A very weird idea I just had to share about Sevatar

[A D-B]

I was in England and Canada for 9 days. Suddenly, there's this.

 

What a mega thread.

[karden00]

Canada eh? Why didnt you say so, I'd have sprung for a Crown and coke!

[b1soul]

So what other "hints" do we have besides Khyron's use of a halberd?

[Billuriye]

So what other "hints" do we have besides Khyron's use of a halberd?

 

Both are psykers.

Both are exemplary fighters.

Both hate Chaos.

[b1soul]

Both are psykers

I'll give you that

 

Both are exemplary fighters

Do we know anything about Khyron's fighting abilities (besides the fact that he's a GK grandmaster)? A bit too vague to be a "hint" in my opinion

 

Both hate Chaos.

Does Sev truly hate Chaos or does he just find it distasteful? His "hatred" of Chaos obviously isn't enough to stop him from turning traitor with Chaos Horus, fighting alongside Chaos marines, etc.

 

In conclusion, the argument seems to be "Sev is a latent psyker and he uses a halberd"

 

In my opinion, the other two points are too weak to be cited as hints

Even the halberd argument is a bit weak in my opinion. The halberd is a typical GK weapon, there's no reason to believe that Khyron's use of a halberd is linked to his past.

[Phoebus]

I offer this less out of a desire to argue/debate but just to offer some clarification. I don't think it's something as broad as Khyron or Sevatar being an "exemplary fighter" or determining what "fighting ability" the former had. I think the hint - assuming you subscribe to this theory to begin with - was simply the halberd that both Khyron and Sevatar wield.

 

Don't get me wrong. Objectively, I get that, however rare a halberd might be among Space Marines, a thousand or more such warriors could plausibly wield such a weapon and not realistically ever get "screen time" in a Heresy story. When characters within a certain milieu share traits, though... and they happen to be such rare traits... AND they happen to be characters who not only share such traits but are ALSO written by the same author... at what point do we admit that we're willfully trying to ignore a hint by said author?

 

Look, I don't know how long the Horus Heresy series will last for. I don't even know if the series itself will see the conclusion of the "Grey Knights Origin" angle that Garro's stories are telling. I honestly think, though, that a lot of people in this thread are railing against the fairly obvious (once you connect the dots) because it would be too much for Sevatar to become a Grand Master of the Grey Knights RIGHT NOW, from a reader's perspective. We can't forget, though, that IF Sevatar ends up making that move, that this won't happen for months - years even - from that character's perspective... and that it won't be anything nearly as simple as just switching sides out of the blue. It will have been a journey of decades (centuries, I think) in which he's already renounced the logic behind his Primarch's ways, and demonstrated his disdain for his (often nihilistically) murderous brethren.

 

In closing... by all means, feel free to denounce this idea - of Sevatar and Khyron being one and the same. It's your right as a reader. That having been said, please don't denounce said idea as rubbish without at least thinking through the context behind Sevatar, the similarities between him and Khyron, and the fact that, however loose said similarities might be... they were penned by the same author.

 

Cheers!

[Kol Saresk]

Out of curiosity, isn't the signature weapon of the GK the Nemesis Halberd?

[Phoebus]

It is. Which is why I still consider this to be a loose connection (even though the same author focused less on the halberd as a signature weapon and more on the variety shown in the newer Codex - falchions, single swords, etc.). :cuss

 

Quick addition to the earlier rant: I got into this thread not because I thought the OP's theory was interesting... but also because I saw the same kind of all-too easy dismissal that I saw in threads centered on Loken's survival. It irks me, in a way, to see that kind of dismissal because I think it's informed less by the setting we all ostensibly like (40k, and the "rules" associated with it) and more by the opinions we as readers develop... even when said opinions are in contrast to the realities of the setting.

 

Where Sevatar is concerned, it seems like so many people are opposed to the possibility of him becoming a "good guy" (a Grey Knight) because of his character. I think a lot of people forget, though, that within the context of the Great Crusade era and its mindset, the very idea of a Space Marine turning against the Emperor was considered an impossibility. We, as readers, take it for granted - without the barest of background and elaboration - that full half of the Space Marines would betray this fundamental concept (and all the science that went with it) and turn on the Emperor. Why is it that we find it so hard to accept the reverse... when an author seemingly goes to such pains to GIVE us the background and context that would make a character's reversal plausible?

 

Again, just my thoughts. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I would not by surprised if A D-B's ruling on all this was a humorous condemnation of the "You sure know how to read into a couple of lines, don't you?" type. ;)

[b1soul]

It is. Which is why I still consider this to be a loose connection (even though the same author focused less on the halberd as a signature weapon and more on the variety shown in the newer Codex - falchions, single swords, etc.).

Yes, but even even in the new Codex, the halberd is still one of several common GK weapons (as opposed to being the signature weapon). Thus, I think the "halberd" connection is still really weak

 

Of course, it could be possible that in the "ADB-verse", halberds are very rare among the GK. In that case, I might think "hmm..."

[Phoebus]

Yes, but even even in the new Codex, the halberd is still one of several common GK weapons (as opposed to being the signature weapon). Thus, I think the "halberd" connection is still really weak

 

Of course, it could be possible that in the "ADB-verse", halberds are very rare among the GK. In that case, I might think "hmm..."

I think the tie - loose as it is - lies less with the author assuming halberds are rare within the Grey Knights and more with something I thought would be strikingly obvious... That is, the halberd is rare among the first eight Grey Knights.

 

We still have four more recruits to go, so I suppose that one of them could end up being a wielder of the halberd. Or one of the first four recruits might switch to it. But in a fictional universe where the authors can, and do, offer such connections as teasers or homages for observant readers to find, I'm loath to dismiss such a unique connection.

 

Thanks. Since you have paid me a compliment, I'll return the favor by actually being serious instead of continuing to shout about the Sevatar in the heart of each and every one of us.

(Yes, I am that shallow. But at least I admit it)

Wade, I dismiss your claims of shallowness. I think they are born of the coupling of humility and sarcasm. A bit of Sevatar in your heart, you might say. :)

 

In all seriousness, though, I'm sorry I never responded to this post - precisely because you did give this thread the benefit of serious counterargument with it.

 

Apparently, I had a different take on the conversation between Sevatar and Curze than you. As I saw it, Sevatar believes that the conflict between the morality Curze clings too and his own nature as a monster that feeds on fear is what is breaking Konrad's mind, and his solution is that Konrad should give up on his pretensions to the moral high ground and revel in his true self

I think that's a powerful argument for any Night Lord to have, but I also think that Sevatar nonetheless dismisses it. That is, I think his round condemnation of Curze's tactics is too obvious for us to assume it goes hand-in-hand with what you propose. By that I mean that, yes, he does propose the Night Haunter should drop his pretensions... but not to revel in what he's doing.

 

Sevatar, as a character, is a post-human warrior who has been trying to balance his anti-social/sociopathic disorder with the morality that his Primarch preaches. Sevatar's debate with the Night Haunter in the latter's memory is the culmination of that struggle. The Great Crusade and now the Horus Heresy have seen the Night Haunter spiraling ever downward. As the Primarch of the VIII Legion deteriorates and falls apart, it's only natural for a character like Sevatar to finally question him.

 

After all, how does he view his existence? He sees it as ...

 

"... slavery to gene-wrought gods of war."

 

When one is so cynical about his own existence, it's only a matter of time before he calls his master out on his strawman arguments and morally untenable positions.

 

"The Legion is disorderly and vile because it is made in your image...."

"You enjoyed this...the same way we all did. You came to love it...the power...the righteousness.."

Etc.

Yes, but you have to take in the full context of Sevatar's statements.

 

The Night Haunter begins their conversation by questioning Sevatar's presence in his dreamscape on account of his Legion being foul and disloyal. Sevatar's response, quite tellingly, is to juxtapose himself against his brothers. He is a cynic and a wielder of sarcasm, but Sevatar here confirms to us what he hinted at throughout the rest of the story: he doesn't feel the need to be loyal to specific Night Lords out of pragmatism... but he does believe in the concept - and, in fact, demonstrates it resoundingly at the beginning of the story.

 

Second, when the Night Haunter offers that there are no "good men" left among their fleet, Sevatar offers a laconic, but telling response: that [they] do what is necessary. Forget the sadistic pleasure that so many Night Lords gain from the skinning pits, etc., that Sevatar mentions. We don't see him embracing such things purely out of joy. Sevatar is indeed a sick creature, but like the Night Haunter he doesn't revel in it. Again, what he did was out of perceived necessity, but what he sees in the Night Haunter's chambers makes his skin crawl. Why? Because it's proof that his Primarch is falling apart. If the terror tactics are "necessary" because of the psychological impact they have on humans that can't be trusted to act loyally... what is the purpose behind atrocities committed in private? We can guess for ourselves, but Sevatar tells us what he thinks: that the Night Haunter once had a vision on how to best bring about compliance, and that the Legion followed his vision willingly. That is what Sevatar means by "what is necessary". But as to what he sees in the Primarch's quarters? Sevatar sees it as evidence of the Haunter's madness.

 

Even more tellingly, when Trez offers that all the Night Lords will eventually get to where the Night Haunter is, Sevatar refuses that he will become so, and seizes on the nobility that he still believes is within his maddened Primarch. This is not a man who revels in the horrific things the Night Lords do. It is supremely ironic that the same disorder that keeps him apart from normal humanity and makes him a rather casual killer also allows him to carry out such deeds without becoming tainted by them.

 

Third, when the Night Haunter denounces the VIII Legion, Sevatar points out the inconsistency in the Primarch's reasoning. The Night Haunter feels that he has been betrayed by the people he sought to "elevate" to ordered humanity. Sevatar points out that, given the methods used by the Primarch, what other result could they have arrived at? Sevatar didn't celebrate what Nostramo was and became again, nor did he celebrate what the VIII Legion became as a result of that. Rather, he accepted it, and was able to reconcile it with his Primarch's vision - that they were doing these bad things for a greater aim. That's likely a combination of his own mental disorder and the psycho-indoctrination performed (in varying degrees, admittedly) on all Space Marines.

 

I'm not saying that Sevatar wasn't amused by some of the things that he and his Legion did. He's a sociopath, a casual killer. But I think that closing line he delivers to Curze was much more about goading the Primarch and getting him to cop to his hypocrisy than about revealing Sevatar's driving motivations. Those were already given to us, and in much more honest terms.

 

Also, given that Sev had just culled half of the Old Kryoptera and threatened to do the same to the new if they didn't go along with his plans for the Legion, I imagine he said that bit about being popular with his brothers with a sardonic sneer and a great deal of sarcasm. Admittedly, this is also how I imagine everything else a Night Lord has ever said in the Black Library novels.

Of course he was being sarcastic. But his statement was specifically a response to the notion of VIII Legion loyalty. He is using sarcasm to draw a line between him and his brothers on the basis of loyalty - the same sense of loyalty that he demonstrates he feels throughout the story, and that he implies the rest of his Legion often lacks. Reference his commentary about cowardice being considered "one of the finer and most amusing virtues" in his Legion, and how he contrasts that with Ophion's "rare" display of bravery.

 

Jago Sevatarion has many good qualities....he's courageous, he's loyal to his brothers in black and his Primarch, he has a very pragmatic grasp on tactics and strategy, a pleasingly dry sense of humor...but all that comes wrapped up in a man who is considered insane and a monster even by his fellow Night Lords.

That last bit is not correct, though, is it? In terms of how Sevatar is perceived by other Night Lords, I mean. Sevatar is considered unpredictable by his fellow Night Lords. Certain officers even hold him in disdain for doing noble things like helping evacuate trapped Night Lords. That's a large departure from "monstrous by even their standards," though.

 

Also, as an aside, do other Night Lords consider Sevatar insane? Other than a turn of phrase by Malithos, I'm not sure I've seen that sentiment expressed by anyone.

 

So what does all this come down to?

 

"To the abyss with Horus and his arrogant whims. He is no better than the Emperor."

Sevatar has been acting out of loyalty to his Primarch, what he once was, and the "vision" that he fought toward. He nonetheless had no illusions about the inherent hypocrisy behind said vision, and by the end of "Prince of Crows", he is able to challenge his Primarch on it. At the same time and place, Sevatar expresses that he is not a believer in Horus or his rebellion, just as he wasn't a believer in the Emperor.

 

But what happens when the stakes behind the Heresy become so much more than two sides of "gene-wrought gods of war" pushing their "slaves" (Sevatar's own words) to fighting against one another? What happens when Sevatar is finally exposed to the truth behind Chaos? Will he remain cynical and ostensibly unconcerned about the morals behind each side? I don't think so. I think that's the revelation that will push him to Garro's side.

[Kol Saresk]

Okay, I read your response. And I thought it over. I still don't see how Sevatar could become a Grey Knight. His personality is just... too different. Yes, he has his own notion of honor and it varies from the average Night Lord. But he did, by his own confession, skin several Astartes at Istvaan. Not only that, but like I and many others said earlier, he is not loyal to the Emperor in any way, shape or form. He hates authority figures and the only one he accepts is Curze. Hence the "To the abyss with Horus." bit. He even went so far as to say that Horus and the Emperor were the same in his eyes. So if he's not loyal to one, why would he be loyal to the other when the former is letting him be whoever he wants to be with no condemnation and the latter would sooner see him dead?

 

At the end of the story, what did he want to do, he wanted to butcher his way to freedom. It was a concept that a traitor Raven Guard was willing to embrace. So far, every single Grey Knight Master has been a Loyalist. Sevatar is not a Loyalist. Yes, he is not a sadist. But he is still the typical murderer that exists in the Night Lords Legion. Like b1soul said, the only real connection is the latent psyker and a halberd. There is no similarity between the two other than that.

 

Oh, he didn't like Daemons and Possessed? Neither did Curze. "You are so much more than merely foul, you are rancid in your corruption." That's what Curze said to Lorgar when he saw the Gal Vorbak on page 458 of TFH. And on page 467, Argel Tal makes this observation: The Night Lords seemed particularly unwilling to approach the Gal Vorbak. When Argel Tal had neared Sevatar, the captain had removed his helm to spit acid on the ground by the Word Bearer's feet. Notice the general statement of "the Night Lords". When someone says something like that, they usually mean everyone of a specific group that they can see, is acting the same. All of the Night Lords that Argel Tal could see where avoiding the Word Bearers after they saw the Gal Vorbak, not just Sevatar. So even that action doesn't single him out because once upon a time, all of the Night Lords hated mutations and daemons. Even to a degree, they still hate mutants while making use of daemons. Some have gone down the road to being possessed and mutation(some willing and some not so willing), but judging by the reactions of members from two warbands, possession and mutation aren't exactly looked highly upon as a generality. If you recall the Branded's reaction to Uzas in Blood Reaver as they were one of the other NL warband's Claws that the Tenth had saved.

[Phoebus]

Okay, I read your response. And I thought it over. I still don't see how Sevatar could become a Grey Knight. His personality is just... too different.

To each their own, obviously. Threads like this are just about expressing ideas, opinions, etc. I don't expect to convert anyone. I enjoy debating respective takes on how information (as in, "supporting evidence") is presented in the stories, but that's about it. :huh:

 

Yes, he has his own notion of honor and it varies from the average Night Lord. But he did, by his own confession, skin several Astartes at Istvaan. Not only that, but like I and many others said earlier, he is not loyal to the Emperor in any way, shape or form. He hates authority figures and the only one he accepts is Curze. Hence the "To the abyss with Horus." bit. He even went so far as to say that Horus and the Emperor were the same in his eyes. So if he's not loyal to one, why would he be loyal to the other when the former is letting him be whoever he wants to be with no condemnation and the latter would sooner see him dead?

With respect, I've offered my counter-arguments to these points already. I suspect we're just going to continue to disagree. :D

 

At the end of the story, what did he want to do, he wanted to butcher his way to freedom. It was a concept that a traitor Raven Guard was willing to embrace. So far, every single Grey Knight Master has been a Loyalist. Sevatar is not a Loyalist.

...

Like b1soul said, the only real connection is the latent psyker and a halberd. There is no similarity between the two other than that.

Let's not leave out stuff... The obvious implication behind Khyron's monument is that, unlike Garro and his first three recruits, he was a traitor. Beyond that, again, you have my counter-arguments in previous posts. It comes down to whether you feel that connections such as these, when offered by the author who pens these specific stories and characters, are entirely random. I don't feel that this is the case. Such is life!

 

Yes, he is not a sadist. But he is still the typical murderer that exists in the Night Lords Legion.

And I'm sorry, I don't intent to insult you, but I think this statement indicates an incomplete reading/understanding of "Prince of Crows". I think it's fairly obvious that a central point of that story is how different Sevatar is from the "typical murderer" stereotype of the Night Lords Legion.

 

Where your last paragraph is concerned, I never argued that Sevatar was somehow unique in his scorn of Chaos. I'm arguing that, when the full evidence of Chaos is revealed to him (probably some time after he escapes and makes his way to Horus' main forces), he's going to understand that the stakes are much higher than his cynicism can allow for. That is, it's one thing for Lorgar to fall so low and corrupt his own warriors; it's quite another for Horus and the entirety of his followers to sell themselves to Chaos wholesale.

 

But again, I can't speak from a position of authority on this topic. It's a theory, that's all. It's based on loose connections and themes. I stand by it only because there's obviously a fundamental difference between the real world and the fictional world where such connections are concerned: in the real world, the odds of such a connection being made are astronomical; in the fictional world, you have to ask yourself if the author is purposefully drawing a line when he offers said hints.

[Kol Saresk]

Fair enough and don't worry, I don't feel insulted. And about the Khyron aspect, I didn't know I was leaving anything out. Never read "Emperor's Gift." I only know what I've seen here. Chances are I skimmed over that bit about him being a Traitor. As far as incomplete or misunderstanding, I leave that up with we all have our opinions and as such, we can all read the same thing in different ways. Like how some can read "Prince of Crows" and totally see Sevatar being a Grey Knight and some can't.

[HellChyld]

i think whats being said is much attributed to something alien slamming you in the face. not saying this will happen or is even going to happen but it would be one hell of a kicker if it did. while serving in The marine corps I met several people that would speak about religion and not having any. most of them when put in situations that they were not use too and highly stressful would to say bluntly change and find religion of one form or another. in the Hh timeline they are trying to remove religion for science. its easily believeable that Sevatar even in his own mind frame would and could get a change from the big shock he would get from "there is no gods" to "evil things that dont exisit are turning your brothers and fellow legions into mind gibbering idiots on a leash". he shows his free will proudly. he is a casual killer and while following the Haunter's vision. he follows it how he wants to. suddenly knowing something out there that isnt complete understood is trying to go so far as to change him in any way he cant control to do things if he likes it or not would make anyone sit down and do serious thinking if not changes in their own actions. does this mean he would be "the good guy" from then on? i would say NO but i'm inclined to think he would want to proceed HIS way and not as a puppet for some new "god". the slightest changes under our own control are always morewelcome then those with no control on our part at all.

 

just my 2 cents

[A D-B]

Very interesting thread.

 

Okay, I read your response. And I thought it over. I still don't see how Sevatar could become a Grey Knight. His personality is just... too different.

 

That line leaves me curious, though. What, exactly, is a Grey Knight's personality? That's no different from saying "a knight's personality" or "a crusader's personality" or "a blacksmith's personality" or "a person's personality".

 

You're looking at a wide, wide, wide demographic, over the course of ten thousand years.

 

And historically, every Grey Knight founder was rumoured to be a Traitor.

[A D-B]

Color me mildly surprised that our resident BL scribe has not either lambasted us for this off the wall theory or decrying us for possible future spoilers. Either way I expected some form of chastisement or "you people are loonier than I gave you credit for" communication by now.

 

Note: I do know ADB is probably somewhere from insanely busy to ungodly busy with his writing and BL commitments in addition to the baby and wifey to have read this thread yet. But here's hoping, eh?

 

Yeah, I was in Canada for a bit.

 

I tend to only go for the throat on theories that annoy me ("LOKEN IS A PSYKER BECAUSE OF... UH, REASONS?") as I'm such a hateful, hollow creature.

[Kol Saresk]

Very interesting thread.

 

Okay, I read your response. And I thought it over. I still don't see how Sevatar could become a Grey Knight. His personality is just... too different.

 

That line leaves me curious, though. What, exactly, is a Grey Knight's personality? That's no different from saying "a knight's personality" or "a crusader's personality" or "a blacksmith's personality" or "a person's personality".

 

You're looking at a wide, wide, wide demographic, over the course of ten thousand years.

 

And historically, every Grey Knight founder was rumoured to be a Traitor.

True enough. Never thought of it that way. I guess I was going by Alaric's personality since that is the only Grey Knight I've seen in character to date and his personality seemed like he was the kind of person who killed only when he needed to and even then, only killed those he perceived to be guilty. Sort of like Judge Dredd, but with a heart. At least that was my impression after reading Hammer of Daemons.

[Rain]

I know I'm going to get flamed for disagreeing somewhat with ADB, especially as it is after all his character and all that but Grey Knights do have a prescribed "personality" at least insofar as it has to cohere with what it means to be a Grey Knight. So, while a Grey Knight is free to be gregarious or laconic as that has little to do with his ability to carry out his duty, all GK should be loyal to the Emperor and to the ideals of the Emperor. By definition essentially. And while it's true that Sevatar isn't Chaotic per se (at least at the onset on the Heresy) he is still a traitor. He's not a victim of circumstance being at the wrong legion at the wrong time like our Ultramaratastic buddy Loken, he's a full on "Death to the False Emperor" traitor. And that disloyalty is a trait that is directly at odds with a necessary condition of being a GK. But yeah, it's fiction and of course ADB could do this if he wanted, it would just be trivializing the whole Heresy drama by allowing a traitor to go all "mia culpa" and get accepted into the most hallowed ranks of the Imperium's warriors just because he's too cool not to have on your side.

[Billuriye]

I know I'm going to get flamed for disagreeing somewhat with ADB, especially as it is after all his character and all that but Grey Knights do have a prescribed "personality" at least insofar as it has to cohere with what it means to be a Grey Knight. So, while a Grey Knight is free to be gregarious or laconic as that has little to do with his ability to carry out his duty, all GK should be loyal to the Emperor and to the ideals of the Emperor. By definition essentially. And while it's true that Sevatar isn't Chaotic per se (at least at the onset on the Heresy) he is still a traitor. He's not a victim of circumstance being at the wrong legion at the wrong time like our Ultramaratastic buddy Loken, he's a full on "Death to the False Emperor" traitor. And that disloyalty is a trait that is directly at odds with a necessary condition of being a GK. But yeah, it's fiction and of course ADB could do this if he wanted, it would just be trivializing the whole Heresy drama by allowing a traitor to go all "mia culpa" and get accepted into the most hallowed ranks of the Imperium's warriors just because he's too cool not to have on your side.

 

He's a turn cloak. He can turn again. Besides he was just riding along with Curze's butthurt. He didn't actually care for Emperor. But now he witnesses chaotic corruption from first hand.

[A D-B]

I know I'm going to get flamed for disagreeing somewhat with ADB, especially as it is after all his character and all that but Grey Knights do have a prescribed "personality" at least insofar as it has to cohere with what it means to be a Grey Knight. So, while a Grey Knight is free to be gregarious or laconic as that has little to do with his ability to carry out his duty, all GK should be loyal to the Emperor and to the ideals of the Emperor.

 

No, that's what it means to be a Grey Knight 10,000 years later. You're misunderstanding the scale of the setting. 10,000 years is a long time. There are entire cultures on one world that we know nothing about that rose and fell in that time frame. 10,000 years is an unimaginable span of time, and everything changes a great deal between then and now. Which is why when people say "Garro is obviously Janus because he wears grey armour and is a bit like a Grey Knight", I always think "...really?" He's certainly a Knight Errant. He's definitely something like a proto-Inquisitor and a proto-Inquisitorial Marine, for sure. That doesn't necessarily add up to a seamless "Grey Knight Grandmaster" situation.

 

By definition essentially. And while it's true that Sevatar isn't Chaotic per se (at least at the onset on the Heresy) he is still a traitor. He's not a victim of circumstance being at the wrong legion at the wrong time like our Ultramaratastic buddy Loken, he's a full on "Death to the False Emperor" traitor. And that disloyalty is a trait that is directly at odds with a necessary condition of being a GK.

 

Absolutely. The hypothesis in this thread doesn't interest me so much as the wild accusations flung about by both sides, and the assumptions / mistakes like this one. People change. Characters have narrative arcs. It's painfully limiting to just see one story and say "That's it, this is the character, he or she will never change." I like character arcs. I like characters developing over time and coming to learn more about themselves and their surroundings. It's narrative depth. With Lorgar, I wasn't interested in telling the tale of yet another badass perfect primarch who gets tricked into Chaos by a moment's corruption. I wanted someone who started "weaker" than his peers, and grew to ascendancy over time. Looking at him in The First Heretic and saying "Lorgar is weak" is nonsense. Lorgar is "weak" at that point in time, yes.

 

Also, is being "a victim of circumstance, being at the wrong Legion at the wrong time" really a wonderfully resonant, convincing and realistic judge of character? "My brothers turned and I stayed loyal." "Oh, awesome, that's a great resume'. Please lead the most powerful Chapter of Space Marines ever made."

 

That's... a little shallow. Is that really the only criteria for Grey Knight leadership that's acceptable? It's pretty grossly unrealistic. They're not all going to be as easy and obvious as that. Hearts change. Compromises are made. People develop, grow, get wounded, die, and learn more about the world they live in.

 

But yeah, it's fiction and of course ADB could do this if he wanted, it would just be trivializing the whole Heresy drama by allowing a traitor to go all "mia culpa" and get accepted into the most hallowed ranks of the Imperium's warriors

 

I'm not sure I understand. Again, it's pretty much always been a fact that the Grey Knights founders were from Traitor Legions. People don't always defect at the very start of a war. What if there are several GK founders who haven't yet defected, considering the war is only 1/4 over? What if they learn the truth behind the veil, and that's what sets them on a journey back to Terra? That's far, far, far more realistic than "Hey, my Legion totally just rebelled for reasons I don't understand, but I came home anyway. Make me a Grand Master."

[Rain]

I'm not saying that he can't decide that it's best to turn back to save his own skin or because Chaos is icky, I'm saying that it would be asinine for the Imperium to accept someone that changes loyalties as often as a politician changes policy positions into their most vaunted ranks.

 

Edit response to ADB: So you're saying that 10,000 years ago Grey Knights don't have to be unswervingly loyal to the Emperor? How does that make sense? Again, it's not about Sevatar deciding to go with this side or that, that can be convincingly explained and repentant traitors have been done well before it's the idea of the Imperium accepting him back into the fold that seems ridiculous. As for Garro, Loken, etc these were all men that never deviated in their loyalty. They risked their lives in staying loyal and even when Garro and co. got to the Phalanx they were nearly killed by Dorn and were imprisoned for a while. And this is marines that were always loyal! Sevatar however did change sides, and killed loyalists after he did so, so even if he were to decide to change back why would the Imperium (or anyone) trust him? How does one ensure that he doesn't turn coats again? This is why loyalty is an important trait for GK, 30k or 40k. That said, again, it is your character and so of course it's your prerogative, so yeah, if that's really what you're going to write well, it will be "canon" so my side loses by default.

 

Oh and I never said that it was the "only" criteria for being a GK, I said that it was a necessary one, I said nothing about sufficiency and I stand by my claim that it is indeed necessary to be unswervingly loyal even (especially) at the risk of your own life to the Emperor and his ideals to join the Grey bleeding Knights.

[Phoebus]

By "as often as a politician changes policy positions," I'm guessing you meant "twice". And by "twice," I assume you meant "two separate, complex situations, one of which involved genetic, psychological, and mental tampering as well as life-long social conditioning, while the other involved having your eyes opened to the absolutely horrific powers that are driving fully half of the armies of Mankind to a war that will almost certainly eradicate your species"?

 

Yes, I agree: that totally sounds like a reversal typical of a politician who was never really committed to his position to begin with.

 

EDIT: Also, by "asinine," did you mean "utilized extensive means of deducing one's motives, to include psychic interrogation by some of the Galaxy's most powerful minds"?

 

:P

[A D-B]

I'm not saying that he can't decide that it's best to turn back to save his own skin or because Chaos is icky, I'm saying that it would be asinine for the Imperium to accept someone that changes loyalties as often as a politician changes policy positions into their most vaunted ranks.

 

It would be asinine for the 40K Imperium to accept a Traitor into the ranks of the Grey Knights, yes. Without a doubt.

 

When you're looking at a vastly, vastly different Imperium, with almost none of the hidebound strictures - in the very age of chaos, compromise and war when they're trying to establish defences for the future, it's a less clear-cut situation.

 

Half the people arguing over Garro are saying the first Grey Knight Supreme Grand Master won't even be psychic. And because it's 10,000 years ago, that's a genuine possibility. Who knows how they'll be formed? That's a fundamental aspect of the whole deal. Anything is possible right now. By 40K standards, it might make no sense. But 40K is a staggeringly different era. It's not apples and oranges. It's apples and Babylonian socio-economics.

 

"The Imperium" doesn't exist. It's endless wildly different worlds and cultures that often have little to do with each other and are left alone if they pay tithes, worship the Emperor in any form they choose, and don't rise up in rebellion. And that's in 40K. "The Imperium" in 30K is currently half on fire, and the Imperials are doing everything and everything they can, no matter what, to stay alive.

 

It's commonly accepted that Loken is destined to be a Grey Knight. The guy's currently insane, thinks he's a mad dog, and has several more years of warfare left before any such decision is made. Wouldn't it be asinine to induct him into the future secret order? Yeah, maybe. Depends what he does in the next 5 years of war.

 

That's the barest fraction of the scale we're dealing with, here.

[A D-B]

Edit response to ADB: So you're saying that 10,000 years ago Grey Knights don't have to be unswervingly loyal to the Emperor? How does that make sense?

 

In 40K terms? It doesn't. From what little we know about the Grey Knights (which changes wildly between editions)? It doesn't. I never said it did. I'm giving several examples of how differences can happen over time. Maybe back then, there are several Traitors who haven't defected yet, and unswerving loyalty to the Emperor isn't as vital as knowledge and seeing the light in much more convincing circumstances.

 

"I never betrayed the Emperor."

 

"That's great, kid. I did, and saw what's really going on out there. And I chose to fight on this side, after I saw what was happening. You just covered your ears and ran for Terra. Who's more qualified to fight what's coming?"

 

Oh and I never said that it was the "only" criteria for being a GK, I said that it was a necessary one.

 

Necessary to be a Grey Knight. Like being psychic? What about all the people arguing about Loken and Garro, then?

[Rain]

Sure, but Garro being psychic or not is kind of tangential. I mean that really is something that could conceivably be a "newer" advent as it has to do with how GK do things and not who they are. In other words, it's essentially a form of weapon that they have, like their halberds and their psycannons, and sure it's not something they physically carry but it has no bearing on what kind of men are employing said weapon. So it really is apples and Babylonian economics in that being a psyker isn't really a personality trait or a result of a personality trait, it's essentially a physical mutation, and one that is currently required in GK recruits so that they can do certain things on the battlefield, but just like how a GK without a nemesis halberd can still be a GK, it makes some sense for a non-psychic GK to exist as well, especially in times of great need as what is truly necessary to make a GK a GK is character traits and not iconic weapons.

 

And while yes, the 30k Imperium is vastly different, they still find treason against the Emperor and the killing of brother Astartes to be abhorrent with a quasi-religious fervor. But even if the didn't and if they didn't just execute repentant traitors as they would in 40k, there is a world of difference between "we need every man we can get so I guess you can fight for us" and "here join one of our most elite and secretive organizations". Even then though, his crimes against the Imperium just being forgiven seems to really cheapen the mood of the setting in favor of a case of "the cool character being made good" just because he's cool and people like good guys. I mean if he were to realize that Curze is nuts and go on some personal crusade to help the loyalists only to be killed by those same loyalists as a "traitor" that would make some sense, or even if he were to survive and live on as an enemy to the modern NL kind of like one of the old versions of Garro, but to just be accepted back after being party to murder and high treason is a bit silly.