Brother-Sergeant Bohemond Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 The Lion was not a 'good guy' as in 'save all the humans' BUT He was 100% loyal to the Emperor of Mankind. It's the liege-lord mentality; I obey my liege with my life and will serve him unto death. The Lion embodies this, like Dorn. If the Emperor said to kill an entire world, Jonson would do it. If he said fall on your sword, chances are he would do it. He was/is a good guy in the sense of loyalist, hes no Guillieman or Sanguinas or Vulkan good guy though. What we can argue, though, is in all the books featuring the Lion we see a Primarch who believes in his duty, first to Caliban, then to the Emperor. A Knight, not an Arthurian Gawain or Lancelot, but more of the gritty, dark Knight who would stay loyal to the end, sort of like Roland from 'The Song of Roland' who stood and died to defend his position. The kind of hero who would obey his last orders to the letter. He is a Lord beholden to another Lord, and he will obey those orders until he either completes them or dies. In his mind it is better that the entire galaxy burns than Horus sits on the throne. He would rather see billions die than a pretender succeed. So, no, he is not a good guy, but he certainly is a loyalist. Hes not the humanitarian that Vulkan is, or Sanguinas, but he won't be turning any time soon. There is NO evidence, bar one deluded, jealous, guilt-ridden Fallen that the Lion was not loyal. Who could easily have lied to himself so often he believed it. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259626-shadows-of-treachery/page/3/#findComment-3176282 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethrion Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 There is NO evidence, bar one deluded, jealous, guilt-ridden Fallen that the Lion was not loyal. Who could easily have lied to himself so often he believed it. Agreed. Like Egon Spengler once said "she's telling the truth. Or at least she thinks she is." I still did like that fallen angel's point of view, made for a very interesting story. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259626-shadows-of-treachery/page/3/#findComment-3176365 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scribe Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Worth the price of admission for Prince of Crows alone. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259626-shadows-of-treachery/page/3/#findComment-3178374 Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarKnight Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I bought this for 'Prince of Crows' and I was more than satisfied, however I was really pleasantly surprised at 'The Crimson Fist.' It was a GREAT story. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259626-shadows-of-treachery/page/3/#findComment-3182711 Share on other sites More sharing options...
nagashnee Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 I bought this for 'Prince of Crows' and I was more than satisfied, however I was really pleasantly surprised at 'The Crimson Fist.' It was a GREAT story. This! ADBs work was its usual high standard but the crisom first was a very very pleasant surprise. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259626-shadows-of-treachery/page/3/#findComment-3183464 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arachnid99 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 I thought Crimson Fist was dreadful overall but that's mostly because of the really crappy portrayal of Sigismund that completely goes against all his previous characterisation. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259626-shadows-of-treachery/page/3/#findComment-3183513 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Angel Scout Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 I thought Crimson Fist was dreadful overall but that's mostly because of the really crappy portrayal of Sigismund that completely goes against all his previous characterisation. Isn't that the point of the Crimson Fist, illustrating the change to Sigismund "previous" (read possibly non-existant, not aware of any personally) character? Giving it more thought, it's the stepping stone to the creation of his legacy: Maybe, as Keeler is percieved as the Imperial Saint, Dorn has called him the Emperor's Champion almost as a slight against him perhaps? Could never understand why a marine would be THE Emperor's champion over a custode or primarch? The vision he experiences from Keeler i.e "the Emperor's will"- is this not the way the Emperor's Champion is selected among BT if I've interpretated Priests of Mars correctly? Explains why a first captain leaves his primarch's side to lead a chapter, not just "ordinary" captain the Emperor's champion, post-heresy? Is it to redeem him to his lost father, his penitance? His guilt at not being by his father's side when he met his end? Cause more Fists will find out about the rift between them, those who have similar experiences to Sigismund perhaps- revelations, visions etc will follow him to become the first Templers To be honest, I've not read much to do with BT other than BL stuff so there may be more in their codex that I don't know off I may be Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259626-shadows-of-treachery/page/3/#findComment-3183891 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arachnid99 Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 Sigismund in Crimson Fist is a flawed glory hound fearful of dying alone and unremembered. Sigismund everywhere else is the ur-example of a Crusader Knight, the Chapter he crafts doesn't care about what anyone else thinks or what history records, but only cares about serving the Emperor by the righteous slaughter of the unholy. As for why he left the Imperial Fists and founded the Black Templars that has already been explained, he was unwilling to give up the Great Crusade and crushed by remorse for his part in the Codex Astartes conflict, thus the Eternal Crusade. As he see's it he didn't leave Dorn and the Imperial Fists, they left him and the other Templars to follow the Codex while he continued the Great Crusade. The Black Termplars are the only force who are still fighting the Great Crusade, the only force still filling the Emperors idea of what the Space Marines should be rather than Guilleman's stunted and deformed version. He is not a blank slate that needs filling. We know what Sigismund is; he is a Knightly Zealot fanatically committed to the Emperor and the Eternal Crusade and that was not the character you saw in the Crimson Fist. He doesn't have to be perfect and it's fine for him to have flaws, but they should be flaws that tie into his personality, for example him ask Dorn to return to Terra with him not out of fear of going to Phall but a burning desire to fight at the Emperors side. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259626-shadows-of-treachery/page/3/#findComment-3184000 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonaides Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 Point of order - the BT's (in 40k) are on a permanent crusade as a show of penitence, not because Sigismund was unwilling to give up the Great Crusade. Nor are the Templars still fighting the Great Crusade, nor are they the only ones... Also, they split from the IF's under the direction of Dorn, not after Dorn died. Any more innacuracies/misconceptions/internet fanboi-isms I can help you with??? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259626-shadows-of-treachery/page/3/#findComment-3184092 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billuriye Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 The Black Termplars are the only force who are still fighting the Great Crusade, the only force still filling the Emperors idea of what the Space Marines should be rather than Guilleman's stunted and deformed version. Did you miss the Horus Heresy where Astartes legions teared each other apart and left Imperium in a shattered and fragile state? Humanity don't get to crusade anymore where it whims. Black Templars' "crusade"s are the stunted and deformed version of what crusades are supposed to be actually. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259626-shadows-of-treachery/page/3/#findComment-3184096 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haranin Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 Sigie isn't afraid of dying alone and unremembered. His take from the Imperial saint was that the Imperium was doomed, and he was going die either defending terra with his primarch or alone. He choose to die with his primarch. If you are utterly convinced of your death, is it dishonorable to choose the manner of your death? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259626-shadows-of-treachery/page/3/#findComment-3184194 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother-Sergeant Bohemond Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 Dorn is only upset that he listened to the witch, not that he stayed with him. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259626-shadows-of-treachery/page/3/#findComment-3184415 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arachnid99 Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Point of order - the BT's (in 40k) are on a permanent crusade as a show of penitence, not because Sigismund was unwilling to give up the Great Crusade. Nor are the Templars still fighting the Great Crusade, nor are they the only ones... Also, they split from the IF's under the direction of Dorn, not after Dorn died. The Eternal Crusade is definitely a show of penitence thus "crushed by remorse for his part in the Codex Astartes conflict", you know the period where the Imperial Navy opened fire on an Imperial Fists warship. However other sources including Helsrech mention it is also a continuation of the Eternal Crusade, that the BT's regard themselves as still carrying out the Emperors vision of what Space Marines should be. Something, especially something as big and as important as the Eternal Crusade which has been going on for 10,000 years can have multiple reasons. Now you can argue that BT Crusades are a pale shadow of the Expeditionary Fleets of the Great Crusade, no Imperial Army component, weaker naval forces and nothing like the numbers of a true Legion. You can also argue that the Imperium is right to focus on defending what it's got rather than going on crusade to conquer new stuff, though both in history (Third Crusade) and in 40k quite a lot of crusades are actually defensive. However you want to cut it at least the BT's are trying to live up to the standard's of the Great Crusade even if they fail, whereas the Codex Astartes with it's emphasis on splitting up the Space Marines and spread them out so as to act as a Rapid Reaction Force is an admission of defeat imho. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259626-shadows-of-treachery/page/3/#findComment-3184487 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonaides Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Point of order - the BT's (in 40k) are on a permanent crusade as a show of penitence, not because Sigismund was unwilling to give up the Great Crusade. Nor are the Templars still fighting the Great Crusade, nor are they the only ones... Also, they split from the IF's under the direction of Dorn, not after Dorn died. The Eternal Crusade is definitely a show of penitence thus "crushed by remorse for his part in the Codex Astartes conflict", you know the period where the Imperial Navy opened fire on an Imperial Fists warship. Or not - IIRC the BT's originally went on permanent crusade as an obvious dedication of themselves to the new Imperium, showing their willignness to abide by the requirements of the Codex that the legions be disbanded and as a punishment for themselves because in their unthinking Pride they nearly tore the fledgling Imeprium apart again. (ref the Imperial Navy ship firing on the IF ship) However other sources including Helsrech mention it is also a continuation of the Eternal Crusade, that the BT's regard themselves as still carrying out the Emperors vision of what Space Marines should be. Something, especially something as big and as important as the Eternal Crusade which has been going on for 10,000 years can have multiple reasons. Now you can argue that BT Crusades are a pale shadow of the Expeditionary Fleets of the Great Crusade, no Imperial Army component, weaker naval forces and nothing like the numbers of a true Legion. You can also argue that the Imperium is right to focus on defending what it's got rather than going on crusade to conquer new stuff, though both in history (Third Crusade) and in 40k quite a lot of crusades are actually defensive. However you want to cut it at least the BT's are trying to live up to the standard's of the Great Crusade even if they fail, whereas the Codex Astartes with it's emphasis on splitting up the Space Marines and spread them out so as to act as a Rapid Reaction Force is an admission of defeat imho. Discussion of the Codex Astartes, mission creep/change, focus on defence not assault, cna wait for another thread or an older one can be resurrected (if they're not all locked already!?!). I would suggest that the BTs are not livign up to the standards of the GC simply because they cannot - there are not vast numbers of Human worlds waiting to be brought back into the fold, nor is that the primary mission of the BT's (apparently, judging by the BL stories and fluff elsewhere) - they are a mobile reactionary force, occasionally initiating new offensives against existing threats (is a first strike against a known threat that has not currently initiated an attack in itself offensive, or preemptive defence?). Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259626-shadows-of-treachery/page/3/#findComment-3184850 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arachnid99 Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Or not - IIRC the BT's originally went on permanent crusade as an obvious dedication of themselves to the new Imperium, showing their willignness to abide by the requirements of the Codex that the legions be disbanded and as a punishment for themselves because in their unthinking Pride they nearly tore the fledgling Imeprium apart again. (ref the Imperial Navy ship firing on the IF ship) It depends on how you read it. As we never accepted the Codex Astartes (i.e. numbers, organisation, doctrine etc.) I always read it as emphasising the "punishment (for) their unthinking Pride" element and remorse over causing a split in the Imperium rather than a willingness to abide by a Codex which we don't follow. As for living up to the standards of the Great Crusade I agree that in a lot of respects we don't, but then pretty much every faction in 40k fails to live up to it's ideals, I just think our ideals are preferable. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259626-shadows-of-treachery/page/3/#findComment-3184968 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonaides Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Who says you didnt start off by obeying the size dictates of the new codex??? The BT's and CF's split off, with the remainder who would not accept splitting off into a chapter going with Dorn to the Iron Cage where (in numbers terms at least) they got slaughtered... So the original BT's were some of the few IF's who would actually accept the strictures of the Codex Astartes, especially its size limitations. But again, getting off topic... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259626-shadows-of-treachery/page/3/#findComment-3185367 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billuriye Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 A good book for Imperial Fists story and not much else. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259626-shadows-of-treachery/page/3/#findComment-3190456 Share on other sites More sharing options...
A D-B Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 Worth the price of admission for Prince of Crows alone. By... I bought this for 'Prince of Crows' and I was more than satisfied, however I was really pleasantly surprised at 'The Crimson Fist.' It was a GREAT story. This! ADBs work was its usual high standard but the crisom first was a very very pleasant surprise. ...the... I bought this for 'Prince of Crows' and I was more than satisfied, however I was really pleasantly surprised at 'The Crimson Fist.' It was a GREAT story. ...Gods. Firstly, ta. Secondly and much more importantly, I totally agree. Admittedly, John French is one of my closest friends, but whereas half my story was a shot-for-shot retelling of the old Night Lords Index Astartes article about Curze's past, John's was something unexpected and new. I way prefer The Crimson Fist to Prince of Crows, and that's not just because I can't stand my own work. He'll kill me for saying this, but I know he's a little hesitant over how people will react to Sigismund. I think that's the best bit. People will, by and large, love the new take on it. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259626-shadows-of-treachery/page/3/#findComment-3190577 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haranin Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 The old Sigismund was pretty boring. The new take is great- He is convinced the empire is going down, and his only personal choice is die alone or die next his lord. And Dorn is pissed he made the choice. Puts a whole new twist on the BT, they are on crusade because of Sigismund's guilt. The nightlord story was excellent. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259626-shadows-of-treachery/page/3/#findComment-3190604 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Rohr Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 I hope the Sigismund story line end in vindication and not guilt. The guilty knight angle is Dark Angels territory. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259626-shadows-of-treachery/page/3/#findComment-3190739 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legatus Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 Meh, I still preferred it when Sigismund had been a mere battle brother, but such an incredibly gifted fighter than he was honoured by his Primarch with the title "Emperor's Champion". That he already was the highest ranking member of the Legion kinda takes away from his amazing story. Ah well, maybe it's just a "different" story now. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259626-shadows-of-treachery/page/3/#findComment-3190747 Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarKnight Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 Meh, I still preferred it when Sigismund had been a mere battle brother, but such an incredibly gifted fighter than he was honoured by his Primarch with the title "Emperor's Champion". That he already was the highest ranking member of the Legion kinda takes away from his amazing story. Ah well, maybe it's just a "different" story now. Was this in a previous edition? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259626-shadows-of-treachery/page/3/#findComment-3191173 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Rohr Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 Third. In Sigismubd first ever blurb about the EC. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259626-shadows-of-treachery/page/3/#findComment-3191225 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legatus Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 In 3rd Edition, where the concept of the Emperor's Champion and the character of Sigismund were first created. In his introductory short story (printed among other sources in the 2003 Chapter Approved book) where he is sworn in as the first Emperor's Champion by a Legion Chaplain, he is adressed as "Brother Sigismund" throughout the story. He also acts quite humbled (not like was the highest ranking member of the Legion), expressing the pride he feels by being chosen by Dorn, but also doubt whether it is right to conceal his Legion colours. He was never described as having been a commander in the Imperial Fists Legion, and the Emperor's Champions of today do not hold command positions either. He was famous mainly for having duelled and slain several Chaos Champions during the battle for the Imperial Palace. This also explains why the Black Templars' doctrine is so markedly different from the Imperial Fists Legion doctrines, because they fight "in the way of Sigismund", and Sigismund hadn't been an Imperial Fist Legion Commander, he had been an extremely gifted swordsman who had been honoured because of his skill. The notion that he had been a Legion Commander may have started in the 4th Edition Codex Black Templars, where it was said that Dorn had charged Sigismund with holding the defences of the Imperial Palace. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259626-shadows-of-treachery/page/3/#findComment-3191226 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scribe Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 John French is probably getting up there as one of my favorite authors. I thought he killed it with The Last Remembrancer, and The Crimson Fist was also solid at showing the psychology going on with the heresy, especially Dorn's outlook. Anyone know if he is going to be doing any full length books soon? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259626-shadows-of-treachery/page/3/#findComment-3191275 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.