning" was to die at his hands. Countering the idea of it being "any chaplain", it diminishes the effect. If he kills some faceless red shirt, it's less dramatic. So in a way, if you're looking for "meaning" to character deaths, there you go.

Yeah, but the complaint seems to be that it isn't seen as a big thing and doesn't have any real effect.

 

I haven't gotten around to reading the story yet but it seems weird to me that a loyal primarch should kill any of his "sons". Especially if he does so in an offhand manner and it's not a "big thing" in the story.