facmanpob Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 The Lion, for being a celebrated tactician and known to be insanely paranoid, did a whole lot of trusting Horus when it would have been more in character to doubt and investigate. Could you elaborate on this please? I've read almost all the heresy DA stuff, and apart from the cock-up at the end of Fallen Angels, which was more about Jonson trusting Perturabo than Horus iirc, I can't remember him truting Horus at all. In fact, I would point to The Lion as a prime example of Jonson trusting no-one outside his Inner Circle, including doubting the Captain of his flagship! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InstantKarma Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 In the more general Warhammer40k Wiki, there was a sentence regarding how each Primarch reacted to Horus being made Warmaster and, funny thing, the Lion and the Wolf both had the same reaction; skeptical & cynical resignation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artemid Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 There have been some excellent posts about the Lion's character and trust issues in the Heresy forum. In short though, remember that he grew up alone and the first people he met tried to kill him - he has a very hard time figuring out who he *should* trust, although I think he really wants to. Pretty much every person has burned him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InstantKarma Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 There have been some excellent posts about the Lion's character and trust issues in the Heresy forum. In short though, remember that he grew up alone and the first people he met tried to kill him - he has a very hard time figuring out who he *should* trust, although I think he really wants to. Pretty much every person has burned him. Probably the Emperor might be the only exception. Maybe some of the other loyal Primarchs. It also would go to explain more of his fight with Russ and why he considered their 'tussle' dishonorable and almost trecherous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flake Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 The Lion, for being a celebrated tactician and known to be insanely paranoid, did a whole lot of trusting Horus when it would have been more in character to doubt and investigate. Could you elaborate on this please? I've read almost all the heresy DA stuff, and apart from the cock-up at the end of Fallen Angels, which was more about Jonson trusting Perturabo than Horus iirc, I can't remember him truting Horus at all. In fact, I would point to The Lion as a prime example of Jonson trusting no-one outside his Inner Circle, including doubting the Captain of his flagship! Each Primarch was designed from the ground up to be as close to perfection as possible and each was considered infallible in regard to whatever characteristic or trait they most excelled at. The fall of Caliban is completely rooted in the Lion (supposedly) failing to see what seems to have been plainly obvious to others such as Horus acting a little wonky after his recovery or Luther's increasing frustration at being in Johnson's shadow. The way I reconcile the Lion's supposed mistakes with his incredible planning and organizational skills and natural paranoia is to entertain the notion that perhaps he saw the way things were going, knew it was too close to call, and decided to let everyone else play their hands a little before he decided who to help. In the beginning, the corruption of the Astartes and Primarchs wasn't as dramatic as it is in 40K - the fall to Chaos for most began with a simple disagreement with the Upper Management. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that Johnson was playing a longer game than most. And I find him to be more interesting because of that. Granted, today there is no doubt that the DA are among the most loyal of the Throne's forces. The contradictions are why DA are so interesting to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother-Sergeant Bohemond Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Flake, read Unremembered Empire, Savage Weapons and The Lion. Currently the three best portrayals of Jonson in the series. And we all know by now that the series has taken a new slant on things with regards to the Heresy. In fact, everything we have been told before is a lie...or the fragments of truth passed down through ten thousand years. No wonder Astelan got confused... Read those books, or read a spoiler review. You will see he is loyal and a genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FerociousBeast Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Agreed! Gav Thorpe himself went on record and said that the reader shouldn't simply believe what Astelan is saying as he deliberately wrote him in the role of Unreliable Narrator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreliable_narrator). Yet still people persist in reading Angels of Darkness without any sort of filter, as if it were some sort of gospel truth. The purpose of the Astelan character was to cast doubt on whether the Dark Angels Chaplains were doing the right thing, to highlight the mental struggle taking place in every Chaplain to keep the faith in the face of heresy couched in half-truths and uncertainty. It wasn't to suddenly turn the First Legion into traitors. Angels of Darkness is not controversial solely because of what Astelan says, but also in large part because of what Boreas says. And does. In fact, I've never had an issue with Astelan. My beef is with Boreas's diatribe at the end and with Thorpe's Keystone Kops portrayal of Boreas and the rest of the Dark Angel chapter. The story makes no sense when you apply a modicum of reason to it. AoD is much overrated. But it's also must read if you're into the DAs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facmanpob Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Agreed! Gav Thorpe himself went on record and said that the reader shouldn't simply believe what Astelan is saying as he deliberately wrote him in the role of Unreliable Narrator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreliable_narrator). Yet still people persist in reading Angels of Darkness without any sort of filter, as if it were some sort of gospel truth. The purpose of the Astelan character was to cast doubt on whether the Dark Angels Chaplains were doing the right thing, to highlight the mental struggle taking place in every Chaplain to keep the faith in the face of heresy couched in half-truths and uncertainty. It wasn't to suddenly turn the First Legion into traitors. Angels of Darkness is not controversial solely because of what Astelan says, but also in large part because of what Boreas says. And does. In fact, I've never had an issue with Astelan. My beef is with Boreas's diatribe at the end and with Thorpe's Keystone Kops portrayal of Boreas and the rest of the Dark Angel chapter. The story makes no sense when you apply a modicum of reason to it. AoD is much overrated. But it's also must read if you're into the DAs. I understand your issues with AoD, and yes, Boreas is not the greatest of Interrogator-Chaplains. There is, however, a precedent in Chaplains being too zealous for their own good (a short story with some Eldar I read a while ago, but can't remember the title of, is a good example), and I guess that Boreas was Gav Thorpe's stab at writing what happens when a zealot loses faith, but can't find anything else for his faith to latch on to. Imagine what might have happened to Lorgar after being slapped by the Emperor, if he was not then able to turn his attentions to the Chaos Gods..... might he have become so depressed that he went a bit wonky like Boreas did? Agreed, the DA did do a bit of a "Benny Hill" chase at the end, which wasn't great. I suppose it comes down to personal taste in writing style. But you are correct in saying that it is a must-read, if only to put all of the other books into context. The Lion, for being a celebrated tactician and known to be insanely paranoid, did a whole lot of trusting Horus when it would have been more in character to doubt and investigate.Could you elaborate on this please? I've read almost all the heresy DA stuff, and apart from the cock-up at the end of Fallen Angels, which was more about Jonson trusting Perturabo than Horus iirc, I can't remember him truting Horus at all. In fact, I would point to The Lion as a prime example of Jonson trusting no-one outside his Inner Circle, including doubting the Captain of his flagship! Each Primarch was designed from the ground up to be as close to perfection as possible and each was considered infallible in regard to whatever characteristic or trait they most excelled at. The fall of Caliban is completely rooted in the Lion (supposedly) failing to see what seems to have been plainly obvious to others such as Horus acting a little wonky after his recovery or Luther's increasing frustration at being in Johnson's shadow. The way I reconcile the Lion's supposed mistakes with his incredible planning and organizational skills and natural paranoia is to entertain the notion that perhaps he saw the way things were going, knew it was too close to call, and decided to let everyone else play their hands a little before he decided who to help. In the beginning, the corruption of the Astartes and Primarchs wasn't as dramatic as it is in 40K - the fall to Chaos for most began with a simple disagreement with the Upper Management. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that Johnson was playing a longer game than most. And I find him to be more interesting because of that. Granted, today there is no doubt that the DA are among the most loyal of the Throne's forces. The contradictions are why DA are so interesting to me. As Brother Bohemond says, I think all will become clear if you read Savage Weapons, The Lion and further in the heresy series. The whole fence-sitting thing that became the fashionable view of the DA after Angels of Darkness was released has been completely debunked by the heresy novels and short stories. Oh, and regarding timeline issues, I had it confirmed by one of the BL editors that the ending of Fallen Angels (i.e. the cock-up with handing over the siege weapons to Perturabo) happened before Istvaan V, which was when most of the galaxy found out just how much Horus had fallen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shabbadoo Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 The Lion, for being a celebrated tactician and known to be insanely paranoid, did a whole lot of trusting Horus when it would have been more in character to doubt and investigate. And that's what I find interesting about the Dark Angels: That chance that maybe they betrayed the Imperium (briefly) and never even realized it. I like the secrets, the unknown history, and the ever present promise that only three people actually know what happened (Luther, The Lion, and The Emperor). I'm not disparaging the Lion by any stretch of the imagination and I certainly don't think he fell to Chaos. But I'd rather think of him as a shrewd and calculating figure than as a fool who let himself get sidelined in the middle of the most important event in history. This is a completely baseless point that I see over and over: If Lion was such a great tactician, shouldn't he have known what Horus was doing? You might as well ask, "If the Emperor is such a badarse, shouldn't he have known that Horus and the others would turn traitor?". Being a beyond brilliant tactician, or even the most powerful psyker man-god in history apparently, does not make one a great reader of men (even ones you create). And it isn't like all of the other Primarchs didn't do exactly what Horus told them to either, because the Emperor told them to do what Horus told them to. It didn't hurt that they all knew that Horus was a super badarse tactician in his own right- they just didn't know that he was now *The Enemy's* tactician. I know you would have the expert tactician Vizzini... http://thewallmachine.com/files/1344380444.jpg ...back you up on this apparent point, but he seems to be taking a nap after his latest mental duel with the Dread Pirate Roberts. And so Roboutte and the Lion went off to the far ends of the galaxy on what were legitimate Imperial missions, and the Raven Guard, Salamanders, and Iron Hands dropped down to Istvaan V on what was (at face value) a legitimate Imperial mission, etc., and all , somehow, nary the wiser. INCONCEIVABLE!!! Yeah, Lion was just such a chump to listen to his commander and follow orders, because if he were truly tactically brilliant, he obviously should have been omniscient, and so accomplish what no other Primarch, or even the Emperor Himself, did, which is to have figured everything out and prevented it. What a sap Lion was to not have been able to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facmanpob Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 You quoted Vizzini, and as inconceivable as it is, it means you win all the internetz! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flake Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 I think you've misread a tone into my posts that wasn't there, shabbadoo. No need to be snide, friend. As I said, given the choice of the Lion being a misled Primarch who dropped the ball and got betrayed by his brothers and best friend or casting him the light of a detached tactician shrewdly playing a longer game, I find the latter to be more interesting. I'm not saying my point of view is right (or even the most informed, since I have not read some of the books you fellows have suggested), just that the mystery and contradiction behind the events at the end of Caliban are more interesting than having everything explained away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJD Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 Love that you quoted vizzin INCONCEIVABLE!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.