Were "the Betrayed/Survivors" declaired Traitors?

[Captain Rolunde]

Woot!

 

Shadows of Treachery - http://www.blacklibrary.com/all-products/s...-treachery.html

 

"About the book: This anthology spans the entire Horus Heresy, with short stories from Dan Abnett, Graham McNeill and Gav Thorpe, as well as two brand new novella-length tales. Learn the fate of Rogal Dorn’s fleet originally sent to Isstvan III in ‘The Crimson Fist’ by John French, and descend deeper into the darkness of the Night Lords Legion in ‘Prince of Crows’ by Aaron Dembski-Bowden."

 

Besides looking to have just some great reading, looks like this will cover at least one of my questions. Really looking forward to it.

 

October suddenly seems so far off now.

 

For the record, 'The Prince of Crows' in Shadows of Treachery has a significant chunk about Nostramo in that context, with Curze pacifying it. People have been waiting so long, I thought it was best to show it at last, rather than leaving them hanging even longer.

 

And woot again!

[Zynk Kaladin]

I can see a select few of the older Night Lords staying loyal. Seeing the degradation of their legion with "scum and villainy", the misuse of terror tactics to the point of it not really being a tactic at all, and their primarch going bonkers would be enough to push them to remain loyal.

[Ju'kosian]

the next 'Garro' book (or audiobook ) will answer some questions about the Istvaan survivors I think

[Lord Lorne Walkier]

the next 'Garro' book (or audiobook ) will answer some questions about the Istvaan survivors I think

 

Garro: Sword of Truth has Masa Varren on the cover. He is named two times in Flight of the Eisenstein as a Isstvan III Loyalist. Also on the cover is a Emperors Children who i think is Tarvitz. Varren, Tarvitz and Garro have been named as Isstavan survivors since we first learned there was a Horus Heresy. I hope this Audio book will confirm my theory.

 

http://www.blacklibrary.com/all-products/sword-of-truth.html

[Inquisitor Engel]

Damm i hate being wrong. /gerr/ Ok then, can anyone plz tell me who was the Terran, Night Lord, Captain, who took over leadership of the legion after the Night Haunter died? The Legion refused to Follow him and broke up into warbands? Were his hands painted red?.... Maybe the guy who took over for Sevatar?

 

You're thinking of Zso Sahaal. I'm not sure how much we'll see of him in the Heresy series, as ADB told me in a PM once that he didn't particularly like messing with other people's characters in a significant way, which I certainly can appreciate. He might get some stuff fleshed out, but I doubt we'll get any major revelations about him.*

 

He gets dismissed by Talos as someone who tried and failed to unite the Legion early on in 'Soul Hunter' and that's the most we really get from him, other than the explanation of the Atramentar fragmenting because basically, he wasn't Sevatar.

 

I'm more interested in reading about those we know who fell, glorious in their final moments. Malcharion, for instance. I'd also LOVE to see who kills Sevatar. I don't think it's been mentioned yet - I hope it's an Imperial Fist, maybe Sigismund or Polux. The Night Lords/Fists/Dorn/Kurze rivalry is way, way cooler than the all-too-obvious Fists/Iron Warriors one we've had for years.

 

 

*It's also entirely possible he's simply not that important within the Legion until Sevatar's death. The whole "I invented Assault Marines!" seems a bit... exaggerated and given his aversion to Chaos worship, I doubt he'd like the current incarnation of the Raptors within the Legion.

[Lord Lorne Walkier]

*It's also entirely possible he's simply not that important within the Legion until Sevatar's death. The whole "I invented Assault Marines!" seems a bit... exaggerated and given his aversion to Chaos worship, I doubt he'd like the current incarnation of the Raptors within the Legion.

 

He was 1st Captain after Sev's death, that means he was Important. The point i was making is that just because he was a Terran dose not mean he was a Loyalist.

[Captain Rolunde]

... The point i was making is that just because he was a Terran dose not mean he was a Loyalist.

 

And that is a good point, as it mostly seems that Terrans = Loyalist, mostly.

 

But this shows that is not automatically the case.

 

Loyals and Traitors came from both Terra and the Legiones home planets.

 

Maybe fewer Terrans turned traitor, but I imagine there were fewer Terrans left in the Legions by the time of the HH.

 

They'd been fighting for years and recruiting from their own planets rather than Terra at that point.

 

So fewer Terran members = fewer Terran traitors, and we don't know enough (at least I don't) to have any idea what kind of percentages we're loking at for either of those.

 

Beyond a general idea that is roughly 1/3rd of each Legion that had to be "illuminated."

[Inquisitor Engel]

He was 1st Captain after Sev's death, that means he was Important.

 

I meant important to the story, not to the Legion. :)

[A D-B]

He was 1st Captain after Sev's death, that means he was Important.

 

Or he was just one of many champions, and decided to take command of the First Company; whom he later abandons anyway in Lord of the Night. Besides, he doesn't become First Captain until after the Heresy.

 

As Engel mentioned, I didn't want to touch that sacred cow too much. I brought him slightly back into balance by exalting him a bit (making him First Captain after Sevatar dies) and bringing him down slightly (not everyone loved him, which makes sense given how he treats the Legion in Lord of the Night), but I'm pretty much leaving him at that. He won't show up much in the Heresy at all; if I made him too good, people would whine he's a perfect Mary Sue, if I didn't make him perfect, other people would whine that their beloved Sahaal wasn't as good as they demanded, and ultimately he's just one fish in a pretty massive ocean.

 

I did actually mail Simon Spurrier about a year ago asking if he had any input or or preference (see? I can be nice...), but since he didn't reply, I feel pretty pleased and justified in not touching Sahaal at all.

[Apothecary Vaddon]

People don't respond to post nowadays. It's email now.

[A D-B]

People don't respond to post nowadays. It's email now.

 

Bazinga.

[WolfGuardVortek]

I'm guessing that you get The Big Bang Theory over on your side of the pond?

[Hyaenidae]

I did actually mail Simon Spurrier about a year ago asking if he had any input or or preference (see? I can be nice...), but since he didn't reply, I feel pretty pleased and justified in not touching Sahaal at all.

 

 

That's... a bit sad, to be honest. I know, one must respect the works of others, but it seems a bit off not to include Sahaal anywhere (or in small bites) during the heresy.

 

Also, to be fair, the "sacred cow" used to be Primarchs, and despite the occasional whining, people have enjoyed how they've been presented. Don't see how Sahaal would be any different. Plus, if Mr. Spurrier cannot be reached over a certain period of time, or generally just doesn't give a rat's ass any longer, doesn't that make Sahaal fair game?

 

One last thing...

ultimately he's just one fish in a pretty massive ocean.

 

In the scale of the Heresy, yeah. I buy that. But amongst the Night Lords Legion (and it's fans), he's a shark in a fishbowl. Not giving Sahaal some screentime feels like not giving Khârn, or Sigismund, or Arhiman their due, just because of how others may have originally percieved them prior to the HH series.

 

Hell, at least show him buzzsawing through a demi-squad of Loyalists sometime, and I'd be content.

[Legatus]

In the scale of the Heresy, yeah. I buy that. But amongst the Night Lords Legion (and it's fans), he's a shark in a fishbowl. Not giving Sahaal some screentime feels like not giving Khârn, or Sigismund, or Arhiman their due, just because of how others may have originally percieved them prior to the HH series.

Oh, I dunno. Sahaal vanished after the Heresy and was not heard from again until ten thousand years later. He is not exactly an important figure in the history of the Night Lords...

[Hyaenidae]

But we're not talking about post-heresy. He was, at the minimum, a Champion amongst champions during the heresy.

 

And he's important to Night Lord fans who clutched the only purely NL book (until A D-B showed up) close to their chest. Ignoring him feels...odd.

[Bulwyf]

But we're not talking about post-heresy. He was, at the minimum, a Champion amongst champions during the heresy.

 

And he's important to Night Lord fans who clutched the only purely NL book (until A D-B showed up) close to their chest. Ignoring him feels...odd.

 

I agree with this. I also have to add that ignoring a politely sent message is just rude. I don't know why Mr. Spurrier would not respond to a letter from ADB but this isn't like, say, ADB ignoring the question I sent him on facebook a couple days ago because his inbox here is full. I'm just a guy on a fan board. ADB is a fellow BL author and frankly not bothering to respond to a question about the only other significant NL character in current print is simply unprofessional. And rude.

 

Despite that I hope we do see Sahaal in the Heresy series. He is a major player in the Legion and deserves some play. If Mr. Spurrier doesn't care to use the character or has no real input to offer then I would simply use Sahaal as I saw fit were I in ADB's loafers. Assuming he wears loafers although he seems more like the combat boot sort.

[A D-B]

But we're not talking about post-heresy. He was, at the minimum, a Champion amongst champions during the heresy.

 

And he's important to Night Lord fans who clutched the only purely NL book (until A D-B showed up) close to their chest. Ignoring him feels...odd.

 

I agree with this. I also have to add that ignoring a politely sent message is just rude. I don't know why Mr. Spurrier would not respond to a letter from ADB but this isn't like, say, ADB ignoring the question I sent him on facebook a couple days ago because his inbox here is full. I'm just a guy on a fan board. ADB is a fellow BL author and frankly not bothering to respond to a question about the only other significant NL character in current print is simply unprofessional. And rude.

 

Despite that I hope we do see Sahaal in the Heresy series. He is a major player in the Legion and deserves some play. If Mr. Spurrier doesn't care to use the character or has no real input to offer then I would simply use Sahaal as I saw fit were I in ADB's loafers. Assuming he wears loafers although he seems more like the combat boot sort.

 

What did you say in that message? I tend to leave my Facebook messages for a day when I feel up to facing them down all in one go.

 

Where Simon Spurrier is concerned, I wouldn't leap to judgement on that score. From the grapevine, he's just not interested in 40K writing anymore, and pays it no bother. Even if that's not true, as a veteran of putting off replying to important messages until it's too late, maybe it just wasn't on his radar, etc. It's no big deal, either way.

 

That's because...:

 

 

 

In the scale of the Heresy, yeah. I buy that. But amongst the Night Lords Legion (and it's fans), he's a shark in a fishbowl. Not giving Sahaal some screentime feels like not giving Khârn, or Sigismund, or Arhiman their due, just because of how others may have originally percieved them prior to the HH series.

 

Hell, at least show him buzzsawing through a demi-squad of Loyalists sometime, and I'd be content.

 

...remember, your focus determines your reality on that score. Firstly, Lord of the Night was written a long time ago, when the lore was in a different phase. It was written before a lot of new developments had shown up in the years since, and when it was practically the only look at a primarch in the entire license. It made waves (A primarch! A Legion betrayed!), and was big news. But we've had a lot of details since then, and a lot of them don't match up - or I've warped them specifically so they do match up as best as time allows. I didn't have to be beholden to that novel at all, but I chose to be, as I liked it a lot and it felt like the respectful, professional thing to do.

 

EDIT: And as a curious aside, I've got a few subtle mentions like that where I still think I might slot him in. An aborted short story (which became 'Savage Weapons' instead) saw Sevatar and Sahaal and a few others being the very first Raptors (rather than Assault Marines) and hunting the Dark Angels behind enemy lines. That still feels like it will show up again, in some form.

 

But Sahaal's a massive deal to you, and maybe to the people you know, or the forum feedback you've seen. That doesn't mean he's as massively vital or well-known among the entire fanbase. Even forgoing how long ago it was written and how much more BL novels sell now than they did then, I see countless responses with next to no idea who Sahaal is, or not being a fan of him (he's probably the most Mary Sue-accused character in all of BL fandom, that I've seen, which is unfair because he's flaws are part of why LotN is a tragedy; people just tend to overlook that aspect and assume he was "right") or accepting that from the Legion's POV he really wasn't as much hot sauce as he said he was (which, of course, LotN categorically states, but is often lost in faboyism).

 

And on a meta-point, to be entirely honest, it gets draining after a while when people keep bringing him up to me. It's not all that often, but I'll get it maybe once or twice a month, and it starts to grind your gears after a while. There's no way to include him and make people happy. Some will say if it's X, it should've been Y. Others will say it should've been Z, and that I only did A because I think B. It's a nest of vipers.

 

It makes me not want to mention him at all, because the Sahaal some of them talk about isn't the one I read about in Lord of the Night. He was a deluded, selfish scumwad (which was why he was awesome) and from a point in BL's literary timeline when you could take liberties with the lore, knowing if you showed X there was no chance any other author would show something that grand or come around to contradict it. So when I get messages telling me that their Eric Draven-style Perfect Night Lord must be included in the Heresy, I look at all the times I've had to explain to knee-jerk idiots that I don't hate Sahaal (with references and evidence to support that my view is just balanced, rather than fanboyed-up like theirs); all the times I've tried to include him in ways that are balanced and realistic to the character and the Legion; the time I mailed Simon Spurrier asking what he'd like to see, and got no reply; and the larger glance at just how much the license and publisher has changed, and I think "You know what? I'm tired of it. It's more trouble than it's worth, and I'd rather not mention him at all."

 

It's a case of being damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Aqui]

It's a case of being damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

And that's the tragedy of it. Not being able to put a new perspective on a character because some readers can only see that character in one way, and one way only. It's been quite a while since I read LotN (it was a Library book and I double take'd so hard when I saw it I nearly dislocated my neck :lol: [My local Library isn't known for it's wide selection of books and the Sci-fi/Fantasy section has decreased in size by at least 50% in the last year or so hence the double header]), But I'd have loved to see what your version of him would have been like.

 

I had a fairly nasty experience sometime ago, helping a Dojinshi comic writer/illustrator re-imagine some of her characters and help with the writing. At the time the other person was happy with what I came up with, but her "fans" at an Anime con wanted to lynch me. Instead of backing me up, she fed me to the wolves. I've since decided I will only ever write using my own Characters - less hassle and less chance of adding to the already large collection of rusty knives in my back :)

 

Anyway, back on topic. I really need to hurry up and read more stuff. I'm still on Legion at the moment (I know I could skip a few books, but I have a "thing" where I have to read the books in the order they are published in <_< ), but I feel that there is something else planned for Garro and company besides the "forming up of the =][= etc". I just think that the =][= was formed (or at least fully realised) after the Heresy ( I can't see the =][= just being formed very quickly and then "getting out there" until after the HH). If this the case, I really can't see Garro just sitting around not doing anything. I could be barking up the wrong tree with that feeling (not the first time I've been wrong after all :lol: ), but it's a feeling nontheless.

[Bulwyf]

ADB, the message I sent you on facebook was a couple of quick questions I was hoping you could answer so I could resolve some lore points in a short story I'm writing for my own tabletop NL warband. I know from comments you've made before that you are a stickler for lore details that you can get right and I am cut from the same cloth. My first name is Timothy if that helps you go through the messages. I sent it to you on July 5th. Basically what I asked was:

 

Are the Atramentar the name for the Terminators only in Talos's combined warband or if you looked at a Night Lord TOE would you see the Atramentar as the name given to ALL Terminators? Were all the Terminators in the Night Lords just put into First Company or did each chapter have a company of Terminators? I also asked if you could comment on techmarines and apothecaries in the Legion as it stands now. Are there any left? I've always been under the impressions going back several codex that Oblits are all that are left of the traitor techmarines and there's scant mention of apothecaries unless it is extreme examples such as Fabius or the one guy running around with Huron.

 

I know Talos was a former apothecary but he seemed to care so little about it that it makes me wonder if any of the former specialists care to uphold their responsibility when the Legions are fractured into what they are now.

 

I appreciate any answer you can give and I hate even asking because I don't like to add to what I know are the many questions you get asked by fans.

[Bulwyf]

Going back to Sahaal, I am one of the most unabashed fans of LotN and how Sahaal was portrayed. I do still find it realistic that when you are as arrogant as the Emperor is that having a legion that you can terrorize people with is advantageous to have. I have never understood why so many people glass over the atrocities and ignorance the Emperor brought to the rest of the galaxy: oh you are a xeno and you want friendly relations? Sorry, you all have to die. No no, not just the Orks silly friendly alien guy. ALL of you have to DIE. The inherent bigotry and racism is only matched by the Emperor's decision to wipe out religion. Who died and made him God to decide the religious leanings of trillions of humans.

 

So when you work with that kind of mindset, having some Brownshirts in ceramite only makes sense. Form follows function. The Night Lords served a function just like the Ultramarines or the Salamanders or Space Wolves did. And when you no longer need that function or if they get too out of control that is what damage control is for. Oh sorry there billions of people in "X" system, sorry the Night Lords went out of control trying to bring you into compliance. You get enough of that and you have a mad dog that needs to be put down. That is how I perceived LotN with Sahaal's memories of the Night Lords. I still think he has a valid enough point that it deserves mention.

 

If Mr. Spurrier is done with 40k or at least takes a long break from it like William King did then I say feel free to put Sahaal in and critics be damned. We got one great novel with him in it, why not flesh him out some more by showing us what he was like back in the Heresy and for that matter why not pick up his story at the end of LotN and show what happens when he starts running into NL warbands. I'd love to see that.

[A D-B]

Going back to Sahaal, I am one of the most unabashed fans of LotN and how Sahaal was portrayed.

 

So am I, but there are nuances here. Look:

 

I do still find it realistic that when you are as arrogant as the Emperor is that having a legion that you can terrorize people with is advantageous to have.

 

The Night Lords served a function just like the Ultramarines or the Salamanders or Space Wolves did. And when you no longer need that function or if they get too out of control that is what damage control is for.

 

...

 

You get enough of that and you have a mad dog that needs to be put down. That is how I perceived LotN with Sahaal's memories of the Night Lords. I still think he has a valid enough point that it deserves mention.

 

And here's the problem. None of this is true. It's not in any of the Night Lords' lore, and it's got nothing to do with the established background. Sahaal certainly believes it, but Sahaal is wrong. Talos believes it, too. Talos is also wrong, but conflicted on enough levels to grow increasingly uncertain himself, in his growth and development over the Night Lords Trilogy. But it's not true. That's why Sahaal is a compelling character: because he so adamantly believes this constructed worldview to justify his evils, and it's snatched away from him at the end when it's revealed he was wrong about the Legion and his primarch. That's the whole point.

 

And that's much deeper, and much more interesting to me than exalting Sahaal as the "only guy who really knows the score". He doesn't. He's wrong. The Legion wasn't betrayed by the Emperor, and Curze wasn't schizophrenic in the slightly contrived sense of having two personalities: one loyalist, one Chaos - despite what Acerbus says, it's just never mentioned elsewhere. We, as fans, know it's probably not true.

 

And at no point has it ever been true. It's not even true in Lord of the Night, where you have two incredibly unreliable witnesses arguing the polar opposite things, neither of which exactly match the published lore. The fact is goes against the lore is how we know it's a case of tragic deception, as well as a case of unreliable narration on both sides. People can't argue with a straight face that I disrespected the theory or irrationally hate it; I even made my own main character believe it, too. Again, out of respect for what came before.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm now in a position where I could actually make it true. I could make Curze into that, and I could make the Emperor betray the Legion. I'm not sure I will, though. I don't see it as one of the more compelling theories or possibilities about the Legion (but I can easily see why many of the Night Lords would think it), and I think multiple personalities significantly devalues and cheapens the actual mindset of the primarch - as well as taking it miles from its haunting and apt Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now roots.

 

And on a technical standpoint, I'd be taking one old novel's subjective narrators over all of GW's previously published lore regarding the Legion. I'm not sure I want to do that, either. It'll annoy more people than it'll please, and it feels like change for the sake of change, which I try to avoid when I can.

 

The trick is to play it vague, I think. Many Night Lords will believe they were betrayed, without a doubt. Others won't frame their sins in such a defensive light.

 

 

If Mr. Spurrier is done with 40k or at least takes a long break from it like William King did then I say feel free to put Sahaal in and critics be damned.

 

That's easy for you to say, when you're not the one they whine at. This is the problem with Sahaal. People read that book, where it offered one of the first ever examples of the Emperor betraying a legion and not being this awesome great guy everyone thought he was. More compelling still, one of the Traitor Legions wasn't the bad guy after all! They were wronged by the Imperium, not the other way around!

 

Except that's not true. Also, it's stealing the Thousand Sons' and Word Bearers' shticks, which I'd quite like to avoid, especially as the World Eaters and Iron Warriors can also lay claim to mistreatment in the same way. Sometimes, man, a Legion just has to go bad for its own reasons. And the Legion that offers the best choice for that is the Legion that's always been presented as doing it: the Night Lords.

 

This ties into the people insisting Sahaal is right. Sure, he could be. There Is No Canon, certainly. But any time you show the character in less than glowing light (even in the same patchy, balanced, good/bad light you show all the other Legionaries in) you'll attract people complaining that you ruined their baby boy. And that gets tiresome, no matter how rare it is.

 

...and for that matter why not pick up his story at the end of LotN and show what happens when he starts running into NL warbands. I'd love to see that.

 

Sure. But why?

 

Firstly, I'd rather write about my own characters, and other ones from the lore. He doesn't stand out as someone I'm dying to write about. He had his story, and it was awesome. A brilliantly executed (if often sadly misunderstood) tragedy.

 

Secondly, click back up to the part where I list some pretty important other reasons why I'm not sure I want to do it. It's a lot of potential grief for something only a fraction of the fanbase will understand. Besides, the most likely thing is that he'll run into Night Lords warbands and they'll say "Check out this time-travelling jerkwad who abandoned his men to die. Let's kill him." Or "Let's ignore him; there's been 10,000 years of insane hell-realm violence going on, this guy has no clue what's going down."

 

I appreciate this'll be difficult for you to get, dude. I do. But he's just not that compelling a character to a lot of people. Great book, and I loved it lots. But he's just not a major 40K character. He's not the Night Lords' Khârn, Ahriman, Fabius Bile, Lucius, etc. If he was, he'd be in a codex, or mentioned anywhere outside Lord of the Night. I even made him more important, out of respect, but a massive chunk of the fanbase don't even know who he is, and likely never will. I'm not insulting him by saying that. It's just the way of things.

[Bulwyf]

Going back to Sahaal, I am one of the most unabashed fans of LotN and how Sahaal was portrayed.

 

So am I, but there are nuances here. Look:

 

I do still find it realistic that when you are as arrogant as the Emperor is that having a legion that you can terrorize people with is advantageous to have.

 

The Night Lords served a function just like the Ultramarines or the Salamanders or Space Wolves did. And when you no longer need that function or if they get too out of control that is what damage control is for.

 

...

 

You get enough of that and you have a mad dog that needs to be put down. That is how I perceived LotN with Sahaal's memories of the Night Lords. I still think he has a valid enough point that it deserves mention.

 

And here's the problem. None of this is true. It's not in any of the Night Lords' lore, and it's got nothing to do with the established background. Sahaal certainly believes it, but Sahaal is wrong. Talos believes it, too. Talos is also wrong, but conflicted on enough levels to grow increasingly uncertain himself, in his growth and development over the Night Lords Trilogy. But it's not true. That's why Sahaal is a compelling character: because he so adamantly believes this constructed worldview to justify his evils, and it's snatched away from him at the end when it's revealed he was wrong about the Legion and his primarch. That's the whole point.

 

And that's much deeper, and much more interesting to me than exalting Sahaal as the "only guy who really knows the score". He doesn't. He's wrong. The Legion wasn't betrayed by the Emperor, and Curze wasn't schizophrenic in the slightly contrived sense of having two personalities: one loyalist, one Chaos - despite what Acerbus says, it's just never mentioned elsewhere. We, as fans, know it's probably not true.

 

And at no point has it ever been true. It's not even true in Lord of the Night, where you have two incredibly unreliable witnesses arguing the polar opposite things, neither of which exactly match the published lore. The fact is goes against the lore is how we know it's a case of tragic deception, as well as a case of unreliable narration on both sides. People can't argue with a straight face that I disrespected the theory or irrationally hate it; I even made my own main character believe it, too. Again, out of respect for what came before.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm now in a position where I could actually make it true. I could make Curze into that, and I could make the Emperor betray the Legion. I'm not sure I will, though. I don't see it as one of the more compelling theories or possibilities about the Legion (but I can easily see why many of the Night Lords would think it), and I think multiple personalities significantly devalues and cheapens the actual mindset of the primarch - as well as taking it miles from its haunting and apt Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now roots.

 

And on a technical standpoint, I'd be taking one old novel's subjective narrators over all of GW's previously published lore regarding the Legion. I'm not sure I want to do that, either. It'll annoy more people than it'll please, and it feels like change for the sake of change, which I try to avoid when I can.

 

The trick is to play it vague, I think. Many Night Lords will believe they were betrayed, without a doubt. Others won't frame their sins in such a defensive light.

 

 

If Mr. Spurrier is done with 40k or at least takes a long break from it like William King did then I say feel free to put Sahaal in and critics be damned.

 

That's easy for you to say, when you're not the one they whine at. This is the problem with Sahaal. People read that book, where it offered one of the first ever examples of the Emperor betraying a legion and not being this awesome great guy everyone thought he was. More compelling still, one of the Traitor Legions wasn't the bad guy after all! They were wronged by the Imperium, not the other way around!

 

Except that's not true. Also, it's stealing the Thousand Sons' and Word Bearers' shticks, which I'd quite like to avoid, especially as the World Eaters and Iron Warriors can also lay claim to mistreatment in the same way. Sometimes, man, a Legion just has to go bad for its own reasons. And the Legion that offers the best choice for that is the Legion that's always been presented as doing it: the Night Lords.

 

This ties into the people insisting Sahaal is right. Sure, he could be. There Is No Canon, certainly. But any time you show the character in less than glowing light (even in the same patchy, balanced, good/bad light you show all the other Legionaries in) you'll attract people complaining that you ruined their baby boy. And that gets tiresome, no matter how rare it is.

 

...and for that matter why not pick up his story at the end of LotN and show what happens when he starts running into NL warbands. I'd love to see that.

 

Sure. But why?

 

Firstly, I'd rather write about my own characters, and other ones from the lore. He doesn't stand out as someone I'm dying to write about. He had his story, and it was awesome. A brilliantly executed (if often sadly misunderstood) tragedy.

 

Secondly, click back up to the part where I list some pretty important other reasons why I'm not sure I want to do it. It's a lot of potential grief for something only a fraction of the fanbase will understand. Besides, the most likely thing is that he'll run into Night Lords warbands and they'll say "Check out this time-travelling jerkwad who abandoned his men to die. Let's kill him." Or "Let's ignore him; there's been 10,000 years of insane hell-realm violence going on, this guy has no clue what's going down."

 

I appreciate this'll be difficult for you to get, dude. I do. But he's just not that compelling a character to a lot of people. Great book, and I loved it lots. But he's just not a major 40K character. He's not the Night Lords' Khârn, Ahriman, Fabius Bile, Lucius, etc. If he was, he'd be in a codex, or mentioned anywhere outside Lord of the Night. I even made him more important, out of respect, but a massive chunk of the fanbase don't even know who he is, and likely never will. I'm not insulting him by saying that. It's just the way of things.

 

As always when you respond to one of my posts I always have to say "thank you" for taking the time out of your hectic schedule. Although I hope you will read my post above the one you quoted and could give some answers to those questions I would be greatly obliged.

 

I completely understand your reservations about writing anything in regards to Sahaal. There is a contingent out there that only wants reinforcement of "Emperor to some degree betrayed the NL" and if you showed the actual events in the Heresy as not supporting that belief it would bring copious amounts of tears. If you did decide to show some degree of "The Emperor by omission let the NL go out of control, realized the mistake, and tried to reel them back in" other fans would object to it. Danger lies behind every door and sadly there is not a lady behind any. Only tigers with claws shaped by canon defenders and dripping in the tears of fans. I *totally* understand that.

 

As for the NL being betrayed you could look at several of the traitor Legions in that light. The most glaring and point of fact being betrayed were the Thousand Sons. Every one else is to some degree motivated by feelings of being abandoned or left in the shadows of other primarchs. I always thought the great tragedy of the NL and Kurze was they wanted to achieve a good end but used draconian means that could not justify any end. Or at least in conventional moral concepts of good versus evil. But to Kurze's chagrin he realized the vast majority of his Legion didn't care about any end because they simply enjoyed slaughter and terror for its own sake. I think you made the point brilliantly in the Talos trilogy and esp. in the last book.

 

Is that not in itself a tragic element? A father realizes his sons are flawed beyond redemption and accepts his own death as punishment for his and their sins which also serves as vindication for Kurze's own beliefs? Death is nothing compared to validation.

 

In that sense I personally would like to see Sahaal realize the one person that truly betrayed him was his own primarch. And not because of some split personality issue but because Kurze viewed them as failures to his own ideals and punished them the way he punished traitors and criminals no matter what the stripe. In that view we could see Sahaal growing as a character and perhaps upon reuniting with a NL warband realizing what I think you had Talos realize in that while the NL might not have any moral high ground for anything at least they had each other as brothers. And if the galaxy wanted them to pay for their sins they would burn it the galaxy to ash and cinder first.

 

All that said I realize we will almost never see Sahaal again and I hate to see that. I wish I could have you direct any and all whinging over your possible depiction of Sahaal my way so I could respond with "read and find out heretic dog" or "ADB finds your tears delicious".

[Ju'kosian]

I think we are strolling a bit offtopic here.

Sahaal, is just one guy, who has been absent most time after the heresy.

I don't even know if he can hold himself in the current time, I don't see him swearing loyalty to Huron.. or upsurp command from a night lords warband..

 

Leave Sahaal alone and keep Sevatar alive :-)

Altough I'm in doubt if he's truly dead, did not Mercutian claim that sevatar was not dead ?

[Bulwyf]

I think we are strolling a bit offtopic here.

Sahaal, is just one guy, who has been absent most time after the heresy.

I don't even know if he can hold himself in the current time, I don't see him swearing loyalty to Huron.. or upsurp command from a night lords warband..

 

Leave Sahaal alone and keep Sevatar alive :-)

Altough I'm in doubt if he's truly dead, did not Mercutian claim that sevatar was not dead ?

 

I'm hoping ADB will extrapolate further on Sevatar being alive because of Mercutian believing it to be so. I don't think we read in Void Hunter the reasons Mercutian had for that thinking.

 

As for Sahaal I can definitely see him defeating someone to take command of a warband. He's not exactly a wilting flower when it comes to combat. The interesting thing would be what he does with it and how he sees himself and his shattered legion in today's setting.

[Ju'kosian]

I think we are strolling a bit offtopic here.

Sahaal, is just one guy, who has been absent most time after the heresy.

I don't even know if he can hold himself in the current time, I don't see him swearing loyalty to Huron.. or upsurp command from a night lords warband..

 

Leave Sahaal alone and keep Sevatar alive :-)

Altough I'm in doubt if he's truly dead, did not Mercutian claim that sevatar was not dead ?

 

I'm hoping ADB will extrapolate further on Sevatar being alive because of Mercutian believing it to be so. I don't think we read in Void Hunter the reasons Mercutian had for that thinking.

 

As for Sahaal I can definitely see him defeating someone to take command of a warband. He's not exactly a wilting flower when it comes to combat. The interesting thing would be what he does with it and how he sees himself and his shattered legion in today's setting.

Uzas thinks the same, He asks if sevatar is dead, everybody reacts like he's having one of his eumh.. 'off'moments..

but to the end of the novel, Uzas seemed clearer then he ever was...

 

Keep in mind that Sahaal was severly beaten By Krieg Acerbus.. most night lords know who he is, what he has done..

so Sahaal would be in a tight spot..

Chaos marines and night lords in perticulair, are egocentric and such so why should they take sahaal with them.. (Ruven anyone ;-) )

 

And if he gets in a warband, bah I would have him paint his hands red, :)

He did abandon first company.. (sort of) just to get a crown